Tell me where in the Bible does Jesus clearly say that he's God

[Shermana]

Okay here is post #174.

I believe I did say that, in a roundabout way.

So you're agreeing with My Myself's accusation? If not, what did you say?

It's not ridiculous to say what I said, because it's more than obvious from his post

What's obvious is that he made a very good analysis of the text and you just dismissed it all without any attempt to address what he quoted and commented. You are confusing not agreeing with Trinitarian interpretation with "lack of Theological understanding". A very common confusion I notice.

.

He's a Muslim. There's a fundamental difference, both in theological basis and in approach to textual criticism between Islam and Xy.

And I'm a "Nazarene", and I have a grossly different set of interpretations on practically everything form the mainstream church. With that said, I see no reason why a person from another religion can't discuss the writ from another book. What you are arguing is that he simply doesn't accept the Trinitarian perspective of those passages.

He's obviously approaching Xy from an Islamic POV, then proceeds to tell us that we're all wrong.

I see no problem with that. Atheists critique the beliefs of Believers all the time too, and they're often just as right as anyone else.

it just doesn't work that way.

Why not exactly?

He doesn't understand our POV,

I think you confuse disagreeing with not understanding.

and therefore does not understand how we approach the texts.

Ah, so because he doesn't have the same POV as orthodox Christians, he's not allowed to critique the POV of Orthodox Christians.

It's nothing personal, and it's not a religious slur.

Of course its personal, and of course its a religious slur. You basically just said that no one except an orthodox Christian can critique orthodox Christian views (and rather condescendingly at that). Did you not?

 

[sojourner]

Okay here is post #174.

So you're agreeing with My Myself's accusation? If not, what did you say?

What's obvious is that he made a very good analysis of the text and you just dismissed it all without any attempt to address what he quoted and commented. You are confusing not agreeing with Trinitarian interpretation with "lack of Theological understanding". A very common confusion I notice.

.And I'm a "Nazarene", and I have a grossly different set of interpretations on practically everything form the mainstream church. With that said, I see no reason why a person from another religion can't discuss the writ from another book. What you are arguing is that he simply doesn't accept the Trinitarian perspective of those passages.

I see no problem with that. Atheists critique the beliefs of Believers all the time too, and they're often just as right as anyone else.

Why not exactly?

I think you confuse disagreeing with not understanding.

Ah, so because he doesn't have the same POV as orthodox Christians, he's not allowed to critique the POV of Orthodox Christians.

Of course its personal, and of course its a religious slur. You basically just said that no one except an orthodox Christian can critique orthodox Christian views (and rather condescendingly at that). Did you not?

There's a vast difference between discussing a pan-religious tenet (such as "love," or "prayer," or "God") from opposing points of religious view, and bashing a tenet exclusive to one religion from a POV outside that religion.

No, atheists are not "often right" about Christian theology.

 

[Shermana]

The difference between you and I, with reference to your statements here, is that I don't tear down other faiths,

Right, that's why he had our first few exchanges about Messianic Judaism and the Jewishness of Christianity. You tried to say that Matthew 5:17-20 and my belief based on it isn't legitimate, and then linked to a scholar who flat out said that no other scholar dares to press the idea that Matthew 5:17-20 is interpolated and that it's mostly a position of wishful thinking. With that said, I don't see a problem with wanting to "tear down other faiths", however if you think that my arguments and holes that I poke are indeed "tearing down other faiths'", then thanks, that's kinda my objective. But I would think you'd recognize that I do so only through facts and reason discussion. It seems you are quick to call other people's view "illegitimate" in one way or another, but then get all defensive when the same heads your way.

Have you actually presented anything substantial to the debate in terms of actual reasoning or are you just wanting to call people's counterclaims and accusations "illegitimate" in some form?

So in other words, if my debating ends up "tearing down" something, oh well, that's what debate is for. Why are you here if you're not here to "tear down" other arguments? The DIR is for non-tearing down arguments.

What's the point of debate if not to tear down perspectives you disagree with? It seems you're saying you don't like that I don't accept your own rebuttals.

and I don't tell people that their religious views are "illegitimate."

You're on a debate thread. If you say your view is legitimate, and I disagree, what am I supposed to say? If your argument is that your view is "legitimate", it's basically saying "It's sturdy if not correct". So you're basically asserting that your view is sound and reasoned.

What other words should I use other than to disagree with this assertion?

I really don't care what they choose to believe, so long as they don't tread on my beliefs.

If you don't want your beliefs treaded on, stick to the DIRs.

Again, FWIW, the Trinity doctrine is biblically-based, even if it's not explicitly textual, and it is a legitimate theological construct that has the authorization of the church's apostolate.

Again, FWIW, I don't agree that it's biblically-based when read objectively, and I don't agree that it's a Legitimate Theological construct, and I think the "authority" of the Church's "Apostolate" is not really that authoritative, and it's from the later-orthodox church's "Apostolate", and I think the Arians were far more correct.

I think ARIANISM is a legitimate belief, but you yourself said that it's not Biblical. Your accusations seem to go one way only for you or something?

No matter what your views on the matter.

I'm well aware that you will still believe in and repeat your rhetoric no matter if I disagree or present solid counter-arguments.

 

[Shermana]

There's a vast difference between discussing a pan-religious tenet (such as "love," or "prayer," or "God") from opposing points of religious view, and bashing a tenet exclusive to one religion from a POV outside that religion.

There's a difference bashing a tenet and presenting a long list of Scripture and a commentary on them that simply isn't the Orthodox perspective of them, and debating the merits of whether the Orthodox perspective is "legitimate".

No, atheists are not "often right" about Christian theology.

I agree they are often wrong, but they are often very well right, can I quote you?

 

[sojourner]

I don't see a problem with wanting to "tear down other faiths"
if you think that my arguments and holes that I poke are indeed "tearing down other faiths'", then thanks, that's kinda my objective.

One can debate ideas and present arguments without faith-bashing.

You're on a debate thread.

So? One can debate without bullying other people.

If you don't want your beliefs treaded on, stick to the DIRs.

No, it's possible to debate and expect to have one's religion respected -- even if the religion is disagreed with.

Again, FWIW, I don't agree that it's biblically-based when read objectively, and I don't agree that it's a Legitimate Theological construct, and I think the "authority" of the Church's "Apostolate" is not really that authoritative, and it's from the later-orthodox church's "Apostolate", and I think the Arians were far more correct.

The Trinity doctrine is biblically-based, even if it's not explicitly textual, and it is a legitimate theological construct that has the authorization of the church's apostolate.

 

[sojourner]

There's a difference bashing a tenet and presenting a long list of Scripture and a commentary on them that simply isn't the Orthodox perspective of them, and debating the merits of whether the Orthodox perspective is "legitimate".

There's a difference between misappropriating texts from outside the faith that exclusively espouses those texts, engaging in eisegetical cherrypicking in order to dismiss an exclusive doctrine of that faith from the outside (such as what was going on in the post to which I responded), and commenting on a particular text simply from a different theological POV within the same faith (such as you seem to indicate is going on).

 

[Me Myself]

There's a difference between misappropriating texts from outside the faith that exclusively espouses those texts, engaging in eisegetical cherrypicking in order to dismiss an exclusive doctrine of that faith from the outside (such as what was going on in the post to which I responded), and commenting on a particular text simply from a different theological POV within the same faith (such as you seem to indicate is going on).

This is ridiculous. The OP asks where in scripture Jesus say he is God. It is not in the "same faith debates" sections.

Discrediting someone because s/he has a POV outside of your branded branch without argumentation is not an argument so it has no place on a debate.

We are talking about a scripture, stop talking about the person(or it´s religion) and start addressing the arguments. Anything other than that is plain trolling.

 

[Me Myself]

There's a vast difference between discussing a pan-religious tenet (such as "love," or "prayer," or "God") from opposing points of religious view, and bashing a tenet exclusive to one religion from a POV outside that religion.

What? Everyone on RF does that all the time. LGTB bash the religious belief against homosexuals, christians the beliefs of reincarnation, karma or not obeying a God, etc.

Not only "pan religious tenets" are debated, everything is on the table.

anyone can discuss any part of any religion and discredit it´s validity by argumentation. What is not part of the equation is to discredit the person from doing so because of it´s religious affiliation.

A person is not allowed on "same faith debates" section if said person does not belong to said "same faith", but otherwise, they can debate freely.

That´s exactly what religious discussion is all about o.0

 

[sojourner]

What? Everyone on RF does that all the time. LGTB bash the religious belief against homosexuals, christians the beliefs of reincarnation, karma or not obeying a God, etc.

Not only "pan religious tenets" are debated, everything is on the table.

anyone can discuss any part of any religion and discredit it´s validity by argumentation. What is not part of the equation is to discredit the person from doing so because of it´s religious affiliation.

A person is not allowed on "same faith debates" section if said person does not belong to said "same faith", but otherwise, they can debate freely.

That´s exactly what religious discussion is all about o.0

**Sigh**
The doctrine of the Trinity is an exclusively Christian doctrine. Its nuance of meaning is derived from a uniquely Xtian perspective, not shared (or even particularly understood, AFAIK) by those outside the faith.

The NT is an exclusively Xtian text, told, written, edited, and canonized from a unique theological framework, not shared by other religions.

The veracity of the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be successfully argued from a non-Christian perspective, since it is integral to the Xtian perspective. The meaning of the texts cannot be given a theological spin outside the theological culture in which they were created. It's just not good scholarship. The doctrine is informed by, not only the bible, but by extra-biblical tradition, also integral to the Xtian faith.

Combine the two, and it's simply a recipe for failure. It's one thing for an outsider to say, "The Trinity doesn't work for me, because my belief says..." It's quite another for an outsider to say, "The Trinity doesn't work at all, because your own belief says..." The first example is a contrast between disparate belief structures, in which one is simply incongruent with the other. The second is a usurpation and misrepresentation of a particular faith structure utilizing a meaning system alien to that faith.

Somehow, I don't think pointing that out is indicative of trolling. Although I feel that attempting to usurp one's faith is an example of bullying.

 

[Shermana]

**Sigh**
The doctrine of the Trinity is an exclusively Christian doctrine.

So again, it seems you're basically discrediting any outside perspectives because they're not Christian?

Its nuance of meaning is derived from a uniquely Xtian perspective, not shared (or even particularly understood, AFAIK) by those outside the faith.

Again, it seems you're confusing the concept of "Not agreeing with" with "Not understanding", this confusion is strangely all too common.

The NT is an exclusively Xtian text, told, written, edited, and canonized from a unique theological framework, not shared by other religions.

So again, you're saying that only Christians have the ability to understand the NT correctly?

The veracity of the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be successfully argued from a non-Christian perspective, since it is integral to the Xtian perspective.

Y're saying only a Christian can truly understand Christian doctrines?

The meaning of the texts cannot be given a theological spin outside the theological culture in which they were created.

And only people within that Theological culture are capable of understanding the arguments used by those within the Culture?

It's just not good scholarship.

So any non Christian scholar who writes about the Trinity is automatically committing "Bad scholarship"?

The doctrine is informed by, not only the bible, but by extra-biblical tradition, also integral to the Xtian faith.

But the OP has nothing to do with extra-scriptural tradition, and even then, using extra-scriptural tradition to find a Trinitarian meaning in the text, you went ahead and wrote off Arianism as "Non biblical", so it seems that you have no problem writing off doctrines by Christians that oppose this view while condemning any non-Christian who may have the same opinions of the CHristians who denied it?

Combine the two, and it's simply a recipe for failure.

Writing off legitimate counter-opinions as illegitimate just because of the source is a recipe for failure. Ignoring another person's analysis of the text and just condemning their views for being from a non-Christian perspective is a recipe for failure.

It's one thing for an outsider to say, "The Trinity doesn't work for me, because my belief says..."

Right.....

It's quite another for an outsider to say, "The Trinity doesn't work at all, because your own belief says..."

And there's nothing really wrong with that. So it's not right for an outsider to look at the text and the texts of the doctrine itself and conclude its wrong? So I assume then you would agree that you shouldn't go ahead and critize JW views, or Mormon views, or Christadelphian views, or 7th day Adventist views, or Messianic Jews, and say....wouldn't that mean that you're denying JW's the right to their counter-arguments? Are you basically saying no one but orthodox Christians have a right to examine and critique Orthodox doctrines?

So why wouldn't Arians have a right to examine the arguments of the Trinitarians and point out the flaws they consider to be shaky and untenable in objective debate?

The first example is a contrast between disparate belief structures, in which one is simply incongruent with the other. The second is a usurpation and misrepresentation of a particular faith structure utilizing a meaning system alien to that faith.

Oh, now it's usurpation and misrepresentation. So if a person critiques another's religious belief it is ALWAYS usurpation and misrepresentation, it can't just possibly be an honest assessment that all people might objectively agree to when the facts are laid out bare (except perhaps those who have one way or another of finding a way to fallaciously defend it).

Although I feel that attempting to usurp one's faith is an example of bullying.

So if someone wants to critique and logically argue against another person's belief tenets within their own framework, it's bullying. Got it.

 

[Shermana]

There's a difference between misappropriating texts from outside the faith that exclusively espouses those texts, engaging in eisegetical cherrypicking in order to dismiss an exclusive doctrine of that faith from the outside (such as what was going on in the post to which I responded), and commenting on a particular text simply from a different theological POV within the same faith (such as you seem to indicate is going on).

And perhaps you're unaware that those same texts are used by NON Orthodox Christians and are read the same way he read them? Are their views not "legitimate"?

 

[sojourner]

So again, it seems you're basically discrediting any outside perspectives because they're not Christian?

When those perspectives are held up as standards for the veracity of basic Christian beliefs, yes.

Again, it seems you're confusing the concept of "Not agreeing with" with "Not understanding", this confusion is strangely all too common.

If a concept is not understood, it cannot be adequately judged to be either agreeable or disagreeable.

So again, you're saying that only Christians have the ability to understand the NT correctly?

No, I'm saying that Christians stand in a unique position to create meaningful theology out of the NT that carries any sort of authority.

Y're saying only a Christian can truly understand Christian doctrines?

No, I'm saying that a Christian doctrine can only be successfully argued from a Christian perspective. How can a fish argue successfully the merits of air?

And only people within that Theological culture are capable of understanding the arguments used by those within the Culture?

Not cogent to the statement I just made. The theological framework of the text can't simply be dismissed.

So any non Christian scholar who writes about the Trinity is automatically committing "Bad scholarship"?

They are if they're applying an alien theological framework to it, and then calling it "wrong" for the original theological framework.

you went ahead and wrote off Arianism as "Non biblical"

No I didn't. Here's another case of you twisting what I said. I believe I said that Arianism creates problems with biblical continuity. I never "wrote it off," nor did I say that it was "non biblical."

Ignoring another person's analysis of the text and just condemning their views for being from a non-Christian perspective is a recipe for failure.

I disagree, again, if the views conclude that "our beliefs are wrong for us."

And there's nothing really wrong with that.

There's everything wrong with that!

So I assume then you would agree that you shouldn't go ahead and critize JW views, or Mormon views, or Christadelphian views, or 7th day Adventist views, or Messianic Jews, and say....wouldn't that mean that you're denying JW's the right to their counter-arguments?

These people are all Christians, and, as such, are entitled to their views of "what works for the Christian." So long as they don't condemn other Christians for holding different views.

Are you basically saying no one but orthodox Christians have a right to examine and critique Orthodox doctrines?

Not at all, although I am saying that no one can condemn other Christians. But that's entirely different from critiquing them.

So why wouldn't Arians have a right to examine the arguments of the Trinitarians and point out the flaws they consider to be shaky and untenable in objective debate?

They would have that right, so long as they don't condemn.

Oh, now it's usurpation and misrepresentation.

Absolutely it is.

So if someone wants to critique and logically argue against another person's belief tenets within their own framework, it's bullying. Got it.

No, you don't get it. Usurpation does not argue within the framework.

 

[sojourner]

And perhaps you're unaware that those same texts are used by NON Orthodox Christians and are read the same way he read them? Are their views not "legitimate"?

So long as they use proper exegetical discovery, they are. But I don't have to agree with it.

 

[dawny0826]

You won't find it. Not that there isn't suggestion of such, but nothing in the Bible is ever unequivocal, unambiguous, and clear. Nothing in life ever really is.

I agree.

It is suggested that Christ was God in the flesh, but, whether one accepts this or not is a matter of personal interpretation. When a holy book focuses much on faith concepts, you're not dealing in the concrete.

 

[Me Myself]

**Sigh**
The doctrine of the Trinity is an exclusively Christian doctrine. Its nuance of meaning is derived from a uniquely Xtian perspective, not shared (or even particularly understood, AFAIK) by those outside the faith.

The NT is an exclusively Xtian text, told, written, edited, and canonized from a unique theological framework, not shared by other religions.

AThe veracity of the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be successfully argued from a non-Christian perspective, B since it is integral to the Xtian perspective.

A makes no sense and B is a senseless attempt to explain nonsensical A.

If I grabbed a rock and told you it was made out of diamonds, proper geologists could discredit that, even if I decided it was my religion.

Likewise, a view into what the bible and the people in it tried to say can be analyzed by anyone given said person gets info on the subject, whether or not this person decides to get info on how other people decided to interpret the bible.

This is so basic I cannot believe you don´t understand it. I mean really.

We are talking about the bible here. Anyone can talk about it whether they are part of your exclusive club or not. Whether they can or cannot talk about it and be right will have to do with their knowledge about the BIBLE not about the religions that decided to extract an ideology from it that THEY SAY is what the bible says.

 

[sojourner]

A makes no sense and B is a senseless attempt to explain nonsensical A.

If I grabbed a rock and told you it was made out of diamonds, proper geologists could discredit that, even if I decided it was my religion.

Likewise, a view into what the bible and the people in it tried to say can be analyzed by anyone given said person gets info on the subject, whether or not this person decides to get info on how other people decided to interpret the bible.

This is so basic I cannot believe you don´t understand it. I mean really.

We are talking about the bible here. Anyone can talk about it whether they are part of your exclusive club or not. Whether they can or cannot talk about it and be right will have to do with their knowledge about the BIBLE not about the religions that decided to extract an ideology from it that THEY SAY is what the bible says.

I'd argue that we're not "talking about the bible" here. We're talking about the theological framework of the texts, and that's simply a different animal.

Yes, anyone can analyze what the writers were trying to say, but that can't be successfully done without proper exegesis, part of which is reading past one's own biases. I don't see evidence of that in the post in question. A person with "knowledge of the bible" wouldn't blithely make the statements that were made.

To put this simply, we wrote it, we compiled it, we edited it, we canonized it, it is ours, and we do authoritatively construct a theological framework from it. We simply aren't talking about rocks here -- objects that can be objectively studied and tested. We're largely talking about meaning here -- meaning that is imbedded within the community. And no one who stands outside that community has the authority to tell us that the meaning we have constructed out of our own texts is wrong.

 

[Me Myself]

I'd argue that we're not "talking about the bible" here. We're talking about the theological framework of the texts, and that's simply a different animal.

Yes, anyone can analyze what the writers were trying to say, but that can't be successfully done without proper exegesis, part of which is reading past one's own biases. I don't see evidence of that in the post in question. A person with "knowledge of the bible" wouldn't blithely make the statements that were made.

To put this simply, we wrote it, we compiled it, we edited it, we canonized it, it is ours, and we do authoritatively construct a theological framework from it. We simply aren't talking about rocks here -- objects that can be objectively studied and tested. We're largely talking about meaning here -- meaning that is imbedded within the community. And no one who stands outside that community has the authority to tell us that the meaning we have constructed out of our own texts is wrong.

It´s not about authority, is about reality.

I´ve read the text. In the new testament, Jesus neveer put himself as God in a way greater than any other human being.

When he was directly asked why you call yourself God, he answered with a text that says EVERYONE is God.

That is the closes he has ever been in the bible to saying he is God, and it was by an inclusive definition.

 

[sojourner]

It´s not about authority, is about reality.

I´ve read the text. In the new testament, Jesus neveer put himself as God in a way greater than any other human being.

When he was directly asked why you call yourself God, he answered with a text that says EVERYONE is God.

That is the closes he has ever been in the bible to saying he is God, and it was by an inclusive definition.

Ah, but it is about authority, for it was by authority that the bible was created in the first place.

But you've hit on an interesting point. Authority doesn't come from hierarchy. Remember, we say that Jesus is God Incarnate, yet Jesus was born disenfranchised, in a stable. Jesus said, "those who would be great among you must be servant of all." It's about community -- not hierarchy. The Trinity works for the Christian community, because the Trinity understands God as community. The authority runs through the body of the community, it does not trickle down from "on high." IMO, the imperial model for the church was a HUGE mistake. Community is coequality. an outsider would stand as a "disinterested, objective observer," which, in essence, places him/her above the community -- not coequal. But, when dealing with communities, one doesn't really understand the community until one becomes part of it -- until one becomes coequal. That's the reality of community.

 

[Me Myself]

Ah, but it is about authority, for it was by authority that the bible was created in the first place.

But you've hit on an interesting point. Authority doesn't come from hierarchy. Remember, we say that Jesus is God Incarnate, yet Jesus was born disenfranchised, in a stable. Jesus said, "those who would be great among you must be servant of all." It's about community -- not hierarchy. The Trinity works for the Christian community, because the Trinity understands God as community. The authority runs through the body of the community, it does not trickle down from "on high." IMO, the imperial model for the church was a HUGE mistake. Community is coequality. an outsider would stand as a "disinterested, objective observer," which, in essence, places him/her above the community -- not coequal. But, when dealing with communities, one doesn't really understand the community until one becomes part of it -- until one becomes coequal. That's the reality of community.

but this thread is not about the community, is about whether Jesus said he was God or not and as I said, the only place where he did, was in a way in which everyone is God.

 

[sojourner]

but this thread is not about the community, is about whether Jesus said he was God or not.

That was asked and answered pages ago, my friend.

A corollary to that assertion is this: The bible is only one source for revelation. Doctrine is also based upon tradition and reason. It can be reasonably argued that the theological framework for Trinitarian thought is implied -- if not outright explicit -- in the texts. To even ask the question as an attempt at a ploy to lead the honest Christian into a theological trap shows that either:
1) The OP does not understand how doctrines legitimately come about, or
2) The OP does not understand the nature of the biblical texts, that is, they are not God's words.