Freethought & Rationalism Archive

davidH · 09-02-2002, 01:08 PM

lol, something for another topic got diverted here. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: davidH ]

Sojourner553 · 09-02-2002, 02:57 PM

To Davidh: If Jesus was "one" member of a divine Trinity --with the other members being God and the Holy Ghost-- is Jesus an EQUAL member in terms of powers???

Here are some biblical examples that need to be considered in your answer. For I see discrepancies on how the gospel writers individually viewed Jesus' role and powers.

Example 1:
After his death, John's disciples took his dead body and buried it. They then went and told Jesus. Upon hearing the news of John's death, Jesus withdrew from the area "in a boat to a lonely place apart"--apparently to reflect on his death. (see Matthew 14:12-13)

Was Jesus omniscient in his human form, since he apparently did not know of John's death BEFORE being told the news by John's disciples?

(2) Per Mark 11:13-14,20:

-- "Noticing a fig tree in leaf, he [Jesus] went to see if he could find anything on it. But when he came there he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season for figs. He said to the tree, "May no one ever again eat fruit from you! ...Early next morning as they passed by, they saw that the fig tree had withered from the roots up."

Mark presents a weak Jesus who does NOT KNOW beforehand that the fig tree was bare (not to mention it wasn't the season for it). Because he
has wasted his time in looking for figs he angrily curses it. The curse itself does not take effect immediately, but the tree is completely withered by the next morning. [Note in Matthew, Jesus again doesn't know the fig tree is bare, but his curse does take effect immediately, instead of the next morning.]

Example 3: On the other hand,

The gospel of John displays Jesus in the "weak" manner of the synoptic gospels. Instead, Jesus is always portrayed as an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being. For example, contrast the powers of Jesus in his conversation below with a woman from Samaria (John 4).

"Jesus said to her, 'Go, call your husband, and come here.' The woman answered him, 'I have no husband.' Jesus said to her. 'You are right in
saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.

The woman replied to Jesus, 'Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.'"

examples 2 & 3 taken from
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT</a>

Example 4:

Jesus promises to return before this generation has passed. Yet this verse is not LITERALLY followed, as we are all here today. Here is one verse (there are more of this genre)

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all
these things be done." (Mark 13:23-30. See also Matthew 24:34, and
Luke 21:32)

for more details see:

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

Of course the earliest Christians were bitterly divided over the "true" nature of Jesus -- was he an equal member of a three tiered Godship, did he really suffer on earth, etc before the Orthodox Catholic Church persecuted and outlawed all other Christian sects. {But even the Catholics and Greek Orthodox are still seething over past differences on this between them...

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

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Sojourner553 · 09-02-2002, 03:05 PM

=============================================

For an alternative view of how Jesus became transformed as a member of a godship see for the quoted text:

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

Quote:

"There was a furious controversy among the early Christians regarding the significance of Jesus' baptism. Those early Christian groups who were more closely tied geographically and religiously to the Jews, believed that Jesus had been BORN a man--And that it was upon the EVENT of Jesus' baptism, that he became the divine messiah. This is often referred to as the "adoptionist" view of Jesus.--That is, where Jesus was believed to have been a "man" who was adopted as son by God.

In the Gospel of the Hebrews, which was referred to by such early Christian writers as Clement and Origen, this adoptionist view is clearly seen:

"When the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him and said to him: "My son, in all the prophets I was waiting for you, that you might come, and that I might rest in you. for you are my rest; and you are my firstborn son, who reigns forever." (As quoted from the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS by Jerome in his COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH 11:2; quoted in Randel Helms GOSPEL FICTIONS (PROMETHEUS Books) p 30.)

Jewish Christian sects, (such as the Ebionites), also held this "adoptionist" view. Their account of Jesus' baptism is very similar to Mark's, except that they make it clear Jesus was "begotten" of God ON The Day of the Baptism:

"And as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove and entering into him. And a voice from heaven said, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased...Today I have begotten thee." (Epiphanius, AGAINST HERESIES XXX.13.7-8, quoted by Randel Helms GOSPEL FICTIONS P 30)

These Jewish Christian references were tracing Jesus' baptism back to traditions in the Old Testament. For example,

* In II Samuel 7:14, God says to Soloman (through the prophet Nathan):
"I will be his father, and he shall be my son."

* Psalms 2:7 tells of the Lord declaring to "his anointed" (ie king
of Israel): "You are my son, today I have begotten you."

* And in the Jewish book of Judah 24:3: "And the heavens shall be opened
to him to pour out the spirit, the blessing of the Holy Father"

The gospel of Mark appears to have been influenced by this adoptionist view. Unlike the gospel writers Matthew and Luke (who clearly present a divine birth on earth), Mark begins his gospel immediately with the scene of John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus. Although similar in account to that of the Ebionites, notice how Mark has clearly removed the "today" references from his account, making it more vague in time, whether Jesus has NOW been chosen as the messiah, or had always been designated as such:

" At the moment when he came up out of the water he saw the heavens torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him, and a voice from heaven:"Thou are my only son, my Beloved; on thee my favor rests." (Mark 1:10-11)

Mattthew was clearly unhappy with Mark's implication that Jesus was a repentant sinner needing baptizing by John the Baptist. Therefore, he added the following scene to his gospel so that John recognizes that Jesus should NOT need to be baptized:

'"Do you come to me?' he said; 'I need rather to be baptized by you.'
Jesus replied, 'Let it be so for the present; it is suitable to conform in the way with all that god requires.' John than allowed him to come." (Matthew 3:13-15)"

Luke does not appear to have been so embarrassed by Jesus' baptism as did Matthew. The writer of the gospel of John uses the scene of the baptism as a sign whereby he recognizes Jesus' messiahship.

(The "adoptionist" view of Jesus was declared heretical at the Council of Nicene in the fourth century C.E.. See Section V, Chapter 2)."

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>
======================================
and it appears trinity godships were common in pagan religions.

Quote:

--God, as a Trinity

Judaism has NO concept of a Trinity, and indeed considers such a concept as a direct violation of their central tenet of ONE and ONLY one God. There is NO reference to the concept of God as a Trinity anywhere within the Old Testament! Yet, the concept of a trinity of gods was very common among many of their pagan neighbors. For example, the concept of a Trinity appears in the mystery religions that surrounded the Egyptian deities of Serapis, Isis, and Horus. "Thus from one god I became three gods", says Osiris in describing his creation in a papyrus that has been dated twelve years after the date of Alexander the Great. (Budge, "Payrus of Nesi-A,si." p 442)

The Babylonians had a powerful Trinity comprised of a father, mother and messiah child. In Brahmaism, the highest God Brahm is conceived of as a Trinity consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. Brahma was considered the creator of man. He produced the soul first, taking it out of his same being. Then he clothed it with a body. (This is in reverse order from the Hebrew account, where God forms the body first, and then secondly breathes the breath of life into the body, creating a living soul.) In Buddhism, there is reference to the three jewels representing the Buddha himself, the good law, and last the Buddhist brotherhood or Church.

Gnostics perceived God in the form of a Trinity. As gnostics began to convert into Christianity, their earliest views of a Trinity consisted of a father, mother, and child. The gospel of the Egyptians found at Nag Hammadi speaks of a Trinity composed of a Father, Mother, and Son. One reference prays to both a divine Father and Mother couple: "From Thee, Father, and through Thee, Mother, the two immortal names, Parents of the divine being, and thou, dweller in heaven, humanity, of the mighty name." (Elaine Pagels, GNOSTIC GOSPELS, p 59)

The Gnostic leader Valentinius, taught that while the image of God was indescribable-- that it could be imagined as the Primal Father (symbolized as the Ineffable, the Depth), at the same time as the "Mother of the All" (symbolized as Grace, Silence, and the Womb). (Ibid) The mother member of the Trinity was referred to under various names by gnostic groups--including the names of Sophia, Pneuma, and Logos. Members prayed to her as the "mystical, eternal Silence." (Ibid).

One gnostic writing, the GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT, (as quoted by Hippolytus in his REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES), describes the universe in dual male/
female terms. From the depths of silence appeared:

"a great power, the Mind of the Universe, which manages all things,
and is a male...the other...a great Intelligence...is a female which
produces all things." (Ibid, p 60.)

In early version of the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS, Christ spoke of the Holy Ghost as his Mother. Both Origen and Jerome have quoted the famous passage that reads: "Just now my mother the Holy spirit took me by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great mountain Tabor." The same text also takes an especially puzzling gospel saying of Jesus -- "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot be my disciple". The same passage goes on to declare that Jesus meant by this that it is "my (earthly) mother [who gave me death], but [my] true [Mother who] gave me life."
(Some scholars have suggested that the language of the writers may have influenced the gender of the Holy Spirit.--As the word for spirit or "ruach" in the Semitic languages is feminine--whereas in Latin the word "spiritus" is masculine, and in Greek, "pneuma" is neuter.)

Gnostic teachers seemed split over the exact sexual metaphors describing God. Some viewed God as embodying both male AND female characteristics. These authors speculated who God was referring to when he said in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness". They noted that the next verse states that humanity was created "male and female". Other gnostics claimed that God was neither male nor female.--Instead God was described using such imagery to aid the believer in comprehending sacred concepts.

During the early development of the Christian church, the concept of a mother God member of the Trinity was rejected. The term Logos was identified with the son member of the Trinity, and the term Pneuma or Holy Spirit was retained for the third person (usually held to be of "neutral" sex).

The Eastern version of Christianity appears to have retained the concept of the Trinity as a divine unity of Father, Mother, and Christ-child longer than the Western Christians (centered in Rome). The Koran which referred to the concepts of Christianity taught in the East, represents the Christian Trinity as one comprised of God, Christ, and Mary. This Gnostic tradition proved strong enough to add the devotion of the Mother Mary within the Roman Catholic Church, almost on an equal footing with the worship of the Trinity itself. In the minds of some adherents, the power of Mary's personage
replaced the Holy Ghost element itself as the third member.

Belief in the Holy Spirit as a distinct and equal member of a three-personage God was NOT declared an article of Christian faith until the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E.. It was at this council that the following words were added to the Nicene Creed:

"... I believe in he Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, Who with the
Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified. Who spake by the
prophets."

This orthodox view, looked to John 5:7-8 for its official definition of
the Trinity:

"For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and the water and the blood; and these three agree
in one".

Interestingly, this verse is missing in the earliest Greek mass, and most biblical scholars believe that this verse is an interpolation. For this reason, these verses are omitted in the Revised Version of the Bible.

None of the synoptic gospels even mention the "Trinity" with one exception: Matthew 28:19, quotes Jesus as saying:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Many scholars believe the difference in tone and style of this passage makes this also to be a possible interpolation by a later Christian editor. According to Acts 2:38, the early Christian baptismal formula was "in the name of Jesus the Messiah". Also, when Eusebius (third century C.E.), quoted this verse by Matthew, he wrote "make disciples of all nations in my name." (Randel Helms, "Resurrection Fictions", FREE INQUIRY, (FALL 1981, Vol 1 No 4 p 39)

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

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

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Dr S · 09-03-2002, 08:14 AM

Just a note about the two NT fables where Jesus vandalizes a fig tree that belongs to someone else. This story appears to make Jesus out to be an idiot.
The reality is that the fig tree is symbolic. It is what gave food and shelter to the demigod Mithra in his youth. The Mithrains viewed the fig tree as a symbol of their faith in god the father, Ahura Mazda, and his savior son, Mithra.
The Mithrains were quite distressed that the Christians had plagiarized so much of their religion. They complained long and loud about it.
When the editors of the gospels added the fig tree stories no one would have taken it to mean a real fruit tree. The Jesus character is merely "giving the finger" to the Magi. He is cursing their religion, not throwing a tantrum over a missed snack.

NOGO · 09-03-2002, 09:52 AM

Quote:

DavidH
Ok, Nogo. I am going to give you a few passages and I want you to tell me exactly what Jesus is saying in them, ok?

Since you say that I am reading stuff into the verses, I will let you interpret them for everyone here.

First of all, you didn't comment on these verses I gave.

The strange thing about you DavidH is that you have failed to answer many of my points and still plow foreward believing that your position is unassailable. You want me to answer your points when you have failed to answer mine.

You are defending the position that the trinity is derived from the Bible.
To do this you need to either
1. Have an explicit statement on the trinity
OR
2. Have total consistancy in the Bible concerning the trinity

You do not have 1 and you have failed to show 2.

To prove my point I DO NOT need to find an alternate explanation for everything that you may throw at me. All I have to do is to find a few clear inconsistency between the Bible and the doctrine of the Trinity ... and my job is done.

I have shown you a few clear inconsistancies which you have not answered.

Given that, I will entertain you and answer your questions. I will then reiterate the points which you have failed to answer.

Quote:

John 1 v 1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

v1 does not make sense if you believe that the "word" is an entity. If the Word = God then it cannot be "with" God OR there are two Gods.
v3 All things came into being through the Word ...

... go to Genesis 1 (NASB)
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Most bibles translate Elohim as God as you can see above. How is it in your Bible DavidH?
Why do Christians translate Elohim to singular God as opposed to plural?

So Elohim created all the things in the world according to Gen 1.

If John is correct that "All things came into being through Him (the Word)" Jn:1-v3

then the only possible conclusion is

Elohim = Word.

Another mystery for you, right?, David.

You are the first person that I know who claims that the plural Elohim refers to the trinity. Now you can see the inconsistancies that arise because of it.

Here is my take on John 1.
The "word" in John 1 is the word of God. Any prophet which speaks the word of God is an incarnation of the word. In Genesis the "word" of God has power. God said "Let there be light" and there was. Therefore the "word" created light. The word of God created everything. So John claims that Jesus is the incarnation of the word of God and is therefore the son of God. In the OT the anointed one of God (ie Christ) were refered to as "son of God".

If the "Word" created all according to John and Genesis says that it was "Elohim" that created everything then "Word" and "Elohim" are one and the same. If not, why not?

v14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So the Word was "begotten from the Father".
Wait a minute
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

How can that be if the Word was "begotten from" the Father then the Father was first.
If the Father was first then the Father was alone in the begining.

See how confused it is if you think of the "word" as an separate entity.

If the word is just the "word of God" then God was alone but the word was with Him.

Quote:

DavidH
Also please explain again what Jesus meant when he said,

John 10 v 30 I and the Father are one

I suggest reading things in context and forgetting for a while the idea of trinity.

Quote:

John 10:29-36
"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
"I and the Father are one."
The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"
The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?
"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

Note "I showed you many good works from the Father"
Jesus is stating that the good works (miracles) are not from him but from God.
This also ties back with being called "good" since only God is good. This also ties back to the fact that Moses performed miracles but nobody ever said that Moses was God nor a member of the trinity.

Jesus says that scriptures call GODS those "to whom the word of God came"
Jesus claims to be one with God in the sense that he received God's word.
Keep in mind that the spirit of God came to Jesus after his baptism and was led my it from that point on.

Quote:

John 14
7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.
12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.
13 "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Note "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His works".

Jesus is claiming that the Father (ie God) is speaking and acting through him. He is not saying that he is saying or doing all these things himself.

Jesus has received the "Word" of God. Jesus IS NOT the "Word", he has received it.

Remember David receiving the spirit of God when Samuel anointed him.
Remember Jesus receiving the spirit of God after his baptism.
Both were guided by the spirit of God. (So it is claimed)
They were both one with the Father because they did the Father's works.

The following refers to David in the OT

2 Samuel 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 who was the anointed one of God (anointed one was translated into Greek as Christ) was also refered to as the son of God.

In John 10:29-36 Jesus explain that the Bible calls sons of God those to whom the word of God came. John 14:10 Jesus says that he speaks not his own words but God's.

v11 otherwise believe because of the works themselves.
ie the works of God.

v12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do;

Jesus is saying that anybody that believes can do the works of God and even greater works than Jesus did.

In conclusion Jesus states clearly that he does not do any of the miracles nor speaks any of the words. These things come from God.

Jesus claims that the Bible call Gods tose to whom the word of God came.

Jesus received the spirit of God during or after his baptism just like David received the spirit of God during or after his anointing.

Jesus and David were both led by the spirit of God.

Jesus and David were both the anointed one of God (ie christ in Greek)

Therefore Jesus is NOT CLAIMING to be God.
Other have erroneously made that claim based on a misunderstanding of Jewish culture

ISSUES WHICH YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED

Issue 1
After Jesus' baptism it is said that "Jesus was led my the spirit into the desert"
Why does the Son who is a member of the trinity of God need to be led by the Spirit of God who is another member of the trinity? The Son is also God needs to be led by the Spirit of God !?!?

In the following verse Samuel anoints David. Please remember that Christ means the anointed one of God.

1 Samuel 16:13
Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward. And Samuel arose and went to Ramah.

Note that after David was anointed the spirit of Yahweh came upon him from that day foreward.

David was guided by the spirit of God because he was the anointed one of God (the Christ if you will)

David was a man and so was Jesus. Jesus was guided by the spirit of God because he was the anointed one of God ie the Christ (in Hebrew mythology).

Issue 2

Mt24:36
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

If Jesus and the Father are one then why is it that Jesus does not know the day and hour of his return?

Jesus admits that he is limited. He does not know something. Therefore he cannot be the God described in the OT.

Issue 3

Mark 10:18
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

First a rhetorical question which Jesus expects no answer since he immediately gives one.

Second a clear statement that noone except God is good.

Conclusion Jesus is not God.

Issue 4
According to the Bible Moses did all sort of miracles but noone claimed that he was God.

Also
Jesus cured a man who was blind from birth. Did the man call Jesus God because he witnessed a miracle? No, he called him the "anointed one of God" which is the same title given to David and several other Kings of Israel.

See DavidH, only Christians think that just because a man does a few tricks then he is God. Jews always believed that "MEN of God" were capable of miracles. This is how Christianity got all this messed up.

Sorry for the long post.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

GunnerJ · 09-03-2002, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Firstly let me answer Rimstalker.

At least you acknowledge that the word "we" or "us" = plural. !!
Ok, so we have God referring to himself as plural.
Therefore how many singulars are there? - We look in the Bible for clues - we find them and see that there are 3 that are referred to.

Thanks for the reply.

I always acknowledge the plural nature of the word used, especially in Genesis, where it leads to interesing problems... the word for god used in Genesis in the part where "we" is used as a first person pronoun is "Elohim," which means, "the Gods."

I've actually had NOGO's "royal we" argument used by a Christian to defend against this! Unfortuantely, I would disagree with him the the first person pural is used as a "royal we" in the Bible.

Now, how did you derive that three "singulars" are refered to? I would not argue that in the New Testament three "entities" are mentioned in relationship with the godhead (although, I doubt that by time it was written, the Trinity had been hammered out yet.) But why are we to assume that the use in the OLD Testament refers to those later-mentioned entities?

Perhaps most importnat, if god was a trinity, and wanted us to know this (and it is an important issue, due to the infighting about it and arguments leveled against it as a pagan ripoff), why would he make us "search for clues?" Wouldn't is be stated flat-out?

davidH · 09-03-2002, 02:10 PM

Nogo, the issues that you have raised are too many for me to cover at once. If we discuss a point at a time then we will start to get somewhere.

In this answer I am going to concentrate on what Nogo wrote.

Thanks for giving me your interpretation of John 1.

Quote:

John 1 v 1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

You wrote;

v1 does not make sense if you believe that the "word" is an entity. If the Word = God then it cannot be "with" God OR there are two Gods.
v3 All things came into being through the Word ...

You are turning a blind eye Nogo.
Let me tell you what John was saying, I will go through it all and you will see that I am not reading between the lines.

John clearly states that the word was God - fact.
John clearly states that the word was with God.
-fact.

Quote:

then the only possible conclusion is

Elohim = Word.

Yes, you have reached the right conclusion here.

Quote:

The "word" in John 1 is the word of God.

Jesus has received the "Word" of God. Jesus IS NOT the "Word", he has received it.

WRONG.

That is where you have made your first mistake. Read John 1 - nowhere does John say that Jesus received the word of God.

Let me explain.

The Word = God. - according to the first verses as you pointed out.

Now lets look at the rest of the verses.

Quote:

John 1 v 15
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory the glory of the One and Only (or the Only begotten) who came from the father, full of grace and truth.

Ok, ..the Word became flesh and made his dwelling amoung us.
We have seen his glory...

John is referring very very obviously to the Word being a person - a male person. God becoming man.
Do you see this Nogo? - Am I reading between the lines again?

Then lets go on - the very next verse continuing.

Quote:

John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, "He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me."

John (the Baptist) is obviously referring to the Word when he says this. - It can be nothing else because John is talking only about the Word here.
This is obvious.

Now, John the Baptist said this in John 1 v 30

Quote:

v29
The next day John (the Baptist) saw Jesus coming towards him and said, "Look the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
v30
This was he of whom I said, "He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me."

So to deny that the Word refers to Jesus is totally wrong. - Can you see this Nogo?

Now John (the Baptist) when he says that the one who was after him was before him - what is he saying? That is total rubbish, because it can't be....
John (the Baptist) is obviously referring to Jesus being God. - As is John when he is talking about the Word.

Nogo - didn't you read the whole passage or what?
It is self explanitory - no other conclusion can be taken from it.

For you to claim the Word refers to the Word of God is totally contrary to what this passage is saying.

This passage is saying that Jesus is God - to deny it is absurd.

Now then we move again to the first verses.

"the Word (Jesus) was God, and the Word (Jesus) was with God.

As you put it Nogo

Quote:

If the Word = God then it cannot be "with" God OR there are two Gods.

You still don't get it do you?
This is part of the Trinity.
The Word (Jesus) is distinct from God, but the Word (Jesus) is God in the fullest sense.
It is what I have been saying all along.

Quote:

You are the first person that I know who claims that the plural Elohim refers to the trinity.

I didn't claim this. I don't know what that word meant to the people of Israel - maybe you could ask a Jewish Rabbi on a site and he would be better qualified to tell you.

Quote:

So the Word was "begotten from the Father".
Wait a minute
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

How can that be if the Word was "begotten from" the Father then the Father was first.
If the Father was first then the Father was alone in the begining.

Yes the Word (Jesus) came from the Father, not as in was produced but as he came from the Father,
hence the reason why he was "given".

Quote:

See how confused it is if you think of the "word" as an separate entity.

You have to think of it as a separate entity since John says that it is a separate entity - it is you rather than me who is reading between the lines and leaving out what John so obviously says.

Then you go on to argue about what Jesus meant when he said , "I and the Father are one."

You give the passage and yet you don't explain anything - you just take out a verse and use it to ask me another question.

In the passage you have shown;

Quote:

The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

And yet you make no comment on this? The Jews knew that Jesus was saying he was one with God , why is it so hard for you to admit it too?

Now, I will answer what you post up after this.

I will explain what Jesus is saying in the passage.

Quote:

John 10:29-36
"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
"I and the Father are one."
The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"
The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?
"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

Now Nogo, it is very interesting that you have posted up only these verses - you have left out the most important ones and this twists what Jesus is saying. You have taken what he has said, totally out of context.

Why did you do this? Did you only copy and paste it from a site that debates this?
This is one of the most destructive things that you can do.

Let me post up the verses that you left out, you have only posted to v 35 - not to verse 36 as was written at the top of your passage.

I'll post your whole passage with the rest.

Quote:

v36
"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
"I and the Father are one."
The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"
The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?
"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you acuse me of blasphemy because I said, " I am God's Son"?

Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.

Ok Nogo - does this now change what Jesus was saying?

From the passage you posted it looks like Jesus was only meaning that he said that he was the son of God because the word of the Lord had come to him. - Very deceiving, until you see what Jesus says next.

Jesus then goes on to say - what about the one the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world.

Note the singular here!! "the one" That meaning himself.

Jesus is basically saying that you can't stone anyone for saying that he is God's son - because all those to whom the word of God comes are "gods". He then goes on to justify himself - but what about the one that was set apart and sent into the world by God...why then do you accuse me of blasphemy?

So Jesus is separating himself from the group that are called "gods".
It is obvious.

Also, where is it written in the Bible of Christ
- that the word of the LORD came to him?
It is written of other prophets - even of John the Baptist (Luke 3 v 2) , but it is not written of Jesus.
The Holy Spirit coming on people is not " the word of God". The word of God is what God is saying, as I showed before the Spirit is God, is a "thing", not what God is saying.

If the word of the LORD never came to Jesus then he can't be a "god". Yet he claims to be one with God - it is obvious that he is referring to himself when he says

Quote:

what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you acuse me of blasphemy because I said, " I am God's Son"?

You mention the following

Quote:

Note "I showed you many good works from the Father"
Jesus is stating that the good works (miracles) are not from him but from God.
This also ties back with being called "good" since only God is good. This also ties back to the fact that Moses performed miracles but nobody ever said that Moses was God nor a member of the trinity.

Firstly about the good works. You have again taken one verse and not included others.
Here are the others.

Quote:

John 10 v 25
...The miracles I do in my Father's name..

v 38
...believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and, I am in the Father.

Nogo, if you give someone a gift in your Father's name - what does that mean?

It means that you are giving the gift on behalf of your Father. Jesus did the miracles in his Father's name - so that the glory wouldn't go to him, but to his Father.

Quote:

John 12 v 28
Father, glorify your name!
Then a voice came from heaven, " I have glorified it and will glorify it again."

Jesus wasn't glorified - God the Father was.

v 23
"The hour has come for the son of man to be glorified."

Was not the voice of God speaking from heaven going to be glorified in Jesus death? I think so.

You bring up Mark 10v18 again.

Ok, you have taken this verse completely out of the context of scripture. You see the meaning you put on the verse contradicts everything that Jesus has said about him being God - the verses that I have already shown you.
Therefore why would Jesus claim to be God - so that the Jews nearly stoned him, and yet on this occasion deny being God?

Your thinking is faulty - because Jesus wasn't denying being God, he was getting the man to think!
Jesus tries to get the young man to think. Why should he call Jesus good? There is only One who is good, and that is God. If he is calling Jesus good, then Jesus is God.

Can you not see this? But you keep on putting on this interpretation that goes against everything Jesus says and also that the disciples say.

You also mention alot of verses about the Holy Spirit coming down on people.
- That is not the "word of God" that is talked about.

Quote:

In John 10:29-36 Jesus explain that the Bible calls sons of God those to whom the word of God came. John 14:10 Jesus says that he speaks not his own words but God's.

No, that is not what John 14 v 10 says.

Quote:

Don't you believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather it is the Father living in me, who is doing his work.

Jesus never says that the words aren't his own.
He says they aren't just his own i.e they aren't only his words - but they belong to someone else as well. - Father God.
This being said, Jesus would have to be God and yet different from his Father for this to be so.

Quote:

v12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do;

Jesus is saying that anybody that believes can do the works of God and even greater works than Jesus did.

Maybe that is because even greater works will be needed to convince the unbelieving?

Quote:

In conclusion Jesus states clearly that he does not do any of the miracles nor speaks any of the words. These things come from God.

As I have shown - that is completely wrong. They come from both Jesus and the Father because both are God and yet both are different.

This is the Trinity! Jesus is different from the Father and the Holy Spirit yet all three are God.

This is what I have been showing you all along, but you don't believe me because you put your own interpretation to the scriptures.
You don't want it to mean that do you Nogo?

John 1 clearly shows that Jesus is God - I have shown that clearly - it is totally absurd to argue otherwise.

Therefore the Trinity wasn't fabricated by the early church, it couldn't have been because it was taught in the Bible and obvious to all.

I will answer your other issues (some have been covered) next time, because I've written too much already.
Cya.

davidH · 09-03-2002, 02:13 PM

Sorry hadn't seen your post Rimstalker before i started typing.

Will reply to you all later.

09-03-2002, 05:34 PM

Quote:

NOGO:
Elohim = Word.

DavidH:
Yes, you have reached the right conclusion here.

Is that so?
It seems that you have missed my point completely.

Elohim as you have already stated is God in the plural which you claim is so because of the trinity.

Therefore

Elohim = Gods = All three members of the trinity.

So how can Elohim = Word
who is only one member of the trinity.

Do you see the problem now?

John 1 says that the Word created everything.
Genesis 1 says that it was Elohim.

We have a contradiction ...
if the Word is one member of three in the trinity.

We have no contradiction otherwise.

You need to fix this contradiction in order to continue believing in the trinity.

I will go the next point after you answer this one.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO2 ]

Sojourner553 · 09-03-2002, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr S:
When the editors of the gospels added the fig tree stories no one would have taken it to mean a real fruit tree.

In like manner, maybe the "editors" added all the stories on "miracles"... attributing them to Jesus instead of Mithra. (The walking on water story, however was probably originally plagerized from an earlier story told of Buddha)

Sojourner

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

09-02-2002, 01:08 PM	#71
davidH Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: N.Ireland Posts: 527	lol, something for another topic got diverted here. <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> [ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: davidH ]</p>

09-02-2002, 02:57 PM	#72
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	To Davidh: If Jesus was "one" member of a divine Trinity --with the other members being God and the Holy Ghost-- is Jesus an EQUAL member in terms of powers??? Here are some biblical examples that need to be considered in your answer. For I see discrepancies on how the gospel writers individually viewed Jesus' role and powers. Example 1: After his death, John's disciples took his dead body and buried it. They then went and told Jesus. Upon hearing the news of John's death, Jesus withdrew from the area "in a boat to a lonely place apart"--apparently to reflect on his death. (see Matthew 14:12-13) Was Jesus omniscient in his human form, since he apparently did not know of John's death BEFORE being told the news by John's disciples? (2) Per Mark 11:13-14,20: -- "Noticing a fig tree in leaf, he [Jesus] went to see if he could find anything on it. But when he came there he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season for figs. He said to the tree, "May no one ever again eat fruit from you! ...Early next morning as they passed by, they saw that the fig tree had withered from the roots up." Mark presents a weak Jesus who does NOT KNOW beforehand that the fig tree was bare (not to mention it wasn't the season for it). Because he has wasted his time in looking for figs he angrily curses it. The curse itself does not take effect immediately, but the tree is completely withered by the next morning. [Note in Matthew, Jesus again doesn't know the fig tree is bare, but his curse does take effect immediately, instead of the next morning.] Example 3: On the other hand, The gospel of John displays Jesus in the "weak" manner of the synoptic gospels. Instead, Jesus is always portrayed as an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being. For example, contrast the powers of Jesus in his conversation below with a woman from Samaria (John 4). "Jesus said to her, 'Go, call your husband, and come here.' The woman answered him, 'I have no husband.' Jesus said to her. 'You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly. The woman replied to Jesus, 'Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.'" examples 2 & 3 taken from <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT</a> Example 4: Jesus promises to return before this generation has passed. Yet this verse is not LITERALLY followed, as we are all here today. Here is one verse (there are more of this genre) "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." (Mark 13:23-30. See also Matthew 24:34, and Luke 21:32) for more details see: <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/APOCALYP.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/APOCALYP.TXT</a> =============================================== Of course the earliest Christians were bitterly divided over the "true" nature of Jesus -- was he an equal member of a three tiered Godship, did he really suffer on earth, etc before the Orthodox Catholic Church persecuted and outlawed all other Christian sects. {But even the Catholics and Greek Orthodox are still seething over past differences on this between them... <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/CONSTANT.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/CONSTANT.TXT</a> [ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-03-2002, 08:14 AM	#74
Dr S Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 106	Just a note about the two NT fables where Jesus vandalizes a fig tree that belongs to someone else. This story appears to make Jesus out to be an idiot. The reality is that the fig tree is symbolic. It is what gave food and shelter to the demigod Mithra in his youth. The Mithrains viewed the fig tree as a symbol of their faith in god the father, Ahura Mazda, and his savior son, Mithra. The Mithrains were quite distressed that the Christians had plagiarized so much of their religion. They complained long and loud about it. When the editors of the gospels added the fig tree stories no one would have taken it to mean a real fruit tree. The Jesus character is merely "giving the finger" to the Magi. He is cursing their religion, not throwing a tantrum over a missed snack.

09-03-2002, 02:13 PM	#78
davidH Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: N.Ireland Posts: 527	Sorry hadn't seen your post Rimstalker before i started typing. Will reply to you all later.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.