• 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!

Jesus vs the New Testament

New testament representative of Jesus?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Used to be a Catholic and that's where the Trinity came from.
The Trinity is an invented doctrine.
Even history bolster this fact.
I believe, this very doctrine is the work of the devil.
And billions upon billions have believed this blindly
like mindless, unthinking and unquestioning zombies

View attachment 27469

Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be one of the central Christian affirmations about God. It is rooted in the fact that God came to meet Christians in a threefold figure: (1) as Creator, Lord of the history of salvation, Father, and Judge, as revealed in the Old Testament; (2) as the Lord who, in the incarnated figure of Jesus Christ, lived among human beings and was present in their midst as the “Resurrected One”; and (3) as the Holy Spirit, whom they experienced as the helper or intercessor in the power of the new life.

Neither the word “Trinity” nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:13). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism). The second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). The high point of these conflicts was the so-called Arian controversy in the early 4th century. In his interpretation of the idea of God, Arius sought to maintain a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of that oneness, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father. It was not until later in the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, St. Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the historic confessions of Christianity, even though the impact of the Enlightenment decreased its importance in some traditions.

Trinity | Definition, Theology, & History

I believe in the Trinity - in fact I have found many of them, plus a few other configurations
  1. Father = Moninity
  2. Father and the Son = Biinity
  3. God, Lord and Heavenly Father = Trinity 1
  4. Father, Son and Holy Ghost = Trinity 2
  5. Spirit, Water, and the Blood = Trinity 3
  6. Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost = Trinity 4
  7. The spirit and soul and body = Trinity 5
  8. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob = Trinity 6
  9. God the Father, God the Mother, God the Son. Nazarene & Muslim = Trinity 7
  10. God, Lord and Heavenly Father = Trinity 8
  11. God, the Son and the Disciples = Trinity 9
  12. The one, the intellect and the soul = Greek Trinity 10
  13. God was, God is and God will always be = Revelation Trinity 11
  14. Father, Son, Holy Ghost and The Word = Quadinity
  15. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, The Word and the Blood = Pentinity
  16. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, The Word, the Blood and the Water = Hexinity
  17. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, The Word, the Blood, the Water and God's servants = Heptatinity
  18. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, The Word, the Blood, the Water, God’s servants and the disciples = Octoinity
  19. The unnamed "sons" of God = Anonymity
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
Matthew 15:24
Then you will need to explain this verse...

Matthew 15:24 New International Version (NIV)
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

That verse? That is simple - the Lord Jesus Christ was sent for his sheep - the lost sheep of Israel.
and that is based on the scriptures - he preached in Israel, had his ministry in Israel. He established his church with those born under the law [old covenant] - his followers, his apostles in Israel. [Matt 18:16]

But I rather ask the Lord Jesus Christ what he meant about this "lost sheep of Israel."

gateforthesheep.jpg


John 10:9-16 New International Version (NIV)
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.


The sheep are people who know Christ and Christ knows them
Those people who do not know Christ are not sheep but goats

His sheep is the first century church of Christ
His sheep is also the church of Christ in the last days
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Yes they did, loud and clear ─
I see no ambiguity there.

(Me in red.)

Mark 9
1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

This was Jesus' Transfiguration on the Mount.

Mark 13: 28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.

The generation which sees certain things come to pass. There two prophecies here - the destruction of Jerusalem (40 years hence) and the far future - events which include tribulation, the sun and moon darkening, affliction, rise of false Christian prophets etc..


Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

This was Jesus' Transfiguration on the Mount.


Matthew 24:32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.

The generation which sees certain things come to pass. There two prophecies here - the destruction of Jerusalem (40 years hence) and the far future - events which include tribulation, the sun and moon darkening, affliction, rise of false Christian prophets etc..


Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.

This was Jesus' Transfiguration on the Mount.


I see no ambiguity there.
Nor do I.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
I believe in the Trinity - in fact I have found many of them, plus a few other configurations
  1. Father = Moninity
  2. Father and the Son = Biinity
  3. God, Lord and Heavenly Father = Trinity 1
  4. Father, Son and Holy Ghost = Trinity 2
  5. Spirit, Water, and the Blood = Trinity 3
  6. Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost = Trinity 4
  7. The spirit and soul and body = Trinity 5
  8. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob = Trinity 6
  9. God the Father, God the Mother, God the Son. Nazarene & Muslim = Trinity 7
  10. God, Lord and Heavenly Father = Trinity 8
  11. God, the Son and the Disciples = Trinity 9
  12. The one, the intellect and the soul = Greek Trinity 10
  13. God was, God is and God will always be = Revelation Trinity 11
  14. Father, Son, Holy Ghost and The Word = Quadinity
  15. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, The Word and the Blood = Pentinity
  16. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, The Word, the Blood and the Water = Hexinity
  17. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, The Word, the Blood, the Water and God's servants = Heptatinity
  18. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, The Word, the Blood, the Water, God’s servants and the disciples = Octoinity
  19. The unnamed "sons" of God = Anonymity

I believe only on the truth.
Look at what you enumerated from 1 to 19!
It is so confusing, chaotic and does not hold the truth.:eek:
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
The 'miracle' of Israel is not short on many disgraceful dispossessions of lawful owners to seize their land for nominal sums, and the politics of Israel often has very little to do with morality as I understand the term.

Correct. The issue of 'morality' doesn't enter the picture. Bible says Palestine
would be "taken back with the sword."
Didn't start out like that. The Jews only lived on land they purchased. But under
attack they understood that isolated populations could not survive sustained
attack - and chose to seize land to make contiguous and defensible holdings.

BTW, I read Mark 13 tonight. The whole chapter is about the future. There is
not even a HINT that all this would happen in the disciples lives. The destruction
of Jerusalem had to happen (Rome was then at peace with Israel.) The Gospel
was to go out into all nations. Other places speaks of the fall of the Gentiles,
something strange because the Gentiles hadn't even begun to know of Jesus.
I have no problem in believing that Israel could hold land from the Nile to the
Euphrates. In 1967 it was technically an empire, maybe same in 1973.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
The 'miracle' of Israel is not short on many disgraceful dispossessions of lawful owners to seize their land for nominal sums, and the politics of Israel often has very little to do with morality as I understand the term.

But there's no mystery about how it came about ─ from the political connections of the pre-war Zionist movement. When Cato sr. ended his speeches to the Senate with slogans to the effect of Carthago delenda est, he was doing the same thing, and in due course Cathago deleta est. On the theme of political slogans, it's a pity certain people aren't making America great again, but that too is from the same PR family.

Of course, you recall that Yahweh promised Abram (as he then was) that his people would hold all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18), which means that the Muslims, not the Israelis, are the heirs of that promise, no?

Our friend Cato was the sworn enemy of Rome. And he might have been
correct about Carthage rebuilding its navy. But his statement wasn't a
prophecy - it was more a warning, or even a call for vengeance.

Very sad article I read today about the older generation of people who
endured WWII. It was said they see videos of a President who has
prostitutes urinating on him. (Really?) Some said they fought to prevent
America becoming like this.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Safety was no issue to Jesus. He went regularly to Jerusalem.
He said plainly that his life wasn't in danger because his "time
has not yet come."
No, he wasn't a rabbi. He came to fulfill all of the Old Testament,
but he, like John the Baptist, was essentially a New Testament
minister. That is, he gave up his home life and lived with those
who cared for him - his own people. We read of nearly 200
men and women in the New Testament doing the very same thing.
They were not rabbis or priests - Jesus said "God doesn't dwell in
temples made with hands."

The Bible says Jesus was called rabbi meaning teacher... and he could avoid the authorities up north ..

Herod Archelaus, Antipas officially ruled Galilee and Perea as a client state of the Roman Empire.... You remember? The Christian sfled Judah to Pella in Perea to avoid the tribulation.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Correct. The issue of 'morality' doesn't enter the picture. Bible says Palestine
would be "taken back with the sword."
Didn't start out like that. The Jews only lived on land they purchased. But under
attack they understood that isolated populations could not survive sustained
attack - and chose to seize land to make contiguous and defensible holdings.

BTW, I read Mark 13 tonight. The whole chapter is about the future. There is
not even a HINT that all this would happen in the disciples lives. The destruction
of Jerusalem had to happen (Rome was then at peace with Israel.) The Gospel
was to go out into all nations. Other places speaks of the fall of the Gentiles,
something strange because the Gentiles hadn't even begun to know of Jesus.
I have no problem in believing that Israel could hold land from the Nile to the
Euphrates. In 1967 it was technically an empire, maybe same in 1973.

Its NOT from the Nile to the Euphrates.. its from the Euphrates to Wadi Al Arish.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
The Bible says Jesus was called rabbi meaning teacher... and he could avoid the authorities up north ..

Herod Archelaus, Antipas officially ruled Galilee and Perea as a client state of the Roman Empire.... You remember? The Christian sfled Judah to Pella in Perea to avoid the tribulation.

You are partially correct. Joseph saw Galilee as a safe space to raise his family.
And the Christians might have fled there on occasion. But this wasn't Jesus' own
experience. The Old Testament said the Messiah would come "suddenly to his
Temple." Meaning He HAD to go to Jerusalem.
And yes, Jesus was called 'Rabbi.' But there were rabbis and there were Rabbis.
It meant teacher and it meant a profession of teacher.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
(Me in red.)

Mark 9
1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

This was Jesus' Transfiguration on the Mount.
Theology is nothing if not flexible, but when the Transfiguration becomes the Kingdom (of God on earth), theology has become meaningless.

And we'd find, at least in John, the last gospel written, Woo hoo, everyone, the Kingdom's here!

But we don't.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
You are partially correct. Joseph saw Galilee as a safe space to raise his family.
And the Christians might have fled there on occasion. But this wasn't Jesus' own
experience. The Old Testament said the Messiah would come "suddenly to his
Temple." Meaning He HAD to go to Jerusalem.
And yes, Jesus was called 'Rabbi.' But there were rabbis and there were Rabbis.
It meant teacher and it meant a profession of teacher.

Most of Jesus' ministry was in and around the Decapolis cities and Galilee. I don't recall Jesus having a profession, but he was called teacher. I am speaking of Jesus telling the people to flee to the mountains .. which they did in 69-70 AD to avoid the tribulation.

Matthew 24:16 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Luke 21:21 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Correct. The issue of 'morality' doesn't enter the picture. Bible says Palestine
would be "taken back with the sword."
So now you're an apologist for land seizure, dispossession of the law-abiding, invasive war, that kind of thing?

No morality there, indeed.

Keep your fingers crossed that you're never on the receiving end.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Is Jesus contradicting Himself? Or is the new testament a faulty set of texts that don't represent the Man from Nazareth, the divine manifestation. How much of the new testament, is just straight fiction?

And no, this isn't about yoheshua being that 'rabbi', that materialists love to present as some form of quasi religion, the premise is religiously traditional, for this argument,
Divine Jesus, manifestation,
There are many things in the new testament that are valuable, however is it, as a whole, representative.

The New Testament was compiled and written about middle of the 1st century. The main reason was, Christianity was persecuted in the beginning of the first century and by the time it was compiled the original insider witnesses hd been killed or died. There was also a purging of the records, in an attempt to end the movement. Christianity was about the New Messiah and was called the religion of slaves, which was a thorn in the side of Rome, as well as Judah. Their official records play down the movement so as to not give it any credibility.

The goal of purging records is like in modern times. If a Democrat makes a controversial comment on FaceBook or Twitter, that hits the news, it will be quickly purged by insiders, in these social media companies. They will erase the content, so one can deny that it ever happened. Without the original documents to verify the claims, it becomes here-say or conspiracy theory. This makes it go away.

After the genocide and the document purge, what was left were pockets of faithful, but without many of the insider people. These faithful would continue to pass on the traditions they learned. These were not from the original written records, but were passed on from memory. Eventually these traditions were compiled. There were seven main Churches, with each acting more of less independently. This are several accounts of some events that differ in the details. Stories will change with time.

After several generations after Jesus, some of the oral stories become modified to fit the times. You can see this affect in modern times. History used to be an account of the past based on complied facts, dates, places and figures from the past. Now the past is judged by the present, as though the people of the past, knew the future. This erroneous assumption can alter the story.

As an example, the Democrats party in America tries to make all white people of today responsible for slavery in 1860; reparations. This irrationality assumes that that people of the past, knew what we know now, and therefore they were all clairvoyants and should have known better. The reality was the time of Jesus had been a time of miracles and hope. It was not the overwhelming specter of the upcoming atrocities. The original people acted in a way different, from the what the people of the future would assume.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Our friend Cato was the sworn enemy of Rome. And he might have been
correct about Carthage rebuilding its navy. But his statement wasn't a
prophecy - it was more a warning, or even a call for vengeance.
If you want to look at an old political slogan that finally comes true, Cato's example is right on the money.

Like the slogans of the Zionists.

Prophecy has always been a political tool ─ look at Daniel go, with the benefit of the author's hindsight. The prophecy you rely on is always the one that fits your cause, even if you have to backdate it or rewrite it a bit.

The only credible kind of prophecy is one in which the date, circumstances and original terms of the prophecy are independently verified, the outcome predicted is so remote, specific and improbable, and the outcome such a clear and close fit to the prophecy as to raise the possibility of supernatural foreknowledge. Needless to say, there's not a single authenticated example of anything of the kind.
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
Correct. The issue of 'morality' doesn't enter the picture. Bible says Palestine
would be "taken back with the sword."
Didn't start out like that. The Jews only lived on land they purchased. But under
attack they understood that isolated populations could not survive sustained
attack - and chose to seize land to make contiguous and defensible holdings.

BTW, I read Mark 13 tonight. The whole chapter is about the future. There is
not even a HINT that all this would happen in the disciples lives. The destruction
of Jerusalem had to happen (Rome was then at peace with Israel.) The Gospel
was to go out into all nations. Other places speaks of the fall of the Gentiles,
something strange because the Gentiles hadn't even begun to know of Jesus.
I have no problem in believing that Israel could hold land from the Nile to the
Euphrates. In 1967 it was technically an empire, maybe same in 1973.

Israel was never an empire. For most of its history it was a vassal state controlled by Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, The Greeks, Rome etc.. It was really just a hilltop fortress on the trade route in bandit territory.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Most of Jesus' ministry was in and around the Decapolis cities and Galilee. I don't recall Jesus having a profession, but he was called teacher. I am speaking of Jesus telling the people to flee to the mountains .. which they did in 69-70 AD to avoid the tribulation.

Matthew 24:16 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Luke 21:21 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.
You're contradicting yourself. If you're preterist, fully, then the kingdom should be here, already, yet you clearly don't believe so. So what's your purpose of all these random statements, and different arguments. Arguments that contradict each other.
 
Last edited:

pearl

Well-Known Member
Theology is nothing if not flexible, but when the Transfiguration becomes the Kingdom (of God on earth), theology has become meaningless.

Sometimes over thinking goes beyond the intent of the authors. The symbolism of the Transfiguration Is Jesus embodiment of the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
us-israels-golden-age.jpg


Israel was never an empire. For most of its history it was a vassal state controlled by Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, The Greeks, Rome etc.. It was really just a hilltop fortress on the trade route in bandit territory.

Israel became an empire under the House of David.
During a hiatus in empires during the Bronze Age
(possibly neo-Babylonian/Sumerian and the Neo
Assyrian empires) Israel filled the gap. Not only
conquering Amnon, Edom and Moab but pushing
east and northwards, all the way to the Euphrates.
At this time it was independent and united.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
If you want to look at an old political slogan that finally comes true, Cato's example is right on the money.

Like the slogans of the Zionists.

Prophecy has always been a political tool ─ look at Daniel go, with the benefit of the author's hindsight. The prophecy you rely on is always the one that fits your cause, even if you have to backdate it or rewrite it a bit.

The only credible kind of prophecy is one in which the date, circumstances and original terms of the prophecy are independently verified, the outcome predicted is so remote, specific and improbable, and the outcome such a clear and close fit to the prophecy as to raise the possibility of supernatural foreknowledge. Needless to say, there's not a single authenticated example of anything of the kind.

There's tons of stuff, but my favorite will always be Jacob's prophecy
or blessing to his son Judah - the one who gave himself for his brother.
This is called the "Scepter Promise."

... while Joseph received the birthright, to Jacob’s son Judah, father of the Jews,
went the promise of a kingly line leading to the Messiah. Just before Jacob died
around 1670 B.C., he prophesied: "Judah is a lion’s whelp . . . The scepter [ruler’s
staff] shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh
comes [Shiloh meaning "Peaceable One," "Peacemaker" or "To Whom It (the Scepter)
Belongs"-thus a reference to the Messiah]; and to Him shall be the obedience of the
people" (Genesis 49:9-10).

The Scepter Promise

Have I touched upon this already with you?

Judah, symbol of the redeemer
there will be a nation of the Hebrews
with a monarchy
of a line of Judean kings
but this nation
and its monarchy
will end with the Messiah
in whom the nations (not Israel) will obey.

This speaks of the rise and fall of a Hebrew nation
and the coming Messiah as Redeemer in whom the
world will trust.

In Jacob's day the Hebrews and their servants would
have numbered maybe 75 people. In Jesus' day they
numbered about five million. But the bible says they
would always be "few in number" and live amidst the
nations as a tiny country. They will be a blessing to
the world, they will remain small in numbers. They
will reject their Messiah. They will be outcast into all
the world. They will come out of nations that are their
"graves" and they will take back their nation "with the
sword" in the days when the Gentiles no longer believe.

All this is not date stamped. It is event dependent.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sometimes over thinking goes beyond the intent of the authors. The symbolism of the Transfiguration Is Jesus embodiment of the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).
I think that's what the scene is intended to convey, yes.
 
Top