The Trinity

[sojourner]

So what is a "person" exactly? How is it different than a manifestation in modalism? Unsurprisingly, it's the question that never gets answered by Trinitarians. It's not uncommon to see the term "person" used to describe the doctrine, but its rarer than rare to see it ever actually defined. Usually we get those "Water, ice, and steam" descriptions that are basically modalism. I think Trinitarians would be best just admitting that their doctrine and interpretations of verses are essentially Sabellianism with some Nicean wordplay tacked on, they should just join the Oneness Pentacostals, I think they have the best understanding of "Trinitarian" dogma.

As for the word "Lord", we see that the Greeks had the same habit of using the word "Lord" as we see it in English in replacement for the name, it can be difficult to determine when it applies to lower case "lord" like how David was called "Lord", and when it applies to the actual Holy name, but reading in detail, it doesn't seem Jesus ever shared the same usage of "LORD", and was only called "lord".

I challenge anyone to actually present a link that goes into detail of what "person" means without just using the term as for granted.

Also, as for Jesus being "fully divine", what does the word "Divine" actually mean? Is only The most high god (and He is called "Most high god" for a reason, because he's the highest of the gods) considered "Divine"? Are the "Angels" (called "Elohim" in the OT) not Divine? If they are, then thus it's not a problem for Jesus to be "Divine" as in "a god", a separate being, distinct from the Father, not a different "person" (whatever that actually means), but a distinct "being" altogether with a separate mind and soul altogether, but still a "divine being".

If anything the doctrine of the Trinity is based on some hollow wordsmithing, revisionist ideas of Old Israelite Theology, and twisted grammar.

I'm probably going to hate myself in the morning for answering this -- because your usual MO is to ridicule and not respect -- but here goes:

As I said in my post above, we're not to understand Trinity; it's a mystery -- just as God is mystery. We can only talk about God in general terms metaphorically. I don't think it's anything other than a waste of time to try to pin God down too much to human understanding.

We take several scriptures, such as Philippians 2 and John 1 and understand them as Incarnational. God somehow became human. From the gospel accounts, it's clear that Jesus was human. Since there are allusions to both natures, we try to wrap our heads and words around that concept of both natures and say that Jesus is both fully human and fully God. Since there are also texts that speak about the Spirit of God, we include that Person in God's Divinity as well.

These "characters" are indisputably part of the Biblical story, and are treated as Divine. Since God is One, these literary characters that represent God are also One.

I don't choose to take it much further than that. Any time we speak of God we're speaking in metaphor, and this metaphor works for me.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so basically that's what I said in the other thread, that the doctrine is a "Mystery" and thus not "comprehensible" to the human mind. You have done a fine job of proving my point that the word "person" is in fact a canard that is meant to not be defined but simply conveyed in hopes no one asks. And when asked, to avoid defining. If Trinitarians had to actually define "person", they'd realize that they are just modalists with some fancy words and ancient creeds to back those fancy words. If you think you don't have to understand your own doctrine, then you are forfeiting the intellectual discourse, exactly as I implied in the other thread which you took objection to my comparison of it to what I compared it to, without realizing why I chose that comparison to begin with. The doctrine gets very squishy when you actually press on it. Thus, as you demonstrate, the common defense is to say "Don't press on it! It's not meant to be pressed!"

You may think its a waste of time to discuss such things, I couldn't disagree more. I think it's a waste of time to hold on to views that you think you aren't required to understand or even try to defend, as if the idea itself is immune to discussion or dissection. The view is "It's just right, now leave it alone!" It's clearly a view that cannot be defended, and was only defendable through the force of the church and putting down dissension, on its own when it's up to scrutiny away from church defense, it falls like a house of cards. And the trinitarian church relies on it for its existence.

Phillipians 2 should read "Form of a god" (G-d has a form? What would that mean? Mormonism?), same with John 1:1c, it should read "And a god was the word". Trinitarians have been mangling the grammar, even distorting Church Father uses of the Anarthrous Theos, for millenia. And I enjoy proving that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on such shady methods.

And yes, my MO regarding "Christian doctrines" is in fact to ridicule, and let the defenders ridicule themselves in the process with utterly embarassing defenses. My advice to Trinitarians if they absolutely refuse to examine the nature of their belief is to switch to Oneness Pentacostalism, they have a far more "solid" (cough) understanding of the way Trinitarians interpret (erroneously to begin with) the key passages which they rest their doctrine on.

I'd still like to see you respond to Jayhawker's question on why Arianism and Docetism wouldn't be "solid".

As for the "nature", like I said, if we understand that "Divinity" can apply to "heavenly beings", it makes complete sense that Jesus was "a god", without being "THE God".

You're welcome to hold on to your view despite how full of holes it actually is, but for debate's sake, the Trinity gets crushed in debate every single time. You said on the other thread that Secular scholars can't discuss it because they don't believe in it, why is that?

 

[sojourner]

If Trinitarians had to actually define "person", they'd realize that they are just modalists with some fancy words and ancient creeds to back those fancy words.

[as if to a very small child] "Its -- not -- modalism, mkay?"
God doesn't just appear under various guises. God is embodied in these Persons. A Person is an individual embodiment.

Phillipians 2 should read "Form of a god" (G-d has a form? What would that mean? Mormonism?), same with John 1:1c, it should read "And a god was the word". Trinitarians have been mangling the grammar, even distorting Church Father uses of the Anarthrous Theos, for millenia.

Indefinite article or no, it still means the same thing, since the texts make it clear that God is One.

And I enjoy proving that the doctrine of the Trinity is based on such shady methods.

Well bully for you. Perhaps you'd be better off defending your tired old claim that Xy is nothing more than Judaism-warmed-over.

And yes, my MO regarding "Christian doctrines" is in fact to ridicule, and let the defenders ridicule themselves in the process with utterly embarassing defenses.

Well, if you don't want to be liked by your peers, that's your business, I suppose...

 

[sojourner]

Dear friend,peace be upon you!
Well if you are so sure about Trinity I would suggest that you read the book,''Is The Bibile God's word?"by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat
which clearly refutes Trinity using the bible itself!
Do You have the courage to read the book and challenge your own beliefs!

Jeezus! Such venom!

Cat fight! Cat fight!

 

[Shermana]

[as if to a very small child] "Its -- not -- modalism, mkay?"
God doesn't just appear under various guises. God is embodied in these Persons. A Person is an individual embodiment.

Okay, that's a good start on defining the word "person", now what is an "individual embodiment" and how is that any different than the concept of Modalism? So basically, the idea is that there's 3 beings who are all "God" even though they make up one "God", but are still three "Gods" because they are 3 embodiments of this "God", but yet they aren't 3 "gods" because they are "persons". Crafty wordplay indeed. Basically, it's just Modalism.

http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-many-trinitarians-are-actually-modalists

Indefinite article or no, it still means the same thing, since the texts make it clear that God is One.

Ummm, absolutely not. G-d is one, but that has nothing to do with the existence of other beings called "gods" as has been pointed out to you by not just me on other threads. This is a perfect example of what I was talking about involving a historical revisionism of ancient Israelite theology.

Well bully for you. Perhaps you'd be better off defending your tired old claim that Xy is nothing more than Judaism-warmed-over.

Why is it tired old? The truth never gets tired old. For one who complains about having their views insulted, you're not too bad at it yourself. What does "Warmed over" mean? Is "warmed over" the same as "redacted away from Pharisee interpretations"? However, you're not insulting my claim, you're insulting all of Messianic Judaism. So I see you are revealing you have no actual problems with the mud slinging, that's good progress. The difference is however, I can actually defend my "tired old" claims in detail. And also, the term "Judaism" is a bit of a misnomer, if you mean "Torah obedience" then that's one thing, but Jesus was not a Rabbinicist, though he did tell the Jews to listen to the Pharisees nonetheless since they sat in Moses' seat. Oh yeah, didn't you once try to pull the idea that Matthew 5:17-20 is an interpolation by Judaizers, and then your own link said that some scholars have suggested it but never got into it with evidence or discussion? Your basis against my claim is because Matthew 5:17-20 doesn't "show up in Q", and then you tried to act like "Q" was an actual document people have as matter of fact. (As if their appearance in Clement's writings doesn't count) That was great stuff.

But why do you think I'd be better off exactly? Is that your way of saying "Lay off the Trinity!"?

Well, if you don't want to be liked by your peers, that's your business, I suppose...

The truth is more important to me than the way "peers" view me. I have plenty of "peers" that agree with both my views and my methods.

 

[outhouse]

OK -

God the Father = theos o pater

pater = Greek for father

kurios = Greek for lord --- used for both God and Jesus

Ok so we know the greeks were obviously calling him something else


Did the hebrews speaking hebrew, in jesus lifetime still look at god as Yahweh????

 

[F0uad]

please download the E Book from the internet . All the believers in trinity,you cannot afford not reading it.Believe me!
peace!

I know you mean well but don't try to rush it as people mentioned before they belief its a mysterious belief what can't be explained. We cannot question that we can only say by human-standards it fails what seems quite weird because the One-ness should be explainable of god or at-least hes Concept.

For example we in Islam have the concept of AHAD (One and nothing else) and Wahad (everything coming from this One)


Now the Trinity followers have a big problem because they themselves claim they are 3 different individuals and then they claim they are not different.

Its like saying: ''i ate my sand-which'' and then say: ''but i didn't eat it''

 

[Shermana]

Its like saying: ''i ate my sand-which'' and then say: ''but i didn't eat it''

What do you expect from a belief system that isn't supposed to be comprehensible to begin with?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ok so we know the greeks were obviously calling him something else

Did the hebrews speaking hebrew, in jesus lifetime still look at god as Yahweh????

I haven't studied that. I don't know, for example, how many Judeans spoke Hebrew, Aramaic (if that would make a difference?), Greek, or even Latin.

The best sources to answer your question may be Josephus, Philo, and the LXX.

Tetragrammaton in the New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

I haven't studied that. I don't know, for example, how many Judeans spoke Hebrew, Aramaic (if that would make a difference?), Greek, or even Latin.

The best sources to answer your question may be Josephus, Philo, and the LXX.

Tetragrammaton in the New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well atleast I understand now more clearly what you ment by god wasnt yahweh.

christianity formed in a whole new culture away from judaism, so it makes sense they would'nt use the same name for their deity

 

[Shermana]

According to Josephus, very very few Jews in Judea spoke fluent Greek.

Also, I find this very interesting, the earliest manuscripts of the NT (of which we don't have) may have in fact included the Tetragrammaton instead of rendering it to "Lord".

Shabbat 13:5
— A. The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim they do not save from a fire [on the Sabbath]. They are allowed to burn up where they are, they and [even] the references to the Divine Name that are in them.[

 

[sojourner]

Okay, that's a good start on defining the word "person", now what is an "individual embodiment" and how is that any different than the concept of Modalism? So basically, the idea is that there's 3 beings who are all "God" even though they make up one "God", but are still three "Gods" because they are 3 embodiments of this "God", but yet they aren't 3 "gods" because they are "persons". Crafty wordplay indeed. Basically, it's just Modalism.

No, the idea is that there is one Being. That one Being is fully embodied in Father, fully embodied in Son, fully embodied in Holy Spirit. I just don't see why that's so difficult.
Talk about your "crafty wordplay!" Sheesh, you've twisted this thing to death!

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about involving a historical revisionism of ancient Israelite theology.

As if every religion has never undergone revision -- especially the ancient Hebraic religions...

Why is it tired old?

Because its entirely uncreative.

The truth never gets tired old.

It does if it's enshrined in a Lexan case growing mold, instead of being out where it can breathe and become.

What does "Warmed over" mean?

Haven't you ever eaten leftovers? You're using the old argument that the Jerusalem church lost ages ago -- that everyone must become full Jews in order to become xtians. Ridiculous and tasteless.

The difference is however, I can actually defend my "tired old" claims in detail.

No, the difference is that, instead of extolling the virtues of your own religion, you lift yours up only by tearing everyone else's down.

Oh yeah, didn't you once try to pull the idea that Matthew 5:17-20 is an interpolation by Judaizers, and then your own link said that some scholars have suggested it but never got into it with evidence or discussion? Your basis against my claim is because Matthew 5:17-20 doesn't "show up in Q", and then you tried to act like "Q" was an actual document people have as matter of fact. (As if their appearance in Clement's writings doesn't count) That was great stuff.

Thank you. It was great stuff. Glad you liked it!

But why do you think I'd be better off exactly? Is that your way of saying "Lay off the Trinity!"?

Because, apparently the value of your "brand" of Xy depends entirely upon devaluing the other "brands."

The truth is more important to me than the way "peers" view me.

I'd begin looking, then, for what's more important to you, because it's obvious from your inhospitable treatment of others that you haven't found it yet...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

According to Josephus, very very few Jews in Judea spoke fluent Greek.

Also, I find this very interesting, the earliest manuscripts of the NT (of which we don't have) may have in fact included the Tetragrammaton instead of rendering it to "Lord".

ha! Josephus didn't speak fluent Greek, either.

Another question: how can we even speculate that the earliest MSS of the NT had the Tetragrammaton if we don't have the originals?

 

[Shermana]

ha! Josephus didn't speak fluent Greek, either.

Another question: how can we even speculate that the earliest MSS of the NT had the Tetragrammaton if we don't have the originals?

While it is Speculation, you have to wonder what exactly Tosefta passage Shabbat 13:5 was referring to with "references to the Divine name", either they made a big deal even about such changes to Kurios as the replacement of the "Divine name" in the "books of the evangelists", either way it demonstrates that the Jews believed the Divine name was being referenced one way or another, whether directly or through the Kurios replacement. As for the objection:

Another interpretation suggests this is a reference to Torah and not the Gospels.[6]

I highly doubt that they would be burning copies of the Torah used by Evangelists, since it wasn't exactly bound together in one scroll. I think the best conclusion to reach from that is the Jews were burning copies of the Evangelist books and didn't mind that it contained "references" (whether those references are "Lord" or not), but it may confirm that the Name was being implied one way or another, but I doubt they'd make such an emphasis if it wasn't the letters written out like in the earlier LXX which the Christians changed later, and "reference" can be referencing the letters themselves.

There is definitely some scholarly support as the article shows, and we know that the LXX had the Divine name removed by "Christians", so we can only speculate one way or another, but the evidence kinda suggests that they may have done the same thing with their own books that they did to the LXX.

Along with Howard, David Trobisch and Rolf Furuli both have written on the how the Tetragrammaton may have been removed from the Greek MSS.[23][24] In the book Archaeology and the New Testament, John McRay has also written of 'the possibility that the New Testament autographs may have retained the divine name in quotations from the Old Testament.' [25] Robert Baker Girdlestone stated in 1871 that if the LXX had used "one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N.T. Thus our Lord in quoting the 110th Psalm,...might have said 'Jehovah said unto Adoni.' [26] Since Girdlestone's time it has been shown that the LXX had the Tetragrammaton but was latter removed by Christians.

 

[Shermana]

No, the idea is that there is one Being. That one Being is fully embodied in Father, fully embodied in Son, fully embodied in Holy Spirit. I just don't see why that's so difficult.
Talk about your "crafty wordplay!" Sheesh, you've twisted this thing to death!

Okay, so that's no definition of "embodiment" means when asked, but basically repeating yourself. Expected and typical. Getting Trinitarians to actually define their terms can be like pulling teeth, except you'll eventually get the tooth pulled. It can be like trying to make an elephant forget. So by different "embodiments", are you saying that there are different "forms"? Welcome to Modalism.

As if every religion has never undergone revision -- especially the ancient Hebraic religions...

And if it's undergone revision, then that means it's not what the originals believed and that it's revisioned.

Because its entirely uncreative.

What's that supposed to mean? Why is my view entirely uncreative, the idea that it was a Jewish sect and that he taught Jewish teachings? Do you even bother trying to be remotely objective? Talk about "Tearing people down", your reply basically is "your view is uncreative", as if that somehow means my view is wrong, are you saying that "creativity" as in the ability to change what was intended is better?

It does if it's enshrined in a Lexan case growing mold, instead of being out where it can breathe and become.

I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to the concept.

Haven't you ever eaten leftovers? You're using the old argument that the Jerusalem church lost ages ago -- that everyone must become full Jews in order to become xtians. Ridiculous and tasteless.

Lost by who? The gentile schism? You're using the same argument used by the "Church", that because the majority accepted one thing, therefore the Ebionites and Nazarenes were wrong because they were the minority, essentially a big appeal to numbers as if that's more important than what was originally convoyed. Are you saying that James and the Jerusalem church were wrong because the gentile anti-law approach found more converts among the gentiles? By the way, leftovers can sometimes be even better than the original meal ,depends on what you're having. In your case, your beleif is the 'Leftovers" of the original "orthodox" that you claim defeated the Nazarenes and Ebionites and the Jerusalem church, and yours is rotting and has a funky smell. Calling the belief "ridiciulous and tasteless", yet complaining about me "Tearing down other views". Personally, I find YOUR views ridiculous and tasteless. If you think the historical, scholarly idea that Jesus was a teacher of the Torah to be ridulcuos and tasteless, that's your perogative. You're a revisionist, that's fine, but if you want to call Messianic Judaism itself "ridiculous and tasteless", don't be making a hissy fit if I compare your Trinity doctrine to elephant dung.

No, the difference is that, instead of extolling the virtues of your own religion, you lift yours up only by tearing everyone else's down.

(Cough hypocrisy cough), you must really enjoy being a hypocrite. But what's the point of a debate board if we're not here to try other people's views down? You would have really not liked the early Orthodox Christians with their heresy hunts.

Thank you. It was great stuff. Glad you liked it!

It did, it gave me a good laugh.

Because, apparently the value of your "brand" of Xy depends entirely upon devaluing the other "brands."

Right, because no other "Christian brand" has ever involved trying to talk about other beliefs as wrong or heretical, but if I point out what I consider to be the errors such as revisionist views of yourself that call my own views "ridiculous and tasteless", that's apparently a problem. Hypocrisy is a hallmark of "Christians" and you are excellent proof.

I'd begin looking, then, for what's more important to you, because it's obvious from your inhospitable treatment of others that you haven't found it yet...

I'm inhospitable to the inhospitable. Check yourself in the mirror. If you hadn't been as condescending and abrasive and refusing to back your claims and insulting those who questioned your claims I'd be much nicer. But I will never be nice to the doctrines of Lawlessness and the Trinity, I will give them the respect they deserve.

 

[sojourner]

So by different "embodiments", are you saying that there are different "forms"? Welcome to Modalism.

No, not "forms," bodies.

And if it's undergone revision, then that means it's not what the originals believed and that it's revisioned.

Why should we believe what they believed? We're different people than they were, living in different contexts.

What's that supposed to mean? Why is my view entirely uncreative, the idea that it was a Jewish sect and that he taught Jewish teachings? Do you even bother trying to be remotely objective? Talk about "Tearing people down", your reply basically is "your view is uncreative", as if that somehow means my view is wrong, are you saying that "creativity" as in the ability to change what was intended is better?

I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to the concept.

It means that you appear to be beating your head against a wall trying to force square people into a round hole. Why not simply rout the hole, so that people are accommodated? Didn't Jesus say, after all, that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath? Why is the shape of the hole so damned important -- more important, in fact, than the people you want to place in the hole? If the hole is round and the people are square, then the hole isn't relevant anymore.

If the religion is placed under glass and idolized, it quickly becomes irrelevant. But here you are, waving your arms and shouting, "Look! Thisis the way Xy has always been!" Nobody cares! The rest of us have moved on, finding new ways to express God within the culture in which we find ourselves.

Jesus changed the rules and it ****** everyone off. Now you're insisting that the rules remain the same "as they've always been." Look around you: We're not 1st century Palestinians. That form of Xy means nothing to us. If the church is the people, then as people change, the body changes too, and requires new forms of expression.

Are you saying that James and the Jerusalem church were wrong because the gentile anti-law approach found more converts among the gentiles?

No, I'm saying that the Jerusalem church was wrong for trying to force other cultures into its mold. The Jerusalem church "stuck to its guns" ... and died out. Didn't Jesus say that we have to die to self if we want to live? Had the Jerusalem church been less adamant about the "my way or the highway" approach, they might still be around.

If you think the historical, scholarly idea that Jesus was a teacher of the Torah to be ridulcuos and tasteless, that's your perogative.

I said no such thing. Yes, Jesus was a teacher of Torah... but not in the traditional sense.

You're a revisionist, that's fine,

It's great, actually, because Jesus was too. I'm in good company!

but if you want to call Messianic Judaism itself "ridiculous and tasteless",

"You are to be salt and light. But if the salt loses its flavor..."
Just sayin'...

You would have really not liked the early Orthodox Christians with their heresy hunts.

You're right. I wouldn't.

But what's the point of a debate board if we're not here to try other people's views down?

There's a big difference between debate and dismissal.
You dismissed first. And you apparently (based upon your subsequent rant here) don't like it when you receive it in kind. No surprise, though.

It did, it gave me a good laugh.

Laughter is wonderful medicine. Enjoy.

Hypocrisy is a hallmark of "Christians" and you are excellent proof.

"Pot, meet Kettle..."

I'm inhospitable to the inhospitable. Check yourself in the mirror. If you hadn't been as condescending and abrasive and refusing to back your claims and insulting those who questioned your claims I'd be much nicer. But I will never be nice to the doctrines of Lawlessness and the Trinity, I will give them the respect they deserve.

Ah, yes. The "I know you are, but what am I" rebuttal. It was mildly cute when Pee Wee did it.

You perceive anything other than your brand of Xy to be "lawlwss." Frankly, that's your problem -- not ours. Our law is different than yours. You perceive the Trinity to be useless. Again: Your problem -- not ours. But it seems to me that one of Jesus' teachings (which you say you revere) was about the foot dismissing the eye for not being a foot. If you (and the Jerusalem church) hadn't been so hell-bent on summarily snubbing and dismissing other parts of the body of Christ, then those other parts would have been a lot more accommodating of you.

 

[Shermana]

No, not "forms," bodies.

Feel free to explain the difference exactly.

Why should we believe what they believed? We're different people than they were, living in different contexts.

Okay, so you're admitting that you don't want to believe what the original Christians believed and that the idea is subject to revisionism. Thank you for proving my point. Seriously, thanks.

It means that you appear to be beating your head against a wall trying to force square people into a round hole. Why not simply rout the hole, so that people are accommodated? Didn't Jesus say, after all, that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath?

Yes he said that, because he was explaining what was and wasn't permissible on the Sabbath, like saving your animal or healing a sick person. Even many Rabbis now say the same thing he was saying about healing on the Sabbath. It's not a round hole, you just don't know how to define the shape and you listen to the traditional antinomian opinion that today even many scholars and even antinomians disagree with. The problem is that you seem to not be willing to even debate interpretations and you're set that your opinion is fact without even the need to put it up to scrunity, I'll put my views to scrutiny any day, will you, Mr. Revisionism?

Did Jesus Break The Sabbath - Healing On The Sabbath
Did Jesus Break the Sabbath? | Magazine Article | Tomorrow's World | www.tomorrowsworld.org
Did Christ Break the Sabbath? - Bible Questions & Answers - Church of God, a Worldwide Association

Why is the shape of the hole so damned important -- more important, in fact, than the people you want to place in the hole? If the hole is round and the people are square, then the hole isn't relevant anymore.

Because the hole is square, not round, you don't get to say what is what as if that's that without debating the subject and putting it to scrutiny. For example, 7th day adventists see the square as round, so do many many other churches, believers, and even secular scholars. You however want to say "it's this way, not your way" while complaining that I'm doing the same, except I am willing to actually discuss my views with backing. You won't even post links to back your assertions when asked!!

If the religion is placed under glass and idolized, it quickly becomes irrelevant. But here you are, waving your arms and shouting, "Look! Thisis the way Xy has always been!" Nobody cares! The rest of us have moved on, finding new ways to express God within the culture in which we find ourselves.

Jesus changed the rules and it ****** everyone off.

This is a common misinterpretation, Jesus was not changing the rules, he was opposing Pharisee interpretations, which would be changing the rules back to what they originally were.

Now you're insisting that the rules remain the same "as they've always been."

That's because the rules always were the same, the Pharisees were the ones who changed it. What you represent is the extremely common fallacy that the Pharisees actually represented the Law itself rather than distortions about it, which demonstrates total ignorance of the context itself.

\Look around you: We're not 1st century Palestinians. That form of Xy means nothing to us. If the church is the people, then as people change, the body changes too, and requires new forms of expression.

Translation: Revisionism is acceptable as the times move on. Well guess what, it doesn't matter whether it's 1st century Palestine or not, the context of the story stays the same. This is a common argument among Liberal Christians that the scriptures are free to be picked and choosed and twisted and reinterpreted, and I disagree with this completely. Paul specifically said "If anyone teaches a gospel different than mine, let him be damned". Whether I agree with Paul or not, you better be willing to admit you're telling Paul to shove it with this approach.

No, I'm saying that the Jerusalem church was wrong for trying to force other cultures into its mold.

Okay, that's a nice opinion. I think the gentile church was wrong for trying to break the mold. And it seems James and Jude were very much about "the mold". This all boils down to the early schisms.

The Jerusalem church "stuck to its guns" ... and died out.

Who says it died out and didn't go underground? There were reports of Nazarene Christians even by Arabs in the 10th century. I like how Pagels and others say that the church which John warned about (and I'll relink showing that they say John was a Jewish Christian preaching against Pauline doctrines) was exactly the one that supplanted. You think its a popularity contest?

Didn't Jesus say that we have to die to self if we want to live? Had the Jerusalem church been less adamant about the "my way or the highway" approach, they might still be around.

Ummm, excuse me? Paul said "Let anyone who teaches a different doctrine be damned". The early church heresy hunters were very much "My way or the highway", at this point you have revealed either total hypocrisy, ignorance, apathy to the actual history, or all three.

I said no such thing. Yes, Jesus was a teacher of Torah... but not in the traditional sense.

If by traditional you mean "Pharisaical", then yes.

It's great, actually, because Jesus was too. I'm in good company!

No, Jesus was the opposite of a revisionist. He was a reactionary. The Pharisees were the revisionists. But I am glad you admit that you are a revisionist, that's definitely progress. Let the reader decide if Revisionism is in any way what the original authors intended.

"You are to be salt and light. But if the salt loses its flavor..."
Just sayin'...

And here you reveal your remarkable (cough) exegesis abilities. You think this is a reference to Theology rather than the behavior itself. The "salt" is the goodness of the people. We see here a perfect example of your ability to garner context.

You're right. I wouldn't.

Then I suggest you retract your "My way or the highway" thing.

There's a big difference between debate and dismissal.

You should know all about it. I have yet to see you actually try to debate.

You dismissed first. And you apparently (based upon your subsequent rant here) don't like it when you receive it in kind. No surprise, though.

If I made a dismissal, I backed up my claims and will continue to back my claims with counterpoints, you are the one ranting. For someone who called me a "clown who just wants to hear my own head rattle", you shouldn't really talk about rants.

Laughter is wonderful medicine. Enjoy.

It seriously is, and I appreciate when jokes of rebuttals are made.

"Pot, meet Kettle..."

Feel free to specifically show where I've demonstrated hypocrisy, but I am glad you admit yours.

Ah, yes. The "I know you are, but what am I" rebuttal. It was mildly cute when Pee Wee did it.

What's that supposed to mean? You accused me of being inhospitable, when you were the one who was insulting me when I merely asked you to back up your own claims, this is an obviously desparate dig when your own hypocrisy is exposed clearly.

You perceive anything other than your brand of Xy to be "lawlwss."

Many organizations do as well. Perhaps you're unaware of the rhetoric spouted by protestants against those who believe differently than them as well. You should see what other sects say about other sects.

Frankly, that's your problem -- not ours.

No, it is your problem. I am allowed to consider your religion lawless, and I would bet everything I own that Jesus will be saying "Away from me, I never knew you" to a great many who are like you and take your view.

Our law is different than yours

.

Your law is even different than what Paul said apparently, and even if I don't believe in Paul, your theology doesn't even involve actually listening to the totality of what Paul said, let alone what Jesus said. So if your law is different than mine, that's fine, but for the sake of debate, I'm proving that your law is not what Jesus intended, at least as far as the scriptures say.

You perceive the Trinity to be useless. Again: Your problem -- not ours.

I get the impression you don't like actually having to debate your doctrines or ideas, and that you think such a reply is sufficient for when such views are challenged, as evidenced by your replies.

But it seems to me that one of Jesus' teachings (which you say you revere) was about the foot dismissing the eye for not being a foot.

Huh? For not being a foot? What? Please feel free to get the exact quote of the verse you are getting this from. I said he teaches it's better to chop off body parts than use them to enter the fire. If this is an example of your exegesis skills, keep it coming!

If you (and the Jerusalem church) hadn't been so hell-bent on summarily snubbing and dismissing other parts of the body of Christ, then those other parts would have been a lot more accommodating of you.

That's a nice opinion, but I highly disagree, heck, according to Acts 15 (Which I and many scholars believe is an interpolation, and there actually ARE works that discuss that it's an interpolation rather than just hints of suggestion by a few with Matthew 5:17-20) they were VERY accomodating to those of your ilk.

Meanwhile, it seems you're completely unaware of the fact that the orthodox didn't up being very accomodating to those of other views, but they had no problem for some reason.

I appreciate your replies, but not for a reason you may like.

 

[sojourner]

Feel free to explain the difference exactly.

Huh. If you don't know the difference between a "form" and a "body," no explanation of the difference is going to help you. I'm saying that there are different bodies -- you know, bodies -- physical bodies. Particular conglomerations of stuff lumped together. You know -- bodies.
Clear enough for you?

Okay, so you're admitting that you don't want to believe what the original Christians believed and that the idea is subject to revisionism.

Why not? Jesus subjected Judaism to serious revision. Or are you contending that what he taught didn't represent a radical departure from the Judaism of the day?

Yes he said that, because he was explaining what was and wasn't permissible on the Sabbath, like saving your animal or healing a sick person.

Yeeah. He healed on the Sabbath, which was verboten. When he was taken to task for it by the religious authorities, he pointed out that their injunctions were too picayune, and that it was more important to take compassion for others into consideration before the particulars of the law.

Even many Rabbis now say the same thing he was saying about healing on the Sabbath.

In other words, they're revising what the original religious authorities said. Great support for your position on tradition.

Your links are from sites that are extreme in their views. I wouldn't trust their scholarship.

Because the hole is square, not round, you don't get to say what is what as if that's that without debating the subject and putting it to scrutiny.

Ok. Fine. The hole is square. Happy now? But people are round and still don't fit the hole. My point is that people have changed from the 1st century. if the religion wants to remain relevant, it has to change too (as per what you said about the rabbis now saying...) I don't think anyone in their right mind would contend that 21st century 1st world people are the same as 1st century Palestinians.

That's because the rules always were the same, the Pharisees were the ones who changed it. What you represent is the extremely common fallacy that the Pharisees actually represented the Law itself rather than distortions about it, which demonstrates total ignorance of the context itself.

What I represent is that, whether the laws were "original," or whether they had changed, Jesus knew that the laws were in place as a vehicle for righteousness. Since Jesus acknowledged that he is the way, the law-keeping becomes obsolete, because Jesus (as he said) is the fulfillment of the Law. When we follow Jesus, we love. When we love, we are keeping the essence of the Law.

Translation: Revisionism is acceptable as the times move on. Well guess what, it doesn't matter whether it's 1st century Palestine or not, the context of the story stays the same. This is a common argument among Liberal Christians that the scriptures are free to be picked and choosed and twisted and reinterpreted, and I disagree with this completely. Paul specifically said "If anyone teaches a gospel different than mine, let him be damned". Whether I agree with Paul or not, you better be willing to admit you're telling Paul to shove it with this approach.

The context of the story changes with the introduction to new cultures and times. It's the essence of the story that remains the same, which is why revision is necessary. As cultural pointers become obsolete, the religious tools that make use of those pointers also become obsolete. We are not preaching a "different" gospel. We're preaching the same gospel of grace, forgiveness, self-sacrificing love, forbearance, inclusion, hospitality, and acceptance that Paul preached.

Okay, that's a nice opinion. I think the gentile church was wrong for trying to break the mold. And it seems James and Jude were very much about "the mold". This all boils down to the early schisms.

Yep. What they (and you) failed to realize is that unity =/= uniformity. Had they embraced the concept of diversity, they would have found the body of the church much stronger. Instead, what they got was divisiveness -- a concept you also apparently subscribe to.

Who says it died out and didn't go underground? There were reports of Nazarene Christians even by Arabs in the 10th century. I like how Pagels and others say that the church which John warned about (and I'll relink showing that they say John was a Jewish Christian preaching against Pauline doctrines) was exactly the one that supplanted. You think its a popularity contest?

If it did, then great! We can always use more diversity in the faith1
No, it's not a popularity contest -- it's the nature of a movement that is decidedly not culturally-based. Even now, the face of Xy is changing as the church is becoming more concentrated in the 3rd world. I say: Let it happen.

Ummm, excuse me? Paul said "Let anyone who teaches a different doctrine be damned". The early church heresy hunters were very much "My way or the highway", at this point you have revealed either total hypocrisy, ignorance, apathy to the actual history, or all three.

I don't agree with the "heresy hunters." I never said I did.

No, Jesus was the opposite of a revisionist. He was a reactionary. The Pharisees were the revisionists. But I am glad you admit that you are a revisionist, that's definitely progress. Let the reader decide if Revisionism is in any way what the original authors intended.

Well, if the redactors of the texts are any indicator, I'm still in pretty good company. Seems they revised stuff all the time...

And here you reveal your remarkable (cough) exegesis abilities. You think this is a reference to Theology rather than the behavior itself. The "salt" is the goodness of the people. We see here a perfect example of your ability to garner context.

And here Pot meets Kettle again. In what way does your theology not lead you to act in ways that try to suppress any new flavor from getting into the stew of Xy?

What's that supposed to mean?

I'm inhospitable to the inhospitable.

That's what it's supposed to mean. You're the one who came out of the gate, braying about how your take was right and everyone else was just some sort of heresy. You've been that way from the get-go -- and you're getting worse about it. I don't hold with dismissal and inhospitality, and when I see it, I react harshly. Everyone has a voice. Everyone gets to play. Everyone is part of the family. I reserve the right to champion the disenfranchised, and I do so by dismissing the dismissive. Deal with it.

No, it is your problem. I am allowed to consider your religion lawless, and I would bet everything I own that Jesus will be saying "Away from me, I never knew you" to a great many who are like you and take your view.

You'd lose that bet.

for the sake of debate, I'm proving that your law is not what Jesus intended, at least as far as the scriptures say.

You're not proving anything of the sort. All you're doing is interjecting your interpretation upon the texts.

Huh? For not being a foot? What? Please feel free to get the exact quote of the verse you are getting this from. I said he teaches it's better to chop off body parts than use them to enter the fire. If this is an example of your exegesis skills, keep it coming!

Never mind. It was Paul -- and we know how you feel about Paul.

That's a nice opinion, but I highly disagree, heck, according to Acts 15 (Which I and many scholars believe is an interpolation, and there actually ARE works that discuss that it's an interpolation rather than just hints of suggestion by a few with Matthew 5:17-20) they were VERY accomodating to those of your ilk.

Yeah. After Paul traveled all the way there and championed the cause. I (and others) feel, though, that the accommodation was begrudging.

Meanwhile, it seems you're completely unaware of the fact that the orthodox didn't up being very accomodating to those of other views, but they had no problem for some reason.

When did I ever say that I agreed with those tactics of the Orthodox?

 

[Shermana]

Huh. If you don't know the difference between a "form" and a "body," no explanation of the difference is going to help you. I'm saying that there are different bodies -- you know, bodies -- physical bodies. Particular conglomerations of stuff lumped together. You know -- bodies.
Clear enough for you?

So you're saying you have a Mormon type perspective? Interesting. If not, why don't you explain the difference between "forms" and "bodies" for everyone else actually reading besides me.

Why not? Jesus subjected Judaism to serious revision.

Pharicaisim perhaps, but if anything he was very reactionary about what was proper Torah obedience. This becomes an issue of what "Judaism" actually means.

Or are you contending that what he taught didn't represent a radical departure from the Judaism of the day?

I think I was quite clear, the Pharisees were the ones who represented a radical departure from the original intention of Torah obedience. If Jesus represented a "radical departure" from teh Pharisee interpretation, then I guess that's what I'm saying, in a similar way that Ron-Paul style Constitutionalists and Paleo-conservatives represent a radical (i.e. reactionary) departure from mainstream Republican politics.

Yeeah. He healed on the Sabbath, which was verboten. When he was taken to task for it by the religious authorities, he pointed out that their injunctions were too picayune, and that it was more important to take compassion for others into consideration before the particulars of the law.

You can totally ignore the links I posted about how what he did was not in actual violation of what Torah teaches as opposed to Pharisee interpretation.

In other words, they're revising what the original religious authorities said. Great support for your position on tradition.

No, you simply are refusing to read what I said about how it was the Pharisees who had made their own traditions and distorted the law from its original practice. Jesus was very explicit about this. But since when does what Jesus actually says actually matter to you?

Your links are from sites that are extreme in their views. I wouldn't trust their scholarship.

Oh okay, so now you don't accept any links that are "Extreme in their views". I guess you can just call anyone's views "extreme". I consider your own views just as extreme as mine. So do we get to write off whatever we want and refuse to address the actual arguments by calling them "extreme"? Looks like you want to say what is and isn't acceptable to even discuss. Guess what, Jesus was extreme. Paul was extreme.

Ok. Fine. The hole is square. Happy now? But people are round and still don't fit the hole.

The better analogy would be that people choose to not fit the hole.

My point is that people have changed from the 1st century.

I really don't see how they've changed that much. Gentile beliefs are gentile beliefs. We may have computers and cars, but I think the people of the 1st century weren't exactly too different.

if the religion wants to remain relevant, it has to change too (as per what you said about the rabbis now saying...)

Okay, so you believe that revisionism apart from the original teachings is necessary to "remain relevant", whatever "Remaining relevant" means. I don't care if my belief "remains relevant" so long as its the original truth of the teachings.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would contend that 21st century 1st world people are the same as 1st century Palestinians.

Please feel free to explain how we are so different today and how that differences makes a difference in how to interpret such documents. Paul clearly said that if anyone preaches a gospel different than his, let them be damned. He didn't say "Let my views be changed as the times go on". Please feel free to explain specifically, other than technological application.

What I represent is that, whether the laws were "original," or whether they had changed, Jesus knew that the laws were in place as a vehicle for righteousness. Since Jesus acknowledged that he is the way, the law-keeping becomes obsolete,

Except that he was saying that his teachings were the way and that his teachings were to obey the full entirety of the Law, not a single iota shall remain void. Are you saying that you don't have to actually obey what Jesus taught since he is "The way"?

because Jesus (as he said) is the fulfillment of the Law.

He said "I have come to fulfill the Law". And specifically said "I have not come to abolish the Law". In the same use of the word "Fulfill", Paul said that believers are to "fulfill the Law of Christ". Thus, Jesus was simply saying that he has come to make the Law more full. After all, "fulfill" actually means "to fill up" in Greek.

When we follow Jesus, we love. When we love, we are keeping the essence of the Law.

So for the 5th time or so, what exactly is "love", and how is it different from what Jesus said about how all the commandments HANG on the law of love of G_d and love of neighbor? You said earlier you don't give a "Rat's A--" about 1 John 5:3, so your idea of "love" is clearly different than the one given by John's epistle, so do you freely admit that your idea is not the biblical one? Heck, why don't you explain what you think Paul's idea of "love" was, he made quite a few restrictions on who does and doesn't get into heaven.

The context of the story changes with the introduction to new cultures and times.

Okay, so once again, you're saying that revisionism is the key to the belief, which is in stark contrast to what the epistles actually say. I just disagree and say that the cultures are supposed to adapt to the original teaching, not the original teaching adapting to the culture.

It's the essence of the story that remains the same, which is why revision is necessary.

And your interpretation of the "Essence" differs drastically.

As cultural pointers become obsolete,

What exactly does it mean to become obsolete? If a culture decides that rape is the way to go to make sure women have babies, does that mean the law against rape is obsolete? If they say that murder is good to keep the population down, would that be obsolete? Where do you draw the line? We just have different opinions I guess on what is an absolute.

the religious tools that make use of those pointers also become obsolete.

Wait, you are saying that the Bible itself becomes obsolete? Nice, thanks for revealing this.

We are not preaching a "different" gospel

I'd bet all my wealth that even Paul would disagree. Want to make this bet? May providence strip the wealth from the one who's wrong on this and give to the other an equal amount. You down?

. We're preaching the same gospel of grace, forgiveness, self-sacrificing love, forbearance, inclusion, hospitality, and acceptance that Paul preached.

Then you're obviously not reading the finer details of what Paul actually taught. He said "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" for one thing. What Paul taught was to be a very good person and that if you're a fornicator for example, you're not going to heaven. Quite plainly.

Yep. What they (and you) failed to realize is that unity =/= uniformity.

Well you can unify with what I consider a sludgy mix, but I'll stay isolated thank you.

Had they embraced the concept of diversity, they would have found the body of the church much stronger.

What is "diversity" exactly? Even the Early Church Fathers weren't too fond of diversity. What you're saying is "Had they embraced the concepts that they were bitterly opposed to".

Instead, what they got was divisiveness -- a concept you also apparently subscribe to.

I do in fact subscribe to divisiveness. So did Jesus. So did Paul. So did James. So does practically every Christian denomination or they wouldn't be denominations. Your univeralistic view isn't even what Universalists believe.

If it did, then great! We can always use more diversity in the faith1

Always use more diversity, I see. Are you really prepared to defend this argument? Do you believe there should be no limits? Do you think that when the Epistle writers wrote against the various heresies and telling people to avoid certain practices that they had the wrong idea? Looks like it.

No, it's not a popularity contest --

But you're implying that it's a matter of numbers.

it's the nature of a movement that is decidedly not culturally-based. Even now, the face of Xy is changing as the church is becoming more concentrated in the 3rd world. I say: Let it happen.

Well I say let it return to its original roots. For someone against Divisiveness, you must absolutely hate what Jesus said about setting brother against brother and coming to bring not peace but a sword and all that. Have you actually read what Jesus taught? He was VERY Divisive. So was Paul. So was James. So was Jude. So was Peter. Divisiveness was the very nature of the Christian movement. To bring people away from what they considered false teachings.

 

[Shermana]

Part 2

I don't agree with the "heresy hunters." I never said I did.

Well then you should drop the act about how the Jewish Christians were all "divisive" as if that was a bad thing.

Well, if the redactors of the texts are any indicator, I'm still in pretty good company. Seems they revised stuff all the time...

So you're agreeing that it's acceptable to revise the texts as the "church" wanted to suit their doctrines, thank you for proving my points, you do a really good job of backing my own case for me.

And here Pot meets Kettle again. In what way does your theology not lead you to act in ways that try to suppress any new flavor from getting into the stew of Xy?

How is this in any way a rebuttal to what I said? The point of what Jesus was talking about in terms of "salt" was not about the "flavor of the belief", it was about the behavior of the people. When people themselves lose their saltiness, in context to the rest of the sermon, it is when they are no longer good people and are no longer pleasing to G-d. This is a fine example of your interpretive skills, you actually think the verse is about one's Theology rather than their behavior. And I am in no way opposed to suppressing new flavors, Jesus and Paul were very opposed to all the new flavors from the Pharisees and the heretical sects like the Nicolatians.

That's what it's supposed to mean. You're the one who came out of the gate, braying about how your take was right and everyone else was just some sort of heresy.

But I'm willing to back what I bray. Getting you to defend your own view is worse than pulling teeth.

You've been that way from the get-go -- and you're getting worse about it.

Debate is a battlefield, and I'm willing to back everything I say. As for you...

I don't hold with dismissal and inhospitality,

Oh the hypocrisy. The very first argument we had you dismissed my view with condescending words and then refused to back your claim until I pressed it for 10 posts and then your own link basically ended up agreeing with me.

and when I see it, I react harshly.

Right, you reacted harshly from the first time I ever even asked you to back your own claims, and you react harshly whenever your view is questioned, I challenge anyone else to stick up for you and say differently in this case.

Everyone has a voice. Everyone gets to play. Everyone is part of the family. I reserve the right to champion the disenfranchised, and I do so by dismissing the dismissive. Deal with it.

Why don't you explain what is the difference between being "Dismissive" and "dismissing with evidence and interpretation and backing the case". I would also love to know why you consider those of the mainstream views like yourself are the "Disenfranchised". Seriously? You think the ones who I'm opposed to are the disenfranchised? Is that a joke?

You'd lose that bet.

Then make the bet right now. In a short time, may providence cause the one who is closer to the truth in this regard acquire the same amount of net worth as the other, and the one who is farther from the truth lose all that they have. Amen. Say amen, for "so let it be" and the bet will be on.

You're not proving anything of the sort. All you're doing is interjecting your interpretation upon the texts.

I guess we have our opinions on what is proof.

Never mind. It was Paul -- and we know how you feel about Paul.

Regardless how I feel about Paul, it seems you don't even understand what Paul even said. So I ask again, whether it was Jesus or Paul who said so, please get the quote you are referring to. It is referring to the functions of the body itself. It is referring to not casting someone out who is not useful in which something else is useful. You want to tell the class your opinion on what Jesus meant by the whole hand chopping thing?

Yeah. After Paul traveled all the way there and championed the cause. I (and others) feel, though, that the accommodation was begrudging.

Assuming Acts 15 is even legitimate. Even then, Paul specifically denies in the accusations in the last chapter that he ever taught lawlessness, along with the contradiction in Gal 2, gives weight to that the council of Jerusalem was a later addition. Either way, whether begrudging or not, you're basically saying that James the brother of Jesus and Peter, the Rock, had it all wrong. Meanwhile, it seems you're not even aware of what Paul himself even taught! Why would Paul even say "Work out your salvation in fear and tremlbing"? Why would Paul say that fornicators and angry people won't enter the kingdom? What did Paul mean in Romans 3:31 and 2:13?

When did I ever say that I agreed with those tactics of the Orthodox?

You're talking about who "won out", and who "lost out", yet the ones who "won out" were far worse than anything the Jewish Christian groups did that you're accusing them of, so that's a bit of a snag in your argument about "divisiveness" and what caused them to "die out".