|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 72 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:You and Faith know better than to talk science issues on the religious side. The originator didn't even say what the Bible was reliable for and you present an ancient cultural story as a factual event. Why? The Bible is a religious book. It isn't a science book or a history book. The originator didn't claim that it was and hopefully won't since this is on the religious side of the forum. I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated if you wouldn't take the thread down the same old flood path that belongs on the science side. Foundational myths don't make a religious book unreliable for religious teachings or beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:He's being sarcastic, because some theists do respond to scientific issues with declarations of faith. He failed to mention that such responses are also met with complaints and sometimes suspension. Hopefully you are here to debate your questions in Message 1 and not just to see what reaction you can get from those who are religion free. Your topic seems to be focused on Bible teachings and their basis in the Bible, so scientific accuracy of the Bible is off topic. It would have been put on the science side if Admin felt the thread was going that route. If I'm incorrect, please let me know. The Style Guides for EvC thread has helpful instructions on how to use the quote boxes here at EvC and it is always wise to read the Forum Guidelines carefully. As for the topic, I usually take the position that the trinity and hellfire were not taught by Jesus (what we know of his supposed teachings) or Paul. I feel they came about after Christianity went to the Gentiles and pagans were assimilated. Again, welcome to EvC and don't let yourself get pulled off course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:But that's your job to show the flaws in her facts or her logic. It's on you to show that a verse has been cherry picked. quote:Faith is very good at presenting scripture in religious discussions and she did provide you with a link to the standard selection of scriptures used to support the concept of the Trinity. You asked for the scriptures that support the teachings of the Trinity. She also gave her explanations. We don't encourage large blocks of cut and paste. You're the one claiming the doctrine is questionable. I don't see that she claims her position was due to specific words. It's your turn to provide some support and reasoned argumentation supporting your claim. Hey, I'm impressed they didn't use 1 John 5:7 (Didn't see it anyway)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
Since Alter2Ego has no counter argument to present concerning the Trinity, I'm going in. Sorry Faith.
The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity I'm only addressing the section of the commentary entitled "Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh" for right now.
Rom. 10:9-13: Note the repeated "for," which links these verses closely together. The "Lord" of Rom. 10:13 must be the "Lord" of Rom. 10:9, 10:12. Rom. 10:9-13: Note the repeated "for," which links these verses closely together. The "Lord" of Rom. 10:13 must be the "Lord" of Rom. 10:9, 10:12. I feel the conclusion concerning the use of "kurios" is flawed. Our English word "lord" and the Greek word "kurios" were used in the OT translations to represent the name of the Hebrew God, YHWH, when the name was actually written in the text. They can also refer to humans. From what I've found the differentiation in the OT was supposedly, "my lord" for humans and "the lord" for YHWH. I'm sure there are exceptions. From what I can tell in the Greek we can't really just assume kurios means YHWH. Despotes was also used in the NT concerning God. I also found that YHWH was also rendered God in the OT. List Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (KJV) In the Greek there isn't an article in front of Lord, but there is in front of God. Interlinear The sentence is speaking of two beings, not one. The comment in the outline is that the Lord mentioned in 10:13 is the same as the Lord in 10:9 and 12. The point of Romans 10:9 is to acknowledge Jesus and believe that God raised him from the dead. Verse 10 is the faith in YHWH that Paul consistently preaches. Verse 11 the scripture referenced is from the OT, so the him is YHWH, not Jesus. Verse 12 YHWH is the same for everyone. Verse 13 is about calling on YHWH. The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat:
Talmud Shabbat 63a - Rabbi Kahana objected to Mar son of Rabbi Huna: But this refers to the words of the Torah? A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied. I don't see that calling Jesus Lord, means he is YHWH simply because the passages referenced from the OT say Lord. I think Paul speaks of two divine beings, not one. I feel it was more of a title for Jesus, not a personal name. (This post may seem disjointed. I kept getting interrupted. Sorry.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
If knowing my personal beliefs is a requirement, we're done.
I consider this a debate board, which means one addresses the arguments presented. This debate concerns Biblical support for a doctrine. Even in the course of researching information to counter an argument, one can learn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Neither of us are Greek scholars, but that doesn't mean we can't do the best we can. I found the journey rather interesting. quote:Don't just lob it to the scholars. quote:I understand what the doctrine says, the point of the debate is to support it Biblically. Romans 8:11 doesn't say that the Holy Spirit raised Christ.
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. --Romans 8:11 It says that God raised up Jesus.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. --John 10:18 Looking at the various translations, "take it" is about receiving what is offered; not necessarily bringing about what is offered. The same word is used in the last sentence. He can lay down his life and he can accept it back. It isn't really saying he raised himself from the dead. The verse I'm addressing doesn't support the idea of 3 in 1. The verses you presented don't support the idea of 3 in 1.
quote:Realistically, I don't have time to address all the verses in that outline in one post. That doesn't mean I won't get to the others at some point. quote:Paul and Jesus were Jewish. quote:If you don't like disagreement, why participate? A debate is argument and counter argument. quote:I don't think scripture really says there is only one divine being. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) says: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Or YHWH our God is one YHWH. Not necessarily the only god or divine being.
Exodus 12:12 (YHWH spoke to Moses and Aaron) For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD (YHWH). Exodus 18:11 (Jethro speaking) Now I know that the LORD (YHWH) is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them. Psalms 86 (A prayer of David) 8 Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works Psalms 95:3 For the LORD (YHWH) is a great God, and a great King above all gods. I know, all those gods are false gods; but how meaningful is praising someone for being the greatest among the fakes? I don't think they considered the other gods to be fakes, just not as good as theirs.
quote:I feel, I think, IMO, etc.; those are just ways of expressing my opinion which is what we present in a debate. Then we present information to support our opinion. This isn't a blog, it's a debate board. Opposing views are part of the process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I don't doubt that the divinity of Jesus can be shown in the NT scripture. Paul didn't encounter the human Jesus, only his divine state.
I had to start somewhere and I don't think the NT writers really presented Jesus as being YHWH. The Trinity presents a god with a split personality to avoid the idea that other gods or divine beings exist. Even Phil 2:11 doesn't claim Jesus as "the Lord". Since kurios and theos are general terms, the challenge is to figure out how the writers made the difference known. Some of it would obviously deal with context, but when talking of two or more divine beings, how did they signal the difference. So far, all I've found is the article in front of kurios or theos. Really they could still have a Trinity of three divine beings. Christians worship God, not Jesus or the Holy Spirit. I don't see that the ancient Hebrews denied the existence of other gods or divine beings. Monolatry The NT is questionable given the different timeframes for the writings. The impression I get from later writings is that Jesus was to take over running the family business. Hebrews 1:10, the commentary says that God the Father addresses the Son as Lord. Unfortunately the quotes from the OT are from Psalms. That isn't YHWH talking. It's a lament to YHWH.
Heb. 1:10: Here God the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," in a quotation from Psa. 102:25 (cf. Psa. 102:24, where the person addressed is called "God"). Since here the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," this cannot be explained away as a text in which a creature addresses Christ as God/Lord in a merely representational sense. When we check Psalm 102:24-25, neither YHWH nor Adonai are used. I even checked the Septuagint.
Of old have you laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of your hands. The writer of Hebrews, exercised some artistic license with his writing.
1 Pet. 2:3-4: This verse is nearly an exact quotation of Psa. 34:8 a, where "Lord" is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear that "the Lord" in 1 Pet. 2:3 is Jesus. Again the commentary assumes YHWH when bringing the OT in. I noticed that in the NT, the writers don't use the phrase "Lord God" when referring to YHWH (God the Father). Paul consistently presents himself as slave to Jesus Christ. In context of the NT writings, the association of Lord to Jesus seems to more about addressing a master, as opposed to a name or representing a name. As you said, Jesus already has a given name.
Texts where Jesus is spoken of as the "one Lord" (cf. Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29): 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; cf. Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:5. I feel 1 Cor 8:5-6 actually makes my point.
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Paul keeps them separate and I think that's his way of doing so. YHWH is God and Jesus is Lord. Lord does not seem to represent YHWH in the NT when used with Jesus or in reference to Jesus. None of what I've argued negates the divinity of Jesus in the NT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Paul is discussing the spiritual and sinful natures. The English doesn't support what you're saying. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Simply put the verse says: But if the spirit of God dwells in you, God shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you. It doesn't say or infer that Jesus was raised up by the Spirit being spoken of. So you know I didn't make this up, here's an excerpt from the Bible commentary.
But if the Spirit of him ... - The Holy Spirit, Romans 8:9. He that raised up Christ ... - He that had power to restore him to life, has power to give life to you. He that did, in fact, restore him to life, will also restore you. The argument here seems to be founded, first, on the power of God; and, secondly, on the connection between Christ and his people; compare John 14:19, "Because I live, ye shall live also." Shall also quicken - Shall make alive. Your mortal bodies - That this does not refer to the resurrection of the dead seems to be apparent, because that is not attributed to the Holy Spirit. I understand it as referring to the body, subject to carnal desires and propensities; by nature under the reign of death, and therefore mortal; that is, subject to death. The sense is, that under the gospel, by the influence of the Spirit, the entire man will be made alive in the service of God. Even the corrupt, carnal, and mortal body, so long under the dominion of sin, shall be made alive and recovered to the service of God. This will be done by the Spirit that dwells in us, because that Spirit has restored life to our souls, abides with us with his purifying influence, and because the design and tendency of his indwelling is to purify the entire man, and restore all to God. Christians thus in their bodies and their spirits become sacred. For even their body, the seat of evil passions and desires, shall become alive in the service of God. quote:No more than yours. Yes Jesus has authority to lay down his life if he chooses. He can choose not to also. He also has the authority to receive back his life that is offered him by God. It isn't saying he raised himself up from the dead. If that was possible, then he wasn't really dead. God gave him his life back. quote:Again, this is a debate board. I give my opinion and provide support for my opinion. If you disagree with my opinion and the support, then you provide your own with support. Not accepting the Talmud doesn't support your position. The point was that the word Lord used in the quote refers to YHWH in the OT. The reading of the verses doesn't take us backward to then read Lord Jesus as YHWH Jesus. If there is a Christian method that allows this, show me.
quote:The Bible isn't consistent on that issue. Religion evolves. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. Deuteronomy 32:17 This is basically a list of who they were sacrificing to. Not all are devils. They sacrificed to demons who are not God, gods who they didn't know, gods who were new. It doesn't support the idea that all other gods were demons. Demons were separate from the looks of it. Isaiah speaks a lot of there being no other God but YHWH, but at the beginning of Chapter 45 YHWH lists the things he will do so that his anointed one will know he is YHWH, the God of Israel who is summoning him. Even Paul said:
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6) So the Bible doesn't completely support the idea that there are absolutely no other divine beings.
quote:Other than children were sacrificed to Molech, the rest concerning Molech, other gods, and Satan is fiction and not supported in the Bible text. I agree, YHWH didn't want his group to worship like the others. Grandstanding against another group's god, doesn't make that god false or a demon. YHWH is a divine being, but not all divine beings are YHWH. The Bible doesn't really provide concrete evidence there are absolutely no other divine beings or gods. It is interesting that the commentary has a section, which I have been addressing, entitled "Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh", but then further down he has a section entitled "Jesus is not God the Father". I don't see that Jesus is YHWH per the verses provided in the commentary. I think it is changing the meaning of original scripture to make that connection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:A bit lacking. Thomas is an imperfect human being? That can be said about the author of the books, the church fathers, and all humans, which includes us in this thread. Not reasonable counter. According to Goodspeed, the book of John was probably written as a gospel for the Greeks. The times demanded that Christianity be transplanted to Greek soil and translated into universal terms. [1] The Gospel of John is the response to this demand If the author made it very clear later who Jesus was and YHWH was not one of the options, then it is important to figure out what Thomas was saying? We can't really ignore it just because it appears to contradict our position. They have a mass of verses that would need to be whittled down to show that the 3 in 1 God Doctrine isn't Biblical. Unfortunately it takes looking at the Greek, which we don't like to do since we don't speak Greek, let alone ancient Greek. (At least I don't) That doesn't mean someone has done the work to this very old issue.
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (John 20:28) The Greek actually says "the Lord of me and the God of me". There's my articles. Interlinear But I have already come to the conclusion that in the NT Lord and God were not used the same as in the OT. The article is, but the use of Lord for Jesus and God for YHWH seems consistent so far. I found this information on Granville Sharp's Rule of Greek Exegesis.
"If two nouns of the same case are connected by a "kai" [and] and the article is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first." (Vaughn and Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979, p. 83.) The Trinity Delusion
Thomas' words to Jesus in Greek literally read, "the Lord of me and the God of me." In Greek this is how one would refer to two persons. If one wanted to refer to one person he would say, "the Lord and God of me." This is confirmed by the first and Sixth Granville Sharp rules. However, Trinitarians make a convenient exception to the sixth rule for this particular verse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:And that is your opinion with no support. I provided support from the Bible text and meanings of the Greek to support my opinion that the Bible doesn't completely support the idea that there are absolutely no other divine beings. Theos 1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities Meaning of the word "God" quote:I wasn't referring to the Bible as fiction, I was referring to your comments as fiction. You provided no support, Biblical or otherwise, for your opinion. quote:Saying it, doesn't make it so. That all three are YHWH is what needs to be shown and is what is being debated. Pre-Nicene Writings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I love puzzles, but Greek is giving me a headache!
This is just me working through this. I looked at the pros and cons on Sharp's rules and looked at sites on Greek grammar.
Sharp's rules deal with nouns used as personal description of another noun.
Rule I. When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes farther description of the first-named person, The other rules are variations of Rule 1. Now Sharp considered John 20:28 to be an exception to the rules. My guess is it wasn't considered a description of a previous noun in the sentence. I think the Trinity Delusion argument is that it is a description going back to the word "him", which is Jesus. After what I've read, I think they are stretching it. I still feel Thomas probably considered Jesus a deity in his own right as some of the early Church Father's did and didn't consider him to be YHWH. Pre-Nicene Writings The grouping in Psalms 35:23 isn't a description. Even the English translation of the Septuagint doesn't render it as a description. David is calling to YHWH.
Wake up! Rise up to defend me, my God! My Lord, contend for me! The English translation of the Hebrew is different. There are variations.
Awake, and rise to my defense! Contend for me, my God and Lord. Even from the Hebrew, my God and my Lord are not describing another noun in the sentence.
Psalm 84:3 is the same issue as in 35. Here is the English translation of the Greek.
Yes, the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young, near your altars, Yahweh of Armies, my King, and my God. They are all references to YHWH, but aren't describing a previous noun in the sentence. Here is the English rendering of the Hebrew.
Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God. That's what I came up with this morning and now I'm going to eat lunch. No Greek food.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:In the OP (Message 1) you asked: Alter2Ego writes: Are there scriptures in the Bible to support the teachings of Trinity and hellfire? If so, present the scriptures by giving Bible book, chapter, and verse and also explain why you believe the scripture you present is talking about Trinity or literal hellfire. Scriptures from the Bible that supposedly support the Doctrine of the Trinity (No, the word Trinity is not in the Bible.) were provided. Some of us proceeded to argue that these scriptures did not support the 3 in 1 God idea. Proclaiming that Thomas is imperfect, so what he says doesn't count, or that nothing in the Bible is correct is unsupported and out of line for someone who claims to have the deepest respect for God's inspired Word. The fruit doesn't seem to match the tree.
quote:Actually you haven't been paying attention. The article I linked to was not in support of the Trinitarian position and my position has been that Jesus is not YHWH. quote:You haven't provided Biblical support for this opinion. I think the general idea is more along these lines: When YHWH transferred the life force of the pre-human Jesus into the womb of Mary, Jesus lost his divine powers and become fully human. YHWH gave him the power to do certain things when necessary. So after Jesus the man died, he was given life again by YHWH and his divine powers were restored. Then we have YHWH and his son Jesus. (I can write stories too.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Wow, I did all that work and all you can say is read it again? Sharp found the patterns in the NT.
Daniel B. Wallace says about Sharp:
His strong belief in Christ’s deity led him to study the Scriptures in the original in order to defend more ably that precious truth ... As he studied the Scriptures in the original, he noticed a certain pattern, namely, when the construction article-noun-και-noun involved personal nouns which were singular and not proper names, they always referred to the same person. He noticed further that this rule applied in several texts to the deity of Jesus Christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I addressed all those issues in Message 138, why are you repeating yourself?
quote:Actually in John 20:1-3 and 9, Jesus died. In the scriptures he wasn't deemed Christ until he had risen. Deeming Thomas to be in error due to his imperfection is something you can't support. You're just battling fiction with fiction. YHWH is a supreme being, do you really know what he can and can't do? He could be like the Changelings in DS9, which I think is kinda what the Trinity idea is like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I didn't misread it and I said Sharp considered John 20:28 to be an exception. Sharp was careful to explain the exceptions, which apply to both the fifth and sixth rules. Notice that only personal nouns may fall under the exception, which is: when both nouns are clearly stated within the context to refer to the same person. Examples are Thomas' exclamation, "My Lord and my God." Since in the context he was clearly addressing both nouns to Jesus' person, this falls within the exception. Another example, where the same person is addressed with two nouns, is Jesus' statement, "I am the first and the last." Since Jesus specifically applied both titles to Himself within the context, this also falls within the exception to the sixth rule. When no such direct statement occurs within the context applying both nouns to a single person, the nouns refer to different things or persons. The "Trinity Delusion" argument (Message 158) is incorrect. Thomas was not referring to two different beings. He was referring to only Jesus, but that doesn't mean he was calling Jesus YHWH. Your other examples would fall under the same exception.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024