Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Divinity of Jesus
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 517 (423533)
09-22-2007 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
09-22-2007 5:31 PM


Re: Two reasons for two questions.
Christianity grew because it was adopted by the Super-power of the period and so those living under that super-power had a vested interest in adopting the religion.
Early Christianity faced the threat of death and in no way was in any kind of position of power until Constantine. It also vied for popularity between Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, which was the dominant religion of Rome.
It grew because people were persuaded by it. It makes sense to them. I thought you, being a self-professed Christian and all, might understand that.
There is no doubt that the Gospel of John is revisionist.
The Rylands Papyrus, juxtaposed by early manuscripts of a similar era, unequivocally places the gospel in the First Century.
Secondly, in order for it to have been "revised," you first must provide evidence of tampering with a supposed original copy.
It is entirely different when compared to any of the others.
They all write about Jesus differently, just like all authors write differently. Matthew wrote about Him from the perspective of the Moshiac, Mark wrote about Him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Luke wrote of His humanity, and John wrote of His divinity. The total picture is that Jesus is all of these things, being completely man, and completely God.
“Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door and heard the anvil ring the vesper chime: Then looking in, I saw upon the floor old hammers, worn with beatings of time. ”How many anvils have you had,’ said I, ”to wear and batter all these hammers so?’ ”Just one,’ said he, and then, with twinkling of eye, ”The anvil wears the hammer out, you know.’ And so, thought I, the anvil is God’s word. For ages skeptic blows have beat upon; yet though the noise of falling blows was heard, the anvil is unharmed, but the hammer’s are gone.” -Unknown
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 09-22-2007 5:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 09-22-2007 7:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 25 by iceage, posted 09-22-2007 7:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 39 by ramoss, posted 10-11-2007 1:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 517 (423545)
09-22-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
09-22-2007 7:12 PM


Re: Try reading what you are replying to. It might help.
So what. Nothing in that has anything to do with what I said. I did not say it was revised but rather revisionist.
You didn't have to since I speak the English language. If you say someone is a revisionist, then you are saying they have revised something. And many could rightly say that you are attempting revisionist history lessons right now.
Yada, yada. Many religions faced the threat of death. Big damn deal.
The deal is, it refutes your claim of the Evil Christ Monster that swallows everything in its path. If it can be shown that Christianity was a fledgling religion, dying for survival, then it tends to undermine your point that the only reason it was made popular was because it had "deep pockets."
And yes, it was after Constantine adopted it as the official religion that fold had an incentive to join and Christianity grew beyond the point of just being another fringe cult.
Yes, but you glibly overlook the entirety of its preceding history.
The author of Mark wrote a gospel. The authors of Matthew and Luke copied much of what Mark wrote, also used Q, as well as their own independent sources.
Can I take a ride in your magic time machine so we can see evidence of this copying?
The point is that the author of John was writing a revisionist gospel, pointing out what that author thought was flawed about the then current images and beliefs about Jesus. The person that wrote John did so because he believed the then accepted Gospels were flawed, incorrect and he wanted to revise that image.
You are certainly welcome to believe in whatever you want, but it would do more to advance your assertion to back it up with something more than personal opinion. Do you have some sort of reason for why you believe this is the case?

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 09-22-2007 7:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 09-22-2007 8:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 28 by Jon, posted 09-22-2007 9:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 517 (423649)
09-23-2007 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
09-22-2007 8:00 PM


Re: Try reading what you are replying to. It might help.
If you understood what I was saying then why did you say
quote:
The Rylands Papyrus, juxtaposed by early manuscripts of a similar era, unequivocally places the gospel in the First Century.
Secondly, in order for it to have been "revised," you first must provide evidence of tampering with a supposed original copy.
Because it had everything to do with the discussion! This is what you do when you're presented with questions you presumably can't answer with integrity.
  • You claim the person is perennially off topic so that you can gain control of the conversation and direct it where you want it to go.
  • Use the words and phrases "palm the pea," "irrelevant," "bullshit," "strawman," as a way for you to palm the pea with irrelevant bullshit. In other words, its a strawman.
  • You then answer questions with questions, which is no answer at all, or you refuse to answer and pretend the question was never asked.
  • And lastly, you deride the people you are chatting with, provided, of course, they are Christian and/or creationists, bashing them incessantly.
Now that your tactics are exposed (as if most people didn't already know) maybe we can just discuss the topic. Boy, wouldn't that be refreshing change of pace?
John is a completely different depiction of Jesus than found in the synoptic Gospels
You have plainly stated that all writings are scripture-- even Archie comic books. Why then do you only attack what is well understood to be scripture, the very same kinds of writings you refer to as 'maps'?
In John we see an open declaration of identity that is missing in all of the other Gospels, far less emphasis on how to live and a far greater condemnation of those you do not acknowledge Jesus divine identity.
So we are basically relying on your incredulity at this point as some sort of evidentiary claim. Your argument is tantamount to, "it looks different from the other gospels, so it must be phony." Then lets look at something more tangible. Authors, far more contemporaneous with that time frame, all point to the authenticity of the John's gospel.
Polycarp, Iraneus, Ignatius, etc have all attested for the authenticity. If a later translation, after their death, came to be which butchered the original, this would be something to consider. But the Rylands Papyrus is clear evidence that one of the original gospel of John's existed during the time of these early disciples. It only solidifies the notion that it is substantiated through corroboration.
All of the biblical and extrabibilical evidence suggests authenticity, whereas your "evidence" is basically tongue-in-cheek.
quote:
The deal is, it refutes your claim of the Evil Christ Monster that swallows everything in its path. If it can be shown that Christianity was a fledgling religion, dying for survival, then it tends to undermine your point that the only reason it was made popular was because it had "deep pockets."
Which might be of some relevance if I had ever made a claim of "the Evil Christ Monster that swallows everything in its path".
You are constantly alluding that grand conspiracy pervades most of Christendom as a way to malign the gospel. You're welcome to do that, but don't be surprised when somebody points out that this is what you're doing.
Don't you ever tire of misrepresenting folk?
The rest of your post is just more attempts to misdirect the attention of the audience from the subject. Normal it seems for you.
Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 09-22-2007 8:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 09-23-2007 2:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 09-23-2007 2:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not 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

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 517 (514767)
07-12-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Peg
07-12-2009 2:23 AM


Re: Trinity
kelly shows how these early "theologians" adapted primitive Bible-based Christianity to greek philosophical ideas.
Are you saying you don't believe that God is of a triune nature? If so, that seems an odd stance for a professed Christian.
I'm not even a Christian but I think there is ample justification to assume that the trinitarian concept was not later inserted. There was never a word describing it, but John and Paul clearly speak about the concept, no?
Was the concept of 1 God of 3 characteristics borrowed from earlier Greek mythology? Sure, that could be the case. But what I am saying is that the concept of the trinity can be found within the bible.

"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 240 by Peg, posted 07-12-2009 2:23 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Peg, posted 07-13-2009 3:17 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 517 (514768)
07-12-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Peg
07-12-2009 6:28 AM


Re: Trinity
Jesus viewed God as his own father, not as himself, but as a distinct and greater being them himself.
"I and the Father are one."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God cameand the Scripture cannot be broken what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

"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 242 by Peg, posted 07-12-2009 6:28 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Peg, posted 07-13-2009 3:30 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 517 (514880)
07-13-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Peg
07-13-2009 3:17 AM


Re: Trinity
If you are trying to teach that God and Jesus are one in the same, and are on the same level, and are of the same essence, why would you call one the Father and one the Son?
"in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." -Collosains 2:2
Take the trinity teaching away for a moment and think about that...what do you think the 'Son' and 'Father' implies in terms of the relationship between the two?
Well then let me ask you what the Holy Spirit is then? Is that a separate entity too?
Its a mystery because the bible does not explain it. The church has twisted a few scriptures to make them appear that they are explaining the trinity but when you examine them closely, and take other scriptures into account, it becomes clear that they do not mean what the church claims they mean.
For what purpose?
I think both arguments make good claims. But I don't think the concept of the trinity being found in the bible to be outlandish... Maybe in actuality, yes, but not that some people interpreted it.

"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 249 by Peg, posted 07-13-2009 3:17 AM Peg has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 515 of 517 (535713)
11-17-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by Peg
11-17-2009 2:33 AM


Re: God was the Word
The more I read about your beliefs, the more I get the feeling that you are Watchtower. Are you a JW?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by Peg, posted 11-17-2009 2:33 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Peg, posted 11-19-2009 6:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024