JAS said
This is all touching on a theological point about the inherent nature of the Trinity. That isn’t going to be solved by quoting scripture, or probably at all.
I’m now in a Facebook group that thinks they have this question solved, and it’s all they talk about. Trinity. Trinity. Trinity. How boring.
jaihare said
JAS said
This is all touching on a theological point about the inherent nature of the Trinity. That isn’t going to be solved by quoting scripture, or probably at all.
I’m now in a Facebook group that thinks they have this question solved, and it’s all they talk about. Trinity. Trinity. Trinity. How boring.
I thought the point of the Trinity is that it’s a divine mystery, beyond understanding, the contemplation of which engenders faith and the transformation of consciousness like a Zen koan. The blunder of these Christian apologists is fundamental. The most powerful aspect of religion is it’s ability to help provide its acolytes with an experience of the transcendent and the non-rational. To abandon that project in order to “prove” the existence of God or frame the Resurrection as a “fact” of history concedes everything and accomplishes nothing.
Stephen said
I thought the point of the Trinity is that it’s a divine mystery, beyond understanding, the contemplation of which engenders faith and the transformation of consciousness like a Zen koan. The blunder of these Christian apologists is fundamental. The most powerful aspect of religion is it’s ability to help provide its acolytes with an experience of the transcendent and the non-rational. To abandon that project in order to “prove” the existence of God or frame the Resurrection as a “fact” of history concedes everything and accomplishes nothing.
Ah, but it sells books and merchandise (and collects speaker’s fees), and much of that is precisely the point.
Ah, but it sells books and merchandise (and collects speaker’s fees), and much of that is precisely the point.
Having grown up in the American south it’s hard to argue. But it seems to me that it’s also is a tacit concession to the spirit of the age. If you are going to make truth claims in a modern culture you must couch them in a rationalistic framework. Ironies abound. Am I “saved” now simply by accepting the Resurrection as a historical event in space-time like I accept that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address on the afternoon of 11/19/1863?
brenmcg said
mzejum said
You said it yourself…The eyewitness crowd Praised God for Giving Jesus the authority to Forgive sins. if the Eyewitnesses present identified God and Jesus as man and as separate entities where do you get the notion Jesus is God from?
From Matthew.
Matthew 11:27 “All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.“
Matthew 28:18-19 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit“
These words are spoken by someone claiming to be in divine union with the Father.
i call that illusions. since in the same Chapter in verse 25,Just before one of the verse you quoted, the same Guy you claim to be divine, is seen praying and praising someone who he thinks is Divine. In John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
from the Mouth of Jesus, Him and Mary Magdalena has the same Father. can we say by that Context Mary Magdalena is the daughter of God and we can also Claim her to be divine?
mzejum said
i call that illusions. since in the same Chapter in verse 25,Just before one of the verse you quoted, the same Guy you claim to be divine, is seen praying and praising someone who he thinks is Divine.
Yes, so there are two divine persons in this chapter.
In John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
from the Mouth of Jesus, Him and Mary Magdalena has the same Father. can we say by that Context Mary Magdalena is the daughter of God and we can also Claim her to be divine?
Yes, the gospel of John begins with John 1:11-12 “To his own he came but his own did not receive him; but to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave authority to become children of God“
This is what is expressed to Mary Magdalene having completed his mission and rising from the dead. He became human which allowed humans to become children of God, sharing the Father, he took a share in humanity so shared the same God.
Stephen said
I thought the point of the Trinity is that it’s a divine mystery, beyond understanding, the contemplation of which engenders faith and the transformation of consciousness like a Zen koan. The blunder of these Christian apologists is fundamental. The most powerful aspect of religion is it’s ability to help provide its acolytes with an experience of the transcendent and the non-rational. To abandon that project in order to “prove” the existence of God or frame the Resurrection as a “fact” of history concedes everything and accomplishes nothing.
The point is that they argue that the Trinity doesn’t exist and is not a NT doctrine, but they argue about it all the time. It’s like the most important topic to argue about, in their opinion.
The point is that they argue that the Trinity doesn’t exist and is not a NT doctrine, but they argue about it all the time. It’s like the most important topic to argue about, in their opinion.
Ah the “other” apologists! Yeah that kind of thing gets pretty tiresome too. I would say the concept of the Trinity certainly exists and while I agree it isn’t a NT doctrine it’s importance is in it being the solution to a problem that is in the NT. My point is whether one is a believer or not you don’t really want an explanation to a divine mystery. Explanations leach the concept of its usefulness.
Not the son of David. At least not literally. For some reason Mark decided to show that Jesus of Nazareth was not a son of David. Certainly Yahweh curses Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22, just before predicting that the Branch, whose name is Jehozadak (ch.23, 33) , would return Israel from the exile. Jeconiah is to have descendants. So clearly there is another feather in the cap of those saying Jesus or the Branch was not the literal son of David.
Long before Jesus of Nazareth was declared Messiah by Peter, Jesus Jehozadak is crowned the Branch in Zechariah. Both of these Jesuses were Messiahs in a way. Both of these Jesuses had backing that the messiah was not going to be Davidic due to the curse of Jeremiah 22.
Though see Jeremiah 33:17,18.
Its an argument. Haggai call Zerubbabel a signet ring, answering Jeremiah’s 24 As I live, says the Lord, even if King Coniah son of Jehoiakim of Judah were the signet ring on my right hand, even from there I would tear you off
Zechariah seems content with single rule by Jehozadak as priest/mayor, though a later edit tries to push Zerubbabel into a more prominent role, pushing a proclamation about him into the middle of a sentence in Zechariah 4.
I say all of this to say the Messiah did not have to be Davidic by the views of some, even in the OT. However, there clearly was efforts to revive the Davidic tradition, so perhaps Matthew was addressing that as an issue.
Thinking further, Josephus names many leaders who rose up in the century previous to his writings. I don’t recall any of them claiming to be of Davidic descent. And Josephus calls Vespasian the Messiah. Vespasian was not even Jewish, but he brought peace (once the flames died down) and law and order. Later Bar Kosba rose up and claimed that he was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Dt about a star arising out of Judah.
Finally, if one puts together that Mark is pointing out that the messiah is not a literal son of David, that Mark predicts the Son of Man returning within the generation of Jesus’s audience (40 yrs on from 30 CE), and the fact that Vespasian brings the kingdom of god in 70 CE. it all adds up to Mark calling Vespasian the Messiah in my eyes.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)