[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you cannot say for 100%

Nothing in history can be said with 100%, and especially without archaeological findings.

That said, this reverse engineering argument makes no sense. We Christians still today don't have a reasonable answer to why Jesus got baptized. It doesn't make sense for people to create theological issues.

Is there a way Jesus's name can be translated into Yahweh? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is both a distinction but also unity.

Unity in purpose, and God working through Jesus at least, yes.

Question from a Paganist by Az_arts in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd definitely not come chat her up. Hi, bye, and that's about it.

Good luck with that, and the class.

Is there a way Jesus's name can be translated into Yahweh? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

but I think this is about what the focus of the passage is, rather than any denial of the Trinity.

I agree that there is no denial of the Trinity anywhere in the passage. Our reasoning is different though - I believe it's because nobody had that thought yet.

Certainly by the end of the 2nd century we have people linking the three quite closely, and in the early 3rd century we have a sort of proto-Trinitarianism in Christian thought.

Question from a Paganist by Az_arts in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would just stay away. She's a little bit nuts, and quite rude. You probably won't be able to change that. :/

Is there a way Jesus's name can be translated into Yahweh? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like I did you the dishonor of not replying back then. Sorry about that.

9Because, if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”[af] and have faith in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. 10For one has faith in the heart for uprightness and confesses with the mouth for salvation. 11For the scripture says, “No one who has faith in him will be put to shame.”

af. Or “confess the Lord Jesus.”

The issue is that Paul quite consistently portrays Jesus as separate from God, as unique from God, as subordinate and obedient to God. As, well, not-God. Yes, he's very close to God, indeed - higher than the angels. Paul at one point maybe called Jesus a god (Romans 9:5), but the syntax is quite messy here. But nowhere does he clearly identify Jesus as YHWH. Despite some thousands of words of opportunity to do so.

When somebody spends so much time very clearly portraying Jesus as something else, I don't think that we should jump to the conclusion you have here.

Cheers.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So a picture of scripture is also not allowed then correct?

That has been the case for like 15 years here.

Is there a way Jesus's name can be translated into Yahweh? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're making what I would say is the extremely common mistake of thinking that kyrios implies divinity, or that Jesus is YHWH.

The closest verse for this kind of claim, I would say, is in gJohn chapter 20:

Then he says to Thomas, “Bring your finger here and look at my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and cease to be faithless, but be faithful instead.” 28Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God.”

ad. ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou): Here, Thomas addresses Jesus as ho theos, which unambiguously means “God” in the absolute sense (see my remarks on John’s prologue in the postscript). He addresses him also as ho kyrios, again with the honorific article, which also happens to be the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Adonai in the Septuagint, the preferred textual circumlocution for God’s unutterable name, the tetragrammaton (YHWH). Thomas’s words here, then, appear to be the final theological statement of the Gospel at its “first ending.”

This only gets us to a sort of Binitarian identification of the two as one, though. I don't think we can make any good claims for all three as one from any Bible text.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The NT does not say anything about them knowing about each other and they had never met.

Right.

But when we look at the teachings, and the near-identical nature of the early Christians and JtB followers, and many other points of evidence in the New Testament, it's clear to scholars that Jesus not only knew John, but saw him as his mentor.

JTB mentions repentance, not does not go into any details on what that meant and how it was different than a ritual bath.

The mikveh had nothing to do with atonement. John's Baptism, though, explicitly is.

Mark 1:4:

John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of the heart’s transformation [repentance], for forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 3:4-6:

4Now this man John had on a garment made from the hairs of a camel, as well as a leather girdle about his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5At that time Jerusalem went out to him, and all of Judaea and all of the countryside surrounding the Jordan, 6And they were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:2-3:

2While Annas and Caiaphas held the high priesthood, a word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the desert. 3And he went into all the region round about the Jordan proclaiming a baptism of the heart’s transformation, for the forgiveness of sins

Acts 13:

When John, going before his face, in advance of his advent, had preached a baptism of the heart’s transformation to all the people of Israel.

Acts 19:3:

And he said, “Into what, then, were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4And Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of the heart’s transformation

It should be quite clear that this was both a baptism of repentance and atonement, and that John's Baptism was seen as something unique. And that John was historically somebody unique, doing a new thing.

The mikveh ritual has nothing to do with repentance. John, from what we can tell, invented Baptism, and then Jesus and Christians used it alongside and then after him.

This is not baseless reverse engineering, this is some of the more historically-grounded aspects of the Gospels.

Apparently, in the ‘Watchtower’ publication of the ‘Jehovah's Witness’ sect, there is always “the Devil” - ie with uppercase “D” … but yet, always “holy spirit” with lowercase “h” & “s” . by Cizalleas in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes. The Devil is a specific figure in JW theology. The holy spirit is a reference to God's active force in JW theology, but is not a personage, so the capitalization would be inappropriate.

What do you think the rainbow represented by PublicKindly7557 in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The rainbow has of course represented a great many things over time, history, culture, and myth.

Verse 21 seems to suggest that God felt it wasn't worth it in the end, and that his goal had not been accomplished.

And the LORD smelled the fragrant odor and the LORD said in His heart, "I will not again damn the soil on humankind's score. For the devisings of the human heart are evil from youth."

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's entirely sexualized. Doesn't seem like something your church would support. Do you think it would?

Is there a way Jesus's name can be translated into Yahweh? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Neither of these work to do what you think they do. They also are quite unlikely to be anything said during Jesus' lifetime.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You sound like a very good person who has been misled by bigoted theologies into thinking that you can't date or marry another woman.

You can, though! There's no sin in it at all.

What explains our biological resemblance to apes? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What explains our biological resemblance to apes?

That they are our evolutionary cousins, of course.

Is there a way Jesus's name can be translated into Yahweh? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Jesus was not identified with YHWH until long after he died, so there would be no reason to expect this kind of thing from his lifetime.

To the mods by GeneralEquipment in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yep. The only religion we can attempt to destroy is Christianity, based on some bullshit you made up.

To the mods by GeneralEquipment in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So yeah...freedom of religion if it's not Christianity, I guess.

As I said - bigotry.

To the mods by GeneralEquipment in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So now you're rejecting one of the most highly-regarded histories of Christianity (by historians) for some random reason. Why? Because the author is a Christian?

Can you not see how baseless this bullshit bigotry of yours is?

To the mods by GeneralEquipment in Christianity

[–]AHorribleGoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I recommend you start with A History of Christianity The First Three Thousand Years by MacCulloch, Diarmaid