Did Jesus claim Divinity?

[Mathetes the kerux]

Trinitarian theology is not laid out in the Bible. How can you have any confidence that the Christians who formulated the creed got it right? You're basically saying that supporters don't claim to fully understand the Trinity, but at the same time you fully believe that the underlying theology is accurate. There is no basis for this.

Back to the temptation issue: It sounds like most of you are saying that it makes sense because Jesus' human nature was tempted to take the world from Satan. This is really damaging to his God-nature. Unless he just has a memory lapse and forgets that he is God, your solution is untenable. Introducing a concept of %100 human and %100 God gets so complicated that you should have no confidence that it is correct.

It is Phil 2. He laid aside the attributes of deity to be human. He did not cease to have them . . . but He ceased to use them outside of dependance upon the power of the Spirit and will of the Father. He was made like us . . . that we may be like Him.

It really is not that complicated.

As for a Trinitarian dogma . . . well it really did not exist until the 3rd Cent. but that does not mean that it is not biblical.

The Scriptures affirm that there is ONE God.
The Scriptures affirm that the Father is God.
That the Son is God
that the Spirit is God
and that these three are distinct (NOT SEPARATE)

From here, if one seeks to maintain the integrity of the Bible one arrives at a thoroughly biblical statement of

There is ONE God . . . within the one God there are three persons called Father, Son and Holy Spirit who are co-existent, co-eternal and co-equal.

That is the foundational Trinitarian affirmation.

Many have sought interesting ways of articulating this further . . . some have merritt . . . some are inane.

But to affirm this statement . . . and to affirm the mystery held within (namely how can three be one and one be three) is not a problem.

I personally am comforted that there are things within God that He has seen fit to reveal to us but not explain in satisfactory terms to us because it leaves me understanding His immensity. If we were honest, if we used your same criteria and applied it to the eternality of God we would come to the same place. As time-space creatures any concept of non-beginningness is irrationale to us. Yet the Bible teaches it quite clearly.

Same goes for Trinity.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Here are just a few:

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Jam 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

You have to remember that the idea that God was ONE was SO central to Jewish theology and there is no indication that this idea has been overturned. This would be such a radical change to theology. God is one: this should be your starting point. There are plenty of statements that continue this idea in the NT. I agree there are a few verses that don't fit neatly into this concept, but this has to be the starting point. Instead people have invented "mysterious" or illogical formulations like: the Father is 100% God, the Son 100% God and 100% human, the Holy Spirit is also 100% God, but at the same time there is only one God, but they are separate persons. This is so complicated it makes no sense to the human mind. If this were true, it is unthinkable that the Bible would not explicitly make a note of this. Instead there is no indication whatsoever that there has been an interruption of strict monotheism. There is no indication that the definition of who and what God is has been radically altered. This would be major. For me, this is terribly strong evidence that Trinitarian theology is not accurate. I don't see how Trinitarians can hold any confidence that this unexplainable mystery has been accurately interpreted. Also, they should by no means think that salvation depends on subscribing to it.

But see . . . this is a false dichotomy . . . we never said that God is not one . . . He is.

This is so complicated it makes no sense to the human mind. If this were true, it is unthinkable that the Bible would not explicitly make a note of this.

Not true . . . the same can be said of the eternality of God . . . it is so complicated it makes no sense to the human mind . . . yet the Bible EXPLICITLY teaches the eternality of God.

Instead there is no indication whatsoever that there has been an interruption of strict monotheism. There is no indication that the definition of who and what God is has been radically altered.

We never assert that it has been altered . . . Pliny attests to the fact that early Christians worshiped Christ as God . . . seems Christianity has always held this as orthodox. If you are referring to the roots of Judaism . . . well Judaism was strictly and fiercely monotheistic IN IDEAL ONLY. It wasn't till the second temple and the post excillic culture that it became so in reality. Abraham was a pagan polytheist.
But even as the roots of Christianity are INDEED fiercely monotheistic . . . due to Judaism . . . we departed from their view of Meschiach . . . and their view of the Law of Moses . . . and many others . . . so an inclusion and expansion of the Godhead is not surprising . . . esp if it is TRUE.

Remember . . . revelaiton is progressive . . . the tetragrammaton was not revealed until Moses.

I don't see how Trinitarians can hold any confidence that this unexplainable mystery has been accurately interpreted.

Well the brunt of my confidence has to do with the reconciliation of Scriptures . . . nothing else.

Also, they should by no means think that salvation depends on subscribing to it

Well . . . 2 John makes it quite clear that orthodoxy concerning the Godhead IS required for salvation and fellowship. But I think that God is merciful . . . so He will not require an answer for something that folks know not of.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree that you can take logic out of the equation. You say reason is irrelevant, but I think temptation is irrelevant in this situation. If someone offers me the chance to marry my wife, I would just laugh at them. I wouldn't be tempted because I'm already married to her. If someone offers me my own flat screen TV, it wouldn't make sense because I already own it.

I understand your point . . . but you must rememeber that Jesus is not being tempted for God's sake . . . IOW the temptation has nothing to do with deity (whether Satan knows this or not is irrelevant) . . . it has to do with His humanity . . . so even if He is fully congnizant of deity . . . IE He is fully aware that to try and tempt Him with all the kingdoms that are ultimately His anyway is foolish (which is I think what your point is) . . . the point is moot because the issue is to succeed where Adam failed . . . the temptation then is found in the place where He is like Adam . . . His humanity . . . not in where He is unlike Adam . . . His deity.

There is a sense in which the limits of human frailty are Christ's in order for His death to be effective for us and His life to be accredited to us . . . in that sense the fullness of unhindered deity are restrained in the incarnation . . . otherwise He would walk around glowing all the time (like on the mount of Transfig) . . . He willingly takes on limits . . . SELF IMPOSED LIMITS (if they were of any other kind He could not be God) . . . for the sake of the work of salvation.

Think of it this way . . . in the ontology of Christ as being fully God and fully man there are "doors" within Him that represent the fullness of who He is now (after taking on flesh) INCLUDING His deity. The ONLY doors that have been opened are those that are necessary for Him to be a mediator . . . the others have remained closed. It is these closed doors that allow for Him to pray "not my will but your's" and "no one knows the hour save for the Father . . . not even the son" . . . while still remaining God (for what is on the other side of the door is still His ontologically . . . He has just willingly kept the door shut for the sake of man and the glory of the Father).

Pax
MTK

 

[Milk]

Mathetes the Kerux,

Thanks for the replies. You gave me quite a bit of info. Let me respond to a few of your points. I was checking out Phil 2. The verse that says Jesus “emptied himself” is quite mysterious. I can see how it could mean giving up divine prerogatives, or simply mean that he humbled himself. But, even in Phil 2, I’m really not convinced that Paul is describing something that resembles Trinitarian Theology. It’s not really clear what Jesus is (“in the form of God,” “being found in appearance as a man”). It is clear in scripture he is the Messiah and in these verses is called “Lord,” but Paul consistently reserves the term God for the Father: “for this reason God highly exalted him,” “Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” 1 Cor 8:6 makes this very clear: “there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.” If Trinitarian theology is true, I just can’t imagine Paul being so misleading. Also, I’m just curious, how do you deal with verses like John 17:3?

I like your analogy of “eternity.” This is definitely an unfathomable concept to a human brain, but paradoxically it is also impossible to posit God NOT being eternal (similar to our inability to view “time” as not being eternal). Additionally you say scripture explicitly makes this claim. I don’t think scripture explicitly claims that 3=1. I understand how you back into it by default, but I don’t think it is necessary to create such a paradox. There are too many verses that clearly support the traditional conception of God (The Father). I don’t feel there is enough evidence to warrant a radical redefinition of God. Even Jesus says in Luke 12:29 that the greatest commandment is “The Lord our God, the Lord is one…” I know you are also saying that God is one, but it is so unlikely that Jesus would state this without any qualifications or alterations. He’s basically perpetuating the core principle of Judaistic monotheism. Again, IF Trinitarianism is true, I don’t see any hint that Paul or Jesus thought it very important (especially for salvation. What verse were you talking about in John 2?)

Milk

 

[Zebra1552]

Please provide evidence to back up your denial.

You just quoted it.

The problem with the likes of traditional Christians is that when proof is placed before them, proof that is quite clear, if that proof does not agree with their preconceived doctrinal brainwashed ideas, they say "Oh it really doesn't mean what it says, it really means this and that instead"

The problem with this statement is that it is a hasty generalization and ignores the issue at hand- what the Bible says.

Lets try a simple straightforward quote from the lips of Jesus, and see it what happens....

I would like to point out two things here. One, you contradict your own passage- it says no one ever went into heaven except the one who left heaven, the Son of Man. Not that no one ever went into heaven, or that no one is in heaven. Two, your simple and straightforward quote is an English translation of a Greek word and was written in a different culture and a different time period. So even your 'simple and straightforward' quote is not so simple.

John 3:13 "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man"

Really quite simply... no one is in heaven...

Simple truth from scripture, which I accept... bet you can't.

Well, let us not take it out of context, eh? Since you seem so interested in following rules of biblical interpretation, let us look at the context:
John 3:3-20 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?"
Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

Now let us consider some various Old Testament passages that refer to Heaven and look at the original language of both your passage and one of the OT passages:

Job 16:19 "Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, and my advocate is on high."

If you looked on bible.crosswalk.com, here is roughly what you get:
H8064
שׁמה / שׁמים
shâmayim / shâmeh
BDB Definition:
1) heaven, heavens, sky
1a) visible heavens, sky
1a1) as abode of the stars
1a2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
1b) Heaven (as the abode of God)
Part of Speech: noun masculine

That is the Hebrew, for the Job passage. Now let us go for the John passage:
G3772
οὐρανός
ouranos
Thayer Definition:
1) the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it
1a) the universe, the world
1b) the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are produced
1c) the sidereal or starry heavens
2) the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings
Part of Speech: noun masculine

I notice a big similarity between the two words. And I only picked the OT word and verse at random, there are others that use a different word for heaven.

Now, please point out where you think I am reading into things and your claim that I am as a 'traditional Christian' that you have stereotyped, and you might have a point.

 

[Zebra1552]

Also, I’m just curious, how do you deal with verses like John 17:3?

Milk

I would like to comment on that verse, here is it in context:
Joh 17:1-4 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do."

Jesus starts off talking in the third person, then switches to first person. Is it implausible that Jesus was communicating with the Father, one of the members of the trinity then talking about himself in the third person (still)? It depends, of course, on what viewpoint you are coming from. Since you consider (or have considered, I do not know if your mind is changed or being changed) God to be an immoral being and Christianity to be at the very least illogical, then you must come to the conclusion that Jesus was either crazy or that the writer recorded this part (17:3) wrong. However, if you line it up with the rest of the verses where Jesus talks about God the Father, is it in line, or is it out of line? I will let you ponder that one.

 

[brightmorningstar]

More proof that no one is in heaven!

Not really, he was speaking to the living at the time.

 

[Gary51]

Not really, he was speaking to the living at the time. [/color][/size][/font]

LOL... Yes I know... he was telling the living that no one has seen the Father...lol

 

[Gary51]

I would like to point out two things here. One, you contradict your own passage- it says no one ever went into heaven except the one who left heaven, the Son of Man. Not that no one ever went into heaven, or that no one is in heaven. Two, your simple and straightforward quote is an English translation of a Greek word and was written in a different culture and a different time period. So even your 'simple and straightforward' quote is not so simple.
Well, let us not take it out of context, eh? Since you seem so interested in following rules of biblical interpretation, let us look at the context:
John 3:3-20 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."
Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?"
Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

Now let us consider some various Old Testament passages that refer to Heaven and look at the original language of both your passage and one of the OT passages:

Job 16:19 "Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, and my advocate is on high."

If you looked on bible.crosswalk.com, here is roughly what you get:
H8064
שׁמה / שׁמים
shâmayim / shâmeh
BDB Definition:
1) heaven, heavens, sky
1a) visible heavens, sky
1a1) as abode of the stars
1a2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
1b) Heaven (as the abode of God)
Part of Speech: noun masculine

That is the Hebrew, for the Job passage. Now let us go for the John passage:
G3772
οὐρανός
ouranos
Thayer Definition:
1) the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it
1a) the universe, the world
1b) the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are produced
1c) the sidereal or starry heavens
2) the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings
Part of Speech: noun masculine

I notice a big similarity between the two words. And I only picked the OT word and verse at random, there are others that use a different word for heaven.

Now, please point out where you think I am reading into things and your claim that I am as a 'traditional Christian' that you have stereotyped, and you might have a point.

Thanks for proving my point... no answer to a simply quote by Jesus...

Just a long winded trip around scripture to make it fit your understanding.

 

[Disippelen]

Hi Gary.

If you study the history of trinities you will discover it was a pagan belief adopted by Christianity from the pagan romans. Don't you find it strange that other cultures have trinities in their histories that predate Christianity.

There are tons of religions and ideologies in the world. If we were to say that all aspects which are found in other faiths cannot exist in Christianity, I'm afraid that we're ridding ourselves of all possible doable thoughts and notions. That said, I'm aware of trinity-like ideas in other religions (and other aspects of Christianiy found elsewhere). But perhaps you want to explain exactly how trinity itself was adopted from Pagan Roman cult into Christianity? You know of course that Christianity wasn't Roman until the Imperial take-over in the 4th century?

You were right to be suspicious of the trinity... sorry you came to the wrong conclusion.

Well, I was suspicious, which I am of everything which I don't find directly formulated in the Bible. Still, I believe that the material in the Bible is substantial enough to at least suggest a trinitarian nature of God. A verse which I didn't care to mention in my last post (among many others) is of course Matt28:19, which deals specifically with the trinity.

I'll continue my walk with Christ and my reading of the Bible, and perhaps it will lead me to other conclusions later, who knows? We know in part, said Paul...

I prefer to try and keep things brief.... I don't like long winded debate.

Well, I see. This does however mean that you're in a worse position regarding the conclusion on many serious questions. It also worsens your chance to properly explain your thoughts.

The majority of Christians that I know... and I know many... simply accept the trinity because of chruch doctrinal teaching. When quizzed about it they have little understaning.

Well, that may be the case, and I can agree with you - I know of lots of Chrisitans who simply accept what ever some preacher or church tells them. Some have on the other hand tried to understand a teaching like the trinity by carefully reading the Bible. And many of them have in fact some understanding when quizzed about it. We seem to agree when I comes to checking out things, and not simply buy everything that comes in our way.

Thanks for going to the trouble, but providing that scripture only tells me which scripture you missinterpret.

And your bried rejection of my very long post only tells me that you're not up for a serious discussion... I guess that I should stop here, so I don't waste more time...

Seeing how I did not call you a pagan, no.

You earlier said that trinity simply was a pagan idea, and then you said that I was clinging to pagan beliefs:

And that is what it is ... an idea, a pagan idea at that. [...] You are clinging to pagan beliefs...

If I'm "clinging to pagan beliefs", then am I not a pagan?

I believe it was you who accussed me of clinging to certain things...

I said that you were:

Clinging to mere speculations like Gary does at some points isn't very convincing.

It's a difference between accusing someone of "clinging to speculations at some points", and accusing some one of "clinging to pagan beliefs", don't you agree?

Although I've given some hints on it already, the speculations I was thinking of were your attempts to provide alternative understandings of how Thomas used the words "my Lord and my God" when he met Jesus in John 20. No one was convinced by your creative ways of explaining why Thomas could have said that if Jesus was not God... Still you kept on using that version - with no fair explanation.

Looks like you like putting words into other people's mouths... I have called no one a pagan...

I believe that this is covered above, but to give a further comment, I think that all of us should be careful about accusing others of "clinging to pagan beliefs". I trust that you have understood the difference between what I said when I accused you of "clinging to mere speculations at some points" (a relatively mild claim in a theological debate), and when you said that I was "clinging to pagan beliefs"...

If I believed in space aliens does it make me a space alien... It is you who is beginning to get rude.

I haven't meant to be rude, I've simply pointed out that calling others Pagans isn't very suiting in a theological debate.

Now you're beginning to rant.

This isn't ranting, it's rather me trying to encourage you to act fairly in the debate and to concentrate on the issue instead of the opposing debater.

Funny you should say that... Calm down.

I'm very calmed. Different from yourself, I've been giving you lots of material. You, on the other hand, have yet failed to give good explanations or fair evidence for your claims.

Your trust is missplaced.

Well, that may be, but since this is a debate, you ought to give proper answers nevertheless.

You're arrogance knows no bounds...

I'm simply trying to understand how you can reject so much material so easily while not giving anything yourself, and at the same time depict yourself as an expert and others as mislead and confused.

Btw, the first paragraph you commented now I believe that constitutes everything else than arrogance... I said: "Concerning mysteries, there are more of them than we're able to grasp. Facing a supreme God no one can stand with perfect knowledge. The Apostles also admitted this..."

You mean there is more...

No, there is no more. I don't think that there is much of a point to continue the debate when you have decided to reject whatever material I bring and not give proper answers back.


Best,
Disippelen

 

[Gary51]

There are tons of religions and ideologies in the world. If we were to say that all aspects which are found in other faiths cannot exist in Christianity, I'm afraid that we're ridding ourselves of all possible doable thoughts and notions. That said, I'm aware of trinity-like ideas in other religions (and other aspects of Christianiy found elsewhere). But perhaps you want to explain exactly how trinity itself was adopted from Pagan Roman cult into Christianity? You know of course that Christianity wasn't Roman until the Imperial take-over in the 4th century?

That's true is a was a process that took hundreds of years. The roman people had to be fed Christianity slowly... merging their pagan doctines with Christianity. The result is what we have today, Luther saw the error of Rome, you know the rest.

Well, I was suspicious, which I am of everything which I don't find directly formulated in the Bible. Still, I believe that the material in the Bible is substantial enough to at least suggest a trinitarian nature of God. A verse which I didn't care to mention in my last post (among many others) is of course Matt28:19, which deals specifically with the trinity.

You see Matt 28;19 as one who believes in trinities. As least you didn't deal with 1 John 57:8, I guess you know where that would have lead.

[I'll continue my walk with Christ and my reading of the Bible, and perhaps it will lead me to other conclusions later, who knows? We know in part, said Paul...

Well, I see. This does however mean that you're in a worse position regarding the conclusion on many serious questions. It also worsens your chance to properly explain your thoughts.

You're probably right.... But I don't have the patience for long winded posts.

Well, that may be the case, and I can agree with you - I know of lots of Chrisitans who simply accept what ever some preacher or church tells them. Some have on the other hand tried to understand a teaching like the trinity by carefully reading the Bible. And many of them have in fact some understanding when quizzed about it. We seem to agree when I comes to checking out things, and not simply buy everything that comes in our way.

And your bried rejection of my very long post only tells me that you're not up for a serious discussion... I guess that I should stop here, so I don't waste more time...

I'm up for serious discussion... I'm also quite good at readind between the lines... I know I'm wasting my time.

You earlier said that trinity simply was a pagan idea, and then you said that I was clinging to pagan beliefs:

And?...

If I'm "clinging to pagan beliefs", then am I not a pagan?

I thought I explained that... you know... the alien thing.

I said that you were:

And, I said you were clinging to pagan doctines... So now you know what you said, and what I said... Talk about wasting time!!!

It's a difference between accusing someone of "clinging to speculations at some points", and accusing some one of "clinging to pagan beliefs", don't you agree?

No.

Although I've given some hints on it already, the speculations I was thinking of were your attempts to provide alternative understandings of how Thomas used the words "my Lord and my God" when he met Jesus in John 20.

And...

No one was convinced by your creative ways of explaining why Thomas could have said that if Jesus was not God... Still you kept on using that version - with no fair explanation.

No one has come forward.... There may well be viewers that are convinced.

I believe that this is covered above, but to give a further comment, I think that all of us should be careful about accusing others of "clinging to pagan beliefs". I trust that you have understood the difference between what I said when I accused you of "clinging to mere speculations at some points" (a relatively mild claim in a theological debate), and when you said that I was "clinging to pagan beliefs"...

If you proclaim to believe in trinities, and I believe trinities are pagan, then I believe that you believe pagan doctines.

[qoute]I haven't meant to be rude, I've simply pointed out that calling others Pagans isn't very suiting in a theological debate.[/quote] Again, I called nobody Pagan.

This isn't ranting, it's rather me trying to encourage you to act fairly in the debate and to concentrate on the issue instead of the opposing debater.

I must just have believed you were ranting then.

I'm very calmed.

Glad to hear it.

Different from yourself,

No, I'm calm too.

I've been giving you lots of material. You, on the other hand, have yet failed to give good explanations or fair evidence for your claims.

You've given lots of material, that I believe you missinterpret.

I'm simply trying to understand how you can reject so much material so easily while not giving anything yourself, and at the same time depict yourself as an expert and others as mislead and confused.

One is right one is wrong... or both may be wrong... but both can't be right.

No, there is no more.

I don't think that there is much of a point to continue the debate when you have decided to reject whatever material I bring and not give proper answers back.

It's highly likely you would reject my proof scripture!!!

 

[Milk]

Jesus starts off talking in the third person, then switches to first person. Is it implausible that Jesus was communicating with the Father, one of the members of the trinity then talking about himself in the third person (still)?

Do you think it is implausible that Jesus means what he says when he calls the Father the "only true God"?

It depends, of course, on what viewpoint you are coming from. Since you consider (or have considered, I do not know if your mind is changed or being changed) God to be an immoral being and Christianity to be at the very least illogical

I think you’re referring to the fact that I think unnecessary violence, such as slicing open pregnant bellies is immoral and that I think the equation 3=1 is illogical. I think most rational people would agree with me here.

then you must come to the conclusion that Jesus was either crazy or that the writer recorded this part (17:3) wrong

.
I don't think that just because Jesus refers to himself in the third person it means he's crazy. I don't think it's a big deal. And, it is definitely possible that the gospel writer didn't record the words precisely as they were spoken. There is quite a bit of variance in wording when you compare the gospels horizontally.

 

[Zebra1552]

Thanks for proving my point... no answer to a simply quote by Jesus...

Just a long winded trip around scripture to make it fit your understanding.

Quit the straw men, they do not help your case any. Your point has no merit because you neglect to back it with any proof.

 

[Disippelen]

Hi Gary

My answer to your last post fell out due to technical problems here. But the essence of it was that we seem to continously misunderstand each others. Also my advice to you is that you care to devote some more time and effort to properly answer things you disagree with instead of simply rejecting it.


I'm going away from some time now, I wish you all the best until our next encounter.

God bless,
Disippelen

 

[Gary51]

Quit the straw men, they do not help your case any. Your point has no merit because you neglect to back it with any proof.

It is possible to prove a false doctine as fact, if it is accepted as fact, although false...

That is the current position in tradition Christainty...

Milk has provide more than enough evidence to prove the trinity false, yet it is not accepted....

Seen it, done it , been there!!!

 

[Gary51]

Hi Gary

My answer to your last post fell out due to technical problems here. But the essence of it was that we seem to continously misunderstand each others. Also my advice to you is that you care to devote some more time and effort to properly answer things you disagree with instead of simply rejecting it.


I'm going away from some time now, I wish you all the best until our next encounter.

God bless,
Disippelen

Sorry you lost your post due to technical problems, maybe it was meant not to be!!!

Have a nice time away, hope to see you again.

God Speed

Gary

 

[Gary51]

I think most rational people would agree with me here.

Yeap... Count me in.

 

[Zebra1552]

It is possible to prove a false doctine as fact, if it is accepted as fact, although false...

That is the current position in tradition Christainty...

Milk has provide more than enough evidence to prove the trinity false, yet it is not accepted....

Seen it, done it , been there!!!

You cannot prove that the Trinity is false. You can attempt to prove it is illogical, but not false.

 

[Zebra1552]

Do you think it is implausible that Jesus means what he says when he calls the Father the "only true God"?

As I told Gary before, you are reading an English translation of something written in a different time period and different culture. Just the language does not even support your interpretation:
G228
ἀληθινός
alēthinos
Thayer Definition:
1) that which has not only the name and resemblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name, in every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name, real, true genuine
1a) opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretended
1b) it contrasts realities with their semblances
1c) opposite to what is imperfect defective, frail, uncertain
2) true, veracious, sincere
Part of Speech: adjective

I think for one thing, your interp. contradicts other parts of the Bible, and for another it contradicts the idea of the Trinity. God, if He is God, cannot be a false, counterfeit, pretend, or fictitious God. He would have to be real to be God. The Father, because He is God, is real. The Son, because He is God, is real. Same with the Holy Spirit. Saying that the Father is the only true God is not the same as saying He alone is God. And that ignores which character was speaking- Jesus as a man, or Jesus as God, or both. There is plenty of reasonable doubt for your interpretation.

I think you’re referring to the fact that I think unnecessary violence, such as slicing open pregnant bellies is immoral and that I think the equation 3=1 is illogical. I think most rational people would agree with me here.

Your statement has a huge flaw in it. You would have to prove that it did not have a point to it; that it was unnecessary. In order to do that, you would have to know what God knows and knew at the time the acts were carried out, and you cannot possibly have that knowledge. You can speculate all you like (and so can I), but we cannot know God's reasons other than what He overtly stated throughout the Pentateuch- to purge and punish evil.

PS:
Divide a circle into three parts. Now 3=1. It is one God in three Persons, not three persons in one God. Fractions, not whole numbers.

I don't think that just because Jesus refers to himself in the third person it means he's crazy. I don't think it's a big deal.

Per your interpretation of 17:3, Jesus is not God. Jesus previously claimed to be God (10:30, ch. 8, etc.). Jesus cannot be God and not God. Simple logic. So that leaves us with two options- either He was, and there is a different interpretation of 17:3 that is right meaning yours is wrong; or he was not and Jesus was crazy enough to claim it and contradict himself.

And, it is definitely possible that the gospel writer didn't record the words precisely as they were spoken. There is quite a bit of variance in wording when you compare the gospels horizontally.

Because of the different themes, aims, and viewpoints the Gospel writers had. It is also possible that your interpretation of 17:3 is wrong.

 

[scriptures]

Nice try . . . strawman

theanthropos???? Wow!!!!