h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Rick,

Yes, I agree that the other Gospels clearly place the Crucifixion after the preparation. If they agreed with John, there would be no problem! I don't see where any confusion in terminology comes in - John uses the word 'passover', not 'feast of unleavened bread' (and I'm not clear on the distinction anyway). Perhaps you could explain why this is a problem for the problem (if you see what I mean)?

Gif

The Father thinks, 'Hah! I just _knew_ the Bartender was going to do that!'
Inhales the , and passes, (almost but not quite entirely), out of partial semi-existence...

Hi Gif

We can draw some comparisons between the harmony of the Pax Romana and that of the Great Commission. But in terms of the biblical teaching, the concept of the Trinitarian God-head is quite clear. That human understanding of the concept of a three-in-one God is hazy does in no way invalidate that concept. We should expect that the nature of God might just be a little too complex for our finite minds to sort out.

Trinitarianism is always challenged by those whose common sense overrides the Scriptures. They cannot conceive of one God consisting of a plurality of persons. To them, it does not logically follow that there can be three gods (which one is in authority)? However, the Divinity and harmony of each member of the God-head is stated in detail within John 14:9-26 and 15:26 and summarised in Matt. 28:19. To say or imply that passages supporting the Trinity concept were added later has no historical support (I will give you 1 John 5:7). The only portion of John's Gospel that is not supported by both Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts is the section dealing with the woman taken in adultery(see (see John 8:1 ff). The rest of John's Gospel is virtually identical in both manuscript groups.

The baptismal liturgies of many denominations are not aways cast in concrete (some are). That Matt. 28:19 and Acts 2:38 are not congruent merely reinforces the existence of the Son within the Holy Trinity and that salvation cannot be gained apart from trusting explicitly in Jesus Christ as the redeemer of sinners. Believers' baptism ceremonies in Protestant bodies generally include words that reflect the following : " ...upon your repentance before God and confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I now baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Ghost)..." That Acts 2:38 differs somewhat merely provides additional support that salvation is of Christ alone; and that is the essential issue in any public testimony i.e. confessing Christ as Saviour and Lord and believing that He arose from the dead (see Rom. 10:9,10). The wording may differ but the basis of belief remains the same.

Agreed : God does not die per se. Your analysis though, stops short. Redemption demands the death of an innocent substitute to atone for the sins of the guilty. We are all sinners (cf. Rom. 3:10; 3:23; 5:12 ; 6:23 ; 1 Cor. 15:22 ) and the wages of sin is our physical and spiritual death. As God Incarnate (see John 1:14), Christ died for the unjust because He was that sinless substitute (cf. John 8:45,46 ;Rom. 5:18,19 ; Heb. 4:14,15 ; 2 Cor. 5:21).

Christ could not sin in that He was Divine (the doctrine of the Impeccability of Christ). In fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law (see Matt. 5:17), He was not subject to death (cf. Acts 2:24 ; Psalm 16:10). The " God-man " did die on Calvary's cross but because He is sinless, death could not hold Him. He conquered both death and the grave (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-8 ; Rev. 1:17,18).


Rick

Hi Gif

The Scriptures I quoted in my last post on the " Passover/Unleavened Bread " discrepancies seem to suggest an interchangeable usage of the two terms (especially Luke 22:1). No, I cannot explain it beyond that.

Rick

The Bartender Serves The Son a

hey barman, any chance of a ?

A



There's a special room for that kind of thing, and it'll cost extra

Unfortunately, the room is booked solid for the next couple of weeks, because of the yak convention. You really don't want to know more ...

May I interest you in a ?

http://www.blacksheepbrewery.com/

I might have guessed.

We also have http://www.ratebeer.com/beerimages/23211.jpg

Have one on the horse if you like...

Talking of that room at the back, Tal, I was thinking we might get some rams in, whilst the yaks are recharging their batteries. A bit of oral ram shagging might be a nice little earner?

I think ram semen is meant to be quite tasty in a neolithic sort of way...

*Longs for those simple days when all people wanted was a roasted goat, a barrel of mead, and a virgin sacrifice...*

personally i resent the reintroduction of these sort of early 20th century angst ridden debates about god. i thought in britain and europe and most of the civilised world, this matter had been settled generations ago and that anybody with an education had the matter firmly resolved. america is a different kettle of fish i grant, but i fail to see how their god problems should concern us.

if richard is sincere and not just trotting out c standard philosophy essays for the purpose of self enrichment, he would also be writing extensively about father christmas, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. and since the former two involve massive amounts of human misery even in our post god societies, and further, involve billions in economic and ecological waste, also have an urgency not applicable to discussions about jesus.

effers throws up in the corner as she often does at this time of night.

The Bartender Hands Effers a Mop and Bucket, as He Often Does at This Time of Night

'But in terms of the biblical teaching, the concept of the Trinitarian God-head is quite clear.'

Well, that's my point - it is clear, but only if we look at the 1 John verse that is a late addition. Let's take a look at the two further verses you cite in support of it:

John 14:9-26:
I will certainly grant that this long speech makes mention of Jesus being 'in' the Father and the Father being 'in' Jesus. This is not Trinitarianism - if it's anything, it's 'Dualtarianism' (and there were many early Christians who did believe in a double God rather than a triple one). Yes, I will grant that the passage also mentions the Holy Ghost, but as something separate and not as the third member of a Trinity. You could equally easily read it as an adoptionist text (and many - possibly even most - early Christians did so).

John 15:26
Is much the same, indeed follows almost directly on from the above. This mentions Jesus, the Father and 'the Comforter', i.e. the Holy Ghost, but it shows them as totally separate entities. There is no hint of a Trinity here, except in that it follows on from the verse above.

Yes, it's certainly possible to read these verses as a Trinitarian. But someone who had never heard of the Trinity and read them would certainly not see the Trinity explained in them. At absolute most, they would find a confusing reference to Jesus and The Father being 'in' each-other. At no point, for instance, does Jesus say 'I am my Father', or 'I am God'.

We should also compare this with the many sections of the NT that are more easily read from an 'adoptionist' point of view; the dove descending when Jesus is baptised; the fact that Jesus needed to be baptised at all; the famous cry of 'my God, why have you deserted me'; and of course Jesus' repeated statements that he was the Son of God (or Son of Man), not that he was God.

'Matt. 28:19 and Acts 2:38 are not congruent'

Just for the record, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48 and Acts 19:5 are all congruent. It is clear that the author of Luke/Acts considered baptism to be in the name of Jesus only. The verse in Matthew is the 'outlier', and it seems clear that the authors of Matthew and Luke/Acts differed on this (if the verse in Matthew is not a late addition). Neither of the other Gospels mentions the 'great commission', which is a curious omission if this was a genuine post-mortem commandment of Jesus.


'God does not die per se.'

I'm not trying to argue Christian theology with you. By its own standards, this probably makes sense, whether or not it is true. I was just pointing out that it left early Christians in the confusing position of having to believe both that their God had died, and that He could never die. The Trinity is one explanation (in my opinion, invented by humans to reconcile this apparent contradiction). But there were others; adoptionism (the idea that God 'inhabited' the human Jesus, suffered on the cross, but then left Jesus to die as a human) is another that is just as old, and there were others also.

Gif

Oi, you! Keep yer 'ands off the !

It's Happy Hour at the Yakstop. All you can drink, for a single drachma!

Hey I was just about to fall into bed, and then I thought more about that room at the back. Rather than rams, why don't we bring in some lions? I've heard they have a taste for christians.

We could charge high ticket prices for periodic feeding rituals,

Oo. Yes!

And we can probably hire the yak herdspersons really cheaply for cat litter detail

Have another

Gif

I couldn't help eavesdropping!!

My own thoughts (for what they're worth) are that the N.T. was written by ordinary people (not great scholars) and was an account of what they experienced. They experienced God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The text must sometimes be interpreted bearing such things in mind.

Mikey2

Hi Gif

I think we are already in agreement about 1 John 5:7. It seems to have been added to manuscripts well after the 4th C. It was included in Erasmus Greek Testament and has remained part of the Textus Receptus since the 16th C. But that solitary verse isn't holding together the concept of the Trinity (not by a long-shot).

The Trinitarian nature of God is the natural conclusion when the bulk of NT Scripture is critically examined. The John 14 passages I mentioned and which you note as well, are clarified in the light of Matt. 28:19 which summarizes the Godhead's nature : one name of God ( consisting of three persons). I fail to see how that is not clear. It is not the " outlier " but the " substantiator." The the Dualist concept you advance doesn't seem to have any sound footing. That is not only my conclusion but also the summation of the Four Ecumrenical Councils. That they were attempting to justify the Trinity is absurd. The delegates to the Council were men from both the Arian (Unitarian) and Trinitarian camps. Actually, if you read Bainton's history, you will find that the 2nd Council was dominated by Arian-leaning thinkers; yet at the conclusion, Trinitarianism was re-affirmed. The Athanasian Creed came out of Nicea and has remained the predominating catechism in explaining the nature of God( Google it if you haven't yet had a read).

I should have earlier included other Scriptures backing the Trinity. The key ones noted at Nicea and subsequent councils concerned the raising up of Jesus Christ from the dead.

God raised Jesus Christ : Acts 13:30 ; Rom. 10:9

The Father raised up Jesus Christ : Eph. 4:17,20 ; Gal. 1:1

The Holy Spirit raised Jesus Christ from the dead : Rom. 8:11

Jesus Christ raised Himself from the dead : John 2:19,20

Thus we see the Triune God operating in one accord to the satisfaction of the redemptive plan; each person actively ( as one God)in the resurrection of the Messiah.

Regards

Rick