• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Discussion with Blackdog on the Divinity of Christ.

Please point out where I said anything about faith being based on speculation?

God is not bound by man's logic.

You call yourself a Christian, and yet you seem to be trying to deny Christs divinity.

So what is Jesus?

Evidence was pointed out to show Jesus is not God, and you appealed to "faith," which is a Cop out.

God is bound by Logic ... according to almost all theology, also our understanding of God must be logical.

It depends what you mean by "divinity," I don't believe he is God almighty, YHWH.

I believe Jesus was who he said he was, Gods son, the messiah, a man, and perhaps previously a spiritual creature who was distinct from YHWH (like an angel), and after ressurection, a spiritual creature in heaven also distinct from YHWH.

That is clearly what the scriptures teach.
 
Evidence was pointed out to show Jesus is not God, and you appealed to "faith," which is a Cop out.

It's not a cop out because it does boil down to faith...

Matthew 17:20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Looks like Jesus disagree's.

God is bound by Logic ... according to almost all theology, also our understanding of God must be logical.

Not according to the Bible...

Isaiah 55:8 8“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the LORD. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.


It depends what you mean by "divinity," I don't believe he is God almighty, YHWH.

I can except that.

I believe Jesus was who he said he was, Gods son, the messiah, a man, and perhaps previously a spiritual creature who was distinct from YHWH (like an angel), and after ressurection, a spiritual creature in heaven also distinct from YHWH.

That is clearly what the scriptures teach.

Well I will just disagree as even though you have convinced me the trinity is bull****, this however does not change his divine nature and the fact the only way to the father is through him, period.
 
It's not a cop out because it does boil down to faith...

Matthew 17:20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Yeah, but faith is always based on reason, if it isn't then you can just believe anything and say "its faith."

Looks like Jesus disagree's.

Not according to the Bible...

Isaiah 55:8 8“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the LORD. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.

That doesn't imply that God is illogical, or our concepts of God don't have to be logical.

Well I will just disagree as even though you have convinced me the trinity is bull****, this however does not change his divine nature and the fact the only way to the father is through him, period.

I agree with that, and the only way to be reconciled with God is through the grace of Jesus, but if you're talking about his "divine nature" you'd have to be specific to what that means, I surely agree that he is much more than a man (before and after his earthly time), but he is not the same as the father, which as I take it you agree to, so I think we basically agree.
 
Yeah, but faith is always based on reason, if it isn't then you can just believe anything and say "its faith."

Faith:

1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

You are completely wrong here by the accepted definition.

That doesn't imply that God is illogical, or our concepts of God don't have to be logical.

It absolutely implies his logic is beyond us. So to us it would seem illogical.

I agree with that, and the only way to be reconciled with God is through the grace of Jesus, but if you're talking about his "divine nature" you'd have to be specific to what that means, I surely agree that he is much more than a man (before and after his earthly time), but he is not the same as the father, which as I take it you agree to, so I think we basically agree.

He sits at the right hand of the father and all things are possible through him. This says he is more than some "spiritual creature."
 
Faith:

1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

You are completely wrong here by the accepted definition."

I'm using the biblical Definition in Hebrews 1:1.
Also #1, is a good definition, because we trust god, but that trust is based on evidence and reason.
2. Obviously we don't have mathematical proof (as we don't for tons and tons of things we believe) doesn't mean our faith isn't based on reason.

It absolutely implies his logic is beyond us. So to us it would seem illogical.

I don't think so, this is a deeper theological question, but although his knowlege and wisdom are far beyond ours, it woudln't contradict our logic, since we are the image of God.

He sits at the right hand of the father and all things are possible through him. This says he is more than some "spiritual creature."

What do you think that means though?

He sits at the right hand of the father yeah, he is king of Gods kingdom until he hands the kingdom over to the father, and all things for us are possible since he gave us salvation, none of that is inconsistant with my christology.
 
I'm using the biblical Definition in Hebrews 1:1.
Also #1, is a good definition, because we trust god, but that trust is based on evidence and reason.
2. Obviously we don't have mathematical proof (as we don't for tons and tons of things we believe) doesn't mean our faith isn't based on reason.

Hebrews 1:1 is not a definition of faith.

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

I don't think so, this is a deeper theological question, but although his knowlege and wisdom are far beyond ours, it woudln't contradict our logic, since we are the image of God.

It most likely would. Just look at non believers. They can't accept it now, and we know a whole lot more about the universe etc.

What do you think that means though?

He sits at the right hand of the father yeah, he is king of Gods kingdom until he hands the kingdom over to the father, and all things for us are possible since he gave us salvation, none of that is inconsistant with my christology.

That's the problem... Your Christology which is based on what? Logic?

Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with the mainstream Christian belief that Jesus was "fully God, fully man." Witnesses teach that Jesus was not God, but rather God's first creation. Jesus existed in pre-human form as God's agent of creation and God's chief spokesman (the Word), and took on human form as the man Jesus by means of a virgin birth.

The purpose of Jesus' incarnation on earth was threefold in the view of Witnesses: (1) To teach the truth about God; (2) to provide a model of a perfect life for people to follow; and (3) to sacrifice his life to set humans free from sin and death. His crucifixion was not on a cross, but a single upright stake. After his death, God raised Jesus from the dead "as a spirit creature" and Jesus returned to his home in heaven. Jesus was not made King, however, until 1914. (See End Times, below.) {3}
- Beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses - ReligionFacts

Most here would disagree as there is nothing logical about God in the OT or New.
 
Hebrews 1:1 is not a definition of faith.

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

My bad I meant 11:1

It most likely would. Just look at non believers. They can't accept it now, and we know a whole lot more about the universe etc.

I don't think that it follows AT ALL from that that theology should be not logical.

That's the problem... Your Christology which is based on what? Logic?

Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with the mainstream Christian belief that Jesus was "fully God, fully man." Witnesses teach that Jesus was not God, but rather God's first creation. Jesus existed in pre-human form as God's agent of creation and God's chief spokesman (the Word), and took on human form as the man Jesus by means of a virgin birth.

The purpose of Jesus' incarnation on earth was threefold in the view of Witnesses: (1) To teach the truth about God; (2) to provide a model of a perfect life for people to follow; and (3) to sacrifice his life to set humans free from sin and death. His crucifixion was not on a cross, but a single upright stake. After his death, God raised Jesus from the dead "as a spirit creature" and Jesus returned to his home in heaven. Jesus was not made King, however, until 1914. (See End Times, below.) {3}
- Beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses - ReligionFacts

Most here would disagree as there is nothing logical about God in the OT or New.

How is the first paragraph illogical? As for the second I'm not proporting any of that.

If you think that nothing is logical about God, then I don't see why you're debating, since debating presupposes logic.
 
My bad I meant 11:1

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Please point out how this is....

11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Is any different from this...

Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

You are off base on this.

I don't think that it follows AT ALL from that that theology should be not logical.

This made no sense. Please clarify?

How is the first paragraph illogical? As for the second I'm not proporting any of that.

If you think that nothing is logical about God, then I don't see why you're debating, since debating presupposes logic.

You have no argument, so you use a fallacy to try and distract from the fact that Belief in any God defy's logic because their is no proof of God's existence, none.

If you can show me one irrefutable piece of evidence that is observable and repeatable that God exist, I will concede.

God is a matter of faith. Faith is trust in something you can't prove. That my friend is not logical at all. Now faith can be grounded in some logic based on anecdotal evidence, but that is neither here nor there in the realm of debate.
 
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Please point out how this is....

11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Is any different from this...

Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

You are off base on this.

You have confidence and assurance about something dispite not seeing it, based on what? Evidence and reason.

This made no sense. Please clarify?

Point is, even though God's wisdom is greater than ours, that doesn't mean that we don't use logic, reason and evidence in understanding him, his message and so on.

You have no argument, so you use a fallacy to try and distract from the fact that Belief in any God defy's logic because their is no proof of God's existence, none.

If you can show me one irrefutable piece of evidence that is observable and repeatable that God exist, I will concede.

God is a matter of faith. Faith is trust in something you can't prove. That my friend is not logical at all. Now faith can be grounded in some logic based on anecdotal evidence, but that is neither here nor there in the realm of debate.

There is no PROOF of Gods existance .... But then again there is no PROOF of tons and tons of things which we believe and have evidence for and reasons to believe in (I'll give you examples if you want).

Something being logical and reasonable doesn't require absolute proof, what we can have is evidence and reasons for believing in God, for example the begining of the universe, the simplicity of the laws of nature creating complex systesms, the rationality of the universe, the fine tuning of the initial conditions, biblical prophecy, conciousness and so on ... There are tons of things we can point to that point to a God.

Now you cannot "PROVE" that other conscious minds exist, you cannot PROOVE beyond possible doubt that the Universe wasn't created at the instant you were born with appearance of age, you cannot "PROVE" a ton of science, science which we are all rational to believe because it's the best explination of the evidnce.

So I agree God is a matter of faith, trust, we don't have proof that GOd exists, but we have too reasons for believing in him, and beleiving something for which you have good reasons is logical and rational.

But put that aside, when we try to understand God, we must understand God as a rational being, and as such use reason when we are dealing with the scriptures.

If you're going to say "logic doesn't count," then I can say ANYTHING about God, I can say God is both female and male and literally made of matter and not made of matter at all, and just say "logic doesn't matter," no it does.
 
You have confidence and assurance about something dispite not seeing it, based on what? Evidence and reason.

What evidence? With no evidence there is no reason. So no you are just again twisting.

Point is, even though God's wisdom is greater than ours, that doesn't mean that we don't use logic, reason and evidence in understanding him, his message and so on.

How many times do I have to repeat there is no evidence, none. So if there is no evidence what is the logic based on? Thin air? You consider that logical?

There is no PROOF of Gods existance .... But then again there is no PROOF of tons and tons of things which we believe and have evidence for and reasons to believe in (I'll give you examples if you want).

Please do. Because any scientific theory has observable and repeatable evidence to back it up. Otherwise it is no more than speculation.

Something being logical and reasonable doesn't require absolute proof, what we can have is evidence and reasons for believing in God, for example the begining of the universe, the simplicity of the laws of nature creating complex systesms, the rationality of the universe, the fine tuning of the initial conditions, biblical prophecy, conciousness and so on ... There are tons of things we can point to that point to a God.

That is no more than speculation. It is not proof of any kind of god.

Now you cannot "PROVE" that other conscious minds exist, you cannot PROOVE beyond possible doubt that the Universe wasn't created at the instant you were born with appearance of age, you cannot "PROVE" a ton of science, science which we are all rational to believe because it's the best explination of the evidnce.

Another fallacy argument? You can't prove a negative. A negative is not proof of anything.

So I agree God is a matter of faith, trust, we don't have proof that GOd exists, but we have too reasons for believing in him, and beleiving something for which you have good reasons is logical and rational.

It is rational but not based on any kind of logic.

But put that aside, when we try to understand God, we must understand God as a rational being, and as such use reason when we are dealing with the scriptures.

If you're going to say "logic doesn't count," then I can say ANYTHING about God, I can say God is both female and male and literally made of matter and not made of matter at all, and just say "logic doesn't matter," no it does.

Who said logic does not count? I am saying your definition of what is logical and faith are completely and utterly wrong. You are trying to twist words and meanings of words to fit your lacking to non existent argument.
 
What evidence? With no evidence there is no reason. So no you are just again twisting.

Scriptual evidence, evidence from nature, Thomas Aquainas talks about natural revelation as well as supernatural.

How many times do I have to repeat there is no evidence, none. So if there is no evidence what is the logic based on? Thin air? You consider that logical?
Please do. Because any scientific theory has observable and repeatable evidence to back it up. Otherwise it is no more than speculation.

Big Bang Cosmology, is evidence best explained by God, as is the fine tuning of the universe, as is the simplicity of law creating complex systems, i.e. the rationality and elegance of the universe. I would also point to the historicity of the ressurection of Jesus.

That is no more than speculation. It is not proof of any kind of god.

The theories are solid science, they don't PROVE God, but the give evidence for believing in God, again, you havn't shown why everything that doesn't have proof is illogical, if that is the case than you believing in most science is illogical, since most of it hasn't been proven without doubt, or you believing that other humans with conscious minds exist, or you believing that you were born of your mother and not created in a test tube (you really only have testimony for that) ... point is you are rational and it is logical to believe many things that are not PROVEN beyond doubt.

Another fallacy argument? You can't prove a negative. A negative is not proof of anything.

Yes I can, I can Prove that I am not an elephant, I can prove that Bachelors are not married, I can prove that apples generally don't grow in the ocean and so on. Except what I postulated were not negatives, they were positives (except for one which I can easily restate as a positive).

It is rational but not based on any kind of logic.

Except rationality is always based on logic .... Even if it's basic aristotilian logic.

Who said logic does not count? I am saying your definition of what is logical and faith are completely and utterly wrong. You are trying to twist words and meanings of words to fit your lacking to non existent argument.

This debate on logic and faith started when I claimed that Jesus being Both God himself AND son of God was logically incompatible, you said "faith not logic," which would imply that logic doesn't play a role in our understanding of scripture and God, which is rediculous.
 
Scriptual evidence, evidence from nature, Thomas Aquainas talks about natural revelation as well as supernatural.

That is one persons unscientific, no evidence opinion. Scriptural evidence is nothing more than a sometimes historical reference. It's no more proof than the stories of Gilgamesh are proof of the existence of Tiamat. No.

Big Bang Cosmology, is evidence best explained by God, as is the fine tuning of the universe, as is the simplicity of law creating complex systems, i.e. the rationality and elegance of the universe. I would also point to the historicity of the ressurection of Jesus.

Again this is not evidence of the existence of God. Nor is it best explained by God. This is all again speculation and not evidence that is testable or repeatable.

The theories are solid science, they don't PROVE God, but the give evidence for believing in God, again, you havn't shown why everything that doesn't have proof is illogical, if that is the case than you believing in most science is illogical, since most of it hasn't been proven without doubt, or you believing that other humans with conscious minds exist, or you believing that you were born of your mother and not created in a test tube (you really only have testimony for that) ... point is you are rational and it is logical to believe many things that are not PROVEN beyond doubt.

This is such a crock it is laughable.

Yes I can, I can Prove that I am not an elephant, I can prove that Bachelors are not married, I can prove that apples generally don't grow in the ocean and so on. Except what I postulated were not negatives, they were positives (except for one which I can easily restate as a positive).

Except rationality is always based on logic .... Even if it's basic aristotilian logic.

This debate on logic and faith started when I claimed that Jesus being Both God himself AND son of God was logically incompatible, you said "faith not logic," which would imply that logic doesn't play a role in our understanding of scripture and God, which is rediculous.

OK you have crossed into the fallacy zone and have lost all grip on any semblance of reason. I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt with excepted definitions and scientific theory, and all you offer is speculation and guessing and you try and pass it off as some kind of fact.

I don't know why I even bother with a JW anyway. Anyone that would follow the false and blasphemous teaching of the watchtower is beyond reason and proven false time and time again is not worth debating.

Have a nice life.
 
Scriptual evidence, evidence from nature, Thomas Aquainas talks about natural revelation as well as supernatural.

That is one persons unscientific, no evidence opinion. Scriptural evidence is nothing more than a sometimes historical reference. It's no more proof than the stories of Gilgamesh are proof of the existence of Tiamat. No.

Big Bang Cosmology, is evidence best explained by God, as is the fine tuning of the universe, as is the simplicity of law creating complex systems, i.e. the rationality and elegance of the universe. I would also point to the historicity of the ressurection of Jesus.

Again this is not evidence of the existence of God. Nor is it best explained by God. This is all again speculation and not evidence that is testable or repeatable.

The theories are solid science, they don't PROVE God, but the give evidence for believing in God, again, you havn't shown why everything that doesn't have proof is illogical, if that is the case than you believing in most science is illogical, since most of it hasn't been proven without doubt, or you believing that other humans with conscious minds exist, or you believing that you were born of your mother and not created in a test tube (you really only have testimony for that) ... point is you are rational and it is logical to believe many things that are not PROVEN beyond doubt.

This is such a crock it is laughable.

Yes I can, I can Prove that I am not an elephant, I can prove that Bachelors are not married, I can prove that apples generally don't grow in the ocean and so on. Except what I postulated were not negatives, they were positives (except for one which I can easily restate as a positive).

Except rationality is always based on logic .... Even if it's basic aristotilian logic.

This debate on logic and faith started when I claimed that Jesus being Both God himself AND son of God was logically incompatible, you said "faith not logic," which would imply that logic doesn't play a role in our understanding of scripture and God, which is rediculous.

OK you have crossed into the fallacy zone and have lost all grip on any semblance of reason. I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt with excepted definitions and scientific theory, and all you offer is speculation and guessing and you try and pass it off as some kind of fact.

I don't know why I even bother with a JW anyway. Anyone that would follow the false and blasphemous teaching of the watchtower is beyond reason and proven false time and time again is not worth debating.

Have a nice life.
 
Continuation from the thread A Q for Christians - What parts/events of the NT are absolute fact and true? .

Is Jesus the same as the God of the bible? (i.e. is he Yahweh)



He said everything contraversial directly.



There he is talking about the Father and him being one in will and purpose.



In purpose and will ...



saying "is in" in greek doesn't imply literalness, as other people say all the time "the christ is in me." Or they act with the backing of the christ.



Same as about, saying "the father is in me" doesn't imply literalness.



Yeah ... the son of God ....



Yeah, read it, so that THEY MAY BE ONE, JUST AS WE ARE ONE, its obvious that it isn't literal there.



And read Jesus' Response to them,

"Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law,* “I said, you are gods”? 35If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods”—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. "

Which is exactly the case, in the Hebrew scriptures it refers to others as a "god" meaning powerful and devinely inspired but not the only true God.



Arian theology, and others like it, use colossians 1:15 to show that Jesus was created, as an angel, but not God.



Yeah, and non of these point to Jesus being God.

Colossians 1:15 - Jesus is created,
John 14:28, Matthew 6:9 and countless others - The father is greater than I
Luke 22:42 - Gods will actually distinct.
Mark 13:32 - Knowlege that God has that Jesus does not.
Revelation 1:1 - Jesus recieves the revelation from God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 - After Jesus death and assention to heaven, he is still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 15:27,28 - In heaven, Jesus still subject to God.
1 Corinthians 8:5,6 - Many called a god, but only one God and one Lord (distinct).

I could go on and on, Jesus was very clear that Yahweh was greater than him, and the only true God, and that even after his death he was subject to God.

:) You are stumbling on the greatest mystery of our faith as Christians. How can Jesus be man but also be God? Is that even possible? Was He really God? Why was he always doing God's will if he was God then?

1st remember that God is all powerful. You obviously know your bible so I wont waste my time putting verses here to point that out.
2nd if God really is all powerful than he is capable of everything including putting himself in a human body and yet still be God and still be a servant of.... Himself
3rd remember that Jesus was human in every single thing except sin
4th therefor as a human though Jesus was truly God he was also human and therefor below God
5th Jesus was meant to be a sort of model for what we are supposed to be if Jesus came and just did stuff and acted as though he was God it wouldn't have set as good as an example for us

I remember a professor I had describing God making and becoming Jesus in this way. "God is an infinitely powerful and complex being. In a way he is very multi-dimensional. We are 4 dimensional creatures. Now" he pointed at a picture in the wall "imagine moving yourself into the picture. wouldnt that be simplifying yourself and downgrading yourself? That is what it is like for God to put himself into a human body."

For a little more reference here is a purely biblical argument for the trinity.
1)John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
2)John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

If the word was God and the word became flesh (Jesus) then simple reasoning says God and Jesus are one in the same.



John 5:18 - "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

To understand this you really have to understand the context with which the Jewish people would have understood Jesus calling God "abba" or father. In Jerusalem at this time even the holiest of men would never have dreamed of calling God father. Today many christians call God father so this doesnt seem like any big to do but to the Jewish people of the time this was blasephemy of the worst kind because to them it meant that he was in some implying that he was close to God and his equal. Of course Jesus understood that at the time what calling God father meant and he wouldnt have done it if it wasn't true that he really was on equal footing with God

"I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins."

John 8:58 - "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"

Notice that in both of these Jesus calls himself "I Am"
Who else called himself I am?

Exodus 3:14 - "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

Yep God!

John 10:30-33 - "I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.

You cut out a large part of this passage that is very important. Notice the people understand what Jesus said to mean that he is God.

Col. 2:9 - "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

Pretty straight forward


This is the most important passage of all. Here the reason why Jesus always followed God's will is revealed

Phil. 2:5-8 - "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

You see by being subservient to the Lord he actually increased his majesty and is raised all the higher because of it.

I hope this helped :)
 
RGacky3,

I don't know who this guy is but I'll be addressing your post soon. Don't let this guy fool you. It's not me.

The "Real" Baron
 
RGacky3,

I don't know who this guy is but I'll be addressing your post soon. Don't let this guy fool you. It's not me.

The "Real" Baron

Lol didnt realize there was another baron here
 
:) You are stumbling on the greatest mystery of our faith as Christians. How can Jesus be man but also be God? Is that even possible? Was He really God? Why was he always doing God's will if he was God then?

1st remember that God is all powerful. You obviously know your bible so I wont waste my time putting verses here to point that out.
2nd if God really is all powerful than he is capable of everything including putting himself in a human body and yet still be God and still be a servant of.... Himself
3rd remember that Jesus was human in every single thing except sin
4th therefor as a human though Jesus was truly God he was also human and therefor below God
5th Jesus was meant to be a sort of model for what we are supposed to be if Jesus came and just did stuff and acted as though he was God it wouldn't have set as good as an example for us

I remember a professor I had describing God making and becoming Jesus in this way. "God is an infinitely powerful and complex being. In a way he is very multi-dimensional. We are 4 dimensional creatures. Now" he pointed at a picture in the wall "imagine moving yourself into the picture. wouldnt that be simplifying yourself and downgrading yourself? That is what it is like for God to put himself into a human body."

Well my whole argument here was that Jesus was NOT God, so it isn't a mystery for me at all.
2. It depends waht you mean here, When Jesus said the father is greater than I, I serve the father not myself and so on, him being the father would be a logical inconsistancy, and no matter how much power you have logic is logic, adding power even to the point of having all power doesn't add to ability to break rules of logic.
3. As was Adam prior to his sin, as will be people in the next world
4. Logically impossible, you cannot be below yourself.
5. If Jesus WAS God he would have made it clear and not consistantly affirmed the opposite.

For a little more reference here is a purely biblical argument for the trinity.
1)John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
2)John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

If the word was God and the word became flesh (Jesus) then simple reasoning says God and Jesus are one in the same.

I've responded to both of those sciptures earlier, for John 1:1 I suggest you look at the origional greek, and what scholars say about it. Look at a transliteration of the origional greek (this is why many translations translate the last "god" as "divine" or Godlike, or a god, because of the gramatical differences, the first God was Koi Theon, i.e. The God, the second was just Theos, god).

John 5:18 - "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

To understand this you really have to understand the context with which the Jewish people would have understood Jesus calling God "abba" or father. In Jerusalem at this time even the holiest of men would never have dreamed of calling God father. Today many christians call God father so this doesnt seem like any big to do but to the Jewish people of the time this was blasephemy of the worst kind because to them it meant that he was in some implying that he was close to God and his equal. Of course Jesus understood that at the time what calling God father meant and he wouldnt have done it if it wasn't true that he really was on equal footing with God

I responded tho this already, Read Jesus' Responce to the Jews there, he refutes their accusation, and explains that even humans refered to themselves as Gods and he was only refering to himself as Gods son ... It was a FALSE accusation.

Notice that in both of these Jesus calls himself "I Am"
Who else called himself I am?



Yep God!

God calls himself "I am that I am" in Paleo Hebrew, Jesus says that you believe that I am in arameic (written in greek), if we are you to use every instance of "I am" used in Arameic/greek or Hebrew as meaning YHWH then a lot of people will be God.


You cut out a large part of this passage that is very important. Notice the people understand what Jesus said to mean that he is God.

Pretty straight forward

This is the most important passage of all. Here the reason why Jesus always followed God's will is revealed

You see by being subservient to the Lord he actually increased his majesty and is raised all the higher because of it.

I hope this helped :)

You obviously havn't read any of the thread. Collosians 2:9 needs to be understood in the full context, look RIGHT AFTER THAT, it would seam to say that we as christs disciples are also in him .... it's obviously not literal.

About the Philipinas scripture, that doesn't in anyway show that Jesus is God, is the same person, unless you're interpreting it in that way, it seams to me that he wasn't equal to God and didn't even want to be, and that he was a spirit creature that came down and then was exaulted BY GOD.


I suggest you go and look at post #99 and go over those scriptures, infact I'll just repost them for you

John 14:28
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Matthew 20:23
“You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
Luke 22:42
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
Mark 13:32
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
Revelation 1:1
The risen Christ recieves the revelation from God.
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. (speaking of the risen christ).
1 Corinthians 15:27,28
For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."
The risen Christ has different authority from God
Collossians 1:15
The firstborn of creation.

And some more
Deuteronomy 6:4
Matthew 26:39
John 8:17,18
Revelation 3:12,14
1 Corinthians 8:5,6
1 Peter 1:3
 
My take on the trinity: there is only one God. God is nameless, faceless, and it is not possible for us to know Him directly.

Jesus Christ is like a mirror, shining God's love on to the world. Jesus is a servant of man and of God, and through Him we can know God.

The Holy Spirit is the Living Word. The message of Christ, which is also the message of God, is the living Spirit.

It is by the Holy Spirit that we are saved.
 
My take on the trinity: there is only one God. God is nameless, faceless, and it is not possible for us to know Him directly.

Jesus Christ is like a mirror, shining God's love on to the world. Jesus is a servant of man and of God, and through Him we can know God.

The Holy Spirit is the Living Word. The message of Christ, which is also the message of God, is the living Spirit.

It is by the Holy Spirit that we are saved.

That isn't exactly the trinity.

it seams like in your position the trinity is just a metaphor. Ontologically however, God, jesus and the holy spirit are ontologically seperate and not the same.
 
That isn't exactly the trinity.

it seams like in your position the trinity is just a metaphor. Ontologically however, God, jesus and the holy spirit are ontologically seperate and not the same.

Define "ontologically" for me, I'm not sure what you're saying. Biblically, there is only one God.
 
Define "ontologically" for me, I'm not sure what you're saying. Biblically, there is only one God.

When I say ontologically I mean in "being" so There is one God ... The father, YHWH, and THEN you have the son, Jesus, the massiah, who is a different being although a close image and representative of the father, and then the holy spirit, which itself is something else, if that is what you believe, (and I agree with more or less), then the trinity is just a metaphor and God is not really three in one, but just ONE.
 
lSo, basically, all I'm seeing on this thread are arguements between modern English translations from the English King James Version of the Bible which was translated directly from Greek/Hebrew/Latin/whatever language it was in (English translated to English? Somehow I don't see the reasoning behind that). But just to put my two sense out there, the way the KJV reads in English is a very confusing manner when it comes to the issue of the Godhead (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), which I do believe are 3 seperate beings. For my "evidence", i'm pulling straight out of KJV. Firstly, when Christ was baptized by John, Matthew 3:16-17 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heaves were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: (16) And lo a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." For those who believe that all three are one being, how can He be in three places at once when He is a mortal being on the Earth. The same account of the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove and the voice from heaven is also in Mark and Luke (John only has the account of the dove). I'm not in anyway trying to say anybody is wrong, because none of us truly know the right answer. I just want to know how it can be interpreted as Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit are one being.
 
lSo, basically, all I'm seeing on this thread are arguements between modern English translations from the English King James Version of the Bible which was translated directly from Greek/Hebrew/Latin/whatever language it was in (English translated to English? Somehow I don't see the reasoning behind that). But just to put my two sense out there, the way the KJV reads in English is a very confusing manner when it comes to the issue of the Godhead (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), which I do believe are 3 seperate beings. For my "evidence", i'm pulling straight out of KJV. Firstly, when Christ was baptized by John, Matthew 3:16-17 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heaves were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: (16) And lo a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." For those who believe that all three are one being, how can He be in three places at once when He is a mortal being on the Earth. The same account of the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove and the voice from heaven is also in Mark and Luke (John only has the account of the dove). I'm not in anyway trying to say anybody is wrong, because none of us truly know the right answer. I just want to know how it can be interpreted as Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit are one being.

I use the NIV and the NRSV, the KJV isn't a scholarly translation.

But you're right, in order to support the trinity you have to define "one being" in such a sense that it's basically meaningless.
 
I personally find the NWT to be the best translation available.

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but from my perspective they 'fixed' the paganization of Christianity from the 4th century, and their exposition/doctrines are true Christianity.

(but boo to organized religion)

The other churches are just variations on Roman Catholic-paganism.

The KJV is the least usable translation, since it suggests we be equal to God in order to support the idea of the trinity.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" Phillipians 2:6

Of all popular Christian doctrine, I find the trinity to be the most incorrect against the biblical texts.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom