One of the oldest arguements: Is Jesus God?

[oracle]

First I would like to state that I believe that truth for all of us is different subjectively, therefore the truth of one individual cannot be forced upon one's own subjective truth. Ultimately a person believes what they desire and wish to believe, and the result is that they become very personal. They are a part of us, and we protect them as if they are us. No one testifies against their own faith. The objective of this argument is not to disapprove any beliefs, but it is a discussion based on some of my own research in which judgement is procurred in accordance to what seems to be evident. I would like to emphasize that I have respect in regards to people's personal beliefs, and that my belief is not an ultimate truth but my own.

This topic has been argued since early Christianity. This is a re-iterated topic. Here is my own argument for why Jesus cannot be God, however I do not doubt that Jesus is the Son of God.

Often Asked Questions

If Jesus was the son of God, how can he be both the son of God and be God himself simultaneously?
If Jesus was God, why would he need to pray to himself?
If Jesus was equal to God, why would he need to pray period?
If Jesus is God, why would a distinction such as the trinity be necassary? The trinity makes a distinction between the father and the son. If they are one and the same, a distinction would be non essential. Why would the trinity exist unless if it was to make a distinction?

The Three Level Hebrew Alphabet

This is what I have learned from the more mystical side: God first of all, does not contain human characteristics. God is infinite, nothingness; it is a reality where neither space, time, or matter exist. It is singular and whole lacking any distinction. This is represented by Aleph, consisting of both Bet and Zadi-Final, (the head "beginning" and tail "end" of the Hebrew Alphabet). Receding from Aleph is the firstborn (which is known as Christ from my speculation), --second to God-- and was the first that came into existence from out of nothingness. In an Enneagram view of the 3-levels of the Hebrew alphabet, the 27 letters are sequentially strung on three loops:

"Together Qia (Aleph-Yod-Qof) means Eruption. Qi is the name for the life-force in eastern traditions and "eruption" is what happens at the seed-center of continuous creation"..."As the outer part of Bet, Resh represents the outer reaching of Bet. If Kaf is what is in the palm of the hand, then Resh is what radiates from the head. That is why Resh means head, reaching rushing and radiation. Together Bukar (Bet-Kaf-Resh) means "first born son". These letters break open unity and signify the birth of distinction at each of their levels."-- Beyond Measure by Jay Kappraff

The three levels are made known in Kabbalah as archetypal, existential, and cosmic. They relate to one another like Cartesian cordinates.

First Born Son, In Contrast to Only Begotten Son

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, a gospel that did not make it into the canon, however is quoted by a number of church fathers connected with the city of Alexandria, Egypt -- Clement, Origen, Didymus the blind, and Jerome. In this gospel, Jesus is written as the “firstborn son” not the “only begotten son“:

“It is stated in the Gospel written in Hebrew, which the Nazereans read: “The entire fountain of the Holy Spirit will descend on him. For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” Later in that Gospel that we have mentioned we find the following: “It came to pass that when the Lord came up from the water, the entire fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested on him; and it is said to him, ‘My Son, in all the prophets I have been expecting you to come, that I might rest on you. For you are my rest, you are my firstborn Son, who rules forever.’” (Jerome, Comentary on Isaiah11:13) -- Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman.

In the Arain conspiracy, Arius, the Presbyter of Alexandria, said that Christ did not share God's nature but was the first creature God created. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, said that Christ was fully God. At the Council of Nicea in 325, the Church Fathers came down on Athanasius's side and made Arius's belief heretical. In my speculation, the NT has been edited accordingly.

In Matthew 5:43-48, Jesus says that we may be sons of our Father in heaven. If Jesus is the “only begotten son“, then how can we also be God’s son? Are we “adopted”? Adoption is only based on the conditions that a child is given up by biological parents and taken care by non-biological ones. In this case we were all created by God who is our original father. Being a “son of God” is not a birth right, but a title given based on certain conditioning, or a relationship based on certain circumstances. The argument here is to show the possibility that there originally was no “only begotten son”, but that the NT was edited this way. Where in the world does "only begotten" come from? It's not in the OT like "First born son". Jesus the Christ is also known as the firstborn in several non-canonical books.

There is even more underlying meaning behind "firstborn". According to the Zohar (I think, I will check this later and re-specify the source), It is the first letter of Genesis, the first verse of Genesis, the first Chapter of Genesis, the first book which is Genesis and so on that contains and reveals the Torah [sidenote: The Gnostics held Jesus as divine revealer, not savior]. Bet is the first distinction receding from Aleph: the first letter of the first verse of the first book. Is it relational to the first born? In this case I believe that Christ IS literally the Word, and through the first of God's word, God becomes revealed. I believe that a historical Jesus existed, yet I also see Jesus as being a personified symbolical representation or physical manifestation of Christ, as Christ becomes externalized through the teachings of Jesus and the revelations of God are made through him also. This is why Jesus states that no one can come to God except through him. There is undoubtingly an existent relationship that cannot be denied, whether it is wholly symbolical, or whether that Jesus is literally the Christ.

Where only begotten comes from, I have no clue. However firstborn son, firstborn lamb, first fruits, etc are found throughout the OTand the NT in a distinct and consistent pattern. You also have the "Sons of God" which is constant in the OT, meaning that there is not only one son but there exists a plurality. Only begotten seems like a breakage, interpolation, and inconsistency within this pattern. Of course from the possible perspective of the early church fathers, if Jesus is God, there is only one God, and that means there can only be one son. Like I have stated, there are missing cogwheels, breakage of pattern, anomalies, inconsistencies within the whole context like I have described above, which to me seems like enough substantial evidence that shows the NT has been edited over [edit: disregard this statement. It's not enough evidence]. There was a definite digression away from Judaism and an anti-semitism in the early church (persecution of Jews), which seems to me like a contributing facter to interpolation. Only a Hebraic mind can understand concepts like Alpha and Omega (Aleph and Tav), because of the semitic meanings of the Hebrew Aleph-bet, which is stating the totality of God's existance as being everything that exists from the beginning to the end of a spectrum. It would be difficult for anyone to understand this concept if they do not understand Judaism. The first movement of digression from Judaism existed very early in the church, when Peter and Paul were still around. This discension was between the Jewish Christian's and the Gentile Christians, and I perceive that this created a spiraling downfall of shizms, beginning very early whithin Christianity's roots. The Gentile Christians survived, however the hebraic mindset seems to have died with it.

See the differences between firstborn and only begotten here:

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=firstborn&section=0&version=nkj&new=1&oq=first+born

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=only+begotten&section=0&version=nkj&new=1&oq=only+born

It seems that only John, Hebrews, and 1st John consists of only begotten. This is a breakage from the firstborn pattern. No where in the OT does anything signify an only begotten or only born. I would say it doesn't necassarily point to editing of the context, it might have been orgininally written as is, but that there is a difference in mindset with the authors.

Jesus never directly stated that he was God

In statements made by Jesus such as the one below, it seems that Jesus is not saying that He is God, but is describing his unification and connection to God:

John 14:10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.”

 

[Ronald]

Gen.1 In the beginning Elohim/God created Aleph Tav the Hebrew alphabet, as you state, the beginning and the end. NT/ Alpha and Omega, God spoke the universe into existance, this is Torah.
NT/Yeshua is the living Torah/Word of God, first-born of all creation, the image of the invisable God. In the beginning was the Aleph Tav, the Aleph Tav was with God and the Aleph Tav was God.
The Word of God came from God, but is not God. The Torah is the mind of God, but it is not God.
Y H V H is Eternal! Yeshua was not Eternal, needed resurection, then became immortal/eternal as is Y H V H.

 

[oracle]

I'm going to have to say that I will have to disregard speculation of editing in referance to firstborn or only begotten. In actuality I don't think this arguement alone is enough evidence. It probably has not been edited over, but is in it's orginal context. I think the difference is because of the difference of authors.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oracle,
I must disagree that Jesus never directly claimed that he was God. The "I AM" teachings in John cannot be divorced from Jesus' teachings about himself. We have always understood the Gospel of John to be a theological reflection on the life and teachings of Christ, but we have evidence of Jesus teaching of himself as God in parables publically and then explaining its meaning privately to his disciples. So we have indirect statements (pulic teachings) in the Synoptics with private explanations (explained both in the Synoptics and in John), and the direct claims from the mouth of Jesus are the explanations that he gave privately to his disciples, who recorded his teachings in the NT. Therefore, we have direct claims found in parables and the explanations of the same (that is, indirect and direct claims to divinity from the historical Jesus), along with the theological reflections of John, Paul, and the writer of the canonical epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[oracle]

Oracle,
I must disagree that Jesus never directly claimed that he was God. The "I AM" teachings in John cannot be divorced from Jesus' teachings about himself. We have always understood the Gospel of John to be a theological reflection on the life and teachings of Christ, but we have evidence of Jesus teaching of himself as God in parables publically and then explaining its meaning privately to his disciples. So we have indirect statements (pulic teachings) in the Synoptics with private explanations (explained both in the Synoptics and in John), and the direct claims from the mouth of Jesus are the explanations that he gave privately to his disciples, who recorded his teachings in the NT. Therefore, we have direct claims found in parables and the explanations of the same (that is, indirect and direct claims to divinity from the historical Jesus), along with the theological reflections of John, Paul, and the writer of the canonical epistle to the Hebrews.

Okay. Well I definitely don't want to hotly debate about this, after all what I have been saying deals with a lot of speculation. Ultimately I want to maintain my respect. But from your point of view, why does the trinity exist? Basically I would say from your point of view it is not to make a distinction but to unify 3 things as the same entity. I have no doubt there is an underlying unification, however there is still a distinction, otherwise the trinity would not exist becuase it would not need to.

It is incompatible with my beliefs, because if God is infinite, he cannot be located in a single point in time and space, but God is everywhere and everything. I would say that Christ is the first thing that came into existence from nothingness.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Okay. Well I definitely don't want to hotly debate about this, after all what I have been saying deals with a lot of speculation. Ultimately I want to maintain my respect. But from your point of view, why does the trinity exist? Basically I would say from your point of view it is not to make a distinction but to unify 3 things as the same entity. I have no doubt there is an underlying unification, however there is still a distinction, otherwise the trinity would not exist becuase it would not need to.

It is incompatible with my beliefs, because if God is infinite, he cannot be located in a single point in time and space, but God is everywhere and everything. I would say that Christ is the first thing that came into existence from nothingness.

Thanks. In my view, like yours, I believe that God is infinate, but his revelation of himself is finite. That is, while his personhood and existence are wholly incomprehensible, he has limited what we can know about him. We see three persons in the NT and OT (limited writings using limited means of communication), yet we see a consistent teaching that there is only one God. So while orthodox Christians affirm the Trinity, we also affirm that our doctrines do not limit God - he has limited himself. This affirmation of the Trinity and the incomprehensible nature of God is found in our Creeds, both biblical http://www.creeds.net/ancient/bible.htm (Deut 6.4 cf Phil 2.6-11), the Rule of Faith by Irenaus (a very early Christian bishop) http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Irenaeus.htm, the Apostle's Creed (which affirms the persons and roles of the Trinity but does not explicitly teach it) http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm, and the Nichene Creed http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm, and the Athanatian Creed most explicitly teaches the Trinity http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Quicumque.html.

The reason why I think the doctrine of the Trinity is exists is essentially this:
P1: The whole of Scripture teaches that there is One God
P2: Jesus both implicitly and explicitly claims to be God
P3: Paul and John affirm that Jesus is God
P4: The role of the Holy Spirit in the NT teaches that he is God

C: Since we affirm the OT teaching that there is one God, and Jesus claims to be God, and the role of the Holy Spirit is a role that only God can fulfill, we affirm the doctrine of the Trinity.

EDIT: It looks like to me in an effort to affirm the infinate nature of God you are resorting to pantheism "but God is everywhere and everything."

 

[andyjamal]

The Manifestations of God (ie. Christ) are like perfectly polished mirrors. God is like the sun. When we gaze on a mirror directed towards the sun, it appears as though we are looking at the sun itself when in reality we are only looking at the mirror. Likewise, when we observe Christ, we see all the divine attributes of God reflected in His Spirit. Hence we see God when in reality we are only looking at His Manifestation.

 

[oracle]

Thanks. In my view, like yours, I believe that God is infinate, but his revelation of himself is finite. That is, while his personhood and existence are wholly incomprehensible, he has limited what we can know about him.

Well this would make sense to me, since I'm seeing that Christ is the revelation of God itself. in a Judiac sense, this is the first of everything (firstborn) of the Torah that contains the revelations of the Torah. But the word is not God himself, but captures the essence of God (yet is God in that sense) because it contains the revelation of God, which is why it is the "son" of God in subordination. God is infinite everything and everywhere, Christ is an objective revelation of God, and the holy spirit is a subjective revelation, when God becomes more interpersonal and a part of us in mind and heart. My difference of thought, is that I see Jesus as a personification of Christ which is a component of the Torah, and that the stories on a literal sense is not the truer meaning. The message is two-sided, as if it contains a clothing outside and hides it's real body within it. The main reason why I am saying this, is because I am seeing subtle patturns of metaphor, something is going on here. Where does the trinity come from? Why was the threefold of man [seperete from the trinity] commonly taught in early christianity? Why was there even the twofold? Because reality is objective [outer], subjective [inner], and whole [the two combined]. We are physical, mental, and spiritual. The trinity is the objective revelaton, subjective, and when you put the two into one you get the singularity or wholeness of God. There is the "body of Christ" and the "blood of Christ", and "eating" and "drinking" them brings unification (communion with God and each other). Christ (the revelation of God) is in the bread and the wine, but what do they symbolize, or what is that revelation? Or is Christ literally the bread and wine and that's all there is to it? If that is so, then why does it bring communion or unification? How does eating bread and wine unify us on a literal sense?

 

[almifkhar]

nope jesus was not and is not god. here are a few things christ said and or did according to the bible
1. when he was dying on the cross, he says, father why have you forsaken me?
2. when he was in the desert doing his spiritual thing, satan comes to him and offers things like kingdoms, food, water, gold, etc.

now why would satan the fallen angel try to tempt god? for satan would know god for he/she was once the beloved angel. the first point pretty much says it all. besides god created the entire universe and with it being as vast as it is, why would god come here to this little speck called earth and waste his/hers/its time on us? as far as the begotten son thing, i never bought that idea because it goes against the laws of nature. yes i believe jesus was here but i do not believe jesus was more special (from the very moment of birth) than the rest of us. he was born through the will of god to mary and joseph. it is there in the genologies of the bible. and besides jesus told the people that god and only god was to be worshipped.

 

[roli]

Matt13:11"Because it has been given to you ( those who believe and recieve ,trust and rely on Christ)to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:



'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,

And seeing you will see and not perceive;

15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.

Their ears are hard of hearing,

And their eyes they have closed,

Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,

Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,

So that I *should heal them.'*



16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.



Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. (Unless you have the faith of a child ,you will not enter heaven,not by reason ,intellect etc)



Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:

Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.



.Luk 10:24 For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard [them

Jhn 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

1Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1Cr 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

1Cr 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Col 1:26 [Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Jesus claimed to be one with the father, in the father,of the father,with the father, from the father, prayed to the father, only did what the father said, went where the father said,
He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God but (Jesus) made himself of no reputation taking on the form of a servant and coming in the likeness of men being found in the apperance of man, He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death even the death of the cross.
Jesus gave up some of His Heavenly glorified attributes and sovereignty to come to earth,suffered and died to reconcile man to God.
I'm not sure how far this discussion will go but as I see it , there are some things that some people looking from the outside in will never understand about that which takes place from within the realm of Christianity but remain merely speculative and arguementative in regards to the diety of Jesus,God,salvation, sin ,hell ,judgement etc.These will only be understood to those whom have the inner witness the Holy Spirit, or manifested presence of God on the earth
if I say look to Hebrews 1, John 1, Colossians1:15-18 someone might say ,hey wait, looking to the bible is irrationale and illogical, because with the human mind and eyes they will only remain confused and confounded of the spiritual existence ,manifestations, workings and doctrine of who Jesus Christ the Son , God the father and The Holy Spirit are and how a monotheistic God can declare polytheistic manifestation as the trinity to his creation ,( GO FIGURE).Coming from the other side of the tracts ,sort of speak, I understand more then I ever did about God and HIS purpose presence and power on this earth and for me in this world now that I am born again spiritually, I have 20/20 hind sight vision
I hope if nothing more some may admit they, cannot understand Jesus as God or vise versa without the spirit of God residing wihin,but more importantly where they will spend eternity if they died tonight in their sins.Having knowledge of Jesus and where he came from and what he is doing .
Thank you

 

[andddd]

almifkhar..ur opinion seems the best so far.
Jesus did say that God was to only be worshiped. Jesus is not the son of God. He claimed that he was the messenger of God..not the son of God.. several ppl changed the bible thinking that their interpretations are correct.

 

[Lightkeeper]

If you look closely at the teachings of Jesus, he taught that the Divine is within and how to find it. Mainly you deal with your issues and take the log out of your own eye, and be loving to everyone. Everyone is a part of us. He said "what you do unto the least of me you do unto me." He was the symbol for our Divine within.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well this would make sense to me, since I'm seeing that Christ is the revelation of God itself. in a Judiac sense, this is the first of everything (firstborn) of the Torah that contains the revelations of the Torah. But the word is not God himself, but captures the essence of God (yet is God in that sense) because it contains the revelation of God, which is why it is the "son" of God in subordination. God is infinite everything and everywhere, Christ is an objective revelation of God, and the holy spirit is a subjective revelation, when God becomes more interpersonal and a part of us in mind and heart. My difference of thought, is that I see Jesus as a personification of Christ which is a component of the Torah, and that the stories on a literal sense is not the truer meaning. The message is two-sided, as if it contains a clothing outside and hides it's real body within it. The main reason why I am saying this, is because I am seeing subtle patturns of metaphor, something is going on here. Where does the trinity come from? Why was the threefold of man [seperete from the trinity] commonly taught in early christianity? Why was there even the twofold? Because reality is objective [outer], subjective [inner], and whole [the two combined]. We are physical, mental, and spiritual. The trinity is the objective revelaton, subjective, and when you put the two into one you get the singularity or wholeness of God. There is the "body of Christ" and the "blood of Christ", and "eating" and "drinking" them brings unification (communion with God and each other). Christ (the revelation of God) is in the bread and the wine, but what do they symbolize, or what is that revelation? Or is Christ literally the bread and wine and that's all there is to it? If that is so, then why does it bring communion or unification? How does eating bread and wine unify us on a literal sense?

Your thoughts are very interesting. I, however, am bound to the authority of both the New Testament and the Old Testament, seeing Jesus not as a personification of a Christ, but the embodiment of God himself (personal, not impersonal as you refer to God with the impersonal pronoun it). As for the word not being God, see John chapter one. The word was God, and the word became flesh, Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the doctrine of God, not of a three-fold man. The subjective inner revelation that you speak of is not applicable to my interpretation, nor to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit nor the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity flows from an objective interpretation of the writings of the New Testament, which Christians have accepted as objective revelations of God to prophets. Of course, those who view the prophetic experience itself as subjective will view the NT and OT as having no more authority than any other human work. However, the prophetic work of the NT has produced from Christianity a unified testimony to the person of Jesus. He is the Messiah, the one true God. We then have several choices with how we may deal with his claims and the claims concerning him made by other NT writers.

Our choices are:
1) Find a sophisticated way by which we can divorce the teachings of Jesus concerning himself from the historical Jesus. I see this method as foolish because the Gospels must be mutilated to locate the historical Jesus, and the reconstructions are not convincing. We see the scholar's own face instead of the face of Jesus.
2) We have to reconstruct a history of Christianity in which the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus was not taught until after the apostles, which is entirely and completely false. We see the divinity of Christ in the NT, all of the writings in the NT are dated during the lifetime of the apostles. This supports the fact the Jesus claimed to be divine.
3) We can reject the authority of the NT all together. This is the best way to denounce that Jesus is God. He claimed it, his apostles taught it, and later his teachings were recorded in the NT. The NT is the source for the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

almifkhar..ur opinion seems the best so far.
Jesus did say that God was to only be worshiped. Jesus is not the son of God. He claimed that he was the messenger of God..not the son of God.. several ppl changed the bible thinking that their interpretations are correct.

Here we see an example of an attempt to divorce the teachings of Jesus from the New Testament. You are assuming that Jesus' words in the NT are not his. Your assumption that several people changed the NT is not sustained. We have over 5,000 manuscripts and fragments of the NT. We can compare them and with great accuracy eliminate editorial mistakes, etc. None of these editorial mistakes lead us to conclude that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God or that his apostles deified him (that is, the apostles taught that Jesus was God but Jesus did not make that claim - which is what is needed for your theory to be true.).

That is, we see Jesus claiming to be God in the NT (see texts above). Jesus did not write the NT, and you are saying that others edited the NT, which is not factually nor texually supported. If, then, the texts are not edited (that is, every claim to divinity, which are quite a few), the original Gospel writer had to have added all of these claims, and other writers such as Paul, Luke, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews had to have been in on the fun. Your theory is quite complicated and really is not very reasonable.

 

[andddd]

y do u keep saying the original Gospel or the old testement or whatever the others are? If there r all these books after the bible..then which one can i beleive? hmm which one is holy?

 

[oracle]

Your thoughts are very interesting. I, however, am bound to the authority of both the New Testament and the Old Testament, seeing Jesus not as a personification of a Christ, but the embodiment of God himself (personal, not impersonal as you refer to God with the impersonal pronoun it). As for the word not being God, see John chapter one. The word was God, and the word became flesh, Jesus Christ.

You can't say the authority of the OT, because the Judaic understand of God is that he is everywhere at all times. Pinpointing God, whether wooden idol or human being would violate the first commandment. Christianity is a digression from Judaism. I am really curious as to why the OT is even included in the Christian Bible, because the NT interpolates and it divorces the teachings of the OT.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the doctrine of God, not of a three-fold man. The subjective inner revelation that you speak of is not applicable to my interpretation, nor to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit nor the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity flows from an objective interpretation of the writings of the New Testament, which Christians have accepted as objective revelations of God to prophets. Of course, those who view the prophetic experience itself as subjective will view the NT and OT as having no more authority than any other human work. However, the prophetic work of the NT has produced from Christianity a unified testimony to the person of Jesus. He is the Messiah, the one true God. We then have several choices with how we may deal with his claims and the claims concerning him made by other NT writers.

It's not a doctrine of God, it's a doctrine created by men. The threefold of man was widely taught early in Christianity.

Our choices are:
1) Find a sophisticated way by which we can divorce the teachings of Jesus concerning himself from the historical Jesus. I see this method as foolish because the Gospels must be mutilated to locate the historical Jesus, and the reconstructions are not convincing. We see the scholar's own face instead of the face of Jesus.
2) We have to reconstruct a history of Christianity in which the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus was not taught until after the apostles, which is entirely and completely false. We see the divinity of Christ in the NT, all of the writings in the NT are dated during the lifetime of the apostles. This supports the fact the Jesus claimed to be divine.
3) We can reject the authority of the NT all together. This is the best way to denounce that Jesus is God. He claimed it, his apostles taught it, and later his teachings were recorded in the NT. The NT is the source for the doctrine of the Trinity.

These are YOUR choices, with your own agenda behind it. My arguement stems from the belief that God is infinite. In that sense, God objectively, is everything that exists, and that is all things without exclusion. When you locate and pinpoint God to an idol or person, it makes God finite and because it exludes all other things. God is no longer infinite because you've located God in finite matter and space, God is no longer "all powerful". Becoming a single human being, cannot be possible, because God is manifest in everything. I see that Jesus did not claim to be God, he claimed his oneness and connection with God, which evidently we all have and we can make it a reality by emulating Jesus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

y do u keep saying the original Gospel or the old testement or whatever the others are? If there r all these books after the bible..then which one can i beleive? hmm which one is holy?

Christians will accept both the Old Testament and the New Testament as holy, interpreting the Old Testament through the teachings of Jesus Christ. In Him we see the prophesies of the OT fulfilled, and we interpret the OT though him because He was an interpreter of it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You can't say the authority of the OT, because the Judaic understand of God is that he is everywhere at all times. Pinpointing God, whether wooden idol or human being would violate the first commandment. Christianity is a digression from Judaism. I am really curious as to why the OT is even included in the Christian Bible, because the NT interpolates and it divorces the teachings of the OT.

These are YOUR choices, with your own agenda behind it. My arguement stems from the belief that God is infinite. In that sense, God objectively, is everything that exists, and that is all things without exclusion. When you locate and pinpoint God to an idol or person, it makes God finite and because it exludes all other things. God is no longer infinite because you've located God in finite matter and space, God is no longer "all powerful". Becoming a single human being, cannot be possible, because God is manifest in everything. I see that Jesus did not claim to be God, he claimed his oneness and connection with God, which evidently we all have and we can make it a reality by emulating Jesus.

No, Chrisitans do accept the authority of the OT. We interpret the OT through the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles. Christianity teaches that it is the true expression of Israel, not an extention or a breaking off of Judaism. Furthermore, your assumption that we limit God is false. We do not pinpoint God and break the first commandment, God has pinpointed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Additionally, we by no means deny but confess that God is omnipresent and omnipotent through Jesus Christ. We consider it a grave heresy to limit God in a human.

It looks like you are promoting (note that I think that you do not believe it, but simply have a misconception here) a heresy called the kenotic theory. Some heretics believe that God poured out his omnipotence and omnipresence in order to become man in Jesus Christ. Chrisitans do not teach this.

It would be more constructive for you to know the truth of what Christians have taught from the beginning concerning the divinity of Christ, and think of Christ not as a limitation of God, but a true expression of his attributes. The omnipotence and omnipresence of God flows in and out of the body of Christ in a manner which makes the human body called Jesus of Nazareth the very flesh of God. The very nature of God does not flow through anything else as He does in the fleshly embodiment of Himself (we confess that God is everywhere present, not everywhere embodied which is pantheism), the manner by which he revealed His Messiah. Therfore, we teach that God is not embodied in anything but in the manner that He revealed Himself. We did not find an idol and name it God, and conversely we do not confess that God is embodied in all things.

EDIT: You still have not qualified yourself to prevent one from concluding that you are a pantheist. May I ask, are you a Mormon? What is your tradition? I do not mean to offend, I would simply like to know where you are coming from. No orthodox Christian group promotes your theory.

Furthermore, your arugment depends upon the conclusions that I presented as "our choices." Your theory does not come from an interpretation of the NT that preserves the testimony of the Gospels, and therefore you reject the authority of the NT. That is fine with me, but because your theory does not uphold the authority of the NT or fit with any Christian tradition (which, incidentally is based upon the NT) your theory is isolated and I therefore suggest that you should review it and compare it to Christian confessions and Christian theology if you want to be a Christian. Therefore, the choices that I present are NOT limited to my agenda, but are the needed steps by which one needs to take in order to draw conclusions as to the divinity of Christ.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Let's review:

1) Find a sophisticated way by which we can divorce the teachings of Jesus concerning himself from the historical Jesus. I see this method as foolish because the Gospels must be mutilated to locate the historical Jesus, and the reconstructions are not convincing. We see the scholar's own face instead of the face of Jesus. I see that you are doing this in claiming that Jesus did not claim to be divine. He does in the Gospels, so you must find a way to say that someone else put the words into His mouth against His will.

2) We have to reconstruct a history of Christianity in which the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus was not taught until after the apostles, which is entirely and completely false. We see the divinity of Christ in the NT, all of the writings in the NT are dated during the lifetime of the apostles. This supports the fact the Jesus claimed to be divine. The apostles and the early church taught that Jesus was divine. The apostles taught that Jesus taught that he was divine (that is, in the Gospels and the rest of the NT). If you denounce the divinity of Christ, you need to reconstruct a history of the early church that refutes this claim. That is, that the teaching of the divinity of Christ started somewhere else other than Jesus and why.

3) We can reject the authority of the NT all together. This is the best way to denounce that Jesus is God. He claimed it, his apostles taught it, and later his teachings were recorded in the NT. The NT is the source for the doctrine of the Trinity.

#1 Is what the Jesus Seminar is doing to seperate the historical Jesus from the Jesus of the Gospels. Several people think that Jesus did not make divine claims. This view, however, cannot be sustained in light of recent scholarship (that is, not by my agenda but by scholars like Earle Ellis and Gerhardsson and several others).

#2 Is the natural result from the Jesus Seminar, a reconstruction of the hypothetical historical Jesus with a hypothetical theology. That is, if you think that Jesus did not claim to be divine, you must still deal with the historical Jesus and present who you think Jesus was and why. Here we see several different reconstructions of Jesus that follow the person's own agenda (my agenda is excluded from this because I am not burdened with having to create my own historical Jesus as I follow the NT- no agenda here).

#3 Rejecting the authority of the NT is the best way by which one can denounce the divine claims of Christ. Rejecting it as a whole is philosophically and interpratively sound. The entire NT teaches that Jesus is God. This prevents us from theorizing that the divine claims were added. The nature of the NT as teachings of the OT prevents the text from being able to be separated by the Jesus Seminar folks - their methodology has no credible support (they try to claim that all of the divine claims were added later, but this cannot be proven due to the nature of the text). Furthermore, the teachings of Paul, Peter, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews also taught that Jesus was God. These texts must be dealt with too, and they are all apostolic and all the texts have integrity (that is, we knew that they were reliable teachings before we canonized them, so we certainly know that the apostles taught that Jesus was divine, so you must deal with that fact). Since the theory of additions does not hold water, the NT's testimony must be rejected altogether in order to reject the divinity of Christ.

I didn't know I had an agenda. I would like to know what it is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

When I say that the teaching of the Trinity is a doctrine of God, I mean that it is a teaching concerning God (ie, the doctrine of God is what Christians teach concerning God). I did not mean that it came from God when I used this terminology. Of course I believe that the NT and OT are "of God" in the sense that they are "from God" but I did not use the terminology "doctrine of God" to indicate this idea.

Furthermore, the teaching of the three-fold man was a carry-over from Platonism and not from Christian Scriptures. The apostles were Jews and most likely held to the Jewish viewpoint that man is one (body, soul, mind, and spirit), but there are Christians in every generation that believe that man is a dichotomy (soul and body) or tichotomy (mind, body, spirit). However, the essence of man has no bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity but upon the doctrine of salvation and eschaotlogy, the deatils of which are debatable within Christian circles while the doctrine of God is not. That is, Christians have agreed upon who God is (ie, the Trinity) because who God is is clear in the NT and OT, but exactly how He saves us is not clear to all of us in the finest details.

I used "doctrine of God" to tell you that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a teaching concerning the essence of man but the essence of God.

EDIT: Furthermore, the teachings of the NT are not divorced from the OT, but are an interpretation of the OT. There is no divorce, but there is fulfillment and interpretation of the same. We interpret the OT through the NT. It is quite simple. The OT is an older revelation, the NT is the newer revelation, and both are on the same level of authority, one simply came as a fulfillment of the other.