Summations Only

if that's correct, it's only correct because you've stuck the word "formal" in there.i'm actually not sure when the new testament was canonized in its present form, formally. informally, the canon developed fairly gradually over second and third centuries. the source texts, of course, being (slightly) older than the canon.and there is no triune god in the source texts. that development came from combination of multiple sources, and developed more or less alongside the canon. i don't know that this is necessarily true, though the formalized canon seems to be mostly codification of what was accepted, less formally, by different churches.certainly, different opinions of god's nature were present in other early christian sects, so it's not like these are two totally unrelated topics. many of the documents we don't have the canon aren't present because they were used by other churches, with different ideas about god. though many of the selections for the current canon seem in spite of accepted dogma, so there's that.

before canons there were nikons. no, uh, the canons were basically libraries. it wasn't exactly individual, and there would be some commonality among early churches. and before the NT canon, of course, was the OT canon, of which most early christian churches probably had at the very least the torah, and most of the neviim. and this seems, to me, to be what the epistles mean by "scripture". so, no. i don't think that's correct.there were concepts that were like the trinity before any of the NT was even written. and it's arguable that some of these concepts became or influenced the trinity, through portions of the text that were later cherry-picked. or even that the idea of jesus as "the word" came from a concept of a heavenly mouth-piece for yahweh.but the process of biblical authorship is hilariously sloppy. for instance, the clearest picture we have NT composition is that basically two initial sects (paul and peter) wrote about a highly mythical jesus, and the gospels were written later as a kind of "euhemerization". mark was written first, then matthew, then luke, each correcting the previous one on matters of common sense, theology, etc. if the concept of trinity was a thing, one of those three authors would have put it in their version. indeed, these texts are correcting the theology away from a divine jesus; their fundamental intention is to take jesus out of the heavenly realm, and portray him has having an earthly life, at least before john backs that up a little. but even john, the latest and most god-like version of jesus, clearly has a hierarchy, as he quotes jesus as saying "the father is greater than i", which is markedly un-trinitarian.instead, the modern conception of the trinity seems to be a way to rectify these early divine conceptions of jesus with monotheism, and disassociate them from the heresy of the various gnostic sects, etc.

right, but modalism/seballianism is a heresy, that the trinity was developed in part as a response to.

quote:

---

In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead - that there are no real or substantial differences between the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.

​

Sabellianism - Wikipedia

---

no, it's definitely modalism. three different aspects of a single thing is modalism. that's a closer analogy, but still imperfect.

i don't think faith is making it up, no. it's a pretty common reading, and i've definitely heard it in other places. actually... there's an interesting consequence of the documentary hypothesis. if you happen to go about identifying the sources in genesis, the melek-yahweh (angel of the lord) business is a redaction. abraham returns to his servants (singularly!) with no mention of his son isaac, and isaac never again appears in the E source. the next thing mentioned in E is abraham having another child. prior to the redaction, it sure seems like abraham actually killed isaac.but i suspect E is a variant of a slightly older story. yahweh making irrational, unfair demands of his patriarchs is a theme in J, and so i suspect this story initially came from J. only here abraham was likely to do as he did for lot, and argue with god. i think part of the confusion is that christianity employs a number of typological reworkings of older stories in its mythology. and it does this is fairly obvious ways. for instance, jesus specifically mentions jonah; jonah is obviously not prophetical of jesus, but the parallel to at least one part of the story is somewhat clear.fundamentalist christians tend to eschew abstract symbolic comparisons in favor of literal simplicity, so you get a shift from typology to pseudo-prophecy. perhaps they lack a proper concept of it, perhaps it's just simpler and doesn't seem like they're taking the text non-literally.Edited by arachnophilia, : i accidentally a word

isaac is not abraham's only son. or even his first son. isaac is in fact his second son. it's a theme in genesis (in the J source in particular) that the first son is passed over for the inheritance.note also that isaac is the one being saved. if anything is emblematic of christ, it should be the ram, and not isaac. we are the ones being saved by substition: we're isaac. "father of many", again, not just one son. abraham is named because he is the father (ab) of many (hamon) nations. in the one above, you appeal to jewish tradition. jewish tradition regards this passage as meaning that human sacrifice is abhorrent. there are lots of themes in christianity about conquering death, resurrection, etc. there aren't so many in first temple judaism (when this text was written), and you don't get them until the temple is destroyed. it is unsurprising to see christianity frame the story this way. no, you missed one. abraham may not have thought he was the right isaac. god tells him that his (barren) wife will become pregnant, and to call that child isaac, and he'll bless abraham's line through isaac. but... sarah actually gets pregnant right after spending the night with abimelech. abraham may have thought isaac wasn't his. this simply isn't true. we know exactly what ancient canaanite and israelite altars looked like from archaeology (i lump them together because they happen to be identical). they are stout, square pillars, with a prong at each corner. stone ones sometimes had fire pits. wood ones aren't well documented. sometimes they are on raised platforms. there is, in fact, a description of yahweh's official altar in the bible:

quote:

---

And thou shalt make the altar of acacia-wood, five cubits long, and five cubits broad; the altar shall be four-square; and the height thereof shall be three cubits. And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof; the horns thereof shall be of one piece with it; and thou shalt overlay it with brass. And thou shalt make its pots to take away its ashes, and its shovels, and its basins, and its flesh-hooks, and its fire-pans; all the vessels thereof thou shalt make of brass. And thou shalt make for it a grating of network of brass; and upon the net shalt thou make four brazen rings in the four corners thereof. And thou shalt put it under the ledge round the altar beneath, that the net may reach halfway up the altar. And thou shalt make staves for the altar, staves of acacia-wood, and overlay them with brass. And the staves thereof shall be put into the rings, and the staves shall be upon the two sides of the altar, in bearing it. Hollow with planks shalt thou make it; as it hath been shown thee in the mount, so shall they make it. (Exodus 27:1-8)

---

now, i realize that's a boring part of the bible, so most people skip it. but does that sound like a cross, to you? worse is the fact that roman crosses actually aren't particularly cross-shaped. a better image in the old testament is the nehushtan. but you're not going to like the connotations there. i think you've misunderstood something. mt. moriah is revealed as the temple mount -- the location of the first temple. the "house of yahweh" that solomon builds there is the first temple. the second temple, which existed in jesus's day, was located there, and the islamic holy site the dome of the rock is located there today. jesus was not crucified in the temple. the synoptics name the place "golgotha" (and not the temple mount), and john says it is "near the city" (the temple mount was inside the city). jerusalem, yes. so was abraham lying about the animal?and in all of this, you somehow missed that the crown of thorns is clearly playing on the thicket? sure they did: the people writing the new testament had read the old testament.

no, i mean, other ways to read it.

presumably because ishmael was sent away. (and maybe dead?)

so jesus has half-brothers that don't really count?i mean, i'll grant you that based on the text of the old testament, where the sons (plural) of god literally make several appearances. i just didn't think you'd want to actually argue that jesus had brothers. correct, and in christianity, jesus is sacrificed instead of us. our deaths are commanded, but he takes our place. making him the ram, not isaac.

sure, because he didn't have the other one anymore, since he was sent away (and possibly dead). that would be incorrect. the sons (plural) of god show up several times in the bible. notably genesis 6, deuteronomy 32, and job 1/2. jesus is never listed among them, though at least once the satan is.

i would argue it's precisely the same sense: the factually incorrect sense. just like elsewhere abraham is listed as having another son, elsewhere god is listed as having multiple sons.

you didn't like my response the first time, even though i provided answers that were precisely in line with the text and christian ideology, showing that the comparison of isaac to jesus was reversed. i suggest maybe you read it again; i propose at least one different and valid interpretation where you say no other interpretation can exist, and refute quite a few specifics. the stories themselves are separated by less than 1,000 years. granted, this is still a long time. but i think you're committing a fallacy i coined here many years ago: pre-hoc propter-hoc. granted, that guy was talking about time travel (he was positive the bible demonstrated examples of it), but the idea is similar. you're positing that the thing that came first was caused by the thing that came second.at best, a rational person could maybe make a case for the second thing being influenced by the first thing. and maybe we could discuss this kind of "foreshadowing" if a) the text was actually prophetical by genre (not simply assertion), and b) we actually had some kind of verification that the second event actually occurred, and c) it wasn't patently obvious that the newer authors had read the older authors. they're two stories about child sacrifice. what's not to get? okay. challenge accepted. but i'm going to go older than the bible.you've heard of baal, from the bible, yes? baal is the title of the northern semitic/canaanite storm god hadad. the highest god of the canaanite pantheon is named el. you might also recognize this name from the bible; it became the common word for "god", and is used many times in combination with various epithets to refer to yahweh, the israelite god.el's council is called the "elohim" (the other hebrew word for "god" or "gods" depending on context). the elohim are composed of el's (adoptive) sons, and even though hadad is actually dagan's son, he is still frequently referred to as the son of el -- the son of god.now, hadad fights another god named mot. "mot" being the semitic/hebrew word for "death". hadad loses this fight, dies, and descends to the underworld. some time later, hadad is resurrected, conquers mot ("death"), and ascends mount saphon ("heaven", where the gods live) to rule the canaanite panthon at the right hand of el ("god").that's the third act of the baal cycle, and pagan god that the bible decries on numerous occasions. the baal cycle was found in ugarit, which dates from approximately 1450-1200 BCE, exactly the time people incorrectly assume moses existed, and older than any text in the bible.i contend that hadad's death, resurrection, conquering of death, ascension, and rule at the right hand of god corresponds to jesus's similar narrative, and that this correspondence proves that the baal cycle and canaanite mythology is god's holy word.

"beget" is the hebrew yeled, which literally means to have a child. you can't have a child without having a child.