Sojourner553

Good post ..

By the way -- MY goal is to show that "some" myths entered into the gospel stories -- ie that they are not 100% accurate.

Based on my readings and analysis, I have concluded (sadly in my case) that all the miraculous/divine stories in the Bible are myth. Still, if someone feels the personal need to "believe" in some deity, that is fine with me. If this person wishes to identify this deity with Jesus (symbolically or literally) that is fine with me too.

BUT --if this individual proceeds to tell me that the Bible gives them the "moral authority" to hate gays, demean women, enslave blacks, persecute nonbelievers, devalue science and democracy (all in the name of God of course), then I feel it my duty to point out to them that their "certainty" in the Bible is based on a foundation of superstition.

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

Sojourner

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

davidH

Sojourner553

This is just the point I am trying to find out - I don't want any "could" - you have to be sure.

Will do.

wordsymth,

Yeah, I get what you are saying. But is this what John is saying?
When I read it, it was extremely clear that John was referring to Jesus as the word - not to Jesus' mind, or anything else.

If you think this is the case then you come up with a choice - was Jesus' mind God, was his Spirit God - or was his body God?

3 aspects of the same being? but can exist and communicate with one another and the Bible shows them to be distinct from one another?

This is starting to go into what the relationship between them all really is - ie. guesswork, because the Bible doesn't comment.

Then why in the Bible is there a clear distinction between them all?
Then are you saying that nothing in the Bible can be taken literally?

This still doesn't get around John showing that the Word was Jesus.

If what you are saying is true, then the Bible would have said, "Then the word of the LORD came to Jesus." - it doesn't say this. If it did then this would support your theory, because that is what you are saying.

Let me show you a verse in John 1 that I have posted before.

A MAN ...because he was before me.

Not a man's mind etc. John see's Jesus walking down towards him and says this about him.
Jesus was born after John the Baptist and yet John clearly says that he was before him - why? Because he was God - that is the only way that he could have been before John.

Then to show again that Jesus is referred to as being God,

Read the whole passage and you'll find that John is referring to Jesus as the one who has come from heaven.

I think wordsymth that you will find that Jesus = God.

Wordsymth - when you talk about God's decrees, mandates etc are you referring to the laws given in the OT - like the 10 commandments etc - stuff like that?

True - although a basic test is to see if it corresponds

What about being annointed with the Holy Spirit?

Yeah I accept that.

From the verse I have already shown, in the OT we see a distinction between, the LORD and the Spirit, and we see a distinction between the LORD and the Redeemer.

- This has all already been debated.
Is this what you were looking me to say?

lol - hardly.
I asked you to go onto a website - not to do homework for me - but so that you aren't just assuming that I'm talking the truth when I say that they believed the Messiah to be devine.

I thought you would have already read the post where I discussed these verses. - Was showng further stuff that confirms it.

They are highly relevant - if Jesus was devine that means that he was God, - yet we have him in the NT referring to his Father..
We have instances where the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all present but clearly distinct.
In the Old Testament we have again a distinction between the LORD and his Spirit, then a distinction of the LORD and the Redeemer talked about in Isaiah 59 v 20/21.

How can we be sure that the distinctions in the OT refer to the Trinity of the NT?
1. Messianic prophecy in OT- Jesus fufilled them all and claims to be devine in the NT.

2. In the time of the NT the Jews were expecting the Messiah of the OT to come (Daniel's prophecies).

If the OT prophecied about Jesus and him forgiving sinners (only God can do) then when Jesus fufilled them, his claims about being God are correct.

If the prophecies were fufilled then there must be a God who can see the future and is not restricted to time - this is the God in the OT.
If the God in the OT prophecied about Jesus then Jesus' claim of being God must be to the God who prophecied about him ie the God of the OT.

When you say that Jesus being God and the prophecies concerning him have nothing to do with it - you are badly mistaken.

No - As I have shown above.

Sojourner553,

What!!
The Bible never gives anyone the authority to hate gays, demean women, enslave blacks, persecute unbelievers and devalue science and democrasy!
Why in the world would you ever think that this would be the case?

The people in Britian who began to oppose slavery where the Christians.

If you are referring to what Paul writes about women, then you have misunderstood the culture in which he is talking.
Enslave blacks....where in the Bible is this supported - or even racism for that matter.
Where does it say that unbelievers are to be persecuted?
And where does it say that science and democrasy are to be devalued?!

Noone could ever justify themselves by the Bible to do any of these things.

(Just had to put that in.)

NOGO

Nonsense!
Name but one.

Jesus never claimed to be devine.
I am preparing something for you, DavidH.

By now you must have figured that I do not believe that

a) the title of "anointed" of God
b) the title of "son" of God
c) the miracles

are a proof nor a sign that Jesus was anything but human.

On John 1 if he had said
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was a God.

then you case would be better.

Better still if had said
"In the beginning was the Jesus, and Jesus was with the Father, and Jesus was God.

But he did not.
More on this on my next post.

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Layman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Iasion:
[QB]Greetings Layman et al,

Layman wrote:


That is not correct at all.

Let me clarify my point and put it back in context. I was rebutting the idea that the Christain decision to use the term Easter had significane to the copycat idea. The selective quote you repeat here was only regarding the pagan goddess Easter, not to similarities in general.

wordsmyth

I can see that I still haven’t explained it very well and you are still misunderstanding my explanation. No, John was not referring to Jesus’ mind. Jesus’ mind is irrelevant. He is referring to God’s mind. I realize that your position is that Jesus is God, but unless you can put that aside for a moment, you will never understand the point I am trying to make.

None of the above. Jesus is really an incidental component. The message is all that matters, not the messenger. The messenger (Jesus) was just a man, but the “Word” embodied God’s will and teachings. JtB could have just as easily been the “Word” if God had so chosen, but as it turns out, God chose (anointed) Jesus to be His “Word” instead.

Think about it for a moment. If there are three distinct beings, each with a claim to godhood, then there cannot be 1 God, thus the precept of a monotheistic deity vanishes. However, this problem dissolves when you view it as three distinct aspects of a single being rather than three separate and whole beings combined into some kind of giant Transformer God.

Provide any verse(s) you wish and I will use my best apologetics to eliminate any inconsistencies that you perceive.

The distinction is not as clear as you would like to believe, thus the confusion amongst early xians in trying to rationalize a Trinity at all. Literally? Do you take the parables literally? No, the Bible is filled with allegory and metaphor, but that does not lessen the value of its philosophy. If you take too much of the Bible literally, you will most likely completely miss the message.

Yes, John does show that the Word was Jesus, but as you must also note, John never states specifically that Jesus was with God or was God, only that the Word was.

Christ = anointed one of God. God anointed himself? No, God anointed a mortal man (Jesus) to be His “Word”. To carry God’s will and decrees to the world and to lead the people of Israel who had gone astray for so many years, back to the path of righteousness and salvation.



You are seeing only what you want to see in the passage. Why would John refer to Jesus as “the Lamb of God”? Does that mean that Jesus was the “Lamb of himself”? That is completely absurd.

You will note that John specifically states in the passage “A <strong>man</strong> who comes after me…” The <strong>man</strong> he is referring to is Jesus the being. When John refers to Jesus surpassing him it is because John also spread the word of God, but he was not <strong>the</strong> Word. Finally, “because he was before me.” Refers specifically to the “Word” which has existed since the beginning, but Jesus “the man” did not come until <strong>after</strong>. This is an important distinction that hopefully I have shed some light on for you.

No, I do not find that Jesus = God anywhere in the bible. Again you are seeing only what you want to see in the passage you have cited because again John makes an important distinction that you have overlooked. John is making a distinction between Jesus the man (i.e. “the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth.”) and the “Word” (i.e. “The one who comes from heaven is above all.) Conveniently you have only attributed half of the passage to Jesus, but John makes an important distinction that you have neglected to address.

Not specifically, but more or less. Jesus ignores a few of the commandments from the OT (keep the Sabbath Holy, etc), so its possible that God’s decrees, mandates, etc. have changed since then to conform better to a changing society. However, it also refers (more importantly perhaps) to the teachings that will lead the people back to the path of righteousness and salvation.

As I said above, post any verse(s) that you feel are contradictory to my theory and I will use my best apologetics to clear up any inconsistencies.

From your perspective both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are a part of God, so does it not seem just a tad absurd for God to anoint himself with himself? These are the kinds of absurdities which are evidence against Jesus being God.

Iasion

Greetings Layman,

Well, fair enough, the topic was largely about the term Easter.

But the wider issue was if Christianity had borrowed from paganism in general. Even if the evidence for the borrowing of that term is late, the evidence for borrowing from pagan myth is clear and dates to the earliest times.


I was responding to the more general comment YOU made about "connections and parallels" :

Here you were arguing about the resurrection, not just the term Easter.

My post showed conclusively that the claim :

Christians saw no connection or even parrellels worth noting until 300 years later

is wrong, directly from the early evidence.

My post goes to the obvious connections and parallels between paganism and Christian narrative - including the resurrection (e.g. Osiris, Iasius, Attis).


Quentin David Jones

Layman

Umm, no, everything I said was regarding the resurrection in the context of "Easter."

NOGO2

Hi DavidH,

As I stated before to show that the trinity is reflected in the Bible you must either show a clear statement on it (which you don't have) or you must have total consistency.

What I have below is list of statements which are incompaticle with the idea of trinity.
You must explain all of these or at least the most important ones in order to maintain that John is talking about the trinity.

Opposing your favourite verses to mine wont do. You need to reconcile the whole book of John to the idea of the trinity.


John 7:17
16 So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me.
17 "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.

Jesus says in many places that the words he speaks come from the Father, ie God and are not his own. That is why I tell you that we must disctinguish between Jesus on one hand and the Word on the other. More on this below.
Note verse 17 where Jesus contrasts his teaching with God's rather then the Father's. If Jesus were one of three members of the trinity of God then he could speak for himself without apologizing for it.

John 12
44 And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me, does not believe in me but in Him who sent Me.
45 "He who sees me sees the One who sent me.

Again Jesus does not call for faith in himself because what he says and does are not his own.
I have left verse 45 because it is the kind of verse which believers show in order to prove that Jesus is God but in context this verse simply does not mean that Jesus is God.
All Jesus is saying is do not look at me look at what I am saying and doing which come from God.


John 12
49 "For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
50 "I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me."

His commandment is eternal life.
Another example of same. Jesus stating that it all comes from God.


John 14
1 "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.

"... believe ALSO in me".
If this verse had said "believe in the Father, believe also in me" you would have been ok but as it stands one is to understand that Jesus is not God.
So according to this verse, belief in God does not imply belief in Jesus thus the words ALSO IN ME clearly shows that Jesus did not consider himself to be God.


John 14
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

20 "In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

23 ... If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
24 "He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me.

28 ... I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Note that Jesus is NOT saying "I am the Father and the Father is me" he says I am in the Father and the Father is in me.
Very different thing.
He also says "you in me and I in you" when speaking to his disciples.

Again the word is not from Jesus but comes from the Father. Recall John 1.

Jesus is saying that if his disciples keep the "word" which comes from the Father then he will be in them and them in him.
This is stated again below in much stronger terms.

John 15
1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
2 "Every branch in me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4 "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in me.

27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.

30 "Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God."


Note verse 3 again refers to the word.
In verses 1 to 4 Jesus is making an analogy where

The Father is the vinedresser
Jesus is the vine
disciples are the branches.

This analogy is contrary to the idea of the trinity because the nature of the vine is much closer to its branches than it is to the nature of the vinedresser.
This is totally acceptable if Jesus is a man anointed by God (ie the christ).
But if Jesus is God then you have a problem.

Jesus tells his disciples "Abide in me, and I in you".
That is if they keep his word then they abide in him and him in them.
This is a similar relation which Jesus says he has with the Father.
Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in him because he keeps His word.

John 17
1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
2 even as You gave him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given him, he may give eternal life.

8 for the words which You gave me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent me.

11 "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given me, that they may be one even as We are.

verse 2
The Father gave "authority" to Jesus over all flesh. Here Jesus is speaking of himself in the third person which makes one wonder. But what is this authority which which received which means that he did not have before.

Verse 8
Again the Word which Jesus received from God.

verse 11
This verse is the key. Jesus is saying that his disciples are one in THE SAME SENSE as Jesus and the Father are one.


John 17
17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in me through their word;
21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent me.
22 "The glory which You have given me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;

The same theme returns here.
The disciples who believe (ie received the word) are one with Jesus and the Father. (verse 21 and 22)
Note "they also be in us" in verse 21
This does not mean that the disciples are also part of the trinity.
What it does mean is that the disciples have received and accepted the word of God thus they are in God and God is in them.

This is what Jesus means when he says that "the Father and I are one".

John 20
17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"

31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the christ, the son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name.


Verse 17
"my Father and your Father" and "my God and your God"

So Jesus calls the Father, MY GOD which is also the God of Mary Mag.
This makes sense if Jesus is a man. If Jesus is God he would not call the Father his God.

Verse 31
A clear statement of who Jesus is.
Jesus is the christ that is the anointed of God. All the anointed of God in the OT were men.
Jesus is the son of God. In the OT this title has been given to men and in particular the anointed of God.

John is concluding his book here. Why does he not say clearly that Jesus is God if that is what he meant?


As a minimum you need to address these items

1. John 17:20-22,
2. John 20:17,
3. John 20:31,
4. you need to explain why Jesus needs the Holy spirit to guide him. (See his baptism)
5. why does Jesus not know the day and hour of his return (Matthew 24). God is supposed to know everything.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO2 ]</p>

wordsmyth

NOGO2,

Very well done!

Sojourner553

David -- Here is an example that first bothered me about the Bible (making me wary of Superstition). Do you see any resolutions to this?

Christian apologists generally say Jesus was being coy here and wasn't ready to reveal himself.

I think it was also speculated that maybe Jesus was "afraid" of being stoned. But assuming a divine being was REALLY afraid of this -- wouldn't it be better to say something else than to lie? What was the purpose of lying -- the man was not hostile, but indeed found Jesus a great teacher. The author never shows Jesus stating that he has hidden his "true" nature.

This is because the author probably saw Jesus more in line with a JEWISH messiah -- ie a human who was given special priveleges/superpowers by God -- but never a divine being. (To Jews it is blasphemy to believe in MORE than one God, for this is a pagan view.)


When I was religious this verse really really bothered me in my Sunday school class-- because I saw a contradiction -- for it was basically a lie AND how could an all perfect being lie?

The answer, I would learn later after reading the history of the region, is that it was Greek religions based on Greek savior god myths that were later appended onto the Jewish stories of Jesus.


Sojourner

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>