Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[DrBubbaLove]

Most of the efforts in Christian history to explain the concept are about what God is not or what each of the Three Persons are not, rather than claiming to know everything about God. Many of the arguments made here are presenting a false picture of orthodox Christianity and making claims against that false representation. In my experience many Churches, even the RCC do a poor job educating their members on the concept. Makes for easy prey.

 

[rakovsky]

If you accept the gospels and Christianity, you accept Trinity, because gospels teach Trinity.
Sometimes I have personal doubts about Trinity and gospels, but not whether gospels teach Trinity. Scholars like Ehrman who think "Jesus is God" was not original story are confusing their own new beliefs with what the gospel says.

There are so many many many signs that gospels teach Trinity. Often in order to maintain their illusions about their own "version" of Christianity being authentic, people who can't handle the Trinity Bible teachings are forced to say real Bible passages are fake because they don't like what they say.

 

[7xlightray]

I'm saying that no one who is only human can reconcile us to God. There is no specific Scripture, but no one managed it in the whole of the OT - not even Noah and Job who are both described as blameless and righteous. After their deaths, people still remained separate from God, had to offer sacrifices for their sins and they still needed Jeremiah to prophesy that God was going to make a NEW covenant with mankind.

I totally understand what your saying, but Jesus was not just any man. Jesus was set apart to God, and God was going to make sure Jesus accomplish all He had planed, and written about him. This was the work of the Father, no one is going to thwart His ways. The Father chose John the Baptist, filled John with the Spirit from birth. John did what God planed for him, which God planed for him before birth. God did not wait until the right person came along, and said, “Oh! There's a man I can use.” God chose John the Baptist before he was even born, to fulfill what God had planed for him, and no one can thwart His ways. Before John did anything right or wrong, God said, from John's conception, this one will go before my anointed. And Jesus was the word made flesh, a spiritual man, chosen by God, who spoke the words of God, for He received the Spirit without measure.

Isaiah 49
1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.
2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;
3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
5 And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.​

So, yes, God can do this.

What exactly happened on the cross is a mystery. I don't have an answer or understand it; I don't pretend to.

I certainly hope no one would hold that against you. I don't fully understand all that is entailed when the word became flesh. How God works in man, or in the world, drawing out the borders of the nations, when it seems like man is doing this. I know of scripture that says God can send a lying spirit 1 Kings 22:22-23; 2 Chronicles 18:21. Do I fully understand this? Nope!

But if Jesus was only a man, then he can't have taken the sins of the world upon himself nor given eternal life - how would he have that authority?

Again, there is the whole of the OT.
No one - not Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah etc - were able to reconcile people to God. But they all spoke of Jesus' coming. They prophesied about someone who would be the servant of the Lord, a suffering servant, who would be born of a virgin and called Almighty God, Isaiah 9:6, who would take the throne of David, have a healing ministry, be rejected by his people, suffer and be killed for our sins and who would fulfil the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah - signed, sealed and delivered by Jesus.

If you acknowledge that an earthly man can't do this; what's the alternative? Scripture does not say that heavenly beings are able to do this for us, nor that any of them became flesh.

It is by faith, through baptism, we are equated with his death and resurrection, that we can become sons of God. This is the work of God the Father, and it was Him that saved Jesus soul from the grave, Jesus is the lamb without spot, or blemish. God has given Jesus to be Judge of our works. We have Judges today, that judge whether we live or die, given by God John 19:10-11.

The Son of God is also God the Son.
When Jesus was on earth he was 100% man and also 100% God. Again, don't ask me how, but nothing else makes sense. If he had come to earth and immediately said, "I am God", he would have been killed before he could even begin his ministry and teach us anything. But he did in fact say this in many ways, in words and by his actions. John tells us of 3 occasions when the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphemy; they knew what he was claiming.

Jesus did have the fullness of the Father dwelling in him. And I know it does seem as though on the surface some scripture speak as though Jesus is the God. I also know, for myself, how hard it is to not read scripture in the light of Jesus is the God, even after I came to the conclusion Jesus is not the God. It took me many, many years. John 1:1-14 was one of them that took me a long time to get over. I kept reading John 1 as Jesus was the God, but it doesn't actually say that. It says the word was God, not Jesus was God, and God says the word that came out of His mouth was sent into the world. So, I can go with my assumption of what I think the word is, or what scripture actually says the word is, Isaiah 55:8-11.

Yes, in the sense that it was his plan from the beginning, he sent Jesus, he showed us mercy and grace - but it was not the Father who died on the cross. We have not been reconciled to, and have peace with, the Father through the Father, but through Jesus, Romans 5:1; Romans 5:11; Ephesians 1:6-7; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. You, yourself, quoted verses showing that we are reconciled to God through Jesus.
Isaiah 43:11 says, "I, even I, am the Lord and apart from me there is NO Saviour". Yet the angel told Joseph that Jesus would save people from their sins, Matthew 1:21, Jesus said that he had come to seek and save the lost, Luke 19:10 and Peter said that there is only ONE name by which we can be saved, Acts 4:12. So who is the Saviour - the Lord God of the OT who spoke through Isaiah, or Jesus?

In the O/T man provide the Lamb, but the Father would provide His own Lamb Genesis 22. And the Father is Jesus' rock and savior, many of the Psalm state this, here are only a few of them Psalm 18:2;31-32;43-50; Psalm 31:2-5; Psalm 89:26. It is the Father's salvation, His work, His plan, He provided the Lamb, watched over the Lamb, guided the Lamb, taught the Lamb, and had him lifted up on a pole, and gave His only Lamb. It's the same as our works in God, are not our works, but God's works, He is working in us to His good pleasure, which He planed for us to walk in before the foundation of the world Ephesians 1:11; 2:10; Philippians 2:13, they are our works, but really they are God's works that He works in us 1 Corinthians 15:10; Isaiah 26:12. And it was the Father working in Christ, reconciling us to Himself through Christ Romans 5:10-11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. Your putting more emphases on the hammer then on the one worker of the hammer Isaiah 10:15. We get credit for our works in God, but really we would have nothing, if it were not for God working in us. Jesus is our savior, but there would be no salvation, if God the Father did not save us. The Father is the true one that saved us, yet it was the son who submitted to the Father's will, yet it was the Father making sure His word would accomplish all that is was sent to do. Apart from the Father there is no savior! For it was the Father that planed, and sent, and so on, and so on. As Jesus also said, it was the Father working in him!

2 Timothy 1:1-10
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God [the Father]...from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. I thank God [the Father], whom I serve from my forefathers...stir up the gift of God...For God [the Father] hath not given us the spirit of fear...the testimony of our Lord [Christ Jesus] ...according to the power of God [the Father]; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:​

Do you now understand the answer to your question “So who is the Saviour - the Lord God of the OT who spoke through Isaiah, or Jesus?”

God is Spirit - yet John 1:14 is very clear that the word, who was God, became flesh.
You have already said that an earthly man cannot forgive our sins and reconcile us to God - that is exactly what Jesus did, so he was clearly not just an earthly man.

When I said earthly man, I meant a nonspiritual man.

Mary was told that he would be called "Son of the Most high" who would reign forever and whose kingdom would have NO end, Luke 1:32-33; Joseph was told that Mary's child was OF the Holy Spirit and that he would be a Saviour, Matthew 1:20-21.
John 1:14 says that the word, who was GOD, became flesh.

I was referring to: “John 1:14 says that the word, who was GOD, became flesh. How can we have faith that a mere human being had the authority to lay down his life for his sheep and to take it back again, John 10:17? How would a human do that anyway?” By the way Jesus lived his life, and we are told to do this very same thing.

Not just led by his Spirit, BORN of his Spirit, John 3:5-6.

Yes, but not just born of the Spirit, but also led by his Spirit.

Like I said, Jesus didn't go around saying "I am God".

That's not what many in here claim, they claim Jesus did go around saying that. In privet Jesus said, the Father was the only true God. He also claimed the scribe answered wisely Mark 12:28-34.

What I am saying is that if you believe that the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord - is divine then there are only 2 alternatives; either the Spirit is one with God the Father, OR there are two Gods.

No, there is an alternative you are not considering. The Father is Spirit!

The Holy Spirit is mentioned occasionally in the OT and very often in the New. He is spoken of as a separate person with a specific role.
At creation, GOD created, and his Spirit was present and hovering over the waters. God breathed his Spirit into man and he became a living being, Genesis 2:7. When Saul was anointed king, we are told that God changed his heart and the Spirit of the Lord came on him, 1 Samuel 10:9-10. King David prayed to God and said, "do not take your Holy Spirit from me", Psalm 51:11. Ezekiel spoke of a time when God would put his Spirit in men, and Joel foretold that God would pour his Spirit out on all people.
Jesus said that the Father would give the Holy Spirit to those who asked him, Luke 11:13. He said that we are born again through the Spirit, John 3:3. John the Baptist said that Jesus would baptise people in the Holy Spirit, Matthew 1:11. When Jesus himself was baptised, the Spirit came down, in the form of a dove, to rest on him. Jesus said that whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, Mark 3:29. Paul says that it is the Spirit who assures us that we are God's children, who intercedes for us, Romans 8:27, who enables us to say "Jesus is Lord", 1 Corinthians 12:3, who gives us gifts to serve God, 1 Corinthians 12:12-30, and bears fruit in us, Galatians 5:22-23.
We are led to Jesus, and convicted of sin by the Spirit, so that Jesus can reconcile us to the Father.

I've explained many of these things in this thread already, I will try again.

Here is an example from scripture, the Father dwells in heaven, but sends His Spirit forth for the breath of man, then the breath returns to God upon mans death, because God dwells in heaven. This is how God the Father can be everywhere, by His Spirit, which is Him, not another person. God remains in heaven, but uses His Spirit for what ever purpose He chooses. It's like the sun, the body of the sun is in one place in heaven, yet it's light reaches out everywhere. And God sent His light into a dark world, when the word became flesh.

Jesus said that whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, Mark 3:29.

Yes! Because the Holy Spirit is God! It does not say, because the Holy Spirit is another God person.

Scripture says, for example the verses I have quoted, that the Father sends his Spirit, baptises people in his Spirit, leads people by his Spirit, gives people gifts by his Spirit, and so on.
If the Spirit is the same as the Father, why mention him at all? How can the Father send himself, or intercede to himself for us? Why specifically mention the Spirit and all his different roles if the authors really meant the Father? Why not write about the fruits and gifts of the Father? Why would Jesus say that God will forgive all blasphemy except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? It seems clear to me, and I'm certain it was to the apostles because that is what they taught, that the Holy Spirit is FROM the Father; one with him, yet individual.

It is the Father, but not the Father Himself, for the Father dwells in Heaven. If we were to look at it the way you are saying, it's really the same thing, for does the Holy Spirit person leave heaven, divide Himself up into little Holy Spirit persons, and become the breath of all individual people? It is the Father's Spirit. The Father sends HIS Spirit. This is how the Father operates, and His Spirit is living, everything about God is living. When God sends His breath to give life to man, it's because His breath is living. There is nothing about this, that would cause us to believe, His breath must be another person. It is not taught in scripture, not unless you simply want to believe the Spirit is another person. Wisdom is spoken as if she is a person. The word of God is living and active, the power of God.

 

[7xlightray]

It was a simple question I thought. Was not talking about God the Father having Perfect Knowledge of everything. Just asking if you thought in the Mind of God there could be a Perfect Image of Himself.

Remember in the Trinity Concept there is only One Mind of God, not three minds.

I would think He would know what a perfect image is.

 

[7xlightray]

There is a scripture which says a man cannot save or reconcile other men to God.

Psa 49:7-9
(7) None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
(8) (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever; )
(9) That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.​

Oop! back it up just a bit

Psalm 49:6Those who trust in their wealth
And boast in the multitude of their riches,
7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother,
Nor give to God a ransom for him—

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I would think He would know what a perfect image is.

Not really directly answering the question, but I will take that as a yes, that you think (as I do) that God's Perfect Knowledge includes "knowing" Himself, which means having an Image of Himself. So the question is (was from the beginning), what do YOU think the Perfect Image of Himself in His Mind would be/how would you describe it?

 

[Strong in Him]

I totally understand what your saying, but Jesus was not just any man. Jesus was set apart to God, and God was going to make sure Jesus accomplish all He had planed, and written about him. This was the work of the Father, no one is going to thwart His ways. The Father chose John the Baptist, filled John with the Spirit from birth. John did what God planed for him, which God planed for him before birth. God did not wait until the right person came along, and said, “Oh! There's a man I can use.” God chose John the Baptist before he was even born, to fulfill what God had planed for him, and no one can thwart His ways. Before John did anything right or wrong, God said, from John's conception, this one will go before my anointed. And Jesus was the word made flesh, a spiritual man, chosen by God, who spoke the words of God, for He received the Spirit without measure.

Yes, he was. Jesus was chosen, anointed, filled with the Spirit, set apart, and much more.
But, IF he was only man, Spirit filled but 100% human and nothing more - and I'm not sure if this is your position or not - then even being chosen and Spirit filled was not enough for him to be able to give us eternal life, reconciliation with the Father, mediating and interceding for us.

Jesus did have the fullness of the Father dwelling in him. And I know it does seem as though on the surface some scripture speak as though Jesus is the God.

That's because he is.

All that aside; if Jesus was ONLY a man, then it was just a mere human being who died on the cross. What's more, it was a lying and/or deluded human being, i.e not perfect. I'm not certain I can trust my salvation and eternal destiny to a mere human being - however Spirit filled.
But if Jesus was 100% human AND 100% God - the traditional Christian position - then it was God himself laying down his life for us (and no, I don't know how God could die); God himself paying the price for OUR sin against him.
One illustration sometimes used to explain the cross is that of someone committing a serious crime, being dragged before a judge who imposes an enormous fine. The guilty person cannot pay this but approaches the relevant person and prepares to plead for mercy, only to be told that it has already been paid for him - by the judge. God is holy and just and HAS to punish sin, but he knew that the price of sin, eternal death, Romans 6:23, was FAR more than we could bear; so he stepped in to pay it himself. On the cross, Jesus became sin for us, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and was separated from his Father, Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34.

I also know, for myself, how hard it is to not read scripture in the light of Jesus is the God, even after I came to the conclusion Jesus is not the God. It took me many, many years. John 1:1-14 was one of them that took me a long time to get over. I kept reading John 1 as Jesus was the God, but it doesn't actually say that. It says the word was God, not Jesus was God, and God says the word that came out of His mouth was sent into the world. So, I can go with my assumption of what I think the word is, or what scripture actually says the word is, Isaiah 55:8-11.

God doesn't want us to read Scripture with the mind set that Jesus is not God. He IS God and God wants us to know the truth.

John 1:14 says the word became flesh and dwelt - lived - among us. It goes on to say, "we have seen HIS glory, the glory of the One and Only who came from the Father." 1 John 1:1 says, "that which was from the beginning which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched" - nearly all the senses involved there - "this we proclaim concerning the word of life."

In the O/T man provide the Lamb, but the Father would provide His own Lamb Genesis 22. And the Father is Jesus' rock and savior,

Jesus doesn't need saving, he came to save us. That is what the angel told Joseph before Jesus' birth, Matthew 1:21.

Your putting more emphases on the hammer then on the one worker of the hammer Isaiah 10:15.

No, God sent Jesus - the Father sent the Son; I said that. But reconciliation to the Father is through the cross. The Father sent the Son, but if the Son had not lived a perfect life, been obedient to the Father and laid down his life for the sheep, as he said, John 10:11, then we would not be saved. Jesus came to die; he came to save what was lost, Luke 19:10, which was us.
Absolutely we should praise and thank the Father for sending Jesus - but it was Jesus who shed his blood for many, Matthew 26:28, Jesus who died on the cross, was raised from the dead and has been given ALL power and authority, Matthew 28:19, and the name which is above every name, Philippians 2:9. It is at the name of Jesus that every knee will bow and every tongue confess him as Lord.

Do you now understand the answer to your question “So who is the Saviour - the Lord God of the OT who spoke through Isaiah, or Jesus?”

I asked that question for your benefit, for you to think about.
I understand that God the Father planned to save us, and did so by sending Jesus - who is God the Son.
The Father planned and provided for, our salvation; through Jesus. Jesus delivered his salvation and delivered the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah, and sealed it with his blood.

I was referring to: “John 1:14 says that the word, who was GOD, became flesh. How can we have faith that a mere human being had the authority to lay down his life for his sheep and to take it back again, John 10:17? How would a human do that anyway?” By the way Jesus lived his life, and we are told to do this very same thing.

But a mere human being cannot reconcile anyone to God, or forgive his sins on behalf of God or with the authority of God.

If people in the OT offered the sacrifices for sin that were laid down by the law, the priest could pray that God would accept the sacrifice and forgive them. The priest could not say, "your sins are forgiven" - they could not stand up and say "we have been chosen and anointed by God; we can mediate between you and have the authority to forgive YOUR sins against HIM". As Eli said, "If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against God, who will intercede for him?" 1 Samuel 2:25. The answer for them, in the OT, was 'no one'; the answer for us is "Jesus". Jesus was both God and man and can therefore mediate between man and God.

To be continued.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

There is something fitting to be said that God finishes what He started (with the human race/creation) by making Himself the instrument of our (and creation's) restoration. That Jesus had also to be a man is Just in that He is paying for/fixing what we have done. In offering Himself (Divine) in act of Love for us, there is also an Infinite aspect of the application (forward and backward in time) of that Love which am unclear how that infinite application would be possible if were true that He is not God.

 

[Strong in Him]

Continued.

That's not what many in here claim, they claim Jesus did go around saying that. In privet Jesus said, the Father was the only true God. He also claimed the scribe answered wisely Mark 12:28-34.

The Father IS the true God - so is the Son and so is the Spirit.

The scribe DID answer wisely; he said that God is one. I am also saying that God is one - as is every other trinitinarian, (if that's the word.)
There is ONE God. Not one God divided into three; ONE God. Our God IS Father, Son and Holy Spirit - just as one man can be father, husband and son. My brother is a father, a husband and a son. He relates to his children, his wife and our mother in different ways and has a different kind of relationship with each. He is still one man. He does not stop being a father when he is talking to our mother as her son.

No, there is an alternative you are not considering. The Father is Spirit!

God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit is spirit - agreed.
But the Father is NOT the Holy Spirit - otherwise Scripture would not talk about the Holy Spirit, it would say "the Father". Neither would it talk about the Father sending HIS Holy Spirit; Jesus would have just said something like, "my Father himself will come to you and live in you." Paul would not talk about the gifts of the Spirit, he would say, the gifts of the Father. I don't know any greek, but I am pretty sure that the words for spirit and father are different.
Scripture talks about a number of spirits - evil spirits, man's own spirit, unclean spirits and THE Holy Spirit; the Spirit of the Lord, occasionally called "the Spirit of God" or "spirit of Jesus". God is spirit, because he is not flesh, or matter, and we can't see him. Again, God is one - 3 persons in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is NOT the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Son nor the Father; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.

I've explained many of these things in this thread already, I will try again.

Here is an example from scripture, the Father dwells in heaven, but sends His Spirit forth for the breath of man, then the breath returns to God upon mans death, because God dwells in heaven. This is how God the Father can be everywhere, by His Spirit, which is Him, not another person.

Yes, you've explained how you understand this, but that is not actually the accepted, orthodox and traditional view.

If the Holy Spirit was not a separate person, (and person isn't the best word, but to say separate being or spirit sounds wrong), then why are there verses which tell of the Father sending his Spirit? Why not just say "the Father went to that person and entered into them"?

I believe it is clear that the Spirit is personal and a separate person. Scripture says that we can quench the Spirit, lie to him, grieve him and blaspheme him. In fact, Jesus said that blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit, won't.
The Spirit gives gifts, one of which is prophecy, and we are warned not to despise, or reject, prophecies. Jesus himself always refers to the Spirit as him - actually, the Spirit doesn't have a gender, but Jesus never says "it", nor "the breath of the Father." Jesus told his disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:20, and Paul prayed that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit would be with us, 2 Corinthians 13:14. It is the Holy Spirit who assures us that we belong to the Father. Paul could have said, "the Father assures us that we are his children", but he doesn't, he says the Spirit, Romans 8:16-17.

It is the Father, but not the Father Himself, for the Father dwells in Heaven. If we were to look at it the way you are saying, it's really the same thing, for does the Holy Spirit person leave heaven, divide Himself up into little Holy Spirit persons, and become the breath of all individual people?

No. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord, is able to enter into every believer.
The Father is the Father, the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. God the Father created the world and us in his image - and the Spirit of God was also present, hovering over the waters.

 

[7xlightray]

Not really directly answering the question, but I will take that as a yes, that you think (as I do) that God's Perfect Knowledge includes "knowing" Himself, which means having an Image of Himself. So the question is (was from the beginning), what do YOU think the Perfect Image of Himself in His Mind would be/how would you describe it?

I'm not trying to avoid your question, I don't know what your looking for, to me, it seems like an odd question. I could not answer that perfectly, for I don't know God perfectly, as He knows me. It also comes down to what God is willing to share. To name a few things, His love and all that is included with love, judging righteously, His wisdom, what occupies His mind. Knowing absolutely everything He would know, past and future, could not lie, or be tempted. Could include His immortality, and all that would be included with that, covered in Light as He is, is Spirit.

Not unless what your looking for is the perfect image of Himself would be Himself, but then it would either be, not a perfect image, because the image would have a beginning, or the image would have to be Himself, but then it would be Him, and not an image, because the image of Him would now have to include the image of Him that's not really an image of Him, but is Him, so then, He would have to start over and make another image.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I'm not trying to avoid your question, I don't know what your looking for, to me, it seems like an odd question. I could not answer that perfectly, for I don't know God perfectly, as He knows me. It also comes down to what God is willing to share. To name a few things, His love and all that is included with love, judging righteously, His wisdom, what occupies His mind. Knowing absolutely everything He would know, past and future, could not lie, or be tempted. Could include His immortality, and all that would be included with that, covered in Light as He is, is Spirit.

Not unless what your looking for is the perfect image of Himself would be Himself, but then it would either be, not a perfect image, because the image would have a beginning, or the image would have to be Himself, but then it would be Him, and not an image, because the image of Him would now have to include the image of Him that's not really an image of Him, but is Him, so then, He would have to start over and make another image.

No one asked what has God shared about Himself or for anyone to reference what He has shared. The question was simple - what would it mean to you for God to have a Perfect Image of His Self in His Mind. Either God knows Himself Perfectly or does not. Am no longer certain that you think God can Know Himself.

And then you threw in past, present and future which goes beyond the question and suggest you think God changes over time (ie He would no longer be the Image He was). God has no beginning or end, so talking about His Mind as if it changes over time is a distraction and represents a very anthropomorphic view of what God must be like.

So since we have back tracked, can you state that God Knows Himself Perfectly?

 

[7xlightray]

No one asked what has God shared about Himself or for anyone to reference what He has shared. The question was simple - what would it mean to you for God to have a Perfect Image of His Self in His Mind. Either God knows Himself Perfectly or does not. Am no longer certain that you think God can Know Himself.

And then you threw in past, present and future which goes beyond the question and suggest you think God changes over time (ie He would no longer be the Image He was). God has no beginning or end, so talking about His Mind as if it changes over time is a distraction and represents a very anthropomorphic view of what God must be like.

So since we have back tracked, can you state that God Knows Himself Perfectly?

You asked: May I ask what you think the Perfect Image of God would be?

I answered: Would depend on context. For instance, referring to man in the flesh would be one thing, referring to the resurrected would be another.
One who represents God's nature accurately whether character, and/or things pertaining to immortality, and glorious. God is love, God is immortal, things along these lines.

You replied: Rephrase. Does God know Himself Perfectly?

I replied: Who would know Him better? Sure.​

Then you asked: So with Perfect Knowledge of His Infinite Self in His Perfect Mind, what would the Perfect Self Image of God the Father be? ​

But if you will notice, I have already answered this, in my first answer to your first question, so I'm not sure what your looking for, when I said “One who represents God's nature accurately whether character, and/or things pertaining to immortality, and glorious. God is love, God is immortal, things along these lines.” So, I'm not sure what your looking for now, so I answer...

I replied: Not sure, if this is what your getting at?
If your including an all knowing image, or even actually always existing, so that they would actually be God, as God is, in every way God is, that would no longer be an image, but God Himself. I don't think that's what God had in mind, nor do I think it would be possible, for then they would have to be God. We have the breath of God in us, which is eternal, but we are not eternal, as in always existing.
Also if Jesus is not all knowing, and no one would exceed as an image of God as he is, then surely we will not be. ​

You reply: It was a simple question I thought. Was not talking about God the Father having Perfect Knowledge of everything. Just asking if you thought in the Mind of God there could be a Perfect Image of Himself.
Remember in the Trinity Concept there is only One Mind of God, not three minds.​

I have already answered this question as well (I thought), when I said. “Who would know Him better? Sure.” I do answer your question again though, I'm saying ya, He would know what that is...

I answer: I would think He would know what a perfect image is.

You ask again: Not really directly answering the question, but I will take that as a yes, that you think (as I do) that God's Perfect Knowledge includes "knowing" Himself, which means having an Image of Himself. So the question is (was from the beginning), what do YOU think the Perfect Image of Himself in His Mind would be/how would you describe it?​

I did not know you were looking for “yes” and “no” answers.

I answer: I'm not trying to avoid your question, I don't know what your looking for, to me, it seems like an odd question. I could not answer that perfectly, for I don't know God perfectly, as He knows me. It also comes down to what God is willing to share. To name a few things, His love and all that is included with love, judging righteously, His wisdom, what occupies His mind. Knowing absolutely everything He would know, past and future, could not lie, or be tempted. Could include His immortality, and all that would be included with that, covered in Light as He is, is Spirit.
This I just threw this in for fun: Not unless what your looking for is the perfect image of Himself would be Himself, but then it would either be, not a perfect image, because the image would have a beginning, or the image would have to be Himself, but then it would be Him, and not an image, because the image of Him would now have to include the image of Him that's not really an image of Him, but is Him, so then, He would have to start over and make another image.​

But I did answer your question, the part that is underlined, I thought anyway.

You respond: No one asked what has God shared about Himself or for anyone to reference what He has shared. The question was simple - what would it mean to you for God to have a Perfect Image of His Self in His Mind. Either God knows Himself Perfectly or does not. Am no longer certain that you think God can Know Himself. And then you threw in past, present and future which goes beyond the question and suggest you think God changes over time (ie He would no longer be the Image He was). God has no beginning or end, so talking about His Mind as if it changes over time is a distraction and represents a very anthropomorphic view of what God must be like.
So since we have back tracked, can you state that God Knows Himself Perfectly?​

I did not say God shared anything, what I said, was what He was willing to share. If you did not like this part of my response just ignore it.

I answered your question, what I thought would be His perfect image. Did I not? Though really it depends on context, are we talking about heavenly beings, or earthly beings? Anyways, I answered both. I also answer that God does know himself, and that He would know what His perfect image would be.

I answered all your question, did I not with “His love and all that is included with love, judging righteously, His wisdom, what occupies His mind. Knowing absolutely everything He would know, past and future, could not lie, or be tempted. Could include His immortality, and all that would be included with that, covered in Light as He is, is Spirit”

So, what else are you looking for? Is there something else you have in mind?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You asked: May I ask what you think the Perfect Image of God would be?

I answered: Would depend on context. For instance, referring to man in the flesh would be one thing, referring to the resurrected would be another.
One who represents God's nature accurately whether character, and/or things pertaining to immortality, and glorious. God is love, God is immortal, things along these lines.

You replied: Rephrase. Does God know Himself Perfectly?

I replied: Who would know Him better? Sure.
Then you asked: So with Perfect Knowledge of His Infinite Self in His Perfect Mind, what would the Perfect Self Image of God the Father be? ​

But if you will notice, I have already answered this, in my first answer to your first question, so I'm not sure what your looking for, when I said “One who represents God's nature accurately whether character, and/or things pertaining to immortality, and glorious. God is love, God is immortal, things along these lines.” So, I'm not sure what your looking for now, so I answer...

I replied: Not sure, if this is what your getting at?
If your including an all knowing image, or even actually always existing, so that they would actually be God, as God is, in every way God is, that would no longer be an image, but God Himself. I don't think that's what God had in mind, nor do I think it would be possible, for then they would have to be God. We have the breath of God in us, which is eternal, but we are not eternal, as in always existing.
Also if Jesus is not all knowing, and no one would exceed as an image of God as he is, then surely we will not be.
You reply: It was a simple question I thought. Was not talking about God the Father having Perfect Knowledge of everything. Just asking if you thought in the Mind of God there could be a Perfect Image of Himself.
Remember in the Trinity Concept there is only One Mind of God, not three minds.​

I have already answered this question as well (I thought), when I said. “Who would know Him better? Sure.” I do answer your question again though, I'm saying ya, He would know what that is...

I answer: I would think He would know what a perfect image is.

You ask again: Not really directly answering the question, but I will take that as a yes, that you think (as I do) that God's Perfect Knowledge includes "knowing" Himself, which means having an Image of Himself. So the question is (was from the beginning), what do YOU think the Perfect Image of Himself in His Mind would be/how would you describe it?​

I did not know you were looking for “yes” and “no” answers.

I answer: I'm not trying to avoid your question, I don't know what your looking for, to me, it seems like an odd question. I could not answer that perfectly, for I don't know God perfectly, as He knows me. It also comes down to what God is willing to share. To name a few things, His love and all that is included with love, judging righteously, His wisdom, what occupies His mind. Knowing absolutely everything He would know, past and future, could not lie, or be tempted. Could include His immortality, and all that would be included with that, covered in Light as He is, is Spirit.
This I just threw this in for fun: Not unless what your looking for is the perfect image of Himself would be Himself, but then it would either be, not a perfect image, because the image would have a beginning, or the image would have to be Himself, but then it would be Him, and not an image, because the image of Him would now have to include the image of Him that's not really an image of Him, but is Him, so then, He would have to start over and make another image.​

But I did answer your question, the part that is underlined, I thought anyway.

You respond: No one asked what has God shared about Himself or for anyone to reference what He has shared. The question was simple - what would it mean to you for God to have a Perfect Image of His Self in His Mind. Either God knows Himself Perfectly or does not. Am no longer certain that you think God can Know Himself. And then you threw in past, present and future which goes beyond the question and suggest you think God changes over time (ie He would no longer be the Image He was). God has no beginning or end, so talking about His Mind as if it changes over time is a distraction and represents a very anthropomorphic view of what God must be like.
So since we have back tracked, can you state that God Knows Himself Perfectly?​

I did not say God shared anything, what I said, was what He was willing to share. If you did not like this part of my response just ignore it.

I answered your question, what I thought would be His perfect image. Did I not? Though really it depends on context, are we talking about heavenly beings, or earthly beings? Anyways, I answered both. I also answer that God does know himself, and that He would know what His perfect image would be.

I answered all your question, did I not with “His love and all that is included with love, judging righteously, His wisdom, what occupies His mind. Knowing absolutely everything He would know, past and future, could not lie, or be tempted. Could include His immortality, and all that would be included with that, covered in Light as He is, is Spirit”

So, what else are you looking for? Is there something else you have in mind?

Yeah, what you think the Perfect Image of God in His Mind would be.
If God knows Himself as you claim to believe He does, then He does so Perfectly. Which means in He has a Perfect Image of Himself. Not the sort a human might have, which your allusions to time being an issue to this train of thought suggests one thinks less of God than one should. So no, we never had an articulate response to what God having a Perfect Image of Himself means to you.

 

[7xlightray]

Yes, he was. Jesus was chosen, anointed, filled with the Spirit, set apart, and much more.
But, IF he was only man, Spirit filled but 100% human and nothing more - and I'm not sure if this is your position or not - then even being chosen and Spirit filled was not enough for him to be able to give us eternal life, reconciliation with the Father, mediating and interceding for us.

Yes, I do think there is more to it then just being filled with the Spirit, for John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from birth. Jesus had the Spirit without measure, being filled with the Spirit would be a measure. Jesus was the Word/Spirit/truth/Life that became flesh. For one I don't think he had any inherent corruption handed down from man, but I can't think of any scripture that states one way or another. I believe I recall reading a passage that said he did have some of his mother in him, but I can't remember how it was worded, so I can't really comment on that. From scripture it tells us he would have been the wisest of all, at least concerning the things of God. He would have had the character of his Father. Where as the scripture say about Adam, after He made him/them, He saw everything He made was very good. It doesn't say God made Adam with His character. The image of God there in Genesis seems more related to dominion, and the wisdom that would go with it.

All that aside; if Jesus was ONLY a man, then it was just a mere human being who died on the cross. What's more, it was a lying and/or deluded human being, i.e not perfect. I'm not certain I can trust my salvation and eternal destiny to a mere human being - however Spirit filled.
But if Jesus was 100% human AND 100% God - the traditional Christian position - then it was God himself laying down his life for us (and no, I don't know how God could die); God himself paying the price for OUR sin against him.
God is holy and just and HAS to punish sin, but he knew that the price of sin, eternal death, Romans 6:23, was FAR more than we could bear; so he stepped in to pay it himself. On the cross, Jesus became sin for us, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and was separated from his Father, Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34.

What are you basing this on “What's more, it was a lying and/or deluded human being, i.e not perfect. I'm not certain I can trust my salvation and eternal destiny to a mere human being - however Spirit filled.”?

Jesus was without spot, or blemish.

God became sin?
God was separated from God?
God died?
God was tempted?

Huge problem with those. So, they divided Christ. Didn't Gnosticism do a similar thing, said one Jesus was in heaven, the other was a man, and the heavenly one entered the earthly one, but when Jesus suffered, the heavenly one left, because the heavenly one could not suffer.

What we are doing is believing in our father's writings, which is extra-biblical. There are a few other denominations that also have extra-biblical writings. Older does not make them anymore true. Don't forget John said, there were already many antichrist around in his time, this is how we know it IS the last hour.

"But if Jesus was 100% human AND 100% God - the traditional Christian position - then it was God himself laying down his life for us (and no, I don't know how God could die); God himself paying the price for OUR sin against him.

One illustration sometimes used to explain the cross is that of someone committing a serious crime, being dragged before a judge who imposes an enormous fine. The guilty person cannot pay this but approaches the relevant person and prepares to plead for mercy, only to be told that it has already been paid for him - by the judge. God is holy and just and HAS to punish sin, but he knew that the price of sin, eternal death, Romans 6:23, was FAR more than we could bear; so he stepped in to pay it himself. On the cross, Jesus became sin for us, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and was separated from his Father, Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34."

It has to be a man that died for a man, that we may associate with his death and resurrection in baptism. For one God can't die. So, what part of God died? So it would just be an illusion that God died, for God can't really die, but man can, otherwise why wouldn't the Father just come Himself, instead of sending His Son to die. What would you do? Would you send your son to die, or would you go yourself. Seeing as God can't die, he had to send some one that could.

The scripture say it had to be someone without spot or blemish, where in scripture does it say it has to be God?

God doesn't want us to read Scripture with the mind set that Jesus is not God.

Where does it state that? I know scripture says, "Behold it is I" which we know was the Father.

He IS God and God wants us to know the truth.

John 1:14 says the word became flesh and dwelt - lived - among us. It goes on to say, "we have seen HIS glory, the glory of the One and Only who came from the Father." 1 John 1:1 says, "that which was from the beginning which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched" - nearly all the senses involved there - "this we proclaim concerning the word of life."

Yes this was all in the Son, because the Word became flesh, but John reveals who this is referring to in 1 John 1 verses 2 and 7, which is the Father, if you follow closely what John is saying. Word of Life, Eternal life that which was with the Father, and was manifested in Jesus, but we are going to see John is not speaking of Jesus, but the Father's Word of life, eternal life. And John is going to tell us what Jesus had to say about God. That God is light, which is truth, then he reveals the God he has been talking about, was the Father, who had a Son. Walking in truth is very important towards eternal life, for the truth will set us free. And walking in the truth, is eternal life, for this is God the Father, who is eternal, and in Him is no darkness.

You seem to be reading only a few verses of 1 John 1, verses 1 and 2.

Jesus doesn't need saving, he came to save us. That is what the angel told Joseph before Jesus' birth, Matthew 1:21.

Of course Jesus came to save us, does not mean Jesus did not need saving. Jesus did not need to be saved from his own sin, though he did become sin. Read the Psalms, Jesus cried out to God to save him from the pit, grave, from these men, and He answered him. It's all there. I've given you passages that show this in previous post. Here's a few you might recognize, Psalm 6 (Matt 25:41), or 16 (John 20:9; Acts 2:31), or 22 (Matt 27; Mark 15:34), or 31 (Luke 23:46), or 34 (John 19:36), or 35 (John 15:25; Matt 26:60), or 41 (John 13:18), or 69 (John 15:25; 19:28), or 109 (John 15:25; 17:12)

No, God sent Jesus - the Father sent the Son; I said that. But reconciliation to the Father is through the cross. The Father sent the Son, but if the Son had not lived a perfect life, been obedient to the Father and laid down his life for the sheep, as he said, John 10:11, then we would not be saved. Jesus came to die; he came to save what was lost, Luke 19:10, which was us.
Absolutely we should praise and thank the Father for sending Jesus - but it was Jesus who shed his blood for many, Matthew 26:28, Jesus who died on the cross, was raised from the dead and has been given ALL power and authority, Matthew 28:19, and the name which is above every name, Philippians 2:9. It is at the name of Jesus that every knee will bow and every tongue confess him as Lord.

Yes I know all that, but your seem to be ignoring what I said, that it was the Father's works, the Father working in Jesus, as the Father works in us.

I asked that question for your benefit, for you to think about.
I understand that God the Father planned to save us, and did so by sending Jesus - who is God the Son.
The Father planned and provided for, our salvation; through Jesus. Jesus delivered his salvation and delivered the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah, and sealed it with his blood.

And I answered for your benefit, for I believed in the trinity for over 25 years.
You keep leaving out the part, that it was the Father working in Jesus.

But a mere human being cannot reconcile anyone to God, or forgive his sins on behalf of God or with the authority of God.

Not any human. Sure a human can forgive sins, or withhold them. Your believing in the pharisees.

John 20:21 (KJV) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as(G2531 – kathōs - just as, even as, in proportion as, in the degree that) my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.​

This showing this authority Jesus had to forgive sins came from the Father, and now the disciples are given this.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (the grave) shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (keys to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven): and whatsoever thou shalt bind(to forbid) on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose(set free) on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Jesus gives Peter the keys to heaven and whoever Peter forbids to enter is forbidden and whoever he permits to enter is permitted to enter).

Acts 5:9 (KJV) Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her (whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained, and bound in heaven) by her husband.

Acts 8:20 (KJV) But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee (whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained), because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter (whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained, whatsoever thou shalt bind): for thy heart is not right in the sight of God (Peter could see his heart). 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. 24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.​

 

[7xlightray]

Yeah, what you think the Perfect Image of God in His Mind would be.
If God knows Himself as you claim to believe He does, then He does so Perfectly. Which means in He has a Perfect Image of Himself. Not the sort a human might have, which your allusions to time being an issue to this train of thought suggests one thinks less of God than one should. So no, we never had an articulate response to what God having a Perfect Image of Himself means to you.

Really what in the world are you going on about "time being an issue to this train of thought suggests one thinks less of God than one should"? This would go for anything one would say then.

Why don't you answer the question, then maybe I'll see what line of thinking you got going there.

 

[7xlightray]

Continued.



The Father IS the true God - so is the Son and so is the Spirit.

The scribe DID answer wisely; he said that God is one. I am also saying that God is one - as is every other trinitinarian, (if that's the word.)
There is ONE God. Not one God divided into three; ONE God. Our God IS Father, Son and Holy Spirit - just as one man can be father, husband and son. My brother is a father, a husband and a son. He relates to his children, his wife and our mother in different ways and has a different kind of relationship with each. He is still one man. He does not stop being a father when he is talking to our mother as her son.

No, what I said, and what Jesus said, is ONLY true God, not true God.
Where does it say Jesus is the ONLY true God?

Lets be honest about this, the scribe never would have understood God as three persons.
And he thinks of God as a person, a singular person at that...

“And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he [3rd Person Singular]:” - Mark 12:32​

Jesus saw he answered wisely.

 

[7xlightray]

But the Father is NOT the Holy Spirit - otherwise Scripture would not talk about the Holy Spirit, it would say "the Father". Neither would it talk about the Father sending HIS Holy Spirit; Jesus would have just said something like, "my Father himself will come to you and live in you." Paul would not talk about the gifts of the Spirit, he would say, the gifts of the Father. I don't know any greek, but I am pretty sure that the words for spirit and father are different.
Scripture talks about a number of spirits - evil spirits, man's own spirit, unclean spirits and THE Holy Spirit; the Spirit of the Lord, occasionally called "the Spirit of God" or "spirit of Jesus". God is spirit, because he is not flesh, or matter, and we can't see him. Again, God is one - 3 persons in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is NOT the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Son nor the Father; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.

The scripture also say Lord, and LORD, and God, and Highest, and almighty, and Word, and so on. So, why can't the Father's Spirit be called Holy Spirit, that He shares with others? That is His power, and many other functions, and gifts He shares with others. If He is sharing His Spirit with others, then yes it would be talking about the Father sending His Spirit. If I was to pluck out one of my hairs and send it to you, I would be sharing my hair with you, and I would be sending it to you. Sorry about the hair analogy, but the only thing I could think of. The Father dwells in heaven, and sends His own Spirit, the Father Himself does not come. As the sun remains in the sky, but sends down it's light, the sun itself does not come down to earth. And we don't call the the light that come down the sun, although we do say the Sun is bright.

I know the doctrine of the trinity, but this formula “God is one - 3 persons in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is NOT the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Son nor the Father; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit” is not found in scripture, therefore it is mans formula. It is something man came up with to describe what he thinks God is. The Bible states something else, does it not? Father the only true God, and yet for us there is one God, the Father.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello lightray.

Being able to correctly identify the Christ is one very difficult assignment to undertake. From day one, even the
apostles themselves struggled with the identity of the Christ. I think Peter was the only apostle who came close
to identifying the Christ in the first few years. It is acceptable to struggle deeply with the identity of the Christ,
being able to prove His identity is a very difficult task.

So on the one hand, you can accept some creed that was formulated long ago, by the so called experts in the trade.
Or you can consult a multitude of texts that are available today, on the deity of the Christ. Either way Lightray, there
may still remain doubts as to the stated identity of the Christ in these texts.

Depending on your ability to navigate the vast sea of the scripture, you should arrive at some comfortable destination
in your travels, hopefully. Carrying a secure doctrine that for you Lightray, establishes the true identity of the Christ.
In the end Lightry, regardless of everyone else's opinion, you must establish without any doubt whatsoever, the identity
of the Christ for yourself.

How about we start off by dismissing a common misunderstanding that Christ was a man, this He was not by definition.

Jesus was not the biological offspring of Mary and Joseph, fact one, Mary was a virgin (Luke 1:34) before and after the
birth of the Christ. Thus Jesus was not the real son of Mary and Joseph, I don't think anyone has a problem with this
first fact. This is an important first point Lightray, we must first establish the humanity of the Christ, otherwise we will start
entirely on the wrong foot.

So was Jesus a man by any definition that we comprehend?

Jesus was a supernatural child and without a father or a mother, Jesus actually had no identifiable geneology to speak of,
though the scripture lists His genealogy. Born of a Jewish woman in Bethlehem most certainly, but certainly not the biological son of this woman. No matter how you attempt to step around this point, Jesus was not one of us, Jesus
was not a direct descendant of Adam. Mary was not the genetic, or biological mother of Jesus, Mary technically was not
the mother and Joseph was not the father. So Jesus was born into the house of David, certainly not from the house
of David.

So Jesus arrived in a human form and this we know, Jesus had flesh and blood, a visible male form. Though we know
that Jesus was not a direct descendant of Adam, Jesus was born of a surrogate mother, we call the surrogate mother
Mary. So to call Jesus 'a man' is not correct, Jesus was very different to us. It is not hard to see that Jesus was not
similar to the descendants of Adam. In fact, Jesus was entirely perfect in every way, utterly flawless in speech,
Jesus spoke in commandments to humanity.

What I find interesting is what John tells us about Jesus.

John 3:31
The one who comes from above is above all, the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about
earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

Jesus came from heaven, Jesus was not the offspring of human parents, the scripture will not allow us to call Jesus
a descendant of Adam. Jesus was from above, John states this and Jesus said, 'He has seen the Father'.

John 6:46
Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.

So how can a man, a mere mortal, have seen the Father, because no man has ever seen the Father.

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God.

Therefore since Jesus said that He had seen the Father, then Jesus cannot be a man by definition.

We cannot in anyway ever make the claim that Jesus was just a man.

No man has ever seen God, no man has ever known God, no man has ever heard God. Funny thing is,
Jesus claimed all three for Himself, not only did Jesus say he knew the Father, Jesus claimed to be the Father!

John 14:9
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen
me has seen the Father.

Yes you read that correctly, looking at Jesus is looking directly at the Father, knowing Jesus is knowing the creator.
Because the creator Himself, the YHWH, is in fact Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1
15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him (Jesus) all things in heaven
and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things
have been created through him (Jesus) and for him (Jesus).

No wonder the apostles were confused over the Christ, the Christ is beyond human understanding.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Really what in the world are you going on about "time being an issue to this train of thought suggests one thinks less of God than one should"? This would go for anything one would say then.

Why don't you answer the question, then maybe I'll see what line of thinking you got going there.

My thoughts are in line with the Trinity Doctrine. Am just trying to understand why someone would resist even articulating a concept in their own mind in order to attempt to continue defending a position that such thoughts jeopardizes.

If one believes God Perfect in every way, and also repeatedly agreed God also capable of having a Perfect Image of Himself - then what makes the Perfect Image of God we both agree exist not Real to you?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hello lightray.

Being able to correctly identify the Christ is one very difficult assignment to undertake. From day one, even the
apostles themselves struggled with the identity of the Christ. I think Peter was the only apostle who came close
to identifying the Christ in the first few years. It is acceptable to struggle deeply with the identity of the Christ,
being able to prove His identity is a very difficult task.

So on the one hand, you can accept some creed that was formulated long ago, by the so called experts in the trade.
Or you can consult a multitude of texts that are available today, on the deity of the Christ. Either way Lightray, there
may still remain doubts as to the stated identity of the Christ in these texts.

Depending on your ability to navigate the vast sea of the scripture, you should arrive at some comfortable destination
in your travels, hopefully. Carrying a secure doctrine that for you Lightray, establishes the true identity of the Christ.
In the end Lightry, regardless of everyone else's opinion, you must establish without any doubt whatsoever, the identity
of the Christ for yourself.

How about we start off by dismissing a common misunderstanding that Christ was a man, this He was not by definition.

Jesus was not the biological offspring of Mary and Joseph, fact one, Mary was a virgin (Luke 1:34) before and after the
birth of the Christ. Thus Jesus was not the real son of Mary and Joseph, I don't think anyone has a problem with this
first fact. This is an important first point Lightray, we must first establish the humanity of the Christ, otherwise we will start
entirely on the wrong foot.

So was Jesus a man by any definition that we comprehend?

Jesus was a supernatural child and without a father or a mother, Jesus actually had no identifiable geneology to speak of,
though the scripture lists His genealogy. Born of a Jewish woman in Bethlehem most certainly, but certainly not the biological son of this woman. No matter how you attempt to step around this point, Jesus was not one of us, Jesus
was not a direct descendant of Adam. Mary was not the genetic, or biological mother of Jesus, Mary technically was not
the mother and Joseph was not the father. So Jesus was born into the house of David, certainly not from the house
of David.

So Jesus arrived in a human form and this we know, Jesus had flesh and blood, a visible male form. Though we know
that Jesus was not a direct descendant of Adam, Jesus was born of a surrogate mother, we call the surrogate mother
Mary. So to call Jesus 'a man' is not correct, Jesus was very different to us. It is not hard to see that Jesus was not
similar to the descendants of Adam. In fact, Jesus was entirely perfect in every way, utterly flawless in speech,
Jesus spoke in commandments to humanity.

What I find interesting is what John tells us about Jesus.

John 3:31
The one who comes from above is above all, the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about
earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

Jesus came from heaven, Jesus was not the offspring of human parents, the scripture will not allow us to call Jesus
a descendant of Adam. Jesus was from above, John states this and Jesus said, 'He has seen the Father'.

John 6:46
Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.

So how can a man, a mere mortal, have seen the Father, because no man has ever seen the Father.

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God.

Therefore since Jesus said that He had seen the Father, then Jesus cannot be a man by definition.

We cannot in anyway ever make the claim that Jesus was just a man.

No man has ever seen God, no man has ever known God, no man has ever heard God. Funny thing is,
Jesus claimed all three for Himself, not only did Jesus say he knew the Father, Jesus claimed to be the Father!

John 14:9
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen
me has seen the Father.

Yes you read that correctly, looking at Jesus is looking directly at the Father, knowing Jesus is knowing the creator.
Because the creator Himself, the YHWH, is in fact Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1
15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him (Jesus) all things in heaven
and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things
have been created through him (Jesus) and for him (Jesus).

No wonder the apostles were confused over the Christ, the Christ is beyond human understanding.

The Son of God did indeed come from Heaven to become Man. And it would take a man to undue what man had done. Am not sure why we should think God incapable of using all of Mary's humanity to create a complete embryo in Her Womb (which BTW would make Him a Man (and God =two natures)).