Jesus taught Trinity privately to his disciples. We have to believe the Church who say God is 3 Persons 1 God for our salvation rather than Jesus who clearly said said he has a God and that God is 1, and the only true God.
We have to believe what is not clear but speculation than clear verses that say God is one, only and alone preached by all prophets.
Intellect (sarcastically) wrote:
«Jesus taught Trinity privately to his disciples.»
I wish to ask: do you believe Jesus taught the doctrine of the Virgin Birth to His disciples?
Intellect (sarcastically) wrote:
«We have to believe the Church who say God is 3 Persons 1 God for our salvation rather than Jesus who clearly said said he has a God and that God is 1, and the only true God.»
I have never met a Christian who said we have to believe what the Church says rather than what Jesus said.
As for John 20:17, Christians believe that Jesus referred to the Father as “my God”. However, this raises a philosophical question: if a multipersonal God exists, and one Person therein takes human form, what would logically preclude that Person from referring, from the vantage point of His human form, to another Person within God as His God? In short, you seem to insert the assumption that it would be impossible for such to occur, but you have not provided grounds on which others should agree with you.
As for John 17:3, nearly identical constructions in the Bible are applied to Jesus. The Father bearing a title does not preclude the possibility of the Son also bearing that same title.
As for what Jesus taught, He also gave us a veritable basmala, where, rather than do things merely “in the name of God,” we do such in the name of three Persons whom the Bible elsewhere tells us took part in our creation (even though God acts alone in creation).
Intellect (sarcastically) wrote:
«clear verses that say God is one, only and alone preached by all prophets.»
Christians agree with those verses. They just don’t agree with your interpretation of those verses. To illustrate the distinction, give an example of a Hebrew word for “one,” or “alone,” which you feel precludes the possibility of God being multipersonal.
Yes, unequivocally, I take it
for granted that the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John were uttered by Jesus. This would be a faith based position.
Now, you may wonder why I don’t side with the opinions of various scholars who think otherwise. As you may recall from previous correspondences (whether recently on this blog or from years ago on FaceBook), I don’t believe there is a sound methodology for actually demonstrating any given statement in John was not uttered by Jesus. And, just to be clear, while I enjoy reading critical scholarship, I’m more interested in actual arguments than mere appeals to scholarly opinions.
I see. I have concluded after studying the question that it is highly improbable that Jesus said many of the utterances attributed to him in John (the famous I ams come to mind). This is of course the conclusion of the vast majority of expert historians in the field, Christian and nonchristian. The reasons they conclude this are quite persuasive and compelling in my view. I understand you do not agree.
I am well aware of your position on John, but the same question I have asked in years past applies here: do you have a sound methodology for determining whether or not a statement in John (e.g. an I am statement) was uttered by Jesus? If the answer is no, would this not be more of a gut feeling –a guess– and thus not something obligatory for Christians to adopt? In the mean time, note that I touched on the I am statements in a response to you from last August.
Now, I agree with you that a great many scholars would take a similar position to your own, but as I have noted in numerous past correspondences between us, their arguments in favor of such a conclusion should be what matters. You say you find their arguments persuasive. Well, do you think you could present an argument which you consider particularly persuasive?
In another thread, I got a response to what I wrote above, which I would like to address here.
Latias wrote:
«It is obvious that the synoptics and John differ in their accounts of the post-resurrection appearances. The synoptics claim that Jesus, sallahu alayhi wa salaam, appeared to eleven disciples, while in John, Didymus was written out. One explanation was that John writes him out in order to demonstrate a theological point. Some Christians bring up John 20:27 as a demonstrate that Jesus regards himself as God, since he does not rebuke Thomas. Since that was a further addition to support whatever theological point that John was trying to promote, one cannot claim that this particular event happened or at least the Gospel of John is reliable.»
Regarding Thomas, John has multiple appearances. That seems plausible in light of Jesus appearing to them over a course of forty days (Acts 1:3). The Synoptics can be understood as only giving a small fraction of an overall spectrum of appearances. Indeed, the Synoptics provide different material from John, but a general Christian understanding could easily be that Scripture is not limited to any one of these books in isolation; rather they a providing portions of a larger story (a la John 21:25).
As for speculating as to why John would include a certain story, I do not see why one would be forced to side with such speculation, much less think it necessitates that John’s account is fictional.
Blogging Theology 
Jesus taught Trinity privately to his disciples. We have to believe the Church who say God is 3 Persons 1 God for our salvation rather than Jesus who clearly said said he has a God and that God is 1, and the only true God.
We have to believe what is not clear but speculation than clear verses that say God is one, only and alone preached by all prophets.
That is the understandings of some Christians.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Intellect (sarcastically) wrote:
«Jesus taught Trinity privately to his disciples.»
I wish to ask: do you believe Jesus taught the doctrine of the Virgin Birth to His disciples?
Intellect (sarcastically) wrote:
«We have to believe the Church who say God is 3 Persons 1 God for our salvation rather than Jesus who clearly said said he has a God and that God is 1, and the only true God.»
I have never met a Christian who said we have to believe what the Church says rather than what Jesus said.
As for John 20:17, Christians believe that Jesus referred to the Father as “my God”. However, this raises a philosophical question: if a multipersonal God exists, and one Person therein takes human form, what would logically preclude that Person from referring, from the vantage point of His human form, to another Person within God as His God? In short, you seem to insert the assumption that it would be impossible for such to occur, but you have not provided grounds on which others should agree with you.
As for John 17:3, nearly identical constructions in the Bible are applied to Jesus. The Father bearing a title does not preclude the possibility of the Son also bearing that same title.
As for what Jesus taught, He also gave us a veritable basmala, where, rather than do things merely “in the name of God,” we do such in the name of three Persons whom the Bible elsewhere tells us took part in our creation (even though God acts alone in creation).
Intellect (sarcastically) wrote:
«clear verses that say God is one, only and alone preached by all prophets.»
Christians agree with those verses. They just don’t agree with your interpretation of those verses. To illustrate the distinction, give an example of a Hebrew word for “one,” or “alone,” which you feel precludes the possibility of God being multipersonal.
LikeLike
Christians don’t agree with your interpretation of those verses, Denis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Denis do you believe that the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John are the words Jesus actually spoke?
LikeLike
Greetings Paul
Yes, unequivocally, I take it
for granted that the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John were uttered by Jesus. This would be a faith based position.
Now, you may wonder why I don’t side with the opinions of various scholars who think otherwise. As you may recall from previous correspondences (whether recently on this blog or from years ago on FaceBook), I don’t believe there is a sound methodology for actually demonstrating any given statement in John was not uttered by Jesus. And, just to be clear, while I enjoy reading critical scholarship, I’m more interested in actual arguments than mere appeals to scholarly opinions.
LikeLike
I see. I have concluded after studying the question that it is highly improbable that Jesus said many of the utterances attributed to him in John (the famous I ams come to mind). This is of course the conclusion of the vast majority of expert historians in the field, Christian and nonchristian. The reasons they conclude this are quite persuasive and compelling in my view. I understand you do not agree.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Greetings again Paul
I am well aware of your position on John, but the same question I have asked in years past applies here: do you have a sound methodology for determining whether or not a statement in John (e.g. an I am statement) was uttered by Jesus? If the answer is no, would this not be more of a gut feeling –a guess– and thus not something obligatory for Christians to adopt? In the mean time, note that I touched on the I am statements in a response to you from last August.
Now, I agree with you that a great many scholars would take a similar position to your own, but as I have noted in numerous past correspondences between us, their arguments in favor of such a conclusion should be what matters. You say you find their arguments persuasive. Well, do you think you could present an argument which you consider particularly persuasive?
LikeLike
In another thread, I got a response to what I wrote above, which I would like to address here.
Latias wrote:
«It is obvious that the synoptics and John differ in their accounts of the post-resurrection appearances. The synoptics claim that Jesus, sallahu alayhi wa salaam, appeared to eleven disciples, while in John, Didymus was written out. One explanation was that John writes him out in order to demonstrate a theological point. Some Christians bring up John 20:27 as a demonstrate that Jesus regards himself as God, since he does not rebuke Thomas. Since that was a further addition to support whatever theological point that John was trying to promote, one cannot claim that this particular event happened or at least the Gospel of John is reliable.»
Regarding Thomas, John has multiple appearances. That seems plausible in light of Jesus appearing to them over a course of forty days (Acts 1:3). The Synoptics can be understood as only giving a small fraction of an overall spectrum of appearances. Indeed, the Synoptics provide different material from John, but a general Christian understanding could easily be that Scripture is not limited to any one of these books in isolation; rather they a providing portions of a larger story (a la John 21:25).
As for speculating as to why John would include a certain story, I do not see why one would be forced to side with such speculation, much less think it necessitates that John’s account is fictional.
LikeLike