Originally posted by RJHindsdaniel has nothing to do with the messiah or jesus. it's most likely an after-the-fact story telling of the maccabean revolt.
Have you ever heard of the prophecy of the "Seventy Sevens" that
Daniel receives from the Angel Gabriel that predicts the time when
the Messiah was to come and be cut off (killed)? (Daniel 9:24-27)
If you haven't and would like me to explain it let me know.
Originally posted by KunsooAdmittedly, the Trinity is a tough nut to crack. For me, the verses "I and the Father are One"---Christ, handles 2 out of three of the divine trinity. The Holy Spirit is a bit harder. Christ promised that he would send another--a comforter--after he left this earth, and I understand that to be the Holy Ghost. It's not really our conscious, tho to tell the truth, when I was younger it made it a lot easier to grasp! No, it's a real being, the 3rd part of the Holy Trinity that is God, that "lives in all believers". You'll not find the word Trinity in the Bible, but you won't find pedophile either, and I'm pretty sure God has strong feelings about them. But the Trinity is one of the many mysteries we just do not have the answer to this side of paradise.
I'm not talking about the authority conveyed as is the subject of the other thread. I'm referencing the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one entity. Is there anything in the Bible which is explicit on the subject?
Jehovah's Witnesses say no, as do a few other Christian sects. I've seen obscure references, but you would think that ...[text shortened]... esus is God, you cannot have grace.
Thoughts? Other passages I'm missing?
4 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
micah can't be talking about christ. after the coming of this person, "(3)Then at last his fellow countrymen will return from exile to their own land. "
then "(4)And he will stand to lead his flock with the LORD's strength, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. Then his people will live there undisturbed, for he will be highly honored around of the early christians increasing the legend of christ with each retelling of the tale.
the only conspiracy theory i see is one of the early christians increasing the legend of christ with each retelling of the tale.
Could you then take for us Matthew chapter five as a sample.
That is one chapter of 48 verses. Write numbers vertically from 1 - 48.
Mark O for original beside the authentic original statements of Jesus.
Then mark L for Legendary beside the additions.
You can also set beside the L (Legendary) verses the manuscript name evidencing that it was a latter amendation.
Then I can see the original verses and the timing of the accumation of embellishments.
If you cannot do this then I have to just take your word for it. I know you wouldn't want us to take a blind leap of faith of any kind.
So then, I hope your next post will catalogue for us the 48 verses of Matthew Five and show the original teachings distinct from the legendary additions, plus the manuscript proof of their latter addition.
Break the single verses up into sections A and B and C if you have legendary additions occuring in a single verse.
Any chapter in Matthew would do for this type of analysis.
Submit your textural proof.
Originally posted by jaywill
So then, I hope your next post will catalogue for us the 48 verses of Matthew Five and show the original teachings distinct from the legendary additions, plus the manuscript proof of their latter addition.
the last part makes your question unanswerable. you do realize that the earliest manuscripts are themselves legendary? no one knows where they are or what happened to them.
if you want proof of the growing legend of christ, you need only follow the history and answer these questions: how many manuscripts describing christ and his followers were rejected as non-canon? why were they rejected?
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritWe need to get Dasa over here to disqualify VoidSpirit as a questionerOriginally posted by jaywill
So then, I hope your next post will catalogue for us the 48 verses of Matthew Five and show the original teachings distinct from the legendary additions, plus the manuscript proof of their latter addition.
the last part makes your question unanswerable. you do realize that the earliest manuscr ...[text shortened]... scripts describing christ and his followers were rejected as non-canon? why were they rejected?
due to his attitude, like he did sonhouse. Dasa said to sunhouse,
"Your contemptuous fault finding manner disqualifies you from questioning."
Originally posted by VoidSpiritOriginally posted by jaywill
So then, I hope your next post will catalogue for us the 48 verses of Matthew Five and show the original teachings distinct from the legendary additions, plus the manuscript proof of their latter addition.
the last part makes your question unanswerable. you do realize that the earliest manuscr ...[text shortened]... scripts describing christ and his followers were rejected as non-canon? why were they rejected?
the last part makes your question unanswerable. you do realize that the earliest manuscripts are themselves legendary? no one knows where they are or what happened to them.
No I do not realize that. That is an assertion for which you have nothing to base the conclusion on.
If you have explain it. You can't just take a Hume like position that you know it is legendary because miracles do not happen.
So if you want to state that the is no way to examine factual to fictional degradation and that I have to assume the first is fictional, then I can reject as unproven that theory.
It is a leap of "faith", for lack of a better word, nothing more.
if you want proof of the growing legend of christ, you need only follow the history and answer these questions: how many manuscripts describing christ and his followers were rejected as non-canon? why were they rejected?
I would withdraw the request for the names of early MSS. It does have its problems. That could be used to notice copyist errors or embelishments. These things are cataloged by those who really care about it. There are thousands of copies of the New Testament in Greek, Latin, and other languages going back in time.
I would be happy for you to just take any substantial chapter of Matthew or John and show me the original lines and the legendary lines.
This goes back to an earlier comment. How do I know you haven't simply drawn a line between all you want to believe Jesus said and did and what you DON'T want to believe He said and did, and then assign the latter to LEGEND maliciously added to pull the wool over the reader's eyes ?
Maybe you are simply telling me more about your own personal preferences in taste to the NT teaching than about how the account developed.
Ie. "Okay I believe Jesus said something like the golden rule. I do not believe He said that He is the resurrection and the life."
Ie. "Okay, I believe that Jesus ate at the house of Simon the Leper. I do not believe that he healed ten lepers."
Ie. " Okay, I believe that they crucified Jesus. I do not believe that He said that this was the blood of the covenant poured out for the forgivness of sins."
Ie. " Okay, I believe that a group of fisherman from Galilee became unusually zealous to proclaim the Gospel Jesus preached. But I don't believe they did so because they saw Jesus risen from the dead."
Other than what you want to believe, how will you convince me you have a way to separate the authentic from the legendary message ?
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill
No I do not realize that. That is an assertion for which you have nothing to base the conclusion on.
i base it on scholarly evidence. the growing legend is so evident that bible scholars had to come up with a hypothetical source 'Q' to explain the presence of additional material in matthew and luke. but since no such document exists to be be cross-examined, i can't show it to you.
I would withdraw the request for the names of early MSS. It does have its problems. That could be used to notice copyist errors or embelishments. These things are cataloged by those who really care about it. There are thousands of copies of the New Testament in Greek, Latin, and other languages going back in time.
...
Other than what you want to believe, how will you convince me you have a way to separate the authentic from the legendary message ?[/b]
i don't care about copyist errors ( like the rage/pity confusion in mark). i notice that you didn't answer my questions. the fact is that there was many mss circulating around that were rejected as canon. they are proof of the growing legend of christ occurring in real time (back then!). we have early church fathers complaining about it and throwing accusations of heresy at each other.
irenaues in particular viciously attacks the gnostic movement and incidentally, he's the earliest known proponent of the 4 canonical gospels as we have them today. he had the particular interest of picking out which legends of christ he wanted to believe in and which ones he wanted to disappear.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI think he did a good job.Originally posted by jaywill
No I do not realize that. That is an assertion for which you have nothing to base the conclusion on.
i base it on scholarly evidence. the growing legend is so evident that bible scholars had to come up with a hypothetical source 'Q' to explain the presence of additional material in matthew and luke. ...[text shortened]... out which legends of christ he wanted to believe in and which ones he wanted to disappear.
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThe question you say I left unanswered.Originally posted by jaywill
So then, I hope your next post will catalogue for us the 48 verses of Matthew Five and show the original teachings distinct from the legendary additions, plus the manuscript proof of their latter addition.
the last part makes your question unanswerable. you do realize that the earliest manuscr ...[text shortened]... scripts describing christ and his followers were rejected as non-canon? why were they rejected?
if you want proof of the growing legend of christ, you need only follow the history and answer these questions: how many manuscripts describing christ and his followers were rejected as non-canon? why were they rejected?
Writings were rejected as not up to the standard of the canon. Letters, some authentic, some forgories, some very spiritual sounding, some perhaps with some interesting or even helpful teaching.
We know that many of these books were not deemed up to the standard of what was God speaking His inspired word to man. And the word "inspired" there is not a general word. ie. a song, a painting, a sermon was "inspired".
Now this matter seems to argue against your theory of the accumulate legend building. It seems to me that any and all or perhaps more material would be added.
Why not hear about Jesus the boy turning clay birds into real ones?
Why not hear about a huge wooden cross walking out of the tomb talking about the gospel being preached to the dead ?
Why not many and more weird things added on ? It did not pass the spiritual smell test, if you will.
Now this is off the cuff a bit as I am preparing to go out for my daily exercise. But the rejection of a material shows not any and all stuff written about the Master could just jump on the bandwagon of the canon. This argues, I think, against your legend building theory.
God did not inspire (in the proper theological sense) any Tom, Dick, or Harry's supposed "gospel" or letter or letter with a forged name (for legitimate or illegitimate rationals).
You may have been a high elder with a great eloquent sermon. Doesn't mean your sermon becomes part of the New Testament. So we have the Apochrapha and the Pseudopigrapha.
I think your Grand Legend building theory would argue that more rather than less spurious religious writings should have made their way into the New Testament.
I sense that you feel the need to sure up your skepticism by saying in essence "Well the whole writing was legendary even from the earliest material we have."
Originally posted by jaywill
Now this matter seems to argue against your theory of the accumulate legend building. It seems to me that any and all or perhaps more material would be added.
it does not argue against the legend theory, it supports it by showing that the legend of christ was rampant and someone needed to sort it out and manage it. then you throw in a meaningless phrase like "inspired" to lend authority the the parts of the legend they canonized.
Why not many and more weird things added on ? It did not pass the spiritual smell test, if you will.
indeed. neither do the rest of the scriptures, but that's besides the point. the point is that the legend was out of control in a relatively short time and there was a need for a canonized version to limit the expansion and come up with something the majority could agree on, after much debate and a very close vote.
Now this is off the cuff a bit as I am preparing to go out for my daily exercise. But the rejection of a material shows not any and all stuff written about the Master could just jump on the bandwagon of the canon. This argues, I think, against your legend building theory.
the legend theory only requires the presence of a legend and i have shown this conclusively. what managed to get the bandwagon was a matter of human argument, debate and voting.
God did not inspire (in the proper theological sense) any Tom, Dick, or Harry's supposed "gospel" or letter or letter with a forged name (for legitimate or illegitimate rationals).
the god inspired argument is completely irrelevant as you can not prove any such inspiration happened or where it came from. i could make a better argument that something had to be done to stem the out of control legend building of christ and they decided on a particular set of legends to keep the most amount of people happy.
I think your Grand Legend building theory would argue that more rather than less spurious religious writings should have made their way into the New Testament.
enough made it through.
I sense that you feel the need to sure up your skepticism by saying in essence "Well the whole writing was legendary even from the earliest material we have."
do you think i also need to shore up my skepticism by classifying thor, buddha, krishna, heracles, etc as legendary figures?
how much skepticism have you shored up?
Originally posted by VoidSpiritHaven't you convinced yourself by now? Why the need to go on and on?Originally posted by jaywill
Now this matter seems to argue against your theory of the accumulate legend building. It seems to me that any and all or perhaps more material would be added.
it does not argue against the legend theory, it supports it by showing that the legend of christ was rampant and someone needed to sort i ...[text shortened]... a, heracles, etc as legendary figures?
how much skepticism have you shored up?
9 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritOriginally posted by jaywill
Now this matter seems to argue against your theory of the accumulate legend building. It seems to me that any and all or perhaps more material would be added.
it does not argue against the legend theory, it supports it by showing that the legend of christ was rampant and someone needed to sort i a, heracles, etc as legendary figures?
how much skepticism have you shored up?
it does not argue against the legend theory, it supports it by showing that the legend of christ was rampant and someone needed to sort it out and manage it. then you throw in a meaningless phrase like "inspired" to lend authority the the parts of the legend they canonized.
You conveniently evaded the request to go through even one chapter and separate the authentic from the legendary. It is all legendary, is your reason.
"The legend was rampant." This is just your assertion with nothing to back it up.
indeed. neither do the rest of the scriptures, but that's besides the point. the point is that the legend was out of control in a relatively short time and there was a need for a canonized version to limit the expansion and come up with something the majority could agree on, after much debate and a very close vote.
"The legend was out of control" - pure assertion with nothing to substantiate it other than blatant prejudice.
the legend theory only requires the presence of a legend and i have shown this conclusively. what managed to get the bandwagon was a matter of human argument, debate and voting.
You have not demonstrated that what was present was legend.
How do you know Christ was not born of a virgin ?
How do you know He did not raise Lazarus from the dead ?
How do you know He did not tell Nicodemus "You must be born again" ?
the god inspired argument is completely irrelevant as you can not prove any such inspiration happened or where it came from.
Micah's prophecy was a supernatural foretelling. How did Jesus arrange His birth in Bethlehem so as to appear a very likely candidate for that prophecy ?
How did Jesus arrange His death so as to fall on the day the pascal lamb would have been sacrificed ? How did He stir up the opposition so it just happen to come to a boiling point of execution at that time ?
You may argue that everything confirming Christ's identity as Son of God and Messiah was fabricated after the fact. That requires a wild leap of faith more reckless than simply trusting the account.
i could make a better argument that something had to be done to stem the out of control legend building of christ and they decided on a particular set of legends to keep the most amount of people happy.
Why ? If you want a fantastical legend, the more material the better.
Here's some questions about legend building you can consider:
1.) In building a legend about Jesus and His disciples why would they portray themselves as dim-witted at times, failing to understand what Jesus was saying (Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 12:16)
Wouldn't a more convincing legend place the disciples as the very astute and wise intelligencia. Why would they risk people dismissing the story because they were dull at times ?
2.) In building a legend why would they portay themselves as uncaring about their Master - falling asleep pn Jesus twice when He asked them to pray (Mark 14:32-41)
Wouldn't the legend builders have a vested interest in always looking good ?
3.) In building a legend why would they expose themselves as having forsaken Jesus ?
4.) In building a legend why would the disciples expose that they didn't care enough to seek a proper burial ? A stranger, not one of the 12, had to do it.
Wouldn't they risk people saying they weren't good discples ?
5.) Why does their "legend" expose that they acted like cowards and hide themselves while Jesus was being crucified ?
This and many other details have a candidness about them which rings of realism and not legend.
Then things recorded about Jesus do not match the intent to build a legend.
1.) Would it help or hurt their cause to inform us that some of Jesus' own brothers did not believe in Him ?
That would hurt the legend. His own family didn't believe His claims.
2.) Would it help or hurt their cause to inform us that Jesus had a reputation as a madman ?
3.) How could telling us that some thought of Jesus as demon possessed put this "legend" in the more favorable light ?
"Well, if some thought Jesus had a demon, He must have been a really poor acting person."
4.) Why would the evangelists report that Jesus was accused of being a winebibber ?
Supporters of a political candidate would surely sweep scandelous rumors under the rug. That is if they wanted to build a legend
5.) Jesus is recorded calling His leading disciple Peter, "Satan" ! Why wouldn't they edit THAT out of the legend ? Doesn't put the chief disciple in such good light.
6.) Why record that the disciples were doubters ? I mean if His own discples were doubters why should the audience be so sure ?
Legend building would surely hush such material up. It is too scandelous.
7.) Deut 21:23 said "Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse"
If they wanted to portray Jesus as Messiah, why would they so disqualify Him by reporting that He was hung up on a cross ?
The "legend" should surely suppress scandelous accounts which give rise to Him being disqualified the office of Jewish Messiah.
8.) John wants to show Jesus as God become a man. Then WHY would John include a saying that Jesus said "The Father is greater than I" .
That seems to fly against the legend. Why didn't John edit that saying OUT ?
Why did not some latter editors edit that passage out ?
9.) Why would they include very DIFFICULT sayings of Jesus which neither they nor anyone else could perform - "Whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has commited adultery with her already in his heart."
Guys ? We're all through with being Jesus' disciples right there !
Why would the "legend" include difficult and problematic sayings of Jesus ?
10.) "Turn the other cheek" ? Why include in the "legend" actions which NO ONE is likely to be happy to perform ?
11.) If the gospel writers wanted to portray Jesus as pure why would they record that a street woman washed His feet with her hair ?
What supporters of a politician would allow such a scandal to reach a potential audience ? Its bad for legend building.
Legend builders would have NOT recounted these problematic passages if they wanted a smooth path to convincing people.
You boasted before that Atheists know the Bible better than believers. I have found that the Bible has an interesting effect on some people. The less they read it, the more they fancy themselves as experts on it.
Anyway, your legend building theory is not realistic given many details of the Gospels. The propogandist of fictional material would not introduce problematic material jeopardizing reputation of the Messiah legend or their own pristine authenticity.
Ie. We were rebuked by Jesus.
We didn't understand a lot of what He said.
We saved our own skins in cowardice.
We couldn't do a lot of the things He taught.
We were jealous of each other as to who would be the greatest.
It was the WOMEN who first witnessed his resurrection (EMBARRISSING!!)
We went back to our fishing career even after we knew He rose. (So much for absoluteness)
They thought He was a drunkard, a madman, demon possessed, and a prostitute got on her knees to wipe the Rabbi's feet with her hair. (SCANDAL!)
He was disqualified from being Messiah because of being hung on a tree.
The Word was God, became flesh, but He said the Father is greater than He.
He cried out "My God Why have you forsaken Me ?"
We didn't have the nerve to remove his body from the cross.
A non-disciple had to secure him a burial place.
Not very good Legend Builders.
1 edit
I'm just amazed how long this thread has gone on LOL The non-trinitarians will never believe and while I believe in One God who reveals a triune nature about himself in scripture I realize the futility of this argument at this time. Jesus never said repent and oh also you must understand and believe in the trinity too. If the spirit reveals all truth the believer will come to understand as time goes on.
Manny