Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Right? view on the Holy Trinity.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen
 

Paul published the New Testament? Are you kidding me?
No.
I am not kidding.
The original New Testament was Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians, based on the oldest NT manuscripts and how they were constructed and the order of the individual books in them.

Again, I seriously question where you are getting your history from.

The first attempt at a New Testament canon was by Marcion, about sixty years after Paul died, and his consisted of Paul's letters, along with a redacted version of Luke. The first orthodox Christian canon we know of, likely produced in response to Marcion, was the Muratorian fragment, from about 170AD, and it includes the four Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, Jude, 1 John, Revelation of John and the Apocalypse of Peter.

Prior to those, there was never an attempt to codify scripture, I've never heard of a canon such as you claim, and Paul wrote letters which were intended for their recipients, and it is unclear as to whether he would have been in favour of them being duplicated and put into general circulation.

Paul did not publish the New Testament. That is simply ridiculous.




posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Paul did a lot of writing int New Testament, but to say he's solely responsible for it?


I've always said, this information is out there, and has been answered in ways better than I can. Perhaps this will help, if you have the time:



Something to consider; how many books does your Bible have?

The oldest documented occurrence of the word "Catholic" is around 110 AD. Now, that doesn't mean that 110 AD is when that word was used for the first time ever. This can explain it:



Now, what were we called before Catholic? Well, I think that's been answered already!



Originally Christians weren’t even called Christians. They were called "disciples" (i.e., "students") of Jesus of Nazareth. Later, in the city of Antioch, they received the name "Christians" (Acts 11:26). This probably happened in the A.D. 30s. This term spread very quickly—probably to the chagrin of those Jewish individuals who did not wish to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah (Christ).

Ultimately, however, different groups began to break off from the Christian community, falling into either heresy or schism. These groups still wished to represent themselves as Christian—and many of them were, retaining valid baptism and a profession of faith in Christ. Consequently, a new word was needed to distinguish the Christians belonging to the Church that Christ founded from those belonging to the churches that had split off from it.

The term that was picked was kataholos, which means according to the whole or universal in Greek. The thought was apparently that these were Christians who believed and practiced according to what body of Christians as a whole did, in contrast to what some particular group thought or did. Over the course of time, kataholos came to be represented by the parallel English word "Catholic."

Ignatius of Antioch did not introduce kataholos. However, his letters contain the earliest known uses of it. It may well have been used in other Christian writings prior to this, but we have simply lost them. It certainly was in general use in speech before this point, because Ignatius writes in such a way that he already expects his readers to know this term and what it means. He also uses the term in more than one of his letters, meaning that he expects people in more than one place to know the term.

This indicates that in his day—at the beginning of the second century (circa A.D. 107)—the term was already in widespread use. For it to be used in such a broad manner, it would have required some time to pass into currency in the Christian community, meaning that the term probably was coined sometime in the second half of the first century. We don’t know who first used it, but it was a suitable description of the Church Christ founded and so was already in general use by the time Ignatius wrote.
source

As adjensen asked you, are you familiar with Church history at all?
edit on 4/30/2013 by IsidoreOfSeville because: typo



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My point was that the Catholic Church regards its own opinions over the NT, so doesn't bother interpreting it.


It's own opinions? You must be referring to Sacred Tradition. Again, this has already been answered:


In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
source

So, in a sense you can say we don't play strictly by the book.


Cheers.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

. . . and his consisted of Paul's letters, along with . . .

That was what the New Testament consisted of before Marcion.

. . . I've never heard of a canon such as you claim . . .
That wasn't my claim.
edit on 30-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by greyer

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
There was a reason the teachings were parables (mass produced to affect anyone that could decifer their en-coding almost like a billboard slogan). Think of it as hooks dropped in a river baited with happenstance (we caught one) what specie eats this? Oh the one that fears God? Or a fish, or a swallowing of the highest upon the high. Jinks was shillifying trying to get more time to qualify its existance EXIT strategy, thats all and his skin was not saved to its satifaction. Jesus has problems regarding its betrayal, who could blame it. This man god is very unhappy, has anyone spoken to it lately?


No, during the betrayal Jesus knew that it was actually a divine purpose.


No, you have no idea the PTSD disorder Jesus is experiencing now. He thought Barrabas was the sacrifice, not himself the lamb. The lamb was a metaphor for not objecting to his arrest and mistreatment. Believe me had he known the ultimate outcome of his fate he would have roared as a LION and fullfilled the prophecy of Judaic Law in overthowing Roman rule. He was hoodwinked, tricked and at this point in time is an ATHEIST. He hates his God Father.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen
 

. . . and his consisted of Paul's letters, along with . . .

That was what the New Testament consisted of before Marcion.

There was no such thing.

The church, at that point, was not coalesced around scripture, and there was no such canon.

What is your historical evidence that there was a limited New Testament canon that preceded Marcion?



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

There was no such thing.
Are you kidding?

The church, at that point, was not coalesced around scripture, and there was no such canon.
Based on what? So Paul was writing letters to the churches and no one paid any attention to them? You are really in some sort of cult induced dream world.

What is your historical evidence that there was a limited New Testament canon that preceded Marcion?
The evidence of the physical books.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
They are one thing but not one thing. They are three things but not three things.

^^ That's almost a word for word quote of the OP.

How do you have a correct view of something that does not exist?

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one . . . But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe."

Thomas Jefferson, to John Adams



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


lol, thanks for starting my day off with a big joke. I don't know how in a million years you would ever expect me to think or believe that. Unfortunately I stay focused on tangible things that mean something in the world called earth, please come back to it.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen
 

There was no such thing.
Are you kidding?

The church, at that point, was not coalesced around scripture, and there was no such canon.
Based on what? So Paul was writing letters to the churches and no one paid any attention to them? You are really in some sort of cult induced dream world.

What is your historical evidence that there was a limited New Testament canon that preceded Marcion?
The evidence of the physical books.

What physical books?

Geez, Dewey, put your brain back into the 1st Century. There were no "publishers", apart from the government, in a sense -- the vast majority of the populace, even in urban areas, was illiterate. Writing supplies were scarce and expensive, and scribes were hard to come by.

Paul wrote one physical letter to the Romans (for example,) which was preserved and later copied by people at the church of Rome to give to people in other churches. Eventually enough copies were in circulation that they are preserved to this day. It is very likely that Paul wrote many other letters to the churches that he founded, but they were not preserved and are lost to us now.

When the canon was developed, this was one of the key reasons for including a text in the New Testament -- it had to be in general circulation to be considered for inclusion.

That's what I meant about Paul maybe not even thinking that the inclusion of his letters would be appropriate for scripture -- it happened at least a hundred years after he died and, unlike John or Jude, Paul's letters were written for a specific reason, to a specific church or person, so it's tough to say that he would agree that they were universally applicable.

Paul did not live in the 20th Century, with email and instant messaging, and it is ludicrous to say that his letters found their way throughout the Christian world even within the span of a decade. Understand history in its context, or don't bother trying to discuss historical facts.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Paul wrote one physical letter to the Romans (for example,) which was preserved and later copied by people at the church of Rome to give to people in other churches.
This is what I mean when I talk about cult beliefs.
This is a myth by the Catholic Church.
Do you really think Paul only had one copy of the Letter to the Romans made?
Where is your head?
You can't see that this is a cult invention to give themselves validation, where only they have the truth and are guided by God, while everyone else is wallowing in ignorance and error?
He would have made at least two copies in case of shipwreck, or something, while it is being transported. they didn't have Federal Express back then.

That's what I meant about Paul maybe not even thinking that the inclusion of his letters would be appropriate for scripture -- it happened at least a hundred years after he died . . .
The people did not have the same sort of standard of scripture as we would have today, if someone all of a sudden produced a book and wanted it included in the canon. The canon is an invention of institutions.
So this is just more cult propaganda that somehow Paul's writings just sat on a shelf unread, until the Catholic Church made a proclamation that it is from now on in the New Testament.
You need to read some books about the Bible rather than just absorbing cult brainwashing.

Understand history in its context, or don't bother trying to discuss historical facts.
I'm studying history books about the Bible, while you are spouting partisan rhetoric and saying I don't understand history.
edit on 1-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
He would have made at least two copies in case of shipwreck, or something, while it is being transported. they didn't have Federal Express back then.

You have no way of knowing that, and even if that was the case, writing two copies of the same letter is a far cry from "publishing" them. He wrote the letter to the Romans, sent it to them, and there is no indication that he told them to pass it around afterward.

I don't know where you keep coming up with this "cult teaching" nonsense -- the historical record is what it is. You apparently have adopted Elaine Pagels' bad habit of dismissing history that doesn't comply with what you would like it to be, and flat out making things up when necessary.

There was no canon before Marcion, that is an historical fact. In the First and Second centuries, different churches used different texts, though many were in common and became more so as time went by. Those texts which were commonly held, which had an Apostolic connection, and which were in harmony with existing scripture eventually become the New Testament.


while you are spouting partisan rhetoric and saying I don't understand history.

No, I am relating historical facts, and, as a trained historian, I can very plainly see that you don't understand history.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

You have no way of knowing that, and even if that was the case, writing two copies of the same letter is a far cry from "publishing" them.
Your claim that the letters of Paul sat in the Vatican vault until there was a council to put them in the canon is a "far cry" from that, too.
That was my starting argument against your claim that there were no copies.
If you accept that there was at least one copy, then logic would suggest that the one copy could be made into more, until there was a general distribution of copies wherever there was a demand for them.

There was no canon before Marcion, that is an historical fact.
This is rather tiring repeating myself over and over.
My earlier point is there was no necessity for a canon until there was a hierarchical structure to enforce it, and the imperial sanction to commit any amount of violence deemed necessary to carry it out.
If Paul said, "Make copies of these four letters and send one each, of a bound book, to these cities", no one is going to demand that they be first included in a canon. They would have just done it, and when people received them, they would say, "This is a new testament", and so the tradition was born.

No, I am relating historical facts, and, as a trained historian, I can very plainly see that you don't understand history.
Obviously, you were not "trained" in biblical history.
edit on 1-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen
 

You have no way of knowing that, and even if that was the case, writing two copies of the same letter is a far cry from "publishing" them.
Your claim that the letters of Paul sat in the Vatican vault until there was a council to put them in the canon is a "far cry" from that, too.

What? I never said that.


If you accept that there was at least one copy, then logic would suggest that the one copy could be made into more, until there was a general distribution of copies wherever there was a demand for them.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID HAPPENED! Geez, can't you read?

What I said, in response to you claiming that Paul "wrote and published the New Testament," is that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that Paul did anything apart from write most of the letters credited to him, and it is likely that he wrote others we no longer have, and someone else, decades later, determined that they were books that were representative of orthodox Christianity and were included in standardized scripture.

When Paul talks about scripture, he's referring to the Hebrew Bible, not his own letters.


My earlier point is there was no necessity for a canon until there was a hierarchical structure to enforce it, and the imperial sanction to commit any amount of violence deemed necessary to carry it out.

Again, go back and read the thread -- you said there was a canon, and it included a handful of Paul's letters and nothing else.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


lol, thanks for starting my day off with a big joke. I don't know how in a million years you would ever expect me to think or believe that. Unfortunately I stay focused on tangible things that mean something in the world called earth, please come back to it.


Not understanding your mis-understanding. Not a joke at all. Jesus has PTSD in the worst way, betrayal by its own God Source, not his human Mother/could have been her brother as young as she was, jury still out on the mysterious 'Gabriel/Father' as an ill defined thing if that is true Mary was/could have been impregnated by her father. Try to stay focused on the tangible? they are the grave untruths and you, like so many are hoodwinked. The obvious is there if you rationalized with logic and reason. I am of this earth as well, live here and try to understand its inanities (none of which make any sense). A am happy for your unfortunateness as you seem very comfortable and resplendent in that element. If Jesus is such a relegated figure in history, why would you NOT think he reincarnated and is living amongst us today, to waste a spirit as grand, would of course come back as another, to your mind perhaps a second coming----NO far from it, suffering in his ill concieved portrail of a Gods Son.
edit on 1-5-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID HAPPENED! Geez, can't you read?
You were saying that the only people able to make copies of Paul's letters was the Catholic Church.
I'm saying that the person who wrote those letters, himself, was able to do it, something that you denied.

. . . someone else, decades later, determined that they were books that were representative of orthodox Christianity and were included in standardized scripture.
My proposition is that the author, Paul, had letters, which were actual letters to particular people, at specific churches, and "standardized" them himself, and collected the most useful ones, with was Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians, and had them bound, in that order, the same order in which they are found in the New Testament today, in books, to be sent out to certain cities, and most importantly, to Jerusalem. This is born out by the surviving oldest New Testaments known to current biblical scholarship.

I should note that though in this thread, I was proposing something, it is not originally my proposal, but something I was introducing, which I got from a book,
Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins, by David Trobisch

Again, go back and read the thread -- you said there was a canon, and it included a handful of Paul's letters and nothing else.
Whatever, I'm not obsessed with being "right" on a forum. If I did say that, I think you probably misconstrued it, or maybe I made a mistake in typing it out, where I was thinking something else. I do that all the time and try to go back and fix mistakes but a lot get through anyway.
edit on 2-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville

Originally posted by MrBigDave

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville

Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong, Christ was the son of God. Because he not only never said that he was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3.


Did you not read all of John? Did you forget about John 10:30?


Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong! It WAS an attempt to unify the population around a combined religion. It is ignorant to just accept what the RCC tells you.


Consider this; also in John 17:20-22 Jesus prays that we all should be one. How can we call be one if we each have our own understanding of the Word? Which is more ignorant friend; following THE institution that Christ himself founded at Pentecost in 33 AD which Christ Himself said the gates of Hades would not prevail against, or an individual (or many individuals) interpretation of scripture?

God bless you.


I have read all of John, and I think that maybe your concept of "one" is off. If Jesus is God because his is "one" with the father, then we are are also God because we are one with Christ and by proxy "one" with God.

[20] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; [21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: - Jhn 17:20-22 KJV


Alrighty, I have no problem being corrected.
So, how would you interpret that scripture?

And there is no "if." Jesus IS God.
Jesus said so Himself.


United. I think that Jesus and God are united because God was in Jesus. And if Jesus is in us then we are also "United" with God.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


I would 'not' think because I only claim to know what mother nature shows me.

There is no claim I would make of anything that would seem out of this world, besides the US government covering up the existence of beings from out of this world of course.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


I would 'not' think because I only claim to know what mother nature shows me.

There is no claim I would make of anything that would seem out of this world, besides the US government covering up the existence of beings from out of this world of course.


What is that phrase "Do not Mess With Mother Nature" and if she is talking to you kudos. I have all kinds of ideas and thoughts greyer spit out the words see where they land and wonder if a response is forthcoming. You know what? even as garble messaging poetry IT WORKS in the best and most surprising and interesting ways; almost as if there is a filament as slender as a silk thread that is trying to connect underneath the top heavy dialoge happening communication. I do love the little green men theory, why? because they arent green. Watch all of the faces turn grey/white if you mention such a thing in a hallway at what used to be Hughes Aircraft (hilarious).
edit on 3-5-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

What is that phrase "Do not Mess With Mother Nature" and if she is talking to you kudos. I have all kinds of ideas and thoughts greyer spit out the words see where they land and wonder if a response is forthcoming. You know what? even as garble messaging poetry IT WORKS in the best and most surprising and interesting ways;


Oh yes, the words describing nature and spirit, not as powerful as the big word but an endless flow of understanding and love. There must be the truth out there, not in existence, but in discerning without learning. I mean we cannot learn everything but we must know everything. Shame of my Godmother for saying those Buddhists will go to hell because they don't follow Jesus, when they didn't have the chance to learn about Jesus, they didn't have the chance to even see what to follow. Not a forgiving God but a hypocrite God. The world is wrong, hate is wrong.


almost as if there is a filament as slender as a silk thread that is trying to connect underneath the top heavy dialoge happening communication. I do love the little green men theory, why? because they arent green. Watch all of the faces turn grey/white if you mention such a thing in a hallway at what used to be Hughes Aircraft (hilarious).


Lol! that is the most funny thing about Jesus, the Trinity and aliens. People have it all wrong. Aliens are not green but they are not even grey. So little do people know that the real accounts of aliens were actually white. So you have a world thinking the aliens are grey. You have a world thinking that Jesus wants them to sin.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join