So who is the holy ghost then?.

[mikebravo]

On the Cross, Jesus said, 'Father forgive them, for they know not what they do'. If God is the father, and Jesus and God are one, who was he talking to?.

[Clanad]

Keyplus, I think your objections have been adequately answered by previous posters... However, your own belief system accepts the historicity of Yeshua, just not His claim to be the Son of God.
Most members of Islam I know personally accept most of the Old Covenant, especially since it describes the Genesis (no pun intended) of Ishmael and descent from "father" Abram (later to become Abraham), without which there would be no Arab race. If that's a true statement, then who was Elohim speaking to (Gen.1:12)?
While it is true the word "trinity" does not appear in the New or Old Covenant, the concept of the three-in-one (but, yet only one) is well demonstrated. There are also numerous appearances of the pre-Incarnate Yeshua in the Old Covenant... examples on request (for brevity's sake).
Additionally, the nomeclature for Christian was first introduced in Antioch (Acts 11:19-26) as early as the middle 50's AD.
I think your exercise in funambulism re: water, only serves to support my numinous exposition of the example... Have a great day!

[jake-the-peg]

While it is true the word "trinity" does not appear in the New or Old Covenant, the concept of the three-in-one (but, yet only one) is well demonstrated

Please enlighten us as to this demonstration

[mike11111]

The Trinity is mentioned in St John's gospel, something which the JWs conveniently circumvent by asserting that most 'scholars' agree that this verse was a later spurious addition to the text.

[jake-the-peg]

Discussion here:

http://catholicwriter...ospel-of-st-john.html

I think the father and son stuff is quite well supported but not the Holy Ghost.

That seems to rely on quotes like "I will send you one that comes from the Father" That could as easily related to the notion of an Angel.

However having said all that John is the odd one out it is not a synoptic Gospel and there is no cross validation with other testaments

[Clanad]

It's a personal preference Mike... if time travel were possible and one could be transported to Nazareth in, say 25AD and one would inquire as to the whereabouts of this man one would ask for "Yeshua ben Joseph". Or more accurately "Yeshua ben Miriam".
Additionally (and more importantly) the name "Jesus", while a reasonably accurate transliteration of Yeshua is often used (as I'm sure you're aware) as a curse word recognized throughout the English speaking world (and others).
I think one of the more pronounced problems that arises in a reasonable discussion about "religion" between European and U.K. vs. American audiences, is that the U.K. and European models rely on Catholicisim and C. of E.as paradigms. Especially on the concept of "being good" and as the way to approach God, whereas the U.S. evangelical churches (Pentecostal or fundamentalists?) relies only on a personal relationship with the Creator gained only by acceptance of the 2nd Person of the Trinity as who he said He was... the perfect sacrifice who paid all of everyone's sin debt... available to anyone without reservation as an absolutely free gift... no strings attached.
At the same time, simple yet complex, as we should expect of an infinite Being capable of creation of everything from absolutely nothing... but I digress...
I only wish to point out this basic difference which forms barriers for equitable discussion...
Thanks for your comments!

[mike11111]

The Roman Catholic and Anglican churches may cloak themselves in teachings and practices which could create a smoke screen but essentially they are ways of affirming the same belief as that held by American protestant churches. To that extent, salvation through the name of Jesus alone is common to all.

[Clanad]

Good to see you, jake... especailly in these exremely short days of mid-winter...

Look, there are numerous references to the Holy Spirit... Acts 5: 3-4, Psalm 139: 7-8 (for His omnipresence), and 1 Corinthians 2:10–11 (relating to His omniscience).

Additionally, "There are Old and New Testament references to “angels of the Lord,” “an angel of the Lord,” and “the angel of the Lord.” It seems when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God (Genesis 16:7-12; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). In several of these appearances, those who saw the angel of the Lord feared for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” Therefore, it is clear that in at least some instances, the angel of the Lord is a theophany, an appearance of God in physical form" (Source: Got Questions?)
In many of these encounters, the humans fell down and worshipped the appearance... this was forbidden if it had only been an angel)
Finally, it should be noted that the appearances of "the" angel of the Lord cease after the incarnation of Christ. Angels are mentioned numerous times in the New Testament, but “the angel of the Lord” is never mentioned in the New Covenant. It is certainly possible that appearances of the angel of the Lord were manifestations of Yeshua before His incarnation... Yeshua declared Himself to be existent “before Abraham” (John 8:58), so it is logical that He would be active and manifest in the world...

[mike11111]

The Roman Catholic devotion of the Angelus begins, "The Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary", referring to the (Arch) Angel Gabriel.

[Clanad]

...An example, I think mike, of the pre-stated differences, no?

My references were Scriptural only... you know... Sola Scriptura, al la Luther...

But... thanks... always good to consider differing approaches...

[jake-the-peg]

I think the concept of a theophany,is pretty complex and precise. The fact that those who alledgegly saw it fell down "terrified because they had seen the Lord" is mighty skimpy evidence.

I love the expression "it is clear" in that quote - it often comes up when the evidence is thin.

"The humans fell down and worshiped it which would have been forbidden had it only been an angel"

Get out of here! are we expected to believe that a bunch of wondering nomads on seeing a celectial angelic being would beable to make such a distinction?

There are enough people who can't remember what colour car ran over their dog in the heat of the moment - let alone identify a theophany when encounterring a member of the angelic host.

This seems a classic example of over interpretation of available evidence to me

[chakka35]

Clanad, the trouble with all you have said is it has no firm historical basis. You quote gospel writers whose identities are unknown to us, which means that we have no idea whether they are liars or truth-tellers, historians or fantasists. Do you quote with equal confidence the exploits of Zeus and Apollo?

Objective and factual historical evidence is that, in line with the status of crucifixion as a demeaning death, no-one was allowed near the crosses.

In any case, in the highly unlikely event that all those people were there, getting under the feet of the Roman soldiers, who was it who recorded things? And where are the documents? All words, Clanad, and no substance.

[Clanad]

I assumed you'd be along shortly chakka, to reiterate your thesis that the writers of the Gospels were unknown. First, a question... is that your idea or did you get it from somewhere else?
Regardless, it is clear (thanks jake) that the students of the Disciples in the 1st century beleived they had all the evidence they required to identify the writers. Additionally, with the exception of Matthew, Paul (nee Saul), to whom you and others give a nod of authenticity, clearly (there's that word again) traveled with and was on speaking terms with the other writers... Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, with whom Paul traveled extensively seems to have no argument from Paul, who surely would have brought the good Doctor up short had he claimed authorship of book(s) for which he was not due. Paul met the "Pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem on at least two occasions and those meetings included James, the brother of the Christ, author of the Book bearing his name, and (John) Mark, with whom Paul had a falling out but later joyfully reconciled.
John the Revelators roll in the early church must have been significant, since, according to Acts 8.14, he, along with Peter were sent to Samaria when the Jerusalem Council heard that Samaria had accepted the Gospels.
Additionally, scholars will tell us there's no evidence of any "development" in the Gospels... that is, the earliest copies we have are the same as the latest copies... all from different sources. Nothing changed or "developed".
In Galatians 2:9 we find Paul stating: "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." Again, all writers in the New Covenant.
One of the many strong arg

[Clanad]

Contd.

One of the many strong arguments for authorship is written by historian James P. Meier:
"Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name. This suggests that they received their titles early; for if they had not, there would have been a great deal of speculation as to who had written them - "a variation of titles would have inevitably risen," as had happened with the apocryphal gospels... It is rather harder to believe that the Gospels circulated anonymously for 60 or more years and then someone finally thought to put authors on them -- and managed to get the whole church across the Roman Empire to agree".

Many skeptics, I fear, are unwilling to extend to the Gospels the same "type" of scrutiny readily granted other historical works equally as ancient... simply because of the subject matter... and, in my opinion, that's simply untenable and still be able to claim intellectual honesty. But, Chakka, I always appreciate your input... it, if nothing else, makes me refresh my own studies...

[chakka35]

Clanad, it is hardly surprising that I say the same things again since nothing has changed since we last talked of this! Since you are such a courteous man I have granted you, in turn, the courtesy of reading your long dissertation carefully, even though little of it is news to me. Alas, it is long on speculation, assumption and Church dogma and very short on hard fact. So here are those hard facts:

1.All four gospels were written anonymously. There is not a scholar who can deny that, which is why none has. They were given their present names quite arbitrarily late in the 2nd Century. So when you talk, say, of “Luke” you are not quoting an identifiable person, merely a name. Since we all agree that “Luke” also wrote “Acts…” the same anonymity applies there.

2.No gospel gives us any sources at all for its information. There is nothing from Jesus’ alleged time, not a word from anyone who knew him, from Roman or Jewish records or any contemporary historians. No ear- or eye-witness accounts by anyone. The first ever mention of Jesus was by Paul in his epistles (AD55-60) and he quotes no sources either.

Ergo, there is no historical basis for the Jesus story. You are, of course, fully entitled to believe it as a matter of faith, but you would be more accurate and honest in future if, instead of saying “John says that …” you were to say “The unknown author of ‘John’ claims that…”

Briefly, there is no evidence that the ‘James’ book was written by a brother of Jesus. Also it is not true that the gospels have not been ‘developed’: the most obvious example is that the original “Mark” gospel finished at Ch16, v.8 and the rest of the NT version was added by the Church. Again no scholar would argue.

In the interests of brevity, I’ll stop there but will enlarge on anyt

[chakka35]

...anything if you wish.

[Clanad]

First, chakka... we should agree that whatever the subject, debaters on any subject, let alone one as emotionally charged as Scripture, usually come to the table with a set of biases produced by their world view (or as our German friends more accurately state "Weltanschauung". It's equally true, that most choose to consult sources which support those biases. We are no different, I suspect.
Although I willingly read the sceptics pronouncements, in the back of my mind is the niggling thought that, for each tidbit of evidence proposed by the sceptic, there exists easily accessed, thoroughly researched examples of antithesis.
Ok... as far as "development"... your example fails to demonstrate the classic definition of that term when applied to ancient documents, especailly any dealing with dogma. Primarily it fails on the basis of a disagreement as to what happened, if anything, to the ending of Mark. The original could have been lost, destroyed, changed or simply ended at v.8. Regardless, and there's serious scholarly debate supporting each, every version of Mark one may read carries the parenthetical notation that the most ancient examples of Mark do not have the following verses. That's not development of dogma or changes in the thrust or meaning of the ideas in all the Gospels. That, my interesting friend, simply has not occurred in either the Old or New Covenants.
Secondly, a premier scholar, John Warwick Montgomery, . in his extensive work "History and Christianity" ponders "...Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews [i.e., Jews] in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure [i.e., death...], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of

[Clanad]

Contd.

of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast..., himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia"... and "... only John was well known among peers..." "That being the case, why would not those who came later attempt to attribute them to the "greatest apostles," Peter, James, and Paul, rather than to obscure companions, Mark and Luke, and an obscure apostle, Matthew?" Fair question, I maintain... no?
Further to James... I'm sure you know "...there are four James in the New Testament. Only two have been proposed as the author of this letter: James the son of Zebedee and James the half brother of Jesus. John the son of Zebedee was martyred in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2). The authoritative tone of the letter rules out the lesser known James son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2, 3). The half brother of Jesus became a strong leader in the Jerusalem church, and the likely author of the letter..." (Source: James: Everyday Faith).
That being reasonable, it's important to recognize the overt "Judaism" of the Book... leading Montgomery to comment "The author is so well known in the early church that the simple designation, "James, a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ" was sufficient to identify him at once to his readers." This was also noted during the Canonical conclaves of the second and third centuries wherein the Book was easily included...
Many scholars I read, both pro and con, place James as early as 48AD. However, study is ongoing to the distinct possiblilty that references found in the Dead Sea Scrolls may be attributed to James (for a number of reasons) and if subtantiated would place the Book as early as 35 to 37AD...
Look, I apologize for the length of these replies... but snippets simply would not explain the salient features important to this discussion...

[chakka35]

Clanad, I am going to divide you in two: Clanad 1 has answered many non-religious questions on AB and those answers have stuck to facts, have been very lucid and have shown great intelligence. Clanad 2 has allowed his religious beliefs to push aside all those fine attitudes: he evades points, clouds simple issues with a miasma of verbosity and outrageously declares as facts claims which are nothing of the sort. I address Clanad 2’s latest:

1.You are honest enough to admit to bias. I stick to hard facts so don’t need bias.

2.Regarding “Mark” you claim that the latest copies are the same as the earliest. I have already pointed out that that is not true. The NT version differs from the original. (The original also has a joke ending, saying that the women fled in fear “telling no-one”. So how do we know?) My own view is that “John” ch 21, which makes no sense following Ch 20, the obvious ending of that gospel, is the original ending of “Mark”. I can enlarge on that if you like.

3.JW Montgomery knows no more than anyone else; all he has is what we have: Paul+4 anonymous NT gospels+other anonymous non-NT gospels. He also uses “Matthew” as a name without telling us who he was.
There is not a shred of evidence that Peter ever went to Rome.
The idea that “Mark” was a disciple of Peter was invented by Bishop Eusebius, Constantine’s spin-doctor, writing in the 4th Century AD. He mooted that “Mark” was the son of the house where the Last Supper was held and who became Peter’s disciple. Sheer invention which needs no disproving (though it is worth considering why “Mark” never mentions what must have been the most tremendous episode on Peter’s life: his appointment as Jesus’ rep on earth and his role as first Bishop of Rome). cont'd....

[chakka35]

cont'd...
The idea that “John” was the disciple of that name is quite absurd. “John” was written somewhere around AD90-120 by which time any contemporary of Jesus would have been at an impossible age at a time that life expectation was 40-50. The apostle John was a simple, horny-handed Galileean fisherman who would have spoken Aramaic and was probably illiterate. What would he be doing in his extreme dotage writing in Greek a gospel full if mysticism and Hellenism? A risible notion.
No point in repeating what I said about James.

Clanad 1 would have realised that the only riposte to the charge that we don’t know who the gospel authors were would be for them to be named and described and their knowledge of Jesus explained. He would know that that is not possible. Clanad 2 also knows that that is not possible but refuses to concede the point.