• 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!

John 14:7, Jesus associates Himself with the Pater, 'father', and says He's the manifestation

blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Why do you keep arguing about the trinity? There is more than one trinity concept, there is something called Modalism, and you aren't explaining various verses that contradict your premise.
Click to expand...
What does 'modalism' say?

And why do the churches declare that the Trinity doctrine is 'a mystery in the strict sense' ie incoherent? (I agree with them, but they said it first.)
Disciple of Jesus said:
'Trinity' is inferred from the text
Click to expand...
You clearly didn't read, or else didn't understand, what those quotes I gave you say. Jesus denies again and again that he's god. Paul agrees. If Jesus is not god, he's not part of the Trinity. End of story.

I point out yet again that the Trinity doctrine was not invented til the latter 4th century CE. Don't take my word for it, look it up in a non-dogmatic history book. If there was an historical Jesus, he'd never heard of such a thing ─ it'd be pure anachronism.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
Entirely irrelevant. Your own argument has Jesus calling on himself not to forsake himself ─ that's (and I'm being polite) just silly.
Click to expand...
That isn't "my argument", it's textual. Just like Jesus placing Himself higher than the angels, so forth, is textual. Interpreted literally, it doesn't really make sense.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Except they're wrong. Jesus places Himself, 'higher than the angels', that's G- d. Higher than the g- ds of the nations.
The only thing higher than the angels, is G- d.
Click to expand...
So you're calling Jesus a liar, then.

If you can't take Jesus' words as meaning what they say, then you can't take Jesus word for anything.

But ─ if that's what you want, you live in a free country.
Disciple of Jesus said:
If you understood Biblical or even Judaism modern judaism, theology, you would know that. It's a monotheistic religion paradigm, therefore, a triune, because of other text inferred religious belief, or, just complete modalism, as I mentioned.
Click to expand...
I'm well acquainted with the claims.

And you're welcome to believe them, if you like believing in ideas that even the churches admit are incoherent.

Just don't pretend the idea that Jesus is God has any support from the NT. I've already shown you Jesus saying he isn't god again and again and again, and you haven't offered a single example of Jesus saying he's God ─ not one.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
What does 'modalism' say?

And why do the churches declare that the Trinity doctrine is 'a mystery in the strict sense' ie incoherent? (I agree with them, but they said it first.)
You clearly didn't read, or else didn't understand, what those quotes I gave you say. Jesus denies again and again that he's god. Paul agrees. If Jesus is not god, he's not part of the Trinity. End of story.

I point out yet again that the Trinity doctrine was not invented til the latter 4th century CE. Don't take my word for it, look it up in a non-dogmatic history book. If there was an historical Jesus, he'd never heard of such a thing ─ it'd be pure anachronism.
Click to expand...
We can get into the trinity, but remember that a type of modalism is really what much of the text reads like, in the literal sense. 'Trinity' is inferred from other context, like religious belief. There are some verses, 'God and the father beside him', so forth. So, trinity or binitarian,
Colossians 2:9
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
That isn't "my argument", it's textual. Just like Jesus placing Himself higher than the angels, so forth, is textual. Interpreted literally, it doesn't really make sense.
Click to expand...
The Trinity doctrine doesn't make any sense but you're rooting for that.

And my texts are words attributed to Jesus in direct speech. Your replies are weird constructions of fringe bits and pieces for a doctrine a real Jesus had never heard of.

You're calling Jesus a liar. That's fine, call him what you like, but be honest about what you're doing.
 
MJFlores

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
blü 2 said:
That's in legend. The Tanakh says nothing of the kind.

Then again, the Tanakh says nothing of the Fall, indeed specifically rules out original sin at some length in Ezekiel 18, not least verse 20.
Nope. It's simply not about any villain other than the fallen King of Babylon.
This is the taunting of the fallen king that says he used to think he was so high he was the morning star and now he's in the mud so there!
The morning star is the planet Venus in the morning as seen from Earth. In Isaiah's Hebrew here it's called the 'day star'. When translated into Greek in the Septuagint, it was called by the Greek name for the same thing, the planet Venus (morning version) 'phosphorous' ('phos' light + pherein 'to carry' = 'bringer of light') which gets translated into Latin in the Vulgate by the Latin name for, once again, Venus (morning version) Lucifer ('lux' light + ferre 'to carry' = 'bringing of light' just as in Greek).

After that we're into myths (where the author of Revelation 12:7-12 has a lot to answer for, though John Milton thought it was a good yarn.)
Click to expand...

King of Babylon named Lucifer
Call him Lucy for short;)
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
The Trinity doctrine doesn't make any sense but you're rooting for that.

And my texts are words attributed to Jesus in direct speech. Your replies are weird constructions of fringe bits and pieces for a doctrine a real Jesus had never heard of.

You're calling Jesus a liar. That's fine, call him what you like, but be honest about what you're doing.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention the trinity. You are reading that into the verses, basically.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
So you're calling Jesus a liar, then.

If you can't take Jesus' words as meaning what they say, then you can't take Jesus word for anything.

But ─ if that's what you want, you live in a free country.

I'm well acquainted with the claims.

And you're welcome to believe them, if you like believing in ideas
Click to expand...

You're church calls the trinity idea they present a mystery, that is your indoctrination, not mine, and I'm not presenting what they present. You can't maintain a contextual debate.
 
Last edited:
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
You're church calls the trinity idea they present a mystery, that is your indoctrination, not mine, and I'm not presenting what they present. You can't maintain a contextual debate.
Click to expand...
I'm referring to the original Trinity doctrine, the one used by RCC, Anglo/Piscos, Lutherans, and more.

And although I asked you to explain your alternative, you apparently can't.

I think we're done.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The Biblical God, was known previous to the incarnation of Jesus. That's why Jesus said, they would find Him in Scriptures, ie the Bible Old Testament.

Unless your argument is that Yahweh, who you say is Jesus's deity, wasn't known, then it contradicts the Bible, and Jesus, and Christian interpretation of the Bible, or the supposed ""christian""interpretation of the Bible.

In other words, your argument relies on the Biblical deity being previously unknown, unobserved.

Which isn't Biblical, and not my religion.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
By all means invent a deity that accords with your own fancy.

Just leave the bible out of it ─ at least till you've read it.
Click to expand...

The Biblical God was known previous to incarnation of Jesus. You are now just obfuscating, or not even being honest, and contradicting the Bible, directly.

The Biblical God, was known previous to the incarnation of Jesus. That's why Jesus said, they would find Him in Scriptures, ie the Bible Old Testament.

Unless your argument is that Yahweh, who you say is Jesus's deity, wasn't known, then it contradicts the Bible, and Jesus, and Christian interpretation of the Bible, or the supposed ""christian""interpretation of the Bible.

In other words, your argument relies on the Biblical deity being previously unknown, unobserved.

Which isn't Biblical, and not my religion.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
The Biblical God was known previous to incarnation of Jesus. You are now just obfuscating, or not even being honest, and contradicting the Bible, directly.

The Biblical God, was known previous to the incarnation of Jesus. That's why Jesus said, they would find Him in Scriptures, ie the Bible Old Testament.

Unless your argument is that Yahweh, who you say is Jesus's deity, wasn't known, then it contradicts the Bible, and Jesus, and Christian interpretation of the Bible, or the supposed ""christian""interpretation of the Bible.

In other words, your argument relies on the Biblical deity being previously unknown, unobserved.
Click to expand...
Have a nice day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top