• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion

Sabro: 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.
Click to expand...

Yes, please do find a better explanation. That one is not analogous to what is implied and meant by the Trinity. Those which you have given as some sort of explanation are all parts of one thing. They do not exist separately from one another at the same time as separate distinct enities but at the same time is one entity . IN other words, they could be viewed as characteristics of one person or just smaller parts of one thing.

And besides, your examples are either stages (son => father), or life roles taken on at times throughout our lives or day and those roles are selected by us at a specific moment that requires ourselves to adopt that role and subvert another role in a time sequence.

The Trinity is said to be three "separate" things but are also "one" at the same time. Now, how can that be? Can you explain what a white black rock looks like?

Two separate things CANNOT occupy the exact same space at the same time -- let alone three. Reason and logic points us to that conclusion. To accept that there is a white black rock or that three separate things can be one thing is an exercise in mental masterbation. It may be fun while you are doing it, but if you can never wrap your mind around it so that it is explainable and reasonable -- it leads to an anticlimactic let down and frustration.

So, what does a white black rock look like? Or, give us an accurate analogy.
 
Actually in this case three things are the same at the same time. (Perhaps it is like photons which appear to be particles and waves at the same time.) I am very poor at explaining this, but if you can somehow realize that the creator of time exists outside its limits it makes it a bit easier. As for a being who is omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent- it doesn't seem like anything is impossible. The rules of time and space don't seem to apply to Him.

As for the roles example- I actually have many roles at the same time. When I go to work, I am still a husband and father. I will always be my mother's son. But to tell the truth, I have never liked this analogy. My attempts to explain the trinity doctrine to our muslim friend weren't very good. Perhaps one of the sites I posted did a better job.

I personally have not had a problem wrapping my mind around it. Nor have I found any anticlimacti let down and frustration. Perhaps it is because I wasn't raised a Christian and didn't try to force my expectations upon it.
 
sabro said:
I am very poor at explaining this, but if you can somehow realize that the creator of time exists outside its limits it makes it a bit easier.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it makes it easy because it is asking you to subvert reason and your question is loaded (not to mention tricky) because you are asking in a manner that presupposes something is true by asking people to somehow "realize" the point in question.

Matter exists in time. If the creator exists, then it must be "something." "Something" CANNOT exist in a timeless void. Do you have any data that supports things can exist without time ?

I can imagine a superman in tights flying around with an "S" on his chest, too, but that doesn`t make it true or even possible. The same goes with a man traveling around the world with flying reindeer on a sled climbing down chimneys etc....

When you are a father and husband at the same time, those are roles that you take on and are not separate from you. The Trinity is separate and one. There is a big difference. I am glad that you, too, did never like that analogy.

Sabro, what does a white black rock look like?
 
How do you know that something cannot exist in a timeless void? I don't have any data, because I would not have the first clue as to how to find a timeless void or collect the data?

I don't know what a white black rock would look like, nor am I certain why it should matter. (I do know however what jumbo shrimp look and taste like.)

You've read my attempts at meaningful analogies and they're obviously not that good. I could try another or you could do some basic research and see how actual theologians support this teaching. You could look up the Trinity doctrine on Wikipedia. It is step #1 in 8th grade research. Step #2 might be a site like this one: http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm (Although I have no idea what the diagram at the lower left means.) If you read through the next few pages, it actually gets better. It was a very early doctrine- developed before the Nicene era in 325 AD, and included in that Creed. (Ooh no, and accepted by the early Catholic Church.) You can also find sources which will show the biblical foundations of the doctrine.

Although widely accepted by most denominations, it is not without some debate. There are a few splinter groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses that don't believe in this doctrine.
 
For those that are following, I'd like to proceed with the flow, even though we have not heard from Kaminari san, and don't yet have his conclusion on the John 19:14 .vs. the other narratives matter. If he gives that later, I think it will be o.k.

However, before going on with that flow, I just thought that I'd like to put out some information on the 'bird' .vs. 'bat' matter that had come up in another thread, if I may.

It would be profitable to bear in mind that although translators translate--that is, go from one language into another, they also have to interpret to some degree when doing so. It is just a matter of fact. In the religious documents we are looking at, as much if not much more, has taken place over the hundreds of years between and among writings and copies and commentaries. It can be seen as one very likely possibility in the LXX's deviations from the Masora--or Hebrew Scriptures. There may well be one more case at Deut 14:11, as I will present below:

As strongvoicesforward had pointed out, there appears to be some concern about the catagorizing bats with birds at Lev. 11:13-19. The most likely candidate in Hebrew at verse 13a of Leviticus, is 'oph which should be held at 'flying creatures' in English. The translation that the LXX gives is peteinon (peteinon) which can be found in NT at places like: Mt 13:4; Ro 1:23; James 3:7 (among a number of other places) and most directly equals the Hebrew element of 'flying' animals--of course being most aplicable to birds.

The author or scribe(s) of Deuteronomy most likely interpreted the referent for 'oph to be tsphor, which is what is found at Deut 14:11. The term 'oph is much broader in definition than tsphor, the latter meaning a (small) bird--see Lev 14:4; Deut 4:17; Gen 15:10, etc. At Gen 7:14 we find the coupled usage of these terms: we-khol ha 'oph li miyneho khol tsphor khol-khanaph...which in a rather direct translation would be '..and all the flying (creatures) to kinds (of them) all birds all winged (creatures)... At Deut 4:17 we find yet another combination--being kind of strange, but of Hebraic idiom--iphor (a form of tsphor) khanaph winged bird. (as though there were any known birds to those people which had no wings...but this is just style of speech)

Although the text at Deut 14:11 would be likely to draw fire, (and the LXX has orneon, directly meaning 'bird' there) for including a bat in that catagory, Lev 11:13a would not, because bats fit under the description--as they gave it--of flying creatures. Of course, by so many other means, it is clear enough that the language and thus understanding presented here, is of human origin.

AND THEN, with the next post (though not today) I hope to continue, with the flow as it had been going--only dealing with responses to this post as needed.
 
I think I follow your reasoning. What I gave originally had to do with the original word done with the taxonomy common to that culture in that day. This argument was dismissed out of hand and soundly ridiculed as sidestepping. I am glad though that it does prove to play out. Thank you.
 
Mars Man said:
Of course, by so many other means, it is clear enough that the language and thus understanding presented here, is of human origin.
Click to expand...

Of couse it is. The language is of human origin and the mismatch of categories is of human origin because superstitions are of human origin. The BWOG is one big human construct. Even translators can`t warrant fixing the verses to bring out the essence of the meaning. Your explanation, MM, points to its weaknesses.

Like Sabro, -- Thank you.
 
The Denial by Peter Scenes

This is to move on ahead with the second of a few points highlighted for Pararousia san, some time back.

As usual, I will use the narrative attributed to Luke as the base due to its claim for accuracy and its better literary style and larger, more accurate voacabulary.

Luke 22:
7~13---The day (that is, season/time period rather than day of the week) of the Unfermented Cakes had arrived and John and Peter were asked to go secure the upper room in one house (or lodge).

14,15---The disciples and Jeshua are eating the passover meal. A progressive scene is initiated from this point in the narrative.

31------In the midst of the dialog/monologe presented, Jeshua addresses Peter in an unbroken line of thought:

from vs 28---However YOU [ those disciples] (I will use upper case to distinguish second person plural over 2 per. singular) are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; 29 and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my father has made a covenant with me for a kingdom. 30 that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 Simon, Simon, look! Satan has demanded to have YOU men to sift YOU as wheat. 32 But I have made supplication for you that your faith may not give out; and you, when once you have returned, strengthen your brothers.
35-----The dialog continues. . .with perhaps a shift in time. . . maybe. . . but it cannot be ascertained from the text.
38-----Swords; then at 39-----going out to the Mount of Olives from the upper room.
It should be noted that without mistake, vss 31~34 are direct quotations of the type that it can be seen possible that oral tradition would have been suggesting to the audience that that was what had been said. (This is what the listeners had been basically told.) Also, it should be kept in mind that this occured while in the upper room.
Next, we will compare the scenes as presented in the other Gospel Narratives.
 
The denial of Peter scenes--MT

Mt. 26
2-------Two days before the passover will occur.

17------On the first day of the Festival of Unfermented cakes, the disciples come up to Jeshu and ask where he would like them to prepare the passover meal.

20------They are reclining at the meal. (all twelve)

21~29--Dialog

30------They (By later information we can conclude only 11 disciples here) sing songs and then go out to the mount of Olives.

31------Jeshua brings up the topic of the disciples' being stumbled on that night: 31. . .All of YOU will be stumbled in connection with me on this night, for it is written, ' I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered about.' 32 But after I have been raised up, I will go ahead of YOU into Galilee.

33------Peter objects to that and claims loyality.

34------Jeshua makes a prediction of what will happen.

35------Peter and the others deny and object.

To be noted here, is that this conversation takes place on the way to the Mount of Olives, after having left the upper room. Jeshua does not address Peter at all, but simply foretells the group that they would all 'scatter' after his arrest--which Peter interrupts with objection.

Lukes narrative does not agree with the going back to Galilee; neither here nor in the 'post-resurrection' scenes. To be continued. . .
 
sabro said:
Where you see weakness, I see beauty. It's amazing how that works.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed! Your backbending rationalizations, allowing you to slip in and out of multiple word meanings you choose is so convenient -- if not weasely.

Christians should have the motto -- "That`s what it says, but not what it means."
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Yes, indeed! Your backbending rationalizations, allowing you to slip in and out of multiple word meanings you choose is so convenient -- if not weasely.
Christians should have the motto -- "That`s what it says, but not what it means."
Click to expand...
Obviously, you are not reading the obvious. The text says what it says, but you must not ignore the context. No back bending here, no rationalizations, nothing weasely. Simple, direct, honest communication. I employed no sarcasm, no irony,and used only a minimum of figurative language. If you are specific as to where you became confused, I can attempt to explain again.

As to who's motto you are quoting, another deceptive invention by Mr. Voices.
 
sabro said:
The text says what it says, but you must not ignore the context.
Click to expand...

Yes, brother Sabro -- the text says what it says and means what it says. You must not be weasily and invent meanings of convenience into the contexts. But if you did that, the Fairy God King story would be more obvious. You must "not ignore" reason.

Cults, really are dangerous you know. Don`t you know that? Cult masters are are just experts at making people believe, "That`s what it says, but not what it means."

Be careful all you undecided out there. A Xtian Cult leader could be planning to take you on a Jungle Trip with faith as evidence, too. Cool Aid for everyone!

It`s hot in the jungle, you know.
 
Cults are dangerous. The lack of reason is dangerous. Ignoring the truth and reading things as literal which are meant to be figurative, and reading things out of context is dangerous. Lies are bad. Deciet- purposefully taking things out of context and lying about it is bad. Also making up quotes to attribute to others. Insulting other religions is bad. So are bitter, unthinking, insulting and disrespectful people. Crap is crap. You must not ignore that or try to weasel out of that one.

The topic is Biblical discussion. If you have nothing of value to add, leave.

Tolerance is a virtue.
 
sabro said:
The topic is Biblical discussion. If you have nothing of value to add, leave.
Click to expand...

That`s right. Then why pull it off with your post #209. Mine, #208 was replying to Mars Man on language, which he is interested in.
 
Big sigh...
Your #208 was fine until you decided for some compulsion we may never understand that you needed to throw some kind of backhanded insult at me, to which I responded. Your post since then have been more bizarre attempts to insult. None of which helps your position or proves your point. It does however betray your prejudices, black and white thinking and lack of objectivity. I believe you can get back on point if you really really try.

Post #208 is on point and at the heart of our discussion: We read the same book, you find falsehood, I find truth. You find a horrible fairy god king and I find a loving redeemer. You find fraud and I find hope and faith and strength. The question for any sane person is why you would keep reading the book.

I am not the issue here. I believe you can respond to Mars Man without bringing me into your discussion. (He actually agrees with a good deal of what you have to say. He can say it better, without offending the religious observer, and in a more convincing way. Many of his points, I have no answer for. Read and learn.)
 
Peter's denial scenes. . . Mark

Mark

The beginning (vs. 1) is very much like that of the Matthew. Of course the understanding here is that that author used Mark.

12-----day of passover meal.

13-----disciples sent out to prepare the meal.

17-----at the meal.

18-----dialog starts, and runs.

26-----they go out to the Mount of Olives.

Here, the text of Matthew is very similar, except the following: Jeshua says to Peter after he had objected, Truly I say to you, you today, yes, this night, before a **** crows twice, you will disown me three times.
In verse 31, Peter objects and denies that, as also do the others.

The point here, is that before a **** crows twice would require a first crow before the third denial. The location was on the way to the Mount of Olives, or at it though while not at the garden area yet.

Tomorrow, or Tuesday, I will present the account according to the author(s) of John, then sum up with points, and open discussion on that.
I'd be interested in hearing what Jake (is that right? sabro?) would have to say on it, if you're into that sabro san ?

edited; It's nice to know that the system is working !!! The **** above is a word which can also be replace by the word 'rooster', and which begins with a 'c' and ends with the 'ck' consonant pair. hee,hee,hee.....
 
Well, I don't have time today, and plan on doing a lot of posting, building from tomorrow (Tue) on up to a plateu by Friday.

Now, I would like to ask, please, that we can stick to the details and the discussion required to persent those details, without bringing up any matter at all about other threads or grievances over previous posts.

I will continue with that line of development from my next post here, probably tomorrow. (if not tonight) I would hope that those who are interested in following along, please do look over the various presentations of that scene in the several narratives.

Let's do have a deep and involved discussion--of course it may have a bit of heat, but we can all keep our heads and hearts, and remain on topic. I look forward to that. Sabro san, do you think you'd like to have me form a question for your friend who gave us some input last time on the John 19:14 case? I'd be happy to. Talk to you all later !! :-)
 
Some deep and well taken questions and comments there. Thanks for the response.

Uh, well, let me get back with that Peter's Denial scene discussion tomorrow (if not tonight) and let's just take it from there? How does that sound guys?

Let's ONLY focus on that for the moment, and NOTHING ELSE EARLIER, if it's o.k., for this thread, at least. I'll talk to you guys tomorrow.:cool: :-) :wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top