Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?

[shunyadragon]

The only ecumenical council that I'm aware Constantine convened was the Council of Nicea, and it had nothing to do with setting canon. I find it odd that you think Constantine would have anything to do with any council in 787, long after he was dead. I'm obviously missing something.

There were many Councils in the early centuries. Constantine began the tradition by presiding over the First Council of Nicea. Over a period of the first centuries of Christianity the Canon of the Bible was determined. The following is a partial list.

• First Council of Nicaea (325)
• First Council of Constantinople (381)
• Council of Chalcedon (451)
• Second Council of Constantinople (553)
• Third Council of Constantinople (680–681)
• Second Council of Nicaea (787)

Council of Rome - Textus Receptus

textus-receptus.com

Also: the Council of Rome 382

The "Damasine list" theory asserts that the list of books contained in "Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei" (the "Gelasian decree")[] represents the work of the Council of Rome in 382. It reads as follows:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book;Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [First and Second Books of Kings, Third and Fourth Books of Kings]; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;

Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book.

Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians [First Epistle to the Corinthians and Second Epistle to the Corinthians], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians [First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians], one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy [First Epistle to Timothy and Second Epistle to Timothy], one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.

Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles [First Epistle of Peter and Second Epistle of Peter]; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles [Second Epistle of John and Third Epistle of John]; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Which books were removed from the New Testament in AD 367 by Athanasius of Alexandria, in AD393 by the Council of Hippo and in AD397 by the Council of Carthage? | Notes and Queries | guardian.co.uk

www.theguardian.com

The Council of Hippo

From these we can identify five principal "fringe" books later omitted from the canon proper. They are: the Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement. Their eventual exclusion was not because they were regarded as heretical, but because they either lacked apostolic authorship or were thought to be too shallow in spiritual content. Athanasius, in his Easter Letter of AD367, set out his list of books which were to be regarded as Scripture. His is the earliest extant list which corresponds with the canon of the New Testament as we now know it. In addition, he states that the Didache and the Shepherd, while not to be regarded on this level, were still worthy of study by catechumens. The respect Athanasius commanded was such that his list was accepted in Rome in AD383, and adopted by the Council of Carthage in AD397. The Council of Hippo in AD393 was more concerned with the status of the Old Testament Apocrypha, and appears not to have discussed the canon of the New Testament at any length. The Athanasian canon thus came to be gradually accepted throughout the church. M. R. James, of ghost story fame, published a translation of all the significant post-apostolic writings in 1924, which is still in print (The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford University Press).

 

[shunyadragon]

The Council of Nicea 325 AD determined the Doctrine of the Trinity. The controversy was between the strict Monotheism of Judaism and several Greco-Roman beliefs giving a separate Divine status to Jesus Christ. The Doctrine of the Trinity is the result.

The text of the Gospels leans toward a special Divine nature of Jesus Christ, but nowhere is it defined in the text. Some today still consider strict Monotheism the correct interpretation of the text. This is in part why I believe the educated Hellenist Jewish Christians converted by Paul and/or descendents of Syria and Asia Minor edited and compiled the Didache, Gospels, and possibly the letters included in the NT.

 

[Sargonski]

The Council of Nicea 325 AD determined the Doctrine of the Trinity. The controversy was between the strict Monotheism of Judaism and several Greco-Roman beliefs giving a separate Divine status to Jesus Christ. The Doctrine of the Trinity is the result.

The text of the Gospels leans toward a Trinitarian belief, but nowhere is it defined in the text. Some today still consider strict Monotheism the correct interpretation of the text. This is in part why I believe the educated Hellenist Jewish Christians converted by Paul and/or descendents of Syria and Asia Minor edited and compiled the Didache, Gospels, and possibly the letters included in the NT.

The text does not lean towards a Trinitarian belief as defined by Church at Nicea and other councils. .. Yes .. you have all kinds of Trinities in the Bible .. EL - BAAL-Asherah --- the original formulation of the Canaanite-Hebrew tradition ... which later became EL - YHWH - Asherah to the Israelites .. a trinity clearly reflected in the Bible ... but this has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of Trinity of current Church Dogma.

The idea that God and Jesus are the same individual is simply not supported -- via the gazillions of times Jesus Refers to the Father as someone other than himself - different than himself - with greater powers than himself - different knowledge and desires than himself. ... up against one interpolated passage known as the Johannine Comma or some such thing.

Some fundamentalist claiming Jesus saying "I and the Father Are one" .. means that Jesus and God are the Same is an exercize in stupid .. no offence to the fundies .. against a backdrop of the hundreds of times where Jesus is claiming he is not the Father "Who Said I am Good .. no one is Good except the Father" "Father - please take this cup from my hand .. but let not my will be done but yours" So this is God talking to himself now ? in conjunction with "My God My God -- why have you forsaken me"

So what Jesus/God ---has forgotten who he is in some kind of masochistic delerium while hanging on the Cross .. and starts calling out to his God -- which is actually himself-- crying out that his God has forsaken him - but in reality Jesus is actually a God that has forsaken himself...

and we can go on, and on, and on posting passages like this - stating/implying rather directly that Jesus and "the FAther" are two separate and distinct - not equal entities. ... hence why the early church fathers all believed Jesus was subordinate to the Father such that all these early Fathers would be heretics according to later Trinity Docrtine.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There were many Councils in the early centuries. Constantine began the tradition by presiding over the First Council of Nicea. Over a period of the first centuries of Christianity the Canon of the Bible was determined. The following is a partial list.

• First Council of Nicaea (325)
• First Council of Constantinople (381)
• Council of Chalcedon (451)
• Second Council of Constantinople (553)
• Third Council of Constantinople (680–681)
• Second Council of Nicaea (787)

Council of Rome - Textus Receptus

textus-receptus.com

Also: the Council of Rome 382

The "Damasine list" theory asserts that the list of books contained in "Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei" (the "Gelasian decree")[] represents the work of the Council of Rome in 382. It reads as follows:

Which books were removed from the New Testament in AD 367 by Athanasius of Alexandria, in AD393 by the Council of Hippo and in AD397 by the Council of Carthage? | Notes and Queries | guardian.co.uk

www.theguardian.com

The Council of Hippo

From these we can identify five principal "fringe" books later omitted from the canon proper. They are: the Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement. Their eventual exclusion was not because they were regarded as heretical, but because they either lacked apostolic authorship or were thought to be too shallow in spiritual content. Athanasius, in his Easter Letter of AD367, set out his list of books which were to be regarded as Scripture. His is the earliest extant list which corresponds with the canon of the New Testament as we now know it. In addition, he states that the Didache and the Shepherd, while not to be regarded on this level, were still worthy of study by catechumens. The respect Athanasius commanded was such that his list was accepted in Rome in AD383, and adopted by the Council of Carthage in AD397. The Council of Hippo in AD393 was more concerned with the status of the Old Testament Apocrypha, and appears not to have discussed the canon of the New Testament at any length. The Athanasian canon thus came to be gradually accepted throughout the church. M. R. James, of ghost story fame, published a translation of all the significant post-apostolic writings in 1924, which is still in print (The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford University Press).

You are missing the point. You indicated two things that I take issue with. Please limit your reply to these two things.

The first is that the way you worded your post made it seem like Constantine had convened all these councils. He did NOT. He only convened the council of Nicea. I suspect that you probably didn't mean to say that, that it was just bad wording on your part that made it seem as though you were making this claim, which is why I asked for you to clarify.

The second is that the way you worded your post made it seem like Constantine had something to do with the formation of Christian canon. He did not. The council of Nicea did not address the canon of scripture. Furthermore, the fact that Constantine called the council did not mean that he was in charge or in any way influenced the decisions of the bishops. Indeed, Constantine favored Arianism, and as we know, the result of the Council of Nicea was the rejection of Arianism and adoption of Trinitarianism. It is a source of aggravation to me when people exaggerate Constantine's influence on the council.

Again, I am not disputing that the church had many ecumenical councils and that some of them dealt with the formation of canon. Please limit your response to the two issues above.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are missing the point. You indicated two things that I take issue with. Please limit your reply to these two things.

The first is that the way you worded your post made it seem like Constantine had convened all these councils. He did NOT. He only convened the council of Nicea. I suspect that you probably didn't mean to say that, that it was just bad wording on your part that made it seem as though you were making this claim, which is why I asked for you to clarify.

I said, "Constantine began the tradition by presiding over the First Council of Nicea." I believe this clarifies any misunderstanding.

The second is that the way you worded your post made it seem like Constantine had something to do with the formation of Christian canon. He did not. The council of Nicea did not address the canon of scripture. Furthermore, the fact that Constantine called the council did not mean that he was in charge or in any way influenced the decisions of the bishops. Indeed, Constantine favored Arianism, and as we know, the result of the Council of Nicea was the rejection of Arianism and adoption of Trinitarianism. It is a source of aggravation to me when people exaggerate Constantine's influence on the council.

I did not do this, You are reading too much into my post concerning this issue.

Again, I am not disputing that the church had many ecumenical councils and that some of them dealt with the formation of canon. Please limit your response to the two issues above.

Done, if you read my posts as is.

 

[shunyadragon]

The text does not lean towards a Trinitarian belief as defined by Church at Nicea and other councils. .. Yes .. you have all kinds of Trinities in the Bible .. EL - BAAL-Asherah --- the original formulation of the Canaanite-Hebrew tradition ... which later became EL - YHWH - Asherah to the Israelites .. a trinity clearly reflected in the Bible ... but this has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of Trinity of current Church Dogma.

The idea that God and Jesus are the same individual is simply not supported -- via the gazillions of times Jesus Refers to the Father as someone other than himself - different than himself - with greater powers than himself - different knowledge and desires than himself. ... up against one interpolated passage known as the Johannine Comma or some such thing.

Some fundamentalist claiming Jesus saying "I and the Father Are one" .. means that Jesus and God are the Same is an exercize in stupid .. no offence to the fundies .. against a backdrop of the hundreds of times where Jesus is claiming he is not the Father "Who Said I am Good .. no one is Good except the Father" "Father - please take this cup from my hand .. but let not my will be done but yours" So this is God talking to himself now ? in conjunction with "My God My God -- why have you forsaken me"

So what Jesus/God ---has forgotten who he is in some kind of masochistic delerium while hanging on the Cross .. and starts calling out to his God -- which is actually himself-- crying out that his God has forsaken him - but in reality Jesus is actually a God that has forsaken himself...

and we can go on, and on, and on posting passages like this - stating/implying rather directly that Jesus and "the FAther" are two separate and distinct - not equal entities. ... hence why the early church fathers all believed Jesus was subordinate to the Father such that all these early Fathers would be heretics according to later Trinity Docrtine.

Yes, we can go on and on concerning the rift in Christianity over the reality of the Trinity or not, but the views of the early church fathers are more diverse than you selectively cite.

Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers

Whether the earliest Church Fathers believed in the Trinity or not is a subject for debate. Some of the evidence used to support an early belief in the T...

encyclopedia.pub

The New Testament is indeed is indeed open to interpretation either way. If it was not, there would not be so much dispute over the millennia. Actually, as a whole, the Torah and the NT are compiled and edited over more than a thousand years, and lack provenance and for the most part lack known authorship. The Torah was compiled after 600 BCE.

You take the extreme Monotheistic view, OK, but your agenda does not determine the ultimate meaning of the NT, or for that matter the Torah. The gospels were not written as is early in Christian history The NT evolved edited and compiled over a period of up to almost 800 years until the Roman Church determined which books were in and which were out, and what was the proper translation..

 

[Sargonski]

Yes, we can go on and on concerning the rift in Christianity over the reality of the Trinity or not, but the views of the early church fathers are more diverse than you selectively cite.

Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers

Whether the earliest Church Fathers believed in the Trinity or not is a subject for debate. Some of the evidence used to support an early belief in the T...

encyclopedia.pub

The New Testament is indeed is indeed open to interpretation either way. If it was not, there would not be so much dispute over the millennia. Actually, as a whole, the Torah and the NT are compiled and edited over more than a thousand years, and lack provenance and for the most part lack known authorship. The Torah was compiled after 600 BCE.

You take the extreme Monotheistic view, OK, but your agenda does not determine the ultimate meaning of the NT, or for that matter the Torah. The gospels were not written as is early in Christian history The NT evolved edited and compiled over a period of up to almost 800 years until the Roman Church determined which books were in and which were out, and what was the proper translation..

That article you cited is a big of a sham - being some net bloggers opinion - but "obviously" or at least it should be -- I am talking about Church Fathers prior to Tertulian -- the first fellow to profess something resembling the modern Trinity formulation around 200AD ... at the time considered Heresy by the Church .. and actually heresy by modern Trinity standards as well.

Most folks in the first two centuries simply did not believe that Jesus and "The Father" were the same.

"You take an extreme Monotheistic view" ??? Bullocks .. and completely false nonsense -- how is stating the simple fact that the Early Church Fathers were subordinantists ..professing a view of any kind on monotheism. What you are saying is completely made up nonsense.

"your view does not determine the ultimate meaning of the NT" What View of extreme monotheism ??? I didn't give one .. nor give any meaning into NT Text.

"Views are more diverse" this has nothing to do with my view .. but I did not portend to be listing everything ... and corrected between a time before and after Tertullian in 200 AD .. although Pope Dionysis around 250AD if memory serves - was still Rejecting Tertullians stuff as heretical.

Now back to this poor article -- "Expressions which link together the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit occurred very early in the History of the Christian Church"

Should have been a big bell ringing here friend -- "IFF" you knew what modern Trinity Doctrine is all about. What does the Father - Son- Spirit being Linked have to do with modern trinity doctrine .... other than ZERO (0).

On the First (1) Page of the New Testiment .. The Earliest Gospel - the earliest story of Jesus that we have - from the NIV

10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.

Now here we have a scene where Father - Son and Spirit are linked. Please tell me how this moron is getting Jesus and God are the Same individual in this story ? That this 30 year old fellow who has just been adopted by God .. is in fact the God who is adopting himself.


NO --- obviously -- the author -- keeping in mind that there is no other scripture to base any other opinion on .. is obviously not trying to convey the idea that Jesus is God .. the same individual ... or Jesus is in fact the Spirit that alighted on himself.

And No one reading this story in the first century .. is going to think Jesus and God are the same individual .. it is simple idiocy to claim otherwise .. yet all would claim that Jesus-God-Spirit are linked.

So perhaps you didn't pull that out ..and should not be surprised as most folks don't understand the Trinity .. which can be summed up in one word Homoosios .. think I got the spelling right ... that was the big deal about Nicene .. why Eusebius refused to sign initially and was expelled .. "Same Substance" is a rough translation .. but you have to understand that to the Greeks there were 2 kinds of substances 1) that which God was made of 2) that which everything else is made of .. trees humans, planets and so on. .. so to say Jesus was the Same substance as God .. was to say Jesus was God.. think of it like the Allspark in Transformers.

The Gnostic/Platonic Idea of Emanations - Emanatios from the Godhead -- such that the Spirit and Jesus were Emanations is 1) not an original New Testament Idea ... this is Platonic Philosophy going back hundreds of decades prior. this was language the author of John adopted to increase the appeal of Christianity .. using terms the common people were familiar with .. and good on him for doing so -- but this is in no way a modern Trinity formulation .. Saying the Spirit is an Emanation from the Godhead is not saying that the spirit is THE Father .. likewise .. claiming Jesus was an Emanation from the Godhead .. is not saying that Jesus and the Father were one .... One in spirit perhaps on certain issues .. but NO .. NO .. and NO .. this is not a claim that Jesus was The Father --- The Most High .. The Supreme One .. Nyet ..No .. Nada.

The Baptizing in name of Father - Son- Holy Spirit was an interpolation as far as I am aware .. known as the Johannine comma .. but it matters not linking the 3 entities in this way in no way is a claim that the 3 are the same .. in no way did this mean to the people doing the ritual that Jesus was God.

"Origen" perhaps the most important and one of the latest in our time frame of reference --- Was not a Trinitarian ... beliving that Jesus was subordinate to the Father .. deriving his power from the Father .. you can find a gazilion papers - journal articles - on Origen's subordinantism.

 

[shunyadragon]

That article you cited is a big of a sham - being some net bloggers opinion - but "obviously" or at least it should be -- I am talking about Church Fathers prior to Tertulian -- the first fellow to profess something resembling the modern Trinity formulation around 200AD ... at the time considered Heresy by the Church .. and actually heresy by modern Trinity standards as well.

Most folks in the first two centuries simply did not believe that Jesus and "The Father" were the same.

Yes, we can go on and on concerning the rift in Christianity over the reality of the Trinity or not, but the views of the early church fathers are more diverse than you selectively cite. Your over the top hostility is very revealing concerning those who believe differently

"You take an extreme Monotheistic view" ??? Bullocks .. and completely false nonsense -- how is stating the simple fact that the Early Church Fathers were subordinantists ..professing a view of any kind on monotheism. What you are saying is completely made up nonsense.

"your view does not determine the ultimate meaning of the NT" What View of extreme monotheism ??? I didn't give one .. nor give any meaning into NT Text.

"Views are more diverse" this has nothing to do with my view .. but I did not portend to be listing everything ... and corrected between a time before and after Tertullian in 200 AD .. although Pope Dionysis around 250AD if memory serves - was still Rejecting Tertullians stuff as heretical.

Now back to this poor article -- "Expressions which link together the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit occurred very early in the History of the Christian Church"

Should have been a big bell ringing here friend -- "IFF" you knew what modern Trinity Doctrine is all about. What does the Father - Son- Spirit being Linked have to do with modern trinity doctrine .... other than ZERO (0).

On the First (1) Page of the New Testiment .. The Earliest Gospel - the earliest story of Jesus that we have - from the NIV

10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.

Now here we have a scene where Father - Son and Spirit are linked. Please tell me how this moron is getting Jesus and God are the Same individual in this story ? That this 30 year old fellow who has just been adopted by God .. is in fact the God who is adopting himself.


NO --- obviously -- the author -- keeping in mind that there is no other scripture to base any other opinion on .. is obviously not trying to convey the idea that Jesus is God .. the same individual ... or Jesus is in fact the Spirit that alighted on himself.

And No one reading this story in the first century .. is going to think Jesus and God are the same individual .. it is simple idiocy to claim otherwise .. yet all would claim that Jesus-God-Spirit are linked.

So perhaps you didn't pull that out ..and should not be surprised as most folks don't understand the Trinity .. which can be summed up in one word Homoosios .. think I got the spelling right ... that was the big deal about Nicene .. why Eusebius refused to sign initially and was expelled .. "Same Substance" is a rough translation .. but you have to understand that to the Greeks there were 2 kinds of substances 1) that which God was made of 2) that which everything else is made of .. trees humans, planets and so on. .. so to say Jesus was the Same substance as God .. was to say Jesus was God.. think of it like the Allspark in Transformers.

The Gnostic/Platonic Idea of Emanations - Emanatios from the Godhead -- such that the Spirit and Jesus were Emanations is 1) not an original New Testament Idea ... this is Platonic Philosophy going back hundreds of decades prior. this was language the author of John adopted to increase the appeal of Christianity .. using terms the common people were familiar with .. and good on him for doing so -- but this is in no way a modern Trinity formulation .. Saying the Spirit is an Emanation from the Godhead is not saying that the spirit is THE Father .. likewise .. claiming Jesus was an Emanation from the Godhead .. is not saying that Jesus and the Father were one .... One in spirit perhaps on certain issues .. but NO .. NO .. and NO .. this is not a claim that Jesus was The Father --- The Most High .. The Supreme One .. Nyet ..No .. Nada.

The Baptizing in name of Father - Son- Holy Spirit was an interpolation as far as I am aware .. known as the Johannine comma .. but it matters not linking the 3 entities in this way in no way is a claim that the 3 are the same .. in no way did this mean to the people doing the ritual that Jesus was God.

I do not believe the concept of the Trinity defines the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as the same.

"Origen" perhaps the most important and one of the latest in our time frame of reference --- Was not a Trinitarian ... beliving that Jesus was subordinate to the Father .. deriving his power from the Father .. you can find a gazilion papers - journal articles - on Origen's subordinantism.

Regardless your bias is selective, aggressive, and extreme against the Trinity belief. We will have to agree to disagree. The fact is by far the majority of Christians believe in a Trinitarian God or Gods based on the scripture.

Personally, I am a strict Monotheist, and nonetheless, God is unknowable and undefinable from the human perspective, especially from ancient tribal religious perspectives.

 

[Sargonski]

I do not believe the concept of the Trinity defines the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as the same.

Then best go back to Bible School -- what part of "homoosious" did you miss - deny - deflect from ?

Regardless your bias is selective, aggressive, and extreme against the Trinity belief. We will have to agree to disagree. The fact is by far the majority of Christians believe in a Trinitarian God or Gods based on the scripture.

Nothing to do with Bias .. as I told you in previous post .. the challenge is that you don't understand the definition of the Trinity -- a fact which you have now confirmed .. and so of course you are going to disagree.. operating from two different definitions. .. and as stated in previous post .. most Christians do not understand the trinity .. never mind knowing about the early church Fathers .. ... I have had ministers from the same Seminary disagree on the Trinity .. so .. it is no shame to lack understanding in this department.

Personally, I am a strict Monotheist, and nonetheless, God is unknowable and undefinable from the human perspective, especially from ancient tribal religious perspectives.

God is both knowable and definable .. the claim to the contrary is an argument from ignorance .. a fallacy (false logic) .. Whether God chooses to reveal himself .. a completely different question

When you say "Strict Monotheist" = Only one God .. you should define what you mean by God. I think what you mean is only one Supreme God .. even though you havn't really thought it out.

For example .. we have many entities other than the "Most High God" - with God-like Powers in the Bible. Being able to hurl lightning down from the sky for example .. a God-like Power .. this Being hanging out with God in Heaven .. .. having power over the whole earth ..

So you have to define what you mean by "God" in your definiton of strict monotheism .. and also you should name this "Most High" God ..

 

[shunyadragon]

Then best go back to Bible School -- what part of "homoosious" did you miss - deny - deflect from ?

Yes, homoosious in Christianity means the Father and Son are of the 'same substance,' but not the 'same' as you previously asserted. Missed nothing I have been to the Bible school and the school of all the religions and diverse conflicting beliefs as to what God is and is not. The diversity of human beliefs simply reflects the cultural perspective of God over the millennia and not God.

I could accept God and Jesus Christ as spiritually the 'same substance,' but not the 'same.'

Nothing to do with Bias .. as I told you in previous post .. the challenge is that you don't understand the definition of the Trinity -- a fact which you have now confirmed .. and so of course you are going to disagree.. operating from two different definitions. .. and as stated in previous post .. most Christians do not understand the trinity .. never mind knowing about the early church Fathers .. ... I have had ministers from the same Seminary disagree on the Trinity .. so .. it is no shame to lack understanding in this department.

This only confirms from the fallible human perspective defining God inconsistently, Yes, any one of the thousands of subjective beliefs of what God does reflects human bias. You and I are no exception.

God is both knowable and definable .. the claim to the contrary is an argument from ignorance .. a fallacy (false logic) .. Whether God chooses to reveal himself .. a completely different question.

I do not believe God is knowable nor definable from the human perspective, We know God through the attributes of God. For example, the attributes of the nature of our physical existence are attributes of God.

When you say "Strict Monotheist" = Only one God .. you should define what you mean by God. I think what you mean is only one Supreme God .. even though you havn't really thought it out.

God is the 'Source' and Creator of all of existence. God is the 'Source' some call God(s) by various names from the human perspective.

For example .. we have many entities other than the "Most High God" - with God-like Powers in the Bible. Being able to hurl lightning down from the sky for example .. a God-like Power .. this Being hanging out with God in Heaven .. .. having power over the whole earth ..

Ancient tribal religions have many Gods from their cultural perspective.

So you have to define what you mean by "God" in your definition of strict monotheism .. and also you should name this "Most High" God.

No. I need not nor should not give God a name.

To paraphrase from Daoism. "If one claims to know the Dao it is not the Dao."

If the Dao has no name, then how can it be called the Dao?

Answer (1 of 10): * * * * * My first introduction to eastern philosophy came in 1986 with a book by Diane Dreher, The Tao of Inner Peace. Being a trained mathematician and physicist, this book presented me with something of a challenge. On first reading, I could not make much sense of her use o...

www.quora.com

Laozi said, 道可道非恆道 the dao that can be spoken is not the lasting dao. It's not that the dao does not deserve a name, but rather that the dao is, like the rest of the universe, in flux, and cannot be nailed down with a name. Taoism: What do Daoists mean when they say that the Dao is nonbeing?

 

[paarsurrey]

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations​

"New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions. Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text."

Matthew 17:21,Matthew 18:11,Matthew 23:14,Mark 7:16,Mark 9:44 and 9:46,Mark 11:26,Mark 15:28,Luke 17:36,John 5:3–4, and many more, for which kindly click the link below.

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is it (including verses or excluding them in/from the Christian Bible) the doing of Jesus, or is it the Church playing with the text "in the name of Jesus", please, right??

Regards

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

​

I'm not sure why you are reposting the identical post. Did you not get enough answers or something?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations​

"New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions. Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text."

Matthew 17:21,Matthew 18:11,Matthew 23:14,Mark 7:16,Mark 9:44 and 9:46,Mark 11:26,Mark 15:28,Luke 17:36,John 5:3–4, and many more, for which kindly click the link below.

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is it (including verses or excluding them in/from the Christian Bible) the doing of Jesus, or is it the Church playing with the text "in the name of Jesus", please, right??

Regards

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

'Accuse Jesus' is not a good approach to this thread. Would it be appropriate to ask "Why do Muslims 'accuse' Mohammod of receiving the Quran from God?"

Very literally and historically the Early Christian Fathers edited and compiled various texts of the scripture. The Roman Church decided on the final compilation of the New Testament

Most Christians believe Jesus Christ inspired and directly guided the writing of New Testament as it is called the 'WORD of God' regardless of what you might cite in the text.

This is also a degree true for the scripture of ALL ancient religions including the Quran.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations​

"New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions. Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text."

Matthew 17:21,Matthew 18:11,Matthew 23:14,Mark 7:16,Mark 9:44 and 9:46,Mark 11:26,Mark 15:28,Luke 17:36,John 5:3–4, and many more, for which kindly click the link below.

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is it (including verses or excluding them in/from the Christian Bible) the doing of Jesus, or is it the Church playing with the text "in the name of Jesus", please, right??

Regards

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

I would add that those verses not included in later versions do not change the meaning of the text of the gospels. Yes, the text of the NT was added to and edited over the years, but yes, they do not affect the original meaning of the text once the Roman Church was established the Bible as is..

 

[paarsurrey]

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

Jesus did not write anything, he did not permit anybody to write anything on his behalf or "In the name Jesus":

"Matthew 7:22
ESV
On that day many will say to me (Jesus), ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?
Matthew 7:23
ESV
And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ "

This "lawlessness" started from Paul, his associates and Church helped him and it continues till today.
Right?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

Jesus did not write anything, he did not permit anybody to write anything on his behalf or "In the name Jesus":

"Matthew 7:22
ESV
On that day many will say to me (Jesus), ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?
Matthew 7:23
ESV
And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ "

This "lawlessness" started from Paul, his associates and Church helped him and it continues till today.
Right?

Regards

Yes, Jesus did not write anything, but the 'Source' of the text is clearly believed to be inspired and guided by Jesus as described as the 'Word of God.' Your lack of understanding of some very basic Christian teaching is apparent in your extreme bias.

A number of verses in the NT describe it as the 'Word of God.' Do your homework and then come back.

 

[Sargonski]

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?​

They don't .. the vast and overwhelming majority of Christians don't think that far into the consequences of Trinity Doctrine -- "Its a Mystery"

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, Jesus did not write anything, but the 'Source' of the text is clearly believed to be inspired and guided by Jesus as described as the 'Word of God.'

That is a religious belief which has absolutely no evidence behind it.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is a religious belief which has absolutely no evidence behind it.

True. but . . . Judaism. Christianity, Islam, Baha'i and the many diverse conflicting beliefs in humanity are religious beliefs with "No evidence behind them."

 

[shunyadragon]

They don't .. the vast and overwhelming majority of Christians don't think that far into the consequences of Trinity Doctrine -- "Its a Mystery"

By far the overwhelming majority of all believers of all the conflicting diverse religions "don't think far into the consequences of their beliefs . . . God? "Its a mystery." They just simply accept the beliefs of their ancestors and peers without serious questions as to why they believe as they do.