[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

So, you are equating Steven Hawking with God? Seriously? Even if you don't believe in God, that is one of the silliest comparisons I have ever heard.

Why would understanding God's nature make you equal to him while understanding Stephen Hawking's nature doesn't? If anything, I'd think God would have more to distinguish him from me than Stephen Hawking does.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Requirements of being God, perhaps, but not of being a god. There are plenty of gods in other mythologies who are not omnipotent, omnipresent, nor eternal.

I am limited by my belief of a single God as creator. No other "gods" exist. To debate anything other than that, for me, would be whimsicality on my part.

When "gods" are mentioned in the Bible, it is my understanding that they refer to basically anything that is a distraction from God. And that they all are false and man's attempts to reject God.

Unfortunately, I understand how my beliefs can limit further discussion. However, the reverse is also true.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I am limited by my belief of a single God as creator. No other "gods" exist. To debate anything other than that, for me, would be whimsicality on my part.

When "gods" are mentioned in the Bible, it is my understanding that they refer to basically anything that is a distraction from God. And that they all are false and man's attempts to reject God.

Unfortunately, I understand how my beliefs can limit further discussion. However, the reverse is also true.

Aaaand we're back to arguing about the meaning of words...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But there are plenty of supernatural creatures in other mythologies also fitting this description that are not gods. It seems to me that the only reason you'd look to mythologies where creatures like Satan are considered gods and ignore the others is to stack the deck against Christianity's monotheism.

Of course there are. My point was that there is a general ambiguity about what it means to be a god, not that Christianity is wrong. This discussion is about the definition of 'god' and 'God' as much as it is about anything else.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Why would understanding God's nature make you equal to him while understanding Stephen Hawking's nature doesn't? If anything, I'd think God would have more to distinguish him from me than Stephen Hawking does.

To understand God would mean to be on God's level. Note: I did not use the word "nature". I do not understand what you mean by "nature". Do you mean "characteristics", or "intentions", or "motivations"? Which of these definitions are you using? nature: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Aaaand we're back to arguing about the meaning of words...

Discussing anything with you is pointless.

[- - e r i k - -]

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. Messianic complexes weren't rare in Israel at that time.[/b]

Pigs fly! Big Mac and I agree on something! Woo!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Discussing anything with you is pointless.

Which is all you keep saying. I've stopped hoping that you might say anything that contributes in any meaningful way to the discussion. If you have nothing but abuse, please shut tfu.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I am limited by my belief of a single God as creator. No other "gods" exist. To debate anything other than that, for me, would be whimsicality on my part.

When "gods" are mentioned in the Bible, it is my understanding that they refer to basically anything that is a distraction from God. And that they all are false and man's attempts to reject God.

Unfortunately, I understand how my beliefs can limit further discussion. However, the reverse is also true.

So basically your belief is entirely tautological: God is God. While that's all well and good in the context of belief, it's not particularly useful in a discussion about the nature of the divine and the tripartite nature of Christianity's Holy Trinity. If you're going to absolutely refuse to step outside of your beliefs and question things, why are you even participating in this discussion? (Not that I'm trying to insist that you doubt your faith, rather that if you can't step outside yourself and argue a point of view other than your own there's no point in you being in the debate club.)

[peeb]

A good question indeed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Hypothetical:

I'm a believer in God but I really have NO direction or education on the bible or Christianity at all. Where do I go? The protestants? Episcopals? Seventh Day Adventist? Seventh Day Pentecostal? Methodist? Lutheran? How about the Roman Catholics? Perhaps the Presbyterians? Mennonites? How about Mormons? Southern Baptist? Reformed Baptist? Evangelical Baptist? Fundamentalist Baptist? Old Apostolic? New Apostolic? How about the Amish? Dutch Reformed? Bulgarian Orthodox? Assyrians?

Why isolate your choices down to the various Christian resources? Have you decided the Christian God meets you where you are? If yes, pick up a Bible, find a couple of Christian friends and have Church in your basement. They'll likely help you from there.

Of the more than 300 branches and 38,000 denominations, who is THE authority on the Bible?

An earnest heart conducting an honest search will land you somewhere. Trust brother. Trust.

Wait…or do all of these agree on everything?

Most things in fact, but not all things.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So basically your belief is entirely tautological: God is God. While that's all well and good in the context of belief, it's not particularly useful in a discussion about the nature of the divine and the tripartite nature of Christianity's Holy Trinity. If you're going to absolutely refuse to step outside of your beliefs and question things, why are you even participating in this discussion? (Not that I'm trying to insist that you doubt your faith, rather that if you can't step outside yourself and argue a point of view other than your own there's no point in you being in the debate club.)

Why would I try to argue in favor of what I consider to be an outright lie or even worse, blasphemy? I have questioned the existence of God many times. But in the end I came back to my core beliefs. You are not considering what my beliefs mean for me. Perhaps you should look outside of your limited and belief-centric viewpoints.

I don't see anyone who doesn't believe in God trying to convince someone to believe in the Trinity or God here. Why would you expect a believer to argue in favor of God not existing or even that there are other gods?

I contributed my beliefs. The thread question is: "Is Christianity polytheistic?" I answered the question with my beliefs.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Which is all you keep saying. I've stopped hoping that you might say anything that contributes in any meaningful way to the discussion. If you have nothing but abuse, please shut tfu.

What a great contribution you've made here. Pointlessness at it's finest.

Originally Posted by peeb 

A good question indeed.

You top yourself. *clap clap*

[Chuckit]

Let's at least try to pretend to respect each other here, OK? This thread has been a welcome diversion from the normal mud-trudging around here.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Why would I try to argue in favor of what I consider to be an outright lie or even worse, blasphemy? I have questioned the existence of God many times. But in the end I came back to my core beliefs. You are not considering what my beliefs mean for me. Perhaps you should look outside of your limited and belief-centric viewpoints.

Because there's value to understanding the other side of the argument and trying to see why it is that other people don't believe as you do. Again, I'm not trying to say that you should question your beliefs, just that dogged insistence in the unassailable supremacy of them is pointless and detracts from an otherwise intellectually stimulating conversation.

Oh, and my very presence and participation in this thread is me looking outside my own beliefs. Despite the fact that I'm not Christian, I still find this to be a very interesting and worthy topic, and am quite impressed at the various displays of scholarship.

I don't see anyone who doesn't believe in God trying to convince someone to believe in the Trinity or God here. Why would you expect a believer to argue in favor of God not existing or even that there are other gods?

Because this isn't about whether or not people believe in God. It's about coming to a greater understanding of one of the most complex and, in many ways, counter-intuitive teachings of Christianity. A belief in God is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage when attempting to wrestle with the philosophical nature of the Trinity and the distinction between God and Christ.

I contributed my beliefs. The thread question is: "Is Christianity polytheistic?" I answered the question with my beliefs.

And that's great, but saying 'this is what I believe and therefore I refuse to even discuss other possibilities that are clearly wrong because they aren't what I believe', isn't really a contribution so much as an attempt to stifle debate.

I'm in agreement with you about the nature of the Trinity and about Christianity being a monotheistic religion. My understanding has always been that Jesus was merely a manifestation of God. He, in the context of the Trinity, didn't exist as a separate being from God he merely was the human form that God chose to assume in bringing His message to Earth. The Holy Ghost I've always seen as something of a metaphor for the pervasive nature/power of God. As for whether or not Satan or the other angels are gods, I've never seen any reason to believe that either. They had no power of their own being God's creations and wielders only of His power. Both the angels themselves and the power they had at their command originated with God, and He could have granted it to a human just as easily if He had wanted to do so (and arguably he did with the various miracles performed by Moses).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thank you, ebuddy. I'll have to look up those citations. As a follow-up, do you believe what you term as "God the Son" to be co-equal and co-eternal with "God the Father"?

Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed is an ecumenical Christian statement of faith accepted in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian, the Anglican Communion, Lutheranism, the Reformed churches, Methodism, and many other forms of Protestantism. Some omit the Filioque clause

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Is this topic actually a stumbling block keeping anyone from committing to a belief in Christianity,

Well I started this thread and I can tell you unequivocally no.

or is this just one of those mental jerk-off conversations?

There are far greater topics of discussion concerning Jesus Christ than whether or not he is a God separate from the Holy Spirit or God the Father.

1. Then why you bothering to post in this thread?

2. Then go start threads about them…

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why isolate your choices down to the various Christian resources? Have you decided the Christian God meets you where you are? If yes, pick up a Bible, find a couple of Christian friends and have Church in your basement. They'll likely help you from there.

You seemed to imply as much. We're talking about Christianity and you said:

Should one attain their knowledge of Biology from a Plumber?

[Apemanblues]

In Christian theology there is only one god, but he does exhibit the symptoms of having a multiple personality disorder.

[peeb]

Well that's a pretty interesting perspective actually.

[Apemanblues]

Read the big book. That dude is all over the place.

It's almost as if multiple authors had put their own personal (and all too human) beliefs onto his character. Or something...

[- - e r i k - -]

Oh oh... I think you might be on to something there…

BURN THE HERETIC!!!

[Apemanblues]

I prefer the term 'heathen'. It sounds cooler.

Although I do get tired when large groups of generic villagers burn torches at my door.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Apemanblues 

Read the big book. That dude is all over the place.

It's almost as if multiple authors had put their own personal (and all too human) beliefs onto his character. Or something...

Interestingly, much of the Bible is written as a measurement of what man is and is not. One who reads the Bible is reminded repeatedly of how he or she is not like God. IMO, the Bible convicts the human condition as much as it affirms it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You seemed to imply as much. We're talking about Christianity and you said:

You didn't claim in your hypothetical that you believed in the Christian God. In fact, you mentioned simply "a belief in God", but that you had "NO direction or education on the bible or Christianity at all." To me, this begged the question; why isolate your choices to one of various Christian sects?" I then clarified that if you had chosen to seek out the Christian God, grab a Bible and have church in your basement. After all, none of the denominations you mentioned are without a Bible somewhere in the place. It seemed the most fitting answer to one in your position. At least IMO as one who attends a non-denominational Church.

[Apemanblues]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interestingly, much of the Bible is written as a measurement of what man is and is not. One who reads the Bible is reminded repeatedly of how he or she is not like God. IMO, the Bible convicts the human condition as much as it affirms it.

Whilst some aspects are a reflection of what man is, others are a reflection of what man wishes to be. From angry child to meek and mild.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Someone please explain to me how labeling something "polytheistic" is degrading?

I'm not sure degrading is the correct term, but as I understand it, Christianity takes a rather stern view on polytheism, therefore if it were to be found that it was polytheistic itself, it'd come off poorly.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Regarding the thread topic: I do not consider Christianity as polytheistic. One God, three manifestations.

I don't agree with the term "manifestation" here. When God appeared to Moses as a Burning Bush that I consider to be a manifestation (Edit: Big Mac has addressed the accuracy of this statement). But when Jesus prayed to God (in the garden?) that comes off as strange, because why would you pray to yourself? To me that would entail a separate person.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Regarding Satan: He is simply an angel. Formerly God's favorite angel. Angels are not gods. They are not omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. All requirements of being God.

I believe someone already said this, he may not be God, but he may still be a god. Doesn't satan have several manifestations? Interesting parallel to God if he does.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why would a complete, self-sufficient, and perfect creator make something like this?

Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I don't agree with the term "manifestation" here. When God appeared to Moses as a Burning Bush that I consider to be a manifestation.

It was the Angel of God that appeared in the bush, and after Moshe recognized the sight as holy only then did God speak directly to him. Also, I wouldn't call it a manifestation but rather a Theophany

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It was the Angel of God that appeared in the bush, and after Moshe recognized the sight as holy only then did God speak directly to him.

Oh crap. That sounds correct now that you bring it up.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Also, I wouldn't call it a manifestation but rather a Theophany

Yeah, I wouldn't call it a manifestation either given what you just pointed out above.

The reasoning in the latter part of that paragraph, however, does not change for me.

[Big Mac]

It's a minor quibble. I just steer away from using the term manifestation because one of the definitions of manifestation is materialization.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

When Jesus prayed to God (in the garden?) that comes off as strange, because why would you pray to yourself? To me that would entail a separate person.

I don't know - I quite often talk to myself - if I were a god, I suppose that would be praying to myself - don't you have an inner monologue?

[Big Mac]

Talking to one's self is slightly abnormal if done regularly. Praying to one's self is absurd, IMO.

[peeb]

Why do you think that? I think talking to yourself is pretty normal. There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that the mind and consciousness are a unified experience of several disparate entities. I don't think there is anything absurd about praying to one's self in that sense.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Apemanblues 

In Christian theology there is only one god, but he does exhibit the symptoms of having a multiple personality disorder.

Maybe it only proves that God is a woman?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it?

Could be.

The Who, What, When, Where, and even How can all be explained in detail, with enough study. In my opinion, the Why is much more fascinating. I have a few observations regarding this but I'm waiting to see if anyone else cares to take a stab at it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why not?

The short answer: the historical Jesus never claimed to be god (or the Messiah, for that matter). The myth of Jesus as Messiah arose to explain the purpose of his crucificxion (the Pauline tradition) or the destruction of Jerusalem (the synoptic Gospels). The Johannine tradition is a very late innovation, and wasn't widely accepted until Irenaeus.

You may want to read all of Galatians 4. Galatians 4:7; Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Oh, I have. It's clear-cut proof of the multi-faceted nature of the early church. Paul is admonishing his flock to stop listening to that "hypocrite" Simon Peter and that "Judaizer" James the Just, and instead follow Paul's anti-Torah teachings. It's a fascinating polemic. From this, we can clearly deduce that the "Council of Jerusalem" in Acts was a literary fiction to present a unified church when none really existed. Luke was really a propagandist for the Pauline tradition.

Knowing that the fallen Satan can imitate Jesus and knowing that Jesus' disciples were often times incapable of imitating Jesus, your summary of that verse seems painfully simpleton IMO.

If you say so. Myself, I think the Synoptic presentation of the apostles as confused weaklings is only a literary device, not history.

Besides, Peter's letter urged the imitation of Jesus as a necessity for Christians: "For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps." Also: "You shall be holy; for I am holy."

Really? Who was Peter's audience?

Jews of the Diapora, obviously.

You may want to read all of 1 Peter.

I have. My favorite epistle, actually. Probably the most accurate statement of early Christianity: no bodily resurrection of Jesus ("being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit"), was Jewish in orientation, and not anti-Jewish like Matthew or Luke or Paul.

1 Peter 1:19-20; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

Foreordained here means "was prophesied," not "already existing," and manifest means "was seen," not "was incarnated."

I could've guessed you don't regard the Bible as accurate, but I would've thought your argument would have a little more substance.

Whatever. The mainstream consensus is: Titus is a forgery.

You seem to believe that a limited reading of these books renders Jesus nothing more than a prophet and that, based on your own opinions can pluck from the Bible what you wish. You're welcome to do this just as I'm quoting from the Bible in faith, but I'm afraid this is consistent with some of my initial complaints. I appreciate your .02 however.

Mine is not a limited reading. It is an accurate reading, recognizing discrepancies where they exist, and not ignoring them.

I appreciate your conviction. Do you regularly study the Bible?

Yes.

I'm guessing your view is formed at least in part by the work of Ehrman.

Never read him.

Interestingly, his assertions are much less audacious than your own and yet come under considerable critique for failing to acknowledge text in context and without regard for multiple instances of the same themes throughout. The conclusions are not surprising.

The New Testament is a library of books of various viewpoints and theologies. They are not necessarily consistent with each other. The letter of James and the letter to the Galatians are excellent proof of that fact.

Truly, I am reading them in their literary and historical contexts far better that you are. I at least acknowledge the historic existence of multiple traditions in early Christianity.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Could be.

The Who, What, When, Where, and even How can all be explained in detail, with enough study. In my opinion, the Why is much more fascinating. I have a few observations regarding this but I'm waiting to see if anyone else cares to take a stab at it.

It's the science vs. philosophy divide.

You're soliciting opinions on why God created Life the Universe and Everything? I've given in passing thought before but I can't say I've ever come up with something. A pessimistic view would be he needed us (or someone/thing) to worship him (It does seem to be the predominant concern of religion).

The best contribution I can make is not my own however. Einstein raised an interesting point: “What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” Makes God sound like the Big Bang to me. Or at the very least governed by a set of laws he too must obey (which would preclude him from being God as I understand it, but not a god).

Hopefully I don't sound like a complete jackass.

[Big Mac]

I think it's fair to say Einstein saw the fingerprint of a creator in the universe but could not commit to religion.

As for why God created the material universe, Judaism teaches that He desired to dwell in lower realms/universes.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think it's fair to say Einstein saw the fingerprint of a creator in the universe but could not commit to religion.

Which I can agree with. The truth may be out there, but its not Here.
My opinion, obviously.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As for why God created the material universe, Judaism teaches that He desired to dwell in lower realms/universes.

Well, that's not much of answer (much like why the chicken crossed road). Why would God want to dwell in lower realms?
Not directed at you, personally. Just a personal comment/question.

[Shaddim]

An interesting idea is that God is, in part, the perpetual act of creation itself, creating and the Creator cannot be separated from each other.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

An interesting idea is that God is, in part, the perpetual act of creation itself, creating and the Creator cannot be separated from each other.

Exactly. The Creation is simply the manifestation of the Creator. It exists to give the Creator infinite experience throughout eternity.

OAW

[Apemanblues]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think it's fair to say Einstein saw the fingerprint of a creator in the universe but could not commit to religion.

He wasn't a Deist, he was a Pantheist.

He didn't believe in a creator God, or a personal God, and he expressed this in writing (several times). He got a lot of flack for that at the time, because for most people Pantheism is tantamount to atheism in it's redefinition of "God". It relegates 'God' to being a metaphor for existence itself.

He was a fan of Theravada Buddhism though:

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity." - Albert Einstein

This is the sort of 'spirituality' (for want of a better word) that I myself can subscribe to. A non-supernatural, non-dualistic, experience of reality.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The short answer: the historical Jesus never claimed to be god (or the Messiah, for that matter). The myth of Jesus as Messiah arose to explain the purpose of his crucificxion (the Pauline tradition) or the destruction of Jerusalem (the synoptic Gospels). The Johannine tradition is a very late innovation, and wasn't widely accepted until Irenaeus.

It seems you're almost placing Christianity before Christology. I contend that this view stems more from skepticism and makes it tempting to assume that anything Jesus said affirming early Christianity must by virtue of this fact, lack authenticity. IMO, modern biblical criticism and scholarship cannot accept the supernatural. I can't say I blame them to be honest. Any academic endeavor to prove such would (afaik) be in vain. However, this causes those of similar disposition to become more skeptical of the Bible than of the work of the scholars themselves. I've not entertained a discussion where there weren't at least as many ambiguities and problems in their works as they claim can be found in Scripture. The ol' "itching ears" anomaly if you will.

IMO, even if we were to remove John, we still have a God incarnate. The Christological nature of Paul's letters predate Paul. The "good news" of Jesus had been preached by missionaries years before he established churches among gentiles. These messages did not originate from Paul, but of the various Jewish-Christian missionaries already established and carrying it throughout Syria and Palestine. Peter in Acts shows a great deal of continuity with both Mark and the missionaries including their written accounts of the resurrection message. IMO, it is impossible to segregate the 'Godhead ideal' from the earliest of Christians.

Oh, I have. It's clear-cut proof of the multi-faceted nature of the early church. Paul is admonishing his flock to stop listening to that "hypocrite" Simon Peter and that "Judaizer" James the Just, and instead follow Paul's anti-Torah teachings. It's a fascinating polemic. From this, we can clearly deduce that the "Council of Jerusalem" in Acts was a literary fiction to present a unified church when none really existed. Luke was really a propagandist for the Pauline tradition.

First as kind of an observation here; the Bible certainly doesn't deny there were those opposed to Jesus' teachings and claims of Divinity (John 7:1-5) nor those who followed whole-heartedly and believed. It is logical to assume there were those that were split. Especially considering the main sticking point; circumcision. I can imagine more than a few having passionate views on this notion today given the comforts of our medical establishment, let alone at the time. When you say, "multi-faceted" nature of the Church, I think you're being unnecessarily harsh here. If it were as indicative as you claim and the early Church as bent on editing; they surely would've excluded this small quibble among the faithful. It is commonplace for believers to rebuke actions of believers. This was so then just as it is now and to me is a refreshing glimpse into the reality of human nature and the forgiving nature of Grace. Besides, Peter repented, referred to Paul as; "our beloved brother", used some of Paul's epistles, and basically regarded Paul as misunderstood by the ignorant. IMO, much more has been made of this quibble than is warranted.

Besides, Peter's letter urged the imitation of Jesus as a necessity for Christians: "For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps." Also: "You shall be holy; for I am holy."

Seeing as man would find it almost impossible to ditch his parents at 12, claim he has no family, but his followers, require one to miss his own father's funeral, and doom a herd of pigs off a cliff; Jesus is the perfect template of righteousness and there is not one who successfully "imitates" Jesus, no not one. (Romans 3:9-19) To your point; Peter is certainly suggesting that we follow Jesus' example of bringing His news to all through charity, kindness, etc... taken in context however, even the thoughts of our own minds betray us to sin.

I have. My favorite epistle, actually. Probably the most accurate statement of early Christianity: no bodily resurrection of Jesus ("being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit"), was Jewish in orientation, and not anti-Jewish like Matthew or Luke or Paul.

I find it interesting that we should depict the NT writers as "anti-Jewish". Using this logic, we should conclude of course that Isaiah was also;

Isaiah 1:4; "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, A seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord" and what of verses 10-19; "Your incense is detestable to me.", "I cannot bear your evil assemblies", "Your hands are full of blood" etc...?

What of Malachi? He was certainly cruel enough. Was he also "anti-Jewish"? In fact, by these standards it would seem that almost all OT figures would be viewed as "anti-Jewish" including Ezekiel and even Moses.

Foreordained here means "was prophesied," not "already existing," and manifest means "was seen," not "was incarnated."

I wasn't clear here. Foreordained in this passage specifies redemption from the shed blood of Christ (the atonement foreordained) over corruptible things and occurred for them. Similar references are made in Revelations, Ephesians, and 2 Timothy.

Whatever. The mainstream consensus is: Titus is a forgery.

I'd be interested in seeing more information on this.

Mine is not a limited reading. It is an accurate reading, recognizing discrepancies where they exist, and not ignoring them.

I certainly don't want to ignore them. I've found that too often however, the measure of weight we give to some of these "discrepancies" is contingent upon our own presuppositions. You can say the same for me and I'd have to agree, but then I recognize human nature.

The New Testament is a library of books of various viewpoints and theologies. They are not necessarily consistent with each other. The letter of James and the letter to the Galatians are excellent proof of that fact.

I disagree. I see absolutely no problem at all between the letter of James and the letter to the Galatians.

Truly, I am reading them in their literary and historical contexts far better that you are. I at least acknowledge the historic existence of multiple traditions in early Christianity.

I disagree. I think your view is more opinionated than factual and you seem to be having difficulty seeing the forest through the trees. I suspect our views on this issue are irreconcilable.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It seems you're almost placing Christianity before Christology.

Very true. The message of the historical Jesus was the "Kingdom of God," not himself as God.

I contend that this view stems more from skepticism and makes it tempting to assume that anything Jesus said affirming early Christianity must by virtue of this fact, lack authenticity. IMO, modern biblical criticism and scholarship cannot accept the supernatural.

No, I don't accept the supernatural. But that's not really the basis of my criticism. Our best source for the historical Jesus is Mark and "Q." There's just no "higher Christology" in there.

IMO, even if we were to remove John, we still have a God incarnate. The Christological nature of Paul's letters predate Paul. The "good news" of Jesus had been preached by missionaries years before he established churches among gentiles. These messages did not originate from Paul, but of the various Jewish-Christian missionaries already established and carrying it throughout Syria and Palestine.

I'd say further than just Syria and Palestine: Peter himself visited or wrote to the Jewish communities in Rome and Asia Minor. Regardless, Paul himself espouses a "medium Christology," with a bodily resurrection, but the nature of Jesus himself is obscure.

Peter in Acts shows a great deal of continuity with both Mark and the missionaries including their written accounts of the resurrection message. IMO, it is impossible to segregate the 'Godhead ideal' from the earliest of Christians.

I agree Mark and Peter show continuity. I'd even be willing to believe Mark was Peter's son. But neither of them profess a Christology of Jesus as God Incarnate, nor do they profess a bodily resurrection. And I am highly skeptical of Acts' historicity.

If it were as indicative as you claim and the early Church as bent on editing; they surely would've excluded this small quibble among the faithful.

Not at all. In fact, I have a very high opinion of the Apostolic Age: they were extremely honest and humble, not daring to edit out discrepancies. The fact that the Synoptic Gospels survived as independent books indicates that they had a high tolerance for dissimilar accounts. However, once we get into the second century, forgeries quickly appear, but few dare to tamper with the older, widely distributed documents.

Besides, Peter repented, referred to Paul as; "our beloved brother", used some of Paul's epistles, and basically regarded Paul as misunderstood by the ignorant. IMO, much more has been made of this quibble than is warranted.

Stop me if you've heard this one: 2 Peter is a forgery. This is an unequivocal fact. 2 Peter is a second century attempt to produce a sanitized version of Jude. Since Jude makes reference to extra-canonical texts like Enoch, someone attempted to "fix" it, and put an approving mention of Paul into Peter's mouth at the same time. The Church Fathers were very skeptical of this document.

I find it interesting that we should depict the NT writers as "anti-Jewish". Using this logic, we should conclude of course that Isaiah was also ... What of Malachi? He was certainly cruel enough. Was he also "anti-Jewish"? In fact, by these standards it would seem that almost all OT figures would be viewed as "anti-Jewish" including Ezekiel and even Moses.

Of course a prophet would harshly criticize his generation: the very reason God would sent a prophet is because the people have gone astray.

When I say anti-Jewish, I mean something different for each writer. Paul could more accurately be described as anti-Judaism: he expected converted Jews to abandon the Torah entirely. This was the reason James the Just hated him so much. No one cared about whether the Gentiles followed the Torah, since the tradition of the Righteous Gentile was already a feature of Second Temple Judaism. He was pissed because Paul was calling for Jews to abandon the Torah.

I label Matthew as anti-Jewish for an entirely different reason. Matthew was a member of a community that was expelled from the synagogues for heresy. He struck back with the totally fictitious "blood-libel."

Lastly, Acts presents such a caricature of Jews as to be ridiculous. Paul can barely walk from town to town without a mob of Jews threatening to stone him.

I'd be interested in seeing more information on this.

I'll see if I can dig up a credible source.

I disagree. I see absolutely no problem at all between the letter of James and the letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 2:15 “We, being Jews by nature, and not Gentile sinners, 2:16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the law."

James: "2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him? 2:15 And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, 2:16 and one of you tells them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled;” and yet you didn’t give them the things the body needs, what good is it? 2:17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. 2:18 Yes, a man will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith."

"Salvation by faith" is a Pauline invention, not a teaching of Jesus himself.

I suspect our views on this issue are irreconcilable.

Probably.

[ebuddy]

Been away. I'll get back.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Stop me if you've heard this one: 2 Peter is a forgery. This is an unequivocal fact. 2 Peter is a second century attempt to produce a sanitized version of Jude. Since Jude makes reference to extra-canonical texts like Enoch, someone attempted to "fix" it, and put an approving mention of Paul into Peter's mouth at the same time. The Church Fathers were very skeptical of this document.

I don't agree with the certainty against its authorship. I'm not going to suggest to you there are no "problems" with this text, but I would like to temper any degree of certainty with at least some perspective.

Pantaenus would have been bamboozled by a young hoax. His successor Clement also if dated as late as generally supposed. Irenaeus cites who is thought to be Papias (early second century). The content bears similarity to Aristides’ Apology, (as early as 120AD?). Many argue that if you take the combined merit of external evidence alone, you'd include 2 Peter today. I mean, why not include Barnabas? While the usage of verses in both Jude and 2 Peter are unmistakable, I don't see why this necessitates the indictment of "sanitization". What in Jude requires clean-up? After all, even Paul used pagan poetry in his writings.

When I say anti-Jewish, I mean something different for each writer. Paul could more accurately be described as anti-Judaism: he expected converted Jews to abandon the Torah entirely. This was the reason James the Just hated him so much. No one cared about whether the Gentiles followed the Torah, since the tradition of the Righteous Gentile was already a feature of Second Temple Judaism. He was pissed because Paul was calling for Jews to abandon the Torah.

Several problems with this;

- He did not expect converted Jews to abandon the Torah. 1 Corinthians 7:18; Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. He was born into Judaism. In Acts he accompanies other men in purification rites. In Acts 24:17-18 he is purified under the ritual of Law. I have no problem, given Paul's testimony of his persecution of Christians, that his perspective was most unique among the apostles. He knew first-hand of his own heart while under the Law and while in observance, believed himself a sinner. In many respects, his message differs little from Jesus' own against those who know and preach, but do not practice in accordance. This is reverence to Law and not God. You could say "the Spirit of the Law". He claims to have been called by God to preach to Gentiles, with a host of their own issues regarding the Laws of Judaism as non-Jews. His perspective is not surprising and IMO cannot be characterized in any form or fashion as "anti-Judaism".
- IMO, the supposed disconnect, worse; the conflict between James and Paul has become an excitably bloated mess. In some respects, it seeks to drive a further wedge between the early Church and Judaism. In other respects, it is the result of Martin Luther having tainted the view of James to accommodate his own presupposition and to marginalize the Old Testament. There is simply nothing Scriptural, nor historical that suggests James the Just "hated" Paul. In fact, IMO it is merely convenient to say "James hated Paul" because clearly Paul did not see it this way at all. Galatians 1:17 and Galatians 2:9. Also, 1 Corinthians 9:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:7–9. New scholarship on the relationship between the two shows simply a different perspective. The OT and NT work in complete harmony with one another. Full appreciation of Scripture requires exhaustive study in both the Old and New. Both Galatians 5:13–14 and James 2:8–9 indicate this fact as well as Acts 1:8 and Romans 1:16. These comprise the shared perspectives of all the NT figures and it becomes patently apparent to me that the only difference between these men is their audience.

I label Matthew as anti-Jewish for an entirely different reason. Matthew was a member of a community that was expelled from the synagogues for heresy. He struck back with the totally fictitious "blood-libel."

As you know, "blood libel" was used against Christians by the Romans also indicting them for using wine as representing blood. The connection here between this ideology and Matthew are not founded IMO. From what I've read, this projection seems to stem from Matthew 27:25; Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Contemporaries attributed "blood libel" to a Christian work in order to persecute Jews, but is this Matthew's fault? No.

Sin put Jesus on the cross, not Jews. The entire purpose of Jesus' life was to mend the broken relationship between God and man by sin through perfect sacrifice. In light of the central theme of Scripture, it would make no sense at all to attribute a "curse" to all of one race. It would likewise make no sense in an "anti-Jewish" text to include But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.; Matthew 27:20. This was an indictment against a hypocritical establishment-elite, not Jews themselves or Judaism. What contemporaries do with Scripture for their own agendas is human nature, not Matthew nor Scripture. This was so then just as it is today.

Lastly, Acts presents such a caricature of Jews as to be ridiculous. Paul can barely walk from town to town without a mob of Jews threatening to stone him.

First of all, Paul is scarcely mentioned at all until Acts 13.
- in Acts 13:1-52; you have Paul preaching salvation and getting expelled because of the sheer number of those who gathered to hear the Word. I see no "threatening to stone them".
- in Acts 14, we see that "a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed."

Ya know, I was going to go from chapter 14 of Acts all the way to chapter 28, highlighting instances of verses that contradict your view such as those having invited Paul into their home in chapter 15 and in fact it was the Romans who dragged them before the authorities, etc... but this is not necessary. You know this stuff. Ours are simply different perspectives. You see Acts as a compilation of Jewish hatred against Paul when in fact there are more instances in Acts indicating acceptance of Paul's message among Jews and as much disdain for Paul's message among gentiles. Acts is about evangelism and the difficulties of it as well as the rewards of it. They use Jews, gentiles, and leadership both for and against throughout all of it to make this point. That you would latch on to the view you have is not surprising, but I dare say not wholly accurate or even logical IMO.

Galatians 2:15 “We, being Jews by nature, and not Gentile sinners, 2:16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the law."

James: "2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him? 2:15 And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, 2:16 and one of you tells them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled;” and yet you didn’t give them the things the body needs, what good is it? 2:17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. 2:18 Yes, a man will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith."

When you take all of James in context, you have an entirely different perspective IMO. There's no need to say either faith alone or works alone is the key to salvation. You see from above that James uses "alone" while Paul does not. Furthermore, Paul's focus is on Law while James is on "works". Simply put, Scripture indicates that one manifests as the honest result of the other. James was simply indicting those for claiming they have faith, but do not live it. Logically, even satan himself has faith in God and James mentions this as well as Paul quoting from Romans 4:3.

*As an interesting aside, I recently read that Paul actually used the Greek word for "alone" more than any other NT writer and used various versions of the word "faith" over 200 times in his epistles, but never once mentioned the two together. Paul, being generally quite clear was either sufficiently vague, confused in the concept, or more has been made of this "contradiction" than is justified. IMO, the latter is the case.

"Salvation by faith" is a Pauline invention, not a teaching of Jesus himself.

I disagree.

[lpkmckenna]

I completely forgot about this thread.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While the usage of verses in both Jude and 2 Peter are unmistakable, I don't see why this necessitates the indictment of "sanitization". What in Jude requires clean-up? After all, even Paul used pagan poetry in his writings.

Jude makes reference to 1 Enoch and Assumption of Moses.

He did not expect converted Jews to abandon the Torah. 1 Corinthians 7:18; Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

This little quote proves my point, not yours. Essentially, if a child is raised Christian, he must not be circumcised, says Paul. That is calling for abandonment of the practice by Jewish Christians.

In many respects, his message differs little from Jesus' own against those who know and preach, but do not practice in accordance.

I agree with you here. In regards to Torah-observance, Jesus very radical, especially since he preached an end to ritual purity codes and dietary codes. James and his followers do not. This, of course, is why Jesus' brothers were side-lined in Mark's narrative.

IMO, the supposed disconnect, worse; the conflict between James and Paul has become an excitably bloated mess. In some respects, it seeks to drive a further wedge between the early Church and Judaism. In other respects, it is the result of Martin Luther having tainted the view of James to accommodate his own presupposition and to marginalize the Old Testament. There is simply nothing Scriptural, nor historical that suggests James the Just "hated" Paul. In fact, IMO it is merely convenient to say "James hated Paul" because clearly Paul did not see it this way at all. Galatians 1:17 and Galatians 2:9. Also, 1 Corinthians 9:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:7–9. New scholarship on the relationship between the two shows simply a different perspective. The OT and NT work in complete harmony with one another. Full appreciation of Scripture requires exhaustive study in both the Old and New. Both Galatians 5:13–14 and James 2:8–9 indicate this fact as well as Acts 1:8 and Romans 1:16. These comprise the shared perspectives of all the NT figures and it becomes patently apparent to me that the only difference between these men is their audience.

I think you're wrong here. I think Paul finally agrees to limit his preaching to the Gentiles to establish peace between the two men.

As you know, "blood libel" was used against Christians by the Romans also indicting them for using wine as representing blood. The connection here between this ideology and Matthew are not founded IMO. From what I've read, this projection seems to stem from Matthew 27:25; Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Contemporaries attributed "blood libel" to a Christian work in order to persecute Jews, but is this Matthew's fault? No.

You've missed my point entirely. Matthew utters a curse against the Jews and puts it in their own mouths. Very unChristian, IMHO.

In light of the central theme of Scripture, it would make no sense at all to attribute a "curse" to all of one race. It would likewise make no sense in an "anti-Jewish" text to include But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.; Matthew 27:20. This was an indictment against a hypocritical establishment-elite, not Jews themselves or Judaism.

Hate never makes sense.

What contemporaries do with Scripture for their own agendas is human nature, not Matthew nor Scripture. This was so then just as it is today.

Just so I'm clear: Matthew himself did have an agenda - to get back at the people who expelled them from the synagogues.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This little quote proves my point, not yours. Essentially, if a child is raised Christian, he must not be circumcised, says Paul. That is calling for abandonment of the practice by Jewish Christians.

One cannot be "uncircumcised". I think there is a reason both are mentioned in contrast. Again, this follows from a man having lived under the Law, remained in ritual practice, and yet persecuted those who followed one he would later deem our Savior, also under the Law. IMO, his message is merely an indictment against "legalism", not Law itself and is more consistent with the entirety of Scripture.

You've missed my point entirely. Matthew utters a curse against the Jews and puts it in their own mouths. Very unChristian, IMHO.

IMO, you have to climb huge mountains to view it this way. You'd have to deny Jesus' messianic mission on earth in conflict with the entirety of Scripture, notably the NT. I see the "curse" you mention as nothing more than simply consistent with a deep-seeded Mosaic philosophy of individual responsibility. Man was made in God's image etc... or subject to death as the "soul that sinneth" in Ezekiel 18. When taken in context it is crystal clear (to me at least) that Jesus' blood is upon all of us and our children. While many under Christian auspice have tried to hold Jews peculiarly liable for Jesus' death as part of their own agendas, the overall messages of the NT writers has remained intact thankfully. At least for me, from all those I've read, and those with whom I worship.

Again, I think we're just at an irreconcilable point here. In that, I can see why this thread would seem forgettable.