reply to post by jmdewey60
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.
The word "godhead" is not in the bible... 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
The only way one can arrive at such conclusions is by listening to what others say...
The others being "preachers"... IF one has no influences from said preachers... one would never arrive at the conclusion that there is a trinity by
reading the bible... as I've said that was added to the religion 200+ some odd years later.
Can you cite what that "outside influence" is that you believe created the idea of the divinity of Jesus?
I didn't say there was an outside influence which created his divinity... His divinity was never in question...
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.
Obviously you know where the "God in the flesh" idea came from... The mind of John, not the words of Jesus
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.
Basically saying we are all literally gods... which can be referenced by Jesus quoting Psalm 82... Now I've also heard the argument where that
particular passage is referring to the kings of the world... so its argued that they only are children of God... which personally I think is a giant
load of you know what...
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.
Regardless... as I've said previously... Godhead is not a term from that time... Nor is trinity
Offer up your own definition of a person. I would say it is someone who is conscious of being an individual.
Personally I would say that and add something that is flesh and bone... Not pure spirit
That is why the Gospel of John was written, to make sure no one misses the fact that Jesus was God
I've heard lots of reasons that Christians give as to why John was written, and I don't agree with any of them... Some say it was written to refute
the Gnostics as well... Personally I believe John was written because there were very few people who actually knew Jesus left in the world... and
John wanted to leave his testimony of him before he died...
It most definitely was not written to make sure people knew he was God... because the book refutes the idea more then any other gospel. And the words
of one follower (Thomas) doesn't clear anything up...
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.
Actually I think this Yahweh character was a "fallen" angel... posing as God... Possibly "the god of the dead" which Jesus spoke of...
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.
I highly doubt it... As you just said, his letters ARE the founding documents of the religion... Not the gospels, they seem to be a side note.
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.
Does that mean Judaism is dead?
There is only a couple of teachings by Jesus that could be considered peculiar to him. All of those are in Paul's writings
Yet he wrote about none of is actual teachings... aside from symbolic rituals... which he learned about from the actual followers of Jesus.
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
Nope... as I've said before, I use 4 books from the bible... I don't consider acts anything more then a story...
Speaking of which... 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?
edit on 10-4-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)