Did Jesus preach or proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity?

[mikewhitney]

Indeed we could say that Paul was the primary theologian that shaped Christianity with what he understood about the Old Testament, and what he learned about the Messiah Jesus. Paul was not alone since he also interacted with other Jews, such as Peter and James. It was primarily through the Gentiles that Christianity expanded to the world. Paul had lamented the low response by his fellow countrymen, but he told the Gentiles not to boast against the Jews.

If the scriptures were anti-Jewish, the whole Old Testament would have be erased from Christianity. The letters by James and Peter would have be omitted. Hebrews would have been found to be useless.

God is able to bring forth His work in whatever fashion He desires.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Indeed we could say that Paul was the primary theologian that shaped Christianity with what he understood about the Old Testament, and what he learned about the Messiah Jesus. Paul was not alone since he also interacted with other Jews, such as Peter and James. It was primarily through the Gentiles that Christianity expanded to the world. Paul had lamented the low response by his fellow countrymen, but he told the Gentiles not to boast against the Jews.

If the scriptures were anti-Jewish, the whole Old Testament would have be erased from Christianity. The letters by James and Peter would have be omitted. Hebrews would have been found to be useless.

God is able to bring forth His work in whatever fashion He desires.

It would be of great help if you would actually answer the questions I put to you, rather than heading off on a completely different topic.

[mikewhitney]

I thought this would be helpful too



France had responded to various reasons given by others to place the text at a later date. This is just the conclusion of it. He notes that the gospel reflects a time before there was hostile dialogue between the Messanic and non-Messianic Jews.

There indeed is debate. Much comes from an anti-prophecy assumption.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I thought this would be helpful too

[cite=France, R. T. Matthew. Vol. 1. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985.]

Unfortunately you left out the final section with its caveat.

"It must be recognised, however, that all such conclusions depend on the relative dating of various writings and events, and there are few fixed points. Our comments below on the relationships between the Synoptic Gospels will suggest that .anti-prophecy assumptio

[mikewhitney]

Unfortunately you left out the final section with its caveat.

"It must be recognised, however, that all such conclusions depend on the relative dating of various writings and events, and there are few fixed points. Our comments below on the relationships between the Synoptic Gospels will suggest that .anti-prophecy assumptio

The point about prophecy seems to be a big point of division in the scholarly world. The only way around this would be for scholars who do not take the prophecies (especially like Matt 24) and the destruction of the temple into consideration in determining the dating of Matthew and the other gospels. Maybe one way for scholars to get around this issue would be to say that the destruction of the temple was reasonably anticipated -- i.e. so that it was insight and not prophecy. However, I don't know of scholars taking this type of option.

Indeed, one of the oddities of history was that Christian scholars, in order to fit in with secular scholars, had to discuss scripture in more of a sanitized, non-miraculous, mechanized-historic fashion. There were pros and cons to this.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The point about prophecy seems to be a big point of division in the scholarly world.

Yes I am sure the breeding habits of unicorns or the cultural mores of pixies cause the same sort of division in academia. [sarcasm alert]

[mikewhitney]

Yes I am sure the breeding habits of unicorns or the cultural mores of pixies cause the same sort of division in academia. [sarcasm alert]

So I think you meant to say that many scholars make funny statements about things they think are impossible. Of course this is not to admit any bias on their part when exploring scripture. The early dating, before AD70, can be accepted on alternative grounds, like I suggested. To reject the earlier date due to the prophetic content is to inject unnecessary bias.

To use this rejection of prophecy within an argument against the miraculous Christianity is to end the viability of your arguments for many Christians. You just operate in a different presupposition which has not relationship to many Christians. Paul appealed to the Galatians' experience of the Spirit (Gal 3) to admonish them not to rely on works of the Law for their justification. This experience of the Spirit is part of reality for many Christians.

If there is a denial of the existence (or knowledge) of God, then the one who holds that position certainly has a challenge when trying to convince Christians of anything. I don't know where you fit in within the recognition of God's existence. A confessional Christian certainly cannot hold to the confession while denying the resurrection of Christ or the existence of the Trinity.

[mikewhitney]

Yes I am sure the breeding habits of unicorns or the cultural mores of pixies cause the same sort of division in academia. [sarcasm alert]

On the other hand, anything pursued (and continued) on false presumptions certainly does not promote truth. There are many pursuits of knowledge which are built on sketchy grounds.

I see that you had selected a signature block which presumes that God cannot do miracles: "Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fantasies."

If you are a practicing Jew, it is hard to know why you adhere to any religious practice. If you are rejecting Deity, it seems you are taking a circuitous route to do that.

If you have reasons to reject the miraculous, you can start presenting those reasons here. We'll see if they are convincing.

You can always fall back on another statement by Hypatia: "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." Try that one for your signature intead.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

On the other hand, anything pursued (and continued) on false presumptions certainly does not promote truth. There are many pursuits of knowledge which are built on sketchy grounds.

I see that you had selected a signature block which presumes that God cannot do miracles: "Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fantasies."

If you are a practicing Jew, it is hard to know why you adhere to any religious practice. If you are rejecting Deity, it seems you are taking a circuitous route to do that.

If you have reasons to reject the miraculous, you can start presenting those reasons here. We'll see if they are convincing.

You can always fall back on another statement by Hypatia: "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." Try that one for your signature intead.

Firstly, I am flattered that you took the time to source my signature quote and my thanks for your suggestion. You will, however, excuse me if I do not take your advice.

Secondly, the discipline of New Testament study along with all the other disciplines that are included in that process, work from a rational basis. In the same way the branch of academia involved in what might be called Life Sciences [again with all the myriad disciplines that are incorporated into that huge topic] does not research the habits of fabulous creatures or the life enhancing properties of magical beans.

Thirdly, concerning your reference to miracles, you should understand that for the first century world performing miracles and a belief in magical practices was commonplace in both the Graeco-Roman and Jewish spheres. Magic, in all its forms, was part of the contemporary context. Exorcism was used to remove evil spirits and imprecations and invocations were made to deities. Divination was practised, often using the livers of animals, along with the interpretation of dreams, there was a widely held belief in portents and omens, and protective and/or apotropaic amulets were frequently worn. All these superstitions and practises under-laid the fabric of those societies.

Today's western society which is founded on science and rationalism does not have the same view of the world. Therefore, in order to deal with your comment regarding the miraculous you must first define what you understand by a miracle.

Fourthly, what have I written that leads you to conclude I might be a "practising Jew"?

[Christian3]

[QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;748502]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The point about prophecy seems to be a big point of division in the scholarly world.

Primarily because academia does not lend itself to dealing with superstitions.

The only way around this would be for scholars who do not take the prophecies (especially like Matt 24) and the destruction of the temple into consideration in determining the dating of Matthew and the other gospels.

The work can only be undertaken using later copies because no original MSS exist.

Maybe one way for scholars to get around this issue would be to say that the destruction of the temple was reasonably anticipated -- i.e. so that it was insight and not prophecy.

However, I don't know of scholars taking this type of option.

Why would they? [Or a reply to this one?]

Indeed, one of the oddities of history was that Christian scholars, in order to fit in with secular scholars, had to discuss scripture in more of a sanitized, non-miraculous, mechanized-historic fashion. There were pros and cons to this.

So I think you meant to say that many scholars make funny statements about things they think are impossible.

thinkmeant to say

Of course this is not to admit any bias on their part when exploring scripture.

Of course people like yourself have no bias whatsoever with regard to this topic, do you? [another sarcasm alert]

The early dating, before AD70, can be accepted on alternative grounds, like I suggested.

What alternative grounds have you actually suggested? You provided a quote from a work by France [presumably that you found online]

To reject the earlier date due to the prophetic content is to inject unnecessary bias.

Why, and in what regard? [I do not expect to receive a reply to that question either]

To use this rejection of prophecy within an argument against the miraculous Christianity is to end the viability of your arguments for many Christians.

The views of Christians do not really have much impact on academic research. Or perhaps you would prefer evolutionary science to reject anything that does not fit in to the Genesis flood myth or medical science to go back to prayer and exorcism?

You just operate in a different presupposition which has not relationship to many Christians. Paul appealed to the Galatians' experience of the Spirit (Gal 3) to admonish them not to rely on works of the Law for their justification. This experience of the Spirit is part of reality for many Christians.

What on earth has Galatians to do with the academic discipline of textual criticism and the dating of New Testament papyri?

If there is a denial of the existence (or knowledge) of God, then the one who holds that position certainly has a challenge when trying to convince Christians of anything.

Once again I do not imagine the opinion of Christians has much effect on academic research into biblical archaeology and biblical studies.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given that Christians tell us that Jesus is God then that was the perfect moment to announce his divinity.

(notice Jesus did not say He wasn't good)

He did not say he was god either.

Keep in mind that Jesus called Himself the GOOD Shepherd.

[Christian3]

What would have happened if Jesus had said He was God at that time?

Jesus made claims that only God could make for Himself.

What is your source that this is a "later interpolation"?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What would have happened if Jesus had said He was God at that time?

A possible whipping and instructions to his family to take care of him, as he would have been judged to be mad.

Jesus made claims that only God could make for Himself.

You do realise your gospels are not verbatim reports of events, don't you? No one was following Jesus around with a cellphone or tape recorder recording his every word. These sacred biographies were all written decades after the events they purport to recount.

What is your source that this is a "later interpolation"?

John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, OUP, 2007

[Christian3]

John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, OUP, 2007

Give the full quote in context. Include the page number.