Discussion

1. Funny you should bring up drinking as your 19th birthday approaches in less than two weeks…

   To the topic…my view on that is that sure, in heaven there will be all the pleasures that you can imagine. It is paradise…Christian doctrine does not prohibit alcohol, but it does speak about abuse of it. Most people know that abuse doesn’t turn out good in the end. I see nothing wrong with getting a little tipsy wherever (earth/heaven) you are, but you do need to draw a line somewhere.

   You mentioned that there is little mention of the afterlife in the Bible, either Heaven or Hell. I think this is why modern Christians have taken to interpretations of flames in Hell. The only real mention is of Satan and a sulphur pit. The stereotype comes from the 12th century work of Dante, Divinia Commedia. It’s a common misconception, but in Dante’s Inferno (Hell) only a few rings are on fire, mainly the Sodomites if I remember, while there are even green fields where light sinners (you must remember that Dante placed certain sins over others) just wallow, wishing they were in Heaven, and down at the bottom is a frozen lake where Satan is. It’s fascinating how a 12th century fictional epic poem founded many of our current afterlife stereotypes.

   Posted at 12:37 am on June 7th by Jeffrey Aho.

2. Hmmm, chance for “theological” discussion… The stereotypes didn’t come from the poem. He drew from pre-existing stereotypes. And the bible does mention flames at some point. Well fire. I’m only going to cite Mark 9:47-48, because that’s the only one I know right now.
   But anyhow, Mike, I’m with you. If we’re making the assumption that we eat in heaven (which is where I think that the “doctrinal or moral errors” would be most likely to creep in) then I can definitly see there being alcoholic beverages to wash everything down with.
   Of course, when communion is under both species in the Catholic church it’s wine, not juice or water like I know some denominations do, so I may be slightly biased here.

   Posted at 1:03 am on June 7th by Christine.

3. It is my contention that the bible talks a lot about “the afterlife” (life in the age to come). Contemporary Christianity (origins in the 4th/5th century) has totally lost the focus that Jesus Messiah had during his ministry. As the Jewish Messiah he was to be King. If you have any orthodox Jewish friends ask them about it. The Messiah is to be King over Israel, and over the world. “Christianity” - as Jesus himself proclaimed it - is not (supposed to be) far from Judiasm. Most of the first “Christians” were Jews, the entire Bible is written by Jews, save two books; Luke, and Acts (both written by Luke). The Christian hope is the same hope as the Jewish hope (The Olive Tree of Faith - Romans 11, Gal 3:14,16).

   Life in the Age to come, is in the Kingdom of God (Luke 4:43 - Christ’s purpose). Messiah is the King of the Kingdom. The Kingdom is not here now (as Jehova’s Witnesses like to think… Do you see Jesus ruling from Jerusalem? - Luke 1:32). The faithful will rule with Jesus - Rev 5:9-10. In this Kingdom, the earth will be rejuvinated, peace will abound, and all the problems will be fixed.

   When you die, you do not go to heaven. There is not one verse in the entirety of the Bible that says such. As a matter of fact, Justin (c.a. 150AD) the Martyr declared this belief(go to heaven when you die) to be heresy (Dialouges with Trypho a Jew). The Platonic idea that your “soul” can seperate from your body is quite wrong. The Biblical usage of “soul” is in reference to a whole person(Gen 2:7, 1Peter 3:20). When Christ returns the faithful dead will be ressurected. Even the unfamiliar with Christ know this tidbit. If one did go to heaven, what is the purpose of ressurrection?

   Those who do not take part in the Kingdom simply die. “Hell” in the NT is “Hades” in greek. Unfortunately the Greek myth of Hades is now associated with Hell because of the use of the word. Hell, Sheoul (Hebrew), and Ghenna(Greek), are all words to describe the resting place of the dead. Fire is associated with Hell because fire is the destructive power, not because Hell is fiery.

   Posted at 9:31 am on June 7th by JohnO.

4. Jeff: That’s funny, it was completely a coincidence.

   If either of you haven’t read The Great Divorce, then ask me to borrow it, because I love its depiction of Hell. Lewis scraps the flame imagery as well, and instead paints a dreary neighbourhood where everyone is constantly in a state of blaming others for their misfortune. (And in a particularly ghastly scene, a pastor has deluded himself into thinking that he is in Heaven…)

   As for flames, I think it’s fairly clear that flames are a sign of God’s wrath, at any rate. Obvious OT examples are the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and Mount Sinai. In both cases, there’s fire associated with power.

   Conversation around a dinner table is one of the more pleasant activities I can imagine engaging in, but the presence of food immediately raises all kinds of interesting philosophical questions about vegetarianism, etc. (I always thought it was sort of weird in Redwall when the talking animals ate fish for dinner.)

   Posted at 9:40 am on June 7th by Mike Purvis.

5. JohnO: You sneaked that in while I was typing.

   My feeling about the whole afterlife time business is that as soon as we die, we’ll lose our sense of it. So whether the party is at the end of the age or as soon we snuff it, it doesn’t really matter. We’ll experience the entire scope of history in the present.

   Of course, that’s completely non-Biblical — I just made it up. But it’s a way of resolving the notion of a resurrection without treading on purgatory-like ground.

   Now, I’m curious about this business of separating soul from body. I can’t cite anything, but I also can’t help thinking that that’s implied in several places. I mean, the entire doctrine of the Trinity is based on what, a handful of benedictions?

   Posted at 10:05 am on June 7th by Mike Purvis.

6. Well.. I don’t have the quote handy.. but there are numerous theologians who understand and accept the fact the Trinity is a doctrine that cannot be found in the Bible… (Britannica agrees - http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9073399&query=Trinity&ct=)

   One such theologian is Raymond E. Brown, a Catholic scholar. He agrees with a non-Trinitarian (and the Kingdom view) from the scriptures (however he is able to justify his catholic beliefs as obeying the Pope). Another similar is Dr. Colin Brown of Fuller Seminary who says “To be called Son of God in the NT means that you are NOT God”[emphasis his, I heard him speak].

   In short, the entire doctrine of the trinity is quite false. Jesus, a Jew, was thouroughly Mono(not Tri)-theistic. Mark 12:29 is a quote from Jesus reciting the Shema (Deut 6:4) as the most important law. This is a prayer that Jewish people pray three times a day. “Hear O Israel the LORD God is one LORD” - in Hebrew: Sh’ma Yisrael adonai elohaynu adonai echad.

   Although, death is compared to sleep (”Lazarus is asleep”=”Lazarus is dead”). So when we die, we do lose our sense(s). The scriptures proclaim that: “the dead know nothing”(Ecc9:5). Far from the dead in heaven now.

   Posted at 10:23 am on June 7th by JohnO.

7. Christine: You are right, he did draw on existing stereotypes, but he embellished them, and refined them a little more. The fact that he was produced the most prolific midevil work helped in the propagation of those stereotypes. He also drew on Aristotelian philosophical doctrine for the basis of his hierarchy of sins. So while he drew on other sources, he was the most prolific, and in the end, lasting writer who proliferated these stereotypes.

   Mike: I do agree that fire is sometimes associated with God’s Wrath, but it appears often, from the burning bush, to the pillar of fire, to images of the holy spirit above people. It is hard to interpret all of these references of fire to be of God’s Wrath. The bible mentions afterlife often…but it is few and far on giving us a great deal of visual representation. Hence the reason I believe these stereotypes have stuck.

   Posted at 11:20 am on June 7th by Jeffrey Aho.

8. The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible (natch; it’s Latin-derived), but the doctrine is there implicitly, supported by all the places in the Gospels where it’s clear that Jesus is assuming the nature and privileges of Deity, and by the grouping of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” It’s even there in the Shema, where “echad” is not a unitary but a collective “one” (I’ve seen places where a bunch of grapes is used as an illustration). In other words, the three Persons speak and act as one; you can see how important this would have been in the Canaanite/Hittite/Aegean world where the one thing you knew about pantheons was that none of the gods and goddesses ever got along completely.

   As for the fire of hell, I’ve always appreciated Lewis’s response to those who say the fire is merely metaphorical. He’d say, Okay–but metaphorical for what? He understood that figures of speech aren’t necessarily euphemisms; rather, they’re sometimes the best way to communicate reality. The fire, the outer darkness, etc., may be the best way we have to suggest what the agony of being cut off from everything that makes life worth living is like.

   Salud!

   Posted at 11:58 am on June 7th by Br. Osric.

9. Jesus clearly shows that only God the Father is God:

   “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” - John 17:3

   Also, I find this the most impossible of conundrums. If God the Father is God, and Jesus is God, then Jesus must be God the Father (a=b, b=c… a=c). Furthermore, can Jesus, being God, die? If God can’t die (1Tim1:17), and Jesus is God, then Jesus can’t die either. Yet the Bible clearly states he did. If Jesus, being God, died, how did a non-existent being raise himself from the dead. Where in any Jewish writing did the people expect a Messiah who was YHWH? They never did.

   I think (and many others with me), that the Trinitarian doctrine has come about because of a serious dirth in Jewish understanding, which is the foundation for our belief:

   “For whatsoever things were written aforetime[The Jewish scriptures] were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” - Rom 15:4

   That word learning is the greek word ‘didaskalia’ rendered as doctrine in 1Tim3:16 (”all scripture is profitable for doctrine[didaskalia]…”).

   Posted at 12:09 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

10. oops.. that is 2Tim3:16

    Posted at 12:11 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

11. Forgot to comment on echad. When you count in Hebrew, you start with ‘echad’. It is the numeral one. It doesn’t mean “a collective union”, or any such nonsense.

    The grapes example is quite contrived, adn I will share it with you.

    The verse is Number 13:23 -
    “And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and [they brought] of the pomegranates, and of the figs.”

    The phrase “one cluster of grapes” is the focal point. “One” is echad, and it means one. If I have one bushel of corn. I have lots of corn, but I only have one bushel. As far as language goes, ‘one’ describes bushel, while bushel modifies the noun, corn. The same happens here. ‘Echad’ describes cluster, while cluster modifies grapes.

    It is a sad day when basic rules of language get tossed aside to favor tradition. I see this happen in two areas: religion and politics

    Posted at 12:19 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

12. Oh, I agree. Orwell–and Jack Vance–were right: monkey with the language and you monkey with thought. Language is a critical tool, not to be messed with.

    But I don’t think we’re violating any basic rules here. The point is that “echad” is used instead of “yachid” (if I have that transliteration right), which would exclude any collective idea. And yes, you do have one bushel and one cluster–both of which permit “one” to extend to a plurality. I believe you’re right that “echad” doesn’t demand plurality; nonetheless it can be employed in constructions that permit it.

    You’ve listed some good discussion questions with those conundrums. If Mike doesn’t mind (and Mike, I know you didn’t intend to start this kind of discussion–we’ll try not to get to … you should pardon the reference … flaming), I’ll just toss in a couple of ideas.

    (a) “The Father = God; Jesus = God, therefore Jesus = the Father” only works if you’ve gone into it with the assumption that God is one and only one Person–which is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity is [i]not[/] saying; so that syllogism begs the question.

    (b) “Can Jesus, being God, die?” is a better issue–and it requires that we understand what death is. Clearly, if Mike’s image of the heavenly kegger is anything like reality, it doesn’t mean non-existence even for two-human-parented humans. But even if we use “separation” as the principal idea in death, we still have a riddle. Luther beat his head against the events of the Crucifixion time and again, and concluded, “God separated from God. Who can know it?” The best I can do at this point is turn your syllogism inside out, and say “God cannot die; God the Father has never died; Jesus as the God-man explicitly did die; therefore, what is death?”

    Does that mean I can’t answer your objection satisfactorily? Sure. But we’ve been dealing with conundrums for a while; you and I are simply coming at them from different presuppositions.

    (c) Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son was an entirely new development in the history of the universe, so I’m not surprised the Jewish people didn’t know to expect it. (For what it’s worth, that’s my own opinion of why in Luke 1 Zachariah got zapped and Mary didn’t: Zachariah had the precedent of Abraham for his prediction, while Mary had nothing.) Note also that it’s the Jewish scriptures that are given as a foundation for our belief, not the Jewish people’s understanding. There’s a big difference. And, of course, it has to do with what you consider to be the origin of those scriptures.

    Posted at 12:58 pm on June 7th by Br. Osric.

13. And on 1 Tim 1:17–God is “immortal,” not dying; and if Jesus is God, that’s still true. He’ll never die again. Death has done its worst, and failed.

    Maybe I should have worded it: Because we say that God doesn’t die, and Jesus the God-man clearly did die, we have to understand both the nature of death and what it means to be the God-man. This doesn’t mean we must deny that he’s the God-man, especially since it’s implied by so many other passages. But exactly what the Incarnation involved is by no means an easy question.

    Posted at 1:05 pm on June 7th by Br. Osric.

14. Ok, I know full well that I’m out of my league here, but one thing that I wouldn’t mind some clarification on - you’re saying that “He’ll never die again.” Isn’t it more theologically correct to say that he didn’t die? I don’t have citations here, but whoever believes in him shall not perish but shall live forever.

    Posted at 1:08 pm on June 7th by Christine.

15. Points of agreement, incidentally: I fully expect the dinner party to be at least part-time on the earth. And no, we aren’t complete without our bodies. What does that say about the time between the death and resurrection of the believer? I have a few conjectures–they contradict each other, and Mike’s idea of combining subjective time-continuity with objective discontinuity is one of them, as it happens–but nothing conclusive. “We’ll understand it better by and by,” yes–but having all the answers? Bor-ring.

    Posted at 1:20 pm on June 7th by Br. Osric.

16. Heck, Christine, welcome to the league!

    Actually, I’m paraphrasing Romans 9:6 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+6%3A9): “We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.”

    Everyone else in the Bible who was raised was brought back from the dead. He went through it and, as it were, came out the other side. Death is for us now a lame-duck enemy. Granted, with sharp teeth …

    Posted at 1:27 pm on June 7th by Br. Osric.

17. I think you mis-stated the case when you said \”that\’s still true. He\’ll never die again\”. God was/is immortal. Immortality, by definition, has no beginning or end. Therefore God is not immortal since the last time he died, but how could he have died in the first place if he is immortal. You\’ll also notice it says that \”God\” (not the person of the Father, but Diety) is immortal, therefore none of the \”Persons\” of God can die.

    Furthermore, everyone can see what implication the Trinitarian position holds. The word \”Death\” has no meaning, or is meaningless because it has no affect.

    What you must do as an expositor of the scripture is use the breadth of scriptures to define meaning. The overwhelming breadth of scriptures concerning death speak towards one end, cessation of existence. You cannot \’read-in\’ understanding (as a fudge factor) because of other beliefs. If the scriptures define death as cessation of existence (which it is pretty clear they do), then one has serious problems when approaching the above paradoxes. Most do exactly what you\’ve done. Assume they are correct regarding the Trinitarian position and disregard the meaning of the word death.

    Your point (c) was exactly what I was arguing before. Contemporary Christianity has a huge discord with it\’s own Jewish origins. Jesus spoke on terms with which the people understood. He spoke of the Kingdom of God, something they understood. He spoke about their conduct and the mosaic law, something they understood. The only \’hard thing\’ Jesus had for the people was his own death. Something the Jewish people did not understand but their scriptures spoke of. In that respect Jesus enlarged their understanding of the topic. Never did Jesus claim he was God. Nor did any of the Jewish writers(Luke a proselyte, John, and Paul withstanding).

    My understanding of the matter is this:
    - Jesus was a man - the Son of God (not God the Son).
    - Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah of the Jewish people
    - Jesus died and was resurrected to sit at God\’s right hand until the second coming commences the Kingdom of God.

    Christine, the Apostle Paul says this:
    \”Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:\” 1 Cor 15:12-13

    Plainly Paul understands that Jesus did die.

    Posted at 1:33 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

18. Oops, forgot about your question. You’re probably thinking about John 11:25-26 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+11%3A25-26): “I am the resurrection and the life.] Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.” The paradox du jour, one of many that force us to reexamine how we use “live” and “die.” Note that one can die and yet never die. Say what? Evidently two senses of “die” here. If Christ doesn’t return within the next couple of decades I fully expect to kick the proverbial bucket, but in another sense I’ll never die. And that sentence could lead to a book if we’re not careful, and Mike’s been patient with us already. Sorry, mine host.

    Posted at 1:35 pm on June 7th by Br. Osric.

19. Cross-posting. Whew.

    JohnO, I see what you’re saying. But I’m not convinced that “cessation of existence” is indeed in view in the Bible. After all, in the Hebrew Bible Sheol–the place of the dead–included conscious existence, even though whoever was there was powerless to affect things on earth. And that was probably the point: death involved not cessation of existence but cessation of presence. Or, in the case of James, being rendered inanimate–”just as the body without the spirit is dead …”

    Yes, I am taking trinitarianism as a starting point in this discussion–but not as an unsupported assumption. Just as you’re starting with what you’ve observed about death, concluding that it is cessation of existence, and arriving at discussion of the Trinity, I’m starting with what I’ve observed about the behavior and statements of Christ and the apostles, concluding that they support the Trinity, and arriving at discussion of death. Both are valid approaches, although only one can be true.

    Posted at 1:48 pm on June 7th by Br. Osric.

20. It’s quite okay. This has been an interesting, if unexpected, discussion.

    Posted at 1:53 pm on June 7th by Mike Purvis.

21. Concerning yachid and echad. If Moses wanted to say that God was a unity of persons, he WOULD have used yachid (not echad).

    The definition of yachid:
    union, unitedness, together, altogether, all together, alike

    Posted at 1:56 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

22. But the point of Triune is that all three, while being one, are distinct entities. Being just one is different.

    Posted at 2:02 pm on June 7th by Christine.

23. I’ve not read a single verse in the Bible to agree with your conclusion that people are conscious in Sheol. Much to the contrary:

    Ecc 9:5 - For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

    Ps 115:17 - The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

    James is quite right in his comment. The body is dead without ruach. In Genesis 2, God created the body. The body was not alive until it was united with ‘breath’[ruach]. Ruach was neither alive on it’s own. Only when the two were joined was “a living soul” created. (See previous that ’soul’ means person, not the Platonic identification of soul).

    Agreed only one can be true. But when one takes the position that the Trinity is true, they must, as you are doing, jump through many many hoops to change logical straightforward language concerning many topics to make sense of anything. After being confused for many many years, understanding that Jesus is not God, and that we don’t have immortal souls, that we don’t go to heaven when we die, that we await a Kingdom on earth, the Bible is one book, comprehensible, reasonable, and easy to understand.

    Posted at 2:02 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

24. Well the interesting thing. To be “G[g]od” in the Bible is more a denotation of title.

    Moses is called god (elohim) in relation to pharoah

    Abraham is also called god (elohim) in relation to his neighbours.

    Even lightning in the book of Jonah is called ‘elohim’.

    Deut 6:4 states that the LORD God is one. LORD stands in for 4 hebrew letters, YHWH (the tetragrammaton, which is a big fancy word which means ‘four letter word’), the proper name of God used throughout the OT.

    Therefore, YHWH who is God, or bears the title of supreme God over all, is one person. Remember the commandments… “thou shalt have no other gods before me”. YHWH God is the only supreme God. Almost unanimously will Christians identify God the Father with the God of the OT (they are practically forced to, as their God Jesus doesn’t appear). In doing so, they have proclaimed that God the Father, YHWH, according the scriptures is the only one who is God (as the NLT renders Deut 6:4 - The LORD is our God, the LORD alone).

    Posted at 2:10 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

25. I’m not supposed to write about this sort of thing, but I had to post something.
    Throughout his ministry, Christ constantly showed that the teachers of the law did not understand the scriptures despite all their studying. They did not understand that the Messiah was going to die, nor that his Kingdom “was not of this world”. (sorry, while I know random pieces of the Bible, I do not remember chapter and verse number - I have a hard enough time figuring out what book I’m refering too.) Considering how much they did not understand, it is not surprising that some Christian beliefs are going to be vastly different from their Jewish origins. When Jesus came, he was vastly different from what people at the time had come to expect from a Messiah.
    As far as the Trinity goes, it is Biblical. While there is one God (”Hear O Israel the LORD God is one LORD”, as you say), we also have the scene of Jesus’ Baptism, in which we see Jesus in the water, the Holy Spirit descending as the form of a dove, and God the Father speaking from the clouds. Jesus does refer to himself as God (He got a lot of people upset when He used the term YHWH in reference to Himself), and He also refers to the Trinity (”Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”).
    And I disagree that there is no evidence that the dead are concious: Christ tells the story of Lazarus and the rich man, and in it people converse and generally act as though concious.
    I’m going to post this now, otherwise I will never get done.
    JuggLer

    Posted at 2:11 pm on June 7th by JuggLer.

26. May I suggest reading an excellent book by Richard Rubenstein - “When Jesus Became God” which chronicles the 4th century arguments leading up to and past the coucil of Nicea between Arians(close to JW’s view) and Athenasians(current Trinitarian view). What I found most interesting about the book was the characters total lack of ethics (something I had not known), and how not one part of the argument had anything to do with scripture, rather their worldview.

    It is wonderfully written, almost a novel itself, incredibly easy to read.

    Posted at 2:16 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

27. Juggler,

    The story of Lazarus and the rich man is just that. A parable. The point of the parable was that even if a resurrected man came and told you what was going to happen, these people still would not repent. The context of a passage is very important and can’t be ignored.

    Mentioning three names doesn’t ‘prove’ anything about the Trinity. I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But I am not a trinitarian. Matt28:19 (most likely an apocryphal text) does not establish anything about the Trinity, because it says nothing about the relationship between the three names. The Bible often times says “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. Based on your pattern of understanding, are these three also a trinity? No. They were three totally seperate men.

    Jesus comment that his Kingdom is not of this world was made to Pilate. That his Kingdom is “not of this world” means that it is a heaven inspired Kingdom, not born out of this political reign of Kings, rather that God will place him on the throne (unlike Pilate). Like I mentioned before, the people did not want the Messiah to die. Though the prophecy about this event was quite plain (Is 53). The passage was understood near unanimously as referring to the Messiah by Jewish authorities until Christianity started gaining converts and the rabbi’s changed their position to protect Judiasm’s members from being converted. The scriptures show us what the disciples thought:

    Acts 1:6- When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

    They understood that since the Messiah has risen he still has to fulfill his Kingdom. And Christ said now is not the time. We still await that time today, while most of Christianity has no clue what we are waiting for.

    Posted at 2:29 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

28. More Info on Matt 28:19 - http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm

    And follow the link provided on that page as well

    Posted at 2:41 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

29. I know what you mean, JuggLer. Blogs can be quite a time sink, no? But fun.

    As for consciousness in Sheol, I’m thinking of Ezekiel 32, especially vv. 21 and 31–a military convention in the land of the dead, wouldn’t you know!–and, yes, Luke 16, where the Greek Hades is understood to be the equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol. And calling the latter passage a parable is problematic–it’s not referred to as a parable, and even if it were, most if not all of Jesus’ stories were realistic constructions; he rarely used the fantasist’s toolkit. I conclude that his depiction of Sheol/Hades is an accurate one.

    Concerning Matthew 28:19–

    (a) There’s nothing apocryphal about that text. The only variations cited in the Nestle apparatus have to do with the insertion of “now” (if I’m reading that right) and whether “baptizing” is a present or aorist participle–neither of which item has to do with the present discussion. A shorter version of the verse, lacking the names, is cited by a 1901 article but has almost no support; see the relevant footnote in Gundry’s commentary.

    (b) What you’re saying, JohnO, about “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” is what JuggLer and I are saying about “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”: namely, that the language in each case involves parallel structure: they’re so grouped because they’re on the same level, all falling into the same category, whether it be “three separate human persons” or “three separate deific persons.” (We might say, the three persons in Team YHWH.)

    Sorry to duck out at this point, but employment calls. Loudly.

    Cheers.

    Posted at 4:09 pm on June 7th by Br. Osric.

30. When Christ was making his parables, he tended to keep them close to reality - sowing seeds was a well known activity to people at the time, the relationship of a father to a son was well understood and shepherding was a common job. If He followed the same practice, with the parable of Lazarus, that might say something for the views on Hell.
    I looked up the link you posted, and followed the other link as well (though I did not pay the $3.00 required to read the important part of the article.) The article you linked to was confusing in the extreme, but seemed to suggest that Matt 28:19 couldn’t possibly be what Jesus actually said because it wasn’t poetic enough. Least, that’s the only way I could understand the phrase “preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage.” I hope I’m misunderstanding that, but that’s all I could figure out. The question it raises in my mind is, if Matt 28:19 is not true to what Christ said, then who changed it and when? And for that matter, why? If it was changed early enough to still be in all the Greek texts we have, wouldn’t that be earlier than most of the controversy over the nature of the Trinity?
    One other thing you mentioned was that no one goes to heaven after they die. But in Luke 23:43, Jesus says “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”. I’ve always assumed that paradise meant heaven - if it doesn’t, what does it mean?
    By the way, for a wonderful book that examines Jesus from the viewpoint of His contemporaries, read “The Jesus I Never Knew” by Philip Yancey. I found it very interesting and enlightening.
    JuggLer

    Posted at 4:17 pm on June 7th by JuggLer.

31. Yes, close to reality. The situation Jesus describes with Lazarus and the rich man is a parable, and myth. When I use the word myth, I use it by it’s philosophical definition:

    Myth: where it matters not whether the events described are literal reality, but that the underyling moral is passed on

    or..

    “a myth may be historical or fictional without altering its nature as myth, because the power of myth lies in the meaning and broader truth it conveys, rather than the historicity of the story” from wikipedia

    Why is this a myth? Because all the people Jesus is speaking to know of the Greek stories of Hades.

    As for your comment about “preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage”. There is not one scholar who thinks that the words recorded are the actual words off Jesus’ mouth. There was no scribe following Jesus. All the gospels were written between 50 and 80 AD. We don’t have any copies (of any substantial size) of the gospels previous to the 4th century. The first recorded writings that deviate from pure monotheism are that of Justin Martyr (c.a. 150AD), well before the 4th century. Justin actually took an Arian position that closely paralleled Numenius’ idea of a ‘logos/demiurge’.

    As for the most likely rendering of Matt 28:19, according to the articles produced, and the World Biblical Commentary:

    “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.”
    [try think link... no paid info... http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm ]

    So to finally get to your point about the rythm of the passage. All writers have a certain voice [diction, composition, and style.. it is how all our teachers knew we never wrote our essays in high school :P ]. Through analysis of the actual sentances this passage sticks out like a sore thumb. Using this method, we know that the book of Hebrews in all probability wasn’t written by Paul (even though it is attributed to him). This period of history was called “mytho-poetic”. Writers of the time were infinitely concerned about how things sounded [much more so than today].

    About Luke 23:43. First, in Greek and Hebrew there is no punctuation. Second, assuming is not a good tactic. If the rest of the body of scripture denotes that paradise=heaven, then it does mean so. However, Scripture has always pictured a restored earth as paradise (just like the first paradise). There is not one verse that says “You go to heaven when you die”. Any verse that might imply you go to heaven is because of reading into the scriptures.

    Posted at 5:49 pm on June 7th by JohnO.

32. I hate having to steal my citations from other sites, but as to your assertion that Justin Martyr was the first to write of the Triune God, both the Didache (7:1) and Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians ), from A.D. 70 and A.D. 110 respectively make reference to God in more than one person.
    “After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
    “[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
    “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).
    As I mentioned, I don’t know these ones, so I took them from here, which happens to be where I got my earlier passage numbers from too.

    Posted at 6:01 pm on June 7th by Christine.

33. As I said before placing three names next to each doesn’t make any reference that they are the same being (which is what the Trinity claims). So the Diadache reference (which does date the phrase and is perhaps the best support for the claim that Mt 28:19 is authentic) does’t support the Trinity.

    Concerning Ignatious’ letters:
    “The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant[exist]. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians”…

    “We find these seven [letters] mentioned not only by Eusebius (”Hist. eccl.”, III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the “long recension”. This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form.”

    The Catholic Encyclopedia - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

    The letters do not accurately depict Ignatious’ positions on such matters, nor is their date of 110AD accurrate (he may have died as early as 98AD). The extant manuscripts are dated to the 4th century….

    Posted at 3:40 pm on June 8th by JohnO.

34. You’ve mentioned that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not the same being (in some ways, they aren’t - otherwise we wouldn’t have different names for them). God the Father is the most obvious of the three in the old testament, and you’ve mentioned that while Christ may have been the son of God, he was not God. But what does that make the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is God, part of the Trinity. Bringing up the Catholic Encylopedia:
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm
    It’s a long read (I haven’t actually gotten through the whole thing yet), but paragraph III outlines the case quite well, particularly part A. (Don’t like using using tradition to prove theology, as part B. does)
    Last point. You mentioned that the original Greek and Hebrew has no puntuation (I’ll have to take your word on that.) Do you mean that Jesus could have been saying “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise?” Because that doesn’t fit with other things Christ said - while He would often say “I tell you the truth…”, I don’t know anywhere else where he said “I tell you the truth today…”. As you mentioned, everyone has their own voice, their own diction. This leads to the conclusion that “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise” is not the proper punctuation. It would probably help if I had studied Classical Greek and read the original texts, though.

    Posted at 5:29 pm on June 8th by JuggLer.

35. To be totally honest… the phrase “I tell you the truth” is hardly a “standard phrase” used by Christ:
    http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/i/1118324329-3174.html
    [that link might be dead by the time you get to it, they use a caching system for searches.. but you can search the phrase]

    It comes up one time (and that one time isn’t even in the event we are discussing).

    Furthermore, my diction/style comment was geared towards the writer. And if the writer did use a standard phrase repeatedly, then you would absolutely have a precedent to stand on.

    Interesting tidbit regarding Hebrew [that will really mess with our Western minds]… all vowels are indicated by ‘vowel points’: marks on consonants (think umlaut on german u). In other words, there were no letters for vowels. In the oldest manuscripts of the OT we have, the vowel points weren’t even there. The scribes/rabbi’s knew what word it was based on the context of the passage. Granted (what I’ll call) “Hebrew Homonyms”TM (only difference is vowel pointings) weren’t too common.

    As touching the holy spirit: I don’t understand it to be a person. Although I must say the article for Cath. En. does the best job I’ve seen to put forth that view. But it doesn’t use much effort to propose and affirm that the holy spirit is God.

    Ultimately, the Trinity’s conclusion is that three different people are God. There are three Gods. That is not monotheism. (Ignatious admitted as much in the letters you’ve previously quoted). The Trinity’s age -long problem has been to mentally force this into monotheism, since Christianity born out of Judiasm is monotheistic:

    John 17:3a - And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God…

    Posted at 9:56 am on June 9th by JohnO.

36. I did some more searching on that site you posted, and it seems that it translated “I tell you the truth” differently than mine (I’m using the NIV translation/paraphrase of the Bible. Apparently it isn’t the best for proper studying, but it’s easy to read).
    There is only one God. However, this does not mean the idea of the Trinity is invalid. If fact, the entire idea of the Trinity rests on there being only one God, no more, no less. The three persons of the Holy Trinity aren’t separately gods - They are not separate. I’m not going to be able to explain it very well - small wonder that humans can’t describe God accurately. But while there is only one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all divine. The best explanation I’ve heard is to go back to Genesis, when God creates man in His own image. Man has a body, man has a mind, and man has a spirit. Potentially this is what God is like too. Do I know for sure? No. God has not told me this, and He’d be the only one I’d trust to actually know.
    May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
    JuggLer

    Posted at 8:26 pm on June 9th by JuggLer.

37. And my entire point thus far has been the illogical conclusions and paradoxes one must deal with when accepting this understanding of God.

    When a man dies, he is dead. He no longer exists. Jesus, being God, died. Therefore God no longer existed. How can a dead God raise up one of his persons. If Jesus, being God, didn’t die then there is no sacrifice for us. That is the fundamental paradox in assuming the Trinitarian position. Notwithstanding every single supposed Trinitarian supporting scripture has a much simpler non-trinitarian exegeis.

    I’ll assume by the last line there that you’ve completed your part of the discussion. I will leave you with this. God the Father said to Israel “Thou shalt have no other God’s before me”. If Jesus is God, yet not God the Father, let us not fall into idolatry.

    Posted at 8:16 am on June 10th by JohnO.

Leave a Reply