Another look at the Trinity.

[civilwarbuff]

You might try Claus Westerman, "Handbook to the Old Testament." However, I am sure you can find some online sites on the subject.

Do you have a link to what you copied/pasted? My searches lead to "please buy this book"....

 

[Hoghead1]

Do you have a link to what you copied/pasted? My searches lead to "please buy this book"....

Try googling "contradictions in the Bible" or something like that. What I added in was my critique od Genesis.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You want proof that God exists? You need only to examine the date on your birth certificate, or your car registration, or your next bottle of milk, or your next loaf of bread. You cannot mail anything internationally or ship anything internationally without it having the date on it. That date is an exact reference to the Son of God who died that you might have eternal life.

Our calendar system was arrived at by a monk by the name of Dionysius Exiguus. Exiguus' main interest was establishing an Easter computus--calculating the dates of Easter. In doing so he also attempted to date Christ's birth, and used that as the defining point on the calendar to replace the current system which still relied on the old Diocletian years (the Roman system was to count years by the emperor, and generally the last emperor that was used for this was Diocletian--Diocletian was also a notorious persecutor of the Church and so that wasn't exactly a favorable thing in Exiguus' opinion).

Further, Exiguus was off by several years, so in fact Christ was born sometime between 6 and 4 BC rather than AD 1 as was Exiguus intent.

Exiguus calendar, while the main calendar used by the majority of Christians, isn't the only Christian calendar. The Copts use an entirely different calendar system, it's known in the Coptic Church as the Era of Martyrs and is, in fact, the Diocletian calendar mentioned earlier (the martyrs in question being those who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian). The Armenian Church uses its own calendar.

2016 AD, on the Coptic calendar, is 1732 AM.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Acts 4New King James Version (NKJV)


4 Now as they spoke to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, 2 being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.

5 And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders, and scribes, 6 as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone. 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”


13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus. 14 And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. 15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, 16 saying, “What shall we do to these men? For, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 But so that it spreads no further among the people, let us severely threaten them, that from now on they speak to no man in this name.”

18 So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” 21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done. 22 For the man was over forty years old on whom this miracle of healing had been performed.

I said,

I then discovered that this is a complete lie. There is no actual documented claim - whether in the Bible, in noncanonized texts, in Christian tradition, or even in secular history - which claims that the disciples were actually given the opportunity to go free if only they recanted their faith. We have no dialogue, and barely even any details of what actually happened.

You replied with a story about how they were set free even though they didn't recant.

Essentially, I said:

There is no instance in which X would happen if they agreed to do Y.

You replied:

There is an instance in which X happened even though they didn't do Y.

Wonderful! What's your point, aside from the fact that you don't understand logic?

Was that in the OP?

This is the apologetics forum. Should I go into the theology forum and explain why evolution is a scientific fact?

If he bumbles in here—the apologetics forum—spouting something about theology, I can only, under the principle of charity, assume that he is at least trying to argue for the existence of God. As I didn't see such an argument, I asked for clarification. And then you come along acting confused.

@thankfulttt made no such claim. Well I guess if you took half of what he stated your question would be valid. However since you only took a portion of his response and kicked the rest out, your question is invalid.

I took half of what he said because only half of it was talking about an argument for the existence of God. Once again, this is the apologetics forum. Do you know where you are? Are you lost?

How do we know you exist?

Frankly we 'know' by you typing on a device and posting it to this server. How do we know Nihlist virus actually communicated something different and somehow someone on the CF staff did not alter your words and we are not really reading the thoughts and opinions of the true NV?

We are both employing some degree of faith. This faith is informed objectively in that we all trust what we type is then presented to others on this forum. Other than that taking your approach, I don't know you 'exist.' Meaning I don't know if you are truly a person or some forum bot spouting out canned data.

Comparing the existence of a human being to the existence of God? Sheesh, it's like you don't even care about proper apologetics.

As Polycarp was being taken into the arena, a voice came to him from heaven: “Be strong, Polycarp and play the man!” No one saw who had spoken, but our brothers who were there heard the voice. When the crowd heard that Polycarp had been captured, there was an uproar. The Proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On hearing that he was, he tried to persuade him to apostatize, saying, “Have respect for your old age, swear by the fortune of Caesar. Repent, and say, ‘Down with the Atheists!’” Polycarp looked grimly at the wicked heathen multitude in the stadium, and gesturing towards them, he said, “Down with the Atheists!” “Swear,” urged the Proconsul, “reproach Christ, and I will set you free.” “86 years have I have served him,” Polycarp declared, “and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?”


https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/polycarp/

Cool story, except I was referring to the disciples and I think you know I mean the ones that claim to have seen the resurrected Christ. Polycarp was born after all of that even happened. He's not an eyewitness of anything. His case is no different than if you were killed for Christ. I even POINTED THAT OUT IN THE POST YOU WERE QUOTING:

As I was being raised Christian, I, just like you, was led to believe that the eyewitness apostles willfully died for their testimony and refused the opportunity to recant and go free. This is very powerful testimony, much more powerful than that of the 9/11 hijackers because those hijackers never professed first-hand knowledge of Islam.

Since I'll assume you have debate ethics, I can only conclude that your reading comprehension is deficient.

Given your model for what is valid testimony, you then deny all history from the same era, before and after. Alexander really did not conduct all those conquests. Caesar really did not write the Gallic Wars. It is an untenable position unless you are willing to adopt your testimony model for all human history.

I'm denying all history from the same era?

Really quite simple. Christ appeared in the flesh after his death to more than one person at a time. In groups and even outside the inner 12 disciples. A cursory glace of the post Resurrection gospel accounts and Acts will show you that. Also confirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.

Oh you mean the 400 unnamed "eyewitnesses" and the 12 disciples who gave us their story secondhand?

There are several Elvis impersonators. Perhaps those people saw one and thought he was the real thing. Whereas Christ Jesus stood before many and let them examine his pierced hands, feet and wound in His side.

And the disciples initially mistook Christ for the gardener. What's your point?

Alien abductions could be demonic activity, or the government.

And Jesus could've been an alien-human hybrid. Right?

There are other possibilities and it appears there have been instances where multiple witnesses saw the same thing as the same time and place. I don't discount the validity of what they saw but perhaps what they think it is, is another matter.

The next person who sees a "Big Foot" just needs to shoot it. Is it far fetched that some wily ancient ape like creature lurks about in the deep forests and only some saw it now and then individually? Not crazy at all, it is possible and I will reserve judgment as God's Creation is an ancient one.

Did Jesus die for Big Foot's sins?

 

[ChetSinger]

Well, for starters, you might try 2 Sam. 21:19. In Hebrew, it states clearly that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. Some translations gloss over this, by inserting the words "brother of." But there is no "brother of" in the Hebrew texts. So who killed Goliath? David? Elhanan?...

This kind of thing interests me so I looked into it. I thought the NET Bible's footnote on the passage was illuminating so I'm going to post it below. I find the NET wonderfully useful for this kind of thing:

The Hebrew text as it stands reads, “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage; in fact, from a text-critical point of view the books of Samuel are the most poorly preserved of all the books of the Hebrew Bible. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, “Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” Both versions are textually corrupt. The Chronicles text has misread “Bethlehemite” (בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי, bet hallakhmi) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name אֶת לַחְמִי (’et lakhmi). (See the note at 1 Chr 20:5.) The Samuel text misread the word for “brother” (אַח, ’akh) as the accusative sign (אֵת, ’et), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath. Thus in all probability the original text read, “Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.”

So it looks to me like a single-character error in the text of Samuel has removed the word "brother" from this passage. It's certainly an error, but I don't think it's a major one.

 

[Hoghead1]

This kind of thing interests me so I looked into it. I thought the NET Bible's footnote on the passage was illuminating so I'm going to post it below. I find the NET wonderfully useful for this kind of thing:


So it looks to me like a single-character error in the text of Samuel has removed the word "brother" from this passage. It's certainly an error, but I don't think it's a major one.

Not a major error? Are you kidding? I'd say that was about as major as you can get. Also, why assume it is an error? Maybe, just maybe, the David cult wrote a puff piece about him and cut Elhanan out. Either way, it demonstrates that the Bible is not inerrant.

 

[redleghunter]

Some ancient history is mythic or less than objective. I think Caesar turned his "Gallic Wars" into a real puff piece for himself. There are about 12 different versions of what Simplicus, an ancient philosopher, supposedly wrote. With other philosophers and major figures, it turns out all we know about them is via second-hand sources, so we are often leary about what is claimed for them. There is more than one version of teh gunfight at the OK Corral. Frankly, I think Earp really embellished it. On and on, it goes. So yes, I and many others apply the same standards to the rest of history. Turning to Scripture , in most instances, the Bible doe not state the author for the text.

What do you as a Christian use as a transcendent source to test truth claims?

 

[redleghunter]

Well, for starters, you might try 2 Sam. 21:19. In Hebrew, it states clearly that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. Some translations gloss over this, by inserting the words "brother of." But there is no "brother of" in the Hebrew texts. So who killed Goliath? David? Elhanan? Also, you might look carefully at the Genesis account of creation. There are actually two contradictory chronologies presented there. I have included, below, my critique of the situation with Genesis.

1. 
   
   
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

That's quite a lead in citing a transcription error.

The problem is not Christians who adhere to the Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy but the fundamentalist liberal textual critics who never read the Chicago statement. I'm sure as a theologian you studied the various orthodox statements on Biblical inerrancy.

 

[redleghunter]

Not a major error? Are you kidding? I'd say that was about as major as you can get. Also, why assume it is an error? Maybe, just maybe, the David cult wrote a puff piece about him and cut Elhanan out. Either way, it demonstrates that the Bible is not inerrant.

I'm starting to believe you don't know the definition of Biblical inerrancy.

 

[redleghunter]

Some ancient history is mythic or less than objective. I think Caesar turned his "Gallic Wars" into a real puff piece for himself. There are about 12 different versions of what Simplicus, an ancient philosopher, supposedly wrote. With other philosophers and major figures, it turns out all we know about them is via second-hand sources, so we are often leary about what is claimed for them. There is more than one version of teh gunfight at the OK Corral. Frankly, I think Earp really embellished it. On and on, it goes. So yes, I and many others apply the same standards to the rest of history. Turning to Scripture , in most instances, the Bible doe not state the author for the text.

Does not address the points I made.

Have you studied the testimony of the church fathers? If you have then authorship of the NT books should not be an issue for you as a theologian.

 

[redleghunter]

That is not an analogous situation to what happens when we study history, however. Also, mods have tampered with texts here, refusing to post those that they consider inappropriate. Right now, there is an argument over the death of Davy Crockett. A recently discovered document from supposedly an eyewitness says that he was tortured to death. That blows the popular myth that he went down fighting. But is it an authentic document? As yet, the jury is out.

My post was properly proportional.

 

[redleghunter]

I said,

I then discovered that this is a complete lie. There is no actual documented claim - whether in the Bible, in noncanonized texts, in Christian tradition, or even in secular history - which claims that the disciples were actually given the opportunity to go free if only they recanted their faith. We have no dialogue, and barely even any details of what actually happened.

You replied with a story about how they were set free even though they didn't recant.

Essentially, I said:

There is no instance in which X would happen if they agreed to do Y.

You replied:

There is an instance in which X happened even though they didn't do Y.

Wonderful! What's your point, aside from the fact that you don't understand logic?




This is the apologetics forum. Should I go into the theology forum and explain why evolution is a scientific fact?

If he bumbles in here—the apologetics forum—spouting something about theology, I can only, under the principle of charity, assume that he is at least trying to argue for the existence of God. As I didn't see such an argument, I asked for clarification. And then you come along acting confused.



I took half of what he said because only half of it was talking about an argument for the existence of God. Once again, this is the apologetics forum. Do you know where you are? Are you lost?



Comparing the existence of a human being to the existence of God? Sheesh, it's like you don't even care about proper apologetics.



Cool story, except I was referring to the disciples and I think you know I mean the ones that claim to have seen the resurrected Christ. Polycarp was born after all of that even happened. He's not an eyewitness of anything. His case is no different than if you were killed for Christ. I even POINTED THAT OUT IN THE POST YOU WERE QUOTING:

As I was being raised Christian, I, just like you, was led to believe that the eyewitness apostles willfully died for their testimony and refused the opportunity to recant and go free. This is very powerful testimony, much more powerful than that of the 9/11 hijackers because those hijackers never professed first-hand knowledge of Islam.

Since I'll assume you have debate ethics, I can only conclude that your reading comprehension is deficient.



I'm denying all history from the same era?



Oh you mean the 400 unnamed "eyewitnesses" and the 12 disciples who gave us their story secondhand?



And the disciples initially mistook Christ for the gardener. What's your point?



And Jesus could've been an alien-human hybrid. Right?

Did Jesus die for Big Foot's sins?

Absurd response.

I will take note you changed the subject of this OP next time you post an OP. You do get a bit perturbed when others do so to your threads.

 

[redleghunter]

You might try Claus Westerman, "Handbook to the Old Testament." However, I am sure you can find some online sites on the subject.

A student of Tubingen. That explains a lot.

Not often people quote or refer to refuted liberal German theology. I guess it crops up every 50 years or so.

 

[Hoghead1]

A student of Tubingen. That explains a lot.

Not often people quote or refer to refuted liberal German theology. I guess it crops up every 50 years or so.

What refuted German liberal theology?

 

[Hoghead1]

A student of Tubingen. That explains a lot.

Not often people quote or refer to refuted liberal German theology. I guess it crops up every 50 years or so.

You must not know much abut biblical studies. Westerman is one of the premier OT scholars of teh 20th century. Also, received his doctorate from, the University of Zurich, though he previously attended Tubingen Schule, which is a leading school in theology. So, man, you are way, way off track here.

 

[Hoghead1]

My post was properly proportional.

No, it was not.

 

[Hoghead1]

Does not address the points I made.

Have you studied the testimony of the church fathers? If you have then authorship of the NT books should not be an issue for you as a theologian.

Yes, of course. I have a doctorate in theology. Question is, Are you? Authorship of NT books can definitely be an issue We really don't know who wrote Mark, Like, the Acts. We know the ending of Mark was added much later. WE know the Johannie Comma is a much later addition, probably by later Trinitarians.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm starting to believe you don't know the definition of Biblical inerrancy.

Biblical inerrancy means that the events that Scripture describes happened exactly as Scripture describes them.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm starting to believe you don't know the definition of Biblical inerrancy.

Either Elhanan killed Goliath or David did. It can't be both. So someone is off here. Some think 2 Sam. 21:19 is a scribal error. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that this example, as well as many others, show that the Bible is not inerrant.

 

[redleghunter]

What refuted German liberal theology?

I'm sure you studied theologian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay ? If not I highly recommend reading his works especially the one focused on the Levant.