Christians..."Trinity"?

[captainbryce]

So when we die and go to heaven, what will we exist as? A physical body, a spirit, or a soul?

All of the above! That's assuming that you even go to heaven, in lieu of inheriting the Earth with the rest of the meek.

First off, you are not taken in to account the fact that in John 1:1 it states “…the Word WAS GOD”.

I am taking that into consideration. But you are missing my point. That phrase is not LITERAL because taken literally it defies logic. A word in the literal sense is merely an element of speech or writing. God is not an actual word, he is the supernatural creator of all things. So to take that literally makes no sense. The expression is symbolic where "word" represents "message".

If the “Word” is God, and the “Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us”, that implies that Jesus is the Word, and that Jesus is God.

Only if you take it literally (which means illogically).

And as far as people seeing Jesus, look, if God manifested himself to you in the form of a lion, guess what, can you say that you’ve seen God? Yeah, in a way you can.

It doesn't matter what YOU say, or what I say. It only matters what the bible says! And if you declare that you have seen God (at any time), then you are calling God's word a lie because you are contradicting scripture.

Exodus 33:20
But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
(God has his own face and it isn't Jesus; we cannot see God's true face and live)

1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
(It doesn't say no one has ever seen "the father", it says no one has ever seen GOD; people HAVE seen Jesus, therefore Jesus is not God)

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
(The one who is FROM God - ie, not God himself (Jesus) is the only one who has ever seen him)

1 Timothy 6:15-16
15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 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. Amen.

Three of the four quoted passages that declare that no man has seen God are in the New Testament (including Jesus's own words). How do you explain that?

What that scripture means is no one has seen God in his fullness,

Again, this is where you go from what scripture actually says, to your interpretation. It's fine if YOU interpret it that way, but that's not how I interpret it because I don't think that is a logical interpretation. It is an interpretation that requires a convoluted explanation provided by a guru, not a simple explanation provided by the Holy Spirit.

but all we’ve seen is different manifestations of God…whether it is through a burning bush, a light, a human being, an angel, whatever.

A voice from an angel of the Lord came from the burning bush. Angels who are messengers of God spoke to men. But the burning bush was not God, nor are angels, nor is Jesus. No man has EVER seen God! That is repeated explicitly over and over again throughout scripture. To me, it's very clear.

It does to me.

I'm glad. That's great FOR YOU. But that is of no value to me or other Christians who don't accept the doctrine of trinity.

Romans 14:5
...Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

Lol. Death is just when your spirit leaves your body, that is all. When your spirit leaves your body, your body becomes inactive. Jesus’ spirit left his body, so his body died.

I'm not sure how this in any way invalidates the point I made about GOD never dying!

Second, you said that a human can die, but that isn’t the case.

Lolwut? So you're telling me that humans CAN'T die? :sarcastic

If God wanted humans to live forever, guess what, humans wouldn’t die.

The point is, HE DIDN'T and WE DO.

So to say that Jesus wasn’t fully human because humans can die is not a good objection considering the fact that it is up to God whether or not humans live or die.

Again, this argument is a non-sequitur. Humans die because God declared it! Jesus died because God declared it. There is no difference, and my point remains. If Jesus "died" then he is not God because scripture says that God never dies.

 

[idea]

Mormons, JW's and Bible Students are among some of the Christian denominations who do not believe in the trinity... I think there are a few more, but I'm drawing a blank.

 

[Katzpur]

Mormons, JW's and Bible Students are among some of the Christian denominations who do not believe in the trinity... I think there are a few more, but I'm drawing a blank.

Christian Scientists.

 

[captainbryce]

The fact that you are asking this question shows that you don’t understand the Trinity Doctrine. As I mentioned for the third time, Phil 2:5-9 shows subordination from Jesus to the Father and why.

...in your opinion. Yet, in my opinion, the fact that you keep using this as a defense shows that you don't understand my objection to the Trinity doctrine. As I mentioned for the third time, Phil 2:5-9 does not answer the fact that Jesus was NEVER God to begin with. It merely explains WHY he was humbled.

But they don’t, and that is my point.

But your point is invalidated by the scriptures I've posted (which clearly indicate that God knows more than Jesus).

Everything you are saying for the past 3 or so quotes goes back to Phil 2:5-9. How about reading those verses and then come talk to me lol.

Done. Now, how about you reading my responses to it AGAIN.

But even with that being said, I have couple questions for you.

1. Do you believe that it is within God’s power to have his actual spirit dwell in a human body? Yes or no?

Yes.

2. If yes, if God were to do so, at the moment that God’s spirit begins to dwell in a human body, is it safe to say that God is a human, at least in some way. Whether you want to call it fully human or half human, doesn’t matter. Or better yet, in the FORM of a human.

You just asked a question with about four stipulations (earmarks) added to it. The question is designed so that you can escape the futility of the paradox of Trinity. IF God inhabited a human body, he would be human in form, but not fully human. And yes, it absolutely DOES matter whether he was fully human or not because that is central to the Trinitarian doctrine. But all of this misses the point! The question shouldn't be what CAN God do, the question should be what DID God do! And there is no evidence that God did any of this. The bible does not say that Jesus was God in human form. That's what the Trinity doctrine says! The bible actually says THE EXACT OPPOSITE! It says that Jesus was in the form of God (meaning that he shares the same nature of God). I don't have a problem with that because that makes sense. It's not saying that he himself was God.

It is the same thing. Our body is the physical representation of our self, and our spirit transcends our body. That is the point.

Once again, I don't think you interpret "spirit" in the same way that I do.

Well, you can call it posing if you want to. My point is, it can be done, and it was done, and there is no logical contradiction based on the concept.

A) If it is posing as a lion, then it is not truly a lion. B) There is no actual evidence (scriptural or otherwise) that God actually did this, beyond circular reasoning. Just because something CAN be done, does not prove that it WAS done.

I happen to agree with you on this one. I don’t believe Jesus was fully human in the same sense that you and I are. If that were the case, then he would have been born into sin just like you and I, and he would of ultimately sinned, which is the exact OPPOSITE of what he actually did.

Jesus was human in the sense that he was born, he grew, he learned, he was tempted by sin, and he died! God is not capable of ANY of those things. Humans are. So Jesus wasn't fully human, nor was he God. He was unique!

Well, what was he, just another angel? Who else but God can live 33 years on this earth without committing one single sin?

That would be ANY human being was wasn't born into sin. The only three who have ever existed were Adam, Eve and Jesus. Adam and Eve chose to sin, Jesus chose not to. Jesus was not "just another angel". He was in fact chief of all the angels.

Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

Only God can do such a thing. Who else can be morally perfect but God alone?

Who said Jesus was morally "perfect"? He certainly didn't!

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

Um, he was also God.

That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree. Your assumption is that only God could have supernatural abilities. But all of the angels, along with Satan, and those who have been deceived by him have also displayed unnatural abilities. None of them are God!

Last I checked the miracle of healing and exorcisms are easy tasks for an omnipotent being.

They are also easy tasks for any person whom an omnipotent being appoints. All of Jesus' disciples were given the authority to heal and cast out demons. None of them were God!

Acts 5:12-16
12 The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. 13 No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. 14 Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. 15 As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. 16 Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed.

Ok, and one of those two different things will have its dwelling place with God after the resurrection, and the point is we will continue to exist after death in some immaterial form.

Only after we are resurrected to life again. Until then, the dead know nothing!

Yet Jesus made himself equal to God (John 5:18)

But he DIDN'T make himself equal to God. As the passage you keep pointing out [Phil 2:5-9] clearly states, he did NOT make himself equal to God, he humbled himself before God as a servant. He was FALSELY ACCUSED accused of making himself equal to God by the Jewish leaders (who were looking for a reason to kill him). The charge was blasphemy (a false charge), but one punishable (according to them) by death.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

All of the above! That's assuming that you even go to heaven, in lieu of inheriting the Earth with the rest of the meek.

I will assume you have a WatchTower background

I am taking that into consideration. But you are missing my point. That phrase is not LITERAL because taken literally it defies logic. A word in the literal sense is merely an element of speech or writing. God is not an actual word, he is the supernatural creator of all things. So to take that literally makes no sense. The expression is symbolic where "word" represents "message".

But it is clear who is identified as the "Word" is both scriptures. In fact, it is almost impossible to deny because the whole first part of the chapter is talking about JESUS. So Jesus is the Word...and the Word is God...and the Word became flesh. I mean cmon, what more do you want here?

Only if you take it literally (which means illogically).

So you tell me what does "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us". You tell me what is your interpretation of that verse.

It doesn't matter what YOU say, or what I say. It only matters what the bible says!

Man I swear you are a under cover Jehovah's Witness. That is exactly what they would say hahaha. My point is simply it doesn't matter how God manifests himself, he would still be God regardless of how he presents himself to you.

And if you declare that you have seen God (at any time), then you are calling God's word a lie because you are contradicting scripture.

Exodus 33:20
But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
(God has his own face and it isn't Jesus; we cannot see God's true face and live)

Point? That doesn’t contradict Trinity doctrine at all. No one can see God and live, we can only see him in his manifested form, and Jesus was seen in a manifested form as a human being. No argument here.

1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
(It doesn't say no one has ever seen "the father", it says no one has ever seen GOD; people HAVE seen Jesus, therefore Jesus is not God)

Well, typically when we speak of “God”, we generally mean “The Father”. Remember, God is just a title and based on Trinity Doctrine, all three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) all deserve to be called “God”. And not only that, but its funny how you mention 1 John 4:12, when in the Gospel of John you can’t get through the first verse of the first chapter without noticing that Jesus is called God as well.

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
(The one who is FROM God - ie, not God himself (Jesus) is the only one who has ever seen him)

Think about what is being said here. “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.” According to Christian theology, the reason that man has not seen God is because he is so holy that sinful eyes cannot even look at him and live. Now, if angels are also amongst the individuals that never seen God, that only leaves Jesus as scriptures indicates, right? But think about that…what is so special about Jesus that only HE is able to see God and live? What is so special about Jesus that only HE can live a sinless life on earth?? If he was created by God to be that way, then there isn’t anything special about him. So what was so special about him? The answer to that question is, HE IS GOD. Only a morally perfect being can meet the qualifications of being able to look at “God” without death, and only a morally perfect being can live a sinless life while on earth, and to be morally perfect is to be God.

And it is worth mentioning yet again, that my “argument from perfection” is an argument that is independent of any known “Trinity proof” scriptures, and so far I’ve never seen it being used so I would like to think that this is my own argument. And the argument is simply only God can come on earth and live a sinless life in an effort to die for the sins of mankind. There is no substitute for this, only God was capable of accomplishing such a feat. No matter how good of a person we are, from the times of Adam all the way to the present day, we are all born in sin. We are all sinners (some more so than others). So the very concept of dying for the sins of mankind while living a perfectly sinless life, no other person could have accomplished the feat besides God himself, which is EXACTLY why we have scriptures such as Phil 2:5-9, so I know my argument harmonizes with scripture.

1. Only God can live a sinless life while on earth
2. Jesus lived a sinless life while on earth
3. Therefore, Jesus is God

And I DARE you to offer any objections to this argument.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1 Timothy 6:15-16
15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 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. Amen.

Three of the four quoted passages that declare that no man has seen God are in the New Testament (including Jesus's own words). How do you explain that?

No one is denying that, bryce. All this proves is no one has seen the Father, but they have seen the Son as he made his dwelling upon us in human manifestation. That is what John 1:1-18 is all about!!!

Again, this is where you go from what scripture actually says, to your interpretation. It's fine if YOU interpret it that way, but that's not how I interpret it because I don't think that is a logical interpretation. It is an interpretation that requires a convoluted explanation provided by a guru, not a simple explanation provided by the Holy Spirit.

Well let’s see how my interpretation lines up with scripture. Consider Exo 3:5-6, the burning bush narrative.

“Do not come any closer, God said. Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. Then he said “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”. At this Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God”.

Look at what happened. Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. Notice it said he looked at God and notice in verse 4 it said God called to Moses from within the burning bush. God manifested himself in the form of a burning bush, at which Moses saw (or could see). The fact that Moses “saw” God and did not die means that he wasn’t actually looking at God in his fullness…God’s fullness was “shielded” by the burning bush, and God obviously wouldn’t purposely cause Moses to die, so he had to present himself in a way at which he could be seen while yet allowing Moses to live. Now take the burning bush narrative, and go to the story of Jesus. In the same way God manifested himself as a bush, God (Jesus) manifested himself as a human, at which his fullness still wasn’t seen, but was shielded by human flesh. This is not just my interpretation, but John explains it well in his Gospel, that I keep referring you to (John 1:1-18).

A voice from an angel of the Lord came from the burning bush. Angels who are messengers of God spoke to men. But the burning bush was not God, nor are angels, nor is Jesus. No man has EVER seen God! That is repeated explicitly over and over again throughout scripture. To me, it's very clear.

The problem with that is, that is not what scripture explicitly says. There is no mention of an angel ANYWHERE in the burning bush narrative.

I'm glad. That's great FOR YOU. But that is of no value to me or other Christians who don't accept the doctrine of trinity.
Romans 14:5
...Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

LOL nice.

I'm not sure how this in any way invalidates the point I made about GOD never dying!

My point was Jesus died in the sense that HIS SPIRIT LEFT HIS BODY. That is physical death that we all will go through at some point or another. It isn’t like he stayed dead, or was at some point no longer sovereign or in control. It was childs play to a Almighty being.

Again, this argument is a non-sequitur. Humans die because God declared it! Jesus died because God declared it. There is no difference, and my point remains. If Jesus "died" then he is not God because scripture says that God never dies.

You are making it seem as if God ordered Jesus to come on earth and die. Scriptures is clear, that was something that Jesus WANTED to do because of his love for mankind. It isn’t something that he was forced or ordered to do.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

...in your opinion. Yet, in my opinion, the fact that you keep using this as a defense shows that you don't understand my objection to the Trinity doctrine. As I mentioned for the third time, Phil 2:5-9 does not answer the fact that Jesus was NEVER God to begin with. It merely explains WHY he was humbled.

I don't understand Trinity doctrine? Haha, lets see what the scripture in question actually says...

Phil 2:5-9 "5. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6. Who, being in the very nature God (or form of God), did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7. but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

8. And being found in appearnace as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death---even death on a cross.

9. Therefore, God exalted himself to the highest place and gave him a name that is above every name."

Now, according to your belief, Jesus was the created Son of God, right? He was created, and from the moment of his creation, he was a servant of his Father, accomplishing the will of his Father, correct? So, if he was the creation and servant of his father from the moment of his creation, why does verse 7 state that he "took the very nature of a servant?" Why would Jesus have to take the form of something that he already was? So what was he before he took the form of a servant? Hmmm, he obviously wasn't a servant, so what was he? Hmmm, and notice in verse 6 and 7 the distinction is regarding Jesus' equality with God, and his becoming a servant? Hmmm. So you obviously need to work on reading comprehension or something, if you think those five verses only speak of Christ' humbleness.

But your point is invalidated by the scriptures I've posted (which clearly indicate that God knows more than Jesus).

John 21:17

Yes.

Then you and John 1:14 are in agreement.

You just asked a question with about four stipulations (earmarks) added to it. The question is designed so that you can escape the futility of the paradox of Trinity. IF God inhabited a human body, he would be human in form, but not fully human.

Once again, I am willing to grant that Jesus was not fully human. You are not beginning to attack straw man, are you?

And yes, it absolutely DOES matter whether he was fully human or not because that is central to the Trinitarian doctrine. But all of this misses the point! The question shouldn't be what CAN God do, the question should be what DID God do!

You were the one making it seem as if it was illogical for God to do it. And I let scripture answer the question of what did God do. John 1:14 "The Word (Jesus) become flesh and made his dwelling among us". The Word was identified as God in verse 1. So that is what God did.

And there is no evidence that God did any of this. The bible does not say that Jesus was God in human form. That's what the Trinity doctrine says! The bible actually says THE EXACT OPPOSITE! It says that Jesus was in the form of God (meaning that he shares the same nature of God). I don't have a problem with that because that makes sense. It's not saying that he himself was God.

John 1:1-18.

A) If it is posing as a lion, then it is not truly a lion.

Well I think "posing" is not a good word to use here. I mean, if you take the form of an actual living and breathing lion, it is hard for me to not call you a lion even if you can magically jump from lion to human.

Jesus was human in the sense that he was born, he grew, he learned, he was tempted by sin, and he died! God is not capable of ANY of those things. Humans are. So Jesus wasn't fully human, nor was he God. He was unique!

Jesus was not tempted in the same way you are I are. First off, what does it mean to be tempted? Did Jesus consider what Satan offered him? If yes, then he was tempted. If no, then he wasn't. And the answer is no. The devil TRIED to tempt him, and it didn't work. When we say he was "tempted", it means that someone tried to present an immorral opportunity to him which he didn't consider.

That would be ANY human being was wasn't born into sin. The only three who have ever existed were Adam, Eve and Jesus. Adam and Eve chose to sin, Jesus chose not to. Jesus was not "just another angel". He was in fact chief of all the angels.

So did Jesus not sin because he could, but just didn't. Or did he not sin because sin was not part of his nature, and since it wasn't part of his nature, he wouldn't? Hmm, chose wisely.

Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

Um bryce, aren't you assuming that the command and the voice are that of the Lord's? Jesus will come from heaven ACCOMPANIED by the archangel, who will sort of "pave the way" for Christs return with a loud command. Kind of like saying "HERE YE!!!!! HERE YE!!! Christ is returning!!!" while he is accompanying Christ during the return.

Who said Jesus was morally "perfect"? He certainly didn't!

Hmmm, how about reading Heb 4:15 and getting back with me.

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

So if Jesus wasn't good, and the opposite of good is bad, was Jesus bad?

They are also easy tasks for any person whom an omnipotent being appoints. All of Jesus' disciples were given the authority to heal and cast out demons. None of them were God!

Hmm very good indeed. But the fact that Jesus was worshipped (Matt 28:8-9), and prayed to (Acts 7:59). Were the disciples worshipped or prayed to also?

Only after we are resurrected to life again. Until then, the dead know nothing!

So when Jesus told the thief on the cross that on that day, the thief would be with him in paradise, I guess "paradise" can be correlated with nothingness huh.

But he DIDN'T make himself equal to God. As the passage you keep pointing out [Phil 2:5-9] clearly states, he did NOT make himself equal to God, he humbled himself before God as a servant.

So if he had to "humble" himself to become Gods servant, what was he before he humbled himself and therefore wasn't God's servant?

He was FALSELY ACCUSED accused of making himself equal to God by the Jewish leaders (who were looking for a reason to kill him). The charge was blasphemy (a false charge), but one punishable (according to them) by death.

The question is, was Jesus making himself equal to God?

 

[captainbryce]

I will assume you have a WatchTower background

I could see how someone who is very biased and locked into their ways might draw that conclusion. Suffice it to say, you assume incorrectly. Although I am quite familiar with JW teachings, they are just as wrong and devoted to doctrines as you are (only in other ways).

But it is clear who is identified as the "Word" is both scriptures. In fact, it is almost impossible to deny because the whole first part of the chapter is talking about JESUS. So Jesus is the Word...and the Word is God...and the Word became flesh. I mean cmon, what more do you want here?

Again, you are missing the point! The word is not a "who", it is a "what". The word is the "message" that the messenger (a person) brings to the people, not the actual messenger! When you interpret it that way, then it makes perfect sense. Jesus brought the message of God (which is salvation in Christ). The message was that no man can come to the father except through Jesus. So in that sense, Jesus WAS "the word" because he was the subject of the message. We require Jesus in order to get to God. That's the entire point of the book of John! By trying to interpret John 1:1-3 literally (as if the Jesus was an actual word) it is missing the point of what John is trying to say.

So you tell me what does "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us". You tell me what is your interpretation of that verse.

Please see above!

Man I swear you are a under cover Jehovah's Witness. That is exactly what they would say hahaha.

Actually it isn't, because their bible doesn't even translate John 1:1-3 in the same way. They have a completely different interpretation of if (one that is equally wrong in my opinion). I guess you've spent about as much time studying their beliefs as you have listening to me....NONE! I know this is hard for you to accept (because you've been indoctrinated into the propagated Catholic dogma of 325ad and believe that trinity is the end all and be all of Christianity), but there are other Christians besides JW's who reject the trinity doctrine.

Point? That doesn’t contradict Trinity doctrine at all. No one can see God and live, we can only see him...

STOP right there! Read what you just wrote, and tell me how that's NOT a contradiction. You literally just said no one can see him, and at the same time said we can see him. That is a contradiction!

in his manifested form, and Jesus was seen in a manifested form as a human being. No argument here.

There is an argument there. That argument being that it contradicts Jesus being God! If we can see his face, then he is not God (because nobody can see God's face). That is what JESUS himself says! :yes:

Well, typically when we speak of “God”, we generally mean “The Father”.

Nice try! But that's NOT what you generally mean when you say God. When you (as a Trinitarian) say God you generally mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Because THAT is what you Trinitarians think God is! And I'm surprised (and disappointed) that' you'd ever try to pretend that "God" ONLY applies to the Father at all. I find it convenient that now all of a sudden (when the words of scripture literally destroy the doctrine of trinity) that "God" only implies the Father (which is my point all along). It's hypocritical nonsense! You make the words mean whatever you want them to mean (as long as they add up to Trinity in the end). And that's the second time you've done that. Earlier when I pointed out how Trinitarians view Jesus as being "fully human", you tried to distance yourself from that futile position as well. It's very dishonest and disingenuous! Why don't you just admit that Trinitarian logic is flawed, contradictory, and inconsistent with scriptural accounts instead of picking and choosing when to believe that "God" means only the Father?

Remember, God is just a title and based on Trinity Doctrine, all three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) all deserve to be called “God”.

Apparently they don't, since you just said that you "generally" mean only the Father as "God". You are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole here with your contradictory answers! And you guys wonder why people think that Trinity is a paradox!

And not only that, but its funny how you mention 1 John 4:12, when in the Gospel of John you can’t get through the first verse of the first chapter without noticing that Jesus is called God as well.

Let's test that shall we: The FIRST verse of the FIRST chapter of 1 John:

1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

...Or, perhaps you meant the FIRST verse of 1 John 4:

1 John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Now, I'd like you to show me in either of those, where Jesus is called God!

 

[captainbryce]

Think about what is being said here. “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.” According to Christian theology, the reason that man has not seen God is because he is so holy that sinful eyes cannot even look at him and live. Now, if angels are also amongst the individuals that never seen God,

But that's not what it says. Whenever the term anyone (tis) is used, it is always in reference to man, not angels!

that only leaves Jesus as scriptures indicates, right? But think about that…what is so special about Jesus that only HE is able to see God and live?

Angels have seen him too. Angels reside in heaven along with God (as did Jesus before his birth on Earth, and After his death). That is what's special about him!

What is so special about Jesus that only HE can live a sinless life on earth??

You've already answered that question yourself. Jesus was not born into sin the way everyone else was. Therefore, he did not have a sinful nature! And by the way, other men COULD lead a sinless life on Earth and commit no sins at all (although most don't because we have a sinful nature). But even if someone else did lead a sinless life, they would still carry the stain of "original sin" because that's inherited! We still have to pay for Adam's sin with our own death! Our own sins can be paid for with either Jesus' death, or our own second death. But the wages of sin is death regardless!

If he was created by God to be that way, then there isn’t anything special about him.

On the contrary! That would make him the most "special" person who's ever existed! In fact, he'd be the ONLY person who could ever atone for the sins of man, while being uniquely qualified to judge all mankind (having lived among us, unlike the father). That is why Jesus is our judge and not God!

Only a morally perfect being can meet the qualifications of being able to look at “God” without death,

Who said that Jesus ever looked at God while he was on Earth? The bible said that he has SEEN God (past tense). It also says that he sits are God's right hand (after he ascends). At no time does scripture imply that Jesus ever looked directly at God while he was on Earth. It says that he "prayed" to God, just as ordinary men do!

and only a morally perfect being can live a sinless life while on earth, and to be morally perfect is to be God.

Well, that's your opinion, but that's not what scripture says.

Proverbs 11:5
The righteousness of the blameless makes their paths straight, but the wicked are brought down by their own wickedness.

Proverbs 2:21
For the upright will live in the land, and the blameless will remain in it;

Clearly, there are SOME who live sinless lives. They are called blameless, perfect, without blemish, without defect. Children are born into sin, but if they die before they are given the choice to commit sin, then they have led a sinless life!

Abraham was without sin, yet he was not God!

And the argument is simply only God can come on earth and live a sinless life in an effort to die for the sins of mankind.

That in itself contradicts scripture. God CAN'T die! Therefore he didn't die for our sins. You can talk about "manifestation" all you want, but at the end of the day you'll never be able to work around the fact that God can't die. Manifestation is also a "concept" like trinity. It has no biblical proof support, so it's circular logic.

There is no substitute for this, only God was capable of accomplishing such a feat.

I think you're wrong. I think God created Jesus as a human being to accomplish this feat. It does not necessitate him being God himself.

No matter how good of a person we are, from the times of Adam all the way to the present day, we are all born in sin. We are all sinners (some more so than others).

Irrelevant! Being born into sin has nothing to do with how we choose to live our lives. Anyone can choose to live a life without sin IF they follow the right path. Being born into sin is only relevant in the sense that it takes someone who was NOT born into sin to atone for that original sins (ie: Jesus). It was that fact COMBINED with the fact that he never sinned himself which made his sacrifice an atonement for all the sins of man. It wasn't one or the other, it was both, and they are not one in the same!

So the very concept of dying for the sins of mankind while living a perfectly sinless life, no other person could have accomplished the feat besides God himself,

Wrong! Someone else CAN accomplish that feat as long as they meet the two criteria outlined above. It doesn't take God to do that, it only takes a man purposefully created by God to do that. God on the other hand can NOT accomplish that feat himself, because he can never die, and the wages of sin is DEATH! That's why he created (not became) Jesus. So that a sinless MAN could die for the sins of mankind!

What you are saying is that Jesus is God because only God can live a sinless life as a man and die for our sins (there is no scriptural basis for that assumption -- it's just something you made up), and since Jesus lived a perfect life and died for our sins, that somehow proves that he was God. False! That is called circular logic. Being born into sin notwithstanding, other people have lived sinless lives without being called God.

which is EXACTLY why we have scriptures such as Phil 2:5-9, so I know my argument harmonizes with scripture.

And I know that it doesn't. We've reached an impasse!

1. Only God can live a sinless life while on earth

False statement, not supported by an scripture!

2. Jesus lived a sinless life while on earth

Irrelevant. So did Abraham! And so do babies who die at the age of 3 months old.

3. Therefore, Jesus is God

False dichotomy!

And I DARE you to offer any objections to this argument.

See above!

 

[captainbryce]

No one is denying that, bryce. All this proves is no one has seen the Father, but they have seen the Son as he made his dwelling upon us in human manifestation. That is what John 1:1-18 is all about!!!

That is a nonsensical, contradictory argument. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is God. If no man has seen God and men have seen Jesus, then Jesus is not God. You can't spin that in any other way. It says what it says! And the fact that you have to pick and choose when "God" will refer to Jesus and when it won't only exposes the futility of your argument! If Jesus is not the "God" in John 6:46 or 1 Timothy 6:15-16, then he isn't God AT ALL! It's really that simple. Only the convoluted "logic" of Trinity can complicate something that is so simple!

Well let’s see how my interpretation lines up with scripture. Consider Exo 3:5-6, the burning bush narrative.

Look at what happened. Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. Notice it said he looked at God and notice in verse 4 it said God called to Moses from within the burning bush. God manifested himself in the form of a burning bush, at which Moses saw (or could see). The fact that Moses “saw” God and did not die means that he wasn’t actually looking at God in his fullness…

Nor was he ever looking at God AT ALL. Unfortunately, you left out a critical verse, verse 2.

Exodus 3:2
There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush.

It says that Moses saw an Angel, not God! He heard God's voice as he approached the bush, then chose NOT to look at it! So there is no evidence that he ever placed his eyes on God himself.

God’s fullness was “shielded” by the burning bush, and God obviously wouldn’t purposely cause Moses to die, so he had to present himself in a way at which he could be seen while yet allowing Moses to live.

If God's "fullness" was shielded, and it was safe for Moses to look, then why was he afraid to look? Why did he cover his eyes and why then did God not tell him to look upon me if Moses was in no danger?

Now take the burning bush narrative, and go to the story of Jesus. In the same way God manifested himself as a bush, God (Jesus) manifested himself as a human, at which his fullness still wasn’t seen, but was shielded by human flesh. This is not just my interpretation, but John explains it well in his Gospel, that I keep referring you to (John 1:1-18).

Don't give me four paragraphs of passages and then tell me that you interpretation is "explained". Be specific! Highlight the specific passage you think reinforces your interpretation, because frankly, I'm not seeing! What I see in John 1:1-18 plainly contradicts your interpretation.

The problem with that is, that is not what scripture explicitly says. There is no mention of an angel ANYWHERE in the burning bush narrative.

Exodus 3:2 (King James Version)
And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

:sleep:

LOL nice.

Do you disagree that each man should be fully convinced in his own mind? What are you saying here?

You are making it seem as if God ordered Jesus to come on earth and die. Scriptures is clear, that was something that Jesus WANTED to do because of his love for mankind. It isn’t something that he was forced or ordered to do.

That's not germane to the point I was making. Jesus' death was ordained by God, and Jesus said he came to do the will of his father NOT HIS OWN. His "choice" was going to be whatever God declared!

 

[captainbryce]

I don't understand Trinity doctrine?

That's not what I said. Please read what I wrote again!

Now, according to your belief, Jesus was the created Son of God, right? He was created, and from the moment of his creation, he was a servant of his Father, accomplishing the will of his Father, correct? So, if he was the creation and servant of his father from the moment of his creation, why does verse 7 state that he "took the very nature of a servant?" Why would Jesus have to take the form of something that he already was?

Because, the passage is talking about Jesus's life as a human on Earth. It is not addressing his pre-existence in heaven. He was not a servant while he was in heaven. He in fact is higher than all of the angels and sits at Gods right hand! But in his human form, he humbled himself as a servant (to accomplish God's will).

So what was he before he took the form of a servant? Hmmm, he obviously wasn't a servant, so what was he? Hmmm, and notice in verse 6 and 7 the distinction is regarding Jesus' equality with God, and his becoming a servant?

See above. Also, neither one of those verses (alone or together) say that Jesus was currently, has been or will be equal with God. It says that he had no desire to be. Instead he did the opposite by lowering himself as a servant.

John 21:17

Relativity! Jesus knows everything about Simon. Simon does not know everything about Jesus. If taken any other way, then it contradicts Matthew 24:36. But since God's word cannot contradict itself, then something must be wrong with your interpretation.

Then you and John 1:14 are in agreement.

I am always in agreement with ALL scripture! What I am disagreeing with is your interpretation of it.

Once again, I am willing to grant that Jesus was not fully human. You are not beginning to attack straw man, are you?

I'm not so sure. You claim to be a Trinitarian, yet whenever confronted with a scripturally indefensible position of the official Trinitarian stance, you distance yourself. Jesus was not fully God, and God only means the Father (except sometimes, when it doesn't). So at this point, I don't really know what to believe. If I'm attacking the straw man, then you have done an excellent job of disguising yourself as one! In any case, I acknowledge that you don't believe that Jesus was fully God, (and I'm glad you don't). Moving on...

You were the one making it seem as if it was illogical for God to do it.

And I still maintain that it is! But that's besides the point. The burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove that a trinity DOESN'T exist (even though the plain reading of the bible easily does that). You have to prove that it DOES, if you want me to adopt such a belief. But your defense of Trinity often entails you telling me what God CAN do. Whether I agree with you or not, what God "can do" does not prove what God actually did! So bringing up God's capabilities does not advance your argument.

And I let scripture answer the question of what did God do. John 1:14 "The Word (Jesus) become flesh and made his dwelling among us". The Word was identified as God in verse 1. So that is what God did.

And I've already explained what the logical interpretation of that scripture is, and why your interpretation is illogical. I still haven't gotten a response back from that point!

John 1:1-18.

If all you can do is repost a scripture and a verse (that I've already addressed) then there is no need for me to comment on it. My point stands until you can provide a rebuttal to my explanation of the verse).

Jesus was not tempted in the same way you are I are.

Hebrews 4:15 says that he absolutely was. And if he wasn't, then there would have been no point to that test!

First off, what does it mean to be tempted? Did Jesus consider what Satan offered him? If yes, then he was tempted. If no, then he wasn't. And the answer is no. The devil TRIED to tempt him, and it didn't work. When we say he was "tempted", it means that someone tried to present an immorral opportunity to him which he didn't consider.

A) That's not what scripture says. It didn't say that the devil "tried" to tempt Jesus, it says Jesus was tempted. B) It wouldn't have had to say that the devil tried to temp Jesus because that's implied in the full definition of the word tempt.

Tempt 'v': entice or attempt to entice (someone) to do or acquire something that they find attractive but know to be wrong or not beneficial.

That is what it means to tempt, and that's exactly what the bible says happened to Jesus!

Matthew 4:1-2
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.

Why would Matthew mention that Jesus was hungry if there was no temptation to eat? Jesus "considered" eating in the same manner that you or I might "consider" eating if we fasted! If you consider doing something, but don't because you know it's wrong, then you are acting as Jesus did. And trying to interpret the temptation of Jesus as anything other than how you or I might be tempted is going directly against scripture.

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

Are you calling Paul a liar?

So did Jesus not sin because he could, but just didn't. Or did he not sin because sin was not part of his nature, and since it wasn't part of his nature, he wouldn't? Hmm, chose wisely.

It doesn't require a choice. Sin was not part of Adam's nature either, yet he ultimately sinned anyway! Sin was not part of Satan's nature when God made him, yet he sinned! Just because sin isn't part of your nature doesn't mean you are incapable of sinning. So Jesus was fully capable of sinning (whether it was part of his nature or not), yet he chose not to because he knew it was wrong! And if Jesus was NOT capable of sin at all, then what was the point of the test? The entire point of the temptation of Christ becomes irrelevant and the story serves no purpose!

Um bryce, aren't you assuming that the command and the voice are that of the Lord's?

Yes, I am. Because that is the only logical assumption to make based on what is said.

Jesus will come from heaven ACCOMPANIED by the archangel,

That's not what it says. That is you ADDING to scripture! Michael is not mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4. Jesus IS. Anytime the word "Archangel" is used in scripture, it is accompanied by ONE name. This would be the ONLY example in the canonical bible where the title is used and the name is absent. How likely is that? All things being equal, the simplest explanation is correct. Moreover, the reason that Michael is NOT mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4 by name is because this particular role has nothing to do with angels battling demons (which is when the name Michael is used in scripture). The statement "With a loud command, and the voice of the archangel" is possessive, indicating it is a quality that belongs to Jesus, not someone else who might be with him! If Michael was just "someone else" who happened to be WITH Jesus, then why would he have been there with Jesus at that time? What does Michael have to do with the Resurrection of man if he was not Jesus? The answer is NOTHING! The Hebrew meaning of the name Michael is "who is like God?" Who is like God besides Jesus? Hebrews 1:3 tells us that only he is!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_ut_Deus?

Hmmm, how about reading Heb 4:15 and getting back with me.

See above. The passage in question invalidates your assumption that Christ could not be tempted due to his "nature".

So if Jesus wasn't good, and the opposite of good is bad, was Jesus bad?

No he wasn't. But "good" and "bad" are relative terms that we tend to judge by human standards. The point that Jesus was making is that in the eyes of God, no man should ever be called good by another man. Since only God is "truly good", then only God can declare another man to be good (as he did with Abraham). My point is that "Jesus's point" would have fallen on deaf ears if he thought that the man viewed him as God! If he was God, then that point no longer makes any sense to the man. If Jesus was God, why would he tell the man not to call HIM good? It doesn't make any sense!

Hmm very good indeed. But the fact that Jesus was worshipped (Matt 28:8-9), and prayed to (Acts 7:59). Were the disciples worshipped or prayed to also?

No. All authority to judge mankind has been given to Jesus Christ. The Son is the only redeemer of sins, therefore it is appropriate to pray to Jesus, just as one would pray to God.

John 5:22-23
22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

But that wasn't the question. The question is whether one must be God to perform healing and exorcisms. As scripture establishes, the answer to that is NO.

 

[captainbryce]

So when Jesus told the thief on the cross that on that day, the thief would be with him in paradise, I guess "paradise" can be correlated with nothingness huh.

No. He WOULD be in paradise. But he wouldn't be in paradise on "that day". That is merely what Jesus told him "that day". Think about it, Jesus didn't even ascend to heaven on that day. He rose three days later! So how could the criminal (not thief) be with him in on that day? That doesn't make any sense!

Matthew 27:62-64
62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”

John 20:17
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

So if he had to "humble" himself to become Gods servant, what was he before he humbled himself and therefore wasn't God's servant?

He didn't HAVE TO, he choose to (as an example for us)! Jesus lived as a humble, meek man (even by human standards). What was he before? He was a created being who was made higher than all of the angels in heaven, who sits at the right hand of "God" (not "the Father").

Hebrews 1:6
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

Mark 16:19
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

The question is, was Jesus making himself equal to God?

The answer is NO. He never did! He was falsely accused of doing this by the men who conspired to have him killed. Even if we assume that his accusers honestly thought that calling God his father equated to making himself equal to God, that's certainly not what Jesus was doing because Philippians 2:6-7 rules that out! Furthermore, we can infer (based on the fact that they couldn't find any evidence to have him executed) that this charge was false, along with the rest of their charges against him.

John 5:17-18
In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

...later...

Mark 14:55-59
55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. 57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

John 10:33-36
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

At no point in time did Jesus EVER refer to himself as God. That is what his Jewish opponents accused him of doing (so that they could execute him). When Jesus challenges their logic according to scripture, they could provide no answer. It just enraged them further! So the evidence shows that it was not Jesus who made himself equal to God. In fact, he does the opposite. If Jesus was making himself equal to God, why would he pray to his own God (his father), who he pronounces as greater than him? Again...

John 20:17
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

John 14:28
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

 

[Barrackubus]

Argumentive as the history of the alledged doctrine of the trinity is concerned. Whether you are Christian or not has nothing to do with you believe it or not. However what is most importantly needed to discover is who actually started this doctrine versus what the early church dictated as truth. Not changes brought on popes saints or whoever. The earliest recorded example we can possibly ream from is written in the book of Acts and at no point is baptism or any other form of ritual whether it be baptism or whatever is done with any reference to any kind of trinity. But the doctrine of Oneness is prevalent throughout the written activities recorded from the early church. It was all about Jesus and even the ritual of baptism was recorded to have occurred in the name of Jesus.
In mark 16 we find Jesus commanding the followers to baptise believers in the name o the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.
Some adherents of the oneness doctrine would conclude that the name of the three is a singular name and that name is Jesus.
Acts chapter 2 occurs and in the 37th verse it is recorded as, what shal we do to be saved.
And the 38th verse Peter preached that the listeners repent and be baptised in the name (the name of the father, son and holy ghost) Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and they shall receive the gift of the holy ghost.
The doctrine of trinity is a fabled concept first taught by the roman church and passed o the protestants adopted by some during the times of the reformational period. And of course that's all just alledged by proponents of some protestant oneness faiths.
All the scriptures quoted above are references of positional placement as result of the humanity...if the Jesus was a child on earth and Fathered Himself through His Spirit which in God position it is all the same Person...

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Mark 16 is considered interpolation

 

[Repox]

How did Christians outsmart Jews? By that, I mean why didn't the Jews, who by many accounts are the most intelligent ethnic group on the planet, learn about the trinity? Why did God wait so long to reveal his son to humankind?

Does the trinity really exist? Wasn't it was made up by Christians to sell a new religion? Oh, I just remembered, I stated that before. Darn, why doesn't anyone pay attention. I guess it is because too much is at stake. After all, there are millions and millions of Christians out there who don't want their faith questioned.

Why would God need a son when he has angels? It gets ridiculous when you read what Paul and his followers wrote. Paul wrote that Jesus was God's firstborn, "among many brothers." (Romans 8:29). So, even though there is mention of how glorious Jesus is compared to other men, Paul thinks he is just like us, one of many brothers. Paul wrote, "Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heir of God and co-heirs with Christ." (Romans 8:17). However, we and our brother Jesus are not that glorious. In Hebrews, we find that being the son of God is not that great. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels." (Hebrew 2:9) That makes the trinity a joke.

Here we have the son of God, lower than the angels, one of three parts of the trinity. Indeed, the trinity is a mystery, a mystery that defies logic! How can the son of God, who is lower than the angels, be part of the Godhead?

The answer to these contradictions is there is no trinity. The Jews got it right, there is only the Old Testament Lord.

 

[ttechsan]

Bible teaches the Trinity although that word is not used but actually is used in the Quran which tells you how prevalent and important that teaching is. Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the Trinity. All mentioned in Old and New Testament.
My reply to Mormons that tell me they are Christians is this.
If I told you I didn't believe Joseph Smith was an apostle.
If I said I don't believe we can become god(s)
If I said I don't believe in spiritual babies
If I said I don't believe Jesus and Satan are brothers
I could go on and on with the differing beliefs.
I believe Jesus was the Son of God and his shed blood was necessary for salvation etc
Could I then claim to be Mormon?
Of course not.
Since we have totally differing beliefs that are essential to our faiths we can't claim to be the same. I can't claim to be Mormon nor the other way around.
I hope this makes sense. WE can't both be correct as the differences are too far apart. Same with Islam and both of our religions and the jewish faith. Too many key components to ever agree on or even meet half way or one is surrendering ones basic tenets of ones faith.

 

[Katzpur]

Bible teaches the Trinity although that word is not used but actually is used in the Quran which tells you how prevalent and important that teaching is. Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the Trinity. All mentioned in Old and New Testament.
My reply to Mormons that tell me they are Christians is this.
If I told you I didn't believe Joseph Smith was an apostle.
If I said I don't believe we can become god(s)
If I said I don't believe in spiritual babies
If I said I don't believe Jesus and Satan are brothers
I could go on and on with the differing beliefs.
I believe Jesus was the Son of God and his shed blood was necessary for salvation etc
Could I then claim to be Mormon?
Of course not.
Since we have totally differing beliefs that are essential to our faiths we can't claim to be the same. I can't claim to be Mormon nor the other way around.

Of course you couldn't claim to be Mormon. But if you're Baptist, you couldn't claim to be Catholic either. If you're Pentacostal, you couldn't claim to be Episcopal. There are significant differences between all Christian denominations. But, regardless of what else you believed, you could claim to be a Christian if you believed that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, that He freely gave His life to atone for the sins of those who would accept Him as their Savior, and who take upon themselves His name and strive to live the kind of life He taught us to live.

I hope this makes sense.

I'm sure it makes a ton of sense to anyone who's looking for a reason to tell other Christians that they're not "the real thing." To the rest of us, though, no, it doesn't make any sense.

WE can't both be correct as the differences are too far apart.

No, we can't both be correct in those doctrines in which we differ, but we can focus on those even more important areas in which we agree. First and foremost, we can all be Christians. After all, when each of us stands before God to be judged, His opinion on the matter is going to be the only one that matters.

 

[captainbryce]

The answer to these contradictions is there is no trinity. The Jews got it right, there is only the Old Testament Lord.

You've just created a false dichotomy. Lack of Trinity does not disprove the New Testament or Jesus's role as messiah.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because, the passage is talking about Jesus's life as a human on Earth. It is not addressing his pre-existence in heaven.

Yet the passage clearly states that he was in the form of God before he came to earth, so that IS his pre-existence in heaven.

He was not a servant while he was in heaven.

He came on earth to accomplish the will of his Father, right? Doesn’t he do that in heaven too? So why call him a servant on earth but not in heaven when regardless of his location, he still do whatever his Father commands him to do? Makes no sense.

He in fact is higher than all of the angels and sits at Gods right hand! But in his human form, he humbled himself as a servant (to accomplish God's will).

Ok but regardless of whether or not he is higher than all of the angels, he is STILL a creation of God his Father and he is still obedient to the word of his father, so why call him a servant in human form and not otherwise? Makes no sense. Not only that, but if he wasn’t a “servant” in the sense that he served his father in heaven, then what was he??

See above. Also, neither one of those verses (alone or together) say that Jesus was currently, has been or will be equal with God. It says that he had no desire to be. Instead he did the opposite by lowering himself as a servant.

Reading comprehension is key. Verse 6 states that he was in the form of God, but despite being in the form of God, he didn’t consider equality with God something he had to hold on too, BUT MADE HIMSELF NOTHING, TAKING THE FORM OF A SERVANT AND BEING MADE IN HUMAN LIKENESS. If he was never equal with God in the first place, then there would be no point in emphasizing on his attitude towards equality with God now would there?

Relativity! Jesus knows everything about Simon. Simon does not know everything about Jesus. If taken any other way, then it contradicts Matthew 24:36. But since God's word cannot contradict itself, then something must be wrong with your interpretation.

Wait a minute, so Jesus is omniscient regarding Simon, but not everything else? Makes no sense. And it doesn’t contradict itself…being a human, Jesus dealt with the limitations of being human, and that is finite knowledge. That is why John 21:7 shows his omniscience after his Resurrection.

I am always in agreement with ALL scripture! What I am disagreeing with is your interpretation of it.

Ok, then you agree that the “Word” in John 1:1 is Jesus, and Jesus is God as that verse indicates…and the Word became flesh in verse 14. So therefore, Jesus is God.

And I still maintain that it is! But that's besides the point. The burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove that a trinity DOESN'T exist (even though the plain reading of the bible easily does that). You have to prove that it DOES, if you want me to adopt such a belief. But your defense of Trinity often entails you telling me what God CAN do. Whether I agree with you or not, what God "can do" does not prove what God actually did! So bringing up God's capabilities does not advance your argument.

Well, from a scriptural basis for the Trinity, we don’t even need to look further than John 1:1, which I am still waiting for why you are not convinced of the Trinity despite this scripture being the most direct and without question Trinity proof doctrine.

And I've already explained what the logical interpretation of that scripture is, and why your interpretation is illogical. I still haven't gotten a response back from that point!

Yeah you said something like the “word” is grammar or something like that. You conveniently took it literally as a way to continually justify your non-acceptance of the Trinity.

Hebrews 4:15 says that he absolutely was. And if he wasn't, then there would have been no point to that test!

The point of the test was to show believers how to fend off the devil by combating him with SCRIPTURE, as for everything the devil said, Jesus had a scripture for it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

A) That's not what scripture says. It didn't say that the devil "tried" to tempt Jesus, it says Jesus was tempted. B) It wouldn't have had to say that the devil tried to temp Jesus because that's implied in the full definition of the word tempt.


Tempt 'v': entice or attempt to entice (someone) to do or acquire something that they find attractive but know to be wrong or not beneficial.

That is what it means to tempt, and that's exactly what the bible says happened to Jesus!

Matthew 4:1-2
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.

Why would Matthew mention that Jesus was hungry if there was no temptation to eat? Jesus "considered" eating in the same manner that you or I might "consider" eating if we fasted! If you consider doing something, but don't because you know it's wrong, then you are acting as Jesus did. And trying to interpret the temptation of Jesus as anything other than how you or I might be tempted is going directly against scripture.

Good points but here is why I disagree. Do you recall the story of Joseph, at which while he was a servant in Potiphar’s house, Potiphar’s wife came on to him, but he refused. She did this day after day, and he refused her offers every single time. Now, was Joseph being tempted? Is it temptation if you have no desire to do it? Or is just the act of someone tempting you called temptation? If it is just the mere act alone, then yes, Jesus was tempted, because even in the definition that you provided it says “to entice or ATTEMPT to entice”. But my point is Jesus wasn’t tempted in the sense at which he thought about it or took it in to consideration. Jesus said in Matt 5:28 that if a man even looks at a woman lustfully, then he is committing adultery in his heart. So just by thinking about doing something wrong is still considered a sin. So if Jesus thought about doing whatever it was he was being “tempted” by, he would be sinning. So if the bible maintains that Jesus was without sin, then he wasn’t tempted in the sense of taking to heart what was being offered to him. That was my point.

It doesn't require a choice. Sin was not part of Adam's nature either, yet he ultimately sinned anyway!

The question is, COULD JESUS HAVE SINNED? And can God sin? If the answer is yes, then neither God nor Jesus are morally perfect.

Sin was not part of Satan's nature when God made him, yet he sinned! Just because sin isn't part of your nature doesn't mean you are incapable of sinning. So Jesus was fully capable of sinning (whether it was part of his nature or not), yet he chose not to because he knew it was wrong! And if Jesus was NOT capable of sin at all, then what was the point of the test? The entire point of the temptation of Christ becomes irrelevant and the story serves no purpose!

So what you are saying is, it is possible for humans to live our lives without committing one single sin? First off, I disagree that sin was part of Jesus’ nature. I don’t believe there is a way for a mere human to live a life on earth free of sin…and if someone is able to pull off such a great feat, then that person is morally perfect and only God is morally perfect. Second, sin was part of Satan’s nature. If you have the will and the ability to do something, then it is part of your nature to do it.

Yes, I am. Because that is the only logical assumption to make based on what is said.

That's not what it says. That is you ADDING to scripture! Michael is not mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4. Jesus IS. Anytime the word "Archangel" is used in scripture, it is accompanied by ONE name.

First off, you are making it seem as if “archangel” is used many times in the bible. It is only mentioned twice and only one of those times has Michael obtaining the title. The other time is the 1 Thess scripture in question and it doesn’t have the name of Michael attached to it. So it is not as clear cut as you make it to be.

Moreover, the reason that Michael is NOT mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4 by name is because this particular role has nothing to do with angels battling demons (which is when the name Michael is used in scripture).

So what? You are making it seem as if there is a scriptural rule which states that Michael’s name can only be used when it is in the context of angels battling demons. Sounds like Jehovah’s Witness logic to me.

The statement "With a loud command, and the voice of the archangel" is possessive, indicating it is a quality that belongs to Jesus, not someone else who might be with him!

To be honest with you, I don’t even know what it means to say that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. I know what it means, but then again I don’t. What does it mean? To be the head of all angels? Jesus could be head of all angels without being this Michael character. So in this scripture, who is Jesus coming back to earth as, Jesus, or Michael? Makes no sense.

If Michael was just "someone else" who happened to be WITH Jesus, then why would he have been there with Jesus at that time? What does Michael have to do with the Resurrection of man if he was not Jesus? The answer is NOTHING!

Do you read the bible? You are asking what does Michael have to do with the Resurrection of man if he was not Jesus. Yet in Matt 16:27, Jesus said “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels..”

So what does these angels that Jesus is returning with have to do with the Resurrection? You can ask the same thing about them…not to mention the complete irrelevance of such a question, I mean if that is who Jesus decides to make his return with, then that is his prerogative.