God is 1 vs God is 3

[sojourner]

Actually there are many many messiahs in the OT, none of whom are suggested to be divine in and of themselves, so just to say that jesus was not god (which btw is not the only nontrinitarian position) does not imply he was not the promised messiah - especially since there is nothing in the OT to suggest that the promised messiah (there is some degree of emphasis on the term 'the' here) would be divine; so while I agree there might still be significant theological implications (as I mentioned above) the nontrinitarian approach seldom has as significant theological implications as the trinitarian approaches, given what is often a more limited assertion of jesus' divine agency throughout history.

The problem is, though, that from an OT standpoint (and this is something that is consistent between the OT and NT), salvation is God's province. If the Messiah (savior) isn't God, then we automatically have a problem. If the Messiah is God, then there's no problem. So, in the Trinitarian view, the assertion that Jesus is the Messiah is only at odds from the standpoint of perspective (that is, that the Messiah would provide a military salvation), but not from the standpoint of theology (that salvation is God's province).

 

[sojourner]

I don't think anyone does. I'm not sure that you do. You continuously speak in circles without ever making a solid point. I'm not trying to be rude but after all these posts, I still have no idea what you base your beliefs on. Blind faith?

Orthodox tradition, as supported biblically.

 

[Sha'irullah]

One of the primary issues here is the insistence from most outside sources that Christianity be "based on the bible," as in a sola scriptura stance. Christianity has never been "based on the bible," because, for the first 450 years, the bible didn't exist, and sola scriptura didn't enter the picture for the first 1500 years of the church's existence. We have always been based in relationship, not in scripture.

I wonder what "days of Pagan influence" you might be talking about. The OT certainly comes to us before the "Pagan influence." Paul's letters were written mostly less than 70 years following the Jesus Event. The gospels were written prior to 120 -- less than 100 years following the Jesus Event -- and the sources from which they're taken are decidedly earlier than that.

The Semites like the Indians have a long history or orally reciting their scriptures and preserving them. Europeans have no such tradition and if you claim a 450 year gap estimation then surely you are making the Bible seem more corrupt. Now of course there will be some sort of oral recitation even if it is not on the lines on the Semites but regardless once something has been translated there is obvious corruption when it has been taken away from its original tongue. Read the Quran in Arabic and then in English and you will see what I mean.

I simply don't find evidence that there has been any significant amount of "doctrinal tampering," outside of the fact that each of the gospel writers had his own theological agenda, and Paul's letters (which were letters -- not sacred script) were his own theological treatments. Your reference to the Tawrat as the "original source" is laughable, since the best biblical interpretations are very close to the Jewish editions, and since "Tawrat" is a Muslim concept, that comes to us from a much later period than the sources from which biblical interpretation is carried out.

Of course the OT heavily resembles the sacred Jewish texts and arrives before Pagan influence but also don't forget that the Jews don't accept the majority of the OT as well. And surely when the OT was translated it would have pagan (cultural primarily) influence during translation. As for the New Testament, the pagan influence is utterly obvious.
Tawrat is the Torah. It is just an Arabic word and I use it more often since I have been a Muslim for quite a while. There is no difference in Torah or Tawrat since they are the same object, just a different language. The fact you did not know that is actually quite laughable. It is like the Christian claim as to why the Muslims do not worship God and say they worship Allah but in reality they are both the same words. It is called cultural difference.

Your church history is weak. There was no distinct "Catholic Church" until 1054 -- well after Europe had already been evangelized.

The Catholic Church has been around far longer than that. You yourself admit to it by using the word "distinct". Definitive denominations did not form until way later as we all know but the Catholic mentality has existed far longer than the foundation of Catholicism. This is like the old Salafi terminology within Saudi Arabia. They describe it as the purest and most original form yet the actual usage of the word is relatively new.

 

[sojourner]

The Semites like the Indians have a long history or orally reciting their scriptures and preserving them. Europeans have no such tradition and if you claim a 450 year gap estimation then surely you are making the Bible seem more corrupt.

I don't know where you're getting "Europeans" from, but the church was primarily formed in the Middle East and Asia Minor. And it was done, largely, without written text as we know it. What I said was that the bible as we know it, was not formulated for about 450 years. But that doesn't mean that there weren't written texts of come kind floating around. The point I was trying to make is that you appear to want Xy to be based upon the bible as it now is. But the bible wasn't as it now is, so that cannot have happened. Much was passed down orally. Same with the OT, BTW. The texts were not written down as we now have them until about 600 b.c.e. So, the issue of authenticity doesn't lie in textual fidelity. It lies in fidelity to the Tradition, which, in the case of both the Hebrews and the early Xtians, was largely orally transmitted.

once something has been translated there is obvious corruption when it has been taken away from its original tongue.

The problem of translation doesn't = "corrupt." It = "problematic." And there's not a whole lot that's impossible from which to derive a viable "jist."

surely when the OT was translated it would have pagan (cultural primarily) influence during translation.

Why should it? Translation is not primarily a "pagan" activity. You're grasping for straws.

As for the New Testament, the pagan influence is utterly obvious.

Is it? In what way? The texts were written in Greek, and there was cultural conformity, but don't forget: Xy isn't particularly culturally-imbedded as is Islam or Judaism. It wasn't meant to be.

Tawrat is the Torah. It is just an Arabic word and I use it more often since I have been a Muslim for quite a while. There is no difference in Torah or Tawrat since they are the same object, just a different language. The fact you did not know that is actually quite laughable.

I did know that, actually. The difference is cultural, not textual. Islam sees the text through its own cultural lens, and proclaims it as "authentic," even though Islam is much newer than Xy. The Islamic idea of the texts do not concern us -- nor should they.

The Catholic Church has been around far longer than that.

The Catholic Church was not a distinct body until 1054. Before that, power vacillated between Rome and Constantinople (and other locales). So, to claim that the church is, at it's core, "pagan," because Rome was largely pagan, is simply a false claim. It was not Rome who put the bible together. It was the ecumenical church who put the bible together -- much, much broader in scope and culture than simply "the Roman mentality."

 

[InformedIgnorance]

If the Messiah (savior) isn't God, then we automatically have a problem.

Why? Messiahs are by definition anointed by god, though it could be argued that the purposes of that anointment might determine the relevant authority of that messiah. If one determines therefore that God desired to anoint one such messiah (Jesus) to be a prophet (which is not the entirely the same as a messiah, some messiahs have been prophets some have not been and vice versa) and communicate the means of divine salvation (and had the authority to attempt to authenticate the divine message the prophet jesus was granted with some miracles) then the salvation is still god's domain, it is merely that it was communicated to us by someone who was chosen by god to do so.

 

[Shermana]

Why? Messiahs are by definition anointed by god, though it could be argued that the purposes of that anointment might determine the relevant authority of that messiah. If one determines therefore that God desired to anoint one such messiah (Jesus) to be a prophet (which is not the entirely the same as a messiah, some messiahs have been prophets some have not been and vice versa) and communicate the means of divine salvation (and had the authority to attempt to authenticate the divine message the prophet jesus was granted with some miracles) then the salvation is still god's domain, it is merely that it was communicated to us by someone who was chosen by god to do so.

^^^We have a winner.

 

[Shiranui117]

I don't know where you're getting "Europeans" from, but the church was primarily formed in the Middle East and Asia Minor. And it was done, largely, without written text as we know it. What I said was that the bible as we know it, was not formulated for about 450 years. But that doesn't mean that there weren't written texts of come kind floating around. The point I was trying to make is that you appear to want Xy to be based upon the bible as it now is. But the bible wasn't as it now is, so that cannot have happened. Much was passed down orally. Same with the OT, BTW. The texts were not written down as we now have them until about 600 b.c.e. So, the issue of authenticity doesn't lie in textual fidelity. It lies in fidelity to the Tradition, which, in the case of both the Hebrews and the early Xtians, was largely orally transmitted.

The problem of translation doesn't = "corrupt." It = "problematic." And there's not a whole lot that's impossible from which to derive a viable "jist."

Why should it? Translation is not primarily a "pagan" activity. You're grasping for straws.

Is it? In what way? The texts were written in Greek, and there was cultural conformity, but don't forget: Xy isn't particularly culturally-imbedded as is Islam or Judaism. It wasn't meant to be.

I did know that, actually. The difference is cultural, not textual. Islam sees the text through its own cultural lens, and proclaims it as "authentic," even though Islam is much newer than Xy. The Islamic idea of the texts do not concern us -- nor should they.

The Catholic Church was not a distinct body until 1054. Before that, power vacillated between Rome and Constantinople (and other locales). So, to claim that the church is, at it's core, "pagan," because Rome was largely pagan, is simply a false claim. It was not Rome who put the bible together. It was the ecumenical church who put the bible together -- much, much broader in scope and culture than simply "the Roman mentality."

I love it when people know their history.

 

[sojourner]

Why? Messiahs are by definition anointed by god, though it could be argued that the purposes of that anointment might determine the relevant authority of that messiah. If one determines therefore that God desired to anoint one such messiah (Jesus) to be a prophet (which is not the entirely the same as a messiah, some messiahs have been prophets some have not been and vice versa) and communicate the means of divine salvation (and had the authority to attempt to authenticate the divine message the prophet jesus was granted with some miracles) then the salvation is still god's domain, it is merely that it was communicated to us by someone who was chosen by god to do so.

Yes, but therein lies the rub with the theology of the OT. THE Messiah wasn't going to be one to "communicate" salvation to us. THE Messiah (according to Isaiah, at least) was going to be Emmanuel -- God with us; not God near us, not God via somebody else, not God hidden from us -- God with us. A human being (Jesus) was certainly anointed by God. That fully human person was also fully God, thus fulfilling the prophecy. Moses was anointed by God. Moses wasn't THE Messiah. David was anointed by God. David wasn't THE Messiah.

Furthermore, someone "sent by God" to do the act isn't the same as God doing the act. God's domain, perhaps, but not God's doing.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

An interesting point; the problem being that Issiah (7 and 8) does not speak of Immanuel as a messiah but rather prophesies that the birth of this child is a sign given by god that would demonstrate that Assyria would not destroy Judah yet invade Syria and Ephraim (circa 730BCE) Mathew attempts to suggest that Jesus is the fulfillment of this prophecy (RF Thread on this topic) in order to suggest immaculate conception (a different thread) and to somehow claim for Jesus the name Immanuel (which he was never addressed nor is there any indication that was a name ever used with reference to him during his life time). However the Immanuel in Isiah was not a messiah but a symbol of god's providence in showing that Judah would be safe, but even if you suggested he was a messiah, there is nothing to indicate that this particular messiah would be special compared to others. There are many names in the bible that include 'god' the most striking being 'Israel' (God Rules); Immanuel 'god is with us' is merely a reflection of god being with the people of Judah and that therefore they would be safe from the assyrians. IMO the link to Isiah's Immanuel prophecy is the least compelling prophecy for jesus's messianic nature; the Star and Scepter prophecy is far more interesting.

Though TBH your attempt to identify OT prophesies at the moment to support your claim sort of undermines your earlier arguments that the OT and NT arent really supposed to reconcile.

Assuming the position they are not supposed to reconcile, there is no need to look for OT prophesies: to paraphrase one of your earlier arguments you can know he is god because he performed miracles and people at the time thought he was god, therefore he was god.

To maintain consistent with the assertion that the OT and NT are not supposed to reconcile, there is no need to look at the OT at all for any suggestion of Jesus' divine nature, or indeed for many other reasons, though this later is somewhat undermined by Jesus himself pointing out that the OT was to be obeyed. So the OT remains relevant, even if as you suggest the two are not meant to reconcile; just how you square the two characteristics (non-reconciling yet relevant) in such a case is up to you (but regardless, there would be no need for OT prophesies if the two are not meant to reconcile because you are asserting a completely different means of authenticating his divine nature than OT prophesy).​

 

[Shermana]

An interesting point; the problem being that Issiah (7 and 8) does not speak of Immanuel as a messiah but rather prophesies that the birth of this child is a sign given by god that would demonstrate that Assyria would not destroy Judah yet invade Syria and Ephraim (circa 730BCE) Mathew attempts to suggest that Jesus is the fulfillment of this prophecy (RF Thread on this topic) in order to suggest immaculate conception (a different thread) and to somehow claim for Jesus the name Immanuel (which he was never addressed nor is there any indication that was a name ever used with reference to him during his life time). However the Immanuel in Isiah was not a messiah but a symbol of god's providence in showing that Judah would be safe, but even if you suggested he was a messiah, there is nothing to indicate that this particular messiah would be special compared to others. There are many names in the bible that include 'god' the most striking being 'Israel' (God Rules); Immanuel 'god is with us' is merely a reflection of god being with the people of Judah and that therefore they would be safe from the assyrians. IMO the link to Isiah's Immanuel prophecy is the least compelling prophecy for jesus's messianic nature; the Star and Scepter prophecy is far more interesting.

Though TBH your attempt to identify OT prophesies at the moment to support your claim sort of undermines your earlier arguments that the OT and NT arent really supposed to reconcile.

Assuming the position they are not supposed to reconcile, there is no need to look for OT prophesies: to paraphrase one of your earlier arguments you can know he is god because he performed miracles and people at the time thought he was god, therefore he was god.

To maintain consistent with the assertion that the OT and NT are not supposed to reconcile, there is no need to look at the OT at all for any suggestion of Jesus' divine nature, or indeed for many other reasons, though this later is somewhat undermined by Jesus himself pointing out that the OT was to be obeyed. So the OT remains relevant, even if as you suggest the two are not meant to reconcile; just how you square the two characteristics (non-reconciling yet relevant) in such a case is up to you (but regardless, there would be no need for OT prophesies if the two are not meant to reconcile because you are asserting a completely different means of authenticating his divine nature than OT prophesy).​

This is correct, as I have pointed out in more detail in the Matthew 7 thread, there is good weight for the idea that the Virgin Birth was shoe horned in later by interpolators (The widely circulated Gospel of Nicodemus confirms that Joseph was the Father) and there's a reason that John and Mark didn't feel it was important enough to mention, and why Luke felt it was important enough to have a whole Geneology listed for his dad. The Ebionite Gospel of Matthew starts at Chapter 3, and I think there's did not so much snip out 1-2 but simply was closer to the original.

Isaiah 7 is referring to the child born in Isaiah 8, and is strange how few Christians seem to even be aware of the child born in Chapter 8 and how most of the prophecy in 7 does not fit to Jesus at all.

With that said, some translations are honest enough to include the "IS" for "God is with us" but then change it to "God with us" when it's mentioned in the NT. It seems also that most use think "God with us" means "This person is God with us" have little understanding of how Hebrew names work. The idea that the Messiah was going to be "God with us" instead of "Called God is with us" is an example of how Trinitarian twisting of Hebrew concepts is necessary to promote their doctrinal view. If they'd kindly admit that their view isn't necessarily objective let alone the probable interpretation of what the Hebrew prophecy was supposed to mean, considering that the child born in Isaiah 78was not "God with us as in the flesh walking among us", that would be a step towards credibility and honesty. So even if they go by the "Double prophecy" idea, they can't just have it one way for the child born in Chapter 8 but another way for Jesus.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Furthermore, someone "sent by God" to do the act isn't the same as God doing the act. God's domain, perhaps, but not God's doing.

I forgot to cover this earlier, sorry about that.

If god is responsible for salvation of people and determines to send a messenger to tell people of how to obtain salvation, how is this in anyway a dereliction of that responsibility? A non-Divine Jesus might still be responsible for providing people with the ability to grasp the means of salvation (the truths in the NT) - however it would be god who developed the means (and even concept) of salvation and the willingness to provide it to people; and it would be god who anointed jesus to communicate these truths. Why would god's use of an intermediary somehow be illegitimate?

 

[Shermana]

Also note that in Obadiah 1:21, that God sends saviors. Did those saviors not do the act of saving of which God sent them to do?

 

[sojourner]

I forgot to cover this earlier, sorry about that.

If god is responsible for salvation of people and determines to send a messenger to tell people of how to obtain salvation, how is this in anyway a dereliction of that responsibility? A non-Divine Jesus might still be responsible for providing people with the ability to grasp the means of salvation (the truths in the NT) - however it would be god who developed the means (and even concept) of salvation and the willingness to provide it to people; and it would be god who anointed jesus to communicate these truths. Why would god's use of an intermediary somehow be illegitimate?

You're scenario assumes that salvation is something that can be "obtained." In other words, we have to "do something" in order to "get it." That's not how salvation works. Grace isn't "won," it's given. No human being can impart grace. Only God can impart grace.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

And if you believe in a non divine jesus: God does impart grace, to those who follow his directions (or whatever the vehicle for salvation you happen to believe in) as conveyed by God's chosen representative Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

And if you believe in a non divine jesus: God does impart grace, to those who follow his directions (or whatever the vehicle for salvation you happen to believe in) as conveyed by God's chosen representative Jesus.

That's why a non-Divine Jesus doesn't work. "To those who follow his directions" implies a condition. Grace is unconditional.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I DID state 'or whatever the vehicle ... you believe in' - if you believe it is unconditional then the idea of a non divine Jesus used as a messenger of unconditional grace remains consistent. It is still GOD who is doing it, not Jesus who is acting as God's chosen means of communicating that grace to humanity. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that a divine Jesus might not be consistent with this assertion, but a non divine Jesus can be too.

 

[Shermana]

I DID state 'or whatever the vehicle ... you believe in' - if you believe it is unconditional then the idea of a non divine Jesus used as a messenger of unconditional grace remains consistent. It is still GOD who is doing it, not Jesus who is acting as God's chosen means of communicating that grace to humanity. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that a divine Jesus might not be consistent with this assertion, but a non divine Jesus can be too.

According to Paul, Grace is not unconditional at all. Those who unrepentantly commit sin will "not inherit the Kingdom".

Hebrews 10:26-29 confirms that those who continue to sin after receiving knowledge of the truth only have firy indignation to look forward to.

The idea of "unconditional grace" requires some expert cherry picking and snipping out 99% of everything else Paul teaches. But it's nonetheless a mainstream position, especially among those with an allergy to reading all of Paul's epistles and not just their favorite verses.

And with that said, I agree with you, there's no reason that Jesus would have to be Divine (as in God himself) to give "Unconditional Grace" even if that were the case. Especially if he was "given" authority to forgive sin. One does not "give" something to himself in terms of transferring authority.

 

[Muffled]

In my Salafi Muslim days I would have to say that it is quite common for a Muslim to read the Bible. Muslims are by far more religious than Christians and often use the Bible to attack them. Christian read the Quran but the issue is they have very little understanding of it and they don't understand canonical Arabic. While Christians often don't know the canonical language of their own scriptures. Down to the Hebrew canon of the first 5 books of the Torah to the latter.
Muslims are not as close minded as the media makes them appear. To be honest they are quite the opposite.

I believe an attitude of wishing to attack people comes from Iblis not from the Qu'ran.

I believe very few Christians are reading the Qu'ran. Most likely only Biblical students doing comparative religion class or missionaries are apt to read it and most likely not in Arabic altough I doubt there is much difference. At least I haven't had a Muslim point a difference out to me yet. When I did investigate the Arabaic for a particular verse I found the translator had taken a common Islamic view in his translation and for that reason the English did not reflect accurately the Arabic.

I believe most people don't. I have had an occasion to look at both the Hebrew and Greek.

 

[sojourner]

I DID state 'or whatever the vehicle ... you believe in' - if you believe it is unconditional then the idea of a non divine Jesus used as a messenger of unconditional grace remains consistent. It is still GOD who is doing it, not Jesus who is acting as God's chosen means of communicating that grace to humanity. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that a divine Jesus might not be consistent with this assertion, but a non divine Jesus can be too.

You're acting as if grace were, somehow, a different "thing" than reconciliation. Reconciliation became possible specifically because of God's act of becoming one of us, because we could not, ourselves, become Divine. Jesus is not a "messenger." Angels are "messengers." Jesus didn't come to tell us about God's grace; Jesus came to be God's grace.

 

[Muffled]

I love it when people know their history.

From this I would say The Roman Catholic Church as it is today reflects this historic fact:

In the 11th century what was recognised as the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation between the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Byzantine Churches, now the Orthodox

Source: Wikipedia - The Orthodox Church - History