Versus Battle Jesus vs YHWH
- Thread starter Monkey D Theories
- Start date
This is distressing in that something so clear that even atheist scholars have agreed to existing is causing issue.
The issue is is that the OP (and some others here) doesn't actually understand the controversy in regards to the Trinity. The Trinity existing is very easy to see and prove in the Christian Bible. At least that God has at least two persons: the Father and the Son. I've already proved it. The Johannine works being included at all already supports this.
The issue with the Trinity is that it has attributes that appear contradictory to one another, not that it exists in the first place. Most (logical) descriptions are considered heresies.
No, you're missing the point because you're not looking at the entire gospel.
John 5:17-18: 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is still working, and I also am working.” For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
To show he existed before Abraham? So why doesn't he say "I was"? "Before Abraham, I was [there before him]"? There is zero debate that John has a high Christology, whether it be from religious scholars who are religious or atheist. In the opening lines (as I have shown), he tells you that Jesus is God, so when you read and Jesus says "I am" (rather than "I was" when referring to himself being before Abraham), it's supposed to be an obvious reference to Exodus where God announces His name.
You are right if we look at that sentence alone, but you're not supposed to read that sentence alone. It has context. That's what you're not getting. You can't just pick a line and not look at its context.
I've already demonstrated that Jesus is God. I don't need to respond to the rest of your post because there are clear statements that demonstrate the case. Well, there is one part that deserves a response:
Simply: Mark has a different Christology to John. Matthew and Luke, both of which copy Mark, just use the same line. John, which was written later, reflects later developments and schisms between what would become Rabbinic Judaism and Jews who would eventually become Christians. Your issue, though, is that Jesus praying to the Father isn't contradictory to Jesus being God because Jesus (the Son) is distinct from Jesus (the Father). You may had had a point if we looked at Mark or Matthew or Luke alone, but you can't ignore John's clear statements when they are included in the same Bible and intentionally included at that.
This isn't like the Hebrew Bible containing Goliath stories that contradict one another. This is more like Genesis containing two creation stories. Their inclusions were intentional and with purpose.
The issue is is that the OP (and some others here) doesn't actually understand the controversy in regards to the Trinity. The Trinity existing is very easy to see and prove in the Christian Bible. At least that God has at least two persons: the Father and the Son. I've already proved it. The Johannine works being included at all already supports this.
The issue with the Trinity is that it has attributes that appear contradictory to one another, not that it exists in the first place. Most (logical) descriptions are considered heresies.
No, you're missing the point because you're not looking at the entire gospel.
John 5:17-18: 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is still working, and I also am working.” For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
To show he existed before Abraham? So why doesn't he say "I was"? "Before Abraham, I was [there before him]"? There is zero debate that John has a high Christology, whether it be from religious scholars who are religious or atheist. In the opening lines (as I have shown), he tells you that Jesus is God, so when you read and Jesus says "I am" (rather than "I was" when referring to himself being before Abraham), it's supposed to be an obvious reference to Exodus where God announces His name.
You are right if we look at that sentence alone, but you're not supposed to read that sentence alone. It has context. That's what you're not getting. You can't just pick a line and not look at its context.
I've already demonstrated that Jesus is God. I don't need to respond to the rest of your post because there are clear statements that demonstrate the case. Well, there is one part that deserves a response:
Simply: Mark has a different Christology to John. Matthew and Luke, both of which copy Mark, just use the same line. John, which was written later, reflects later developments and schisms between what would become Rabbinic Judaism and Jews who would eventually become Christians. Your issue, though, is that Jesus praying to the Father isn't contradictory to Jesus being God because Jesus (the Son) is distinct from Jesus (the Father). You may had had a point if we looked at Mark or Matthew or Luke alone, but you can't ignore John's clear statements when they are included in the same Bible and intentionally included at that.
This isn't like the Hebrew Bible containing Goliath stories that contradict one another. This is more like Genesis containing two creation stories. Their inclusions were intentional and with purpose.
No, this is jumping in conclusions from nowhere. Like in the begining of John 1 part, it was explaned that Jesus is special son of God, case he was created first by only God himself, and then he helped Creator in creating everything else.
Well Jewish people was waiting for Savior, also first christian never called Jesus equal to God, this is something that people imagine, or rather borrow from other relions.
I read Bible while I didn't believe in God, so my conclusions was clearly different then canon christians view. And if you read Bible without trying to find "facts" that prove that son is equeal, or even one person as father, you will never come to that conclusion
Well Jewish people was waiting for Savior, also first christian never called Jesus equal to God, this is something that people imagine, or rather borrow from other relions.
I read Bible while I didn't believe in God, so my conclusions was clearly different then canon christians view. And if you read Bible without trying to find "facts" that prove that son is equeal, or even one person as father, you will never come to that conclusion
Actually no, thing is that Old Scripture nowadays became law that cannot be done. So even if jewish people say that Christian gone mad, and don't know what they talk about, jewish people stopped to sacriface animals etc, which was part of Jewish religion system. Now for christians Jesus became sacrifice for all people, so that made christians free from old Law. While jewish people don't have excuse why they stopped listen the old Law.
Also YHWH "name" was shown exactly in Jewish version of scripture.
Also YHWH "name" was shown exactly in Jewish version of scripture.
I just said that in Bible angels was called gods and God sons, more that it was Jesus himself who read that text, so that is not lies in terms of this religion Book. So don't know what you trying to prove? Is Jesus could be called as god? yes, like all angels, but he is not same as Creator, or Allmighty God, that the point. If you don't understand that, it your problem, not mine.
If you really want to learn what happened and why cristians was split in so many different religions, why you don't google about history of early chrisians, emperor Konstantyn and etc. Like we could find answers on many topics nowadays with just google. You don't have to go into library etc, or museum. Just try to read topics not from some religion groups. There are archelogist who will answer your questions without being part of some religion groups.
If you really want to learn what happened and why cristians was split in so many different religions, why you don't google about history of early chrisians, emperor Konstantyn and etc. Like we could find answers on many topics nowadays with just google. You don't have to go into library etc, or museum. Just try to read topics not from some religion groups. There are archelogist who will answer your questions without being part of some religion groups.
Yes, obviously there are other places where beings are calls "sons of God." We are not talking about the rest of them, though. We are specifically talking about Jesus and using what the text says about Jesus to come to conclusions about him. No one is simply looking at "son of God" and saying, "that's the proof right there." People are using explicit quotations to make the claim. You are just saying, "no."
Thanks for the advice, but I have read and do own books talking about the development of Christianity from a historical sense and theological sense from Christian and atheist writers. I was an atheist at one point. Do you have any other attempts at side stepping the issue that you want to try?
Because all you're doing is saying that Jesus, originally, wasn't equated to God, and there are different groups that agreed that he was not God. So what? We already know high Christology was developed later on. That's basic knowledge. Earlier texts such as Mark see Jesus more as a suffering messiah figure and not necessarily as God. The question being asked is if Jesus is God as per the Christian Bible. The answer is yes.
Christianity is seen as being heavily influenced by neo-Platonist ideas. You need to understand Plato to understand Christianity.
Thanks for the advice, but I have read and do own books talking about the development of Christianity from a historical sense and theological sense from Christian and atheist writers. I was an atheist at one point. Do you have any other attempts at side stepping the issue that you want to try?
Because all you're doing is saying that Jesus, originally, wasn't equated to God, and there are different groups that agreed that he was not God. So what? We already know high Christology was developed later on. That's basic knowledge. Earlier texts such as Mark see Jesus more as a suffering messiah figure and not necessarily as God. The question being asked is if Jesus is God as per the Christian Bible. The answer is yes.
Post automatically merged:
Christianity is seen as being heavily influenced by neo-Platonist ideas. You need to understand Plato to understand Christianity.
imo the very concept of a trinity is contradictory
The father and the son cannot be equals because that invalidates their description as "father" and "son". Jesus being the Son indicates his subordination to his father, which is highlighted in Mark.
Its honestly easier to believe that John is a fanfic and should be considered non-canon than to accept the trinity.
The father and the son cannot be equals because that invalidates their description as "father" and "son". Jesus being the Son indicates his subordination to his father, which is highlighted in Mark.
Its honestly easier to believe that John is a fanfic and should be considered non-canon than to accept the trinity.
Cope.
The Gospel of John was published after the other three gospel volumes. And then there were his three epistles that just reinforce the idea. If anything, John made the other three non-canon.
By the way: from the earliest sources that we have available, the idea of Jesus being equal to God was developed before the Trinity. Read the supplementary material.
The Gospel of John was published after the other three gospel volumes. And then there were his three epistles that just reinforce the idea. If anything, John made the other three non-canon.
By the way: from the earliest sources that we have available, the idea of Jesus being equal to God was developed before the Trinity. Read the supplementary material.
It never was, christians at the very begining was monoteist religion, so it was unique, like jewish religion, case in other religions in the world there was thousend of gods, and Trinity was exactly in other religions.
Also please explane what about Third God, what made you believe that there are three Gods? Even if this is lies, I can shut my eyes on Jesus, being God, case he was called god, and Gods son. But third one?
Also please explane what about Third God, what made you believe that there are three Gods? Even if this is lies, I can shut my eyes on Jesus, being God, case he was called god, and Gods son. But third one?
It only makes sense. Jesus, Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all Jews, not Christians as we know them. They were creating a movement with Judaism, and it was nothing new: messiahs were popping up all of the time.
Mark presents Jesus as the messiah and goes on about having to adjust Jewish expectations of what the messiah was supposed to be to what it actually is: the expectation was that they were supposed to come with righteous glory, but the reality was that the messiah was to be a suffering messiah. As you probably know, the messiah in the Hebrew Bible isn't God, so you, correctly, point out things not making sense from that perspective.
However, we are using the Christian Bible. Over time, Jews and what would become Christians were separating, and you can clearly see this in John: he calls the antagonistic side "Jews." They're this other even though Jesus was a Jew. This isn't even hidden in the Bible: we are told about the conflict between Peter's beliefs and James's beliefs in Acts. There is a separate identity forming by the time John writes, and by the time he writes, Jesus is already being placed on the level of God, which is what you can see here. You obviously can't develop the Trinity as a doctrine without first equating Jesus to God.
You also have to remember that the canon for the New Testament was settled decades after these issues were brought up. The three gospels before John were placed in there on purpose, and the points that you bring up have been brought up before since the first or second century. This means that the points from Mark or Matthew or even the Old Testament that you bring up have been brought up long before you thought of them even as the New Testament was being compiled.
You're correct that the Trinity makes no logical sense as it stands today. The Trinity itself (God = Father, God = Son, God = Holy Spirit but none of the others equaling one another) can obviously be made sense of in a number of ways, but the issue is that these logical outs have been declared heresies. So the paradox is self-inflicted. That is why it's a *~*mystery*~*
Mark presents Jesus as the messiah and goes on about having to adjust Jewish expectations of what the messiah was supposed to be to what it actually is: the expectation was that they were supposed to come with righteous glory, but the reality was that the messiah was to be a suffering messiah. As you probably know, the messiah in the Hebrew Bible isn't God, so you, correctly, point out things not making sense from that perspective.
However, we are using the Christian Bible. Over time, Jews and what would become Christians were separating, and you can clearly see this in John: he calls the antagonistic side "Jews." They're this other even though Jesus was a Jew. This isn't even hidden in the Bible: we are told about the conflict between Peter's beliefs and James's beliefs in Acts. There is a separate identity forming by the time John writes, and by the time he writes, Jesus is already being placed on the level of God, which is what you can see here. You obviously can't develop the Trinity as a doctrine without first equating Jesus to God.
You also have to remember that the canon for the New Testament was settled decades after these issues were brought up. The three gospels before John were placed in there on purpose, and the points that you bring up have been brought up before since the first or second century. This means that the points from Mark or Matthew or even the Old Testament that you bring up have been brought up long before you thought of them even as the New Testament was being compiled.
You're correct that the Trinity makes no logical sense as it stands today. The Trinity itself (God = Father, God = Son, God = Holy Spirit but none of the others equaling one another) can obviously be made sense of in a number of ways, but the issue is that these logical outs have been declared heresies. So the paradox is self-inflicted. That is why it's a *~*mystery*~*
It never was, christians at the very begining was monoteist religion, so it was unique, like jewish religion, case in other religions in the world there was thousend of gods, and Trinity was exactly in other religions.
Also please explane what about Third God, what made you believe that there are three Gods? Even if this is lies, I can shut my eyes on Jesus, being God, case he was called god, and Gods son. But third one?
Also please explane what about Third God, what made you believe that there are three Gods? Even if this is lies, I can shut my eyes on Jesus, being God, case he was called god, and Gods son. But third one?
