Origin of the Bible (Branch Thread)

[ElishaElijah]

Prepare for a heaping helping of unhelpful to the topic: I don't believe Satan exists at all.

So it seems you’re just trolling

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So it seems you’re just trolling

A flaccid deflection, Elijah. I asked you if you preferred my views, or what Satan is in the Torah. You opted to seek my views. Roll again.

 

[ElishaElijah]

A flaccid deflection, Elijah. I asked you if you preferred my views, or what Satan is in the Torah. You opted to seek my views. Roll again.

Your views of what the Torah teaches is what I said. Later on friend, been down this road before

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And this is where your wording is failing you. My views on what the Torah say are completely irrelevant. There is what the Torah says, but if you are going to take it as "my interpretation" in favor of your Christianized version, then agreed; it'd be quite a waste of time.

 

[ElishaElijah]

And this is where your wording is failing you. My views on what the Torah say are completely irrelevant. There is what the Torah says, but if you are going to take it as "my interpretation" in favor of your Christianized version, then agreed; it'd be quite a waste of time.

Glad we agree

 

[Clara Tea]

Taking this here, from the "sex before marriage" thread.


How you came to know and understand Jesus is understood, Elijah. The facts as conveyed prior to you is that the source of this "knowledge" was pruned and cultivated long before either of us were born, so that you would arrive at exactly that conclusion. Including altering Isaiah in translation so that Jesus' coming was "foretold".


Your understanding from that Bible comes directly in the form of the message that the Council of Nicaea wanted you to receive. But I know why you won't see that.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Did you have a question or comment, Clara?

 

[Trailblazer]

But I know why you won't see that.

All of us who see that know why Trinitarians won't see that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I don't know what inane response I expected, but it certainly wasn't including "tHe DeViL DiD iT!!!"

Sure, the gospel has "always been the same". Minus the quite literal 13+ gospels that the Council of Nicaea didn't include in the Biblical Canon because it didn't fit their narrative. And then the centuries of rewrites, mistranslations, alterations, and further pruning. Before you go outside today, especially if you're going to be driving, be sure to take off that blindfold first.

Nonsense. You really don't understand the biblical canon.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No but when I read the Bible it does say that some manuscripts don’t include this or that. Depends on the version or translation.

So, then -- what you believe depends, as you say, "on the version or translation."

And how do you determine which is the right version, or the correct translation?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Nonsense. You really don't understand the biblical canon.

Elaborate.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Elaborate.

Have you read the earliest church fathers? I'm talking 1-3 century.
They had all the basic Christian theology. They had all the important texts before the second century. This crap about the Bible slowly forming and changing dramatically over centuries might fly on your athiest sites, but it's totally nonsense.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Firstly, I'm not an Atheist. Try again.

Secondly, "slowly forming" and "changing dramatically" is both contradictory, and nothing of what I've said here. Also try again.

The facts of church history regarding the formation of the Biblical Canon have well recorded history. The Council of Nicaea did set that canon, and chose from all available Early Christian texts what they felt conveyed their message best. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table. But thinly-veiled ad hominem is not that.

 

[PruePhillip]

Taking this here, from the "sex before marriage" thread.


How you came to know and understand Jesus is understood, Elijah. The facts as conveyed prior to you is that the source of this "knowledge" was pruned and cultivated long before either of us were born, so that you would arrive at exactly that conclusion. Including altering Isaiah in translation so that Jesus' coming was "foretold".


Your understanding from that Bible comes directly in the form of the message that the Council of Nicaea wanted you to receive. But I know why you won't see that.

So, you have two documents, pre-Nicea and post-Nicea?

 

[blü 2]

You mean Satan wants a redo cause he lost? The gospel has always been the same. I received the message that God wanted me to receive, was confirmed when God gave me His Spirit and I was born again. This is something hard for people to comprehend unless they experience that themselves.

What do you make of the fact that each of the five versions of Jesus in the NT ─ Paul's, Mark's, Matthew's, Luke's and John's ─ each expressly denies that he's God?

And never claims to be God?

Isn't that a chunky hint that Jesus is not God?

After all, the Trinity doctrine wasn't invented until the fourth century CE.

Or do you say that Jesus' earthly career was one long lie, a continuous deceit as to who Jesus was?

 

[Trailblazer]

What do you make of the fact that each of the five versions of Jesus in the NT ─ Paul's, Mark's, Matthew's, Luke's and John's ─ each expressly denies that he's God?

And never claims to be God?

Isn't that a chunky hint that Jesus is not God?

After all, the Trinity doctrine wasn't invented until the fourth century CE.

Or do you say that Jesus' earthly career was one long lie, a continuous deceit as to who Jesus was?

If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One?

During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...

You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things. ...

I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.

If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One?

 

[Trailblazer]

Isn't that a chunky hint that Jesus is not God?

Not for any Trinitarian.

 

[blü 2]

If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One?

During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...

You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John,

Like Paul, the author of John is influenced by gnosticism. the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John, unlike the other three, each pre-existed in heaven with God and (regardless of Genesis) as demiurge created the material universe (because in gnosticism, God is boundlessly pure and remote spirit and would never sully [him]self with anything material). And that's why John's Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am". Paul's Jesus could have said it too, but not the other three.

As for the sense in which Jesus is one with God ─

John 17:20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.​

In other words, says John’s author, the oneness is of a kind available to all believers, not an equality with Yahweh.

I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself.

Yes ─ let alone have their Jesuses say out loud, 'I am not God'.

 

[firedragon]

Your understanding from that Bible comes directly in the form of the message that the Council of Nicaea wanted you to receive. But I know why you won't see that.

What do you mean by that?

 

[firedragon]

Sure, the gospel has "always been the same". Minus the quite literal 13+ gospels that the Council of Nicaea didn't include in the Biblical Canon because it didn't fit their narrative.

Someone told you a lie.

The council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of the Bible. I will repeat "NOTHING".

I have seen many people make this mistake. I dont know why really but I make an anecdotal assumption its because of Dan Browns book and the movie. But I am not gonna generalise that to you. Nevertheless, who ever who told you this was repeating a lie. He may not know it was a lie.

I think you told someone else to take their blindfolds off while driving. With all due respect, it is you who has to take the blindfolds off.