[quote]pookie wrote:
Quick question: What’s an a-mill?
[/quote]
There are really only three views of eschatology.
They all stem from the word millenist
They are as follows
Pre-mill
Meaning Jesus with come back to earth before the millenial reign.
Post-Mill
meaning Jesus comes back after the millenial reign
A-mill
Meaning there is no millenial reign in the sense that most believers see it.
Its more detailed than that, but that is the short and sweet version of it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Even Muslim’s agree that He is coming again.
No, we don’t. We agree that he is coming again.[/quote]
don’t be so picky. I don’t complain when you don’t use cap’s. So don’t complain when I do.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
don’t be so picky. I don’t complain when you don’t use cap’s. So don’t complain when I do.[/quote]
I had to point that out to in case a layman stumbles upon your statement. When you use sentences like “Muslims believe[…]”, pickiness over Jesus’ deity or lack thereof becomes crucial.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m perfectly alright with making that assumption.
[/quote]
The trinitarian easily reconciles this verse by saying they are three in one.
Where this gets tricky is that some will say they are all the same, and that is merely showing himself to us in three different ways. This is not true trinitarianism.
The closest human analogy I can come up with to explain the way we see the trinity is that it is like marriage.
Man + Woman + God = a christian marriage
They are three seperate parts that with out one the marriage is not complete. Two are in subject to one. All are however needed to make up the marriage.
From the verses that varq listed you can easily get the references.
Now I will address your verse. I think that you are focusing on the wrong part of the chapter. The message is not that one verse. the message is what follows that verse.
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
Mar 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
[quote]
I’m afraid you missed the point I was trying to make though. When Jesus as a man, is able to erase sins and grant entry to the heavens, it opens the door to serious abuse. That is, if God gave Jesus the power to wash sins off, what’s stopping somebody else from claiming he/she is capable of doing the same?[/quote]
The problem is we don’t see Jesus just as a man. We see Him as part of the God Head. Through out the NT He says He has the power to judge. The judge always has the right to offer forgiveness.
[quote]lixy wrote:
haney1 wrote:
don’t be so picky. I don’t complain when you don’t use cap’s. So don’t complain when I do.
I had to point that out to in case a layman stumbles upon your statement. When you use sentences like “Muslims believe[…]”, pickiness over Jesus’ deity or lack thereof becomes crucial.[/quote]
not really. You will respond to my post by not capitilizing Jesus, and I won’t correct you, because I understand that is how you see him. In the same way I would probably not capitilize (this post excluded) Allah.
And if any Christian corrected you, I would most likely say he is making a big deal out of nothing.
This is no different than if I was talking to someone who refused to use the “o” in G_d. They shouldn’t expect me to change my view point for them.
on top of that my message was not one of Christ diety. It was one of His return. So focusing on something that isn’t even the point of my post is just being anal.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
not really. You will respond to my post by not capitilizing Jesus, and I won’t correct you, because I understand that is how you see him. In the same way I would probably not capitilize (this post excluded) Allah.
And if any Christian corrected you, I would most likely say he is making a big deal out of nothing.
This is no different than if I was talking to someone who refused to use the “o” in G_d. They shouldn’t expect me to change my view point for them.
on top of that my message was not one of Christ diety. It was one of His return. So focusing on something that isn’t even the point of my post is just being anal.[/quote]
How is it being anal? Words have meanings, and even single letters make a difference. What is the difference between the word god and the word God? Not much… and everything.
Muslims do not believe that Jesus was a god, nor do they believe that he was God. The capitalized personal pronoun “He” implies the divinity of Jesus, so it naturally would not be used, any more than it would be used for the Prophet (note the capital “P”) Muhammad.
G-d is a Jewish thing, supposedly to remind them that the name of God is too holy to be spoken. Which is why of course the name of God never appears with vowel diacriticals in Hebrew, but just as the consonants YHVH.
I admit that G-d is kind of a funny conceit, because the word “God” is not the equivalent of YHVH, but rather the word elohim, which the Jews have no problem writing or saying.
Not capitalizing the name Jesus is pretty silly, as it is a proper noun, which Lixy will probably capitalize out of respect for proper English usage rather than as a statement of belief.
[…and here Varqanir notices that neither Lixy nor Haney have capitalized their own screen names. Never mind.]
As for not capitalizing Allah, this makes no sense unless you don’t mind seeing the word God written as “god” (as in, “Christians believe that Jesus is god”, which is ungrammatical, in that it is missing the indefinite article). “Allah” is of course simply the Arabic word for “The God”: Arab Christians pray to Allah, and they would probably be pissed if you didn’t capitalize the word.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
haney1 wrote:
not really. You will respond to my post by not capitilizing Jesus, and I won’t correct you, because I understand that is how you see him. In the same way I would probably not capitilize (this post excluded) Allah.
And if any Christian corrected you, I would most likely say he is making a big deal out of nothing.
This is no different than if I was talking to someone who refused to use the “o” in G_d. They shouldn’t expect me to change my view point for them.
on top of that my message was not one of Christ diety. It was one of His return. So focusing on something that isn’t even the point of my post is just being anal.
How is it being anal? Words have meanings, and even single letters make a difference. What is the difference between the word god and the word God? Not much… and everything.
Muslims do not believe that Jesus was a god, nor do they believe that he was God. The capitalized personal pronoun “He” implies the divinity of Jesus, so it naturally would not be used, any more than it would be used for the Prophet (note the capital “P”) Muhammad.
G-d is a Jewish thing, supposedly to remind them that the name of God is too holy to be spoken. Which is why of course the name of God never appears with vowel diacriticals in Hebrew, but just as the consonants YHVH.
I admit that G-d is kind of a funny conceit, because the word “God” is not the equivalent of YHVH, but rather the word elohim, which the Jews have no problem writing or saying.
Not capitalizing the name Jesus is pretty silly, as it is a proper noun, which Lixy will probably capitalize out of respect for proper English usage rather than as a statement of belief.
[…and here Varqanir notices that neither Lixy nor Haney have capitalized their own screen names. Never mind.]
As for not capitalizing Allah, this makes no sense unless you don’t mind seeing the word God written as “god” (as in, “Christians believe that Jesus is god”, which is ungrammatical, in that it is missing the indefinite article). “Allah” is of course simply the Arabic word for “The God”: Arab Christians pray to Allah, and they would probably be pissed if you didn’t capitalize the word.[/quote]
It doesn’t bother me because I understand the poster doesn’t have the same reverence for the word.
I was not attributing that muslim’s believe Jesus to be divine. I was using the letter the way I would. when describing Him.
Lixy will post he, not He, and I won’t expect her to use that term on account of some Christian lay person reading and not catching the meaning.
So while I understand that the way they’re used has meaning, that meaning can only come from the author that is writing it.
at this point it is going to become a pissing match over something that both sides will be guilty of.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
at this point it is going to become a pissing match over something that both sides will be guilty of.
[/quote]
Not unless we make it so.
I think that this is only an issue in English. I don’t imagine that the capitalization of personal pronouns is a big deal for Christians or Muslims who write in other languages.
Incidentally, when referring to the Holy Spirit (ruach kodesh/ruh-ul-qudus/πνευμα 'αγιον), would you write “he”, “He”, “it” or “It”?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
haney1 wrote:
at this point it is going to become a pissing match over something that both sides will be guilty of.
Not unless we make it so.
I think that this is only an issue in English. I don’t imagine that the capitalization of personal pronouns is a big deal for Christians or Muslims who write in other languages.
Incidentally, when referring to the Holy Spirit (ruach kodesh/ruh-ul-qudus/πνευμα 'αγιον), would you write “he”, “He”, “it” or “It”?[/quote]
Probably He. Most likely though only out of habbit. Which is what I did in that post. I tend to just make it a habbit.
The strange thing is it doesn’t bother me when other people don’t follow that rule, but it irritates me when I don’t.
Perhaps it is just a personal reverence.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Incidentally, when referring to the Holy Spirit (ruach kodesh/ruh-ul-qudus/πνευμα 'αγιον), would you write “he”, “He”, “it” or “It”?
Probably He. Most likely though only out of habbit. Which is what I did in that post. I tend to just make it a habbit.
Perhaps it is just a personal reverence.
[/quote]
Be that as it may, why “He” and not “It”?
Is the Holy Spirit a person or a thing?
Lixy, in the Qur’an, the Ruh-ul-Qudus is a created spirit, correct? Not equivalent to God, certainly, but is it considered a person, like an angel, or a thing?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Incidentally, when referring to the Holy Spirit (ruach kodesh/ruh-ul-qudus/πνευμα 'αγιον), would you write “he”, “He”, “it” or “It”?
Probably He. Most likely though only out of habbit. Which is what I did in that post. I tend to just make it a habbit.
Perhaps it is just a personal reverence.
Be that as it may, why “He” and not “It”?
Is the Holy Spirit a person or a thing?
Lixy, in the Qur’an, the Ruh-ul-Qudus is a created spirit, correct? Not equivalent to God, certainly, but is it considered a person, like an angel, or a thing?
[/quote]
personal answer,or theological?
I’ll give you the personal reason, and if still want more I will give you the theological.
Personal:
Because God is described as a Father which would be a masculine term.
Jesus gender was male.
So keeping things simple I associate the Holy Spirit the same.
Outside of that I think using the word “it” is impersonal to me.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Incidentally, when referring to the Holy Spirit (ruach kodesh/ruh-ul-qudus/πνευμα 'αγιον), would you write “he”, “He”, “it” or “It”?
Probably He. Most likely though only out of habbit. Which is what I did in that post. I tend to just make it a habbit.
Perhaps it is just a personal reverence.
Be that as it may, why “He” and not “It”?
Is the Holy Spirit a person or a thing?
Lixy, in the Qur’an, the Ruh-ul-Qudus is a created spirit, correct? Not equivalent to God, certainly, but is it considered a person, like an angel, or a thing?
[/quote]
why is it at this point I feel like some sort of pawn in the new game varq is playing?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
The trinitarian easily reconciles this verse by saying they are three in one.
…
[/quote]
It still doesn’t make much sense to me but thanks for trying.
Must be hell to explain Trinity to kids though.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
why is it at this point I feel like some sort of pawn in the new game varq is playing?
[/quote]
I would never consider you a pawn, Haney.
A rook, maybe, or perhaps even a bishop (which would be more appropriate to this topic) but never a pawn.
Bishops and rooks travel in a straight line. I am more like a knight, in that I move both straight and diagonally in my arguments.
[quote]lixy wrote:
haney1 wrote:
The trinitarian easily reconciles this verse by saying they are three in one.
…
It still doesn’t make much sense to me but thanks for trying.
Must be hell to explain Trinity to kids though.[/quote]
I was actually hoping for a counter argument. I gave a simple overview to get a rebuttal and go from there. Oh well!
It is one of those things that doesn’t make sense to anyone really. It boils down to the finite, can’t understand the infinite.
There was a point in time when I believed man had a physical body, a spiritual body, and a soul.
So that was how I understood the Trinity, and reconciled it that man was created in God’s image.
Physical was like Jesus
Spirit was like the Holy Spirit
Soul was like the Father.
I have sense reformed my view on those, and the marriage view point is the closest I can come to.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
haney1 wrote:
why is it at this point I feel like some sort of pawn in the new game varq is playing?
I would never consider you a pawn, Haney.
A rook, maybe, or perhaps even a bishop (which would be more appropriate to this topic) but never a pawn.
Bishops and rooks travel in a straight line. I am more like a knight, in that I move both straight and diagonally in my arguments.[/quote]
lol…
I’m just glad you didn’t call your self the queen, in that you go both ways, and in all directions.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Must be hell to explain Trinity to kids though.[/quote]
Here are some metaphors I have heard used:
God is like an egg. An egg comprises three parts, the shell, the albumen and the yolk. Similarly, God comprises the father (the hard protective shell), the son (the yolk, the start of new life) and the holy spirit (the nourishing albumen).
Another metaphor is an apple, with the skin, fruit and seeds representing the same roles.
Still another is the three forms of water: liquid (father) solid (son) and vapor (spirit).
All of these metaphors have flaws, obviously, but a child raised in a strict Christian household is not likely expected to question them.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Lixy, in the Qur’an, the Ruh-ul-Qudus is a created spirit, correct? Not equivalent to God, certainly, but is it considered a person, like an angel, or a thing? [/quote]
You’re right (of course) about the created spirit bit. A few verses in the Quran attest to that.
As for your person/thing question, I’ll have to guess that it’s neither. I mean, how do you categorize the human soul? Is it a thing? Is it a person? Same thing applies for the Holy Spirit.
Like the angels, it’s one of God’s creations but its nature and role are ambiguous. What’s clear though, is that it’s not God Himself. The Quran insists on that bit.
“The Day that the Spirit and the Angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak except any who is permitted by (God) Most Gracious, and He will say what is right.”
Quran - 78:38
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
lixy wrote:
Must be hell to explain Trinity to kids though.
Here are some metaphors I have heard used:
God is like an egg. An egg comprises three parts, the shell, the albumen and the yolk. Similarly, God comprises the father (the hard protective shell), the son (the yolk, the start of new life) and the holy spirit (the nourishing albumen).
Another metaphor is an apple, with the skin, fruit and seeds representing the same roles.
Still another is the three forms of water: liquid (father) solid (son) and vapor (spirit).
All of these metaphors have flaws, obviously, but a child raised in a strict Christian household is not likely expected to question them.
[/quote]
Yeah, I don’t like any of them due to the flaws the represent. Which is why I avoided them.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Bishops and rooks travel in a straight line. I am more like a knight, in that I move both straight and diagonally in my arguments.[/quote]
Either way, I can understand why haney might think you’re playing us; your theological and historical knowledge is copious and flawless. I don’t know how you do it, but I do know the world is in dire need for more people like youself.
