God is 1 vs God is 3

[InformedIgnorance]

Are... you serious... you think Jesus (with the personality he is purported to hold within the NT), with full awareness and divine agency is compatible with Divinely committed, commanded or condoned genocide, systemic slavery and rape, inhumane and disproportionate punishments, incredibly capricious treatment of some believers (such as Job) and so forth?

You must think Jesus a horrible being that you think he could standby without interfering in the OT events if you hold them to be true... Oh but you don't it seems! Instead you seem to be attempting to leverage the OT without alteration while claiming that Jesus isn't there, Oh! but has always been there always been cognizant and had divine agency, it is simply that Jesus wasn't included because the writers were't aware he existed and thus we can ignore that Jesus did not stop what occurred in the OT - almost as if the OT revelation was flawed or even invalid.

If you do not 'read Jesus into the message' of the OT, then why would anyone have any reason to expect that Jesus - an almost perfect duplicate of Horus (or Mithra or Attis or Dionysus... actually you can basically just choose any sun god from the region) is in fact the messiah (of whom from what to what) let alone a Divine messiah, rather than just some guy. From what source do you claim messianic prophecy, or revelation, which god if any caused it to come to pass, how that messiah would be distinguished from other messiahs (there have supposedly been many christs - anointed ones), what was that specific messiah supposed to do, how was one to know that an individual was that messiah, what authority would that messiah have, let alone that a specific messiah should not merely be divinely anointed (which is what defines a christ) but actually be The Divine.

Christianity is built on the concept of the OT God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and messianic prophecies within; which are then used to justify authentication of Jesus as a christ (and as a prophet, the two are correlated but not required to be mutually so), and thus the NT as revelation.

If on the other hand you claim another God with another messianic tradition to which you have identified Jesus, most would not consider you a 'christian' (but rather an alternative, messianic focused religious tradition based on Jesus of Nazareth) for yours would not the god of the OT (because it is not revelation). If you claim your concept of God which Jesus is an aspect of God (while still denying that that the OT is revelation) where the heck are you drawing your revelation or authority with which you discard what was previously claimed as revelation - yet still propose that jesus' messianic nature is prophesied, providing a basis for authentication of Jesus as a messiah let alone a divine messiah?

In short - where would you be drawing this information from?

 

[sojourner]

Are... you serious... you think Jesus (with the personality he is purported to hold within the NT), with full awareness and divine agency is compatible with Divinely committed, commanded or condoned genocide, systemic slavery and rape, inhumane and disproportionate punishments, incredibly capricious treatment of some believers (such as Job) and so forth?

No, I don't. I believe that the biblical writers told stories about a God they understood to be more of a tribal God, so that's the framework in which they painted a picture of God.

You must think Jesus a horrible being that you think he could standby without interfering in the OT events if you hold them to be true... Oh but you don't it seems!

I don't think many of the stories are factual, if that's what you mean.

Instead you seem to be attempting to leverage the OT

I don't know what you mean by this.

almost as if the OT revelation was flawed or even invalid.

I don't think that the OT is "revealed." I think it was "written." By human beings.

If you do not 'read Jesus into the message' of the OT, then why would anyone have any reason to expect that Jesus - an almost perfect duplicate of Horus (or Mithra or Attis or Dionysus... actually you can basically just choose any sun god from the region) is in fact the messiah (of whom from what to what) let alone a Divine messiah, rather than just some guy. From what source do you claim messianic prophecy, or revelation, which god if any caused it to come to pass, how that messiah would be distinguished from other messiahs (there have supposedly been many christs - anointed ones), what was that specific messiah supposed to do, how was one to know that an individual was that messiah, what authority would that messiah have, let alone that a specific messiah should not merely be divinely anointed (which is what defines a christ) but actually be The Divine.

Well... this is certainly a very long, poorly-constructed, run-on question ending in a sentence. But if I understand what you're asking, it's because the NT says so, and the NT has ecclesial continuity with the OT. And because the NT church shares a tradition of faith in the Abrahamic God.

Christianity is built on the concept of the OT God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and messianic prophecies within

Xy is built on the concept of following Jesus.

and thus the NT as revelation.

I don't believe the NT is "revealed." I believe it was written. By human beings.

If on the other hand you claim another God with another messianic tradition to which you have identified Jesus,

I don't.

If you claim your concept of God which Jesus is an aspect of God

I don't claim that.

where the heck are you drawing your revelation or authority with which you discard what was previously claimed as revelation - yet still propose that jesus' messianic nature is prophesied, providing a basis for authentication of Jesus as a messiah let alone a divine messiah?

Another poorly-worded question, but if I understand you correctly, authority comes from the apostolic fathers, whose authority comes from Christ.

In short - where would you be drawing this information from?

From church tradition -- of which the bible is part.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I don't think many of the stories are factual, if that's what you mean.

No I am asking about whether or not you hold them to be divinely inspired; that is what revelation means, not that it was necessarily written BY god, but that it was at least inspired by God; that the 'truths' in the work are divinely 'revealed' wisdom.

Well... this is certainly a very long, poorly-constructed, run-on question ending in a sentence. But if I understand what you're asking, it's because the NT says so, and the NT has ecclesial continuity with the OT. And because the NT church shares a tradition of faith in the Abrahamic God.

The sentence is long only because of the need to point out stipulations, delineations and asides to avoid needlessly causing offence on a topic many find sensitive. The section was mainly a list of questions designed to demonstrate the range of different queries that would need to be answered to accept Jesus as A christ let alone a prophet or 'divine' messiah bearing revelation (in the form of the teachings which men then incorporated into the NT)

If I were to write something that were ecclesiastically congruent with the NT obviously that does not mean it was necessarily revelation; so what would it matter if the NT and OT share ecclesiastical continuity? This would even more so be the case were you to suggest that the OT is not revelation (rather than merely being written by men; instead being written by men without divine inspiration).

Another poorly-worded question, but if I understand you correctly, authority comes from the apostolic fathers, whose authority comes from Christ.

Let me ensure I am reading this correctly as I may have misinterpreted you... You are saying you know Jesus was The Messiah, divine in nature - because of the apostles who were in turn chosen by Jesus. Is that correct and if so, would that not be circular logic? As it stands, most christian groups who claim jesus as messianic divinity do so by leveraging the OT prophecies (such as the star prophecy)

 

[sojourner]

No I am asking about whether or not you hold them to be divinely inspired; that is what revelation means, not that it was necessarily written BY god, but that it was at least inspired by God; that the 'truths' in the work are divinely 'revealed' wisdom.

Yes, I do. but the truths are understood and recorded through the cultural and theological lens of the writer, and so are skewed toward her or his world view.

If I were to write something that were ecclesiastically congruent with the NT obviously that does not mean it was necessarily revelation

it wouldn't? If something is ecclesially congruent with the NT, that means that it is part and parcel of the written tradition of the church -- otherwise it could not, by definition, be ecclesially congruent. And since the church is the body of Christ, that would make all ecclesially-congruent writings "revelation," by definition.

You are saying you know Jesus was The Messiah, divine in nature - because of the apostles who were in turn chosen by Jesus. Is that correct and if so, would that not be circular logic?

Well, yes, but it's not quite that simplistic. Remember that those apostles also passed authority to new apostles, from which is derived the college of bishops of today. But it's a good place to start. There is also the witness of the church for the past 2000 years (which, as I mentioned above, is the body of Christ). Additionally, there is my own sense of discernment on the matter.

Pray, from where else ought one to derive authority in such matters?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yes, I do. but the truths are understood and recorded through the cultural and theological lens of the writer, and so are skewed toward her or his world view.

I quite understand; the problem being that the record of revelation includes things that are incongruous with our understanding of Jesus - hence my comment that it would cause ideological difficulties for Christians who hold a static trinity, in this case you seem to be suggesting that it is simply that the Bible is wrong (as a literal interpretation at the least, perhaps even some of the metaphorical interpretations of certain passages) - which is one mechanism to deal with this lack of congruency; a method which I must add I prefer to many I have seen, but it does challenge the authority of the NT given you claim a lack of reliability with some parts of the record of revelation within the OT (which is used to authenticate the legitimacy of the NT see the last section for my reasoning to say this).

it wouldn't? If something is ecclesially congruent with the NT, that means that it is part and parcel of the written tradition of the church -- otherwise it could not, by definition, be ecclesially congruent. And since the church is the body of Christ, that would make all ecclesially-congruent writings "revelation," by definition.

Eh? I assume you have mistyped when you said it would as I was referring to my own writings, I assume you aren't saying that I can write something as Divine Revelation. All it takes for something to be ecclesiastically congruent is that it does not contradict established theological traditions, not that it need be legitimate (such as my own writings even if non contradictory with church teachings would not somehow be divine revelation)

Well, yes, but it's not quite that simplistic. Remember that those apostles also passed authority to new apostles, from which is derived the college of bishops of today. But it's a good place to start. There is also the witness of the church for the past 2000 years (which, as I mentioned above, is the body of Christ). Additionally, there is my own sense of discernment on the matter.

So yes, circular? (this is continued below because it is not truly circular yet you imply as much)

Pray, from where else ought one to derive authority in such matters?

I dont know, where does one go to determine the authenticity of a god, is there an established body which does so? Generally not. Instead you generally compare it to things like established religious traditions, prophecy and experiential factors of the event, such as the awe felt by people who witnessed the event and were unable to explain it in any other way than to proclaim it miraculous etc.

The issue for christianity being that they are attempting to leverage the record of revelation and prophecies (jesus is often referred to as the promised one and so forth) contained in the OT and in doing so they need to rely on that as a source of revelation; yet you have suggested that this record is unreliable at least at times (such as during the times where you think it not congruent with Jesus' teachings). As I said, this is one mechanism by which to deal with the difficulties caused by the static trinity concept - dismissing conflicts by asserting limitation (of at least different methods of interpretation, errors of the writers or even outright fabrication of particularly troubling sections) of the original record of revelation. Given that record is used as an authority for authentication of Jesus as a divine messiah, it does however diminish the authority of that authentication in the first place, so one needs to do so sparingly.

 

[sojourner]

I quite understand; the problem being that the record of revelation includes things that are incongruous with our understanding of Jesus - hence my comment that it would cause ideological difficulties for Christians who hold a static trinity, in this case you seem to be suggesting that it is simply that the Bible is wrong (as a literal interpretation at the least, perhaps even some of the metaphorical interpretations of certain passages) - which is one mechanism to deal with this lack of congruency;

Yes! Although, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the bible is "wrong," or the metaphors are "wrong." I would say that I think the OT presents a view of God that very much reflects the culture out of which the texts came. and that culture is very different from mine. In fact, i don't believe that much of the OT is literal, but I do believe that the stories relay truth as the writers saw it. And that's why it has value for me -- because it allows me to connect with my spiritual forebears.

a method which I must add I prefer to many I have seen, but it does challenge the authority of the NT given you claim a lack of reliability with some parts of the record of revelation within the OT

No, because the "authority" doesn't reside in the texts, themselves; it resides in the communal continuity of the body of believers, reflected in the stories they tell about their relationship with God. The continuity continues from the Hebraic tradition into the Xtian tradition, because the first Xtians were Jews. Matthew, for example, pushes the idea of Xy as the "true Israel," based, not upon blood kin, but spiritual fidelity to God.

Eh? I assume you have mistyped when you said it would as I was referring to my own writings, I assume you aren't saying that I can write something as Divine Revelation. All it takes for something to be ecclesiastically congruent is that it does not contradict established theological traditions, not that it need be legitimate (such as my own writings even if non contradictory with church teachings would not somehow be divine revelation)

Let's look at the writings of the Fathers, of Julian of Norwich, of Thomas Merton and henri Nouwen, at the sermons of people like Barbara Brown Taylor, and at books such as Gilead and The Shack. They are all inspired writing, and they all enjoy congruity with the church -- Just as Paul's letters and the gospels do. The "yardstick" is the canon. These writings may be inspired, and may teach us something, but even so, they're not sacred text -- that is, they aren't separated out from the body of literature for reverence, as are the biblical texts.

So yes, circular?

No. "Yes," in that "I know Jesus is Messiah, because the apostles say so."

The issue for christianity being that they are attempting to leverage the record of revelation and prophecies (jesus is often referred to as the promised one and so forth) contained in the OT and in doing so they need to rely on that as a source of revelation; yet you have suggested that this record is unreliable at least at times (such as during the times where you think it not congruent with Jesus' teachings). As I said, this is one mechanism by which to deal with the difficulties caused by the static trinity concept - dismissing conflicts by asserting limitation (of at least different methods of interpretation, errors of the writers or even outright fabrication of particularly troubling sections) of the original record of revelation. Given that record is used as an authority for authentication of Jesus as a divine messiah, it does however diminish the authority of that authentication in the first place, so one needs to do so sparingly.

Obviously, that authority is limited, since not everyone recognizes it. In the case of religion, or rather, Xy in particular (since it's the only one I can speak about with any auority), the "authority" is horizontal, that is, propagated and held within the community of believers -- not vertical, as in some "higher" being or "higher entity" (like the bible) issuing it to we minions below. To me, the vertical POV represents "bibliolatry," or ascribing more divine authority to the bible than it is due.

The church (that is, the community -- not the "leaders"), and not particularly the bible, asserts that God is Three-in-One. The bible, in a certain interpretation, implies it, and the community affirms it. That's the chain of authority in this case, at least as I see it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yes! Although, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the bible is "wrong," or the metaphors are "wrong." I would say that I think the OT presents a view of God that very much reflects the culture out of which the texts came. and that culture is very different from mine. In fact, i don't believe that much of the OT is literal, but I do believe that the stories relay truth as the writers saw it. And that's why it has value for me -- because it allows me to connect with my spiritual forebears.

To say that perhaps metaphorical interpretations might be better used - is to suggest a more literal interpretation of some sections may be wrong.

No, because the "authority" doesn't reside in the texts, themselves; it resides in the communal continuity of the body of believers, reflected in the stories they tell about their relationship with God. The continuity continues from the Hebraic tradition into the Xtian tradition, because the first Xtians were Jews. Matthew, for example, pushes the idea of Xy as the "true Israel," based, not upon blood kin, but spiritual fidelity to God.

Then you suggest that the prophesied messiah, the one the jews are repeatedly told in the OT about, does not bear any implications on the concept of Jesus? Jesus was billed as 'the promised one' the fulfillment of prophecy born of the house of Jacob with a star to tell of his coming and all that. Yet you suggest that it isn't the OT that was providing (not the authority that is God's - not the communities) the means of authentication of Jesus?

Just to be clear, authentication is when you determine the identity of something, it is when you verify who someone is; e.g. for Jesus to be verified (or authenticated) as the messiah, old prophecies were looked to, such as was he born in the right place, was there a star in the east and so forth.

Let's look at the writings of the Fathers, of Julian of Norwich, of Thomas Merton and henri Nouwen, at the sermons of people like Barbara Brown Taylor, and at books such as Gilead and The Shack. They are all inspired writing, and they all enjoy congruity with the church -- Just as Paul's letters and the gospels do. The "yardstick" is the canon. These writings may be inspired, and may teach us something, but even so, they're not sacred text -- that is, they aren't separated out from the body of literature for reverence, as are the biblical texts.

Yet not revelation. The fact that they share ecclesiastically congruence with the sacred texts non withstanding. So, how do you distinguish between the NT's ecclesiastical continuity with the OT and (for example) Nouwen's works' ecclesiastical continuity with the NT?

No. "Yes," in that "I know Jesus is Messiah, because the apostles say so."

Which is non circular how?

Obviously, that authority is limited, since not everyone recognizes it. In the case of religion, or rather, Xy in particular (since it's the only one I can speak about with any auority), the "authority" is horizontal, that is, propagated and held within the community of believers -- not vertical, as in some "higher" being or "higher entity" (like the bible) issuing it to we minions below. To me, the vertical POV represents "bibliolatry," or ascribing more divine authority to the bible than it is due.

The church (that is, the community -- not the "leaders"), and not particularly the bible, asserts that God is Three-in-One. The bible, in a certain interpretation, implies it, and the community affirms it. That's the chain of authority in this case, at least as I see it.

The Authority is always God's unless he has granted it to someone else. Has he? Well not explicitly, implicitly perhaps. We were supposedly given explicit revelation, recorded to debatable levels of accuracy within the OT (which in my opinion do implicitly - by virtue of needing to be read, and slightly greater still in order to be able to apply that understanding within situations encountered in life - convey some level of authority for interpretation of that record) in that regard, there is indeed some support for a 'horizontal' as you call it comprehension of the truth of the text and it's application, but that authority is derived implicitly from the text.

The authority, the record of revelation still provides the histories, laws, parables, prophecies and so forth - it was some of those prophecies (such as the star prophecy which indicated where one messiah would be born and signs by which to hopefully assist in authenticating him).

The actual authentication was likely achieved 'horizontally' at the time (while he was alive) as people flocked to him; but to do this they would have been examining their ancient prophecies and saying, 'was jesus heralded by a star' (probably but one question they were asking) - it is the record of revelation, the OT (in this case) that was used by people when authenticating Jesus as a messiah. There were likely many people born under the same sign - so obviously some of it was more than merely examining the OT, they would have looked to their understanding of the present situation they were in and the stories they had heard for example and this horizontal approach you refer to plays in here as well - BUT that only occurs if the vertical approach (checking to see if Jesus was prophesied for example) were validated.

The authentication is carried out by people (since God provided no other mechanism with the Authority to do so), using the record of revelation that they had at the time, the OT.

 

[sojourner]

To say that perhaps metaphorical interpretations might be better used - is to suggest a more literal interpretation of some sections may be wrong.

Not sure I'd say "wrong." "Misguided" might be better. The bible is open to any number of interpretations. However, if exegesis is incorrectly undertaken, an interpretational conclusion may be reached that doesn't jive with all known facts.

Yet you suggest that it isn't the OT that was providing (not the authority that is God's - not the communities) the means of authentication of Jesus?

I don't believe the OT authenticates Jesus (although there are several OT prophecies that xtians cite which seem to point to Jesus; but it must be pointed out that the OT prophecies do not, in any way, imply "Jesus.")

Just to be clear, authentication is when you determine the identity of something, it is when you verify who someone is; e.g. for Jesus to be verified (or authenticated) as the messiah, old prophecies were looked to, such as was he born in the right place, was there a star in the east and so forth.

Correct, but as I've said above, the OT prophecies do not name Jesus explicitly. Their authority in the matter is coincidental.

Yet not revelation.

I don't see why not. I, for one, learned a lot from reading The Shack.

So, how do you distinguish between the NT's ecclesiastical continuity with the OT and (for example) Nouwen's works' ecclesiastical continuity with the NT?

Simple: The OT and NT are canon. Nouwen is not. But don't misunderstand me: I don't think that "authority" or "revelation" are limited to canon text.

Which is non circular how?

They were there with him -- I was not. It's eyewitness identification.

The Authority is always God's unless he has granted it to someone else. Has he? Well not explicitly, implicitly perhaps.

Since the church is the Body of Christ, and since Christ handed authority to his apostles (who, together with the laity, comprise the church, I'd have to say that the church carries God's authority, both explicitly and implicitly.

but that authority is derived implicitly from the text.

and explicitly from Jesus, as it was handed to his apostles. What it boils down to is that both scripture and apostles' word are part of Tradition.

The actual authentication was likely achieved 'horizontally' at the time (while he was alive) as people flocked to him; but to do this they would have been examining their ancient prophecies and saying, 'was jesus heralded by a star' (probably but one question they were asking) - it is the record of revelation, the OT (in this case) that was used by people when authenticating Jesus as a messiah.

But, more importantly, it was also through experiencing Jesus in action that caused people to believe in him as Messiah.

The authentication is carried out by people (since God provided no other mechanism with the Authority to do so), using the record of revelation that they had at the time, the OT.

You're forgetting the other record of revelation: eyewitness testimony.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Not sure I'd say "wrong." "Misguided" might be better. The bible is open to any number of interpretations. However, if exegesis is incorrectly undertaken, an interpretational conclusion may be reached that doesn't jive with all known facts.

A literal interpretation is either right or wrong there is no middle ground, it is binary.
A metaphorical interpretation on the other hand provides leniency in this matter since metaphors can be interpreted more widely.

I don't believe the OT authenticates Jesus (although there are several OT prophecies that xtians cite which seem to point to Jesus; but it must be pointed out that the OT prophecies do not, in any way, imply "Jesus.")

Correct, but as I've said above, the OT prophecies do not name Jesus explicitly. Their authority in the matter is coincidental.

Without the OT, there would be no 'promised messiah', you could still suggest that God Jesus was a god or a prophet or what have you, however that is not what is claimed - that he was the fulfillment of ancient prophecy from the Abrahamic god, therefor the OT is the record of the revelation providing support for authentication of an individual as a messiah.

I don't see why not. I, for one, learned a lot from reading The Shack.

Simple: The OT and NT are canon. Nouwen is not. But don't misunderstand me: I don't think that "authority" or "revelation" are limited to canon text.

So, are you seriously suggesting that someone can choose to write revelation? that if I so desired I could pick up a pen and write revelation (provided it didnt clash with your church)?

They were there with him -- I was not. It's eyewitness identification.

If Jesus selected them, then their proclamation of his divinity is circular reasoning because the authority by which is being used to accept their proclamation is that they are apostles (i.e. were chosen by jesus) - it is indeed circular reasoning; which is why Jesus' divinity is supported in other ways, such as claims to fulfill OT prophecies.

Since the church is the Body of Christ, and since Christ handed authority to his apostles (who, together with the laity, comprise the church, I'd have to say that the church carries God's authority, both explicitly and implicitly.

and explicitly from Jesus, as it was handed to his apostles. What it boils down to is that both scripture and apostles' word are part of Tradition.

I think you may have missed the timing of the point, which is not AFTER jesus' time, but during jesus' time.

At that time the church that was to be formed by his apostles did not exist. Instead there was only the Jewish community of the time (who btw supported calls for his death because they deemed him a heretic), at that time the only divine 'authority' other than God himself was the record of divine revelation he had inspired (the OT) and those who had implied authority to interpret it.

But, more importantly, it was also through experiencing Jesus in action that caused people to believe in him as Messiah.

You're forgetting the other record of revelation: eyewitness testimony.

I did indeed mention that. However, that is contingent on a vertical claim of authority, which in Jesus' case took place by leveraging OT prophecies about a messiah heralded by a star in the east.

 

[sojourner]

A literal interpretation is either right or wrong there is no middle ground, it is binary.
A metaphorical interpretation on the other hand provides leniency in this matter since metaphors can be interpreted more widely.

Any time we talk about God, we talk metaphorically, because we cannot define God -- we can only describe God, and many times only loosely. That's why I object to the word "wrong." It suggests a literalism. Literalism defines. Metaphor describes.

Without the OT, there would be no 'promised messiah', you could still suggest that God Jesus was a god or a prophet or what have you, however that is not what is claimed - that he was the fulfillment of ancient prophecy from the Abrahamic god, therefor the OT is the record of the revelation providing support for authentication of an individual as a messiah.

Right, but it only provides us with an existential platform for for a messiah. Jesus fails to live up to the strict messianic expectation of the OT. Rather, it was his usually parabolic work in earthly ministry -- healing the sick, feeding the hungry, forgiving the prostitute, welcoming the outcast -- that provide the authentication for his messiahship -- a messiahship that was a different model than that in the OT.

So, are you seriously suggesting that someone can choose to write revelation? that if I so desired I could pick up a pen and write revelation (provided it didnt clash with your church)?

The author of Isaiah chose to write Isaiah. Paul chose to write his letters (none of which was conceived or written as "scripture"). I think God can use anyone God chooses to write revelation. So long as it has the ring of truth to it, it's revelation, because God is truth.

If Jesus selected them, then their proclamation of his divinity is circular reasoning because the authority by which is being used to accept their proclamation is that they are apostles (i.e. were chosen by jesus) - it is indeed circular reasoning; which is why Jesus' divinity is supported in other ways, such as claims to fulfill OT prophecies.

I see your point, but it's not quite the same as what I said. I didn't say that the authority comes because they were chosen by Jesus. I said that it came because they were eyewitnesses -- they were there with Jesus. Remember: many other people who were not apostles were there with Jesus and proclaimed him "Messiah." Eyewitness account isn't circular.

I think you may have missed the timing of the point, which is not AFTER jesus' time, but during jesus' time.

At that time the church that was to be formed by his apostles did not exist. Instead there was only the Jewish community of the time (who btw supported calls for his death because they deemed him a heretic), at that time the only divine 'authority' other than God himself was the record of divine revelation he had inspired (the OT) and those who had implied authority to interpret it.

I didn't miss your point. Notice that Jesus does not fit the written, OT criteria for messiah. Notice,also, that "those who had...authority to interpret it" also dismissed him. Therefore, the authority does not come from either the OT or from the Religious Authorities. It comes from the life of Jesus, itself, and those who shared directly in his life. It was they who began the church that carries on that authority today.

I did indeed mention that. However, that is contingent on a vertical claim of authority, which in Jesus' case took place by leveraging OT prophecies about a messiah heralded by a star in the east.

Right, but my point is that the vertical hierarchy rejected Jesus. It was the masses that accepted him.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Right, but it only provides us with an existential platform for for a messiah. Jesus fails to live up to the strict messianic expectation of the OT. Rather, it was his usually parabolic work in earthly ministry -- healing the sick, feeding the hungry, forgiving the prostitute, welcoming the outcast -- that provide the authentication for his messiahship -- a messiahship that was a different model than that in the OT.

Are you suggesting he was not the messiah prophesied by the OT?

The author of Isaiah chose to write Isaiah. Paul chose to write his letters (none of which was conceived or written as "scripture"). I think God can use anyone God chooses to write revelation. So long as it has the ring of truth to it, it's revelation, because God is truth.

Are you differentiating now between canon and scripture as well?
Are you saying so long as it 'has the ring of truth' (if it sounds right) to it then it can be written by anyone and doesnt have to be inspired by god?

I see your point, but it's not quite the same as what I said. I didn't say that the authority comes because they were chosen by Jesus. I said that it came because they were eyewitnesses -- they were there with Jesus. Remember: many other people who were not apostles were there with Jesus and proclaimed him "Messiah." Eyewitness account isn't circular.

And if you had left it as eyewitnesses then we would not have discussed this, there were after all many eye witnesses who supported the miracles and many who believed him a heretic and called for his death, both were eyewitnesses> However, you chose to elevate the testimony of the apostles (above that of his detractors for example; or even merely of bystanders who believed but were not singled out as being 'special' in some way by jesus) thus I pointed to this as being influenced by circular logic.

I didn't miss your point. Notice that Jesus does not fit the written, OT criteria for messiah. Notice,also, that "those who had...authority to interpret it" also dismissed him. Therefore, the authority does not come from either the OT or from the Religious Authorities. It comes from the life of Jesus, itself, and those who shared directly in his life. It was they who began the church that carries on that authority today.

Right, but my point is that the vertical hierarchy rejected Jesus. It was the masses that accepted him.

They certainly did and they accepted him as THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY; the promised messiah, not 'God has come among us' or even 'oh A christ/prophet has come to us bearing new revelation', but rather that 'the sacred texts that we have lived by are being fulfilled in our time, the deliverance of the Jewish people from their suffering is at hand.' However you like to dice it that is how they billed it (hence the claims of a non-existent census that supposedly changed his birthplace so that it could conform to prophecy); and it was precisely for that reason the Jewish authorities supported him being put to death.

 

[Domenic]

I've been studying the New Testament and it is becoming clear to me that the trinity is not a biblical concept. It actually resembles a pagan Roman concept. You will not find the word "trinity" anywhere in the Bible, nor is it implied. In fact, the New Testament seems to confirm the theme of the old Jewish books. That God is one.

Now, when a scribe asked Jesus what is the FIRST COMMANDMENT, what did Jesus say?

Mark:12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Now let's analyze this situation. This is a SCRIBE! A scribe is a learned man. Scribes were rare and the highly educated ones in those days. So why is a scribe asking Jesus a question that any 8 year old Jewish boy could have answered a thousand years earlier? Because he wanted to make sure Jesus was not claiming to be God and that he was still teaching the most important Jewish teaching of all. That God is ONE!

And what did Jesus say?
That God is indeed ONE.
Jesus said the very first commandment of all is that God is ONE. But if you ask most modern day Christians what THEIR first commandment is. They will tell you God is THREE!

Worshipping anyone other than God (Jesus included) is breaking the most important commandment of all. I have yet to find any evidence that Jesus asked to be worshipped. In fact, he himself worshipped the creator. So anyone who believes in the trinity and worships Jesus, please explain what verses or teachings you are using to justify this belief.

Thank you my learned friend. One of (what they call their self) holy fathers in the Vatican, (where their pope is) decided on the three parts of God because of the three wise men story. The part I find funny, is the Bible does not say how many wise men there were…lol. They even think Jesus who is the son of God in the Bible, is God…I could go on and make it funnier. These wise men were not even there when Jesus was born. Most who claim to be Christians do not read the Bible, they listen to stories their leaders tell them.
I am Christian…but I follow no religion. I follow Gods word that I can prove out. You can not reason God with those he has blinded.

 

[sojourner]

Are you suggesting he was not the messiah prophesied by the OT?

I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter to me what the OT prophesies. I'm not an ancient Hebrew. I think they prophesied something according to their cultural viewpoint. I think first century Palestine got something according to their cultural viewpoint. I think we believe in something according to our cultural viewpoint.

Are you differentiating now between canon and scripture as well?

Sure! Not all scripture is canon, you know.

Are you saying so long as it 'has the ring of truth' (if it sounds right) to it then it can be written by anyone and doesnt have to be inspired by god?

No, I'm saying that anything that is truthful is inspired by God.

And if you had left it as eyewitnesses then we would not have discussed this, there were after all many eye witnesses who supported the miracles and many who believed him a heretic and called for his death, both were eyewitnesses> However, you chose to elevate the testimony of the apostles (above that of his detractors for example; or even merely of bystanders who believed but were not singled out as being 'special' in some way by jesus) thus I pointed to this as being influenced by circular logic.

Sooo... just because the apostles gave that testimony, that makes it circular?
Riiiight...

They certainly did and they accepted him as THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY;

They also changed their perception of the prophecy, itself -- and they changed their perception of who the true Israel is, according to Matthew, at any rate.

not 'God has come among us' or even 'oh A christ/prophet has come to us bearing new revelation', but rather that 'the sacred texts that we have lived by are being fulfilled in our time, the deliverance of the Jewish people from their suffering is at hand.'

Are you sure about that?

However you like to dice it that is how they billed it (hence the claims of a non-existent census that supposedly changed his birthplace so that it could conform to prophecy); and it was precisely for that reason the Jewish authorities supported him being put to death.

Don't you think they knew they were making it up when they made it up??? Of course they did -- because they knew that Jesus didn't really "fit the bill," according to Judaic Tradition. this is a paradigm shift we're talking about -- not a continuation of a Tradition, but a Tradition seen in a brand new way.

 

[sojourner]

Thank you my learned friend. One of (what they call their self) holy fathers in the Vatican, (where their pope is) decided on the three parts of God because of the three wise men story. The part I find funny, is the Bible does not say how many wise men there were…lol. They even think Jesus who is the son of God in the Bible, is God…I could go on and make it funnier. These wise men were not even there when Jesus was born. Most who claim to be Christians do not read the Bible, they listen to stories their leaders tell them.
I am Christian…but I follow no religion. I follow Gods word that I can prove out. You can not reason God with those he has blinded.

Ok. You can go back to your other cartoons, now.

 

[Domenic]

Ok. You can go back to your other cartoons, now.

You are no different than thhose in the Temple. You know how Jesus felt about them? You who charge money for Gods word. ( your occupation...clergy.) You lie what the scriptures say. You tell people the lie they will go to Heaven. Do you also tell others the lie they will go to a hell of fire? It is the Bible (Gods word) that makes you a liar...not my words.
Get behind me.

 

[sojourner]

You are no different than thhose in the Temple. You know how Jesus felt about them? You who charge money for Gods word. ( your occupation...clergy.) You lie what the scriptures say. You tell people the lie they will go to Heaven. Do you also tell others the lie they will go to a hell of fire? It is the Bible (Gods word) that makes you a liar...not my words.
Get behind me.

No, no! Not that cartoon!

The other ones -- you know -- like "Beavis and Butthead," etc.

1) Since I don't sacrifice animals, I'm not at all "like those in the Temple.
2) Since you don't know anything about me, you can't say with any certainty that I do "charge money for God's word." In fact, I don't.
3) Have you ever heard me preach? No? then how can you say for certain what I tell people?
4) The reference to Satan is mildly amusing, but hardly cogent.
5) Ad hominem is usually indicative that the user has no valid argument.

But feel free to continue down this course of action. It's sure :foot: of you, and thus quite entertaining!!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter to me what the OT prophesies. I'm not an ancient Hebrew. I think they prophesied something according to their cultural viewpoint. I think first century Palestine got something according to their cultural viewpoint. I think we believe in something according to our cultural viewpoint.

So for the people of the time, their cultural view point would have been....? thats right, they would have been looking at the OT. It is the OT then that was supposedly used as the basis for authenticating jesus as a messiah.

Sooo... just because the apostles gave that testimony, that makes it circular?
Riiiight...

No, the elevation of a certain portion of the witnesses testimony precisely BECAUSE they were chosen by Jesus makes it circular reasoning

They also changed their perception of the prophecy, itself -- and they changed their perception of who the true Israel is, according to Matthew, at any rate.

Are you sure about that?

Don't you think they knew they were making it up when they made it up??? Of course they did -- because they knew that Jesus didn't really "fit the bill," according to Judaic Tradition. this is a paradigm shift we're talking about -- not a continuation of a Tradition, but a Tradition seen in a brand new way.

At the time however they were indeed claiming that he 'did' fit the bill; that is why some people thought he might be a messiah while others thought he was a heretic - precisely because of that attempt to paint him as the fulfillment of prophecy.

 

[atanu]

I think that you're the first person that's ever seemed to "get" where I'm coming from in my interpretation of the Trinity. I appreciate that.

Thank you dawny.

 

[sojourner]

So for the people of the time, their cultural view point would have been....? thats right, they would have been looking at the OT. It is the OT then that was supposedly used as the basis for authenticating jesus as a messiah.

No. that's not what I said -- and I disagree. Jesus was absolutely not the same as the OT Messiah. Why do you think most of the Jews didn't follow him??? Because he didn't "fit the bill." In the end, the basis for Jesus' authentication came from his actions and his teachings (as I said earlier -- as proven by Matthew's portrayal of the church as "the true Israel").

No, the elevation of a certain portion of the witnesses testimony precisely BECAUSE they were chosen by Jesus makes it circular reasoning

But I didn't give that as a reason. My reason was predicated upon "eyewitness" not "chosen."

At the time however they were indeed claiming that he 'did' fit the bill; that is why some people thought he might be a messiah while others thought he was a heretic - precisely because of that attempt to paint him as the fulfillment of prophecy.

Well, but I don't think it's that easy or that black-and-white. They did paint him as the fulfillment of prophecy, but they never claimed that he was exactly what had been expected. What was claimed was that Jesus was better than what had been expected.

 

[Aamer]

The ancient Hebrews were under the impression that the Messiah would liberate them from Roman rule. If the result had been different, the majority would have followed him. But God had a different plan.