• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who do YOU say Jesus is?

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, I realize your math was just absurd.
That's what a reductio ad absurdum does.
Will you also conclude that gravity didn’t exist before Newton and the sun circled the earth prior to Galileo?
Gravity, being accessible to reason, isn't 'a mystery in the strict sense', which is to say, gravity isn't a nonsense.
I think you need to read a reliable history and evolution regarding the heresies of Sabellius and Arius.
They were respectively early and late 3rd century players in the political push to turn Jesus into a god, despite Jesus' repeated denials. Their views were steps in the chain that led to the invention of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century.
They had their chance, took their shot and missed Blu. No roar of the crowd, no banners waving, just a quiet little place where their teachings could rest in peace.
I guess in theology that can happen if you go to the trouble of trying to make sense.
But here you are 1800 years later, a skeptic trying to resurrect a dead teaching.
The dead teaching you refer to is the teaching of Jesus eg:

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​
the Trinity. It’s the only doctrine that adequately and scripturally explains Christ’s claims to deity without jumping off the cliff into polytheism and which doesn’t have Jesus praying to Himself
You have yet to show a single instance of Jesus claiming to be God.

You have yet to explain why Jesus instead said the Father is the only true god. Why do you always avoid addressing that?

You have yet to explain why Jesus worships the Father. Why do you always avoid addressing that?

You have yet to explain why Jesus acknowledges the Father as the source of all Jesus' power and authority, the one at whose command Jesus came to earth from Heaven ─ John 8:42 "I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me."

You have yet to explain why Jesus would cry out Me me why have I forsaken me? (I notice you slipped in a claim that the Trinity doctrine explains why Jesus didn't say that. But if that were to have a chance of explaining it, Jesus would have to have called on the Father. He didn't. He called on God. And under the Trinity doctrine Jesus is 100% of God.)
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
Gravity, being accessible to reason, isn't 'a mystery in the strict sense', which is to say, gravity isn't a nonsense.

The Trinity doctrine was reasoned from scripture.

They were respectively early and late 3rd century players in the political push to turn Jesus into a god, despite Jesus' repeated denials. Their views were steps in the chain that led to the invention of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century.

You were almost there, but your statement needs a bit of work:

They were respectively early and late 3rd century players in the political push to turn Jesus into a god, deny Jesus was God, despite Jesus' repeated denials assertions to the contrary. Their views were steps in the chain that led to the invention elocution of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century which itself was based on scripture written centuries earlier.​

Much better.

I guess in theology that can happen if you go to the trouble of trying to make sense.

It did happen, and the consensus was neither Sabellianism nor Arianism made sense.


John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”[/QUOTE]

We've been through this before Blu. God is Triune, Jesus has a dual nature, and you don't believe a whit of what you just posted.

Still, I'm rather surprised you would choose John 20:17, as this shows Christ was always careful in what he says. You'll notice he didn't say I am ascending to "OUR Father and OUR God." Instead he carefully distinguishes his relationship from the Father with the relationship humans had from the Father. Why?

As Robert Reymond comments in his book: Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness:

It is significant that nowhere in the teaching of Jesus did He ever speak of God to His disciples as "our Father" or "Our God." Throughout His ministry He consistently spoke of the Father as "the Father" or "My Father," but never as "our Father." (The "Our Father" of the so-called "Lord's Prayer" is not an exception to this inasmuch as there Jesus is instructing His disciples on how they should corporately address God in prayer.) Here [in John 20:17], in keeping with His established pattern of speech, He avoided the obviously shorter form of expression ("our") and chose to remain with the longer form ("My" and "your"). I suggest that His concern here was to maintain the distinction between the sense in He is God's Son by nature and by right and the sense in which His disciples are God's sons by grace and adoption. (pp 210-211)​

Of course the reason Jesus made this distinction or why he spoke this way means little to skeptics because they believe scripture and Jesus to be at best little more than embellishment and fiction.

You have yet to show a single instance of Jesus claiming to be God.

You're correct on that. I gave 160 instead.

You have yet to explain why Jesus instead said the Father is the only true god. Why do you always avoid addressing that?

Because Trinitarians only have one God. Why would a Trinitarian avoid that?

Granted we don't have a God and a McGod like some of the Arians on this board. No big Almighty a la carte served with a minor side of Mighty. No little junior Gods running around all over the place. Just one triune God.

You have yet to explain why Jesus worships the Father. Why do you always avoid addressing that?

You haven't been talking with me, @Spartan, or the other Trinitarians on this board then.Jesus was fully human, fully God. As a man Jesus worships God just like anyone. As God, He worships no one...He receives worship but doesn't give it...all part of his dual nature.

You have yet to explain why Jesus acknowledges the Father as the source of all Jesus' power and authority,

His incarnation was as a man Blü . As such he had to acknowledge the Father just as we do. If he didn't acknowledge the Father, why should we? And if he wasn't fully man, how could He die as one for the sins of men? In fact, He could not live a life that deviated one whit from what the Father instructed, as it would have led to sin. He always consulted the Father.

You have yet to explain why Jesus would cry out Me me why have I forsaken me?

Hmmmm...well, perhaps the fact he never said it might be why.

(I notice you slipped in a claim that the Trinity doctrine explains why Jesus didn't say that. But if that were to have a chance of explaining it, Jesus would have to have called on the Father. He didn't. He called on God. And under the Trinity doctrine Jesus is 100% of God.)

He is 100% God and 100% man just as stated in the doctrine (I notice you left the "man" part out). A dual nature is not difficult to understand so I don't know why you struggle or pretend to struggle with it. Likewise, you can be 100% American and 100% man also.

Men calling on God is not uncommon experience even among the most ardent of skeptics. It's something God encourages us to do. Why does Jesus doing the same seem peculiar to you?

Can you imagine if Christ hadn't called on God? Then he would be no better than those in the world thinking he was a man that didn't need God and worse, due to his dual nature, we would have God denying He needed God. That was the purpose of Satan's temptations. Having sewn enmity between man and God, Satan was hoping to knock it out of the park with a twofer.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
os
The Trinity doctrine was reasoned from scripture
As any unbiased onlooker will tell you, the Trinity doctrine stands the NT on its head. And as I pointed out to you, I'm an unbiased onlooker because my interest is entirely about what it actually says ─ it wouldn't worry me at all if it set out the Trinity doctrine word for word ─ though instead it repeatedly contradicts it ─ but it would still be a 'mystery in the strict sense', ie a nonsense.
You were almost there, but your statement needs a bit of work:

They were respectively early and late 3rd century players in the political push to turn Jesus into a god, deny Jesus was God, despite Jesus' repeated denials assertions to the contrary. Their views were steps in the chain that led to the invention elocution of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century which itself was based on scripture written centuries earlier.​

Much better.
If you go on like that, someone may mistake you for ─ horresco referens ─ an apologist.
It did happen, and the consensus was neither Sabellianism nor Arianism made sense.
'Suited the politics of the day' is the expression you're looking for. And as can happen with politics, the result is not only a nonsense but an avowed one, 'a mystery in the strict sense'.
John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” We've been through this before Blu. God is Triune, Jesus has a dual nature
And as Paul and John would have it, a divine one, as a being sent by God from heaven. But neither Paul's Jesus nor John's thinks he's God, as Paul (on behalf of his) makes clear, and John's Jesus, speaking for himself, makes clear. And as I showed you before, each of the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke deny they're God.

And as you well know, none of them EVER says "I am God".
and you don't believe a whit of what you just posted.
Of course I do. I believe, to be precise, that the quotes I set out are accurate translations of the Greek, and I believe that they have the meanings and intentions that I attribute to them.

I also believe that you haven't come to grips with the significance of 'a mystery in the strict sense' and that you're trying, though you're in a long Christian tradition here, of retrofitting the NT to your purposes, just as (to take one of many possible examples) those Christian views of the Tanakh that pretend to find Jesus there.
Still, I'm rather surprised you would choose John 20:17, as this shows Christ was always careful in what he says. You'll notice he didn't say I am ascending to "OUR Father and OUR God." Instead he carefully distinguishes his relationship from the Father with the relationship humans had from the Father. Why?
Why? Because you've misread the text. It says (John 20:17:

I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.
which as you can read, means, I, Jesus, am ascending to the divine being who is both my Father and your Father, whom I worship and you worship.
As Robert Reymond comments in his book: Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness:

It is significant that nowhere in the teaching of Jesus did He ever speak of God to His disciples as "our Father" or "Our God."​
So what? The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke got their Y-chromosomes by divine insemination, so that they (though not Mark's Jesus, the status of Paul's and John's being unclear) had God for a father in a sense different to God being the Father of the Jewish people.
Of course the reason Jesus made this distinction or why he spoke this way means little to skeptics because they believe scripture and Jesus to be at best little more than embellishment and fiction.
You sound so bitter when you say things like that! But the question you and I are discussing is whether the Trinity doctrine has any support from the NT ─ which considering how many times and how baldly and consistently the NT denies that very proposition, is just plain odd.
You're correct on that. I gave 160 instead.
Not 160, not 1. You need to find these words in Jesus' mouth: "I am God". Not, I am Alpha / the referee / the big dude / the demiurge / the Lord / the whatever ─ just "I am God". And it isn't there. Why? Because it's hundreds of years too soon.
You haven't been talking with me, @Spartan, or the other Trinitarians on this board then.Jesus was fully human, fully God. As a man Jesus worships God just like anyone. As God, He worships no one...He receives worship but doesn't give it...all part of his dual nature.
Now now! No self-serving misreadings please. Jesus doesn't say he worships God. He says he worships the Father. In your view, one corner of the Trinity saying another corner is the real business. (And as usual, no one has a syllable to waste on the Ghost.)
His incarnation was as a man Blü . As such he had to acknowledge the Father just as we do.
Nope. He was subservient to the Father while he was still in heaven:

John 8:42 "I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me."​
if he wasn't fully man, how could He die as one for the sins of men?
What 'sins of man'? I've already pointed out to you that Ezekiel 18 spells out letter by letter, s-i-n i-s n-o-t h-e-r-i-t-a-b-l-e. And if I haven't mentioned it before, nothing of 'sin', 'original sin', 'disobedience', 'death entering the world' or the need of a redeemer is mentioned in the Garden story (where God kicks Adam and Eve out for the purely personal reasons set out in Genesis 3:22). Why (in your view) was it necessary for Jesus to die (given that we, in contradiction of scripture, posit that sin is heritable, and the Garden story involves a Fall) when God could have resolved the whole issue, whatever the issue actually was, with one snap of those omnipotent fingers?
In fact, He could not live a life that deviated one whit from what the Father instructed, as it would have led to sin. He always consulted the Father.
That's ... *hunts for a polite word* ... untenable.The Father is no more God than Jesus and Ghost are, if no less. Why didn't Jesus consult himself? Or consult the Office Boy oops the Ghost? You don't have to be still-divine to know what you used to know, surely?
Hmmmm...well, perhaps the fact he never said it might be why.
No, he didn't, unless he was a Trinitarian, in which case that's exactly what he said.


Oh, and yet again and yet again and yet again you ran away from Jesus' words:

John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Believe whatever you want, TM.

:rolleyes:

I'm not the one with the "beliefs" here.........

I won't give your views any credit until you hop out here with those scientific studies that show God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

3rd time you argued this strawman.
3rd time I pointed it out.

You don't get to complain about how much credit your conversation partner gets or doesn't get, if you can't even manage to be honest about what is being said. How many times must it be repeated that nobody made that claim? How many more times are you going to pretend I claimed that while it is not true at all? How many times must the concept of the burden of proof be explained to you?

Have some intellectual honesty.
I wonder what you hope to accomplish by lying like that.
Yes, I get to say that you are lying, since it's the 3rd time I've pointed out this exact point.
So you knew it already that you were arguing a strawman. Yet you continue.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So you don't deny God and the supernatural? Super!

In the same way that I don't deny an undetectable 7-headed interdimensional dragon following me around everywhere I go.

There isn't a single reason to believe that such a being exists.
But logically, it's also impossible to demonstrate it's non-existance. First, because it's logically impossible to demonstrate the non-existance of anything, except the self-contradictory (like married bachelors). Secondly, because it's logically impossible to disprove (or prove) the unfalsifiable.

Models like God and the Supernatural (or that dragon I mentioned) are literally infinite in number. Only really limited by your own imagination.

It's irrational to accept such models as accurate.
And completely arbitrary as well. Because why accept one such model, but not the infinite amount of others? They are all equally justified by no evidence, all equally unfalsifiable and untestable.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
And to say that all the Gospels authors along with various writers of the epistles, are all mistaken about the resurrection, is pretty far-fetched IMO

Do also think it is "pretty far fetched" to say that the many more people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, MANY of which are actually still alive today so you can even go and talk to them, are all mistaken about having been kidnapped by aliens?

I'll go ahead and assume that you don't take their word for it.
So what's with the double standard?

Why do you believe words written down 2000 yeas ago, an age where superstition was the norm, by mostly anonymous authors who were really just writing down their religious beliefs, but not the words of 21st century people who had a 21st century education?

and such a claim lacks serious evidences on your part.

It's the claims in the bible that are in need of evidence.
I reject those claims due to the lack of that evidence.

As for contradictions, none of those have refuted or diminished the resurrection or any other important Christian doctrine.

As if anything, be it arguments / contradictions / physical evidence, would ever be sufficient to make you believe otherwise.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Do also think it is "pretty far fetched" to say that the many more people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, MANY of which are actually still alive today so you can even go and talk to them, are all mistaken about having been kidnapped by aliens?

I'll go ahead and assume that you don't take their word for it.
So what's with the double standard?

Why do you believe words written down 2000 yeas ago, an age where superstition was the norm, by mostly anonymous authors who were really just writing down their religious beliefs, but not the words of 21st century people who had a 21st century education?

It's the claims in the bible that are in need of evidence.
I reject those claims due to the lack of that evidence.

As if anything, be it arguments / contradictions / physical evidence, would ever be sufficient to make you believe otherwise.

Well, each person is going to have to make the determination as to what they will believe. Christianity has the Holy Spirit as a witness that the Gospel accounts are true. If you want to believe in aliens then go for it. And even if alien abductions are real, that doesn't mean the accounts of Jesus aren't. So choose this day what you will believe.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
:rolleyes:

I'm not the one with the "beliefs" here.........

3rd time you argued this strawman.
3rd time I pointed it out.

You don't get to complain about how much credit your conversation partner gets or doesn't get, if you can't even manage to be honest about what is being said. How many times must it be repeated that nobody made that claim? How many more times are you going to pretend I claimed that while it is not true at all? How many times must the concept of the burden of proof be explained to you?

Have some intellectual honesty.
I wonder what you hope to accomplish by lying like that.
Yes, I get to say that you are lying, since it's the 3rd time I've pointed out this exact point.
So you knew it already that you were arguing a strawman. Yet you continue.

There you go with your self-serving, stupid ad hominems. There's been plenty of people who say God and the supernatural don't exist. They call God the tooth fairy of the sky and all other kinds of names. All I'm saying is show the scientific studies that prove God and the supernatural don't exist.

As for your personal beliefs, if you think the story of Jesus is akin to fairy tales, then I have to tell you that you've been duped to the max.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well, each person is going to have to make the determination as to what they will believe

The point is about how to go about that so that you can reach rational conclusions.
And the question was about, if the authors of scripture merely making their claims is enough to warrant belief, then why can't the exact same logic be used for alien abductees?

It smells like a double standard and special pleading.

Christianity has the Holy Spirit as a witness that the Gospel accounts are true.

Which is just another religious belief.
Piling on more beliefs to try and support other mere beliefs, is not going to raise the credibility of any of those beliefs.

If you want to believe in aliens then go for it. And even if alien abductions are real, that doesn't mean the accounts of Jesus aren't. So choose this day what you will believe.

Good job completely dodging the point being made.
It's not about me.

The question was about YOU.
Why you believe the "testimony" of one group of people without evidence, while rejecting the "testimony" of other groups with equally no evidence.

I just wonder what standard you are applying here. It certainly isn't evidence, because neither claim has any.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
There you go with your self-serving, stupid ad hominems.

Pointing out that you are arguing a strawman when you are arguing a strawman, is not an ad hominim nore is it stupid.

Pointing out that it has already been pointed out to you and then based on that concluding that you are therefor being dishonest, is again not an ad hominim nore is it stupid.

If you strawman my position and then double down on that strawman after I pointed it out to you, what else then can I conclude from that?

There's been plenty of people who say God and the supernatural don't exist.

None of which are part of this conversation. Go and argue against that argument with the people that actually make it.

Also, you were addressing ME. Implying that that was an accurate representation of my position.
What, are you expecting me to defend other people's position?


They call God the tooth fairy of the sky and all other kinds of names. All I'm saying is show the scientific studies that prove God and the supernatural don't exist.

All I'm saying, for the 4th time now, is: "learn how the burden of proof works".

As for your personal beliefs, if you think the story of Jesus is akin to fairy tales, then I have to tell you that you've been duped to the max.

Off course you HAVE to tell me that.
It's a requirement of your religious doctrine.

 

1213

Well-Known Member
...
The Bible also identifies Jesus as the Creator of all things: "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." - Colossians 1:16...

I think it would be very important to notice the word “through”. Things were created through Jesus. If it was not God through Jesus, but by Jesus, why the word through?

Bible tells many things about Jesus. It says also that Jesus is the image of God.

in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Colossians 1:14

I think the confusing thing is that person who represents someone, can be seen as the one he is representing. For example, the president of a nation speaks in the name of the nation and can make deals in the name of the nation. Still, president is not the nation. Same is with ambassadors. They act in the name of the one who sent them. This is why I think Jesus says:

Most assuredly I tell you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me."
John 13:20

If you receive me, you receive Jesus, if I speak what Jesus has commanded me to speak. Still, I am not Jesus. And same is with Jesus, he said he speaks what God has commanded him to speak:

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

… for the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
He is 100% God and 100% man just as stated in the doctrine (I notice you left the "man" part out). A dual nature is not difficult to understand so I don't know why you struggle or pretend to struggle with it. Likewise, you can be 100% American and 100% man also.
While very true that someone can be 100% American and 100% man, it is quite impossible that someone can be 100% man and 100% woman, which is exactly like saying Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. God and man are as equally opposite to each other as man and woman. You can be one or the other but not both.

But maybe logic is not enough, so I offer the following scripture;

Num 23:19,

God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Jesus was explicitly called both a man and the son of man.

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
John 12:23,

And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
So both logic and scripture declare God is 100% God and Jesus is 100% man. Saying anyone is 100% God and 100% man goes against both logic and scripture.
 
Last edited:

Spartan

Well-Known Member
I think it would be very important to notice the word “through”. Things were created through Jesus. If it was not God through Jesus, but by Jesus, why the word through?

Bible tells many things about Jesus. It says also that Jesus is the image of God.

in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Colossians 1:14

I think the confusing thing is that person who represents someone, can be seen as the one he is representing. For example, the president of a nation speaks in the name of the nation and can make deals in the name of the nation. Still, president is not the nation. Same is with ambassadors. They act in the name of the one who sent them. This is why I think Jesus says:

Most assuredly I tell you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me."
John 13:20

If you receive me, you receive Jesus, if I speak what Jesus has commanded me to speak. Still, I am not Jesus. And same is with Jesus, he said he speaks what God has commanded him to speak:

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

… for the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

Jesus Must be Jehovah
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
The question was about YOU.
Why you believe the "testimony" of one group of people without evidence, while rejecting the "testimony" of other groups with equally no evidence.

I just wonder what standard you are applying here. It certainly isn't evidence, because neither claim has any.

If you knew the Holy Spirit you'd know the truth. Because He testifies about Jesus Christ and he is my Witness.

There is no evidence folks like you will ever accept so recommend you save yourself a gall stone and quit asking for it.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
And as I pointed out to you, I'm an unbiased onlooker because my interest is entirely about what it actually says

Now you’re no longer a skeptic but an “unbiased onlooker”?
You really do have a sense of humor Blu.

'Suited the politics of the day' is the expression you're looking for. And as can happen with politics, the result is not only a nonsense but an avowed one, 'a mystery in the strict sense'.

It certainly a "mystery in the strict sense". What was not revealed in the Old was revealed in the New Testament and its still a mystery to you.


Of course I do. I believe, to be precise, that the quotes I set out are accurate translations of the Greek, and I believe that they have the meanings and intentions that I attribute to them.

You appear to attribute little meaning and intention to scripture. It's nonsense to you.

I also believe that you haven't come to grips with the significance of 'a mystery in the strict sense' and that you're trying, though you're in a long Christian tradition here, of retrofitting the NT to your purposes, just as (to take one of many possible examples) those Christian views of the Tanakh that pretend to find Jesus there.

Nonsense. There was no "retrofitting". The Trinity Doctrine reflected existing scripture. There has been no modification or addition of new scripture.

Why? Because you've misread the text. It says (John 20:17:

I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

which as you can read, means, I, Jesus, am ascending to the divine being who is both my Father and your Father, whom I worship and you worship.

Since I answered this earlier I have to ask: What part of Jesus’ “dual nature” did you not understand? Simply ask yourself, is Jesus talking as a man, or is Jesus talking as God? Here he's talking as a man. Very simple and not difficult to understand.

It is significant that nowhere in the teaching of Jesus did He ever speak of God to His disciples as "our Father" or "Our God."


The classic, expected response from any skeptic shown a bible verse.

The Jesuses of Matthew and Luke got their Y-chromosomes by divine insemination, so that they (though not Mark's Jesus, the status of Paul's and John's being unclear) had God for a father in a sense different to God being the Father of the Jewish people.

I’m trying to think of a polite word, but I’ll just call this nonsense for now. I don’t mind dallying at the crossroad but not to hear tales of "divine semen”.

Of course the reason Jesus made this distinction or why he spoke this way means little to skeptics because they believe scripture and Jesus to be at best little more than embellishment and fiction.

You sound so bitter when you say things like that!

It's a lament.

But the question you and I are discussing is whether the Trinity doctrine has any support from the NT ─ which considering how many times and how baldly and consistently the NT denies that very proposition, is just plain odd.

You’ve either can’t see, forgotten, or haven’t read the 160 scriptures stating otherwise. Jesus is Yahweh, the I AM of the Old Testament.

You need to find these words in Jesus' mouth: "I am God".

Why? Over 1 billion people already believe He is and you have yet to put the words "I am not God" in Jesus' mouth. I understand you guys have been trying for 2,000 years, but if you haven't come up with it by now I really don't think you're going to.

Now now! No self-serving misreadings please. Jesus doesn't say he worships God. He says he worships the Father.

So you’re argument is that Jesus worships the Father who is not God? Your arguments are really bouncing today Blü.

Nope. He was subservient to the Father while he was still in heaven:

John 8:42 "I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me."

You’re referring to a triune entity. He cannot be sent if He hasn’t already agreed to go.

What 'sins of man'?

You really haven’t noticed any?

I've already pointed out to you that Ezekiel 18 spells out letter by letter, s-i-n i-s n-o-t h-e-r-i-t-a-b-l-e.

Nonsense, and what a sloppy heresy! Ezekial 18 does not deny we’ve inherited sin from Adam. Read the text again and look at what it does say, not what you would like it to say, and let’s stay focused on tread topic. Your fully capable of exegeting Ezekial 18 yourself so there's no need to create a new rabbit hole.

Why (in your view) was it necessary for Jesus to die (given that we, in contradiction of scripture, posit that sin is heritable, and the Garden story involves a Fall) when God could have resolved the whole issue, whatever the issue actually was, with one snap of those omnipotent fingers?

The atonement is a whole other thread Blü, and I’m sure there are plenty on the forum that address the subject. As it is I barely have time to respond now.

The Father is no more God than Jesus and Ghost are, if no less. Why didn't Jesus consult himself?

If Jesus were a skeptic he certainly would have.

No, he didn't, unless he was a Trinitarian,

I think you mean Modalist. It's the only way I see you getting a "Me, Me, why have you forsaken me" from scripture.

Oh, and yet again and yet again and yet again you ran away from Jesus' words:

"And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

An again and yet again I am trying to find out from you what it is about Jesus’s dual nature that you don’t understand.
Jesus is 100% man and 100% God
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
While very true that someone can be 100% American and 100% man, it is quite impossible that someone can be 100% man and 100% woman,

Then there is no such thing as a man feeling trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa, which would require a lot of explaining to the LGBTQ community...many of whom may be sitting in your pews.

which is exactly like saying Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

I don’t think Jesus claimed to be both male and female

God and man are as equally opposite to each other as man and woman.

Man is in a state of sin that is opposed to God, but that’s not the same as saying he is opposite to God. We are made in His image after all.

But maybe logic is not enough, so I offer the following scripture;

Num 23:19,

God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Jesus was explicitly called both a man and the son of man.


Then perhaps the best way to approach this verse is to take it literally and assume you are correct, which immediately poses some worrying questions.


1. God is not a man, that he should lie

You just stated “Jesus was explicitly called both a man and the son of man”.

According to Num 23:19, God is not a man that he should lie. Since Jesus was a man, when did Jesus lie? If he did not lie then he was not a man according to Num 23:19.


2. Neither the son of man, that he should repent

When did Jesus repent and exactly what did he repent of? According to Num 23:19 he should have repented since he was “the son of man”, correct? If he did not repent, then he was not a son of man according to Num 23:19.

I think the better way to look at what this verse states is not that God cannot become man, but that He does not become man in our fallen state. If you read the rest of the verse, you’ll see it refers to our sinful state because God does not do or say things that He’s not going to follow through on. In other words, Num 23:19 does not preclude God from becoming man, but it does preclude Him from becoming a sinful one that lies or one in need of repentance.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this was written prior and not during or after the incarnation so it would not have applied to Jesus.


1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Correct. Jesus was the perfect mediator between God and man because he was both, and not because he wasn’t one or the other.

John 12:23,

And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.


Let’s remember what scripture tells us:

I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols. (Isaiah 42:8).​

So when Jesus tells his disciples that he is ready to be glorified, he’s either setting himself up to be an idol in direct contradiction to Isaiah 42:8 or he is God.


So both logic and scripture declare God is 100% God and Jesus is 100% man.

Both logic and scripture say Jesus is both.

Saying anyone is 100% God and 100% man goes against both logic and scripture.

It’s the only way to make the scripture logical which is why I came dragging and screaming to the Trinity.

That was an excellent response by the way, @rrobs
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Now you’re no longer a skeptic but an “unbiased onlooker”?
You really do have a sense of humor Blu.
If skepticism is a bias, it's a bias if favor of discovering what's true in reality by carefully examining the evidence and impartially reasoning from it.

That of course is not what faith does,
It certainly a "mystery in the strict sense". What was not revealed in the Old was revealed in the New Testament and its still a mystery to you.
. No. As I hoped I'd made clear, I'm in complete agreement with the churches ─ it's a mystery in the strict sense, which is the same thing as a nonsense. The difference between you and me is that I know why the churches say that, but you apparently don't.
You appear to attribute little meaning and intention to scripture. It's nonsense to you.
I think it's story, not history, but I also think that like any other ancient document, it deserves the respect of a careful and historically informed understanding.
Nonsense. There was no "retrofitting". The Trinity Doctrine reflected existing scripture. There has been no modification or addition of new scripture.
I'll refrain from a rude retort, and simply observe that we irreconcilably disagree. The documents simply don't say what you want them to say. Instead they flatly contradict you. sic vita.
What part of Jesus’ “dual nature” did you not understand?
I told you earlier ─ the Jesuses of Paul and John were of divine origin, incarnated for a visit to earth because the Father, the only true god, the god they worshiped, had sent them.
Simply ask yourself, is Jesus talking as a man, or is Jesus talking as God?
John's Jesus makes that very plain:

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”​

which is to say, Jesus has come from heaven as the agent and envoy of the only true god.
I’m trying to think of a polite word, but I’ll just call this nonsense for now. I don’t mind dallying at the crossroad but not to hear tales of "divine semen".
So whence and how did the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke get their Y-chromosome, do you say?
You’ve either can’t see, forgotten, or haven’t read the 160 scriptures stating otherwise. Jesus is Yahweh, the I AM of the Old Testament.
This, from the guy who won't go near ─

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."​

I tried to warn you to steer clear of those danged apologists. They don't care a bean for the facts, only that the everything conform to their predetermined prescription.
Why? Over 1 billion people already believe He is and you have yet to put the words "I am not God" in Jesus' mouth.
If Jesus says that the Father is the only true god, that's close enough for me. It makes it logically impossible for the Trinity doctrine to be correct. So does that fact that Jesus worships the Father.
So you’re argument is that Jesus worships the Father who is not God? Your arguments are really bouncing today Blü.
Nope. I'm pointing to Jesus' plain words, that the Father is the only true God.
You’re referring to a triune entity. He cannot be sent if He hasn’t already agreed to go.
Which translates as your saying, "the authors of the gospels, not least of John, are repeatedly, inexcusably, stupidly. ignorantly mistaken, as conclusively proved by the fact that they disagree with me." Okay. That's your view and you're sticking to it.
Nonsense, and what a sloppy heresy! Ezekial 18 does not deny we’ve inherited sin from Adam.
First, nothing in the Garden story imputes sin to Adam. The ONLY reason Adam and Eve got kicked out the Garden was, and I quote:

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"─ 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.​

(Those verses do double duty in debunking the claim that at this time death entered the world too. If death didn't already exist, God would have had no motive at all to expel them.)

Second, Ezekiel 18:20 (like the rest of Ezekiel 18) makes it perfectly clear that guilt for sin can't be passed across generations:

20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.​
I think you mean Modalist. It's the only way I see you getting a "Me, Me, why have you forsaken me" from scripture.
As I pointed out, the Jesuses of Mark and Matthew, but not of Luke or John, addressed God, not the Father, when on the cross. But, you say, Jesus IS God, so you picture him talking to himself, and if you're right, 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?' is a fair rendering of the meaning (another reductio). Oh, and if Jesus is God then Jesus is his own father, since Jesus is the son of God.

Still can't work out what "“And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” means? It means Jesus once again denies he's God. You'll instantly have noticed that again the word is 'God', not 'the Father'.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
If you knew the Holy Spirit you'd know the truth.

Your "holy spirit" is part of your religious belief.
So you're basicly saying here "if you believed, then you would believe".

Well..... yeah, I guess. :rolleyes:

Because He testifies about Jesus Christ and he is my Witness.

As per your religion.

There is no evidence folks like you will ever accept so recommend you save yourself a gall stone and quit asking for it.

I will happily accept evidence.
But what you are giving me here is not evidence. It's just a repeat of your beliefs.
It seems your "evidence" for believing it, is just that you believe it.

Piling on claims, is not the way to support claims.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Then there is no such thing as a man feeling trapped in a woman’s body or vice versa, which would require a lot of explaining to the LGBTQ community...many of whom may be sitting in your pews.

I don’t think Jesus claimed to be both male and female

Man is in a state of sin that is opposed to God, but that’s not the same as saying he is opposite to God. We are made in His image after all.

Then perhaps the best way to approach this verse is to take it literally and assume you are correct, which immediately poses some worrying questions.

1. God is not a man, that he should lie

You just stated “Jesus was explicitly called both a man and the son of man”.

According to Num 23:19, God is not a man that he should lie. Since Jesus was a man, when did Jesus lie? If he did not lie then he was not a man according to Num 23:19.

2. Neither the son of man, that he should repent

When did Jesus repent and exactly what did he repent of? According to Num 23:19 he should have repented since he was “the son of man”, correct? If he did not repent, then he was not a son of man according to Num 23:19.

I think the better way to look at what this verse states is not that God cannot become man, but that He does not become man in our fallen state. If you read the rest of the verse, you’ll see it refers to our sinful state because God does not do or say things that He’s not going to follow through on. In other words, Num 23:19 does not preclude God from becoming man, but it does preclude Him from becoming a sinful one that lies or one in need of repentance.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this was written prior and not during or after the incarnation so it would not have applied to Jesus.

Correct. Jesus was the perfect mediator between God and man because he was both, and not because he wasn’t one or the other.

Let’s remember what scripture tells us:

I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols. (Isaiah 42:8).​

So when Jesus tells his disciples that he is ready to be glorified, he’s either setting himself up to be an idol in direct contradiction to Isaiah 42:8 or he is God.

Both logic and scripture say Jesus is both.

It’s the only way to make the scripture logical which is why I came dragging and screaming to the Trinity.

That was an excellent response by the way, @rrobs
Hello Oeste,

Well, it seems like you are trying really hard to squeeze a few verses to fit a preconceived idea while ignoring many clear verses that are diametrically opposed to that idea.

Why should it be surprising that Jesus never lied or repented? Didn't he always do God's will? In fact that is precisely what qualified him to be the lamb without blemish. I've never said Jesus was not a most extraordinary man. He certainly was, but as the scriptures plainly declare many times, he was a man. There is nowhere that he is clearly called God.

As far as Isaiah 42:8 is concerned, I think you are ignoring the context and assuming God means His own glory. All the verses leading up to verse 8 are clearly speaking of Jesus and verse 8 is talking about the glory God will give to Jesus.

I think it was blu 2 who suggested that as God's perfect representative, Jesus represented God perfectly and thus much of what can be said of God can also be said of Jesus. One notable exception is that God is the only God and there is none other beside him. It is because of that that 1 Corinthians rings true;

1Cor 15:27-28,

27 For he (God) hath put all things under his (Jesus') feet. But when he saith, all things are put under [him (Jesus), it is] manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus).

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God may be all in all.
This shows a clear hierarchy. God will be above Jesus. The word "subject" in verse 28 is the Greek word "hupostasso" and it means "subordinate" everywhere it is used in the New Testament. I do believe that trinity doctrine declares God and Jesus to be equal in all ways. This is just one example of what I mean when I say there are many clear verses that make a distinction between Jesus and God. I don't know how it could be construed in any other way, but I have never failed to be amazed at how trinitarians can twist things around to fit an idea that just isn't there. I guess that in itself takes a certain talent. :)

Take care...
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The question was about YOU. Why you believe the "testimony" of one group of people without evidence, while rejecting the "testimony" of other groups with equally no evidence.

If you knew the Holy Spirit you'd know the truth. Because He testifies about Jesus Christ and he is my Witness. There is no evidence folks like you will ever accept so recommend you save yourself a gall stone and quit asking for it.

He's not asking you for evidence. He's gone beyond that. He knows that you can offer no evidence. He's telling you that you've offered none to support your chosen belief over other competing ones that are also unevidenced, and asked you on what basis you made that choice. It looks like a guess.

Of course the reason Jesus made this distinction or why he spoke this way means little to skeptics because they believe scripture and Jesus to be at best little more than embellishment and fiction.

Is that surprising or unexpected? The Bible cannot be believed except by faith. Some people don't consider thinking by faith to be a good way to decide about what is true about the world. It cannot possibly be a path to truth if any idea or its mutually exclusive polar opposite can be believed by faith knowing that at least one of them is wrong.

By faith, I can say that I choose to consider the Bible the work of ancient men and not something that I would feel any obligation to obey or use as a source of life advice. That happens to be my current position, and it is evidence and reason based, but if it were supported by nothing but the will to believe that it's true, it would be on an equal footing with any conflicting faith-based belief.

Now you’re no longer a skeptic but an “unbiased onlooker”?

One can be both. Skeptically is a way to be an onlooker.

You appear to attribute little meaning and intention to scripture. It's nonsense to you.

Scripture is of little value to the unbeliever. Again I ask, is that surprising or unexpected?

The classic, expected response from any skeptic shown a bible verse.

Then why quote scripture to unbelievers as if it were as authoritative to them as it is to you?

you have yet to put the words "I am not God" in Jesus' mouth.

Isn't that what all non-Christians did when they rejected the claim that Jesus is/was God?

you have yet to put the words "I am not God" in Jesus' mouth. I understand you guys have been trying for 2,000 years, but if you haven't come up with it by now I really don't think you're going to.

I did it about 35 years ago, when I left Christianity. It took much less than 2000 years to do.

We are made in His image after all.

Not in the image of the Bible god, who we are told most of the time is unfathomable to us - that we couldn't possibly understand him with our puny human minds.

We are also told that we are born inherently evil, infected with sin, whereas this god is said to be sinless and perfectly good.

Moreover, according to dogma, this god is invisible, immaterial, immortal, perfect, infinite, lives outside of space and precedes time. That's not the image of man.

This god is also said to be omniscient, omnipresent, supernatural and has magical power. This also doesn't resemble man much.

This god never had a spouse, never had sex, never experienced lust, divorce or a broken heart.

This god was never born, never had parents, never raised children and never had a sibling or a friend.

This god has never slept or had a nightmare, never had a headache, has never had the flu, felt hot or cold or been hungry.

This god has never had to support himself, never had to study or learn. never been humiliated, felt guilt, blame or shame, and has never been afraid.

None of that describes me or you. So in what sense are human beings like you and I, and your god alike? That you can speak and count, or make moral judgments? That's not much. Some birds can fly, and they don't sin. I'd say that makes them as close if not closer to the image of this god than you or me.

If skepticism is a bias, it's a bias if favor of discovering what's true in reality by carefully examining the evidence and impartially reasoning from it. That of course is not what faith does,

I'd say that skepticism is a bias, one of the most successful biases mankind has ever conceived, up there with great ideas like justice and the rule of law. As you note, it's a repudiation of faith-based thought, a repudiation that has borne untold fruit.

Bias is not a bad thing per se. It can be rational and helpful, such as a bias against driving drunken, or it can be irrational and useless or destructive, as with bigotry.
 
Top