So having reviewed how "Hell" evolved into existence, now we turn to another important distinction between Christianity and Judaism, that we need an intercessor with the divine in order to achieve salvation. As I've touched on earlier with my quotes both of the 10 Commandments and Yahweh's rant in Isaiah 43:10-12, it's clear that the Jewish god is a jealous figure who demands direct attention from his chosen people and tolerates no middle-man. So how is it that the same god fades into the background while his son takes center stage?
Modern Christians often go to the Trinity as the way out of this conundrum. Jesus can forgive sins and grant salvation because he is God-incarnate (or a part of the Triune god). To be generous, we can overlook the tautology that this creates with John 16:4, turning the phrase into "no man cometh unto me except by me."
Yet where is such a Trinity to be found in the original Synoptic Gospels, the accounts which surely must be the most accurate for their relative internal agreement ("relative" is the key qualifier here but that's another topic for another time) as well as the fact that they were the first accounts and therefore the least likely to have been altered (the more time oral tradition has before being penned, the less reliable it is). Search the Synoptic Gospels in vein for any indication that Jesus was supposed to be god incarnate. The closest Christians can come is a chapter where Matthew misquotes Isaiah 7, and even this chapter is a reference to "God (is) with us". I feel confident in adding the verb "is" because of the context of the entire chapter, where the message of Isaiah is "we will prevail over the Syrians because we have a sign that God is with us". The Syrians won that conflict. Perhaps they had iron chariots. Sorry, couldn't help that dig. Moving on...
Reading the Synoptic Gospels, it's clear that Jesus was a separate being from and completely subordinate to his father-god.
Jesus has less knowledge than his father:
Jesus has a separate and subordinate will to his father:
Jesus and his father speak to each other in second person and of each other in third person:
It's only in the Gospel of John that Jesus becomes the bombastic God-incarnate character:
This was a doctrine that not all Christians at the time accepted (see my earlier post on the wild variety of Christianities that existed in the first few centuries). Given how it appeared in the latest of the four Gospels, it seems like Christians realized reconciling the pagan idea of a intercessor with the divine was incompatible with strict Jewish monotheism and posited the avatar concept (avatar being essentially a human suit that the gods of ancient times wore when mingling with mortals) as a solution. But then if Jesus is an avatar of Yahweh, why doesn't Jesus have the same knowledge and will of Yahweh and why doesn't he say so instead of talking to/of himself in second/third person?
Religion, like art, tends to evolve over time until it is set in stone by scripture. During the first few centuries, there was no New Testament. This new religion, being born, was prone to influences from neighboring cultures. Judea was on the cross-roads to three continents, after all, and Rome helped to tie many of these disparate cultures into one nation. Virtually no apologist denies that major Christian holidays like "Easter" and "Christmas" have heavy pagan influences.
Christians may like to think that their religion is the fulfillment of Judaism but the Jews of the time had no concept of Hell nor the need for an intercessor to the divine. A better understanding of Christianity is as the offspring of Judaism and paganism as it explains the foreign concepts to Judaism.
So why was the hybrid religion created? Tune in next time...
Modern Christians often go to the Trinity as the way out of this conundrum. Jesus can forgive sins and grant salvation because he is God-incarnate (or a part of the Triune god). To be generous, we can overlook the tautology that this creates with John 16:4, turning the phrase into "no man cometh unto me except by me."
Yet where is such a Trinity to be found in the original Synoptic Gospels, the accounts which surely must be the most accurate for their relative internal agreement ("relative" is the key qualifier here but that's another topic for another time) as well as the fact that they were the first accounts and therefore the least likely to have been altered (the more time oral tradition has before being penned, the less reliable it is). Search the Synoptic Gospels in vein for any indication that Jesus was supposed to be god incarnate. The closest Christians can come is a chapter where Matthew misquotes Isaiah 7, and even this chapter is a reference to "God (is) with us". I feel confident in adding the verb "is" because of the context of the entire chapter, where the message of Isaiah is "we will prevail over the Syrians because we have a sign that God is with us". The Syrians won that conflict. Perhaps they had iron chariots. Sorry, couldn't help that dig. Moving on...
Reading the Synoptic Gospels, it's clear that Jesus was a separate being from and completely subordinate to his father-god.
Jesus has less knowledge than his father:
Quote:Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Jesus has a separate and subordinate will to his father:
Quote:Matt 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Jesus and his father speak to each other in second person and of each other in third person:
Quote:Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son;in thee I am well pleased.
It's only in the Gospel of John that Jesus becomes the bombastic God-incarnate character:
Quote:John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
This was a doctrine that not all Christians at the time accepted (see my earlier post on the wild variety of Christianities that existed in the first few centuries). Given how it appeared in the latest of the four Gospels, it seems like Christians realized reconciling the pagan idea of a intercessor with the divine was incompatible with strict Jewish monotheism and posited the avatar concept (avatar being essentially a human suit that the gods of ancient times wore when mingling with mortals) as a solution. But then if Jesus is an avatar of Yahweh, why doesn't Jesus have the same knowledge and will of Yahweh and why doesn't he say so instead of talking to/of himself in second/third person?
Religion, like art, tends to evolve over time until it is set in stone by scripture. During the first few centuries, there was no New Testament. This new religion, being born, was prone to influences from neighboring cultures. Judea was on the cross-roads to three continents, after all, and Rome helped to tie many of these disparate cultures into one nation. Virtually no apologist denies that major Christian holidays like "Easter" and "Christmas" have heavy pagan influences.
Christians may like to think that their religion is the fulfillment of Judaism but the Jews of the time had no concept of Hell nor the need for an intercessor to the divine. A better understanding of Christianity is as the offspring of Judaism and paganism as it explains the foreign concepts to Judaism.
So why was the hybrid religion created? Tune in next time...
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
