Brother Michael Sky
-
Posts
3,422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Brother Michael Sky
-
-
By that same token...
There's been more than one time this song has just jumped out of the blue at me...
Jerry didn't last too long after recording these songs with David Grisman ( Thats who's strokin that banjo... ) He was on his way Home...
-
I hear ya. Ever since I took a class in research and writing, I always have to ask if a person is quoting original sources, for example: reading what was the cited by the original author in the original language it was written and being the interpreter, versus, reading another person’s translation of what the original author said in a different language. Do you see the difference?
The reason I ask this because I like to save work that I can use in my academic work, such as an annotated bibliography or a critical review. However, I think my professors will fail to see the value in "The Long Island Mystic" who writes with no academic credential or authority.
Imagine how carefully he would critique you if you did start using Cronshaw as a source - He'd walk on eggshells... 
... wondering for your sanity.... but thats just how it is...... I admit to reading his words and checking his sources just to follow his train of thought... some of it will get your mind spinning with ideas... but you ALWAYS have to make up your own mind.... thats just being reasonable...and yes, I understand what you mean very well.... and yet I still had a completely different picture in my mind of that conversation I mentioned, than how it turned out to strike me when I did first read it... There was something visceral about taking that conversation in..Reading of Origins life and history in the foreward..... The impression you get of Celsus ... The topics, the insinuations, heck ... the very nature of the fact Celsus' part is fragmentary.... like I said... I like to read it once in a while... a moment in time...
I'm rather excited, as my sister implies that she has a four book set, about the Jews lives, experiences, and influences, during the early years of Christianity... in literature of the period... she's been at the thrift store again... sound like she hit gold, huh?
-
Point the website is trying to make is that the verses quoted are intolerant and barbaric, and therefore by that to show that the Bible is also intolerant and barbaric.
The fallacy of that argument is that the website dude (and you apparantly also) are looking from where we are backward, from a paradigm that comes from modern western civilization.
When you look from here (in time) backward you see something that is regressive. If you were to live in the time of the writing you would see that there is a redemptive value in the Torah, a progress forward. Modern students of the Bible, in order to understand the Bible in its context, need to realize that the point of the Bible has never been to establish a utopian society with perferct equality and justice for all. The point was to move the society in which it was given towards that goal. A study of the surrounding nations and cultures at that time would show that.
Your comment made something " pop " into my mind - have you read Celsus ?... and Origin against Celsus? I had so many deja-vu moments reading those words... moments from forums ( yes, even this one ).. for fun sometime Cool, go back and refresh in your memory the tone taken by Celsus, and yes, even Origin's tone......
here, I snatched it from my links : Celsus the contents section are links to read the text...
Origin contra Celsus and here is Origin's reply
very interesting the tone and attitude which Celsus displays.... he is so arrogant and superior, and yes - downright nasty...I wondered as I was reading if this was an attitude early Jews and Christians found all around them... it is interesting to listen to his ideas of where so many Biblical tales originate from - this may not be your pick for entertainment..
... but I felt it a very interesting read... and I refresh my memory once in a while.... and as i said - it will remind you of arguments you've seen on forums... -
I guess it was quick of me to pass judgment. I have read about a number of prophets and others who proclaim this or that. I remember Brother Stair on the radio insisting the world was to end in the year 2000. We are still here.
However, I wonder what would happen if the likes of John the Baptist was around to day.
Do you have any qualifications? No!
Do you have any formal training? No!
What papers have you written? None!
Do you belong to a credible church or religious body? No!
Do you have a regular congregation? No!
Who ordained you? God! and what written proof do you have for this? None!
On what scripture can you base your message on that your teachings apply to the immediate future ? None?
I see you have a wild sort of life style. Do you think that makes you credible to the religious establishment? No!
I see you baptize people in water for the forgiveness of sin. Can sin be washed away by just water? No!
I hear you want people to repent but how can you prove that your way is right? I cannot!
So you just have a belief? Yes!
Mmmm! A strange sort of bloke.
I admit to a little underhanded exploration as well... no public records of him being any sort of malefactor....
-
Coelacanth.
Sir William Osler.
You figure it out.
I'll give it a go.... but I want two guesses....
1. were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period - "Osler recommends chloroform at sixty"
2. the coelacanth is almost worthless as its tissues exude oils that give the flesh a foul flavor - penis captivus
do I win the prize, Rabbi?
-
It appears he is a self-ordained minister and a self-proclaimed prophet; Is that the case?
he claims to be the reincarnation of John ( Jacob ), the brother of Jesus. I don't know if he is self-proclaimed or otherwise, but yes his very own website refers to him as a prophet...
Is his work mentioned in any peer reviewed scholarly works, journals, or articles?
I cannot be absolutely sure, Cool, but it DOES APPEAR that scholars and the more famous of ministers avoid him like the plague....
Does he write for any peer reviewed scholarly publications or journals?
I believe he does make the attempt, but gets very little in the way of responses...
I noticed that he quotes the Encyclopedia Britannica three time in the article posted here. Does he use any primary sources or does he rely on translations and secondary sources?
He quotes from absolutely EVERYTHING !!! and honestly Cool, I have yet to catch the man in any deception... and you know how hard-headed I am about tracking things down... I am even having a hard time catching him giving opinion that he cannot back up - ( given the difficulties we are aware of, when it comes to pinning the earliest things down that is... when you research the oldest of Biblical facts, you are actually reading the words of others about previous works... )
edit - his prophecy, and his personal opinion based solely on his personal experience must, of course, stand all on it's own...
-
I recognise this as a red herring but as for God's vengeance upon New York you do not have to be a prophet. I think he has just been watching the discovery channel. It seems that New York sites is at the other end of a potential Mega Tsunami. If the worst happens and there is a large drop of land into the ocean from La Palma in the Canary Islands (Just off Africa) then it has the potential of creating a wave 300miles thick, a mile high, and travelling at 700miles an hour and could wash away New York and the eastern seaboard of the USA. I just think Allan Cronshaw is just jumping on the band wagon and trying to make a name for himself.
It is thought by many scientists that the land will drop into the sea in fragments rather than all at once and is therefore it is thought unlikely to carry the full force described but who knows. Its a bit like Los Angeles and it being built on a earthquake fault or the yellowstone park potential for a mega volcano, they have strong possibilities that they will happen one day and if it does it is more to do with nature and the places mankind chooses to live rather than the rantings of a self made prophet (IMO).
When I read such words as these I am reminded of Edgar Cayce.... Cayce knew many, many things which were seemingly inexplicable. Things which were verified later as becoming true, and some things which were seemingly in error. His accuracy rating gives the serious scholar pause. Was it simply good guesswork, or was there SOMETHING there which the man had access to that the average person does not? IMO, it is not possible to decide, so one must judge a man by his record....
As far as Allan Cronshaw goes, I choose to simply withhold any sort of judgement on the matter, and move on to the other 40 pages or so of the man's writings... I choose to take what I know to be true and look for indications that the man COULD POSSIBLY be on to something in these other writings... I find within his writings things which resonate with my own personal beliefs, which I have acquired over many, many years of study. That does not mean that my mind does not question some of the things he says... and I believe that is the way it is supposed to be. We must question the veracity of such important subjects... and decide for ourselves after the necessary study.
I WILL say, in the man's defense, that he either has some sort of valid inspiration, or he has done MUCH study in Biblical matters. Either way, as I check his references, and the conclusions he comes to, I find I am learning many, many things which I was previously unaware... for the man gives ACCURATE conclusions based on the material which is available - and I am not convinced easily - I need to see and follow, in a logical manner, the line of thought which has brought him to his conclusion. He is VERY good about listing the references which he has for the conclusions he makes... and when he is giving information which he acquires from metaphysical sources ( which I understand cannot be verified as his biblical information ) I simply skip on by and with hold judgement... but the clarity of his thought, and the clear, LOGICAL method by which he goes about his writings has me wondering out loud at times about those things I cannot verify....
I put my trust in the things I can verify, and let the other things dangle - as it were - with holding judgement.... which is the very same thing I find I must do with the Bible.... after all, we read in the bible of, like they are discussing above, women turned to salt... storehouses in the sky, woman being formed of a rib bone, etc, etc, etc..... which is also what we must do with the writings we find from everywhere. I have found simple textbooks which were wrong, I have found statements made by world famous scholars which turned out to be wrong, I have been wrong myself, and I choose to do the research when confronted by a questionable statement - if I cannot verify the TRUTH - then I must simply, as I said, with hold judgement and keep my mind open to possibilities...
my mother used to use a saying " Don't throw the Baby out with the Bath water ", I try to keep these words in my mind, as I have found some value in them...
-
Does anybody know anything about Allan Cronshaw?
I'd say I know a little about him, Cool........
anything particular you'd like to discuss?
-
Because mine basically says the same thing in a single sentence.. Concise and efficient
("Gnosis is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God.")
I do not believe that Jesus was the only one who had the Spirit of the Lord as an indwelling host. That is a Gnostic belief as well. So even inspiration which comes from with, comes from God. THAT is the point you seem to be missing.
I see nothing in the quotes from Paul that would deny the trinity? Christ becoming our high priest after the order of Melchizedek does not negate the triune. Melchizedek means "king of righteousness". Melchizedek was the image of God's Spirit, and became our intercessor.
you are mixing up the concepts of triune and trinity... and the explanation of how it DOES indeed deny the trinity, is within the quote you refer to.
Jesus said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" and also "For this is love of God: that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grevious" (1 John 5:3).
when we have such debates as these, and we are instructed to "prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21 KJV), as Paul said - than yes, there is a certain difficulty...
If we look at Matt 13:25 NAS and consider the Roman Church -"But while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away" then we must "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn" as we are told to do in Matt 13:30 NAS. This is a task which requires hard work and constant attention - so in my mind no... the easiness is true once the wheat is gathered into the barn.. the tares must be collected first.. and the more time passes - the harder for us to recognize the wheat from the tare....
-
I go to a Quaker meeting. That is my church. I agree it is powerful in my experience.
well, I guess I have learned something here...
.gif)
-
Just found this from "Quaker Faith and Practice" :-
"I know of no other way, in these deeper depths, of trusting in the name of the Lord, and staying upon God, than sinking into silence and nothingness before Him... So long as the enemy can keep us reasoning he can buffet us to and fro; but into the true solemn silence of the soul before God he cannot follow us.
John Bellows, 1895"
It describes my view better than I expressed.
Have you ever sat in on a quaker service Pete? It was a bit unnerving the first time for me, as I didn't know what to expect, but there IS a different feeling when sitting in the silence with a room full of people. It is a powerful experience in my mind... and I can immediately understand why it holds the attraction that it does. There's a quaker meeting house about 20 minutes from my house...
-
I agree. The other issue is we have no idea of the original documents and what alterations they may have been. I always find it a marvel that the early Marks Gospel forgot to mention the resurrection and that having so much significance to Paul and others. Sometimes in prayer God supplies all in spirit and we sense what is important (IMO) and it is not the digging into the minutia of textural meaning for me but the closeness of the relationship with God.
I find inspiration sometimes IN the minutiae.. when my mind is tracking down these dry, dusty things it has a tendency to be open to inspiration.. i find myself taking long, winding pathways to EXACTLY what was troubling me... and there I find comfort.... one way or another... It is seldom that I am completely stumped, because somewhere along the way my understanding is enlarged, and I find a new avenue to consider... but I do recognize that we are all different and take different paths to understanding... and I do truly believe we are greater together, than in our individual parts, which is why I frequent here so much...
-
I am sorry for the laughing at the email comment. The one I received was accusatory rather than abusive towards me. I too like people sending me emails and private messages but I also like to keep the debates in the open. I have not seen the message you got sent. I am sorry it happened.
Like you say God has had no trouble according to the bible in talking to mankind and did not need an intermediary to do that. I fear this is one of those things that got lost when the church stopped listening to the Jews.
I was trying to point out earlier that it is possible to get an idea of how the usage for the words themselves have evolved throughout the course of time....by looking up one word, you are introduced to similar words, and you begin to see the slight differences in usage... and i personally think it is possible to get a firm grasp of INTENTION when following this chain.... It's just that you have to draw a line somewhere in how much you are willing to post as reference - sometimes awareness is enough - it will cause curiosity which will send another on the same search, so that they might form their OWN opinion... and we ARE here to share... and I genuinely DO want to know other opinions... it's a dry dusty thing to concentrate on the words of scholars and ancient persons... real live contemporary peers make it so much more " flavorful ".....
I guess I shouldn't be, but I am still amazed at your refusal to accept that a text that mentions God, Jesus, and the Spirit all in the same passage; and that assumes the trinity by its context; means that this is presumed. I'm not talking about the doctrine of anything; I'm just talking about the plain reading of the text without reading anything into it, or out of it.
Having an open mind is how I form the positions that I have. You might consider reading a primary source document, called the "Introduction" of The Greek New Testament 4th Edition. There you will discover that:
"The whole field of New Testament citations in the Church Fathers has been thoroughly reviewed. For a citation to be included there were two criteria to be met. The citation must be capable of verification, i.e., the New Testament text or manuscript cited by the author must be identifiable. Patristic paraphrases, variations, and allusions have no place in this edition. The citation must relate clearly to a specific passage in the New Testament."
In other words, these conspiracy theories that abound that have no verifiable proof are not considered by the scholars who actually compare the texts to revise the New Testament.
Of course, feel free take what I said and stretch it to some ridicules extreme as you see fit.
I feel much more confidence in doing the work for myself cool, so I don't find myself handing out another's opinion blindly... It's important to me, and the bible tells me to SEARCH for the truth...
besides which, I am always wondering if this type of work is being done in these Biblical Higher Learning places like YOU are in.....
-
the interjection of the trinity was for exactly this reason... confusion... and to place an intermediary between God and Man... when no such intermediary was intended...
Yes, Pete while I am always excited to see a fellow minister has decided to approach me in private - that was not a warm, fuzzy kind of thing....
-
Ok...I see where we are. A few questions:
How can you ignore that the context of the passage is talking about God, Jesus, and the Spirit REPEATEDLY and say there is no reference to the trinity?
because the Triune representation of the Godhead is not the same as The Doctrine of the Trinity...
How can you assert and defend a different reading than the critical text (which is based on textual evidence) exisits without having a text to argue from?
which would be the reason for quoting the church elders who DID have a chance to read from those texts... one would think it would be obvious that one needs to keep an open mind about such things however... which is why I would make sure that such references quote the texts which those opinions may be found in....
Maybe you should just discuss your feelings about the texts; that seems to be a little more comfortable for you.
that seems to be where you are stuck, cool... repeatedly asking the same questions, waiting for me to get tired, so you can assert yours is the winner.... and a less comfortable method would be hard to find... it's like talking to a parrot....
Where have I dont that?
your spelling seems to be falling apart... are you getting a little upset cool? Is that why you resort to insulting e-mails questioning my understanding of everything from the facts of this particular matter to my own understanding of the New Testament? It is quite obvious how upset you are, because I could hardly follow your insults.... most of it made no sense whatsoever...
what exactly does this mean? " If you take the comments of the Church Fathers and remove the allusions to texts that it is not clear about what they are talking about, you will find that your confidence in the New Testament text will increase, and you will see the strong foundation in which it sits. "
I assume it means you would like me to stop referencing the Church Fathers? You assert there is no use in reading what they had to say? cool, they are the only ones who had the chance to read some of those missing texts we were just referring to - of course one must keep an open mind about their opinions, but to insist their opinions are worthless? It becomes more and more obvious the mindset which makes these conversations so difficult... and cool.... If you have a personal problem you would like to talk about, or you simply miss me, and would like to chat- by all means send me an e-mail, but please keep your arguments where they belong....
-
Also a second time asking this question:
How should the passage read Michael?
exactly as it does in any version besides the KJV... and yet you continue to see the Trinity in every version......
However, an attempt to explain the mystery to some extent must break down, and has limited usefulness, being designed, not so much to fully explain the Trinity, but to point to the experience of communion with the Triune God within the Church as the Body of Christ. The difference between those who believe in the Trinity and those who do not, is not an issue of understanding the mystery. The difference is primarily one of belief concerning the personal identity of Christ. It is a difference in conception of the salvation connected with Christ that drives all reactions, either favorable or unfavorable, to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. As it is, the doctrine of the Trinity is directly tied up with Christology.
which I have explained from my view, while you continue with your repetition....
That is not correct. The UBS 4th edition (called the 'critical text') is claimed by scholars to very close to the original text.
To say that we have 'no idea' is just misleading and maybe even wishful thinking for some.
kind of like seeing the trinity where no genuine references exist.....
-
It is also a difficulty for me to argue that the context has or has not been changed because we have no idea of the original script, how much had been influenced by the Paulian school, or what was in the mind of the original writer (who ever he was). So I would say asking for a meaning would be asking for pure conjecture and highly influenced by who is reading it (IMO). For me we I would be tempted to go for the Spirit being in agreement with the baptism and blood of Jesus (i.e Jesus' life and death). Yet, I would not go as far as placing enthusiasm that this view is the correct view and only one, only that it seems to make sense to me. This I believe does change its meaning from Father, Son and Holy Ghost (IMO) and does not endorse the concept of trinity.
there ya go pete... good enough for me... I take it further because the concept appears no where else in the text... In my mind that is definitive..
I guess one of the differences here is I prefer to keep my options open rather than insisting that some sort of script is ultimately understood and is correct against all argument.
I feel the need to be assured of the NATURE of the DIVINE... because the use with which Jesus is put to with the concept of the Doctrine of The Trinity... that does not mean I do not see God as being able to show Himself in whatever aspect He chooses... whether it be The Father, The Water, or the Blood.... I simply insist that the WATER does not translate as the concept of The Word as described by The Doctrine of The Trinity... and I believe that is supported...
I know you have argued over the Logos but there are been much debate about the concept of the trinity. As G.H.C Macgregor describes the issue in regard to John 1:1. "John does not say the logos was God; still less he does he imply merely that the logos possessed certain divine qualities. He means that the logos was partaker of the divine essence." Macgregor (1953) The Moffatt NT commentary, Hodder & Stoughton, London, page 4.
In other words a quality of God which Jesus shared. It is the sense of sharing that has led to much speculation on how much Jesus shared of God and was of God and part of God, from which the trinity has sort to solve (as I understand it).
I believe that the the Doctrine of The Trinity is used for a purpose not implied In ANY early text... but i agree with everything else you said...
I guess it truly does come down to a belief... well, each to his own... and I'm fine with that...
-
Michael, with all the reading that you do, have not taken the time to read this passage and discover what it is saying?
For the second time in regard to 1 John 5:1-11:
I would say that the point of the verse is about showing love to God through obedience to the Son; and the witness that testifies to the fact the Son is sent from God; what would you say?
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is rather important to the discussion we are having.
I would say that you are reading a CORRECTED version of the text... ( and you haven't dropped the reference to the Trinity which was inserted - and removed when corrected )
It is the obedience to the son part which is the misunderstanding, and exactly what that means... It is obedience to GOD as DISPLAYED by the son... and yes, we have no argument that the Son was sent by God... ALL are sent by God - who else is there to send a soul anywhere?
-
The Godhead is revealed in 3 distinct ways, which are one. God the Father is the unseen, omnipresent source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. The Father is the thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the deed making it a reality. The Father loves us, Jesus calls us, and the Spirit quickens us. The common denominator is this trinity, which act with singularity of purpose.
Dan, you have a very typical fundamentalist viewpoint. And by fundamentalist, I am referring to a mindset. As Mr. Cronshaw stated :
When directly confronted with the overwhelming evidence and facts with respect to the wholesale corruption of the scriptures, the fundamentalist defensively responds with the rather absurd assertion that "God wrote the King James Version of the Bible". Thus, no amount of rationale will convince them that because we are the prodigal sons of our Heavenly Father, and the Kingdom is within us (Luke 17:21), that all those who truly live a consecrated life will be shown the undefiled Word of God that can be accessed by journeying along the narrow path that opens the "strait gate" that leads to the indwelling Temple (1 Cor 3:16).
I've read all the Gnostics, and I understand Gnosticism. The definition I included was from the dictionary; "Gnosis is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God." Paul was not Gnostic, he was clearly a proponent of the trinity; "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." (2 Corinthians 13:14), "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord .And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." (1 Corinthians 12:4-6).
why not use the definition I clearly intended to use?
The knowledge of these sectarian groups is contested by orthodox Christian theology as speculative knowledge derived from religio-philosophical (metaphysical) systems rather than knowledge derived from revelation coming from faith.[11] Gnosis itself is and was obtained through understanding at which one can arrive via inner experience or contemplation such as an internal epiphany for example. For the various sectarian gnostics, gnosis was obtained as speculative gnosis, instigated by the contemplation of their religio-philosophical (Cosmological, Metaphysical, salvational and rational) systems. These systems were pagan (folk) in origin and syncretic in nature. The gnostic sectarians vilified the concepts of a subjective creator God (Plato's demiurge) and objective creator God (one that creates ex-nihilo) as in the Judeo-Christian God (creator) and sought to reconcile the individual to their own personal deification (henosis), making each individual God.[9] As such the gnostic sects made a duality out of the difference between the activities of the spirit (nous), called noesis (insight), and those of faith.[12]
During the early formation of Christianity, church authorities (Fathers of the Church) exerted considerable amounts of energy attempting to weed out what were considered to be false doctrines (e.g. Irenaeus' On the Detection and Overthrow of False Gnosis). The gnostics (as one sectarian group) held views which were incompatible with the emerging Ante-Nicene community. Among Christian heresiologists, the concept of false gnosis was used to denote different Pagan, Jewish or Christian belief systems (e.g. the Eleusinian Mysteries or Glycon) and their various teachings of what was deemed[9] religio-philosophical systems of knowledge,[13] as opposed to authentic gnosis (see below, Gnosis among the Greek Fathers). The sectarians used gnosis or secret, hidden knowledge to reject the traditions of the established community or church. The authorities throughout the community criticized this antinomianism as inconsistent with the communities teachings. Hence sectarians and followers of gnosticism were first rejected by the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean (see the Notzrim 139–67 BCE), then by the Christian communities and finally by the late Hellenistic philosophical communities (see Neoplatonism and Gnosticism).
If Paul was indeed a believer in the Doctrine of the Trinity - Why do his letters speak against such a misunderstanding? and speak so clearly...?
The defenders of the Trinity will state that someone must have added these words, but if this is so, then why did Paul write: "regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 1:3-4 NIV).
"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house" (Heb 3:1-3 KJV)
"For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy praise" (Heb 2:11-12 NAS). The Revised Standard Version interprets this passage to say that Jesus and the rest of mankind "…have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren".
"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec" (KJV).
We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek" (Heb 2:10-12 RSV). God, as envisioned in accordance with the doctrine of the Trinity, cannot be called a forerunner, because a forerunner is one who is the same who goes first -- ahead of the rest. Neither could God ever be called a high priest. What the Apostle Paul is speaking of with regard to Jesus, is a perfected man -- because these words are terms that can only be used regarding a created being of the same substance as we are.
very clearly indeed....
My understanding of pagan comes from the definition;
1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2. a person who is NOT A CHRISTIAN, Jew, or Muslim.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
If Paul believed in multiple Gods, was not a follower of Christ, and a confessed heathen, then I suppose your correct in defining him as a pagan or Gnostic... The only misdirection is your effort to rewrite the bible to fit a personal philosophy. All your quotes from these so called "scholars" is just biased opinions. The bottom line is that if the Gnostics are right, then the bible is false. And if the bible is right, then all Gnostic writings are heresy. I'm banking on the bible.
Once again, why not use the definition which fits the context?
However, until the rise of Romanticism and the general acceptance of freedom of religion in Western civilization, "Paganism" was almost always used disparagingly of heterodox beliefs falling outside the established political framework of the Christian Church.
note that there becomes a political connotation.....
and as far as it being an " either - or " situation.... that idea shows a misunderstanding of the Nature of the Message - the VERY REASON Jesus spoke in Parables... a refusal to see the layered meaning to the text... Matthew 13:10-17
I don't believe the inspired books were censored, the effort was to preserve them. What was burned was counterfeit gospels written by unknown authors who had no connection to the apostles.
" I don't care what the facts show - I refuse to believe !" - the rallying cry of the fundamentalist.....
Does this come from some " inner knowing" or " gnosis"? because all historical FACT shows otherwise...
People who don't like the biblical message have always tried to change it, by arguing that others must have altered what it says. Its as true today as when the Gnostics were written, people insist on trying to turn the truth into a lie. What is it about the biblical Jesus that you find so revolting? Its so easy to believe and accept, I just don't understand the resistance? Try accepting it instead of investigating it. Your putting your faith in your own deductive reasoning by doubting God's ability to preserve his own written word. No offense intended, its just puzzling to me. Its never been about educated or uneducated opinions, real wisdom comes from understanding His Word.
The Gnostics were not written, they were ( and ARE ) a very real group of believers...
the "trying to turn the truth into a lie" was done long, long ago.
I find Hope and Joy in the Biblical Jesus, In His ACTUAL message, which even though there has been so much meddling with, and obfuscation of, His Message - it is still there to be understood.
What is easy is to swallow is the misdirection which was purposely put into the texts... But no where does it say in the message that it would be EASY to enter the Kingdom... that should be your first warning that something is fishey......
"Try accepting it instead of investigating it." - No, thank you Dan, for that is directly in opposition to our instruction ... i.e. - "prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21 KJV).
- Dan, that could be seen as being in direct opposition to our instruction from the text... you are slipping into gnostic thought, without the benefit of an understanding of the written word......"Your putting your faith in your own deductive reasoning by doubting God's ability to preserve his own written word. No offense intended, its just puzzling to me. Its never been about educated or uneducated opinions, real wisdom comes from understanding His Word."
I understand that folks will have a different understanding - But our conversation is about what IS or IS NOT in the text. Our conversation has been about what is Provable or Not... not necessarily about our teanslations of what IS there... it has fallen into interpretation at times, but I will assume we are all adults here, and able to see each others opinions as just that - our opinions...
For ME, there is VERY CLEARLY, a message which lies sleeping within a text which has been badly misused throughout history. This , again for me, is yet another proof that there is TRUTH and VALUE in the message brought to us by God's Wisest Son - that no matter how much meddling there has been - the message can still be found. I mean, sheesh, we are talking about 2000 YEARS of time which has passed, with the message in the hands of those who purposely sought to pervert the Word to their own purposes, and yet I may sit here at my desk, and find the Message brought such a long time ago... THIS is my proof... and it causes me JOY... is it any wonder why I should go through so much trouble to try and share it? But fear not - I do understand that this is my OPINION.... and I am not trying to negate the VALIDITY of other opinions.... I simply don't share them.... I share MY understanding.... thats what we do here....
-
The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Before St. John had consecrated this term by adopting it, the Greeks and the Jews had used it to express religious conceptions which, under various titles, have exercised a certain influence on Christian theology, and of which it is necessary to say something.
I. THE LOGOS IN HELLENISM
It is in Heraclitus that the theory of the Logos appears for the first time, and it is doubtless for this reason that, first among the Greek philosophers, Heraclitus was regarded by St. Justin (Apol. I, 46) as a Christian before Christ. For him the Logos, which he seems to identify with fire, is that universal principle which animates and rules the world. This conception could only find place in a materialistic monism. The philosophers of the fifth and fourth centuries before Christ were dualists, and conceived of God as transcendent, so that neither in Plato (whatever may have been said on the subject) nor in Aristotle do we find the theory of the Logos.
It reappears in the writings of the Stoics, and it is especially by them that this theory is developed. God, according to them, "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He IS the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537). Conformably to their exegetical habits, the Stoics made of the different gods personifications of the Logos, e.g. of Zeus and above all of Hermes. At Alexandria, Hermes was identified with Thoth, the god of Hermopolis, known later as the great Hermes, "Hermes Trismegistus", and represented as the revealer of all letters and all religion. Simultaneously, the Logos theory conformed to the current Neoplatonistic dualism in Alexandria: the Logos is not conceived of as nature or immanent necessity, but as an intermediary agent by which the transcendent God governs the world. This conception appears in Plutarch, especially in his "Isis and Osiris"; from an early date in the first century of the Christian era, it influenced profoundly the Jewish philosopher Philo.
II. THE WORD IN JUDAISM
Quite frequently the Old Testament represents the creative act as the word of God (Genesis 1:3; Psalm 32:9; Sirach 42:15); sometimes it seems to attribute to the word action of itself, although not independent of Jahveh (Isaiah 55:11, Zechariah 5:1-4; Psalm 106:20; 147:15). In all this we can see only bold figures of speech: the word of creation, of salvation, or, in Zacharias, the word of malediction, is personified, but is not conceived of as a distinct Divine hypostasis. In the Book of Wisdom this personification is more directly implied (xviii, 15 sq.), and a parallel is established (ix, 1, 2) between wisdom and the Word.
In Palestinian Rabbinism the Word (Memra) is very often mentioned, at least in the Targums: it is the Memra of Jahveh which lives, speaks, and acts, but, if one endeavour to determine precisely the meaning of the expression, it appears very often to be only a paraphrase substituted by the Targumist for the name of Jahveh. The Memra resembles the Logos of Philo as little as the workings of the rabbinical mind in Palestine resembled the speculations of Alexandria: the rabbis are chiefiy concerned about ritual and observances; from religious scruples they dare not attribute to Jahveh actions such as the Sacred Books attribute to Him; it is enough for them to veil the Divine Majesty under an abstract paraphrase, the Word, the Glory, the Abode, and others. Philo's problem was of the philosophic order; God and man are infinitely distant from each other, and it is necessary to establish between them relations of action and of prayer; the Logos is here the intermediary.
Leaving aside the author of the Book of Wisdom, other Alexandrian Jews before Philo had speculated as to the Logos; but their works are known only through the rare fragments which Christian authors and Philo himself have preserved. Philo alone is fully known to us, his writings are as extensive as those of Plato or Cicero, and throw light on every aspect of his doctrine; from him we can best learn the theory of the Logos, as developed by Alexandrian Judaism. The character of his teaching is as manifold as its sources:
sometimes, influenced by Jewish tradition, Philo represents the Logos as the creative Word of God ("De Sacrific. Ab. et Cain"; cf. "De Somniis", I 182; "De Opif. Mundi", 13);
at other times he describes it as the revealer of God, symbolized in Scripture by the angel of Jahveh ("De Somniis", I, 228-39, "De Cherub.", 3; "De Fuga", 5; "Quis rer. divin. haeres sit", 201-205).
Oftener again he accepts the language of Hellenic speculation; the Logos is then, after a Platonistic concept, the sum total of ideas and the intelligible world ("De Opif. Mundi", 24, 25; "Leg. Alleg.", I, 19; III, 96),
or, agreeably to the Stoic theory, the power that upholds the world, the bond that assures its cohesion, the law that determines its development ("De Fuga", 110; "De Plantat. Noah," 8-10; "Quis rer. divin. haeres sit", 188, 217; "Quod Deus sit immut.", 176; "De Opif. Mundi", 143).
Throughout so many diverse concepts may be recognized a fundamental doctrine: the Logos is an intermediary between God and the world; through it God created the world and governs it; through it also men know God and pray to Him ("De Cherub.", 125; "Quis rerum divin. haeres sit", 205-06.) In three passages the Logos is called God ("Leg. Alleg.", III, 207; "De Somniis", I, 229; "In Gen.", II, 62, cited by Eusebius, "Praep. Ev.", VII, 13); but, as Philo himself explains in one of these texts (De Somniis), it is an improper appellation and wrongly employed, and he uses it only because he is led into it by the Sacred Text which he comments upon. Moreover, Philo does not regard the Logos as a person; it is an idea, a power, and, though occasionally identified with the angels of the Bible, this is by symbolic personification.
III. THE LOGOS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
The term Logos is found only in the Johannine writings: in the Apocalypse (19:13), in the Gospel of St. John (1:1-14), and in his First Epistle (1:1; cf. 1:7 - Vulgate). But already in the Epistles of St. Paul the theology of the Logos had made its influence felt. This is seen in the Epistles to the Corinthians, where Christ is called "the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24) and "the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4); it is more evident in the Epistle to the Colossians (1:15 sqq.); above all in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the theology of the Logos lacks only the term itself, that finally appears in St. John. In this epistle we also notice the pronounced influence of the Book of Wisdom, especially in the description which is given of the relations between the Son and the Father: "the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance" (cf. Wisdom 7:26). This resemblance suggests the way by which the doctrine of the Logos entered into Christian theology; another clue is furnished by the Apocalypse, where the term Logos appears for the first time (19:13), and not apropos of any theological teaching, but in an apocalyptic vision, the content of which has no suggestion of Philo but rather recalls Wisdom 18:15.
In the Gospel of St. John the Logos appears in the very first verse without explanation, as a term familiar to the readers, St. John uses it at the end of the prologue (i, 14), and does not mention it again in the Gospel. From this Harnack concludes that the mention of the Word was only a starting-point for the Evangelist, and that he passed directly from this Hellenic conception of the Logos to the Christian doctrine of the only Son ("Ueber das Verhältniss des Prologs des vierten Evangeliums zum ganzen Werk" in "Zeitschrift fur Theol. und Kirche", II, 1892, 189-231). This hypothesis is proved false by the insistence with which the Evangelist comes back on this idea of the Word, it is, moreover, natural enough that this technical term, employed in the prologue where the Evangelist is interpreting the Divine mystery, should not reappear in the sequel of the narrative, the character of which might thus suffer change.
What is the precise value of this concept in the writings of St. John? The Logos has not for him the Stoic meaning that it so often had for Philo: it is not the impersonal power that sustains the world, nor the law that regulates it; neither do we find in St. John the Platonistic concept of the Logos as the ideal model of the world; the Word is for him the Word of God, and thereby he holds with Jewish tradition, the theology of the Book of Wisdom, of the Psalms, of the Prophetical Books, and of Genesis; he perfects the idea and transforms it by showing that this creative Word which from all eternity was in God and was God, took flesh and dwelt among men.
This difference is not the only one which distinguishes the Johannine theology of the Logos from the concept of Philo, to which not a few have sought to liken it. The Logos of Philo is impersonal, it is an idea, a power, a law; at most it may be likened to those half abstract, half-concrete entities, to which the Stoic mythology had lent a certain personal form. For Philo the incarnation of the Logos must have been absolutely without meaning, quite as much as its identification with the Messias. For St. John, on the contrary, the Logos appears in the full light of a concrete and living personality; it is the Son of God, the Messias, Jesus. Equally great is the difference when we consider the role of the Logos. The Logos of Philo is an intermediary: "The Father who engendered all has given to the Logos the signal privilege of being an intermediary (methorios) between the creature and the creator . . . it is neither without beginning (agenetos) as is God, nor begotten (genetos) as you are [mankind], but intermediate (mesos) between these two extremes "(Quis rer. divin. haeres sit, 205-06). The Word of St. John is not an intermediary, but a Mediator; He is not intermediate between the two natures, Divine and human, but He unites them in His Person; it could not be said of Him, as of the Logos of Philo, that He is neither agenetos nor genetos, for He is at the same time one and the other, not inasmuch as He is the Word, but as the Incarnate Word (St. Ignatius, "Ad Ephes.", vii, 2).
In the subsequent history of Christian theology many conflicts would naturally arise between these rival concepts, and Hellenic speculations constitute a dangerous temptation for Christian writers. They were hardly tempted, of course, to make the Divine Logos an impersonal power (the Incarnation too definitely forbade this), but they were at times moved, more or less consciously, to consider the Word as an intermediary being between God and the world. Hence arose the subordinationist tendencies found in certain Ante-Nicene writers; hence, also, the Arian heresy (see NICAEA, COUNCIL OF).
IV. THE LOGOS IN ANCIENT CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
The Apostolic Fathers do not touch on the theology of the Logos; a short notice occurs in St. Ignatius only (Ad Magn. viii, 2). The Apologists, on the contrary, develop it, partly owing to their philosophic training, but more particularly to their desire to state their faith in a way familiar to their readers (St. Justin, for example, insists strongly on the theology of the Logos in his "Apology" meant for heathens, much less so in his "Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon"). This anxiety to adapt apologetic discussion to the circumstances of their hearers had its dangers, since it was possible that in this way the apologists might land well inside the lines of their adversaries. As to the capital question of the generation of the Word, the orthodoxy of the Apologists is irreproachable: the Word was not created, as the Arians held later, but was born of the very Substance of the Father according to the later definition of Nicaea (Justin, "Dial.",128, Tatian, "Or.", v, Athenagoras, "Legat." x-xviii, Theophilus, "Ad Autolyc.", II, x; Tertullian "Adv. Prax.", vii). Their theology is less satisfactory as regards the eternity of this generation and its necessity; in fact, they represent the Word as uttered by the Father when the Father wished to create and in view of this creation (Justin, "II Apol.", 6; cf. "Dial.",6162; Tatian, "Or.", v, a corrupt and doubtful text; Athenagoras, "Legat.", x; Theophilus, "Ad Autolyc.", II, xxii; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", v-vii). When we seek to understand what they meant by this "utterance", it is difficult to give the same answer for all Athenagoras seems to mean the role of the Son in the work of creation, the syncatabasis of the Nicene Fathers (Newman, "Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism" in "Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical", London, 1902, 238), others, especially Theophilus and Tertullian (cf. Novatian, "De Trinit.", xxxi), seem quite certainly to understand this "utterance" as properly so called. Mental survivals of Stoic psychology seem to be responsible for this attitude: the philosophers of the Portico distinguished between the innate word (endiathetos) and the uttered word (prophorikos) bearing in mind this distinction the aforesaid apologists conceived a development in the Word of God after the same fashion. After this period, St. Irenæus condemned very severely these attempts at psychological explanation (Adv. Haeres., II, xiii, 3-10, cf. II, xxviii, 4-6), and later Fathers rejected this unfortunate distinction between the Word endiathetos and prophorikos [Athanasius (?), "Expos. Fidei", i, in P. G., XXV, 201-cf. "Orat.", II, 35, in P. G., XXVI, 221; Cyril of Jerusalem "Cat.", IV, 8, in P. G., XXXIII, 465-cf. "Cat.", XI, 10, in P. G., XXXIII, 701-cf. Council of Sirmium, can. viii, in Athan., "De Synod.", 27-P. G., XXVI.
As to the Divine Nature of the Word, all apologists are agreed but to some of them, at least to St. Justin and Tertuilian, there seemed to be in this Divinity a certain subordination (Justin, "I Apol.", 13-cf. "II Apol.", 13; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", 9, 14, 26).
The Alexandrian theologians, themselves profound students of the Logos doctrine, avoided the above mentioned errors concerning the dual conception of the Word (see, however, a fragment of the "Hypotyposes", of Clement of Alexandria, cited by Photius, in P. G., CIII, 384, and Zahn, "Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutest. Kanons", Erlangen, 1884, xiii 144) and the generation in time; for Clement and for Origen the Word is eternal like the Father (Clement "Strom.", VII, 1, 2, in P. G., IX, 404, 409, and "Adumbrat. in Joan.", i, 1, in P. G., IX, 734; Origen, "De Princip.", I, xxii, 2 sqq., in P. G., XI, 130 sqq.; "In Jer. Hom.", IX, 4, in P. G., XIII, 357, "In Jo. ', ii, 32, in P. G., XIV, 77; cf. Athanasius, "De decret. Nic. syn.", 27, in P. G., XXV, 465). As to the nature of the Word their teaching is less sure: in Clement, it is true, we find only a few traces of subordinationism ("Strom.", IV, 25, in P. G., VIII, 1365; "Strom.", VII, 3, in P. G., IX, 421; cf. "Strom.", VII, 2, in P. G., IX, 408); elsewhere he very explicitly affirms the equality of the Father and the Son and the unity (" Protrept.", 10, in P. G., VIII 228, "Paedag.", I, vi, in P. G., VIII, 280; I, viii, in P. G., VIII, 325 337 cf. I, ix, in P. G., VIII, 353; III, xii, in P. d., V*I, 680). Origen, on the contrary, frequently and formally defended subordinationist ideas (" De Princip.", I, iii, 5, in P. G., XI, 150; IV, xxxv, in P. G., XI, 409, 410; "In Jo." ii, 2, in P. G., XIV, 108, 109; ii, 18, in P. G., XIV, 153, 156; vi, 23, in P. G., XIV, 268; xiii, 25, in P. G., XIV, 44144; xxxii, 18, in P. G., XIV, 817-20; "In Matt.", xv, 10, in P. G., XIII, 1280, 1281; "De Orat.", 15, in P. G., XI,464, "Contra Cels.", V, xi, in P. G., XI,1197); his teaching concerning the Word evidently suffered from Hellenic speculation: in the order of religious knowledge and of prayer, the Word is for him an intermediary between God and the creature.
Amid these speculations of apologists and Alexandrian theologians, elaborated not without danger or without error, the Church maintained her strict dogmatic teaching concerning the Word of God. This is particularly recognizable in the works of those Fathers more devoted to tradition than to philosophy, and especially in St. Irenæus, who condemns every form of the Hellenic and Gnostic theory of intermediary beings (Adv. Haer., II, xxx, 9; II, ii, 4; III, viii, 3; IV, vii, 4, IV, xx, 1), and who affirms in the strongest terms the full comprehension of the Father by the Son and their identity of nature (Adv. Haer., II, xvii, 8; IV, iv, 2, IV, vi, 3, 6). We find it again with still greater authority in the letter of Pope St. Dionysius to his namesake, the Bishop of Alexandria (see Athan., "De decret. Nic. syn.", 26, in P. G., XXV,461-65): "They lie as to the generation of the Lord who dare to say that His Divine and ineffable generation is a creation. We must not divide the admirable and Divine unity into three divinities, we must not lower the dignity and sovereign grandeur of the Lord by the word creation, but we must believe in God the Father omnipotent, in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, we must unite the Word to the God of the universe, for He has said: 'I and the Father are one', and again: 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'. Thus we protect the Divine Trinity, and the holy avowal of the monarchy [unity of God]." The Council of Nicaea (325) had but to lend official consecration to this dogmatic teaching.
-
You are going to continue to miss what I am telling you if you cannot stay focused on one thing long enough to get what I am saying.
Look at the NIV of 1-11 for a second and I will bold the parts the ASSUME the existance of trinity without arguing for trinity:
NIV
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.
3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,
4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.
5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
9 We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.
11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
Are suggesting that these highlighted references to God the father, God the Son, and The Spirit are also the additions of "Correctores?"
If so how should that passage read?
This is impossible to get around........
The problem here is not on my end Cool.... I understand perfectly well that you see references to the trinity in that passage.... what I am repeatedly trying to get across to YOU, is that I do not believe they exist..... there is a basic difference between our beliefs.... and it breaks down to Jesus' role in things.... you see him as God incarnate ( am I correct? ) and I see him as a MAN who, through living the correct way, was graced by our Creator's Conscious Personal Presence - from an INDWELLING source.... I believe that Jesus shared with us that ALL are capable of what he accomplished.... and I believe that is what the text tells us....THAT is why references to the doctrine of the Trinity are such a dangerous misdirection....
I even gave you the definition of the WORD, i.e. LOGOS, that is the root of the problem.... you quickly ran past all of my attempts in an effort to WIN the argument... an argument that scripture DOES NOT back up for you - interpretation only gets you so far - you must at some point pay attention to the LANGUAGE USED..... THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO THE TRINITY that scholars consider legitimate - interpretation alone gets you that reference.... As a self-proclaimed Biblical Scholar, that should be knowledge you already possess... You keep referring to two texts that are well recognized to have , more or less, the very same problems, one is simply a little more contaminated than the other....
Jesus, in my belief, was born of a Human union, between Joseph and Mary, and was a normal human boy, until the point at which he was Baptized by John the Baptist..... at which Point he was Graced by the Conscious Presence of God.... THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE...
You DID tell me you had read what I posted - I do not want to infer that you, in actuality, DID NOT, but if you had - how could you have missed this:
When the text of the Bible reads in the book of Acts regarding the relationship of David to Jesus: "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" (Acts 2:30 KJV) -- the words "according to the flesh" are not found in all the manuscripts. The defenders of the Trinity will state that someone must have added these words, but if this is so, then why did Paul write: "regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 1:3-4 NIV). This would then tell us that Jesus was born of the linage of David, and because of his holiness was declared the Son of God by his resurrection. Further, Mary herself calls Jesus the son of Joseph at Luke 2:48. When it is remembered that the Messianic Jewish Christians who knew Jesus personally, including those who wrote our scriptures, did not believe that Jesus was God, perhaps the Lord is saying to us: The time has come where we should do as the Bible says and "Prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21 KJV) before we blindly believe the doctrines of Constantine.
Every Christian today who desires to know the Mysteries of God should be alarmed by the fact that neither Jesus nor his disciples taught the concepts of the Trinity. From a doctrinal standpoint with regard to the manner we must live in order to approach the alter of the Lord, one's adherence to this doctrine is an obstruction that inhibits the modern church from embracing the spiritual essence of what Jesus actually taught. When one reads the scriptures through the doctrinal filter of the Trinity, the majority of the Bible is negated and rendered useless. Nowhere in the New Testament does the text even hint that Jesus is to be worshiped in any other manner than as a pattern for each of us to imitate.
Unless that is, you simply could not see it in your attempt to WIN an argument that is not supported on your end........
I KNOW you are going to simply repeat that I did not see your point - but before you do - PLEASE GO REFERENCE THE ORIGINAL WORDS IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK..... AND LOOK FOR THE USAGE OF LOGOS...... what is ACTUALLY THERE......
-
So what would you say is the original intent of the entire passage (1 John 5:1-11)? The verse is a part of a larger pericope. If we take just a specific verse and focus on that we will miss the point; you miss the forest because of the trees, so to speak.
How is the main point of this verse changed by the two versions of 5:7? The answer is that it isn't. This is how the doctrine inerrency is argued in light of the numberous variant readings.
I showed how the "trinity" is all over 5:1-11 by the context, yet proving the trinity is not even the point of that passage.
This is where hermeneutics and exegesis come into the picture. This is how a variant reading can have no effect on the context in which is resides.
I would say that the point of the verse is about showing love to God through obedience to the Son; and the witness that testifies to the fact the Son is sent from God; what would you say?
Look at it again:
KJV
1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
NIV
1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.
3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,
4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.
5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
9 We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.
11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
I think that along with the other references to the trinity which were dispersed throughout the entire text, it allows for a misunderstanding... due to the wording of the verse...
The only verse in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune"
Word (wɜːd)
— n
1. Christianity the 2nd person of the Trinity
[translation of Greek logos, as in John 1:1]
that SHOULD show you that the trinity was NEVER in 5:1-11
-
the violence against the early believers started with the stoning of Stephen, who was arguing against the Hellenist's, and their belief in Jesus.... and Paul's campaign ended in 35 a.d. - The fighting was between Jews and early Christians... it wasn't until 64 a.d. that Nero began the persecutions - those who were handy and clogging up Rome... and neither him,Domitian, in 95.D.,or Diocletian in 303 cared what gospels were being read.... a Christian was a Christian was a Christian... and in 95 it was against anyone who refused to honor the emperor cult... in 303 it was specifically about Christians again, but they burnt everything Christian they could get their hands on... Essene or otherwise...
-
"Gnosis" is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God. The Gnostics had an agenda, they wanted to recast Jesus into a different light because he did not fit their theology. The only way gnosticism could gain acceptance was to discredit the bible. No evidence exist that any verses were edited out of Paul's letters, gnostic interpolations would directly conflict with what Paul actually wrote. We are taught by the written word as well as the indwelling Holy Spirit, so the church political hierarchy could never deny the Holy Spirit, even if they wanted too.
that cannot be supported, but IMO, it can be supported the other way around... and I think you misunderstand Gnosticism - for Paul was a gnostic as his letters clearly show...
Because the concept of the Trinity is totally undermined by Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, Martin Luther rejected the authorship, and condemned the epistle. Luther was offended by such statements as: "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house" (Heb 3:1-3 KJV)That Jesus himself directly taught us that he was our brother -- albeit, the first of the Prodigal Sons to return to the Kingdom and be crowned the First Son of God -- is very clearly represented by Paul in the words: "For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy praise" (Heb 2:11-12 NAS). The Revised Standard Version interprets this passage to say that Jesus and the rest of mankind "…have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren".
The Apostle tells us: "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children" (Eph 5:1 NAS). If we were created as inferior beings who were nothing more than the natural offspring of Adam, as Christians believe today, then the Apostle would never have told a race of inferior beings to imitate God. The basis of Paul's words is seen in the fact that man is created in the image and likeness of God, and is God's own offspring. If we were inferior beings, neither would God command us: "ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy" (Lev 11:45 KJV), if we did not possess this innate ability. What is written here is no different than what St. Gregory said when he wrote that we must walk the "path of an exact imitation of Him Who leads the way to salvation" -- which path in the words of St. Nazianzen, reveals to us our true nature and makes "us like God".
The gospels were never infused with paganism, they don't teach polytheism. Gnosticism is an ancient false philosophy written by uninspired anonymous people, they were never biblical manuscripts. Its not difficult to spot them as forgeries because they directly conflict with scripture.
that, is a ridiculously uneducated opinion..in my opinion.... it comes straight from the issues we are talking about... misunderstandings and misdirection... and possibly a misunderstanding of the usage of paganism...
In the second and third centuries, the people being thrown to the lions and burned at the stake were not the ones reading Thomas, Judas, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary. They were the ones reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Gnosticism posed no threat to the empire or Constantine because it denied that Jesus was God who had come in the flesh.
at a time when it was illegal to possess the texts? when texts were gathered up and burned in big piles? they were important enough to gather up and hide away for a couple thousand years, were they not? what was left was thoroughly censored by the church.... c'mon, this is BASIC history...and it was slightly different than you suggest..
Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism
in Creative Expression & Cultural Arts
Posted
Interesting take the Essene Gospel of Peace displays towards cleanliness.... It starts out with Jesus telling the sick how to make themselves strong again....