Imagican
old dude
- Jan 14, 2006
- 3,028
- 431
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I would offer, in MY OPINION, that to make Jesus God is to create a 'man made god'.
Jesus was perfectly CLEAR in stating WHO He was/IS: The SON of God. Not the Son that IS God. Not God THE Son. But clearly without dispute: The Son of God. God is His Father. So when Christ speaks of either God or His Father He is speaking of the same entity.
And He clearly offered that HE IS NOT "THE WORD". But rather, the representative OF God's Word. He states, without dispute, that the words He offered WERE NOT HIS OWN, but given Him OF HIS FATHER: God. The words that He offered WERE God's Word. But they were NOT HIS OWN. He states that without dispute.
So for Christ to BE God, then the words He offered WOULD have BEEN HIS OWN. Yet He distinctly offers that they WERE NOT His OWN. They BELONGED to His Father: GOD.
But we DO KNOW this: the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Greeks and the Romans ALL worshiped MULTI PART gods. The Romans themselves, (the elite), worshiped a multi part god named Mithra that was so closely associated with Christ that it is most likely the CAUSE of the 'creation' of 'trinity': three persons in ONE God.
But the obviousness is that God revealed Himself to the Hebrews/Jews as ONE GOD. No OTHER Gods BESIDE HIM. A SINGULAR entity like NO OTHER.
Yet the 'trinitarian god' of Rome was JUST like previous multi part gods that they worshiped BEFORE their introduction to Christ.
For those that have 'bought in to trinitarianism', please explain why the apostles KNEW NO 'trinitarian' god. Explain WHY it took almost FOUR hundred years AFTER the death of Christ to have 'trinity' REVEALED to THEM. And WHY 'trinity' was revealed to those that actually KILLED Christ instead of His beloved APOSTLES?
And if you try to argue that 'trinity' WAS revealed to or taught by the apostles, then explain to us WHY the word 'trinity' doesn't even exist in the Bible? If it is SUCH an important 'thing' for followers to BELIEVE, why didn't Christ offer it? Or His apostles? Why WAIT for over three hundred years AFTER the death of God's Son to reveal that God's Son was GOD HIMSELF?
And how does GOD send HIMSELF anywhere? For Christ plainly stated that He was SENT by God. Explain exactly HOW God SENT HIMSELF to become flesh.
God abhors the flesh. The flesh cannot even be in the presence of God without being destroyed. So how does on SUPPOSE that God TOOK ON THE FLESH which He DETESTS? An application from a Biblical stance that may not even be a possibility. In other words, if one reads what is offered IN the Bible, it may well be IMPOSSIBLE for God to TOUCH the flesh, much less to TAKE ON the flesh as the Catholics have taught.
Another question: what would be the purpose of Satan TEMPTING God by offering GOD the nations of this world? What would be the purpose of TEMPTING God to turn a rock into a loaf of bread. And what would be the PURPOSE of Satan tempting God to send His angels to PROTECT GOD? Each of these ideas is preposterous. Ridiculous to the point of being LUDICROUS.
Fully God/Fully man? Another mythological creation of the ROMAN Catholic church. there is NO SUCH OFFERING in the Word. Only when individual LINES are take out of context can one CREATE such a MYTH.
Jesus was FULLY the Son of God/Fully Son of Man. THAT is what the Bible tells us. Even as a child when He was found expounding upon God's Word in the Temple, when asked WHY He had not joined his parents upon heading home, He responded with, "Didn't you KNOW I would be about my FATHER'S business?" Even THEN He plainly admonished the FACT that He was GOD'S SON, not God Himself.
"My God, my God why hath thou forsaken ME?" Can God truly forsake a PART of Himself and STILL BE GOD?
Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Ridiculous supposition. The words are as clear as they could be. In order for His Son to die for the sins of this world, God was FORCED to abandon Him EVEN IN SPIRIT so as to make it possible to be accomplished.
And a question that COMPLETELY destroys any semblance of the possibility of 'trinity': Did Jesus Christ, the ONLY Begotten Son of God DIE upon the cross? If so, that PLAINLY proves that He was NOT GOD HIMSELF. For God is IMMORTAL and CANNOT DIE. The best that 'trinitarians' can DO is try and convince others that Christ was fully God/fully man and at the point that He died He was merely FULLY MAN.
But if Christ WAS Fully God/Fully man, WHEN was He BOTH? When it serves 'trinity' to say so? For if He was TRULY 'fully God/fully man, then He would have been fully God and fully man ALWAYS. But 'trinity' would insist that He was able to turn it on and off like a switch. Fully God one moment and then fully man the next.
I contend that if the Spirit of God abandoned Jesus for ONE SECOND then 'trinity' doesn't even live up to it's own definition of the EQUALITY shared by both Father and Son. For to be CO-anything, it must BE 'CO'. Not ONE thing one moment and another the next. Either Christ IS co-everything 'trinity' insists, or He is NOT. It is MY contention that HE IS NOT. NEVER CLAIMS to be. He is OBEDIENT to the Father: God, ALWAYS.
Blessings,
MEC
Jesus was perfectly CLEAR in stating WHO He was/IS: The SON of God. Not the Son that IS God. Not God THE Son. But clearly without dispute: The Son of God. God is His Father. So when Christ speaks of either God or His Father He is speaking of the same entity.
And He clearly offered that HE IS NOT "THE WORD". But rather, the representative OF God's Word. He states, without dispute, that the words He offered WERE NOT HIS OWN, but given Him OF HIS FATHER: God. The words that He offered WERE God's Word. But they were NOT HIS OWN. He states that without dispute.
So for Christ to BE God, then the words He offered WOULD have BEEN HIS OWN. Yet He distinctly offers that they WERE NOT His OWN. They BELONGED to His Father: GOD.
But we DO KNOW this: the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Greeks and the Romans ALL worshiped MULTI PART gods. The Romans themselves, (the elite), worshiped a multi part god named Mithra that was so closely associated with Christ that it is most likely the CAUSE of the 'creation' of 'trinity': three persons in ONE God.
But the obviousness is that God revealed Himself to the Hebrews/Jews as ONE GOD. No OTHER Gods BESIDE HIM. A SINGULAR entity like NO OTHER.
Yet the 'trinitarian god' of Rome was JUST like previous multi part gods that they worshiped BEFORE their introduction to Christ.
For those that have 'bought in to trinitarianism', please explain why the apostles KNEW NO 'trinitarian' god. Explain WHY it took almost FOUR hundred years AFTER the death of Christ to have 'trinity' REVEALED to THEM. And WHY 'trinity' was revealed to those that actually KILLED Christ instead of His beloved APOSTLES?
And if you try to argue that 'trinity' WAS revealed to or taught by the apostles, then explain to us WHY the word 'trinity' doesn't even exist in the Bible? If it is SUCH an important 'thing' for followers to BELIEVE, why didn't Christ offer it? Or His apostles? Why WAIT for over three hundred years AFTER the death of God's Son to reveal that God's Son was GOD HIMSELF?
And how does GOD send HIMSELF anywhere? For Christ plainly stated that He was SENT by God. Explain exactly HOW God SENT HIMSELF to become flesh.
God abhors the flesh. The flesh cannot even be in the presence of God without being destroyed. So how does on SUPPOSE that God TOOK ON THE FLESH which He DETESTS? An application from a Biblical stance that may not even be a possibility. In other words, if one reads what is offered IN the Bible, it may well be IMPOSSIBLE for God to TOUCH the flesh, much less to TAKE ON the flesh as the Catholics have taught.
Another question: what would be the purpose of Satan TEMPTING God by offering GOD the nations of this world? What would be the purpose of TEMPTING God to turn a rock into a loaf of bread. And what would be the PURPOSE of Satan tempting God to send His angels to PROTECT GOD? Each of these ideas is preposterous. Ridiculous to the point of being LUDICROUS.
Fully God/Fully man? Another mythological creation of the ROMAN Catholic church. there is NO SUCH OFFERING in the Word. Only when individual LINES are take out of context can one CREATE such a MYTH.
Jesus was FULLY the Son of God/Fully Son of Man. THAT is what the Bible tells us. Even as a child when He was found expounding upon God's Word in the Temple, when asked WHY He had not joined his parents upon heading home, He responded with, "Didn't you KNOW I would be about my FATHER'S business?" Even THEN He plainly admonished the FACT that He was GOD'S SON, not God Himself.
"My God, my God why hath thou forsaken ME?" Can God truly forsake a PART of Himself and STILL BE GOD?
Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Ridiculous supposition. The words are as clear as they could be. In order for His Son to die for the sins of this world, God was FORCED to abandon Him EVEN IN SPIRIT so as to make it possible to be accomplished.
And a question that COMPLETELY destroys any semblance of the possibility of 'trinity': Did Jesus Christ, the ONLY Begotten Son of God DIE upon the cross? If so, that PLAINLY proves that He was NOT GOD HIMSELF. For God is IMMORTAL and CANNOT DIE. The best that 'trinitarians' can DO is try and convince others that Christ was fully God/fully man and at the point that He died He was merely FULLY MAN.
But if Christ WAS Fully God/Fully man, WHEN was He BOTH? When it serves 'trinity' to say so? For if He was TRULY 'fully God/fully man, then He would have been fully God and fully man ALWAYS. But 'trinity' would insist that He was able to turn it on and off like a switch. Fully God one moment and then fully man the next.
I contend that if the Spirit of God abandoned Jesus for ONE SECOND then 'trinity' doesn't even live up to it's own definition of the EQUALITY shared by both Father and Son. For to be CO-anything, it must BE 'CO'. Not ONE thing one moment and another the next. Either Christ IS co-everything 'trinity' insists, or He is NOT. It is MY contention that HE IS NOT. NEVER CLAIMS to be. He is OBEDIENT to the Father: God, ALWAYS.
Blessings,
MEC
Upvote
0