It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw
Can't really get into all of that since I don't believe in the building blocks of it, to start with, so could never agree with the conclusion built out of them, no matter what it might be.
I thought i made it somewhat clear that the 4 elements wind fire water and earth all get streched apart and ripped into black energy, it pulls it into a singularity.
I'm not talking about it being as old as the writing of Isaiah.
I'm talking about as old as the actual events, as in the formation of the church by the disciples. By the time the gospels were written, decades later, the idea that Jesus was part of the godhead would have been already entrenched.
Can you cite what that "outside influence" is that you believe created the idea of the divinity of Jesus?
There are people who try to say that the New Testament says that, by taking the end of verse 15 and adding it to the middle of verse 16 (while skipping the beginning) in 1 Timothy 3, to make basically a new verse that superficially looks like it says that.
More than that, Jesus said he was sent "out from the Father", and means to me that he was at one time 'part' of God, literally an offspring. If that does not make you god, then I don't know what does.
I don't know about "created" but where it was articulated was in Colossians, where it is describing Jesus as being completely qualified, and lacking nothing that would make him a competent member of the godhead.
Offer up your own definition of a person. I would say it is someone who is conscious of being an individual.
That is why the Gospel of John was written, to make sure no one misses the fact that Jesus was God
the Old Testament sense, where you had this angel, Yahweh, the OT calls him, going around talking as if he was God Himself.
If you want to say this Yahweh character is or was God, then so is Jesus because he is filling the same role, talking for God, and representing God, and making it known that there is no other way to God but through him.
If Paul "invented" Christianity, as you claim, then how could he have not had a hand in writing the Gospels? Those are the founding documents of the Christian religion.
It's the doom of Judaism, who had their chance and failed, to be replaced by a new group to enter God's Kingdom, the one he was commissioning through his disciples. The gospels serve that purpose to pronounce judgment on the system that was to fade away and to be abandoned by God.
There is only a couple of teachings by Jesus that could be considered peculiar to him. All of those are in Paul's writings
I think that the reason that you believe that is because whether you admit it to yourself or not, you believe that Acts is real history.
OK, then there is no book that Christianity was copied from.
There would have to be such a book in order for there to be a plagiarism that 'Christianity' was guilty of.
You could use another way of describing what you believe, that if you were to look through thousands of documents, you could take little scraps of text from here and there and organize them in such a way as to seem rather similar to Christianity.
Originally posted by mlcaponi
reply to post by Akragon
@Akragon From my understanding of your posts, you are presenting the same argument as I am in supporting the trinity but using the way the bible and the teachings were interpreted at the time Jesus and shortly thereafter, If I am missing something please let me know.
The word "godhead" is not in the bible...
I already explained the "God in the flesh" as a deliberate misinterpretation.
Also theres nothing in the entire book that says the Messiah will be God in the flesh or part of any tri-unity of the ONE God.
Furthermore there is nothing that says the Holy spirit is part of said Godhead or trinity of this One God who is actually three...
See comment above.
... one would never arrive at the conclusion that there is a trinity by reading the bible...
I don't know what you are talking about. "God in the flesh" sounds weird to me and I don't think the Bible teaches that.
Obviously you know where the "God in the flesh" idea came from... The mind of John, not the words of Jesus
No. That is not what I meant at all. I said that Jesus said that he came "out" of the Father.
Basically saying we are all literally gods... which can be referenced by Jesus quoting Psalm 82...
The word, godhead, is English, it is a translation from the Greek.
... Godhead is not a term from that time...
That is not the definition of 'person' when it was decided that there were three persons in the Trinity. To understand the church's doctrine, you have to accept their definitions long enough to get through the document.
something that is flesh and bone...
I think what goes by that name today is something quite different than what ended. That was the idea that a god called Yahweh lived in a building on Zion and had to be served by priests and given offerings to.
Does that mean Judaism is dead?
What did he leave out, and how do you know he had to learn those from Jesus' disciples?
Yet he wrote about none of his actual teachings... aside from symbolic rituals... which he learned about from the actual followers of Jesus.
I explained that, where it is found in two forms in the Greek and it comes out the same in the English translation. In the case you mention, it is the one that is a spirit which happens to be holy.
.. Its said from acts that the "holy spirit" came to the apostles, and they started speaking in tongues etc etc.... was it a person that came to them and presented himself, or was it the wind as it actually says?