So Jesus is not God?

[syo]

A question for the Unitarians and other Christians who doubt Jesus is God:

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8​

Notice that it is GOD that demonstrates His love towards us but it is CHRIST who dies.

Let's pretend Jesus is NOT God, just like you claim. How is it GOD showing his love toward us by asking someone else to die?

If the Warden comes to your house and requests you die for someone who's currently in jail, someone who knows and confesses he's guilty, would you consider this an act of love by the Warden?

Remember, I'm not asking if you are loving by agreeing to die for the convicted felon, I'm asking if you feel the Warden is showing his love for you by asking.

This is extremely easy to answer if Jesus is God. But if he's not, I wonder how it's answered.

Thanks for playing!

Jesus IS God. He is the Son. great post btw

 

[74x12]

The ol testament was not speaking of the Jesus in the new testament but talking about a Jewish Messiah from the Jewish Messiah movement.

Jesus was Jewish. Jesus claimed to fulfill the messianic prophecies. Jesus' claim is that He is the Jewish Messiah.

 

[Riders]

Jesus was Jewish. Jesus claimed to fulfill the messianic prophecies. Jesus' claim is that He is the Jewish Messiah.

No that's what his deciples claimed.

 

[74x12]

No that's what his deciples claimed.

I disagree, but either way; the claim is still there. And btw, Jesus does fulfill the prophecies. Except the ones that He always claimed He would fulfill at His next coming. So it's up to you to decide if He is or not.

Otherwise, then who is the Messiah?

 

[Oeste]

I was trying to be generous, but you're right ─ there's no coherent interpretation of the Trinity doctrine. Either 1+1+1=3 or ⅓+⅓+⅓ = 1. Ain't no middle way.

Of course! A husband and father who programs is 3 men, or 1/3 husband, 1/3 dad, and 1/3 programmer. Either 1+1+1=3 or ⅓+⅓+⅓ = 1. Ain’t no middle way.

Since neither of these “formulas” have anything to do with the Trinity let’s stick with the thread theme of whether Jesus is God. We can save the Trinity for another day.

No part of my argument says Jesus is deity. Exactly as Jesus said, nothing about Jesus is of himself deity. No question of 'how' arises.

“Exactly as Jesus said”? Are you referring to red letters only, and if so, what about the prophets? This makes no sense if you hold scripture as authoritative. However it does make sense if we must throw scripture under the bus when Jesus is not God... which is exactly my point.

No, once the Trinity doctrine applies, nothing like that can happen. For instance, Trinity Jesus never ceases to be 100% of God because that's his Trinitarian nature Again, Trinity Jesus doesn't worship the Father ─ if anyone, he worships God, and he's 100% of God and the equal of the Father and of the Ghost in all respects, so if he worships anyone, and he says he does, he worships himself. Again, Trinity Jesus says on the cross, Me, me, why have I forsaken me? Again, the Trinity Father has no better claim to being the Father than Jesus or the Ghost have, albeit no worse either.

English has many words for the Trinity sort of situation, but this is a family show so I'll settle for 'nonsense'.

Let’s stay focused Blü. We’re not talking about misshapen views of the Trinity. Asking a Trinitarian why he supports Tritheism is like asking a Muslim why they support Buddha. Instead, we’re talking about whether Jesus is God. We’ll have plenty of time to talk about the Trinity on another thread. Promise.

Nothing like that in my book. Please quote me the text on which you rely for that claim.

I previously asked how many Saviors, Lords, and Gods does scripture hold for mankind?

Yet Yahweh and Jesus are called:

• God
• King
• Beginning and End
• Savior
• Redeemer
• Lord
• Creator

As I said, the Tanakh is ambivalent on the topic eg going the other way ─

Ecclesiastes 3: 18 I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them to show them that they are but beasts. 19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.

​

I see no problem here and no rebuttal of Daniel 12:2. Both men and beasts turn to dust after they die. Our fate, to the extent it mirrors the beast, is the same. Our bodies return to dust. But beasts were not made in the image of God, and the spirit of beasts do not rise up. In other words, the bodies of dead beasts can never be said to “sleep” because there is no resurrection of a body.

​

Job 14:10 But man dies, and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? 11 As waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up,12 so man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake, or be roused out of his sleep.​

​

Another proof text lacking context? This is simply a lament by Job, not a treatise on the condition of the dead.

Psalm 146: 3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish.

Correct. His plans perish.

Ecclesiastes 9: 4 But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.

So a man dies and has no more reward, neither good nor bad? And have you really already forgotten those who have died around you? Again, no treatise on the state of the dead, but this verse is simply expressing the viewpoint of a worldly person, “a man living under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 9:3).

You can perceive Jesus as God to your heart's content, but the Tanakh will still have internal inconsistencies, the NT will still have internal inconsistencies, and the Tanakh and the NT will still be incompatible. (The Christian habit of pretending the Tanakh is really about Jesus is as nonsensical as the Trinity doctrine.)

Not if both Testaments are authoritative…a point you now freely abandon in order to show Jesus is not God. Again we arrive at the point of this thread, and we will keep arriving at this point no matter which circular route we take because there is no other point when both Testaments are authoritative.

Nope, you've misread your text. It says 'Greater love hath no MAN than this.' It says nothing to rule God out.

This assertion might make sense if man is love. But scripture tells us God is love, not man. How is the object greater than the source? So carrying your argument further, God was never the source of this love because, according to you, He was never on the cross! Since scripture flat out states God is love (1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:16), another way to read this is “Greater God hath no man than this, to lay his life down for his friends”, but only when we understand it is God that is the source of God, not man. Besides, this same assertion flutters and dies when we consider other verses like Romans 5:

6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But Jesus God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.​

The context here is of first person and not third party sacrifice. As you know, personal is when I die, third-party is when the goat dies.

Verse 7 states “Very rarely will anyone die…”. It doesn’t say “Very rarely will we send anyone to die…” Who dies is personal, not objective. It is you, your very person that is dying. It is not someone else, it is your own life given for another.

Verse 8 keeps thematic harmony, not by telling us that it is Jesus showing this same love by dying, but God showing his own love, the exact same love described in verse 7, when Christ dies for our sins. So the question is not why God is “ruled out”, it is why God is “ruled in” if Jesus is not God. It is Christ that dies but it is God who demonstrates the love. And as we know, it is the one who dies personally, and not the one who dies vicariously that shows greater love.

Under the rules we agreed, scripture therefore wins and Jesus' many declarations that he's not God stand unchallenged.

I’m glad we can agree scripture wins, but once we look beyond the empty silo of proof texts and actually analyze scripture it becomes increasingly clear Jesus is God.

 

[blü 2]

\

We’re not talking about misshapen views of the Trinity. Asking a Trinitarian why he supports Tritheism is like asking a Muslim why they support Buddha.

A single scotch on the rocks can't be 100% scotch and 100% ice and 100% glass, and God can't be 100% Father and 100% Son and 100% Ghost. God can be the sum of the Father, the Son and the Ghost, meaning that each of them is a fraction of God, which I expressed before as ⅓+⅓+⅓ = 1, but that isn't what the Trinity doctrine says. And God the Father as 100% of God and God the Son as 100% of God and God the Ghost as 100% of God add up to 300% which is three Gods. But that isn't what the Trinity doctrine says either.

That's why the RCC and Anglo/Piscos admit the Trinity doctrine is 'a mystery in the strict sense', something that can neither be known by reason nor demonstrated by reason once it's known ─ their words, not mine. And the words mean the doctrine is incoherent, a nonsense.

As for whether Jesus is God, Jesus says many times that he's not, and never says that he is and under our agreed rules that's authoritative.

So Jesus isn't God.

And that remains correct even if we omit all mention the Trinity.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Jesus adequately fits the bill as a demigod.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus adequately fits the bill as a demigod.

The Gnostic picture of God as pure remote spirit and Jesus as the demiurge, the maker of the (impure) material world and thereafter mediator between it and spirit, the realm of God, can be found here and there in the NT eg Paul ─

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
​

and in Pseudo-Paul ─

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities ─ all things have been created through Him and for Him.​

and (if you accept that the 'Word' in John 1 is Jesus) the author of John 1:1-18 (who I think is likely not the author of the rest of John):

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.​

 

[Muffled]

That is an interesting perspective and certainly adds to the mountain of Biblical evidence that Jesus is God in the flesh.

Then we have John 3:16.

 

[Muffled]

There is a range of belief about the "Godhead". An adult will allow others to find their own truth.

I believe an adult should be able to recognize the one truth.

 

[Muffled]

Hello brother . The Quran says: Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah (God) is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was.

Adam was created with no mother nor father but Jesus without a father. Jesus is mentioned in the Quran 36 times and Mary 34 times ( the only woman mentioned by name in the entire Quran). Muhammad is only mentioned 4 times.

Jesus is one of the mightiest messenger of God and you are not a muslim unless you believe in Jesus, Moses and all messenger of God. Tell me if you would like to know more about Islam. One god one message no sons.

I believe I now more about Islam than you do because I have the Holy Spirit as a guide. I believe the Qu'ran supports the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Oeste]

A single scotch on the rocks can't be 100% scotch and 100% ice and 100% glass, and God can't be 100% Father and 100% Son and 100% Ghost. God can be the sum of the Father, the Son and the Ghost, meaning that each of them is a fraction of God, which I expressed before as ⅓+⅓+⅓ = 1, but that isn't what the Trinity doctrine says. And God the Father as 100% of God and God the Son as 100% of God and God the Ghost as 100% of God add up to 300% which is three Gods. But that isn't what the Trinity doctrine says either.

My goodness! That’s a strange comparison but the Trinity is certainly not comparable to a scotch on the rocks, and there’s nothing triune about the formula you espouse which is why I’d rather save any weird misconceptions of the Trinity for later. We’ll even get into the fascinating “three-headed god”, in depth.

That's why the RCC and Anglo/Piscos admit the Trinity doctrine is 'a mystery in the strict sense', something that can neither be known by reason nor demonstrated by reason once it's known ─ their words, not mine. And the words mean the doctrine is incoherent, a nonsense.

No, it just means the comparisons are nonsense, not the doctrine. Secondly, and we’ve been over this before, the idea of mortal man comprehending God is certainly plausible (and necessary) in pagan theology but anathema to the biblical concept of an infinite God. God has told us we will not understand Him, so why anyone insists we should is beyond me.

As for whether Jesus is God, Jesus says many times that he's not, and never says that he is and under our agreed rules that's authoritative.

So Jesus isn't God.

And that remains correct even if we omit all mention the Trinity.

My unanswered questions clearly show otherwise. No one's been able to answer the OP, nor can anyone answer why Jesus would claim only God is good if he wasn’t actually God.

“You must not present anything with a defect, because it will not be accepted on your behalf.” (Leviticus 22:20)

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.” (Mark 10:18)

“It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God” (1 Peter 1:19)​

There’s really no way to get over, around, through or below it. If you can’t atone for your own sins with a no-good, slightly blemished goat then you certainly can’t atone for the sins of the world with a no-good, slightly blemished Jesus. This is common, basic biblical sense and we arrive at it scripturally...with absolutely no discussion of Unitarianism, Bitheism, Patrapassionism, Psilanthropism, Monarchianism, Tritheism or Trinitarianism.

I appreciate the herculean efforts to the contrary but the historic church has been at this for over 2,000 years. The heresies have come, gone, and to no one’s surprise, have come again. Scripture hasn’t changed and neither will the result.

Jesus is God.

 

[blü 2]

My goodness! That’s a strange comparison but the Trinity is certainly not comparable to a scotch on the rocks, and there’s nothing triune about the formula you espouse which is why I’d rather save any weird misconceptions of the Trinity for later. We’ll even get into the fascinating “three-headed god”, in depth.

No need. I've already pointed to the incoherence, and to the churches' confession that it's indeed incoherent ─ a 'mystery in the strict sense'.

So if you're saying Jesus was a Trinitarian, the least you're saying is that Jesus sucked at maths.

No, it just means the comparisons are nonsense, not the doctrine.

Not correct. The point made by the comparison is entirely relevant and valid. See above.

the idea of mortal man comprehending God is certainly plausible (and necessary) in pagan theology but anathema to the biblical concept of an infinite God.

Red herring alert! Red herring alert! In order to avoid having to face up to the incoherence of the Trinity doctrine, you're introducing the incoherent concept of an 'infinite' God.

God has told us we will not understand Him, so why anyone insists we should is beyond me.

If God can't explain [him]self clearly despite being 'almighty' then that shows [he]'s not almighty, casting doubt on [his] infinitude claim too. That's [his] problem, not ours, and we conduct our conversations accordingly. And fortunately it's irrelevant.

No one's been able to answer the OP

We left that question behind ages ago.

nor can anyone answer why Jesus would claim only God is good if he wasn’t actually God.

Why should Jesus not claim only the Father is good? He's God's envoy (as I clearly showed you with those quotes of his own words) and it's his job to further the interests of his boss.

“You must not present anything with a defect, because it will not be accepted on your behalf.” (Leviticus 22:20)​

That's not a requirement of moral perfection. It's a requirement that the priests can comfortably eat the leftovers.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.” (Mark 10:18)

Yes, to use Jesus' own words, the Father is 'the only true god'.

“It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God” (1 Peter 1:19)​

Doesn't say he was good, though ─ being sinless and being spotless are negative qualities.

There’s really no way to get over, around, through or below it. If you can’t atone for your own sins with a no-good, slightly blemished goat then you certainly can’t atone for the sins of the world with a no-good, slightly blemished Jesus.

Obviously you can, and until the 4th century CE when the Trinity nonsense was invented because church politics required something of the kind, there was no argument ─ and as far as Jesus is concerned, there still isn't. Your Trinity argument is not only incoherent but an anachronism.

Otherwise Jesus' message would have been "I am God", not "I am God's envoy". And you could quote him saying "I am God" ─ but of course you can't.


PS Having posted the above, I've had the following further thought.

The first gospel written is Mark, probably around 75 CE. In Mark, Jesus is not the son of God until his baptism by John the Baptist, at which moment God declares from the sky that Jesus is now recognized as God's adopted son in accordance with the process by which David became God's adopted son in Psalm 2:7 (and 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 89:26) ─ a connection expressly confirmed in Acts 13:33. That is, Mark has Jesus as the son of God according to Jewish tradition. In the later gospels of Matthew and Luke, this is changed to the 'virgin birth': instead of adoption we have God inseminating Mary, resulting in Jesus having God's DNA, certainly God's Y chromosome, which is how Greek gods do it ─ a different tradition altogether.

If Jesus were God he wouldn't need to be baptized and he wouldn't need to adopt himself.

 

[Oeste]

No need. I've already pointed to the incoherence, and to the churches' confession that it's indeed incoherent ─ a 'mystery in the strict sense'.

What’s the problem? We're talking a strictly scriptural sense here and a ‘mystery”, as used in the New Testament, is something that was once hidden but is now revealed to God’s people.​

“To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted” (Matthew 13:11, NASB)​

“Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:…” (1 Timothy 3:16, ESV)​

Even the gospel is mystery!

"At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison—" (Colossian 4:3, ESV)​

So if you're saying Jesus was a Trinitarian, the least you're saying is that Jesus sucked at maths.

Or that we just don’t understand words and context.

Not correct. The point made by the comparison is entirely relevant and valid. See above.

Your point is invalid. See above.

Red herring alert! Red herring alert! In order to avoid having to face up to the incoherence of the Trinity doctrine, you're introducing the incoherent concept of an 'infinite' God.

It’s not often someone takes the time to notify readers they’re about to launch into a red herring. I think you have performed an invaluable public service, and we can all learn from your fine example.

Of course there is no “incoherent concept” here. You rushed to a predetermination based on a faulty understanding of “mystery”. I’ve asked you before: Are you reading Watchtower magazines?

If God can't explain [him]self clearly despite being 'almighty' then that shows [he]'s not almighty, casting doubt on [his] infinitude claim too. That's [his] problem, not ours, and we conduct our conversations accordingly. And fortunately it's irrelevant.

The notion God should first explain things to mankind before He does it is bizarre. However I understand where the notion comes from….when we create gods in our own image there is never a need for this god to explain anything at all, especially since we already have all his answers.

Oeste said: ↑
No one's been able to answer the OP

We left that question behind ages ago.

Yes, as unanswered.

Why should Jesus not claim only the Father is good? He's God's envoy (as I clearly showed you with those quotes of his own words) and it's his job to further the interests of his boss.

That doesn’t explain how a no-good Jesus dies for the sins of mankind.

That's not a requirement of moral perfection. It's a requirement that the priests can comfortably eat the leftovers.

Moral perfection? We’re talking atonement, not moral perfection. A blemished goat is not acceptable for the atonement of personal sins any more than a blemished Jesus would be atonement for mankind’s sins. There’s no getting around this Blü.

Oeste said: ↑
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.” (Mark 10:18)

Yes, to use Jesus' own words, the Father is 'the only true god'.

I believe the verse reads “God” and not “Father”.

Doesn't say he was good, though ─ being sinless and being spotless are negative qualities.

Being sinless and spotless are “negative qualities”???

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20​

This goes right back to thread theme…we must adopt heresies in order to show Jesus is not God.

Oeste said: ↑
“It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God” (1 Peter 1:19)

Obviously you can, and until the 4th century CE when the Trinity nonsense was invented because church politics required something of the kind, there was no argument ─ and as far as Jesus is concerned, there still isn't. Your Trinity argument is not only incoherent but an anachronism.

So not only is are being sinless and spotless “negative qualities”, but a blemished Jesus can be sacrificed for the sins of the world! Of course, if you can do that then stripping Jesus of his Deity becomes an easy matter.

Otherwise Jesus' message would have been "I am God", not "I am God's envoy". And you could quote him saying "I am God" ─ but of course you can't.

Jesus stated “I am” which the Jews understood perfectly Blü. That’s why they picked up rocks to stone him, remember?

PS Having posted the above, I've had the following further thought.

The first gospel written is Mark, probably around 75 CE. In Mark, Jesus is not the son of God until his baptism by John the Baptist, at which moment God declares from the sky that Jesus is now recognized as God's adopted son in accordance with the process by which David became God's adopted son in Psalm 2:7 (and 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 89:26) ─ a connection expressly confirmed in Acts 13:33. That is, Mark has Jesus as the son of God according to Jewish tradition. In the later gospels of Matthew and Luke, this is changed to the 'virgin birth': instead of adoption we have God inseminating Mary, resulting in Jesus having God's DNA, certainly God's Y chromosome, which is how Greek gods do it ─ a different tradition altogether.

If Jesus were God he wouldn't need to be baptized and he wouldn't need to adopt himself.

Jesus was born as man so of course he would need to be baptized. Man is born, God is not. As the Son of God he is God incarnate. As the Son of Man he is man. That is his dual nature.

 

[blü 2]

What’s the problem?​

It's not a problem for me. It's simply the churches' admission that the Trinity doctrine is a nonsense. That can't be helpful to any claim that despite all his express denials, Jesus is actually God.

We're talking a strictly scriptural sense here and a ‘mystery”, as used in the New Testament, is something that was once hidden but is now revealed to God’s people.​

Revealed in all its incoherence ─ a 'mystery in the strict sense' is not a notion found in scripture, simply as a polite expression for 'nonsense'. Or as the Ox Dict Xn Ch says, something that can't be known by reason and once known can't be demonstrated by reason.

“To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted” (Matthew 13:11, NASB)

Yes, it has him saying that to the disciples. But he never once says 'Psst, fellers, don't tell anyone but I'm atcherly God'. Instead he said again and again, I'm NOT God, there's one true god and that's the Father, and he's my god and you should all join me in worshiping him.

Or that we just don’t understand words and context.

Seems to me John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” doesn't hide many secrets.

Of course there is no “incoherent concept” here. You rushed to a predetermination based on a faulty understanding of “mystery”.

The idea of hiding God in meaningless phrases like 'infinite', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', 'perfect' and so on doesn't work for me. All those qualities are imaginary. A real god would be real in the sense of having objective existence, meaning there'd be no impediment to taking photos of [him] or giving [him] [his] own television show.

Meanwhile, back at the matter we're discussing, you still can't produce an example of Jesus saying "I am God" and you still want to accuse him of believing incoherent nonsense like the Trinity doctrine.

Why do you think he repeatedly denied he was God?

Why do you think he never once said he was God?

Why do you think he'd know about a doctrine that he never mentions, not least because it wasn't invented till several centuries later?

Why, if he knew of it, do you think he'd subscribe to an admitted nonsense?

(I think I last saw a Watchtower magazine in a London pub, some time in the 1990s. It was being offered for sale, or given away, or whatever, but I didn't acquire one.)

 

[Oeste]

It's not a problem for me.

Me neither! I’m glad we once again arrive at a mutual consensus.

It's simply the churches' admission that the Trinity doctrine is a nonsense. That can't be helpful to any claim that despite all his express denials, Jesus is actually God.

The church has never claimed the Trinity doctrine as nonsense. Blü has made this claim, not the church. Let’s not blur or confuse the two.

Revealed in all its incoherence ─ a 'mystery in the strict sense' is not a notion found in scripture, simply as a polite expression for 'nonsense'. Or as the Ox Dict Xn Ch says, something that can't be known by reason and once known can't be demonstrated by reason.

God, faith and scripture has always been incoherent to non-believers. It comes as no surprise that any doctrine rooted in all 3 would be perceived equally incoherent to them as well.

The idea of hiding God in meaningless phrases like 'infinite', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', 'perfect' and so on doesn't work for me.

You do not believe in the Christian God so of course it doesn’t work for you. You don’t believe scripture. If you did believe it would work, which is the whole point of this thread.

All those qualities are imaginary. A real god would be real in the sense of having objective existence, meaning there'd be no impediment to taking photos of [him] or giving [him] [his] own television show.

These “real gods” of which you speak are a dime a dozen and that may be overly generous. Some even have their own television show. They are false gods because they are all man-made.

Of course, the fact you must once again abandon scripture to proffer a point simply validates my assertion.

Meanwhile, back at the matter we're discussing, you still can't produce an example of Jesus saying "I am God" and you still want to accuse him of believing incoherent nonsense like the Trinity doctrine.

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!" At this, they picked up stones to throw at Him (John 8:58)

He convinced the Jews of his claim which is sufficient. The Jews he convinced of this claim were believers. I doubt the atheists would care what he called himself.

Why do you think he repeatedly denied he was God?

He did and they tried to stone him, remember? Jesus had a ministry to complete.

Why do you think he'd know about a doctrine that he never mentions, not least because it wasn't invented till several centuries later?

If I told you that “gravity” must not have been around because Isaac Newton didn’t mention it until 1568, would you find my argument compelling?

If not, why do you present the same argument here?

In any event, you have clearly abandoned any pretense that you could hold scripture authoritative, because when you do, Jesus is God.

(I think I last saw a Watchtower magazine in a London pub, some time in the 1990s. It was being offered for sale, or given away, or whatever, but I didn't acquire one.)

Shhhh….don’t say this to loudly as you may well find yourself flooded with subscription offers. But this is good to know, whatever our disagreements.

 

[blü 2]

The church has never claimed the Trinity doctrine as nonsense. Blü has made this claim, not the church. Let’s not blur or confuse the two.

Please give me nice clear answers to these questions:
1.
The churches say the Trinity is a 'mystery in the strict sense'.
They add that a 'mystery in the strict sense' ─
'can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation,
nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed'

Explain clearly how the Trinity can be said to make sense while having those qualities ─ since if it doesn't make sense, it's a nonsense.
2.
The Trinity doctrine says God is composed of three distinct entities, such that each of the elements is of itself the entirety of God at all times.

Either God is composed of fractions, such that, to take my earlier example, ⅓+⅓+⅓=1
or God is composed of three distinct elements each of which is entirely God, giving three gods.

If you say there's a third alternative, explain how it works.
3
If Jesus was in his own right the entirety of God,
a. why did he constantly deny he was god, never one say he was god and insist that the Father was the 'only true god'?
b. why did he say something so silly as 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?' on the cross?
c. since his father was God, and he's God, how does the Father deserve the title 'Father'?
4.
Why would Jesus know about the Trinity doctrine, given that he never mentions it, neither does anyone else in the NT, and it wasn't invented till the 4th century CE?

 

[metis]

To use a non-Trinitarian theologian as a source, namely Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina, who now is an agnostic), it was a belief in the 1st century Church that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were of God but not God the Father. And when we read the gospels, it really is quite clear that both occupy positions that go well beyond anything we read in the OT about anyone else. IOW, Jesus, for example, is not viewed as just being another prophet or just a messianic figure.

Therefore, correctly or not, the Trinitarian concept was an attempt to try and explain this relationship, even though the Catholic Church referred to is as "the Mystery of the Trinity" as there's no way our mortal minds can fully understand this.

 

[Oeste]

It's not a problem for me. It's simply the churches' admission that the Trinity doctrine is a nonsense. That can't be helpful to any claim that despite all his express denials, Jesus is actually God.
Revealed in all its incoherence ─ a 'mystery in the strict sense' is not a notion found in scripture, simply as a polite expression for 'nonsense'. Or as the Ox Dict Xn Ch says, something that can't be known by reason and once known can't be demonstrated by reason.
Yes, it has him saying that to the disciples. But he never once says 'Psst, fellers, don't tell anyone but I'm atcherly God'. Instead he said again and again, I'm NOT God, there's one true god and that's the Father, and he's my god and you should all join me in worshiping him.
Seems to me John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” doesn't hide many secrets.
The idea of hiding God in meaningless phrases like 'infinite', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'omnipresent', 'perfect' and so on doesn't work for me. All those qualities are imaginary. A real god would be real in the sense of having objective existence, meaning there'd be no impediment to taking photos of [him] or giving [him] [his] own television show.

Meanwhile, back at the matter we're discussing, you still can't produce an example of Jesus saying "I am God" and you still want to accuse him of believing incoherent nonsense like the Trinity doctrine.

Why do you think he repeatedly denied he was God?

Why do you think he never once said he was God?

Why do you think he'd know about a doctrine that he never mentions, not least because it wasn't invented till several centuries later?

Why, if he knew of it, do you think he'd subscribe to an admitted nonsense?

(I think I last saw a Watchtower magazine in a London pub, some time in the 1990s. It was being offered for sale, or given away, or whatever, but I didn't acquire one.)

I'll address the Trinity in a separate thread.

For now, I think it's important readers realize that the early Christian church scripturally recognized Jesus as God long before the heresy of Arianism and Nicea.

 

[blü 2]

I'll address the Trinity in a separate thread.

Why?

Your claim here is that Jesus is God, and Jesus is God because of the Trinity, and the Trinity is a nonsense, as the churches admit.

So I'd have thought here and now were the time and place for accusing Jesus of being party to a nonsense, and calling him an habitual liar on the question of whether he's God.

For now, I think it's important readers realize that the early Christian church scripturally recognized Jesus as God long before the heresy of Arianism and Nicea.

Jesus was an Arian, if you want to take that view. He was absolutely clear that he wasn't God, and he never claimed to be made of the same Aristotelian ousia as God. (Instead he said he was one with God in a manner by which everyone could be one with God.)

(Have you noticed how Greek Christianity is? Far more Greek than Judaism, for all that Judaism has many Greek influences. Greek notions of 'substance', of the soul, on how God, not in Mark but in Matthew and Luke, could have a son by conception, of postmortal judgment and heaven and hell, and so on.)