Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[carpedm9587]

The texts in question were written to be understood in the language of the writer's day. Translation then becomes at issue. The texts are plain enough. The "gobblygook" is the religious jargon imposed by many translations of the Bible where plain English would do. Some translators have tried to do so. But are often not free of the "gobblygook," the traditional religious jargon.

And yet the problem remains. You are uttering sentences that vast majority of humanity would consider "oxymorons." From the theistic/religious/supernatural perspective - who can argue?

Where those issues are, then they need to be addressed and specified. The explanations may not be liked by all. But will help some.

Very true, but not encouraging to all. You see, 37, many people are "helped" by conspiracy theories, which they then wedge into their worldview. That does not make the conspiracy theories "true."

The Hebrew Bible and Christian NT unlike the myths some suppose them to contain are historical with some verifiable historical events. From the stand point of the resurrection claim for Christ being true, the other difficulties are not that hard to accept as true.

Are you familiar with the Kent Family Chronicles written by John Jakes? They too have some amazingly accurate historical information, around which the author has woven and incredible, and wholly fictitious, narrative about a family that never existed.

My point, 37, is that the presence of historically accurate elements in a narrative does not necessarily mean the entire narrative is historically accurate. Authors weave such details into a narrative for any number of reasons. It may be simply to tell a compelling story. It may also be to convey the message, "this is important - pay attention!" It does not mean the other elements must be necessarily accepted as historically accurate.

[Tassman]

The creeds are not apostolic, not being the word of God. The following is an interpretation: God is not a Trinity - but the Trinity happens to be God. And there would be no God without the Trinity which happens to be God. God is the self-Existent One: uncaused Existence. Existence is not causation, but causation cannot be without existence. Existence and cause are two different things. There are the two of three. What makes the existence and cause the same thing is a third thing. The two being the same essence. Essence being the whole of the two and a third thing.
The existence, cause are the one essence, the uncaused existence. The term Trinity is the name of the explanation three Persons being One God.

The uncaused Existence - YHWH - God the Father. (Exodus 3:14-15. Proverb 21:30.)
The uncaused Cause - YHWH - The Logos. The Son of God. (John 1:3, 14, 18 - Exodus 3:14 - John 8:24).
The uncaused Essence - YHWH - The Holy Spirit. (John 4:24, Romans 8:9, 16.)

[37818]

And yet the problem remains. You are uttering sentences that vast majority of humanity would consider "oxymorons." From the theistic/religious/supernatural perspective - who can argue?

As it is a problem of language, and communicating ideas. The Biblical texts were written to be understood to the people and in the culture in which they were written. Translations are attempts to put it in a current language.

Very true, but not encouraging to all. You see, 37, many people are "helped" by conspiracy theories, which they then wedge into their worldview. That does not make the conspiracy theories "true."

Those Biblical texts where written to be understood by their original audiences to be understood as true.

Are you familiar with the Kent Family Chronicles written by John Jakes? They too have some amazingly accurate historical information, around which the author has woven and incredible, and wholly fictitious, narrative about a family that never existed.

My point, 37, is that the presence of historically accurate elements in a narrative does not necessarily mean the entire narrative is historically accurate. Authors weave such details into a narrative for any number of reasons. It may be simply to tell a compelling story. It may also be to convey the message, "this is important - pay attention!" It does not mean the other elements must be necessarily accepted as historically accurate.

There are some primary differences. One is written as fiction. The Biblical texts were written as history and prophecy being words from God.

[37818]

Oh dear!

The Creeds (and your argument above) are all attempts to reconcile what is in reality irreconcilable. Judaism, from which Christianity emerged, is a strictly monotheistic religion whereas the early Christians regarded Jesus as divine. And therein lies the problem.

Indeed Christianity stands and falls with Judaism. But since 70 CE the temple which was required for Judaism to follow all its commanded rituals has been gone some 1900 years, which leaves Judaism with a God who has abandoned them without Christianity being true. Judaism falls without Christianity.

The said "heresies" denied some truth of Holy Scripture. The term "trinity" is a name of the explanation.

It took a long time for Christianity to get its act together. Even the final canon of the New Testament developed, or evolved, over the course of the first 250-300 years of Christian history.

The New Testament writings were Holy Scripture upon being written - not when some irregular churches decided they were canon. This disagreement is between the Christians and the false churches.

[carpedm9587]

As it is a problem of language, and communicating ideas. The Biblical texts were written to be understood to the people and in the culture in which they were written. Translations are attempts to put it in a current language.

Those Biblical texts where written to be understood by their original audiences to be understood as true.

When something is written so that only those who already holds the beliefs can understand it, one has to wonder about its objectivity.

There are some primary differences. One is written as fiction. The Biblical texts were written as history and prophecy being words from God.

Yes, the John Jakes novels were written as a fiction based on history. The books of the bible (especially the NT), however, were written as theology based on history. Although that produces some difference, it raises a similar question. For the John Jakes stories, one can credibly ask, "which elements are fiction and which historical? For the books of the bible, one can credibly ask, "which elements are theological, and which historical." Just as many people take the OT literally, so they believe the stories of Genesis are actual history, so too many people take the books of the NT literally, and believe they are actual history. All we really know about them is that they reflect the beliefs of the communities within which they were written, which was decades after the events they describe.

[Doug Shaver]

The Biblical texts were written as history and prophecy being words from God.

You say so. You are not showing me any other reason to believe it.

[Tassman]

Indeed Christianity stands and falls with Judaism. But since 70 CE the temple which was required for Judaism to follow all its commanded rituals has been gone some 1900 years, which leaves Judaism with a God who has abandoned them without Christianity being true. Judaism falls without Christianity.

Judaism is alive and well AFAIK, and still does not accept Jesus as divine.

The said "heresies" denied some truth of Holy Scripture. The term "trinity" is a name of the explanation.

The New Testament writings were Holy Scripture upon being written - not when some irregular churches decided they were canon. This disagreement is between the Christians and the false churches.

[37818]

You say so. You are not showing me any other reason to believe it.

What do each of the NT texts themselves claim? Which of them present themselves as fiction?

[37818]

Judaism is alive and well AFAIK, and still does not accept Jesus as divine.

There Law, does it or does it not give them instructions which they, to this day, are not following? ". . . Cursed be he that confirms not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. . . ."


No. God does not have three parts. Jesus the man being the Son of God, is not part man and part God. The argument, is He is fully both, not mixed. The man is not God. And God is not a man.
Now here is the conundrum, before the incarnation He was both "with God [not being God]" and "was God." Tradition fails badly here.

That church is not the church Christ is building.

[Doug Shaver]

What do each of the NT texts themselves claim?

Do you believe what every text claims about itself?

And, do you believe that "What do the texts say?" is a different question from "What do the authors say?"

[Tassman]

There Law, does it or does it not give them instructions which they, to this day, are not following? ". . . Cursed be he that confirms not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. . . ."

No. God does not have three parts. Jesus the man being the Son of God, is not part man and part God. The argument, is He is fully both, not mixed. The man is not God. And God is not a man.
Now here is the conundrum, before the incarnation He was both "with God [not being God]" and "was God." Tradition fails badly here.

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

That church is not the church Christ is building.

[37818]

Do you believe what every text claims about itself?

In the case of the Bible as it was given by God, yes.

And, do you believe that "What do the texts say?" is a different question from "What do the authors say?"

That depends how you frame it. From the stand point that the human authors wrote it down. No.

[37818]

Yeah. Jesus is cited to have said to unbelieving fellow Jews of His day ". . . For had you believed Moses, you would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. . . ."

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

A statement of faith is not the word of God.


Not all assemblies of professing Christians are made of genuine Christians. There are churches.

[Tassman]

Yeah. Jesus is cited to have said to unbelieving fellow Jews of His day ". . . For had you believed Moses, you would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. . . ."

You are basing this on the unreliable gospel narratives written decades after the alleged events by non-eyewitnesses who had heard stories in circulation. The gospels are works of oral tradition, in other words collections of anonymous traditions passed down through much iteration between the actual witnesses and the writers of the gospels and undoubtedly subject to embellishments.

A statement of faith is not the word of God.

Not all assemblies of professing Christians are made of genuine Christians. There are churches.

They are ALL wrong except you because you "know" Jesus, is that it?

[37818]

You are basing this on the unreliable gospel narratives written decades after the alleged events by non-eyewitnesses who had heard stories in circulation. The gospels are works of oral tradition, in other words collections of anonymous traditions passed down through much iteration between the actual witnesses and the writers of the gospels and undoubtedly subject to embellishments.

John is regarded as an eye witness. It is generally accepted that he wrote his account after 70 CE.


Nonsense. The apostolic authority are the Holy Scriptures not the churches which spring from them. Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture when it was given by God through men.

They are ALL wrong except you because you "know" Jesus, is that it?

No. God is the one who gives the new birth (John 1:13) to persons. And those who refuse to know God are the ones whose name will not be found in His "book."