[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I know a lot of uneducated Jihadis from back in the day used to go wild thinking that Christians were polytheists. In fact, they probably still do. But if you have an elementary school education, and have attended two Sunday school sessions, you should be able to grasp the precepts of the trinitarian doctrine, and realize that it is not polytheistic.

Are you joking? I've never found anyone who could explain the Trinity in a logically consistent fashion (or at least, not in a logically consistent fashion that matched what other people said about it). People may be able to have some concept of it, but to fully grasp it, I think you'd have to be some kind of sufi.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

We are a truly monotheistic sect of Christianity that believes there is more than sufficient biblical evidence that the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" are not three separate persons, but are three manifestations of the same, eternal, single God.

Person, manifestation — sounds like the same idea to me.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

torsoboy, I'm interested in your Mormon outlook. I have some Mormon friends including a favorite professor. They are never up front like you have been in this thread concerning the polytheistic appearance of Mormonism. So I have to ask, do many Mormons really recognize their faith as polytheistic? And if so, how do they reconcile that belief with their acceptance of the strict monotheism of the Hebrew Scriptures?

I'm not Torsoboy, but I'll throw in my Mormon opinion.
Most Latter-Day saints would not recognize the LDS church as being polytheistic, probably because most don't give it that much thought. To us, the religion does feel monotheistic. Elohim aka God the Father is one being. Jesus Christ, is an entirely separate being as is the Holy Ghost. Going back into what we call the Pre-Mortal Existence (prior to the creation of the earth), Jesus Christ (aka Jehova) was chosen from among the children of God the Father to provide a way for the rest of the children of God the Father to be free of sin. Because of this choice, Jehova is given the power of God to take care of all the associate responsibilities, including creation, power over death, etc. In our theology, there have very very few occasions when God the Father has communicated to the people on the Earth. Very often it is Jehova/Jesus Christ who offers the communication as our mediator. We term this "Divine Investiture". Being "One with the Father" is term meaning "of one mind", not one actual physical mind, but having the same goal, and being perfect, they come to the same conclusions. While Christ and the Holy Ghost perform actions connected with God, they aren't God the Father/Elohim.

This brings out greater questions. What makes God a god? Is he God because he's omnipotent? Is he god because we worship him? Does he cease to be God if we stop? I imagine most people haven't thought about it in deep enough degree to answer the question being posed.

There are many things in Hebrew scripture which don't match up with the New Testament, as well as further not matching up with the Book of Mormon. We qualify these things as a matter of revealed doctrine typically. One group isn't ready for certain laws, while another is. Those who are prepared are given the higher laws. It doesn't apply to everything, but to us a possible explanation to the lack of this doctrine in Hebrew scripture is simply that it hadn't been revealed yet.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Also interesting, as long as we're getting into the murkier depths of Mormonism, is the idea of the Heavenly Mother. It's not official doctrine and none of the current leadership will touch it with a 10-foot pole, but many early Mormon leaders (and a lot of modern members) seem to have believed that God has a wife.

Oi, the speculation that comes up with this one. To us Marriage is eternally important. It's value is very high. I personally believe (and I say this because, as mentioned this is not doctrine), that part of being God is being married. Que marriage jokes...

On a final personal note, I have to say that I'm very pleased and impressed that this thread hasn't turned into a flame war/bash christianity fest. It's really nice to have a conversation about this kind of thing and not feel like you have to brave the flames...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I also don't think any modern Christian denomination believes in the Devil as a god

I think this is kinda the point of my bringing this thread up.

Christians generally consider themselves as monotheists but the existence of Satan as they believe him to be certainly qualifies as a deity under the definitions humans have used for several millennia. I mean, he is an immortal being with the power to oppose THE ALMIGHTY and to take the souls of those who don't deserve eternal bliss. He is worshipped by some and did I mention that he is the ONLY OPPOSITION to THE ALMIGHTY SUPREME BEING? He is the embodiment of all that goes against God! This follows the exact pattern of opposing gods in many, if not all, old pagan polytheism. If Satan's not a deity we need to seriously look at how we define deity in all previous polytheistic religions as well.

Yes, the trinity is something we can discuss forever, but even if we take for granted that there is NO WAY that the trinity can be considered to be several gods, there are still no less than TWO gods. God and Satan. Unless you are a Christian denomination that doesn't believe in Satan and I don't think I've ever heard of one.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I know a lot of uneducated Jihadis from back in the day used to go wild thinking that Christians were polytheists. In fact, they probably still do. But if you have an elementary school education, and have attended two Sunday school sessions, you should be able to grasp the precepts of the trinitarian doctrine, and realize that it is not polytheistic.

As someone said, it's not that simple a concept. But as I said, even if we accept that the trinity is really just ONE, you still have Satan.

Really the only way to get around Satan's deity-hood is to say that he is another manifestation of the One True God IMO, but that's not what Christians believe.

[Big Mac]

***Disclaimer: Christians are likely to be offended by this post***

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

You didn't offend me but rather interested me and I wanted to have a communication with you about what your views are of Jesus. . . .

One standard answer you often hear from Jews is that the topic doesn't command much of their attention. We are not supposed to concern ourselves with the deities of others or even to speak of them technically. However, I thoroughly enjoy taking religion and I have studied a good amount of Christianity, which is something a Torah observant Jew usually doesn't do based on Torah proscriptions.

The general Jewish view of Christianity is that it is a valid religion for the non-Jew that brings the world closer to redemption through the dissemination of Torah concepts to peoples who otherwise would never receive them (the same is said of Islam). In ancient times Jews attempted to refrain from economic cooperation with Christians because of some of the salient distinctions between us, but that stance was obviously softened over time.

Two great rabbis debated whether Christianity constitutes polytheism; one said yes and the other said no. My stance is that those who conceive of any division of God are worshiping in polytheistic fashion and that those who worship the form of Jesus are committing idolatry. I think such belief violates the 7 laws of Noah, as I said. However, denominations that pray to Jesus as an intermediary or intercessor to God (I believe the Witnesses are one such group) and do not consider Jesus to be a god incarnate are not violating those universal laws. The Decalogue commands us as Jews not to use intermediaries, but we do not expect non-Jews to keep the Decalogue or any other commandments except for those commanded to Noah. I make no personal determinations about implications on the afterlife for those who violate the laws of Noah, but Judaism says that those who keep the 7 laws are guaranteed a portion in the World to Come.

On the personage of Jesus, if he existed (which is I think is likely but not certain) I think he was likely a well meaning but ultimately deluded Jew with a messianic complex. Messianic complexes weren't rare in Israel at that time. Jews believe in a messiah, but it's a very different messianic concept from the Christian one. Jews await King Moshiach/Moshiach ben David, the anointed literal descendant of King David, a completely human king who will as a human servant of God bring about the most radical, manifest and undeniable changes in human history, referred to as the messianic era. Jews believe there are messianic candidates in every generation who could be called to be Moshiach if the conditions are right, but our religious obligations are in no way contingent on Moshiach or belief in him.

It is the Jewish view that Jesus did not fulfill a single messianic prophecy: he was never properly anointed by a prophet; he was never accepted as our king; no lineage provided for him ever even met the messianic qualifications; he did not affect an in-gathering of the exiles back to Israel; he did not strengthen Jewish observance or the nation; he did not lead us victoriously against our enemies; he did not facilitate universal peace and justice; universal acceptance of God and his oneness did not happen; etc. etc.. The basic conditions were not satisfied, and nearly completely the opposite of all of those things actually occurred.

I don't have my Bible with me right now (aren't I such a terrible Christian) but I do remember something being plural but let me go back and look and look at the original.

Okay. The Jewish view is that a) those who do not know Hebrew need to be careful when making claims about it; b) every claim of that kind is easily refuted; c) if someone reads the Hebrew Scriptures and does not see the absolute unity/singularity/oneness of God, one has missed the point almost entirely. Here is a concrete example of the problem with not having any Hebrew literacy: when a non-Hebrew literate Christian reads Psalms 110 and sees "The LORD says to my Lord," he sees two Lords and commonly thinks there are multiple personages of God in Psalms. The Christian who makes that error clearly does not read Hebrew and does not understand the difference between the Ineffable Name and a regular "my Lord" that is referring to a Lord other than God. The same kind of Christian makes the very same type of mistake when reading Genesis and thinking that the angels Avraham brings into his house are physical manifestations of God simply because Avraham refers to them as "my Lords." There are all sorts of errors and misconceptions in Christian dogma based on poor Hebrew skills and mistranslations of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, I am not saying there are not Hebrew literate and very knowledgeable, scholarly Christians who know Hebrew and the Hebrew Scriptures backward and forward because there most certainly are; I have a metric ton of respect for their abilities and achievements.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Doesn't this whole discussion strike you as somewhat irrelevant? I mean, you're arguing over the definitions of words, not anything of any real substance.

Such is the case with any modern Philosophy.

If we don't all agree on what words mean, how can we discuss anything meaningful?

In this case, I think that the definition of deity is extremely important to the understanding of Christianity, and any other religion for that matter.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Christians generally consider themselves as monotheists but the existence of Satan as they believe him to be certainly qualifies as a deity under the definitions humans have used for several millennia. I mean, he is an immortal being with the power to oppose THE ALMIGHTY and to take the souls of those who don't deserve eternal bliss. He is worshipped by some and did I mention that he is the ONLY OPPOSITION to THE ALMIGHTY SUPREME BEING? He is the embodiment of all that goes against God! This follows the exact pattern of opposing gods in many, if not all, old pagan polytheism. If Satan's not a deity we need to seriously look at how we define deity in all previous polytheistic religions as well.

Whether or not something is a god is largely a question of who's telling the story. Gods in some mythologies can die. There are immortal humans with supernatural powers in other mythologies. In many mythologies, there are whole classes of supernatural beings that are neither human nor god. It seems to me that Satan belongs to the latter group. I think it would be quite a stretch to call Merlin a god in Arthurian legends just because he has magic powers.

[Big Mac]

I know where you're coming from smacintush, but I would hesitate to call the Devil (and I use that term because "Satan" has a different meaning in the Jewish context) a Christian deity because it seems to me that no "Christians" consider the character to be a god but merely what they believe to be a fallen angel. Angels are supernatural beings, but they are not gods, and to define them as gods would be to completely warp Christianity into something it is not.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Whether or not something is a god is largely a question of who's telling the story.

This is a good point.

It seems that Christians don't define "gods" at all. All god are false gods that are not the One True God, they are but deceptions designed to take people away from God.

I guess I can see how, if one believes this, then one would deny Satan's status as a god. The problem is that it is not consistent with the majority of non-Christian religious history

[iranfromthezoo]

Big Mac I appreciate your comments and insights and was not offended at all. Thank you.

[Wiskedjak]

When viewed from the outside, Christianity is totally polytheistic.

Jehovah, Christ and the Holy Spirit may be separate incarnations of one being, but they are referred to individually (one is the son of another) and have all appeared at the same time in the same place. One can claim, "well, God can do anything", but then the same could be said of the Greek pantheon.

Satan is totally a deity. Same with the arch angels and the rest of the angelic pantheon. They may be lesser deities, having been created by Jehovah, but they're still deities.

Of course, from the inside that can all be explained by believing in a god that exists outside of any reality we can understand and can mold that reality, and ours, to anything it wishes.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

Big Mac I appreciate your comments and insights and was not offended at all. Thank you.

I am very thankful for your kind words - I feel fortunate to have received them from such a wonderful person who does such great work in the world.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This is a good point.

It seems that Christians don't define "gods" at all. All god are false gods that are not the One True God, they are but deceptions designed to take people away from God.

I guess I can see how, if one believes this, then one would deny Satan's status as a god. The problem is that it is not consistent with the majority of non-Christian religious history

That is true, but I suppose a lot of religions are inconsistent one with another. No reason why Shinto should have to use the same framework as Hinduism or Judaism.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're right that I'm speaking of my Jewish view. I never claimed to be speaking for Catholics or other Christians. However, the facts remains that 1!=3, so to split a godhead into distinct personages looks very much like polytheism to me, and in addition to that, to worship any sort of form is to me equivalent to idolatry and therefore could also be considered a second direct violation of the covenant with Noah.

Well, seems I can't really discuss this without going into some detail, so here goes.

According to Jewish lore, there are numerous names for God, and each name has a very distinct nature. Every work I've ever read on Jewish mysticism (a ponderous number, to be sure) the relationship between man and the Divine is characterized by the interaction between an individual and Names that have distinct properties. In fact, in Rabbi Kaplan's commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, Kaplan instructs the aspirant to call upon 5 different iterations of the Tetragrammaton for one specific invocation.

I guess what I'm getting at is, to the unlearned, such individuals would seem to be polytheistic.

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I am very thankful for your kind words - I feel fortunate to have received them from such a wonderful person who does such great work in the world.

Ha I'm just a tadpole in the pond...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Such is the case with any modern Philosophy.

If we don't all agree on what words mean, how can we discuss anything meaningful?

In this case, I think that the definition of deity is extremely important to the understanding of Christianity, and any other religion for that matter.

Why? I mean, suppose that you define the polytheism to include the trinity, and I define it so that it doesn't, as long as we are clear which definition we are using, why does it matter?

[smacintush]

Alright…enough with the love-fest you two…

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

On the personage of Jesus, if he existed (which is I think is likely but not certain) I think he was likely a well meaning but ultimately deluded Jew with a messianic complex.

I don't think the historical Jesus had a messiah complex at all; I don't think he claimed to be the messiah, and those words were put into his mouth by the gospel writers. More likely, Jesus was a Galilean preacher and social reformer who opposed the ostracism of the "unclean" and the monetary exploitation taking place at the Temple.

Interestingly, the rabbi Gamaliel conducted a similar "cleansing of the temple," demanding an end to the exploitation.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't think the historical Jesus had a messiah complex at all; I don't think he claimed to be the messiah, and those words were put into his mouth by the gospel writers. More likely, Jesus was a Galilean preacher and social reformer who opposed the ostracism of the "unclean" and the monetary exploitation taking place at the Temple.

Interestingly, the rabbi Gamaliel conducted a similar "cleansing of the temple," demanding an end to the exploitation.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that's more likely? Jesus would not have been the only social-reforming Messiah at the time.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, seems I can't really discuss this without going into some detail, so here goes. . . . [SNIP] I guess what I'm getting at is, to the unlearned, such individuals would seem to be polytheistic.

You're right to an extent, Shaddim (and of course very knowledgeable). There are multiple names of God. According to one Jewish conception, the entire Torah is one long name of God. The connotations associated with the name Elokim are the natural world and strict justice, while the Tetragrammaton is associated with the divine attribute of mercy. The are all sorts of appellations because God works with His creation in all sorts of ways. But there is only ever One God, and that is the central point of Judaism. And btw, according to prophecy in the messanic era there will only be One Name to refer to Him by. It could be the 72 letter name of God, for which the Tetragrammaton's four consonants seem to serve as a place holder.

You are right that in Jewish mysticism, in Kabbalah, all sorts of esoteric aspects of HaShem are explored, and it is true that to those uninitiated in Kabbalistic thought and terminology there is a lot of textual material that seems to split up God in various ways. In some respects Sefer Yetzirah is a difficult text because not just its complicated style but because of all the divisions of creation and the creative forces it discusses. There's are reasons why really esoteric Kabbalistic material wasn't traditionally taught to the wise until the age of 40. However, the essence and basis of Kabbalah only reinforces belief in the perfect unity of the Creator. According to Kabbalah the world was created through contractions in spiritual energy by God. In Kabbalah He is referred to by another title - the "Ein Sof," literally meaning "Without End," a perfect, continuous spiritual form that except for having no limitation defies all other human characterization. Edit: Additionally, regarding invoking divine names, a major part of Kabbalah has to do with mental combining of divine names as a form of rectification and unification of the divine forces that originate with the singular Ein Sof. We hope to speed up the process whereby HaShem will eventually be known by that single name.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Sorry to derail this thread smacintush, btw. Do any Christians believe in divinity of Mary? It would be interesting to know if there were/are. I also don't think any modern Christian denomination believes in the Devil as a god, although I have heard that some early Christians thought Jesus and the Devil were brothers of some kind; Zoroastrianism definitely seems to have had heavy influence on Christian thought.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Why? I mean, suppose that you define the polytheism to include the trinity, and I define it so that it doesn't, as long as we are clear which definition we are using, why does it matter?

Well, what do you mean by matter?

I think that a lot of confusion and even grief has been manifested by the real and imagined differences between Christianity and the other religions.

In order to get into any serious discussion we need to agree on certain definitions and protocols. If you say "he's not a god" and I say "he is" we get nowhere.

It may not matter if Christianity weren't a "militant" religion which believe that theirs is the only one and that all others are false and should be eliminated by conversion. By both sides stubbornly adhering to their own individual definitions there remains a lack of common ground and lack of understanding.

IMHO

[peeb]

Right - whether "he's a god" or not depends only on what you mean by "god". It just seems a pretty sterile and uninteresting way to discuss this. It doesn't lead us to a greater understanding of each other, except in a very narrow semantic sense.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't think the historical Jesus had a messiah complex at all; I don't think he claimed to be the messiah, and those words were put into his mouth by the gospel writers. More likely, Jesus was a Galilean preacher and social reformer who opposed the ostracism of the "unclean" and the monetary exploitation taking place at the Temple.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this conjecture on your part.

Doesn't seem likely that Jesus was a moral teacher who was killed and his followers concocted the story of his resurrection and claims of being the Messiah.

We have the Bible and archeology to affirm the claims that Jesus stated he was the Messiah.
You have the Gospel of Mark which is the oldest gospel (generally accepted to be around 60-80AD). It was written within the same generation of Jesus and to that point any claims of him being God would have been quickly quashed by the opponents and also other witnesses/followers of Jesus. Then there's some ancient hymns found which also date back to around first generation of believers They also state that Jesus was God

You also have as evidence of changed lives. His followers for the most part were poor fishermen and the like who after the resurrection spoke boldly and were willing to die for their beliefs. I don't know one person willing to die for a lie, yet all but of the Apostles claimed that Jesus was the son of God and all but one was killed for that belief. Also what did they look to gain for such a profession. Looking back they did not desire money or power and they did not receive any so why propagate a lie that you could be kill for and not receive anything

You need to accept or reject Jesus as the Messiah but you cannot say he was just a good moral teacher. The evidence is just there to support that.

[Big Mac]

I'm sure you realize, MacosNerd, that such arguments aren't going to hold a lot of sway with those who don't believe in the Christian canon. I can speak with a Christian and be in the same ballpark because we both accept the Hebrew Scriptures, but I don't accept the Christian Bible. Of course a skeptic accepts neither.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Doesn't seem likely that Jesus was a moral teacher who was killed and his followers concocted the story of his resurrection and claims of being the Messiah.

It seems more likely that the Romans killed him as a social reformer than because he blasphemed the Jewish God.

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

We have the Bible and archeology to affirm the claims that Jesus stated he was the Messiah.

The Bible does not affirm these claims — it is the originator of them. And even in the Bible, it is poorly attested that Jesus went around making that claim. And I don't know of any archaeology that proves Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. There's obvious proof that his followers said he was the Messiah, but it's not exactly certain whether Jesus made this claim or if it was made for him.

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

You also have as evidence of changed lives. His followers for the most part were poor fishermen and the like who after the resurrection spoke boldly and were willing to die for their beliefs. I don't know one person willing to die for a lie

You reckon nobody has ever died for any other religion?

[MacosNerd]

It seems more likely that the Romans killed him as a social reformer than because he blasphemed the Jewish God.

Of course, the Romans could have cared less for what the Jews believed.

You reckon nobody has ever died for any other religion?

I don't know any group of people who concocted a lie and the was willing to die for that lie.

[peeb]

Happens all the time - look at any war.

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm sure you realize, MacosNerd, that such arguments aren't going to hold a lot of sway with those who don't believe in the Christian canon. I can speak with a Christian and be in the same ballpark because we both accept the Hebrew Scriptures, but I don't accept the Christian Bible. Of course a skeptic accepts neither.

You just don't play well with others...Just admit it!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

You need to accept or reject Jesus as the Messiah but you cannot say he was just a good moral teacher. The evidence is just there to support that.

You've been reading too much CS Lewis, I think. This simply isn't true.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

You just don't play well with others...Just admit it!

But it isn't for lack of trying.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

I don't know any group of people who concocted a lie and the was willing to die for that lie.

As I recall, even the Bible mentions one — the would-be Messiah Judas of Galilee. Dude and his followers were killed for what I assume you'd say was a lie.

[Dakar the Fourth]

This is good reading, people.
(My way of giving thanks)

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You've been reading too much CS Lewis, I think. This simply isn't true.

Nothing wrong with ole CS...I will agree with MacosNerd though. Jesus claimed He was God in human form. There were eyewitness accounts to this. I don't know if claiming He was just a "good moral" person is enough. Theres nothing (that I have read, you may have something, if so please share it) that says Jesus was a average joe who was of good moral character. He stated himself many times in the NT that He was God. There was no if's ands or but's about it (I've always liked saying that)

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As I recall, even the Bible mentions one — the would-be Messiah Judas of Galilee. Dude and his followers were killed for what I assume you'd say was a lie.

Huh? care to provide a reference? Judas hung himself after selling out Jesus to the Romans.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

Jesus claimed He was God in human form.

I don't know if he or anyone else ever makes that claim directly - even in the gospels, or in Paul's letters or anywhere else in the Christian Bible. I think we've discussed around here the fact that the gospels portray Jesus as being subordinate to the Father in power and prominence and only doing the Father's will.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

Huh? care to provide a reference? Judas hung himself after selling out Jesus to the Romans.

That's Judas Iscariot. Judas of Galilee is mentioned in Acts 5 as somebody else who tried to do the same thing Jesus did and failed.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

Nothing wrong with ole CS...I will agree with MacosNerd though. Jesus claimed He was God in human form. There were eyewitness accounts to this.

It's really unclear as to whether these are eyewitness accounts. Even if they are, there are very few, and, given that what they are writing is an attempt to convince others, it is hardly impartial.

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

I don't know if claiming He was just a "good moral" person is enough. Theres nothing (that I have read, you may have something, if so please share it) that says Jesus was a average joe who was of good moral character. He stated himself many times in the NT that He was God. There was no if's ands or but's about it (I've always liked saying that)

The NT is not a reliable historical document, and there is no corroborating evidence for any of the opinion in it. Most of it was written, at best, decades after the fact.

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's Judas Iscariot. Judas of Galilee is mentioned in Acts 5 as somebody else who tried to do the same thing Jesus did and failed.

Acts 5
34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36 "For some time ago Theudas rose up, claimin to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 "After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38 "So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God." 40 They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. 41 So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's really unclear as to whether these are eyewitness accounts. Even if they are, there are very few, and, given that what they are writing is an attempt to convince others, it is hardly impartial.


The NT is not a reliable historical document, and there is no corroborating evidence for any of the opinion in it. Most of it was written, at best, decades after the fact.

There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials. To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.

[peeb]

Not at all - the 4000 your talking about are copies, not individual documents. The NT is a polemic written decades to centuries after the events it describes, by people who were not eyewitnesses for political reasons. That is true of much of the evidence we have of antiquity. We read these documents in their historical context. Just because someone writes of such and such a ruler that he was wise and just, we don't take that at face value. But you know that, I think.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time.

There are millions of documents talking about how Da Vinci left clues that led a man to Jesus' last living descendant. The fact that a piece of writing has been copied a lot doesn't make it true.

[iranfromthezoo]

I know they are copies but wouldn't you think that Jesus appeared to the people after He died and was resurrected. I mean wouldn't that get shot down by the "eye-witnesses" if that wasn't true? I mean if you saw something that wasn't easy to believe like that wouldn't you swear to it and say "No I saw that!" and then your kids would say "No my dad/mom saw that, it's true!" and then your grandkids would say the same...also there are more documents corroborating the events of the NT/Christ's life then there are for Caesar but no one is questioning his existence. there are Jewish historical documents that that even refer to a strange eclipse occurring around the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Those 4,000 copies are all alike except a few words that have no real value in the scheme of things, which is unreal when you consider the chance of human error in copying a transcript by hand. I don't have the references off hand to back that up but I promise I will get them to you if you would like.

The Bible stands up to more criticism the any book in the history of mankind, for an ancient book, it is head and shoulders above any other in historical and archelogoical evidence

I understand what you mean and what you are saying and honestly, this sounds like a "cop-out" and I promise I am not trying to cop out but there is an element of faith. I have mine, you have yours, obviously

[peeb]

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

I know they are copies but wouldn't you think that Jesus appeared to the people after He died and was resurrected. I mean wouldn't that get shot down by the "eye-witnesses" if that wasn't true?

Not really - I mean, when these documents were circulating, there were no eyewitnesses alive.

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

I mean if you saw something that wasn't easy to believe like that wouldn't you swear to it and say "No I saw that!" and then your kids would say "No my dad/mom saw that, it's true!" and then your grandkids would say the same...

I'm not sure what you're saying here - it's not clear that the gospels are written by eye-witnesses, so we really don't know what people saw or what they said. There is no record of this as an oral tradition.

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

also there are more documents corroborating the events of the NT/Christ's life then there are for Caesar but no one is questioning his existence.

This isn't true, but let's run with it. The existence of a specific roman emperor requires less evidence than the existence of a god who broke the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

Those 4,000 copies are all alike except a few words that have no real value in the scheme of things, which is unreal when you consider the chance of human error in copying a transcript by hand. I don't have the references off hand to back that up but I promise I will get them to you if you would like.

It's not really that impressive that the copies are not dissimilar, but that does not tell you anything about the veracity of the source document. I could make perfect copies of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, it doesn't mean it is true.

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

The Bible stands up to more criticism the any book in the history of mankind, for an ancient book, it is head and shoulders above any other in historical and archelogoical evidence

No, it's really not.

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

I understand what you mean and what you are saying and honestly, this sounds like a "cop-out" and I promise I am not trying to cop out but there is an element of faith. I have mine, you have yours, obviously

Of course belief in the Bible is an act of faith. I am not trying to dissuade you from your faith, I am just saying that there is no solid archeological evidence for it.

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Of course belief in the Bible is an act of faith. I am not trying to dissuade you from your faith, I am just saying that there is no solid archeological evidence for it.

haha so lets just agree to disagree on the matter...btw are you a Christian? If not you should watch this. YouTube - Barats and Bereta- The Good Word

[peeb]

Wow. I'm never going to get that 3 minutes of my life back.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Bible stands up to more criticism the any book in the history of mankind, for an ancient book, it is head and shoulders above any other in historical and archelogoical evidence

First I would say that the Bible also has more defenders than any other book in history, and by defenders I mean those who defend it because of their religious affiliation with it.

Nonetheless…

The historicity of the Bible is totally irrelevant! That fact that the people and places in the Bible actually existed means nothing! The only things that matter are (conveniently) the parts that there seems to be no evidence for.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

First I would say that the Bible also has more defenders than any other book in history,

You mismatched my name above with an excerpt from one of iranfromthezoo's posts.

Originally Posted by iranfromthezoo 

I know they are copies but wouldn't you think that Jesus appeared to the people after He died and was resurrected. I mean wouldn't that get shot down by the "eye-witnesses" if that wasn't true?

1) A lot of religions claim deities appeared to the "elect," the early followers of a faith. I'm sure you can find that in most of the religions on earth;

2) I don't know of any historians external to Christianity that attest to any of Christianity's founding events (aside from the forged words put in Josephus's mouth by the Church), but I recognize that that absence of external corroboration does not necessarily invalidate your belief;

3) I would like to see a citation for the Jewish source you're alluding to;

4) A lot of texts exists preserved remarkably well. I don't really think the gospels as such qualify to be on that list, given the way the Christian cannon arose;

5) In the final analysis you are right to a great degree that these are questions of faith, but it is my position that rationality and intellectualism is a major part of the equation too.

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Wow. I'm never going to get that 3 minutes of my life back.

sure you will...in eternal damnation and hell...TURN OR BURN..muahawhaha

(be advised for those who cannot take a joke, that was a joke)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Out of curiosity, why do you think that's more likely? Jesus would not have been the only social-reforming Messiah at the time.

The Gospel of Mark. Mark writes about Jesus' life with a wink, constantly telling us that the miracle stories have hidden meanings. The central theme of Mark is the highly sectarian nature of Jewish society and the growing sectarian nature of the Christian movement after the crucifixion. Mark is essentially warning the quarreling sects of Christians that they will suffer the same fate as the Jews (destruction by Rome) if they do not stay unified and adhere to the teachings of Jesus.

Mark adopts the language of the Messiah for Jesus only to explain metaphorically why Jerusalem was destroyed. Mark's point is that Jesus' teaching of forgiveness and social inclusion would have been the real salvation of Judea. The warlike Zealots and Sicarii merely brought Roman retribution, the Essene doctrine of social escape merely abandoned the world to the Romans, and the Pharisee/Sadducee conflict over control of the temple cult was inviting more Roman meddling in their religion. "A nation divided cannot stand" was Jesus' message, so he "curses the fig tree" (national emblem of Judea) when they reject the call for unity.

Regarding the Christian doctrines themselves, Mark has Jesus warn against "the leaven of the Pharisees." The "leaven" in question was the doctrine of resurrection of the dead, which was being rammed into Christian communities by the ex-Pharisee Paul. Mark doesn't affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus, but rather Jesus is raised from Hades to Heaven. Jesus denies the resurrection of the body - "we become like angels, who do not marry" - ie do not have bodies. After the crucifixion, he does not appear bodily to anyone; rather, the disciples are commanded to "return to Galilee, there you will see him," meaning: see the effects of his teaching in the Galilean community, since they believed.

Lastly, Mark exhibits the idea of a "Messianic secret," where Jesus' commands his apostles, the demons, and healed people not to publicly proclaim the issue. If Jesus did proclaim himself Messiah, why would Mark deny it?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Of course, the Romans could have cared less for what the Jews believed.

Not true. The Romans appointed the High Priest in order to control the direction of Jewish beliefs.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're right to an extent, Shaddim (and of course very knowledgeable). There are multiple names of God. According to one Jewish conception, the entire Torah is one long name of God. The connotations associated with the name Elokim are the natural world and strict justice, while the Tetragrammaton is associated with the divine attribute of mercy. The are all sorts of appellations because God works with His creation in all sorts of ways. But there is only ever One God, and that is the central point of Judaism. And btw, according to prophecy in the messanic era there will only be One Name to refer to Him by. It could be the 72 letter name of God, for which the Tetragrammaton's four consonants seem to serve as a place holder.

You are right that in Jewish mysticism, in Kabbalah, all sorts of esoteric aspects of HaShem are explored, and it is true that to those uninitiated in Kabbalistic thought and terminology there is a lot of textual material that seems to split up God in various ways. In some respects Sefer Yetzirah is a difficult text because not just its complicated style but because of all the divisions of creation and the creative forces it discusses. There's are reasons why really esoteric Kabbalistic material wasn't traditionally taught to the wise until the age of 40. However, the essence and basis of Kabbalah only reinforces belief in the perfect unity of the Creator. According to Kabbalah the world was created through contractions in spiritual energy by God. In Kabbalah He is referred to by another title - the "Ein Sof," literally meaning "Without End," a perfect, continuous spiritual form that except for having no limitation defies all other human characterization. Edit: Additionally, regarding invoking divine names, a major part of Kabbalah has to do with mental combining of divine names as a form of rectification and unification of the divine forces that originate with the singular Ein Sof.

Tikkun olam, or "repairing the world".

Where I was going with this, is that the concept of the wholeness of the Divine within Judaism isn't that different from the perception within Christianity.

This is the layout of the Trinity, if one were to assign correspondences to the Names and sephirot.

God the Father = Ehyeh, כתר
The Logos (Son) = Yah, חכמה
Holy Spirit = Elohim, בינה

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with I Am, and the Logos was I Am." - John 1:1
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Genesis 1:2

To me, those two verses establish the Trinity after the previous contraction, and before the next expansion in Genesis 1:3. Now, of course, most Christians have never been exposed to this avenue of thinking. However, to me it helps explain the relationship between the aspects of Trinity, and their dynamics, within an existing philosophical structure.