Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Take a look at this LINK to see how Paul felt about the OT. He says that all scripture (up to that point, the OT) was god-breathed.

How can you reject the OT yet accept a man who didn't reject it and who even said it was from god?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You can appeal to an authority much higher than Paul.

What did Jesus say about the OT?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


That is such a good point as the New Testament was still being compiled, they never had a Christian New Testament to even refer to. Those verses had to apply to the old testament which was completed and well known.
In context those words would apply to the whole bible to Christians in later times. However to the first century Christian it could only be the Old Testament which would have only been superseded by the core directives given by Jesus that were known at the time, such as the mosaic law had ended and was no longer binding on Christians.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Take a look at this LINK to see how Paul felt about the OT. He says that all scripture (up to that point, the OT) was god-breathed.

How can you reject the OT yet accept a man who didn't reject it and who even said it was from god?

Your earlier claim was that Paul used the Old Testament to prove that Jesus was the Messiah.
This web site is not about that.
The Timothy letters, which is quoted, were not written by Paul but were forgeries.
You are reading a fundamentalist cult web site.
These guys who wrote the web site are really way out of touch with current biblical scholarship if they think Hebrews was written by paul.
The web site author is being deceptive when he introduces Romans 3:2 by saying "speaking of the Old Testament . . ."
Normal translations give it as "the oracles of God" which would have been things like Zechariah saying that "he" will enter the city riding on a donkey or mule.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

You can appeal to an authority much higher than Paul.

What did Jesus say about the OT?

Barely anything... He said Moses wrote of him, and uses sparse quotes from the OT...

In all reality Jesus barely used the OT according to the gospels... It says he taught from the book, I would suggest that he actually corrected from the old books.

And he only used it to relate to the people of the time.... The OT being what he was taught...

reply to post by jmdewey60


But he still supports scripture, it's in there. You're willfully ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your conclusion. The fact is, Paul said that all of scripture (the OT) was god-breathed, meaning he supported ALL of the OT. There was no other scripture available at the time, so he had to be talking about the OT.

You can continue to choose to ignore it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Read it yourself.

Where is your evidence that points toward Timothy not being written by Paul?

1 Timothy
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, 2 To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

The letter attests to Paul writing it. Do you just make stuff up on the fly like this all the time?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Not very much at all. When he did quote the OT, he was using it in order to appeal to the people of the time.

The best way to teach others is to get on their level then work your way up, Jesus knew that which is why he used the OT as references. Just because he referred to it doesn't mean he believed it.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Arius did not think that Jesus was created.

Wrong. Arius most certainly taught that Jesus was created -- he was God's first creation. Thus, Jesus is a creature with a discrete beginning, not the eternal God. In addition, Arius taught that, because God was unchanging (carrying forward from Origen,) Jesus obviously changed (he grew up from an infant, if nothing else,) so Jesus could not be divine in the same sense that God was.

Which throws out the Trinity, God's redemption of mankind through Christ, and much of Christian doctrine that had developed to that point. If Jesus isn't consubstantial with the Father, then either you reject the divinity of Christ, adopt modalism (which Arius rejected) or become a polytheist. Arianism was, rightfully, denounced as heresy.

See Jesus as the First Creature and the Irrationality of Arianism.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Not very much at all. When he did quote the OT, he was using it in order to appeal to the people of the time.

The best way to teach others is to get on their level then work your way up, Jesus knew that which is why he used the OT as references. Just because he referred to it doesn't mean he believed it.

edit on 30-4-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

I was referring to John 5:39.

reply to post by adjensen


Yes, Arius taught that Jesus was created by God:

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father...

Arianism.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

John 5:39
39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,

I could easily interpret that as Jesus saying "You think that scripture contains eternal life, but you are wrong, I am eternal life".

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

John 5:39
39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,

I could easily interpret that as Jesus saying "You think that scripture contains eternal life, but you are wrong, I am eternal life".

That isn't what He said. He said they testified or "bear witness" of Him.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The thing that I find strange is that all of these ancient heresies were examined and rejected long ago by people smarter than you or I, and, at least as far as I've been able to tell, always for legitimate problems that were in conflict with what we know as orthodox Christianity.

If you try to "back out" key aspects of Christian doctrine, you generally run into some snag that makes the entire theology fall apart, not because Christianity is built like a house of cards, but because the theology is so tight and integral to the big picture that if one decides that, for example, Jesus is a creature, not a creator, then suddenly vast swaths of the New Testament and subsequent theology no longer fits. Some seem to solve that by then rejecting problematic scripture or theology -- JMDewey, for example, appears to have fallen under the spell of Elaine Pagels, as in another thread I saw him declare the book of Acts to be a work of fiction.

But if that's what they want, why even pretend to be a Christian? Go off and form the "First Church of Arianism" and leave Christianity as it is.

It reminds me of this:

Historians of early Christianity begin to appear like jigsaw puzzle solvers who are presented with twenty-seven pieces of a thousand piece puzzle and find that only six or seven of the pieces even fit together. The reasonable thing to do would be to put those pieces together, make some guess about what that part of the puzzle might be about, and then modestly decline over-speculation about the pieces that don't fit. These solvers, in contrast, throw away the central piece, the Acts of the Apostles, that enables any connections to be made at all. Then they insist on bringing in pieces from other puzzles. Finally, they take this jumble of pieces, sketch an outline of what the history ought to look like (on the basis of some universal puzzle pattern), and then proceed to reshape these pieces until they fit in that pattern. (Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Real Jesus, pg 95)

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

That is such a good point as the New Testament was still being compiled, they never had a Christian New Testament to even refer to.

You are quoting cult propaganda, sorry. I realize that you claim to not be in it anymore but you have never been properly deprogrammed.
The Letters of Timothy were written after Paul's death so the New Testament was there and considered to be scripture by Christians.
Also the context of the verse clearly shows it as being about what is in the New Testament.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


If we must take the NT as literal word for word fact, then we must also agree that Paul said Jesus was the end the Law.

I have made the argument before that Paul contradicts Jesus when he says that he was the end of the Law, but you (?) beat around the bush and say that he didn't mean what he said.

So was Jesus the end of the Law or not? Paul says that he was, Jesus says that he wasn't. If you must read John 5:39 literally, you must also read Romans 10:4 literally as well.

reply to post by adjensen


really though?

Theres so many holes in Christian theology its starting to look like swiss cheese...

Not sure how you figured that out...

Just my opinion of course

reply to post by jmdewey60


The NT didn't exist at the time of that letter being written. Paul's letters and the Gospels were not official. In fact, I don't think any of the Gospels were even written at that time.

You're making things up as you go along again.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What did Jesus say about the OT?

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
John 5:39
Jesus is being a bit sarcastic, with the point that they only think they can find salvation in them, when the only real way to be saved is in accepting Jesus.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

Theres so many holes in Christian theology its starting to look like swiss cheese...

Such as?

Not sure how you figured that out...

Figured what out?

reply to post by adjensen


Jesus was God in the flesh, even though he didn't ever say such things...

No writing exists from anywhere within the time Jesus actually lived...

Paul was the actual person to start Christianity...

Peter was the rock.... even though he was more like a stone... Meaning easily moved or swayed...

Theres just to many to list brother... that's just off the top of my head

Figured what out?

Christianity has a tightly knitted theology