Salvation and the Trinity

[2ducklow]

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.

This is the point you're not getting, Listen carefully. Jesus claimed to be the christ but not plainly. Get it now? He didn't flat out say he was the Christ , he said he was the christ indirectly. they wanted him to say directly that he was the christ so they could stone him and be justified by the law of their day in so doing.

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.

oh really? someone gets so mad at Jesus they want to kill him and pick up a stone to do it then they have second thoughts, like "wait a minute, did he say he was hte christ out right?" right I see your point people never ever ever have second thoughts about something . that is totally foriegn to human behavior. and of course you've never ever had second thoughs about some action you ve taken so obvioussly no one elsehas either. YOur saying that the idea of someone having second thoughts is nonsense is nonsense.

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".

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.

Jesus says in john 8.28,58 and now mark 14.62 that he is the christ with the words "I am'. still you won't believe.

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).

True, but the jews condemned in to death and pilate for claiming to be the christ.

Mark 14:63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?
Mark 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.
what blasphemy? verse 22.23 in red above. Here is your proof that claiming to be the christ is worthy of death according to the jews of that day.

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[/quote] Practically the whole of chapter 8 and much of chapter 10 of John has Jesus telling the jews that he is the christ, without sayijng the words, It was obviously a hot topic, is he or isn't he the christ, that's why they asked him to tell them plainly in orther wordss just say it flat out, but he wouldn't till the end at his trial.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

This is the point you're not getting, Listen carefully. Jesus claimed to be the christ but not plainly. Get it now? He didn't flat out say he was the Christ , he said he was the christ indirectly. they wanted him to say directly that he was the christ so they could stone him and be justified by the law of their day in so doing.

oh really? someone gets so mad at Jesus they want to kill him and pick up a stone to do it then they have second thoughts, like "wait a minute, did he say he was hte christ out right?" right I see your point people never ever ever have second thoughts about something . that is totally foriegn to human behavior. and of course you've never ever had second thoughs about some action you ve taken so obvioussly no one elsehas either. YOur saying that the idea of someone having second thoughts is nonsense is nonsense.

I understand your point, 2Duck, but there is one clear distinction that is worth consideration. It wasn't just ONE Jew who had blasphemous impressions that required stoning. All the Jews decided they were going to pick up stones.

I totally agree that I have had individual experiences in which I have had second thoughts, but let's be serious - I am only one person. I am not a mob. The Jews listening in the Temple, however, were a mob. And they were moved to pick up stones. Not just one or two, but all of them. There is no way to explain away the fact that all of them stood up to stone Jesus. If all of them had the same thought, there could be no doubt.

You underestimate the reply of those Jews who would have stood back and not been so sure. In order to incite a mob, a comment has to be pretty clear. John 8:58 was. And the only response you've provided is that it was not that clear to begin with, in clear contrast to the reaction of the crowd.

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.

Jesus says in john 8.28,58 and now mark 14.62 that he is the christ with the words "I am'. still you won't believe.
True, but the jews condemned in to death and pilate for claiming to be the christ.

Mark 14:63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?
Mark 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.
what blasphemy? verse 22.23 in red above. Here is your proof that claiming to be the christ is worthy of death according to the jews of that day.

Question - is the comment being condemned a reference to simply him claiming to be the Christ, or rather the claims afterwards in verse 62, in which he states:

and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.,

Which is borrowing directly from the imagery of the book of Daniel (7:13), which in this image identifies Jesus as God himself. This is certainly a blasphemous reference according to the Jews. I'm not surprised they decided his comment was blasphemous - he was attempting to correlate himself with the Lord of Daniel.

Practically the whole of chapter 8 and much of chapter 10 of John has Jesus telling the jews that he is the christ, without sayijng the words, It was obviously a hot topic, is he or isn't he the christ, that's why they asked him to tell them plainly in orther wordss just say it flat out, but he wouldn't till the end at his trial.

So you keep saying, except that the text disagrees with you on this one. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's just the way it is.

~ PA

 

[2ducklow]

I understand your point, 2Duck, but there is one clear distinction that is worth consideration. It wasn't just ONE Jew who had blasphemous impressions that required stoning. All the Jews decided they were going to pick up stones.

I totally agree that I have had individual experiences in which I have had second thoughts, but let's be serious - I am only one person. I am not a mob. The Jews listening in the Temple, however, were a mob. And they were moved to pick up stones. Not just one or two, but all of them. There is no way to explain away the fact that all of them stood up to stone Jesus. If all of them had the same thought, there could be no doubt.

here is what we have for facts.

John 8:59 They took up stones therefore to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

John 10:39 They sought again to take him: and he went forth out of their hand.

it appears to me in the heat of their anger they would have stoned him, but somehow Jesus hid himself and escaped. one can only specualte as to how that happened. So on second thought,it appears from these scriptures that Jesus himself somehow evaded them. So I retract, I don't think they were having second thoughts after digging into it a little deeper. but on the side of logic , there could have been a leader instigating the throwing of stones who had second thoughts and the others followed his lead, but that's immaterial, I no longer bleieve it was the case that they had second thoughts at the time of the attempted stoneing, but later when their anger had abated, for this reason. Noone tried to stone him later and say there he is the one who things he is god lets stone him." No one laid the charge of Jesus claiming to be god at his trial no one said "Jesus said "I am" so stone him cause he believes he is god" no the only charge we have laid against jesus is hecharge of claiming to be the christ. It just doesn't make sense for the sanhedrin to try and find out if Jesus is claiming to be the christ, but they don't care a hoot if he claimed to be god, they didn't even ask him that. .

Obviously they cooled down and didn't stone him later. this says to me that they had no legal grounds to stone him, and they no dobut had second thoughts about getting into trouble with the Roman authorities for the romans alone had the legal right to execute someone. , otherwise they would have went to the sanhedrin and said Jesus claimied to be god, so stone him, and they would have arrested him and put him to death.

You underestimate the reply of those Jews who would have stood back and not been so sure. In order to incite a mob, a comment has to be pretty clear. John 8:58 was. And the only response you've provided is that it was not that clear to begin with, in clear contrast to the reaction of the crowd.

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 says here (unplainly) that the works that he does in his Fathers name bear witness that he is the Christ. The Jews here asked for Jesus to tell them plainly that he was the Christ, but Jesus told them unplainly that he was the christ by saying the works that he did in his father's name bear witness of who he is (the christ). I suppose if one doesn't want to believe Jesus was saying unplainly that he is the christ here, one can easily find some way around it. But to me it is plain as night and day that Jesus is claiming to be the christ (unplainly). the same can be said about practically the whole of the rest of chapter 10, and chapter 8 with similar comments to john 10.25 (the works I do in myFather's name).
ex.

John 10:29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

John 8:18 I am he that beareth witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

John 8:19 They said therefore unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also.

John 8:27 They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father

and so on. All this unplain statements as to Jesus being the Christ, is what prompted them to ask later on for a clear plain statement that he was the Christ in chpter 10.

John 10:24 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.

Over and over Jesus explained to him who he was unplainly, they were frustrated in not beng able to get a plain statement from Jesus that He was the Christ.

why would the Jews ask Jesus for a plain statement that he was the christ after his discourse on who he was in john 8, and 10? Because they could perceive that he seemed to be claiming to be the christ is the answer that is obvious to me. not to you i guess.

Question - is the comment being condemned a reference to simply him claiming to be the Christ, or rather the claims afterwards in verse 62, in which he states:

and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.,

Which is borrowing directly from the imagery of the book of Daniel (7:13), which in this image identifies Jesus as God himself. This is certainly a blasphemous reference according to the Jews. I'm not surprised they decided his comment was blasphemous - he was attempting to correlate himself with the Lord of Daniel.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

god is a son of man? I can't buy that. god is no one's son.

If anything this would be a messianic prophecy.god is not a man, even trinitarians admit that when talking about Jesus on the cross. they god didn't die on the cross, the man Jesus did. Of course the contradict themselves when talking about john 1.14 in that verse they say 'well god became a man''. no problem, contradictions are the bread and butter of trinity.

More likely that they associtated the two statements together, Jesus plainly claiming to be the christ with the curt "I am" and an unplain explanation of how he was the christ.



So you keep saying, except that the text disagrees with you on this one. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's just the way it is.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

here is what we have for facts.

John 8:59 They took up stones therefore to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

John 10:39 They sought again to take him: and he went forth out of their hand.

it appears to me in the heat of their anger they would have stoned him, but somehow Jesus hid himself and escaped. one can only specualte as to how that happened. So on second thought,it appears from these scriptures that Jesus himself somehow evaded them. So I retract, I don't think they were having second thoughts after digging into it a little deeper. but on the side of logic , there could have been a leader instigating the throwing of stones who had second thoughts and the others followed his lead, but that's immaterial, I no longer bleieve it was the case that they had second thoughts at the time of the attempted stoneing, but later when their anger had abated, for this reason. Noone tried to stone him later and say there he is the one who things he is god lets stone him." No one laid the charge of Jesus claiming to be god at his trial no one said "Jesus said "I am" so stone him cause he believes he is god" no the only charge we have laid against jesus is hecharge of claiming to be the christ. It just doesn't make sense for the sanhedrin to try and find out if Jesus is claiming to be the christ, but they don't care a hoot if he claimed to be god, they didn't even ask him that. .

Obviously they cooled down and didn't stone him later. this says to me that they had no legal grounds to stone him, and they no dobut had second thoughts about getting into trouble with the Roman authorities for the romans alone had the legal right to execute someone. , otherwise they would have went to the sanhedrin and said Jesus claimied to be god, so stone him, and they would have arrested him and put him to death.

That's a fair enough argument. You're not claiming they weren't sure anymore, and I guess I see nothing wrong with the rest of your claims here, either.

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 says here (unplainly) that the works that he does in his Fathers name bear witness that he is the Christ. The Jews here asked for Jesus to tell them plainly that he was the Christ, but Jesus told them unplainly that he was the christ by saying the works that he did in his father's name bear witness of who he is (the christ). I suppose if one doesn't want to believe Jesus was saying unplainly that he is the christ here, one can easily find some way around it. But to me it is plain as night and day that Jesus is claiming to be the christ (unplainly). the same can be said about practically the whole of the rest of chapter 10, and chapter 8 with similar comments to john 10.25 (the works I do in myFather's name).
ex.

John 10:29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

John 8:18 I am he that beareth witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

John 8:19 They said therefore unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also.

John 8:27 They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father

and so on. All this unplain statements as to Jesus being the Christ, is what prompted them to ask later on for a clear plain statement that he was the Christ in chpter 10.

John 10:24 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.

Over and over Jesus explained to him who he was unplainly, they were frustrated in not beng able to get a plain statement from Jesus that He was the Christ.

why would the Jews ask Jesus for a plain statement that he was the christ after his discourse on who he was in john 8, and 10? Because they could perceive that he seemed to be claiming to be the christ is the answer that is obvious to me. not to you i guess.

So it is plain that he was unplainly calling himself the Christ. Gotcha. Wait, strike that. I understand that he was referring to himsel as the Christ. However, I dispute that John 8 (particularly verse 58) is Jesus plainly referring to himself as the Christ as unplainly as possible.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

god is a son of man? I can't buy that. god is no one's son.

If anything this would be a messianic prophecy.god is not a man, even trinitarians admit that when talking about Jesus on the cross. they god didn't die on the cross, the man Jesus did. Of course the contradict themselves when talking about john 1.14 in that verse they say 'well god became a man''. no problem, contradictions are the bread and butter of trinity.

My apologies, I misspoke my reference to God here. I totally agree that God is not a man, and therefore the "son of man" figure in Daniel 7 is not God. My point was that using the imagery of coming on the clouds, he is identifying himself with the figure here who meets the Ancient of Days and is given glory and honour and power and dominion. Messianic prophecy, perhaps. Nevertheless, he is identifying himself with Yahweh (if not as Yahweh himself, than seated at Yahweh's right hand).

Though on the John 1:14 issue, God did become a man for a time, subject to human failings. Though being God, he did not succumb to those failings. Hence when he died (and yes, Jesus did die) he was able to conquer death and rise, retaking his place at God's side, as God himself. I don't see a contradiction, though a non-trinitarian might.

~ Regards, PA

 

[2ducklow]

That's a fair enough argument. You're not claiming they weren't sure anymore, and I guess I see nothing wrong with the rest of your claims here, either.

[/b]So it is plain that he was unplainly calling himself the Christ. Gotcha. Wait, strike that. I understand that he was referring to himsel as the Christ. However, I dispute that John 8 (particularly verse 58) is Jesus plainly referring to himself as the Christ as unplainly as possible.

My apologies, I misspoke my reference to God here. I totally agree that God is not a man, and therefore the "son of man" figure in Daniel 7 is not God. My point was that using the imagery of coming on the clouds, he is identifying himself with the figure here who meets the Ancient of Days and is given glory and honour and power and dominion. Messianic prophecy, perhaps. Nevertheless, he is identifying himself with Yahweh (if not as Yahweh himself, than seated at Yahweh's right hand).

Though on the John 1:14 issue, God did become a man for a time, subject to human failings. Though being God, he did not succumb to those failings. Hence when he died (and yes, Jesus did die) he was able to conquer death and rise, retaking his place at God's side, as God himself. I don't see a contradiction, though a non-trinitarian might.

~ Regards, PA

Don't you find it the least bit curious that if Jesus was claiming to be God in verses like John 8.58, why would none of his disciples ever ask him how he could be god and God the Father could be God if there is only one god? the question comes up in no form anywhere in the bible. If Jesus is making all these claims to divinity, how come no one asks him the question trinitarians have been dealing with ever since the inception of the tirnity doctrine? the only answer I see is that Jesus wasn't claiming to be god, so there was no reason to ask him how he could be god and god the father could be god if there is only one god.

Either that or you have to assume that everyone in Jesus day thought 2 is one, which doesn't float with me.

 

[2ducklow]

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.

I explained it you ignored ti.

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.[/qutoe] IF one God can be 3 persons, then one man who is god can be at azillion places at one time. Just tell yourself the ole trinity escape clause, "god is beyond our understanding" or "you hybrid don't paint god in a logical box." or " our puny human minds cant comprehend the eneffable god". you've found some deep trinity truth here hybrid, god a man is in a zillion places at one time.

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

well know you say the holy spirit is in you, and the spirit of christ is in you, that's 2 spirits that are one spirit right? either that makes logical sense to you, not to me, or it makes no logical sense, which is the truth. so just tell yourself the ole trinity stand by "you don't paint god in a logcal box." if god can be 2 spirits that are one spirit, then god a man can be in 10 zillion places at once. you want to reserve your illogic to your doctrine alone and forbid anyone else from having anything illogical. don't work. if illogic is truth , then any illogic is truth.

don't paint god in a logical box. Remember you're a trinitarain, yu don't paint god in a logical box.

jesus didn't say that he was not a spirit being, jesus said he feel my flesh and bone.

Jesus said feel my bones? fer real?

no big deal, even angels can take human forms. but are they not spritual beings are theit true nature?



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

hey you gotta accept it then if it makes no sense, remember you don't paint god in a logical box.

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

.

see there ye go,3 persons one god, you don't paint god in a logical box.
Hey just claim 3 is one makes perfect sense and is scientific , then you can just claim one man is in a zillion places and is scientific, cause , remember trintiarians don't paint god in a logical box.

here''s another deep truth for ya.


;askldfjlgkjsdl;kfasdjlktjhsdlgk.

it's not confusing, it's scientific.

 

[Glorthac]

IF one God can be 3 persons, then one man who is god can be at azillion places at one time.

well know you say the holy spirit is in you, and the spirit of christ is in you, that's 2 spirits that are one spirit right?

Hey just claim 3 is one makes perfect sense and is scientific

Well hey again 2ducklow! First of all, Matthew 19:26 says:
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

So yes, God can make the average man everywhere. But this is not exactly what we believe. We believe Jesus is one person who has two natures. Jesus the person isn't present or omnipresent, Jesus' human nature is present, His divine nature is omnipresent. Understand?

As for the Holy Spirit, it depends on what you mean by "the Spirit of Christ". For that word can be adjectival, or literal. Since I think you mean it is literal, you would be committing a categorical fallacy. That is, the Holy Spirit is a person, the Spirit of Christ would be a Being. Therefore, they are not two spirits in one spirit, but one spirit in one spirit.

And you know we've already gone over the Trinity. It seems almost as if you're having a mid-life crisis online. As we said before, a person is an existing non-being that takes its nature from the being it is partaking from.
So, my analogy makes perfect sense. I am one person who takes his Being from human flesh. With the Trinity, there are three persons who take their Being from the divine nature. Understand?

 

[2ducklow]

Well hey again 2ducklow! First of all, Matthew 19:26 says:
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

So yes, God can make the average man everywhere. But this is not exactly what we believe. We believe Jesus is one person who has two natures. Jesus the person isn't present or omnipresent, Jesus' human nature is present, His divine nature is omnipresent. Understand?

I understand that you've said nothing. Jesus nature is in us and Jesus is a nature and a human being is plain nonsense.

As for the Holy Spirit, it depends on what you mean by "the Spirit of Christ". For that word can be adjectival, or literal. Since I think you mean it is literal, you would be committing a categorical fallacy. That is, the Holy Spirit is a person, the Spirit of Christ would be a Being. Therefore, they are not two spirits in one spirit, but one spirit in one spirit.

a person is a being. But In trinity jargon a person is a nature is an essence is a person. In other words the word person has no meaning to at rinitarian. You guys explain nothing by using the word person because it has no meaning to you or anyone.
so your explanation isn't one.

And you know we've already gone over the Trinity. It seems almost as if you're having a mid-life crisis online.

I'm past midlife.

As we said before, a person is an existing non-being that takes its nature from the being it is partaking from.

which is nonsense and means nothing. no one has any idea what you said means cause it's nonsense. you
\

So, my analogy makes perfect sense. I am one person who takes his Being from human flesh. With the Trinity, there are three persons who take their Being from the divine nature. Understand?

so you get your being from some pile of flesh somewhere. that's nonsense. 3 persons who get their being from a nature is nonsense. I understand that your explanations are ridiculous in the extreme. as ridiculous as 3 is one. the reason trinitarian explanations can't be disproved is cause it's just a bunch of nonsense talk. like a person isnt a being, get real. you're better off just saying that trinity can't be explained than to come up with this stuff.

 

[Glorthac]

Jesus nature is in us and Jesus is a nature and a human being is plain nonsense.

a person is a being. But In trinity jargon a person is a nature is an essence is a person.

so you get your being from some pile of flesh somewhere. that's nonsense. 3 persons who get their being from a nature is nonsense.

like a person isnt a being, get real.

Jesus is not a nature, He partakes of a nature.

A person is not a being, nor a nature, nor an essence.

Yes, I get my being from my flesh.

A person is not a being, a person partakes of its being.

Cmon 2ducklow, I know you understand now, I can tell from your posts. Just admit it and move on.

 

[2ducklow]

Jesus is not a nature, He partakes of a nature.

A person is not a being, nor a nature, nor an essence.

Yes, I get my being from my flesh.

A person is not a being, a person partakes of its being.

Cmon 2ducklow, I know you understand now, I can tell from your posts. Just admit it and move on.

all you said was a person is not, you didn't say what a person is. cause you don't know what a person is, and you don't know because person as used by trinitarians has no meaning, therefore your explanations have no meaning.
most of what you said is just plain nonsense, So we disagree at ground zero. to you a person is not a being, to me and everyone who isn't a trinitarian and all trinitarians who arent discussing trinity, a person is a personal being.

you get your being from your flesh? you don't see how that is nonsense? I think if the topic wasn't trinity, you would easily see. The truth is we get our being from our mother and father, and once we are a being, which means we exist, our existance is independant of the source of our being. My mother and father are dead, but Im still a personal being, a person, and will be a person even when my body dies and decays to dust. Because who we really are is our soul. we are soulical beings inside a fleshly body, that has a human spirit to communicate with the spirit world, either god or satan, or both. We do not get our soul from our flesh (body). God created our soul and placed it in a body of flesh, we don't get our being from our flesh , that is absolute pure nonsense. your trying to make your explantion of trinity so nonsensical that no one has the least idea of what you mean, and they can't cause even you have no idea what it means cause it means nothing but nonsense.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Hi 2Duck,

You're not allowing for the possibility of Jesus being both fully God and fully human. As such, it requires extreme rationalisation anytime someone mentions John's Gospel ("In the beginning was the Word (logos)" and the word became flesh, these are just metaphors, for example). In another thread, a poster brought up Matthew 12's comments that only God can forgive sin, and yet we see Jesus forgiving sins in that same chapter. There is also one of my favourite passages, Philippians 2:5-8, which state: "Jesus Christ, who being in very nature God.... being made in human likeness" (I've cut out a bit from the middle but there is nothing in between that denies these two realities - Jesus is the very nature of God made human

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq6_Tp11O9I

Enjoy the song

~ PA

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2Duck,

You're not allowing for the possibility of Jesus being both fully God and fully human.

That's because Jesus isn't two beings. saying he is god and man is saying he is 2 beings, which is nonsense.
I don't accept nonsense as a possibility.Since God is a spirit and Jesus is a man, what you have said is Jesus is a spirit and a soul, that's 2 beings.

As such, it requires extreme rationalisation anytime someone mentions John's Gospel ("In the beginning was the Word (logos)" and the word became flesh, these are just metaphors, for example).

No it doesn't, it only requires one to search for the meaning that makes sense, which is that the word is god figuratively, just as Jesus is the word, a door, a shepard figuratively. what you guys do is not even consider the possibility that the word was god figuratively, It doesn't even come up on your radar screen for consideration. You don't even consider the real meaning, which is the meaning that makes sense, you only consider the meaning that makes no sense.

I didn't listen to your video/audio because it's rock music and I consider all rock music to be demonic.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

That's because Jesus isn't two beings. saying he is god and man is saying he is 2 beings, which is nonsense.
I don't accept nonsense as a possibility.Since God is a spirit and Jesus is a man, what you have said is Jesus is a spirit and a soul, that's 2 beings.

Let's try another analogy. I am Paranoid Android (not my real name [obviously], but I'm not giving my real name on an anonymous forum, ok). At certain times, depending on what I am doing, I am a son, a brother, a school teacher, an employee, a friend, and hopefully one day a husband and a father.

Does this mean I am several different people? No - to my parents, I am their son. To my brother, I am a brother. To my children I teach, I am their school teacher, to the Department of Education, I am their employee. And if I get married, I will be a husband to my wife, and father to my children.

Jesus is God. But for a time, he became a man (as per the reference to Philippians 2:5-8, which you conveniently ignored in your response). They are not two people, but he did have a role to play that required him to be as he was.

No it doesn't, it only requires one to search for the meaning that makes sense, which is that the word is god figuratively, just as Jesus is the word, a door, a shepard figuratively. what you guys do is not even consider the possibility that the word was god figuratively, It doesn't even come up on your radar screen for consideration. You don't even consider the real meaning, which is the meaning that makes sense, you only consider the meaning that makes no sense.

I was just using one example, there are many more references I could have chosen.

I didn't listen to your video/audio because it's rock music and I consider all rock music to be demonic.

Ignoring for a moment that this is not rock music (I would not describe it as rock music to any of my students at school, and I am a Music and Drama teacher), if you don't want to watch the video, then here are the words - they are almost word-for-word a repetition of Philippians 2:5-11.

Jesus Christ, in very nature God
Did not grasp hold of his place on the throne.
But took on the nature of a servant,
Made himself nothing, born as a man.

Being found in appearance as a man,
He was obedient to death on a cross.
There he died - God, the Son, the Maker,
A humble servant, showing the way.

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place,
And gave him the name above all names.
So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow
In heaven and on earth and under the earth.
And every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord,
To the glory of God the Father

 

[2ducklow]

Let's try another analogy. I am Paranoid Android (not my real name [obviously], but I'm not giving my real name on an anonymous forum, ok). At certain times, depending on what I am doing, I am a son, a brother, a school teacher, an employee, a friend, and hopefully one day a husband and a father.

what you are describing is oneness not trinity. One god with different roles.

Does this mean I am several different people? No - to my parents, I am their son. To my brother, I am a brother. To my children I teach, I am their school teacher, to the Department of Education, I am their employee. And if I get married, I will be a husband to my wife, and father to my children.

Jesus is God. But for a time, he became a man (as per the reference to Philippians 2:5-8, which you conveniently ignored in your response). They are not two people, but he did have a role to play that required him to be as he was.

I was just using one example, there are many more references I could have chosen.

Ignoring for a moment that this is not rock music (I would not describe it as rock music to any of my students at school, and I am a Music and Drama teacher), if you don't want to watch the video, then here are the words - they are almost word-for-word a repetition of Philippians 2:5-11.

Jesus Christ, in very nature God
Did not grasp hold of his place on the throne.
But took on the nature of a servant,
Made himself nothing, born as a man.

Being found in appearance as a man,
He was obedient to death on a cross.
There he died - God, the Son, the Maker,
A humble servant, showing the way.

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place,
And gave him the name above all names.
So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow
In heaven and on earth and under the earth.
And every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord,
To the glory of God the Father

I ignored it cause it's the same old bad translation. the Greek word is morphe which means form not nature. nature in trinitarian vernacular is a word that has no meaning.. I also ignored it because it's a bad translation. and because phil. 2.6 proves that Jesus is not god, (something in the form of something else isn't the something else it is in the form of.), But all these facts do not register with trintiarians.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

But all these facts do not register with trintiarians.

You know, I was thinking on my reply to this, and my eye kept returning to this sentence. "But all these facts do not register with trinitarians"......

It's an interesting point. Since most trinitarians would level similar accusations against you - "but all these facts to not register with non-trinitarians".

Circular argument? Of course it is. But that's not my point. Just because you don't like trinitarian arguments does not mean that they think yours are any better

Just a thought,

~ PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

I ignored it cause it's the same old bad translation. the Greek word is morphe which means form not nature

Oh, just as an aside on this point - while I quoted the NIV (for no other reason that it rolls off the tongue better), several other versions of the Bible I use translate this word as "form".

I do not see a massive difference between: "nature of God", and "form of God" - they both represent similar themes. Jesus is found on earth in the form of God (or in the nature of God, it doesn't really matter).

~ PA

 

[Jpark]

what you are describing is oneness not trinity. One god with different roles.

My father just told me that Oneness = Trinity God. The only difference between Trinitarian and Oneness is three role.

I did not know I was Oneness. Now I know.

 

[2ducklow]

Oh, just as an aside on this point - while I quoted the NIV (for no other reason that it rolls off the tongue better), several other versions of the Bible I use translate this word as "form".

I do not see a massive difference between: "nature of God", and "form of God" - they both represent similar themes. Jesus is found on earth in the form of God (or in the nature of God, it doesn't really matter).

~ PA

well that's because the word nature and form have no meaning to a trinitarian.

 

[2ducklow]

My father just told me that Oneness = Trinity God. The only difference between Trinitarian and Oneness is three role.

I did not know I was Oneness. Now I know.

in that case probably both sides would consider you a heretic then.

 

[Jpark]

in that case probably both sides would consider you a heretic then.

I am a heretic.

Oneness theology does not deny the Deity of the Father, Son or Holy Spirit, nor the biblical distinctions between the Father and Son, nor the "personality" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I am persuaded Oneness and Trinity is compatible.