Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Textual Discrepancies & How They Could Impact Christianity
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 93 (588728)
10-27-2010 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jaywill
10-27-2010 10:30 PM


Re: The Bible is not a Unified Revelation
Okay jaywill.
You present YOUR best case to support YOUR position.
I have never said you should do otherwise.
In turn, I present the best case I can for my position.
The audience will decide who has presented a better explanation.
However my explanation for the allegorical and symbolic nature of the use of numbers, fasting and the literature that the author of Luke used when writing the Gospel attributed to Luke is not unique or even unusual.
For example, even the information in Wiki points out many of the same issues I raised.
Wikipedia writes:
Fasting traditionally presaged a great spiritual struggle. Elijah and Moses in the Old Testament fasted 40 days and nights, and so Jesus doing the same invites comparison to these events. At the time, 40 was less a specific number and more a general expression for any large figure. Fasting may not mean a complete abstinence from food; consequently, Jesus may have been surviving on the sparse food that could be obtained in the desert.
From Wiki Article:
If the issue is taken literally then the issue of the different textual accounts found in Matthew and Luke should be addressed.
Edited by jar, : hit wrong key
Edited by jar, : and still appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jaywill, posted 10-27-2010 10:30 PM jaywill has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 62 of 93 (588767)
10-28-2010 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by jaywill
10-27-2010 10:30 PM


Wilderness Fast
quote:
By all means, put the goal post back then. Specifically, you have no grounds to contradict the details given by Luke about Jesus wilderness fast.
The wilderness fast story doesn't really fit in this thread. I haven't found information stating that later manuscripts differ from earlier ones concerning that story and neither you nor jar are arguing that issue.
Please take interpretation issues not dealing with any missing text to another thread.
Thanks
PurpleDawn

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jaywill, posted 10-27-2010 10:30 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2010 8:29 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 63 of 93 (588773)
10-28-2010 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by purpledawn
10-28-2010 6:56 AM


Re: Wilderness Fast
The wilderness fast story doesn't really fit in this thread. I haven't found information stating that later manuscripts differ from earlier ones concerning that story and neither you nor jar are arguing that issue.
Please take interpretation issues not dealing with any missing text to another thread.
The details of Jesus' fast may not be exactly the topic, as jar, not me, brought up a "problem" with it my understaning of it.
However, this little diversion may be useful to some to expose the underlining tactic and motive of some skeptics. Whether through trying to pit "Jewish custom" against the Gospels or trying to seize upon textural descrepancies of copyists, thier purpose is the same. And that is to say the Bible has lied or is in error.
Since no successful defeater has been proposed to Luke's details, I can leave this argument now.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by purpledawn, posted 10-28-2010 6:56 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 10-28-2010 11:30 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 64 of 93 (588774)
10-28-2010 8:46 AM


Without double checking I think someone asked for evidence of the unity or the revelation of the Bible. Or at least someone posted a heading that there was no such unity.
To this I would reply that Jesus Christ established such a unity both before and after His resurrection. He taught His disciples that the law, the prophets, and the psalms testified concerning Himself and His mission:
"And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fullfilled.
Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures; And He said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:44-47)
This passage shows that the unity of the revelation of the Bible.
This passage also may show that it requires God to open the minds of people to grasp this unity.
And this passage also proves that Luke's Gospel speaks of the so called "Suffering Servant" because Jesus said - "Thus it is written, that the Christ would SUFFER and rise up from the dead on the third day."
Here again in Luke we see Jesus teaching of the unity of Scripture and His own mission as the so-called "Suffering Servant":
"And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken !
Was it not necessary for the Christ to SUFFER these things and enter into His glory?
And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:25-27)
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 65 of 93 (588778)
10-28-2010 8:58 AM


"And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fullfilled.
Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures; And He said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:44-47)
"And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken !
Was it not necessary for the Christ to SUFFER these things and enter into His glory?
And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:25-27)
jar and Purpledawn's contention that Christians have imaginatively imposed a significant unity on the books of the Old Testament is demonstrated as essentially bogus and skeptical wishful thinking.
The Bible is not a disjunked Jewish religious scrap book that has had some imaginative claims about Jesus superimposed artificially upon it.
Rather I think the skeptics should look in the direction that perhaps they have been "foolish and slow of heart" to believe, to accept all that the prophets had written about the Christ.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 66 of 93 (588792)
10-28-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by jaywill
10-28-2010 8:29 AM


Re: Wilderness Fast
jaywill writes:
However, this little diversion may be useful to some to expose the underlining tactic and motive of some skeptics. Whether through trying to pit "Jewish custom" against the Gospels or trying to seize upon textural descrepancies of copyists, thier purpose is the same. And that is to say the Bible has lied or is in error.
So your answer to the topic is, "Yes, the textual discrepancies could impact Christianity."

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2010 8:29 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2010 1:21 PM ringo has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 67 of 93 (588813)
10-28-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ringo
10-28-2010 11:30 AM


Re: Wilderness Fast
So your answer to the topic is, "Yes, the textual discrepancies could impact Christianity."
You should know, perhaps, that I rarely use the term "Christianity".
Usually I write about "the Christian faith". I don't know of any textural descrepancies that rise anywhere near to the level of devastating or catatrophic problems to the Christian faith.
If one or two exists, I don't know about them.
Someone here has made a big deal about the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness. I know that the order listed is different in Matthew then it is in Luke.
I don't know if that is what they were refering to or something else.
The matters brought up in First John or the Gospel of Mark may seem like happy hunting grounds to the Bart Erhmans of this world. I simply don't see how either one of those issues is a "showstopper" as far as the Gospels are concerned.
I admit that I have been a little lazy on this topic. I have some articles available on this subject but have not taken the time to review them. I've just been sitting back to see what purpledawn plans to introduce.
Except I reviewed the percentage of textural descepancies which some experts have felt make any appreciable difference to the sense of a text. Not much at all.
There is so much repitition of important themes in the Bible, that searching for some real powerful devastating copyist descrepancy is pretty much a non-fruit producing task.
I have pulled out lectures by Erhman from "The Teaching Company" at the public library. I found him somewhat interesting to hear and certainly knowledgeable in his area.
I found nothing in the particular lectures I heard which were troubling to my confidence in the New Testament's message.
If I could write him and he would read my letter, I would not shy away from expressing some disagreement with things I heard him say, and precisely why I do not agree.
I don't think a Phd. in his field is absolutely necessary in order to tell him why I would not reach certain conclusions he seems to come to about the New Testament.
While I would not attempt to challenge his knowledge of apochraphal writings and their significances, I don't agree with all of his inter-biblical views just as a careful student of Scripture.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 10-28-2010 11:30 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 10-28-2010 1:52 PM jaywill has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 68 of 93 (588819)
10-28-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by jaywill
10-28-2010 1:21 PM


Re: Wilderness Fast
jaywill writes:
I found nothing in the particular lectures I heard which were troubling to my confidence in the New Testament's message.
That isn't the question here. Your own personal confidence is not at issue.
You are attempting to defend Christianity - i.e. your own brand of dogma - against "false teachers" who might lead people astray. So you do seem to be saying, "Yes, the textual discrepancies could impact Christianity."

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2010 1:21 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2010 5:38 PM ringo has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 69 of 93 (588852)
10-28-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
10-28-2010 1:52 PM


Re: Wilderness Fast
That isn't the question here. Your own personal confidence is not at issue.
The OP states:
I feel these verses could have an impact on certain tenets, beliefs and practices of Christianity.
1 John 5:7 - There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
IMO, this impacts the Doctrine of the Trinity
Well, in my opinion it has no impact and my "personal confidence" has as much right to be expressed as purpledawn's "personal confidence" that she has spotted a delimma for the community of faith.
So please cut with the "More Objective then Thou" routine. I'm not impressed.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 10-28-2010 1:52 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 10-28-2010 6:02 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 10-28-2010 6:37 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 70 of 93 (588857)
10-28-2010 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jaywill
10-28-2010 5:38 PM


Re: Wilderness Fast
But in the latest quote mine example from you, you left out a significant if not THE significant part of the OP.
Here is what you just wrote:
jaywill writes:
The OP states:
I feel these verses could have an impact on certain tenets, beliefs and practices of Christianity.
1 John 5:7 - There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
IMO, this impacts the Doctrine of the Trinity
Well, in my opinion it has no impact and my "personal confidence" has as much right to be expressed as purpledawn's "personal confidence" that she has spotted a delimma for the community of faith.
and here is what was actually on the OP...
quote:
I feel these verses could have an impact on certain tenets, beliefs and practices of Christianity.
1 John 5:7 - There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
IMO, this impacts the Doctrine of the Trinity
There is one big, whopper mammoth verse that you can literally base the entire doctrine of the Trinity on. Here it is:
For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)
Unfortunately, that verse isn’t in the earliest Greek manuscripts. With the sure thing gone, apologists have to pull together a lot more verses from various writings to seemingly support this tenet. 1 John was supposedly written about 90-120 CE.
Note the bold part that you left out.
Many chapters of Club Christian have as a basic article of faith the concept of Unity in Trinity, of Three in One.
The passage from John is one of the main places where support for that position can be found.
If though it was not in the original or even what John thought or believed but rather a later dogmatic insertion, then it is a great example of textual discrepancies that have impacted Christianity.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2010 5:38 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2010 8:52 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 71 of 93 (588860)
10-28-2010 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jaywill
10-28-2010 5:38 PM


jaywill writes:
So please cut with the "More Objective then Thou" routine.
What are you talking about? I didn't say a word about objectivity.
I'm just pointing out that you're tacitly agreeing with the OP.
Edited by ringo, : Fixed punctuation?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2010 5:38 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 72 of 93 (588885)
10-28-2010 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
10-28-2010 6:02 PM


Re: Wilderness Fast
There is one big, whopper mammoth verse that you can literally base the entire doctrine of the Trinity on. Here it is:
For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)
It is by no means a "whopper mammoth verse".
It is rather esoteric and obscure. And if that were the ONLY verse on the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I doubt that it would have been the cause of a trinitarian view of God.
What you really have there is a little tempest in a teapot.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 10-28-2010 6:02 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2010 7:48 AM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 73 of 93 (588924)
10-29-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by jaywill
10-28-2010 8:52 PM


Trinity Again
quote:
It is rather esoteric and obscure. And if that were the ONLY verse on the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit I doubt that it would have been the cause of a trinitarian view of God.
Didn't imply it was the cause. The later trinitarian view that developed was the cause of the addition.
It was translated into Greek from the Latin and added to the texts. Below is a comment by Dr. Bruce M. Metzger on 1 John 5:7-8, from his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993). The Johannine Comma
Metzger writes:
(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.
The idea of the trinity was not one of the beliefs of the very early Christians. It was a later development influenced by the pagan philosopher Plato. IOW, the Doctrine of the Trinity was inspired by Plato.
Here is a comment from the well-known trnitarian historian, Mosheim, a Lutheran; concerning the Council of Nice (352AD) where the Doctrine of the Trinity was first officially formulated. The History of the Doctrine of the Trinity
Mosheim writes:
"And finally it alienated the minds of many, in the following centuries, from Christianity itself, and produced a heterogeneous species of religion, consisting of Christian and Platonic principles combined. And who is able to enumerate all the evils and injurious changes which arose from this new philosophy - from this attempt to reconcile true and false religions with each other?"
Editor's footnote writes:
"That philosophy has injured enormously genuine Christianity will be readily conceded by all who rest faith solely upon the rock of Scripture.
"When such persons are asked to account for the existence of religious principles and usages which are incapable of proof from the sacred volume, and even seem at variance with it, they have only to cite the semi-Christian school of philosophy which arose at Alexandria before the second century closed."
author writes:
Such is a trinitarian historian's testimony concerning the times in which the doctrine of the Trinity was developed on the admitted basis of human speculation and Platonic philosophy.
The trinity was inspired by the pagans and philosophy. The Johannine Comma was added as a means to give authority to the belief. It was in the Latin but not the Greek. It was then translated from the Latin and added to the later Greek manuscripts to give authority to the Latin manuscripts.
These discrepancies show us that man would change what other's had written to preserve traditions and beliefs.
Adding lines from one gospel to another to make them complement each other. Adding lines to combat opposing Christian views.
These discrepancies have impacted what Christians are taught, what they believe, and what they practice. Obviously these vary between the sects.

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2010 8:52 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 10-29-2010 9:21 AM purpledawn has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 74 of 93 (588942)
10-29-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by purpledawn
10-29-2010 7:48 AM


Re: Trinity Again
The idea of the trinity was not one of the beliefs of the very early Christians. It was a later development influenced by the pagan philosopher Plato. IOW, the Doctrine of the Trinity was inspired by Plato.
I respect Dr. Bruce Metzger on the matters of the Greek translation of the NT and history of the transmission of New Testament documents. No problem there.
Can you find a quotation from Bruce Metzger where he shares the same opinion that you have expressed in this above paragraph ?
Here is a comment from the well-known trnitarian historian, Mosheim, a Lutheran; concerning the Council of Nice (352AD) where the Doctrine of the Trinity was first officially formulated. The History of the Doctrine of the Trinity
Mosheim writes:
"And finally it alienated the minds of many, in the following centuries, from Christianity itself, and produced a heterogeneous species of religion, consisting of Christian and Platonic principles combined.
I will not be debating with you about the Trinity into the indefinite future, purpledawn. You're free to believe whatever you wish.
I am not an expert on Plato's philosophy. And I would not be surprised at all that elements of Greek philosophy were used by early Christian scholars. In a similar way some modern day Christian aplogists refer to Einstien and Edwin Hubble. Perhaps future critics will say that 20th and 21rst Century Christian scholars mixed doctrines of divine creation with Einstienian Cosmological theories in the same way that this man affirms that the Trinity doctrine was inspired by Plato.
These things do not at all persuade me that the Bible [DOESN'T] portray the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Holy Spirit as God.
Crying Plato means nothing to me as far as these biblical truths are concerned. I am happy to grant you that some teachers thought that grasping at Plato or Greek philosophy might help them defend attacks against Christology. I have no problem that this occured.
Correlation is NOT Causation. The Big Bang theory cannot be attributed as the cause of the Judeo / Christian belief in the Creator's bringing about the creation.
There is no "Aha! Plato's philosophy was behind this Trinity concept" which is likely to impress me.
Some apologist point to Big Bang Cosmological theories to argue about a beginning of creation. No "Aha! William Hubble's thoughts are responsible for the Christian doctrine of Creation by God."
Do I make myself clear ?
The word TRINITY of course is NOWHERE in the Bible. The FACT that we have God as Father, God as SON of GOD, and God as Holy Spirit in the Bible pre-dates any church council.
The word Trinity could have been any other word. It was a term to label the facts as they were presented in the Bible.
"Aha! Plato and the Greek philosophy are behind the Trinity" simply does not cause me the slightest amount of concern.
And who is able to enumerate all the evils and injurious changes which arose from this new philosophy - from this attempt to reconcile true and false religions with each other?"
Because some religious people did unChristian things, immature things, worldly things, HYPOCRITICAL things, not of the Spirit of Jesus, not of the fruit of the Spirit, not in proper Christian character, scandelous, ought not to have happened, embarressing, SHOULD HAVE known better, had no excuse for, etc. etc. etc. does not mean -
The Father is not God in the Bible, or the Son is not God in the Bible, or the Holy Spirit is not God in the Bible.
I'm sorry these bad things occured. I'll try not to be involved myself. But as the poor behavior of the Hebrews did not mean Yahweh does not exist or lead Israel out of Egypt, neither does the bad behavior of some in the Christian Church mean - "No Trinity folks!"
That is a Unitarian's wishful daydream, a skeptic's false hope.
I have to stop here because of household situations.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2010 7:48 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by purpledawn, posted 10-29-2010 3:50 PM jaywill has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 75 of 93 (588999)
10-29-2010 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jaywill
10-29-2010 9:21 AM


Re: Trinity Again
quote:
The word TRINITY of course is NOWHERE in the Bible. The FACT that we have God as Father, God as SON of GOD, and God as Holy Spirit in the Bible pre-dates any church council.
As I've mentioned before, that's not the issue. The issue is three persons in one God.
PurpleDawn writes:
Message 9
As this link showed, yes there are many verses used to show that Jesus is a god, but that isn't the issue here. Since the Bible states that there is only one God, the orthodox group of Christianity had to find a way to counter the claims that they were polytheistic. The idea of one god in three persons is really only supported by 1 John 5:7. There are two other verses in the Gospel of John that could be construed to support the Trinity, but they are weak. (John 14:10 & John 10:30)
Message 18
The idea that the three are one substance is not in the texts. As you noted the idea was formulated to resolve the problem of three gods since Christianity was supposedly monotheist.
The idea of one God in three persons argument is not supported by the text. It is derived more from Plato than the writings in the New Testament. If you want to debate it in more depth you can start another thread, but the obvious verses are questionable.
I agree that the term trinity is just a term. It could also refer to three gods. The word isn't the issue. It's the doctrine. The Doctrine of the Trinity was designed to counter claims of polytheism.
We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. ...
If each is a god, then there are three gods. The idea of one substance was pulled from Plato not the early writers of the New Testament.
quote:
And who is able to enumerate all the evils and injurious changes which arose from this new philosophy - from this attempt to reconcile true and false religions with each other?"
Because some religious people did unChristian things, immature things, worldly things, HYPOCRITICAL things, not of the Spirit of Jesus, not of the fruit of the Spirit, not in proper Christian character, scandelous, ought not to have happened, embarressing, SHOULD HAVE known better, had no excuse for, etc. etc. etc. does not mean -
The Father is not God in the Bible, or the Son is not God in the Bible, or the Holy Spirit is not God in the Bible.
I'm sorry these bad things occured. I'll try not to be involved myself. But as the poor behavior of the Hebrews did not mean Yahweh does not exist or lead Israel out of Egypt, neither does the bad behavior of some in the Christian Church mean - "No Trinity folks!"
It is a shame you don't address my arguments. The quote above is from Mosheim, not me.
This is the whole quote:
Mosheim writes:
"And finally it alienated the minds of many, in the following centuries, from Christianity itself, and produced a heterogeneous species of religion, consisting of Christian and Platonic principles combined. And who is able to enumerate all the evils and injurious changes which arose from this new philosophy - from this attempt to reconcile true and false religions with each other?"
My point was that Christian and Platonic principles have been combined.
This discussion is not about your personal beliefs. It is a general discussion.
Edited by purpledawn, : Submitted too soon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 10-29-2010 9:21 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by kbertsche, posted 10-29-2010 11:26 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 80 by jaywill, posted 10-30-2010 8:34 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024