davidH

lol, Nogo - I am not at all dodging the issue.

(Before I proceed - what's the crack with Nogo and Nogo2?) - Same person - 2 different accounts or something?


Nogo - let me first ask you a simple question.

Why if Elohim is translated "gods" and the plural pronouns used - do the Jews see God as one?
I am starting to have my doubts that that is what Elohim meant to them.

I am going to go to a Jewish site and first of all see what they say about this. - Or maybe if you already know, would you post it here.

Because if it meant "the gods" to them, then why do you argue about the god being one? - Just something for you to think about.


You ask the same question again and say that I was dodging it - wrong, maybe you have misunderstood me.
Lets go over it again.

- Yes as it says,

"the Word was with God and the Word was God."

Now - how can this verse be? What is John trying to say here?
How can the Word (Jesus) be God and yet at the same time be with God?
- That is a question for you Nogo - what is John saying here?
...trinity....

Now in answer to your question.

Possibly - will have to find out what the Jews believe Elohim to mean first.

Yes.

Yes. The Father, the son and the Holy Spirit.

Ie. Jesus created everything.

Yes

Let me use the water example to try and get this across.

"The word was God and the Word was with God."
Liquid H20 was H20 and was with H20 (the other H20 being the gas and solid form.)

ie. Liquid = Jesus, (Y)
Gas (steam)= Spirit
solid (ice) = Father.
Elohim = H20. (X)

Therefore if H20 (X) created everything,
and Liquid (Y) created everything.
Then the H20 = Liquid (Y)

therefore gas, solid and liquid = liquid (Y).

- Yes, obviously because they are all H20 - they are all the same.

(Incase you think I have gone mad - it's the example you gave me, but I have put the water example in).

The reason why I said no the last time was because Jesus is part of the Trinity - but to say Jesus = the Trinity is very confusing, you would be better to say (since Jesus is part of the Trinity) Jesus = the Father and the Holy Spirit.

But look again at my example - can you see that although liquid = steam and ice are all H20 they are still all different.
It is the same with the Trinity.

I just fitted this into the example you gave me.
Can you understand now? - I'm sure you can figure out what I'm saying through that example.


No it is not a contradiction - as I have shown.

This is what I have been trying to say when I said 3 in 1 and 1 in 3.

The 3 are one. Yet the one is 3 different.
Just like the example I gave above.


It is not because it is what John is trying to say.

Jesus was God and yet was with God.

Wordsymth,

So you agree that it shows that Jesus = the Word.
But yet you don't think that it was Jesus John was referring to when he said that the word was God and that it was with God?
You are contradicting yourself here - if you agree that it shows that the Word = Jesus , then you agree that the Word that = Jesus, is shown to be God.
Or have I just misunderstood what you are saying here?

Not a distinction but as to why John chose to portray Jesus as the Word..

The only conclusion that I can draw is something that John records Jesus as saying.

There are many different reasons people think John describes Jesus as the Word, that is my own.

I have another question Wordsymth - what do you think to be annointed means?
- Just wondering, more out of curiousity than anything.

lol - true.

Nogo,

Yes - to see what you see it as.

It got me into no trouble at all, - it was never meant to be an exact representation as I said.

It is a mystery because there is nothing else like God - he can be compared to things on earth but they can never fully represent him.
That was never intended to be an excuse for the concept of the Trinity.
It was truth when you asked me about the differences between Jesus and the Holy Spirit and how they can still be God.

Oh really - how can the Son of God be a man?

Oh really - and is this ignoring all the plural pronouns and the possible translation of "gods" ?
Plus the distinction of God from his Spirit?
You are ignoring all the verses I gave and we debated before.

As Sojourner553 wrote here

That is what I have been doing - it is rather you Nogo, that have chosen that "God is one" and haven't examined all the rest of the verses.

Sojourner553, I think you will find that I have done just that - maybe look back at all the posts I have already made.


Rimstalker - my post is already long enough, so I'll keep my answer to your post brief and I will discuss it in more detail later.


Not to the whole Trinity, but as far as Jesus is devine - then yes.
Read over what I wrote a while back on Isaiah 59 v 20 or something - about the Redeemer.
To forgive sins is what God only can do, every human has sinned - prophecies of Jesus taking the sin are there. If only God can take sin away, how come Jesus could?
There is lots more - prophecy in the Bible is really interesting.

Get onto a website and see what they believed he would be like, it all points at Jesus being devine.

I don't have time to comment on the rest of your answer - save this.

Jesus would have been taught the OT as a boy - taught to recite etc.
Now Jesus as I have shown, when saying "I and the Father are one" would not have been referring to any old God - but the God of the OT.
This being the case - he was claiming to be the God of the OT.

- that is why the NT and the OT are connected.

Gotta go - sorry I couldn't be more elaborate with ya.
Cya.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: davidH ]</p>

NOGO

Anointed one of God was the man who God chose to lead his people out of some trouble they were in.

In the OT there were several "anointed"

Saul,
David,
Jehu,
etc.

These people were anointed by the high priest and assumed the role of king.

Luke 9:20
And He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."

Luke 23:35
And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One."

In the above just replace Christ with "anointed".

This passage refers to David who was anointed by Samuel.

2 Sam 7
13 "He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
14 "I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men,

So David was also the son of God. This is in agreement with Luke in his genealogy of Jesus.

Sojourner553

The significance of Dec 25 -- is that it was the winter solstace (of course!)


############################################
"Mystery Religions in Rome--and the Origins of Christmas

The winter solstice (December 22-25) held special meaning in virtually
every pagan religion where agriculture was important. December 25th marks
the astronomical event where the sun in the sky appears to "return" to the
earth (after moving away from the earth in the previous six months).
The winter solstice thus represented the REVERSAL of winter, and was the
event promising the return of spring. For this reason, this astronomical
event was a cause for celebration in many ancient cultures. 1

Some of the important pagan gods were associated with the winter solstice:
The ancient Egyptian god of the sun and sky-- Horus, was born on December
25th. As we shall see next, Mithra, the savior in the mystery religion,
Mithraism, was also, according to tradition, born on December 25th.
(Also see Section V, Chapter 3 on how Christianity overtook Mithraism during the
fourth century C.E.)

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK3.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GREEK3.TXT</a>


Sojourner

Sojourner553

Here is one example that meets your criteria for a pagan myth entering Christianity...

The Christian father Justin Martyr wrote in his DIALOGUE WITH THE
JEW TRYPHO how pagans accused Christians of taking the story of the virgin
birth from Danae. Justin responded,

"Why are we Christians alone of men hated for Christ's name, when we do
but related of him stories similar to what the Greeks relate of Hermes
and Perseus?...What we teach, we learned from Christ and the prophets
who preceded him, and it is a true lore and more ancient than that of
all other writers that ever existed; but we claim acceptance, not because
our stories are identical with those of others, but because they are true."


Justin goes on to say that Satan had created mischief in causing these
similarities:

"When I am told that Perseus was born of a virgin, I realize that here
again is a case in which the serpent and deceiver has imitated our religion."

Justin noted that some of his fellow Christians believed Jesus was NOT
born of a Virgin:

"It is quite true that some people of our kind acknowledge him to be
Christ, but at the same time declare him to have been a man of men. I,
however, cannot agree with them, and will not do so, even if the majority
[of Christians] insist on this opinion."

Justin explained that he did not agree with them, because it appeared to
him that the Virgin Birth was based upon "predictions set forth by the
blessed prophets." (as quoted by Gospel Fictions, P. 48) Justin was likely
influenced by Matthew's analysis of Old Testament prophecy in predicting the
life of Jesus

Here is another example by the same second century Christian saint:

Justin Martyr bemoaned how demons had
imitated the sacrament of the Christian Eucharist, handing the same rites of
bread and a cup to initiates to the Mysteries of Mithras (known to be an earlier
rite). (Justin Martyr, FIRST APOLOGY c. LXVI).

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/BIRTH.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/BIRTH.TXT</a>

BTW: Did I miss your response to my post on Mithra? Are you REALLY arguing that Mithraism was not older than Christianity? That Mithra was a resurrected god, his birthday was Dec 25th, etc?

Worship on Sunday probably came from Mithra too.

So if there were no pagan influences: How is it any Christian authority would move the Commanded Day of Rest from Day 7 (Saturday) to Sunday (which is the first day of the week)? Jesus never addresses the issue in the NT, but obediently worshiped on the "true" Sabbath, or Saturday. The Old Testament also has some nasty strictures on not obeying the Sabbath (even a death penalty). You could argue that Chistianity allowed "some" softening the OT rules -- but changing to another day...UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY?????!!!!

Seems like another example of pagan creep to me...afterall the timing is right when this historically occurred!



Sojourner

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Goodness you haven't much background in this have you?

The verse you refer to is the "only" plural reference in the OT -- and could refer to other divine-like creatures (such as angels) at a lower station of power than God.

Mainstream Judaism has never (ancient or modern) had a tradition where God was more than one entity. To them, more than one god smacks of paganism!
But do check it out!

Sojourner

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

wordsmyth

Yes and No. Jesus equals the Word, but the Word does not necessarily equal Jesus. Think of it this way… the Word refers not to a being, but to a metaphysical part of a being. For example, your mind. Your mind is just one aspect of who you are, but there is also your body and in a metaphysical sense your soul or spirit. In a metaphysical sense all people can be thought of as encompassing three aspects that make them who they are, their Mind, Body, and Soul. The mind represents your thoughts, desires, fears, etc. The body represents strength and ability. The soul represents moral disposition. The Trinity is not three beings in one, but three aspects of the same being. The Father represents the Body or omnipotence of God. The Word represents the mind or omniscience of God. The Holy Spirit represents the soul or omnibenevolence of God. Jesus was anointed by God to know His mind (the Word), to be open to it so that he might teach others the will of God, so in that sense he was the Word, but in the sense that Jesus was present during creation or was himself a part of the Trinity, no. I believe that is the reason for the distinction. Also, this theory supports the concept of a Trinity without three seperate beings.

Again, yes and no. I believe John was referring to the Word as the omniscient aspect of God which entails His decrees, mandates, teachings and even his “plan”. In that aspect, yes he was referring to Jesus because Jesus embodied the Word. John was not referring to Jesus in the sense that Jesus the being was with God or was God. Jesus the being was just a man, but Jesus the Word could teach the will of God.

I’m sure it seems as though I’m be contradictory, but I’m really not. It’s just difficult to explain. I hope I have explained it better above, but if not I will try another approach.

The second verse, to me at least, is more important than the first. To me it refers to Jesus the Word and not Jesus the person. Specifically the way he claims to be the “truth”, though people cannot be “truth”, but Words can. When he says “No one comes to the Father except through me.”, he is not referring to himself the person, but to his message, or to the Word. As my last post shows, the definition of Word (logos) includes Gods decrees, mandates, etc. So lets re-word the verse and hopefully it will help to clarify a little. “Jesus answered, “The Word is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through the Word.” i.e. Heed the Word.

Unfortunately, there is no way to tell for certain which belief is correct.

<strong>Anointed</strong>
tr.v.

<strong>1.</strong> To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
<strong>2.</strong> To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
<strong>3.</strong> To choose by or as if by divine intervention.

<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=anointed" target="_blank">ANOINTED</a>

I think it means #3 in this context. To be chosen. As I said, it would seem rather silly to imagine God choosing himself… or even anointing himself with oils and ointments.

Note: Remember that I am agnostic and so not stating this as my point of view. This is simply a demonstration of another way to interpret things.

Peter Kirby

Here is the response of Mark McFall.


&gt;Peter
&gt; Concerning Carrier's contribution to the Osiris debate, Steven Carr
has
&gt; asked:
&gt;
&gt; "Didn't In the Word commission that article, in the belief that
Richard
&gt; Carrier was an authority on the subject?"

Mac: Basically yes, but I would substitute the word "authority" for "knowledgeable." In any case, I believe my rebuttal <a href="http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/ohsighris.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/ohsighris.htm</a> to Farrell Till's essay <a href="http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/osiristill.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/osiristill.htm</a> to be strong enough to stand on its own, even in the light of Carrier's and Doherty's remarks (I also have Robert Price's on hold; along with Holding's.).

How strong you ask? Well, I published my rebuttal over 6 months ago; and I've seen Till go through different stages in how he is going to respond. Which is my point. He hasn't responded formally. I find this odd coming from Till, because, he usually writes immediate rebuttals to those who oppose. I've been on Errancy for over two years now, and I've come to see his usual patterns; and the way in which he is handling my essay seems to lie outside of his patterns.

Having said that, I also contacted Bruce Metzger in regards to my essay. He said he couldn't offer his comments on our exchanged due to other demands placed on him. However, he granted me permission to host and publish his essay entitled, _Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968, p.1-24), on the website of ITW. Presently I am working on getting this up, which, in my opinion, will bring some surplus temperance to both Carrier's and Doherty's remarks.

Further down the road I may offer my comments on Carrier's and Doherty's remarks if interest is there. However, at present, this is the first comment I have encountered along those lines.

In that regard, thanks for your interest (and Steve too).

best,
Peter Kirby

Sojourner553

I agree with everything you said. I would only add that you seem to be assuming that all the stories of Buddha, Dionysos and Orpheus are INDEPENDENT of each other. I would argue that they were probably ALL influenced from even older stories and legends.

By the way, I did not feel the need to catalogue EACH of the older pagan religions and EXACTLY which ones flowed into later stories of Christian miracles. I felt it only necessary to stay at a higher level and point out that Christian miracle stories were likely influenced by these OLDER mythical stories.


Note the references I gave earlier from Justin Martyr shows that these older mythical stories were around and likely influenced the oral tales told and retold on Jesus before they were written down around fifty to a hundred years later (ie circa 100 CE).

Sojourner

GunnerJ

...but, as you have admitted, not pertentent to OT endorsement of the Trinity, which is the subject at hand, and the only one I'm interested in.

"Go onto a website?" Heez, if you're going to be rude enough to make me do oyur homework, you could at least be specific.

Dave, this chain of discussion began as a challenge to you to show that the instances of God refering to himself plurally in the OT imply the Trinity. Your attempts at "connecting" the NT backwards to the OT have done nothing to show that this is so.

Neither Jesus' divinity nor his messianic nature are relevant to this.

You can't be serious. So we're to assume that the OT endorsed the Trinity because Jesus' opinion as a Biblical scholar was that it did? Please.

Iasion

Greetings Layman et al,

Layman wrote:
That is not correct at all.

Nicaea may have been the first use of the word "Easter" on record,
but,
both Christians and non-Christians saw "connections and parallels" with pagan beliefs from the earliest days, and argued at length about the issue :[*] Justin Martyr c.135 (as Sojourner noted) wrote at length apologising for the obvious similarities between Christian beliefs and pagan myths.[*] Tatian c.165 specifically compared Greek myth with Christian myth :
"Compare your own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories"[*] Minucius Felix contrasts Christian practice with pagan - explaining at length how the charges against Christians of Bachic orgies etc. are false (e.g. by Fronto) - showing that Christian were seen by some as following earlier pagan practices. (He also explicitly denies any Christian belief in a criminal who dies on cross, or any incarnated Son of God).[*] the great Celsus himself, (in a book so damaging to the forming Christianity that they tried to erase it from history) explicity charges the Christians with making up the Gospel narratives, from "whole cloth" so-to-speak :

Celsus c.178 [Hoffman's re-construction]
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction" [*] Tertullian shows clear awareness of the parallels between pagan mythology and Christian stories when he e.g. compares and contrasts Jesus with Hercules, covering issues such as the "virgin birth" claims and titles Son of God and Son of Man (Ag. Marcion 4)[*] Clement too compares and contrasts the mythology of the pagans with the beliefs and practices of the Christians (e.g. lengthy and detailerd discussion about 'the cross').


In short - from the very earliest times when the Gospel narratives were discussed (the early-mid 2nd century) they have been compared with earlier Greek mythology and judged as being spurious, partly on this account.

The comparison between Christian ideas and pagan ones dates from the very beginnings (and also helps to show that the Gospels are myth).


Quentin David Jones

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]</p>