Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion

[Mars Man]

Good to hear from you again Kaminari san !!

I can fully sympathize with your being busy, and not being able to get back here as often as you would like. The same may be my case around the end of this month, or so.

The word 'innovation' as used there by professor Hengel, was, according to the context, to say that applying a name which carries authority to a text not written by the personage most usually associated with that name, was an innovation in Greco-Roman bio-historigraphs; that's all. Be that really the case, or not, I wouldn't be able to offer other evidence at this point.

Regarding the individual Gospel titles, I didn't really have you in mind with particular point, as you had shown a similar understanding in your #110 post on page 5; I am posting for the general readership. I would tend to agree that an original by Mark would have been very likely, but as it seems to be understood by some I read, we don't likely have that autograph today. John, the apostle may have a had some input into that Gospel, but surely not him alone, it is has been shown.

Yes, I would say that your understanding there on that Greek word tis is without any problem at all. I would still argue, that in this case, it is more of a common sense thing than any linguistical bearing type thing. There is no leverage by which to support any argument that Luke had intended to give the reader anything other than the hisorical account that is given. The same could be said for the Mark that we have.

Now just why it is that the text entitled Matthew, changed that to two men having been acknowledged and treated would only be pure speculation; there is no way to know. Also, taking that text to have been composed later than both that of Mark and Luke, would reason out to its being in error. Along with that, the general disagreement of motion in such a confined time space, with otherwise such closely provided exchanges of dialog among the players, most reasonably directs us towards the most likely understanding that the different sources had different understandings of that supposed historical event.

Your illustration is well taken, yet I feel it kind of misses the mark, in a sense. If we were talking about different understandings that lend themselves to development through increments in empirical knowledge through the general testing required of theories, or through further gains in available data, that illustration would well fit. If we were to remove the purpose of the overall discussion, that is the testing of the theory of a single omniscient author having been the source for all the information contained in the total of all OT and NT writings, then that illustration could be applied. Otherwise, I don't see it as being very helpful, unless I have missed something, and if it did, please point it out in tighter detail. It is a very well thought out illustration; I like it.

I hope you guys all have a nice weekend !!:wave:

 

[No-name]

The New Revised Standard Version by Bruce Metzger gives it as "and it was about noon." The New American Standard by Lockman Foundation has, "it was about the sixth hour." with a footnote saying, "Perhaps 6a.m. (Roman Time) Today's English Version by The American Bible Society has, "It was almost noon of the day before the Passover." All the other Bibles I have on hand here give the sixth hour--The New World Translation footnoting that as being 12:00, others without footnotes.

If it was the day before Passover (Thursday), as the American Bible Society footnotes indicate- than it doesn't matter what time it was- since the other disputed times are on the day of Passover (Friday). I'm still not sure this qualifies as a historical error. There seems to be an indication of some type of transcription error and possibly so omission of details by the various authors.

 

[No-name]

Also it seems rational that different authors would have different understandings of the same events- even if they were eye witnesses- and due to difference in purpose and because extended lengths of time might amplify their perspectives report details differently. The same still happens today when you read different eye witness accounts of the same event.

I'm not certain that these differences should qualify as historical errors. I don't think they would effect the reading, meaning or even the theology that would come out of the text.

 

[Mars Man]

Hey sabro san, some good points and questions raised. In one way of looking at it, one could say yes, if this portion of text had originally had 'sixth hour', and were otherwise written without John 13:1~38; 14:31; 18:1~12, then it could surely be said that one possible understanding could be that the scene at the 'pavement' could have been the day before passover. Yet, as you can surely know by checking the above verses, cross-referencing them with the other versions of the stories, the passover meal had already been eaten, so the scene at the 'pavement' presented by John 19:14, couldn't have been before Passover. That meal is eaten after sundown on Nisen 14th.

One problem seems to be the clause 'preparation for/of the Passover.' From what I have seen, it could lead to two avenues of understanding:

1) to general terminology for the 'Great Sabbath' which fell on the regular Sabbath of that year, Nisan 15th, 33 CE, and which of course would have been a Saturday by today's keeping. It appears that the term 'Passover' has been used in such a way when it refers to the whole 'long-weekend-like festival'; the seven-day festival of the unfermented cakes, which ran right behind the Passover at that time. This understanding would cause us to translate the Greek there as 'of' rather than 'for'. ('for' being misleading)

2)the text has been messed with by other hands or editors, and confusion is the result. Those who argue for a 'for' translation in John 19:14, still have the obligation of explaining how the portions of text I gave above can be assimulated with that understanding, along with the fact that the historical flow provided in John, though being very, very loose, doesn't seem to allow for such double-looping/backtracking techniques.

And so now, we can see one thing for sure. How can the Today's English Version offer such an explanation without giving much deeper detail on other possibilities? If you were to look at that, sabro, give it very careful consideration while checking out all those textual points both in John and the Synoptics, you'd find right away, I am certain, that even as it is given in John, it cannot have been intended to have happened before the Passover meal. And now, what we see, as Kaminari had once so well worded, this field of study is very messy, indeed. And the reason it is, is because we just don't know for sure. That's where Christian religionists have let the public at large down. That's why those who I identify as falling into a 'simply churched' classification have been left out in the cold. How could the TEV do that?

Yes, regarding the transcription error matter, John 19:14 could have orginally had 'third hour', which would have been around 9 am. That still doesn't match Mark's account, though. And please notice how Mark's historical flow doesn't match that of Luke's. (Also there is a very good point showing individual narrative cohesion in Luke, tying in with that 'questioning' historical flow--see if you can catch it, and I'll get back with that later.)

let me post this much...

 

[Mars Man]

I didn't mention it before, so I will here. Although I am still awaiting information from those I know State side, the sources from which I accepted the understanding that those in that era counted daylight hours from sunrise to sunset (regardless of what system of 'day begins at...' was used by who, or the Roman legal counting method) was: Thayer's Lexicon (bibliography given earlier), Liddell & Scott's lexicon, and comments by Benjamin Wilson in his Emphatic Diaglott (NT) on p 323, under John 1:39.

We may not agree on that particular point, sabro san, yet taking the narrative attributed to John to have orginally read 'sixth hour', and that being the sixth hour of daylight (around noon) that account would be historically inaccurate; if we held Luke's account to be historically accurate. That is the point of this 'historical error' context. If Luke's account is consistently held to be the actual historical events and facts, then when other reports logically and/or reasonably do not follow that same given history, we can say that they are historically in error.

I fully agree with the gist of your second post (of that day) sabro san. Firstly taking the point on having different understandings of the same event. If we see these writings as being purely a human construction, then that's exactly what we would expect--difference in understanding, and not only that, but opinion, memory, and agenda. Yet if we were to claim that any supernatural intelligence which had known all history in totality of depth and detail had provided, from those same memory banks, information that had been written down, would it not be most logically true that the history (as opposed to pure theological or moral material) reported would be exact?

Of course, evidence, as provided by the several sources I have used, and then some, makes it most clear that we cannot see the concept that the orginal writings were complete and finished products from the very point of having been written, by the earliest Christians. In other words, though the gospel (in it's original meaning before written tradition) about the Messiah was to have been of 'YHWH', the writing that men did was just that, writing that men did. The paradgim (sp?) shifted after some tens of decades of inter-conflict over various theological understandings and movements, etc, where in the apostolic versions were given some upper/over rated majesty.

In the long run, I would say that the historical errors do affect the validity of the points you had outlined there in your final sentence. Maybe if it were just a matter of three, or four, or even some 15-20 points of historical error (as earlier defined) it may be no real big concern, but there are so many, that run throughout the historical elements of the narratives. And the apologists' arguments that one finds on these, always miss the mark in a number of various, not so easy to detect ways.

We have to come to the Bible firstly with the view that it is exactly as it really is, a collection of writings by a number of people over some vast length of time, with some large number of possible readings scattered throughout a large number of places. Then we have to examine it to see if it can be more than that. The apologists' scream that sceptics and atheists claim the Bible guilty and then set out to prove it as being such, rather than taking an innocent until proven guilty approach, is misguided. It is misguided in taking the matter to be like a criminal court case rather than a civil court case--the latter being simply a display and resolution of the facts to establish the state of a situation, and then making a ruling on what that state is.

No one can deny that the Bible was written down on some material, in ink, by pens of whatever sort, by human beings, from and based on the mental material (brain) of those human beings who actually did the writing--either the original autographs of later copies and additions. To take the information contained in those writings, or the claims to know certain facts presented by those writings, as having come from an intellect beyond the author's or copier's brain, would then have to be looked into, to go to any level above that of the starting point. The Bible is neither guilty nor innocent when we first come to it, it is simply what it is, nothing more, nothing less. Then, we have to investigate it with an open, rational and careful mind, to see just what can be drawn from it--regardless of the various camps. This is NOT easy to do, for many, it seems, and must include the 'bottom to top' approach hand in hand with the 'top down' invesigation.

 

[No-name]

I thought your point was that Jesus could not be in front of Pilate and dying on the cross at the same moment. If Luke was referring to an event 24 hours earlier I don't see that it matters what the exact time was at all.

Mars Man- I must apologize for the impass we seem to have encountered. Without being dismissive or patronizing, but I entirely disagree with what your concept of "historical error." I still don't see 15-20 or even three or four. Again, it is probably because of my bias- but I see far more variance in Bush's retelling of why we invaded Iraq than in anything you have brought here. I have no problem still believing that the bible is totally perfect and God inspired in its present form- that each of these "errors" and imperfections is entirely intentional. I also have no problem reconciling the fact that it is entirely the product of perfectly fallible human hands and minds: Just as I am an imperfect collection of genetic material from both of my parents, I am also perfectly created by God. It is not difficult to reconcile both the supernatural and natural explaination of our genesis or of the origins of the books of the bible.

I also don't think we use such standards to judge "historical errors" in other documents. Unlike the evidentary rules used in courts- people who's job it is to deal with scriptures from a textual perspective- and not to mention thoelogical perspective have far more gaps to deal with. I believe both scientists and historians have a significantly higher tolerance of uncertainty in regard to comparing documentation and data from separate sources. Some degree of uncertainty and variance is allowable and usually expected. The type of investigation you advocate would seem to have little purpose.

 

[Mars Man]

Good afternoon sabro san, and all !!

Yes, sabro san, you had understood correctly; I wonder what it was in my recent posts that set that in question. As you had pointed out there, that was the point.

I really appreciate your candor sabro, that is always nice to get from anyone--it is so important; in my pointof view. In my later post of yesterday, the point that I had mentioned we may not agree on was both broad and specific at the same time. Now I usually don't come to the school on Mondays, but had a special reason to drop by today. I found in my e-mail box, that I had recieved some responses on the matter of time-count. As I had thus understood, the most likely understanding is that people just used the 'from sun rise to sun set' style to count the hours, and for that reason we get the 'twelve hours in a day' type language of John 11:9. However there was the 'midnight to noon to midnight' style which was used for legal purposes by the Romans also. I was told that this is not an easy matter, and to deal with it properly would take more than what could be said in an e-mail, so...

No need to apologize, sabro san; although I understand your politeness and concern, in doing so, and am very grateful for that. I always appreciate your following along on these discussions, and do hope that you continue with at least that, as you have been. As mentioned once before, my concern with this thread as well as with all the posts I make, are not to de-convert anyone directly nor indirectly, really. My agenda is to spread information and facts, to create a healthy manner of critical thinking about this field and all that it encompasses. That's all.

Regarding the objections on how one looks at history, be it through singular recollection, plural recollection, or various degrees of evidences, I would tend to think that a close look at the detailed process of recognizing the development of understanding history is important, and stands to be looked at even in this case. I really do not see any accomplishment in denying (not to say that you are, yet) that history cannot be plural--either an event happened just so, or not, regardless of whether it is recalled by the human mind or not. That is a fact, and that is what history is. But more on that tomorrow, I have to go now. See you !! :wave:

 

[No-name]

In such cases when you have a variety of sources, it is always possible to sit down and reconcile whatever differences you find in constructing a reasonable time table. There may be a string of unknowns or disputed points in some areas and other areas where everything lines up perfectly. I can still see in the four gospels that we can construct reasonable timetables for most of the events even if some details differ in some accounts.

That whole midnight to midnight reconning makes no sense...and yet it is the system which survived. Hmmm makes you wonder about human logic...

 

[Mars Man]

Good day! Yes, sabro I am absolutely with you on that being able to reconstruct most things in the four gospels. I reason, from what I have learned and deemed truer so far, that that is true. I would simply point out here, that most does not require anything more than 5.1 out of 10, however.

Of course, regarding your point on resources and stuff, I would chime in by saying that that's why study is important from the start--say from childhood. Then one can come to see that there is really a lot that we just do not know. The matter under discussion here is one.

The facts of the case are as follows:

The text of John is not certain at all points--in fact John has one of the largest interpolations in the gospel texts. (Jn 7:53-8:11).

The sentence at Jn 19:14 could have read 'third hour' or 'sixth hour'. We cannot know which could be the correct word--and it does make a difference--but the various papyri and mns that have been considered to carry more weight, have 'sixth hour', and those have been chosen to be the most likely candidate for the original.

It cannot be ascertained, but is reasonable to consider that the authors of that work, John, may have known of the earlier Gospel Accounts. If the other works had been only known of is one thing, but if they had actually be on hand, would have been another thing altogether. Yet, it would be unreasonable to suggest that the oral tradition had not been known by the producers of that extremely kerygmatic bio-historiograph. (It must be kept in mind, nevertheless, that there could have been a variety of takes on that tradition.)

The matter of time keeping, though open for debate, more so leans towards the understanding that the hours of day were kept from sun rise to sun set by the general populace. That would give us around noon, most likely just before it, for 'the sixth hour' and around 9 am (ditto) for 'the third hour' in all cases of writing. (eg. in each gospel)

Because John doesn't agree historically with the other accounts, there has been more effort to defend the proposition that that narrative had used Roman legal time counting methods. The drawback with that argument is that it doesn't fit with 4:6 (where the journey from the Jordan river area in Judea up to Sychar (or Shechem) would very unlikely have put them there at six in the morning.) [of course, this type of using the historical information in the several Gospel accounts to reason on what had happened is based on taking that history presented as being true--which in many cases, cannot be verified.]

If we go with the understanding that Jeshua was to have been there at the place called the 'pavement' at six in the morning, and keep in mind that this would have been late March/early April~mid April, things could be said to work out so that Mark's account of having him impaled at 9am would fit. If, on the other hand, we go with the more reasonable scenario of Jeshua's being there around noon, [and please keep in mind that with the information we have it could not have been talking about any other day than Nisen 14th; in any of the stories] we are left with the conclusion that the author(s) of that work disagree with the history outlined by the others. (and the others would be considered much older)

I would say that the fairest of any most open-minded understanding, would give neither side the title of absolutely known to be correct. And nobody could claim that the information can be known to have come from a memory of absoluteness in detail and honor to facts known. (Heb 6:18)

I agree that we humans can do strange things, although the decision of when to start that time count would not really have been a matter of logic, but of emotion, just as when to start the year.

 

[Kaminari]

A quick comment en passant.
Should the term here really be "historical error" - would "narrative error" or "reporting error" not be the more appropriate term?

However, also noted in passing that a glaring error within this same time frame does exist? How is it that no-one seems to notice that the two criminals crucified alongside Christ are not reported, either one, to have repented in one of the gospel accounts?

 

[Kaminari]

One quick question - based on not having done any investigating at all yet...not even having opened up the relevant pages of the Bible, truth to tell. Could "the third hour" perhaps mean "three hours later."

 

[No-name]

Mars-man I believe you are correct in that assessment, but I think we would have to do the type of scholarship you were proposing in #156-158 to determine the exact textual context and meaning. And so far that type of research is unavailable to me. I would have to take language courses and graduate courses in that particular area... So I am left with secondary sources- which I tend to choose to fit my bias. Those whose basic philosophies and belief systems I disagree with, I quickly dismiss as ridiculous, irrelevant, or "biased."

Kaminari- I love what you said about considering these disputed points narrative or reporting errors."Historical error" makes it sound unfounded or fictional. I also believe that footnotes indicate a small number of transcription errors and indicate some translation errors.

 

[belle74311]

The bigger question for me would be: As a Christian who is greatly satisfied with his current realtionship with God, why should I care to investigate Islam?

When Jesus said, "It is finished." was he mistaken? When he claimed to be messiah, alpha and omega, son of God, was he mistaken? I always go back to the CS Lewis statement to the effect: Jesus was either a liar, a madman, or he was telling the truth.

Lastly- why the scriptural rewrite? The old and new testaments were fairly established and cannonized by 500 AD, and yet Islam throws them out and starts over?

Hey Sabro...I figured this would be the best place to answer your question since it's about Christianity. But I'd just like to say that I'm glad you believe in God at all And if I say anything offensive, I truly appologize for I'm only trying to answer your question.

When Jesus said "It is finished" which book, chapter, and verse was it and what was it pertaining to?

As far as you saying Jesus claimed to be messiah, alpha and omega, son of God. What Islam tells us is that Jesus (pbuh) is the messiah...no argument there. About him claiming to be alpha and omega...according to the Bible, that's actually a dream that John the Baptist had. Jesus did not actually claim that with his lips.

Him claiming to be the son of God...that was nothing really new at the time of Jesus (pbuh) because at that time, saying that was common. Jews used to say they're sons of God too. It's a metaphor for the way they described their relationship with God. So by saying he's the son of God is not literal. It's like if you go to church and you go up to the priest and say father. He's not really your father.

But I do have a few questions of my own about Christianity that I haven't really received and answer to yet. It is about the overall faith of Christianity. Please understand that this is not to be malicious..it's out of wanting to understand the Christian faith a little bit more as my best friends are Christian, and my Aunt as well. So I hope you guys can clear this up for me..here it goes:

Do you guys believe Jesus (pbuh) is God or Son of God?

How can he be both?

It is said in Christianity that God came down to earth in the form of Jesus to get to know men better. But wouldn't God know about men already since He created us?

And for what specific reason did he come to the Jews?

If Jesus was crucified and died for our sins, then why are we still capable of having sin? If we're still capable of having sin, the what was the point of Jesus' crucifixtion and death? (according to the bible)

If you believe Jesus to be both God and son of God, how could God die?

Why did Jesus go to Hell for 3 days?

Where in the Bible does Jesus say I am God or Worship me?

These are just some of the basic questions I had about Christianity that I don't really understand until now. If there is an explanation...by all means please explain. Thank you!

 

[No-name]

hey belle 74311- great questions! I'm not certain I'm the best person to answer them, but I'll give it a shot and hopefully a better scholar will chime in and correct me.
Also I am an American evangelical, and we tend to read things a bit more literally than our European, Catholic and older Protestant denominations.

When Jesus said "It is finished" which book, chapter, and verse was it and what was it pertaining to?

John 19:13. Jesus was up on the cross shortly before dying- announcing that the attonement for mankind was completed.

As far as you saying Jesus claimed to be messiah, alpha and omega, son of God. What Islam tells us is that Jesus (pbuh) is the messiah...no argument there. About him claiming to be alpha and omega...according to the Bible, that's actually a dream that John the Baptist had. Jesus did not actually claim that with his lips.

We take the Revelation of Jesus as written by John quite literally even though it is a dream.

Do you guys believe Jesus (pbuh) is God or Son of God?

Both. Some people use the ice, water, steam example or some other metaphor. Jesus was 100% human and 100% God incarnate. He was mortal, and subject to all the physical ailments and pain and even our human weaknesses, but he never sinned. The Holy Spirit is also a member of the trinity. Although the Bible says that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are God, it also clearly says that there is only one God. Explaining the trinity is a bit more complicated- and it is not directly explained in those terms in the Bible- but one of the early councils came up with the concept and it worked and stuck.

It is said in Christianity that God came down to earth in the form of Jesus to get to know men better. But wouldn't God know about men already since He created us?

And for what specific reason did he come to the Jews?

If Jesus was crucified and died for our sins, then why are we still capable of having sin? If we're still capable of having sin, the what was the point of Jesus' crucifixtion and death? (according to the bible)

He didn't come down to get to know us better, but to die for our sins. He had come to the Jews not because they were strong, because they were slaves, and not because they were many, they were few. It was a sovereign choice of God.

Salvation is a gift and his death was the payment for the sins that we commit. It doesn't change our sin nature. We all sin and will do so until we die. If we accept the free gift of God, we not only have salvation, but we also have some tools and a bit of help resisting sin.

If you believe Jesus to be both God and son of God, how could God die?

Jesus was human- subject to our physical laws. His death was actually the redemption plan from the beginning of creation, and he would be the only sacrifice worhthy of the task. God is eternal. Again, we're into that trinity concept again and I wish I could give you a better explanation.

Why did Jesus go to Hell for 3 days?

Aparently to bring those who died "in the faith" up to heaven. It was the completion of an Old Testament prophecy.

Where in the Bible does Jesus say I am God or Worship me?

John 1:1; 1 John 1:3; John 10:30 ("I and the Father am one.")
Micah 2:5; Col 2:8-9; Isa. 44:6; Rev. 1:2,8, 11,13 ; Phil. 2:5,6

These are just some of the basic questions I had about Christianity that I don't really understand until now. If there is an explanation...by all means please explain. Thank you!

 

[No-name]

I know the last post was long, and I hope my answers were satisfactory. I just wanted to add a few points:
John the author of Revelation and John the Baptist were different guys.

The trinity is one of those core Christian Doctrines even though the Bible never uses that term.

God chose the Jews as his people, but Jesus died for the sins of mankind. Through the Jewish people the savior was brought.

 

[belle74311]

I know the last post was long, and I hope my answers were satisfactory. I just wanted to add a few points:
John the author of Revelation and John the Baptist were different guys.

The trinity is one of those core Christian Doctrines even though the Bible never uses that term.

God chose the Jews as his people, but Jesus died for the sins of mankind. Through the Jewish people the savior was brought.

Thanks Sabro for the answers, some I have heard before and some I haven't, but I certainly appreciate the effort. So if the trinity is not used by that term in the Bible, where did that idea come from? And what is the role of the Holy Spirit according to Christianity?

In the Bible Jesus (pbuh) says:
John 14:28 My Father is greater than I
John 10:29 My Father is greater than all
Matt 12:28 I, with the spirit of God, cast out devils
John 5:30 I can, out of my own self do nothing. As I hear I judge and my judgement is just. For I seek not my will but the will of my Father.

Jesus (pbuh) seems to clearly be separating himself from God. If he is 100% God and 100% human I'm not understanding why does he does/says that?

 

[No-name]

Like I said, the Trinity is a complicated doctrine. I haven't though about it deeply or had to explain it before, so this is a good thing. Each "person"- Father,Son and Holy Spirit is distinct and separate and yet always essentially God. Another metaphor compares the doctrine to the role a person takes throughout their life. They are the same person always, but at various times and locations- they become son, father, employee, student, driver, husband...I will look for a better explaination today.

I know it is a doctrine that is firmly opposed by Islam, but nearly universally accepted by Christianity. The Holy Spirit is also regarded as part of the trinity.

The role of the Holy Spirit is another one that I could find a source for- The Holy Spirit is the comforter, convictor, revealor,teacher, guide, inspirer. He receives the worship due the Father and the Son (2 Cor 13:14) and does divine works, including inspiring Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21; Matt 19:4-5), regenerating hearts (Titus 3:5), and creating, sustaining, and giving life to all things (Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; 34:14-15; Psalm 104:29-30). He is said to be eternal (Heb 9:14; only God is eternal), omniscient (1 Cor 2:10-11), and is actually referred to as God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19-20). (from http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=727 )

 

[Mars Man]

A quick comment en passant.
Should the term here really be "historical error" - would "narrative error" or "reporting error" not be the more appropriate term?

However, also noted in passing that a glaring error within this same time frame does exist? How is it that no-one seems to notice that the two criminals crucified alongside Christ are not reported, either one, to have repented in one of the gospel accounts?

Just a quick one, I'm loaded these days, and that's not because of the partying that goes down this time of year here, it's the end of the year school work that goes down here.

I can go with the second one there, if you two (Kaminari and sabro) felt that would help make it clearer. 'Narrative error' could go to mean a textual transmission error, or interpolation or transpositioning. Of course, I used that 'historical error' to help identify that one writer's (for the sake of study I'm holding Luke's work to be accurate) report has misinformation about what happened--including what was said--and that to that extent was not true history, and thus was an error of a historical nature.

But to change that style of listing to 'reporting error' would be the same--only perhaps less emphasis on the 'history' part.

Hi there belle74311 !! Nice to have you joining in here! It seems that you do have a copy of the Bible and do look into it, which I would say is good, regardless of what your religious stance may be. As we look at various points in the text, I do hope to hear from you when you have the time. :wave:

 

[belle74311]

Like I said, the Trinity is a complicated doctrine. I haven't though about it deeply or had to explain it before, so this is a good thing. Each "person"- Father,Son and Holy Spirit is distinct and separate and yet always essentially God. Another metaphor compares the doctrine to the role a person takes throughout their life. They are the same person always, but at various times and locations- they become son, father, employee, student, driver, husband...I will look for a better explaination today.

I know it is a doctrine that is firmly opposed by Islam, but nearly universally accepted by Christianity. The Holy Spirit is also regarded as part of the trinity.

The role of the Holy Spirit is another one that I could find a source for- The Holy Spirit is the comforter, convictor, revealor,teacher, guide, inspirer. He receives the worship due the Father and the Son (2 Cor 13:14) and does divine works, including inspiring Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21; Matt 19:4-5), regenerating hearts (Titus 3:5), and creating, sustaining, and giving life to all things (Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; 34:14-15; Psalm 104:29-30). He is said to be eternal (Heb 9:14; only God is eternal), omniscient (1 Cor 2:10-11), and is actually referred to as God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19-20). (from http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=727 )

Thanks for the link...I will definately refer to it! And if you could find out about where the concept of trinity came from that would be great.

Also, who are Mathew, Mark, Luke and John? And what is their relationship to Jesus (pbuh)?

 

[No-name]

I will have to get back to the trinity question. The Wikipedia article is pretty good, but also long and a bit complicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity It gives the history of the doctrine as well as supporting scriptures.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the authors of the four Gospels we have in the New Testament. The Gospels were written accounts of the life of Jesus. There were far more than four, but only these four were "Cannonized" a few centuries later. It is thought that Mark and some document called the Q gospel may have been sources as well as the Apostle Peter for Mark's writing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel and http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/mmlj.html (Which Mars Man may appreciate- rather than highlighting the Harmony of the gospels as many charts does, this one highlights the differences.)

All were followers of Jesus, John and Matthew were Apostles with a direct connection to Jesus and the events that they told. Mark was a helper and possibly a translator for the Apostle Peter and Luke was also a follower who came later (and may have also written Acts.) They may have used oral sources or several earlier gospels as sources.