Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:25 AM
338 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Michael Servetus was burnt at the stake in Calvin's Geneva in 1553
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 31 of 58 (824175)
11-24-2017 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by LamarkNewAge
11-23-2017 11:55 PM


Re: TOPIC IS THIS. (roughly anyway)
OK, LNA, I owe you at least one good post. I'm going to be honest with you, however...so if it causes an argument between us, I cant come at you with my big Admin Stick if I am participating as member: Phat. Your reply to me (and others, in this thread)will determine if I end up accepting you as an honest member of EvC or a troll and how I will deal with you in the future. Deal?

The overall theme in this topic sheds some light on your beliefs, and while I don't have you figured out just yet, I am working on it. (I could, of course, be way off the mark, however) You know how we members of the dominant culture unknowingly put ourselves above other sociological cultures and beliefs! I mention it as an unfortunate facet of my personality---I admit to being biased in favor of the W.A.S.P. version of Christianity that I was raised with. Putting all of that aside as much as I can, allow me to answer your questions.

So I just read the article, Remembering Servetus: The “One God” Movement Among Evangelical Christians. ( Keep in mind that my answers are formed based on all that I have read (and chosen to read) over the past 24 years.)
In reading this article, I noted the following:

Christian Origins writes:

Servetus rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, and although he maintained belief in the virgin birth, he denied that Jesus was God. He was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, and in his primary work, De trinitatis erroribus (“On the Errors of the Trinity”), he ably argued that the Bible itself, in neither Old Testament nor New Testament, supported the subsequent Trinitarian notion of Jesus as God.

Curious, I followed the links in that article and came upon Kermit Zarleys website. After reading that a bit, I proceeded to follow some of the links that he mentioned there. I was a bit prejudiced in favor of Trinitarianism as an unthreatening concept, however...and have never been persuaded by either islamic friends or Jehovahs Witness friends that Trinitarianism was necessarily wrong.

LNA writes:

The simple fact of the matter is that nearly every Trinitarian you know is just a follower of the popular culture imposed from the higher powers.
They would NOT have the Trinitarian views if we had freedom of religion in ages past.


So my first question is why was I brainwashed simply by being exposed to mainstream cultural beliefs? How is a Trinitarian concept/definition of GOD any less monotheistic than ...for example...Islam? Or JW's Jehovah and their (in my opinion) erroneous conclusion that Jesus was the first created being, as an angel?

LNA, responding to NoNukes writes:

I was asking WHEN it was that somebody FIRST noticed that they jumped the gun in uncritically believing the entire New Testament spoke of Jesus as "God" when, in fact, the first several Gospels called him the "Son of God".

So your beef with NoNukes is that he likely has been brainwashed, or indoctrinated by the majority culture (as I have) and won't admit it....right? You certainly got a bit arrogant and uppity when replying to him. You are starting to act like a Trump supporter, although my guess is that you yourself likely have an ethnic cultural background...which few Trump supporters have. I encourage you to be nice. I DO respect that you read a lot, and although your copy-pasta annoys me, I can tell that you are a serious student of discovery.

LNA writes:

The fact of the matter is that the Bible isn't where people get their ideas from.

OK, I think I see your point. Perhaps you do have an irrefutable point in this regard. I would use the word indoctrinated by the majority culture rather than brainwashed...but others may disagree.
LNA, to NoNukes writes:

You hate learning.

I don't know about him, but I will admit that I don't have a desire to learn too much if it causes me to seek what I already thought I had the answer for....

Tangle, to LNA writes:

A better measure of whether your posts here are being read would be whether people reply to them. Mostly it seems to me that they don't.

I never read them before, but I forced myself to follow LNA's links here. They are not as jumbled as I thought they would be....lets see how this topic turns out.
NoNukes,responding to LNA writes:

Your suppositions do not make me angry. They let me know how much of a buffoon you are. I love pointing that stuff out. I also enjoy pointing out where you are lying. I never got around to attacking most of the details of your conspiracy theories. I did attack a couple of the wilder accusations as being without basis. You never responded to my points, you just went off on various tangents.

I wouldn't call him a buffoon. We need to respect LNA enough to engage in (or attempt to engage in) an honest dialogue with him. How he responds will determine his standing, as is true with all of us here at EvC.

Now, LNA, to answer your questions:

  • When did you start to question the idea that all (or most) of the Biblical author's had views which were inline with "Trinitarian" type Christology.
    Really, when did it un-Trinitarian interpretations even dawn on you as a possible interpretation?
    To be honest, I never questioned my beliefs that much until I met jar and a few others here at EvC. I knew that Jehovahs Witness and Arianism dismissed the Trinity, but I dismissed them as a cult. I still do. As for Zoroastrianism, I never studied it much. I understand that it is part of your religious background. Comments?

    LNA writes:

    When did you first become aware of the possibility that every Biblical author did not think of Jesus to be God?

    jar first brought it to my attention by explaining that Saul/Paul was Jewish and likely didn't see Jesus as God. He claims that John was redacted and that there was a rift in the early Christians between reformed Judaism and the marketing of a new Christianity. So that is the first I had heard of it.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 30 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-23-2017 11:55 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 11-24-2017 12:21 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 35 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-24-2017 7:39 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 42 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-25-2017 11:53 PM Phat has responded

      
  • Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 5234
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 2.2


    (1)
    Message 32 of 58 (824177)
    11-24-2017 3:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 29 by LamarkNewAge
    11-23-2017 8:34 PM


    Re: I found a NoNukes quote on the issue!
    Lamark writes:

    That was Manicheans and reincarnation keywords.


    Yup

    But.

    Put "Did Jesus teach reincarnation" into google and my thread is at number 28 out of 400,000

    Number 8 of page 3

    Yup and still no-one will have seen it, let alone read it.

    It's just the way google works and people read. If you're not on the first page, it's highly unlikely to be read simply because the searcher will have found what he's looking for there.

    It's also a 'long tail' search - a string of specific words unlikely to be entered by a human. Most searchers would use simpler terms to start, probably just “Jesus and reincarnation” only getting more complicated if the first doesn't succeed.

    I noticed a good while back that Elkesaites reincarnation or Elkesai reincarnation was on page 1

    The more obscure the topic and the more complex the search term the more likely it is to figure high in a google result. That shouldn't be surprising. It doesn't mean anyone is reading it. Google's spiders will pick anything written on any website that's been around a little while and that changes daily within a few minutes of it being written.

    I suspect that people interested in Early Christian origins would be more interested than you (and the posters here) in reading my posts (for the book quotes?), but I admit that I am not 100% sure.

    But you're on a discussion board here; the point is to debate things here, not to get ranking on google. Also if people find your posts on google why aren't they coming here to comment on them?

    A more rational answer is likely to be what we're saying isn't it? Reams of cut and post of obscure stuff isn't getting read here either. If you focused a bit more on the discussion it might help.


    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

    "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 29 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-23-2017 8:34 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

      
    NoNukes
    Member
    Posts: 10116
    From: Central NC USA
    Joined: 08-13-2010
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 33 of 58 (824201)
    11-24-2017 12:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 28 by AdminPhat
    11-23-2017 8:33 PM


    Re: Stop And Read What You Write
    Both of you better knock it off or I will shut this thread and suspend you.

    I have no idea what you expect of me Phat.


    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

    I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

    We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

    Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

    I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 28 by AdminPhat, posted 11-23-2017 8:33 PM AdminPhat has acknowledged this reply

        
    NoNukes
    Member
    Posts: 10116
    From: Central NC USA
    Joined: 08-13-2010
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 34 of 58 (824202)
    11-24-2017 12:21 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
    11-24-2017 1:49 AM


    Re: TOPIC IS THIS. (roughly anyway)
    So your beef with NoNukes is that he likely has been brainwashed, or indoctrinated by the majority culture (as I have) and won't admit it....right?

    That seems to be correct, and given that I am not a Trinitarian, his conclusion would seem to be well off base.

    Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

    I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

    We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

    Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

    I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by Phat, posted 11-24-2017 1:49 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

        
    LamarkNewAge
    Member
    Posts: 1024
    Joined: 12-22-2015
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 35 of 58 (824220)
    11-24-2017 7:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
    11-24-2017 1:49 AM


    Re: TOPIC IS THIS. (roughly anyway)
    Phat, I will give a fuller reply later (I am working right now, though I am currently on a multi hour "lunch"ish break)

    I do need to clarify a major mistake you made.

    I don't know where to begin.

    You quoted me saying:

    quote:

    was asking WHEN it was that somebody FIRST noticed that they jumped the gun in uncritically believing the entire New Testament spoke of Jesus as "God" when, in fact, the first several Gospels called him the "Son of God".

    This was an earlier post.

    Post 13 was the one.

    I had just been accused of being a liar in post 12.

    Often NoNukes sidesteps my posts, and calls me all sorts of dishonest names like "lying sack of shit" and I ignore him. I cponstantly choose to ignore his endless substance-free insults (I find him to be a substance free poster and a disrupter).

    That is just 1 recent thread.

    In another recent thread, I joked that he said something (I said "You said it" jestingly) he didn't when he caught me addressing his name instead of another poster I was responding to. He still kept on attacking me and disrupting the topic to death (his specialty).

    I try to not get caught up in personal attacks, as they clutter the discussion.

    But back to this topic.

    H called me a liar in post 12 and you quoted my (substantive and clarifying) response to him in post 13.

    You then responded to my post 13 quote

    quote:

    So your beef with NoNukes is that he likely has been brainwashed, or indoctrinated by the majority culture (as I have) and won't admit it....right? You certainly got a bit arrogant and uppity when replying to him.

    I had no idea what his views were (at the time of post 13).

    I DIDN'T SAY A WORD ABOUT HIM!

    Look at what he said.

    Here was his post 3 (with his attacks)

    quote:

    I want to direct my response to your argument rather than to you as a person. The problem with trying to do so is that the proper characterization of your argument would be a statement about your intelligence.

    Instead of expressing my opinion, I am going to ask you if you have a better argument?

    (LamarkNewAge)
    "Did it even occur to you that the Trinity was generally unbiblical"

    Folks here have made that particular argument many times. Other folks have attempted to counter those arguments with cites to the Bible. Perhaps you should take a look in the archives.


    I then went to find out if he commented on the Trinitarian issue(s) of Biblical authors.

    I made the point that he said that he assumed Paul thought Jesus was God

    LISTEN UP PHAT!

    I presently think Paul believes Jesus was God and did in that reincarnation thread, though the issue is complicated. (will show you why later tonight, if time allows)

    And do note that NoNukes is still claiming (in post 34 above) that I wasn't talking about the views of the Biblical authors.

    He is saying that I was talking about his own views (whatever).


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by Phat, posted 11-24-2017 1:49 AM Phat has not yet responded

        
    LamarkNewAge
    Member
    Posts: 1024
    Joined: 12-22-2015
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 36 of 58 (824222)
    11-24-2017 11:02 PM


    Paul (probably) did think Jesus was God (separate/split into 2 separate persons)
    I will get around to responding to your post 31 Phat, but let me get this out of the way.

    I will look at Romans 9 and Philippians 2.

    But will quote from a scholar who does not think Paul ever felt Jesus to be God.

    (I think Steve Mason's work I will quote RIGHT NOW is perhaps my favorite book ever)

    First, the NRSV scripture, then Mason's comments (in the verse annotations in the lower half of the same page the relevant Biblical text is on)

    quote:

    Romans 9

    New Revised Standard Version
    (NRSV)

    God’s Election of Israel

    9 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.


    Now the evangelical commentaries have a translation that say the Messiah is God in verse 5. It can indeed be translated that way and it wouldn't really be any worse of a translation grammatically.

    Here is Steve Mason's Early Christian Reader.

    (most italics are replaced with caps)

    quote:

    p.179

    If Paul intends to call Jesus God as one possible translation would read, it is the only place where he does so, and it would sound quite jarring immediately after ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. Even if he did mean to call Jesus God in this case, we should beware of reading later Christian content (concerning the divine nature of Christ) into such language. Other Jewish writers of the time, such as Philo, could describe various intermediaries as "God" without meaning they were "coequal" and "coeternal" with the Creator. see Philo, Somn. 2.189. The Chalcedonian definition of Christ's two natures required another 400 years to take shape (451 CE).


    But see James Tabor's article, Praying to Jesus: From Jewish Messiah to Incarnate God (Biblical Expositions / January 20, 2016)

    quote:

    So far as the Jesus movement goes our earliest evidence for this practice of conflating the name of God–i.e., Yahweh, with that of Jesus–that is, calling them both “Lord” in an interchangeable way, goes back to Paul. Even though Paul clearly distinguished between the “One God, the Father” and the “One Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:6), when he used the word “Lord” things are not always so clear–especially when he quotes the Hebrew Bible in passages that refer to Yahweh/Yehovah.

    Paul writes to the Jesus followers at Rome that if they confess “Jesus as Lord” and believe that God has raised him from the dead–they will be saved. He asserts that for Jew or Greek “the same Lord is Lord of all,”–clearly referring to Jesus–and ends with a quotation from Joel: “For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:9-13; Joel 2:32). The problem is, in the passage in Joel, the Hebrew text clearly says: “Whoever calls upon the name of Yahweh will be saved,”–but Paul clearly has no problem in identifying “Lord” here with Jesus. In fact Paul regularly quotes passages from the Hebrew Bible that clearly refer to Yahweh/Yehovah and applies them directly to Jesus as the “Lord.” Just one chapter earlier, in Roman 9:33, Paul conflates quotations from Isaiah 8:14 and 28:16 that clearly refer to Yahweh and applies them to Jesus as the rejected “stone” or “rock” of offense to those Jews who did not accept him as Messiah and Lord. In Philippians 2:10-11 Paul equates confessing Jesus as Lord and the entire human race “bowing the knee” to him–whereas Isaiah 45:22-23 proclaims such devotion is reserved for Yahweh alone. Here the work of David Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, J. C. B. Mohr, 1992 is absolutely groundbreaking.

    https://jamestabor.com/...om-jewish-messiah-to-incarnate-god


    Now the next scripture is this.

    quote:

    Philippians 2

    New Revised Standard Version
    (NRSV)

    5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

    6
    who, though he was in the form of God,
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be exploited,

    7
    but emptied himself,
    taking the form of a slave,
    being born in human likeness.
    And being found in human form,

    8
    he humbled himself
    and became obedient to the point of death—
    even death on a cross.

    9
    Therefore God also highly exalted him
    and gave him the name
    that is above every name,

    10
    so that at the name of Jesus
    every knee should bend,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

    11
    and every tongue should confess
    that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.


    I will repeat my own words (from the reincarnation thread, plus additional comments) , but first, Steve Mason.

    He began by explaining that this scripture is what came to be called "Kenosis" (self emptying) in the later Christian creedal statements.

    He goes on to present the Orthodox argument( just before he responds to it)

    quote:

    Early Christian Reader
    p.79

    although Christ was God, he emptied himself of divine attributes and became a man in order to save humanity. But if this is the point of the passage, then (a) Paul's use of Christ's action as a model to be followed (2:5) is puzzling (for how could any human emulate this kind of self-emptying?), and (b) the emphasis on Christ's exaltation as a REWARD for his humiliation (2:9-11) is difficult to understand, since his exaltation should have been simply a recovery of his original glory after the completion of his mission. Other scholars have argued that the hymn does not concern a preexistent Christ but Christ as the second Adam, a prominent theme in Paul's letters (1 Cor.5:22, 45, 49; Rom 5:12-21). Like Adam, Christ was made in the image of God (2:6). But unlike Adam, he did not grasp at equality with God (2:6); he accepted his human condition and served God's purpose faithfully (2:7-8). Therefore, God has exalted him. Thus Paul's point would apply to his readers: God rewards those who humbly serve others. This would mean, however, that Paul understood Jesus' status after his resurrection as new (see Rom. 1:3-4, Acts 2:36). Some interpreters claim that the rhythm of the passage marks it as a hymn that Paul borrowed or slightly edited...


    The exaltation Christology could, indeed, chronologically predate Paul's letters (though Epistle is the earliest textual evidence extant), but Paul does seem to be saying that Jesus was equal to God BEFORE he was born to Mary.

    And the 2nd Adam/Last Adam theme could(contrary to my Reincarnation thread comments I am about to quote) be seen as evidence of preexistence. The First Adam issue sure did become an Avatar (reincarnation of a deity that became a totally separate eternal entity) of the Logos spirit by the end of the first century.

    Here are my words (from two threads in the reincarnation thread)

    First, Jaywill was quoted saying:

    quote:

    This portion talks about the indwelling God Who gives life. And it agrees with Paul in the other letter First Corinthians that Christ became a life giving Spirit.
    " ... the last Adam (Christ) became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)

    To give life here really means to give God Himself - the uncreated and eternal life.


    (I was planning on eventually addressing the "last Adam" issue as a possible reincarnation teaching by Paul, but never did. I wasn't sure I could demonstrate a mid-1st century use of the First Adam concept as being about a preexistent Christ who was reincarnated anyway.)

    Here was my (flawed) expedient response. I was more interested in responding to the claim that Romans 8:3 said God and Jesus were the same thing (Jaywill was trying to say Paul was teaching complete Trinitarian-ish views all along)

    quote:

    Good this this is the 21st century or you would get killed for taking away from the separate existence of the 3 persons of the Trinity.

    Philippians 2 is interpreted, by historians, as an "exaltation" Christology, but not inborn incarnation at conception.

    Your verses don't support incarnation Christological views.

    See the Bart Ehrman videos above. I have not but I know that he is an accessible expert on the Christological issues.

    I'm just trying to report what has been said. I don't know for sure myself. Just keep in mind that Paul is the decisive factor when it comes to early Christian evidence since the Gospels date later. Mark doesn't even have the virgin birth.


    Then I added a bit later (in my last post until I posted 1 more time about 18 months later)

    quote:

    I think we should look at the authentic letters of Paul.
    One by one.
    And see if we can find 3 different things in them.
    1)Verses saying Jesus was God

    2) incarnation at conception

    3)virgin birth

    Those are the three things we will be looking for.

    Now, where to look? The 7 authentic letters of Paul.

    Start with the youngest epistle first, then get to the older ones, in order.

    1 Thessalonians (most British scholars put Galatians earlier)

    2 1 Corinthians

    3 2 Corinthians

    4 Galatians

    5 Romans

    6 Philippians

    7 Philemon (I'm not even sure if this can be dated)

    I actually do think Philippians 2:5-10 qualifies for #1 & #2 , but not #3 (the virgin birth). Romans 9:5 possibly qualifies for #1, though most would disagree (it depends on the translation). Philippians was a "prison epistle" (written from 59-61 AD).

    I still can't understand why Paul didn't mention the virgin birth. I find it amazing that he only said Jesus was God in 1 place (and only in an epistle roughly 10 years after his first), and only 1 (the same)place was the divine incarnation (albeit not a spermless one)mentioned.

    This post of mine will be an attempt to maintain direction.

    I have attempted to inject honesty into Biblical discussion. It has ticked people off who prefer to see what they want to (I was accused of hacking or SPAMing the site in another thread by a wacko). I urge those who value honest discussion to stay vigilant and don't let dishonest arguments and hateful attacks overrun these important historical issues. Force the participants to display integrity and accuracy in their arguments. Challenge those with preconceived notions to empty out their prepackaged ideas, and to start clean with an open mind and open heart.

    Anyway, lets see who can offer any evidence in 1 Thessalonians.

    Don't let them smuggle verses in from the Gospel of John. Infact, every book of Paul should be able to stand on its own weight. (Don't forget this last point P-L-E-A-S-E)


    (jaywill wasn't the one attacking me fyi. I appreciated his spirited efforts)

    Now, I make all sides angry when I tell the truth.

    Uncritical posters (fundamentalists and non-believers) will not like my honesty.

    I am not sure that Avatar like views indicate a virgin birth (the later 1st century Jewish Christians seemed to reject a virgin birth while accepting the Logos/First Adam/Power preexistence and incarnation). And they also felt that the preexistant Christ was separate from God (BUT not God!).

    But Paul accepted Jesus as the same thing as God (albeit late and only after a - visible - evolutionary fashion). Paul's evolution is perceptible IMO.

    I don't know if Jesus actually called himself a preexisting Power. I doubt he called himself God (ditto with his Jewish Christian brethren).

    I only know what later first century teachings seem to show us.

    (EDIT----- Paul only began to consider Jesus & Jehovah to be two split personalities of God only after 99% of what he said indicated that Jesus wasn't a God. It might have evolved due to his loose application of Old Testament verses, specifically verses indicating that Jesus' fulfilling of God's will would eventually morph his Christology, in a evolutionary process , which resulted OVER TIME in Paul seeing Jesus as ACTUALLY God. Jesus eventually was indeed the person God in those prophecies, and not simply an instrument of God in fulfilling his promises. Paul turned his views towards seeing the two "Lords" as actually the same exact thing. I imagine that he originally never intended to apply Old Testament prophecies and verses, describing Jehovah, to be a literal description of Jesus. But they became so - eventually. Perhaps this was the case even in Romans when he first penned the Epistle. But by the time of Philippians , Jesus was a fully split personality of God with a totally separate eternal spiritual body. I don't know if Paul ever saw Jesus as being as "old" as Jehovah himself, certainly 1 Corinthians doesn't seem to indicate that Jesus was as old as God, because Adam was created, and Paul didn't indicate that Jesus was eternal in both directions - PAST and future. Not that Jehovah was necessarily eternal anyway.)

    Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

    Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

    Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

    Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

    Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

    Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2017 12:25 AM LamarkNewAge has responded
     Message 40 by Phat, posted 11-25-2017 1:53 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

        
    NoNukes
    Member
    Posts: 10116
    From: Central NC USA
    Joined: 08-13-2010
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 37 of 58 (824225)
    11-25-2017 12:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 36 by LamarkNewAge
    11-24-2017 11:02 PM


    Re: Paul (probably) did think Jesus was God (separate/split into 2 separate persons)
    But will quote from a scholar who does not think Paul ever felt Jesus to be God.

    I am not sure what you mean by this statement, but for me, the question is not whether Paul worships Jesus as a god, but whether he thinks Jesus is Yahweh either in a Trinitarian fashion or any other fashion.

    In my opinion, some of the best arguments that Paul did not have this view come from a review of the Bible quotes that folks use to prove that Jesus is actually Yahweh. Invariably the arguments involve a stretching of text in ways it is hard to attribute to Paul and of course, there are plenty of counter-examples that are hard to explain except by departing from the entire exercise.

    When all is said and done, the Trinity doctrine seems like an attempt to address accusations that Christianity is not monotheistic. I don't see any reason to bother with the doctrine if you don't have that concern.


    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

    I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

    We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

    Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

    I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-24-2017 11:02 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 38 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-25-2017 12:56 AM NoNukes has responded

        
    LamarkNewAge
    Member
    Posts: 1024
    Joined: 12-22-2015
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 38 of 58 (824226)
    11-25-2017 12:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
    11-25-2017 12:25 AM


    Re: Paul (probably) did think Jesus was God (separate/split into 2 separate persons)
    I said
    quote:

    But will quote from a scholar who does not think Paul ever felt Jesus to be God.

    quote:

    I am not sure what you mean by this statement, but for me, the question is not whether Paul worships Jesus as a god, but whether he thinks Jesus is Yahweh either in a Trinitarian fashion or any other fashion.

    I will study the issue.

    There was a carm site, that you read (jaywill linked it), which had Pauline references to Old Testament verses about Jehovah (and they were either certainly or possibly describing Jesus).

    I can see what Mason says about these verses so I can get a better view of his views.

    quote:

    In my opinion, some of the best arguments that Paul did not have this view come from a review of the Bible quotes that folks use to prove that Jesus is actually Yahweh. Invariably the arguments involve a stretching of text in ways it is hard to attribute to Paul and of course, there are plenty of counter-examples that are hard to explain except by departing from the entire exercise.

    There were multiple Christological views.

    And Paul was an evolving mishmash.

    quote:

    When all is said and done, the Trinity doctrine seems like an attempt to address accusations that Christianity is not monotheistic. I don't see any reason to bother with the doctrine if you don't have that concern.

    There are lots of important historical questions though.

    I am interested in when the virgin birth was first around.

    Clement of Rome can help to date Matthew (which will also help to date Mark).

    But good for a reference to the Virgin Birth.

    The views of the Jewish Christians are important.

    The chronology of the preexistent Christ is important.

    Virgin birth origin date important.

    All Christological views are important.

    But the chronology is tricky.

    Bart Ehrman said this

    quote:

    I have read, pondered, researched, taught, and written about the writings of Paul for forty years, but until recently there was one key aspect of his theology that I could never quite get my mind around. I had the hardest time understanding how, exactly, he viewed Christ. Some aspects of Paul’s Christological teaching have been clear to me for decades – especially his teaching that it was Jesus’ death and resurrection that makes a person right with God, rather than following the dictates of the Jewish law. But who did Paul think Christ was exactly?

    One reason for my perplexity was that Paul is highly allusive in what he says. He does not spell out, in systematic detail, what his views of Christ are. Another reason was that in some passages Paul seems to affirm a view of Christ that – until recently – I thought could not possibly be as early as Paul’s letters, which are our first Christian writings to survive. How could Paul embrace “higher” views of Christ than those found in later writings such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Didn’t Christology develop from a “low” Christology to a “high” Christology (using these terms that I am no longer fond of) over time? And if so, shouldn’t the views of the Synoptic Gospels be “higher” than the views of Paul? But they’re not! They are “lower.” And I simply did not get it, for the longest time.

    But I get it now. It is not a question of higher or lower. The Synoptics simply accept a different Christological view from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies and Paul holds to an incarnation Christology. And that, in no small measure, is because Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.



    This message is a reply to:
     Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2017 12:25 AM NoNukes has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2017 1:44 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
     Message 41 by Phat, posted 11-25-2017 11:16 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

        
    NoNukes
    Member
    Posts: 10116
    From: Central NC USA
    Joined: 08-13-2010
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 39 of 58 (824227)
    11-25-2017 1:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 38 by LamarkNewAge
    11-25-2017 12:56 AM


    Re: Paul (probably) did think Jesus was God (separate/split into 2 separate persons)
    And Paul was an evolving mishmash.

    I don't believe this to be correct, but you are welcome to try to show that.


    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

    I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

    We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

    Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

    I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 38 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-25-2017 12:56 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 10230
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.3


    Message 40 of 58 (824229)
    11-25-2017 1:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 36 by LamarkNewAge
    11-24-2017 11:02 PM


    I don't know if Jesus actually called himself a preexisting Power.
    I don't believe that He intended to be GOD in human flesh. Metaphorically i have heard the Trinity concept expressed analogous to the Sun, the Light (Natural daylight) and the Heat...which is the source for nearly all the warmth which allows life to exist on this planet.

    So am I a Trinitarian? What does it imply or promise apart from understanding the concept of a communion between a man and GOD?

    I'm tired though---its nearly midnite and i work again tomorrow. so we can talk later.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-24-2017 11:02 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 10230
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.3


    Message 41 of 58 (824245)
    11-25-2017 11:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 38 by LamarkNewAge
    11-25-2017 12:56 AM


    Re: Paul (probably) did think Jesus was God (separate/split into 2 separate persons)
    What Ehrman says about Paul in his Blog was an eye-opener. Specifically
    Ehrman writes:

    ...The Synoptics simply accept a different Christological view from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies and Paul holds to an incarnation Christology. And that, in no small measure, is because Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.

    You quoted it earlier and it caught my attention. The JW's always believed that "angel crap" (you can see my bias showing) and yet I never imagined that Paul would see it the same way. I am still skeptical of some of this writing...though not as insistently literal as Faith, I do share her belief that there is a spiritual battle of sorts regarding the truth and regarding what actually is true vs what authors, historians, and researchers manage to dig up and propose. I will admit that what I want and hope to be true may not actually be what is true...but how would we know?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 38 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-25-2017 12:56 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

      
    LamarkNewAge
    Member
    Posts: 1024
    Joined: 12-22-2015
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 42 of 58 (824279)
    11-25-2017 11:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
    11-24-2017 1:49 AM


    Paul the Nazarene and the early Baptists (response to Phat post 31)
    quote:

    So my first question is why was I brainwashed simply by being exposed to mainstream cultural beliefs? How is a Trinitarian concept/definition of GOD any less monotheistic than ...for example...Islam? Or JW's Jehovah and their (in my opinion) erroneous conclusion that Jesus was the first created being, as an angel?

    The JW are WASP Protestants that accept the Roman Catholic Bible (with the Gospel of John).

    They aren't the same thing as 1st century (or 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th) Jewish Christians, who rejected the Gospel of John (as soon as they got the chance to know of it).

    There was a very different Bible back then (with a lot more consistency of belief that aligns with "The Bible" used, unlike the JW who want to ignore and twist parts they don't want to agree with).

    quote:

    Nazarene (sect) - Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

    The Nazarenes originated as a sect of first-century Judaism. The first use of the term "sect of the Nazarenes" is in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, where Paul is accused of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes ...


    Jerome, in the late 4th century, went to live in Palestine and he interacted with the Nararenes, (which Acts of the Apostles seems to indicate was the actual name of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem), who had the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

    They rejected John.

    The Nazarenes had an incarnation Christology, with the Virgin Birth.

    Other Jewish Christians, like the Ebionites, had the same Gospel of Matthew, according to Jerome.

    But the Panarion, by Epiphanius of Salamis (written at the same time as Jerome wrote his works on the Jewish Christians), seemed to indicate a different Gospel, with the first few chapters missing. Like earlier commentaries on the Jewish Christians (Hippolytus 200 years earlier), there was clearly reincarnation (or possession) type beliefs among the Jewish Christians. Jesus was born a man (with no virgin birth), and the Spirit came into him just after the baptism of John the Baptist.

    An Adoptionist Christology.

    (Which is a "higher" Christology than the Exaltation view, which seems to have raised Jesus' status only after his death?)

    quote:

    In early Christian heresiology, the Panarion (Greek: ÐáíÜñéïí, derived from Latin, panarium, meaning "bread basket"), to which 16th-century Latin translations gave the name Adversus Haereses (Latin: "Against Heresies"),[1] is the most important of the works of Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403). It was written in Koine Greek beginning in 374 or 375, and issued about three years later,[2] as a treatise on heresies, with its title referring to the text as a "stock of remedies to offset the poisons of heresy."[3] It treats 80 religious sects, either organized groups or philosophies, from the time of Adam to the latter part of the 4th century, detailing their histories, and rebutting their beliefs.[4] The Panarion is an important source of information on the Jewish Gospels, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Hebrews.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect


    The Ebionites had the same Gospel of Matthew, but without the first few chapters.

    Scholars don't SEEM TO see Adoptionism Christology (as they read in Mark) as a Transmigration of the Soul issue.

    The adoptionism Christology, of many Jewish Christians (Ebionits and Elkesaites) had Jesus born a man, but with a wandering Spirit (Logos or the Holy Spirit or the Hidden Power) possessed him at the Baptism of John.

    Others had straight reincarnation.

    The Nazoreans were, according to Epiphanius (and Eusebius), the Jerusalem Christian followers of James the Just.

    quote:

    Panarion 19:1

    Nasaraeans, meaning, "rebels," who forbid all flesh-eating, and do not eat living things at all. They have the holy names of patriarchs which are in the Pentateuch, up through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun, and they believe in them- I mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the earliest ones, and Moses himself, and Aaron, and Joshua. But they hold that the scriptures of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses, and maintain that they have others


    https://books.google.com/books?id=s9-utOHPLfEC&pg=PA11&lp...

    Paul was specifically described as Nasaraean in Acts of The Apostles.

    Nazarenes.

    Jerome said they had the original Gospel of Matthew and he translated it into Greek. It was called the Gospel of the Hebrews.

    They were followers of James the Just

    quote:

    Flight to Pella

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been miraculously warned to flee to Pella (Tabaquat Fahil) in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River.

    ....

    The people of the Church in Jerusalem were commanded by an oracle given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Perea which they called Pella. To it those who believed on Christ traveled from Jerusalem, so that when holy men had altogether deserted the royal capital of the Jews and the whole land of Judaea…"

    — Eusebius, Church History 3, 5, 3

    This heresy of the Nazoraeans exists in Beroea in the neighbourhood of Coele Syria and the Decapolis in the region of Pella and in Basanitis in the so-called Kokaba (Chochabe in Hebrew). From there it took its beginning after the exodus from Jerusalem when all the disciples went to live in Pella because Christ had told them to leave Jerusalem and to go away since it would undergo a siege. Because of this advice they lived in Perea after having moved to that place, as I said."

    — Epiphanius, Panarion 29,7,7-8

    For after all those who believed in Christ had generally come to live in Perea, in a city called Pella of the Decapolis of which it is written in the Gospel that it is situated in the neighbourhood of the region of Batanaea and Basanitis, Ebion's preaching originated here after they had moved to this place and had lived there."

    — Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 2, 7

    So Aquila, while he was in Jerusalem, also saw the disciples of the disciples of the apostles flourishing in the faith and working great signs, healings, and other miracles. For they were such as had come back from the city of Pella to Jerusalem and were living there and teaching. For when the city was about to be taken and destroyed by the Romans, it was revealed in advance to all the disciples by an angel of God that they should remove from the city, as it was going to be completely destroyed. They sojourned as emigrants in Pella, the city above mentioned in Transjordania. And this city is said to be of the Decapolis."

    — Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures 15

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_to_Pella


    They had different scriptures.

    Back to the issue of different scriptures.

    Is there Biblical evidence that James, brother of Jesus, changed the scriptures?

    Remember the Apostolic Council of Acts 15?

    It saw James quote Amos 9:11-12

    Here is the NIV text of those Old Testament verses.

    quote:

    so that they may possess the remnant of Edom
    and all the nations that bear my name,
    declares the Lord, who will do these things.


    Here is the Septuagint text of Amos 9:11-12

    quote:

    so that the remnant of men / and all the nations that bear my name may seek the Lord


    The words of James

    NIV TRANSLATION
    Acts 15:17

    quote:

    that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
    and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
    says the Lord, who does these things

    (NIV)


    James used the Septuagint in an anti nationalist way

    Here is an older Southern Baptist commentary

    quote:

    Broadman Bible Commentary
    Volume 10
    Acts-I Corinthians
    p.92

    By using the Septuagint version of Amos 9:11-12, instead of the Hebrew text, James modified the meaning of the prophecy of Amos. The prophet predicted that the disrupted kingdom of David would be reunited and that Israel would possess the land of Edom along with other nations. The Septuagint version makes the message of Amos a prophecy about the conversion of the Gentiles.


    James did seem to change the Hebrew scriptures.

    quote:

    jar first brought it to my attention by explaining that Saul/Paul was Jewish and likely didn't see Jesus as God. He claims that John was redacted and that there was a rift in the early Christians between reformed Judaism and the marketing of a new Christianity. So that is the first I had heard of it.

    You earlier raised the issue of the Trinity.

    The trinity was a chronologically later development than the Apostolic period.

    There was a lot of Christological controversy back then at the time of the Gospel of John.

    The LOGOS incarnated (or permanently possessed) a human Jesus at the Baptism as the early Baptists believed?

    Not according to John.

    The Gospel of John seemed to be a response to the early Jewish Christians and their Baptist beliefs.

    Just like the Acts of the Apostles.

    Remember when the author of Luke-Acts attempted to portray Alexandrian or Jewish Christian "Power of God" or "Hidden Power" views as foreign to the Apostles in Jerusalem (like James specifically)?

    The invention of the Simon story.

    Have you ever read the Gideon Bible translation?

    It is like the ESV

    Acts 8

    quote:

    Simon the Magician Believes

    9But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” 11And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miraclesb performed, he was amazed.

    ....
    17Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 18Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”


    It was a polemical story that attempted to portray the Jewish Christians as receiving their views NOT FROM JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JAMES BROTHER OR JESUS but from a man called Simon.

    quote:

    Meyer's NT Commentary
    Acts 8:10. Προσεῖχον just as in Acts 8:6.

    ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου A designation of the whole body, from little and up to great, i.e. young and old. Comp. Hebrews 8:11; Acts 26:22; Bar 1:4; Jdt 13:4; Jdt 13:13; 1Ma 5:45; LXX. Genesis 19:11; Jeremiah 42:1, al.

    οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ δύν. τ. Θεοῦ ἡ καλ. μεγ. this is the God-power called great. The Samaritans believed that Simon was the power emanating from God, and appearing and working among them as a human person, which, as the highest of the divine powers, was designated by them with a specific appellation κατʼ ἐξοχήν as the μεγάλη. Probably the Oriental-Alexandrine idea of the world-creating manifestation of the hidden God (the Logos, which Philo also calls μητρόπολις πασῶν τῶν δυνάμεων τοῦ Θεοῦ had become at that time current among them, and they saw in Simon this effluence of the Godhead rendered human by incarnation,—a belief which Simon certainly had been cunning enough himself to excite and to promote, and which makes it more than probable that the magician, to whom the neighbouring Christianity could not be unknown, designed in the part which he played to present a phenomenon similar to Christ; comp. Ewald. The belief of the Samaritans in Simon was thus, as regards its tenor, an analogue of the ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, and hence served to prepare for the true and definite faith in the Messiah, afterwards preached to them by Philip: the former became the bridge to the latter.

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/8-10.htm


    The Gospel of John was specifically meant to counter the LOGOS word (which was also a term along with Great Power or Hidden Power that incarnated Jesus, the True Prophet) version of the Adoptionist Christology.

    The Gospel of John was polemical (against the Jewish Christian views) like the Simon story in Acts 8.

    EDIT τῶν δυνάμεων τοῦ Θεοῦ (Philo) is Power of God

    LATER EDIT ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο is (I think) The Logos became flesh (I just saw this one, and I can only know the definition the first 3 words "the word (logos) flesh (sars)" but I can go check on google).

    (I know very little Greek)

    Also, the Nazarenes were said to believe in the virgin birth at the time of Jerome and Epipanius (their Gospel was first mentioned by Hegesippius around 180 AD, and he was a Jewish Christian vegetarian who said James and Matthew were also)

    Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

    Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 31 by Phat, posted 11-24-2017 1:49 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 43 by Phat, posted 11-26-2017 4:42 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 10230
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.3


    Message 43 of 58 (824285)
    11-26-2017 4:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 42 by LamarkNewAge
    11-25-2017 11:53 PM


    (response to Phat post 31)
    Like earlier commentaries on the Jewish Christians (Hippolytus 200 years earlier), there was clearly reincarnation (or possession) type beliefs among the Jewish Christians. Jesus was born a man (with no virgin birth), and the Spirit came into him just after the baptism of John the Baptist.
    These beliefs dont seem right to me. Why do you like them?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-25-2017 11:53 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 11-26-2017 5:08 AM Phat has responded

      
    NoNukes
    Member
    Posts: 10116
    From: Central NC USA
    Joined: 08-13-2010
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 44 of 58 (824286)
    11-26-2017 5:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 43 by Phat
    11-26-2017 4:42 AM


    Re: (response to Phat post 31)
    These beliefs dont seem right to me. Why do you like them?

    Excellent question. It seems to me that we might ask at least three questions about early beliefs.

    1) Are they Biblical? This question, of course, is not relevant for pre-Bible folks.
    2) Were they held by pre-Bible Christians, and if so what was their origin.
    3) Are they newer than either the Bible or those held by early Christians, and if so, why should any Christian accept them now?

    In at least some cases, the settling out of beliefs occurred well after the Gospel is written and way too late for us to take for granted that those beliefs are correct. For at least those beliefs, question 3 raises serious issues in my opinion. I don't care how smart the 'experts' are.


    Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

    I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

    We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

    Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

    I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by Phat, posted 11-26-2017 4:42 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 45 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2017 5:14 AM NoNukes has not yet responded
     Message 47 by Phat, posted 11-26-2017 6:40 AM NoNukes has responded

        
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 13367
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.8


    Message 45 of 58 (824287)
    11-26-2017 5:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 44 by NoNukes
    11-26-2017 5:08 AM


    Re: (response to Phat post 31)
    This discussion of Adoptionism is relevant to one of LNAs points (probably the least controversial - LNA is hardly a reliable interpreter of his sources)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 11-26-2017 5:08 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 46 by jar, posted 11-26-2017 6:36 AM PaulK has not yet responded

        
    Prev12
    3
    4Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017