And I agree the trinity isn't biblical... but how do you explain this?
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
You're essentially saying Jesus didn't say what is written in the biblical gospels...
I do not dispute the Great Commission, nor the reasonableness of the Trinity being inferred from things Jesus taught. What I challenge is that Jesus
taught the Trinity in so many words.
1: 4-5. There we see Jesus, on the point of Ascension, discussing baptisms, and all three persons of the Trinity are made salient
(Jesus speaking, Father and Holy Spirit are mentioned), but Jesus is not depicted as reciting the now-familiar Trinitarian baptismal formula.
I do not deny that the familiar formula is early, but I think it is Second Century, while I think that the originals of both Matthew
are First Century. Or, if the formula is in the original Matthew
, then I think it is not yet the universal church formula.
Either way, I don't think it is reliable that Jesus said those words, in that form, while on Earth.
Other views are possible, of course.
Note that this comparison would be an example of something I mentioned in an earlier post: the two accounts depict Jesus using similar words and
ideas, but he is saying two different things in the two tellings (literally the difference between "Get out there and do it" versus
for further guidance"). One of the two, then, needs at least a footnote, and in a rough coding (as red, pink, blue and black is a very rough coding),
one of them had better be black, IMO.
Jesus tricked the Romans into crucifying Simon of Cyrene, not him.
If I may add something which isn't news to you, but might be helpful to other readers just tuning in, the basis for the "Gnostic" theory is Basilides
of Alexandria's discovery of a grammatical peculiarity in Mark
, the Alexandrian Gospel of choice.
If you read the Passion, then there is no mention of the proper name Jesus after 15: 15 (Jesus is scourged) until 15: 34 (Jesus recites the opening of
Psalm 22). With a little wit about "Jesus breathing his last," then grammatically, you could resolve all the third person singular masculine pronouns
surrounding the Crucifixion as referring to Simon of Cyrene, who takes up "his" cross at 15: 21. You may also recall that Jesus had advised someone to
take up his cross and follow.
Obviously, I am not proposing this as a justified reading of Mark
's Passion. I am just explaining the apparent origin of the belief. The belief
is described as "Gnostic" because Basilides was a Gnostic, and the reading is attributed to him. Other Gnostics may have believed other things.
The last (114) of the book states:...
Pure Gnostic invention. The last even remotely possibly authentic saying of a historical Jesus is 113. Verse 114 isn't just in black, it's in black
with an explanation. Jesus might as well be being quoted as saying "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is next up as his Prophet - don't go
away!" as far as ease of recognition of another religion's interpolation.
Paul... who wasn't a fan of women either...
I see we disagree about that, too. Fortunately, we have our hands full with what Jesus might have said, and verse 114 isn't even close.
edit on 12-4-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)