So Jesus is not God?

[The Anointed]

Of course I could. Here’s how it works:

I decide I want to write some scripture. I carefully quote Luke at 3:35-36 (leaving out any reference to Luke, of course), include any other references that can't be attributed to Old Testament scripture to make it all good, and for the coup de grâce add 105 more chapters of stuff that should be in scripture but for some strange reason got overlooked or left out. I then stamp “Enoch” on the cover and tell everyone here it is, the long lost “Book of Enoch”, and behold…Luke and other men of God are quoting from it!

Unfortunately, in my rush to create a 100% authentic, direct from God, Holy inspired scriptural masterpiece I’ve made a few mistakes, for example:

“And in those days shall the earth also give back that which has been entrusted to it, And Sheol also shall give back that which it has received, And hell shall give back that which it owes.” (Enoch 51:1 or 50:1 depending on version)​

Folk start wondering why Enoch, the grandfather of Noah, is quoted using Greek constructs like “hell”... a word never mentioned in the Old Testament because Hellenism wasn’t around prior to the flood.

There’s a long litany of “gotchas” in Enoch that explain why it’s not found in the Tanakh or the Christian canon, but who knows? Perhaps there's actually a Spirit guided book of Enoch out there, lost somewhere, waiting for us to discover as soon as God gets around to it. I just see this “Enoch” as the likely production of a later age rather than a direct notation passed from “generation to generation”.

Enoch is an interesting read but totally off thread theme.

To begin with, Enoch is the great-great grand father of Noah and the great-great-great grand father of Ham, whose descendants, 'The Zulu's" call their God, "UNKULUNKULU" which- means "Great-Great-great Grandfather."

It is in the books of Enoch, where it is written that Azazel is one of the sons of God who appeared in the days of Jared the father of Enoch [The name 'Jared' means DESCENDING].

In the margins of the Good News Catholic Study Bible, Leviticus 16: concerning “Azazel” it is written by the Catholic authors of the GNB; ‘AZAZEL’ “The meaning of this Hebrew word is unknown: it may be the name of a desert demon.” ‘Azazel’ see Leviticus16: 8. They wouldn't have a clue, because the stone that the builders of that church in the 4th century, whose books from which Jesus and his apostles taught, which books were cherished until the were banned by such dogmatic authorities of that church such as Jerome, Hilary and Augustus, has turned out to be the most important stone of all.

Concerning Azazel, we read in the Book of Enoch the prophet, chapter 9 to chapter 10; “And Michael said to the heavenly Lord, "Seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and has revealed the eternal secrets which were preserved in heaven, which men were striving to learn. And Semjaza, to whom you have given authority to bear rule over his associates (The other 199 sons of God) and they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth and have slept with them and revealed to them all kinds of sin etc.

Semjaza, the leader of the observers, taught enchantments, and root cutting, among other sons of God who revealed to the women all kinds of sin, were Armaros, who taught the resolving of enchantments, Baralqual taught astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon, etc.

But Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tintures etc.

The Lord, through his only begotten prophet Enoch, then passed judgment on the angels who had forsaken their own original habitat and came down and defiled themselves with the daughters of men, saying to them; “You have been in heaven, but all the mysteries had not yet been revealed to you, and you knew only worthless ones, and these in the hardness of your hearts you have made known to the women, and through these mysteries women and men work much evil on earth.”

They were then to be bound in everlasting chains and cast into the valley of the earth until seventy generations had passed, (Jesus was seventy generations from Enoch, see Luke 3: 23-38) but Azazel was punished separate from the others, See the Book of Enoch the Prophet 10: 4-9; “And again the Lord said to Raphael: Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening 5) in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may 6,7) not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the 8) Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted 9) through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.

It was from the records of Enoch that Moses received the regulations, rules and laws, of the new religion, which included the religious regulation where Aaron would place his hand upon the head of a scapegoat, symbolically transferring the sins of Israel to the goat, which was then sent out into the wilderness to Azazel, the Son of God to whom all sin is to be ascribed.

How did Peter know that the universal elements would burn up and the universe would disappear?

Enoch was carried to the very ends of time, where he witnessed the Universe burn up and fall as massive columns of fire beyond all measure in height or depth into the "GREAT ABYSS" Black Hole, beyond which there was nothing, Enoch calls the GREAT ABYSS, 'The Prison of all the stars and the host of heaven'.

 

[WalterTrull]

Ehhh. definitions big time

 

[74x12]

Hebrews 2:14-18 King James Version (KJV)
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus is not Michael the angel. He did not take on the nature of angels. He took on human nature to face our enemies: death and satan. Also He fought against the flesh and He fought against the temptation of sin that is in the flesh.

So you will know that even the angels the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 succumbed to the temptations of the flesh when they came down from heaven against the will of God and married human women which was not God's plan for them. (Jude 1:6) So they introduced great evil to mankind. Look, maybe they thought they were doing good. But there is no good thing apart from God's will.

So then; Jesus did what angels are not able to do. And furthermore this shows He is God manifest. Yes, God became a partaker of flesh and blood to destroy our enemies in the flesh. God is All power and there is nothing He cannot do. If He will remove our enemies then He will do it.

This is what the prophet said "Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it."

So he who was born in Babylon became the re-builder of the temple and He who was rejected became the forefather of the Messiah. The headstone is Jesus who begins the real temple of God. Which He would make of you and I who are said to be living Stones built up for a fit habitation of God.

"I go and prepare a place for you" - Jesus. They did not realize at the time He would go to heaven to prepare them. (Ephesians 5:26) For they are the place itself.

"In my Father's house are many mansions" - Jesus
Your glorified bodies will be the mansions of God's house.

Jesus is the Rock. Everyone who digs down past the sand. That is the temporal things; will find an eternal foundation to build upon. If you build your house on the eternal Rock then your house will stand forever. But let every one be careful how they build. For every building will be tested by fire. The new Jerusalem will only be made of precious things. Silver, gold, gems etc. But everything flammable will be consumed.

God has made it so that we all(who are in God's truth) may participate and build the new Jerusalem. If you seek for and save what is lost. If you men act as her own husband. That is care for her. Be in effect; married to her. (Isaiah 62:5) If you value the stones(every person, whether small or great) of Jerusalem. And if you favor the very dust of this city. That is even those who appear hopeless. As if they are but dust in God's city. But if you favor them then you will be loving the city of God. And then God will arise and have mercy upon Zion. (Psalm 102)

Jerusalem is the Bride of Christ and Christ is God. (Revelation 21:2, Isaiah 62:5, Ephesians 5:23-29)

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for playing!

It can get frustrating can't it? Encountering Christians who do not accept the scriptures that teach Jesus was God.
I was quite concerned until I remembered there are denominations that teach that very contrary thing. That Jesus was not divine. That he was just a man sent by God. They're the Christadelphians and the Anabaptists. Those are but two I can think of.

I think it helps in Christian forums when a persons denominational affiliation, if they have one, is noted under their account when they post. It makes it easier to realize what parts of the Bible they are familiar with. And what parts their denomination chooses to ignore when teaching the scriptures.

This is a very good article, in my view, that relates how early Christian writings also taught that Jesus was God. Not forgetting of course the Old Testament scripture that foretells the coming of the savior who would be named, Emmanuel, God with us. Isaiah 7:14 Therefore Adonai himself
will give you people a sign:
the young woman* will become pregnant,
bear a son and name him ‘Immanu El [God is with us].

As well as the NT scripture in Matthew 1:23 that again refers to Emmanuel as God with us.

Did the Earliest Christians Really Think Jesus Was God? One Important Example
December 11, 2014

 

[Muffled]

Well I believe that the body is essential to God.

The image that you see---it isn’t really me
It’s but the womb in which I’m being formed
For I am spirit—I am mind
And it’s the only place you’ll find
WHO I AM, until the day I’m finally born.
For I will not be free, until this body that you see
Has returned to the dust from whence it came
It’s then that I’ll be born from this womb in which I’m formed
To continue on in life’s eternal game.

The root to the word “BRAHMAN” originally meant “SPEECH”, much the same as the “LOGOS” is said to mean ‘WORD.

The Greek word “LOGOS” which has been translated as “WORD”, should be seen as ‘The thoughts in the mind which are to be expressed.

The term, “LOGOS” pertains to the very plan from the outset. [The creation of a universal body in which a Supreme mind or personality of Godhead to that body, develops.] In Sanskrit the similar meaning is given in the use of the word 'vach.' Vach means word. But in Sanskrit teachings of the Sanatana Dharma, vach has many levels. Including where the word is first considered as being in the mind as a thought, not as the spoken word or speech.

John 1: 1; In the beginning was the Word=Logos and the Logos was God. And the supreme personality or controlling mind to have developed within the invisible eternal body of ever evolving information, was “THE LIGHT OF MAN” All the information, knowledge, wisdom and insight, gained from mankind, the MOST HIGH in the previous creation, who was the Light and life of that ever growing body of information, which is called God. All things came into existence through him, by him and for him. Without him, nothing exists.

You, the invisible mind that has developed within that created body, are the controlling godhead to that body, with which you are one being. But your words or your speech, is merely the expression of the thoughts that are stored in the mind that is you. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, only the mind that develops within that body.

The Logos/word, should be seen as the gathered information of past aeons that is waiting to be expressed. The LOGOS is in fact, the invisible living universal mind, in which is gathered all of the information of every universal body throughout all eternity and should be seen as the essential divine reality of the universe the eternal spirit from which all being originates, and to which all must return.

You are body, soul and spirit. Your body is created from the universal elements, and it is activated by the universal soul, which is the animating principle that pervades the entire universal body, activating everything within the universe, and It is to the universal soul=LIFE-FORCE, that all information = SPIRIT is gathered.

“YOU,” as a human being, are Body, Soul and Spirit, but “YOU” the mind, are spirit. The body in which you, [The mind] are developing as the supreme head and controller of that body, is made up of the universal elements, which is activated by the soul [Animating life force] to which all the spirit [gathered information] of all your ancestors, human and pre-human has been gathered in its evolution to become who you are, and that parental spirit dwells behind the veil of the flesh to the inner most sanctuary of its earthly tabernacle=tent, which is your body.

If that body in which your parental spirit dwells, were born without the sense of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, etc, then no information whatsoever could be taken into the brain, and “YOU” who are spirit [Gathered information] could never have begun to develop and the living body, in which the parental spirit dwells, would soon die, never having developed a personality = “CONTROLLING GODHEAD” to that body, which godhead should be an obedient servant to “WHO YOU ARE.”

Then of the Thee in Me who works behind
The veil, I lifted up my hands to find
A lamp amid the Darkness; and I heard,
As from Without__ “The Me within Thee is blind.”.... By Omar Khayyam.

When the body in which you [the mind] are being formed, dies, [This is the first death] and your body: “skin, flesh, muscle, blood, bone, brain matter etc, etc,” has returned to the universal elements from which it was created, all that remains, is a shadow or rather, a facsimile of YOU = the mind=spirit, that has been imprinted into the universal life force=soul, from which it will be resurrected in the next cycle of universal activity. Unless of course, the information=spirit that is “YOU” has condemned ‘WHO YOU ARE’ and ‘WHO YOU ARE’ having being condemned by ‘YOU’, is then divided from the universal life-force, which is the second death. For the spirit=information that is you, can be divided from the universal soul. Hebrews 4: 12.---------“For the word of God is alive and active, sharper than any two edged sword. It cuts all the way through to the division of the soul and spirit.”

Are you true to "WHO YOU ARE?" Or do you condemn your parental spirit?

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I believe the fact that He has to become flesh indicates the essential nature is not flesh but something that can occur in a temoral world.

 

[Muffled]

Most people cant hear the truth... So talking to the deaf & blind is a one way street. I believe some where in Proverbs is says: "talking to a fool only proves there's two"

We can put things out there that are supported by science and logic, but sadly religious people are some of the worlds most closed people.

I believe scince is not helpful for religious topics and logic only works if people follow the rules.

 

[Muffled]

For me, the interesting question is 'What's true in reality?' And every time I get it wrong, it's a chance to learn something.

On the other hand, it seems that faith is to be defended at all costs, and that what is true in reality (eg that there was no Trinity doctrine till three centuries or so after the traditional date of Jesus death) can't be allowed to interfere.

(I'll draw @Oeste's attention to this remark.)

I believe the fact that there wasn't good theology before that time does not mean that the theology is not supportable by the Bible.

 

[Trackdayguy]

My primary struggle with fundamentalist which I know many, is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence regarding the virgin birth, original sin & a physical resurrection being a myth, they continue to bang the same drum that's it all true.

mesmerizing, I think they cal it "faith in faith"

 

[Oeste]

It can get frustrating can't it? Encountering Christians who do not accept the scriptures that teach Jesus was God.

Oh my goodness, it’s crazy! What is truly frustrating for me are the “proof texts” (which, in fact, are no “proof” at all) and the lack of a consistent hermeneutical which would underlie many of these Johnny-come-lately theologies.

I was quite concerned until I remembered there are denominations that teach that very contrary thing. That Jesus was not divine. That he was just a man sent by God. They're the Christadelphians and the Anabaptists. Those are but two I can think of.

Definitely peas in a pod. Theologically, I consider them kin to Jehovah Witnesses.

I think it helps in Christian forums when a persons denominational affiliation, if they have one, is noted under their account when they post. It makes it easier to realize what parts of the Bible they are familiar with. And what parts their denomination chooses to ignore when teaching the scriptures.

I agree. It would certainly save a lot of time on wasted research… especially with the flame-throwers that are constantly in attack mode.I belong to a Baptist church myself, having grown up in an AME church and later "studying" with Jehovah Witnesses.

This is a very good article, in my view, that relates how early Christian writings also taught that Jesus was God. ...

Did the Earliest Christians Really Think Jesus Was God? One Important Example
December 11, 2014

Excellent article! There is only one God and Jesus has always been understood to be God in the flesh by the early church. The idea Jesus didn’t become God until the Council of Nicea is nonsense, as the Epistle to Diognetus and other early writings attest.

There is absolutely no need to create a silly pantheon of gods, demigods, McGods, near Gods or Mighty Gods. There is no need to approach or “go through” any other God/deity/god but God Himself for our deliverance and salvation:

You shall acknowledge no God but me,
no Savior except me. Hosea 13:4​

Jesus is our Savior and as Christians we acknowledge no other Savior but God.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

My primary struggle with fundamentalist which I know many, is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence regarding the virgin birth, original sin & a physical resurrection being a myth, they continue to bang the same drum that's it all true.

mesmerizing, I think they cal it "faith in faith"

No, it isn't called that.

The thing about atheists is they live their lives committed to attacking what they first insist doesn't exist.
That's called delusion.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Oh my goodness, it’s crazy! What is truly frustrating for me are the “proof texts” (which, in fact, are no “proof” at all) and the lack of a consistent hermeneutical which would underlie many of these Johnny-come-lately theologies.



Definitely peas in a pod. Theologically, I consider them kin to Jehovah Witnesses.



I agree. It would certainly save a lot of time on wasted research… especially with the flame-throwers that are constantly in attack mode.I belong to a Baptist church myself, having grown up in an AME church and later "studying" with Jehovah Witnesses.



Excellent article! There is only one God and Jesus has always been understood to be God in the flesh by the early church. The idea Jesus didn’t become God until the Council of Nicea is nonsense, as the Epistle to Diognetus and other early writings attest.

There is absolutely no need to create a silly pantheon of gods, demigods, McGods, near Gods or Mighty Gods. There is no need to approach or “go through” any other God/deity/god but God Himself for our deliverance and salvation:

You shall acknowledge no God but me,
no Savior except me. Hosea 13:4​

Jesus is our Savior and as Christians we acknowledge no other Savior but God.

I saw that the DIR forums don't seem to get a lot of attention in the sub-topic discussion area's as pertains to our faith.
sub-forum hasn't been posted in for years.The Hermeneutics section.
There's this thread title that is like unto this one. I think the discussion has likely gone on for generations. Which means for generations a people have chosen to ignore a scripture that makes it all perfectly clear for generations. The first one concerning Jesus birth to come and the name by which he was to be called. That should have made it clear when this question is ever asked today.
What if God The Father Came to Earth Instead?

Btw, are there any Christian boards here that prohibit anti-Christian's trolling? As in, for registered Christians only?

 

[blü 2]

I believe the fact that there wasn't good theology before that time does not mean that the theology is not supportable by the Bible.

But how can the Trinity doctrine, not just incoherent but admitted by its theologians to be incoherent ('a mystery in the strict sense'), be good theology?

How can nonsense be sense?

Or is sense irrelevant in theology?

 

[Oeste]

I saw that the DIR forums don't seem to get a lot of attention in the sub-topic discussion area's as pertains to our faith.
sub-forum hasn't been posted in for years.The Hermeneutics section.

Thanks TON,

I wasn't aware of that section. When I get a few moments I'll have to check it out.

Btw, are there any Christian boards here that prohibit anti-Christian's trolling? As in, for registered Christians only?

I believe in the "Same Faith Debates" forum you can set up a thread for "Christians only". This would restrict it from say, Buddhist, Muslims and Atheists as the forum has "Special Rules".

 

[Oeste]

But how can the Trinity doctrine, not just incoherent but admitted by its theologians to be incoherent ('a mystery in the strict sense'), be good theology?

There has been no such "admission" by any reputable Christian theologian. You are misunderstanding the term "mystery" as it relates to scripture.

A mystery is simply a revealed truth. The term mystery first appears in Daniel where we see the symbols in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. By itself, the symbols would be totally incomprehensible, beyond the ability of humans to reason, but later shown to be symbols reflecting the rise and fall of human empires that lead to the eventual establishment of God's kingdom (Revelation 1:20, Revelation 17:5-7). . God's kingdom itself is a mystery, painted in broad strokes in the Old Testament and later described as the "mystery of the kingdom of God" (Luke 8:10, Mark 4:11).

There is also the revelation of the divine mystery of God in Christ, which Paul reveals at Col 2:2 and Col 4:3, and which you can also read at Ephesians 3:4.

How can nonsense be sense?

A mystery is revealed by the Spirit. It will always remain "nonsense" to those who do not believe, just as you describe, and just as you've witnessed to us here.

Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted." (Matthew 13:11)

"...but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;..." (1 Cor 2:7)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with words of wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?… (1 Corinthians 1:17-20)​

In other words, a mystery is something that was hidden but is now revealed, not by our unaided human capacity to reason, not by our own wisdom or intellect, but by God.

 

[Trackdayguy]

No, it isn't called that.

The thing about atheists is they live their lives committed to attacking what they first insist doesn't exist.
That's called delusion.

Its not delusional at all The reason is that open minded, truth seeking people are getting bored and irritated by narrow minded fanatics who insist that their beliefs are true for everyone. It's rather irritating.

 

[blü 2]

There has been no such "admission" by any reputable Christian theologian. You are misunderstanding the term "mystery" as it relates to scripture.

You are mistaken.

I quote the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Trinity entry):

This doctrine is held to be a mystery in the strict sense, in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.​

And the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia agrees:

Under Trinity:

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

[...] the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.[...]

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. [...]​

Under Mystery:

[...] theologians give the name mystery to revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural reason. [...] In its strict sense a mystery is a supernatural truth, one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence.

[...] An absolute mystery is a truth whose existence or possibility could not be discovered by a creature, and whose essence (inner substantial being) can be expressed by the finite mind only in terms of analogy, e.g., the Trinity. [...]
​

Consider the 'mystery' itself: that each of the three 'persons' is an entity distinct from the other two, and at the same time 100% of God.

To be coherent, the sum could be EITHER

⅓ + ⅓ + ⅓ = 1 God​

OR

100% of God + 100% of God + 100% of God = 300% = 3 Gods.
​

But the doctrine denies both of those, hence is incoherent, hence is euphemistically called a 'mystery in the strict sense'.

If you disagree, please explain

(a) how the doctrine is indeed coherent, and

(b) why (as you've seen above) the theologians admit it's incoherent ('a mystery in the strict sense').

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Its not delusional at all The reason is that open minded, truth seeking people are getting bored and irritated by narrow minded fanatics who insist that their beliefs are true for everyone. It's rather irritating.

I can imagine it is when that tactic of unbelievers is as equally evident as they claim of theists.
What unbelievers typically don't comprehend, as you've demonstrated, is that Christians don't insist our beliefs are true for everyone.
Christians insist our truth is truth and everyone is welcome to find that out. Yes, one God, one faith, one baptism. No real surprise there in the mono-thought of a religious tradition. Others hold the same idea. I.E. their faith is the faith of the ages for all.
What unbelievers fail to know however is, while we do believe ours is the one true faith, Christ, the teacher of The Way, told his Disciples, and his words in scripture inform us today, if we happen on those for whom the message does not resonate, kick the dust from our feet and move on.

We do.
Christianity isn't a dictatorship anywhere in the world today.
We don't insist people hold faith or else, as you'd like to imply.
Whereas atheists, who hold faith regardless of their argument theirs is the lack of faith, think that while all ideas of God are unsubstantiated by proof, the Christian faith is the one which should be assailed . As should its faithful.
Churches don't prop their doors open and make people enter at gunpoint.
It is a choice to heed the call to investigate the teachings.
What I've found among the most ardent opponents in the atheist community is that their moral compass is so skewed they take the teachings of the Christ to be like unto that of a dark mirror being held up so as to show that particular atheist their personal failings per the teachings of righteousness that identify them as such.

Atheists will ask, what if you(the Christian) are wrong? What if there really is no thing invisible, no 'holy spirit' that gives a care about you? What if we, no God, type thinkers, are right?

Really? Well, if there is no God, it doesn't matter. Because no one shall be matter after they're dead. They just stop living and go back from whence they came. Into the great cauldron of energies that manifest what we think we know as reality in this life.

What atheists may wish to ask themselves is, what if we (the Christians) are right?
What if there is a God of judgment waiting for when the unbeliever dies so as to judge all that they thought and did all their life?
And what if at the conclusion of that review eternal reward or eternal punishment is theirs?

See, the mistake humans make as egoists, and we all are that, is to think we matter because we think we do. And we even conceive of something invisible that agrees.
In the end, the senses in this life that would allow us to say were we here; "TOLD YA SO!" One way or the other, as a theist or non-theist, don't exist when this body stops functioning.
In the end of this life when we lived it according to what we were told is the "right" way to go about it, what comes next is an inescapable mystery.
For a fact we're all material flesh and bone. For a faith, we've a soul that lives on.
But what if there is nothing? We just return to what makes everything that Physics calls energy that moves constantly and to a rhythm, now.
Cool. It isn't like I've a choice.

But.
What if there is God and judgment?
According to our faith, there's no such thing as, oops! There you are. OK, I believe now.
No such thing as repentence after death.

We'll all find out whats up.
One thing for a fact now though is, religion of any kind never makes a bad person a better one if the better isn't already present in the person somewhere waiting to be found out.
Warning! Godwin's law violation pending:
Hitler considered himself a Catholic. A Roman Catholic. He believed his final solution was the work of Christ on earth. And during his reign as Fuhrer carrying out that evil, the current Pope of the time not only visited him in Germany, as did his college of Cardinals, but that same Pope did not excommunicate Hitler nor the RCC members of his Reich and SS.In fact, the church supported the ideology Hitler undertook.
And America? Not a Christian nation but a nation who's foundation is interwoven with Christian principles, knew what AH was up to too. And we not only signed a non-aggression pact with Germany during that time, but our government, via immigration and the U.S. Navy, turned back a ship load of Jewish refugees who were fleeing the Holocaust. As did Great Britain.

The point being, if someone is bad by nature no god is ever going to make a difference to their state of being. God of the Christians created the Devil we're to fear. And let him live so as to be lord of this world and tempt us and seek souls to devour. An omniscient (eternally knowing) God.
Why?
Well, if we didn't know evil how would we seek salvation from it?

You think you know there is no God. But you can't explain for a fact what it is that makes all that is to be all that you think you see. Yours is theory . Ours is faith.
For a fact, you and I when we die will find out what's what. And it won't be , I told ya so. Because when we're dead all of "this" ceases to be.

I wish us both luck.

 

[Oeste]

You are mistaken.

No, I'm quite correct.

I quote the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Trinity entry):

This doctrine is held to be a mystery in the strict sense, in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.​

And the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia agrees:

Under Trinity:

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

[...] the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.[...]

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. [...]​

​

How is this different from anything I stated earlier?

Under Mystery:

[...] theologians give the name mystery to revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural reason. [...] In its strict sense a mystery is a supernatural truth, one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence.

[...] An absolute mystery is a truth whose existence or possibility could not be discovered by a creature, and whose essence (inner substantial being) can be expressed by the finite mind only in terms of analogy, e.g., the Trinity. [...]​

​

As I stated earlier:

In other words, a mystery is something that was hidden but is now revealed, not by our unaided human capacity to reason, not by our own wisdom or intellect, but by God.

I don't see the "mistake".

Consider the 'mystery' itself: that each of the three 'persons' is an entity distinct from the other two, and at the same time 100% of God.

IMO this is where you lead the reader astray, with that little word, "of".

"Of" can mean “parts of a whole” as in a “slice of pie” or a “sliver of cake”. When used this way “of” simply means a fraction, because fractions are parts of a whole. This is the preferred definition of Trinity skeptics. It is misleading to use "of" this way in conjunction with the Trinity because NOWHERE in Trinitarian theology does it speak about fractions or parts of a whole.

But “of” is also used to express relationships and not fractions. This is the preferred method of many Trinitarian advocates, like @metis. For example, “that is the son of my friend”. If my friend has 3 sons, it does not mean each son is 1/3 friend, nor does it mean I can now claim 3 friends by adding up his sons. My friend cannot be separated into fractions or added. The "son of my friend" simply indicates an association or relationship.

Likewise when Metis states he prefers to use “Jesus of God” (see posts 98 &102), he is not talking about a fractional God any more than I am talking about a fractional friend. Metis can certainly correct me if I am wrong. But when Blü speaks, his "of" speaks in terms of fractions, or parts of a whole, which is something totally foreign to Trinitarian doctrine.

Personally I prefer to leave the term “of” out of the picture altogether, and just say each person is 100% God. Some Trinitarians like Metis prefer to keep “of” in. Either way is fine just as long as the reader understands we are referring to relationships and not get deceived into thinking the Trinity ever refers to "parts of a whole".

With this unfortunately long but necessary understanding of basic terminologies in mind, we can properly analyze the rest of Blü’s post.

To be coherent, the sum could be EITHER

⅓ + ⅓ + ⅓ = 1 God​

​

1. Jesus is fully God, not a third of God. Since he is fully God, there are no “thirds” to add.
2. The Spirit is fully God, not a fraction of God. Since he is fully God, there is no other “third” to add.
3. The Father is fully and not a third of God. Since he is fully God, there is no “third” to add.

Since there are no fractions or thirds to add, there is no “sum”. You are confusing relationships with fractions.

OR

100% of God + 100% of God + 100% of God = 300% = 3 Gods.​

​

There is only one God, not 3. That is the basic teaching of scripture and Trinity doctrine. Your solution is incorrect. Your first "solution" makes each person a fraction of God, whilst your second makes three Gods…and that’s two Gods too many.

We have to go by what the doctrine actually states and not by something we suppose it might state, Blü. You're 3 God "solution" is a wish list not born or evidenced by the doctrine itself.

Again, there is only one God, so there are no fractions, no parts, no wholes, no “sum” of Gods to add.

​

But the doctrine denies both of those, hence is incoherent, hence is euphemistically called a 'mystery in the strict sense'.

Let me get this right…If a solution doesn’t sum, it must be incoherent? Since when did 1x1x1 become incoherent? When it doesn’t equal 3???

If you disagree, please explain

(a) how the doctrine is indeed coherent, and

See above.

(b) why (as you've seen above) the theologians admit it's incoherent ('a mystery in the strict sense').

Admit it’s “incoherent”? You've confuse your own conclusion with those of Christian theologians!

A "mystery" as used in scripture is a revealed truth and I gave ample examples in my prior post:

Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted." (Matthew 13:11)

"...but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;..." (1 Cor 2:7)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with words of wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?… (1 Corinthians 1:17-20)

The only people claiming these mysteries are incoherent are the atheists and skeptics, not the theologians.

By the way, IMO the labeling of biblical mysteries as "incoherent" by skeptics simply underscores the veracity and truthfullness of 1 Corinthians 1:17-20.

 

[Oeste]

I can imagine it is when that tactic of unbelievers is as equally evident as they claim of theists.
What unbelievers typically don't comprehend, as you've demonstrated, is that Christians don't insist our beliefs are true for everyone.
Christians insist our truth is truth and everyone is welcome to find that out. Yes, one God, one faith, one baptism. No real surprise there in the mono-thought of a religious tradition. Others hold the same idea. I.E. their faith is the faith of the ages for all.
What unbelievers fail to know however is, while we do believe ours is the one true faith, Christ, the teacher of The Way, told his Disciples, and his words in scripture inform us today, if we happen on those for whom the message does not resonate, kick the dust from our feet and move on.

We do.
Christianity isn't a dictatorship anywhere in the world today.
We don't insist people hold faith or else, as you'd like to imply.
Whereas atheists, who hold faith regardless of their argument theirs is the lack of faith, think that while all ideas of God are unsubstantiated by proof, the Christian faith is the one which should be assailed . As should its faithful.
Churches don't prop their doors open and make people enter at gunpoint.
It is a choice to heed the call to investigate the teachings.
What I've found among the most ardent opponents in the atheist community is that their moral compass is so skewed they take the teachings of the Christ to be like unto that of a dark mirror being held up so as to show that particular atheist their personal failings per the teachings of righteousness that identify them as such.

Atheists will ask, what if you(the Christian) are wrong? What if there really is no thing invisible, no 'holy spirit' that gives a care about you? What if we, no God, type thinkers, are right?

Really? Well, if there is no God, it doesn't matter. Because no one shall be matter after they're dead. They just stop living and go back from whence they came. Into the great cauldron of energies that manifest what we think we know as reality in this life.

What atheists may wish to ask themselves is, what if we (the Christians) are right?
What if there is a God of judgment waiting for when the unbeliever dies so as to judge all that they thought and did all their life?
And what if at the conclusion of that review eternal reward or eternal punishment is theirs?

See, the mistake humans make as egoists, and we all are that, is to think we matter because we think we do. And we even conceive of something invisible that agrees.
In the end, the senses in this life that would allow us to say were we here; "TOLD YA SO!" One way or the other, as a theist or non-theist, don't exist when this body stops functioning.
In the end of this life when we lived it according to what we were told is the "right" way to go about it, what comes next is an inescapable mystery.
For a fact we're all material flesh and bone. For a faith, we've a soul that lives on.
But what if there is nothing? We just return to what makes everything that Physics calls energy that moves constantly and to a rhythm, now.
Cool. It isn't like I've a choice.

But.
What if there is God and judgment?
According to our faith, there's no such thing as, oops! There you are. OK, I believe now.
No such thing as repentence after death.

We'll all find out whats up.
One thing for a fact now though is, religion of any kind never makes a bad person a better one if the better isn't already present in the person somewhere waiting to be found out.
Warning! Godwin's law violation pending:
Hitler considered himself a Catholic. A Roman Catholic. He believed his final solution was the work of Christ on earth. And during his reign as Fuhrer carrying out that evil, the current Pope of the time not only visited him in Germany, as did his college of Cardinals, but that same Pope did not excommunicate Hitler nor the RCC members of his Reich and SS.In fact, the church supported the ideology Hitler undertook.
And America? Not a Christian nation but a nation who's foundation is interwoven with Christian principles, knew what AH was up to too. And we not only signed a non-aggression pact with Germany during that time, but our government, via immigration and the U.S. Navy, turned back a ship load of Jewish refugees who were fleeing the Holocaust. As did Great Britain.

The point being, if someone is bad by nature no god is ever going to make a difference to their state of being. God of the Christians created the Devil we're to fear. And let him live so as to be lord of this world and tempt us and seek souls to devour. An omniscient (eternally knowing) God.
Why?
Well, if we didn't know evil how would we seek salvation from it?

You think you know there is no God. But you can't explain for a fact what it is that makes all that is to be all that you think you see. Yours is theory . Ours is faith.
For a fact, you and I when we die will find out what's what. And it won't be , I told ya so. Because when we're dead all of "this" ceases to be.

I wish us both luck.

Wonderful testimony and witness.

Thank you.

 

[blü 2]

No, I'm quite correct.
I don't see the "mistake".

You said no theologian acknowledged that the Trinity doctrine was a nonsense. Yet plainly they do. They just use a different expression, 'a mystery in the strict sense'.

Jesus is fully God, not a third of God. Since he is fully God, there are no “thirds” to add.

Of course there aren't. As I pointed out, if we were adding thirds, that would be coherent, and the Trinity doctrine is, as I showed you, acknowledged to be incoherent.

There is only one God, not 3. That is the basic teaching of scripture and Trinity doctrine.

Correct. And that's where the incoherence arises. If I'm talking to Jesus I'm talking to 100% of God. The Ghost is not Jesus but if I'm talking to the Ghost, the Ghost is 100% of God. Neither Jesus nor the Ghost is the Father but if I'm talking to the Father I'm talking to 100% of God.

Hence the doctrine would be coherent if it agreed that 300% of God = 3 gods.

But it denies that. Hence it's incoherent, and acknowledged to be so.

Let me get this right…If a solution doesn’t sum, it must be incoherent?

Nope.

Instead, if the solution is an incoherent sum (1+1+1=1) then the solution is incoherent ─ and as I keep pointing out, is acknowledged to be incoherent ('a mystery in the strict sense').

A "mystery" as used in scripture is a revealed truth and I gave ample examples in my prior post:

Stay with the texts I quoted. They're both authoritative, and they make the point clearly ─ a mystery in the strict sense 'can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed'.

And the Trinity is such a mystery.

Whereas, were it coherent, unaided human reason would have no trouble with it.


Which underlines the point that you didn't reply to: when theologians say it's 'a mystery in the strict sense', what are they talking about? What aspect of the Trinity doctrine in your view cannot be known by unaided human reason?

Please spell that out for me.