'An Affair On Golgotha' -- a refutation

[muhammad_isa]

..I will let further comment here pass, but it does point out a glaring discrepancy.

I'm not sure what your intention is .. but yes .. all religions should realise that God has 3 parts .. G .. O .. D

 

[juantoo3]

I'm not sure what your intention is .. but yes .. all religions should realise that God has 3 parts .. G .. O .. D

My intention...as always...is to follow where the evidence leads, instead of picking and choosing what fits my preconceived ideas. And since I am not familiar enough with Mormon teaching to write knowledgably on their position regarding Paul as relates to Newton, I said I would leave what I had for that moment as I was still researching into Jefferson, and have since added that to the post.

So how does your philosophy here relate to those religions that do not acknowledge "God" on your terms?

Gotta love people who half quote to distort what was really said...and attempt to pass it off as "logic."

 

[Thomas]

God knows the truth of what you allege .. i.e. they were trinitarians

No doubt better than I.

Yeah, you would say that ..

If you'd check wiki properly, you'd see that wiki says that!

I said: "they believed in a qualified trinity" ie a trinity, but not the Trinity as later defined by the Councils.

"Arianism is a Christological doctrine first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt. Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father, and is distinct from the Father (therefore subordinate to him). However, in contrast with traditional Trinitarianism, Arianism holds that the Son of God is not co-eternal with God the Father."
-- wiki --

So, as I've tried to say politely, you seem to be arguing from the standpoint of error, now not only misunderstanding Trinitarianism, but also Arianism?

Can I point out one can accept the doctrine of the Trinity as coherent, rational and logical, without having to believe in it. You seem to need to insist it's something it's not, so easier for you to refute.

 

[RJM]

all religions should realise that God ...

Sorry to come back in again, but why should they have to? Why should they have to do anything? Isn't it their own business? Is it because your own religion says they should?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sorry to come back in again, but why should they have to? Why should they have to do anything? Isn't it their own business?

Well, if Paul had had that attitude, you wouldn't be a Christian, would you?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you seem to be arguing from the standpoint of error, now not only misunderstanding Trinitarianism, but also Arianism?

God knows best about my mistaken beliefs
Anyhow, I'll let you all carry on propagating your misguided refutations
This is MY last word! I have said my piece and quit the thread.

 

[RJM]

Well, if Paul had had that attitude, you wouldn't be a Christian, would you?

In my own life I've dabbled and explored very, or at any rate quite widely. Christianity isn't a crusade for me.

In my own life it is what God has led me back to: I understand the Christ in all the ways that I myself understand, which God through all the years of my life has gradually led me back to. It is certainly not limited by any sort of scriptural dogmatism.

So I'm not quite sure where Paul comes into it, or where are all the other faiths in the world are excluded by God, in favour of one alone?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

One has to be sure of whether that new frame of reference has any relevance or indeed insight in what it's being applied to, or indeed are they actually new. When the new frame interprets pre-existent in light of itself, to the detriment of the original frame, then we need proceed with great care.

And the new frame itself has to be viewed in context of its arising.


If the new frame is indeed new, or applicable.

Agreed. Love is the Key here Thomas.

Jesus as Christ offered that a time would come where in John 16:

12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

In Christ all things are possible.

Regards Tony

 

[juantoo3]

Well, if Paul had had that attitude, you wouldn't be a Christian, would you?

Not necessarily, if Paul wrote Romans 2

1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11For there is no respect of persons with God.
12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )
16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

emphasis mine, -jt3

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

“For many shall come, saying, I am God, and shall deceive many.”

That quote at the start of the OP is incorrect, in the Bible it reads;

"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

Thus the verse quoted in the OP, It is not even comparable, it is just so different.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

That quote at the start of the OP is incorrect, in the Bible it reads;

"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

Thus the verse quoted in the OP, It is not even comparable, it is just so different.

Regards Tony

Ok. But it is a quote from Mr Garaffa, the author of the refuted article in question.

 

[RJM]

https://www.interfaith.org/articles/golgotha/

So much ... and so little substance.

+++

And there is much to examine ...

Now ... the moment has come for the truth to be revealed...

Before we face the gauntlet there are certain facts that must be understood...
Again, the author of this screed is sore in need of an editor to trim out the hyperbole and the histrionics ... what he signally fails to do is reveal anything with any substance or explain anything with any clarity.

To even consider the only other option, that Jesus denies that he is the Christ, would be an incredible stroke against the very doctrines of Christianity. Throughout Mark, Jesus is emphatic in telling the disciples not to tell this to anyone. The messianic secret ...
The 'Messianic secret' was put forward by the German Lutheran theologian Wilhelm Wrede in 1901, that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah and that Mark (and the rest of the New Testament authors) sensationalized Him and made Him into the Messiah. Wrede’s theory enjoyed some popularity during the 1920s but faded soon thereafter. Subsequent scholarship raised insurmountable problems that showed Wrede’s hypothesis was insufficient and today is regarded as indefensible. In short, the 'Messianic secret' was a failed theory long before the author wrote his thesis.

If Jesus did not say it, how dare men use this ‘sacred’ vehicle to demand that he did when they admit to the contrary? In the same manner, they have used God’s Holy Scriptures to advance their own doctrines and traditions throughout history.
But, on the other hand, if Jesus did say it, then the argument is void. As no argument is presented, this is void.

To prove the newest of upheavals, The Gospel According To John, has been restored and placed at its theological head. It is being used as the basis for the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is God.
By whom, he does not say. As I understand it, the whole thrust of the New Testament claims that Jesus is God.

We are told that it was authored by John, the disciple. Arguments against its authority are, (1) John would have been of extraordinary old age...
Wrong. Contemporary scholarship suggests the base-layer of John was probably contemporary with Mark and Paul. It seems the scribe was aware of Mark (or his source materials) but still might be prior to both. Certainly, he was unaware of Matthew and Luke.

(2) as a Galilean Jew of the orthodoxy; the text exhibits a definite, anti-Semitic nature...
This view is now regarded as out-dated, with the emergence of later archaeology and scholarship, especially with reference to Hebrew scholars – happily ignored up until the latter half of the last century. What was once deemed anti-semitic is now seen as tensions within the broader Jewish community. John's whole premise is couched in terms of a Jew preaching to the Jews.

(3) the Church would be permitting a Gnostic text into their doctrine...
The claim that the Prologue and flavour of John was Gnostic has been demonstrated false by a greater understanding of Jewish mystical currents in Second Temple Era, and indeed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, as John is notably closer to the Qumran documents – the use of 'light' and 'dark' as motifs, for example.

(4) the church’s permissiveness would allow the use, and manipulation, of a five hundred year old text that originally appeared as Plato’s, Ode To Wisdom ...
It would have helped if the writer had offered a reference so that readers could judge for themselves. I have no idea what he's talking about here. Google was no help either.

(5) the admission of a document purported to be genuine to Jesus’ words and actions that appear almost one hundred and seventy years after the fact.
What, the Gospel of John? The latest it can be is 125AD, so at the outside less than a hundred years. As stated above, it's possible the origin of the gospel was within 20 years.

Explicit explanation of the argument are as follows. The Interpreter’s Bible: Volume 7; Page 887, notes that in this Gospel, “…where intense hatred of the Jews is frequently given expression…” gives voice to point (2).
And scholarship subsequent to the 1950s has shown this to be a misunderstanding.

The preface of the Gospel, “In the beginning was the word…” (John 1:1) is well known to have originally been an ode to Wisdom created by Greek philosophers five hundred years before an unknown evangelist adapted it for use in the Gospel, which dates approximately one hundred seventy years after the fact.
Entirely wrong. Again, no supporting reference or evidence.

The Interpreter’s Bible, agrees that the word, Logos, is borrowed from the original where it represented divine reason. Philo of Alexandria uses this word more than thirteen hundred times in his expositions of the Old Testament. (See: I.B.: Volume 7; Page 442).
John’s use of the term "Logos" (1:1-2; most frequently rendered "Word" in modern English translations) drew much attention. The writer seems to insist it reveals his Gnostic leanings (cf Bultmann, The Gospel of John. 1971).

Commentaries suggest the term is deeply rooted in Old Testament thought (e.g. Genesis 1, Proverbs 8). Further, the role of the Johannine Logos parallels personified Wisdom in a number of traditions within Judaism (e.g. Sirach 24). Sirach's Wisdom and John's Logos cannot simply be identified with each other, since the former is a creation of God (Sirach 1:9) whereas John holds the Logos as pre-existent and Divine. John's use of such language in his setting could scarcely avoid associations with Hellenistic thought ("Logos" played a key role in Stoic thought and in Philo).

It may well be that the Greek world provided the main source for its interpretation. C. H. Dodd argued that John’s adoption of the term deliberately reflects the ambiguity of the word in Judaism, employing a Greek philosophical term that captures both the immanent and the transcendent implications, all within a decidedly Christian framework (C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel Cambridge University Press, 1953). Other scholars develop Old Testament and Wisdom backgrounds.

They argue, moreover, that while the Hellenistic connotations are inevitable and useful for drawing the attention of a wide range of first-century audiences, these associations are secondary and in some respects incidental, since the Fourth Gospel’s employment of the term turns out to be quite contrary to a Hellenistic worldview, as well as in some ways quite distinct from previous Jewish uses. Leon Morris puts it this way:
"John could scarcely have used the Greek term without arousing in the minds of those who used the Greek language thought of something supremely great in the universe. But though he could not have been unmindful of the association aroused by the term, his thought does not arrive from the Greek background. His Gospel shows little trace of acquaintance with Greek philosophy and even less dependence on it. And the really important thing is that John, in his use of the Logos, is cutting clean across one of the fundamentals of Greek ideas." (In Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).

Beasley-Murray agrees, and sees Johannine usage as indicative of the Evangelist’s acumen in communicating the Gospel and its distinctive message within the philosophical and cultural context of his time:
"The remarkable feature of this presentation is that it employs categories universally known, possessing universal appeal, which would attract and have attracted alike Jews, Christians, pagans, Hellenists and Orientals in their varied cultures, followers of ancient and modem religions, philosophers and people of humble status who were seekers after God." (George Beasley-Murray, John, World Biblical Commentary, Thomas Nelson, 1999)

A dozen pagan rites, including the most powerful, that of Mythranism, repeat this story over and over again before Christianity ever became a dream in man’s mind.
Mythranism – by which I presume the author means Mithraism – does not repeat the story, it's quite different. Also, Mithraism in Rome borrowed a number of motifs from Christian iconography – there's no evidence elsewhere – and that Christianity is a derivative of Mithraism is a meme that has been shown to be false.

It must be understood, without question, that Christianity today is not the church that Jesus founded, nor is it based on the principles that he taught. What proof do we have? Are Jesus’ own words enough?
Well as you have dismissed the New Testament as a reliable text, and if your thesis is right, then the Church effectively wrote the NT, then we dop not have Jesus' own words, do we? Throughout, the writer wants it both ways, refutiung Scripture when it suits, citing it as authentic when it suits, without apparent rhyme or reason.

Jesus did not choose Paul ...
Yet based on Scripture and Paul's testimony, he did, so where does this come from?

It is Paul who announced the martyred ‘lamb’ ...
Well Paul mentions it once – "For our passover also hath been sacrificed, [even] Christ" (1 Corinthians 5:7). However the theology of the sacrificial lamb is based on John's Gospel: "The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world." (1:29), "And beholding Jesus walking, he saith: Behold the Lamb of God." (1:36), and the Lamb is mentioned 29 times in Revelations!

It is Paul who demands that we observe the bloodied sacrament of, Communion, not the Christ, not Peter ...
"Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled, Foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you" (1 Peter 18-20).
So, this argument is utter nonsense.

It's a matter of note that Garaffa dismisses Scripture where it suits, and claims its authenticity where it suits, without rhyme or reason.

+++

Regarding the extensive commentary on the Passion-Ascension, I will not dignify it with a response. Smoke and no substance.

+++

Paul’s ministry was assaulted by Jewish Christians known to us as the Judiazers.
As I've demonstrated elsewhere, the writer is largely ignorant of Paul and his ministry.

The Hellenists, especially Stephen, were insistent that the role of Judaism was over and that the religion was dead.
Quite simply wrong.

“To Stephen Israel had been apostate throughout her history; her rejection of Jesus is merely the culmination of a series of misdeeds. Christianity must break with Judaism because the two are incompatible.” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible: Thomas Nelson & Sons LTD; Page 871 70d)
Again, an ill-informed overstatement. No scholar would support that thesis. sadly I have searched Peake's Commentary but can't find the text he quotes...

This response has now been included on the homepage as a stand alone article:
https://www.interfaith.org/response-to-an-affair-on-golgotha/

 

[muhammad_isa]

..In Christ all things are possible.

Hmm ..
Baháʼu'lláh was a good politician. He joined the Bab's who believed that "the promised messiah in Islam was nigh".
Many people claimed to be that messiah, but all of the claims have appeared to be false.

The world will surely know it when the REAL messiah is in the world, and not just leave a political organisation, appointing his son as successor

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Hmm ..
Baháʼu'lláh was a good politician. He joined the Bab's who believed that "the promised messiah in Islam was nigh".
Many people claimed to be that messiah, but all of the claims have appeared to be false.

The world will surely know it when the REAL messiah is in the world, and not just leave a political organisation, appointing his son as successor

The promise is that every eye shall see what the Spirit said to the churches.

Personally I do not see that also says it would be immediate and it also may not say that people would recognise the source.

Baha'u'llah has said that "My object is none other than the betterment of the world and the tranquillity of its peoples..... " and it goes on to say that ".... The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded... "

So every eye is seeing what the Spirit has said to the Churches, they are seeing the results of the neglect of embracing the unity of all humanity.

There is many ways of looking at what has been offered by God, the key is that we must look at what is written as One People under One God.

Well, that is how I have come to see life anyway, you are and everyone else is free to see it how you choose to.

Personally I also see the world is as it is, as it has regected the promise given in every Holy Book, not just the Messiah, but the 10th Avatar, the 5th Buddha etc. This link will indicate the extent I see is applicable.

http://prophecy-fulfilled.com/

It is all about our choices and our frames of references.

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

The promise is that every eye shall see what the Spirit said to the churches.

Personally I do not see that also says it would be immediate and it also may not say that people would recognise the source.

Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad (13 February 1835 – 26 May 1908) was an Indian religious leader and the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam. He claimed to have been divinely appointed as the promised Messiah and Mahdi—which is the metaphorical second-coming of Jesus

Baháʼís regard Baháʼu'lláh as a Manifestation of God, fulfilling the eschatological expectations of Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and other major religions

Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet He said he successfully retrieved golden plates. He said an angel commanded him not to show the plates to anyone else, but to translate them and publish their translation.

etc. etc.
People claim all sorts of things .. sometimes they really believe they are Jesus, for example .. or sometimes they knowingly make claims for their own personal gain.

When Jesus finally returns, it will be VERY obvious .. just like it was obvious on his first appearance.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

etc. etc.
People claim all sorts of things .. sometimes they really believe they are Jesus, for example .. or sometimes they knowingly make claims for their own personal gain.

When Jesus finally returns, it will be VERY obvious .. just like it was obvious on his first appearance.

Yes we all have a choice and the Bible gives us instructions as to how to tell who is True and who is false when it comes to such a claim.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

When Jesus finally returns, it will be VERY obvious .. just like it was obvious on his first appearance.

I see that is correct. To all those that met the Bab and Baha'u'llah, it was obvious in the same way it was in the time of Jesus.

If it was not the Muslim divines, the whole of Persia would have been ablaze with the Message of the Bab, 100's of thousands of people embraced the cause.

That is also how it flashed from East to West like lightening. The press of Europe picked up on the events happening in Persia.

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

I see that is correct. To all those that met the Bab and Baha'u'llah, it was obvious in the same way it was in the time of Jesus.

No .. Jesus is the Messiah .. and nobody else.
i.e. Jesus will return as Jesus.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

No .. Jesus is the Messiah .. and nobody else.
i.e. Jesus will return as Jesus.

If that is the way you choose to see it, all the best for the future and I wish you the best of Faith.

I would ask why you do not think Jesus said he would come with a new name? These 2 passages would need to be explained.

Revelation 2:17 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it.’"

So it could be saying we have to accept a new name, as later it also says;

Revelation 3:12" He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

So a new name and a new Jerusalem. Also Isaiah shows that there will be a new name.

Isaiah 56:5
Isaiah 62:2
Isaiah 65:15

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

I would ask why you do not think Jesus said he would come with a new name? These 2 passages would need to be explained.

Revelation 2:17 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it.’"

So it could be saying we have to accept a new name, as later it also says;

Revelation 3:12" He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

So a new name and a new Jerusalem. Also Isaiah shows that there will be a new name.

Isaiah 56:5
Isaiah 62:2
Isaiah 65:15

Regards Tony

Quoting one or 2 verses of scripture is not the way to determine the truth.
Many denominations cherry-pick to "prove" their creeds.

It is a fact that the vast majority of Jews understand that the Messiah will: "Usher in an era of world peace" and "Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one"
The majority of Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah and he will return in person, as do Muslims.

..and then we have Rasta who claim Jesus is the black Haile Selassie and many others claiming they are "divine" etc.

It's quite simple. Almighty God does not make it difficult to see whose claims are dubious. He does not
leave mankind with doubt that such-and-such a person might be divine. There IS no divine human.

'verily, I am God' (letter in Ishrāq Khāvarī Māʾida, vol. 7, p. 208); ... 'the educator of all beings and their creator has appeared in the garment of humanity, but you were not pleased with that until he was imprisoned in this prison' ('Sūrat al-ḥajj' in Bahāʾ Allāh Āthār-i qalam-i aʿlā, vol. 4 [Tehran, 133 badīʿ/1976–77], p. 203).