Gooch's dad

graehame, you're assuming that the gospels were written by 1st or 2nd generation Christians--they may not have been.

As several threads in BC&H have discussed recently, the gospels are often dated to the 1st century, but there doesn't seem to be any good reason for this at all. They all might well be 2nd century documents, and therefore more like 3rd or 4th generation Christian documents.

The only 1st generation Christian writings we can claim to have are the writings of Paul, and he himself says that he disagreed a lot with what the apostles taught.

And to claim that the 1st generation Christians believed that Jesus was part of a trinity is just laughable. It took hundreds of years for the trinity doctrine to develop and become part of the Christian belief system. There is nothing at all in the early Christian writings that specifically says that Jesus is part of a "trinity".

smokester

originally posted by StarCross
me
Just curious. Do the gospels ever state that Jesus refers to himself as the 'Son of God'? Nevermind just did the search and found in Luke 22:70 that he acknowledges the term. Numerous references to 'Son of God' but this is the only time he responds positively in words. Seems to respond many times to the phrase do this if you are the 'Son of God'.
Again when referring to himself, he calls himself the 'Son of Man'.
Thanks for the link

StarCross

Hello again smokester,

Yes they do.

Thanks
StarCross

P.S. ..I just noticed your edited response. Biblegateway.com is a great resource.

graehame

On 21 Jan Gooch's dad wrote :
“graehame, you're assuming that the gospels were written by 1st or 2nd generation Christians--they may not have been. As several threads in BC&H have discussed recently, the gospels are often dated to the 1st century, but there doesn't seem to be any good reason for this at all.�
I appreciate your view on this, & it deserves a detailed refutation that I don’t have time for right now. I’ll try to get to it tomorrow, but no later than Monday.
Suffice it to say that I concluded long ago on what I regard as excellent evidence that all 4 gospels are 1st Century documents. I haven’t read the threads you mention, but I’ll explain my position in detail the first chance I get.

“The only 1st generation Christian writings we can claim to have are the writings of Paul, and he himself says that he disagreed a lot with what the apostles taught.�
While there were certainly disagreements among the major figures of 1st Century Christianity, your statement seems to imply (1) that those disagreements involved core beliefs, & (2) that they were left unresolved, so that Paul taught something different than what the Twelve taught. I submit to you that the core beliefs of Christianity remained identical whether they came from the pen of Paul or one of the Twelve, that the disagreements involved peripheral matters-- not core beliefs, & that even these peripheral matters were resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved in the disagreements.

�And to claim that the 1st generation Christians believed that Jesus was part of a trinity is just laughable. It took hundreds of years for the trinity doctrine to develop�
You’re mistaken. See below.

“There is nothing at all in the early Christian writings that specifically says that Jesus is part of a "trinity".�
There doesn’t have to be. Just because 1st Century Christians didn’t use the word “trinity� doesn’t mean they didn’t believe Jesus was co-equal with the Father. 1st generation Christians practiced baptism “In the Name of the Father, & of the Son, & of the Holy Spirit.� That constitutes irrefutable evidence of what would be called, in 20th Century terms, Trinitarian belief. Also, Christian priests of the 1st Century forgave sin, which is an offense against God. Only God can forgive sin, yet Jesus gave this authority to the Apostles & sent them into the world to bestow the same authority on others. The fact that Christian priests accepted & practiced this authority demonstrates that they & their followers believed Jesus to be co-equal with God.

Julian

I answered 'All of the above' in the poll and can certainly back each one of them up using the bible. However, I just wanted to note one thing in your post.
How can you be so sure? John 1:1 specifically says that god and Jesus are the same. Like I said, all the options are valid because the bible was written by a number of people who held different views.

Julian

Chris Weimer

Not quite specifically, though I think John's overall message is that he is god.

Julian

What are disputing? Are you saying that θεος ην ο λογος does not say that Jesus is god?

Julian

ETA: The greek translates to the word was god for non-greek speakers reading this, from John 1:1.

StarCross

Julian, Chris? Morning fellas.

Chris appears to be disputing how the original greek was to be interpreted. Julian, you yourself indicate that John 1:1 is properly translated. The greek word logos means word or spoken commandment. Here is the whole verse:

Ok, Julian. How are you equating the word of God with Jesus at this point? We must move forward to verse 14 of the same chapter before we encounter what appears as an attempt to equate the word with Jesus:

It's not difficult to understand that God's unspoken word in John 1:1 was a part of God while his spoken word became flesh once God spoke it and is no longer an actual part of him. Just 4 verses later, John tells us:

This is the same author that quotes John the Baptist saying:

And Jesus himself comes behind him to confirm John's testimony:

Ok people. Now try to twist scripture into identifying Jesus as God. Go ahead and take your best shot because it isn't happening. I know several skeptics who are very familiar with scripture (often far more familiar then professing believers) and not one of them claims that any verse of scripture identifies Jesus as God.

Thanks
StarCross

Chris Weimer

Julian - I meant that it could be translated "and the word was divine".

But, even if that were true, John is still pretty explicit about Jesus being God. (I and my father are one.)

Julian

The thread won't open for me for some reason, I suspect lag on my end. However, I do remember that thread and see nothing there that argues for an adjectival use. Liddell-Scott would seem to agree with me as it shows very little support for θεος used in this manner. I don't have BDAG.

So I would disagree, it is an equality using a predicate nominative.
I have heard it argued, convincingly, that that is an expression that merely speaks of agreement. Like I could say, Chris and I are one, instead of Chris and I agree.

Julian