Why Don't We See Quotes Of Jesus Predicting The Nt?

[mwc]

I think it is kind of interesting that just this morning I was reading through this :

 

Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY? - A Scriptural Refutation of the Trinity Theory

 

I don't remember reading where Jesus claimed (at least not while he was on earth) to have possessed all of the attributes of the ONE true God (who he referred to as Abba "Father") - if you read through the above article (that I provided the link to), you will find several scripture passages why I am thinking along this line.

 

I only managed to get about half way through the article before my eyes glazed over. So, if I am to understand what was being said, then jesus is god but not part of a trinity and not what one might call THE god. So then to worship jesus would be to break the commandment of having no other gods before me. Further it would stand to reason that if we can worship jesus as god, and not break the commandment, then it would also follow that we can worship ANY thing that is "god" and not break said commandment. To steal from the bottom of the article "I have said, YE ARE GODS; and all of you are CHILDREN OF THE MOST HIGH" (Psalm 82:6). The author uses this (and several other verses) to make his point that jesus is god even though there is no trinity. It also would make Israel and possibly any followers of god a part of god in the same sense that jesus is. So it would be safe to worship, for example, you (as I'm sure you will lay claim to the above Psalm) and not break the commandment.

 

The author of the article also uses the description of marriage to make his point. He states that two become one. Two individuals that are referenced as one flesh. To me this means we act as a single unit (best case). Ok. So the same logic applies that the three become one. So three "god" individuals act as one "god" unit (best case). So you have two humans acting as the singular unit called marriage and you have three "gods" acting as the singular unit called God. Each human, in and of themself, is not equal to the combined unit of marriage therefore each "god," in and of themself, is not equal to the combined unit of God. Am I getting this right? I know that I am and yet I am sure that I will be told that there is something more that I'm just not getting. The analogy, when it works is praised, and when it fails the listener is faulted. The idea of marriage and the common good and goals thereof is the same as stating the husband and wife (and possibly kids and extended family) are a team. The same applied to "GOD" would seem to imply that Jehovah, the spirit and jesus are also a team...team "God." (Goooooo GOD!) So to worship the team is to take away from Jehovah and that is simply NOT allowed. To rework the NT team/trinity into the OT one and only god simply creates problems no matter what method you might choose to rectify it (no matter what there's no getting around the one god's statement that god is not a man that he might sin...jesus was either not a man, so that he might not sin, or he was not god). If you wish to adjust the concept of Logos so it fits into the Jewish religion be my guest but have the decency to admit that you have pagan beliefs.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

It's extremely fantastic that Christianity have been around for 2000 years, and still we have discussions about the trinity being valid or not. It does say something about how "clear" the message was about "who" and "what" God supposedly is.

[thunderbolt]

It's extremely fantastic that Christianity have been around for 2000 years, and still we have discussions about the trinity being valid or not. It does say something about how "clear" the message was about "who" and "what" God supposedly is.

Yeah, seriously, if God wanted to convince us with a singular message, then Christianity really failed the test. The mere fact that 30,000 different denominations can tease out their own brand of Jesus from the same book is testament enough that no god can be behind such a confusing mess.

[Asimov]

If people "made up" the NT:

 

Wouldn't they have been very tempted to put words in Jesus' mouth so as to have him either predict that the New Testament would be written (shortly) or wouldn't they even have said that Jesus wrote it himself (as a way to give more verification to "their holy book"). .... So, I am wondering if the fact that we don't see quotes of Jesus overtly predicting the coming of the NT - might actually be something that lends credence to the claim of how the NT is not likely the type of book that someone may have just "dreamed up" (as a way to tailor a religion to the likings of some group of folks who could personally benefit from it).

 

-Dennis

 

Huh?

[SkepticOfBible]

There is a discussion going on in the Colloseum regarding trinity in OT.

 

Would you guys care to give your input.

 

Right now it's only me and Sub_zero

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...=142303&st=80

 

Hey Dennis,

 

It seems you and I are using similar resources.

 

I never interacted with you, but I certainly look forward to it

 

Pritish

[LloydDobler]

SOIL: As far as honesty goes, disclosure and honesty are not the same thing. Don't feel obligated to open yourself up for attack. "It's none of your business" is a perfectly honest answer to some questions.

 

My thoughts on the original post and some of the subsequent posts in the same vein appear to me that you're trying to analyze the bible based on things that were not written, and trying to divine the intentions of the writers. Or apply some intent through logic to them.

 

I prefer to stay on course with what was written and what is known, than to debate from a stance of what was not written and the unknowns about the writers intentions.

 

However, you did raise a question about 'why would someone create a character like jesus' if they were power hungry? If we're going to speculate, how about this chain of logic:

 

1) Jesus was perfect

2) You're not, nor can you ever be, as perfect as him.

3) Hate yourself because of this

4) Sacrifice your own wants and desires and submit to him

5) Oh by the way, I'm his personal representative, so I speak for him. You therefore must obey me by proxy.

 

How many times is obedience mentioned in the bible? How much time do you spend fighting the corruption and compromise in the church versus trying to subdue your own mind? It's the perfect power trip, a classic wag the dog scenario. Keep you distracted with non issues so that you don't rise up and actually rock the boat. It's downright insidious when you think of it that way, but if christ isn't real how else can you interpret it?

[bob]

edit

[Mythra]

1) Jesus was perfect

2) You're not, nor can you ever be, as perfect as him.

3) Hate yourself because of this

4) Sacrifice your own wants and desires and submit to him

5) Oh by the way, I'm his personal representative, so I speak for him. You therefore must obey me by proxy.

 

There it is. That's what I was trying to say. Hey Lloyd - how bout being my spokesperson by proxy? Nice.

 

All you have to do to see how the gospel was developed and propagated, is to look and see how it is sustained and advanced to this day. People don't change.

[NotBlinded]

However, I find the character of Jesus to be of such a nature as to be very unlikely (if not impossible) for power hungry folks to have "dreamed up".

 

Oh, but perhaps the original writers of the gospels weren't power hungry at all. Perhaps they wrote their stories of Jesus as allegories. Symbolic stories to nurture and instruct humankind and steer them in their direction of thinking and belief.

 

The power hungry ones took that ball and ran with it. Took every advantage to work the story in ways that would benefit them personally. Much like they still do today.

Yes...that is my opinion also.

[Ouroboros]

People don't change.

 

OMG! No,you did not just say that! LOL...sweetie, if people didn't change you and I and many others here now would still be sitting in the pew's like good little sheeple each Sunday.

Yeah. I don't agree to that people don't change. I can agree to that a lot of people don't change, but some don't. For instance I have changed over the years; many times and in many ways too. But that's because it has been part of my goal and intention in life, to experience, learn and change.

 

*edited*

[Mythra]

OMG! No,you did not just say that! LOL...sweetie, if people didn't change you and I and many others here now would still be sitting in the pew's like good little sheeple each Sunday.

 

HEY! You didn't let me finish..

 

People (the overall pattern of human nature - in broad, general terms) don't change.

 

 

Puhlleeze. Listen to what I mean. Not what I say.

 

I swear. You people.

[Ouroboros]

Puhlleeze. Listen to what I mean. Not what I say.

Like what you say to the kids "Do what I meant, not what I said, and for heavens sake don't do what I do!"

[Asimov]

I'm kinda confused as to what SOIL means with his OP.

 

Is he saying:

 

P1 - Jesus did not predict the NT being written.

P2 - If the NT is fake, the writers would have gotten Jesus to predict the NT.

 

C - Therefore the NT is true

 

Is this what is being argued?

[Ouroboros]

Yes.

[Asimov]

Yes.

 

Well that's re-TAH-did.

[Fweethawt]

However, you did raise a question about 'why would someone create a character like jesus' if they were power hungry? If we're going to speculate, how about this chain of logic:

 

1) Jesus was perfect

2) You're not, nor can you ever be, as perfect as him.

3) Hate yourself because of this

4) Sacrifice your own wants and desires and submit to him

5) Oh by the way, I'm his personal representative, so I speak for him. You therefore must obey me by proxy.

 

How many times is obedience mentioned in the bible? How much time do you spend fighting the corruption and compromise in the church versus trying to subdue your own mind? It's the perfect power trip, a classic wag the dog scenario. Keep you distracted with non issues so that you don't rise up and actually rock the boat. It's downright insidious when you think of it that way, but if christ isn't real how else can you interpret it?

1) Jesus was perfect

2) You're not, nor can you ever be, as perfect as him.

3) Hate yourself because of this

4) Sacrifice your own wants and desires and submit to him

5) Oh by the way, I'm his personal representative, so I speak for him. You therefore must obey me by proxy.

 

There it is. That's what I was trying to say. Hey Lloyd - how bout being my spokesperson by proxy? Nice.

 

All you have to do to see how the gospel was developed and propagated, is to look and see how it is sustained and advanced to this day. People don't change.

This is it!!!

 

That was beautiful Lloyd!!

 

I've noticed it.

I've seen it.

I hate it.

But I was never really able to put it into words they way you did there in that post!

 

"downright insidious", indeed!!

 

That's what this theology is really/mostly all about - keeping the people's minds tied up with NON-issues along with concepts (perfection) that can NEVER be achieved.

[Fweethawt]

People don't change.

OMG! No,you did not just say that! LOL...sweetie, if people didn't change you and I and many others here now would still be sitting in the pew's like good little sheeple each Sunday.

Yeah. I don't agree to that people don't change. I can agree to that a lot of people don't change, but some don't. For instance I have changed over the years; many times and in many ways too. But that's because it has been part of my goal and intention in life, to experience, learn and change.

*edited*

I was watching a program about microbiology a while back. The program used cute little animations to show how microorganisms act (normally), and what happens to them when say - a virus or antibiotic is introduced to them.

 

The model that they used showed the microorganisms gathering together (actually crowding) and multiplying. As the group got larger, the virus or antibiotic was introduced therebye causing death and calamity within the "community". As holes of death eroded their way through the group, some of the survivors would scatter. Most of them would die off. Some, not all, but a few would adapt and become strong enough to withstand what had killed off most of the group.

 

I couldn't help but come to somewhat of a realization that what happens on a microscopic level, also works in the same way with human beings.

 

It's kind of messed up when you think about it. But it's true, isn't it?

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I'm kinda confused as to what SOIL means with his OP.

 

Is he saying:

 

P1 - Jesus did not predict the NT being written.

P2 - If the NT is fake, the writers would have gotten Jesus to predict the NT.

 

C - Therefore the NT is true

 

Is this what is being argued?

The writers of the NT didn't know they were writing what would become the NT. They were writing letters to each other or writing down oral traditions. It wasn't until two or three hundred years after Jesus that the NT was compiled from these individual writings.

 

In other words, the writers of the NT didn't know there was going to be an NT, so they couldn't have Jesus predict it, even if they had wanted to.

 

******

 

Even if the NT had been written as a single book, it seems very weak evidence to suggest that the NT is "real" because it wasn't predicted. Is the Koran real because it wasn't predicted? Is the Book of Mormon real because it wasn't predicted?

[SOIL]

Hi Asimov (and others),

 

I don't have hardly any time just now - but I think I need to at least say that some folks appear to be misinterpreting the scope of what I was trying to say. You can read what I mentioned about things I had read a long time ago in an earlier post I think.

 

But also - here it is again - in a very small nutshell :

 

Some have speculated - maybe not here so much (e.g. I think there are some jabs like this in the Da Vinci Code book), concerning the early Catholic church - that some "creatively modified/enhanced" key portions of the New Testament in order to come up with a book they could use to maintain in order to keep certain power bases.

 

My point is simply this (and no more) - if that were the case, I would expect them (during the same creative editing sessions) to have inserted something where the hero (Jesus) would have said somethings (more than what he said to Peter for instance) which would have helped them (the Catholic church) in their supposedly dubious pursuits.

 

-Dennis

[NotBlinded]

Hi Asimov (and others),

 

I don't have hardly any time just now - but I think I need to at least say that some folks appear to be misinterpreting the scope of what I was trying to say. You can read what I mentioned about things I had read a long time ago in an earlier post I think.

 

But also - here it is again - in a very small nutshell :

 

Some have speculated - maybe not here so much (e.g. I think there are some jabs like this in the Da Vinci Code book), concerning the early Catholic church - that some "creatively modified/enhanced" key portions of the New Testament in order to come up with a book they could use to maintain in order to keep certain power bases.

 

My point is simply this (and no more) - if that were the case, I would expect them (during the same creative editing sessions) to have inserted something where the hero (Jesus) would have said somethings (more than what he said to Peter for instance) which would have helped them (the Catholic church) in their supposedly dubious pursuits.

 

-Dennis

But Dennis, the obvious isn't nearly as powerful as the discrete. It is easier to be led if you don't know the real intent.

 

I personally no longer believe it was originally intended to be used for power. But, I can't deny what Constantine hoped for later...a religion that was no longer divided and everyone would accept. I think it would have been a little too obvious for them to put a prediction of the NT in the NT. Don't you?

[Caretaker]

Hey Dennis! Welcome back!

 

Sheesh....... How I sure have had my head buried elsewhere... I just found out you came back...

 

Many of the differences here are all the name changes that are making my head spin.... Also, my brother's kids moved back to Washington, so I have been busy being an uncle (and enjoying every minute of it.)

 

Good to see you.

[spamandham]

Hi Dennis, welcome back!

 

In reply to your original question, that the NT does not have Jesus predicting the NT may well contradict the idea that someone sat down and wrote the NT all at once.

 

But no-one I know proposes such a thing. The secular proposition is that the NT was written over the course of as much as 200 years or more, and recorded the unfolding of mythology, rather than a conspiracy of some kind - at least in its origins.

[NotBlinded]

Dennis,

 

Have a look at the Gospel of the Holy Twelve. Some believe it to be the Q Gospel that was thought to be used as the base of the gospels in the NT.

 

Jesus does predict the NT:

 

"But there shall arise men amongst them that succeed you, of whom some shall indeed love me even as you, who being hot headed and unwise, and void of patience, shall curse those whom God has not cursed, and persecute them in their ignorance, because they cannot yet find in them the fruits they seek."

 

"And others being lovers of themselves shall make alliance with the kings and rulers of the world, and seek earthly power, and riches, and domination, and put to death by fire and sword those who seek the truth, and therefore are truly my disciples."

 

And in their days I Jesus shall be crucified afresh and put to open shame, for they will profess to do these things in my name. And Peter said, "Be it far from you Lord."

 

And Jesus answered, "As I shall be nailed to the cross, so also shall my church in those days, for she is my bride and one with me. But the day shall come when this darkness shall pass away, and the true light shall shine."

 

 

I long for the day!

[SkepticOfBible]

 

 

Some have speculated - maybe not here so much (e.g. I think there are some jabs like this in the Da Vinci Code book), concerning the early Catholic church - that some "creatively modified/enhanced" key portions of the New Testament in order to come up with a book they could use to maintain in order to keep certain power bases.

 

My point is simply this (and no more) - if that were the case, I would expect them (during the same creative editing sessions) to have inserted something where the hero (Jesus) would have said somethings (more than what he said to Peter for instance) which would have helped them (the Catholic church) in their supposedly dubious pursuits.

 

 

I hope you are aware that such creative editing session has taken place.

 

Here is one really famous one

 

Mark 16 On Biblegateway

 

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

 

Also

 

Unauthentic Texts in the New Testament

 

This passage, known as the Johanine Comma, had long been used by Christians to prove the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. Gibbon pointed out that this text (the italicized portion above) was never quoted by the earliest church fathers, nor does it appear in any Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth century.

.........

Why then did Christian scholars continue to accept it although it was obviously false? Gibbon claimed that Erasmus knew the passage was false but kept it out of prudence and that both the Catholic and Protestant Churches stuck to the spurious text out of "honest bigotry". In other words, the churches were trying to defend the doctrine of the Trinity by fraudulent means!

 

......

The first passage is the story of the woman taken in adultery which was included in the Textus Receptus in John 8:1-11 . This passage however is absent from the earliest manuscripts.

 

Manuscript Fallacies

 

 

My point is simply this (and no more) - if that were the case, I would expect them (during the same creative editing sessions) to have inserted something where the hero (Jesus) would have said somethings (more than what he said to Peter for instance) which would have helped them (the Catholic church) in their supposedly dubious pursuits.

 

Well I guess the Joanine Comma modification is very good example of that