Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[stvdv]

I don't classify disagreement as "bashing." There are people in this forum who are on both sides of the Trinity issue. That's what I would expect in a religion forum.

Nobody has the right to belittle feelings, faith of others. Exactly that is what certain Christians do when proselytizing.

Disagreement is something different. You can disagree without belittling the other

Just read the RF Rules, these explain the difference between respectful debating and disrespectful (belittling) debating very clearly

 

[Debater Slayer]

How else would a religion be passed on other than orally?

Subcutaneous and intravenous methods have not been tested, so tablets remain the optimal approach for passing commandments.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nobody has the right to belittle feelings, faith of others. Exactly that is what certain Christians do when proselytizing.

Disagreement is something different. You can disagree without belittling the other

Just read the RF Rules, these explain the difference between respectful debating and disrespectful (belittling) debating very clearly

I don't think Christians have a monopoly on rude behavior. Every group has good folks and bad folks. I agree that you can disagree without bashing, and that should be the goal. I think there are good Christians in here who are kind, and others who are rude. Atheists and those in other religions are no different.

 

[walt]

And how do they know what Jesus said without a tradition of what Jesus said?

And how do they know what Jesus said without a tradition of what Jesus said?

Today we have at our fingertips a way to get 100% Concrete "words Directly from Jesus", even though He said them over 2000 years ago.

For example, take one thing Jesus says, then go to a website that tells you how that one scripture is translated in 50 different Bibles. Sometimes That one scripture will disagree "In the wording" with other Bibles, so what's the really good part? [ Sometimes the wording "Agrees" with every Bible you can find! ].

 

[Rival]

Today we have at our fingertips a way to get 100% Concrete "words Directly from Jesus", even though He said them over 2000 years ago.

For example, take one thing Jesus says, then go to a website that tells you how that one scripture is translated in 50 different Bibles. Sometimes That one scripture will disagree "In the wording" with other Bibles, so what's the really good part? [ Sometimes the wording "Agrees" with every Bible you can find! ].

The Bible was only put together hundreds of years after Christianity.

How did people know what Jesus said prior to this?

They learned through oral tradition.

 

[walt]

The Bible was only put together hundreds of years after Christianity.

How did people know what Jesus said prior to this?

They learned through oral tradition.

Jn. 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Matthew 15:6 He need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. King James Bible

 

[Rival]

Jn. 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Matthew 15:6 He need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. King James Bible

But from the years when there were no Gospels (when Paul was alive) how did people know what Jesus said?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Today we have at our fingertips a way to get 100% Concrete "words Directly from Jesus", even though He said them over 2000 years ago.

For example, take one thing Jesus says, then go to a website that tells you how that one scripture is translated in 50 different Bibles. Sometimes That one scripture will disagree "In the wording" with other Bibles, so what's the really good part? [ Sometimes the wording "Agrees" with every Bible you can find! ].

Perhaps you aren't aware that the gospels were written some 60-70 years after Jesus' death (and the NT wasn't canonized for hundreds of years). The authors of the gospels basically collected all the oral legends about Jesus. Even if you could read the Greek text directly, you cannot know for sure what Jesus did and said. You are dependent on an ORAL tradition.

 

[walt]

My Mother's Father and Grandmother told her it's a sin to eat meat on Friday, this has been passed down for thousands of years, it is a tradition, but does Jesus or an Apostle direct the congregation to do this?

 

[Rival]

My Mother's Father and Grandmother told her it's a sin to eat meat on Friday, this has been passed down for thousands of years, it is a tradition, but does Jesus or an Apostle direct the congregation to do this?

Do you eat blood?

Acts doesn't let you; Paul does.

Scripture is not the be all and end all, nor is it always clear.

 

[walt]

How did people know what Jesus said throughout the first century?
- During Jesus lifetime they had Jesus and the Apostles teaching the good news,
and the first Gospel completed reflects what Jesus said back then also.
- After Jesus death, they had the Apostles until the last Apostle died, John around 100 AD.
- So at no time In the first century were Jesus words not available.

 

[Sargonski]

How did people know what Jesus said throughout the first century?
- During Jesus lifetime they had Jesus and the Apostles teaching the good news,
and the first Gospel completed reflects what Jesus said back then also.
- After Jesus death, they had the Apostles until the last Apostle died, John around 100 AD.
- So at no time In the first century were Jesus words not available.

John was martyred - as tradition holds - back with the James - Peter .. and the others. No one heard of the guy wandering around in the Gospel of Mark or Matt .. and obviously we should hear mention of him would he had been still living .. for certain in Luke as well .. the synoptics.

Regardless .. dead or not .. the Gospel of John .. was not written by John the Disciple of Jesus

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): "That PapiasÂ’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

Gospel of John

www.earlychristianwritings.com

more can be found at the above site.

Jesus words would however been available once the Gospel of Mark was distributed .. if written in 65 AD .. distribution is going to take awhile .. but let us assume word of mouth was around by this point .. or shortly there-after. From the Death of Jesus ~ 30 AD to 65 AD is a fair chunk of time that folks would be without the words of Jesus .. Some may have written things down after the Death of Jesus .. but these one off writings would not be in much circulation .. if such existed at all.. The Gospel of Mark is said to be penned by a follower/ interpreter for Peter. Peter unable to read or write of course .. as was the case with John -- The author of Matt uses all of Mark .. sans a few passages he finds dispairaging towards Jesus and/or the disciples .. The author adds some other stuff which perhaps he obtained .. some scratchings that someone had done .. The Sermon on the Mount more complete perhaps.

Thats all we have for the words of Jesus as per the completion of Matt ~ 70-90AD -- presumably the writings of Paul had begun to circulate but these do not tell us aught of Lord Jesus or his words.

 

[Firenze]

John was martyred - as tradition holds - back with the James - Peter .. and the others. No one heard of the guy wandering around in the Gospel of Mark or Matt .. and obviously we should hear mention of him would he had been still living .. for certain in Luke as well .. the synoptics.

Regardless .. dead or not .. the Gospel of John .. was not written by John the Disciple of Jesus

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):



There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): "That PapiasÂ’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

Gospel of John

www.earlychristianwritings.com

more can be found at the above site.

Jesus words would however been available once the Gospel of Mark was distributed .. if written in 65 AD .. distribution is going to take awhile .. but let us assume word of mouth was around by this point .. or shortly there-after. From the Death of Jesus ~ 30 AD to 65 AD is a fair chunk of time that folks would be without the words of Jesus .. Some may have written things down after the Death of Jesus .. but these one off writings would not be in much circulation .. if such existed at all.. The Gospel of Mark is said to be penned by a follower/ interpreter for Peter. Peter unable to read or write of course .. as was the case with John -- The author of Matt uses all of Mark .. sans a few passages he finds dispairaging towards Jesus and/or the disciples .. The author adds some other stuff which perhaps he obtained .. some scratchings that someone had done .. The Sermon on the Mount more complete perhaps.

Thats all we have for the words of Jesus as per the completion of Matt ~ 70-90AD -- presumably the writings of Paul had begun to circulate but these do not tell us aught of Lord Jesus or his words.

This has always struck me as one of the biggest holes in Christianity. The claim, after all, is that this is THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD!!
So, if any of us here had experienced a Resurrection of the Son of the Almighty God that we had devoted 3 years of our lives to - how many nanoseconds would it take for us to SPRINT to the nearest pen and parchment and start writing this down - and make as many copies as humanly possible?

That it instead took decades, I always leave for more credulous minds to explain…

 

[walt]

In the first century C.E. this prohibition respecting blood was repeated by formal letter to Christians. The occasion was the settling of a controversy as to whether non-Jews who embraced Christianity were to be circumcised and placed under the commands of the Mosaic law. The evidence presented as well as the guidance of God’s holy spirit made it plain that circumcision was not to be imposed upon non-Jews. The decision, composed in written form by the apostles and other elders of the Christian congregation at Jerusalem, read, in part: “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.”—Acts 15:28, 29.

the Mosaic law. Genesis 9:3, 4 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. Only flesh with its life—its blood —you must not eat.

From Acts 15:28, 29 In the first century C.E.
"except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood"
The Apostle that wrote Acts said it was necessary to keep abstaining from blood.

If you're an Alcoholic, a Diabetic Or someone on Drugs and your Doctor told you not to drink alcohol Or eat sugar or take drugs Orally would you put these things directly into your bloodstream?

I do everything a Doctor recommends unless it conflicts with God's law specifically given by The Apostles that say this is necessary! Acts 15:28, 29

Jesus says your word is truth and my brother my mother my sister is the one that reads the word of God and does it.. My doctor first and foremost is the Almighty God I consider his words more important than what I think will extend my life.
Jn.17:17, Lk. 8:21, 2 Tim. 3:16, Matt. 16:25

When God's inspired word by an Apostle says "except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood"
Does it sound like I have a choice when it says "keep abstaining from blood" ?

Gen. 9:4, Lev. 3:17, Lev. 7:26, Lev. 17:10, Deut. 12:16, Deut. 12:23,1 Sam. 14:32, 33;
Acts 15:28, 29

 

[Rival]

How did people know what Jesus said throughout the first century?
- During Jesus lifetime they had Jesus and the Apostles teaching the good news,
and the first Gospel completed reflects what Jesus said back then also.
- After Jesus death, they had the Apostles until the last Apostle died, John around 100 AD.
- So at no time In the first century were Jesus words not available.

Yes, this is an oral tradition.

After this very few people had access to Gospels, so they were still listening to people preaching. This is a tradition.

 

[Firenze]

In the first century C.E. this prohibition respecting blood was repeated by formal letter to Christians. The occasion was the settling of a controversy as to whether non-Jews who embraced Christianity were to be circumcised and placed under the commands of the Mosaic law. The evidence presented as well as the guidance of God’s holy spirit made it plain that circumcision was not to be imposed upon non-Jews. The decision, composed in written form by the apostles and other elders of the Christian congregation at Jerusalem, read, in part: “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.”—Acts 15:28, 29.

the Mosaic law. Genesis 9:3, 4 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. Only flesh with its life—its blood —you must not eat.

From Acts 15:28, 29 In the first century C.E.
"except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood"
The Apostle that wrote Acts said it was necessary to keep abstaining from blood.

If you're an Alcoholic, a Diabetic Or someone on Drugs and your Doctor told you not to drink alcohol Or eat sugar or take drugs Orally would you put these things directly into your bloodstream?

I do everything a Doctor recommends unless it conflicts with God's law specifically given by The Apostles that say this is necessary! Acts 15:28, 29

Jesus says your word is truth and my brother my mother my sister is the one that reads the word of God and does it.. My doctor first and foremost is the Almighty God I consider his words more important than what I think will extend my life.
Jn.17:17, Lk. 8:21, 2 Tim. 3:16, Matt. 16:25

When God's inspired word by an Apostle says "except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood"
Does it sound like I have a choice when it says "keep abstaining from blood" ?

Gen. 9:4, Lev. 3:17, Lev. 7:26, Lev. 17:10, Deut. 12:16, Deut. 12:23,1 Sam. 14:32, 33;
Acts 15:28, 29

Or…. The decision not to require circumcision for non-Jews was a smart marketing ploy so as to make Christianity easier and more palatable to the pagan targets.

 

[Rival]

Or…. The decision not to require circumcision for non-Jews was a smart marketing ploy so as to make Christianity easier and more palatable to the pagan targets.

Paul has a huge diatribe about circumcision, basically asks why they don't cut the whole thing off....

It's a bit weird, but defintitely more than a marketing ploy.

 

[walt]

But from the years when there were no Gospels (when Paul was alive) how did people know what Jesus said?

The Apostles who helped Paul in writing the New Testament were instructed directly from Jesus and did have oral tradition. and they warned the congregation to not listen to any new Gospel or Good News unless it is the tradition we handed down originally.

 

[walt]

Yes, this is an oral tradition.

After this very few people had access to Gospels, so they were still listening to people preaching. This is a tradition.

Yes I agree 100% this is oral tradition from Jesus and the Apostles but even before they all died new teachings even in the congregation we're dividing the congregation members, so the Apostles warned the congregation even before the New Testament was completed. Not to listen to any new teachings.. Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

 

[Trailblazer]

And how do they know what Jesus said without a tradition of what Jesus said?

They can only know based upon oral tradition since that is all we have in order to know what Jesus said.
Are you are using the word 'tradition' in the same sense I am using it?