The Trinity

[Sha'irullah]

I believe what you and the poster to whom you respond here have in common is a love-affair with "original." The poster wants to put Xy under glass and protect it from changing from its Judaic roots to a Greek expression; from ancient thought to post-modern thought. You seem to reject Paul, based on the fact that Jesus was dead before Paul was called, and was, therefore, not an "original" apostle.

This type of thinking is fallacial, because Xy isn't a static or dead religion. it is a living and changing and adapting religion. If Xy had remained Judaic, it could not have become a pan-cultural religion. If no one outside of those who knew Jesus personally have a valid call, Xy would have been dead 2000 years ago, and we would have no gospels.

Yes, Xy is different from what it was in the very beginning. But so are you and I. And so is the rest of the world.

Actually that is exactly not why I reject Paul. I reject him on the grounds of contradiction and absurdity. His continuation of the Gospels is nothing but letters to various people which hold no authority.

 

[Shermana]

Actually that is exactly not why I reject Paul. I reject him on the grounds of contradiction and absurdity. His continuation of the Gospels is nothing but letters to various people which hold no authority.

I wouldn't even call it "Continuation of the Gospels". More like a really bad spin off that strays from the canonical script. Maybe "Reboot" would be the best term.

 

[sojourner]

Actually that is exactly not why I reject Paul. I reject him on the grounds of contradiction and absurdity. His continuation of the Gospels is nothing but letters to various people which hold no authority.

You said:

The Epistles of Paul hold absolutely no authority. He is an apostle somehow despite the fact Jesus died long since and appeared to him later on a road.

This leads me to believe that you think Paul has no authority because he did not know Jesus personally.

Authority... predicated upon what, exactly? It is the church -- the body of believers, called to act in the name of Christ, who hold authority. In Paul's day, the other apostles held authority, and they recognized Paul as an apostle, with authority to evangelize and convert people to Xy. Apparently, Paul does "have authority" because the early church invested him with authority.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You said:

This leads me to believe that you think Paul has no authority because he did not know Jesus personally.

Authority... predicated upon what, exactly? It is the church -- the body of believers, called to act in the name of Christ, who hold authority. In Paul's day, the other apostles held authority, and they recognized Paul as an apostle, with authority to evangelize and convert people to Xy. Apparently, Paul does "have authority" because the early church invested him with authority.

Define apostle since I know a different definitions for it. Then define prophets/messenger of god.
Then tell me how Paul fits into the circle of apostles. It is not a matter of Paul knowing Jesus personally, it is the matter of his wavering compilation of texts that assert monotheism, polytheism, hatred, love and numerous other things. They seem highly disorganized.

 

[Katzpur]

I personally do not mind Catholicism doing this but Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are a bit to cultish for me.

Hmmm. That's not very nice. :sad: I know this is a thread about the Trinity, so I'm not going to derail it, but I am a Mormon and my religion is hardly "cultish." I find it really hurtful to hear people say that.

 

[Shermana]

Define apostle since I know a different definitions for it. Then define prophets/messenger of god.
Then tell me how Paul fits into the circle of apostles. It is not a matter of Paul knowing Jesus personally, it is the matter of his wavering compilation of texts that assert monotheism, polytheism, hatred, love and numerous other things. They seem highly disorganized.

Just for the record, the texts that assert that the Apostles accepted Paul's authority like Acts 15 and 2 Peter just so happen to be heavily disputed as interpolations by many scholars. Carry on. (Even the Acts of Peter has a section on Paul that was shoehorned in later from the "Acts of Paul" so it applies even to the NT Apocrypha)

If anything separates Paul from the rest, it's his seeming insistence on totally "Faith alone" and the lack of necessity o f the Law. Which is basically the opposite of what the Jerusalem Church under James was teaching.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Hmmm. That's not very nice. :sad: I know this is a thread about the Trinity, so I'm not going to derail it, but I am a Mormon and my religion is hardly "cultish." I find it really hurtful to hear people say that.

Hey I am not making it personal but the image portrayed gives a lot of words. I know it may not be accurate but when I am around Mormons and they do proselytize in my area I tend to take great offense to them talking to me with the expectations of conversion.
I do not mean to be harsh here but I can make a separate thread about this if you wish. I just do not like the JW's and Mormons almost purely because of their constant need for proselytization and obscure behavior.

But again, do not take my words with a grain of salt....because it may need a few buckets or 2 tubs maybe

 

[Sculelos]

The single most important book that nearly ALL churches have skipped over is the book of Enoch. However the reason why is obvious and that is namely the book pretty much sorts out all the false doctrines and purges them in short order.

People sure do love lies. Enoch knew this and this is why he said his book would be sealed until the end of day's drew near when it would be revealed to the 'Elect'.

 

[sojourner]

Define apostle since I know a different definitions for it. Then define prophets/messenger of god.
Then tell me how Paul fits into the circle of apostles. It is not a matter of Paul knowing Jesus personally, it is the matter of his wavering compilation of texts that assert monotheism, polytheism, hatred, love and numerous other things. They seem highly disorganized.

Apostle = "Sent out." A secondary meaning is: "one of the Twelve," and, by extension, those who are called to succeed them. Paul has apostolic authority because the Body gave him that authority, with consent of the Twelve.

Paul's texts seem disorganized, because Paul wasn't "writing scripture." he was writing letters to various churches who found themselves in various spiritual states, under various circumstances, addressing various topics of the day. And he was doing so without benefit of established theology or doctrine. Paul joined the Movement less than 18 months after the Jesus Event. Theological constructs were still in their infancy.

 

[Muffled]

Provide sources, plz.

Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:

Luke 4:20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears.

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water.
39 But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive:

Joh 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled: He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

 

[sojourner]

Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:

Luke 4:20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears.

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water.
39 But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive:

Joh 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled: He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Thank you. This proves the point I was making. The texts, themselves, do not say, "folks: we're talking about Jesus here!" The object of the prophecies is only identified later -- much later -- by followers of the object, not the object himself, since Jesus didn't write the gospels.

 

[Muffled]

Again: Sources, plz.

The other sources were good but this one covers it all.

Luke 24:25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

[Muffled]

Thank you. This proves the point I was making. The texts, themselves, do not say, "folks: we're talking about Jesus here!" The object of the prophecies is only identified later -- much later -- by followers of the object, not the object himself, since Jesus didn't write the gospels.

I believe you simply don't believe God when He says something. That is different. No amount of sourcing can fix unbelief.

 

[Muffled]

Seeing people argue over the Trinity and the Bible amuses me to no end. It is like seeing a pack of kids argue over the Easter Bunny and whether or not he lays eggs.
The trinity is by far the most un-Judaic claim along with the existence of Jesus. The fact that it is still debated after so many millennia is only "testament" that it is not palatable with basic mathematical reasoning skills.

I believe it helps if you have reasoning skills instead of just saying the first thing that pops into your head.

I like the way Sesame Street puts it (to get to a level you can understand). "Three of these things go together" Now if I have a red rubeer ball, a blue rubber ball and a green rubber ball, how many substances are there three or one. My math says there is only one substance in the three balls and that is rubber.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Apostle = "Sent out." A secondary meaning is: "one of the Twelve," and, by extension, those who are called to succeed them. Paul has apostolic authority because the Body gave him that authority, with consent of the Twelve.

Paul's texts seem disorganized, because Paul wasn't "writing scripture." he was writing letters to various churches who found themselves in various spiritual states, under various circumstances, addressing various topics of the day. And he was doing so without benefit of established theology or doctrine. Paul joined the Movement less than 18 months after the Jesus Event. Theological constructs were still in their infancy.

I know all of these things which is the part that worries me. Why do Paul's various Epistles to the church of Corinthians and others have dogmatic relevancy in the Bible?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I believe it helps if you have reasoning skills instead of just saying the first thing that pops into your head.

I like the way Sesame Street puts it (to get to a level you can understand). "Three of these things go together" Now if I have a red rubeer ball, a blue rubber ball and a green rubber ball, how many substances are there three or one. My math says there is only one substance in the three balls and that is rubber.

Well I should ask you why is it you abandoned your reasoning skills in favor of blunt mockeries.

If you wish to have a serious discussion do not expect to get it by using idiocy as a method of conversing. Considering the fact that I am having multiple debates at 1 time only proves who has better reasoning skills.

 

[sojourner]

The other sources were good but this one covers it all.

Luke 24:25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Again: written by a later follower, so, hindsight.

 

[sojourner]

I believe you simply don't believe God when He says something. That is different. No amount of sourcing can fix unbelief.

It has nothing to do with my belief. If I didn't believe Jesus was the object of the prophecies, I wouldn't be a Xtian. This has to do with what the prophecies, themselves, are saying. The prophecies do not say, "Jesus of Nazareth will come and fulfill all these things." The fulfiller of the prophecies remains unnamed in the prophecies, themselves. Ergo, the writers of the prophecies were not thinking "Jesus" when they wrote them. That's why we can't use them as proof-texts for our beliefs. We can look at them and say "we believe these prophecies have been fulfilled," but we can't look at them and say, "See! I told you Jesus is the Messiah!" Perceived fulfillment of prophecy does not prove Jesus as Messiah.

 

[sojourner]

I know all of these things which is the part that worries me. Why do Paul's various Epistles to the church of Corinthians and others have dogmatic relevancy in the Bible?

Because the church has ascribed that relevancy to them. Why does the Pentateuch have "dogmatic relevancy" in the bible? Because the church ascribes that relevancy to them.

the letters are great examples of sacred text for the Xtian movement precisely for this reason: Xy isn't predicated upon theology, particularly. IMO, it's more deeply predicated upon how we live out our faith in the world -- orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. The letters give us insight into how to live together and act out our faith amongst ourselves in real-world situations. At the time, they were timely, relevant, and based, not on tradition, but on the needs of the Movement. That's why they really became Xy's first sacred texts.

Paul is important, not because he "conforms to the orthodoxy of Judaism," but because he points out a relevant orthopraxy for the here-and-now.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Because the church has ascribed that relevancy to them. Why does the Pentateuch have "dogmatic relevancy" in the bible? Because the church ascribes that relevancy to them.

the letters are great examples of sacred text for the Xtian movement precisely for this reason: Xy isn't predicated upon theology, particularly. IMO, it's more deeply predicated upon how we live out our faith in the world -- orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. The letters give us insight into how to live together and act out our faith amongst ourselves in real-world situations. At the time, they were timely, relevant, and based, not on tradition, but on the needs of the Movement. That's why they really became Xy's first sacred texts.

Paul is important, not because he "conforms to the orthodoxy of Judaism," but because he points out a relevant orthopraxy for the here-and-now.

The differences here is that the Tauraw is no mere letter to an individual.
I do not even think one can compared the Tauraw to the Epistles of Paul. Whether they are orthodoxy or Orthopraxy they should not be included as books in the Bible. There is nothing wrong with having additional outside texts