About the Trinity and being Christian

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Hmmm..."involution" is an uncommon term. Perhaps you might go a bit deeper into its importance?

What it means in this instance is that matter/inconscience on its own cant produce life, mind or consciousness only if these are involved inside the matter first then they can slowly manifest out of it in the process of evolution.

 

[timtofly]

That's one view, but not necessarily the only view. Which is my point.

If Jesus was God that would be the only view. It just boils down to either he was or was not.

The point is, it's very hard to separate the two.

Of course it is. People today can not even imagine a God. Much less accept an ancient text.

You're missing the point. For Jesus to be the Messiah, he needed to be born not in Nazareth, but in, say, Bethlehem. So according to Judaic tradition Jesus could never have been the Messiah. Early Christians were very well aware of this, and this explains the whole Behlehem episode; there is no record of an empirewide census by Augustus at this time, nor of any act by Herod to exteminate all male firstborns.

I did not miss it. If it could be proven that Jesus was born there, it would not prove a thing. You for one do not even accept the Bible as it is written. You claim most of the NT was invented hundreds of years later.

Greek didn't have a 'form' for Messiah, as it was a Judaic concept. The term Christos/Christos was introduced to make a concept entirely unknown outside of Judaism comprehensible to a Graeco-roman audience.

So you do not agree that "anointed one" does not equate to the Hebrew "messiah" and the Greek "christos"?

Jesus wasn't sentenced by the Sanhedrin period. What 'the jews' did or did not hate we have no way of knowing of. Jesus was a Jew, as were all of his disciples. And the Romans did not place a guard at his tomb. There were only Roman soldiers present at the crucifixion. After death was ascertained, permission was given to remove the body. And I already explained that the resurrection was a later doctrine. Remember what Jesus said to this fellow on the cross next to him? That he would be with him in heaven that day. Now, the Gospels date from decades after the events, and by that time the Resurrection had become part of Christian teaching. (Also, resurrection of the body is an integral part of Judaism - which is one reason why Jews bury their dead. So Jews would have no problem with early Christians sharing that belief, let alone hate anyone for it.)

What historical document is this version based on?

Sorry, I'm not following here...

What would be your reason why Christianity fabricated the NT?

 

[Agent327]

If Jesus was God that would be the only view. It just boils down to either he was or was not.

Notice the if in your statement. And according to the Trinity, it wasn't either/or but and/and (i.e. both are true).

Of course it is. People today can not even imagine a God. Much less accept an ancient text.

I don't have to 'imagine' a God. And there are plenty of people who 'accept' ancient texts; most modern religions are based on ancient texts. But separating 'belief' from fact is part of what historical philology is about; in this case we are lucky to have 4 different texts all relating to the same events.

I did not miss it. If it could be proven that Jesus was born there, it would not prove a thing. You for one do not even accept the Bible as it is written. You claim most of the NT was invented hundreds of years later.

We know Jesus was from Nazareth - and yet there is this Bethlehem story that doesn't fit in. I was trying to explain that it was introduced to make plausible that Jesus was indeed the (Jewish) Messiah, i.e. that he was from the house of David (there are further complications - such as the virgin birth -, but I shan't go into that now.)
You are now deliberately misreading: I clearly said that the Gospels date to some decades after the facts, not 'hundreds of years later'. I was trying to explain the difference between the Judaic concept of a Messiah and the Christian version, but it seems that is lost on you. And I really don't know what you mean by my not accepting 'the Bible as it is written'; the Gospels contain 4 different accounts of the same story, none of them written by eyewitness accounts (they couln't have been, as for one, the disciples were, as the Gospels themselves relate, largely illiterate), something which modern theology has come to accept as fact.

So you do not agree that "anointed one" does not equate to the Hebrew "messiah" and the Greek "christos"?

Again, I'm not sure what you are getting at: the Christian concept of a Messiah is different from the Judaic concept - although derived thereof. The concept of a 'Messiah' (even the very word itself) was completely alien to non-Jews, and this is why the term 'Christ' is used: so as to convey an entirely new religious concept to a world that had no knowledge of it. As to the anointing: according to Judaic tradition the Messiah would be anointed once he was recognized as such; in the Christian version this becomes a spiritual concept.

What historical document is this version based on?

The Gospels. I don't know of any version where there is placed a Roman guard next to Jesus' remains. (It would also have no point, since the criminal - i.e. Jesus - had been executed and his body released. Why would anybody guard a dead body?) In fact there has been uncertainty about where the body of Jesus was deposited after the crucifixion, since the Gospels aren't particular clear about it.

What would be your reason why Christianity fabricated the NT?

Again. I don't understand your question. (Nor am I qualified to answer it.)

 

[timtofly]

Notice the if in your statement. And according to the Trinity, it wasn't either/or but and/and (i.e. both are true).

I don't have to 'imagine' a God. And there are plenty of people who 'accept' ancient texts; most modern religions are based on ancient texts. But separating 'belief' from fact is part of what historical philology is about; in this case we are lucky to have 4 different texts all relating to the same events.

This is from Acts 4:

1Kefa and Yochanan were still speaking to the people when the cohanim, the captain in charge of the Temple police, and the Tz’dukim came upon them, 2 very annoyed that they were teaching the people the doctrine of resurrection from the dead and offering Yeshua as proof. 3 The Temple police arrested them; and since it was already evening, they put them in custody overnight. 4 However, many of those who heard the message trusted; the number of men alone was about five thousand.

5 The next day, the people’s rulers, elders and Torah-teachers assembled in Yerushalayim, 6 along with ‘Anan the cohen hagadol, Kayafa, Yochanan, Alexander and the other men from the family of the cohen hagadol. 7 They had the emissaries stand before them and asked, “By what power or in what name did you do this?”

8 Then Kefa, filled with the Ruach HaKodesh, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being examined today about a good deed done for a disabled person, if you want to know how he was restored to health, 10 then let it be known to you and to all the people of Isra’el that it is in the name of the Messiah, Yeshua from Natzeret, whom you had executed on a stake as a criminal but whom God has raised from the dead, that this man stands before you perfectly healed.

11 “This Yeshua is the stone rejected by you builders which has become the cornerstone.[a] 12 There is salvation in no one else! For there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by whom we must be saved!”

13 When they saw how bold Kefa and Yochanan were, even though they were untrained ‘am-ha’aretz, they were amazed; also they recognized them as having been with Yeshua. 14 Moreover, since they could see the man who had been healed standing right there beside them, there was nothing they could say to discredit the healing. 15 So they told them to step away from the Sanhedrin while they discussed the matter privately. 16 “What can we do with these men?” they asked each other. “Why, anyone in Yerushalayim can see that a remarkable miracle has come about through them — we can’t possibly deny that. 17 But to prevent it from spreading any further among the people, let’s warn them not to speak any more to anyone in this name.”

This is the alleged writings of Luke who traveled with both Mark and Paul. Mark who allegedly authored Mark. It seems that he had a firm grasp on the fact that within months if not weeks after Jesus death, Peter was accused of spreading the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead.

This is not even from the gospels. I would also show where the gospels did say that Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin and that they wanted the tomb guarded, the point being that one tends to claim these passages are not correct.

Any one can start chopping away at what is written down for one reason or another. Your arguments are sound and coherent. I am not finding fault with them. The problem I have is why claim they do not belong?

We know Jesus was from Nazareth - and yet there is this Bethlehem story that doesn't fit in. I was trying to explain that it was introduced to make plausible that Jesus was indeed the (Jewish) Messiah, i.e. that he was from the house of David (there are further complications - such as the virgin birth -, but I shan't go into that now.)
You are now deliberately misreading: I clearly said that the Gospels date to some decades after the facts, not 'hundreds of years later'. I was trying to explain the difference between the Judaic concept of a Messiah and the Christian version, but it seems that is lost on you. And I really don't know what you mean by my not accepting 'the Bible as it is written'; the Gospels contain 4 different accounts of the same story, none of them written by eyewitness accounts (they couln't have been, as for one, the disciples were, as the Gospels themselves relate, largely illiterate), something which modern theology has come to accept as fact.

Again, I'm not sure what you are getting at: the Christian concept of a Messiah is different from the Judaic concept - although derived thereof. The concept of a 'Messiah' (even the very word itself) was completely alien to non-Jews, and this is why the term 'Christ' is used: so as to convey an entirely new religious concept to a world that had no knowledge of it. As to the anointing: according to Judaic tradition the Messiah would be anointed once he was recognized as such; in the Christian version this becomes a spiritual concept.

The Gospels. I don't know of any version where there is placed a Roman guard next to Jesus' remains. (It would also have no point, since the criminal - i.e. Jesus - had been executed and his body released. Why would anybody guard a dead body?) In fact there has been uncertainty about where the body of Jesus was deposited after the crucifixion, since the Gospels aren't particular clear about it.

Again. I don't understand your question. (Nor am I qualified to answer it.)

I stated originally that there was continuity of thought from the time Jesus died and the time the NT was canonized in the 300's. I was not trying to misquote you when you said decades. I was trying to figure out what was happening during the years leading up to the canon.

It is quite possible that anything could be added, but not for the doctrine of the resurrection and by association the trinity itself. Peter already claimed that Jesus was the Son of God and the Holy Spirit had been given to them and they already claimed that Jesus was the resurrected "Messiah" that the Jews had rejected. Those other claims that you added about Bethlehem and the virgin birth make no sense, unless one does not accept this continuity of thought.

The disciples were considered illiterate because they had no education. After being with Jesus and the Power of the Holy Spirit changed all of that.

Now one can say that the Christian concept of Christ was different, but it had nothing to do with the Greek term for annointed nor the Hebrew term for the same. Jesus disciples accepted Jesus as the annointed one of the OT prophecies and language had nothing to do with forming a concept that Jesus was the Messiah decades later.

 

[Agent327]

This is from Acts 4:

(...)

This is the alleged writings of Luke who traveled with both Mark and Paul. Mark who allegedly authored Mark. It seems that he had a firm grasp on the fact that within months if not weeks after Jesus death, Peter was accused of spreading the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead.

This is not even from the gospels. I would also show where the gospels did say that Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin and that they wanted the tomb guarded, the point being that one tends to claim these passages are not correct.

Any one can start chopping away at what is written down for one reason or another. Your arguments are sound and coherent. I am not finding fault with them. The problem I have is why claim they do not belong?

I don't understand what you mean by that question, nor why you put my quote on top: your post isn't about the Trinity.

1. Why are you quoting from Acts? Acts isn't a Gospel, so I'm not sure why you then refer to Luke.
2. I have no idea what 'temple police' means. They certainly weren't Romans as you claimed. (The sanhedrin had no legal jursidiction, making the term 'temple police' meaningless.)
3. If the tomb was guarded, how could the body have disappeared? (The body was requested by those close to Jesus; how would the 'temple police' now where they took it?)

I stated originally that there was continuity of thought from the time Jesus died and the time the NT was canonized in the 300's. I was not trying to misquote you when you said decades. I was trying to figure out what was happening during the years leading up to the canon.

It is quite possible that anything could be added, but not for the doctrine of the resurrection and by association the trinity itself. Peter already claimed that Jesus was the Son of God and the Holy Spirit had been given to them and they already claimed that Jesus was the resurrected "Messiah" that the Jews had rejected. Those other claims that you added about Bethlehem and the virgin birth make no sense, unless one does not accept this continuity of thought.

The disciples were considered illiterate because they had no education. After being with Jesus and the Power of the Holy Spirit changed all of that.

Now one can say that the Christian concept of Christ was different, but it had nothing to do with the Greek term for annointed nor the Hebrew term for the same. Jesus disciples accepted Jesus as the annointed one of the OT prophecies and language had nothing to do with forming a concept that Jesus was the Messiah decades later.

The earliest Christian writings were in Greek, so I'd say language played a big part. Jesus and his circle being simple folk, they in all likelihood spoke some form of Aramaic. Since messiah is a non-Greek term, a translation/transliteration had to be found by these Greek writers: hence our word Christ. (And since Messiah was a Judaic concept, then by definition Christ has a different meaning: the Gospels aren't intended to tell about a Judaic concept, but about the Christian message.)

As I already explained, resurrection was part of Judaic tradition. There's nothing new about it's use in Christianity. I also explained that Jesus simply doesn't qualify for the Judaic epithet Messiah, so it's no wonder that the majority of Jews did not become Christians. The Bethlehem story indeed doesn't make sense, unless seen as an attempt to correct this. This attempt obviously failed and Christianity henceforth developed its own vision of a Messiah. (Virgin birth relates to the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God, not of any human. One cannot be Son of God and from the house of David.)

Continuity of thought is a bit of a meaningless term when applied to religion. There's always some continuity, and there's always something new being added (Christianity itself being the most striking example, although one could also point to Islam, the third monotheistic religion.)

How do you know what 'Peter claimed'? He left no writings.

 

[timtofly]

I don't understand what you mean by that question, nor why you put my quote on top: your post isn't about the Trinity.

Every time I hear the term "Son of God" I automatically associate the trinity. I do not have to recite, in the name of the father and the son and the holy ghost.

1. Why are you quoting from Acts? Acts isn't a Gospel, so I'm not sure why you then refer to Luke.

It has been traditionally a two part volume along with Luke. One does not have to accept that, but then we would be arguing apples to oranges.

2. I have no idea what 'temple police' means. They certainly weren't Romans as you claimed. (The sanhedrin had no legal jursidiction, making the term 'temple police' meaningless.)

I never said that they were Romans. They were people hired by the Temple to secure it's religious authority. They did not have any legal authority, but the Roman Pontius allowed the Temple to carry out it's own religious justice, up unto death. Rome even let the Jews have a king, who had little authority, but allowed the Jews a sense of peace when it came to having a psuedo resemblance of a nation.

3. If the tomb was guarded, how could the body have disappeared? (The body was requested by those close to Jesus; how would the 'temple police' now where they took it?)

It resurrected. It was the temples best interest to make sure that no one could prove that Jesus resurrected. Seems to me, they would not rest until they were satisfied.

The earliest Christian writings were in Greek, so I'd say language played a big part. Jesus and his circle being simple folk, they in all likelihood spoke some form of Aramaic. Since messiah is a non-Greek term, a translation/transliteration had to be found by these Greek writers: hence our word Christ. (And since Messiah was a Judaic concept, then by definition Christ has a different meaning: the Gospels aren't intended to tell about a Judaic concept, but about the Christian message.)

The "anointed one" is a specific concept, and it does not matter the language it was "penned" in. You are correct in that the Disciples were talking about how Jesus was to them the annointed one promised in the OT. It seems that only the rich and those in charge of the Temple actually had copies of the OT. On several occasions they seem to have been amazed that Jesus had such a firm grasp on the OT, even though he had no proper training in it.

As I already explained, resurrection was part of Judaic tradition. There's nothing new about it's use in Christianity. I also explained that Jesus simply doesn't qualify for the Judaic epithet Messiah, so it's no wonder that the majority of Jews did not become Christians. The Bethlehem story indeed doesn't make sense, unless seen as an attempt to correct this. This attempt obviously failed and Christianity henceforth developed its own vision of a Messiah. (Virgin birth relates to the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God, not of any human. One cannot be Son of God and from the house of David.)

It seems to me that some get hung up on a persons "birth place". It probably happens all the time. Jesus was raised in Nazereth, therefore he was considered to be from there. You can throw out the birther story all you want and most Jews do. I for one accept that he was from the lineage of David. I realize a virgin birth may not fit, but the OT states that a virign would give birth. Then again denying this would deny the trinity, which makes all the sense in the world to me. The Jews rejected Jesus big time, why would modern man do anything different?

Continuity of thought is a bit of a meaningless term when applied to religion. There's always some continuity, and there's always something new being added (Christianity itself being the most striking example, although one could also point to Islam, the third monotheistic religion.)

I read the Bible multiple times and thus formed my views. Religion has nothing to do with it period. I am not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination.

How do you know what 'Peter claimed'? He left no writings.

How do we know anything in the NT is accurate? That is called Faith, is it not? Faith is not a religion. Religious people have faith, but most just do so in name only, and not hold themselves accountable to God on a personal level. IMO, Faith is obeying God, not searching for God.

 

[Agent327]

Every time I hear the term "Son of God" I automatically associate the trinity. I do not have to recite, in the name of the father and the son and the holy ghost.

The doctrine of the Trinity dates from some centuries after the concept of the Son of God. Don't confuse the two.

It has been traditionally a two part volume along with Luke. One does not have to accept that, but then we would be arguing apples to oranges.

Acts are from different authors than Luke, though. (So apples to oranges, following your metaphor.)

I never said that they were Romans. They were people hired by the Temple to secure it's religious authority. They did not have any legal authority, but the Roman Pontius allowed the Temple to carry out it's own religious justice, up unto death. Rome even let the Jews have a king, who had little authority, but allowed the Jews a sense of peace when it came to having a psuedo resemblance of a nation.

Actually, that's exactly what you said: check your post about it. And you are incorrect in asusming that any Temple authority would have power over life and death. The only authority in a Roman province would be the governor. The king you are referring to was replaced by a Roman governor, because his patrons weren't satified with his rule.

It resurrected. It was the temples best interest to make sure that no one could prove that Jesus resurrected. Seems to me, they would not rest until they were satisfied.

You are confusing two separate events: Jesus' body being missing from its resting place and the Resurrection, three days later. But the point was why this so-called 'temple police' would have known about the resting place in the first place. The body was taken away by those close to him and the Resurrection has nothing to do with a 'temple police' supposedly guarding the tomb.

And again, you are assuming that '"the Temple" would know about the Christian Resurrection doctrine. This is historically impossible, as it hadn't been formulated yet at the time of Jesus' death.

The "anointed one" is a specific concept, and it does not matter the language it was "penned" in. You are correct in that the Disciples were talking about how Jesus was to them the annointed one promised in the OT. It seems that only the rich and those in charge of the Temple actually had copies of the OT. On several occasions they seem to have been amazed that Jesus had such a firm grasp on the OT, even though he had no proper training in it.

You seem to be unaware of the Judaic tradition of reading the Tanakh (OT fro Christians). Nowhere is it said that Jesus was unaware of the Judaic writings; in fact, it would be illogical to assume so, since his knowledge of it clearly proves his familarity with the subject.

I did not say " that the Disciples were talking about how Jesus was to them the annointed one promised in the OT"; this is an early Christian tradition, of which the Bethlehem story (although in itself false), is clear evidence. It was only after Jesus' death and the ensueing confusion among his followers that it acquired a more spiritual sense, i.e. the sacrifice of the Son of God to atone for all human sins.

"The anointed one" is a term used for the Messiah, and it was taken over in Christian theology.It's origin however is Judaic, and the Christian concept of a Messiah differs significantly form the Judaic original. (For one, the Messiah dying for our sins is alien to the Judaic idea - at least as it is presented in the Tanakh/OT.) This explains the question to Jesus if he was King of the Jews (i.e. the Messiah according to the Judaic concept). His positive answer sealed his fate, as the Romans would never allow a Jewish king to rise in their province.

It seems to me that some get hung up on a persons "birth place". It probably happens all the time. Jesus was raised in Nazereth, therefore he was considered to be from there. You can throw out the birther story all you want and most Jews do. I for one accept that he was from the lineage of David. I realize a virgin birth may not fit, but the OT states that a virign would give birth.

Jesus was not only raised in Nazareth, he was actually born there. In fact he spent most of his life in the neighbourhood. You may accept that he was from the lineage of David', but apart from the total lack of evidence for that, it is illogical. According to Christian doctrine he is the Son of God, not a descendant from David. And anyway, the Immaculate Conception rules out any human ancestry.
of the imagination.

How do we know anything in the NT is accurate?

The NT are actual writings. Peter didn't leave any; that's the difference. The NT tells us plenty of Jesus' (and Paul's) thoughts, but very little of Peter's, his successor (and the leader of the Jerusalem community).

 

[timtofly]

Then apples and oranges it is. I will take the oranges since, I cannot shake a flu bug that attacked me. I am curious though what historical document you base your apples on?

 

[Agent327]

I suggest you read some history of Christian theology; it can be most enlightening. (Christianity, The First 3,000 Years might be a good start.)

 

[timtofly]

I suggest you read some history of Christian theology; it can be most enlightening. (Christianity, The First 3,000 Years might be a good start.)

Seems like a good read, but it is still a modern view.

 

[Agent327]

A modern view? Contrary to what you might think, both history and theology evolve; if theology hadn't evolved we would never had had a Nicene creed.

 

[timtofly]

A modern view? Contrary to what you might think, both history and theology evolve; if theology hadn't evolved we would never had had a Nicene creed.

And if you take away the divinity of Jesus, then the Nicene creed would have never had a form to evolve from.

 

[Agent327]

Eaxactly. But both the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity are just part of the evolution of Christian theology over the centuries. And a comprehensive history of Christianity shows into which directions Christianity might have evolved - and in some cases actually did. It's not something set in stone, but related to the Christians involved, both now and in the times following the crucifixion. There is certainly continuity of thought there, as you say, but there have always been disputes about the spiritual contents and daily practices of Christianity, from the confusion that occurred after the unnerving moment of Crucifixion right up until present times, where one may detect a, albeit hesitant, movement towards oecumene across the wide variety of Christian churches that exist today. Christianity itself is like a tree evolving from a single fruit, and developing many branches; some bigger than others, but they all matter, because they are all there, and they are all part of what we call, with a broad term, Christianity.

 

[timtofly]

Eaxactly. But both the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity are just part of the evolution of Christian theology over the centuries. And a comprehensive history of Christianity shows into which directions Christianity might have evolved - and in some cases actually did. It's not something set in stone, but related to the Christians involved, both now and in the times following the crucifixion. There is certainly continuity of thought there, as you say, but there have always been disputes about the spiritual contents and daily practices of Christianity, from the confusion that occurred after the unnerving moment of Crucifixion right up until present times, where one may detect a, albeit hesitant, movement towards oecumene across the wide variety of Christian churches that exist today. Christianity itself is like a tree evolving from a single fruit, and developing many branches; some bigger than others, but they all matter, because they are all there, and they are all part of what we call, with a broad term, Christianity.

I found Saving Jesus from the Church. It seems to be in the same theme that you have been using. I will comment later when I am finished. Like I said, I was not trained in theology, but reading the Bible, which you seem to think is invalid unless one understands theology. That to me seems to take away God's ability to teach one and only allows human reasoning to teach one. If one is to trust God and obey God, then human reasoning while not thrown away needs to be tested and sifted like any other scientific endeavor.

 

[Agent327]

I found Saving Jesus from the Church. It seems to be in the same theme that you have been using. I will comment later when I am finished. Like I said, I was not trained in theology, but reading the Bible, which you seem to think is invalid unless one understands theology.

That's not really what I've been argueing. But reading the Bible without being aware of over 2,000 years of Christian theology is a bit, shall we say, naive.

Interesting book title, by the way, though I haven't heard of the book.

 

[timtofly]

That's not really what I've been argueing. But reading the Bible without being aware of over 2,000 years of Christian theology is a bit, shall we say, naive.

Interesting book title, by the way, though I haven't heard of the book.

It is probable naive, but I tend to avoid religion like the plague. The author of this book puts the idea of how the gospels evolved from Mark to John over time, just like you have been arguing. This is the redaction theory of the German 19th century. It may have merit on a scholarly level. To me it still assumes a lot of things.

I have never claimed that any church has the authority to dogmatize anything. That is not Christianity by any form. The current movement in the US reminds me of the struggle of Constantine all over again and it makes me sad.

 

[Agent327]

I see.

Are you referring to the Reborn Christians?

 

[timtofly]

I see.

Are you referring to the Reborn Christians?

I was referring to those who attempt to bring the kingdom of heaven to earth. I suppose those who just sit and wait for the kingdom are not very productive either?

 

[Agent327]

I guess not. But I as I understand it the Kingdom of Heaven is either a) a divine event or b) where the believer is expected to go after death. Either way I don't quite see how a believer would 'speed up' the arrival of it (seeing as suicide is usually considered a Mortal Sin).