The Trinity.

[williamjordan]

Hi – you misunderstand me. I an in general agreement with you, just saying there are difference of opinions.

I’m not trying to put my opinion on you or say you are wrong. Just that, thats the way you read it but not everyone agrees with that interpretation, not 100% fact proof - opinion based.

I understood that this site was not the right forum to have a debate as some get offended, which I don’t want to do.

As you appear to want a detailed response, I forwarded this to my debate group and the below is the reply I got from one of them to you and ‘bluto’

Response:

This is a summary of a response you can go into each point in great length, but would be too long. I make the following bullet points;

• The mind of the time – no one at the time of Jesus or before (the Israelites) ever considered the trinity.
• Gospel of John
• historical record of the gospel not until the end of the 2nd century
• 2nd century Justin Martyr advocated a logos Christology without citing John’s Gospel explicitly. Such an omission would be strange if it had existed.
• Bishop Polycarp – allegedly a student of John the Apostle never quotes John in his letter to the Philippians. Albeit, he quotes Mark, Matthew, Luke…
• Genesis 1:2 – some like the Samaritan bible, NRSV etc… use the term "the wind of God" instead of "the spirit of God"! – Psalms 33:6 ‘breath’. Wind or Breath is the more accurate translation of the word "ruach".
• Genesis 1:1 does not mention the ‘word’
• John 1:3 does not mention the trinuine
• John 1:3 should arguably be translated into English as “it” not “him” as English does not have gender in noun eg. In Greek, “wind” (anemos) is masculine, but we would not translate it into English that way. We would say, “The wind was blowing so hard ‘it’ blew the trash cans over,” not “the wind, ‘he’ blew the trash cans over.” When translating from another language into English,
• John 3:5-6 –This is a peculiar passage could have many meanings. but 3:7 says you have to be ‘borne again’ for salvation or some parts say you have to be baptised - Luke 23:43 the thief on the cross appears to have been saved without either.
• John 1:18 – ‘The only begotten Son’ – begotten is someone created, how can Jesus be God and created?
• John 10:33 - The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
• The Thomas story has many issues;
• Was he not the eleven as Luke 24:-36 and why is nothing recorded as to holes, wounds…etc…
• Why is the Gospel of Thomas disregarded
• Matt 10:7-8 “raised the dead” – Jesus gave the 12 power to raise the dead, so why would he not believe that Jesus could be raised. Why couldn’t they raise Jesus instead of fleeing? Why have we no records of them raising people from the dead?
• Psalm 82:6 I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High.
  "gods" here in Hebrew is "Elohim", which is plural of "EL". It is the same exact thing as "EL" used for Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, since "gods" is a combination of several "EL"s. And as clearly shown here, for someone to be called "god" or "God" in the Bible it wouldn't make him GOD Almighty Himself.
• Isaiah doesn’t help.
• Paul - arguably preached another Jesus as a lot of his teachings are contrary to Jesus
• Colossians 1:15-16 –
• ‘God created man in his own image’ (not only Jesus). ‘Firstborn’ would imply created & others were firstborn - Jeremiah 31:9 "I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn."
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 - yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Well, maybe you should try inviting me to your "debate group." It looks like I can have it out with whoever it is on that forum that made these comments. There's so many things to respond to, and I'm not too sure you're the right person to deliver my responses back.

There's an analogy I often times use, which I think is appropriate here: If you tell a story to an individual, and they pass that story along to another, eventually by the 10th retelling of the story it will lose some of it's (pertinent) details.

By me telling you the problems "galore" with these comments, you may or may not pass that same information back to those individuals in the way I am expressing towards you.

If it is one person you are getting this information from, tell them that William Jordan said they get an "F." And if I could give them an F-minus, then I'd probably do that. But I don't think there is an "F-minus" category. This is one of those situations where I'd get them on audio blast to have a full length conversation.

I love a good pretzel.

 

[ewq1938]

I'll just address a few:

Response:

This is a summary of a response you can go into each point in great length, but would be too long. I make the following bullet points;

• The mind of the time – no one at the time of Jesus or before (the Israelites) ever considered the trinity.

???? How could this person know that for certain? No one? Ridiculous answer.

• Gospel of John

No. You can't just cite an entire book. This isn't a real answer.

• Paul - arguably preached another Jesus as a lot of his teachings are contrary to Jesus

False. Paul did not teach contrary to Jesus. Why even listen to someone who speaks against an Apostle of God? Place this person on ignore.

 

[williamjordan]

• The mind of the time – no one at the time of Jesus or before (the Israelites) ever considered the trinity.
• Gospel of John
• historical record of the gospel not until the end of the 2nd century
• 2nd century Justin Martyr advocated a logos Christology without citing John’s Gospel explicitly. Such an omission would be strange if it had existed.
• Bishop Polycarp – allegedly a student of John the Apostle never quotes John in his letter to the Philippians. Albeit, he quotes Mark, Matthew, Luke…

How do you not see what is so “obviously,” wrong? Let's begin by pointing at the “elephant in the room.” Your post begins by suggesting,

• The mind of the time – no one at the time of Jesus or before (the Israelites) ever considered the trinity.

But then you go on to suggest the following:

• Gospel of John
• historical record of the gospel not until the end of the 2nd century
• 2nd century Justin Martyr advocated a logos Christology without citing John’s Gospel explicitly. Such an omission would be strange if it had existed.

Are you suggesting that Justin Martyr advocated a Logos Christology without referencing the Gospel of John? And if so, how so? The question that needs to be asked then, is simple: What then (if not for the Gospel of John) pressed Justin Martyr towards a Logos Christology in the first place?

After all, according to you, the Gospel of John post-dates Justin, right? Isn’t that really the purpose that underly bullet points #2 and #3 (that the Gospel of John's “historical records” are late 2nd c.)? If John’s gospel is 2nd c., then you have an even bigger problem: What you go onto say in bullet point one, “no one at the time of Jesus or before (the Israelites) ever considered the Trinity.” Because something has to account or explain it’s (Logos Christology) rise. And if not for the Gospel of John, then what?

Now I happen to agree, that it was not really the Gospel of John that gave rise to Logos Christology, but that it (the Gospel of John) is in tune with the 1st c. “mind of the time.”

Justin Martyr was a 1st c. Jew. And he was writing to Trypho, who was also a 1st c. Jew. And they were discussing a topic that was completely consistent with Jewish thought and literature from the period. You made the comment that no one at the time of Jesus (or before) “ever considered the Trinity.” Meanwhile, so widely attested was Logos Christology by the 2nd c., that such a statement really begs the question.

If Logos Christology was not on the scene during the 1st c., then how does it become so widely attested by the 2nd c.? Because by the 2nd c. Logos Christology is so widely attested, that one cannot so easily explain its origins as a 2nd c. innovation. It did not just (out of the wind) pop up one day. Justin Martyr was not so persuasive that he alone could sway/captivate the mind and voices of the 2nd c. world.

By the 2nd c., the Gospel of John already had “wide geographic distribution.” It existed in multiple Greek copies from various geographic locales, existing in various textual streams. P66 is a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John with origins in the “Alexandrian tradition.” P75 is also a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Alexandrian tradition.” P90 is a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Alexandrian tradition.” P28 is a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Alexandrian tradition.” P5 is a 3rd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Western tradition.” The Sahidic Coptic is a 3rd c. translation of the Gospel of John. Irenaeus is an author from the 2nd c. period and stands as a good “Western” representative. He, like his predecessor before him, Ignatius (also a “Western” representative), frequented the Gospel of John. Why is the Gospel of John being translated and recopied at a “worldwide level” if its origins are 2nd c.? Ancient literature does not travel that fast, and take considerable time (years, even) to circulate, debate, transcribe, translate, recopy, and redistribute, especially when everything is being transcribed by hand. Why are copyists, translators, and early church figures — and at a “global level” — already using literature (the Gospel of John) that you allege (or suggest) has its origins in the 2nd c.? The Gospel of John has widespread “geographic distribution” in the 2nd c., which indicates that its origins would have had to have been significantly earlier.

Even the very book you raise question on (“the Gospel of Thomas”) has clear allusions to the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd c. pseudepigraphal work, and was likely “riding on the curtails” of the Gospel of John for its success. However, it did not gain traction or success it’s authors sought (like the Gospel of John had). The Gospel of John was broadly attested, recopied, and redistributed by scribes in various languages, in each their own tongue. The Gospel of Thomas was not. The Gospel of Thomas does not have the same widespread attestation, which indicates that it was not “widely accepted” in the Christian community.

This all points back to two things: (1.) the Gospel of John pre-dates the 2nd c., and (2.) Logos “Theology” pre-dates the first century. John (like Justin) draws from Logos “Theology” to advance and develop their Logos “Christology,” drawing upon themes found in ancient Jewish literature which predate the 1st c., of which the Jewish Targums are exemplars.

To suggest that Polycarp was ignorant of the Gospel of John tells me that you yourself are up for quite a bit of surprise: Polycarp was the bishop of the church at Smyrna. And on multiple accounts, Ignatius (a “Logos Christology” theologian) wrote letters to the church in Smyrna and to Polycarp himself. And in those letters, Ignatius draws from the Gospel of John more times than any other Gospel. You are only interested in what Polycarp wrote (and only considering a very small pool of data in the process), ignoring the fact that Polycarp was also the recipient of multiple letters penned by none other that Ignatius himself.

Why then does Polycarp not reference the Gospel of John in his letter of only ~2,300 words? Well, probably for the same reason you also didn’t allude to the other ~179,000 words in the NT (approximations for illustration purposes only). Is the purpose of Polycarp’s letter to redistribute an entire copy of the NT? Or is he interested in “local” affairs of the Philippians church like the opening of his letter states? And should everyone (including you) recite the entire NT each time you write a letter? How about you read Polycarp’s introduction and tell me why he didn’t cite the Gospel of John?

Now I feel guilty for murder. God forgive me for what I am about to do.

 

[williamjordan]

• Psalm 82:6 I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High.
  "gods" here in Hebrew is "Elohim", which is plural of "EL". It is the same exact thing as "EL" used for Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, since "gods" is a combination of several "EL"s. And as clearly shown here, for someone to be called "god" or "God" in the Bible it wouldn't make him GOD Almighty Himself.
• Isaiah doesn’t help.

But there is just one “small” problem... . Okay, so I lied: It's “big.” Real big.

Isaiah 9 is apart of a larger discourse that points back to Isaiah 8. Isaiah 9:1 opens with the words, “But there will be no more gloom…” which suggests the author is finishing a line of thought that stems from the previous chapter (hence the word, “But”). When in 9:1 it makes reference to, “But there will be no more gloom,” this points back to what the author was referring to in 8:22, “Then they will look to the earth, and behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be driven away into darkness.”

Here’s why this is significant: Because the very language — from the very same book, and from the very same context — which you suggest doesn’t refer to Jesus as “Almighty God,” is infact appropriated to “the Lord” Jesus (1 Peter 3:14–15) following the exact same pattern the OT uses of YHWH, the Almighty (Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX),

​

Isaiah 8:12-13 LXX​

τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ φοβηθῆτε οὐδὲ μὴ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε​

But do not fear what it fears, or be in dread; honor the Lord himself as holy​

​

1 Peter 3:14-15​

τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε​

But do not fear what they fear, or be in dread, but honor Christ the Lord as holy​

It is frequently pointed out that κύριον (“Lord”) is used as the surrogate for the Divine Name, especially in Septuagint-YHWH passages (i.e., Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX). Additionally, in Isaiah 10:21, YHWH is also referred to as the “Mighty God.” So the entire notion that Isaiah 9:6 only refers to Jesus as the “Mighty God,” and not the “Almighty God” is refuted on two fronts: The NT’s application of Isaiah 8:12–13 of Jesus, and Isaiah 10:21’s reference to YHWH as “Mighty God.”

Not to mention that 1 Peter 2:8 also draws on themes found in Isaiah 8.

 

[williamjordan]

• John 1:3 does not mention the trinuine
• John 1:3 should arguably be translated into English as “it” not “him” as English does not have gender in noun eg. In Greek, “wind” (anemos) is masculine, but we would not translate it into English that way. We would say, “The wind was blowing so hard ‘it’ blew the trash cans over,” not “the wind, ‘he’ blew the trash cans over.” When translating from another language into English,

There's even more problems with this, of which (in anticipation of your response) I addressed in Post #323 and Post #352:

Jn. 1:3’s usage of the διὰ + genitive construct (“through Him”) denotes personal agency (cf. Jn. 1:7, 1:10, 3:17), and is frequently used in contexts which discuss Christ’s pre-existence (1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2).

Why then, do you go on to cite 1 Cor. 8:6 and Col. 1:16-17, when both are in direct opposition to what you said here? Remember, we want to “interact” with what has been stated by proving what was stated, as “incorrect.”

 

[Needevidence]

How do you not see what is so “obviously,” wrong? Let's begin by pointing at the “elephant in the room.” Your post begins by suggesting,

• The mind of the time – no one at the time of Jesus or before (the Israelites) ever considered the trinity.

But then you go on to suggest the following:

• Gospel of John
• historical record of the gospel not until the end of the 2nd century
• 2nd century Justin Martyr advocated a logos Christology without citing John’s Gospel explicitly. Such an omission would be strange if it had existed.

Are you suggesting that Justin Martyr advocated a Logos Christology without referencing the Gospel of John? And if so, how so? The question that needs to be asked then, is simple: What then (if not for the Gospel of John) pressed Justin Martyr towards a Logos Christology in the first place?

After all, according to you, the Gospel of John post-dates Justin, right? Isn’t that really the purpose that underly bullet points #2 and #3 (that the Gospel of John's “historical records” are late 2nd c.)? If John’s gospel is 2nd c., then you have an even bigger problem: What you go onto say in bullet point one, “no one at the time of Jesus or before (the Israelites) ever considered the Trinity.” Because something has to account or explain it’s (Logos Christology) rise. And if not for the Gospel of John, then what?

Now I happen to agree, that it was not really the Gospel of John that gave rise to Logos Christology, but that it (the Gospel of John) is in tune with the 1st c. “mind of the time.”

Justin Martyr was a 1st c. Jew. And he was writing to Trypho, who was also a 1st c. Jew. And they were discussing a topic that was completely consistent with Jewish thought and literature from the period. You made the comment that no one at the time of Jesus (or before) “ever considered the Trinity.” Meanwhile, so widely attested was Logos Christology by the 2nd c., that such a statement really begs the question.

If Logos Christology was not on the scene during the 1st c., then how does it become so widely attested by the 2nd c.? Because by the 2nd c. Logos Christology is so widely attested, that one cannot so easily explain its origins as a 2nd c. innovation. It did not just (out of the wind) pop up one day. Justin Martyr was not so persuasive that he alone could sway/captivate the mind and voices of the 2nd c. world.

By the 2nd c., the Gospel of John already had “wide geographic distribution.” It existed in multiple Greek copies from various geographic locales, existing in various textual streams. P66 is a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John with origins in the “Alexandrian tradition.” P75 is also a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Alexandrian tradition.” P90 is a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Alexandrian tradition.” P28 is a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Alexandrian tradition.” P5 is a 3rd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Western tradition.” The Sahidic Coptic is a 3rd c. translation of the Gospel of John. Irenaeus is an author from the 2nd c. period and stands as a good “Western” representative. He, like his predecessor before him, Ignatius (also a “Western” representative), frequented the Gospel of John. Why is the Gospel of John being translated and recopied at a “worldwide level” if its origins are 2nd c.? Ancient literature does not travel that fast, and take considerable time (years, even) to circulate, debate, transcribe, translate, recopy, and redistribute, especially when everything is being transcribed by hand. Why are copyists, translators, and early church figures — and at a “global level” — already using literature (the Gospel of John) that you allege (or suggest) has its origins in the 2nd c.? The Gospel of John has widespread “geographic distribution” in the 2nd c., which indicates that its origins would have had to have been significantly earlier.

Even the very book you raise question on (“the Gospel of Thomas”) has clear allusions to the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd c. pseudepigraphal work, and was likely “riding on the curtails” of the Gospel of John for its success. However, it did not gain traction or success it’s authors sought (like the Gospel of John had). The Gospel of John was broadly attested, recopied, and redistributed by scribes in various languages, in each their own tongue. The Gospel of Thomas was not. The Gospel of Thomas does not have the same widespread attestation, which indicates that it was not “widely accepted” in the Christian community.

This all points back to two things: (1.) the Gospel of John pre-dates the 2nd c., and (2.) Logos “Theology” pre-dates the first century. John (like Justin) draws from Logos “Theology” to advance and develop their Logos “Christology,” drawing upon themes found in ancient Jewish literature which predate the 1st c., of which the Jewish Targums are exemplars.

To suggest that Polycarp was ignorant of the Gospel of John tells me that you yourself are up for quite a bit of surprise: Polycarp was the bishop of the church at Smyrna. And on multiple accounts, Ignatius (a “Logos Christology” theologian) wrote letters to the church in Smyrna and to Polycarp himself. And in those letters, Ignatius draws from the Gospel of John more times than any other Gospel. You are only interested in what Polycarp wrote (and only considering a very small pool of data in the process), ignoring the fact that Polycarp was also the recipient of multiple letters penned by none other that Ignatius himself.

Why then does Polycarp not reference the Gospel of John in his letter of only ~2,300 words? Well, probably for the same reason you also didn’t allude to the other ~179,000 words in the NT (approximations for illustration purposes only). Is the purpose of Polycarp’s letter to redistribute an entire copy of the NT? Or is he interested in “local” affairs of the Philippians church like the opening of his letter states? And should everyone (including you) recite the entire NT each time you write a letter? How about you read Polycarp’s introduction and tell me why he didn’t cite the Gospel of John?

Now I feel guilty for murder. God forgive me for what I am about to do.

With respect your points don’t really answere, provide any proof /argument to the points raised;

The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, generally thought to be from around 135 CE, never quotes from John, and never even alludes to it. Yet other New Testament writings are quoted abundantly in his letter.

Justin Martyr does not explicitly mention John’s Gospel or does he?

Thomas did not gain success as it does not comply with the crucifixion narrative

P66 etc... they at best date around AD 200.

 

[Needevidence]

But there is just one “small” problem... . Okay, so I lied: It's “big.” Real big.

Isaiah 9 is apart of a larger discourse that points back to Isaiah 8. Isaiah 9:1 opens with the words, “But there will be no more gloom…” which suggests the author is finishing a line of thought that stems from the previous chapter (hence the word, “But”). When in 9:1 it makes reference to, “But there will be no more gloom,” this points back to what the author was referring to in 8:22, “Then they will look to the earth, and behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish; and they will be driven away into darkness.”

Here’s why this is significant: Because the very language — from the very same book, and from the very same context — which you suggest doesn’t refer to Jesus as “Almighty God,” is infact appropriated to “the Lord” Jesus (1 Peter 3:14–15) following the exact same pattern the OT uses of YHWH, the Almighty (Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX),

​

Isaiah 8:12-13 LXX​

τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ φοβηθῆτε οὐδὲ μὴ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε​

But do not fear what it fears, or be in dread; honor the Lord himself as holy​

​

1 Peter 3:14-15​

τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε​

But do not fear what they fear, or be in dread, but honor Christ the Lord as holy​

It is frequently pointed out that κύριον (“Lord”) is used as the surrogate for the Divine Name, especially in Septuagint-YHWH passages (i.e., Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX). Additionally, in Isaiah 10:21, YHWH is also referred to as the “Mighty God.” So the entire notion that Isaiah 9:6 only refers to Jesus as the “Mighty God,” and not the “Almighty God” is refuted on two fronts: The NT’s application of Isaiah 8:12–13 of Jesus, and Isaiah 10:21’s reference to YHWH as “Mighty God.”

Not to mention that 1 Peter 2:8 also draws on themes found in Isaiah 8.

Again you arguments dont provide proof;

Isaiah says fear the Lord implying God – Peter adds Jesus to it so really he doesn’t quote the OT correctly.

Mark (12:29) Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (his not talking about himself)

Lord - Many are called Lord - Abraham, Joseph, Easu etc…

Gen 19:1-2 1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground.

2 And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” And they said, “No, but we will spend the night in the open square.”

Its the writer who decides when to use capital or not.

 

[Needevidence]

There's even more problems with this, of which (in anticipation of your response) I addressed in Post #323 and Post #352:



Why then, do you go on to cite 1 Cor. 8:6 and Col. 1:16-17, when both are in direct opposition to what you said here? Remember, we want to “interact” with what has been stated by proving what was stated, as “incorrect.”

your posts have been noted and a copy and paste of your posts were sent - again nothing proves your point. Should it be proving that you are wrong or you proving that you are right with evidence?

the 2 Cor passages don’t support you, unless you read them in a bias way.

 

[Mem]

the 2 Cor passages don’t support you, unless you read them in a bias way.

Isn't this the nature of the double edge sword though? In reading your nick "Needevidence," I couldn't help but be reminded that "faith is substance, the evidence of things not seen." So, as long as there is bias, whatever one's bias is, it is unavoidable that one will read it with a bias attachment. That is, until one considers how it can, indeed, be read, and the possibility of that reading actually being the correct reading of it.
However, man tendency is to approach subjects with predetermined conclusions without much self-examination beforehand.

 

[williamjordan]

With respect your points don’t really answere, provide any proof /argument to the points raised;

The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, generally thought to be from around 135 CE, never quotes from John, and never even alludes to it. Yet other New Testament writings are quoted abundantly in his letter.

Justin Martyr does not explicitly mention John’s Gospel or does he?

Thomas did not gain success as it does not comply with the crucifixion narrative

P66 etc... they at best date around AD 200.

Yes, the points actually do provide an "answer." But you are either too “unwilling” to accept the response, or are trying everything in your power not to follow the argument, which is why I was hesitant to even spend time responding.

Why should anyone expect a ~2,300 word document (Polycarp's letter to the Philippians) to cite John? Why should he have quoted John? What would have been the purpose of quoting John? How would have quoting John made the same point he was making by quoting his choice passage? Read Polycarp's letter in light of the words that are explicitly on the page. Where do you suppose would have been the “grandiose” place to have even had mentioned the Gospel of John, at all? When Polycarp alludes to Gal. 4:26 (“she is the mother of us all”), at what moment in the Gospel of John do you suppose he could have supplemented in its place and still made the same point? Why should anyone expect a ~2,300 word document to cite every part of the NT, which is well over ~180,000 words? It is not even remotely plausible or realistic to think that Polycarp should have mentioned certain portions of the NT he thought was “fitting” to the current situation that gave rise for the reason of writing his letter in the first place. Polycarp cited less than 0.01% of the NT in his letter to the Philippians. Does that mean he didn’t accept the other 99.99%?

Polycarp makes multiple references to Ignatius in his letter to the Philippians. If he disagreed with Ignatius, then he would not have been so embracing of him or what he taught. The data pool for Polycarp is too small, and you have to make all sort of “leaps,” without “proof” to say he did not regard the Gospel of John as genuine. By “proof,” that means we should have hard evidence to suggest that he (Polycarp) expresses resentment towards the Gospel of John. Where is the letter where Polycarp writes to the churches, warning them not to accept the Gospel of John? It doesn’t exist. If it’s the “silence” you accept as “proof,” then “silence” is self-refuting.

Instead of speaking out against Ignatius or the Gospel of John, Polycarp writes (within the very letter we are discussing),

“Both you and Ignatius wrote to me, that if any one went [from this] into Syria, he should carry your letter with him; which request I will attend to if I find a fitting opportunity, either personally, or through some other acting for me, that your desire may be fulfilled. The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord. Any more certain information you may have obtained respecting both Ignatius himself, and those that were with him, have the goodness to make known to us.”

This suggests that Polycarp was well aware of more than just one of Ignatius’ letters, but also letters from other individuals that wrote directly to him. This also indicates that he himself (Polycarp) probably wrote more than one letter in his life. We just don’t have access to it.

Perhaps it would suffice you to try reading Polycarp's NT references, and ask yourself, "Where else in the NT (specifically the Gospel of John) could he have alluded and still made the same point?"

Just because you think Polycarp should have mentioned the Gospel of John (and doesn't), doesn't prove anything at all. Who are you to tell Polycarp how he should write his letter? If we held you to the same standard you held Polycarp to, then we could say you dismiss all the OT, and likely 99.99% of the NT. You need to hold yourself to the very standard standard you try to hold Polycarp to.

In all of our interactions, you nowhere made mention to Mark 1:1-3. Does that mean you reject it? Or what about the Epistle to the Philippians? Polycarp alludes to Philippians on multiple occasions, does that mean he accepts that one and you reject it, because you nowhere reference it?

 

[williamjordan]

Again you arguments dont provide proof;

Isaiah says fear the Lord implying God – Peter adds Jesus to it so really he doesn’t quote the OT correctly.

Mark (12:29) Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (his not talking about himself)

Lord - Many are called Lord - Abraham, Joseph, Easu etc…

Gen 19:1-2 1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground.

2 And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” And they said, “No, but we will spend the night in the open square.”

Its the writer who decides when to use capital or not.

Um, no. 1 Peter places a Christological emphasis on the OT passage in question. I am simply allowing the NT to explain Isaiah 8-9. You, however, are forced to take on an interpretation that stands in contrast from 1 Peter. You made the claim that Isaiah 9 does not refer to Christ as the God of Israel. But on what authority can you say that? I have 1 Peter 2:8 and 3:14-15 that places Christ directly into the middle of the OT context. I do not need to "jump through hoops" to make the connection; I just let the NT provide insight before I provide my "skillfull" lens.

That suggests that youre interpretation of Isaiah 9 is out of kilter with NT. For one, you are trying to cite Ps. 82 to explain Isaiah 9:6, but the NT or the OT never bridge a connection between Isaiah 9 and Ps. 82. And in the place where Ps. 82 is cited (Jn. 10), nowhere is Isaiah 9 referenced or alluded to.

 

[williamjordan]

Again you arguments dont provide proof;

Isaiah says fear the Lord implying God – Peter adds Jesus to it so really he doesn’t quote the OT correctly.

Mark (12:29) Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (his not talking about himself)

Lord - Many are called Lord - Abraham, Joseph, Easu etc…

Gen 19:1-2 1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground.

2 And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” And they said, “No, but we will spend the night in the open square.”

Its the writer who decides when to use capital or not.

Perhaps you need to re-read Abraham’s “angelic”-like encounter in Gen. 18–19. Nowhere in Gen. 18 does the text indicate that the messengers are “angels” in the sense that you intend it to be taken (that they are created celestial beings from another realm). Gen. 18 identifies these messengers as “men,” but of course (at least up to this point in the narrative) the context does seem to imply that these “men” are from a foreign realm. So it is plausible to think they are some sort of celestial beings, but that they are created celestial beings (or heavenly hosts) is an inference. Up to this point, it is left on the reader to decide from the text just how many (if not all) are actually heavenly celestial hosts. However, when we turn to Gen. 19, the text explicitly identifies at least two of these figures as “angels,” which doesn’t necessarily carry the import of being “created celestial beings,” but nevertheless, they are never referred to with the Divine Name (of which is uniquely reserved for the third).

And this is exactly what stands against your interpretation: Of these three “messengers,” only one actually speaks and acts as God. Only one actually carries the Divine Name. If these “angels” are each messengers of God, and thereby have been given authority to speak and act on behalf of God, then why do not all three speak and act with such authority? In the narrative, we only see one figure that actually carries such authority. And the narrator identifies that one (and only that one) as YHWH. If agents can be referred to as the one who sent them (in this scenario, YHWH), why doesn’t the narrator utilize the Divine Name for the other two agents?

It is not the writer that decides upon the capitalization. Rather, it is from the fact that the OT uses the Divine Name. Had it ever occured to you that in the OT there are actually two different terms translated as, “Lord”? Gen. 18:12-13 is a great example.

 

[Needevidence]

Yes, the points actually do provide an "answer." But you are either too “unwilling” to accept the response, or are trying everything in your power not to follow the argument, which is why I was hesitant to even spend time responding.

Why should anyone expect a ~2,300 word document (Polycarp's letter to the Philippians) to cite John? Why should he have quoted John? What would have been the purpose of quoting John? How would have quoting John made the same point he was making by quoting his choice passage? Read Polycarp's letter in light of the words that are explicitly on the page. Where do you suppose would have been the “grandiose” place to have even had mentioned the Gospel of John, at all? When Polycarp alludes to Gal. 4:26 (“she is the mother of us all”), at what moment in the Gospel of John do you suppose he could have supplemented in its place and still made the same point? Why should anyone expect a ~2,300 word document to cite every part of the NT, which is well over ~180,000 words? It is not even remotely plausible or realistic to think that Polycarp should have mentioned certain portions of the NT he thought was “fitting” to the current situation that gave rise for the reason of writing his letter in the first place. Polycarp cited less than 0.01% of the NT in his letter to the Philippians. Does that mean he didn’t accept the other 99.99%?

Polycarp makes multiple references to Ignatius in his letter to the Philippians. If he disagreed with Ignatius, then he would not have been so embracing of him or what he taught. The data pool for Polycarp is too small, and you have to make all sort of “leaps,” without “proof” to say he did not regard the Gospel of John as genuine. By “proof,” that means we should have hard evidence to suggest that he (Polycarp) expresses resentment towards the Gospel of John. Where is the letter where Polycarp writes to the churches, warning them not to accept the Gospel of John? It doesn’t exist. If it’s the “silence” you accept as “proof,” then “silence” is self-refuting.

Instead of speaking out against Ignatius or the Gospel of John, Polycarp writes (within the very letter we are discussing),



This suggests that Polycarp was well aware of more than just one of Ignatius’ letters, but also letters from other individuals that wrote directly to him. This also indicates that he himself (Polycarp) probably wrote more than one letter in his life. We just don’t have access to it.

Perhaps it would suffice you to try reading Polycarp's NT references, and ask yourself, "Where else in the NT (specifically the Gospel of John) could he have alluded and still made the same point?"

Just because you think Polycarp should have mentioned the Gospel of John (and doesn't), doesn't prove anything at all. Who are you to tell Polycarp how he should write his letter? If we held you to the same standard you held Polycarp to, then we could say you dismiss all the OT, and likely 99.99% of the NT. You need to hold yourself to the very standard standard you try to hold Polycarp to.

In all of our interactions, you nowhere made mention to Mark 1:1-3. Does that mean you reject it? Or what about the Epistle to the Philippians? Polycarp alludes to Philippians on multiple occasions, does that mean he accepts that one and you reject it, because you nowhere reference it?

Perhaps you need to re-read Abraham’s “angelic”-like encounter in Gen. 18–19. Nowhere in Gen. 18 does the text indicate that the messengers are “angels” in the sense that you intend it to be taken (that they are created celestial beings from another realm). Gen. 18 identifies these messengers as “men,” but of course (at least up to this point in the narrative) the context does seem to imply that these “men” are from a foreign realm. So it is plausible to think they are some sort of celestial beings, but that they are created celestial beings (or heavenly hosts) is an inference. Up to this point, it is left on the reader to decide from the text just how many (if not all) are actually heavenly celestial hosts. However, when we turn to Gen. 19, the text explicitly identifies at least two of these figures as “angels,” which doesn’t necessarily carry the import of being “created celestial beings,” but nevertheless, they are never referred to with the Divine Name (of which is uniquely reserved for the third).

And this is exactly what stands against your interpretation: Of these three “messengers,” only one actually speaks and acts as God. Only one actually carries the Divine Name. If these “angels” are each messengers of God, and thereby have been given authority to speak and act on behalf of God, then why do not all three speak and act with such authority? In the narrative, we only see one figure that actually carries such authority. And the narrator identifies that one (and only that one) as YHWH. If agents can be referred to as the one who sent them (in this scenario, YHWH), why doesn’t the narrator utilize the Divine Name for the other two agents?

It is not the writer that decides upon the capitalization. Rather, it is from the fact that the OT uses the Divine Name. Had it ever occured to you that in the OT there are actually two different terms translated as, “Lord”? Gen. 18:12-13 is a great example.

Perhaps you need to re-read Abraham’s “angelic”-like encounter in Gen. 18–19. Nowhere in Gen. 18 does the text indicate that the messengers are “angels” in the sense that you intend it to be taken (that they are created celestial beings from another realm). Gen. 18 identifies these messengers as “men,” but of course (at least up to this point in the narrative) the context does seem to imply that these “men” are from a foreign realm. So it is plausible to think they are some sort of celestial beings, but that they are created celestial beings (or heavenly hosts) is an inference. Up to this point, it is left on the reader to decide from the text just how many (if not all) are actually heavenly celestial hosts. However, when we turn to Gen. 19, the text explicitly identifies at least two of these figures as “angels,” which doesn’t necessarily carry the import of being “created celestial beings,” but nevertheless, they are never referred to with the Divine Name (of which is uniquely reserved for the third).

And this is exactly what stands against your interpretation: Of these three “messengers,” only one actually speaks and acts as God. Only one actually carries the Divine Name. If these “angels” are each messengers of God, and thereby have been given authority to speak and act on behalf of God, then why do not all three speak and act with such authority? In the narrative, we only see one figure that actually carries such authority. And the narrator identifies that one (and only that one) as YHWH. If agents can be referred to as the one who sent them (in this scenario, YHWH), why doesn’t the narrator utilize the Divine Name for the other two agents?

It is not the writer that decides upon the capitalization. Rather, it is from the fact that the OT uses the Divine Name. Had it ever occured to you that in the OT there are actually two different terms translated as, “Lord”? Gen. 18:12-13 is a great example.

Perhaps you need to re-read Abraham’s “angelic”-like encounter in Gen. 18–19. Nowhere in Gen. 18 does the text indicate that the messengers are “angels” in the sense that you intend it to be taken (that they are created celestial beings from another realm). Gen. 18 identifies these messengers as “men,” but of course (at least up to this point in the narrative) the context does seem to imply that these “men” are from a foreign realm. So it is plausible to think they are some sort of celestial beings, but that they are created celestial beings (or heavenly hosts) is an inference. Up to this point, it is left on the reader to decide from the text just how many (if not all) are actually heavenly celestial hosts. However, when we turn to Gen. 19, the text explicitly identifies at least two of these figures as “angels,” which doesn’t necessarily carry the import of being “created celestial beings,” but nevertheless, they are never referred to with the Divine Name (of which is uniquely reserved for the third).

And this is exactly what stands against your interpretation: Of these three “messengers,” only one actually speaks and acts as God. Only one actually carries the Divine Name. If these “angels” are each messengers of God, and thereby have been given authority to speak and act on behalf of God, then why do not all three speak and act with such authority? In the narrative, we only see one figure that actually carries such authority. And the narrator identifies that one (and only that one) as YHWH. If agents can be referred to as the one who sent them (in this scenario, YHWH), why doesn’t the narrator utilize the Divine Name for the other two agents?

It is not the writer that decides upon the capitalization. Rather, it is from the fact that the OT uses the Divine Name. Had it ever occured to you that in the OT there are actually two different terms translated as, “Lord”? Gen. 18:12-13 is a great example.

 

[Needevidence]

Again, none of your comments provide any evidence or proof, it’s you opinion and how you interpret them

Polycarp, he did not mention John yet mentions others - that’s just 1 point. Although I generally have a similar opinion to you - this is your opinion on matters. Gen was just one example than others were called Lord - NT not the OT the writers have decided what’s capital, space etc... NT not quoting the OT it has changed/added to it that’s the difference.

The responder has stated that this conversation has expanded too wide – he has asked you to pick one specific topic and he is happy to respond – he says he can prove any of the Christians main beliefs are wrong.

 

[Needevidence]

Im not sure if the above response #374 went to you so replied again

 

[Needevidence]

How do you not see what is so “obviously,” wrong? Let's begin by pointing at the “elephant in the room.” Your post begins by suggesting,

• The mind of the time – no one at the time of Jesus or before (the Israelites) ever considered the trinity.

But then you go on to suggest the following:

• Gospel of John
• historical record of the gospel not until the end of the 2nd century
• 2nd century Justin Martyr advocated a logos Christology without citing John’s Gospel explicitly. Such an omission would be strange if it had existed.

Are you suggesting that Justin Martyr advocated a Logos Christology without referencing the Gospel of John? And if so, how so? The question that needs to be asked then, is simple: What then (if not for the Gospel of John) pressed Justin Martyr towards a Logos Christology in the first place?

After all, according to you, the Gospel of John post-dates Justin, right? Isn’t that really the purpose that underly bullet points #2 and #3 (that the Gospel of John's “historical records” are late 2nd c.)? If John’s gospel is 2nd c., then you have an even bigger problem: What you go onto say in bullet point one, “no one at the time of Jesus or before (the Israelites) ever considered the Trinity.” Because something has to account or explain it’s (Logos Christology) rise. And if not for the Gospel of John, then what?

Now I happen to agree, that it was not really the Gospel of John that gave rise to Logos Christology, but that it (the Gospel of John) is in tune with the 1st c. “mind of the time.”

Justin Martyr was a 1st c. Jew. And he was writing to Trypho, who was also a 1st c. Jew. And they were discussing a topic that was completely consistent with Jewish thought and literature from the period. You made the comment that no one at the time of Jesus (or before) “ever considered the Trinity.” Meanwhile, so widely attested was Logos Christology by the 2nd c., that such a statement really begs the question.

If Logos Christology was not on the scene during the 1st c., then how does it become so widely attested by the 2nd c.? Because by the 2nd c. Logos Christology is so widely attested, that one cannot so easily explain its origins as a 2nd c. innovation. It did not just (out of the wind) pop up one day. Justin Martyr was not so persuasive that he alone could sway/captivate the mind and voices of the 2nd c. world.

By the 2nd c., the Gospel of John already had “wide geographic distribution.” It existed in multiple Greek copies from various geographic locales, existing in various textual streams. P66 is a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John with origins in the “Alexandrian tradition.” P75 is also a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Alexandrian tradition.” P90 is a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Alexandrian tradition.” P28 is a 2nd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Alexandrian tradition.” P5 is a 3rd c. Greek copy of the Gospel of John from the “Western tradition.” The Sahidic Coptic is a 3rd c. translation of the Gospel of John. Irenaeus is an author from the 2nd c. period and stands as a good “Western” representative. He, like his predecessor before him, Ignatius (also a “Western” representative), frequented the Gospel of John. Why is the Gospel of John being translated and recopied at a “worldwide level” if its origins are 2nd c.? Ancient literature does not travel that fast, and take considerable time (years, even) to circulate, debate, transcribe, translate, recopy, and redistribute, especially when everything is being transcribed by hand. Why are copyists, translators, and early church figures — and at a “global level” — already using literature (the Gospel of John) that you allege (or suggest) has its origins in the 2nd c.? The Gospel of John has widespread “geographic distribution” in the 2nd c., which indicates that its origins would have had to have been significantly earlier.

Even the very book you raise question on (“the Gospel of Thomas”) has clear allusions to the Gospel of John. The Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd c. pseudepigraphal work, and was likely “riding on the curtails” of the Gospel of John for its success. However, it did not gain traction or success it’s authors sought (like the Gospel of John had). The Gospel of John was broadly attested, recopied, and redistributed by scribes in various languages, in each their own tongue. The Gospel of Thomas was not. The Gospel of Thomas does not have the same widespread attestation, which indicates that it was not “widely accepted” in the Christian community.

This all points back to two things: (1.) the Gospel of John pre-dates the 2nd c., and (2.) Logos “Theology” pre-dates the first century. John (like Justin) draws from Logos “Theology” to advance and develop their Logos “Christology,” drawing upon themes found in ancient Jewish literature which predate the 1st c., of which the Jewish Targums are exemplars.

To suggest that Polycarp was ignorant of the Gospel of John tells me that you yourself are up for quite a bit of surprise: Polycarp was the bishop of the church at Smyrna. And on multiple accounts, Ignatius (a “Logos Christology” theologian) wrote letters to the church in Smyrna and to Polycarp himself. And in those letters, Ignatius draws from the Gospel of John more times than any other Gospel. You are only interested in what Polycarp wrote (and only considering a very small pool of data in the process), ignoring the fact that Polycarp was also the recipient of multiple letters penned by none other that Ignatius himself.

Why then does Polycarp not reference the Gospel of John in his letter of only ~2,300 words? Well, probably for the same reason you also didn’t allude to the other ~179,000 words in the NT (approximations for illustration purposes only). Is the purpose of Polycarp’s letter to redistribute an entire copy of the NT? Or is he interested in “local” affairs of the Philippians church like the opening of his letter states? And should everyone (including you) recite the entire NT each time you write a letter? How about you read Polycarp’s introduction and tell me why he didn’t cite the Gospel of John?

Now I feel guilty for murder. God forgive me for what I am about to do.

Just to mention - mind of the time was at the time of Jesus and before what the Israelites understood - not after Jesus ascended and the Gospels are after Jesus.

 

[CS1]

With respect your points don’t really answere, provide any proof /argument to the points raised;

The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, generally thought to be from around 135 CE, never quotes from John, and never even alludes to it. Yet other New Testament writings are quoted abundantly in his letter.

Justin Martyr does not explicitly mention John’s Gospel or does he?

Thomas did not gain success as it does not comply with the crucifixion narrative

P66 etc... they at best date around AD 200.

FYI Polycarp was John's student. He knew the Apostle John and was his Disciple.

 

[bluto]

Again, none of your comments provide any evidence or proof, it’s you opinion and how you interpret them

Polycarp, he did not mention John yet mentions others - that’s just 1 point. Although I generally have a similar opinion to you - this is your opinion on matters. Gen was just one example than others were called Lord - NT not the OT the writers have decided what’s capital, space etc... NT not quoting the OT it has changed/added to it that’s the difference.

The responder has stated that this conversation has expanded too wide – he has asked you to pick one specific topic and he is happy to respond – he says he can prove any of the Christians main beliefs are wrong.

Now this is interesting! I'm referring to this statement of yours, "none of your comments provide any evidence or proof, it’s you opinion and how you interpret them" Perhaps you can explain to all of us here what your methodology is in determining truth? My methodology is called exercising valid reasoning to determine the truth represented in the evidence.

Yours is not, and what do I base that on? Your just stated, "Polycarp, he did not mention John yet mentions others." Over the years I have dealt with ignorant dilettantes like you or the persons you represent. The simple fact is, (as it relates to your comment about Polycarp) is a classic argument from silence.

This means that any argument (or premise) that is based on the ABSENCE of evidence is an argument from silence. Your premise is fallacious, based on the premise of the ABSENCE of a selected bit of evidence, while at the same time you state Polycarp mentions others. In short, your contradicting yourself.

I went through your laundry list of what you called "bullet points." which in my opinion are "blanks." You mentioned Genesis 1:1 does not mention the word. This is another "argument from silence." Did you or your friends ever notice that at John 1:1 it starts out with the words, "in the beginning" just like Genesis 1:1 says, "in the beginning?"

The "Word/Logos" was there before the creation of the space, mass, and time. In other words, John's "beginning" even antecedes the Genesis "beginning," extending without an initial beginning into eternity past before even time was created. This means that the Genesis 1 beginning is pointing out "WHAT HAPPEND" in the beginning. The main thought of John's beginning is on "WHO EXISTED" in the beginning.

I have a suggestion, seek the Lord first and I guarantee you that all your questions will be cleared up. Please read the following verses, Isaiah 55:6, Deuteronomy 4:29, Jeremiah 29:13, Hebrews 11:6 and especially Revelation 3:20, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come into him, and will dine with him, and he with Me. What's preventing you from doing what Jesus says?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Needevidence]

FYI Polycarp was John's student. He knew the Apostle John and was his Disciple.

Precisely the point, but doesn’t mention him

 

[CS1]

Precisely the point, but doesn’t mention him

John did not ? or Polycarp?