Sojourner553

Hi David,

You have not answered my last post, but I have a question for you.

When I was about eight years old, I had a jolting thought: If I were born into another religion/nonreligion -- would I believe its principles because that is what my parents/society taught me???

After giving this some consideration, I realized (sadly) that the answer was yes.

I pose the same question to you... If you were born into another religion -- same the Hindu religion, would you "accept" everything you were told/read?

-- or would you try and test this first?? -- ie check for truthfulness "outside of the box" (here where the box is your local religion's belief system(s).

It seems to me you and NOGO are focusing on words "inside the box". You are finding some verses supporting your position. NOGO has found some that don't support your position.

Science tells us that for a theory to be held as valid -- it must explain ALL the data points (here biblical verses);rather than picking and choosing among the data points.

I know, I know, Bede and others have told me I am using the wrong outlook on this.... My response is that if the Bible really is the "Word" of God it should stand up to scientific examination.

But I also want to REALLY know the truth. I accept that for many people there is an emotional comfort to not knowing the truth. And that is ok... Just don't hate gays, blacks, spout ultra-conservative politics -- proclaiming this is done in "God's name".

Obviously there are many Christians like you and Bede who are not like this...

Still, I see religion being used -- especially in the US-- to keep people thinking/acting like sheep. And that can be dangerous for the rest of us in a democracy. For one can see this "sheep effect" in American with the religious block strongly supporting the worst President the US has ever selected (not elected) -- GW Bush!

Cheers!

Sojourner

NOGO

Not at all. The issue of the divinity of Jesus is as old as Christianity itself and the trinity is a fanciful invention of the early church. All that I am trying to do is to show David that the NT is ambiguous and the trinity is not only not mentioned but also not supported. If I seem at times to go along with what David is saying it is simply for the purpose of sticking to the subject.

As for me, I stepped out of the box many years ago. The last topic that I debated with DavidH was regarding the flat earth teachings in the bible. DavidH promised me an answer to all that but none came. I am still waiting.

As I explained to David that for him to make his case he must show that the concept of the trinity is near 100% compatible with everything the NT says. I provided enough material to show that it isn't anywhere near 100%.

I hope that this clarifies my position.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Sojourner553

But of course -- I knew all this!

Your position is based on logic/ rationality.

Remember when I was telling David he was "picking and choosing"? With science one must explain ALL the data points (here verses). You were showing him how SOME of his data points were wrong.

He thought it didn't matter as long as he could find SOME verses that supported his position.

But it is most unscientific/rational--one can prove almost anything with this approach.

Sojourner

davidH

Again sorry for not answering sooner.

Sojourner - the post I wanted you to answer was half way down page 11.
I addressed a couple of things to you asking what you thought.
I'll answer your post now.

Yes, I too would answer (though not sadly) yes.
People born into Muslim families are taught the Muslim faith and are Muslims because the pressure on them is enormous.
I lived out in Senegal for 11 years and have been amoung them. Let me tell you about a young muslim lad that wanted to become a Christian.
He had been brought up to believe that Allah was God and the whole faith was true - he on studying the Koran found that there were some inconsistancies that centered around Jesus - no one could answer these for him and he came to us to see what we thought about it.
After teaching him the message of the gospel he decided (over a peroid of time) that he wanted to become a Christian, the inconsistancies in the Koran supported the Bible.
He became a Christian and went to tell his family about the change in his life. Persecution broke out.
Firstly he was told to leave Christianity and come back to the Muslim faith or else he would be thrown out of his family. He said he couldn't do this, and so he was rejected by his family. It didn't stop there - his room where he lived was totally demolished (mud brick walls) and all his belongings destroyed.
He was then told again to appear before the leaders of the village where he lived and again told to return - he explained why he had become a Christian...they kicked him out on his own...
He was taken in by the local church of 30 people who helped support him with the little they had.
He's still a Christian today and still loves his family even though they did all this to him.

It doesn't matter what religion you are born into - I was never forced to become a Christian, just because my parents where Christians didn't make me a Christian too - it was my own choice based upon what I read and had been taught.
Today I don't regret my decision, I have examined the scriptures and they still hold up.
The Christian life is the best one possible.

No, Sojourner - all the verses support my position. Nogo has all the facts (Bible verses) but he interprets them in a way that causes serious contradictions - note the way his position has changed since he started.

Note also he refuses to show me the basic principles of his interpretation and how he gets them. I ask again and again but he avoids it.

Nogo, if it is solid then answer my question that I have repeatidly asked you to answer. You ask me to prove the Trinity and I have but your interpretation is based on the "Word" since that is what you fall back on everytime a verse comes up that doesn't fit your theory but contradicts it. Either your theory is right or it is not. How to test your theory is to see if what you fall back on "the Word" is valid in the sense that you use it.

No, you are using the right outlook. If the theory is valid then all the data points must be explained as far as the "facts" present allow them to be.
And yes, if the Bible really is the Word of God it should stand up to scientific examination.
Your outlook is correct.

Yes, most people really do want to know the Truth, I am convinced that I have found it in the Bible.
And yes - I don't hate gays, blacks etc. The thing with the Bible is that God speaks out against the sin of those that are homosexual. God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. The same is with me - I hate the things they do but I don't hate the person, maybe that's something that God gives to those that are his - most people would hate the things that are done and so hate the person that does them. But that's not what the Bible teaches.
However there is a balance here too - God is a just God and will punish those that sin, sometimes God will punish sin like he did at Sodom and Gommorah and other times he doesn't. But the Bible says "God is just" and I believe that.

Anyway that's getting a bit off track

Yes, sadly this does happen. You see it in cults more clearly, especially those that end in disaster.
Also what you say is also true, People can abuse the belief people have in God.
e.g "Lets fight this war for justice, peace freedom and for God"
People latch onto the "God" and the person has their full support.
Also the crusades against the Muslims are a good example of this too.

But in saying that it all depends on a person's view point in the end, though they are strongly influenced by peers and those that they share things in common with.

Nogo,

hmmmm, Nogo I found this verse while reading in the Bible last night.
It's from John again and it shows you his interpretation of what Jesus was saying. It's very interesting.

John here says that Jesus by calling God his own Father was making himself equal with God ie.Was saying that he was God.

John wrote this - this is what he (from spending 3 years with Jesus)recognised Jesus as claiming.


As an aside Nogo - when I gave that verse "I and the Father are one" you gave other verses....you didn't explain how this verse fitted into you theory. You know why you didn't? Because you would have had to refer to the "Word" again - since my main aim was to get you to explain the Word you couldn't answer that verse.

Nogo, I have already given a lot of the verses that support a Trinity. You contradicted a lot of them, but fall back on Jesus being the Word for the verses you can't explain. But then you claim that the Word is devine and refers to God and not to Jesus. Then you claim that "the Son of God" refers to the devine and not to Jesus.
I could show you lots of verses to show that Jesus was the Son of God.....

Nogo you have to hit the question head on, don't avoid it, there should be no problem explaining it because you obviously believe it since you base your whole theory on it. Please explain it.

You say prove the Trinity and then I'll explain what I mean by the "Word" but you misunderstand that you have used "the Word" to contradict my interpretation and have not proved why.
Infact I am totally at loss as to what your interpretation is. Obviously it is totally different from Wordsymth's since he didn't believe the "Word" was devine....
So like Wordsymth did before he went into the discussion could you elaborate on what you mean?


Ok, Nogo on the angel thing I have no idea what your problem is except that you have a totally different interpretation in mind.

Let me explain it to you - all of it.

Hebrews 2 v 6
Hebrews 2v9

Jesus was God, he came from heaven to earth and became a Man (a little lower than the angels) he was annointed with the Holy Spirit on Earth, he glorified God on earth, he died and was forsaken by God the Father and the Spirit, he was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven with glory and honour and power, and so was set above the angels again by being glorified with the glory he had with God before the world began, and the joy that mankind's redemption was now complete.

Nogo - read through the first couple of chapters of Hebrews, you'll get more insight into what the church believed.

Have to run here - might get on tomorrow or Sunday.
Cya!

Sojourner553

Following your directions, I think this is your question:

David,

If NOGO did narrowly frame the question as you quote it: "does the NT support the doctrine of the trinity?"

Then yes -- you and I are in agreement that there are some verses in the NT which support the doctrine of the Trinity.

But isn't this saying you are more interested in a "win" based on a carelessly phrased proposition by NOGO?? [For I have made errors like this -- and I would suspect you have too.]

Also-- isn't this technical "win" shallow in substance--as it has no bearing on the truth?

NOGO's real point (not made clear at that moment) is that he has found SOME biblical verses that are not consistent with belief in the Trinity. This should not happen in a divine/perfect document. Therefore his position is that he has disproved the NT is inspired.

I guess you are saying the NT and OT is 100% consistent on the Trinity. On this we do not agree.

I also like to apply the consistency rule: If I found you a religion that believed in a Trinity --but had fewer or even NO discrepancies in its writings on the nature of this Trinity deity (plus it was older than Christianity)...

would this be evidence that would pursuade you it is a divinely inspired religion?

Answer: Of course not!

By the way:

(1) Ever had a chance to check out if Jews have EVER had a tradition of a Trinity??

The answer is a resounding no, but I want you to check it out for yourself. [I had several Jewish friends in high school/college, plus have read a number of books on the subject.]

(2) I didn't notice you answering my post about how we would ask (was it Fred) to examine his religion by looking outside the box. I listed some criteria for this. Then I asked you if you had ever applied this criteria to your own set of beliefs. [ie why is there superstition in the Bible; discrepancies among verses; large variation in doctrine with violent people using OT verses to justify enslavement of serfs and later blacks, authoritarian governments, witch hunts, gay bashing, corporal punishment; why are there no miracles that can be verified by science?; why do bad things happen to good people?]

(3) To try and answer your post above about the Muslim who wanted to be Christian: There is a very tiny percentage (about 2-3%) who do convert outside the major religion of their parents.

This goes both ways: Muslims to Christians AND Christians to Muslims. I believe blacks are the most common group to convert to Islam -- probably because of the racial nature of Christian slavery before the Civil War.

On this,-- you seem to pick and choose among the facts to suit your needs. A Muslim could just as easily point to a person s/he knew who converted to Christianity. Does that make Islam the true religion now.

(Just being consistent)

You're a very pleasant person though -- so don't change that.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

NOGO

What you are doing now David, is that you cannot answer my questions so you keep wanting to get onto another subject which is my interpretation. I will do that after we finish with the trinity.

I repeat the questions which you have not answered.

Hebrews 1:9
"YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

This says that God has anointed Jesus/Word above HIS (your in the text) companions. That is Jesus/Word's companions.

Your answer is that God has anointed himself above his buddies in heaven which makes zero sense.
Now look at verse 5
For to which of the angels did He ever say,
"YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"?
And again, "I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?

This says that the Word is considered at par with the angels since only he among the angels did God call his son.
According to your interpretation God here is comparing himself to the angels. Or one of the trinity of God is compared to the angels.
I asked you:
when was Jesus anointed above his companions?
When did he inherit the name of "Son of God"?
This is important because it will tell us when Hebrews 1:9 occurred. You have not answered.

Hebrews 1
4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

"having become" not "is"
How do you explain this? You tried the bit about Jesus resurrected above the angels but that does not fit in.
Verse 4 says that he became better than the angels to the EXTENT that he inherited a more excellent name.
So when did this occur?
This cannot have anything to do with Jesus because John 1 says that the Word created the world. So logically the Word was superior to the Angels way back when. Unless the angels are also capable of creating the world.
Do you now see the problem, David?

Your interpretation of this verse is totally wrong. Just compare with John 17:22 "... that they may be one, just as we are one. Being "one" with somebody does not mean the trinity.

Verses John 14:10 and 12:44 are two verses which show that Jesus is not the Father. Your version of the Bible has been corrupted by the additions of words "just" or "not only" in order to align them with the doctrine of the trinity. Once you get a good translation you will need to explain these verses.

NAB
John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.

NASB
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.

You said
DavidH,
Yo Nogo - before you go accusing a certain translation or anything maybe you should check up the greek on that verse to see what it really means.

Yes David, why don't you do that. For John 14:10 Peter Kirby showed you the Greek versions. The conclusion is that the NIV does not translate but modifies.

Regards

NOGO

No, that is not my position.
What I am saying is that since the trinity is not mentioned directly nor explained in an unambiguous manner then to establish the trinity without doubt you must show complete consistency in the text. You don't have complete consistency. Therefore it is wrong.

Some verses seem to imply the trinity but since others totally oppose it then we you cannot affirm the trinity.

David just posted another of his favourite verses which seem to imply the trinity. I don't have it front of me so it will continue from memory. Jesus call himself son of God and the people around him want to stone him since he is making himself equal to God. John is reporting the reaction of people listening to Jesus. John is not saying that Jesus is making himself equal to God he is reporting the reaction of poeple to his words.

Question are his words saying that he is God? Every time David has produced a verse which implies this I have countered with an explanation. For example in one case Jesus said that he was the bread from heaven. He who eats this bread will have eternal life. Then he says that unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you cannot have eternal life. So Jesus is clearly saying that he comes from above.

But is it his body that is from above? Clearly not. So what is he talking about?

If you read on in the same chapter Jesus explains his words to the disciples and clearly states that it is the word of God which is truth and life and NOT the flesh.

So when Jesus says that "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" what he really means is "he has received the word of God" which Jesus is carrying. Is is the word which is from above not the Jesus.

Conclusion:
The people listening to Jesus got the IMPRESSION that Jesus was saying that he, Jesus, flesh and blood was from above while he meant that it was the word of God which was from above.

This confusion easly explains david's newly found verse.

Sojourner553

That's what I meant when I stated that ALL the biblical verses do not support a consistent version of the trinity. (I think you are reading my posts too fast.)

By the way the second sentence in the quote you gave was meant for David, not you.

To David:

Are you avoiding answering the points in my post before this one? Or did you just miss it, like I did yours at first?

As to all this back and forth on the Trinity. Let's take the one verse that REALLY states the opposite -- ie Mark 10:17-8, where a stranger approaches Jesus with the question,

-- "Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life". Jesus replies here. "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone'.

(1) I know the religious apologies normally given. (Jesus was coy because he did not want to reveal his existence). But the fact is Jesus would have had to have been lying to give such a response if he were REALLY a divine member of a Trinity. If a Trinity concept existed in the OT tradition, then why doesn't Jesus say here, "no one is good except for the Trinity alone."

(2) Also, Jesus was not in a hostile situation -- just the opposite, he was speaking to an admiror. Jesus could have easily responded with something else that was not a lie (assuming he really thought he was a member of a Trinity).

(3) If the Bible were divine, it should be a perfect document. This would include being "vague" or giving even the APPEARANCE that there were discrepancies.

All the discrepancies in the Bible on this AND MANY OTHER TOPICS TAKEN TOGETHER! point to the Trinity as a Greek pagan concept later fused onto the hebrew tradition of a messiah.

Sorry David, but I really think that IS the truth! Now this doesn't prove God doesn't exist -- just the Bible is full of some/many superstitions and therefore not likely divine.

Sojourner

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

davidH

ok, it seems that things are starting to get confusing.

Sojourner,

Hmmm, saying that Jesus was coy is true to a certain extent because he says ,"My time has not yet come." If he had said straight out that he was God, he would have been killed by the people since the time wasn't right for God he couldn't say it straight out.
But when you say that Jesus would have to be lying - that I don't agree with.

Ok say that Jesus is God and the man comes along to him and says "Good Master..." Jesus could have left it at that and said nothing, but if he was God and wanted to get this across to the people then what better opportunity.
Imagine that Jesus is God when he says this;

"Why do you call me good?" ok lets take this part first.
Jesus is asking the man a question here, why do you call me good?
The man starts thinking here - Jesus is obviously good because the man called him that.

"No-one is good except God alone."

Again the man's thoughts continue - "oh, Jesus is good because I called him that and he thinks that I am making him equal with God....but surely that is ridiculous I mean how could he have thought that I was making him out to be God...hang on Jesus hasn't said anything further here, he's made the statement that "only God is good" but neither confirmed or denied that he is God...could this man possibly be....nah, he couldn't could he?"

Hope this helps illustrate it a little Sojourner.
You see Jesus neither confirms nor denies that he is God. He makes the first statement - why do you call me good?

NB he doesn't say don't call me good- that would show that Jesus wasn't God.

Then he says "No one is good except God alone"

Neither confirming or denying anything - merely saying that if he is called good then people must accept him as God since only God can be called good.

But it is significant that Jesus doesn't say DON'T call me good.
I have a question for you here, if Jesus truly was only a normal man why didn't he say, "Don't call me good? No one is good except God alone"

Again how was Jesus to explain what he was talking about without creating absolute confusion and him having to say that he is God. As Jesus said His time had not yet come to be revealed.

This make sense to you now Sojourner?

Hope it is clear to you that this wasn't a lie but something that he brought up (of his own accord) but neither confirmed or denied. He never lied.
But probably got a lot of people thinking which is what he wanted.


The Bible is a historical "document" and the gospels were written as a documentary of Jesus life.
If Jesus choose to be vague about who he really was to the public until the time was right- then it was recorded in that way by the gospels.

So the Bible is a perfect document in the fact that it records everything that happened - if someone said something that was vague then the Bible records it as vague - it doesn't try to make it clearer.

This make sense too? Hope it does.

Nothing to be sorry about. I know this is your view and that you think it is the truth - so does Nogo. But I am challenging what you take as truth and if what you say is truth then it should stand up if not then your ideas need to be reformed.

That is what happens in science - people believe something as truth until something pops up that hadn't been considered before and reshapes our ideas.

Nogo's whole point was that if the Trinity was made up later by an integration of greek myths then it shouldn't be found in the NT or the OT.
I am showing that it can be found and so is unlikely.

Just seen your post above

lol, no no. I am not interested in a "win" at all.
All I am interested in is the truth.

I took Nogo's proposition to mean that the "whole NT supports the doctrine of the Trinity" Not just some of it.
Again I want to put in a quote of Nogo's here;

Ok Nogo here lies the problem I have.

..”i have countered with an explanation.”

Your explanation is based on your interpretation
- correct?
If you will not justify your interpretation then your explanations are useless for you undermine yourself. If you cannot justify your interpretation then how can you or I assume that your explanation is correct?

Man, all this here stems from one of your explanations that used "Word" etc as your answer.
I ask you to justify your explanation by explaining your interpretation of the "Word" and what you think Jesus meant etc.
You never did that explaining - but started off on the topic of Hebrews 1, then you keep on avoiding the "Word" saying that I don't give you the answer to your questions - which I did, though you say they are inadequate....yet not once have you attempted to explain.
My answer to your question has already been given – you don’t refer to it. Refer to it and tell me what parts can’t be true and why they can’t. – also answered on pg 11 as well.

I’m going to finish here for the moment, but will reply very soon.

One thing Nogo – whenever you open a page (ie 12) go up to file and click on “New Window” then click on reply on that window – the original window will be there for you to look at answer easily. Maybe you already do this – just incase you didn’t I let you know .

Sojourner553

Agreed, the first sentence "Why do you call me good?" could be some coy remark and is not necessarily a lie.

I need to make the distinction between a DIRECT and INDIRECT lie to answer you.

* I direct lie would be to state “I am not a God” (where Jesus believes he is a God).

* An indirect lie is one where one “evades” the truth. This is not so troubling unless one also INITIATES THE EVASION.
Your point (I think) is that Jesus does not DIRECTLY lie. And I can agree with this.

But I would argue that Jesus response was an evasion – and not necessary because the man never implied nor asked if he were a God! This is what makes it an INDIRECT lie!

By the way, "good" is typically used in a RELATIVE not ABSOLUTE manner. One usually does not have to be 100% perfect to be called “Good”. [I]Job was called a good man in the OT, as one example.

To repeat: It is because Jesus INITIATES the discussion that he is not a divine being -- that this seems PURPOSEFULLY EVASIONARY, and therefore an indirect lie!

BTW:
This is no minor discrepancy for me. I remember coming across these verses when I was very religious in high school and being jolted by them. “Surely, I am somehow reading this verse, wrong” I thought, and moved on. It was later when I read the HISTORY of Christianity that I began to understand these verses within the political/historical context in which they were written: Of all the conquered territories of the Roman Empire, ancient Judea was the most riotous and fanatical – because of their religious hatred of being controlled by a pagan empire. To them paying taxes was a sacrilege to a pagan empire that was polluting their Temple and holy relics. There were a large number of Jewish revolutionary (both political and spiritual) leaders looking to free the people from the yoke of Roman rule. If you have read my other posts here to radorth, you will see my verse references to them.

Many scholars have noted that the gospel writer known today as Mark did not write of a virgin miraculous birth. Instead Jesus is FIRST introduced when John the Baptist baptizes him. It is known there were older Jewish Christian cults (later purged by the Christians) that believed Jesus was born as an ordinary man, but was given supernatural powers at the time of baptism. These powers would allow a messiah (here Jesus) to inaugurate a new spiritual realm, similar to a King David, who would throw out their enemy – the Romans.

It was the Greeks who later added pagan concepts onto these texts. And it is from this source that one gets the virgin birth, god-ship/Trinity, resurrection after 3 days, etc concepts so similar in pagan religions – especially Mithraism (also the #1 competitor to Christianity during this time.)

Seems to me this would draw THE MOST ATTENTION TO HIMSELF by so stating this. That is, by denying it up front, he puts the idea in people’s heads so they might wonder, “Hmmm,”


***This also contradicts the Jesus was “coy” theory!***

Some of the ancient Jewish sects (I have in mind here the Essenes) did hold the view that humans could never be 100% perfect and were fanatical on trying to purify themselves (ie to get that last 1% of sin out). That is why some scholars have speculated that Jesus was an Essene.

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

Absolutely not. If Jewish tradition had ANY expectation or tradition of a Trinity, why should not Jesus have easily substituted this word instead of “God”.
By this are you implying that Jesus inaugurated the Trinity—
Are you by this acknowledging the Jews had no tradition of a Trinity?

But it is the doctrines that are contradictory and vague, not just quotes taken from individuals.

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

Absolutely. But this goes BOTH WAYS, David? As one example, did you ever have a chance to check out if the Jews EVER had a tradition of a Trinity?

Seems to me you are redefining NOGO’s objective. Here is how NOGO explained it to me:
David, I applaud you on your quote earlier about your DESIRE to be scientific. But I must point out to you it is NOGO's definition that is scientific regarding testing a hypothesis for its validity!

That is you have to explain 100% of the verses instead of picking and choosing. Do you disagree? Afterall, is that not how you would test a Hindu or Muslim's holy texts?


Good day to you!


Sojourner

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