But to go back to your cuboid, spherical and pyramidal objects.
How about taking (1) a circle/sphere to represent God, (2) a square/cube inside the circle/sphere to represent the Holy Spirit, and (3) a triangle/pyramid inside the square/cube to represent Jesus? — Apollodorus
A cube of clay that is then formed into a sphere and then into a pyramid is one and the same lump of clay through all of these transformations. The same clay, but with different properties. — Bartricks
what good reason is there for rejecting the 'same person, different properties' analysis? — Bartricks
How could one feel forsaken by one’s own consciousness? — Pinprick
What’s confusing to me is that Jesus is typically considered by Christians as flawless, or perfect, and divine. — Pinprick
To me that means he must have perfect knowledge in the same way God is presumed to have. — Pinprick
But if that’s the case, why all the questioning of God by Jesus? Shouldn’t he have known his fate (crucifixion) and agreed with it if his consciousness is one and the same as God’s? How could one feel forsaken by one’s own consciousness? — Pinprick
Seems to me, then, that you're seeing or making problems where there are none. — Bartricks
The ascription of divine status to Jesus and the accompanying devotional practices that are reflected in the New Testament arose only after—though astonishingly soon after—Jesus’ crucifixion. Key to this development were experiences (“visions”) of the resurrected Jesus, which generated in the earliest circles of Jewish believers the conviction that God had raised Jesus (bodily) from death and exalted him to a unique heavenly status and glory. Further developments in christological belief over the ensuing decades and centuries led to the classic doctrine of the Trinity ...
... To anyone familiar with a historical approach to the topic, these will not be novel conclusions. Indeed, they have been affirmed by a significant number of New Testament scholars, especially over the past several decades.
... Many Christians unacquainted with the historical data will assume that beliefs about Jesus’ divine status derive from Jesus’ own claims ... https://www.christiancentury.org/reviews/2014-07/lord-and-god
During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...
You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things. ...
I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.
Right at the same time that Christians were calling Jesus "God" is exactly when Romans started calling their emperors "God." So these Christians were not doing this in a vacuum; they were actually doing it in a context. I don't think this could be an accident that this is a point at which the emperors are being called "God." So by calling Jesus "God," in fact, it was a competition between your God, the emperor, and our God, Jesus.
When Constantine, the emperor, then converted to Christianity, it changed everything because now rather than the emperor being God, the emperor was the worshipper of the God, Jesus. That was quite a forceful change, and one could argue that it changed the understanding of religion and politics for all time.
https://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/300246095/if-jesus-never-called-himself-god-how-did-he-become-one
here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" — Fooloso4
First of all, you can’t even spell Ehrman’s name. — Apollodorus
The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general — Apollodorus
... To anyone familiar with a historical approach to the topic, these will not be novel conclusions. Indeed, they have been affirmed by a significant number of New Testament scholars, especially over the past several decades.
Daniel Wallace has argued that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct." — Apollodorus
Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known".
Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is widely used at American colleges and universities.
"Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock and Josh D. Chatraw have disputed Ehrman's depiction of scholarly consensus — Apollodorus
Michael R. Licona, notes, however, that "his thinking is hardly original, as his positions are those largely embraced by mainstream skeptical scholarship"
Gary Kamiya states in Salon that "Ehrman's scholarly standing did not soothe the evangelical Christians who were outraged by Misquoting Jesus. Angered by what they took to be the book's subversive import, they attacked it as exaggerated, unfair and lacking a devotional tone.
Ehrman is an atheist and anti-Christian agitator. I'm not surprised that you seem incapable of citing impartial sources in support of your spurious theories. — Apollodorus
He didn't. He was about to die and was reciting from Scripture, Psalm of David, Psalm 22:2 — Apollodorus
It should now be clear that this does not follow. One can be perfect and know everything - and one's knowing everything can be part of what makes one perfect - and one can be perfect and not know everything - and one's not knowing everything can be part of what makes on perfect. For again, there's more than one way to be perfect. — Bartricks
God's mind and Jesus's mind can be one and the same mind, without having to have the same content. I am the same mind as the mind I was yesterday, and yesterday I wrote a note to myself telling myself to do something today, something that I cannot today fathom the reasoning behind. There is no problem with this - I am wondering why I told myself to do X. — Bartricks
Correct. Pinprick doesn't have a clue. He is substituting imagination for fact. — Apollodorus
Taking statements out of context can lead to all kinds of interpretations or "conclusions" but that only amounts to deliberate misconstruction of the text, which is what Pinprick is doing for his own agenda. — Apollodorus
First of all, if I misspelled his name then so have you. — Fooloso4
here is a brief synopsis from a review of the eminent New Testament scholar's Bert Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" — Fooloso4
You skip the stuff about Ehrman's professorship at a major university, that his text on the history of early Christian writings is widely used in American colleges and universities, and that he serves on the board of several journals of Biblical scholarship. — Fooloso4
The fact that you are agitated by scholarly work on Christian history does not make him an agitator. — Fooloso4
I’m vaguely aware of how Christianity came to be, and I’m not trying to deny any of it. I wasn’t aware of much that’s been discussed, so it may just be a confused thread from a confused mind. — Pinprick
I don't need to "defend" the rationality of the Trinity because there is nothing irrational about it except in your imagination. — Apollodorus
As I said, it isn't in the least surprising that anti-Christian activists like yourself cite other anti-Christian activists like Ehrman as their "eminent authority". You aren't fooling anyone. — Apollodorus
I may not have a clue, but I’m not trying to imagine anything. I wasn’t aware he was reciting scripture. So I’m fine with tossing out that example. — Pinprick
There enough ways for you to doubt the Bible and enough reasons for Christians to see it as consistent. It depends of which eyes you use to read it — Gregory
Most US colleges and universities are notoriously dominated by atheists and anti-Christians like Ehrman. The same applies to journals of "Biblical scholarship". — Apollodorus
The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general.
According to Hurtado:
... To anyone familiar with a historical approach to the topic, these will not be novel conclusions. Indeed, they have been affirmed by a significant number of New Testament scholars, especially over the past several decades.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.