Jesus and the Trinity

[gort]

It is a contradiction to say one being in three beings according to a prominant trinitarian scholar, James White. In this document below of his he proves that trinity teaches 3 beings are in one being which he states is a contradiction.

Ok. I'll go down this road for a couple posts, but no further. A couple points though, first.

1. I don't have to take James White as an authority figure, any more than you will take me as one, or I you.

2. Neither do I have to take authority figures from those who make commentaries.

3. The reason why? Because we all get up in the morning and put our pants on one leg at a time, and aint none of us perfect, and knows it all.

James White:
We must first remember that very few have a good idea of what the Trinity is in the first place - hence, accuracy in definition will be very important. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day.

Here he is either attempting to show that a person isn't a being. or a being isn't a person. a task he fails in for we all know a person is a being.

Yes, he fails.

We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.
The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels.

A rock has a being, an existence, physical, and no personality.

Just like a doorknob, yet some people exhibit the personality of a doorknob. Or someone can be dumb as a rock. or dumber.

But for a rock, it has no personality.

Cats dogs and human exhibit personalities. Humans can exhibit a trait of an animal. The bible is full of these comparisons.

Ok he says there are two types of beings persons and non person beings
person beings are god, man , and angels.

Ok. But they don't exhibit the same traits between them.

non person beings are rocks dogs and cat. So he just here proved that trinity is a contradiction by stating that a person is a certain type of being where as god is a being like a rock or a dog or a cat. then he contradicts that by saying god is a personal being or a person. so again in his contradiction he proves that 3 persons are in one person which he states is a contradiction.

Yes, he's confused.

If your top scholars are so confused that they prove trinity is a contradiction, unbeknownst to them, then what hope does the average Joe have in understanding trinity? none James white just proved it is a contradiction. and contradictions cannot be understood.

James White may have a very good biblical knowledge and understanding, but may not know Jack about "articulating his understanding in a easy, comprhensible manner" to others. Some have a gift for it, and some don't, and others are halfway there. Perhaps he really don't have an understanding of it, but decided to plow ahead anyways. For myself, if I don't have a good comprehension of something biblical, I would consider it foolish to bluff my way thru it.

Previous to this statement below from JW, he has said 1 being being 3 beings, which makes no sense to me. Poor Articulation? yes

What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

Cats and dogs do have personalities of their own, after their own kind. To impinge a "work for the common good for all cat kind" is ludicrous to expound upon.

This statement by JW below, I can understand, except I would leave the word "being" out of the equation.

Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's

more proof from james white that trinity is a contradiction. I think he was so confused he didn't know what he was saying. here he is saying god is like a rock being (one what) and the persons of god are (3 whos) are personal beings. so he has just proved that trinity teaches what he flat out stated is a contadiction and therefore wrong. Imagine comparing god to a being like a rock. one what= a rock like being, 3 who's = personal beings. Gives a whole new meaning to the song "He is my rock, and my salvation".

I would agree. But we'll save the "Rocks crying out, and creation groaning" for another time, another channel.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Nice twist of what I was saying, which originally had nothing to do with Neb, and king of kings. It was you who made the original paralell, however showing correctly that the 2 could not be compatible.

My references pertained to Christ Jesus, being the PERFECT image of God in all ways. So, if Jesus is the PERFECT image of God in all ways personified.....He is far from "far from it" as you point out.

Moses, Noah, Joseph and many others are known as types of Christ, but are not the real thing.

<><

Well, Adam was the perfect, sinless image of God before he sinned. Why don't you say Adam was God before he sinned?

In all honestly, I must conclude you're twisting Scripture.

best wishes,

 

[2ducklow]

Ok. I'll go down this road for a couple posts, but no further. A couple points though, first.

1. I don't have to take James White as an authority figure, any more than you will take me as one, or I you.

2. Neither do I have to take authority figures from those who make commentaries.

3. The reason why? Because we all get up in the morning and put our pants on one leg at a time, and aint none of us perfect, and knows it all.





Yes, he fails.





A rock has a being, an existence, physical, and no personality.

Just like a doorknob, yet some people exhibit the personality of a doorknob. Or someone can be dumb as a rock. or dumber.

Yea they made a movie about that a while back, James carney and that other guy

But for a rock, it has no personality.

Cats dogs and human exhibit personalities. Humans can exhibit a trait of an animal. The bible is full of these comparisons.



Ok. But they don't exhibit the same traits between them.



Yes, he's confused.




James White may have a very good biblical knowledge and understanding, but may not know Jack about "articulating his understanding in a easy, comprhensible manner" to others.

I disagree. the reason he obfuscated was because if he stated it clearly then he would prove that trinity teaches 3 beings are one being. so he stated it very obscurely and really so obsurely he didn't realize what he was saying. there is no way to prove that 3 persons in one being does not mean 3 beings are in one being because simply stated a person is a being. his major falacy was stating at the outset that that is a contradiction. he should have said something like "you can't understand god" or 'our minds cant understand an infinite god, therefore contradictions aren;t contradictions." something nonsensical like that would have got him out of the fix. but he sunk his ship at the ouset by admidting the obivous 3 beings are in one being is a contradiciton and therefore untrue.

Some have a gift for it, and some don't, and others are halfway there. Perhaps he really don't have an understanding of it, but decided to plow ahead anyways. For myself, if I don't have a good comprehension of something biblical, I would consider it foolish to bluff my way thru it.

Previous to this statement below from JW, he has said 1 being being 3 beings, which makes no sense to me. Poor Articulation? yes

there is no way to articulate it more clearly. when articulated clearly it is obviously a contradiction. a person is a being. so 3 persons(beings) are in one being is a contradiction. no matter how you state it it still is a contradiciton and according to james wright untrue. no matter how hard anyone tries a contradiction cannot be explained no matter how articulate anyone is.

Cats and dogs do have personalities of their own, after their own kind. To impinge a "work for the common good for all cat kind" is ludicrous to expound upon.

This statement by JW below, I can understand, except I would leave the word "being" out of the equation.





I would agree. But we'll save the "Rocks crying out, and creation groaning" for another time, another channel.

Surprising candor on your part. But I think the main point is James white proved trinity teaches that 3 beings are one being which he rightly states is a contradiction and therefore wrong. Everybody knows a person is a being. so saying 3 persons are in one being is the same as saying 3 beings are in one being, which James white rightly says is a contradiction. it is really amazing to me that an educated scholar who spent years in college could come up with such illogic as this by James white. he contradicts himself has no clear train of thought he just kinda rambles along.
rocks don't cry out just a figure of speech. same with creation. allthough parts of creation, i.e. us do groan at times, or possibly it could mean the new creation is groaning for the revelation of the son of god. i think that is the meaning we are groaning to have the son reveiled in us. in all his fullness that is.

 

[2ducklow]

Hello,

Man is finite, yet God is infinite.

Along the lines of logic and the ability to count with a finite mind, perhaps someone here can also tell us exactly how it is that Jesus made a boys lunch feed 5000 people, and there was also some left over?

If somebody can do this, and show me logically how it was done, I could give up my trinitarian beliefs because somebody with a finite mind can give me a 'logical' underestanding of an infinite God......

hoorah, prepare to give up your trinitarian beliefs. option one, god created new fish as each fish was taken out of the basket. god has the power to create.
option 2. god transported fish , cooked them on the way to the basket, much as he tranported phillip. God with his all power transported the fish almost instantaneously as they were being taken out of the basket.

Or take a good shot at:

1. How to make the blind see?
2. How to heal the lame?
3. How to walk on water?
4. How to create something from nothing?
5. etc., etc., etc......

1. god restored the damaged retina of the blindf person with his power.
2. god restored the damaged leg with his creative power. god made the leg, he knows how to fix it . much as a mechanic knows how to fix a car cause he knows how they work.
3. god suspended the force of gravity or held Jesus up with his power.
4. god has all power so he can do that nothing illogical about saying god can create out of nothing. true we don't understand how he does it but it isn't illogical.
3 etc. etc. etc.
4. not understanding how something works is different than offering an explanation that is a contradiciton. I don't understand how an air conditioner works but I know the explanation of how it works makes sense and is logical, I know without any investiagation that an air conditiioner doesn't work becaue 3 eskimos are inside it blowing out one vent, cause that is nonsensical illoigcal and absurd.

 

[nb_christseeker]

(2Co 4:2) We don't do shameful things that must be kept secret. And we don't try to fool anyone or twist God's message around. God is our witness that we speak only the truth, so others will be sure that we can be trusted.

(*** 3:11) You know that their minds are twisted, and their own sins show how guilty they are.

(2Pe 3:16) Paul talks about these same things in all his letters, but part of what he says is hard to understand. Some ignorant and unsteady people even destroy themselves by twisting what he said. They do the same thing with other Scriptures too.

Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

'Firstborn' is reference to pre-eminence and not the first crayon out of the box. Logically, the firstborn (first crayon out of the box) could not have created the first crayon out of the box, eh?

Unfortunately "pre-eminence" does not locate Christ outside the sub-set of things created. Col. 1:15 is quite clear in this regard, "Christ is the firstborn of creation". John 1:10 says "through" Christ all things were created.

Now if it was Christ by himself , on his own, without the Father who created the Universe, then you would have a solid case that by Christ the Universe was created. As is, the Father created everything in Genesis 1:1 and said, "Let there be light", and Christ as God's Word , the agent through whome this process took place, as John 1:1-18 stipulates. Read it, it's very straightforlward.

Likewise with Jacob and Esau. Esau was first, but Jacob had the pre-eminence.

Christ was both literally first and pre-eminently first. Still doesn't locate him outside the sub-set of things created. Your example actually helps to illustrate this, and condemns you. Though Jacob is "pre-eminent" and not literally first, he is not qualitatively different from Esau. Both are located within the sub-set of sons , both are creations, even though you draw a distinction between them a la "pre-eminent" and "first". Infact both are twins. If you can show Jacob to be substantially different from Esau because he is "pre-eminent" then I will admit Jesus is substantially different from the rest of creation because he is first born. Failing that, your thesis must be rejected as illogical.

Begotten means brought forth. Begotten can also mean born, born of.

Yet the Word has always existed eternally.

"Eternally Begotten" is another one of those nonsensical, unscriptural terms trinitarians have developed in an unsuccessful attempt to "refute" Col. 1:15. It basically means "forever-born", or "forever brought forth", but it is a senseless notion. Something that is "begotten" or "born" had to have had a beginning at some point in eternity past. Nothing can be "begotten" yet be eternal. The bible says Issac, son of Abraham was "monogenes" just like Christ. Why trinitarians say Christ is "eternally begotten" because he is "momogenes", but Issac isn't "eternally begotten" even though he too is "monogenes"?

Jesus is wisdom personified. The wisdom of God.

Ecc. does'nt seem to show wisdom personified.

You're missing the point, perhaps on purpose. Scripture says wisdom was created. So Christ, wisdom personified, must also have been created.

Dry ice, as far as I know is the only substance that is in 3 states at the same time. solid, liquid, and vapor.

Could you please show me a scientific link which says dry ice is "3 states at the same time, solid, liquid and vapour."! Also could you show me which scientific journal or link says the solid, liquid and vapour components of dry ice are made up of the same essential elements yet are distinct. This is a must read!



best wishes,

 

[2ducklow]

Now if it was Christ by himself , on his own, without the Father who created the Universe, then you would have a solid case that by Christ the Universe was created. As is, the Father created everything in Genesis 1:1 and said, "Let there be light", and Christ as God's Word , the agent through whome this process took place, as John 1:1-18 stipulates. Read it, it's very straightforlward.

I take it you believe in a pre-existant christ? Isn't the concept of 'pre-existance' just as nonsensical as anything in trinty? One can't exist before they exist. Since the bible says all things were created 'in' him, wouldn't that have to mean it was meant in some figurative way because obviously the universe wasn't created in Jesus belly? If figurative then why not say that everything was created with Christ in mind? that would qualify as everything being created in him. would it not?

Colossians 1:16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;ASV

Col 1:16 ejnaujtw'/ejktivsqh ta; pavnta ejn toi'ß oujranoi'ß kai; ejpi; th'ß gh'ß, ta; oJrata; kai; ta; ajovrata, ei~te qrovnoi ei~te kuriovthteß ei~te ajrcai; ei~te ejxousivai: ta; pavnta dij aujtou' kai; eijß aujto;n e~ktistai,


&#949;&#957; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#969; in him the greek word is en which primarily means in does it not? not by.

 

[gort]

Hi daneel,



Well, Adam was the perfect, sinless image of God before he sinned. Why don't you say Adam was God before he sinned?

In all honestly, I must conclude you're twisting Scripture.

best wishes,

Ok, show me where Adam was the perfect image of God in all ways, and then you might have something.


You'll find that I'm comparing the attributes and nature that are found in both the Word, and God.

You're playing the game of "Well, my dog is spelled god backwards, so my dog must be like god".

Frankly, you're putting forth an Arguement from Personal Incredulity with some pretty lame comparisons.

<><

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 2ducklow,

I take it you believe in a pre-existant christ? Isn't the concept of 'pre-existance' just as nonsensical as anything in trinty? One can't exist before they exist. Since the bible says all things were created 'in' him, wouldn't that have to mean it was meant in some figurative way because obviously the universe wasn't created in Jesus belly? If figurative then why not say that everything was created with Christ in mind? that would qualify as everything being created in him. would it not?

Colossians 1:16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;ASV

Col 1:16 ejnaujtw'/ejktivsqh ta; pavnta ejn toi'ß oujranoi'ß kai; ejpi; th'ß gh'ß, ta; oJrata; kai; ta; ajovrata, ei~te qrovnoi ei~te kuriovthteß ei~te ajrcai; ei~te ejxousivai: ta; pavnta dij aujtou' kai; eijß aujto;n e~ktistai,


&#949;&#957; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#969; in him the greek word is en which primarily means in does it not? not by.

The pre-existence of Messiah is a Jewish concept. According to the Jews, seven things were created before the foundation of the world, two of them being Torah and Messiah. In the Hebraic conception ,Messiah pre-existed in the mind of God, and not literally. Below is a quote from Everyman's Talmud -- The Major Teachings of Rabbinic Sages, by Abraham Cohen. The following quote is on pg. 347 and is taken from the section which discusses the Messiah in the chapter on the Hereafter:

The belief was general that the sending of the Messiah was part of the Creator's plan at the inception of the Universe. "Seven things were created before the world was created: Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden (i.e.Paradise), Gehinnom, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah" (Pes. 54a). In a later work there is the observation: "From the beginning of the creation of the world king Messiah was born, for he entered the mind (of God) before even the world was created" (Pesikta Rab. 152b)

So, here we see how the "pre-existence" of Messiah (Christ) was understood by the Hebrews. That's why Jesus was able to say, "Before Abraham was I am."

I will get into more detail if needed. The above is just a quick summary. Vaste literature exists as to the pre-existence of Messiah from the Jewish perspective.

Do you disagree?

best wishes,

 

[gort]

2ducklow quotes:

I disagree. the reason he obfuscated was because if he stated it clearly then he would prove that trinity teaches 3 beings are one being. so he stated it very obscurely and really so obsurely he didn't realize what he was saying. there is no way to prove that 3 persons in one being does not mean 3 beings are in one being because simply stated a person is a being. his major falacy was stating at the outset that that is a contradiction. he should have said something like "you can't understand god" or 'our minds cant understand an infinite god, therefore contradictions aren;t contradictions." something nonsensical like that would have got him out of the fix. but he sunk his ship at the ouset by admidting the obivous 3 beings are in one being is a contradiciton and therefore untrue.

His analogy of 3 beings being 1 being is the reason he lacks articulation. It's confusing to me. The term: One God in 3 persons would be the correct term.

Yes, he sunk his ship, and had I bought a book of his, it would prolly be in the trash.

there is no way to articulate it more clearly. when articulated clearly it is obviously a contradiction. a person is a being. so 3 persons(beings) are in one being is a contradiction. no matter how you state it it still is a contradiciton and according to james wright untrue. no matter how hard anyone tries a contradiction cannot be explained no matter how articulate anyone is.

Simonline and Odsolo have good articulation.

JW does'nt, as he uses the word "being" as a definition for God. I mean, can we really define God?

Surprising candor on your part.

Well, don't be surprised.

But I think the main point is James white proved trinity teaches that 3 beings are one being which he rightly states is a contradiction and therefore wrong. Everybody knows a person is a being. so saying 3 persons are in one being is the same as saying 3 beings are in one being, which James white rightly says is a contradiction.

Again, he has defined God as a being, and like every analogy brought forth, simply falls very short of the goal in describing who God is. If I were to add anything, I would say God is BEING itself, but I'm not ariculating well here.

it is really amazing to me that an educated scholar who spent years in college could come up with such illogic as this by James white. he contradicts himself has no clear train of thought he just kinda rambles along.

I'm chuckling at your statement, but not at you. I work at a college, and know of several who went to college here, got a job here, and still act like high school cheerleaders at the age of 55 and 60, with the kumbaya spirit and all.

Just don't be surprised at somebody's sheepskin on the wall. I'll leave out the stories of engineer and architects for now. hehehe

hoorah, prepare to give up your trinitarian beliefs. option one, god created new fish as each fish was taken out of the basket. god has the power to create.
option 2. god transported fish , cooked them on the way to the basket, much as he tranported phillip. God with his all power transported the fish almost instantaneously as they were being taken out of the basket.

Nice try, but I'm looking for the mechanics of it all....

4. not understanding how something works is different than offering an explanation that is a contradiciton. I don't understand how an air conditioner works but I know the explanation of how it works makes sense and is logical, I know without any investiagation that an air conditiioner doesn't work becaue 3 eskimos are inside it blowing out one vent, cause that is nonsensical illoigcal and absurd.

It would still take you some time to wrap your mind around the fact that dichlordifluormethane can boil at -40F just as water boils at 212F. And if it boils at +5F, then theres a problem with cylinder tolerances.....all of which is nonsensical temporarily absurd, until experience has been attained.

<><

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Ok, show me where Adam was the perfect image of God in all ways, and then you might have something.

The bible says God created Adam in his own image, and the bible also says Adam was sinless(perfect). So that qualifies him as the perfect image of God in my books. If Adam wasn't the perfect image of God, the bible would be wrong to call Jesus the second Adam. Being that Christ died and was a man, he could certainly not be the perfect image of God "in all ways", any more than Adam, since God canot die and is not a man. Lol.

You'll find that I'm comparing the attributes and nature that are found in both the Word, and God.

And I'm telling you if you want to play this game you will loose . The following "attributes and nature of Christ" do not belong to God: Christ was a man, he died, he was tempted, he was not omniscient . By any stretch of the immagination Christ had the attributes and nature of Adam, so much so that he's called the second Adam.

You're playing the game of "Well, my dog is spelled god backwards, so my dog must be like god".

Hardly. You , not me,are rendering virtually every biblical precept topsy turvy, like calling the Son of GodGod the Son.

Daneel, how can you tell people with a straight face Christ had the "nature and attributes of God " being that Christ was a man and the bible clearly tells us God is not a man? Isn't this the end of the road for you?

Frankly, you're putting forth an Arguement from Personal Incredulity with some pretty lame comparisons.

This coming from a guy who thinks God is three persons yet one being! Have you heard yourself speak lately. Perhaps you should.

best wishes,

 

[gort]

Balthasar quotes:

You're missing the point, perhaps on purpose. Scripture says wisdom was created. So Christ, wisdom personified, must also have been created.

The Word, being the express image of God, contains the wisdom of God, and is also Godly wisdom personnified. Therefore, not created, as the wisdom of God was not created.

We can be given Godly wisdom, but we cannot be the Word, nor God, but we can be molded to the image of Christ Jesus, and in Christ Jesus, but cannot be Jesus Himself.

And then there is the wisdom of the world.

Could you please show me a scientific link which says dry ice is "3 states at the same time, solid, liquid and vapour."! Also could you show me which scientific journal or link says the solid, liquid and vapour components of dry ice are made up of the same essential elements yet are distinct. This is a must read!

Feel free to do your own research. But to help you along, dry ice is frozen CO2. Whether or not the state is, the components remain the same. All matter can have these 3 states of solid, liquid and vapor.

<><

 

[Balthasar]

The term: One God in 3 persons would be the correct term.


<><

That's saying the same thing : One God(one being) in 3 persons. Infact to say One God in 3 persons sounds even more preposterous.

How can one God be in three persons and still be one God? Either give up the notion of three persons or the idea that God is one.

best iwshes,

 

[gort]

Balthasar quotes:

The bible says God created Adam in his own image, and the bible also says Adam was sinless(perfect). So that qualifies him as the perfect image of God in my books. If Adam wasn't the perfect image of God, the bible would be wrong to call Jesus the second Adam. Being that Christ died and was a man, he could certainly not be the perfect image of God "in all ways", any more than Adam, since God canot die and is not a man. Lol.

Well, if Adam was the perfect image of God, which the bible does'nt say, Adam could have created ex nihilo anything he wanted to, eh?

And please, make up your mind in regards to Adam. The first part of your paragraph says, in your book, Adam was the perfect image of God, but in the latter part, he's not nor could be the perfect image of God.....

And I think that until you can come up with more plausible reasoning, I think I'll end our conversations for now. Frankly, I'm starting to have fun with these rebuttals to you, and that in itself gives me this creepy feeling I really should'nt be having......

toodles


<><

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow,



The pre-existence of Messiah is a Jewish concept. According to the Jews, seven things were created before the foundation of the world, two of them being Torah and Messiah. In the Hebraic conception ,Messiah pre-existed in the mind of God, and not literally. Below is a quote from Everyman's Talmud -- The Major Teachings of Rabbinic Sages, by Abraham Cohen. The following quote is on pg. 347 and is taken from the section which discusses the Messiah in the chapter on the Hereafter:

I would agree that the messiah existed in the mind of God.

1 Peter 1:20 who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,

Christ was foreknown by God before the foundation of the world (system). As testified by gen. 3:15

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This shows that god foreknew of the messiah before the world system began, that means Jesus didn't exist at that time for if Jesus existed when eve sinned then god could not have foreknown Jesus. He would have known Jesus.

So, here we see how the "pre-existence" of Messiah (Christ) was understood by the Hebrews. That's why Jesus was able to say, "Before Abraham was I am."

I'm unsure as to whether that is "before abraham was i am he. or as you quoted it. I believe the meaning is that Jesus was prophesised of even before Abraham existed. "I am he that the prophets spoke about even before Abraham." would be my paraphrase of it. I lean towards it not being the divine name "I AM". It doesn't really make sense to me if it is the divine name. it would be like saying "before abraham was , Jahweh" Well of course Yahweh was before abraham.

I will get into more detail if needed. The above is just a quick summary. Vaste literature exists as to the pre-existence of Messiah from the Jewish perspective.

Do you disagree?

best wishes,

Yes I disagree I believe Jesus didn't exist until he was born like any other man. however you at first stated that the messiah existed only in the mind of god, not literally . then you seem to state that he existed in some form or other. If Jesus existed in another form then became a man. that would be reincarnation.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

the greek word translated birth is

[size=+1]gevnesiß [/size]Genesis (ghen'-es-is);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 1078

1. source, origin
   1. a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated
2. used of birth, nativity
3. of that which follows origin, viz. existence, life
   1. the wheel of life (Jas 3:

So it could be translated that the origin or genesis of Jesus was when Mary was with child.
I do not consider jewish theology to be anything more than something to consider. I do not consider it decisive. I mean the pharasees and saducees misssed the mesiah because of their theology. Jersus didn't fit their theological grid of what a messiah should be. they thought he should be a coquering king.


I am really confused by your answer, do you believe Jesus existed only in the mind of god and not literally? if so I agree.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Feel free to do your own research. But to help you along, dry ice is frozen CO2. Whether or not the state is, the components remain the same. All matter can have these 3 states of solid, liquid and vapor.

<><

Usually when a serious person makes a serious claim they expeditiously support that claim. But when nonsense is presented, and evidence requested, excuses like the following are furnished: "feel free to do your own research". Lol.

By the way, components do not remain the same when they go from vapour to liquid to gas etc..

good luck,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Well, if Adam was the perfect image of God, which the bible does'nt say, Adam could have created ex nihilo anything he wanted to, eh?

I'm curious to know from where you come up with your peculiar ideas? Where does it say "the perfect image of God" has power to "create ex nihilo anything he wanted"? Even Christ didn't have power to "ex nihilo create" anything . Infact he was helpless without God. He clearly said, "On my own I can do nothing".

Do you even listen to Christ or do his words go in one ear and come out the other?

And please, make up your mind in regards to Adam. The first part of your paragraph says, in your book, Adam was the perfect image of God, but in the latter part, he's not nor could be the perfect image of God.....

How did you come to this conclusion?

And I think that until you can come up with more plausible reasoning, I think I'll end our conversations for now.

A famous President of these United States once remarked, "If you can't handle the heat, leave the kitchen."

Frankly, I'm starting to have fun with these rebuttals to you, and that in itself gives me this creepy feeling I really should'nt be having......

Your words don't match your actions.


Lol.

 

[2ducklow]

His analogy of 3 beings being 1 being is the reason he lacks articulation. It's confusing to me. The term: One God in 3 persons would be the correct term.

We know that god is a spirit from scripture. I find it no giant leap of logic to say a spirit is a being. i.e. something that exists. Do you not believe God exists? that is the primary def. of being.

Simonline and Odsolo have good articulation.

In this forum vituperation frequently passes for articulation.

JW does'nt, as he uses the word "being" as a definition for God. I mean, can we really define God?

yes we can, god is a spirit.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

a spirit is something that exists therefore it is a being. it be. And a person is something that exists, it be too.

Again, he has defined God as a being, and like every analogy brought forth, simply falls very short of the goal in describing who God is.

If god is not a being then he doesn't exist. he don't be. a being is something that be.

If I were to add anything, I would say God is BEING itself, but I'm not ariculating well here.

god is being means god be therefore if god be he is a being.

I'm chuckling at your statement, but not at you. I work at a college, and know of several who went to college here, got a job here, and still act like high school cheerleaders at the age of 55 and 60, with the kumbaya spirit and all.

Just don't be surprised at somebody's sheepskin on the wall. I'll leave out the stories of engineer and architects for now. hehehe

true but your engineers that may act childish in some ways don't design automobiles with one wheel or no engine or no steering wheel. Likewise a theologian who resorts to such illogic as jW is really hard to fathom. it would be like an auto mechanic putting a starter in for a transmission.

Nice try, but I'm looking for the mechanics of it all....

god has little elfs that he sends to do all the things who check in with santa claus first. make sense? noooooooooooooo. but it makes about as much sense as trinty.

It would still take you some time to wrap your mind around the fact that dichlordifluormethane can boil at -40F just as water boils at 212F. And if it boils at +5F, then theres a problem with cylinder tolerances.....all of which is nonsensical temporarily absurd, until experience has been attained.

<><

I would say that the boiling point probably depends on the atmospheric pressure. at any rate there is a reasonable logical explanation for it not an illogical irrational nonsensical explanation for why that happens. god wants us to make sense out of his word not nonsesne.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Give the sense of scripture and people will understand the reading. give the trinity explanation of scripture and no one will understand the reading.

 

[Balthasar]

One more point daneel,

The Word, being the express image of God, contains the wisdom of God, and is also Godly wisdom personnified. Therefore, not created, as the wisdom of God was not created.

We can be given Godly wisdom, but we cannot be the Word, nor God, but we can be molded to the image of Christ Jesus, and in Christ Jesus, but cannot be Jesus Himself.

And then there is the wisdom of the world.





<><

You can huff and puff all you want, but the wisdom with which trinitarians identify Christ is certainly said to be created. Following are the texts usually used by trinitarians to show Christ is a personification of wisdom. I find it curious that wisdom is always rendered in the female Gender(she). So if Christ is wisdom personified, and Christ is God, doesn't that make Christ the goddess Wisdom? I saw another Goddess in India and her name was lakshami, and surprise, surprise, she's the goddess wisdom. Lol:

1All wisdom is from the Lord, and with him it remains forever.
2The sand of the sea, the drops of rain, and the days of eternity—who can count them?
3The height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, the abyss, and wisdom—who can search them out?
4Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity.
6The root of wisdom—to whom has it been revealed? Her subtleties—who knows them?
8There is but one who is wise, greatly to be feared, seated upon his throne—the Lord.
9It is he who created her; he saw her and took her measure; he poured her out upon all his works,
10upon all the living according to his gift; he lavished her upon those who love him.(Sirach 1:1-10; Catholic)

2. She was God’s master plan at the time of creation.

8.1Does not wisdom call, Does not understanding raise her voice?
22The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
23Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.
25Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth;
26before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world.
27When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
29when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always,
31rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men.
9.1Wisdom has built her house, she has set up her seven pillars. (Proverbs 8:1-9:1)

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 2ducklaw,

I would agree that the messiah existed in the mind of God.

Ok.

I'm unsure as to whether that is "before abraham was i am he. or as you quoted it. I believe the meaning is that Jesus was prophesised of even before Abraham existed. "I am he that the prophets spoke about even before Abraham." would be my paraphrase of it.

That's a good read.

I lean towards it not being the divine name "I AM". It doesn't really make sense to me if it is the divine name. it would be like saying "before abraham was , Jahweh" Well of course Yahweh was before abraham.

Ofcourse it's not the divine name "I am", "Ego Emi".. Even the blind man Jesus heals says "I am", "Ego Emi". Is he God too? Besides the Hebrew "I am that I am" is in a different tense than the Greek "I am", and means something completely different. But that's a whole different story.

Yes I disagree I believe Jesus didn't exist until he was born like any other man.

I would agree Jesus certainly existed in God's mind before the foundation of the world just as the Torah was pre-existent before the world began, in God's mind.

I mean the pharasees and saducees misssed the mesiah because of their theology

There is a place in scripture where Jesus tells his followers to hear what the pharisees say but not do as they do. Do you know where? I think it is expedient, and instructive to listen to the Jewish sages.

I am really confused by your answer, do you believe Jesus existed only in the mind of god and not literally? if so I agree

He existed in the mind of God.

Arius believed otherwise. He thought Christ literally pre-existed. Still he was on the right track for he believed Jesus was created and not God. I believe all differences are minor if people do not distort the nature of God. Thus, I have no problems with JW's, Jews and others who reject the trinity and believe in the One God, though I might not agree 100% with all their doctrines. At least these folks are faithful to the Shema, the most important command, in my opinion.-- "Behold Israel,the Lord our god the Lord is One." For this I'm grateful to the Jews.

I see two types of people in this world; those who acknowledge God as absolute one, and those who distort his nature and make him a trinity or any other compound number. In the latter camp you will find all polytheists, pagans and what not. One more than absolute one is one more than one and will be rejected because it goes against the Shema.

best wishes,