Did Jesus Live?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As an orthodox Jew, Saul would have credited only God with creation. When Saul became Paul, that was never repudiated.

That's right. And St Paul also says that Jesus was the first-born of all creation, which
suggests a second-tier status for Jesus (although higher than any other created entity).
St Paul also never says that 'Jesus is God,' but that Jesus is the image of God. St Paul
was a pretty careful writer, so I'm inclined to read his words with a critical eye, rather
than anachronistically applying later dogmas to them.

The fact that we have the entire Scripture with which to now flesh out the thinking of God, changes nothing on the degree in which it was revealed.

What you call Scripture was not viewed as Scripture in the time it was written. They were
just letters or records that came to be regarded as representations of what God thought. The
formation of the canon was a late 2nd-century notion in response to Marcion's canon. That
canon is similar but not identical with the one that was ratified in the 4th century. For example,
Early Church Fathers quibbled about whether 'The Shepherd of Hermas' was or was not
Scripture, or the letters from St Clement, or Revelation. So, the idea that New Testament
literature which came to be regarded as Scriptured presented a unified whole to early 2nd-
century Christians is fallacious. There was quite a bit of division on that topic, as there was
on whether Jesus was Divine.

The Trinity consists of three distinct Persons. This is Scriptural, not contructed after the fact, as you allude to in your post.

The term 'Trinity' is not Scriptural. It is a second-century construct based on how they
came to understand who they thought Jesus was and how that figured in with God. Early
Christian history demonstrates that this concept was not universal, given the so-called
heresies about whether Jesus was God, adopted by God, chosen by God but not God,
whether He was man or appeared to be man, and so forth.

Because so much of your post is as stated, there is no need to offer any counter-balancing argument. Some people cannot handle the truth.

Uh-huh. More posturing. Of the two of us, only one is fooled, and it's not me.

Nemesio

P.S., someone with your high grammatical standards might want to review the clumsiness
with which this sentence was written:

The fact that we have the entire Scripture with which to now flesh out the thinking of God, changes nothing on the degree in which it was revealed.

Originally posted by Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For by him all things were created: ... all things were created by him and for him.

My translation reads: For in him all things were created...all things were created
through him and in him.

If I recall correctly, it is an ablative formation, one that indicates 'instrument.' This
indicates that Jesus, being the first creation, was a catalyst rather than the person
effecting the creation itself.

I could be remembering incorrectly, however.

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Again, this passage is concordant with the idea that Jesus was a reflection of Divinity,
rather than Divinity itself.

The date of the final canon is inconsequential.

Of course it's not! It was the process by which some texts became regarded as being
higher in authority than other texts that led to the codification of specific dogmas over
time. The debate that ensued amongst people who called themselves 'Christian' is
critical to an understanding how dogma developed.

No one said the term is Scriptural. But, neither is omniscience; however, the concepts of both are Scriptural. Most complex doctrines are not 'lettered out,' but instead, are woven together via multiple passages of Scripture, line upon line, item by item.

Of course. But when things 'lettered out' conflict with subsequent doctrines, one has to
be very suspicious. St Paul was very careful and uses language which doesn't support the
idea that 'Jesus was God.' I think it is important to understand how St Paul
understands what he thought Jesus was.

The interweaving of disparate lines of Scripture, as you well know, can lead to all sorts of
conclusions. This has been done to justify all sorts of things. Reading entire passages by
single authors as wholes in and of themselves makes much more sense from a linguistic
point of view.

The Council of Nicea of 325, and the later Council of Constantinople 381, merely agreed to what had already been revealed in the Scripture, as well as put to rest the heretical vestiges.

Did these two councils agree on the contents of the NT? Do you agree with their conclusions
on the OT and their ratification of the contents of the Jerome Vulgate?

Among others, are the many references to God which are both singular and plural, throughout the Old and New Testament, which point to the unique nature of God.

I don't recall references to God in the plural in the NT (I'm not saying they aren't there, but
that I simply don't remember any). Could you cite one or two?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]My translation reads
You are reading the Amercian Standard Version, I assume. Read the original language, and you will get the gist of the entire passage. Other English translations approximate the same as quoted.

Again, this passage is concordant with the idea that Jesus was a reflection of Divinity, rather than Divinity itself.
If yo ...[text shortened]... wn a path for a reason? Let's leave the pettiness behind, and stick to the subject, please.[/b]

Originally posted by Nemesio
I was going to reply to your message

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your retort: the word 'in' which is found in about one English translation, and yet even that occurence does not change the meaning of the sentence, let alone the rest of the passage.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As far as the rest of early church history, completion of the canon, councils and etc., I'm not all that concerned, as the claims of the Bible far out-strip any gains realized in those ancillary businesses. Why work with aluminum when platinum is available?

LOL! Then you would agree with me, because my reading attends to the words of the
Bible, not post facto conclusions such as the Dogma of the Trinity. LOL! St Paul
never states that Jesus is God, but carefully states that He is the image of God,
a perfect reflection of all that God is.

That He was created by God should be a key indicator for the careful reader of Scripture
without filtering it through later theological developments.

Edit:
Anyway, there is no meaning behind talking about 'THE BIBLE' without understanding that
that which came to be known as 'THE BIBLE' was the product of an evolution of theological
stances. Under different circumstances, you might have been arguing that the Shepherd
of Hermas was 'God's Word' and that Revelation was apocryphal. I mean, you probably
already do that with the Book of Wisdom (the mighty Church Councils notwithstanding).

Anachronistic? Yeah, I'm just a throw back, and your view is so thoroughly modern.

Your anachornism is applying the conventions of a later theological stance to the
writers of Scripture. You are the one taking the modern tack; ironically, I am being the
fundamentalist here.

That scholarly posturing is just plain silly, and the more forward-thinking minds have seen it for what it is, and given up the same.

Thou protesteth too much.

Nemesio