Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Divinity of Jesus
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 226 of 517 (463441)
04-17-2008 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by IamJoseph
04-16-2008 9:55 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
IMHO, the religions were meant to be seperate. This is reflected in the 'MANY' nations which will stem from Abraham, and is the same seen in the animal kingdom.
If God is a reality He is the God of reality and not the God of religion.
I think you are confusing ethnic cultures with universal reality.
If there is a God that God is not the God of a national religion but the God of reality.
I mean, sure the nations are separated. But Adam was placed before the tree of life. So God intended that He would have imparted His divine life to the forefather of all peoples on the earth.
And His reason for blessing Abraham had not Israel as its limited intention but that through Israel He might reach the whole of mankind with His blessing.
And if ever there was a disconnect between and ethnic culture and their national deity, the Jews would be the most striking example. No nation would write book like the Bible about their nation and their national deity.
The Bible is far too candid, frank, and exposing too be dismissed as propoganda for the national deity of a certain ethnic group.
Anyway, it is a curious opinion to me. For on one hand you seem to argue for the Hebrew Bible. But on the other hand your underlying philosophy as stated above seems so contrary to it. What you say contradicts the Old Testament.
"Turn to Me and be saved, ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH, For I am God and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:22 my emphasis)
So we leave it here for now, I guess - that is that Yahweh is just one of many not too real national deities of a nation which is meant to be seperated from others.
One nation's God has nothing to do with another nation's God. And they are all meant to be separated and the more walls the better.
I will watch to see how long you will commit to this belief before you go back to some sense of universality of one God for all mankind.
Jesus would not sanction a single verse of the NT
This sounds to me like an unbeliever's wishful thinking.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 04-16-2008 9:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by IamJoseph, posted 04-18-2008 4:30 AM jaywill has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 227 of 517 (463550)
04-18-2008 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by jaywill
04-17-2008 6:51 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
quote:
If God is a reality He is the God of reality and not the God of religion.
There is no factor which is not known and sanctioned - that is what Omniscient means. This includes cultures and politics. One of the big misconceptions is that the spiritual realm transcends the physical: exactly the reverse applies. By spiritual, I refer to the realm of angels and spiritual beings: these look at this physical realm with awe and wonder, for they could not survive where there is death and temptation hovering every instance. The word of God unto humans incurred a great battle [debate] on Sinai - the reason Moses tarried 40 days and 40 nights.
The Angels wanted the word, and denounced it's giving to humans, who they claimed would sin and desecrate the word. Moses won this battle, argueing there was no place for the scriptures with angels, and that it applied only to humans: angels have no temptations or desires such as thirst, hunger or sexual cravings - thus they cannot steal, murder or commit adultry. Moses won. This physical realm is the lowest abode - because it fell from the highest treshold. One can only go up by how he does down here.
quote:
I mean, sure the nations are separated. But Adam was placed before the tree of life. So God intended that He would have imparted His divine life to the forefather of all peoples on the earth.
And His reason for blessing Abraham had not Israel as its limited intention but that through Israel He might reach the whole of mankind with His blessing.
How did we leap to such a conclusion? The OT gives no immunity or preferance to any nation, race or person: ONLY THE SINNER PAYS. This is varied in kind than degree from exlcusive salvation keys to the kingdom. If anything, here, the Hebrews are merely as postmen, with funny looking uniforms - and the VIPs become the recipients. But there can be no confusion the OT stands out from all scriptures by its fastedious laws which act equally for all - poor or rich, stranger or inhabitant. Democrasy comes from two OT laws - not from Greece, which distorted this premise.
quote:
And if ever there was a disconnect between and ethnic culture and their national deity, the Jews would be the most striking example. No nation would write book like the Bible about their nation and their national deity.
That is true in one sense: far from being a candy-coated scripture which ups its adherants - the OT is harshest of the Hebrews and Israelites. This gives credence to the law NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT, which has obviously been observed - and the reason for numerous instances of unacceptability from newly emerging religious groups. The dead sea scrolls add much credence to this premise - the same for at least 2300 years, which is the longest period of any document not altered. Reality says, not to trust a candy-coated document: such reality does not exist.
quote:
The Bible is far too candid, frank, and exposing too be dismissed as propoganda for the national deity of a certain ethnic group.
I understand this view, because it is very understandable, most so by strong believers. But in the end, to make it real, a real people has to be selected, not necessarilly the best, largest or mightiest, nor the one best loved - and whoever represents it becomes the bad guy. It is compensated by factors such as no oil, no great substance and no lands as the others, but with such formidable premises of 'I SHALL TURN THE HEARTS AND THE MINDS OF THE NATIONS AGAINST YOU'; 'I WILL PUNISH YOU SEVEN FOLD'; 'THIS NATION SHALL STAND ALONE'; 'KNOW FOR A SURETY YOUR SEED SHALL BE IN BONDAGE' - why would one be allocated to bondage before being born [this was said to Abraham before he had any sons]: how can one sin before they are born? I think another reasoning applies. How do you like them apples - it can be very formidable - because you cannot choose your criteria selectively.
quote:
Anyway, it is a curious opinion to me. For on one hand you seem to argue for the Hebrew Bible. But on the other hand your underlying philosophy as stated above seems so contrary to it. What you say contradicts the Old Testament.
"Turn to Me and be saved, ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH, For I am God and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:22 my emphasis)
So we leave it here for now, I guess - that is that Yahweh is just one of many not too real national deities of a nation which is meant to be seperated from others.
I am saying the OT declares many paths as bona fide and legitimate - but mandates ONE God for all path's conclusion. That is the Meaning of MANY NATIONS and ONY THE ONE WHO SINS IS WRONG. Its very logical.
quote:
One nation's God has nothing to do with another nation's God. And they are all meant to be separated and the more walls the better.
I will watch to see how long you will commit to this belief before you go back to some sense of universality of one God for all mankind.
Universality is only inacted when there is no exclusivity of any one group, or the enforcement of others as excluded. Its like going to see a movie - but one can go there via their own chosen paths. Here, it is not the pathway selected but how one acts on their path, which becomes the applicable and accountable factor. Here, a good muslim is better than a bad jew, and a good buddhist is better than a bad christian. This is real unversality.
quote:
Jesus would not sanction a single verse of the NT
This sounds to me like an unbeliever's wishful thinking.
Who says so - is that not an incoherent and bad exclusive factor? It is one which must be rejected as did Abraham when told even the most evil city was to be destroyed - it is certainly not a reason to be smug with? Christianity is quite a new kid on the block - and is post-Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Does it mean all the Hebrews, including one Isaiah and David - were disbelievers - or are they believers only if you can connect some verses to the NT? Does it mean you were an unbeliever before JC emerged - or that you are now an unbeliever because you don't believe in Islam? I think it better the OT laws be the measuring rod here. If one had to nominate the greatest believers, proven so by period of time and impact, it most certainly would not be christianity. Try this for size:
"WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR"
1.1 Mllion sacrificed their lives at this time - which is like 12 million today. Where were the christians then?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by jaywill, posted 04-17-2008 6:51 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by jaywill, posted 04-18-2008 7:26 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 228 of 517 (463556)
04-18-2008 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by IamJoseph
04-18-2008 4:30 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
I understand this view, because it is very understandable, most so by strong believers. But in the end, to make it real, a real people has to be selected, not necessarilly the best, largest or mightiest, nor the one best loved - and whoever represents it becomes the bad guy.
Yes, God did select the descendents of Abraham for a particular function. And yes, it was not at all easy to be God's "chosen people".
It is compensated by factors such as no oil, no great substance and no lands as the others, but with such formidable premises of 'I SHALL TURN THE HEARTS AND THE MINDS OF THE NATIONS AGAINST YOU'; 'I WILL PUNISH YOU SEVEN FOLD'; 'THIS NATION SHALL STAND ALONE'; 'KNOW FOR A SURETY YOUR SEED SHALL BE IN BONDAGE' - why would one be allocated to bondage before being born [this was said to Abraham before he had any sons]: how can one sin before they are born? I think another reasoning applies. How do you like them apples - it can be very formidable - because you cannot choose your criteria selectively.
IamJoseph,
You have some interesting statements. And I might at sometime be willing to discuss them perhaps in a thread dedicated to, say, Yahweh's relationship with other nations.
But I think I will try to get back to the subject of the Divinity of Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by IamJoseph, posted 04-18-2008 4:30 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by IamJoseph, posted 04-18-2008 10:38 AM jaywill has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 229 of 517 (463571)
04-18-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by jaywill
04-18-2008 7:26 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
You should first define 'divinity'. This was introduced in the OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by jaywill, posted 04-18-2008 7:26 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by jaywill, posted 04-19-2008 7:34 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 230 of 517 (463704)
04-19-2008 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by IamJoseph
04-18-2008 10:38 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
The man Jesus is God and God is the man Jesus.
That is what I mean by the Divinity of Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by IamJoseph, posted 04-18-2008 10:38 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 04-19-2008 8:22 AM jaywill has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 231 of 517 (463709)
04-19-2008 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by jaywill
04-19-2008 7:34 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
Fine. To each their own path. And I say, in the end all roads still lead to ONE - mainly because there is nowhere else to go. And no matter what path one is on - its how one acts on that path which matters.
It is a critical factor if one makes it so, but it is also a generic factor which applies to all of humanity. Its not who's God is better than who's God - this is a true polygamist condoned premise. Even in far east religions, my assumption is they rever those images only as agents, and ultimately they also uphold the Monotheism of ONE God. If, for example, a woman looses her entire family in a tsunami, and prays to her God - is it of any less value or belief? Of course not.
So all life inherently knows they have a source point. This connection of belief is very easily exploitable or distortable: we know this because all cannot be right - many are in abject contradiction. Here, the blame can only fall on the pathway or else how one acts on that pathway - nothing to do with the destination. So one can only debate a premise based on it not being seen solely through one's own lens. It has to make sense to everyone - and this cannot occur if they must see it only via another's path. Its more exciting when there are many pathways.
Or as W. C. Fields put it:
ALL ROADS LEAD TO RUM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by jaywill, posted 04-19-2008 7:34 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by jaywill, posted 04-22-2008 4:35 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 232 of 517 (464017)
04-22-2008 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by IamJoseph
04-19-2008 8:22 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine. To each their own path. And I say, in the end all roads still lead to ONE - mainly because there is nowhere else to go. And no matter what path one is on - its how one acts on that path which matters.
It is a critical factor if one makes it so, but it is also a generic factor which applies to all of humanity. Its not who's God is better than who's God - this is a true polygamist condoned premise. Even in far east religions, my assumption is they rever those images only as agents, and ultimately they also uphold the Monotheism of ONE God. If, for example, a woman looses her entire family in a tsunami, and prays to her God - is it of any less value or belief? Of course not.
So all life inherently knows they have a source point. This connection of belief is very easily exploitable or distortable: we know this because all cannot be right - many are in abject contradiction. Here, the blame can only fall on the pathway or else how one acts on that pathway - nothing to do with the destination. So one can only debate a premise based on it not being seen solely through one's own lens. It has to make sense to everyone - and this cannot occur if they must see it only via another's path. Its more exciting when there are many pathways.
Or as W. C. Fields put it:
IamJoseph,
Maybe you would feel more at home at the Comparative Religions room or the Faith and Belief room.
This is the Bible Study room. We attempt to talk about what the Bible really means here.
Your comments seem more along the line of a discussion on Comparative Religions or Faith and Belief.
Can you work your comments into the framework of "Bible Study"? Can you use the Bible to point out your concept as elaborated above ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 04-19-2008 8:22 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by IamJoseph, posted 04-23-2008 8:38 AM jaywill has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 233 of 517 (464064)
04-23-2008 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by jaywill
04-22-2008 4:35 PM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
Ok.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by jaywill, posted 04-22-2008 4:35 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 234 of 517 (514644)
07-09-2009 8:29 PM


Translation of John 1:1 scholars speak
What Do the Greek Scholars Really Say?
DJ520
CRI Statement
A. T. Robertson: "So in Jo. 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, not God was the Logos." A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, by A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, 1977), p. 279.
E. M. Sidebottom: "...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho logos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to John." The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S. P. C. K., 1961), p. 461.
E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so." "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.
C. K.Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.
C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos...That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. "New Testament Translation Problems II," The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104.
Randolph O. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate '...and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), p.4.
James Moffatt: "'The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "The word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61.
Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.
Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681.
Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into thinking that the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.
Bruce Metzger: "It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists... As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.
Julius R. Mantey: "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.' is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement by J. R. Mantey, published in various sources.
B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.
Who are these scholars? Many of them are world-renowned Greek scholars whose works the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves have quoted in their publications, notably Robertson, Harner, and Mantey, in defense of their "a god" translation of John 1:1! Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world's leading scholar on the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament. It is scholars of this caliber who insist that the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 235 of 517 (514657)
07-10-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
09-21-2007 6:21 AM


Jon writes:
What historical aspect of the Jesus situation could explain why he was deified into one with God?
pagan gods were grouped in threes well before Christianity began. From as far back as ancient Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity came in the form of Osiris, Isis, and Horus. And Indian religions have the triune god Brahma, Siva, and Visnu
The trinity doctrine developed in christianity well after it was established. The important thing to know about its development is that it didnt come from the bible writers, nor did it come from Jesus and none of the Hebrew writers presented the idea of a triune God either.
It was first instituted as doctrine in the middle of the 3rd century...so its not really a bible teaching.
quote:
The Encyclopdia Britannica (1976 edition) states: "From the middle of the 2nd century AD, Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms, both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans. The philosophy that suited them best was Platonism."
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge points out:
"Many of the early Christians, in turn, found peculiar attractions in the doctrines of Plato, and employed them as weapons for the defense and extension of Christianity, or cast the truths of Christianity in a Platonic mold. The doctrines of the Logos [Greek for "the Word"] and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who, if not trained in the schools, were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy, particularly in its Jewish-Alexandrian form."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 09-21-2007 6:21 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by John 10:10, posted 07-10-2009 1:33 PM Peg has replied
 Message 237 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-11-2009 12:26 PM Peg has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 236 of 517 (514671)
07-10-2009 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Peg
07-10-2009 8:54 AM


The trinity doctrine developed in christianity well after it was established. The important thing to know about its development is that it didnt come from the bible writers, nor did it come from Jesus and none of the Hebrew writers presented the idea of a triune God either.
This viewpoint come from one who does not believe in what the Bible declares to be true concerning what happened on Pentecost 10 days after Jesus ascended into heaven to sit at God the Father's right hand as Lord as declared by Peter in Acts 2,
32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.
33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.
34 "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: `THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
35 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."'
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Peg, posted 07-10-2009 8:54 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Peg, posted 07-12-2009 2:01 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 517 (514715)
07-11-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Peg
07-10-2009 8:54 AM


Trinity
It was first instituted as doctrine in the middle of the 3rd century...so its not really a bible teaching.
The concept of the trinity is all throughout the bible: John 1, Romans 1, 1st Peter 1, etc... It may have never had a word or name to it, which was later expressed, but I think that basic concept has been around from its inception. Whether or not Hebrews or early Christians assimilated the pagan concept of a triune deity is a matter of debate. We already know that is a distinct possibility.
ALL Christian holidays have pagan influence: Christmas and Easter most notably.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Peg, posted 07-10-2009 8:54 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Bailey, posted 07-11-2009 5:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 240 by Peg, posted 07-12-2009 2:23 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 238 of 517 (514734)
07-11-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Hyroglyphx
07-11-2009 12:26 PM


Re: Trinity
Thank you for the exchange Hyroglyphx ...
Your avies have been makin' me ROTFLin'.
Hyro writes:
Peg writes:
[The 'Trinity' doctrine] was first instituted as doctrine in the middle of the 3rd century...so its not really a bible teaching.
The concept of the trinity is all throughout the bible: John 1, Romans 1, 1st Peter 1, etc...
It appears quite likely that the majority of those who study scripture apart from doctrine may be quickly inclined to disagree. The fact that you did not decide to list any examples from the original testaments seems to strengthen such a notion. Of all the examples given above, of which the Comma Johanneum may prove the most spurious, not one was extracted from outside the Roman church testaments.
Such facts simply strengthen Peg's argument. Additionally, the clause mentioned above, indeed a tarnished prize to trinitarians, has since been removed from many different published translations due to its absence from, as well as its, widely held to be, unauthorized insertion into early manuscript texts.
It may have never had a word or name to it, which was later expressed, but I think that basic concept has been around from its inception.
There certainly is no plain expression from scripture that identifies a trinity, sacred or otherwise. Also, all things exist from the moment of their conception; the question is, where may one identify this supposed inception regarding a trinity of sorts as it is assumed to relate to scripture? Again, Peg's answer seems most reasonable apart from indoctrination. One may have an easier go at establishing the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes as a trinity.
Although, one may need to incept such a unique doctrine ... before one can begin establishing it within the Roman scripture text collection.
Whether or not Hebrews or early Christians assimilated the pagan concept of a triune deity is a matter of debate.
Perhaps the doctrine in question is a matter of debate, but likely more often to those who accept it without research. Imho, a cursory examination provides very little evidence, especially as the extent to which this doctrine has been manufactured is exposed. A more thorough investigation will likely return a very questionable, and not at all certain, verdict, which in itself proves, to an extent, that such doctrine has little to no actual support. Otherwise it should seem to be most obvious to identify, when pointing out to those who have not been indoctrinated, which is seldom the case.
I liken this dynamic to seeing various objects within cloud formations; you may not see the elephant in the cumulous clouds until I point it out to you, yet ...
Then there is the fact that what we share in our perception at that point is indeed not an elephant in actuality.
We already know that is a distinct possibility.
Very distinct. Perhaps even bordering obvious for many secularists and often even more so to what have, due to a rejection of the highly questionable conceptualization, become popularly cast as heterodox traditions. As an aside, it is quite easy, with little to no provisions for challenge at all, to provide verse after verse, upon verse, establishing that the Father is One. Yet, as far as scholarship goes, the best verse used to support a hybrid three-in-one godhead is currently a documented forgery not found in any of the earliest recovered manuscripts.
The Codex Sinaiticus, recently published online in its entirety btw (woot woot!), which contains a Syriac translation of the synoptics gospels, as well as the booklet dedicated to the name of Yochan, predates the Peshitta and has the last page of the Matisyahu gospel booklet missing. To add a further bit o' mystery, scholarship also suggests that the oldest Latin texts are missing that page as well, which draws heavy criticism towards employing Matisyahu 28:19 as a reliable inspiration which may have supported a trinity doctrine in its usual ambiguous fashion.
Additionally, the passage makes no mention of, nor does it lend any credence to, any alleged co-eternity, co-equality or co-substance which many press so hard towards. Finally, within all the vastness of scripture, this is likely the only area, and actually the most common verse employed by trinies, wherein one may, in an attempt to perhaps embolden the flailing doctrine, suggest whether, or not, the Ruach HaKodesh may possibly be asserted to possess 'a name'.
ALL Christian holidays have pagan influence: Christmas and Easter most notably.
It seems an admirer of Yeshua HaMashiach may identify more naturally with the observances that their Mashiach indeed observed, such as Passover, etc..
Yet, 'most notably' indeed, aside from all the festivals and feasts dedicated to Patron Saints, which the majority of traditionalists flat out reject as pagan concepts, further refusing to carry such observances over from Catholicism to Christianity. At this point, some may assume, 'But the early catholic tradition is christian, not pagan', without realizing that the Roman Catholic Church does not bear the name of Yeshua in any way, shape or form and is rather exactly what it has always publicly referenced itself as; the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church, thus standing identified by its own words from day one.
It is not, and was never, the 'Church of Yeshua HaMashiach' or the 'Christian Church of God', but has always been the 'Roman Universal Church' ...
And, as such, the Inventor of the Trinity conceptualization as relating to catholicism, or Katherine-ism.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-11-2009 12:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 239 of 517 (514753)
07-12-2009 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by John 10:10
07-10-2009 1:33 PM


the verses you quote here in msg 236 do nothing to support the trinity.
vs 32 'this Jesus God raised up' - two individuals
vs 33 'having received from the Father the promise' - If jesus was the father, how could he receive anything if he already owned it? He couldnt so again we are seeing two separate individuals.
35 'the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand' - again there are two Lords, not one. Jesus didnt say to himself 'sit at my right hand'. Again there are two separate individuals
36. 'God has made him both Lord and Christ' - Jesus didnt make himself Lord, God made him Lord. Therefore again two separate individuals.
Jesus and God are separate as these scriptures show. They are not one in the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by John 10:10, posted 07-10-2009 1:33 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by John 10:10, posted 07-13-2009 9:59 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 240 of 517 (514755)
07-12-2009 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Hyroglyphx
07-11-2009 12:26 PM


Re: Trinity
Hyroglyphix writes:
The concept of the trinity is all throughout the bible: John 1, Romans 1, 1st Peter 1, etc... It may have never had a word or name to it, which was later expressed, but I think that basic concept has been around from its inception. Whether or not Hebrews or early Christians assimilated the pagan concept of a triune deity is a matter of debate. We already know that is a distinct possibility.
you may not realise it, but the concept of the trinity became heated debate in the 2/3rd centuries and it caused a huge split in the early church.
Those who promoted the trinity doctrine created a huge rift in the early church that has never been mended.
Now the question is, if the idea of the trinity was always apart of christian teaching, why would it cause such a rift between members of the chruch?
the fact is it was a new idea, completely foreign to what was instituted. Christians who were loyal to christ and his apostles teachings refused to accept it.
Neander was a well respected German ecclesiastical historian and trinitarian of the 16th century and wrote: "Some of our theologians regard the holy spirit simply as a mode of divine operation; others as a creature of God; others as God himself; others again, say that they know not which of the opinions to accept from their reverence for Holy Writ, which says nothing upon the subject."
I think Neander shows that by his day, it was still an issue and not everyone agreed with each other.
quote:
Oxford University Professor J.N.D. Kelly writes: "During the first three centuries of its existence, the Christian Church had first to emerge from the [monotheistic] Jewish environment that had cradled it and then come to terms with the predominantly Hellenistic (Greek) culture surrounding it."
Then, speaking of early teachers who later became known as church fathers, Professor Kelly writes: "Most of them exploited current philosophical conceptions...They have been accused of Hellenizing Christianity (making it Greek in form and method), but they were in fact attempting to formulate it in intellectual categories congenial [suited] to their age. In a real sense they were the first Christian theologians."
kelly shows how these early "theologians" adapted primitive Bible-based Christianity to greek philosophical ideas.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-11-2009 12:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by slevesque, posted 07-12-2009 5:14 AM Peg has replied
 Message 245 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-12-2009 11:51 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024