Christians: Where do you draw the line? (Jesus, Creator, Moses)

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by Ratiocinative

The Bible is very clear that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is only one God. I admit that it is somewhat hard to understand, but it would be bold for anyone to claim that anything they can't understand is automatically false. What about God(or the universe so atheists don't feel left out)? How did he or it come into existence in the first place? Everything that we understand in our physical universe has a cause, so what caused the first thing to "come into" existence, whether you believe it to God or the physical universe? Even though we have no idea how, the only conclusion to come to is that God had no cause, he has always existed. Are you going to explain to me how something can come into existence without any cause? Are you going to start believing that nothing exists anywhere because we don't understand how something had no cause?

Either you believe the Bible is true or not, don't give me that "as far as it is translated correctly" crap. You can go learn Hebrew and Greek, read the manuscripts, and translate them yourself if you don't believe any current translations are correct. Here are a few of the verse stating there is one God and no other, and you can find lots more, so feel free to look them up in whatever translation you want:

• Exodus 8:10
• Deuteronomy 6:4
• Psalms 86:10
• Isaiah 44:8
• Isaiah 45:21
• Isaiah 45:22
• Isaiah 46:9
• Isaiah 45:5
• Isaiah 45:18
• Mark 12:32
• Mark 12:29
• 1st Timothy 2:5
• 1st Corinthians 8:4
• Galatians 3:20
• James 2:19

Christ was very adamant in telling people they need to obey, which included believing in him. Yes, it is important to obey, but not because obeying saves you. Obeying is the result of faith, so if you aren't obeying then you don't have faith, but just because you are doing good things doesn't mean you have faith. It is certainly possible to be doing good things but not have faith. Obeying is important, but God does not give the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of sins because you obey the law (Galatians 3:5), and in Galatians 5:4 it says that anyone who is seeking forgiveness of sins through obedience of the law has but separated from Christ. Obeying is a result of gratitude toward God, those who have faith will want to obey, but obeying doesn't save you.

Judging people means to pass sentence upon people, saying they should not receive forgiveness. On top of that, the only thing I did was point out what the Bible says, which is the standard we are already being measured against, so I'm not creating any new standard for myself to be measured against. The Bible is very clear about what a person must do to be saved and it is my job to tell people, not to cover it up or change it because others feel offended.

Katspur, did you really say these thing? I'm having a hard time finding them.

[Mr. Peanut]

One who trusts alone in Christ alone to have paid for their sins and imputed his righteousness unto them is saved to the uttermost forevermore.

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

The second point Paul makes is that the believer must believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. Indeed, that's the basis upon which God Himself has indicated that Jesus is his true son rather than yet another failed Messianic pretender. Thus it is also the basis upon which a person is to put their trust in Jesus. Christians put their faith in Jesus because God has demonstrated to the world that Jesus is his son by raising him from the dead. (Romans 1:3 - 4.)

Therefore, to be included in God's family, one must do only two things:

(1) Submit to the Lordship of Jesus; and
(2) Believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.

No matter what else that person believes, even if it's kooky or contrary to some of the Creeds, we as believers must treat that person as a brother or sister (even if that brother or sister requires some guidance or education). There is a wafer-thin theological commitment involved here. And to burden people with more at the outset is, in my view, counterproductive (and may stand in the way of a person's salvation).

The term Christian should apply broadly to those people who follow the red letters:-- Love God with all thy heart (etc.), Love thy neighbor, and so forth. Any additions later (requiring to believe in irrational, unprovable things such as the ressurection and the miracles) tend to water these original, profound notions down and repell reasonable, responsible people away from the church. I thinks its like saying people need to like both the cake and the icing, theyve gotta like the substantive parts but also the little frilly sugary parts---when its really the core message thats most important.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

From a trinitarian point of view, I read all passages that involve communication between the Son and the Father as follows. God the Father (who is one being with the Son but a distinct person from the Son) speaks to God the Son (or the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, Himself fully divine in the same sense as the Father but a distinct person from the Father), and vice versa. This communication is a monologue in the sense that the conversation is internal to the One God. However, the conversation is conducted between two distinct persons of the Godhead (thus it's also a dialog).
.

I have not seen any verses that will authenticate your claim that is indeed a monologue. care to explain why it is a monologue? and what is the spiritual significance of verses showing mologues( as you claim they are)

if you cannot produce the explaination i am looking for according to the bible, i will declare as a matter of fact that you are INVENTING your own interpretation of things.

I can explain the spiritual significance of HEB 5, that will authenticate the fact that God, Jesus and the Hily sprit are three DISTINCT beings...

let me see you do the same...

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Au contraire, mon ami!

Let's rehash the Matthew passage, shall we?

...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

In GREEK (not English), if the article (the) is repeated in a list, it emphasizes the distinction to be made between the items. In fact, the inclusion of "and" makes this even more forceful. Thus "the Father...and the Son...and the Holy Spirit" in GREEK emphasizes that these three "items" are distinct from each other in some way. So far, I think that you and I agree.

However, if the writer intended to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were distinct and separate ONLY and that they had nothing essential in common (i.e., that they were three different sorts of things, so to speak), he should have said "in the names" (note the plural). However, the author says "name." By using this grammatical structure (I wish we all spoke Koine Greek, but alas it's a dead language!), the writer forces the reader to understand that these three "items" share one name. In context, the name is obviously the name of God, YHWH (Yahweh). But to share the name is to share the essence, identity, or nature of the thing. To sum up, this one sentence says (not just implies) that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are both distinct from each other yet one in essence.

Obviously, this falls short of a full affirmation along the lines of the Athanasian Creed. However, one can easily see how passages such as this made the Athanasian conclusion almost inevitable, strange as it may be.

I can see how my previous exposition of "let us make man in our image" missed the mark of your objection. So please permit me to try again.

The puzzle for us is what "us" and "our" might mean when the Triune God said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness". From a trinitarian point of view, there are two possibilities. First, perhaps the persons of the trinity spoke to each other, in which case the dialog is internal to the godhead. Or second, the Triune God spoke to the heavenly host (angels). Either way, plural pronouns are acceptable. For in one case there is a plurality of speakers, and in the other case a singular speaker who subsists as three persons.

I hope that clarifies the position. If I've still missed your point, please try to show me how. I don't want to talk past you.

i have to ask a greek language isntructor for that... let us stick to bible facts, besides 2 CHR already replied on this point. please find my other reply. thank you!

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

i have to ask a greek language isntructor for that... let us stick to bible facts, besides 2 CHR already replied on this point. please find my other reply. thank you!

1. Do that. He'll bear me out.
2. I am sticking to bible facts -- facts about how exactly texts appear in the bible.
3. 2 Chr has complained about it but not addressed it. He complained about English grammar (when the issue is Greek grammar), and he complained about how some Oneness group interprets the passage (in English). So if by "replied" you mean simply "typed something" I'm willing to agree. But if by "replied" you mean "dealt with directly" I disagree.

4. Your post:

I have not seen any verses that will authenticate your claim that is indeed a monologue. care to explain why it is a monologue? and what is the spiritual significance of verses showing mologues( as you claim they are)

if you cannot produce the explaination i am looking for according to the bible, i will declare as a matter of fact that you are INVENTING your own interpretation of things.

I can explain the spiritual significance of HEB 5, that will authenticate the fact that God, Jesus and the Hily sprit are three DISTINCT beings...

let me see you do the same...

You keep pointing out how there are these conversations and that somehow they pose a problem for trinitarians. But they don't. Trinitarians hold to a DISTINCTION OF PERSONS in the ONE, INDIVISIBLE GOD. So, the trinitarian DOES NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE between monologue and dialogue. For the trinitarian, the dialogue is internal to YHWH, the Triune God, thus a monologue. But the conversation is also between DISTINCT PERSONS of the trinity, hence a dialogue. For the trinitarian, it's not either/or but both/and.

I DON'T say that these conversations necessarily demonstrate the truth of the trinity as a whole. All they show is that there is a distinction between three divine persons, a notion trinitarians accept. The truth of the trinity is expressed in scripture in many ways. There are passages in the bible that affirm that there is one and only one God. There are passages that affirm that the Father is that one and only God. There are passages that affirm that the Son is that one and only God. There are passages that affirm that the Holy Spirit is that one and only God. And there are passages that affirm that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are somehow distinct -- such as in those passages you mention where the Father and the Son engage in conversation. (I could enumerate them, but I won't for reasons that appear in the next paragraph.) The bible nowhere treats the trinity as a theological point in any sustained way. Rather, it provides the data I just described. The doctrine of the trinity tries to make sense of these passages without distorting them. I think it does so successfully.

I think that this will be my last response to you. I can tolerate only so much of your rudeness. I don't mind debates, actually I enjoy them. But you have impugned my motives and insulted my intelligence enough to demonstrate that you are more concerned with belittling those who disagree with you than engaging in any sort of sincere discussion which might have the effect of converting them. Last time I checked, you convert no one through insult. I leave you with a couple of passages to mediate on. They have proven invaluable to me:

1 Peter 5:8 - 16

Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love for one another, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called -- that you might inherit a blessing. For

"Those who dsire life and desire to see good days,
let them keep their tongues from evil
and their lips from speaking deceit;

let them turn away from evil and do good;
let them seek peace and pursue it

For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are open to their prayer.

But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."

Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame.

Philippians 2:3 - 11

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look out not to your own interests but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,

but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness

And being found in human form
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death
even death on a cross

Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name

So that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend
in heaven and on earth and under the earth
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

Katspur, did you really say these thing? I'm having a hard time finding them.

You lost me, Jeremy. You just quoted ratiocinactive and then asked me if I said these things. I'm not sure what "things" you're talking about, but I haven't deleted any of my posts on this thead so if you can't find something I supposedly said, it's a safe bet I didn't say it.

[Ratiocinative]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Of course I care. Why would I not want to believe what is true? My convictions are every bit as strong as yours. I simply have no use for people who cannot treat me civilly. If you are interested in why I believe as I do, you may wish to follow the one-on-one between Dunemeister and me. You have given me no reason to believe that you are capable of a respectful exchange of ideas; Dunemeister has.

I have done nothing but post scriptural examples and ask you some questions. If you feel that is uncivil, then sorry, but this is what happens in a debate. I'm sorry that I don't accept your opinion as valid without asking some questions first. This is, after all, a Christian debate thread so I assumed that you believed the Bible to be true, but after dodging the question so many times it seems that you do not believe the Bible is true. If your convictions are every bit as strong as mine then I would think you wouldn't be afraid to tell us what those convictions are. If you don't want to answer, then fine, but don't blame your being shy on me.