Spirituality
12 May 12
03 Jun 12
The wagoner is obviously not a historical figure.
That's because the style of the story is FABLE. The genre is different from a book like Genesis. That is unless you can provide ample examples of more historical type writing from those Fables.
The geographical location is unspecified. It doesn't matter. All you need is a muddy road somewhere.
Exactly. That is because the genre is different from the book of Genesis which places considerable importance to WHERE Abraham was, from where he journeyed, and TO where he journeyed, WHO was in the land at that time and how he treated them, where was promised to him by this speaking God, how many years it would be until his descendents came to that PLACE.
The genre is completely different because geography MATTERS in Genesis. Unless you come up with some parellels in Aesop's Fables I emphasize that your comparison is weak at best.
Doesn't mean some good things are not written in Aesop's Fables. Critics and Friends alike still and have always refered to Aesop's FABLES. Only enemies of the Bible like you refer to the "myths" written in Genesis or of Jewish Fables known as Genesis. That's just your unbelief in what is communicated there.
The difference in geographical details is real, but unimportant.
Hercules was more about action rather than words.
True. But in Genesis WHERE specific action was taken by God and/or believer in His speaking, is crucial.
God told Abraham to LEAVE Chaldea. God told Jacob to get up and LEAVE one place and return to a specific other place. It is germane to the story.
Aesop knows it was Hercules who appeared because he is the author of the story.
Okay. But not much assurance is provided. That is because it really is not that important.
The wagoner knows it was Hercules who appeared because he called specifically for him and he appeared.
What is vague or fuzzy about that?
Well, Hercules says nothing like this -
" ... and He said, I am Jehovah, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie, I will give to you and to your seed .... And behold I am with you and will kep you wherever yuou go and will cause you to return to this land, for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you." (See Gen. 28:31-15)
You have here God keeping a record of His promise over the biographies of three people - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In essence "It is ME again. That's right. Your granddad may be dead. Your dad may be dead. But I am that very same GOD who spoke to them about certain promises. I haven't forgotten. And you're standing in the place that I promised thier children as an inheritance."
And this happened with geograophic significance - "And Jacob went out from NBeersheba and went toward Haran. And he came to a certain place and spent the night there ..." (v.10)
The name of that place became known for what HAPPENED that night as Bethel. And it had considerable importance throughout the history of ancient Israel.
"And Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, Surely Jehovah is in this place, and I did not know it. And he was afraid and said, How awesome is rthis place! This is none other than the house of God [Bethel] , and this is the gate of heaven." (vs.16,17)
There is a little more realistic human reaction in this journalistic and historical report. Don't you think ? What's with this "Ho Hum, its only Hercules" ? Maybe that is not fair. But at least in the Aesop fable it appears nothing extraordinary that Hercules a deity stops by for a chat with some anonymous waggoner, oh well, anywhere (doesn't matter much).
To be fair there are some places where God's appearing or speaking is not accompanied by such details. But many places they are. And we should expect that. It is not a mundane matter. It is very significant matter to human beings.
The story works better with Hercules speaking the words he speaks. If it had instead been some random passerby, his opinion would have not carried the same weight with the wagoner (or the reader).
Agreed.
This still is a very weak comparison to the biographies of three men covering hundreds of years and how God spoke and kept promise to them over the span of thier lifetimes.
And this interaction doesn't end with Jacob in Genesis. Moses picks it up - same God. Joshua picks it up years latter - same Person, Samuel picks it up latter - same Person, David gets a visit, same God, Solomon gets a visits - still the SAME God !! The long line of prophets over the turning centries have conversement with the SAME God. He's still around. He still remembers. He still is working out His plan. He is still operating, Hasn't been stopped yet. Finally we have the Word became flesh in Christ the Son of God.
And the writer of Hebrews writes:
"God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, Has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, thorugh whom also He made the universe; Who, being the effulgence of His glory and the impress of His substance and upholding all things by the word of His power, having made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb. 1:1)
The "seeds" of this speaking Person are in Genesis. The continued growth and development over the millennia are in the other books following Genesis.
I have to be more impressed with this Speaker than the Fabled tale of Hercules giving a single anonymous traveler in "Who knows Where?" some good advice of self sufficiency.
The obligation to God in the Bible is indicative of how people of that time understood moral obligation.
The sense of obligation has not changed in the hearts of many people. It is only that some fight against the internal sense by becomming atheists prefering that it is only to another human one is accountable.
Your efforts, I think, are to convince the conscience that no God will see, no God will weigh, no God wil evaluate, no God will either find guilt or be forgiving.
Laying hold of Aesop's Fables is just a part of this campaign to convince the conscience that no God exists to care, account, hold responsible, judge or forgive.
I can show an example of a promise from God to Israel that was not fulfilled ... but that's tangential to the discussion.
I can show that some promises may still be in the process of fullfilment. Since Jesus and God spoke of such ONGOING fulfillment it is really no contradiction that examples could be located.
He told us that some things were yet to be worked out. But the track record of what HAS been already held true is impressive to many.
There is no need for anything like that in the Hercules Fable from Aesop.
The AF collection centers on moral lessons, not specific characters.
I agree. And we NEED moral lessons.
For that reason though, I do not try to rob the Holy Bible for its application to world history as well. You have there not only individual moral advice. You have charges to the entire world of human beings !
Whole nations are rebuked and dealt with by this God. The whole world is told to look to God and to the Son of God. And that at once. Ie -
"Turn to Me and be saved, All the ends of the earth, For I am God and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:22)
Who talks like this man ??
Removing the concept of moral obligation from AF is equivalent to removing the character 'God' from the Bible. The effect is collapse, indeed.
Hold on! I said REMOVING HERCULES from Aesop's Fables as compared to REMOVING GOD from the Bible.
Apples with apples comparison, please. I did not say REMOVING MORAL OBLIGATION. Of course take out all the "lessons" one is suppose to have discerned at the end of each fable would make Aesop's Fables pretty empty indeed.
I impied that it could well survive there whether Hercules is real or not, whether the story of Hercules and that wagoner remains or is removed.
Remove GOD from Genesis and Adam, Abel, Enoch, Enosh, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, the twelve tribes of Jacob, have nothing to do or to live for period.
The more I consider it, the more I can see God's Divine wisdom in causing the history of the Jews and Him to come out the way it does in the Bible. It sets the writing utterly apart from anything else written by man.
You may have some close comparisons in the tales of Homer.
Maybe The Illiad or The Odyssey from one man Homer might have been a better comparison than Aesop's Fables. The funny thing is that a scholar said that after 70 years of trying to find out WHO wrote the poems of the Illiad and the Odyssey the result has only been that they were written either by Homer or someone named Homer who lived around the same time as Homer.
With those stories, I think you could argue for a consistancy of some of the mythic gods over generations. But the author is one author.
In the Bible you have a ongoing record of God's activity with Israel from multiple authors over centries. And they certainly were not all of the same walk of life but of vastly different professions.
The calling of man upon God in the Bible is not restricted to inquiries about eternal destinies. There are myriad examples that don't include any eternal consideration.
I agree completely. Everyday problems are also a cause for some of the calling.
Most of the time these callers have a part in the ongoing plan unfolding concerning God's purpose...
03 Jun 12
1 edit
cont.
Removing the concept of moral obligation from AF is equivalent to removing the character 'God' from the Bible. The effect is collapse, indeed.
Hold on! I said REMOVING HERCULES from Aesop's Fables as compared to REMOVING GOD from the Bible.
Apples with apples comparison, please. I did not say REMOVING MORAL OBLIGATION. Of course take out all the "lessons" one is suppose to have discerned at the end of each fable would make Aesop's Fables pretty empty indeed.
I impied that it could well survive there whether Hercules is real or not, whether the story of Hercules and that wagoner remains or is removed.
Remove GOD from Genesis and Adam, Abel, Enoch, Enosh, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, the twelve tribes of Jacob, have nothing to do or to live for period.
The more I consider it, the more I can see God's Divine wisdom in causing the history of the Jews and Him to come out the way it does in the Bible. It sets the writing utterly apart from anything else written by man.
You may have some close comparisons in the tales of Homer.
Maybe The Illiad or The Odyssey from one man Homer might have been a better comparison than Aesop's Fables. The funny thing is that a scholar said that after 70 years of trying to find out WHO wrote the poems of the Illiad and the Odyssey the result has only been that they were written either by Homer or someone named Homer who lived around the same time as Homer.
With those stories, I think you could argue for a consistancy of some of the mythic gods over generations. But the author is one author.
In the Bible you have a ongoing record of God's activity with Israel from multiple authors over centries. And they certainly were not all of the same walk of life but of vastly different professions.
The calling of man upon God in the Bible is not restricted to inquiries about eternal destinies. There are myriad examples that don't include any eternal consideration.
I agree completely. Everyday problems are also a cause for some of the calling.
Most of the time these callers have a part in the ongoing plan unfolding concerning God's purpose and will for the earth though.
The assistance from Hercules is not trivial because he is teaching the wagoner (and the reader) an important lesson. By contrast, God's plan of salvation is unhelpful because it leads to a false abrogation of moral responsibility. (I don't have to worry about the consequences of my actions, because God will save me anyway.)
Baloney. He can SAVE you and STILL DISCIPLINE YOU.
Who says that God cannot chastize or perfect one of His children who are SAVED ? Ask King David if he was able to forego all tough lessons simply because he was saved and knew he'd be forgiven.
NOT ! Reading the Bible would help.
Saved verses any further responsibility is not in the Bible.
IF such was the case, why would there be so many epistles of Paul TO the saved ? Would you say that the epistles to the churches, to believers, to Christians saved, are totally without warnings of some kind ?
Any Christianity from which you derived such a concept is rather poor and askew. I am eternally saved. The fear of the Lord is still with me as it well should be.
Obviously the Hercules fable does not speak to the issue of death. But other AF tales do:
Not that he had to. But you want to compare Genesis and Aesop as roughly equivalent. I'm just showing the limitations of Aesop's Fables in dealing with the big issues of human life.
Again, Aesop DOES contain some real wisdom. He or she must have been quite a person. I think I heard and believe that the style of the stories are very African like. So some believe that Aesop may have been an Greek / African wise man.
I like Aesop's Fables. I used them quite a bit with my daughter when she was young.
An old laborer, bent double with age and toil, was gathering sticks in a forest. At last he grew so tired and hopeless that he threw down the bundle of sticks, and cried out:
"I cannot bear this life any longer. Ah, I wish Death would only come and take me!"
As he spoke, Death, a grisly skeleton, appeared and said to him:
"What wouldst thou, Mortal? I heard thee call me."
"Please, sir," replied the woodcutter, "would you kindly help me to lift this [bundle] of sticks on to my shoulder?"
You have one with Death personified speaking too !
Well, you know your Aesop's Fables.
(Now back to your quotes )
Do you mean the only speaking of a deity in Aesop's fables pertains to getting a wagon to operate correctly ?
No, the wagon's operation is obviously not the point. Hercules never suggests that the man's efforts will get the wagon out of the rut - only that he should not ask for help if he is unwilling to help himself.
Okay. The wagon is just the vehicle backround for the wisdom that is to be imparted about not being passive.
We are still dealing with significant differences between the Bible and Aesop's Fables.
I'll continue reminding you that I have not argued that the Bible and AF do not have significant differences. However, from a standpoint of speaking to the important issues of mankind, they are not as different as one might think.
Of course Aesop intended to deal with thorny human problems. A comparison between Aesop's Fables and the book of Proverbs would be interesting.
These short little stories are much like the Proverbs of Solomon and Asaph, etc. much less like the book of Genesis . I think my case stands in that regard.
03 Jun 12
Originally posted by finnegan
Thanks. I enjoyed writing it. Not holding my breath for a reply from Jaywill however.
Thanks. I enjoyed writing it. Not holding my breath for a reply from Jaywill however.
Hey, I don't claim to be no Christian Apologist Bruce Lee. I can hardly keep track of the replies I'd like to write but haven't time for.
Ignoring the dudes who have already dismissed me for a "moron" does narrow it down a little.
A few people here require some time and response. Just enjoy being ahead until I get to you, if I do.
04 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillPerhaps we'd better get some facts straight first.Truth is not decided by popular vote.
God is a myth. Jesus existed, but the stories about him were greatly exaggerated. That's my take.
Well truth is not determined by your "take" on it either.
Your "take" has to provide for some realistic alternative explanations of some strong historical evidence that argues against a fictiona man Empire of 600 or 700 AD. I'm talking the first centries of the Christian church.
Adoption of Sunday worship - 2 centuries
Adoption of the Trinity doctrine - 4 centuries
Worship of Jesus as God - 2 centuries (not <100 years)
Is this 'sudden' to you?
04 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitI know you are wrong on the last one, unless you are talking about something else. Jesus was worshipped by some while He was still on Earth. It is recorded in the Holy BIble.
Perhaps we'd better get some facts straight first.
Adoption of Sunday worship - 2 centuries
Adoption of the Trinity doctrine - 4 centuries
Worship of Jesus as God - 2 centuries (not <100 years)
Is this 'sudden' to you?
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by jaywillAF is fable; Genesis is a mix of history and fable. I have not argued they are the same genre.The wagoner is obviously not a historical figure.
That's because the style of the story is FABLE. The genre is different from a book like Genesis. That is unless you can provide ample examples of more historical type writing from those Fables.
[quote]
The geographical location is unspecified. It doesn't matter. All you need is a ...[text shortened]... ing plan unfolding concerning God's purpose...
I am not an enemy of the Bible. I simply disagree with certain people who take certain stories in it as historical fact. I know Christians that do not believe that the Noah's Ark story, for example, really happened. So, your statement is false on two levels.
God could tell Abraham to leave any place A and Jacob to go from any B to C, so long as it evokes the idea of travel from one location to another.
Only someone trying to take AF as historical fact would want 'assurance' of Hercules' identity in the story! This may be the reason that some Christians make a big fuss over whether (not to pick on the guy too much, but...) Noah existed, and others couldn't care less.
With the 'Bethel' thing - the specific location on the globe is unimportant. It could be a mile north, or southwest, or whatever. Just as long as it's 'where God was'.
What could be more realistic a human reaction than a guy crying for help when his mode of transportation fails? (And being too damn lazy to do anything about it!) I can relate to that today. Some guy camping in the desert and waking up with a strange sensation that GOD was there? Not so much.
Who said "Ho Hum, its only Hercules?" 🙂 OK, let me mention a story in the Bible that I can relate to a bit better. Jonah chapter 4. A lesson in keeping one's perspective. I think you could easily substitute the character "God" with, say, a human prophet sent from God, delivering essentially the same message. Is it more effective with YHWH, a character the audience already knows? Sure. But the moral of the story would not change.
Why should I care about the biographies of three men spread out over hundreds of years? They're long dead, and I'm not a professional historian. But moral lessons - those matter to me.
What is so remarkable about a long-lived character interacting with short-lived ones? Yes, Duncan McLeod is still alive, dueling other immortals to the death, remembering the lives of people from centuries ago! 😛
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitWere you influenced by "Huckleberry Finn"?
AF is fable; Genesis is a mix of history and fable. I have not argued they are the same genre.
I am not an enemy of the Bible. I simply disagree with certain people who take certain stories in it as historical fact. I know Christians that do not believe that the Noah's Ark story, for example, really happened. So, your statement is false on two levels. ...[text shortened]... immortals to the death, remembering the lives of people from centuries ago! 😛
The quote: After supper she got out her book and learned me about Moses and the Bulrushers, and I was in a sweat to find out all about him; but by and by she let it out that Moses had been dead a considerable long time; so then I didn't care no more about him, because I don't take no stock in dead people.
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by jaywillThe wagoner is obviously not a historical figure.
That's because the style of the story is FABLE. The genre is different from a book like Genesis. That is unless you can provide ample examples of more historical type writing from those Fables.
[quote]
The geographical location is unspecified. It doesn't matter. All you need is a ...[text shortened]... ing plan unfolding concerning God's purpose...
I can show that some promises may still be in the process of fullfilment. Since Jesus and God spoke of such ONGOING fulfillment it is really no contradiction that examples could be located.The one I have in mind was a more immediate promise. The time for it to be fulfilled has passed.
There is no need for anything like that in the Hercules Fable from Aesop.I think that AF could get to the point of 'it's commendable to keep your promises' with far fewer words than the Bible. This is to AF's credit, not disadvantage.
Hold on! I said REMOVING HERCULES from Aesop's Fables as compared to REMOVING GOD from the Bible.I know. I said that. It is certainly not 'apples to apples' to compare removing a character who appears in a single AF story vs. removing a main character from many stories in the Bible.
Apples with apples comparison, please. I did not say REMOVING MORAL OBLIGATION.
In the Bible you have a ongoing record of God's activity with Israel from multiple authors over centries. And they certainly were not all of the same walk of life but of vastly different professions.This is really unremarkable, when you think about it. The compilers of the scriptures simply left out any stories that took the narrative in a direction they didn't like, or feel was consistent, or think was valid, or believe was accurate, etc. etc. And the stories they DID pick are not so homogenous. They have radically different portrayals of YHWH. There's bad-tempered Mosaic YHWH who wants to kill all the Israelites the instant they go astray, and has to be talked out of it by a mere man. Then there's compassionate, merciful YHWH of Jonah, who spares Nineveh and is the voice of reason in the face of Jonah's anger. If this is the same character, he is bi-polar. 😛
04 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357The faithful would be arguing over AF amongst themselves as well, if AF was scripture! Faithful people with 'incorrect' interpretations would be lumped in with the deniers. 😛
JW: Do you mean the only speaking of a deity in Aesop's fables pertains to getting a wagon to operate correctly ?
SG: No, the wagon's operation is obviously not the point. Hercules never suggests that the man's efforts will get the wagon out of the rut - only that he should not ask for help if he is unwilling to help himself.
What this suggests to me is www.mythfolklore.net/3043mythfolklore/reading/aesop/pages/08.htm
What does it mean?
I don't know if you can use the word 'successful' - it just would mean that it is scripture - in other words, people take it far too seriously.
There are probably lots of viable interpretations of the Zeus/tree fable. This Zeus has a remarkable similarity to the Bible's YHWH; he blames the victims for circumstances outside of their control (and under his!). 🙂
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by jaywillSure, there can be consequences to moral wrongs, I just don't have to worry about them. Because I'm saved and I'm going to heaven forever and I will magically be made perfect.
cont.
Removing the concept of moral obligation from AF is equivalent to removing the character 'God' from the Bible. The effect is collapse, indeed.
Hold on! I said REMOVING HERCULES from Aesop's Fables as compared to REMOVING GOD from the Bible.
Apples with apples comparison, please. I did not say REMOVING MORAL OBLIGATION. Of ...[text shortened]... book of [b]Genesis . I think my case stands in that regard.[/b]
I called up King D and he didn't know what I was talking about since 'salvation' wasn't around in his time.
The warnings of Paul did not void anyone's salvation. They just told the people to get their act together, so as not to give the church a bad name. Can't win any converts that way.
Poor and askew? I'll say! It is the Christianity of far too many people. And the phrase "the fear of the Lord" is not always interpreted as literal fear - sometimes as more a reverence. I don't know which view you hold, if either. The former interpretation seems at odds with the idea of assurance of eternal salvation. If I truly felt that I was a lock for salvation, I wouldn't be afraid anymore.
No, for the thousandth time, I have not argued that Genesis and AF are roughly equivalent. 🙂
I'm just showing the limitations of Aesop's Fables in dealing with the big issues of human life.You're not doing a very good job. Things like the names of locations and a long-lived central character have zip to do with the 'big issues of human life'.
I, too, enjoyed reading AF when I was young. (and still!)
Well, Google knows my Aesop's Fables. I will take a very limited bit of credit in remembering enough of them to have something to search on. 😳
Yes, AF would compare more closely with Proverbs, or perhaps Jesus' parables. But I'll stick to my position as well - AF speaks to the important issues of mankind as least as well as Genesis. 🙂
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by RJHindsCan't say I have read it. My favorite Mark Twain piece is "Letters from the Earth".
Were you influenced by "Huckleberry Finn"?
The quote: After supper she got out her book and learned me about Moses and the Bulrushers, and I was in a sweat to find out all about him; but by and by she let it out that Moses had been dead a considerable long time; so then I didn't care no more about him, because I don't take no stock in dead people.
04 Jun 12
10 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Perhaps we'd better get some facts straight first.
Adoption of Sunday worship - 2 centuries
Adoption of the Trinity doctrine - 4 centuries
Worship of Jesus as God - 2 centuries (not <100 years)
Is this 'sudden' to you?
Adoption of Sunday worship - 2 centuries
Wrong.
In Acts 20:7, we read,
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.
These disciples had the practice to share the Lord's supper on the first day of the week. That would be Sunday, the day to commorate the rising of Jesus from the dead. Indeed two centries did not pass by before these early disciples practiced breaking bread on Sunday.
Here Luke gives us to understand that the early Christians were gathered for worship on the first day of the week. (I trust that it is not necessary for me to present evidence that the reference to the breaking of bread is to the celebration of the Lord's Supper, also called the Eucharist.) Now it may be objected that the text simply tells us that they were so gathered on that particular occasion, perhaps because Paul was about to leave the next day and wished to preach a farewell sermon, and that there is no significance in the day. But if this be the case, then why bother to mention the day of the week? Luke does not in general refer to the day of the week, unless it has some connection with his narrative, as when he tells us that Paul preached in a synagogue on the Sabbath, where we understand that he did so because that was the principal day of assembly at the synagogue. Luke does not tell us, for example, that the riot at Ephesus was on the fourth day of the week, since that has nothing to do with the riot. If he here mentions that it was the first day, it is because it was understood that that was the day when Christians normally assembled for the breaking of bread.
copied from http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/LORDS-DA.HTM
Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day...."
John mentions "the Lord's day" because of the significance of his making sure, even though exiled, the apostle was in intense worship on the customery day for celebrating Christ's resurrection. That would be traditional Sunday, ie. the first day of a new week.
The readers of the book of Revelation would grasp the significance of the expression "the Lord's day" with no problem. No need for two centries to pass by before it would be meaningful.
Adoption of the Trinity doctrine - 4 centuries
Formulation of formal doctrine is not the issue. Creed is not the issue. The fact is that the New Testament is filled with adoration for the Three - Father - Son - Holy Spirit.
Jesus Himself refered to ONE NAME (not names [ plural] ) of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -
"Go therefore and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt. 28:19,20a)
That teaching of course would include commanding that the Father - Son - Holy Spirit were one NAME into which the disciples were to be immersed.
Paul's epistle to the Corinthians (Second) is an earlier document than the above Gospel of Matthew. And in it his final blessing is completely consistant with the practice and belief of adoring one God as Father -Son - Holy Spirit -
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Cor. 13:14)
Even many skeptical scholars acknowledge Paul as author of the Second Corinthian letter.
John's Revelation ranks Father - Holy Spirit (here seven Spirits of God), and Son on equal standing:
"John to the seven churches which are in Asia:
Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is coming, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful Witness, the Firstborn of the dead, and Ruler of the kings of the earth." (Rev. 1:4,5a)
That is peace from the eternal God - the Holy Spirit - the Son of God. We do not have to wait four centries before we see Christian workers talk this way. Christ, Paul the Apostle, and John the Apostle already spoke this way in the first century.
In Acts in the initial formation of the church Peter speaks of the Holy Spirit as God in chapter 5.
"But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to deceive the Holy Spirit ... ? ... You have not lied to men but to God" (Acts 5:3,4)
This is not two centries into church history. This is very early in the founding of the first local church - the church in Jerusalem. And to Peter one of the twelve original apostles God is the Holy Spirit.
In the same history of the Acts Paul speaks of Christ's redemptive death as the purchasing of the church with God's blood. In other words God had to have been incarnated as a man in the Son:
"Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers to shepherd the church of God which He obtained with His own blood." (Acts 20:28)
It is not two centries into church history we see this talk. While Paul yet lives his concept and teaching here is that the blood of Jesus the man is the blood of God with which God purchased the Christian church.
Worship of Jesus as God - 2 centuries (not <100 years)
Thomas's confession that Jesus was his Lord and God is not two centries latter. It is DAYS of time after the resurrection of Jesus:
"Thomas answered and said to Him [the resurrected Jesus], My Lord and My God!" (John 20:28)
Jesus doesn't rebuke him. Jesus goes on to speak of his faith in seeing and others faith who have not seen.
Therefore claiming that Jesus is only God to the Christians two centries latter is as ridiculous as saying Jesus is only Lord to the Christians two centries latter.
Is this 'sudden' to you?
Exactly nothing you proved. All lies you offered as "education".
You're following vainly after lies.
04 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI was thinking in terms of common adoption of these practices by the various churches.Adoption of Sunday worship - 2 centuries
Wrong.
In [b]Acts 20:7, we read,
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.
The had the practice to share the Lord's supper on the firs offered as "educaion".
You're following vainly after lies.[/b]
I'm sure some of the churches did observe sunday worship from the start. But not thousands of Jews 'all of a sudden'. It took time for the practice to spread across the churches.
Your trinity argument is based on hindsight-bias. The trinity doctrine succeeded, and the alternatives were nullified, so you pretend that is always how everyone thought of god since the founding of the Christian faith.
(Sidebar: And let's not forget present-day bias. Not all faithful today believe in the trinity doctrine. Despite the purported clarity of the NT teachings, some reasonable people of faith do not share your belief. I have heard good cases made against the trinity doctrine.)
You need more than just Thomas the apostle thinking Jesus is God. You need thousands of only-Jews suddenly.
04 Jun 12
8 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit
I was thinking in terms of common adoption of these practices by the various churches.
I'm sure some of the churches did observe sunday worship from the start. But not thousands of Jews 'all of a sudden'. It took time for the practice to spread across the churches.
Your trinity argument is based on hindsight-bias. The trinity doctrine succee han just Thomas the apostle thinking Jesus is God. You need thousands of only-Jews suddenly.
I was thinking in terms of common adoption of these practices by the various churches.
I'm sure some of the churches did observe sunday worship from the start. But not thousands of Jews 'all of a sudden'. It took time for the practice to spread across the churches.
Whether you like it or don't like it, the first local church consisted of conserevatively 10,000 Jewish people.
Peter preached a message, 5,000 saved.
Peter preaches again - 3,000 saved. (my order may be wrong)
Probably only men are counted there. Adding women, conservatively at least 8 to 10 thousand JEWS at least, constituted the church in Jerusalem. Others are said to have been added DAILY.
You lose. The church started out with JEWS, JEWS, JEWS. Sorry.
Your trinity argument is based on hindsight-bias. The trinity doctrine succeeded, and the alternatives were nullified, so you pretend that is always how everyone thought of god since the founding of the Christian faith.
No of course not everyone thought of Christ as God become a man. He was crucified under the accusation that He was NOT God, NOT divine, NOT God's Son. And not all His persecutors were won over after the formation of the church.
THE FACT of Father = God, Son = God, Holy Spirit = God is there in the earliest Christian documents, the New Testament. The word "Trinity" per se of course is not.
John's Gospel clearly teaches that the Word was with God and was God. Go to the Jehovah's Witnesses if you want some twistings.
Matthew closes with one NAME of a God who is effectively Father - Son - Holy Spirit. And John opens and closes with Jesus being God, to be Lord, and Life.
If you can argue that Jesus as our God is an afterthought, then you have to argue that Jesus as our Lord is also an centries latter afterthought.
John included Thomas's confession PURPOSEFULLY. It is consistent with his prologue that the Word became flesh - INCARNATION. Which Word was with God and WAS GOD. (John 1:1,14)
That some fought this is not the point. You just said that majority opinion doesn't make truth.
(Sidebar: And let's not forget present-day bias. Not all faithful today believe in the trinity doctrine. Despite the purported clarity of the NT teachings, some reasonable people of faith do not share your belief. I have heard good cases made against the trinity doctrine.)
The very word "Trinity" is a nuisance to some Christians. They don't like to mention it because of the problems of creed and theology arguments over how could it be, are numerous.
That is an "Oh this is too much trouble. Let's not even talk about it" attitude. That is a argument of explanations and theological terms. That is the bothering of the limitation of human language to formulate perfect creedal statement.
But before creedal arguments the church worshipped Father - Son - Holy Spirit. This worship is a participation and enjoyment. It is taken for granted in the NT. The recipients of various letters apparently understand what is being talked about because they are busy in the enjoyment of the Triune God rather than in theological debate about how language can frame the mysterious fact.
Latter, when ATTACKS on the Person of Christ came from intellectuals the need for creedal definitions and formulas emmerged (rightly or wrongly). So then definitions, all of which are only so-so, were created.
There is no way that you cannot say John's prologue and entire Gospel is [not] meant to convey that Jesus Christ the Son of God was God incarnate.
And He comes into the disciples as the Holy Spirit. Read about it in John 14-16.
You need more than just Thomas the apostle thinking Jesus is God. You need thousands of only-Jews suddenly.
A secular writer of the Roman Empire informs us that the Jews who were Christians chanted and recited verses to Christ as to a god.
No accident. He was their God. He is God the Son.
I go to bed now.