When did God tell the Israelites that He was three persons?

[rosends]

The wikipedia article shows the common Christian understanding: Shema Yisrael - Wikipedia which says the Shema is a prayer, the first verse of which comes from Deuteronomy 6:4 in our bibles. This is not the whole story. The Shema of today is not the Shema of yesterday, ironically; unless you believe it is. Then it is.

"Today, we understand the passage as a monotheistic declaration. However, in the Second Temple period, the Shema‘ Yisrael text in Deuteronomy would have been read “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.” -- from The Shema‘ Yisrael

​

What?
I read the article. It states that "The amulet is formed out of a silver capsule and small gold leaf, inscribed with a Hebrew Shema‘ Yisrael written in Greek letters. Lange and Eshel state that “the Jewish amulet reads the last clause of the Shema‘ Yisrael as ΑΔΩΝ Α ‘the Lord is 1.’ That is, it replaces the Hebrew word אחד, which meant originally ‘alone,’ with ‘one’ (a Greek A). The letter in ancient Greek represents the numeral 1.”"

So in the Greek, someone replaced a Hebrew word with a number. Already, you have a bunch of problems -- this is not representative of anything more than a private amulet, it is in Greek so who cares, and the claim that echad used to mean "alone" is silly if one knows anything about the use of the word textually.​

 

[Five Solas]

five principal versions

Versions? No.
Perspectives? Perhaps.

Each of those versions specifically denies he's God

Wrong.

never claims to be God

Who? Christ? Oh yes, He does!

 

[Five Solas]

The wikipedia article shows the common Christian understanding: Shema Yisrael - Wikipedia which says the Shema is a prayer, the first verse of which comes from Deuteronomy 6:4 in our bibles. This is not the whole story. The Shema of today is not the Shema of yesterday, ironically; unless you believe it is. Then it is.

"Today, we understand the passage as a monotheistic declaration. However, in the Second Temple period, the Shema‘ Yisrael text in Deuteronomy would have been read “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.” -- from The Shema‘ Yisrael​

So this has 'Elohim' as Israel's god, however in Christianity we view all of the world as adopted into Israel through Christ. That is why the 'Elohim' has been translated 'God' since catholicism.

'Catholic' means 'Universal'. It changes the Elohim of Israel to the God of all those who believe, all those who join Israel through Christ. The European understanding of God has changed over time, apparently including the way that the Shema is treated in prayers. I think that there is an appeal to this catholic usage that has won Jewish people over, but it is originally a catholic usage. It could be that Jews borrowed this usage merely in order to survive in Europe and to avoid more pogroms. The reasons are beyond me. Whatever their reason, they started using 'God' in their own translated materials; but the catholics did it first. (Although the LXX uses 'Theos'. Perhaps it is not the catholics doing it first.)


It is a covenant spoken in prayer. In the NIV for Deuteronomy 6: it says "Hear oh Israel the LORD our God the LORD is one" but this makes it sound declarative, like all we need to do is to hear what it says. That is not what is meant. So in adopting a more catholic ideal we have nevertheless stumbled in translation. We have made a covenant into a mere song. The words should be "Affirm this Israel, LORD elohim, LORD alone" or something like that. It is not just 'Hear'. It is a covenant, but the word literally is 'Hear'. It is the word sh'ma. But to hear has a meaning other than to receive audible sounds in the ear. To hear is to accept. The misunderstanding about 'Hear' which is the 'Shema' is because of a cultural difference between the Jews and the Greeks from which western civilization comes.

"The Mosaic books are, among other things, a set of commandments, 613 of them. That is the primary meaning of the word Torah – namely law. It would seem to follow that a book of commands must have a verb that means “to obey”, for that is the whole purpose of an imperative. Obedience stands in relation to command as truth does to statement. Yet there is no verb in biblical Hebrew that means to obey. This is an utterly astonishing fact." Covenant and Conversation - The Meanings of Shema - Rabbi Sacks on Parsha - OU Torah​

Hi,
What is a liber-scripta grim Christian?

Why do you think the shema is a covenant?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Those who are most wrong are usually the ones who claim they are being dismissed.

As I said, the entry level qualifications that you presented in your previous post do not even pass muster as proof of a trinity. Did you think you’d found a ‘Winning formula’ for trinity? No! It’s like I said, it’s like presenting an elementary algebra solution to a class of Math Majors.

God saying ‘Let us create man in our image’ is not proof of anything - Consider then that every time someone says ‘Let us…’ they mean THREE persons. Is that right?

Please outline the THREE persons the scriptures say were there. Let me start:

1. God
2. Angels (including the one who later became known as Satan)

… That’s it… ONE GOD: Almighty God! And a myriad of angels - Which scriptures say often were IN COUNCIL WITH GOD’ (Job 1:6)

Angels are the ‘Work tools’ of God. Angels are highly intelligent and immensely powerful. In fact, they have greater intelligence and power than mankind:

• “He was made a little lower than the angels..”

What can a man do against an angel of God?
What can an Angel of God do against a man?

Check the scriptures for your answers.

‘Made in the image of God’ means ‘Having intelligence, Power, love, grace, creativeness, ability to forgive, to nurture, to husband (husbandry), to design, build, to judge, to council, to know God, vanity, to desire to please and be pleased, to serve and be served, self-Willed ….’. All other created beings do not possess the fullness of the image of God.

So, who was God talking to? Himself? ‘Satan’ was the most intelligent and powerful of all the angels created by God. It was to him that God spoke about the creation of man. Notice that although God suggested the creation by council, it was GOD ALONE who blew the breathe of life into the BODY of Adam to make him a LIVING SOUL. So, Satan MADE THE BODY of Adam but GOD put a spirit into it to make it live. Angels can create a humanoid body BUT they cannot put a spirit into it to enliven it - in the later chapter we see that happen but the rebellious angels put THEMSELVES (they are living spirits, afterall) into those bodies to enliven them… and breeding with human females they created offspring called NEPHILIM (illegally Huge and Powerful beings greater than human beings authorised by God - which is why God later destroyed them!)

And why did the greatest, most glorious, and most intelligent angel God madd turn rogue? Jealousy, envy: Because he, Satan, aided in the creation of man, he, Satan, demanded to be ALSO WORSHIPPED by man…. A sinning angel is not forgivable. Therefore Satan has spent the rest of his time till now trying to justify his rebellion - even now knowing that his fate is doomed - He seeks to take as many of humankind with him to the same destination: Destruction of his snd their spirit!!

And Adam was created Holy, Sinless, Righteous: A HUMAN Son of God (Angels of God are ALSO Sinless, Holy, and Righteous: SPIRIT SONS OF GOD!)

However, since Adam sinned a great sin - giving way to the wiles of Satan - he fell away from being ‘Son of God’. And so, in the fullness of time God created A SECOND ADAM, and instructed that his name be called ‘YESHUA’ (Which is JOSHUA, which later in Greek became ‘Jesus’: ‘He who saves his people’ - Just as Joshua was the one who led the children of israel into the promised land)

But how do you answer the question as to how THE Father CREATED everything BY HIMSELF yet TRINITY says He did not… Trinity says it was Jesus who CREATED EVERYTHING BY HIMSELF…

Yet trinity also says that it was THROUGH Jesus that all things were created… BY GOD…!

If you are honest to yourself, how do you say that the above is a true and accurate belief of a testimony?

If you think anything I have written to you is wrong… please show me what if is and how you justify claiming it is wrong!

"Those who are most wrong are usually the ones who claim they are being dismissed" is not a proof of anything--it's merely another false statement of logic/attack on my person.

 

[Soapy]

The closest we get to a direct "answer" is this:- In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands his disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

We do not find a developed dogma on the Trinity in Scripture. But God reveals Himself as such. The term is theological/dogmatic. It is a concept coined by a fallible theology of a fallible church. No one really understands it. Any serious Christian treads carefully around that term.

There is no indication let alone one that is not ‘developed’ in the scriptures.

Even ‘considering that there might be’ is bad enough since that is exactly what leads even devout Trinitarians to declare:

• ‘Trinity is INCOMPREHENSIBLE’

The obvious question is therefore: ‘If trinity is incomprehensible, how are you justifying and teaching it as a doctrine and vilifying anyone who claims against its ideology?’

Also, if ‘We cannot know [the] God [of the jews]’ then it is then a claim that Jesus lied when he proclaimed:

• ‘[Father,] I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.’ (John 17:6)
• ‘For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.’ (John 17:8)
  • Jesus gave them the words of God… The words are not Jesus’ but those of God:

And as for those who claim Jesus was SENT from Heaven:

• “As you sent me into the world, I have sent them [the Apostles] into the world.” (John 17:18)

‘The world’ simply means:

• ‘Facing evil; unrighteousness; devilry; deceit; satanic forces’

Jesus did not face these things until after he was anointed with the spirit of God. He was then straightway TEMPTED by ‘the world’ (defined above), but resisted ‘the world’. Thus, when all things had been accomplished, Jesus said:

• “I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.“ (John 17:11-12)

The disciples were ‘protected from THE WORLD by Jesus while he was with them… so, as Jesus is leaving THE WORLD the (to be) Apostles will be the one facing adversity by evil (They will be IN THE WORLD)

Jesus faced his last temptation IN THE WORLD on the night before he was crucified. Then he said on the cross: It is done!!

When such as above iz understood the scriptures become clear and no amount of deceit by any mis-spoken ideology changes or dissuades from the truth of God’s word(s).

 

[Soapy]

The wikipedia article shows the common Christian understanding: Shema Yisrael - Wikipedia which says the Shema is a prayer, the first verse of which comes from Deuteronomy 6:4 in our bibles. This is not the whole story. The Shema of today is not the Shema of yesterday, ironically; unless you believe it is. Then it is.

"Today, we understand the passage as a monotheistic declaration. However, in the Second Temple period, the Shema‘ Yisrael text in Deuteronomy would have been read “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.” -- from The Shema‘ Yisrael​

So this has 'Elohim' as Israel's god, however in Christianity we view all of the world as adopted into Israel through Christ. That is why the 'Elohim' has been translated 'God' since catholicism.

'Catholic' means 'Universal'. It changes the Elohim of Israel to the God of all those who believe, all those who join Israel through Christ. The European understanding of God has changed over time, apparently including the way that the Shema is treated in prayers. I think that there is an appeal to this catholic usage that has won Jewish people over, but it is originally a catholic usage. It could be that Jews borrowed this usage merely in order to survive in Europe and to avoid more pogroms. The reasons are beyond me. Whatever their reason, they started using 'God' in their own translated materials; but the catholics did it first. (Although the LXX uses 'Theos'. Perhaps it is not the catholics doing it first.)


It is a covenant spoken in prayer. In the NIV for Deuteronomy 6: it says "Hear oh Israel the LORD our God the LORD is one" but this makes it sound declarative, like all we need to do is to hear what it says. That is not what is meant. So in adopting a more catholic ideal we have nevertheless stumbled in translation. We have made a covenant into a mere song. The words should be "Affirm this Israel, LORD elohim, LORD alone" or something like that. It is not just 'Hear'. It is a covenant, but the word literally is 'Hear'. It is the word sh'ma. But to hear has a meaning other than to receive audible sounds in the ear. To hear is to accept. The misunderstanding about 'Hear' which is the 'Shema' is because of a cultural difference between the Jews and the Greeks from which western civilization comes.

"The Mosaic books are, among other things, a set of commandments, 613 of them. That is the primary meaning of the word Torah – namely law. It would seem to follow that a book of commands must have a verb that means “to obey”, for that is the whole purpose of an imperative. Obedience stands in relation to command as truth does to statement. Yet there is no verb in biblical Hebrew that means to obey. This is an utterly astonishing fact." Covenant and Conversation - The Meanings of Shema - Rabbi Sacks on Parsha - OU Torah​

As you are trying to be definitive, why do you not then state ‘YHWH’ instead of ‘LORD’?

For sure, doing so would nullify the mistake hardened and/or naive and/or provocative Trinitarians claim that ‘Jesus is God’ because Jesus is also called ‘Lord’!!

By now, everyone in such debates should understand that ‘LORD’ is just a dubious term used mischievously for the NAME of the God of the Jews (‘YHWH’).

Anyone not knowing this trinket of truth must be treated with high levels of caution as to their intent in expressing their (trinitarian) belief!

 

[Soapy]

"Those who are most wrong are usually the ones who claim they are being dismissed" is not a proof of anything--it's merely another false statement of logic/attack on my person.

Wrong! It’s a tactic I’ve seen used too many times by Trinitarians when they cannot disagree with what is shown to them as truth.

Another tactic is simply repeating John 1:1, the ‘Before Abraham, I Am’, and ‘Hear o Israel, YHWH our God YHWH is one God’…

No validation is given, just presenting the verses as a debate blocker. The hope is to make the truth speaker say something that might get them blocked or banned on the site…! Thus leaving the untruth speaker to continue their unfounded untruths, imagining that by doing so they are expounding the God of their fathers:

• ‘You are sons of your Father: He was a liar from the beginning!’

 

[Soapy]

What?
I read the article. It states that "The amulet is formed out of a silver capsule and small gold leaf, inscribed with a Hebrew Shema‘ Yisrael written in Greek letters. Lange and Eshel state that “the Jewish amulet reads the last clause of the Shema‘ Yisrael as ΑΔΩΝ Α ‘the Lord is 1.’ That is, it replaces the Hebrew word אחד, which meant originally ‘alone,’ with ‘one’ (a Greek A). The letter in ancient Greek represents the numeral 1.”"

So in the Greek, someone replaced a Hebrew word with a number. Already, you have a bunch of problems -- this is not representative of anything more than a private amulet, it is in Greek so who cares, and the claim that echad used to mean "alone" is silly if one knows anything about the use of the word textually.​

Just interjecting for a second…

What possible meaning can there be from the God of the Jews being ‘ONE’ (a ‘compound’ number ‘one’ as I’ve heard it called!?)

The trinitarian view is that this ‘ECHAD’ means ‘THREE’… is that logical; is that sense; is that even a valid claim?

So many things are THREE … those such things are never ONE and ONLY, though. A common pyramid has three sides - but is has a single PEAK. This peak is the prominent part of the pyramid. A Clover/ Shamrock has THREE leaves - but it ALSO has a STEM which makes a FOURTH PART. An egg, (rubbish example) has MORE THAN THREE parts… and, in any case, the SHELL is an encasement for the inner parts… Ice, water, and gas DO NOT exist AT THE SAME TIME as ONE substance. It is different parts that exist so.

The emphasis is on the ONE, alone, by itself, non-dependency, only… of the GOD OF THE JEWS…. in relation to the nations and tribes encountered by the Jews (Israelites, in fact) who BY CONTRAST worshipped MANY GODS… and typically THREE!!

Hence, there is a very strong hint as to why in much later times AFTER Jesus ascended to Heaven, why certain people trying to persuade a belief in a ONE ONLY GOD would likely be tempted to express a THREE PERSON God AS ONE GOD to those USED TO WORSHIPPING THREE GODS in their own current ideology!!

Circling back: I would like to see the both of you (in this thread debate) tackle what exactly you think the Shema means… not just argue about what each word means or not mean or changed or not changed…

What and why was Moses announcing the ‘Shema’ to the children of Israel?

thanks!

 

[Muffled]

I have heard many debates about the so-called Trinity God that the greater sect of Christianity is supposed to believe in. However, I cannot find in the scriptures anywhere where God tells anyone that He is three persons.

I know that God tells the Israelites that He is ONE GOD and that they should have no other God but He…, but I can’t see anywhere where it is stated, inferred, conjectured, shown, nor proved to the Israelites, Jews, nor Christian’s, that He is three person!

Are there any such proofs, suggestions, inferences, etc….?

I believe you are so mistaken on the Trinity it is not God as three persons it is God in three persons. This is indicated by
Isa. 9:6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon4 his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[Muffled]

The Trinitarian concept is a theological construct within Catholicism whereas Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the essence of God. The concept of essence was from Aristotle and Plato, which the early Church used since the first books in what became the N.T. were in Koine Greek. Generally speaking, scholars living in the Mediterranean region would well know how that concept works.

es·sence
[ˈesəns]
NOUN

1. the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character:
   "conflict is the essence of drama"
   synonyms:
   • philosophy
     a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.

I believe the term of the essence is misleading. The essence of God exists in Jesus and the Paraclete.

 

[Muffled]

Does this mean that the Christians that existed before Catholics declared its belief of trinitarianism were unitary?

I believe I don't know how James the brother of Jesus or Peter viewed it but the Apostle Paul was definitely Trinitarian.

 

[metis]

I believe the term of the essence is misleading. The essence of God exists in Jesus and the Paraclete.

Your last sentence above is exactly what that use of "essence" implies here.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What?
I read the article. It states that "The amulet is formed out of a silver capsule and small gold leaf, inscribed with a Hebrew Shema‘ Yisrael written in Greek letters. Lange and Eshel state that “the Jewish amulet reads the last clause of the Shema‘ Yisrael as ΑΔΩΝ Α ‘the Lord is 1.’ That is, it replaces the Hebrew word אחד, which meant originally ‘alone,’ with ‘one’ (a Greek A). The letter in ancient Greek represents the numeral 1.”"

So in the Greek, someone replaced a Hebrew word with a number. Already, you have a bunch of problems -- this is not representative of anything more than a private amulet, it is in Greek so who cares, and the claim that echad used to mean "alone" is silly if one knows anything about the use of the word textually.​

It is a Greek amulet not from Israel; and I respect your point about the common understanding of the text which I cannot read for myself. If 'Echad' were always supposed to be translated as 'One' then I would still ponder about that possessive term 'Our' which seems exclusive. The amulet appears in the second part of their article where they claim it is the first time that 'Echad' is translated as one -- implying that there are previous examples in which it is not translated this way but not showing us any such example.

The possessive term in the Sh'ma makes the article's claim seem reasonable though they don't present an older version of the word 'Echad' showing it used as 'Alone'. I wish they had presented at least one example of a previous use of the term rather than just implying there were some.

Would saying it means 'Alone' harm Jewish liturgy? This is not something which seems like it would, since it means there is only one authority for those included.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi,
What is a liber-scripta grim Christian?

Why do you think the shema is a covenant?

'Liber scripta grim' is something I have coined. Anything that is written can contain inspiration, can have information in it. I think our Christian canon tells us to expect inspiration from all kinds of places and not just within our canon which is why the liber scripta. I also think the churches are in sad shape, and that is why the grim. But don't be too sad. Its not all bad.

The covenant of the shema isn't a theory or something I've invented. Someone else told me, but as an explanation: the word 'Hear' in it means something more than to listen with the ears. It means this is a command, which means the sh'ma is a covenant. This link explains that reason why the word 'Hear' implies it.
Covenant and Conversation - The Meanings of Shema - Rabbi Sacks on Parsha - OU Torah

 

[Brickjectivity]

As you are trying to be definitive, why do you not then state ‘YHWH’ instead of ‘LORD’?

For sure, doing so would nullify the mistake hardened and/or naive and/or provocative Trinitarians claim that ‘Jesus is God’ because Jesus is also called ‘Lord’!!

By now, everyone in such debates should understand that ‘LORD’ is just a dubious term used mischievously for the NAME of the God of the Jews (‘YHWH’).

Anyone not knowing this trinket of truth must be treated with high levels of caution as to their intent in expressing their (trinitarian) belief!

There is a worse mistake I think which comes from transliterating 'YHWH'. It gives the false impression that this is a pronounceable string of letters, supporting various groups that I consider to be cults who go around trying to get us all to say 'Yahweh' as if that were a word or proper name. At least with the word 'Lord' you have a footnote in most bibles which tells you that it is not actually the original word. That seems preferable to me. If it were up to me I'd go back in time and have the scripture translators do something like what Jews are doing...putting in hyphens, but their explanation for hyphens isn't the same as mine. They got to the hyphens first, but these hyphens aren't really expressing what I think about it. But whoever claims the hyphens first gets the hyphens, and I don't want to take away their hyphens or start using them differently and thus make them a perverse use of hyphens. If we all start using hyphens differently then it just adds confusion. But our english translations almost always have a footnote and a little superscript next to the word Lord or LORD, so its not so bad.

 

[rosends]

It is a Greek amulet not from Israel; and I respect your point about the common understanding of the text which I cannot read for myself. If 'Echad' were always supposed to be translated as 'One' then I would still ponder about that possessive term 'Our' which seems exclusive. The amulet appears in the second part of their article where they claim it is the first time that 'Echad' is translated as one -- implying that there are previous examples in which it is not translated this way but not showing us any such example.

The possessive term in the Sh'ma makes the article's claim seem reasonable though they don't present an older version of the word 'Echad' showing it used as 'Alone'. I wish they had presented at least one example of a previous use of the term rather than just implying there were some.

Would saying it means 'Alone' harm Jewish liturgy? This is not something which seems like it would, since it means there is only one authority for those included.

Saying it means "alone" would mean mistranslating (there is a word "l'vad" which, I think, closer to "alone") and then would beg applying that definition to all instances of the word elsewhere and the text would make no sense.

As to the possessive of "our" I believe that the statement is an affirmation of the rectitutde of the jewish idea of God. The our isn't to exclude other extant gods, but to state that God (as represented by the 4 letter name, identifying a specific being) is the idea of God which we have adopted as a people and is the only valid understanding. So if others claim to worship the same being but are thinking of it as a non-one, then their idea is wrong.

 

[Five Solas]

The obvious question is therefore: ‘If trinity is incomprehensible, how are you justifying and teaching it as a doctrine and vilifying anyone who claims against its ideology?’

No serious theologian will ever claim to know God completely or understand God fully. Still, we talk about God and write about God. We love God in spite of the fact that God is such a mystery.

Ecclesiastes 3 tells us that God has put this sense of mystery into each of our hearts.
Rudolf Otto is best known for his analysis of the experience that underlies religion. He calls this mysterium tremendum et fascinans. As mysterium, the numinous is "wholly other"-- entirely different from anything we experience in ordinary life. It evokes a reaction of silence.

• ‘Trinity is INCOMPREHENSIBLE’

The obvious question is therefore: ‘If trinity is incomprehensible, how are you justifying and teaching it as a doctrine and vilifying anyone who claims against its ideology?’

Do you claim to know God fully?
And understand the Trinity fully?

 

[Five Solas]

I think our Christian canon tells us to expect inspiration from all kinds of places and not just within our canon which is why the liber scripta.

I am not with you. Are you suggesting the Canon is not closed?
If other inspired words exist, should they not be added to the Bible?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am not with you. Are you suggesting the Canon is not closed?
If other inspired words exist, should they not be added to the Bible?

I think our canon is useful and has many great things and that learning about the law can give one hope and takes away our excuses for being evil. I think in our canon you can often get most things you need, but that doesn't mean God is definitely going to speak to you through these or that God will definitely make these scriptures open for you. God may speak to you in some other way. You have no control over God, nor does God owe you any explanations, nor does God have to speak to you through canon.

James chapter 1 says that if anyone lacking wisdom should ask God and it will be given to us without any fault finding, which is nice. James specifically does not say that anyone lacking wisdom should search the scriptures. James is included in our canon. Why does James not say that anyone lacking wisdom ought to search the canon?

[Jas 1:5-6 NIV] 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.​

As I said in this thread earlier in post #6 I think the assumption that everything must be derived from scripture is an assumption. Its a choice, not something commanded in scripture. The word 'Scripture' means 'Text'. Texts hold words and thoughts, all of which are gifts of knowledge.

Jesus in the gospel of John surprises the scholarly fellow, Nicodemus. Nicodemus believes in scholarship, in being a good disciple and training good disciples. He believes in what we might call water baptism -- the making of disciples. You father them. You mother them. You discipline them. You train the child up in the way he should go so that when he is old he will not depart from it. That's baptism in water, but Jesus says that we have no control over who gets the spirit. We cannot give spiritual birth. We can do everything, yet the child may be rebellious and doomed to die.

[Jhn 3:8 NIV] 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."​

So not every scripture is in the canon, and not everyone can benefit from the canon necessarily. It is for those to whom it is given.

 

[blü 2]

Versions? No.
Perspectives? Perhaps.

No, versions. The Gnostic-flavored Jesuses of Paul and John, who pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe (regardless of Genesis). The ordinary Jew of Mark, who became son of God by adoption (in the same way David became son of God in Psalm 2:7) when JtB baptized him; and the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke who are, absurdly, the product of divine insemination. And that's just for a start.

Wrong.

Why do Christians never read their own book?
Corinthians 8
5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Philippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;” ... 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;

Matthew 20:23 “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me”

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

John 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Who? Christ? Oh yes, He does!

Quote me any Jesus saying 'I am God'.

(Don't quote me anything else, just those words. For example, don't quote me any Jesus saying, 'Before Abraham was, I am' ─ that simply refers to John's gnostic Jesus pre-existing in heaven with God and creating the material universe.)

And tell me why Mark's and Matthew's Jesuses on the cross said, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" Why did all four gospel Jesuses pray "If it be my will, let this cup pass from me"?

The deification of Jesus is the result of a political process within the church that occurs AFTER the gospels are written. It results in the Trinity doctrine, which as you know is incoherent ─ or as the churches prefer to say "a mystery in the strict sense".