Salvation and the Trinity

[2ducklow]

Thank you for clarifying what you see asmy false assumption. It makes a little more sense now, though I think you are taking far too much of a hard-line stance to view it this way.

I guess that begs questions of how a 100% human can "save us" by his blood. The natural question is how Jesus can be our saviour if he is just a "new human" (as opposed to us old ones). It also takes reconciliation to passages such as Philippians 2, in which Paul refers to Jesus as being "in very nature God" (Philippians 2:6), and others.

because scriputre says in the law that we can only be redeemed by a near kinsman, that near kinsman is christ by virtue of his Mother Mary.



Ruth 3:12 And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.

this is a reference to christ, the part in bold.

Numbers 5:8 But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto the LORD, even to the priest; beside the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be made for him.

we need a near kinsman (Christ ) to recompense our trespass.

the bible doesn't say that Jesus is in very nature God, it says he is in the morphe or form of god. Nature is an interpretation not a translation of morphe.

(Rotherham) Philippians 2:6 Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God,

this verse you cited proves Jesus is not god. It states he is in the form of someone else , namely god, and it states that he is not equal to that person (God) and didn't even try to be equal to that person (God).

While I admit that proving the Trinity is much harder than simply proving the divinity of Jesus, this discussion isn't about the Trinity, and I think your views are simply theologically untenable - you need to "explain away" too much of the Bible to arrive at conclusions that should be obvious from the start. I hope that doesn't come across as too offensive.

not offensive, I found it somewhat evasive though.

 

[2ducklow]

No it doesn't. Jesus didn't have DNA, so therefore than can be no mingling of DNA. To use an analogy, Mary was simply an "incubator" for Jesus' human incarnation. Though of course this analogy does not do credit to the value Mary played in Jesus' life, but in terms of giving birth, that is what she was - the incubator. Jesus existed in spirit form, as part of God, long before this (oh wait, I forgot, you dismiss John's gospel on the basis of it being a "metaphor").

then that makes Mary not the mother of Jesus, which the bible says she is. that interpretation of yours means Jesus wasn't begotten literally but was figuratively in some figurative sense. you derise here my interpreting john 1.1 figuratively, yet there's no problem with you in your mind, interrpeting mother and begatting figuratively.

I don't recall which verse referred to Jesus as being the "male seed" (sperm) used to fertilise Mary's egg. I remember that Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, but what part of this references the "seed" (sperm) of God?

Any information on this would be greatly appreciated.

~ PA

It's not in the NT.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.


Im not the only one that takes this verse to be a messianic prophecy, others do as well, even trinitarians. the new thing God created isn't stated, but whatever it was it enabled a woman (Mary) to compass (go around) a man. For what purpose? to conceive obviously, to conceive Jesus. So I believe the new thing god created was new human male seed.


which fits with other scirptures such as rev. 3.14

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

I take rev. 3.14 literally, most trinitarians take it figuratively, so explain to me how when you guys take stuff figuratively its' ok but if i take a verse figuratively i get derised about it. Derision as a substitue for proof only highlights one's lack of proof, don't you think?

 

[2ducklow]

So why did the Jews try to stone him in John 8:58???? If he was not clear on his comments, then they had no reason to stone him. Unless he was clear, in which case they had no reason to later ask him to be clear. Take your pick, you can't have it both ways!

"If thou be the Christ tell us plainly"

why would they ask that question ? Jesus told them he had already told them and they didn't believe him.

Because they knew he was claiming to be the christ but they wanted him to say it plainly, straight out. Notice in john 10 Jesus didn't tell them plainly that he was the christ even when they asked him to. He told them the reasons why he was the christ.

John 10:24-25 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.

Jesus told them that the works he did were in his Father's name in response to their request for a plain statement that he was the christ. to me it says plainly that he wouldn't give them a legal reason to stone him. At Jesus trial, as I said earlier, Jesus was put to death when he plainly said he was the christ .

Mark 14:61-62 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

I also pointed out to you earlier that Jesus forbad any of his disciples from telling others that he was the Christ.

Jesus only told the non apostles that he was the christ at his trial for which he was put to death. So I conclude, and have heard from bible classes I've taken, that they had a law then, a non biblically legal law, that anyone claiming to be the christ was to be put to death. the facts of the bible that I've put forth here proove it as well.
I don't find your explanaton to be true, as I'm sure you don't mine.

Oh, as an aside, is claims of Messiahship grounds for stoning in Jewish law? In the decades before Jesus (and some after) there were several people who came and claimed to be the Messiah, however these were actually military attempts to overthrow the Roman government - this was why Jesus hid the fact that he was the Christ, so that he could first establish his purpose - of peace, and of salvation, and of the coming kingdom of God, rather than the overthrow of Roman rule. If he came right out and claimed status as the Christ, the people would think, "right let's gather up our swords and spears and march on the Romans".

well it's just your opinon, nothing in the bible says that. Ifind that reasoning faulty for this reason. the whole purpose of Christs mission was to save usfrom our sins, aka the christ. I find it faulty for this reason, Jesus explained how he was the christ in great detail in john 8 and john 10 without directly stateing he was the christ. So he wasn't hidding the fact that he was the christ, he was explaining how he was the christ without saying directly that he was the christ. Someone explaining in great detail how he is the christ isn't hiding the fact that he is the christ, he is just refusing to give them something to hang him with.
my interpretation makes more sense to me, and I suppose vice versa.

Jesus had to get his message of peace, salvation, and God's Kingdom out before his message as the Christ.

I take your meaning, and perhaps concede somewhat. However, could I suggest a further consideration?

As I read my Study Bible next to me, the passage of verse 24 reads: "If you do not believe that I am [the one that I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins".

The parenthesis show that the original Greek does not necessarily include this latter bit, but within the context of this sentence, it may be appropriate. Meanwhile, verse 58 has no such context - since there is no continuation of a thought process. Thus the Greek may allow the addition of "I am [the one that i claim to be]", or perhaps "I am [he]", in the middle of a sentence, when the character speaking has more to say, but does the same Greek principle apply to the end of a sentence? Is it akin to the grammatical convention of ending a sentence with a proposition?

Just a thought,

~ PA

of course it does. Example, Suppose you ask me this question.

"2ducklow, are you an american?"

I respond with

"I am "

He is understood, just as he is understood in Jesus statement "Before Abraham was I am (he).
Am is not a preposition it is a verb, and all anyone needs for a complete sentence is a subject and a verb. I ran. I walk. I am. He cusses, she swims. etc.

 

[2ducklow]

Well technically trinitarians claim Jesus is both Son and Father, so it is not too unsurprising if we state that Jesus claims both.

ACtually they do not. To calim Jesus is the son and the Father is to be oneness, not trinity. But trinitarians do claim that Jesus is man and god. But herein is a flaw never really dealt with. Saying Jesus is God is evasive. What god is Jesus? YHWH?If Jesus is YHWH who is an omnipresent spirit, then when you say Jesus is god and man you are saying that Jesus is a man of flesh and bone, human spirit and a soul, plus (and) the ominpresent spirit YHWH. Which would be impossible. It would mean a human soul is an ominpresent spirit . It would further mean that YHWH is a human soul. It would further mean that Jesus was not 100 percent human because he had a different human soul, he had an all powerfull omnipresent spirit for a soul. Plus a soul is not a spirit, so the terminology is incorrect. So like i said, saying Jesus is God evades the issue. you gotta say which God he is, and trinitarians emphatically deny that he is the Father to the point of calling anyone a heretic who believes that the son is the Father. So that means Jesus is YHWH, and YHWH isn't hte Father, unless Jesus is neither the Father nor YHWH, in which case which other god can he possibly be???????

the only response to these problems with the trinity doctrine I've listed above, which isn't a real response,IMO, is the trinitarian assertion that God is beyond our comprehension or some such similar statement. Which to me is just a way of avoiding questions that condemn trinity to being invalid.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

because scriputre says in the law that we can only be redeemed by a near kinsman, that near kinsman is christ by virtue of his Mother Mary.



Ruth 3:12 And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.

this is a reference to christ, the part in bold.

At this point at night, I'll take your word for it. It's late and I don't really have the mental capacity at this time to search your claims further. But drawing on what I know/believe already, whether it is a reference to Jesus or not doesn't seem to affect whether Jesus is God, Son of God, or entirely 100% human though.... the "near kinsman" can refer to Jesus as a human just as easily as it can to Jesus as God incarnated as a human.

the bible doesn't say that Jesus is in very nature God, it says he is in the morphe or form of god. Nature is an interpretation not a translation of morphe.

(Rotherham) Philippians 2:6 Who, in form of God, subsisting, not, a thing to be seized, accounted the being equal with God,

this verse you cited proves Jesus is not god. It states he is in the form of someone else , namely god, and it states that he is not equal to that person (God) and didn't even try to be equal to that person (God).

Wow, that is the most different interpretation of this passage I have EVER SEEN in my entire life. Though being in the form of a God, he humbled himself.... and thus this makes him... not God?

Does this mean that God cannot humble himself?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

not offensive, I found it somewhat evasive though.

fair enough,

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

then that makes Mary not the mother of Jesus, which the bible says she is. that interpretation of yours means Jesus wasn't begotten literally but was figuratively in some figurative sense. you derise here my interpreting john 1.1 figuratively, yet there's no problem with you in your mind, interrpeting mother and begatting figuratively.
It's not in the NT.

Not at all does this make Mary not the mother of Jesus.

A friend of mine who I attended university (and who on occasion I have shared the same workplace) was adopted. Despite being simply an "adopted child", he is still considered the child to his parents, both in Law, and by the parents who raised him.

This isn't so far different to Jewish culture. In fact, it may be a better analogy than I first imagined - consider for a moment that Jewish genealogies are reckoned through the MALE side of the ancestry, considering the prophesies that Jesus would be of the family line of David, in order for this to be acceptable, it would (culturally) need to go through Joseph, even though he was not the biological father. Thus considering that Joseph, even though he had no biological input into the fatherhood, would be considered the "father" in terms of genealogical records.

which fits with other scirptures such as rev. 3.14

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

I take rev. 3.14 literally, most trinitarians take it figuratively, so explain to me how when you guys take stuff figuratively its' ok but if i take a verse figuratively i get derised about it. Derision as a substitue for proof only highlights one's lack of proof, don't you think?

I have no opinion on Revelation 3:14, either figurative or literal (considering the figurative nature of these passages, I try and stay away from individual interpretations of one verse over another, but simply address broad themes, and even then do I treat very carefully). Though I did hear a very good sermon once spoken about Revelation 3-4 (though I can't find a link to the particular sermon - seems like the link has been rendered obsolete, it was a few years ago).

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

"If thou be the Christ tell us plainly"

why would they ask that question ? Jesus told them he had already told them and they didn't believe him.

Because they knew he was claiming to be the christ but they wanted him to say it plainly, straight out.

With all due respect, you have still failed to produce a reason for the attempted stoning of Jesus in John 8:59. This speaks more than any of your long-winded interpretations, in my opinion.

well it's just your opinon, nothing in the bible says that. Ifind that reasoning faulty for this reason. the whole purpose of Christs mission was to save usfrom our sins, aka the christ. I find it faulty for this reason, Jesus explained how he was the christ in great detail in john 8 and john 10 without directly stateing he was the christ. So he wasn't hidding the fact that he was the christ, he was explaining how he was the christ without saying directly that he was the christ. Someone explaining in great detail how he is the christ isn't hiding the fact that he is the christ, he is just refusing to give them something to hang him with.
my interpretation makes more sense to me, and I suppose vice versa.

All comments of "opinion" aside, there are several historical figures, both before and after the rise of Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah. All of these failed horribly, mostly because they tried to lead military campaigns (or at the least, terrorist campaigns since most weren't strong enough to outright challenge Roman rule).

At this particular time in history, Jews were crying out for a Messiah. However, in order to know WHY Jesus withheld his claims of Christ-hood, we need to know history beyond that of just the biblical texts. This knowledge makes it clear why Jesus doesn't announce himself - it's not just "opinion", but strongly supported by ancient history.

of course it does. Example, Suppose you ask me this question.

"2ducklow, are you an american?"

I respond with

"I am "

He is understood, just as he is understood in Jesus statement "Before Abraham was I am (he).
Am is not a preposition it is a verb, and all anyone needs for a complete sentence is a subject and a verb. I ran. I walk. I am. He cusses, she swims. etc.

I'm not talking about English, I'm talking about the Hebrew - seems that dropped by you for a moment. Seems like you don't know enough of ancient Greek to make a definitive statement on this.

Granted, neither do I - I am not fluent in Ancient Greek (though I did spend a few months at it), but you're answering a Greek question from an English point of view. I was hoping for more than that.

Thanks anyway, at least we're both arguing from equally lacking points (hence why I agreed that I concede to an extent - though my original comments were based off a Greek scholar, and I'm hoping there are other Greek scholars here who can help).

Best regards,

~ PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

ACtually they do not. To calim Jesus is the son and the Father is to be oneness, not trinity. But trinitarians do claim that Jesus is man and god. But herein is a flaw never really dealt with. Saying Jesus is God is evasive. What god is Jesus? YHWH?If Jesus is YHWH who is an omnipresent spirit, then when you say Jesus is god and man you are saying that Jesus is a man of flesh and bone, human spirit and a soul, plus (and) the ominpresent spirit YHWH. Which would be impossible. It would mean a human soul is an ominpresent spirit . It would further mean that YHWH is a human soul. It would further mean that Jesus was not 100 percent human because he had a different human soul, he had an all powerfull omnipresent spirit for a soul. Plus a soul is not a spirit, so the terminology is incorrect. So like i said, saying Jesus is God evades the issue. you gotta say which God he is, and trinitarians emphatically deny that he is the Father to the point of calling anyone a heretic who believes that the son is the Father. So that means Jesus is YHWH, and YHWH isn't hte Father, unless Jesus is neither the Father nor YHWH, in which case which other god can he possibly be???????

the only response to these problems with the trinity doctrine I've listed above, which isn't a real response,IMO, is the trinitarian assertion that God is beyond our comprehension or some such similar statement. Which to me is just a way of avoiding questions that condemn trinity to being invalid.

You really don't know what it is that trinitarians believe, do you? Since you have so completely butchered trinitarian philosophy as to be totally different to what it is we actually teach, I'm afraid I'll allow someone else to clarify this.

It's way too late at night for me to detail every single place where you have gone wrong. Of course, if this question still isn't answered tomorrow, after I've had a good night's sleep I'll make a response detailing what it is we believe, and how completely you've screwed with what we believe.

Best wishes,

~ Paranoid Android

 

[2ducklow]

At this point at night, I'll take your word for it. It's late and I don't really have the mental capacity at this time to search your claims further. But drawing on what I know/believe already, whether it is a reference to Jesus or not doesn't seem to affect whether Jesus is God, Son of God, or entirely 100% human though.... the "near kinsman" can refer to Jesus as a human just as easily as it can to Jesus as God incarnated as a human.

I think the kinsman redeemer doctrine is fairly universal thoughout christanity.
here is a detailed explanation.

JESUS THE KINSMAN REDEEMER​

Hebrews 2:11-18​

He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever; holy and awesome is His name. (Psalm 111:9).
Slavery was a very common institution in the ancient world. There were a number of ways in which a man might become a slave.

• • He might he born into slavery. The son of a slave was himself considered a slave.
  • He might be captured by an invading array and become a prized captive, led away in chains to a foreign country to be sold as a slave.
  • He might fall into debt so that he was forced to declare bankruptcy. This involved selling yourself into slavery to pay the debts that were owed.

Picture the situation of this last scenario. An Israelite living in the land of Palestine is hit with economic disaster. Perhaps a famine has come over the land and wiped out his crops. Rather than resort to begging, he sells himself into slavery, using the proceeds to pay off his debts and to care for his starving family.
And so, he becomes a slave. Can he ever regain his freedom? Yes. But it can only happen if the redemption price is paid.
Now if the means of a stranger or of a sojourner with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to him as to sell himself to a stranger who is sojourning with you, or to the descendants of a stranger’s family, 48 then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, 49 or his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him; or if he prospers, he may redeem himself." (Leviticus 25:47-49).
This was the Law of the Kinsman Redeemer. It listed four qualifications which were necessary for a man to fulfill the role of Kinsman Redeemer. It was only when a man possessed these four qualities that he was permitted to perform this task.
1. He must be a Kinsman.
The passage is very explicit that this redeemer must be related to the one whom he is going to buy back out of slavery.
2. He must be Free himself.
A slave was unable to purchase another slave. A Kinsman Redeemer must be himself free of the debt and of the bondage which had fallen on the one who was to be redeemed.
3. He must be able to Pay the Price.
If he did not have the necessary sum of money which was required to pay the purchase price, then he would not be able to redeem his relative.
4. He must be Willing to pay the price.

JESUS THE KINSMAN REDEEMER

Wow, that is the most different interpretation of this passage I have EVER SEEN in my entire life. Though being in the form of a God, he humbled himself.... and thus this makes him... not God?

Point of logic. something in the form of something else is not the something else. Jesus is in the form of something else, God, therefore he is not god. Do you follow me now?

Does this mean that God cannot humble himself?

that isnt the issue here. the issue is Jesus is in the form of someone else, namely god, and someone in the form of someone else isn't that someone else. It's not really a difficult thought to comprhend.

.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

fair enough,

well I'm not here to persuade you, obviously your mind is made up as is mine. I'm here to learn and memorise through rote. Should some reader be persuaded , so much the better.

 

[2ducklow]

Not at all does this make Mary not the mother of Jesus.

A friend of mine who I attended university (and who on occasion I have shared the same workplace) was adopted. Despite being simply an "adopted child", he is still considered the child to his parents, both in Law, and by the parents who raised him.

This isn't so far different to Jewish culture. In fact, it may be a better analogy than I first imagined - consider for a moment that Jewish genealogies are reckoned through the MALE side of the ancestry, considering the prophesies that Jesus would be of the family line of David, in order for this to be acceptable, it would (culturally) need to go through Joseph, even though he was not the biological father. Thus considering that Joseph, even though he had no biological input into the fatherhood, would be considered the "father" in terms of genealogical records.

Jesus would not be the offspring of David, as he is , if Mary's egg had not been fertilized. the bible says she conceived, that's what conceive means. If Mary didn't conceive as the Bible says she did, then Mary is not the natural Mother of Jesus and would be a surrogate mother.

 

[2ducklow]

With all due respect, you have still failed to produce a reason for the attempted stoning of Jesus in John 8:59. This speaks more than any of your long-winded interpretations, in my opinion.

they attempted to stone Jesus because they knew he was claiming to be the christ. Two different scriptures suggest two possibilites to me.

Either they didn't stone him because they realized he hadn't directly stated that he was the christ and thus were afraid of disobeying the law and the consequences thereof, or god somehow miraculously made a way for Jesus to excape. that seems to be the two possibilites as I see it. I already explained that Jesus was put to death for claiming directly that he was the christ, and quoted the scripture that proves that . It seems my answer isn't good enough for you, but from my perspective very precisely answers your question. I can't think of any other way to put it that might be clearer, so we be stuck there.

All comments of "opinion" aside, there are several historical figures, both before and after the rise of Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah. All of these failed horribly, mostly because they tried to lead military campaigns (or at the least, terrorist campaigns since most weren't strong enough to outright challenge Roman rule).

you seem to be suggesting that one can't claim to be the christ without at the same time leading a military campaign, either that or you are saying that anyone claiming to be the christ would be considered to be leading a military campaign.

At this particular time in history, Jews were crying out for a Messiah. However, in order to know WHY Jesus withheld his claims of Christ-hood, we need to know history beyond that of just the biblical texts. This knowledge makes it clear why Jesus doesn't announce himself - it's not just "opinion", but strongly supported by ancient history.

well my opinon makes more sense to me.

I'm not talking about English, I'm talking about the Hebrew - seems that dropped by you for a moment. Seems like you don't know enough of ancient Greek to make a definitive statement on this.

Granted, neither do I - I am not fluent in Ancient Greek (though I did spend a few months at it), but you're answering a Greek question from an English point of view. I was hoping for more than that.

Thanks anyway, at least we're both arguing from equally lacking points (hence why I agreed that I concede to an extent - though my original comments were based off a Greek scholar, and I'm hoping there are other Greek scholars here who can help).

Best regards,

~ PA

 

[2ducklow]

well I googled "Is Jesus YHWH?" and this is what I got.

Fact 5: Yahweh is Our Only Savior and Jesus is Yahweh
Jeremiah 23: 5-6 and Jeremiah 33: 15-16 tell us plainly that the Messiah’s Name is Yahweh. This fact can’t be refuted by anyone. It’s so crystal clear in Hebrew that only Christians who know very little or nothing about Hebrew would even dare to deny it. Regrettably, most seminary-trained preachers know almost nothing about Hebrew, so it’s common for them to be ignorant about this fact—even though it’s THE CENTRAL MESSAGE in the New Testament and the Old Testament.
In Philippians 2: 9-11, the apostle Paul was referring to the Name “Yahweh” when he said,



“God…bestowed on Him (Jesus) the Name which is above every name, so that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

• Yahweh is the Name God bestowed on Jesus.​

His Name is Yahweh​

So some trinitarians anyway believe that Jesus is YHWH.
Jesus is a man and YHWH then according to trinity doctrine. Since a man is really his soul, we are soulical beings, and since YHWH is a spirit being, and since trinitarians say that Jesus is both god (YHWH) and man, and since a soul isn't a spirit, it would mean that to say Jesus is a man and YHWH, is to say that Jesus is 2 beings. If Jesus soul is the omipresent spirit YHWH (which cannot be but let's assume it is) which would be the meanin g of saying Jesus is YHWH, then trinitarians shouldn't say Jesus is both man and God or YHWH, they should say the man or soul of Jesus is the omipresent spirit YHWH. either way it is proof that saying Jesus is a man and god is an impossibility.

It's either Jesus is both god and man, or it's the man Jesus is YHWH. it can't be both. ( that is in the trinitarian concept, not mine) when trinitarians say Jesus is God (YHWH) they cannot mean that the man christ Jesus is god, at least when they say the man christ jesus died on the cross not the god jesus, they would have to mean that some jesus that is a combination of man Jesus and god Jesus is at times YHWH, and at other times just a man. so who is this 3rd JEsus is my next question? (Having answered my previous question , "which god is Jesus?", all by my self.)​

So Is Jesus the man Jesus the god?
or is some 3rd Jesus both Jesus the man and Jesus the god?
or
which is it?

To say Jesus is God, and to also say Jesus is both God and man, is a contradiction. you guys gotta choose one or the other. Or define which Jesus you refer to when you say the word Jesus, the one who is 2 beings, or the one who is a man, or the one who is YHWH. which is it?

You could do this..
YJesus = YHWH Jesus
DJesus = Jesus the man and YHWH Jesus (D for dual if you didn't guess)
GJesus = YHWH Jesus
MJesus = The man Jesus.

it would clear up a lot if you trinitarians could say which Jesus you are refering to when you say Jesus.​

 

[hybrid]

jesus refer to the man and christ to the spirit.
jesus christ is the union of the humanity and divinity.
where some finds it confusing,
i find this to be very elegant.

 

[2ducklow]

jesus refer to the man and christ to the spirit.
jesus christ is the union of the humanity and divinity.
where some finds it confusing,
i find this to be very elegant.

Jesus is the christ, according to scripture, so you've said that a man is a spirit.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
obviously anyone who thinks 3 is one makes perfect sense would quite naturally think that a human soul is an omnipresent spirit YHWH makes perfect sense.

 

[hybrid]

Jesus is the christ, according to scripture, so you've said that a man is a spirit.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
obviously anyone who thinks 3 is one makes perfect sense would quite naturally think that a human soul is an omnipresent spirit YHWH makes perfect sense.

christ is the title of jesus. that is all it means without explaining anything or saying anything about what it meant to be Christ.

now, when you say christ lives in me or christ is within us, do you mean the man jesus in inside you or the SPIRIT OF CHRIST according to scriptures in what inside of you?

so you see, your firm belief that Christ is just a man, does not fit to the present Christian beliefs that Christ dwells in every believer. because to you jesus Christ is pure man and flesh, it is ridiculous to say that you as a Christian carry jesus Christ around in a fleshly form,

1. Rom. 8: 9
   But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
2. Philip. 1: 19
   For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
3. 1 Pet. 1: 11
   Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

.

 

[2ducklow]

christ is the title of jesus. that is all it means without explaining anything or saying anything about what it meant to be Christ.

now, when you say christ lives in me or christ is within us, do you mean the man jesus in inside you or the SPIRIT OF CHRIST according to scriptures in what inside of you?

so you see, your firm belief that Christ is just a man, does not fit to the present Christian beliefs that Christ dwells in every believer. because to you jesus Christ is pure man and flesh, it is ridiculous to say that you as a Christian carry jesus Christ around in a fleshly form,

1. Rom. 8: 9
   But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
2. Philip. 1: 19
   For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
3. 1 Pet. 1: 11
   Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

.

The empowering spirit of 2ducklow is the Holy spirit, the empowering spirit of Jesus is the holy spirit, we both have the spirit of god, the holy spirit indwelling us.

Jesus is not a mortal man with a mortal man's limitations, Jesus is not just a man as you interpret my statements to mean,Jesus is an immortal man with powers beyond those of a mortal man. how he indwells me is only stated in scripture as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I can't give you an explanation as to how that works but i wont fill in the blanks with nonsense such as Jesus is 2 beings that is one being and one being of Jesus is in me as spirit while the 2nd being of Jesus is in heaven as a physical man, while a 3rd Jesus is both the 2 jesuses. Which is what your doctrine boils down to.

Christ physical body doesn't and never will indwell me, even when I see him face to face some day , it will still be the holy spirit of God indwelling both of us. And even in that day, as today, christ is in me via the holy spirit of god that indwells both of us. Perhaps it's sorta like an electrical connection. God communicates to us through our human spirit, and our human spirit communicates to our soul via our brain. I believe we experience the human spirit of Christ through the holy spiirit, and the human spirit of Jesus communicates to his soul or brain that experience. I also believe that one day when we too are like christ and see him as he is and are perfect like him and have immortal bodies like him that we too will be able to experience each other through our human spirits contact.

Jesus said he wasn't a spirit flat out after his resurrection and you have no scripture saying Jesus changed from a soul being to a spirit being all the while while remaining a soulical being (nonsense supreme) and you totally evade the problem of your doctrine namely that you have a soulical being being a spirit being. you evaded it by trying somehow someway to find anything that you could say didn't make sense with my doctrine. Finding something that doesn't make sense with anothers doctrine doesn't explain the nonsense of your doctrine.
this is the normal trinitarian tactic in not explaining your illogicalities. Denial and transferance. My doctrine isn't illogical YOUR doctrine is illogical. that tactic only evades and hides your illogical thinking. well you've failed to find anything illogical in my doctrine but keep looking, for I'm sure you will be convinced that your illogical thinking is right by showing some illogical thinking on my part. It's obvious you can't explain any onf the numerous problems of logic in your doctrine that I have exposed, you evaded everyone of them and trited to find something anything that you coulld point to as illogic in my doctrine.

besides even if I had something in my doctrine that didn't make sense, which I don't, why couldn't I say as you guys do, "god is beond our understanding" or "I don't paint god in a logical box," or "Our puny human minds can't comprehend the ineffable god". you guys get to say it whenever you get stuck with something that doersn't make sense, but you refuse to allow any non trinitarians that right. why is that? Even if you did find something nonsensical in my doctrine (In your evaluation) just tell yourself what you tell others, "god is beyond our understanding". Just tell yourself that oh 2ducklows doctrine doesn't make sense it's jsut lie our trinity doctrine he doesn't paint god in a logical box so it's heavy duty revelation. anything that doesn't make sense has to be true cause it's obvious that that person hasn't painted god in a logical box. heavy. oooooooooooh. What's good for the goose is good for the gander right? so since God is beyond our understanding, according to trinitarians, then any explanation that is beyond our understanding, i.e, doesn't make sense, should be deep truth and you should rejoice in finding illogical explanations of God.

 

[Der Alte]

The empowering spirit of 2ducklow is the Holy spirit, the empowering spirit of Jesus is the holy spirit, we both have the spirit of god, the holy spirit indwelling us.

Jesus is not a mortal man with a mortal man's limitations, Jesus is not just a man as you interpret my statements to mean,Jesus is an immortal man with powers beyond those of a mortal man. how he indwells me is only stated in scripture as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I can't give you an explanation as to how that works but i wont fill in the blanks with nonsense such as Jesus is 2 beings that is one being and one being of Jesus is in me as spirit while the 2nd being of Jesus is in heaven as a physical man, while a 3rd Jesus is both the 2 jesuses. Which is what your doctrine boils down to.

Christ physical body doesn't and never will indwell me, even when I see him face to face some day , it will still be the holy spirit of God indwelling both of us. And even in that day, as today, christ is in me via the holy spirit of god that indwells both of us. Perhaps it's sorta like an electrical connection. God communicates to us through our human spirit, and our human spirit communicates to our soul via our brain. I believe we experience the human spirit of Christ through the holy spiirit, and the human spirit of Jesus communicates to his soul or brain that experience. I also believe that one day when we too are like christ and see him as he is and are perfect like him and have immortal bodies like him that we too will be able to experience each other through our human spirits contact.

Jesus said he wasn't a spirit flat out after his resurrection and you have no scripture saying Jesus changed from a soul being to a spirit being all the while while remaining a soulical being (nonsense supreme) and you totally evade the problem of your doctrine namely that you have a soulical being being a spirit being. you evaded it by trying somehow someway to find anything that you could say didn't make sense with my doctrine. Finding something that doesn't make sense with anothers doctrine doesn't explain the nonsense of your doctrine.
this is the normal trinitarian tactic in not explaining your illogicalities. Denial and transferance. My doctrine isn't illogical YOUR doctrine is illogical. that tactic only evades and hides your illogical thinking. well you've failed to find anything illogical in my doctrine but keep looking, for I'm sure you will be convinced that your illogical thinking is right by showing some illogical thinking on my part. It's obvious you can't explain any onf the numerous problems of logic in your doctrine that I have exposed, you evaded everyone of them and trited to find something anything that you coulld point to as illogic in my doctrine.

besides even if I had something in my doctrine that didn't make sense, which I don't, why couldn't I say as you guys do, "god is beond our understanding" or "I don't paint god in a logical box," or "Our puny human minds can't comprehend the ineffable god". you guys get to say it whenever you get stuck with something that doersn't make sense, but you refuse to allow any non trinitarians that right. why is that? Even if you did find something nonsensical in my doctrine (In your evaluation) just tell yourself what you tell others, "god is beyond our understanding">

Contrast this statement

Jesus is not a mortal man with a mortal man's limitations, Jesus is not just a man as you interpret my statements to mean,Jesus is an immortal man with powers beyond those of a mortal man. how he indwells me is only stated in scripture as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I can't give you an explanation as to how that works​

With this statement.

Jesus said he wasn't a spirit flat out after his resurrection and you have no scripture saying Jesus changed from a soul being to a spirit being​

How does an immortal man, who is not a spirit, indwell a mortal man, as the Holy Spirit?

 

[hybrid]

The empowering spirit of 2ducklow is the Holy spirit, the empowering spirit of Jesus is the holy spirit, we both have the spirit of god, the holy spirit indwelling us.

the spirit of jesu is not the spirit of the holy spirit. otherwise the writers of the bible would not bother to make distinction between the two, you are making this is all up again.

Jesus is not a mortal man with a mortal man's limitations, Jesus is not just a man as you interpret my statements to mean,Jesus is an immortal man with powers beyond those of a mortal man

i dont care what ever kind of man you think jesus is, immortal man or powerful man...

NO MAN CAN'T BE AT THE SAME PLACE AT THE SAME TIME. PERIOD.

only a spiritual being can do that and make possible to be present in every believer's heart.

Jesus said he wasn't a spirit flat out after his resurrection

jesus didn't say that he was not a spirit being, jesus said he feel my flesh and bone.
no big deal, even angels can take human forms. but are they not spritual beings are theit true nature?

why couldn't I say as you guys do, "god is beond our understanding" or "I don't paint god in a logical box," or "Our puny human minds can't comprehend the ineffable god". you guys get to say it whenever you get stuck with something that doersn't make sense, but you refuse to allow any non trinitarians that right. why is that? Even if you did find something nonsensical in my doctrine (In your evaluation) just tell yourself what you tell others, "god is beyond our understanding">

consistency. that's what matters, you doctrine has no cosnsitency.

trinity as three persons made of the same stuff, is not inconsistent, heck, its even very scietific.
it's metaphysical aspect is flawless.

.

 

[2ducklow]

hummmmm, seems I've touched a few raw nerves in here. Maybe it was somethin I said? nah couldn t have been.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

they attempted to stone Jesus because they knew he was claiming to be the christ. Two different scriptures suggest two possibilites to me.

Either they didn't stone him because they realized he hadn't directly stated that he was the christ and thus were afraid of disobeying the law and the consequences thereof, or god somehow miraculously made a way for Jesus to excape. that seems to be the two possibilites as I see it. I already explained that Jesus was put to death for claiming directly that he was the christ, and quoted the scripture that proves that . It seems my answer isn't good enough for you, but from my perspective very precisely answers your question. I can't think of any other way to put it that might be clearer, so we be stuck there.

Neither explanation makes sense, in my opinion. Either he claimed to be the Christ, or he didn't claim to be the Christ. If he didn't claim to be the Christ, there was no reason to stone him. If he did, there was no reason to ask the question later about being clearer. The Jews wouldn't pick up stones and then say, "Hang on, let's make sure that we're doing the right thing, first". Jesus escaped from the Jews before they had the chance to stone him, simple as that.

Though as an aside, I'm still sceptical about claiming to be "The Christ" (which is just a term for Messiah) is a stoning offence in 1st Century Jewish belief. From what I can tell, Jesus was put to death for claiming to be "the king of the Jews". The Jews had no authority under Roman rule to exercise the death penalty, hence the reason they needed to go to the Romans. And the only Roman law that the Jews could pin on Jesus as being worthy of death was sedition (claiming to be the King of the Jews, and thus usurping Roman authority).

you seem to be suggesting that one can't claim to be the christ without at the same time leading a military campaign, either that or you are saying that anyone claiming to be the christ would be considered to be leading a military campaign.

Not quite in those terms, 2Duck,

I'm not saying that a person could not have claimed themselves Christ without military campaigns (or at least without preaching the overthrow of Roman occupancy). But the experiences of Jews in 1st Century Palestine would have coloured any expectations of the Christ. The Jews were searching for their Messiah to lead them out from under the thumb of Roman rule. Several tried, and all of them failed (Jesus wasn't the only one to proclaim himself Messiah, but he was the only one to have an agenda of peace - that I know of, at least). The Jews were looking for a military saviour, not a spiritual saviour.

Thus in this context it makes sense that he focused more on his teachings of peace, turning the other cheek, and accepting the rule of Roman authority. Only after his message was well established did he begin to let people know that he was the Christ.

Doing it the other way around would have brought unwanted expectations of what the Christ was supposed to accomplish.

~ Regards, PA