Jump to content

Uncle Nate

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Uncle Nate

  1. 5 minutes ago, Viper said:

    because back in 1000bc religion was the same as law was the same as government was the same as culture.

    Yep.

    The theocracy has been around since the earliest days of mankind.  Democracy is a relatively new concept.

  2. Spankytoes-

    This is where faith comes in...because we as humans can in no way understand any of this as being logical.  Our hearts and minds fully reject it all.  The only way a person can believe it is through faith alone.

    I admit that straight up.  The Trinity?  What human being could possibly have dreamt THAT concept up?  You can't explain it...heck, it's beyond our capability to even try to understand it.  We can't.  You either believe or you don't believe.  That's what it boils down to.

    You believe by hearing (or reading) the Word.  Some people hear/read it, and reject it.  Some people hear/read it, and by a miracle of faith accept it.  Those who reject it can't understand why on Earth those who accept it believe as they do.  Why?  Because it doesn't make sense to us as humans.  It simply doesn't.  

  3. 8 hours ago, Mole said:

    There's a pretty common view in Christianity that there are elements of foreshadowing of Christ in the Old Testament. This passage was seen by the early church as a foreshadowing of the Trinity. Maybe not quite prophetic, but something roughly similar. There were lots of reinterpretations of Old Testament passages by Paul and others. If you grant, even just briefly, that the accounts in the Gospels and Acts are true, it makes sense that the early church would look at Jewish scriptures in a different light. There are no specific Biblical passages concerning Genesis 1:26 being a reference to the Trinity, but it certainly makes sense if you accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

    It certainly was a common subject in the early church.

      Reveal hidden contents

    74 AD Epistle of Barnabas: “For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, “Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness” (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter VI.—The Sufferings of Christ, and the New Covenant, Were Announced by the Prophets.)

    150 AD Justin Martyr: Speaking of Jewish theologians Justin calls the Jewish teaching that God spoke to angels a hersey: “In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us, ‘[Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you (The Jews had their own heresies which supplied many things to the Christian heresies) is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures.” (Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew: Chapter LXII.—The Words “Let Us Make Man”)

    180 AD Irenaeus “It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; ” [Gen. 1:26]” (Against Heresies 4:20:1).

    200 AD Tertullian: “If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, “Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; ” whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,” as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, “Behold the man is become as one of us,” He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, “Let us make; “and, “in our image; “and, “become as one of us.” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.)

    200 AD Tertullian: Tertullian rejects the idea that God was speaking to Angels because our head is the creator, not a creature: “Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness”), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head” (Tertullian, Book V, Elucidations, Chapter VIII.—Man the Image of the Creator, and Christ the Head of the Man.)

    200 AD Tertullian: “In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made. Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle, that here should be nothing without that Word. “Let us make man,” said He, before He created him, and added, “with our hand,” for the sake of his pre-eminence, that so he might not be compared with the rest of creation.” (Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Elucidations, Chapter V.—Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was Created by God.)

    Origen: “it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter XXXVII)

    Novatian: “For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, “Let us make man in our image and our likeness; ” and that after this it was related, “And God made man, in the image of God made He him? “Or when he holds in his hands: “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven? ” (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XXVI. Argument.—Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves that the Father is One, the Son Another.)

    Constitutions of the Holy Apostles: “the divine Scripture testifies that God said to Christ, His only-begotten, “Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness. And God made man: after the image of God made He him; male and female made He them.”(Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book V., VII)

     

     

    If you sit down and read the Bible all the way through, and come back and reread the Old Testament, you will see the OT is all about Jesus from start to finish.  It's amazingly eye-opening. 

  4. 3 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

     


    Does it say that somewhere or is that the explanation that best fits the text as written? There was no son at the time so was this the Bi-God? I think his name was Lance.

     

    Read the Gospel of John. The Trinity is eternal:

    Quote

    “The Word Became Flesh
    JOHN 1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God.”

     

  5. 37 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

    Oh, what you say is hardly "consistent" with the OT. Remember Genesis 1:26? "Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”"

    The Bible even documents the "discovery" of Deuteronomy within itself, in 2 Kings 22. "Yo, kid -- I mean, your majesty, look at this never-before-seen-or-heard-of words of Moses we 'found' in the Temple!" And that is the point where the worship of Asherah, etc. became no longer accepted.

    Remember, above all else, that we as Christians must understand that the Bible was written by humans, not God, who were struggling to understand divinity within the context of their time. Don't make the error of believing that the Bible is consistent. It isn't and doesn't try to be. Best example of a contradiction is the version of David in Kings (written during the Babylonian exile, where the #1 theological issue was "why did these bad things happen to us, why are we no longer in our Promised Land?") and the version of David in Chronicles (written after they were returned to Palestine under Cyrus of Persia, where David is meant to be the ideal of the theocratic king)...

     

    edit: or what phdhorn said much more briefly above

    Or the “us” and “we” is referring to the Triune God. 

    Just saying. 

  6. 8 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

    Jesus, none o' y'all gonna admit to having slaveholding ancestors? Were they Yankees or just poors? 

    There is no personal shame for us in what our ancestors did. Guilt, but no shame. 

    Poor.  Very, very poor.

    My German ancestors who came over in the 19th century were too poor to own slaves and I guess too ugly to marry any rich plantation owner's daughter.  So they married fellow poor and ugly and procreated to create their own legal slaves, aka children.  That's what poor farmers did back then...create an enslaved workforce through procreation.

  7. 15 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

    I was with them until they spelled it "judgement." A spelling now acceptable only because so many people didn't know how to spell it properly.

    Get off my lawn!

    This has always bothered me.  NOT that people misspell it.  No, what has always bothered me, even as a little kid, is why did the "e" get removed when it went from "judge" to "judgment".  Why?  Who came up with that?  What the hell did the "e" ever do to deserve being excommunicated?

    One of the many intricacies of the English language that drove me batty as a child.

    On this note, I hate when people use "all but" wrong.  Somehow it has become acceptable to use "all but" to say they actually accomplished whatever.  But that's not what that phrase means.  It means they very nearly did, but did not. 

     

  8. You have the shovel...that's what the shovel is for...you want to dispose of the body, use the shovel.  I ain't touching no snake...dead or alive...especially not the head that has two hypodermic needles filled to the brim with poison ready to be injected into me.

    • Like 1
  9. Haven't read the whole thread...so forgive me if this has already been mentioned:

    When you have two signs that say "Yield to Ramp"...that means when a car is coming off the exit ramp, and you are on the frontage road, you need to yield to them.  That means actually slowing down, applying the brakes, and letting them go in front of you so you don't hit them.

    In the DFW area, no one has ever understood this concept. 

  10. 11 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    You're preaching to the choir, Nate.

    You know who else has a field-turf baseball field?  Wimberley High School.  Softball, too.  It's hilarious to see 6A teams use our fields for playoff games when it rains.

    Our football field is also field-turf, and I'm pretty sure it was the first 3A FT field in the state. 
     

    Both got approved because of the water usage.

     

    But for years and years and years and years, the excuse UT always gave was that hosting the UIL state tournament meant that they couldn't possibly have a grass field.

    I will say that the current DF field-turf field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old Astroturf field.

     

    You know, I might be a little more open to a field-turf baseball diamond if they would at least have real dirt at the bases rather than just the pitching mound.  It just doesn't seem right sliding into base on little rubber pellets.

     

    EDIT:  FU Deej for beating me to it.   

  11. 6 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    For many years, UT made the "Grass can't handle the workload in this climate especially with the UIL state games here" excuse.

    And then the Round Rock Express came into existence, and they made a grass field, which took on much more use in a minor league season, and took on half of the UIL games, and somehow everything was fine with their field. 

    So the reason we still have that turf stuff (which is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than the faded Astroturf that we had for so many years) is because the people in charge want us to have fake grass.

    They don't want to spend the coin it takes to maintain real grass.

    Pro stadiums have full-time staffs that do nothing but baby that grass nearly 24/7.  Even a rich athletic department like UT can't really dedicate that many resources to a single facility. Plus I'm sure the environmentalists have a lot of more sway with UT than they have with the RR Express.  Hard for a state public entity like UT to justify the water usage.

    EDIT:  I'm not defending it.  I think baseball should be on grass at every level.  

  12. 1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

    Duke is ass. 

    I will eat the chair I'm sitting in if Duke beats Georgia twice today.

    Twice?

    Shit, I thought this game was for all the mawrbles.

  13. Duke up on UG 8-5, bottom of the 7th.  If Duke wins, Tech hosts Super.  If UG wins, UG hosts the Super and Tech travels to Athens.

    Besides the fact that I want Tech to host the Super...I really, really, really want another SEC SEC SEC team to go down.

     

    EDIT:  Buttfumble beat me to it.

  14. Any church is automatically a business by default.  Why?  Because a building costs money.  Electricity and water cost money.  A preacher has to earn a living.

    So why do it?  If coming together in fellowship with a group of other believers of the same faith results in the need to create a business, why do it at all?  Jesus never said go build a church, hire a pastor, raise money, etc.  It's literally not in any of his directions to us.  So why do we do it?

    For the simple reason that we do want to commune with fellow believers of the same faith.  So in order to have the mechanism for that communion and fellowship, we take on the things of this world that is required to build such a mechanism.  But we aren't in it for the money.  We are simply trying to provide the structure for worship that we want.

    Now, in regards to Christianity be an exclusionary club...I couldn't disagree more.  We are all sinners.  I repeat, we are all sinners.  Christians are not better than anyone else...hell, most of us are probably worse. I'm probably the worst of the worst, and for that I hate me.  Christians just know we are bad and we want to follow the path of salvation knowing there is nothing we can do to save ourselves.  Nothing.  Nada.  We cannot save ourselves.  So we put our trust in the one who can.  That does not make us better than anyone...at all.  Our salvation is not in our own hands.

    Where I draw the line is some of the modern Christianity that will tell me my sin is not a sin.  No, my sin is sin. It's really bad.  I suck and there's nothing I can do to stop sucking.  God does not look the other way.  A price has to be paid for it, and it was paid.  But not by me.  That doesn't give me the freedom to sin or to redefine sin or to say my sin doesn't matter.  It does, and it's bad.  The price is death.  Luckily, the price was paid.  I do not judge anyone else's sin because I know mine is worse.  But that doesn't mean I say that sin is of your own opinion or that we have the freedom to sin and do whatever we want.  It's not and we don't.

    Sorry I got a little theological here.  Didn't mean to go there.

    • Like 3
  15. On 5/24/2018 at 10:44 AM, RomaVicta said:

    I ended up be far larger and stronger than my father.  If I had been in this situation and endlessly delayed leaving his house, I doubt that he would want to add an arrest to my record by calling the police nor would he have wanted to see me physically harmed. He was not a soft man. 

    My dad fought the VietCong.  He ran PBR boats inserting and extracting SEAL teams and other special forces throughout the rivers & jungles of Vietnam & Cambodia. He bathed in Agent Orange and used napalm for BBQ's.  As a teenager he once spent a night in a Mexican jail.  No matter how big or strong I got, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt he could whip my ass without breaking a sweat.  

    There is no hypothetical that would have placed me in this situation.  

    Plus, I do have some pride.

    • Like 3
  16. 2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

    He nicknamed your mom "Big Retirement"?

    No, I believe his nickname for her was "Big fucking pain in my ass."  If you ever met my mother, you would understand.

     

×
×
  • Create New...