"The Divinity of Christ"

[Hoping]

If you look at an interlinear, you will be educated

Your insinuation then, is that the Word didn't exist.

 

[Hoping]

Jesus is not "a message". Jesus is God in the flesh.

That is accurate, but does not confirm your "Jesus is the message..." nonsense.

It's not hard to understand, it's just false.

Jesus is the Word in the flesh.

 

[oatmeal]

You lie about God constantly. That's bad. It's called blaspheme.

only if your pagan religion is scriptural.

The pagan based trinity is not scripturally based. Jesus is not "God the Son" but the scriptural, "son of God"

 

[Right Divider]

only if your pagan religion is scriptural.

The pagan based trinity is not scripturally based. Jesus is not "God the Son" but the scriptural, "son of God"

You are lying again.

Jesus is THE LORD from HEAVEN. There is ONE LORD.

1Cor 15:47 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:47) The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
Eph 4:5 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

It is YOU that is a pagan!

 

[Catholic Crusader]

only if your pagan religion is scriptural.

The pagan based trinity is not scripturally based. Jesus is not "God the Son" but the scriptural, "son of God"

Let me translate your post for you:

Blah blah blah pagan, Blah blah blah pagan, Blah blah blah pagan, Blah blah blah pagan,

You offer no facts, just 3rd grade insults.

The fact that God is Trinity has been demonstrated from scripture over and over and over again. The fact that God is Trinity has also been reaffirmed by all branches of Christianity.

God is Trinity, that is Christian dogma. You worship a false God and that makes you an idolator in the true sense of the word.

 

[csuguy]

The Divinity of Christ
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm

BRIEF EXCERPT:

The doctrine of Christ's divinity is the central Christian doctrine, for it is like a skeleton key that opens all the others. Christians have not independently reasoned out and tested each of the teachings of Christ received via Bible and Church, but believe them all on his authority. For if Christ is divine, He can be trusted to be infallible in everything He said, even hard things like exalting suffering and poverty, forbidding divorce, giving his Church the authority to teach and forgive sins in his name, warning about hell (very often and very seriously), instituting the scandalous sacrament of eating his flesh—we often forget how many "hard sayings" he taught!

When the first Christian apologists began to give a reason for the faith that was in them to unbelievers, this doctrine of Christ's divinity naturally came under attack, for it was almost as incredible to Gentiles as it was scandalous to Jews. That a man who was born out of a woman's womb and died on a cross, a man who got tired and hungry and angry and agitated and wept at his friend's tomb, that this man who got dirt under his fingernails should be God was, quite simply, the most astonishing, incredible, crazy-sounding idea that had ever entered the mind of man in all human history.

The argument the early apologists used to defend this apparently indefensible doctrine has become a classic one. C.S. Lewis used it often, e.g. in Mere Christianity, the book that convinced Chuck Colson (and thousands of others). I once spent half a book (Between Heaven and Hell) on this one argument alone. It is the most important argument in Christian apologetics, for once an unbeliever accepts the conclusion of this argument (that Christ is divine), everything else in the Faith follows, not only intellectually (Christ's teachings must all then be true) but also personally (if Christ is God, He is also your total Lord and Savior).

The argument, like all effective arguments, is extremely simple: Christ was either God or a bad man.

Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)....(SNIP)

REST OF ARTICLE >> http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divini

If the divinity of Christ were a central doctrine of Christianity proper, then it would have been taught as such by Christ and his early followers. The New Testament would plainly make the case that belief that he is God Almighty himself (rather than the Son of God) is core to salvation and to doing God’s will. But neither the scriptures nor the writings of the early Church Fathers present such an interpretation of Christ’s teachings.

To the contrary, the central teaching of Christ is Love. James described true religion that is acceptable to God as helping those in need (he explicitly talks of orphans and widows - but we can extrapolate), and of keeping oneself pure/not being drawn into sin. This is the heart of Christianity- and to suggest that belief in a doctrine that believers thereof don’t even claim to understand just demonstrates a complete disconnect from the teachings of Christ.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If the divinity of Christ were a central doctrine of Christianity proper,

It is.

then it would have been taught as such by Christ and his early followers.

It was.

The New Testament would plainly make the case

It does.

that belief that he is God Almighty himself

He is.

(rather than the Son of God)

It's not a matter of "either/or."

It's "both/and."

The Son of God IS God.

is core to salvation and to doing God’s will.

If Jesus was not God, then He would not have been able to provide salvation in the first place, nor would He have any right to claiming God's will as His own.

But neither the scriptures nor the writings of the early Church Fathers present such an interpretation of Christ’s teachings.

False.

To the contrary, the central teaching of Christ is Love.

What better way to show Hus love for His creation than to give up Hus life for it?

James described true religion that is acceptable to God as helping those in need (he explicitly talks of orphans and widows - but we can extrapolate), and of keeping oneself pure/not being drawn into sin.

But that doesn't make it a "central doctrine of Christianity proper," nor does it make it "core to salvation and to doing God’s will." It's just a natural consequence of what IS central: Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

This is the heart of Christianity- and to suggest that belief in a doctrine that believers thereof don’t even claim to understand just demonstrates a complete disconnect from the teachings of Christ.

If I told you that some random person claimed to be a messenger of God, and that he lived a perfect life, and died for the sin of the world, would that be very believable?

On the other hand, if I told you that God, as a result of His love for us, gave up His own life for us to save us, would that demonstrate His love for us?

Which rings more of truth?

Which actually describes Jesus?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

If the divinity of Christ were a central doctrine of Christianity proper, then it would have been taught as such by Christ and his early followers.. . . . .

Hold on . . . stop right there. Who are you to say what God was supposed to do or should have done. God does things in his own way, in his own time.

Imagine someone saying: "If Jesus was truly the savior then he would not have been born and lived as a baby and a child and wasted 30 years before getting around to our redemption. He would have just appeared and gotten down to business. Therefore he must not really be savior. The real savior would not have wasted all that time."

Makes sense to you, right? Because that is YOUR reasoning. "If he was really divine then he would have done this and that . . .". Well guess what. God does not think like you do. He does things in his way, in his own good time.

And by the way, Jesus DID say he was God, when he invoked the divine name of I AM referring to himself (John 8:58). Furthermore, by calling himself the Son of God, he made himself equal with God. And since there is only one God, he called himself God.

Some of the most significant passages are the ones that apply the title “the First and the Last” to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: “Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’” (Isa. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: “When I saw him (Christ), I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’” (Rev. 1:17). “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’” (Rev. 2:8). “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay everyone for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 22:12–13).

This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title “the Alpha and the Omega,” which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).

Denying the Divinity of Christ is old heresy of Arianism (not to be confused with Aryanism). It originated with the Alexandrian priest and Arch-Heretic Arius ( c. 250– c. 336). Arianism maintained that the Son of God was created by the Father and was therefore neither coeternal with the Father, nor consubstantial. The Church refuted this heresy and said that the Son of God IS God. That has been Christian teaching for 2,000 years. No man has the right or the authority to change it.

 

[csuguy]

>> then it would have been taught as such by Christ and his early followers.

It was.

Blindly insisting it was does not make it so. If they taught it - and especially if they held it to be of the utmost importance to the faith - then they would have emphasized such a doctrine in the scriptures which served to testify of him and share his teachings. But it's not there. Jesus is the Son of God in scripture, the mediator between God and man - the man Jesus Christ. He is at the right hand of God. Trinitarians have to go through enormous efforts to twist and turn the scriptures to conform them to their doctrine - all to defend something that is so convoluted they don't even claim to understand it. And to top off their folly they raise it up as THE central doctrine - in complete contradiction to Christ's actual teachings.

It's not a matter of "either/or."

It's "both/and."

The Son of God IS God.

Saying that the Son = God and the Father = God, but the Son is NOT the Father is a clear contradiction. And the idea that a son is the same being as his father is also a clear contradiction. It's all non-sense and it's not taught by the scriptures. It's nothing but faulty tradition.

If Jesus was not God, then He would not have been able to provide salvation in the first place, nor would He have any right to claiming God's will as His own.

Simply an erroneous statement. There's nothing in scripture to backup that claim. Furthermore, the early church rejected as heresy the idea that God Almighty, the Father himself came down and died. The very idea deemed heretical. But if the same God dies under the moniker "Son" - well then it's hunky-dory

>> James described true religion that is acceptable to God as helping those in need (he explicitly talks of orphans and widows - but we can extrapolate),
>> and of keeping oneself pure/not being drawn into sin.

But that doesn't make it a "central doctrine of Christianity proper," nor does it make it "core to salvation and to doing God’s will." It's just a natural consequence of what IS central: Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Exactly - James is simply stating what is central to true religion/Christianity in his own words, but we can easily map his words back to what Christ taught: Love God & Love your fellow man. In other words, there is the true central teaching of Christianity: love. Not some nonsensical doctrine - Love.

1 Cor 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

If I told you that some random person claimed to be a messenger of God, and that he lived a perfect life, and died for the sin of the world, would that be very believable?

On the other hand, if I told you that God, as a result of His love for us, gave up His own life for us to save us, would that demonstrate His love for us?

Which rings more of truth?

Which actually describes Jesus?

You demonstrate one of the clear problems with the Trinity: it actually makes a mockery of Christ. If Christ is God - and God cannot be tempted - then of what significance is his having lived a perfect life? Was his being tempted in the desert just a bit of theatrics?

James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;

Hebrews 4:15 For [Christ is one] who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Blindly insisting it was does not make it so

It is not blind insistence. It is backed up with scripture.
It is also backed up with the historical and authentic development of Christianity that you seem to be oblivious to.

 

[csuguy]

Hold on . . . stop right there. Who are you to say what God was supposed to do or should have done. God does things in his own way, in his own time.

It's not a matter of what God should have done - it's a matter of what actually transpired. Christ taught what he wanted us to know, and those teachings were carried on and recorded in the scriptures. You would have us ignore what is actually taught as central to the faith (love) and replace it with a non-sensical man-made doctrine that was forced upon the populace via royal decree several hundred years later.

And by the way, Jesus DID say he was God, when he invoked the divine name of I AM referring to himself (John 8:58). Furthermore, by calling himself the Son of God, he made himself equal with God. And since there is only one God, he called himself God.

First of all, he John 8:58 is not Jesus claiming to be God Almighty. The English translators certainly like to imply it, but that is simply not the case. If he wanted to apply God's name to himself, then he *could* have done so. They had a common Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. Most of the quotes of the Hebrew scriptures that are found in the NT come from the Septuagint. And in the Septuagint, God calls himself "ho ohn": the one who is, the being. Jesus does NOT apply this to himself in the NT. Rather Jesus is simply speaking in the historical present, which is fairly common throughout the NT.

Jesus also never claims to be equal to God. To the contrary,
John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

As for the matter of there being only one God, this is true. However, scripture is much more versatile in its usage of the word "God" than Trinitarians care to admit (mostly because they are ignorant). Moses is said to be God and Aaron his prophet (Exodus 7:1), Angels throughout the OT are referred to as if God himself - including the Angel in the burning bush from who we received the name of God (Exodus 3), and indeed everyone who has recieved the word of God are referred to as gods (John 10:34).

Once you recognize that scripture applies the word "God" to men and angels who serve as God's representatives, then it makes perfect sense for the man Jesus Christ - the sole mediator and perfect representative of God - to be referred to as God in this same sense. The challenge for the Trinitarian is to argue that when the word "God" is applied to the man Jesus Christ, it means something different than when it is applied to others who clearly are not God.

Denying the Divinity of Christ is old heresy of Arianism (not to be confused with Aryanism). It originated with the Alexandrian priest and Arch-Heretic Arius ( c. 250– c. 336). Arianism maintained that the Son of God was created by the Father and was therefore neither coeternal with the Father, nor consubstantial. The Church refuted this heresy and said that the Son of God IS God. That has been Christian teaching for 2,000 years. No man has the right or the authority to change it.

You have clearly not taken the time to actually read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The early church - including those who to this day are considered Church Fathers - were all over the place with their Christologies. Arius was not unique in his views - you can find a lot of support for his beliefs in earlier Church Fathers.

Justin Martyr, for instance, taught that Jesus was a second lesser god.

Tertullian, who is credited with coining the term Trinity, taught "There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge."

Do some real research on the matter before making claims about what the church has always taught.

 

[csuguy]

It is not blind insistence. It is backed up with scripture.
It is also backed up with the historical and authentic development of Christianity that you seem to be oblivious to.

So you blindly assert - without any scripture to back it up and ignoring the rest of my reply.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

That has been Christian teaching for 2,000 years. No man has the right or the authority to change it.

That was the key. Have a nice day with your manmade God and your manmade religion. Let us all know what you decide to call it. LOL.

Oh, and by the way: The same authorities who decided that Jesus was in fact God are the one who canonized the books of the New Testament, the very book you are now trying to use to disprove that authority. LOL. Oh the sweet irony.

 

[csuguy]

That was the key. Have a nice day with your manmade God and your manmade religion. Let us all know what you decide to call it. LOL.

Oh, and by the way: The same authorities who decided that Jesus was in fact God are the one who canonized the books of the New Testament, the very book you are now trying to use to disprove that authority. LOL. Oh the sweet irony.

That was a close one, you almost engaged in a theological discussion and learned something! And we all know how learning something is a danger to Catholics; don’t want to face an inquisition. Stay ignorant, stay safe

 

[JudgeRightly]

Blindly insisting it was does not make it so.

Scripture says it is so.

If they taught it -

They did.

and especially if they held it to be of the utmost importance to the faith -

What evidence do you have that they did not?

then they would have emphasized such a doctrine in the scriptures

Why would they have had to?

which served to testify of him and share his teachings. But it's not there.

Argument from silence is a logical fallacy.

Jesus is the Son of God in scripture, the mediator between God and man - the man Jesus Christ.

Which EVERY trinitarian believes.

He is at the right hand of God.

Duh.

Trinitarians have to go through enormous efforts to twist and turn the scriptures to conform them to their doctrine -

No, we don't.

all to defend something that is so convoluted they don't even claim to understand it.

There's nothing convoluted about it.

And to top off their folly they raise it up as THE central doctrine -

There's no folly in recognizing who God is.

in complete contradiction to Christ's actual teachings.

Christ's entire message was centered around Himself. The only way that's not blasphemy is if He's God.

Saying that the Son = God and the Father = God, but the Son is NOT the Father is a clear contradiction.

Only for unitarian entities, like humans.

However, God is TRIUNE, He is THREE PERSONS in ONE GODHEAD.

Three WHOs.
One WHAT.

Whereas humans are one WHO, one WHAT.

And the idea that a son is the same being as his father is also a clear contradiction.

Only when you beg the question that God is not triune.

It's all non-sense

Appeal to the stone.

and it's not taught by the scriptures.

False.

It's nothing but faulty tradition.

Also false.

Simply an erroneous statement.

False.

There's nothing in scripture to backup that claim.

Psalm 49:6-9,15
Matthew 26:36-43

Particularly the Matthew passage. Here's why:

Jesus thrice asks His Father if there's any other way to save mankind from their sins, other than going to the cross, to let the cup of that trial pass from Him, but if not, then He would do His Father's will, that being going to the cross. We have the fact that He went to the cross to show that there was no other way other than Him going to the cross.

In the Psalm passage, we see that no man can redeem his brother from going to hell (the Pit), and in Romans Paul tells us that the wages of sin is death. Any man who sins must pay for his sins.

Thus:

Any Savior who is going to save ALL mankind from going to Hell MUST be infinitely more valuable than all men who ever existed, and will exist, combined. Each individual man is already of infinite value. The only Being who is capable of satisfying that demand for justice is God Himself.

THEREFORE:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

Thus, God's Son must also be God in order to satisfy the demands of justice to pay for the sin of every man, while also being capable of not sinning, which would thereby annul His own value with His own sin.

Furthermore, the early church rejected as heresy the idea that God Almighty, the Father himself came down and died. The very idea deemed heretical.

Because it IS heresy.

God the Father did not come down.

God the Son did.

But if the same God dies under the moniker "Son" - well then it's hunky-dory

He's not a moniker.

He's a Person. A different Person than the Father is, while being the same Being.

Exactly - James is simply stating what is central to true religion/Christianity in his own words, but we can easily map his words back to what Christ taught: Love God & Love your fellow man. In other words, there is the true central teaching of Christianity: love. Not some nonsensical doctrine - Love.

1 Cor 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

And God is love.

"Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends." - John 15:13

Instead of sending someone else to die for all of mankind, God showed His love for man by dying for him.

You demonstrate one of the clear problems with the Trinity: it actually makes a mockery of Christ. If Christ is God - and God cannot be tempted - then of what significance is his having lived a perfect life?

Because no human could ever do so, since we are all descendants of Adam, and have inherited his sinful nature. (NOTE: I'm not talking about the doctrine of Original Sin, here.)

As I said above: Had Christ sinned, He would have been unable to pay for ANY of mankind's sins, because His death would only satisfy the demands of justice for His own sin.

Was his being tempted in the desert just a bit of theatrics?

No.

James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;

Hebrews 4:15 For [Christ is one] who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Amen! And every trinitarian would say the same!

There are two kinds of temptation. The first kind, the kind that Jesus experienced, was the option being presented to Him to sin, as a human, because He was probably really hungry at that point, and Satan proffered the idea to turn stone into bread so He could eat, etc.
The kind of temptation that James is talking about is when one actually considers acting on the option.

An "internal" vs "external" temptation, so to speak.

God cannot be tempted (internally) by evil, but He was tempted (externally) by Satan in the wilderness. Jesus was tempted, yet without sin. But He will never be tempted to commit sin.

Does that make sense?

Both are real temptations, but they're not quite the same thing.

 

[Right Divider]

To say that the divinity of Christ is not found in scripture is either lying or pure ignorance.

One of my favorites are Paul's TWO references to Isaiah 45:23

Isa 45:23 (AKJV/PCE)
(45:23) I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

This is the LORD GOD speaking in that verse. Here Paul QUOTES that verse and APPLIES it to JESUS CHRIST:

Rom 14:10-12 (AKJV/PCE)
(14:10) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. (14:11) For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. (14:12) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

The "judgment seat of Christ" is the "judgment seat of God".

And again here:
Phil 2:9-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (2:10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; (2:11) And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What "name is above every name"? (Hint: God).

 

[Catholic Crusader]

God is eternal, no beginning and no end, and therefore so is His Word, the Divine Utterance, the "logos". God begets his own Word as father begets son, but since God is perfect and eternal, so is His Word.

Try to imagine yourself in your own mind. Just picture yourself for a moment.

For that moment, you had an image of yourself, but since it was in your brain, the image of yourself was not a separate being, it was you, all you. It was not you personally because it was an image of you, and yet it WAS you because it was within you.

It was you, yet it was not you. Are you with me so far?

Because we are human and limited, such an exercise is very weak and limited. But God is almighty, eternal and everlasting. He is omnipotent. God's thought of Himself therefore is also almighty, eternal and everlasting, and omnipotent. His Word IS GOD! As your mind beget your image yet both were you, of the same being, so the Father begot the Son - the Word - yet both are One Being, eternal and everlasting.

The Logos is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, One in Being with the Father.

This Logos, this Word, the Son of God, took on Flesh and became man.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made . . . . The Word became flesh and dwelt among us

Jesus is The Word of God. Jesus IS GOD.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Dang that was good. I impress myself sometimes.

 

[csuguy]

Scripture says it is so.

The burden of proof falls to you, then. Show where the scriptures explicitly speak of the Trinity and of its utmost importance to the faith.

>> and especially if they held it to be of the utmost importance to the faith

What evidence do you have that they did not?

Christ, the apostles, and all of the early church actively devoted and risked their lives for the gospel. Multiple corresponding accounts were written to speak of the life, death, and teachings of Christ along with all the letters and revelation shared between the churches after that. They did all this to preserve these teachings and to share them with others that they might believe and be instructed in the faith. Do you really think it reasonable that they would leave out the - ostensibly - most important/core belief of the faith? Of course not - they would be very explicit about it, and it would be a recurring topic throughout the NT. Like love or Christ's sacrifice (aka, actual core beliefs of the faith).

Argument from silence is a logical fallacy.

Incorrect; while the an argument from silence can be misapplied, there are valid cases for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence#Convincing_applications

It would be highly questionable for the "core" belief of Christianity to not be elucidated in detail by Christ and his followers throughout the NT in detail. Thus their silence on the matter, and the fact that they spend their time teaching other things, speaks volumes as to what they actually believed and thought important to share with others.

>> Jesus is the Son of God in scripture, the mediator between God and man - the man Jesus Christ. He is at the right hand of God.

Which EVERY trinitarian believes. Duh.

Every Trinitarian may say they agree with the above statements (for they are undeniably biblical), however they don't actually believe them. They cannot - for they are contradictory statements to the Trinity doctrine.

A son is never the same being as the father. One necessarily comes before the other, for the father is the/a source of the son. The early church fathers recognized this basic truth. Tertullian (2nd/3rd century) wrote "There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge."

This statement is based upon the obvious fact that one is not a father until they have a son, nor can God serve as a Judge when there has been no wrong doing.

If you truly accepted what scripture says - that Jesus is the Son of God - then you would be forced to recognize that he is not God Almighty himself, for the relationship of father and son logically prohibits them from being one in the same being (though they maybe one in spirit/will/purpose/etc).

Similarly, it is completely contradictory to speak of Jesus being at the right hand of God and also being God. These are opposing ideas. So you can assert you believe them - but you are merely asserting contradicting beliefs; which is non-sense.

There's no folly in recognizing who God is.

There is folly in refusing to accept the relationship that God and Christ have presented to us with respects to themselves: Father and Son. You would treat these as mere titles and refuse to accept the logical implications of that relationship - for it contradicts your Trinitarian beliefs.

Christ's entire message was centered around Himself. The only way that's not blasphemy is if He's God.

Christ's message was one of love for all, repentance, and of obeying God's will. Christ served as a perfect example of how we ought to live and devote ourselves to God and to others. Through his sacrifice, the New Covenant was established by means of which all may be saved. None of this requires that he be God, nor does scripture ever assert that he needed to be God.

Only for unitarian entities, like humans.

However, God is TRIUNE, He is THREE PERSONS in ONE GODHEAD.

Three WHOs.
One WHAT.

Whereas humans are one WHO, one WHAT.

Scripture never asserts that God is Triune

>> There's nothing to back that up

Psalm 49:6-9,15
Matthew 26:36-43

Particularly the Matthew passage. Here's why:

Jesus thrice asks His Father if there's any other way to save mankind from their sins, other than going to the cross, to let the cup of that trial pass from Him, but if not, then He would do His Father's will, that being going to the cross. We have the fact that He went to the cross to show that there was no other way other than Him going to the cross.

In the Psalm passage, we see that no man can redeem his brother from going to hell (the Pit), and in Romans Paul tells us that the wages of sin is death. Any man who sins must pay for his sins.

Thus:

Any Savior who is going to save ALL mankind from going to Hell MUST be infinitely more valuable than all men who ever existed, and will exist, combined. Each individual man is already of infinite value. The only Being who is capable of satisfying that demand for justice is God Himself.

THEREFORE:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

Thus, God's Son must also be God in order to satisfy the demands of justice to pay for the sin of every man, while also being capable of not sinning, which would thereby annul His own value with His own sin.

Those scriptures in no way teach the Trinity at all; you are reading what you want into them. You also misunderstand forgiveness and Christ's sacrifice. Forgiveness is not someone else paying off your debt - it is the forgetting of that debt without it being paid.

Because it IS heresy.

God the Father did not come down.

God the Son did.

Who you claim is the same being. It is obviously blasphemous and wrong to believe that God died. But you would have us believe that simply calling God something different makes it OK to believe.

He's not a moniker.

He's a Person. A different Person than the Father is, while being the same Being.

According to the Trinity doctrine, they are equally God - one in the same God - the same being. Thus, yes, it is simply a different moniker. Either God died or he didn't. Or will you assert that only part of God died now?

Because no human could ever do so, since we are all descendants of Adam, and have inherited his sinful nature. (NOTE: I'm not talking about the doctrine of Original Sin, here.)

As I said above: Had Christ sinned, He would have been unable to pay for ANY of mankind's sins, because His death would only satisfy the demands of justice for His own sin.

Thus you show your lack of faith in God and Christ. Sin is always a decision. Christ's accomplishment is that he - a fellow man - faced all those same temptations that we all face and rose above them to serve God perfectly to the end. The Trinity doctrine makes a mockery of this - for if he is God then he cannot truly be tempted and there is no chance that he could sin and fall. You might as well be a Gnostic at that point, for you are teaching that Christ's perseverance and suffering were all theatrics.

There are two kinds of temptation. The first kind, the kind that Jesus experienced, was the option being presented to Him to sin, as a human, because He was probably really hungry at that point, and Satan proffered the idea to turn stone into bread so He could eat, etc.
The kind of temptation that James is talking about is when one actually considers acting on the option.

An "internal" vs "external" temptation, so to speak.

God cannot be tempted (internally) by evil, but He was tempted (externally) by Satan in the wilderness. Jesus was tempted, yet without sin. But He will never be tempted to commit sin.

Does that make sense?

Both are real temptations, but they're not quite the same thing.

You are simply contradicting scripture - scripture does not speak of any exception to the fact that God cannot be tempted by evil. You are trying to inject your own ideas into scripture to protect your doctrine rather than face up to the fact that your doctrine is in conflict with the scriptures.

 

[csuguy]

To say that the divinity of Christ is not found in scripture is either lying or pure ignorance.

One of my favorites are Paul's TWO references to Isaiah 45:23

Isa 45:23 (AKJV/PCE)
(45:23) I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

This is the LORD GOD speaking in that verse. Here Paul QUOTES that verse and APPLIES it to JESUS CHRIST:

Rom 14:10-12 (AKJV/PCE)
(14:10) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. (14:11) For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. (14:12) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

The "judgment seat of Christ" is the "judgment seat of God".

And again here:
Phil 2:9-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: (2:10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; (2:11) And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What "name is above every name"? (Hint: God).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but...

1 Cor 15:22-28 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.