JESUS IS NOT YHWH
- Thread starter KingdomRose
- Start date
- Status
They can disagree all they want until the cows come home. There are manuscripts dating from c. 125 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52 (which is in Greek, btw)) all the way up to the 15th century.
So you think that manuscripts from Medieval times are the earliest we have? You're sorely mistaken. See this link
KingdomRose
New member
It's just settin' there.
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?124950-Foul/page2&p=5021604#post5021604
OK, I see that. But why? :crackup:
KingdomRose
New member
To Lon's post #437: Yay!!! How about being off to more interesting forums?
CherubRam
New member
The original text were written in different languages, but not all have survived the times.
keypurr
Well-known member
Greek was not known by most folks when the books were first penned. Most in the area spoke and wrote in Aramaic. The AENT has so much to offer on the subject that I have no problem in believing that the Gospels and Paul's writings were most likely an Aramaic.
I also think that the Eastern church scriptures suffered less pollution than the RCC controlled m/s. There are many unanswered questions friend. I will read the site you mention because I am seeking truth on the matter.
Sent from my iPad using TOL
Did you somehow miss that the oldest manuscript we have of the New Testament (Papyrus 52, linked above) was written in Greek?
And yet most (if not all) of the New Testament was written as if no one knew the customs of the Jews. If the people whom the NT was addressed to were the Jews (and therefore the original text would be Aramaic), then there would be NO NEED WHATSOEVER for the authors to describe the customs of the Jews, because they were their customs to begin with, they would know them.
Not to mention the fact that a majority of the New Testament was written to Gentiles, which was the common language of that era, at the very least for scholarly writings.
Again, Paul was writing to people who most likely did NOT know Aramaic, but would have known Greek, as they were NOT Jews.
Also, again, the AENT was TRANSLATED FROM KOINE GREEK, so saying that Aramaic was the original language just because you use the AENT and find it has much to offer is a non-sequitur.
Perhaps you should have done so before replying to me in the post I am replying to. You would have saved yourself some time.
Last edited:
keypurr
Well-known member
A manuscript of the four Gospels in Syriac, bearing the date A.D. 78, is mentioned by J. s. asseman, in his Bibliotheca.
Experts differ on this topic JR. Neither you nor I have the knowledge to make an educated guess at the answer. But from what I see so far the Eastern Church has the oldest of the Gospels.
And where are those manuscripts currently?
keypurr
Well-known member
I would have to go back and look through about thirty or forty pages of notes to find that for you. I think they are in Babylon's Eastern Church.
Forty dollars will get you the AENT that has many pages of note that will make you wonder about this JR. My memory is failing, I must admit that, but what I can retain is enough to question the majority on this issue. After all, I question all the traditions of the churches themselves.
Sent from my iPad using TOL
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
You forgot Trinitarians have 3 personalities to juggle around as 'God', so its a very versatile enterprise
glorydaz
Well-known member
You forgot Trinitarians have 3 personalities to juggle around as 'God', so its a very versatile enterprise
That's a silly thing to say....clearly you don't know the nature of God. :chuckle:
glorydaz
Well-known member
You're having the same problem the Jews had...not recognizing there were two comings...one as a suffering servant and one as a conquering King.
Just two comings not two individuals.
Does the fact that there's a big hairy belly settin' there, in any way have any bearing upon the truth or falsity of what is said?
Nope.
Daqq, I don't share your view that His Resurrection from the dead on the third day, is like any other doctrines that can be called "this or that." I do follow Paul's plain explanation (to me), that believing in His Resurrection constitutes the entirety of Christian faith. Every other truth of the faith is anchored in, and finds its foundation upon, this fact of history.
Fine, but I do believe His testimony, every word of it, and I do so through the infallible lens that He gives us, His ordained teachers, the college of bishops of His Church, all those bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the supreme pastor of the whole Church.
Because they shalt not be saved. Romans 10:9 (KJV)
I'm not rejecting His testimony.
I can and do read what everything says, but I am not authorized to interpret Scripture independently of what the Lord's own chosen teaching office teaches, and I don't.
There is a wall that the Lord constructed, saying, "Upon this Rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." If the Trinity is false, then He lied, because if the Trinity is false, then the gates did prevail against the Church, and in spectacularly fast fashion; the Church was virtually stillborn, that's how long it didn't take, for His promise to be broken, if the Trinity is false.
Perhaps any other particular error may be endured, but not this kind of blasphemy---and it is high blasphemy if the Trinity is false. This is death, and Christ said that the Church He would build upon Peter would not die, but if the Trinity is false, then He lied, and the Church has been long dead by now.
I don't accept that position, which is why I don't accept that the Trinity is false.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
If you would consider 'divine nature'......try again.....
If you would consider 'divine nature'......try again.....
The 'nature' of 'God' is Spirit, Love, Light, Energy, Essence, Pure Consciousness, etc. God is 'Infinite Intelligence',.....and still 'God' is more, being the omnipresent absolute reality. If you like dive into the 'divine nature' itself, it is something prior to religious concepts (which includes a 'trinity) and transcends any mind-construct,...it is prior to 'relativity'. So, as to 'nature', I see that as the pure essence, spirit, energy-consciousness at the heart of my own 'being' which cannot be separate from the One Original Reality, the Infinite I AM. (my true essence is not separate from that, neither could it be, since 'God' is ONE). God is One. God is all. Nothing can exist separate from or outside of the Infinite.
Obvioulsy my response to KR previously was a 'play' on the versatility of personalities within the 'Trinity - concept'. The whole belief in Jesus being YHWH is a later doctrinal development, as the orthodox concept of a Trinity was being formalized a few centuries after Jesus and his original apostles had passed away, but was rather different since they were true monotheists Unitarians, recognizing that only YHWH was the Most High and ONLY God, the Elohim of Abrahman, Isaac and Jacob, and that any true 'Messiah' would be a man after the lineage of David, a man anointed and empowered by YHWH.
One cannot bypass the clear Messianic passages in the OT as showing that the Messiah is always a man anointed and appointed by YHWH, the invisible Infinite Spirit Deity, who Alone is MOST HIGH, while Psalm 110 is a clear example of such, David recognizing that one coming from his own line would be his "lord" anointed by The LORD GOD (YHWH), being the Messiah.
Apart from a traditional-orthodox Jewish and Unitarian Christian perspective, all Trinitarians can do is assume that all these distinguishing passages are dealing with Jesus human personality, his human nature, so they have a more 'versatile' canvas to work with, since they believe Jesus is both wholly man and 'God' at the same time, so they can conveniently contextualize anything pertaining to Jesus to his 'human' or 'divine' nature. This allows any reference of Jesus having his own 'God' and 'Father' as meaning this is speaking of the human part of Jesus having a 'God' and 'Father'. So this aspect of Jesus that is NOT 'God', would naturally be said to have such.
I've said previously this gives them an advantage of sorts with 'theological diversity'. The "juggling" of the persons was a humorous jab at this, since in this 'company' the Holy Spirit also gets to be specially endowed as being 'his own person' So you see,...the versatilities here you get to play with can be a bit more liberal than a more simple biblical Unitarian Christology.
My former critique on the Trinity being merely a theological concept still holds as one perspective here, since 'God' in pure Spirit, incorporeal, invisible, INFINITE. While your comment with the smiley emoticon may have also been a bit of a humourous jab,...there is certainly a deeper meaning and import in our consideration here, to reconsider the ACTUAL NATURE of Deity itself, as pure incorporeal Spirit, being truly ONE (echad). On this more pure metaphysical plane, I see only the One Absolute Reality that is Love, Light, Truth, Being, Consciousness, Spirit...being All that IS. - all else is but conceptual language symbols used to relate difference, distinction, names, forms, appearances and what have you. All that there is however is 'pure awareness' playing and relating with all these forms in space. That is all that is going on really.
If you would consider 'divine nature'......try again.....
The 'nature' of 'God' is Spirit, Love, Light, Energy, Essence, Pure Consciousness, etc. God is 'Infinite Intelligence',.....and still 'God' is more, being the omnipresent absolute reality. If you like dive into the 'divine nature' itself, it is something prior to religious concepts (which includes a 'trinity) and transcends any mind-construct,...it is prior to 'relativity'. So, as to 'nature', I see that as the pure essence, spirit, energy-consciousness at the heart of my own 'being' which cannot be separate from the One Original Reality, the Infinite I AM. (my true essence is not separate from that, neither could it be, since 'God' is ONE). God is One. God is all. Nothing can exist separate from or outside of the Infinite.
Obvioulsy my response to KR previously was a 'play' on the versatility of personalities within the 'Trinity - concept'. The whole belief in Jesus being YHWH is a later doctrinal development, as the orthodox concept of a Trinity was being formalized a few centuries after Jesus and his original apostles had passed away, but was rather different since they were true monotheists Unitarians, recognizing that only YHWH was the Most High and ONLY God, the Elohim of Abrahman, Isaac and Jacob, and that any true 'Messiah' would be a man after the lineage of David, a man anointed and empowered by YHWH.
One cannot bypass the clear Messianic passages in the OT as showing that the Messiah is always a man anointed and appointed by YHWH, the invisible Infinite Spirit Deity, who Alone is MOST HIGH, while Psalm 110 is a clear example of such, David recognizing that one coming from his own line would be his "lord" anointed by The LORD GOD (YHWH), being the Messiah.
Apart from a traditional-orthodox Jewish and Unitarian Christian perspective, all Trinitarians can do is assume that all these distinguishing passages are dealing with Jesus human personality, his human nature, so they have a more 'versatile' canvas to work with, since they believe Jesus is both wholly man and 'God' at the same time, so they can conveniently contextualize anything pertaining to Jesus to his 'human' or 'divine' nature. This allows any reference of Jesus having his own 'God' and 'Father' as meaning this is speaking of the human part of Jesus having a 'God' and 'Father'. So this aspect of Jesus that is NOT 'God', would naturally be said to have such.
I've said previously this gives them an advantage of sorts with 'theological diversity'. The "juggling" of the persons was a humorous jab at this, since in this 'company' the Holy Spirit also gets to be specially endowed as being 'his own person'
So you see,...the versatilities here you get to play with can be a bit more liberal than a more simple biblical Unitarian Christology.My former critique on the Trinity being merely a theological concept still holds as one perspective here, since 'God' in pure Spirit, incorporeal, invisible, INFINITE. While your comment with the smiley emoticon may have also been a bit of a humourous jab,...there is certainly a deeper meaning and import in our consideration here, to reconsider the ACTUAL NATURE of Deity itself, as pure incorporeal Spirit, being truly ONE (echad). On this more pure metaphysical plane, I see only the One Absolute Reality that is Love, Light, Truth, Being, Consciousness, Spirit...being All that IS. - all else is but conceptual language symbols used to relate difference, distinction, names, forms, appearances and what have you. All that there is however is 'pure awareness' playing and relating with all these forms in space. That is all that is going on really.
KingdomRose
New member
Then explain those two scriptures. I have asked you in the past to explain even one. I'm still waiting. To speak of two comings is very vague. The issue is whether or not there are TWO PERSONS being depicted in the scriptures, one talking to the other, one anointing the other, etc.
KingdomRose
New member
Does the fact that there's a big hairy belly settin' there, in any way have any bearing upon the truth or falsity of what is said?
Nope.
No of course not. I just have to laugh every time I see it. Not in derision....but in harmony, I imagine, with your sense of humor. It's hysterical.:rotfl:
- Status