Tell me where in the Bible does Jesus clearly say that he's God

[sojourner]

^^^ Epic win.

If wishes were horses...

 

[sojourner]

Actually, everything does have to be explicit. Otherwise, you're just blindly following it without reason.

Nope. Sorry. That's not how it works. If the bible simply gave us all the answers, there'd be no room for growth. Faith would be stagnant. In other words, dead. Simple reverence of what we know to be true isn't worship and it certainly isn't transformational. The journey's the thing.

Jesus never said he was God therefore you shouldn't believe that he's God.

he at least implied it.

You are relying upon the implicit statements in the Bible and that's whats your putting your faith in. That isn't how faith works.

Not only upon that. And yes, that is how faith works. Otherwise it's not faith, it's knowledge.

Jesus performed many miraculous wonders, and he without a doubt said a lot of wonderful things about himself. Some people use what he said and did as proof that he was God. But his original disciples who lived and walked with him, and were eyewitnesses to what he said and did, never reached this conclusion.

I think they did, to some degree -- especially after the resurrection.

Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed the crowd saying:

“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by wonders, miracles, and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22).

It was God, therefore, who did the miracles through Jesus to convince people that Jesus was backed by God. Peter did not see the miracles as proof that Jesus is God.

In fact, the way Peter refers to God and to Jesus makes it clear that Jesus isn't God. For he always turns the title "God" away from Jesus. Take the following references for example:

“God has raised this Jesus...” (Acts 2:32)

“God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)

In both passages, the title "God" is turned away from Jesus. So why did he do this, if Jesus was God?

For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God. Peter said: “God raised up his servant...” (Acts 3:26).

The title "servant" refers to Jesus. This is clear from a previous passage where Peter declared: “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.” (Acts 3:13).

but the Trinity doctrine refutes none of this. Jesus was fully human and therefore subject to God and was an instrument of God.

 

[Shermana]

Obviously you do not understand the doctrine you have wasted everyone's time trying to refute.
Obviously you do not understand that there are three distinct and individual Persons. No one's trying to meld Father and Son into one person. they remain distinct and individual.

Sheesh!

So would you like to be the first person to actually provide a concrete working definition of "person" that doesn't fall into a series of logical contradictions or repetition of the vague Nicean rhetoric?

Clearly, if Jesus has a different will than His Father, than the concept of being a different "person" means having an entirely different mind and soul.

If that's the case, by what criteria do we then use to say they're the "same being" if they clearly have different minds?

Even in the Afterlife, apparently Jesus STILL has a different mind and will than His Father.

Why is it so unreasonable to assume that this "person" argument simply defies Scripture and is untenable and based on ambiguous terms without a clear-cut definition? What's wrong with the Arian view?

 

[sojourner]

So would you like to be the first person to actually provide a concrete working definition of "person" that doesn't fall into a series of logical contradictions or repetition of the vague Nicean rhetoric?

No. It doesn't bother me that it doesn't make sense. Lots of things about God don't make sense to me.

Clearly, if Jesus has a different will than His Father, than the concept of being a different "person" means having an entirely different mind and soul.

Well, wouldn't we expect that from someone who is fully human??

If that's the case, by what criteria do we then use to say they're the "same being" if they clearly have different minds?

Depends on what you mean by "mind" and "being."

Even in the Afterlife, apparently Jesus STILL has a different mind and will than His Father.

Well -- they are two distinct Persons, after all...

Why is it so unreasonable to assume that this "person" argument simply defies Scripture and is untenable and based on ambiguous terms without a clear-cut definition? What's wrong with the Arian view?

Does it? Terms and definitions are ambiguous. I don't have a problem with mystery.

 

[Shermana]

No. It doesn't bother me that it doesn't make sense

Well I imagine it would bother most outsiders who think God wouldn't expect them to believe some force-fed definition that relies on the idea of being "Too complicated for the human mind to understand". Besides, the very use of the word "person" is lacking in even being able to be conveyed.

But I thank you for admitting that the "persons" concept makes absolutely no sense.

. Lots of things about God don't make sense to me.

Other than that, name some of these things that don't make sense and that you're not being hyperbolic, I personally think anything in Jewish Theology about God makes 100% sense. It may not be palatable to liberals or PC though.

Well, wouldn't we expect that from someone who is fully human??

Maybe to you he can, but I'd think to most sensible people, the idea of being "Fully human" as well as "Fully Divine" is like a Triangle-Square. But regardless, to make this construction of "Three persons in one being", one must deny certain elements of logic and rely on unprovable negatives under the idea that "It's beyond Human understanding". I simply see no reason to accept that and no reason why it holds water. How can Jesus have a separate mind from the "Being" that he's a "separate person" of exactly? So you're saying that God has multiple minds? Not even the classical Trinity says that. In fact, I think Athanasisus was later condemned for promoting this kind of apologetic as heretical of "different minds". I'll have to find the exact reference for that.

Depends on what you mean by "mind" and "being."

Well perhaps you should enlighten us on the Trinitarian perspective of what "mind" and "being" imply. Or is that too just a mystery that's too much for the human mind?

Well -- they are two distinct Persons, after all...

But if you haven't adequately defined what persons mean, you can just as well call them two distinct Gjalsdkjaskdhastses. With that said, this idea of "different persons" is not explicit OR implicit in the Bible, and if you do think its implicit, you can say anything you want is implicit, like I've explained elsewhere. It's purely a post 2nd century development, and one that's filled with holes.

Does it? Terms and definitions are ambiguous. I don't have a problem with mystery.

Right, neither does practically every person who believes in any religion, especially the "Mystery cults". But the difference is that terms and definitions are the means to make the "mystery" being sold actually become palatable, and apparently the Greeks were all about trying to find words and definitions that ultimately were hollow and shoddy attempts to patch up a leaky boat.

With that said, what's wrong with the Arian position? If I said the NT explicitly implies the Arian position, what's wrong with that statement?

 

[Animevox]

did they? How much time have you spent in actual exegetical work with these texts? Or are you simply doing a surface reading to glean fodder for your preconceived notions about them?

The very birth narrative in luke tells a different story.

No. They believed he was more than that, or they wouldn't have written about him.

I don't think so. They struggled to know, exactly, what jesus was, but it's abundantly clear that he was more than simply "a man," and it's also clear that he was not an angel. As i've made more than abundantly clear, the bible is not the sole source of revelation. The bible also makes a pretty clear case for slavery, yet further light shows that slavery simply is not acceptable. The bible makes a clouded case for subjugation of women, yet further light shows that equality between the sexes is far more cogruent with jesus' teachings.

It simply does not matter that the concept of god as trinity is not explicit in the texts.

If you truly believe that a lot of things of God don't make sense while still believing in it, then sorry, you're just a blind fool. No offense. Because all you're doing is simply insulting your own intelligence.

Let me make my message just a little more clear for you.

A lot of Christian's I know say that the divinity of Jesus is unnecessary. Most of them say that the most important thing is to just accept Jesus as your personal savior. Correct?

Well on the contrary, the Bible writer's stressed that in order to be saved, it is necessary to understand who exactly God really is. Failure to understand this would be to violate the first and greatest of all the commandments in the Bible. This commandment was emphasized by Jesus, on whom be peace, when a teacher of the Law of Moses asked him:

“‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’ ‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’” (Mark 12:28-30).

Notice that Jesus was quoting the first commandment from the book of Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Jesus not only confirmed that this commandment is still valid, but also that it's the most important of all the commandments.

If Jesus thought that he himself is God, why didn't he say so? Instead, he stressed that God is one.

The man who questioned Jesus understood this, and what the man says next makes it even more clear that God is not Jesus, for he said to Jesus:

“‘Well said, teacher,’ the man replied. ‘You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.’” (Mark 12:32).

Now if Jesus was God, he would have told the man. Instead, he let the man refer to God as someone else other than Jesus, and he even saw that the man had spoken wisely:

"When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God." (Mark 12:34).

If Jesus knew that God is a trinity, why didn't he say so? Why didn't he say that God is one in three, or three in one?

Instead, he declared that God is one. True imitators of Jesus will imitate him also in this declaration of God’s oneness. They will not add the word three where Jesus never said it.

 

[Animevox]

Nope. Sorry. That's not how it works. If the bible simply gave us all the answers, there'd be no room for growth. Faith would be stagnant. In other words, dead. Simple reverence of what we know to be true isn't worship and it certainly isn't transformational. The journey's the thing.

he at least implied it.

Not only upon that. And yes, that is how faith works. Otherwise it's not faith, it's knowledge.

I think they did, to some degree -- especially after the resurrection.

but the Trinity doctrine refutes none of this. Jesus was fully human and therefore subject to God and was an instrument of God.

Jesus made it clear that the most important commandment is to believe in God's oneness. I'm sorry but that's the only way to achieve eternal salvation.

Let me show you a passage when another man approached Jesus to learn from him (see Mark 10:17-29). The man fell on his knees and said to Jesus:

“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replied: “Why do you call me good? No one is good — except God alone.” (Mark 10:17-18).

By so saying, Jesus made a clear distinction between himself and God. Then he proceeded with the answer to the man’s question about how to get salvation. Jesus told him:

“If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17, also see Mark 10:19)

Remember that the most important of all the commandments, according to Jesus, is to know God as the one and only God.

Jesus further emphasized this in the Gospel According to John.

In John 17:1, Jesus lifted his eyes to heaven and prayed, addressing God as Father. Then in verse three, he said to God as follows:

“Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3).

This proves without a shadow of a doubt that if people want to get eternal life, they must first know that the One whom Jesus was praying to, is the one and only true God.

They must also know that Jesus was sent by the true God.

Now some say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. But Jesus said that the Father alone is the only true God. True followers of Jesus will follow him in this too.

Jesus said that his true followers are those who hold to his teaching's.

“If you hold to my teaching's, you are really my disciples.” (John 8:31).

His teaching's is that people must continue to keep the commandments, especially the first commandment which emphasizes that God is alone, and that God should be loved with all our hearts and all our strengths.

So of course we love Jesus. We respect him. But we mustn't love him as God.

Today, many love Jesus more than they love God. This is because they see God as a vengeful person who wanted to exact a penalty from them, while seeing Jesus as the savior who rescued them from the wrath of God.

Yet God is our only savior. According to Isaiah 43:11, God said:

“I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior."

God also said according to Isaiah 45:21-22:

“Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.”

The Quran confirms the first commandment and addresses it to all humankind (see the Holy Quran 2:163). And God declares that true believers love Him more than anyone else or anything else (Quran 2:165).

 

[Animevox]

Nope. Sorry. That's not how it works. If the bible simply gave us all the answers, there'd be no room for growth. Faith would be stagnant. In other words, dead. Simple reverence of what we know to be true isn't worship and it certainly isn't transformational. The journey's the thing.

he at least implied it.

Not only upon that. And yes, that is how faith works. Otherwise it's not faith, it's knowledge.

I think they did, to some degree -- especially after the resurrection.

but the Trinity doctrine refutes none of this. Jesus was fully human and therefore subject to God and was an instrument of God.

Jesus can't be part of a trinity. Read what I said earlier.

 

[nazz]

The problem I see with this debate is people on both sides thinking in black and white, an either/or scenario. Either Jesus is God and all that entails or Jesus is no different than any other mortal man.

It seems to me that both the Bible and The Qur'an place Jesus in some middle position between God (in totality) and man. This is not a problem for those of us with a mystical outlook who don't look at things in mere black and white. To the mystic everything that exists is an expression of God in one way or another.

For the Gnostic Jesus was the highest Aeon; the highest expression of God. Certainly not just a mere mortal man nor God in the totality of all that God is. God as Father is still higher and superior to Christ who called the Father his God and submitted his will to Him.

I think a problem came in the formulation of the historic creeds dealing with the Trinity. They tried to define things too well and ended up muddling things more. They were trying to preserve absolute monotheism and fit Christ into that scheme.

Just my two cents

 

[sojourner]

But I thank you for admitting that the "persons" concept makes absolutely no sense.

That's not what I said. I said I would not care to provide a working definition of "person." I also said that God not making sense doesn't really bother me. but if you want to play the "twist what he said game," by all means try, since that seems to be your only argument.

Other than that, name some of these things that don't make sense and that you're not being hyperbolic, I personally think anything in Jewish Theology about God makes 100% sense. It may not be palatable to liberals or PC though.

No, thank you.

Maybe to you he can, but I'd think to most sensible people, the idea of being "Fully human" as well as "Fully Divine" is like a Triangle-Square.

So, what you're really saying is that most sensible people wouldn't think that a fully human being would have a separate mind and soul. I think most sensible people would disagree with you, (assuming that they believed in the existence of the soul, that is).

to make this construction of "Three persons in one being", one must deny certain elements of logic and rely on unprovable negatives under the idea that "It's beyond Human understanding".

Why should it? We're all made out of the same "stuff" that everything else in the universe is made of. In that sense, we all -- humans, moss, rivers, stars -- have the same being.

I simply see no reason to accept that and no reason why it holds water.

That's obvious -- and your prerogative.

How can Jesus have a separate mind from the "Being" that he's a "separate person" of exactly?

How can I have a separate mind from you? We're separate persons, yes?

So you're saying that God has multiple minds?

No. You're forgetting that Jesus was fully human, and, as such, entitled to a separate mind.

Well perhaps you should enlighten us on the Trinitarian perspective of what "mind" and "being" imply. Or is that too just a mystery that's too much for the human mind?

Perhaps you should enlighten us on your perspective of what "mind" and "being" imply. Or do you know what your perspective is?

But if you haven't adequately defined what persons mean, you can just as well call them two distinct Gjalsdkjaskdhastses.

Nah. Takes too long to write.
I think the biblical writers thought person could be defined as "two separate individuals."

With that said, this idea of "different persons" is not explicit OR implicit in the Bible, and if you do think its implicit, you can say anything you want is implicit, like I've explained elsewhere. It's purely a post 2nd century development, and one that's filled with holes.

I think that there was some kind of sense that Jesus was, in some way Divine as God is Divine. That being said, I don't have a problem with theology developing over time, as you appear to have.

Right, neither does practically every person who believes in any religion, especially the "Mystery cults". But the difference is that terms and definitions are the means to make the "mystery" being sold actually become palatable, and apparently the Greeks were all about trying to find words and definitions that ultimately were hollow and shoddy attempts to patch up a leaky boat.

With that said, what's wrong with the Arian position? If I said the NT explicitly implies the Arian position, what's wrong with that statement?

I'd say (as I've said before) that the bible is multivalent.

 

[sojourner]

If you truly believe that a lot of things of God don't make sense while still believing in it, then sorry, you're just a blind fool. No offense. Because all you're doing is simply insulting your own intelligence.

is it insulting our intelligence to say that we don't completely understand the universe? I don't think so. We don't fully understand the universe, yet we believe in its existence, and we rely on its laws. In fact, isn't it more insulting to say that we do completely understand the universe?

the Bible writer's stressed that in order to be saved, it is necessary to understand who exactly God really is.

Did they? Where? When? To whom did they "stress" this?

Failure to understand this would be to violate the first and greatest of all the commandments in the Bible.

It is possible to love God without fully understanding God.

If Jesus thought that he himself is God, why didn't he say so? Instead, he stressed that God is one.

God is One. Even as a Trinity.
Maybe especially as a Trinity.

Now if Jesus was God, he would have told the man.

He would have? How are you so certain?

If Jesus knew that God is a trinity, why didn't he say so? Why didn't he say that God is one in three, or three in one?

I don't know I'm not him.

True imitators of Jesus will imitate him also in this declaration of God’s oneness. They will not add the word three where Jesus never said it.

And we do declare that God is One. The Creed starts out by saying: "We believe in one God."

 

[sojourner]

Jesus made it clear that the most important commandment is to believe in God's oneness. I'm sorry but that's the only way to achieve eternal salvation.

Salvation is not achieved -- it is given. Stop arguing theology you know nothing about.
You're wasting everyone's time.

This proves without a shadow of a doubt that if people want to get eternal life, they must first know that the One whom Jesus was praying to, is the one and only true God.

They must also know that Jesus was sent by the true God.

We do know God -- just not completely.

True followers of Jesus will follow him in this too.

Will you please stop trying to tell me what a "true follower" of Jesus will do?!

So of course we love Jesus. We respect him. But we mustn't love him as God.

We must if he is God.

Today, many love Jesus more than they love God. This is because they see God as a vengeful person who wanted to exact a penalty from them, while seeing Jesus as the savior who rescued them from the wrath of God.

That's patently faulty theology, IMO.

Yet God is our only savior.

And Jesus is God.

The Quran confirms the first commandment and addresses it to all humankind (see the Holy Quran 2:163). And God declares that true believers love Him more than anyone else or anything else (Quran 2:165).

Well, bully for the Quran, but I really don't see where that's cogent to what the bible says or does not say.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus can't be part of a trinity. Read what I said earlier.

Of course he can.


And he is.

 

[Shermana]

That's not what I said. I said I would not care to provide a working definition of "person." I also said that God not making sense doesn't really bother me. but if you want to play the "twist what he said game," by all means try, since that seems to be your only argument.

I don't think I twisted what you said, I think you were pretty clear and now you're just wiggling out. As for my "only argument", that's just straight up false. It seems YOUR only argument however is "It doesn't have to make sense, the Bible is multivalent, I can read whatever I want into it". What exactly do you mean by twisting your words specifically? Why don't you explain yourself then? How did you NOT imply that the persons concept makes no sense? You plainly said that God doesn't make sense to you. So are you saying that it DOES make sense but not to you? Maybe I should make a poll saying "Does the Trinity concept of "persons" actually make sense? I think I will. Are you disagreeing that the basic idea is that all this has historically been "Too much for the Human mind to understand" and thus "makes no sense" to it?

No, thank you.

Okay, so then your whole "God doesn't make sense" thing is just a ruse, you have no actual reason to state that that you're willing to get into. Thanks.

So, what you're really saying is that most sensible people wouldn't think that a fully human being would have a separate mind and soul. I think most sensible people would disagree with you, (assuming that they believed in the existence of the soul, that is).

Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, or perhaps we could make a poll to at least get the RF community opinion on this matter. I see no reason to believe why a "fully human being" would NOT have a separate mind and soul.

Why should it? We're all made out of the same "stuff" that everything else in the universe is made of. In that sense, we all -- humans, moss, rivers, stars -- have the same being.

That's not what I'm talking about. If you say that Jesus and God have the same substance in this manner, all it means is that they are both gods, not both God.

That's obvious -- and your prerogative.

Right. And the point is, that the argument doesn't make sense and it doesn't hold water. What's obvious is that it's YOUR perogative to hold up this shaky doctrine no matter how unsensible and how vague and how disputable your attempts are.

How can I have a separate mind from you? We're separate persons, yes?

Okay, so for the record, you think you and I have the same minds? OF course we're separate persons. We have separate minds. We may both HAVE minds, but my mind is not yours. Likewise, Jesus and God may both have "godlike essence", that only means they are both gods, just like how two humans with "humanlike essence" would be two humans. But again, the definition of "persons" we go by is quite a ways different than the wordplay the Trinitarian Greeks tried to force a new meaning into. That's why I asked if you'd like to be the first person to fully expound on what this "person" concept means that actually makes sense. I've seen the Trinitarian attempts to define it, but they never actually get anywhere past the usage of the term beyond the even more disputable terms "essence" and "substance". It never becomes much more than a circular explanation that doesn't really define anything, and there's a reason for that. The term simply makes no sense in the way it's used and is not anywhere "implicit" in Scripture. If the idea is that Jesus is God's incarnation but still a different mind, that still leaves a bunch of holes. So I ask yet again, what's wrong with the Arian perspective?

No. You're forgetting that Jesus was fully human, and, as such, entitled to a separate mind.

I must be missing something, but where did we establish that the same being can have two separate minds in "two persons", perhaps I should indeed make a whole thread about this "persons' concept.

Perhaps you should enlighten us on your perspective of what "mind" and "being" imply. Or do you know what your perspective is?

Quite simple. A "Being" is an independent existence, free from direct outside control and free from being part of another being. It's essentially the same concept as being a "person". I find the distinction between "person" and " being" to be dubious, and that probably is why the historical attempts to define "person" all fall flat and required centuries of debate and wordplay. As for "mind", that is an aspect of our consciousness and souls which is connected to our physical bodies to experience thought, memory, and cognitive action. It's quite clear that God knows things Jesus does not know. If they had the same mind, they would know the same things. How can one being have "two persons" and "two minds"? Well that's been the million dollar question, Athanasius tried to answer it, and he got later called a heretic for his own harebrained attempt to solve this riddle. Maybe you'll be the first Trinitarian in history to explain it to the outsider adequately.

Nah. Takes too long to write.
I think the biblical writers thought person could be defined as "two separate individuals."

Right, but "individuals" would imply separate beings. Again, there's no real reason to believe that one being is expressing himself through two different individuals, it's not really implicit or explicit in the text, except perhaps through historical Trinitarian distortions of the Greek and ancient Theology. Objective scholarly readings don't need to wade through these jungles of senselessness.

I think that there was some kind of sense that Jesus was, in some way Divine as God is Divine. That being said, I don't have a problem with theology developing over time, as you appear to have.

Right, and I don't see a problem with thinking that a developed Theology is a deviant Theology, and I don't see the problem with wanting to stick to what was originally intended. I do however see embracing later developments as if it can surpass and replace what was originally intended as dishonest, but perhaps you'd like to explain why my "Originalist" view is so bad?

I'd say (as I've said before) that the bible is multivalent.

Can I quote you? I'd like to make a thread on this issue of whether the Bible is truly Multivalent or if this "multivalency" concpet is a completely modern Liberal concept that no Church Father or theologian has embraced until recently. (I.e. A difference between "Up to interpretation (as in there's an answer you have to find) vs "Interpret however you want" (No need to find that originally intended answer).

 

[Shermana]

The problem I see with this debate is people on both sides thinking in black and white, an either/or scenario. Either Jesus is God and all that entails or Jesus is no different than any other mortal man.

It seems to me that both the Bible and The Qur'an place Jesus in some middle position between God (in totality) and man. This is not a problem for those of us with a mystical outlook who don't look at things in mere black and white. To the mystic everything that exists is an expression of God in one way or another.

For the Gnostic Jesus was the highest Aeon; the highest expression of God. Certainly not just a mere mortal man nor God in the totality of all that God is. God as Father is still higher and superior to Christ who called the Father his God and submitted his will to Him.

I think a problem came in the formulation of the historic creeds dealing with the Trinity. They tried to define things too well and ended up muddling things more. They were trying to preserve absolute monotheism and fit Christ into that scheme.

Just my two cents

I agree with both the Gnostic and Islamic versions of Jesus.

The Gnostic view I think is actually what was originally intended, and fit in with Ancient Anatolian Jewish Theology, that Jesus as the "Highest expression of God" was the firstborn created soul in Heaven, and the personification of "Wisdom". I believe this is indeed what Wisdom of Solomon and Proverbs 8 had in mind and they weren't just calling "Wisdom" a metaphorical concept but a real, actual personified spirit that was the Greatest and First of creation, of whom all things were created THROUGH (not by, but THROUGH "Dia").

The Islamic view of Jesus being a prophet....well Jesus calls himself a prophet, and so does his disciples. I would like to see what else the Islamic view thinks of him specifically though.

How do Trinitarians account for Jesus calling himself a prophet? God is a prophet who speaks and listens to Himself?

But you are right on the Creeds thing, all the Greek Fathers did was make it even more complicated and used tons of vague and loose wordplay without much clarity (and even ended up calling one of their greatest Trinity defenders, Athanasius a heretic because of his own attempts to patch the holes), it's kind of like to fix a shoddily-designed computer program filled with bugs, and then making it even more buggy and then resorting to "Just use the program and don't ask questions, it's too complicated for you to understand".

The Arian view however, has no such snags and flows very smoothly without holes or need for wordplay.

 

[sojourner]

I don't think I twisted what you said, I think you were pretty clear and now you're just wiggling out.

Nope. Sorry.

It seems YOUR only argument however is "It doesn't have to make sense, the Bible is multivalent, I can read whatever I want into it".

Nope. Sorry.
The bible is multivalent -- open to many interpretations, and we can't "read whatever [we] want into it." But just because the Trinity doctrine doesn't make much linear sense, doesn't mean that the bible doesn't make sense. I think the Trinity doctrine is and does exactly what it was designed to be and to do: It's a blanket statement, that's broad enough to keep several factions of Xy happy and "in the same boat." It doesn't really attempt to "pin God down" to specific understandings. It does attempt to make God broad enough to satisfy diversity.

Apparently, that's a problem for you. OK. I get that. But just because it's a problem for you doesn't mean that it's not legit.

What exactly do you mean by twisting your words specifically? Why don't you explain yourself then? How did you NOT imply that the persons concept makes no sense? You plainly said that God doesn't make sense to you. So are you saying that it DOES make sense but not to you? Maybe I should make a poll saying "Does the Trinity concept of "persons" actually make sense? I think I will. Are you disagreeing that the basic idea is that all this has historically been "Too much for the Human mind to understand" and thus "makes no sense" to it?

I think that, when we try to make the Trinity very concrete and specific, it doesn't make much sense. I think that, if we hold God and the concepts of "person" and "Trinity" loosely, it does make more sense. I think that it comes down to perspective. The Trinity attempts to address all perspectives in one sweeping statement that everyone can basically agree on: Jesus is fully human.
Jesus is fully Divine.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son, depending on how you read the filioque clause).
It's not a description of a concrete paradigm, but a description of a metaphor -- like everything else we can say about God.

Okay, so then your whole "God doesn't make sense" thing is just a ruse, you have no actual reason to state that that you're willing to get into. Thanks.

NO, just that I don't intend to get drug down a path way off-topic.
You're welcome.

Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, or perhaps we could make a poll to at least get the RF community opinion on this matter. I see no reason to believe why a "fully human being" would NOT have a separate mind and soul.

That's what I've said all along, so we agree on this point.

That's not what I'm talking about. If you say that Jesus and God have the same substance in this manner, all it means is that they are both gods, not both God.

I don't want to get into another theological argument, but what I'm saying is that, from a certain POV, to be "made out of the same stuff" is to share being, even though we are individuals. In other words, Father and Son are individual Persons. "God" = Being.
Which I realize doesn't make sense to you.
So be it.

Okay, so for the record, you think you and I have the same minds? OF course we're separate persons. We have separate minds. We may both HAVE minds, but my mind is not yours.

Ha! I reread what I wrote, and it is shaky in meaning. What I mean FTR, is that separate persons have separate minds. We do agree on this point.

Likewise, Jesus and God may both have "godlike essence", that only means they are both gods, just like how two humans with "humanlike essence" would be two humans.

No. Even though you and I are two distinct persons, we do share humanity. Together we are human, and individually we are human. Some humans are granted more authority than other humans, but every human is equally human with every other human. Just as Jesus and the Father are distinct Persons. Individually each is God and together both are God. And each is as equally God as the other.

I must be missing something, but where did we establish that the same being can have two separate minds in "two persons", perhaps I should indeed make a whole thread about this "persons' concept.

You missed something. We are in agreement on this point.

Quite simple. A "Being" is an independent existence, free from direct outside control and free from being part of another being. It's essentially the same concept as being a "person". I find the distinction between "person" and " being" to be dubious, and that probably is why the historical attempts to define "person" all fall flat and required centuries of debate and wordplay. As for "mind", that is an aspect of our consciousness and souls which is connected to our physical bodies to experience thought, memory, and cognitive action. It's quite clear that God knows things Jesus does not know. If they had the same mind, they would know the same things. How can one being have "two persons" and "two minds"? Well that's been the million dollar question, Athanasius tried to answer it, and he got later called a heretic for his own harebrained attempt to solve this riddle. Maybe you'll be the first Trinitarian in history to explain it to the outsider adequately.
Right, but "individuals" would imply separate beings. Again, there's no real reason to believe that one being is expressing himself through two different individuals, it's not really implicit or explicit in the text, except perhaps through historical Trinitarian distortions of the Greek and ancient Theology. Objective scholarly readings don't need to wade through these jungles of senselessness.

I think you're getting waylaid by "being." In this case, God isn't "a being" -- doesn't have being. God is "Being." Because the Father is Divine, the Father is Being. Because the Son is Divine, the Son is Being. Because we are human and not Divine, we have being, as something that has been given existence. "God" is more than "an individual Person." God is Being, itself, and encompasses more than individualism. When Jesus (on earth, as a fully human being) speaks of "God," he is speaking from the perspective of a fully human being that is fundamentally separate from "Being itself." And I think that is implied in the text, if only in a primordial way.

Right, and I don't see a problem with thinking that a developed Theology is a deviant Theology, and I don't see the problem with wanting to stick to what was originally intended. I do however see embracing later developments as if it can surpass and replace what was originally intended as dishonest, but perhaps you'd like to explain why my "Originalist" view is so bad?

Well, here's a real good example: The bible at least implies that slavery is OK. But we have developed (hopefully) beyond such barbarian, dehumanizing viewpoints. Therefore, new theologies must be developed as we grow in vision and understanding. The problem with an "Originalist" POV is (I wouldn't say "bad") untenable, is because it does not take the human factor into account, and fundamentally separates us from the "original" theology, since that theology no longer speaks to us. Jesus, as God Incarnate, changed us, and so we needed to begin to think of God differently than we did before.

Can I quote you? I'd like to make a thread on this issue of whether the Bible is truly Multivalent or if this "multivalency" concpet is a completely modern Liberal concept that no Church Father or theologian has embraced until recently. (I.e. A difference between "Up to interpretation (as in there's an answer you have to find) vs "Interpret however you want" (No need to find that originally intended answer).

Feel free. I'll probably weigh in. Although I would say that "interpretation" is different from "exegesis." So "interpret however you want to" would be more an eisegetical approach, whereas your first statement is more closely aligned with and exegetical approach. However, even from an exegetical approach, usually more than one interpretation becomes possible.

 

[Shermana]

Nope. Sorry.

Nuh uh.

Nope. Sorry.

Nuh uh.

The bible is multivalent -


open to many interpretations, and we can't "read whatever [we] want into it." But just because the Trinity doctrine doesn't make much linear sense, doesn't mean that the bible doesn't make sense

Thank you for agreeing that the Trinity doesn't make much "linear sense" though. You'll have to remind me where I said the Bible doesn't make sense. I think I implied your reading is what doesn't.

. I think the Trinity doctrine is and does exactly what it was designed to be and to do: It's a blanket statement, that's broad enough to keep several factions of Xy happy and "in the same boat."

That's kind of my point on why it's a crucial doctrine for the orthodox church, it's basically a principle binding factor of a later-developed orthodoxy.

It doesn't really attempt to "pin God down" to specific understandings. It does attempt to make God broad enough to satisfy diversity.

Apparently it's so broad that the early Fathers labeled each other as heretics when they tried to pin it down.

Apparently, that's a problem for you. OK. I get that. But just because it's a problem for you doesn't mean that it's not legit.

I would think its a problem for anyone who actually is looking to study it objectively.

I think that, when we try to make the Trinity very concrete and specific, it doesn't make much sense.

Thank you.

I think that, if we hold God and the concepts of "person" and "Trinity" loosely, it does make more sense.

I disagree. The more loose it gets, the less sense it makes from whatever "sense" it made to begin with. The early Church Fathers did NOT have this view.

I think that it comes down to perspective. The Trinity attempts to address all perspectives in one sweeping statement that everyone can basically agree on: Jesus is fully human.
Jesus is fully Divine.

So what's wrong with the Arian perspective? And again, we have difference of opinion on what "Divine" means. Interestingly, even Trinitarian translations call the Angels (gods) as "Divine beings". So "Divine" apparently applies more than to God.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son, depending on how you read the filioque clause).
It's not a description of a concrete paradigm, but a description of a metaphor -- like everything else we can say about God.

So now it's just a Metaphor? If so, then it's not really a solid concept which means that the idea itself is...not solid.

NO, just that I don't intend to get drug down a path way off-topic.
You're welcome.

How is it off-topic?

That's what I've said all along, so we agree on this point.

Hmmm

I don't want to get into another theological argument, but what I'm saying is that, from a certain POV, to be "made out of the same stuff" is to share being, even though we are individuals. In other words, Father and Son are individual Persons. "God" = Being.
Which I realize doesn't make sense to you.
So be it.

Why should this interpretation make sense to me? After all, isn't it "Too much for the human mind to understand"? What's wrong with just believing they're two separate beings made of the same stuff? What's wrong with Arianism? I've asked that like 4 times now?

Ha! I reread what I wrote, and it is shaky in meaning. What I mean FTR, is that separate persons have separate minds. We do agree on this point.

That's a good start.

No. Even though you and I are two distinct persons, we do share humanity. Together we are human, and individually we are human. Some humans are granted more authority than other humans, but every human is equally human with every other human. Just as Jesus and the Father are distinct Persons. Individually each is God and together both are God. And each is as equally God as the other.

That's basically repeated Trinity Rhetoric, I don't see how it actually addresses what's at stake. Why not just go by the Arian view with the same setup here? Why must Jesus and Father individually each be God? That would be two different Gods. A problem that even the Trinitarian Fathers recognized, and this was part of the major debates on the issue, how to resolve that they're not two separate gods....and they never really did an adequate job patching that hole, they simply plugged it and said "It's too much for the Human mind to understand".

You missed something. We are in agreement on this point.

So if we're in agreement, then why not agree that they individually are NOT God each and that God (The Father) has a separate being altogether?

I think you're getting waylaid by "being."

Wouldn't that be a crucial element?

In this case, God isn't "a being" -- doesn't have being.

I don't see how I would possibly infer from the text that God doesn't have being or is a being. I guess the term "Supreme Being" is a fallacious idea to you?

God is "Being."

In an extra-scriptural Pantheist interpretation perhaps.

Because the Father is Divine, the Father is Being. Because the Son is Divine, the Son is Being.

I see no reason to possibly garner this concept from the text. Why not just go with the Arian idea?

Because we are human and not Divine, we have being,

I fail to see why being "Divine" means to "Be Being" and not to "Have Being". No need to force a Pantheistic interpretation on anyone. I Don't even think you have a single Trinitarian who agrees with this, this seems to be all your own idea.

as something that has been given existence. "God" is more than "an individual Person." God is Being, itself, and encompasses more than individualism. When Jesus (on earth, as a fully human being) speaks of "God," he is speaking from the perspective of a fully human being that is fundamentally separate from "Being itself." And I think that is implied in the text, if only in a primordial way.

A perfect example of the Wordplay and dodgy extrascriptural concepts that has propped up the Trinitarians since the beginning.

Well, here's a real good example: The bible at least implies that slavery is OK. But we have developed (hopefully) beyond such barbarian, dehumanizing viewpoints.

Apparently not so much in many parts of Africa and Asia. You can call the modern economy practically slavery. It's sad how many Americans make use of human trafficking service. With that said, I think we very well see indentured servitude in the future, Israelite style.

Therefore, new theologies must be developed as we grow in vision and understanding.

You can't really compare an entire Ontology with your views on Slavery. But I thank you for admitting its a changed Theology from its origins.

The problem with an "Originalist" POV is (I wouldn't say "bad") untenable, is because it does not take the human factor into account,

The "human factor"? You mean the "interpret whatever you want" factor?

and fundamentally separates us from the "original" theology, since that theology no longer speaks to us.

Speak for yourself.

Jesus, as God Incarnate, changed us, and so we needed to begin to think of God differently than we did before.

So you agree that the entire Ontology of God changed with the advent of the Trinity and it wasn't what was originally taught, thank you.

Feel free. I'll probably weigh in. Although I would say that "interpretation" is different from "exegesis." So "interpret however you want to" would be more an eisegetical approach, whereas your first statement is more closely aligned with and exegetical approach. However, even from an exegetical approach, usually more than one interpretation becomes possible

But my point was that they INTENDED an original meaning that wasn't meant to be up to personal opinion or change.

 

[Animevox]

is it insulting our intelligence to say that we don't completely understand the universe? I don't think so. We don't fully understand the universe, yet we believe in its existence, and we rely on its laws. In fact, isn't it more insulting to say that we do completely understand the universe?

Did they? Where? When? To whom did they "stress" this?

It is possible to love god without fully understanding god.

God is one. Even as a trinity.
Maybe especially as a trinity.

He would have? How are you so certain?

I don't know i'm not him.

And we do declare that god is one. The creed starts out by saying: "we believe in one god."

They stressed for the people to understand who exactly God really is. Meaning one and only, self-sufficient, and not associated with other beings.

Paul in fact believed that Jesus isn't God. Did you know that?

So here's the thing. Many Christian's I know try to use Paul's writings as proof that Jesus is God. But this really isn't fair to Paul, because Paul clearly believed that Jesus isn't God.

Paul wrote in his first letter to Timothy:

“I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions...” (1 Timothy 5:21).

It's clear from this that the title "God" applies not to Christ Jesus, but to someone else. In the following chapter, he again differentiates between God and Jesus when he says:

“In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession...” (1 Timothy 6:13).

Paul then went on to speak of the second appearance of Jesus:

“the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time.” (1 Timothy 6:14-15).

Again, the title "God" is deliberately turned away from Jesus.

Incidentally, many people think that when Jesus is called “Lord” in the Bible, that this means “God.”

But in the Bible, this title means "master" or "teacher", and it can in fact be used for addressing humans (see 1 Peter 3:6).

What's more important for you to understand, however, is to notice what Paul said about God in the following passage, which clearly shows that Jesus isn't God:

“God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever.” (1 Timothy 6:15-16).

Paul said that God alone is immortal. Immortal means he does not die. Check any dictionary. Now, anyone who believes that Jesus died can't believe that Jesus is God.

Such a belief would contradict what Paul said here. Furthermore, to say that God died is a blasphemy against God. Who would run the world if God died? Paul believed that God does not die.

Paul also said in that passage that God dwells in unapproachable light — that no one has seen God or can see him. Paul knew that many thousands of people had seen Jesus.

Yet Paul said that no one has seen God, because Paul was sure that Jesus is not God. This is why Paul went on teaching that Jesus was not God, but that he was the Christ (see Acts 9:22 and 18:5).

When he was in Athens, Paul spoke of God as “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.” (Acts 17:24).

Then he identified Jesus as “the man he (i.e. God) has appointed.” (Acts 17:31).

Clearly, for Paul, Jesus was not God, and he would be shocked to see his writings used for proving the opposite of what he believed. Paul even testified in court saying:

“I admit that I worship the God of our fathers...” (Acts 24:14).

He also said that Jesus is the servant of that God, for we read in Acts: “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.” (Acts 3:13).

For Paul, the Father alone is God. Paul said that there is “One God and Father of all...” (Ephesians 4:6).

Paul said again: “...For us there is but one God, the Father. . . and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ...” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Paul’s letter to the Philippians (Philippians 2:6-11) is often quoted as proof that Jesus is God. But the very passage shows that Jesus isn't God.

This passage has to agree with Isaiah 45:22-24 where God said that every knee should bow to God, and every tongue should confess that righteousness and strength are in God alone.

Paul was aware of this passage, for he quoted it in Romans 14:11. Knowing this, Paul declared: “I kneel before the Father.” (Ephesians 3:14).

The letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:6) says that the angels of God should worship the Son. But this passage depends on Deuteronomy 32:43, in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

This phrase cannot be found in the Old Testament used by Christians today, and the Septuagint version is no longer considered valid by Christians. However, even the Septuagint version, does not say worship the Son.

It says let the Angels of God worship God. The Bible insists that God alone is to be worshipped:

“When the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: ‘Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them. But the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt with mighty power and outstretched arm, is the one you must worship. To him you shall bow down and to him offer sacrifices. You must always be careful to keep the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands he wrote for you. Do not worship other gods. Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. Rather, worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies.’” (2 Kings 17:35-39).

Jesus, on whom be peace, believed in this, for he also stressed it in Luke 4:8. And Jesus too fell on his face and worshipped God (see Matthew 26:39).

Paul knew that Jesus worshipped God (see Hebrews 5:7). Paul taught that Jesus will remain forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).

 

[Animevox]

Salvation is not achieved -- it is given. Stop arguing theology you know nothing about.
You're wasting everyone's time.
We do know God -- just not completely.
Will you please stop trying to tell me what a "true follower" of Jesus will do?!
We must if he is God.
That's patently faulty theology, IMO.
And Jesus is God.
Well, bully for the Quran, but I really don't see where that's cogent to what the bible says or does not say.

If you actually read the Bible and just understand it in context, then it would all the more clear to you that Jesus isn't God.

For example, in Matthew 9:2, Jesus said to a certain man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” Because of this, some say that Jesus must be God since only God can forgive sins.

However, if you're willing to read just a few verses further, you will find that the people “...Praised God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:8).

This shows that the people knew, and Matthew agrees, that Jesus is not the only man to receive such authority from God.

Jesus himself emphasized that he does not speak on his own authority (John 14:10) and he does nothing on his own authority, but he speaks only what the Father has taught him (John 8:28).

What Jesus did here was as follows. Jesus announced to the man the knowledge Jesus received from God that God had forgiven the man.

Notice that Jesus did not say, “I forgive your sins,” but rather, “Your sins are forgiven,” implying, as this would to his Jewish listeners, that God had forgiven the man.

Jesus, then, did not have the power to forgive sins, and in that very episode, he called himself “The Son of Man” (Matthew 9:6).

 

[Shermana]

Salvation is not achieved -- it is given. Stop arguing theology you know nothing about.

Hopefully you're aware there are different Theologies that do indeed say that Salvation is achieved, even Paul hints at this, if it were so cut and dry we wouldn't have different churches telling people what they need to do to be saved. And even by your "given" logic, it's still "achieved" by the right "belief". This would be a good thread topic, probably been done before but a new one would be good.

Then we have the whole "Faith without works does not save" thing.

And then there's the issue of discussing what Jesus meant by "Strive for the narrow gate" and "Your righteous must exceed the scribes and Pharisees" and Paul saying "Labor for your salvation".

And Jesus is God.

Being "Savior" doesn't necessarily make one God, who is the "Only Savior" yet "sends saviors" (obadiah 1:21). Christ would be "Savior send by THE SAVIOR".