Divinity

[Imagican]

On numerous occasion while discussing the issue of 'trinity', the word divinity seems to pop up often. Those that profess to believe in 'trinity' insist upon the divinity of Jesus being a PART of the reason that HE MUST BE GOD.

I have tried over and over again to explain that divinity doesn't necessarily MEAN what many seem to THINK that it means.

I was reading last night and came upon this:

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And THAT'S IT. That is one line that completely NEGATES that idea that to be DIVINE means that one MUST be GOD. For it states it CLEAR as day: that WE CAN be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE. Now ALL that one NEED do is understand these two words and what they REALLY MEAN.

Divine means nothing other than HOLY. And nature, well, I'll go straight tot he dictionary for that one:

nature (ˈneɪtʃ&#601 — n 1. the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character 2. ( often capital, esp when personified ) the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces, and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man 3. all natural phenomena and plant and animal life, as distinct from man and his creations 4. a wild primitive state untouched by man or civilization 5. natural unspoilt scenery or countryside 6. disposition or temperament 7. tendencies, desires, or instincts governing behaviour

Dictionary.com

I believe that this is ENOUGH for us to be able to discern the lines of scripture I quoted.

Holy tendencies I believe is PERFECT. Or better yet: HOLY STATE.

We TOO can be partakers of a HOLY STATE. And that is certainly where Christ was AT. He was IN A HOLY STATE. He was DIVINE. And that DIVINE NATURE was a HOLY STATE. And WE TOO can partake of THAT HOLY STATE. We CAN join both Christ AND HIS FATHER in this Holy State. For we are ALSO told that WE TOO are to BE HOLY as God is Holy.

So the argument that Christ's divinity makes Him God is hereby VOIDED. For if that is TRUE, then WE TOO would "BE GOD".

Blessings,

MEC

 

[A New Dawn]

You are using a word to describe itself. Defining 'nature' doesn't help with understanding what divine is. It is 'divine' that you need to define, not 'nature'.

 

[ChetSinger]

Orthodox beliefs concerning Jesus don't depend on the meaning of the word 'divine'. They are the result of systematic study of New Testament verses, combined with knowledge of the existing Jewish religious beliefs.

 

[Imagican]

Orthodox beliefs concerning Jesus don't depend on the meaning of the word 'divine'. They are the result of systematic study of New Testament verses, combined with knowledge of the existing Jewish religious beliefs.

You CAN'T be serious????

Those that created the concept of Jesus AS God were about as ANTI Jewish as any community has been for THOUSANDS of years.

Those that are called 'church fathers' were Greeks and Romans. If ANYTHING, their formation of the doctrine of 'trinity' was based MORE on mysticism and mythology more than ANYTHING pertaining to the Jews.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

You are using a word to describe itself. Defining 'nature' doesn't help with understanding what divine is. It is 'divine' that you need to define, not 'nature'.

Ok, then let us 'go there'.

thefreedictionary.com

di•vine (dɪˈvaɪn)

adj. -vin•er, -vin•est, adj. 1. of, like, or from a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
2. addressed or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3. heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.
4. Informal. extremely good; unusually lovely.
5. being a god; being God.
6. of superhuman or surpassing excellence.
7. Obs. of or pertaining to divinity or theology.
n. 8. a theologian; scholar in religion.
9. a priest or cleric.
10. the Divine, a. God.
b. di•vine (dɪˈvaɪn)

adj. -vin•er, -vin•est, adj. 1. of, like, or from a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
2. addressed or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3. heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.
4. Informal. extremely good; unusually lovely.
5. being a god; being God.
6. of superhuman or surpassing excellence.
7. Obs. of or pertaining to divinity or theology.
n. 8. a theologian; scholar in religion.
9. a priest or cleric.
10. the Divine, a. God.
b. the spiritual aspect in humans regarded as godly or godlike.

v.t. 11. to discover or declare by divination; prophesy.
12. to discover (water, metal, etc.) by means of a divining rod.
13. to perceive by intuition or insight; conjecture.
14. Archaic. to portend.
v.i. 15. to use or practice divination; prophesy.
16. to have perception by intuition or insight; conjecture.


v.t. 11. to discover or declare by divination; prophesy.
12. to discover (water, metal, etc.) by means of a divining rod.
13. to perceive by intuition or insight; conjecture.
14. Archaic. to portend.
v.i. 15. to use or practice divination; prophesy.
16. to have perception by intuition or insight; conjecture.


I like 10 b.

the spiritual aspect in humans regarded as godly or godlike.

for this definition would most closely align with the scripture posted. That WE TOO can share in the DIVINE NATURE of God through Christ.But regardless, the point is that the argument used so often is render MOOT by this ONE PIECE of scripture. If WE TOO can 'partake' of the 'divine nature' then that plainly shows that what many perceive as divine or divinity has no bearing on what it TRULY MEANS.For if WE can be partakers without such participation MAKING US GOD, then that plainly shows that Christ could most certainly BE divine without such divinity MAKING HIM GOD.I started this thread for one purpose. Over and over in discussions concerning 'trinity', I have been told by those that profess to believe in it that Jesus was DIVINE and therefore He had to be GOD. Yet the scripture that I posted plainly refutes the concept. For what the scripture indicates is that ANYTHING that reflects the holiness of God IS divine.Will you and I come to the same conclusion as to the meaning of divine? Probably NOT. But you can see yourself that there are a number of different definitions and a number of them agree with what I have offered. Of, like or FROM God. And ALL that we are instructed that exists OF, LIKE or FROM God is pertains to 'divinity'or that which is "Holy".Blessings,

MEC

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm not seeing your point. We don't become divine in nature, we only partake of God's nature when we become glorified. Can you explain how us partaking in God's nature makes Christ less divine?

 

[ChetSinger]

You CAN'T be serious????

Those that created the concept of Jesus AS God were about as ANTI Jewish as any community has been for THOUSANDS of years.

Those that are called 'church fathers' were Greeks and Romans. If ANYTHING, their formation of the doctrine of 'trinity' was based MORE on mysticism and mythology more than ANYTHING pertaining to the Jews.

Blessings,

MEC

Of course I'm serious, because I know that the concept of a Godhead existed in Judaism during the 2nd temple period.

Here is some research about it:

Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism: Alan F. Segal: 9781602585492: Amazon.com: Books

I can understand that you're unaware of it. But among scholars it's well known.

Get a load of this 1st-century Jewish commentary on Deuteronomy 4:

...but the Word of the Lord sitteth upon His throne high and lifted up, and heareth our prayer what time we pray before Him and make our petitions.

Catch that? The 1st-century Jewish commentaries, called "Targums", are awash with this stuff. In them, "the Word of the Lord" is personified and repeatedly substituted in place of God. So when the Apostle John wrote "and the Word was with God and the Word was God", he was just repeating what Jews of his time were already being taught: the Word of the Lord was a manifestation of the Lord himself.

Here's Etheridge's translation of Targum Jonathan: The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch. You don't even need to be a scholar to see how the "Word of the Lord" is treated as divine. Just search for "Word of the Lord" in the text. You'll find it in there hundreds of times. Here are just a few:

And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them.

And the Word of the Lord was revealed against the city, and with Him seventy angels

Confess ye, and believe in the Name of the Word of the Lord, the everlasting God.

And the Word of the Lord remebered Rahel in His good compassions,and the Word of the Lord heard the voice of her prayer, and He said in His Word that He would give her children.

As revealed by Dr. Segal, those Jewish beliefs were declared heretical by the rabbis in the 2nd century AD. I'm sure it's no coincidence that it was done after the first Christians, who were Jews, took that belief and applied it to Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Ripheus27]

If Zeus had a son by another god(dess), both Zeus and his son would be divine, and they'd be separate gods. However, that's polytheism, no?

 

[Imagican]

I'm not seeing your point. We don't become divine in nature, we only partake of God's nature when we become glorified. Can you explain how us partaking in God's nature makes Christ less divine?

Really? or are you just SAYING that?

I thought that I had offered MY POINT twice. In my first statement and then in my specific response to yours.

Instead of repeating myself, I'll simply post what I have already offered:


"On numerous occasion while discussing the issue of 'trinity', the word divinity seems to pop up often. Those that profess to believe in 'trinity' insist upon the divinity of Jesus being a PART of the reason that HE MUST BE GOD.

I was reading last night and came upon this:

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And THAT'S IT. That is one line that completely NEGATES that idea that to be DIVINE means that one MUST be GOD. For it states it CLEAR as day: that WE CAN be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE. Now ALL that one NEED do is understand these two words and what they REALLY MEAN".

I never ONCE said that us being able to partake of the divine nature makes Christ any less divine. What I stated is that the divinity of Christ does NOT mean that Christ is GOD any more than WE would be God by partaking of that VERY divine nature.

Mariam Webster offers:

par·take
verb \pär-ˈtāk, pər-\
par·tookpar·tak·enpar·tak·ing
Definition of PARTAKE
intransitive verb
1
: to take part in or experience something along with others <partake in the revelry> <partake of the good life>
2
: to have a portion (as of food or drink)
3
: to possess or share a certain nature or attribute <the experience partakes of a mystical quality>

I like number 3. to POSSESS or SHARE..........................

So that means that WE TOO can SHARE the SAME divine nature AS Christ, WITH Christ and His Father.

This takes NOTHING 'away' from Christ from MY perspective. It simply negates that concept that Christ's divinity MAKES Him God.

or

If it DOES, then obviously it would make those that SHARE IT Gods as well.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Of course I'm serious, because I know that the concept of a Godhead existed in Judaism during the 2nd temple period.

Here is some research about it:

Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism: Alan F. Segal: 9781602585492: Amazon.com: Books

I can understand that you're unaware of it. But among scholars it's well known.

Get a load of this 1st-century Jewish commentary on Deuteronomy 4:



Catch that? The 1st-century Jewish commentaries, called "Targums", are awash with this stuff. In them, "the Word of the Lord" is personified and repeatedly substituted in place of God. So when the Apostle John wrote "and the Word was with God and the Word was God", he was just repeating what Jews of his time were already being taught: the Word of the Lord was a manifestation of the Lord himself.

Here's Etheridge's translation of Targum Jonathan: The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch. You don't even need to be a scholar to see how the "Word of the Lord" is treated as divine. Just search for "Word of the Lord" in the text. You'll find it in there hundreds of times. Here are just a few:



As revealed by Dr. Segal, those Jewish beliefs were declared heretical by the rabbis in the 2nd century AD. I'm sure it's no coincidence that it was done after the first Christians, who were Jews, took that belief and applied it to Jesus of Nazareth.

This is about the forth time you have tried to feed me this stuff. I went to the preface of the book you posted the first time and thought that I would just 'let it slide'. But since you are SO insistent, let me ask: Have you EVER even READ the preface? Here, let me post it so that we can end this ridiculous idea:

In his now classic Two Powers in Heaven, Alan Segal examines rabbinic evidence about early manifestations of the "two powers" heresy within Judaism. Segal sheds light upon the development of and relationships among early Christianity, Gnosticism, and Merkabah mysticism and demonstrates that belief in the "two powers in heaven" was widespread by the first century, and may have been a catalyst for the Jewish rejection of early Christianity. An important addition to New Testament and Gnostic scholarship by this much revered scholar, Segal's Two Powers in Heaven is made available once again for a new generation.

You will note that I placed one line in bold, another in red. The FIRST line STATES that: by the FIRST CENTURY. That means that within about 70 years or so AFTER the death of Christ, the concept of TWO powers in heaven was widespread. But the crucial piece of evidence is in the RED:

the concept of two powers in heaven that was widespread by the first century MAY HAVE BEEN a catalyst for the Jewish REJECTION of early Christianity.

Now, I HOPE that if you read this as I have offered I don't have to offer any DEEPER understanding.

You continually speak of TWO divine powers being a part of the JEWISH faith and I tried to explain to you in previous threads that this is simply NOT SO.

The evidence that you CONTINUALLY POST explains the exact OPPOSITE of what you have somehow come to BELIEVE it states. It does NOT state that those of the Jewish faith believed in TWO different powers in heaven. It STATES that this IDEA was one of the MAIN reasons that the Jews REJECTED Christianity.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Der Alte]

Really? or are you just SAYING that?

I thought that I had offered MY POINT twice. In my first statement and then in my specific response to yours.

Instead of repeating myself, I'll simply post what I have already offered:


"On numerous occasion while discussing the issue of 'trinity', the word divinity seems to pop up often. Those that profess to believe in 'trinity' insist upon the divinity of Jesus being a PART of the reason that HE MUST BE GOD.

I was reading last night and came upon this:

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And THAT'S IT. That is one line that completely NEGATES that idea that to be DIVINE means that one MUST be GOD. For it states it CLEAR as day: that WE CAN be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE. Now ALL that one NEED do is understand these two words and what they REALLY MEAN".

I never ONCE said that us being able to partake of the divine nature makes Christ any less divine. What I stated is that the divinity of Christ does NOT mean that Christ is GOD any more than WE would be God by partaking of that VERY divine nature.

Mariam Webster offers:

par·take
verb \pär-&#712;t&#257;k, p&#601;r-\
par·tookpar·tak·enpar·tak·ing
Definition of PARTAKE
intransitive verb
1
: to take part in or experience something along with others <partake in the revelry> <partake of the good life>
2
: to have a portion (as of food or drink)
3
: to possess or share a certain nature or attribute <the experience partakes of a mystical quality>

I like number 3. to POSSESS or SHARE..........................

So that means that WE TOO can SHARE the SAME divine nature AS Christ, WITH Christ and His Father.

This takes NOTHING 'away' from Christ from MY perspective. It simply negates that concept that Christ's divinity MAKES Him God.

or

If it DOES, then obviously it would make those that SHARE IT Gods as well.

You have disproved rather than proved your argument. Partaking of a coke does not make me coke! Partaking of the divine nature does not make me divine.

 

[Imagican]

You have disproved rather than proved your argument. Partaking of a coke does not make me coke! Partaking of the divine nature does not make me divine.

I'm confused. Do you understand the meaning of 'partake'? I offered the definition. To partake is to SHARE. Something shared DOES become a PART OF US.

If you and I SHARE that 'coke' then that coke DOES belong to BOTH OF US.
Once I drink MY SHARE that share becomes a PART of ME.

So how do YOU come to the conclusion that we can partake of the divine nature but that does NOT make US divine? Please, instead of simply making a statement, offer us some EVIDENCE as to the REASON behind your statement.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[A New Dawn]

Really? or are you just SAYING that?

I thought that I had offered MY POINT twice. In my first statement and then in my specific response to yours.

Instead of repeating myself, I'll simply post what I have already offered:


"On numerous occasion while discussing the issue of 'trinity', the word divinity seems to pop up often. Those that profess to believe in 'trinity' insist upon the divinity of Jesus being a PART of the reason that HE MUST BE GOD.

I was reading last night and came upon this:

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And THAT'S IT. That is one line that completely NEGATES that idea that to be DIVINE means that one MUST be GOD. For it states it CLEAR as day: that WE CAN be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE. Now ALL that one NEED do is understand these two words and what they REALLY MEAN".

I never ONCE said that us being able to partake of the divine nature makes Christ any less divine. What I stated is that the divinity of Christ does NOT mean that Christ is GOD any more than WE would be God by partaking of that VERY divine nature.

Mariam Webster offers:

par·take
verb \pär-&#712;t&#257;k, p&#601;r-\
par·tookpar·tak·enpar·tak·ing
Definition of PARTAKE
intransitive verb
1
: to take part in or experience something along with others <partake in the revelry> <partake of the good life>
2
: to have a portion (as of food or drink)
3
: to possess or share a certain nature or attribute <the experience partakes of a mystical quality>

I like number 3. to POSSESS or SHARE..........................

So that means that WE TOO can SHARE the SAME divine nature AS Christ, WITH Christ and His Father.

This takes NOTHING 'away' from Christ from MY perspective. It simply negates that concept that Christ's divinity MAKES Him God.

or

If it DOES, then obviously it would make those that SHARE IT Gods as well.

Blessings,

MEC

Just repeating yourself doesn't make anything clearer.

You say that "I never ONCE said that us being able to partake of the divine nature makes Christ any less divine", but that is the implication. That the word divine doesn't mean God because we can participate in Christ's divine nature. What I was trying to get across is that you don't seem to understand the difference between being divine and participating in someone else's divine nature.

 

[ChetSinger]

This is about the forth time you have tried to feed me this stuff.

Yes, and I'm glad you're addressing it.

I went to the preface of the book you posted the first time and thought that I would just 'let it slide'. But since you are SO insistent, let me ask: Have you EVER even READ the preface? Here, let me post it so that we can end this ridiculous idea:

In his now classic Two Powers in Heaven, Alan Segal examines rabbinic evidence about early manifestations of the "two powers" heresy within Judaism. Segal sheds light upon the development of and relationships among early Christianity, Gnosticism, and Merkabah mysticism and demonstrates that belief in the "two powers in heaven" was widespread by the first century, and may have been a catalyst for the Jewish rejection of early Christianity. An important addition to New Testament and Gnostic scholarship by this much revered scholar, Segal's Two Powers in Heaven is made available once again for a new generation.

You will note that I placed one line in bold, another in red. The FIRST line STATES that: by the FIRST CENTURY. That means that within about 70 years or so AFTER the death of Christ, the concept of TWO powers in heaven was widespread....

You know that the first century began in the year 0, not the year 100, right? It's an understandable mistake. "By the first century" means by the time of the birth of Christ. In other words, the "Two Powers" belief is pre-Christian. Jesus and the apostles grew up surrounded by it.

But the crucial piece of evidence is in the RED:

the concept of two powers in heaven that was widespread by the first century MAY HAVE BEEN a catalyst for the Jewish REJECTION of early Christianity.

Yes. The first Christians applied the existing "Two Powers" concept to Jesus of Nazareth, which Dr. Segal speculates contributed to the rejection of early Christianity by Jews. And I agree with him. After all, how could a man from Nazareth be the Word of the Lord?

Now, I HOPE that if you read this as I have offered I don't have to offer any DEEPER understanding.

You continually speak of TWO divine powers being a part of the JEWISH faith and I tried to explain to you in previous threads that this is simply NOT SO.

Dr. Segal's book, and the divinity of the Word of the Lord in first-century Jewish commentary, say otherwise. Study the Targums yourself. The divinity of the Word of the Lord is right there in black and white, hundreds of times.

The evidence that you CONTINUALLY POST explains the exact OPPOSITE of what you have somehow come to BELIEVE it states. It does NOT state that those of the Jewish faith believed in TWO different powers in heaven. It STATES that this IDEA was one of the MAIN reasons that the Jews REJECTED Christianity.

If you confuse the centuries as you did you could conclude that the "Two Powers" belief was post-Christian. But once you get the centuries straightened out, it's clear that it was pre-Christian.

 

[RevelationTestament]

On numerous occasion while discussing the issue of 'trinity', the word divinity seems to pop up often. Those that profess to believe in 'trinity' insist upon the divinity of Jesus being a PART of the reason that HE MUST BE GOD.

I have tried over and over again to explain that divinity doesn't necessarily MEAN what many seem to THINK that it means.

I was reading last night and came upon this:

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And THAT'S IT. That is one line that completely NEGATES that idea that to be DIVINE means that one MUST be GOD. For it states it CLEAR as day: that WE CAN be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE. Now ALL that one NEED do is understand these two words and what they REALLY MEAN.

Divine means nothing other than HOLY. And nature, well, I'll go straight tot he dictionary for that one:

nature (&#712;ne&#618;t&#643;&#601 — n 1. the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character 2. ( often capital, esp when personified ) the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces, and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man 3. all natural phenomena and plant and animal life, as distinct from man and his creations 4. a wild primitive state untouched by man or civilization 5. natural unspoilt scenery or countryside 6. disposition or temperament 7. tendencies, desires, or instincts governing behaviour

Dictionary.com

I believe that this is ENOUGH for us to be able to discern the lines of scripture I quoted.

Holy tendencies I believe is PERFECT. Or better yet: HOLY STATE.

We TOO can be partakers of a HOLY STATE. And that is certainly where Christ was AT. He was IN A HOLY STATE. He was DIVINE. And that DIVINE NATURE was a HOLY STATE. And WE TOO can partake of THAT HOLY STATE. We CAN join both Christ AND HIS FATHER in this Holy State. For we are ALSO told that WE TOO are to BE HOLY as God is Holy.

So the argument that Christ's divinity makes Him God is hereby VOIDED. For if that is TRUE, then WE TOO would "BE GOD".

Blessings,

MEC

I personally don't like using the word divine - not because Jesus is not God, because He is JHWH Elohim with the Father, but because it is of Greek background, and is somewhat amorphous. Jesus is definitely holy or "set apart."

We TOO can be partakers of a HOLY STATE. And that is certainly where Christ was AT. He was IN A HOLY STATE. He was DIVINE. And that DIVINE NATURE was a HOLY STATE. And WE TOO can partake of THAT HOLY STATE. We CAN join both Christ AND HIS FATHER in this Holy State. For we are ALSO told that WE TOO are to BE HOLY as God is Holy.

Yep exactly. John 17. Then you dismiss the significance of this in the last paragraph.

 

[Imagican]

Just repeating yourself doesn't make anything clearer.

You say that "I never ONCE said that us being able to partake of the divine nature makes Christ any less divine", but that is the implication. That the word divine doesn't mean God because we can participate in Christ's divine nature. What I was trying to get across is that you don't seem to understand the difference between being divine and participating in someone else's divine nature.

I UNDERSTAND what the word 'partake' means. It means to SHARE, to become a PART of. But MOST important is: TO SHARE.

Now I ask you, if I were to say, "they were sharing the spotlight", what would that mean to you? Or how about this: 'they were sharing the responsibility'? I don't believe that 'participate' fully defines the manner in which 'partake' is used in the scripture offered. I believe that the way it is worded PLAINLY POINTS to 'sharing', not merely a matter of participation.

And Christ is not merely 'someone else', He is the Son of God. The Son of God sent to bring us IN TOUCH with God Himself.

I guess what this boils down to is this: Can WE TOO share the DIVINE nature of God through Christ?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[ChristianLife08]

On numerous occasion while discussing the issue of 'trinity', the word divinity seems to pop up often. Those that profess to believe in 'trinity' insist upon the divinity of Jesus being a PART of the reason that HE MUST BE GOD.

I have tried over and over again to explain that divinity doesn't necessarily MEAN what many seem to THINK that it means.

I was reading last night and came upon this:

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And THAT'S IT. That is one line that completely NEGATES that idea that to be DIVINE means that one MUST be GOD. For it states it CLEAR as day: that WE CAN be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE. Now ALL that one NEED do is understand these two words and what they REALLY MEAN.

Divine means nothing other than HOLY. And nature, well, I'll go straight tot he dictionary for that one:

nature (&#712;ne&#618;t&#643;&#601 — n 1. the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character 2. ( often capital, esp when personified ) the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces, and events of all physical life that are not controlled by man 3. all natural phenomena and plant and animal life, as distinct from man and his creations 4. a wild primitive state untouched by man or civilization 5. natural unspoilt scenery or countryside 6. disposition or temperament 7. tendencies, desires, or instincts governing behaviour

Dictionary.com

I believe that this is ENOUGH for us to be able to discern the lines of scripture I quoted.

Holy tendencies I believe is PERFECT. Or better yet: HOLY STATE.

We TOO can be partakers of a HOLY STATE. And that is certainly where Christ was AT. He was IN A HOLY STATE. He was DIVINE. And that DIVINE NATURE was a HOLY STATE. And WE TOO can partake of THAT HOLY STATE. We CAN join both Christ AND HIS FATHER in this Holy State. For we are ALSO told that WE TOO are to BE HOLY as God is Holy.

So the argument that Christ's divinity makes Him God is hereby VOIDED. For if that is TRUE, then WE TOO would "BE GOD".

Blessings,

MEC

O my friend, being PARTAKERS of His divine nature is tremendously different to being divine Himself. (John 1) Moreover, i encourage you to read Isaiah where God says that He WILL NOT share His glory with another. YET, YET, Christ in John 17:5 explicitly says and prays to the Father, RESTORE MY GLORY WHICH I SHARED WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD EXISTED. Sadly, with such a sovereign and awesome truth as the triune Godhead. Cherry picking one verse or maybe to and stating a shut case is being dishonest when you've encountered multiple verses that I and others here have shared with you. Lord willing, He will soften your heart and guide you.

 

[yogosans14]

You CAN'T be serious????

Those that created the concept of Jesus AS God were about as ANTI Jewish as any community has been for THOUSANDS of years.

Those that are called 'church fathers' were Greeks and Romans. If ANYTHING, their formation of the doctrine of 'trinity' was based MORE on mysticism and mythology more than ANYTHING pertaining to the Jews.

Blessings,

MEC

The Jews killed and rejected Christ, typical of a non trinitarian to attack Trinity believers for something that you cant comprehend. *sigh* you are all the same.

 

[Imagican]

O my friend, being PARTAKERS of His divine nature is tremendously different to being divine Himself. (John 1) Moreover, i encourage you to read Isaiah where God says that He WILL NOT share His glory with another. YET, YET, Christ in John 17:5 explicitly says and prays to the Father, RESTORE MY GLORY WHICH I SHARED WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD EXISTED. Sadly, with such a sovereign and awesome truth as the triune Godhead. Cherry picking one verse or maybe to and stating a shut case is being dishonest when you've encountered multiple verses that I and others here have shared with you. Lord willing, He will soften your heart and guide you.

Not what I have attempted to DO at all. I used one scripture to debunk the concept that 'divinity' EQUALS 'God'. I could quote DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of lines of scripture that contradict 'trinity'.

I think that you have seriously over stepped any semblance of credibility by stating that I have in ANY WAY been 'dishonest' in what I have offered. I have no desire to BE dishonest and believe without ANY DOUBT that the message that I have offered is AS HONEST as I am able to offer. I did NOT offer what I have offered with the INTENT to be dishonest.

For you SEE, I search the scriptures diligently in order to come to proper discernment. And the concept that the 'deity of Christ' equals GOD just doesn't add up according to scripture.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

The Jews killed and rejected Christ, typical of a non trinitarian to attack Trinity believers for something that you cant comprehend. *sigh* you are all the same.

I take it that you are a Catholic?

For the Bible PLAINLY states that it was Pilate that ORDERED the death of Christ and Roman soldiers that nailed Him to the cross.

So how do YOU come to the conclusion that it was the Jews that KILLED CHRIST?

For from that perspective, I could call the police and tell them that you murdered someone. They arrest you, try you, find you guilty and sentence you to death. And then YOU say that it was ME that put you to death????? That's absurd.

Pilate ORDERED Christ to be killed. Roman soldiers nailed Him to the cross. So how do YOU figure that Christ was put to death by the Jews?

And a small tid bit of information for those that don't KNOW any better. The Jewish form of the death penalty was 'STONING'. Crucifixion was a purely ROMAN invention and method used to kill people.

And how devoid of understanding is such a statement as THIS:

"typical of a non trinitarian to attack Trinity believers for something that you cant comprehend."

Do YOU even KNOW what 'trinity' IS? For to make such a statement is indicative of someone that knows NOTHING ABOUT IT.

For those that INVENTED and introduced 'trinity' into Christianity OPENLY admit that the concept is INCOMPREHENSIBLE to ANY 'created intellect'. So that means that it is JUST as incomprehensible to YOU as it is to ME.

New Advent offers:

The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our Lord's words, Matthew 11:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is affirmed. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae — "Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with the Eunomians, who declared that the Divine Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the human mind, led many of the Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, more especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil, Against Eunomius I.14; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures VI; St. John Damascene, Of the Orthodox Faith I.2, etc.).

So it would seem that it is YOUR understanding that is corrupt. For it would seem that you don't even UNDERSTAND the very doctrine that you profess to believe in and attempt to defend.

I would offer that 'you trinitarians' are ALL alike but that simply wouldn't be the truth. For there are SOME that understand what it is that they profess to believe in and follow. And in that respect, you are certainly not 'like them'.

Blessings,

MEC