toldailytopic: The Holy Trinity.

[csuguy]

Many verses identify Him as Deity, not creature. We agree you must trust Jesus to be saved, but we disagree as to the difference between the real Jesus and a false, fictious one that cannot save. As long as you think a gold tin-foil chocolate coin is worth as much as a $100 pure gold coin, I cannot help you. You are wasting our time.

The majority view presented by scripture is that Jesus is the Son of God, not God - as I have shown with plenty of scripture in this thread.

We are looking at the same coin GR, merely different sides of it - and thus debating not that there is a coin or its value, but simply its characteristics.

You have fallen into the error of tradition over God's truth. You must admit it if you are to grow in this matter.

 

[godrulz]

What does Scripture mean when it says Jesus is the Son of God or Lord? You are still saying that 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time, so I really cannot communicate with someone so fundamentally wrong.

 

[csuguy]

What does Scripture mean when it says Jesus is the Son of God or Lord? You are still saying that 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time, so I really cannot communicate with someone so fundamentally wrong.

Both of those are quite easy, of course trinitarians twist the clear meaning of those titles to accomadate their theology.

Son of God means just that - he is the Son of God. Lord is a title of power and authority - Christ was GIVEN all power and authority, for a time. Christ's power and authority are not innate like God's is.

You are saying 1+1+1 = 1.

You can communicate GR - you simply refuse to. You refuse to see the obvious, you are too accustomed to your theology to question it.

 

[Ktoyou]

The majority view presented by scripture is that Jesus is the Son of God, not God - as I have shown with plenty of scripture in this thread.

We are looking at the same coin GR, merely different sides of it - and thus debating not that there is a coin or its value, but simply its characteristics.

You have fallen into the error of tradition over God's truth. You must admit it if you are to grow in this matter.

Not true, most NT scholars believe as Paul did, Jesus called him, that He was God. "In the Beginning was the Word".

You are the one who thinks you can understand better what most Christian scholars believe. GR respects that some might know mire about the meaning of scripture than he does.

 

[csuguy]

Not true, most NT scholars believe as Paul did, Jesus called him, that He was God. "In the Beginning was the Word".

You are the one who thinks you can understand better what most Christian scholars believe. GR respects that some might know mire about the meaning of scripture than he does.

Paul wasn't a trinitarian - the trinity was developed over the course of several hundreds of years. Furthermore... Paul didn't write John :squint:

Paul's clearly portray Christ as not being God. Here's one of several examples (read the rest of my posts in this thread for more):

I Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For 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. 28When 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.

And I don't think I can know more than others - I just know for a fact that most people, including biblical "scholars," are susceptible to indoctrination. Most "scholars" only read scripture in so far as it supports their position. Furthermore, my position is historic - I didn't invent it, there were plenty of people before me who have seen the errors of the trinity.

 

[godrulz]

The same word is used of Jesus being subject to His parents and being lower than the angels for a time. This does not make Him inferior to either. There is a functional relationship in the Godhead, equality of nature, but positional differences during the incarnation, or roles after the resurrection.

1+1+1=3 relates to personal distinctions, not nature (which would be tritheism/polytheism/3 gods).

1X1X1=1 better illustrates 3 things that are one in another sense (nature, one God, compound unity).

God cannot be reduced to a math formula, so the illustration is imperfect.

 

[csuguy]

The same word is used of Jesus being subject to His parents and being lower than the angels for a time. This does not make Him inferior to either. There is a functional relationship in the Godhead, equality of nature, but positional differences during the incarnation, or roles after the resurrection.

1+1+1=3 relates to personal distinctions, not nature (which would be tritheism/polytheism/3 gods).

1X1X1=1 better illustrates 3 things that are one in another sense (nature, one God, compound unity).

God cannot be reduced to a math formula, so the illustration is imperfect.

Christ is not God, so he is necessarily inferior to him. Also, he is subject to God BECAUSE HE IS NOT GOD. "The Father is greater than I."

 

[Selaphiel]

You are being dumb GR. Muslims don't acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, that is what makes them not Christian - not that they accept him as a man.

I'll make you a deal - show me where scripture says "You must believe Jesus is God to be saved" and I will agree that the trinity is the biblically correct view. If you can't find it, then you must admit that your position is unbiblical.

Actually they do. Jesus is accepted as the Jewish Messiah in Islam with the title Isa Al-Masih.

 

[csuguy]

Actually they do. Jesus is accepted as the Jewish Messiah in Islam with the title Isa Al-Masih.

Do they? Interesting :think: I haven't studied Islamic beliefs - though I am taking a course next semester which should be enlightening on the matter: "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."

At any rate it doesn't change my position one iota - one doesn't need to accept Christ as God to be a Christian.

 

[Brother Vinny]

At any rate it doesn't change my position one iota - one doesn't need to accept Christ as God to be a Christian.

Well, one can sit in a garage all day and call oneself a car, but it doesn't make one a car. One can also redefine words to suit one's desires rather than their intended purpose. Sounds like you might be engaging in activities like these, a bit.

 

[csuguy]

Well, one can sit in a garage all day and call oneself a car, but it doesn't make one a car. One can also redefine words to suit one's desires rather than their intended purpose. Sounds like you might be engaging in activities like these, a bit.

I'm not redefining terms at all - I'm merely rejecting the new definitions that trinitarians have given basic terms in scripture to support their theology.

 

[Brother Vinny]

I'm not redefining terms at all - I'm merely rejecting the new definitions that trinitarians have given basic terms in scripture to support their theology.

You're denying the truth of Christ as He has revealed it, both implicitly and explicitly, and thus side with the cults. The unity of the three persons of the Godhead was believed from the beginning of the church and only hammered out and codified as heretics like Nestor reared their ugly theologies.

Alas, there is nothing new under the sun. Hence my point. You redefine "Christian" to include whoever believes as you do, then sit in your place of worship and call yourself a Christian as though doing so means something.

 

[csuguy]

You're denying the truth of Christ as He has revealed it, both implicitly and explicitly, and thus side with the cults. The unity of the three persons of the Godhead was believed from the beginning of the church and only hammered out and codified as heretics like Nestor reared their ugly theologies.

Alas, there is nothing new under the sun. Hence my point. You redefine "Christian" to include whoever believes as you do, then sit in your place of worship and call yourself a Christian as though doing so means something.

Christ didn't reveal the trinity, nor did he claim to be God (he claimed to be God's Son!).

The trinity is man's construction - it is folly to raise man's logic up to the status of revelation, salvific revelation no less!

I'm not redefining what it means to be Christian - find me a single verse that says one must accept Christ as God (let alone that God is a trinity) to be a Christian.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Christ didn't reveal the trinity, nor did he claim to be God (he claimed to be God's Son!).

The trinity is man's construction - it is folly to raise man's logic up to the status of revelation, salvific revelation no less!

I'm not redefining what it means to be Christian - find me a single verse that says one must accept Christ as God (let alone that God is a trinity) to be a Christian.

I take Jesus' simple statement in John, "Before Abraham was, I AM (8:58)" to be an explicit claim to Christ's deity, as would the Jews of His period. I would take His refusal to correct Thomas' "My Lord and my God! (John 20:28)" to be implicit evidence.

But you'll perform gymnastics around these as you have with others. I found it humorous in another thread your using Bart Ehrman as a source. He has become a full-fledged unbeliever. It'll be interesting to see if the conclusion to your spiritual quest matches his.

 

[csuguy]

I take Jesus' simple statement in John, "Before Abraham was, I AM (8:58)" to be an explicit claim to Christ's deity, as would the Jews of His period.

This passage is a perfect example of just how far translators will go to twist scripture to support their theologies. "IAM" isn't a title of God, it doesn't exist anywhere in scripture. If you look at the Hebrew in Exodus, the title is "I will be who I will be" and in Greek it says "I am The One Who Is." And In John it would be more accurate to translate it as "Before Abraham was, I was."

I would take His refusal to correct Thomas' "My Lord and my God! (John 20:28)" to be implicit evidence.

He may have, it doesn't record Jesus' reaction positive or negative. At any rate, there is plenty of scripture, including quotes from Jesus himself, which clearly show that he isn't God - as I have provided in this thread.

But you'll perform gymnastics around these as you have with others. I found it humorous in another thread your using Bart Ehrman as a source. He has become a full-fledged unbeliever. It'll be interesting to see if the conclusion to your spiritual quest matches his.

Gymnastics? No, it is trinitarians who perform gymnastics, I merely adhere to deriving my beliefs from scripture instead of reading them into scripture. The "gymnastics" are merely evidence that I have studied and don't fall into the pit falls that those who haven't studied fall into.

Regardless of Bart's own journey, he is quite correct in stating that scholars consider those works to be psuedepigraphas. It's a fact that the church is corrupt, that our scriptures have been corrupted, and that Christians as a whole are completely ignorant of their own faith - its sad really.

 

[Selaphiel]

This passage is a perfect example of just how far translators will go to twist scripture to support their theologies. "IAM" isn't a title of God, it doesn't exist anywhere in scripture. If you look at the Hebrew in Exodus, the title is "I will be who I will be" and in Greek it says "I am The One Who Is." And In John it would be more accurate to translate it as "Before Abraham was, I was."

No, it would not be more accurate, it would be incorrect. John might not be the most eloquent Greek writer in the NT, but he knows the different verb tenses. The text says ego eimi, eimi is the present tense of "to be", the correct translation is "I am". If it was "I was" the Greek would say "ego emen".

And I think you are confusing the scriptural reference in that verse (as it is read by a trinitarian), it refers not to Exodus, but to Isaiah 48:12:

"Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called: I am He; I am the first, and I am the last."

Which in the Septuagint is:

"hon ego kalo ego eimi"

He may have, it doesn't record Jesus' reaction positive or negative. At any rate, there is plenty of scripture, including quotes from Jesus himself, which clearly show that he isn't God - as I have provided in this thread.

There is a reaction. Jesus speaks to Thomas in 20:29.

"Because you have seen you believe, blessed are those that do not see and yet believe."

Believe what? I would say the confession that Thomas just made.

 

[csuguy]

No, it would not be more accurate, it would be incorrect. John might not be the most eloquent Greek writer in the NT, but he knows the different verb tenses. The text says ego eimi, eimi is the present tense of "to be", the correct translation is "I am". If it was "I was" the Greek would say "ego emen".

Present of Past Action. He didn't simply exist in the past, he continued and continues to exist.

And I think you are confusing the scriptural reference in that verse (as it is read by a trinitarian), it refers not to Exodus, but to Isaiah 48:12:

"Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called: I am He; I am the first, and I am the last."

Which in the Septuagint is:

"hon ego kalo ego eimi"

Trinitarians always reference back to Exodus, and translators purposely butcher Exodus to say "IAM." Biblical Commentaries written inside of study bibles even explicitly link it to Exodus. Isaiah 48:12 isn't using "Ego Eimi" as a title - the title in Isaiah 48:12 is clearly "I am the first, and I am the last."

There is a reaction. Jesus speaks to Thomas in 20:29.

"Because you have seen you believe, blessed are those that do not see and yet believe."

Believe what? I would say the confession that Thomas just made.

He believed that Jesus rose from the grave - that was the whole deal with Thomas, he refused to believe that he had risen.

 

[kmoney]

I don't deny Jesus' humanity. Remember right after He prayed that, He went to Peter and said, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." He had an actual choice to make, and it was a difficult one in light of his humanity. But, his spirit was willing to be in accord with the spirit of the Father. As one who was fully human, his humanity didn't want to suffer the pains of what awaited him, but, as One who was fully God, he was willing, knowing that He would bring many sons to glory.

Ah yes, the 100% man, 100% God doctrine. Another winner.

Does that mean that the doctrines of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are simple and formulaic? No. But, in faith, I seek understanding, and realize that in faith I will gain what I need, trusting in the mercy and grace of God.

I guess that's one area in which we differ. If there is a doctrine that doesn't make sense, instead of praying for understanding, I seek a different theology. :chuckle:

I'm curious why we have been avoiding a discussion of the Christology presented in the Pastorals, particularly in Titus.

Maybe because it was written by someone other than Paul under his name, and decades after. :think:

But what specific verses are you looking at? I just skimmed over Titus and I see a lot about Jesus being our saviour, but not a lot about him being God.

 

[Son of Jack]

He believed that Jesus rose from the grave - that was the whole deal with Thomas, he refused to believe that he had risen.

But, he declared that Jesus was his Lord and his God. You've admitted as much earlier. And, the fact is that Jesus didn't rebuke him for it. Don't you think that if Thomas was wrong in his attribution of deity to Jesus that Jesus, by necessity, would have corrected him?

 

[csuguy]

But, he declared that Jesus was his Lord and his God. You've admitted as much earlier. And, the fact is that Jesus didn't rebuke him for it. Don't you think that if Thomas was wrong in his attribution of deity to Jesus that Jesus, by necessity, would have corrected him?

What I really think is that it was an exclamation of surprise, I merely submitted the point earlier because I need to study some more Greek before I can debate him on this point.

There are plenty of scriptures, in John no less, which clearly distinguish Christ from the one true God. Here's one:

John 17:1-3 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.