• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God is a Duality not a Trinity

Rise

Well-Known Member
I don't know why you are so caught up with Thomas.

You tried to cite thomas as a pre-NT gospel represents something closer to what was originally said and done by Jesus, when compared with the four authentic Gospels.
Having been challenged on that, you continue to evade citing any evidence as to how or why that should be believed to be true.
You bring Q theory into the mix, implying that the gospel of thomas could be an older source for the four Gospels, but you don't support that with evidence either.

You keep going on about how scholarly you are and how many people believe this - but if any of that were true, it should be very easy for you to pull out some historical evidence as examples of why what you say about the gospel of thomas is true.


The most significant evidence for the lack of evidence for NT gospel stories is the absence of those stories in prior gospels.

Unproven assumption on your part. Assuming that the gnostic gospels recovered were written prior to the four Gospels in the NT.
Where's the evidence that they were? I've asked you already for that, but you keep dodging the question.
I know you don't have any. That's why I keep pressing you to post the evidence directly, because it's the quickest way to settle this issue.

Church authorities attempted to destroy all other gospels, but they didn't succeed.

I already disproved that statement the first time you made it, and you never refuted my points:
The muratorian fragment, dated to the 2nd century.
2nd century scripture lists by various writers.
Quotations and allusions by 1st and 2nd century writers.

All of this proves the body of accepted scripture was already established in the 2nd century, during a time when the persecuted minority church had no power to destroy anything, on top of being scattered all over the Roman empire with no central authority structure. The fact that we find such uniformity of accepted scriptures in the 2nd century, regardless of geographic area, is testament to their authenticity.

History does not support your claim that there were other gospels accepted by the apostalic era church, which were then later destroyed by church. It would have been logically impossible on top of that. It is a historical fantasy.

The Roman Catholic church may have destroyed false gospels and writings after it had the power of the state behind it centuries later, but we know by archeology and history that the Gospels had long since been established before that was a possibility.

You can go on until doomsday listing all of those church leaders, esteemed church scholars, but is all for naught it there is no historical documentation..

"...you must recognize that decrying a lack of historical evidence for the "content" of the NT Gospels does nothing to advance your claim that the gospel of thomas is a more accurate reflection of history than the NT Gospels. Nor does it prove that the gospel of thomas precedes them.

As I pointed out: It is hypocritical for you to attack the NT Gospels for not having enough historical evidence that the content contained within is true, yet then turn around and claim the gospel of thomas is a more truthful historical account of what Jesus said and did - all while having not a stitch of historical evidence to back up such a claim.

You have the choice to doubt whether or not the NT Gospels actually happened as recorded, based on the evidence we have, but you are in no position to claim based on historical evidence that 3rd century texts like the gospel of thomas should be regarded as more authentic than the NT Gospels. All the evidence we have is completely against such a conclusion."

You mention Gospel Q theory as invalid when you don't know what you are talking about .

As I already said, which you didn't seem to grasp: the Q theory does nothing to advance your assertion that the gnostic gospels like thomas represent genuine pre-NT Gospels that the disciples of Jesus produced, unless you can prove, or even evidence, that they are genuine 1st century apostalic church documents. So it really doesn't matter whether or not Q is true as far as this issue is concerned.

Now, if you want to talk about Q, you're welcome to take those underlying assumptions I outlined and then explain why we must believe those assumptions are true. I don't expect you to be able to, but you can try.

As for The Nag Hammadi Scriptures edited by Marvin Meyer, read it.

You are the one who made the claim that the gospel of thomas predates the Gospels, and that the Nag Hammadi proves it.
You're still unable to give a single piece of evidence backing up those claims.
This isn't a book review forum, it's a debate forum. If you aren't equipped to debate this issue yourself, wielding raw facts and reasoned logic, then at least admit it and move on. Don't try to fake your way through by making vague unsupported statements and pointing at a couple books.

It is becoming monotonous, you demand that I present evidence when you have none. Where is it?

You're the one who made the claim about the gospel of thomas, and "prior gospels".
I've present the historical documents that go against your claim, so now the onus is on you give us any reason, evidence, or proof as to why your claim is true and the historical claim is false.
 
Last edited:

Repox

Truth Seeker
You tried to cite thomas as a pre-NT gospel represents something closer to what was originally said and done by Jesus, when compared with the four authentic Gospels.
Having been challenged on that, you continue to evade citing any evidence as to how or why that should be believed to be true.
You bring Q theory into the mix, implying that the gospel of thomas could be an older source for the four Gospels, but you don't support that with evidence either.

You keep going on about how scholarly you are and how many people believe this - but if any of that were true, it should be very easy for you to pull out some historical evidence as examples of why what you say about the gospel of thomas is true.




Unproven assumption on your part. Assuming that the gnostic gospels recovered were written prior to the four Gospels in the NT.
Where's the evidence that they were? I've asked you already for that, but you keep dodging the question.
I know you don't have any. That's why I keep pressing you to post the evidence directly, because it's the quickest way to settle this issue.



I already disproved that statement the first time you made it, and you never refuted my points:
The muratorian fragment, dated to the 2nd century.
2nd century scripture lists by various writers.
Quotations and allusions by 1st and 2nd century writers.

All of this proves the body of accepted scripture was already established in the 2nd century, during a time when the persecuted minority church had no power to destroy anything, on top of being scattered all over the Roman empire with no central authority structure. The fact that we find such uniformity of accepted scriptures in the 2nd century, regardless of geographic area, is testament to their authenticity.

History does not support your claim that there were other gospels accepted by the apostalic era church, which were then later destroyed by church. It would have been logically impossible on top of that. It is a historical fantasy.

The Roman Catholic church may have destroyed false gospels and writings after it had the power of the state behind it centuries later, but we know by archeology and history that the Gospels had long since been established before that was a possibility.



"...you must recognize that decrying a lack of historical evidence for the "content" of the NT Gospels does nothing to advance your claim that the gospel of thomas is a more accurate reflection of history than the NT Gospels. Nor does it prove that the gospel of thomas precedes them.

As I pointed out: It is hypocritical for you to attack the NT Gospels for not having enough historical evidence that the content contained within is true, yet then turn around and claim the gospel of thomas is a more truthful historical account of what Jesus said and did - all while having not a stitch of historical evidence to back up such a claim.

You have the choice to doubt whether or not the NT Gospels actually happened as recorded, based on the evidence we have, but you are in no position to claim based on historical evidence that 3rd century texts like the gospel of thomas should be regarded as more authentic than the NT Gospels. All the evidence we have is completely against such a conclusion."



As I already said, which you didn't seem to grasp: the Q theory does nothing to advance your assertion that the gnostic gospels like thomas represent genuine pre-NT Gospels that the disciples of Jesus produced, unless you can prove, or even evidence, that they are genuine 1st century apostalic church documents. So it really doesn't matter whether or not Q is true as far as this issue is concerned.

Now, if you want to talk about Q, you're welcome to take those underlying assumptions I outlined and then explain why we must believe those assumptions are true. I don't expect you to be able to, but you can try.



You are the one who made the claim that the gospel of thomas predates the Gospels, and that the Nag Hammadi proves it.
You're still unable to give a single piece of evidence backing up those claims.
This isn't a book review forum, it's a debate forum. If you aren't equipped to debate this issue yourself, wielding raw facts and reasoned logic, then at least admit it and move on. Don't try to fake your way through by making vague unsupported statements and pointing at a couple books.



You're the one who made the claim about the gospel of thomas, and "prior gospels".
I've present the historical documents that go against your claim, so now the onus is on you give us any reason, evidence, or proof as to why your claim is true and the historical claim is false.

Why are you obsessed with The Gospel of Thomas? Evidently, it is the only thing you know. Address the Q argument. Read references I posted for prior gospels. Do something other repeat the same old argument. YOU HAVE DONE NO RESEARCH!. YOU ARE BLOWING HOT AIR.

To make yourself credible, present historical documentation for the NT gospel stories.

Don't make it up to make your case. You stated, I said, "the gospel of thomas is a more accurate reflection of history than the NT Gospels." I made no such statement!

You know nothing about Gospel Q. You are a phony.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
These are your own quotes:

If you research prior gospels you don't find son of God stories.
...
If you research it, you find in prior gospels such as The Gospel of Thomas evidence for Jesus being God.
...
The Gospel of Thomas is a prior gospel which was used as a reference for the four gospels. You find "many" Jesus sayings from The Gospel of Thomas in the four NT gospels.
...
Yes, there are prior gospels. Here is an excellent reference, The Missing Gospels by Darrell. L. Block. According to history, church leaders destroyed as many gospels as they could find which disagreed with the four selected.

A plain reading of what you wrote leads me to conclude you are claiming:
1. That there were other gospels written prior to the NT Gospels.
2. That the gospel of thomas was one of these prior gospels.
3. That the NT Gospels were based at least in part off the gospel of thomas (used as a reference for).
4. That the church leaders, at some point which you don't specify, destroyed gospels which had material that conflicted with the NT Gospels.

If somehow those are wrong conclusions based on what you said, you can explain why you meant something else.

Otherwise, the onus is on you to prove why your statements are true, with some kind of facts about history, archeology, or otherwise.

I'm just asking for simple data here. It's not hard. Convince us that your claim is valid. Give some evidence. Pointing to some author who shares your opinion doesn't prove anything, as they may be basing their opinion on faulty data and bad assumptions.

Since you made the claim on this forum, the onus is on you to defend and source the data for your claim. The onus is not on us to go read entire books you post just because you claim they prove you are right.
I wouldn't do that to anyone else here - If I need to I will go into the book myself, find the data they used to support for their conclusions, and then I present that data directly to you myself. But that requires direct knowledge of the topic (being able to argue it yourself, not just repeating conclusions you've heard from others) and not being lazy, which are traits I'm not yet convinced you possess.

#4 I've already proven wrong by appealing to 2nd century history about the canon being before anyone had the power to destroy opposing gospels. And you haven't tried to deal with those facts yet either. So if that book you reference is making that claim, then you obviously need to find a better source. Pointing people to faulty books certainly doesn't help prove your original claim is true.

I've given archeological and historical reasons why the NT Gospels must be regarded as more authentic than any of the other supposed gospels that have been found, and you've given no facts or argumentation that would disprove that.

I'm happy to talk about Q also, but let's deal with one issue at a time here. Either you can back up what you said about thomas or you can't. If you're willing to withdraw your statements about the gospel of thomas as inaccurate or at least admit you don't have any facts to back them up your opinion, then we can move on to the next topic. Because even if we assumed Q theory was true, it doesn't prove anything you've claimed about the gospel of thomas. The archeological and historical evidence is still overwhelming against your claim that it preceded the NT Gospels and was used by them as a source. Q also does nothing to prove your #4 claim, which is a complete archeological and historical impossibility, and anyone who makes such a bogus claim has proven they cannot be taken seriously. Really, claiming that is so historically absurd, that it's on par with these people who think the council of Nicea established the Biblical canon - some very basic research could have shown them otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Repox

Truth Seeker
These are your own quotes:



A plain reading of what you wrote leads me to conclude you are claiming:
1. That there were other gospels written prior to the NT Gospels.
2. That the gospel of thomas was one of these prior gospels.
3. That the NT Gospels were based at least in part off the gospel of thomas (used as a reference for).
4. That the church leaders, at some point which you don't specify, destroyed gospels which had material that conflicted with the NT Gospels.

If somehow those are wrong conclusions based on what you said, you can explain why you meant something else.

Otherwise, the onus is on you to prove why your statements are true, with some kind of facts about history, archeology, or otherwise.

I'm just asking for simple data here. It's not hard. Convince us that your claim is valid. Give some evidence. Pointing to some author who shares your opinion doesn't prove anything, as they may be basing their opinion on faulty data and bad assumptions.

Since you made the claim on this forum, the onus is on you to defend and source the data for your claim. The onus is not on us to go read entire books you post just because you claim they prove you are right.
I wouldn't do that to anyone else here - If I need to I will go into the book myself, find the data they used to support for their conclusions, and then I present that data directly to you myself. But that requires direct knowledge of the topic (being able to argue it yourself, not just repeating conclusions you've heard from others) and not being lazy, which are traits I'm not yet convinced you possess.

#4 I've already proven wrong by appealing to 2nd century history about the canon being before anyone had the power to destroy opposing gospels. And you haven't tried to deal with those facts yet either. So if that book you reference is making that claim, then you obviously need to find a better source. Pointing people to faulty books certainly doesn't help prove your original claim is true.

I've given archeological and historical reasons why the NT Gospels must be regarded as more authentic than any of the other supposed gospels that have been found, and you've given no facts or argumentation that would disprove that.

I'm happy to talk about Q also, but let's deal with one issue at a time here. Either you can back up what you said about thomas or you can't. If you're willing to withdraw your statements about the gospel of thomas as inaccurate or at least admit you don't have any facts to back them up your opinion, then we can move on to the next topic. Because even if we assumed Q theory was true, it doesn't prove anything you've claimed about the gospel of thomas. The archeological and historical evidence is still overwhelming against your claim that it preceded the NT Gospels and was used by them as a source. Q also does nothing to prove your #4 claim, which is a complete archeological and historical impossibility, and anyone who makes such a bogus claim has proven they cannot be taken seriously. Really, claiming that is so historically absurd, that it's on par with these people who think the council of Nicea established the Biblical canon - some very basic research could have shown them otherwise.
Very interesting reply. Errors are as follows: I posted a reference which you haven't read about prior gospels. I shouldn't have to post such references, it is your responsibility to do the research. As per references I posted, there is scholarly consensus for The Gospel of Thomas preceding the NT gospels. Scholars have found about 40% of Jesus NT gospel sayings in Thomas. At the time church leaders accepted the NT gospels, a church decree was issued to destroy other gospels, which happened. It is not my responsibility to provide all references. I can, and have, provide some of them. I have conducted scholarly research, so I am privy to professional standards. Apparently, you are not, so don't pretend to be an expert.

By referencing Gospel Q without indicating any understanding of it, you have put yourself out on a limb, and it has been chopped off.

You state, "the NT Gospels must be regarded as more authentic than any of the other supposed gospels" that is not a research criteria, it is an opinion. More authentic means there is no evidence for any one document or gospel being real or "authentic," they are therefore imperfect, or not authentic.

You mention archeological reasons. What are they? Based on my research, there is no archeological evidence for the NT gospels. You are blowing a lot of HOT AIR.

Again, it is not my responsibility to do your research. I am not your research assistant.

You keep slipping around the central issue. You can't win the debate by changing the subject. The issue is whether or not the NT gospel stories are accurate. Evidence must be provided. I maintain those NT gospel stories were made up. That is a nice way of saying NT authors lied. PROVE OTHERWISE!
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
I shouldn't have to post such references, it is your responsibility to do the research.
Maybe you don't realize the concept of debate.
The premise is that if you make a claim then you're willing and able to defend it.

If you can't even acknowledge the need to back up your claims with facts, then there is no possibility of having a real debate. All that's left is just you repeating your assertions and getting defensive and deflecting when challenged to provide facts to back them up.

I patiently tried to pull some real facts out of you, as I was interested in discussing this topic; but I honestly think you're just throwing up a smoke screen and faking your way through this thread. Pointing to a book and saying it proves you right because you really don't have anything else to respond with. People who really know the material first hand don't act the way you do. They don't need to, because they either have the information in their head to recall or they know where to quickly find the data and references that are relevant.
 
Last edited:

Repox

Truth Seeker
Maybe you don't realize the concept of debate.
The premise is that if you make a claim then you're willing and able to defend it.

If you can't even acknowledge the need to back up your claims with facts, then there is no possibility of having a real debate. All that's left is just you repeating your assertions and getting defensive and deflecting when challenged to provide facts to back them up.

Pointing to a book and saying it proves you right because you really don't have anything else to respond with. People who really know the material first hand don't act the way you do. They don't need to, because they either have the information in their head to recall or they know where to quickly find the data and references that are relevant.

My problem with our discussion is you have little or no knowledge for almost everything you post. I have actually read the books I've posted, you have read nothing! You spend almost all of your time putting up a smoke screen. Then when you can't find an answer you change the subject. I'll bet you can't even remember why our debate began. What was the original question?

In case you forgot, here is what you posted.

"There are no "prior gospels".
There are many documents of antiquity that claim to be a gospel, but by any measure of historical authenticity they can lay no claim to being authentic representations of what Jesus said and did. They all come in no earlier than the 2nd or 3rd century, whereas the authentic gospels can be shown to originate in the 1st century."

Your statement is evidence of you lack of knowledge on the subject. There are prior gospels which I have posted, but you have failed to read. There are gospels that biblical scholars have dismissed, but there are others they have accepted such as Gospel Q, which has been found in the NT gospels. I could go on, but it is a waste of time, you don't know how to do research. Again, The Gospel of Thomas has been accepted by most biblical scholars. How would you know, you haven't read anything. There are, of course, more references such as Jesus in the Nag Hammadi Writings by Majella Franzmann, but, again, you don't do research. You play bluffing games. You pretend to know, but when you're challenged, you have nothing to offer but a lot of subterfuge. Sorry, you have no credibility.

In case you want to return to the debate and regain some credibility, here is the topic reduced to one statement. Actually, there is no such documentation, but you wouldn't know that because you have done no research. Prove I am wrong. Research the topic and surprise me.

Present historical documentation for NT gospel stories.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
I could easily throw out a dozen book titles, post some articles links, or drop some names that support my position and tell you to go read all that and refuse to directly argue any details myself - but that's not a way to have a meaningful debate or discussion.

If you can't recognize that then fundamentally there's no where else for this conversation to go, you're just putting up a wall and refusing to engage.

Although I'm very interested in having a real discussion on the history/archeology/textual criticism of the NT vs false gnostic gospels, I am not interested in just trying to convince you of what the proper and meaningful way to debate/discuss an issue is. Usually I just ignore people who act that way - but it took me a while to realize that no amount of reasoning with you was going to get you to engage directly with the data, instead of just throwing out names/book titles and repeatedly asserting they prove you right without ever attempting to demonstrate why.
 
Last edited:

Repox

Truth Seeker
I could easily throw out a dozen book titles, post some articles links, or drop some names that support my position and tell you to go read all that and refuse to directly argue any details myself - but that's not a way to have a meaningful debate or discussion.

If you can't recognize that then fundamentally there's no where else for this conversation to go, you're just putting up a wall and refusing to engage.

Although I'm very interested in having a real discussion on the history/archeology/textual criticism of the NT vs false gnostic gospels, I am not interested in just trying to convince you of what the proper and meaningful way to debate/discuss an issue is. Usually I just ignore people who act that way - but it took me a while to realize that no amount of reasoning with you was going to get you to engage directly with the data, instead of just throwing out names/book titles and repeatedly asserting they prove you right without ever attempting to demonstrate why.

Your reply is quite remarkable in its obfuscation of facts. I'll bet you don't even remember why our discussion began. It started when you challenged me to prove my argument for the NT gospels being inaccurate. My claim was, and remains, there are no historical documents to support NT gospels stories. Based on my research, which I have posted, prior gospels made no mention of Jesus being the son of God. My hypothesis is Jesus was God, and there is no son of God.

There is no reason why I should repost references, they're on this thread.

In case you forgot, here is our research issue.

Present historical documentation for NT gospel stories.
 
Last edited:

HeatherAnn

Active Member
My 1st thought of this thread title was God is dualism: "the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided." And to that, I might agree, though I won't pretend to know for sure.

"There must needs be opposition in all things" - this is a fact that seems pretty obvious. Day distinguishes night. Light and dark... all kinds of opposites give each other meaning, more significance. All of us have some good and some evil tendencies, and often it is ONLY through "evil" or some "bad" thing that happens, that GOoD is revealed.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
My 1st thought of this thread title was God is dualism: "the division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided." And to that, I might agree, though I won't pretend to know for sure.

"There must needs be opposition in all things" - this is a fact that seems pretty obvious. Day distinguishes night. Light and dark... all kinds of opposites give each other meaning, more significance. All of us have some good and some evil tendencies, and often it is ONLY through "evil" or some "bad" thing that happens, that GOoD is revealed.

I agree, there are many dualities in our world. However, I propose a meanings which are not common. Both Gods are together in a sphere. Before angels, the two Gods were satisfied with each other’s company. I believe they created angels to enjoy their holiness and glory. Each angel has a place in a holy circle around the sphere of God. Unless carrying out a command, they never leave the God sphere. Angels interact with them in unique ways. One angel may exchange an idea with one of the Gods and be amazed at the other God's response to that exchange. Other angels may also respond to one of those exchanges. Each exchange in the holy circle is unique with an infinite number of outcomes.

I have a good example which may help, it comes from a vision I had about the two Gods. Imagine two pearls of equal size next to one another. They're permanently attached. The two Gods share ideas with each other for all of eternity. Wouldn't exchanges between two Gods be more enjoyable for companionship than one God all alone? if monogamous, what did God do? Did He bounce around heaven by Himself for entertainment, or pleasure. Ha. Ha.
 
Last edited:

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I disagree. The Bible says "For this is what Jehovah says,The Creator of the heavens, the true God,The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it,Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:18) Rather than being a duality, "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
I disagree. The Bible says "For this is what Jehovah says,The Creator of the heavens, the true God,The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it,Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:18) Rather than being a duality, "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
ACCORDIN
I disagree. The Bible says "For this is what Jehovah says,The Creator of the heavens, the true God,The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it,Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else." (Isaiah 45:18) Rather than being a duality, "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
In Genesis, God makes a reference to His duality. "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,' (Gen. 1:26)
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
ACCORDIN

In Genesis, God makes a reference to His duality. "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,' (Gen. 1:26)
I believe Jehovah was speaking to his Son. Regarding Jesus Christ, Colossians 1:15,16 state; "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible."
These verses reveal God created his "firstborn" Son, and then gave him the privilege of working alongside his Father in creating all other things. Not that Jesus was a co-Creator but rather a master worker who carried out his Father's instructions. (Proverbs 8:30)
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
I believe Jehovah was speaking to his Son. Regarding Jesus Christ, Colossians 1:15,16 state; "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible."
These verses reveal God created his "firstborn" Son, and then gave him the privilege of working alongside his Father in creating all other things. Not that Jesus was a co-Creator but rather a master worker who carried out his Father's instructions. (Proverbs 8:30)

I thought God was eternal. How could there be a son of God if God is eternal? It is an error in logical which has never been addressed Trinity believers.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
It is more logical to propose God to be a duality. Perhaps what happened was early Christians interpreted the duality of Jesus (God) to be father and son.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I thought God was eternal. How could there be a son of God if God is eternal? It is an error in logical which has never been addressed Trinity believers.
The simple answer is that Jesus is not God. The Bible says God created Jesus.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
The simple answer is that Jesus is not God. The Bible says God created Jesus.

Scholarly research has questioned the legitimacy of NT gospels.

Scholars have discovered an evolution of ideas following the death of Jesus, the Jesus movement. There is an excellent account of what happened in book entitled The Lost Gospel Q by Burton L. Mack. Scholars found quotations common to each of the four gospels from Q. Scholars from all over the world have participated in this scholarly enterprise. What they have found are source material preceding the writing of the gospels. All authors have sources, so it‘s expected for NT authors to have reference material for their gospels. Briefly, scholars have discovered a transition of ideas about Jesus by tracing changes in The Lost Gospel of Q. They discovered four basic stages of change for Q. In the early years following the death of Jesus, Q1 reveals people regarding Jesus as a prophet or wise man. It wasn’t until the third stage, 40-60 years following the death of Jesus, that Jesus movement followers began defining Jesus as the son of God. About this time, followers also began discussing the crucifixion of Jesus. Then, in the final phase of the Jesus movement, followers began discussing Jesus as a sacrificial lamb to save humankind. Based on analysis of Gospel of Q material, the final statement for Christianity as we know it today began in the fourth stage of Q.

I propose God to be a duality. In heaven, the two eternal Gods are in a sphere surrounded by twelve angels. They have never and will never be separated, they are equal in power, glory, and holiness. Before the two Gods created angels, they were companions. The two Gods came into the world as Jesus; there is no son of God. Instead of accepting two Gods, followers of Jesus interpreted them as father and son. As evidence, there are no references to the son of God in prior gospels, the ones preceding the four NT gospels. Son of God and crucifixion stories were added 30 to 40 years later by Jesus movement people. The Trinity is illogical. You cannot propose the Trinity to be eternal when the son of God had a beginning. As for the Holy Spirit, it is found with the two Gods and Angels in heaven, not in our material world.
 
Last edited:

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I believe the Bible has been under constant attack, both physical and intellectual, for centuries. I also believe all attempts to discredit the Bible have failed. It is as Isaiah 40:8 affirms some 2,700 years ago: "The green grass dries up,The blossom withers, But the word of our God endures forever.” Since the Bible was completed some 1,900 years ago, if it were mere men's ideas, it would long ago have been discredited or destroyed. I believe it is God's word and therefore cannot be refuted by reputed scholars.

False apocryphal books are no part of God's inspired word, IMO.
 

Electus de Lumine

Magician of Light
I believe the Bible has been under constant attack, both physical and intellectual, for centuries. I also believe all attempts to discredit the Bible have failed. It is as Isaiah 40:8 affirms some 2,700 years ago: "The green grass dries up,The blossom withers, But the word of our God endures forever.” Since the Bible was completed some 1,900 years ago, if it were mere men's ideas, it would long ago have been discredited or destroyed. I believe it is God's word and therefore cannot be refuted by reputed scholars.

False apocryphal books are no part of God's inspired word, IMO.

How do you know that Yahweh is telling you the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
 
Top