Trinitarians are Polytheists

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
DO you believe it was curable back then?

No, apart from "accidents", there were no antibiotics, necessary to clear certain bacteriological infections, including leprosy. I don't know enough about biology and medicine to say for sure, but my guess is that anyone who was "cured" of leprosy back then didn't have it in the first place (until Jesus came along, of course

)

Right... so...

The only ones that were cured were those that came to him... and he cured them through their belief in him...

Meaning the belief in the correct God... and after which preceded to tell them to make sure to do the usual temple sacrifices...

Which would likely cause the priests to praise their God for curing the man...

I'm not sure where you're going with that, but it sounds like a bit of a stretch. We have no idea what the priest's reaction would be.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
DO you believe it was curable back then?

No, apart from "accidents", there were no antibiotics, necessary to clear certain bacteriological infections, including leprosy. I don't know enough about biology and medicine to say for sure, but my guess is that anyone who was "cured" of leprosy back then didn't have it in the first place (until Jesus came along, of course

)

Right... so...

The only ones that were cured were those that came to him... and he cured them through their belief in him...

Meaning the belief in the correct God... and after which preceded to tell them to make sure to do the usual temple sacrifices...

Which would likely cause the priests to praise their God for curing the man...

I'm not sure where you're going with that, but it sounds like a bit of a stretch. We have no idea what the priest's reaction would be.

Would they not be astonished by the fact that this man was no longer afflicted by such a horrible disease?

What other reaction is there?

Perhaps they would just shrug it off as if it happens every day... because you know, this God is so powerful...

isn't it obvious where im going?

Jesus said there is a God of the dead... Even paul said there is a God of this world...

C'mon man I know you like gnostic texts... work with me here

Personally I don't think it matters one whit, and no one here even knows the answers, not even the bloodlines/elites who have some memories, they're still remembering star wars and realms within the universe, not outside the school, for if they were remembering home they would never ever behave the way they have, for I do have some recall of what is like.

They would be doing all they can to equalize and help everyone. They would watch over nature safeguarding every tender leaf and flower, they would be a gift to this planet and others, bring smiles and uplift all around them. They would be Love only.

Now as to whether God is One or Infinitely Many, the Three Leafed Clover was a good representation. But no one knows.....That is a fact. They believe, but don't know.

And if they Love it doesnt matter what they believe and if they don't Love nothing they believe is going to take away the consequences.

I remember when I left the Catholic Church years and years ago because it would be wrong to stay in a sin, and the credo's were wrong.

But I struggled long and hard over the issue and kept seeing it from all sides. If the ship is sinking do you bail or do you stay and bail out the water.....????

In the end, I had a vision when I was lying down. Was shown myself as a small little toddler on the beach with a bucket of sand, and I was picking up each grain of sand and looking at it from every angle, then putting it into the bucket.

Then the answer came: this is something that the theologians argue with and never agree upon, yet there you are, just a little toddler. Do what you feel is right.

For the only thing that truly matters is Love. And helping others.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
DO you believe it was curable back then?

No, apart from "accidents", there were no antibiotics, necessary to clear certain bacteriological infections, including leprosy. I don't know enough about biology and medicine to say for sure, but my guess is that anyone who was "cured" of leprosy back then didn't have it in the first place (until Jesus came along, of course

)

Right... so...

The only ones that were cured were those that came to him... and he cured them through their belief in him...

Meaning the belief in the correct God... and after which preceded to tell them to make sure to do the usual temple sacrifices...

Which would likely cause the priests to praise their God for curing the man...

I'm not sure where you're going with that, but it sounds like a bit of a stretch. We have no idea what the priest's reaction would be.

Would they not be astonished by the fact that this man was no longer afflicted by such a horrible disease?

What other reaction is there?

Like I said, there were likely cases of people being "cured" of leprosy, which were simply misdiagnoses in the first place. The fact that there was a process defined in the Law to deal with people being "cured" of leprosy is an indication that it happened from time to time.

From the best of my recollection, there were only twelve people cited as being cured by Jesus, and so long as any of them didn't say "that guy over there did it!" it probably didn't raise too many eyebrows.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
DO you believe it was curable back then?

No, apart from "accidents", there were no antibiotics, necessary to clear certain bacteriological infections, including leprosy. I don't know enough about biology and medicine to say for sure, but my guess is that anyone who was "cured" of leprosy back then didn't have it in the first place (until Jesus came along, of course

)

Right... so...

The only ones that were cured were those that came to him... and he cured them through their belief in him...

Meaning the belief in the correct God... and after which preceded to tell them to make sure to do the usual temple sacrifices...

Which would likely cause the priests to praise their God for curing the man...

I'm not sure where you're going with that, but it sounds like a bit of a stretch. We have no idea what the priest's reaction would be.

Would they not be astonished by the fact that this man was no longer afflicted by such a horrible disease?

What other reaction is there?

Like I said, there were likely cases of people being "cured" of leprosy, which were simply misdiagnoses in the first place. The fact that there was a process defined in the Law to deal with people being "cured" of leprosy is an indication that it happened from time to time.

From the best of my recollection, there were only twelve people cited as being cured by Jesus, and so long as any of them didn't say "that guy over there did it!" it probably didn't raise too many eyebrows.

So if a man routinely came to the temple with his disease, and suddenly one day the disease was gone... that wouldn't raise any eyebrows?

I don't know about that one...

Originally posted by Akragon
So if a man routinely came to the temple with his disease, and suddenly one day the disease was gone... that wouldn't raise any eyebrows?

I don't know about that one...

You might be confusing the healing stories -- I don't remember any leper that "routinely came to the Temple", and think that highly unlikely -- as I said, they were exiles who were not allowed anywhere near the synagogue, Temple, or "clean" people.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
So if a man routinely came to the temple with his disease, and suddenly one day the disease was gone... that wouldn't raise any eyebrows?

I don't know about that one...

You might be confusing the healing stories -- I don't remember any leper that "routinely came to the Temple", and think that highly unlikely -- as I said, they were exiles who were not allowed anywhere near the synagogue, Temple, or "clean" people.

Well that's a little sad, though I do remember certain places "unclean" people were not allowed to go...

But surely there was professing Jews that had the disease... word of such a persons cure would spread like wildfire and eventually get to the priests, who of course would naturally claim it was their God that cured said person...

especially within a 3 year period...

reply to post by adjensen

To be allowed back in the Jewish community -- lepers were exiles and only allowed back in if they proved they were clear of the disease and had jumped through all the hoops.

Yep. I agree 100%

I'm really slow, and my eyes are staring to blur. So what I right has to be a general response to where the discussion is going. Not directed specifically to you.

Jesus knew that temple was not going to be standing long (40 years or so.) The temple (even though it was an idol) was not his enemy. He taught there himself. Although he knew the temple would be destroyed, he did not rejoice about that whatsoever.

Who did Jesus see as a faction of his enemies in the future going forward even to today? The Pharisees and other radical factions of Torah believers who did shun the temple, eg. the Qumran separatists and other message (ie Gnostic types) who saw themselves as too holy to associate with the sinful common people.

These radical holy people were the ones that caused the burning of the temple after killing the priests. That was before the Romans even entered. The almost worshipped by Israel state heroes of Masada were a vicious band of brigands that plundered and killed villageres to supply themselves, seeing as they were righteous followers of the "word of g.d" and the villagers were "sinners".

The Pharisees and other followers of "the word" became the rabbis who wrote the Talmud and Kabbalah. These things exist today.

I have to give my eyes a break for a while. Jesus gives a choice. Honor God in spirit and truth or follow the traditions of men who consider themselves (rabbinical counsels) the masters of g.d ?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
So if a man routinely came to the temple with his disease, and suddenly one day the disease was gone... that wouldn't raise any eyebrows?

I don't know about that one...

You might be confusing the healing stories -- I don't remember any leper that "routinely came to the Temple", and think that highly unlikely -- as I said, they were exiles who were not allowed anywhere near the synagogue, Temple, or "clean" people.

Well that's a little sad, though I do remember certain places "unclean" people were not allowed to go...

Bear in mind that, without a cure, and with terrible physical deformities that would result, the disease was treated like a plague -- lepers were not allowed to be around other people to prevent them infecting them, though whether they had actually figured that much out, I don't know -- the belief was that the person had sinned against God, and once they cleared that up, God might lift the curse. But I'm sure some brainbox observed that when the "unclean" people were forced to live in graveyards or caves, "clean" people tended not to get leprosy, so the quarantine stuck.

But surely there was professing Jews that had the disease...

My sense of it is that those who were found to have it were treated as if they were dead. And in reading this article, it appears that a number of diseases that weren't really leprosy (eczema is one apparent one) were labelled as such anyway, so with that in mind, there were probably lots of people who were "cured" of leprosy, though, as I said earlier, they never actually had it.

reply to post by pthena


Thanks for writing that up, I think it's a reasonable perspective -- Jesus clearly sides with non-elites and non-authoritative types. One of the things that I like most about the Christian perspective, in contrast to many other religions, is that it is open to everyone. Rich, poor, dumb, smart, slave, free, black, white, Jew, Gentile. You don't have to be clever and figure things out, or pay a guru to enlighten you.

If the Bible is to be believed, all you need is that text to learn from, a bit of grace from God, and faith in Christ.

reply to post by adjensen

You don't have to be clever and figure things out, or pay a guru to enlighten you.

If the Bible is to be believed, all you need is that text to learn from, a bit of grace from God, and faith in Christ.

You don't find it a bit "clever" that it took 300 years to figure out that "God" is three persons that equal one God?

Especially since Jesus said theres only one true God, who is greater then himself?

Considering the various sects of Christianity are still at odds with each other over the message, the book, and various other issues... 2000 years later they still haven't figured out the message.

Also any "guru" or spiritual leader that asks for money from his followers clearly is in it for his own reasons...

Which we can also look at the church for an example of this behaviour

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

You don't have to be clever and figure things out, or pay a guru to enlighten you.

If the Bible is to be believed, all you need is that text to learn from, a bit of grace from God, and faith in Christ.

You don't find it a bit "clever" that it took 300 years to figure out that "God" is three persons that equal one God?

No, I think that the first Christians knew that... maybe it was the teachings that Jesus gave to the Apostles that wasn't recorded. The fact that they were orthodox Jews who worshiped a human being, as God, is pretty telling as far as them understanding something that wasn't obvious to the casual observer.

As I wrote previously (here, or in another thread, I forget where I'm dealing with TrueJew's heresy, lol,) the need to lay out exactly how that worked out didn't arise until the Second or Third Century, when people started to distort the story of Jesus to fit their own expectations and needs. The vast majority of Gnostic Christian texts share little in common with orthodox Christianity apart from a few common characters.

reply to post by adjensen

One of the things that I like most about the Christian perspective, in contrast to many other religions, is that it is open to everyone. Rich, poor, dumb, smart, slave, free, black, white, Jew, Gentile.

Yes, me too.

I was at a Baha'i meeting one time and the woman who was host was saying how previous religions like Judaism and Christianity didn't view women as equal to men, that Mohammed introduced equality of sexes. I raised my hand and responded, "No, Christianity had it too."

"Oh yeah," she said, "prove it!"

For some reason I had a Bible on hand. When I opened it, it opened right on:

Gal 3:26 For you are all children of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
- WEB

So I read it to her and she responded,

"They sure haven't acted like that!"

Nothing I could say but, "The concept, at least, was there."

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

You don't have to be clever and figure things out, or pay a guru to enlighten you.

If the Bible is to be believed, all you need is that text to learn from, a bit of grace from God, and faith in Christ.

You don't find it a bit "clever" that it took 300 years to figure out that "God" is three persons that equal one God?

No, I think that the first Christians knew that... maybe it was the teachings that Jesus gave to the Apostles that wasn't recorded. The fact that they were orthodox Jews who worshiped a human being, as God, is pretty telling as far as them understanding something that wasn't obvious to the casual observer.

As I wrote previously (here, or in another thread, I forget where I'm dealing with TrueJew's heresy, lol,) the need to lay out exactly how that worked out didn't arise until the Second or Third Century, when people started to distort the story of Jesus to fit their own expectations and needs. The vast majority of Gnostic Christian texts share little in common with orthodox Christianity apart from a few common characters.

Wouldn't that be "glorifying the son" as the son Glorifies the Father?

They worshiped him as the "Son" of God... as he said he was.... One person mentioned him actually being his personal God...

The holy spirit "came from God" but theres no mention of the holy spirit actually being God as another persona... Or being equal to the son... Nor the son being equal the Father...

And why would that be left out considering it is the main basis of Trinitarian belief?

Its funny that Jesus himself nor God apparently didn't know God is Three in one... don't ya think?

reply to post by pthena

"They sure haven't acted like that!"

Yeah well, stereotyping isn't exactly right. Any person worth their salt in what they believe when it comes to christianity would know that both men and women were chosen to be present at the upper room at Shavuot, both chosen to be Apostles and ministers of the faith.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Welcome back to TrueJew's thread. I was afraid I'd offended you with condescending manner or something. I couldn't come up with any decent apology. So, I'm sorry.

One of your old avatars,

Yeah, women everywhere, at the crucifixion while most of the (official) disciples were hiding. First at the open tomb (Mark 16). First to see Jesus afterwards, yet somehow left out of some lists. If Acts is accurate, there may have been more women prophets than men. If the epistles are believed, there were at least 2 Apostles in the Roman empire.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I just bought:

Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) [Hardcover]
Adela Yarbro Collins (Author), Harold W. Attridge (Editor)

I try to keep my library fairly small these days.

When I owned a home I had a nice sized library. When I moved to God knows where, I donated three truckloads (small Datsun pickup) to my local library, at least one third of which were theological and Bible commentary.

I haven't owned a home since 1993. I've lived in one room accommodations since then, and a year in a car. Just so you understand why I don't buy every book you recommend. Abandoning books is a sad thing.

reply to post by pthena

Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) [Hardcover]
Adela Yarbro Collins (Author), Harold W. Attridge (Editor)

Yikes! I just looked at the price on that.
I bought my copy last September, after waiting a couple months, having it on my wish list on Amazon and checking it every day until there was a cheap used copy available, and got it for $39. plus $3.99 shipping. That's if you have the patience for that. The $71.72 that Amazon is offering a new copy for, is more than I payed for Jewitt's Romans commentary, which is a really thick book at 1140 pages. I bought that new, and looking at that right now, on Amazon, sure enough, it is about the same as Adela's book, which makes me think that her books are in high demand (and so more expensive), even though it is only 800 pages.
Apparently the book has been well received and is probably required for some theology classes which will also boost the price.
Anyway, enjoy the book. If you haven't read any of her other books, you may be happy with her approach, which is scholarly rather than dogmatic.

reply to post by Akragon

Still in terms of the sacrifice, they had it wrong to begin with... Why is there a need to sacrifice an animal, or in this case a bird for the remission of "sins"?

I doubt that Jesus was advocating animal sacrifices.
The text says, 'give a gift' which would not be the same thing as what was spelled out in Leviticus for 'cleansing' a leper.
The process described there is a bit tedious and was probably not done, and at that time of the story, the normal procedure most likely have been to pay a priest to write you out a bill of health.
The point was that at the same time as being healed of a physical ailment, he was also healed from being a 'sinner' at least by the religious officialdom.
Where he could not before approach the 'holy' priests, he could approach Jesus, who listened to his plea.