For all your condescension, OP2, I note that you failed to address a single question that I put directly to you.

>>We are having a philosophical discussion here... STOP name calling<<

No, OP2, you are not having a "philosophical discussion" of any kind. You are performing, at best, a variant of mental masturbation, for reasons that you decline to share with the rest of us.

>>These questions have moulded mankind... It is important we discuss them openly<<

No, they have not moulded mankind. They are provocative, needling questions posed by a (professed) outsider, and therefore impossible to take seriously.

>>If man's teachings are placed higher than the specific words of Jesus then should Christianity be renamed to "Manianity with the occasional reference to Jesus' words"?<<

Pure blah. It isn't even a real question.

>>There is only one ministry ... The ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ <<

A very strange claim, especially from a non-Christian. Are you sure you aren't? Have you checked lately?

>>One final thing Pericles... Many Christians won't have even realised that Jesus said what he did in John 14:28.<<

Where you fail to connect the dots, OP2, is to give even the vaguest semblance of a reason why this should be of the slightest interest to a non-Christian such as you claim to be.

Given the dubious nature of John's gospel as a historical record, there must be a substantial question over whether Jesus even used these words. So arguing the fine detail does seem a little odd for an outsider. It might be of passing interest to the odd biblical scholar, but once again begs the question...

... if you are not, as you claim, a troll, then why?

Given the knee-jerk insults in response to my post, I think I'll stick with my first theory.

Greetings Philo,

The Christian Trinity has its origins in Rome, as you state. Yet, it might be worth noting, there were earlier trinities in Egypt and Babylon. Relatedly, the idea of consubstantial essence was known the Romans, before Nicaea. Tertullian claimed the Father and Son as, “duarum personarum” in “unius substantiae”. Two-in-One.

Recently, I discovered that traditional Hawiians had a trinity too. The Hawaiian conservators of their faith discourage secretion with Christian trinity.

It seems to me, different people at different places and different times are urged, to believe difficult things, as gospel (ahem).

Oliver

Hi Oliver,
The Christian faith is based in the unity of one spirit, and since three persons represent three spirits it fails to represent the unity. The fact is the many Christian persons should express one spirit if it represents the true expression of God. God is both unity and diversity in the human expression. However there is no conflict in the diversity.

Pericles ... Would you answer someone who called you a troll?

I was raised by a Christian mother but never referred to myself as Christian - I could not understand the lack of questioning by Christians when it came to the ugly bits of the Bible. I do not go to church I do not believe in a biblical God. I am neither atheist nor agnostic... I am what I am.

Let me illustrate my points another way

The OLD Testament - Judaism (a one sided view of history justifying all manner of horror)
The Gospels - Jesus' life and teachings as documented by man (A refreshing change from Judaism with supernatural actions)
The Acts through to Revelations - Man's interpretations, actions, responses etc.

Jesus = Christ which gives rise to Christianity and hence the word Christian. Chritianity was a small sect that was empowered by the actions of Constantine for political and alleged spiritual purposes.

If Christians believe in Jesus as the Christ or Son of God then his teachings are the fundamentals of Christianity. The gospels (if you choose to believe them) illustrate what Christians should aspire to or do they?

So Jesus' word becomes the greatest gift to Christians.

From an outsider looking in perspective man's influence over the word and the selective nature at which the word is applied by churches and the congregation becomes most important.

I am seeking to understand why people think the way they do, what conclusions they have drawn and how they apply "the word" through their communities.

Why do Christians call it God's word when contained within it suggests forcing a woman who is raped to marry and remain married to the rapist, why homosexuality is attacked and yet the acceptance of Slavery, murder, oppression of women and ridiculous punishments are ignored completely.

And especially why Christians need to cling tightly to these old texts even with the horrors that they contain? I am interested in how people justify those beliefs and ignore the terrible actions and instructions contained within.

Fair enough, OP2, I withdraw the troll label.

But it is still a complete mystery to me why you ask your questions in such a manner.

Your first post asked two questions, after telling the story of "the lady who came to stay"

>>Is it Christian to mislead people on the Bible?<<

and

>>Why does doctrinal teachings suppress intellect and the use of God's gift - intelligence?<<

The first is not really a question, more a statement, while the second is aggressive, and unanswerable. Much along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?"

You then advised me to "watch and learn", which was just the teensiest bit condescending, given the quality of your opening statements.

If you are expecting a discussion - as opposed to simply inviting folk to express their own particular antipathy to Christianity - you need to find a better way to stimulate it than:

>>Why do Christians call it God's word when contained within it suggests forcing a woman who is raped to marry and remain married to the rapist, why homosexuality is attacked and yet the acceptance of Slavery, murder, oppression of women and ridiculous punishments are ignored completely.<<

You phrase it as a question, but it is in fact simply a statement of your personal confusion.

You cannot possibly expect an answer.

Nobody is going to say "well, the reason God want rapists to forcibly marry their victims is..."

You obviously find some value in getting these personal doubts, concerns and mystification off your chest. But you cannot expect cogent responses when you continue to phrase your objections in such a manner.

If you dislike the "t" label, I strongly suggest you find a more open-ended way of framing your questions.

Dear Philo,

The commonly used expression “persons” seems problematic because the term creates the image of dimensional people. A dimensionless spirit would not have physicality.

Yet,

Was Jesus’ "physicality" divine; say his nose or ear? Or was his physicality/atoms merely infused with spirit/ousia?

Would have Jesus’ atoms been independent of God’s ousia? The particle/waveforms of the quarks, divine?

Should the material atoms have been divine particles*, would it mean the matter/energy of, the Son aspect of the ousia, in homoousion, was physical?

Did ousia become made of matter?

Were Jesus’ fundamental particles newly created, especially for Jesus? If Jesus’ physicality is God, how could the divine “Jesus” be created by a prior act?

Or can causation be, without creation? If the latter is true, why would a Creator be required?

Regards,

Oliver

*And fundamental waveforms (quantum mechanics