NOGO

Hebrews 1:2
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

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

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


You intepretation does not make sense and here is why.

Verse 4 states that the Word inherited a more excellent name.
Which name is that "Son of God" see verse 5.

But when did the Word inherit this name?
Surely not after the resurrection?

The Word inherited the name of Son of God way before the resurrection therefore according to verse 4 he became greater than the angels at that point.
He was therefore at the same level as the angels before he inherited the name of Son of God.

Also look at verse 9 "above your companions"
So the Word and the angels were "companions" (ie equals) before the Word was anointed, ie select to be Son of God.

So your explanation simply does not match the text. That is why I asked you who were the companions?
You did not answer because you thought that your explanation was sufficient but it isn't as I have shown you.


Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER

First, as I told you already this is not "let's compare verses" discussion. You need to prove YOUR case and you have not done that.
You quote verses from a corrupt bible which adds words to support the trinity doctrine. On two occasion you have been shown words that were added. Since you have previously based you arguments on these words you need to go back and remake your arguement accordingly.


Verse 8 says that the Son is God. It does not say that Jesus is God.

The Word of God is the Son of God and as John 1:1 says "is God"
Jesus said repeatedly that the "words" were not his.
After Jesus was baptized he received the spirit of God which Jesus also equates to the word of God.
The idea if you like goes something like this.
In those days the belief in spirit "possession" was prevalent. Some poeple were believed to be possessed by demons. Jesus was believed to be possessed by the Word of God, which was God and which created all the world in the begining.

Now David it is not my interpretation which we are arguing about. The subject is "does the NT support the doctrine of the trinity?"

There are a large number of points which you have not answered adequately.

In this post I have shown you why the explanation of Jesus being lowered and then raised above the angels simply does not fly.

How is the Word (or Jesus for you) and angels "companions" if Jesus is a member of the trinity of God?

When did Word/Jesus inherit the title of "Son of God" which placed him above the angels?

NOGO

You are correct. It is just games with words. I am sure that you have read GJohn, so you know that Jesus himself played games on words. This is the reason that his message is so confused.

For example:
To the congregation he says - unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood they cannot have salvation. He also compares his flesh as the bread from above which gives life.

But when he explains this to his disciples he says that flesh means nothing and that it is his WORDS which are spirit and life giving. The same words which he says are not his but are from the One who sent him.

This is but a small sample.

No wonder people even today are so confused.
No wonder that there are thousands of Christians groups today and it was so even when Chritianity got started. The confusion was right at the source. The word games were right from the start as well.

DavidH is trying to prove that the doctrine of the trinity is based on the text of the NT. Of course there is quite a bit to play with.

Radorth

The only "show-stopper" in the above 2 stories is the earthquake and the angel additions in Matthew. Not sure how ten people given to lying, redacting and burning missed that one.

But let us assume that Matthew embellished his account with the angel story, and possibly the earthquake. How does that make the rest a lie, (as Layman already asked) and how do we know how the angel and earthquake additions got there?

Radorth

NOGO

Matthew 28
Ok Let me delete those two.

Matthew 24
1. Began to down, MaryM came to the grave.
2. Deleted
3. Deleted - The tomb was still selaed
4. Deleted
5. And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.
6. Jesus met them and greeted them.


Question:
Since the tomb was sealed how does MaryM conclude that Jesus resurrected and leaves the place with GREAT JOY and goes to tell the others?
It not possible that MaryM opened the tomb since according to Matthew there were guards.

As you can see the whole story in Matthew does not make sense without the Angel opening the tomb.

Even without this obvious difficulty the two stories are still totally different.

You have not answered my question.
Which story actually took place?

Did MaryM return to the tomb with Peter and John? yes or no?
Did MaryM see Jesus next to the tomb or did she see him on the way back?

I am sure that you can come up with your own questions if you try.

Which of these stories is true?

Sojourner553

Radorth,

I have fought a lot of atheists on this board on the subject.

* I personally don't think there was any intentionally lying by gospel writers.

But I also don't think people were "lying" when they believed in the other religions....

Let me give you an example. I had a Mexican maid over one evening who told my son that the howling wind that was banging the backyard gate door open and close was really an evil spirit.

She wasn't "lying" in my mind -- she was just superstitious!

All the large numbers of people who have "seen" Elvis... They are not evil, conniving liars. They are just "creative" hope-seeking individuals who are -- yes a little on the superstitious side.

Do you really think ALL THE OTHER RELIGIONS were started by liars?

I think the superstition/hope-seekers model explains it all.

BTW: I'm still waiting for you to respond to my previous post.

Sojourner

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

intentionally lying by gospel writers.

Really. You mean, the sources that Luke looked at (Mark, Q, L) contained instructions about how they were all to be integrated, so that no literary creativity and invention was necessary? Please. Luke knew perfectly well s/he was writing a fiction built out of earlier sources.

Sojourner553

Have you seen this analysis NOGO:

"--Matthew

Matthew's account gives more details on the resurrection and empty tomb
than either Mark or Luke! The tomb, or sepulcher is guarded by soldiers.
An "angel of the Lord" descends from heaven with the crashing sound of an
earthquake. The angel rolls back the heavy stone sealing the tomb. The
guards run away in fear, and the women arrive on the scene to witness the
event and the empty tomb.

However, the Roman soldiers LOST their chance to give an INDEPENDENT witness
of these events. Instead, we are told that they are bribed by the chief
Jewish priest to say nothing! Little attention is often paid to what a lost
opportunity to the Jews this was! The fact that Matthew states that the
soldiers followed instructions and told no one, means that MOST Jews
probably never even heard of the resurrection from a source that they might
consider reliable. Matthew reports how Jewish authorities told the soldiers
to spread the rumor that Jesus' disciples stole the body from the tomb while
they were sleeping. Per Matthew 28:15, the soldiers:

"took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly
reported among the Jews UNTIL THIS DAY." (Matthew 28:15,emphasis mine.)

Note Matthew's use of the phrase "UNTIL THIS DAY" in the above passage.
Matthew has revealed here that he is in fact writing some time AFTER
the resurrection, AND after the rumor of Jesus body being stolen had been
commonly circulated among the Jews. Matthew (who had read Mark and probably
found it necessary to add details which were missing or to correct errors he
saw), felt he had acquired additional information (which Mark did not have)
that would counteract these Jewish claims. (Wells, WHO WAS JESUS)

None of the other gospel writers mention the presence of guards at Jesus'
tomb--only Matthew's gospel mentions this. Because Matthew's account of
Jesus' resurrection uses similar phrases and imagery as exists in the
Septuagint (especially the book of Daniel), some skeptics have maintained
that they believe Matthew "borrowed" some of his details, in his belief
that the life of Jesus MUST be paralleling the Old Testament stories.

Some of the parallels between Matthew and Daniel are: (footnote: this
analysis was taken from Randel Helms GOSPEL FICTIONS)

*Pilate ordered his soldiers to secure Jesus grave and they thus "sealed
the stone". (Matthew 27: 62-66) When Daniel was placed in the lions'
den, a "stone was brought and put over the mouth of the pit, and the
king sealed it." (Daniel 6:17 LXX)

*When Jesus' guards saw the angel of the Lord, whose "face shone like
lightening", "the guards shook with fear and lay like the dead" (Matthew 28:3-4)
When Daniel saw an angel whose "face shone like lightening", he found
himself "trembling": "I fell prone on the ground in a trance" (Dan. 10:6,9)

*After the angel tells the women to witness to the disciples that Jesus
had risen, they turn and see Jesus. The woman fell "prostrate before
him. (Matthew 28:9)-- just as Daniel "fell with my face to the earth" when
he saw the angel Gabriel. Jesus' response is exactly the same as the
angels: "Do not be afraid" (Daniel 10:9; Matthew 28:10)

Even Matthew's story of the rich Joseph of Arimathea who buried Jesus in
a tomb he had originally purchased for himself has parallels "borrowed" from
Isaiah's 53:9 "they made his grave...with the rich in his death. "

The early Christians, of course, took these parallels to mean that the events
of the New Testament were directed by God to parallel the Old Testament
stories, and NOT that this meaning was "manufactured" by the gospel writers!"

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

Below are some listings of DOCTRINAL disagreements between the four gospel writers.

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


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


Sojourner

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

You and I will just have to disagree on this one.

Some people think it is "fun" to fool themselves -- to believe in ghosts or fairies or angels or whatever. I understand it makes some people's dreary lives more entertaining. The thought of going to heaven is fun -- why (from their perspective) should they muddy this it up with something called "reality"?

I don't call this lying. You on the other hand probably do, because it can be taken as a form of "indirect" lying.

But --I'm naturally easy going... Why not focus on the important issue like: "Is it really true?"

Second guessing a person's "true" intent detracts from this, and (in my mind) degenerates quickly into a "he said/she said" bunch of chatter/noise that is off-subject.

Sojourner

Sojourner553

BTW Vork:

I saw a brilliant analysis on how Luke may have been a woman. Just commenting on your "s/he"--meaning she or he.

Sojourner

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Radorth

No, I'm saying if you remove the angel/earthquake rolling away the stone story from Matt, the tomb was open before anybody arrived.

I believe you have an essentially similar story then.

1. Women arrive at tomb (John does not mention the others, but we are focusing on the sequence of events not how many women were really there)

2. There are angels there to tell them what happened. The guards have fled obviously because the stone already rolled away. (John has two angels talking to Mary after Peter has seen the tomb but one does not preclude the other)

3. The women go tell the disciples, one or two of whom go to look for themselves.

4. Jesus apparently meets them after Peter and one other disciple have seen the tomb. Mary goes back to tomb after telling them, and Jesus meets her there as well.

That's my view of the sequence. Who contradicts this sequence other than Matthew?

They are not "totally different" if you simply assume an interpolation or that Matthew wrote what someone told him without checking himself. I do think the angelelic stone rollers/ earthquake/ running soldiers excerpt is highly suspicious.

Radorth