Historically the debate about the Triune nature of God and even the divinity of Christ precedes formal canonization by centuries.
if that's correct, it's only correct because you've stuck the word "formal" in there.
i'm actually not sure when the new testament was canonized in its present form, formally. informally, the canon developed fairly gradually over second and third centuries. the source texts, of course, being (slightly) older than the canon.
and there is no triune god in the source texts. that development came from combination of multiple sources, and developed more or less alongside the canon.
But the dispute over Trinitarianism has and continues to have very little to do with whether particular books are canonical.
i don't know that this is necessarily true, though the formalized canon seems to be mostly codification of what was accepted, less formally, by different churches.
certainly, different opinions of god's nature were present in other early christian sects, so it's not like these are two totally unrelated topics. many of the documents we don't have the canon aren't present because they were used by other churches, with different ideas about god. though many of the selections for the current canon seem in spite of accepted dogma, so there's that.
Before any Canons there was simply a jumble of different, individual scriptural scrolls.
before canons there were nikons.
no, uh, the canons were basically libraries. it wasn't exactly individual, and there would be some commonality among early churches. and before the NT canon, of course, was the OT canon, of which most early christian churches probably had at the very least the torah, and most of the neviim. and this seems, to me, to be what the epistles mean by "scripture".
Yes, the concept of the Trinity existed before the Bible as I pointed put and yes, the concept of the Trinity was supported by cherry picking verses from different scriptural scrolls just as those opposing the Trinitarian concept supported their position by cherry picking verses from different scriptural scrolls.
so, no. i don't think that's correct.
there were concepts that were like the trinity before any of the NT was even written. and it's arguable that some of these concepts became or influenced the trinity, through portions of the text that were later cherry-picked. or even that the idea of jesus as "the word" came from a concept of a heavenly mouth-piece for yahweh.
but the process of biblical authorship is hilariously sloppy. for instance, the clearest picture we have NT composition is that basically two initial sects (paul and peter) wrote about a highly mythical jesus, and the gospels were written later as a kind of "euhemerization". mark was written first, then matthew, then luke, each correcting the previous one on matters of common sense, theology, etc. if the concept of trinity was a thing, one of those three authors would have put it in their version. indeed, these texts are correcting the theology away from a divine jesus; their fundamental intention is to take jesus out of the heavenly realm, and portray him has having an earthly life, at least before john backs that up a little. but even john, the latest and most god-like version of jesus, clearly has a hierarchy, as he quotes jesus as saying "the father is greater than i", which is markedly un-trinitarian.
instead, the modern conception of the trinity seems to be a way to rectify these early divine conceptions of jesus with monotheism, and disassociate them from the heresy of the various gnostic sects, etc.
its orb representing God the Father, its light representing God the Son, its heat representing God the Holy Ghost, all together One God in Three Persons
No analogy is perfect.
right, but modalism/seballianism is a heresy, that the trinity was developed in part as a response to.
quote:In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead - that there are no real or substantial differences between the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.
It is your silly idea that the Abe story is a prophecy of Jesus that YOU are making up.
i don't think faith is making it up, no. it's a pretty common reading, and i've definitely heard it in other places.
No one denies the words are actually there but to go from acknowledging the existence of the words to thinking they refer to Jesus is just ludicrous.
actually... there's an interesting consequence of the documentary hypothesis. if you happen to go about identifying the sources in genesis, the melek-yahweh (angel of the lord) business is a redaction. abraham returns to his servants (singularly!) with no mention of his son isaac, and isaac never again appears in the E source. the next thing mentioned in E is abraham having another child. prior to the redaction, it sure seems like abraham actually killed isaac.
but i suspect E is a variant of a slightly older story. yahweh making irrational, unfair demands of his patriarchs is a theme in J, and so i suspect this story initially came from J. only here abraham was likely to do as he did for lot, and argue with god.
What you are doing simply shows that once again you have no clue what prophecy means and no ability to actually read what is written without adding your own peculiar spin.
i think part of the confusion is that christianity employs a number of typological reworkings of older stories in its mythology. and it does this is fairly obvious ways. for instance, jesus specifically mentions jonah; jonah is obviously not prophetical of jesus, but the parallel to at least one part of the story is somewhat clear.
fundamentalist christians tend to eschew abstract symbolic comparisons in favor of literal simplicity, so you get a shift from typology to pseudo-prophecy. perhaps they lack a proper concept of it, perhaps it's just simpler and doesn't seem like they're taking the text non-literally.
Re: The sacrifice of Isaac shows the divine inspiration of scripture
Isaac is called Abraham's only son --> emblematic or prophetic of God's only Son who would appear almost 2000 years later
isaac is not abraham's only son. or even his first son. isaac is in fact his second son. it's a theme in genesis (in the J source in particular) that the first son is passed over for the inheritance.
note also that isaac is the one being saved. if anything is emblematic of christ, it should be the ram, and not isaac. we are the ones being saved by substition: we're isaac.
Abraham's name means father --> emblematic or prophetic of God the Father's sacrifice of His only Son to come almost 2000 years later
"father of many", again, not just one son. abraham is named because he is the father (ab) of many (hamon) nations.
Abraham had every intention of sacrificing Isaac, there is no doubt about that, and would have if God hadn't stopped him --> emblematic or prophetic of God's actually sacrificing His Son almost 2000 years later.
in the one above, you appeal to jewish tradition. jewish tradition regards this passage as meaning that human sacrifice is abhorrent.
Abraham, according to Hebrews 11, believed God would raise Isaac from the dead.
there are lots of themes in christianity about conquering death, resurrection, etc. there aren't so many in first temple judaism (when this text was written), and you don't get them until the temple is destroyed. it is unsurprising to see christianity frame the story this way.
This is also implicit in Genesis 22 because he was committed to going through with sacrificing Isaac, and yet he believed God's promise to him that He would bring a great nation out of Isaac. There is no other possible resolution of these two facts except that he must have expected God to resurrect him
no, you missed one. abraham may not have thought he was the right isaac. god tells him that his (barren) wife will become pregnant, and to call that child isaac, and he'll bless abraham's line through isaac. but... sarah actually gets pregnant right after spending the night with abimelech. abraham may have thought isaac wasn't his.
The cross is a vertical representation of the altars of sacrifice which were used throughout the Old Testament
this simply isn't true. we know exactly what ancient canaanite and israelite altars looked like from archaeology (i lump them together because they happen to be identical). they are stout, square pillars, with a prong at each corner. stone ones sometimes had fire pits. wood ones aren't well documented. sometimes they are on raised platforms. there is, in fact, a description of yahweh's official altar in the bible:
quote:And thou shalt make the altar of acacia-wood, five cubits long, and five cubits broad; the altar shall be four-square; and the height thereof shall be three cubits. And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof; the horns thereof shall be of one piece with it; and thou shalt overlay it with brass. And thou shalt make its pots to take away its ashes, and its shovels, and its basins, and its flesh-hooks, and its fire-pans; all the vessels thereof thou shalt make of brass. And thou shalt make for it a grating of network of brass; and upon the net shalt thou make four brazen rings in the four corners thereof. And thou shalt put it under the ledge round the altar beneath, that the net may reach halfway up the altar. And thou shalt make staves for the altar, staves of acacia-wood, and overlay them with brass. And the staves thereof shall be put into the rings, and the staves shall be upon the two sides of the altar, in bearing it. Hollow with planks shalt thou make it; as it hath been shown thee in the mount, so shall they make it. (Exodus 27:1-8)
now, i realize that's a boring part of the bible, so most people skip it. but does that sound like a cross, to you? worse is the fact that roman crosses actually aren't particularly cross-shaped. a better image in the old testament is the nehushtan. but you're not going to like the connotations there.
Abraham was told to perform this sacrifice in the region of Moriah on a particular mountain which God would reveal to him. It was a threshingfloor on Mt. Moriah in what was by then the city of Jerusalem that some nine hundred years later was bought by King David for a place to erect an altar for burnt offerings (2 Samuel 24). Its identity is revealed later, in 2 Chronicles 3:1:
quote:Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah...
i think you've misunderstood something. mt. moriah is revealed as the temple mount -- the location of the first temple. the "house of yahweh" that solomon builds there is the first temple. the second temple, which existed in jesus's day, was located there, and the islamic holy site the dome of the rock is located there today. jesus was not crucified in the temple. the synoptics name the place "golgotha" (and not the temple mount), and john says it is "near the city" (the temple mount was inside the city).
At the very least Jesus was crucified in the same general area of Moriah where Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was to be enacted.
When God stops Abraham from killing Isaac, He shows him a ram caught in a thicket which he can use for the sacrifice instead. This is exactly what Abraham himself had prophesied when he told Isaac on the way to Moriah that God would provide Himself a lamb to sacrifice. Which he must have expected to happen since he expected God to raise Isaac from the dead
so was abraham lying about the animal?
and in all of this, you somehow missed that the crown of thorns is clearly playing on the thicket?
Of course I think these are marvelous "coincidences" that span almost 2000 years of history, that could only have been engineered by God since the human participants had no way of doing it or even recognizing it at the time.
sure they did: the people writing the new testament had read the old testament.
Re: The sacrifice of Isaac shows the divine inspiration of scripture
Perhaps because he was sent away but certainly because Isaac was the son God promised him, and calling him his only son is what makes the parallel with Christ.
so jesus has half-brothers that don't really count?
i mean, i'll grant you that based on the text of the old testament, where the sons (plural) of god literally make several appearances. i just didn't think you'd want to actually argue that jesus had brothers.
And you make a lot of other silly remarks. The sacrifice is the atonement, Isaac represented the atonement, then the ram took his place.
correct, and in christianity, jesus is sacrificed instead of us. our deaths are commanded, but he takes our place. making him the ram, not isaac.
Re: The sacrifice of Isaac shows the divine inspiration of scripture
The point, Arach, is that God called Isaac Abraham's only son.
sure, because he didn't have the other one anymore, since he was sent away (and possibly dead).
Jesus was God's only Son, "only-begotten Son," you know, as scripture says. Mary had other sons but God had only one.
that would be incorrect. the sons (plural) of god show up several times in the bible. notably genesis 6, deuteronomy 32, and job 1/2. jesus is never listed among them, though at least once the satan is.
Perhaps it's a lost cause but I would like to run the content of Message 1502 by you all again, because I do think it contains actual factual evidence for the claim that the Bible is inspired by God,
you didn't like my response the first time, even though i provided answers that were precisely in line with the text and christian ideology, showing that the comparison of isaac to jesus was reversed. i suggest maybe you read it again; i propose at least one different and valid interpretation where you say no other interpretation can exist, and refute quite a few specifics.
As I say there, the "coincidences" between the story of the intended sacrifice of Isaac and the actual sacrifice of Jesus Christ, actual events separated by nearly 2000 years, do strongly imply God's overseeing the entire history that is reported in the Bible, which makes good evidence that this whole history is God's doing and evidence that the Bible is His word.
the stories themselves are separated by less than 1,000 years. granted, this is still a long time. but i think you're committing a fallacy i coined here many years ago: pre-hoc propter-hoc. granted, that guy was talking about time travel (he was positive the bible demonstrated examples of it), but the idea is similar. you're positing that the thing that came first was caused by the thing that came second.
at best, a rational person could maybe make a case for the second thing being influenced by the first thing. and maybe we could discuss this kind of "foreshadowing" if a) the text was actually prophetical by genre (not simply assertion), and b) we actually had some kind of verification that the second event actually occurred, and c) it wasn't patently obvious that the newer authors had read the older authors.
It was said that these correspondences are just made-up and that it's not hard to make up such connections, but of course nobody offered an example to prove it. Except Golffly who kept trying to show that the story of Jephthah in Judges 11 was somehow similar,
they're two stories about child sacrifice. what's not to get?
The common objection that it is not hard to come up with such correspondences just from pure imagination failed miserably with Golffly's supposed example, so if anyone still thinks it's so easy, I invite further attempts to prove it.
okay. challenge accepted. but i'm going to go older than the bible.
you've heard of baal, from the bible, yes? baal is the title of the northern semitic/canaanite storm god hadad. the highest god of the canaanite pantheon is named el. you might also recognize this name from the bible; it became the common word for "god", and is used many times in combination with various epithets to refer to yahweh, the israelite god.
el's council is called the "elohim" (the other hebrew word for "god" or "gods" depending on context). the elohim are composed of el's (adoptive) sons, and even though hadad is actually dagan's son, he is still frequently referred to as the son of el -- the son of god.
now, hadad fights another god named mot. "mot" being the semitic/hebrew word for "death". hadad loses this fight, dies, and descends to the underworld. some time later, hadad is resurrected, conquers mot ("death"), and ascends mount saphon ("heaven", where the gods live) to rule the canaanite panthon at the right hand of el ("god").
that's the third act of the baal cycle, and pagan god that the bible decries on numerous occasions. the baal cycle was found in ugarit, which dates from approximately 1450-1200 BCE, exactly the time people incorrectly assume moses existed, and older than any text in the bible.
i contend that hadad's death, resurrection, conquering of death, ascension, and rule at the right hand of god corresponds to jesus's similar narrative, and that this correspondence proves that the baal cycle and canaanite mythology is god's holy word.