When Jesus forgave sins and so forth, the people who were there present understood Him to be claiming equality with God, and hence they intended to stone Him. In other words, in Hebraic theology and thought, only God can forgive sins, only God can say "before Abraham was, I AM", and for a mortal to say such things is to claim God's unique Divinity.
IF Jesus is equal to God then that proves that he is not God, IF I am equal to you that proves that I am not you.
Plus, unbelieving Jews accusing Jesus of being anything proves nothing.
CM said:
Not to mention that Jesus says He is the Alpha and Omega- a title only God claims according to Isa.
You are wrong. It does not. alpha and omega are greek letters, the OT wasn't written in Greek.
CM said:
It's logical- but so is the Trinity, or modalism, or anything, really . Logic isn't really the issue here. One man's logic is another man's folly. Logic isn't proof, it's argument. They should have taught you that in university.
Well I disagree, something either is or isn't logical, Our opinions do not affect whether something is or isn't logical. 3 are one (literally as trinitarians claim) is always illogical.
3 pies are not one pie.
CM said:
Again- where was God at the Baptism of Jesus?
at his baptism.
AS to yur point that God sends the holy spirit, that is just God personifing his spirit just as mary personified her soul in her statement 'my soul doth magnify the Lord."
CM said:
That isn't my point. How does your version of God personify His Spirit?
god personifies his spirit in the bible at times at times he doesn't, when the word of God says "the Holy spirit descended like a dove" the holy Spirit is being spoken of as if it were a seperate being , just as mary spoke of her soul as if it were a seperate being, that is personification.
If I say "My heart goes out to the lost" I have personified my heart in that I have spoken of it as if it were another being other than me, which it is not, In fact my heart isn't even a being but I spoke of it as if it were.
CM said:
Does he separate a portion of himself? Did Mary separate her soul from herself in your example? Over to you.
No he does not seperate a portion of himself, that is your doctrine not mine. God is one is my doctrine, and he is the holy spirit and he is God the father, God the father is the holy spirit and god speaks of his spirit sometimes AS IF it were another being, which is personification. I say it's personification you say it's 2 beings that are one being. 2 beings are one being is illogical, personifications are not illogical. If you think you can just decide something is logical and therefore it is logical, you are very mistaken.
CM said:
Why is that illogical? Scripture is not a scientific book. Donkeys speak, planets flood, fire comes from Heaven, God dwells in clouds, guys come back from the dead, seas part, pillars of fire lead people through deserts......is this all not illogical by your version of logic?
no every example you gave is logical. they are all impossible without God's power to cause it to happen, but none of them are illogical. Illogical is not the same as impossible. What I 'm seeing here is in your world nothing is illogical with God , where as in my world nothing is impossible with God.
CM said:
I have no problem logically with the Trinity- my logic is just not yours. I think it's logical to accept revelation even if it doesn't make sense- I'm finite, He's not.
we should test the spirits when we receive revelation. IF it is revelation from god it makes sense and is logical, if it doesn't make sense and is illogical then it didn't come from god. I don't just accept revelations I receive cause I know there is spiritual warfare going on and the other side makes revelations about scripture as well. I test it and one of the tests I use is "does it make sense?" If it doesn't make sense, then in my book it didnt' come from god. 3 are one doesn't make sense so in my book it didn't come from god.
CM said:
Let's not get into Biblical criticism, because I will sink your ship in about five minutes- and leave you with no religion at all. Every verse of the Bible was added by a man at some point. After centuries men had to decide on what would be canon. Any textual criticism of the Bible needs to remember that the Church had a faith centuries before it had a complete Bible, so the Bible will in turn reflect its faith. Any canonised text will reflect the faith of those canonising it, not the other way around. We can easily (very easily) prove that the doctrine of the Trinity was in good shape and was the faith of Christians before the canon was completed. In fact, Trinitarians made the canon for you- so, if they were led by God to verify the canon, then you must concede that "logically" they were already led by God to believe in the Trinity. Either the Church is led by God, or it isn't. One or the other. Because you believe the church's canon of scripture, you de facto believe the Church to be led by God, which means the Church was led to the understand the mystery of the Trinity. "Logical", no?
No because I believe all scripture is given by inspiration of God. when Paul wrote "I would that ye all spake in tongues" he wrote it under the inspiration of God. It wasn't his idea it was god's idea. Paul was probably in accord with it, but not necessarily. I believe many of the scirptures in the bible were written by men who did not fully understand what they meant and sometimes had no idea what they meant for they were by inspiration of god, or god breathed as 1 tim 3.16 puts it. so our starting point is different and i can see it would do no good to point out the trinitarian interpolations of scripture to you.
CM said:
So, if you want to debate when such-and-such text came into being...I have all day, but you need to understand that I don't think the Bible fell out of the sky and landed in Paul's lap, only to be stolen by drooling Christians, who added their pagan beliefs to it, the "real" Christians having to unravel the mess 20 centuries later.
well I wouldn't put it like that but essentially that is how i view the bibles origin. so like i said it would do no good to point out the numerous trintiarian interpolations of scripture in the bible.
CM said:
That's just too whacko for me to believe and it has no support at all in history. You'll lose that debate badly unless you are prepared to make a contrary claim about scripture that can be supported by history.
Mine's supported by scriptrue, I believe God when he said'
(Rotherham) 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture, [is] God-breathed, and profitable--unto teaching, unto conviction, unto correction, unto the discipline that is in righteousness,--
God said that through Paul, It's not jsut pauls opinion, it is God's opinion.