Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Der Alte]

Hello Der Alter.
Jesus was not born with a fallen human nature, Jesus only became LIKE us. Jesus had no earthly father,
therefore Jesus is never considered to be a descendant of Adam. To be a descendant of Adam the
scipture is specific, the lineage is directly based on the male bloodline. The geneology of Jesus is
misguided, Jesus had no earthly father! What possessed the authors of the Gospels to insert the
genealogy escapes my understanding.

So the Gospels are wrong but you are right? I don't think so. If one's beliefs contradict the Bible, change the beliefs not the Bible.

Jesus never needed to surrender to sin because He was perfect, and the source of all Holiness.
The creator came to reconcile humanity to Himself, the creator did not arrive to wrestle with sin.
Jesus never suffered from guilt, remorse, or any other dysfunctional aspect of the human condition.
Jesus suffered from no delusions, or personality disorders, nor was Jesus born a killer. Jesus was
never the apple of His mother's eye, because Jesus was the personal, Son of God on earth, not the
human, genetic son of Mary.

You are aware the term Jesus used for Himself the most was Son of man? He is recorded using this phrase 82 times in the gospels. Was He or was He not the Son of Man as He said?

Below is a line depicting how Jesus viewed His earthly mother.

John 2:4
And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.”

Notice the word 'woman', no son ever refers to his mother as woman.

Do you actually believe that Jesus used the word "woman" in a disrespectful manner toward the mother who bore Him for 9 months and raised Him?

Jesus is YHWH.
Jesus was perfect, when Jesus spoke, He spoke in commandments, Jesus did not wrestle with sin
as we do. Tempted yes, but if you read how Jesus responded to the devils temptations, we see
the perfect response. Jesus was not under the power of the devil either, to even infer this idea is
heresy.

Nobody has suggested that Jesus was under the power of the devil or wrestled with sin.

Jesus was not actually a high priest as the author of Hebrews claims, Jesus is Almighty God.
The author is using an analogy for the Jewish audience. The author is not degrading God Himself
by using a degrading name for God. God is eternal love, God cannot be called a priest, a priest is
a human vocation in service to God.
Jesus was not the offspring of corrupt, deceived, malicious, violent flesh. Jesus was worshiped as
an infant and rightly so, simply because the King of Kings walked with us.
The authors of latter letters in the New Testament, shy away from the earlier understanding of the
incarnation. They refer to the Word in human likeness or form, rather than a persevering and struggling
descendant of Adam.

Jesus Himself said He was the Son of man.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hello BubbaLove.


We are both descendants of Adam, no good trying to take the high ground.

No problem what so ever with the doctrine of the trinity.

This idea is not in the scripture, Jesus was God in human form, in likeness, or even
in our image. You know and I know BubbaLove, that Jesus was not born with the
inherited baggage they we carry.

I do not support the idea of a composite of two natures, simply because Jesus
was distinctly, not the offspring of a pair of descendants of Adam. Jesus was
born perfect in all ways.

Saying someone has a lack of faith is not the same as saying they have no faith. That lack of faith comment was not intended as a sophomoric jibe. Jesus made similar comments about having more faith - He was not telling His audience they had none. My point was your reply to my mentioning the angel said she would "concieve" suggested you assume God incapable of forming a human from Mary's DNA. Conception BTW requires Mary's biology to participate in that act - sort of inconvenient for your notion of no human biology involved.

I did not suggest you did support the absurd notion that Jesus is a composite. I was suggesting that someone talking about not wanting to believe the Truth that Jesus has two nature's because they think it makes Him a "composite" does not understand the Trinity Doctrine or Christianity's teaching on Who Jesus is. BTW we are not composites either, but a unity of a body + spirit.

I did not say you have a problem with the Trinity. It would not make sense to say someone who has no proper understanding of that teaching (which is what I said) could have a problem with it.

From the replies I doubt very much you know anything about what I know or what I believe to be Truth. True Jesus was born without the stain of our fallen race, which was the original state Adam and Eve were in - so they were originally perfect as well. My faith includes the belief the Mary was born that way as well in order for Her "biology" as you called to be used to form the human She was told to call Jesus. So no, our faith that Jesus was a descendant of Adam, pure, sinless and also God does not require us to believe He was not human.

Taking the "form" of a human would negate the act of Love He was sent to complete. It would make His Sacrifice meaningless because it would just be "an act" rather than an actual human sacrifice of Himself. The fact Jesus could be tempted (because He is fully human) also negates the idea that He is God just taking the "form" of a human. So that does not work for you either to mention.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

He may have two natures, but Jesus is only one Person, which Person was tempted then?

Your reasoning is a bit faulty. Being an image, or perfect image of God, does not make one God.

It should be pretty obvious that only His human nature could be tempted.

Nature speaks of what, person hood speaks of who. The Son of God became man - yet He is still God. So He is both, not two people. So it is incorrect to suggest the concept has one of two people being tempted.

When this exchange started I was never talking about people reflecting or being made in His Image. You brought humans into the discussion. I was talking about God Knowing Himself. Which you begrudgingly agreed He must and then claimed to believe that this Perfect Image of Himself exists. But then you waffle on articulating what you think that existence might be. The Perfect Image of Perfection could only be Perfection - that is not a logical fallacy.

The Son is the Perfect Image of the Father - which means either we have two Gods which is a logical fallacy for most us, at least those whose concept of God is big enough - or there is One God and at least two Person's. Their Love for each other is just as Real and that closes the Trinity.

So tell me again how you think the Perfect Image of God the Father exists?

 

[7xlightray]

It should be pretty obvious that only His human nature could be tempted.

Nature speaks of what, person hood speaks of who. The Son of God became man - yet He is still God. So He is both, not two people. So it is incorrect to suggest the concept has one of two people being tempted.

I know that. Were you not able to comprehend what I was asking? A “what” is not tempted, a “who” is tempted. Jesus is one person, and that person was tempted. Your saying his nature was tempted, exactly what is that? Is that his skin and bones were tempted?

When this exchange started I was never talking about people reflecting or being made in His Image. You brought humans into the discussion. I was talking about God Knowing Himself. Which you begrudgingly agreed He must and then claimed to believe that this Perfect Image of Himself exists. But then you waffle on articulating what you think that existence might be. The Perfect Image of Perfection could only be Perfection - that is not a logical fallacy.

The Son is the Perfect Image of the Father - which means either we have two Gods which is a logical fallacy for most us, at least those whose concept of God is big enough - or there is One God and at least two Person's. Their Love for each other is just as Real and that closes the Trinity.

So tell me again how you think the Perfect Image of God the Father exists?

Begrudgingly??? lol, where are you coming up with this stuff? Your misrepresenting me.

An image is not that of which it is an image of. If I made a perfect image of myself, the image would not be me, it would be the image.

The way you were asking the question I thought you were asking in general, what attributes God thought were a perfect image of Himself. It turned out what you were looking for was not "what," but “Who”=Jesus, which would be rather obvious. You didn't ask "Who" was a perfect image.

There can be a perfect human image of God, all depends on the context. If God made a perfect image of himself, it would not include the image having no beginning. Your not going to go anywhere with me on this.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I know that. Were you not able to comprehend what I was asking? A “what” is not tempted, a “who” is tempted. Jesus is one person, and that person was tempted. Your saying his nature was tempted, exactly what is that? Is that his skin and bones were tempted?


Begrudgingly??? lol, where are you coming up with this stuff? Your misrepresenting me.

An image is not that of which it is an image of. If I made a perfect image of myself, the image would not be me, it would be the image.

The way you were asking the question I thought you were asking in general, what attributes God thought were a perfect image of Himself. It turned out what you were looking for was not "what," but “Who”=Jesus, which would be rather obvious. You didn't ask "Who" was a perfect image.

There can be a perfect human image of God, all depends on the context. If God made a perfect image of himself, it would not include the image having no beginning. Your not going to go anywhere with me on this.

If who and what were understood as it applies to person and nature the answer is simple. Jesus human nature is tempted, not His Divine. He is fully God and fully Man - not a compilation of two "persons". Being a man He could be tempted as all humans can be. If that were not so then the whole 3 temptations episode is a stage/acting, just like the His Sacrifice would be meaningless if it were true that Jesus was not a man, but God taking the form of a man. He would have no skin in the game as it were. The two natures of Jesus are One Person, not two as your question implied (you asked which person was tempted).

Again, I asked YOUR thoughts on God's Image of Himself in His Mind, not whether there could be perfect human image of God. And I did not ask if God could "make" a perfect image of Himself. I asked what you thought it would mean for God to know Himself Perfectly - and I thought we agreed that such an Image (in His Mind) of Himself would be Perfect and because it is a Perfect Image also very Real, (actually as real as He is). The Image I was asking about is not part of creation - at least not until He became part of it in the Incarnation.

Agree we have not gone anywhere, it would seem in part because only one of us is not looking at God as if He were like some perfected human. We cannot postulate that God has Eternally had a Perfect Image of Who (person) He is and then claim that Image cannot be very Real (which means the Image is a real Person). If we stop short of saying that Image is the Eternal Second Person of the Trinity,IOW if we say that Image cannot be a real Person, then the Image we are talking about is not Perfect - which would be claiming God cannot or does not know Himself Perfectly. Which presents a bit of problem.

 

[klutedavid]

So the Gospels are wrong but you are right? I don't think so. If one's beliefs contradict the Bible, change the beliefs not the Bible.

Hello Der Alter.

You stated the following.

So the Gospels are wrong but you are right? I don't think so. If one's beliefs contradict the Bible,
change the beliefs not the Bible.

Good advice, though the New Testament in places may not be innerrant.

If you do not mind DerAlter, how about we look at the first few verses of the letter to the Hebrews and
check it's accuracy.

Hebrews 1
1 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these
last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also
created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being,
and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down
at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he
has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

You tell me DerAlter, what do you think the author of this letter to the Hebrews is saying, in the verses
above.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm not showing what it can't be, but how it reads, just follow the flow of what is being said in 1 John 1. If you follow it through, it points to the Father.

Yes and I've said many times that the Father sent Jesus, and planned our salvation, but it is through Jesus, the One who died on the cross and shed his blood that we are saved.

I've given you scripture. So, give me scripture where God says man can't forgive sins. Maybe there is a reason I have an answer, it's a possibility.

I did.
First of all I said that there is the entire Old Testament, where no one ever said "I am able to forgive your sins against God. Then I quoted 1 Samuel 2:25, and said that in the OT, the answer to that was 'no one'. But we have a mediator who DOES intercede between man and God - Jesus.
If two people are separated from each other they need someone to mediate for them and provide reconciliation. That mediator need to be neutral but fairly represent the needs of both party. Jesus is our mediator. He can mediate between man and God for he was both.

We can forgive each other's sins. If you sin against me, I can forgive you. If you sin against a mod, your Minister or break the law of your land, I can't say, "I forgive you on behalf of that person/your country." The sin was not against me so forgiveness is not mine to give.
In the OT, when people sinned against God, they offered the sacrifices that he had laid down in the law. God was the wronged party, it was for him to decide on the means of atonement and pronounce sins forgiven. A person might have said, "oh, killing something is far too bloodthirsty; what use is blood to God? I know, I'll do x or give a certain amount of money". It wouldn't have been accepted. Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness - probably why Abel's sacrifice was pleasing to God, and Cain's wasn't.
Today we don't raise, and kill, a spotless animal to atone for our sins. Why not? Because Jesus came; the spotless Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. This is the NEW Covenant - God forgives our sins against him because of Jesus. As I said before; God himself paid the price. However spiritual, holy and anointed Jesus was, he could not have forgiven mankind's sin against God - unless he WAS God.

I did not say he was just a man, born of two human parents. He is the son of God, and son of man,

The orthodox Christian position is that Jesus was 100% God and 100% human. If you take away the possibility that he was God, that leaves 100% human. Jesus could have been chosen, set apart and crowned king by God himself; he could have been announced with trumpets and gone around with a huge arrow over his head which said the Messiah". He could have been given the title "son of God/maker of the universe/king of heaven", but if he was not God, then he was just human. A human chosen, and favoured, by God and with an amazing ministry; but just a human.

This I do know, is that scripture does not contradict itself the way I now understand them, and who I now understand who God is, and who the lord Jesus is.

So do I.
He is the triune God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I believe first, in the clear teaching of the Bible.

So do I.
That's why I believe John 1:1, 14 - "in the beginning was the word, the word was God ..................... the word became flesh." And 1 John 1:1 which explains how they heard, saw and touched the word of life - who was from the beginning. And John 17:5; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:2-3, which say that the one through whom the world was made was with God in the beginning and shared his glory. Scripture.

I do know why, Zechariah 14:7.
It should cause you to at lest question, cause we can't put trust, and our salvation in our forefathers, or anyone else hands.

No we can't. But God has saved me through Jesus.
It was God the Father's idea to save and not condemn or destroy us. And he chose to save us through Jesus. Jesus died on the cross for me; he is my Saviour. Eternal life and my eternal destiny have not been given and provided by a highly anointed, spiritual, Spirit filled MAN, but by God himself.

 

[Strong in Him]

Don't know why you keep repeating that. There are other religions that have been around about as long, or longer, and many believe, but does not make it any more true.

I'm pointing out that it is a well established Christian teaching.

I know, that was the whole point, instead of Holy Spirit, it says Father John 14:23; 17:21. If I showed you a passage that said Holy Spirit, you would have said, “So what, it does not say Father.”

There are a number of verses in Scripture which talk about the Father and the Holy Spirit in the same verse - like Matthew 28:20, and Jesus said that he would ask the Father to send his Holy Spirit. I'm saying that if the Father and the Spirit are the same, then why use a completely different word? Why say, "Holy Spirit"? Why did Jesus not say "I will ask the Father and he will come to you himself?" Or "baptise people in the name of the Father and the Son"? Jesus told the disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit to be given, Acts 1:4-5. Jesus baptised people with the Holy Spirit, and it was not the Father who came in tongues of fire at Pentecost.

I've explained this, I don't know how many times now, and you are still asking. Well how about this, why say God, Lord, or LORD, or Almighty, or the Highest, or Divine, or Father, why not just have one expression?

You've explained what you understand by it; I don't agree with you.

I gave you passages John 14:23 "Jesus answered and said. . . my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him, and even John 17:21.

They are verses, not passages. A passage is John 14:15-31, where Jesus promises the Holy Spirit. Or John 16:5-16 where Jesus talks about the work of the Holy Spirit. Or Romans 8 where Paul writes about life in the Spirit, what the Spirit does and how we live when we have received him. Or Romans 12 which talks about the gifts that the Holy Spirit gives, and that we can only confess Jesus as Lord if we have the Holy Spirit. Or Ezekiel 37:1-14, in the OT, which talks about the valley of dry bones, how Ezekiel prophesied and they became human beings again but were not alive until the Spirit of God entered them. This passage concludes with God saying, ' "I will put my Spirit in you and you will live", declares the Lord.' Or Acts 2 which describes how the Holy Spirit, and not the Father, was poured out on the day of Pentecost, fulfilling a prophecy made by Joel.

You seemed to be having a hard time coming to grips with what I was saying, and I was saying it is much easier to understand then the trinity. So, maybe your not taking enough the time to understand what I've been saying, that's all I meant.

As I said, I know what you are saying - I don't agree with you.

 

[Der Alte]

Hello Der Alter.

You stated the following.

Good advice, though the New Testament in places may not be innerrant.

If you do not mind DerAlter, how about we look at the first few verses of the letter to the Hebrews and
check it's accuracy.

Hebrews 1
1 Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these
last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also
created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being,
and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down
at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he
has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

You tell me DerAlter, what do you think the author of this letter to the Hebrews is saying, in the verses
above.

Sorry, I'm not here to play 20 questions. I believe I was discussing whether the gospels were wrong as you implied. Suppose you tell me what you think these verses mean and we will discuss them.

 

[Colter]

The term "Son of Man" as Jesus used it meant the Son of God who gave up his heavenly glory to come down to earth incarnate as one of his own co-created beings. Certainly the Jews who heard him in whatever language or using what ever terms, understood Jesus to compare himself with God.

 

[Colter]

The temptation for believers is to try to dumb down Triune deity into something man can understand.

 

[klutedavid]

Sorry, I'm not here to play 20 questions. I believe I was discussing whether the gospels were wrong as you implied. Suppose you tell me what you think these verses mean and we will discuss them.

Hello Der Alter.

As I have stated previously, Jesus was not the biological descendant of Joseph or Mary.

Here is the genealogy of Joseph who was not involved in the conception of Jesus.

Matthew 1
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Why Der Alter has the genealogy of Joseph been listed by Matthew, when Jesus is not the direct offspring of Joseph?

 

[7xlightray]

If who and what were understood as it applies to person and nature the answer is simple. Jesus human nature is tempted, not His Divine. He is fully God and fully Man - not a compilation of two "persons". Being a man He could be tempted as all humans can be. If that were not so then the whole 3 temptations episode is a stage/acting, just like the His Sacrifice would be meaningless if it were true that Jesus was not a man, but God taking the form of a man. He would have no skin in the game as it were. The two natures of Jesus are One Person, not two as your question implied (you asked which person was tempted).

Again, I asked YOUR thoughts on God's Image of Himself in His Mind, not whether there could be perfect human image of God. And I did not ask if God could "make" a perfect image of Himself. I asked what you thought it would mean for God to know Himself Perfectly - and I thought we agreed that such an Image (in His Mind) of Himself would be Perfect and because it is a Perfect Image also very Real, (actually as real as He is). The Image I was asking about is not part of creation - at least not until He became part of it in the Incarnation.

Agree we have not gone anywhere, it would seem in part because only one of us is not looking at God as if He were like some perfected human. We cannot postulate that God has Eternally had a Perfect Image of Who (person) He is and then claim that Image cannot be very Real (which means the Image is a real Person). If we stop short of saying that Image is the Eternal Second Person of the Trinity,IOW if we say that Image cannot be a real Person, then the Image we are talking about is not Perfect - which would be claiming God cannot or does not know Himself Perfectly. Which presents a bit of problem.

I know Jesus is one person.
That Person (the mind) the Son of God, is either God, or man. Which do you say he is? The mind of God is God, God's mind does not change and start thinking like a man, and behaving like a man. If Jesus mind was not fully God's mind, then he is not God, because that is Who God is. Not only was he tempted, which only the “You,” the “Who,” the “Person,” the “mind,” is tempted (Romans 7:23; James 1:14), but he did not know the Day or hour, which only the LORD-Yhwh knows. There is only one person that is the Son of God. Either that person stopped being God so that he could be tempted, which God can't do, or he remained God and never was tempted, which also is not true, because he was tempted, else the person was a man. Seeing as there is only one Person that is Jesus, that person was either tempted, or he was not, can't be both. What this doctrine is saying, whether it is admitted, or not, is one person Jesus the man was tempted, and the other person Jesus the God was not tempted, trying to pass it off as his nature, flesh, and Spirit, rather then his mind. Or saying Jesus had two minds, making two persons. We can have the mind of God, but that does not mean we actually have God's mind, we did not steal it from Him (and I don't mean that literally).

We have to be careful we don't debase God, by saying God can become lower then He is Romans 1. And this doctrine states God has two natures, that is if you say Jesus the person is the God. There is a difference in God's word became man, and God became man. Jesus either has the mind of man, or mind of God, else a man with the mind of God, but cannot be God with the mind of man, which goes against Romans 1.

"not whether there could be perfect human image of God" You did not specify, which is why I also included the resurrection.

If you go to the extreme of God's image of Himself is Himself, then it is no longer an image, but is Himself.

 

[Der Alte]

Hello Der Alter.

As I have stated previously, Jesus was not the biological descendant of Joseph or Mary.

And of course you have scripture to support this?

Here is the genealogy of Joseph who was not involved in the conception of Jesus.

Matthew 1
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Why Der Alter has the genealogy of Joseph been listed by Matthew, when Jesus is not the direct offspring of Joseph?

I don't know, I'll ask Matthew when the time comes. Until then this is scripture.

 

[7xlightray]

Yes and I've said many times that the Father sent Jesus, and planned our salvation, but it is through Jesus, the One who died on the cross and shed his blood that we are saved.

The person that plans, and finances, and owns the land and building, that he is going to build, is his building, even if he has others build it, but God the Father also working, built it through Christ.

I did.
First of all I said that there is the entire Old Testament, where no one ever said "I am able to forgive your sins against God. Then I quoted 1 Samuel 2:25, and said that in the OT, the answer to that was 'no one'. But we have a mediator who DOES intercede between man and God - Jesus.
If two people are separated from each other they need someone to mediate for them and provide reconciliation. That mediator need to be neutral but fairly represent the needs of both party. Jesus is our mediator. He can mediate between man and God for he was both.

We can forgive each other's sins. If you sin against me, I can forgive you. If you sin against a mod, your Minister or break the law of your land, I can't say, "I forgive you on behalf of that person/your country." The sin was not against me so forgiveness is not mine to give.
In the OT, when people sinned against God, they offered the sacrifices that he had laid down in the law. God was the wronged party, it was for him to decide on the means of atonement and pronounce sins forgiven. A person might have said, "oh, killing something is far too bloodthirsty; what use is blood to God? I know, I'll do x or give a certain amount of money". It wouldn't have been accepted. Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness - probably why Abel's sacrifice was pleasing to God, and Cain's wasn't.
Today we don't raise, and kill, a spotless animal to atone for our sins. Why not? Because Jesus came; the spotless Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. This is the NEW Covenant - God forgives our sins against him because of Jesus. As I said before; God himself paid the price. However spiritual, holy and anointed Jesus was, he could not have forgiven mankind's sin against God - unless he WAS God.

I don't think your understanding what I'm saying, or asking. God is the one that needs to forgive us, though if God sends one in His name, and gives them the authority to forgive in His name, speaking for God, through His Spirit, as Jesus had, and Peter had, as the scriptures I gave showed. Jesus passed on the authority he had onto Peter, which scripture show Peter practiced. We are priests that intercedes for others, Jesus is high priest that intercedes for all. If Jesus was forgiving us himself, then why is he interceding for us? Jesus is going to converse with God on our behalf. The authority comes from God to forgive, but it is God that forgives. It is the same as we have works in God, and we do the works, but truly it is God that works in us. And God gave Jesus the words to speak, and would have revealed things to him, as God even revealed things to Peter, and Paul; like for example Acts 27:9-26.

It is God's Law, and He can put anyone as judge as He sees fit. As we have those that make the laws, and judges over those laws. And when those that sinned in the wilderness God gave the command, and those put in charge judged who was to be put to death.

 

[7xlightray]

So do I.
That's why I believe John 1:1, 14 - "in the beginning was the word, the word was God ..................... the word became flesh." And 1 John 1:1 which explains how they heard, saw and touched the word of life - who was from the beginning. And John 17:5; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:2-3, which say that the one through whom the world was made was with God in the beginning and shared his glory. Scripture.

I believe all those scriptures, and John 17 Father only true God.

 

[klutedavid]

I

Hello LightRay.

You made a very interesting statement in your post #793.

If you go to the extreme of God's image of Himself is Himself, then it is no longer an image, but is Himself.

This for me is probably the heart of the relevation of the Christ to humanity, you have stated a profound enigma.

Paul describes Jesus Christ as the visible image of the divine, in the verses below.

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them
from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Obviously Paul sees Jesus as the visible image to humanity of the invisible God, so is Paul's
understanding correct?

Let's look at what Jesus has to say about His Father (the invisible God).

John 1
18 No one has seen God at any time...

John 5
37...You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

John 6:46
Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

Now LightRay I have a question for you?

So according to Jesus, no one has ever seen, heard, or known God. Then who was it then that the patriarchs
and the prophets saw in person, and in their visions? These folk said that they had seen and heard God!

If you can answer this question LightRay, then you do indeed understand the mystery and the revelation of
the scripture.

 

[klutedavid]

I don't know, I'll ask Matthew when the time comes. Until then this is scripture.

Hello Der Alter.

I asked you why has the genealogy of Joseph been inserted by Matthew, when Jesus is not the direct offspring of Joseph?

To this you replied,

I don't know, I'll ask Matthew when the time comes. Until then this is scripture.

Have you also noticed that the genealogy listed in Luke's Gospel is different to Matthew's Gospel.

Luke 3
23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son of Joseph son of Heli,
24 son of Matthat, son of Levi...

Well Joseph the son of Heli, was not the genetic father of Jesus.

Matthew 1
15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary

In addition, Joseph the son of Jacob, was not the father of Jesus.

You might want to ask both Matthew and Luke, why their genealogy accounts of Jesus are different from one
another.

We cannot have two different fathers of Joseph, i.e., ' Joseph son of Heli' and 'Jacob the father of Joseph'.

Also can you ask both Gospel authors for me, why they consider Joseph the father when he was not the father
of Jesus.

 

[prodromos]

Hello Der Alter.

I asked you why has the genealogy of Joseph been inserted by Matthew, when Jesus is not the direct offspring of Joseph?

To this you replied,

Have you also noticed that the genealogy listed in Luke's Gospel is different to Matthew's Gospel.

Luke 3
23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son of Joseph son of Heli,
24 son of Matthat, son of Levi...

Well Joseph the son of Heli, was not the genetic father of Jesus.

Matthew 1
15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary

In addition, Joseph the son of Jacob, was not the father of Jesus.

You might want to ask both Matthew and Luke, why their genealogy accounts of Jesus are different from one
another.

We cannot have two different fathers of Joseph, i.e., ' Joseph son of Heli' and 'Jacob the father of Joseph'.

Also can you ask both Gospel authors for me, why they consider Joseph the father when he was not the father
of Jesus.

Joseph is Legally the father of Jesus, even if he is not Biologically.
The reason Joseph has two fathers is because his legal father died childless, so his legal father's brother raised up seed with his widow in accordance with the law. These two brothers themselves have the same mother but are from different fathers, their mother having become a widow after the birth of her first son, giving birth to her second son after remarrying. Thus Joseph was descended from David both through Solomon and Nathan which nicely bypasses the curse that fell on Solomon's line.

 

[klutedavid]

Joseph is Legally the father of Jesus, even if he is not Biologically.
The reason Joseph has two fathers is because his legal father died childless, so his legal father's brother raised up seed with his widow in accordance with the law. These two brothers themselves have the same mother but are from different fathers, their mother having become a widow after the birth of her first son, giving birth to her second son after remarrying. Thus Joseph was descended from David both through Solomon and Nathan which nicely bypasses the curse that fell on Solomon's line.

Hello Prodromos.

Joseph was not married to Mary, how can you then claim that Joseph is the legal father?

Not only was Mary a virgin at conception, Mary was not married to Joseph when she conceived
the Child. Never the less the Child is certainly not the offspring of Joseph and Mary.

Jesus called God His Father.