GOD ON TRIAL

**duxrow** · 06-01-2012, 09:48 AM

Hey folks, Ya'll are forgetting the TRINITY!

Look at it this way -- it was the Husband who died on the cross (Isa54:5), and because the Jews under the Old Covenant had no fruit, (no baby), they are now free to marry their dead husband's 'brother', as part of the New Covenant. Deut25:5

**Richard Amiel McGough** · 06-01-2012, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by CWH

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Thirdly, scriptures say that God's ideas of law and punishment says and eye for an eye. IOW, the punishment should fit the crime or sin.

You contradict what you say, such law and punishment is not to be read literally. Show me a passage in the Bible in which such law as an eye for an eye was literally meted out? What it is saying is that justice must be done and a reminder of "do unto others what you want others to do unto you".

Here's a passage that shows God himself implementing the "eye for an eye" morality:

2 Samuel 12:11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your companion, and he shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"

David had taken the wife of Uriah and had sex with her, so God said he would cause the same thing to happen to David's wives.

And here's another example:

Judges 1:6 But Adonibezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. 7 And Adonibezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.

Adonibezek said that GOD had done to him what he did to others when he cut off their thumbs and big toes. And here is another example of Solomon following the same principle:

1 Samuel 15:33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

And here Christ states that this is a general principle that God follows:

Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

And in Revelation we see the same principle in action yet again:

Revelation 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

This is one of the most fundamental principles taught in the Bible. I don't understand why I needed to explain it.

**CWH** · 06-01-2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by duxrow

Did you start this, Cheow?
We often think of an allegory as simply a symbolic or figurative story. That's correct as far as it goes, but many in the religious heirarchy are determined to discredit allegories by proclaiming them as "something which isn't true". Actually, the symbolic story is just a figurative way of telling the plain language story--in other words, the two stories are really the same.
Scripture doesn't use the word disparagingly however. The Apostle Paul uses the word "allegory" in Galatians 4:24 of the King James Bible when he writes concerning the Two Covenants, and the first two sons of Abraham. He writes: "which things are an allegory", meaning that Ishmael/Hagar were illustrating the Old Covenant and Isaac/Sarah were illustrating the New Covenant. Seeing the allegory of the two (2) covenants is just the beginning.

There are other covenants besides these two, of course, but it's important to recognize the contrasts and comparisons between the Old Covenant for the Jew under the Law, and the New Covenant for the Gentile by Faith or by Grace.

Figures of speech, like metaphors or parables, often say things which aren't literally accurate, and allegories are in the same class. The symbolic story may use outrageous or incredible features to describe an actual event, and so both may be true if that's the author's intent.

Thanks duxrow,

The reason why I believe an eye for an eye is allegorical is because no biblical record mentions someone gouging someone's eye in return and also because the subsequent passages sound funny if taken literally....which rational person would offer the other cheek to be slap also. Therefore , "offer the other cheek" simply means do not retaliate ("resist") an evil person. An eye for an eye would thus mean dispense justice appropriately or "do unto others what you want others to do unto you".

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

May God Bless you and all.

**Greatest I am** · 06-01-2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by duxrow

Hey folks, Ya'll are forgetting the TRINITY!

Look at it this way -- it was the Husband who died on the cross (Isa54:5), and because the Jews under the Old Covenant had no fruit, (no baby), they are now free to marry their dead husband's 'brother', as part of the New Covenant. Deut25:5

Care to learn a bit about the Trinity concept?

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.

Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx

Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

This following I found quite interesting as well on what some speculate motivated Constantine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD0eSqFJ7J4

Regards
DL

**Greatest I am** · 06-01-2012, 10:25 AM

CWH

"The reason why I believe an eye for an eye is allegorical is because no biblical record mentions someone gouging someone's eye in return and also because the subsequent passages sound funny if taken literally....which rational person would offer the other cheek to be slap also. Therefore , "offer the other cheek" simply means do not retaliate ("resist") an evil person. An eye for an eye would thus mean dispense justice appropriately or "do unto others what you want others to do unto you".

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. "

If anyone rapes your wife, then offer your daughter as his next.

Yep. That rather useless rhetoric really works well.

Regards
DL

**CWH** · 06-01-2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough