Did Jesus claim Divinity?

Wiccan_Child · Sep 25, 2008

Godschild87 said:
Who says you don't have a beaker with ice, water, and steam sitting on the same table?

It doesn't change anything: it is still ultimately one thing behaving in three different ways.

Godschild87 said:
You assume too much about the analogy to make that stretch.

Hence why you are again making assumptions.

What assumptions, exactly?

Godschild87 said:
Um, if all three premises lead to a conclusion and one premise denies the possibility of B=C, then one cannot reach the conclusion that B=C using all three premises (and the conclusion is dependent on all three premises).

Yes, you can, that's why there's a contradiction: the conclusion contradicts the premise. How one derives the conclusion that "B = C" is a perfectly valid consequence of the statements "A = B" and "A = C".

Godschild87 said:
Really? What if Jesus in that passage was one of those illusion things where one angle you look and see Jesus, one angle you see a lion, and another you see a lamb? What then?

Then it is an illusion. It is not simultaneously Jesus, a lion, and a lamb, but an optical illusion that looks like a Jesus in once instance, a lion in another, and a lamb in a third. Once again, it is ultimately one thing, not three things.

Gary51 · Sep 25, 2008

Godschild87 said:
And since when are you a people of God? You don't set the bar very high, I'm afraid.

Sorry, but your speech does not change the name of the thread.

You missed the point, all people are of God. Maybe you missed that point altogether.

But any opinion that you may have of who God's people are, is just your opinion, which you are of course entitled to, as is all people.

Muslim, Christian, pagan.... It's about the ability of an unchained free thinking mind.

Gary51 · Sep 25, 2008

Godschild87 said:
Hey, imagine that, three things with three roles being separate from each other.... yet still God. Just like water, steam, ice... yet they are still water.

Stick an ice cube in a hot enough environment and you do get all three, by the way. Apparently you missed the bit about analogies.

And that is the point... IMAGINE.... That is what one must do to make any kind of sense from what is not possible. On top of that, one must make a claim that it's a mystery that cannot be understood by human minds. One must imagine and use analogy to accept it.

STevensSA · Sep 25, 2008

Gary51 said:
And that is the point... IMAGINE.... That is what one must do to make any kind of sense from what is not possible. On top of that, one must make a claim that it's a mystery that cannot be understood by human minds. One must imagine and use analogy to accept it.

With all the discussion and debate it boils down to one thing FAITH. I see so many examples of God trying to be defined and justified through analogies based on the physical world. As a Christian I believe (thats right, believe...Faith driven) that God transcends the "physical laws that we have come to believe (thats right, believe...Faith driven) govern the physical world.

scriptures · Sep 25, 2008

I haven't seen any verse from Godchild87 to support his belief..... Maybe you start quoting.....

I believe that Jesus is the son of God and definitely not member of Trinity......

This is the belief of early Christians.....

(Mat 16:16 ACV) And Simon Peter having answered, said, Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Christ means - anointed one) Anointed by whom? God....

Jesus as the anointed one and the son of God recieved power and glory from God....something not inherent to Jesus......

Godchild87, maybe this is a good start.....

Gary51 · Sep 25, 2008

scriptures said:
I believe that Jesus is the son of God and definitely not member of Trinity......

Maybe this explanation will change your mind....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hxNhpfdExE

Wiccan_Child · Sep 25, 2008

Gary51 said:
Maybe this explanation will change your mind....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hxNhpfdExE

Please tell me that's satire...

Zebra1552 · Sep 25, 2008

Gary51 said:
And that is the point... IMAGINE.... That is what one must do to make any kind of sense from what is not possible. On top of that, one must make a claim that it's a mystery that cannot be understood by human minds. One must imagine and use analogy to accept it.

No imagination required. Just recognition that there are mysteries in the world.

Zebra1552 · Sep 25, 2008

Gary51 said:
You missed the point, all people are of God. Maybe you missed that point altogether.

All people are created by God, that does not mean they are of God, it means they come from God. Those who are of God live their lives righteously, and not all do.

But any opinion that you may have of who God's people are, is just your opinion, which you are of course entitled to, as is all people.

Wrong... it's in Scripture, which you so blatantly ignore it's sad to watch.

Muslim, Christian, pagan.... It's about the ability of an unchained free thinking mind.

If an unchained and free mind leads me to your conclusions, then I will keep a narrow minded pov, Gary. I'm not into ignoring people like you are.

Zebra1552 · Sep 25, 2008

scriptures said:
I haven't seen any verse from Godchild87 to support his belief..... Maybe you start quoting.....

Then you have not actually searched this thread like you claimed you did; in other words, you lied.

I believe that Jesus is the son of God and definitely not member of Trinity......

This is the belief of early Christians.....

That is the belief of you about what early Christians believed.

(Mat 16:16 ACV) And Simon Peter having answered, said, Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Christ means - anointed one) Anointed by whom? God....

Ignores other verses where Peter said He was God...
1Pe 5:10 After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
2Pe 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;
2Pe 1:3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.

Jesus as the anointed one and the son of God recieved power and glory from God....something not inherent to Jesus......

Click to expand...

Godchild87, maybe this is a good start.....

No, it wasn't. Quoting Peter at me was a very bad idea for your theology...

Zebra1552 · Sep 25, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
It doesn't change anything: it is still ultimately one thing behaving in three different ways.

...and taking three forms, or persons.

What assumptions, exactly?

Modality.

Yes, you can, that's why there's a contradiction: the conclusion contradicts the premise. How one derives the conclusion that "B = C" is a perfectly valid consequence of the statements "A = B" and "A = C".

...but it is not a valid consequence if one of the premises says that that specific consequence is not possible. For example, if A=D, B=D, C=D, but A [FONT=&quot]≠[/FONT] B [FONT=&quot]≠[/FONT] C, then D is one God in three persons (A, B, C).

Then it is an illusion. It is not simultaneously Jesus, a lion, and a lamb, but an optical illusion that looks like a Jesus in once instance, a lion in another, and a lamb in a third. Once again, it is ultimately one thing, not three things.

Take a joke.

Wiccan_Child · Sep 25, 2008

Godschild87 said:
...and taking three forms, or persons.

Which are not distinct entities, contrary to your espoused theology.

Godschild87 said:
Modality.

I wasn't assuming Modality. I was simply pointing out that your analogy seems to imply a Modalist belief. As I said several times, I didn't think that was the belief you were trying to get across. That's one of the reasons why I consider your analogy to be flawed (and yes, I'm aware that no analogy is perfect; it wouldn't be an analogy otherwise, would it?).

Godschild87 said:
...but it is not a valid consequence if one of the premises says that that specific consequence is not possible.

Hence the contradiction. If A = B and A = C, then B must be equal to C; that's an unavoidable consequence. It's not a possibility, it's a necessity. This is regardless of what other premises you may also hold.

If you have a third premise contrary to this necessary conclusion, well, that's your fault for holding the premises in the first place.

Godschild87 said:
For example, if A=D, B=D, C=D, but A [FONT=&quot]≠[/FONT] B [FONT=&quot]≠[/FONT] C, then D is one God in three persons (A, B, C).

If A = D, B = D, and C = D, then A = B = C. This follows from the very definition of the equality relation.

Godschild87 said:
Take a joke.

I know it was a joke. I just thought saw an opportunity to further explain to you the fallacy of your thinking.

Zebra1552 · Sep 25, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
Which are not distinct entities, contrary to your espoused theology.

Three persons implies distinct identity and role.

Hence the contradiction. If A = B and A = C, then B must be equal to C; that's an unavoidable consequence. It's not a possibility, it's a necessity. This is regardless of what other premises you may also hold.

If you have a third premise contrary to this necessary conclusion, well, that's your fault for holding the premises in the first place.

If A = D, B = D, and C = D, then A = B = C. This follows from the very definition of the equality relation.

Then explain to me how ice is steam.

I know it was a joke. I just thought saw an opportunity to further explain to you the fallacy of your thinking.

No fallacy if I'm joking, you do realize that, right?

Wiccan_Child · Sep 25, 2008

Godschild87 said:
Three persons implies distinct identity and role

Then they are not, by your definition, 'persons'. "It is still ultimately one thing behaving in three different ways"; since those ways are not distinct identities, roles, and/or entities in their own right, they are not persons.

Godschild87 said:
Then explain to me how ice is steam.

Ice and steam are both collections of H[sub]2[/sub]O molecules. Ice is cold steam, and steam is hot ice.

Godschild87 said:
No fallacy if I'm joking, you do realize that, right?

Only if your entire argument is a joke. If it isn't, then I am perfectly capable of adapting your joke to further my argument. If it will help you sleep at night, just think of it as another analogy. Or ignore it altogether.

Zebra1552 · Sep 25, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
Then they are not, by your definition, 'persons'. "It is still ultimately one thing behaving in three different ways"; since those ways are not distinct identities, roles, and/or entities in their own right, they are not persons.

You know, at the time the Bible was written, arguments and philosophical debates did not contain the same amount of specifics we have now? That means that all this nitpicking really tries to impose American ideals on something that really can't match it.

Only if your entire argument is a joke. If it isn't, then I am perfectly capable of adapting your joke to further my argument. If it will help you sleep at night, just think of it as another analogy. Or ignore it altogether.

I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over some philosophical rambling from you, sorry. I really don't need my ENTIRE belief system to make sense, just the important parts.

Gary51 · Sep 26, 2008

Godschild87 said:
No imagination required. Just recognition that there are mysteries in the world.

You'll have to do much better that that. It takes a large amount of imagination, to try and make sense of the impossible. And remember it was you that needed to use imagination for you to try and get you point across.

Gary51 · Sep 26, 2008

Godschild87 said:
All people are created by God, that does not mean they are of God, it means they come from God. Those who are of God live their lives righteously, and not all do.

Of course you are wrong on both counts, but I do know what you mean as I find you quite transparent. And I would love to hear from you on what it is to live righteously.

Wrong... it's in Scripture,

No you are wrong... what you see in scripture is merely your opinion on what scripture says. And considering that there are many thousands of Christian denominations, it appears there exists many differing opinions.

which you so blatantly ignore

Who are you to say what I ignore. Again you have an opinion, which is faulty.

it's sad to watch.

Can you hear yourself... What is that supposed to mean. The only sad thing here, is your attitude, which I do not see reflected in the attitude of Christ. But it seems that you would rather choose follow the attitude of insult. You were quick to point out to me all the insults Christ dished out. Maybe I should point out to you that Christ also had an attitude of love. "Love your neighbour as yourself", "Love your enemy"

If an unchained and free mind leads me to your conclusions, then I will keep a narrow minded pov, Gary. I'm not into ignoring people like you are.

At least you admit to having a narrow mind, which of course is the reason that you fail to see the other side of the coin.

Gary51 · Sep 26, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
Please tell me that's satire...

I'm not sure I can!

Wiccan_Child · Sep 26, 2008

Godschild87 said:
You know, at the time the Bible was written, arguments and philosophical debates did not contain the same amount of specifics we have now? That means that all this nitpicking really tries to impose American ideals on something that really can't match it.

America? What does America have to do with anything? This is elementary logic. It doesn't matter if the authors of the Bible didn't realise that what they were writing was inconsistent, the fact remains that it is.

Godschild87 said:
I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over some philosophical rambling from you, sorry. I really don't need my ENTIRE belief system to make sense, just the important parts.

I daresay it is a big part of your theology. But it's not mine; I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies.

scriptures · Sep 26, 2008

Godchild87,

Matthew 16:16 was very clear that Jesus is the son of God, nobody can change that.....

(Mat 16:16 WORNT) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.

There is no reason to believe that Peter changed his view.....

In agreement to that is ...... 2pet 1:1

(2Pe 1:1 WORNT) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us, in the righteousness of our God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ:

This agrees with 2pet1:2.......

(2Pe 1:2 WORNT) grace and peace be multiplied unto you, in the acknowledgement of God, and of Jesus our Lord;

In the scriptures....

Jesus the anointed is distinct being from our God.....

Did Jesus claim Divinity?

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

a humble servant

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Urban Nomad. Literally.

Urban Nomad. Literally.

Urban Nomad. Literally.

Urban Nomad. Literally.

Contributor

Urban Nomad. Literally.

Contributor

Urban Nomad. Literally.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency