Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Did Jesus preach or proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    That is your opinion based on your subjective interpretation of periphrastic language found in the four canonical gospels as well as the torturing of various Hebrew bible texts to fit into a much later Christian construct.
    Not at all.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      I fail to recognise that pointing out a generally accepted truth in some way makes one an "apologist" for anything.

      If one assumes that a historical figure existed, and considering the socio-political situation in Judaea and Galilee at the the time such a figure would not be unknown [we know that there were various Messiahs both before and after Jesus of Nazareth]; then that figure would have been an observant Jew. That a particular Jew was preaching of the End Times to his fellow Jews and urging them to repent, is again, a conceivable possibility considering the beliefs among many Jews at the time.

      However, the various figures we are presented with in the four canonical gospels are later constructs that contain a Christian gloss. The character of Jesus we find in John's gospel is positively "unearthly" and bears no resemblance to the man of God we get brief glimpses of in Mark's account.

      Hardly surprising, given that from the fourth century the Christian church was entirely responsible for producing the texts.

      I did not consider that I was "challenging" anything. I was, once again, merely pointing out a historical fact. No original MSS of any NT documents exist.

      You have previously informed me that you have just received your copy of his work but did not answer my question “Have you read it?”

      If you have not read Segal’s work, then your comment concerning what he points out in various passages is extremely mystifying. If you have read his work then to what precise passages are you referring?

      You would struggle to find any direct references put into the mouth of Jesus.

      Given that I never wrote that it did, I am unsurprised by your confusion.

      Both Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome refer to Theophilus' apology To Autolycus. Theophilus writes of a time when the Logos of God was immanent but undifferentiated. He then regards the Logos as being extrapolated for the purpose of cosmic creation, through the medium of holy wisdom. Theophilus is therefore an early exponent of Trinitarian theology as a manner of considering the “economy” [i.e. a term that appears in late Pauline literature to signify an understanding of the divine plan for the redemption of the cosmos]of the divine salvation of the world. It is in his works that the word Triad [trias] makes its theological debut.
      It is too bad you mix such deep study with conspiracy. I recently pointed out that the gospels would have put explicit claims of deity on the lips of Jesus if there was an effort to deify Jesus (speaking in terms of humans who reject the Deity of Christ). The apparent later writing of the Gospels would mean they would have developed the deity of Christ more explicitly than with Paul. As to Paul's letters, he had to have written the letters in the first century -- they would be out of context in any later era -- they wouldn't make sense. You are relying on a late dating of writings (or redactions) which broadly is rejected and is unreliable. You should be aware that the broad distribution of the writings has led to a record that confirms early dates and establishes confidence of the original wording (especially in all essential points relating to doctrines).

      I'm sorry about misreading your point about Theophilus -- maybe there really was not point to mention him.

      You totally misread the purpose for the Messiah coming to His people. The synoptic gospels were a record of Him coming as a prophet warning of judgment. He was not seeking to speak openly (in simple words to appeal to modern people) of His Deity. He did come fully observant. He came fully in accord with prophecy. You put your own preference on things when you complain that there are not abundant and overt statements from Him about His Deity. So, I'm not sure what why you bring this up. There is no logic behind your conspiracy theory.

      You would not struggle to find Jesus saying "I am God incarnate" if the conspiratorial version were true that you espouse. So you nullify your own argument.

      It is time to worship the Trinitarian God revealed to Moses and appearing in flesh in Jesus, the prophet spoken of by Moses. If you are Jewish, it is time to respond to the message of this prophet.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        That is your opinion based on your subjective interpretation of periphrastic language found in the four canonical gospels as well as the torturing of various Hebrew bible texts to fit into a much later Christian construct.
        How do you imagine yourself as having the perspective or vantage point to overthrow two thousand years of educated people who have studied, pointed out and defended the Deity of Christ?

        What does it matter if God exists in a Trinitarian form? Does God have to conform to some conception that originates by the people that He created?

        Comment


        • Jesus clearly identified himself with God, and Paul, John, and others directly called Jesus God, so they understood Jesus was God, but not the Father. They might not have had a fleshed out doctrine of the Trinity, but they grasped it's core truth: That Jesus the Son is God and the Father is God, but they were not the same person.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Jesus clearly identified himself with God, and Paul, John, and others directly called Jesus God, so they understood Jesus was God, but not the Father. They might not have had a fleshed out doctrine of the Trinity, but they grasped it's core truth: That Jesus the Son is God and the Father is God, but they were not the same person.
            I would contend that the periphrastic language found in the gospels can hardly be considered as evidence that “Jesus clearly identified himself with God” if by that remark you infer he considered himself to be divine. It is known that pious Jews regarded themselves as sons of God but it did not follow that they thought they were divine beings.

            It is a fact that Jesus is often called son of God in the New Testament. It is equally a fact that even non Christian readers of the gospels, influenced by later ecclesiastical dogma, are liable to identify as a matter of course the title “son of God” to be concomitant with notions of divinity.

            The assumption is made that when the NT writers applied this term to Jesus himself, that they were acknowledging him as equal to God.

            In other words, the tendency, conscious or otherwise, is to insert into these early Christian writings (and indeed beyond them) and to impose upon a religious tradition, originally sprung from unequivocal monotheistic Judaism, that most un-Jewish doctrine of the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) “Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God … God of God … being of one substance with the Father"
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              It is too bad you mix such deep study with conspiracy.
              Where have I suggested any "conspiracy"? You seem inordinately prone to alleging I have written things that I have not.

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              I recently pointed out that the gospels would have put explicit claims of deity on the lips of Jesus if there was an effort to deify Jesus (speaking in terms of humans who reject the Deity of Christ).
              If I have understood that sentence correctly, there is nothing in the Synoptic gospels to suggest that Jesus was a divinity. Indeed, Jesus had the perfect opportunity to proclaim his divinity in Mark 10:18. Yet he failed to do so. In John's gospel we are presented with a figure that, while entirely alien, is still reluctant to equate himself with the Father. He makes that quite clear when he tells his disciples that "the Father is greater than I". John's Jesus can do nothing without the Father and John's Jesus makes it clear that "What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.” [my emphasis]

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              The apparent later writing of the Gospels would mean they would have developed the deity of Christ more explicitly than with Paul.
              You fail to recognise that these four canonical gospels were written at different times, at different places, and for different communities each with their own beliefs. As previously pointed out Christianity in its earliest years was entirely fluid with various different beliefs, many of which would later be deemed unorthodox and/or heretical.

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              As to Paul's letters, he had to have written the letters in the first century -- they would be out of context in any later era -- they wouldn't make sense.
              Paul is the earliest writer we have and he disappears from history around 65 CE with Christian tradition having him martyred in Rome.

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              You are relying on a late dating of writings (or redactions) which broadly is rejected and is unreliable.
              To what precise “late dating” are you referring?

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              You should be aware that the broad distribution of the writings has led to a record that confirms early dates and establishes confidence of the original wording (especially in all essential points relating to doctrines).
              Your felicitous advice that I “should be aware “is duly noted but of what precisely should I be “aware”? You fail to provide any evidence for your comment.

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              I'm sorry about misreading your point about Theophilus -- maybe there really was not point to mention him.
              He is the first Christian theologian to use the word "trias".

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              You totally misread the purpose for the Messiah coming to His people.
              Do I? On what evidence? I remind you that there had been other men who were proclaimed as the Messiah before Jesus of Nazareth and there would be others after him.

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              The synoptic gospels were a record of Him coming as a prophet warning of judgment. He was not seeking to speak openly (in simple words to appeal to modern people) of His Deity. He did come fully observant. He came fully in accord with prophecy.
              It is amusing that in your next sentence you accuse me of precisely your own behaviour. What you have written there is purely subjective opinion. In other words you have “put your own preference on things” .

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              there are not abundant and overt statements from Him about His Deity.
              See my reply to Sparko.

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              There is no logic behind your conspiracy theory.
              I ask again, what “conspiracy theory”?

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              You would not struggle to find Jesus saying "I am God incarnate" if the conspiratorial version were true that you espouse. So you nullify your own argument.
              Then kindly find me the Greek where Jesus states Ho Theos Eimi.

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              It is time to worship the Trinitarian God revealed to Moses and appearing in flesh in Jesus, the prophet spoken of by Moses. If you are Jewish, it is time to respond to the message of this prophet.
              Once again you appear to be doing nothing more than putting “your own preference on things”.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                How do you imagine yourself as having the perspective or vantage point to overthrow two thousand years of educated people who have studied, pointed out and defended the Deity of Christ?
                Call it "inquiry". The root of the English word "history".

                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                What does it matter if God exists in a Trinitarian form? Does God have to conform to some conception that originates by the people that He created?
                There had to be some orthodoxy in order to provide cohesion for the empire.

                Given the plethora of different doctrines and beliefs within Christianity that were in existence prior to 325 CE Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea in order to bring about some conformity into the new religion and by doing so uphold political stability. As the ensuing century would show the only way the Nicene creed could be established was by force i.e. Imperial edict with dire punishments for those who dissented.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  Call it "inquiry". The root of the English word "history".
                  Inquiry is okay. However, you sure have taken on a big challenge here in your attempt to verify the Trinitarian concept of our Creator.

                  There had to be some orthodoxy in order to provide cohesion for the empire.

                  Given the plethora of different doctrines and beliefs within Christianity that were in existence prior to 325 CE Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea in order to bring about some conformity into the new religion and by doing so uphold political stability. As the ensuing century would show the only way the Nicene creed could be established was by force i.e. Imperial edict with dire punishments for those who dissented.
                  So what. Political use of religion did not determine the longlasting decisions of people in the West and the East. Nor did Constantine tell Paul, Luke, John, Peter and others what to write in the first century. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
                  Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-12-2020, 08:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Where have I suggested any "conspiracy"? You seem inordinately prone to alleging I have written things that I have not.

                    If I have understood that sentence correctly, there is nothing in the Synoptic gospels to suggest that Jesus was a divinity. Indeed, Jesus had the perfect opportunity to proclaim his divinity in Mark 10:18. Yet he failed to do so. In John's gospel we are presented with a figure that, while entirely alien, is still reluctant to equate himself with the Father. He makes that quite clear when he tells his disciples that "the Father is greater than I". John's Jesus can do nothing without the Father and John's Jesus makes it clear that "What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.” [my emphasis]

                    You fail to recognise that these four canonical gospels were written at different times, at different places, and for different communities each with their own beliefs. As previously pointed out Christianity in its earliest years was entirely fluid with various different beliefs, many of which would later be deemed unorthodox and/or heretical.

                    Paul is the earliest writer we have and he disappears from history around 65 CE with Christian tradition having him martyred in Rome.

                    To what precise “late dating” are you referring?

                    Your felicitous advice that I “should be aware “is duly noted but of what precisely should I be “aware”? You fail to provide any evidence for your comment.

                    He is the first Christian theologian to use the word "trias".

                    Do I? On what evidence? I remind you that there had been other men who were proclaimed as the Messiah before Jesus of Nazareth and there would be others after him.

                    It is amusing that in your next sentence you accuse me of precisely your own behaviour. What you have written there is purely subjective opinion. In other words you have “put your own preference on things” .

                    See my reply to Sparko.

                    I ask again, what “conspiracy theory”?

                    Then kindly find me the Greek where Jesus states Ho Theos Eimi.

                    Once again you appear to be doing nothing more than putting “your own preference on things”.
                    Sorry. this is rather a scattered list of questions. You seemed to be saying that scriptures were written or redacted centuries later after the resurrection of Christ. This sounds conspiratorial to me -- an effort to recreate the image concerning the Deity of Christ that originates in the first century. Maybe you just weren't clear enough on your timeline concerning the writings of the New Testament.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                      Sorry. this is rather a scattered list of questions.
                      My "scattered list of questions" is entirely derived from your own unqualified and unsupported comments.

                      I have asked you to substantiate your allegation that I am involved in a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory".
                      I have asked you to provide evidence as to what exactly I "should be aware" of?
                      I have asked you what precise "late dating" [your phrase] you are referencing?
                      I have asked you to provide evidence in support of your contention that I have "misread the purpose for the Messiah coming to His people."

                      If you cannot answer those questions, perhaps you should not have made the comments that led to them.

                      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                      You seemed to be saying that scriptures were written or redacted centuries later after the resurrection of Christ.
                      These texts were written long after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Paul is our earliest writer and his authentic letters date to the 50s CE. The gospels are much later works. Nor can we be entirely sure exactly what any of those original texts actually said because we have no original MSS. Interpolations and redactions as Christian theology developed and had established temporal power [i.e. from the fourth century] as well as general scribal errors cannot be entirely ruled out.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        Inquiry is okay. However, you sure have taken on a big challenge here in your attempt to verify the Trinitarian concept of our Creator.
                        The concept was not formalised until the fourth century CE.


                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        So what. Political use of religion did not determine the longlasting decisions of people in the West and the East. Nor did Constantine tell Paul, Luke, John, Peter and others what to write in the first century. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
                        Without Constantine's decision to remove the prohibitions against Christianity, your religion would never have developed as it has done. One could go back farther into the history of the ancient near east and state that without the conquests of Alexander and the introduction of Hellenistic ideas Christianity would never have originated at all.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          The concept was not formalised until the fourth century CE.
                          Things again were not formalized until the Athanasian Creed. Things again were not finalized until the Book of Concord. There are always stages of change and clarification. This adds nothing to your argument.

                          Without Constantine's decision to remove the prohibitions against Christianity, your religion would never have developed as it has done. One could go back farther into the history of the ancient near east and state that without the conquests of Alexander and the introduction of Hellenistic ideas Christianity would never have originated at all.
                          Oh. If this or that didn't happen, then things today would be different. This has no argumentative benefit for whatever you are trying to say. If I wasn't born ... wait ... I was born.

                          The Jewish bloodline for the Messiah could have been cutoff by the extension of one event or another. Yet, the Messiah was born. So, it is a fact of history that what came before often affects what comes after it. Christianity relies on the testimony of scripture to correct things that later are found contradictory to scriptures. But I guess you know this aspect. Partly, I'm saying if there are improper influences (e.g., Hellenistic) in conflict with scriptues, they can be removed when recognized.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            My "scattered list of questions" is entirely derived from your own unqualified and unsupported comments.

                            I have asked you to substantiate your allegation that I am involved in a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory".
                            I have asked you to provide evidence as to what exactly I "should be aware" of?
                            I have asked you what precise "late dating" [your phrase] you are referencing?
                            I have asked you to provide evidence in support of your contention that I have "misread the purpose for the Messiah coming to His people."

                            If you cannot answer those questions, perhaps you should not have made the comments that led to them.

                            These texts were written long after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Paul is our earliest writer and his authentic letters date to the 50s CE. The gospels are much later works. Nor can we be entirely sure exactly what any of those original texts actually said because we have no original MSS. Interpolations and redactions as Christian theology developed and had established temporal power [i.e. from the fourth century] as well as general scribal errors cannot be entirely ruled out.
                            The basic recognition on the synoptic gospels is they were written before the fall of the temple. If they were written afterwards, the writers would have noted the fulfillment of prophecy.
                            The interpolations and redactions can be sorted out. The scriptures went to various groups so the changes can be traced rather well so that we can identify the original writings. It is a weak claim within a historical context to say there were late redactions. So, I'm not sure why your uncertainty about the writings arises, unless you just need this to support your theory.

                            Comment


                            • You fail to recognise that these four canonical gospels were written at different times, at different places, and for different communities each with their own beliefs. As previously pointed out Christianity in its earliest years was entirely fluid with various different beliefs, many of which would later be deemed unorthodox and/or heretical.
                              I understand how you could come to this view. There are misunderstandings of the situations described in Acts and Paul's letters. So, it is not unusual that you should glean on those in this discussion.

                              Doctrinally we mainly just have the gospel shared by Paul who was endorsed in his ministry by the leaders in Jerusalem. We had a dispute by the Pharsaical-background believers on circumcision. Then we had Jewish Christians who held to the gospel but also were strong in a legalistic judgmental attitude. The different letters showed various behavioral problems across the churches more than any doctrinal ones.

                              Comment


                              • As to the issue of your conspiracy theories you say
                                Hardly surprising, given that from the fourth century the Christian church was entirely responsible for producing the texts.
                                which is hardly aligned with common understanding or common sense. You already mentioned that the trias term was introduced roughly AD 180, so it is hardly reasonable to put emphasis on Nicea as the time the concept was formed. You imply (or say?) that Constantine determined the outcome rather than just having bishops gather to come to agreement.

                                To redact the scriptures in any comprehensive fashion, people would have to gather all the old copies and destroy them (lest they be found 1000 years later). This would be done without any record of it happening. Then they would have to write in new things to imply or state that Christ is God. If I follow you, the gospels were also altered to show Christ as deity. Yet, counter to this, the redactors did not feel inclined to put words on Jesus lips to show him directly stating "I am God."

                                Forgive me if I find it difficult to make sense of your theory.
                                Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-13-2020, 12:11 AM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X