Jesus is God !

[blueboy]

I agree with you, there. There is no way to God but through God. God is the gatekeeper to God.

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but to imagine that Jesus is God is just imagining another reality that makes no sense in the context and life of Jesus. One hopes this is not another one of those false beliefs that get rusted on for ever. It is to be hoped that at some stage you might be able to see into this a bit more clearly.

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Now I appreciate that this is a throw-back to Psalm 22:1, but very, very odd if Jesus was God and thus feeling rejected by Himself and calling out to Himself to relieve His own anguish, don't you think.

When Jesus was baptised, "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Perhaps Jesus was a ventriloquist with a split personality? So here is Jesus on earth being baptised, so who then was speaking from heaven?
many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not God.

Now a Trinity of sorts does exist, but not in a literal sense because God is beyond plurality, division, having an aspect of His reality subjected to death and decay. Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit and served the Will of His Father, in this there is a Trinity, but not in a literal sense, rather in the active force of God assisting Jesus to be the perfect servant.

 

[blueboy]

Says the one who hasn't quoted a single Bible verse so far... at least not on the last two pages...

Didn't you reject the idea that the Bible was God's word anyways?



You disagree, but your disagreement isn't backed up by scripture.



Not only that, but in order to be the PERFECT intermediator, He must have something in common with BOTH parties, to avoid bias towards one side or the other.



Yes, it is, by the very definition of justice.



Which is not exclusionary to Jesus being God.



Anyone can interpret God's word.

But who better to interpret God's word than God Himself?



Because the Bible says He did. Isn't it amazing?! That He would condescend to us, so that He may truly know us, and we Him!

One of God's Biblical attributes is that He is RELATIONAL. He wants a relationship with His creation! Unlike other depictions of gods who are not relational, but aloof, the God of the Bible is real, and He wants a relationship with you!



False.



Jesus was God before He became a man.



Philippians 2:7 says He emptied Himself when He became human.

So what's your point? No one here says that the entirety of God could fit within a human body.



We have. You clearly have not.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



The Bible says otherwise.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.He was in the beginning with God.All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ ”And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. - John 1:1-18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:1-18&version=NKJV



Tu quoque Fallacy.

I try not to quote Bible verses because you don't seem to understand them at all. It's won't help us.

The Bible is not God's Word but it is a Divine Inspiration received that is applicable to a time and a place and the need of the people. As God is an absolute being and humans are not, this means that all Scripture is only a relative truth and as the Word of God must be an absolute truth the Bible is Divine in origin, but bnot the absolute Word of God. I appreciate there are some semantics at play here, but you're a clever guy, I'm sure you will understand what I mean.

Philippians 2:7 Now the first part of this states 2:6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God.

You see the meaning here now. Jesus represented God, it was as if Jesus was God, so obedient and connected were they, but He was not literally God.

The spirit of Jesus was with God before He was a man and that spirit was attached to that body.

In the beginning was the Word . . . “In the beginning” refers to that eternal reality beyond time, a reality that transcends all creation, is changeless and placeless, and yet is the very essence and source of all that exists or can ever exists.

Beyond any duality or form there exists the “I am,” the single, indivisible, omnipresent, unfathomable “Word.” Within the absolute realm of the eternal “I am.” The "Word" is the totality of all that will ever exist and it comes from a a beginning that has no beginning. Abraham was the Word, Noah was the Word, Moses was the Word, Jesus was the Word and the figure who will return like Jesus will also be the, "Word".

The "Word" is part of a state of progressive revelation. It reveals more of its essential truth as humanity advances.

As for, Tu quoque, well we are all hypocrites, but some are more ignorant than others.

 

[JudgeRightly]

to imagine that Jesus is God is just imagining another reality that makes no sense in the context and life of Jesus.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Now I appreciate that this is a throw-back to Psalm 22:1, but very, very odd if Jesus was God and thus feeling rejected by Himself and calling out to Himself to relieve His own anguish, don't you think.

Your straw man assumes that God is singular, and not a plurality.

In reality, God is triune, and there is interaction among the three Persons within the Godhead.

When Christ was on thr cross, crying out those words, it was because He was cut off from His Father in Heaven, Whom He had never been cut off from before, since He had always been in communication with His Father before that.

When Jesus was baptised, "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Perhaps Jesus was a ventriloquist with a split personality?

Again, your straw man is that God is unitarian.

If you want to make a case against God being triune, then please stop using arguments that only apply to a unitarian god.

So here is Jesus on earth being baptised, so who then was speaking from heaven?

His Father.

many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not God.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Now a Trinity of sorts does exist, but not in a literal sense

Yes, in a literal sense, God is Triune.

because God is beyond plurality, division,

Meaningless nonsense.

having an aspect of His reality subjected to death and decay.

Jesus' body never saw corruption.

Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit and served the Will of His Father, in this there is a Trinity, but not in a literal sense, rather in the active force of God assisting Jesus to be the perfect servant.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I try not to quote Bible verses because you don't seem to understand them at all.

Rather, you don't quote them because if you do, you might realize that the verses don't say what you want them to say.

We understand them just fine. You're the one who doesn't.

It's won't help us.

They help us just fine, but show you to be in error.

The Bible is not God's Word

Yes it is.

but it is a Divine Inspiration received that is applicable to a time and a place and the need of the people.

False.

The Bible was written so that men of any age could know their Creator.

As God is an absolute being and humans are not, this means that all Scripture is only a relative truth and as the Word of God must be an absolute truth the Bible is Divine in origin, but not the absolute Word of God.

More meaningless nonsense.

Here's what the Bible says about itself:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Timothy3:16-17&version=NKJV

I appreciate there are some semantics at play here, but you're a clever guy, I'm sure you will understand what I mean.

I cannot understand the meaningless nonsense you put forth, for there is nothing to be understood.

Philippians 2:7 Now the first part of this states 2:6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God.

Somehow I knew you would botch that up...

Here's what it ACTUALLY says:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:5-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians2:5-11&version=NKJV

Jesus, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God.

He then emptied Himself, and came as a man.

You see the meaning here now.

The meaning is clear through the plain reading of the passage.

Jesus represented God, it was as if Jesus was God, so obedient and connected were they, but He was not literally God.

False.

The spirit of Jesus was with God before He was a man and that spirit was attached to that body.

No.

Jesus existed with God because He IS and WAS and ALWAYS WILL BE God.

In the beginning was the Word . . . “In the beginning” refers to that eternal reality beyond time, a reality that transcends all creation, is changeless and placeless, and yet is the very essence and source of all that exists or can ever exists.

More meaningless nonsense.

Beyond any duality or form there exists the “I am,” the single, indivisible, omnipresent, unfathomable “Word.” Within the absolute realm of the eternal “I am.” The "Word" is the totality of all that will ever exist and it comes from a a beginning that has no beginning. Abraham was the Word, Noah was the Word, Moses was the Word, Jesus was the Word and the figure who will return like Jesus will also be the, "Word".

Your blasphemy will not be tolerated.

The "Word" is part of a state of progressive revelation. It reveals more of its essential truth as humanity advances.

Logos doesn't mean word. It means "logic," "reason."

As for, Tu quoque, well we are all hypocrites, but some are more ignorant than others.

Speak for yourself.

 

[7djengo7]

I'm sure your heart is in the right place,

What do you mean by that?

but to imagine that Jesus is God

By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If so, then here's what you're saying: "but to imagine that Jesus is [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians do not imagine that Jesus is the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?

is just imagining another reality that makes no sense in the context and life of Jesus.

What you have written, there, is merely a string of nonsense.

One hopes this is not another one of those false beliefs

Beliefs are neither true nor false. Rather, that which one believes—a proposition—is what is either true or false.

that get rusted on for ever.

Heavens to murgatroyd, that sounds not so good, whatever it is you're talking about!

It is to be hoped that at some stage you might be able to see into this a bit more clearly.

Oh, you're quite enlightened, huh?

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Now I appreciate that this is a throw-back to Psalm 22:1, but very, very odd if Jesus was God and thus feeling rejected by Himself and calling out to Himself to relieve His own anguish, don't you think.

When you say, "but very, very odd if Jesus was God", by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If you are, then this is what you are saying: "but very, very odd if Jesus was [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is/was the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?

When Jesus was baptised, "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Perhaps Jesus was a ventriloquist with a split personality?

Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy?

So here is Jesus on earth being baptised, so who then was speaking from heaven?

The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..."

many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not God.

By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? If so, then this is what you're saying: "many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not [the Father]."

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the Father; that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. When you say that Jesus is not the Father, you're merely preaching to the Trinitarian choir. Beyond that, is there some further point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?

Now a Trinity of sorts does exist, but not in a literal sense because God is beyond plurality, division, having an aspect of His reality subjected to death and decay.

Once again, by your word, "God," to whom are you referring? Are you referring to the Father?

What (if anything) do you mean by these slogans: "beyond plurality", "beyond division"?

• Is God love?
• Is God wisdom?

Oh, look: 1) love and 2) wisdom. That's more than one thing. That's two things. Why, that's plurality. So, I guess, according to your heretical stupidity, the correct answer to at least one of those, two questions will have to be NO, eh? According to you, God can't be BOTH love AND wisdom, because God is "beyond plurality," eh?

Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit and served the Will of His Father, in this there is a Trinity, but not in a literal sense,

What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "a Trinity"? I mean, why don't you tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a literal sense," Professor? And also help us to understand what it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a non-literal sense," if you'd be so kind.

rather in the active force of God assisting Jesus to be the perfect servant.

Is this "the active force of God" of which you speak, God? Or, instead, is it someone or something that is not God?

 

[blueboy]

Look, I'm happy for you fellers to block me out, shut me down, whatever, I don't mind at all, because I do see and accept that this is a site for a certain type of Christian to engage with others of the same ilk. People like to belong and have relationships of kind and mind and I appreciated that somebody like me is an irritant to the group think here.

But, blasphemy, wow, a difference of opinion is not blasphemy? I have wondered what might have set you off and blasphemy never once entered my mind.

There are tens-of-thousands of Christian sects, cults, churches that all differ to some degree, so Christianity has remained strong in the face of countless differences, but blasphemy is another animal altogether. I do not blaspheme, nor did I blaspheme ever on this site.

As I have no power over what you think or perceive I humbly accept that you believe I blasphemed and when and if you believe I blasphemed again please feel free to block me or remove me from the site permanently.

Kind regards

blueboy

 

[7djengo7]

Look, I'm happy for you fellers to block me out, shut me down, whatever, I don't mind at all, because I do see and accept that this is a site for a certain type of Christian to engage with others of the same ilk. People like to belong and have relationships of kind and mind and I appreciated that somebody like me is an irritant to the group think here.

But, blasphemy, wow, a difference of opinion is not blasphemy? I have wondered what might have set you off and blasphemy never once entered my mind.

There are tens-of-thousands of Christian sects, cults, churches that all differ to some degree, so Christianity has remained strong in the face of countless differences, but blasphemy is another animal altogether. I do not blaspheme, nor did I blaspheme ever on this site.

As I have no power over what you think or perceive I humbly accept that you believe I blasphemed and when and if you believe I blasphemed again please feel free to block me or remove me from the site permanently.

Kind regards

blueboy

You're not the least bit humble, you lying, arrogant, self-righteous Christ-hater. Saying to someone who, without requiring your leave, can ban you from TOL, "please feel free to block me or remove me from the site permanently," is you speaking in contemptuous mockery of someone whom you wish to try to paint as having somehow wronged you.

Get to answering the questions I asked you above, or get lost, troll.

 

[blueboy]

You're not the least bit humble, you lying, arrogant, self-righteous Christ-hater. Saying to someone who, without requiring your leave, can ban you from TOL, "please feel free to block me or remove me from the site permanently," is you speaking in contemptuous mockery of someone whom you wish to try to paint as having somehow wronged you.

Get to answering the questions I asked you above, or get lost, troll.

There is nothing I could say that you wouldn't find fault with.

All I did was respond in as honest a fashion as I could, after all a charge of blasphemy was sentenced upon me. In some countries that is a death sentence. It was no small thing and the last thing I expected. I thought it necessitated a response which I tried to keep honest and somewhat dignified. You see it as you will, but blasphemy was unjust and a bridge too far. There has never been a hint of blasphemy in any of my posts.

I am no Christ-hater, as for the rest of your tirade, I don't feel wronged, I think it more likely to be a case of misunderstanding of terms and language, a difference in the interpretation of meaning of the Bible?

I am deeply saddened by the endless layers of superstition and dogma that have settled on Christianity, because it inoculates people from ever approaching religion in general and accessing the healing words of Christ.

All the best

blueboy

 

[blueboy]

What do you mean by that?



By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If so, then here's what you're saying: "but to imagine that Jesus is [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians do not imagine that Jesus is the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



What you have written, there, is merely a string of nonsense.



Beliefs are neither true nor false. Rather, that which one believes—a proposition—is what is either true or false.



Heavens to murgatroyd, that sounds not so good, whatever it is you're talking about!



Oh, you're quite enlightened, huh?



When you say, "but very, very odd if Jesus was God", by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If you are, then this is what you are saying: "but very, very odd if Jesus was [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is/was the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy?



The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..."



By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? If so, then this is what you're saying: "many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not [the Father]."

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the Father; that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. When you say that Jesus is not the Father, you're merely preaching to the Trinitarian choir. Beyond that, is there some further point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Once again, by your word, "God," to whom are you referring? Are you referring to the Father?

What (if anything) do you mean by these slogans: "beyond plurality", "beyond division"?

• Is God love?
• Is God wisdom?

Oh, look: 1) love and 2) wisdom. That's more than one thing. That's two things. Why, that's plurality. So, I guess, according to your heretical stupidity, the correct answer to at least one of those, two questions will have to be NO, eh? According to you, God can't be BOTH love AND wisdom, because God is "beyond plurality," eh?



What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "a Trinity"? I mean, why don't you tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a literal sense," Professor? And also help us to understand what it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a non-literal sense," if you'd be so kind.



Is this "the active force of God" of which you speak, God? Or, instead, is it someone or something that is not God?

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, that means, I think you're a sincere chap and you believe with a real an honest conviction.

 

[blueboy]

What do you mean by that?



By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If so, then here's what you're saying: "but to imagine that Jesus is [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians do not imagine that Jesus is the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



What you have written, there, is merely a string of nonsense.



Beliefs are neither true nor false. Rather, that which one believes—a proposition—is what is either true or false.



Heavens to murgatroyd, that sounds not so good, whatever it is you're talking about!



Oh, you're quite enlightened, huh?



When you say, "but very, very odd if Jesus was God", by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If you are, then this is what you are saying: "but very, very odd if Jesus was [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is/was the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy?



The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..."



By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? If so, then this is what you're saying: "many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not [the Father]."

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the Father; that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. When you say that Jesus is not the Father, you're merely preaching to the Trinitarian choir. Beyond that, is there some further point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Once again, by your word, "God," to whom are you referring? Are you referring to the Father?

What (if anything) do you mean by these slogans: "beyond plurality", "beyond division"?

• Is God love?
• Is God wisdom?

Oh, look: 1) love and 2) wisdom. That's more than one thing. That's two things. Why, that's plurality. So, I guess, according to your heretical stupidity, the correct answer to at least one of those, two questions will have to be NO, eh? According to you, God can't be BOTH love AND wisdom, because God is "beyond plurality," eh?



What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "a Trinity"? I mean, why don't you tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a literal sense," Professor? And also help us to understand what it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a non-literal sense," if you'd be so kind.



Is this "the active force of God" of which you speak, God? Or, instead, is it someone or something that is not God?

By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father?

God and Father are one and the same. Father of Creation / God of Creation. Jesus is not literally God, but there is a trinity in the sense that God and the Holy Spirit are in a sense the same thing. God being the totality of the God-head and the Holy Spirit being the Creative powers that are an aspect of the reality of God. Jesus then is the earthly vehicle by which God, the Father makes known what He expects from humanity. The Will of God is expressed through Jesus without Jesus actually being God. That is why the terms Father and Son are used, this firstly denotes the difference and at the same time the closeness of the relationship.

 

[Idolater]

Look, I'm happy for you fellers to block me out, shut me down, whatever, I don't mind at all, because I do see and accept that this is a site for a certain type of Christian to engage with others of the same ilk. People like to belong and have relationships of kind and mind and I appreciated that somebody like me is an irritant to the group think here.

But, blasphemy, wow, a difference of opinion is not blasphemy? I have wondered what might have set you off and blasphemy never once entered my mind.

There are tens-of-thousands of Christian sects, cults, churches that all differ to some degree, so Christianity has remained strong in the face of countless differences

There are very many churches (non-Catholic) that have left the Christian tradition, some identify as Unitarian Universalists while others just fly the pride flag and keep their name. There are no blasphemies possible in these churches but that's not what TOL is.

, but blasphemy is another animal altogether. I do not blaspheme, nor did I blaspheme ever on this site.

As I have no power over what you think or perceive I humbly accept that you believe I blasphemed and when and if you believe I blasphemed again please feel free to block me or remove me from the site permanently.

Kind regards

blueboy

If you're in a UU or pride flag flying church, you're blaspheming according to Christian tradition. You have to check your grammar before posting. Certain ideas are presupposing certain propositions which are mutually exclusive to Christian tradition, such as that the Resurrection of Christ wasn't nonfiction. That's something you believe is fiction. Saying anything reflecting this view, is either plain blasphemy or it's got you on very thin ice. That's just an example.

 

[blueboy]

What do you mean by that?



By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If so, then here's what you're saying: "but to imagine that Jesus is [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians do not imagine that Jesus is the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



What you have written, there, is merely a string of nonsense.



Beliefs are neither true nor false. Rather, that which one believes—a proposition—is what is either true or false.



Heavens to murgatroyd, that sounds not so good, whatever it is you're talking about!



Oh, you're quite enlightened, huh?



When you say, "but very, very odd if Jesus was God", by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If you are, then this is what you are saying: "but very, very odd if Jesus was [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is/was the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy?



The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..."



By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? If so, then this is what you're saying: "many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not [the Father]."

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the Father; that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. When you say that Jesus is not the Father, you're merely preaching to the Trinitarian choir. Beyond that, is there some further point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Once again, by your word, "God," to whom are you referring? Are you referring to the Father?

What (if anything) do you mean by these slogans: "beyond plurality", "beyond division"?

• Is God love?
• Is God wisdom?

Oh, look: 1) love and 2) wisdom. That's more than one thing. That's two things. Why, that's plurality. So, I guess, according to your heretical stupidity, the correct answer to at least one of those, two questions will have to be NO, eh? According to you, God can't be BOTH love AND wisdom, because God is "beyond plurality," eh?



What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "a Trinity"? I mean, why don't you tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a literal sense," Professor? And also help us to understand what it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a non-literal sense," if you'd be so kind.



Is this "the active force of God" of which you speak, God? Or, instead, is it someone or something that is not God?

The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

I'm confused here because a transcendent, One True God can't be compartmentalised into, God and an essence of God, the Holy Spirit and the Son of Himself. Now if you say that Jesus is the incarnation of God, that is He reflects the qualities and attributes and authority of God like a perfect mirror, then I agree with you, but that does not make Jesus God.

 

[Idolater]

By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father?

God and Father are one and the same. Father of Creation / God of Creation. Jesus is not literally God, but there is a trinity in the sense that God and the Holy Spirit are in a sense the same thing. God being the totality of the God-head and the Holy Spirit being the Creative powers that are an aspect of the reality of God. Jesus then is the earthly vehicle by which God, the Father makes known what He expects from humanity. The Will of God is expressed through Jesus without Jesus actually being God. That is why the terms Father and Son are used, this firstly denotes the difference and at the same time the closeness of the relationship.

So, can you see that you've got two things going against you here?

You deny the bodily Resurrection and you deny the Trinity, these are both central to Christian tradition, but you express doubt in both.

You have to tread extremely carefully to not get tagged a blasphemer, with positions like these.

 

[blueboy]

What do you mean by that?



By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If so, then here's what you're saying: "but to imagine that Jesus is [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians do not imagine that Jesus is the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



What you have written, there, is merely a string of nonsense.



Beliefs are neither true nor false. Rather, that which one believes—a proposition—is what is either true or false.



Heavens to murgatroyd, that sounds not so good, whatever it is you're talking about!



Oh, you're quite enlightened, huh?



When you say, "but very, very odd if Jesus was God", by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If you are, then this is what you are saying: "but very, very odd if Jesus was [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is/was the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy?



The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..."



By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? If so, then this is what you're saying: "many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not [the Father]."

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the Father; that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. When you say that Jesus is not the Father, you're merely preaching to the Trinitarian choir. Beyond that, is there some further point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Once again, by your word, "God," to whom are you referring? Are you referring to the Father?

What (if anything) do you mean by these slogans: "beyond plurality", "beyond division"?

• Is God love?
• Is God wisdom?

Oh, look: 1) love and 2) wisdom. That's more than one thing. That's two things. Why, that's plurality. So, I guess, according to your heretical stupidity, the correct answer to at least one of those, two questions will have to be NO, eh? According to you, God can't be BOTH love AND wisdom, because God is "beyond plurality," eh?



What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "a Trinity"? I mean, why don't you tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a literal sense," Professor? And also help us to understand what it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a non-literal sense," if you'd be so kind.



Is this "the active force of God" of which you speak, God? Or, instead, is it someone or something that is not God?

Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy? Perhaps I am a dummy, nonetheless, I used that Scripture to show the distinction between God and Jesus. You see when I use Scripture it does not necessarily help my cause.

 

[Idolater]

The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

I'm confused here because a transcendent, One True God can't be compartmentalised into, God and an essence of God, the Holy Spirit and the Son of Himself. Now if you say that Jesus is the incarnation of God, that is He reflects the qualities and attributes and authority of God like a perfect mirror, then I agree with you, but that does not make Jesus God.

This is just gobbledygook to us. You're like the Urantia Book people.

 

[blueboy]

What do you mean by that?



By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If so, then here's what you're saying: "but to imagine that Jesus is [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians do not imagine that Jesus is the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



What you have written, there, is merely a string of nonsense.



Beliefs are neither true nor false. Rather, that which one believes—a proposition—is what is either true or false.



Heavens to murgatroyd, that sounds not so good, whatever it is you're talking about!



Oh, you're quite enlightened, huh?



When you say, "but very, very odd if Jesus was God", by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If you are, then this is what you are saying: "but very, very odd if Jesus was [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is/was the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy?



The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..."



By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? If so, then this is what you're saying: "many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not [the Father]."

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the Father; that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. When you say that Jesus is not the Father, you're merely preaching to the Trinitarian choir. Beyond that, is there some further point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Once again, by your word, "God," to whom are you referring? Are you referring to the Father?

What (if anything) do you mean by these slogans: "beyond plurality", "beyond division"?

• Is God love?
• Is God wisdom?

Oh, look: 1) love and 2) wisdom. That's more than one thing. That's two things. Why, that's plurality. So, I guess, according to your heretical stupidity, the correct answer to at least one of those, two questions will have to be NO, eh? According to you, God can't be BOTH love AND wisdom, because God is "beyond plurality," eh?



What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "a Trinity"? I mean, why don't you tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a literal sense," Professor? And also help us to understand what it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a non-literal sense," if you'd be so kind.



Is this "the active force of God" of which you speak, God? Or, instead, is it someone or something that is not God?

The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..." Yes, that's my point, Jesus is not God, nor is He bound up is a three part God-head.

 

[Idolater]

Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy? Perhaps I am a dummy, nonetheless, I used that Scripture to show the distinction between God and Jesus. You see when I use Scripture it does not necessarily help my cause.

God is the Father. The Father is distinct from the Son. The Son is the Son of God. The Son is God.

 

[Idolater]

The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..." Yes, that's my point, Jesus is not God, nor is He bound up is a three part God-head.

You're just another garden variety pedestrian non-Trin. You don't have a fresh new take.

 

[blueboy]

What do you mean by that?



By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If so, then here's what you're saying: "but to imagine that Jesus is [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians do not imagine that Jesus is the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



What you have written, there, is merely a string of nonsense.



Beliefs are neither true nor false. Rather, that which one believes—a proposition—is what is either true or false.



Heavens to murgatroyd, that sounds not so good, whatever it is you're talking about!



Oh, you're quite enlightened, huh?



When you say, "but very, very odd if Jesus was God", by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If you are, then this is what you are saying: "but very, very odd if Jesus was [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is/was the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy?



The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..."



By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? If so, then this is what you're saying: "many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not [the Father]."

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the Father; that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. When you say that Jesus is not the Father, you're merely preaching to the Trinitarian choir. Beyond that, is there some further point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Once again, by your word, "God," to whom are you referring? Are you referring to the Father?

What (if anything) do you mean by these slogans: "beyond plurality", "beyond division"?

• Is God love?
• Is God wisdom?

Oh, look: 1) love and 2) wisdom. That's more than one thing. That's two things. Why, that's plurality. So, I guess, according to your heretical stupidity, the correct answer to at least one of those, two questions will have to be NO, eh? According to you, God can't be BOTH love AND wisdom, because God is "beyond plurality," eh?



What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "a Trinity"? I mean, why don't you tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a literal sense," Professor? And also help us to understand what it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a non-literal sense," if you'd be so kind.



Is this "the active force of God" of which you speak, God? Or, instead, is it someone or something that is not God?

Please forgive my heretical stupidity. God can't be BOTH love AND wisdom, because God is "beyond plurality," eh? The nature of God can not be described as being plural, it is beyond plurality. God is uncreated, so not composed of parts. But God can radiate all the perfect virtues like a sun, love, wisdom, justice, forbearance, tolerance, kindness. Virtues differ from state.

 

[blueboy]

What do you mean by that?



By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If so, then here's what you're saying: "but to imagine that Jesus is [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians do not imagine that Jesus is the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



What you have written, there, is merely a string of nonsense.



Beliefs are neither true nor false. Rather, that which one believes—a proposition—is what is either true or false.



Heavens to murgatroyd, that sounds not so good, whatever it is you're talking about!



Oh, you're quite enlightened, huh?



When you say, "but very, very odd if Jesus was God", by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If you are, then this is what you are saying: "but very, very odd if Jesus was [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is/was the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy?



The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..."



By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? If so, then this is what you're saying: "many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not [the Father]."

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the Father; that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. When you say that Jesus is not the Father, you're merely preaching to the Trinitarian choir. Beyond that, is there some further point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Once again, by your word, "God," to whom are you referring? Are you referring to the Father?

What (if anything) do you mean by these slogans: "beyond plurality", "beyond division"?

• Is God love?
• Is God wisdom?

Oh, look: 1) love and 2) wisdom. That's more than one thing. That's two things. Why, that's plurality. So, I guess, according to your heretical stupidity, the correct answer to at least one of those, two questions will have to be NO, eh? According to you, God can't be BOTH love AND wisdom, because God is "beyond plurality," eh?



What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "a Trinity"? I mean, why don't you tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a literal sense," Professor? And also help us to understand what it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a non-literal sense," if you'd be so kind.



Is this "the active force of God" of which you speak, God? Or, instead, is it someone or something that is not God?

Professor? And also help us to understand what it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a non-literal sense," if you'd be so kind.

I can't help you understand anything, all I can say on my own behalf is that a literal Trinity is not Biblical, yet a trinity does exist as previously mentioned, that Jesus is the embodiment of God on earth, He obeys the divine Will of God and teaches what He is directed to teach by the expressed Will of God. Jesus is not part of God, but He bound to God in ways we could not hope to understand.

 

[blueboy]

What do you mean by that?



By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If so, then here's what you're saying: "but to imagine that Jesus is [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians do not imagine that Jesus is the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



What you have written, there, is merely a string of nonsense.



Beliefs are neither true nor false. Rather, that which one believes—a proposition—is what is either true or false.



Heavens to murgatroyd, that sounds not so good, whatever it is you're talking about!



Oh, you're quite enlightened, huh?



When you say, "but very, very odd if Jesus was God", by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? If you are, then this is what you are saying: "but very, very odd if Jesus was [the Father]".

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians don't believe that Jesus is/was the Father. The Son (Jesus) is not the Father. So what point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Why would you say that? Perhaps you're a dummy?



The Father. Duh. Hence, He says, "This is my beloved Son..."



By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? If so, then this is what you're saying: "many more lines of Scripture that make it clear that He is not [the Father]."

I'm a Trinitarian. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the Father; that the Son (Jesus) is not the Father is an essential tenet of Trinitarianism. When you say that Jesus is not the Father, you're merely preaching to the Trinitarian choir. Beyond that, is there some further point are you trying to make?

If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom are you referring by it?



Once again, by your word, "God," to whom are you referring? Are you referring to the Father?

What (if anything) do you mean by these slogans: "beyond plurality", "beyond division"?

• Is God love?
• Is God wisdom?

Oh, look: 1) love and 2) wisdom. That's more than one thing. That's two things. Why, that's plurality. So, I guess, according to your heretical stupidity, the correct answer to at least one of those, two questions will have to be NO, eh? According to you, God can't be BOTH love AND wisdom, because God is "beyond plurality," eh?



What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "a Trinity"? I mean, why don't you tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a literal sense," Professor? And also help us to understand what it would be for "a Trinity" to be "in" something "in a non-literal sense," if you'd be so kind.



Is this "the active force of God" of which you speak, God? Or, instead, is it someone or something that is not God?

Is this "the active force of God" of which you speak, God? Or, instead, is it someone or something that is not God?

God and the active force of God that we call the Holy Spirit are one and the same, they are not seperate entities, just as your actions, words, thoughts, etc, are not some other you acting on your behalf.

Time for bed, catch you later.