The Trinity

BrianCalgary

This has come up for discussion on a couple of threads. I'd like to lock those threads and bring the discussion regarding the trinity to here.

babyvaio and T-1 are bringing the trinity theology into question.

Please discuss the Biblical proofs on the deity of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit to here.

T-1111111111111

BrianCalgary wrote:

This has come up for discussion on a couple of threads. I'd like to lock those threads and bring the discussion regarding the trinity to here.

babyvaio and T-1 are bringing the trinity theology into question.

Please discuss the Biblical proofs on the deity of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit to here.

Brian man, its T-1111111111111 not T-1 (T-1 is Terminator 1 and Im not like that guy ) pleeeeeeeaseeeee

ok if u persist, il open this with some good stuff, but u have to promise that u will at least try and read it?!

T-1111111111111

Here are some facts from a site which can prove that Jesus was not God's son nor God himself.
Il post part of the articles and provide a link and my comments of course. The material used will be Bible and nothing else but Bible. For some other books or scriptures might have a bit different view on this subject.
Please note that the actual word Lord has at least 2 different meaning in the Bible, THE LORD GOD is used when its talking about ALMIGHTY GOD, and Lord, when its talking about i.e. Jesus.

Quoting from http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_40.htm where it gives some facts why the apostles had Jesus for 100% human.


Jesus performed many miraculous wonders, and he without doubt said a lot of wonderful things about himself. Some people use what he said and did as proof that he was God. But his original disciples who lived and walked with him, and were eyewitnesses to what he said and did, never reached this conclusion. The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus was lifted up to heaven. Throughout this period they never refer to Jesus as God. They continually and consistently use the title God to refer to someone other than Jesus.

Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed the crowd saying:

“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited to you by God with miracles, wonders and signs which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).

It was God, therefore, who did the miracles through Jesus to convince people that Jesus was backed by God. Peter did not see the miracles as proof that Jesus is God.

In fact, the way Peter refers to God and to Jesus makes it clear that Jesus is not God. For he always turns the title God away from Jesus. Take the following references for example:

“God has raised this Jesus . . .” (Acts 2:32).
“God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).

In both passages, the title God is turned away from Jesus. Why? —if Jesus is God.

To Peter, Jesus was a servant of God. Peter said:

“God raised up his servant", where the title servant refers to Jesus (Acts 3:26).

This is clear from a previous passage where Peter declared:

“The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus” (Acts 3:13).

Peter must have known that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never spoke of a Triune God. They always spoke of Jehovah (i.e. Yahweh) as the only God. Here, as in Matthew ch. 12, v. 18, Jesus is the servant of Yahweh. Matthew tells us that Jesus was the same servant of Yahweh spoken of in Isaiah 42:1. If Matthew and Peter are right, then Jesus is not Yahweh, but Yahweh’s servant. This proves that Jesus is not God. The Old Testament repeatedly says that Yahweh is the only God (eg. Isaiah 45: 5). If Yahweh is the name of a triune God, then Jesus is excluded from the Godhead since in that case he would be the servant of the triune God. If, on the other hand, Yahweh is the name of the Father only, then the Father alone is God (since Yahweh alone is God) and Jesus is therefore not God. Either way, Jesus is not God. Peter and Matthew were both right about this................

T-1111111111111

2nd very interesting thing which anybody could notice when reading the Bible with open eyes is that Jesus was not all-powerful and all-knowing. For those who claim that Jesus was a man and God in 1 person find this biblical problem as "evidence" that Jesus could have been wrong or not all-powerful because when that happened they wuould say that that's because he had to follow the laws valid for human body, but his knowledge should not be limited if he was God and his power should not be limited if he really was God or His son.

Read the following article with open eyes.

Quoting from http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_41.htm

Christians and Muslims agree that God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

The Gospels show that Jesus was not all-powerful, for he had some limitations. Mark tells us in his gospel that Jesus was unable to do any powerful work in his hometown (ch. 6, vv. 5-6). Mark also tells us that when Jesus tried to heal a certain blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (see Mark ch. 8, v. 22-26). Therefore, although we have the utmost love and respect for Jesus, we need to understand that he is not the all-powerful God.

Mark’s Gospel also reveals that Jesus had limitations in his knowledge. In Mark ch. 13, v. 32, Jesus declared that he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the Father alone knows that (see also Matthew 24:36). Therefore he could not have been the all-knowing God.

Some will say that Jesus knew when the last day will occur, but he chose not to tell. But that complicates matters further. Jesus could have said that he knows but he does not wish to tell. Instead, he said that he does not know. We must believe him. Jesus was a man of truth.

The Gospel of Luke also reveals that Jesus had limited knowledge. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom (ch. 2, v. 52). In Hebrews too (ch. 5, v. 8) we read that Jesus learned obedience. But God’s knowledge is always perfect, and God does not learn new things. He knows everything always. If Jesus learned something new, that proves that he did not know everything before that, and he was not God. Can he become God later? No! Because there is only one God, and He is God from everlasting to everlasting (see Psalms 90, v. 2).

Someone may say that Jesus was God but he took the form of a servant and therefore became limited. Well, that would mean that God changed. But God does not change. He said so Himself in Malachi ch. 3, v. 6. Jesus never was God, and never will be. In the Bible, Yahweh alone is God and Yahweh declares:

“Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am Yahweh . . . “ (Isaiah ch. 43: vv. 10-11).

Some will say that Jesus had two natures, that he was both man and God at the same time. They will say that the limitations we pointed out are limitations in the human nature of Jesus, but his God nature is still unlimited. Notice that the Bible never confirms that Jesus had these two natures. This is a desperate solution offered by those who do not wish to believe what the Bible plainly says. The plain teaching of the Bible, as we have shown, is that Jesus was not God.

This dual-nature solution complicates matters further still. Take for illustration the fig-tree episode in the Gospels (see Mark ch. 11, vv 12-25). Mark tells us as follows:

“Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs” (Mark 11:12-14).

Jesus then put a curse on the tree, so that no one could eat fruit from it again. The tree withered from the roots by next morning.

Now, it is clear from this passage that Jesus had a lot of power to curse the tree and make it wither from its roots. It is also clear that Jesus' knowledge was limited on two counts. First, he did not know that the tree had no fruit until he came to it. Second, he did not know that it was not the right season to expect figs on trees..................

PS Why would God curse something He created? This also shows that Jesus was not God for God does not put curses on trees......

Schuhart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

2nd very interesting thing which anybody could notice when reading the Bible with open eyes is that Jesus was not all-powerful and all-knowing. For those who claim that Jesus was a man and God in 1 person find this biblical problem as "evidence" that Jesus could have been wrong or not all-powerful because when that happened they wuould say that that's because he had to follow the laws valid for human body, but his knowledge should not be limited if he was God and his power should not be limited if he really was God or His son.

Something is still puzzling me about your engagement on this topic.

If God's power is unlimited, and if he wanted a son, could he have one? Are you saying that God is limited by the laws of the world we know, hence making him unable to square any contradiction of those laws that might arise from having a son? I'm interested because of the obvious implication.

T-1111111111111

Schuhart wrote:

Something is still puzzling me about your engagement on this topic.

If God's power is unlimited, and if he wanted a son, could he have one? Are you saying that God is limited by the laws of the world we know, hence making him unable to square any contradiction of those laws that might arise from having a son? I'm interested because of the obvious implication.

Im saying this - God does not need a son nor a daughter nor anybody. Secondly, the Bible itself claims that Jesus was not all-powerful, which makes no sense if he was Almighty God, however he himself denied that and said that he is not equal to the Father and yet this is exactly what the Church (not the Bible I repeat - not the Bible) claims from 3rd or 4th century on. Now find what I just said in the Bible and dont close your eyes when you find it. Read it. So its not me who claiming this originally but the Bible (Bible claims Almighty God and Jesus are NOT equal and the Church claim they are).

And yes, if He wanted a son, He could have one no problem. But He doesnt need nor want one. And also some other men are called "sons of God", right? I suggest you find that too in the Bible. Now how many sons does God have? None, one or loads?

And yes, God did create and set up all these laws in this universe and these laws do not affect Him in any way, yet Jesus denied that he was God's son or God himself, so why are some people claiming something which was denied by Jesus? I dont get that, I just dont.

Also, be careful about the context of those verses that say such thing.

Also, God does not humiliate Himself, nor a man can humiliate Him. He is far and beyond any such blasphemous ideas.

Also, God is not a man nor a woman (or not a male nor a female).

Schuhart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

And yes, if He wanted a son, He could have one no problem. But He doesnt need nor want one.

Fine, so essentially you see nothing wrong in principle with the idea of a son - and accept that divine power can sort out any logical anomoly this creates. So it all comes down to your ability to deduce what God wants. How do you know what he wants?

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Also, God does not humiliate Himself, nor a man can humiliate Him. He is far and beyond any such blasphemous ideas.

I just want to check I have this right. God is not all powerful, as he does not have the power to either humiliate himself or subject himself to humiliation at the hand of another

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Also, God is not a man nor a woman (or not a male nor a female).

But presumably God can make himself male or female or make himself both male and female at the same time if he wants? Or is this another limit on divine power?

T-1111111111111

Schuhart wrote:

Fine, so essentially you see nothing wrong in principle with the idea of a son - and accept that divine power can sort out any logical anomoly this creates. So it all comes down to your ability to deduce what God wants. How do you know what he wants?I just want to check I have this right. God is not all powerful, as he does not have the power to either humiliate himself or subject himself to humiliation at the hand of anotherBut presumably God can make himself male or female or make himself both male and female at the same time if he wants? Or is this another limit on divine power?

Let me put this in the language that u just have to understand. Your putting something in my mouth which I have never said.

I did not say I see nothing wrong with it - you said that.
I did not say that I know what God wants - I say that Almighty does not will to do that. Here's some more evidence on the subject from The Qur'an (in English translation):

Surah/Chapter 004 - An-Nisâ. Verse 171.

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three". Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

Surah/Chapter 005 - Al-Mâ'idah. Verse 17.

They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say : Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.

Now you can make your own conclusions if you like.

About other 2 questions:

Almighty does what He wills. So obviously, He does not will to do any of the things you mentioned in your last 2 assertions which I'm not gona comment, cos I think they are blasphemous.

Schuhart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

I did not say I see nothing wrong with it - you said that.

There's no disagreement here - I'm merely confirming your statement that God can have a son if he wants, and no law of the universe can prevent him as he is not bound by them. Hence, any discussion of the logic of this is utterly irrelevant. The only thing at issue is whether he wants a son.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

I did not say that I know what God wants - I say that Almighty does not will to do that.

Which is you saying you know what the Almighty wills. From what I can gather, essentially all you are saying is you believe that God does not want a son because that's what the Quran says. So it all depends on whether someone believes the Quran to be the word of God.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Almighty does what He wills. So obviously, He does not will to do any of the things you mentioned in your last 2 assertions which I'm not gona comment, cos I think they are blasphemous.

I'm just trying to figure out what you are saying, as you seem to be suggesting limits to divine power - i.e. you seem to be suggesting God cannot adopt a female form, rather than God has no interest in adopting a female form.

T-1111111111111

Schuhart wrote:

There's no disagreement here - I'm merely confirming your statement that God can have a son if he wants, and no law of the universe can prevent him as he is not bound by them. Hence, any discussion of the logic of this is utterly irrelevant. The only thing at issue is whether he wants a son.Which is you saying you know what the Almighty wills. From what I can gather, essentially all you are saying is you believe that God does not want a son because that's what the Quran says. So it all depends on whether someone believes the Quran to be the word of God.I'm just trying to figure out what you are saying, as you seem to be suggesting limits to divine power - i.e. you seem to be suggesting God cannot adopt a female form, rather than God has no interest in adopting a female form.

Let's make it simple - I can assume that Almighty wnted to create you, so you're here. This is how I assume that that's exactly what He wills (regarding you). Now can you deny your own existence?

PS I never attributed any limits to Almighty, maybe you did. Reread your posts.

Slav

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Quoting from http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_40.htm where it gives some facts why the apostles had Jesus for 100% human.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Quoting from http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_41.htm

It seems like the author of the articles you quoted did not bother to do any research on dogmatic theology and the history of Church or intentionally wrote rubbish relying on ignorance of the readers. The author is trying to proof something based solely on Bible… Well, not a very strong position. In this case one doesn’t even need to believe in deity of Jesus (can perfectly be a Judaist, a Muslim, a Buddhist, an Atheist, etc.) to make hay of that sort of arguments if wish so. All it requires is just some knowledge of philosophy, history, theology and logic. Actually, there are far more productive ways to implant doubt in a Christian mind regarding the concept of Holy Trinity or even deity of Jesus then just quoting Bible.;)

It’s late night now so if you excuse me, I won’t be explaining tonight where the author’s misunderstandings are. It’s my laziness , the answers are well known to human civilization for at lease sixteen hundred years therefore it’s not bloody exiting to repeat them one more time;). Instead I would like to ask you a question if you don't mind. What is your objective here? Are you proselyting or doing your research on the topic? If the former then I’m afraid there is no point for me to discuss it any further as unfortunately I am allergic :mad: to any form proselytism, sorry. If it’s the later then I’m really puzzled by the research methodology you’ve chosen…

T-1111111111111

Slav wrote:

It seems like the author of the articles you quoted did not bother to do any research on dogmatic theology and the history of Church or intentionally wrote rubbish relying on ignorance of the readers. The author is trying to proof something based solely on Bible… Well, not a very strong position. In this case one doesn’t even need to believe in deity of Jesus (can perfectly be a Judaist, a Muslim, a Buddhist, an Atheist, etc.) to make hay of that sort of arguments if wish so. All it requires is just some knowledge of philosophy, history, theology and logic. Actually, there are far more productive ways to implant doubt in a Christian mind regarding the concept of Holy Trinity or even deity of Jesus then just quoting Bible.;)

It’s late night now so if you excuse me, I won’t be explaining tonight where the author’s misunderstandings are. It’s my laziness , the answers are well known to human civilization for at lease sixteen hundred years therefore it’s not bloody exiting to repeat them one more time;). Instead I would like to ask you a question if you don't mind. What is your objective here? Are you proselyting or doing your research on the topic? If the former then I’m afraid there is no point for me to discuss it any further as unfortunately I am allergic :mad: to any form proselytism, sorry. If it’s the later then I’m really puzzled by the research methodology you’ve chosen…

Facts are the clear from the sky, its a matter of glasses.

Slav

Slav wrote:

Are you proselyting or doing your research on the topic?

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Facts are the clear from the sky, its a matter of glasses.

Good luck.

Schuhart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Let's make it simple - I can assume that Almighty wnted to create you, so you're here. This is how I assume that that's exactly what He wills (regarding you). Now can you deny your own existence?

This doesn't tell me how you know that God does not want a son. It only confirms to me that you believe God can do whatever he wants. What I left deducing from your post is you are saying someone who believes the Quran to be divine word will as a consequence say God does not want a son. So the whole question turns on whether or not the Quran is divine word - which is being debated on another thread.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

PS I never attributed any limits to Almighty, maybe you did. Reread your posts.

The consequence of what you say is that God's power is limited. You seem unable to produce any explanation for this contradiction in your outlook.

BrianCalgary

Ok T-1111111111111

You have clearly shown without a doubt that Jesus was a man. No one will argue about that in the least. You have also shown that God is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, no argument there.

Jesus is also God. We agree that God is all powerful, there is therefore nothing to prevent God from coming as man, or would you limit the almighty on this point?

T-1111111111111

Brian, I cant say I love u man, but I wud love u to read my posts with open eyes. :rolleyes:

Now, we agree that Jesus was a 100% man. Yes? No? Nevermind. I'll skip your answer on this cos u skipped a lots of my posts, in fact, u skipped a lots of the Bible actually.

Now, please dont skip the Bible verses again, but read what Jesus himself said:

John 14:28 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

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.

Here is the 2nd verse:

John 10:29 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

Now please, reread The Document of the Christian Faith, I'll repost u the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_creed

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;

but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

See, to me it looks like there is a contradiction, they are all equal in trinity, but how is that, because there is more than one obvious and very clear verse that says something completely the opposite.

Plus Who is Good and who is not? Remember?

Now please, I really wana hear do you see this or not?

Schuhart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

See, to me it looks like there is a contradiction, they are all equal in trinity, but how is that, because there is more than one obvious and very clear verse that says something completely the opposite.

For what's it worth, two points occur to me. Firstly, that you seem to be suggesting that God is subject to the natural laws of this Universe - as those laws would be what stops him from being simultaneously equal and unequal. The second is the Creed seems to already have this covered with the statement 'equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.'

BrianCalgary

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Brian, I cant say I love u man, but I wud love u to read my posts with open eyes. :rolleyes: ?

I do love you buddy, and I do read you rposts with open eyes. You are using the Athanasian creed which is someones idea of a compilation of Christian beliefs. I don't even agree with the first line, which means that I can't accept the whole document.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Now, we agree that Jesus was a 100% man. Yes? No? Nevermind. I'll skip your answer on this cos u skipped a lots of my posts, in fact, u skipped a lots of the Bible actually.

Now, please dont skip the Bible verses again, but read what Jesus himself said:

John 14:28 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

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.

Here is the 2nd verse:

John 10:29 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

Now please, reread The Document of the Christian Faith, I'll repost u the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_creed

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;

but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

See, to me it looks like there is a contradiction, they are all equal in trinity, but how is that, because there is more than one obvious and very clear verse that says something completely the opposite.

Plus Who is Good and who is not? Remember?

Now please, I really wana hear do you see this or not?

I see you bringing up two points: 1) Jesus is a man, this we agree on.

2) Jesus is subordinate to the Father, this we agree upon.

We are quite different on Jesus also being 100% God. My question to you is could the almighty God become man or are you going to limit His abilities?

T-1111111111111

BrianCalgary wrote:

I do love you buddy, and I do read you rposts with open eyes. You are using the Athanasian creed which is someones idea of a compilation of Christian beliefs. I don't even agree with the first line, which means that I can't accept the whole document.



I see you bringing up two points: 1) Jesus is a man, this we agree on.

2) Jesus is subordinate to the Father, this we agree upon.

We are quite different on Jesus also being 100% God. My question to you is could the almighty God become man or are you going to limit His abilities?

2) Not really. I never said Jesus, peacu upon him, was a subordinate of God. Where did I say that? Subordinate does not necessarily mean a son or The Son from your point of view, does it? What I say about Jesus, son of Mary, who had no father was only God's servant and His prophet/messenger. I wouldnt compare it to my boss -> myself relation. I dont compare God, God is the Greatest. So I dont use the word subordinate in that sense. Jesus was His servant, same as me. Now if u wana call him subordinate, u can say that.

The Bible claims that Jesus was God's servant. How do you say God can be also a servant? Explain this to me.

My answer is - Almighty does what He Wills. Obviously, He does not will to become a man, therefore He never became a man. Im taking this from the Qur'an same as youre taking your claims from the Bible, so be happy with my answer.

To say that God cannot become a man is a ridiculous statement cos its like that question "can God create a rock so big that not even He can move it?".

My answer to that question is: He does what He wills. Now if your happy then ask Almighty.

Schuhart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Almighty does what He Wills. Obviously, He does not will to become a man, therefore He never became a man. Im taking this from the Qur'an same as youre taking your claims from the Bible, so be happy with my answer.

Which brings us back to the thread here, where you’ve stated that you will simply ignore any evidence that suggests the Quran is not the exact word of God.

T-1111111111111

ccc

Puck

T-1111111111111, if you wish to engage in discussions on this board I'd like to see a bit more respect for your fellow users please. Warning #1.

BrianCalgary

Ok we'll use servant. The reason I used subordinate is because servanthood implies subordination. So we agree that Jesus is man, we also agree that God is one and that He is everlasting. We disagree on the Deity of Christ.

Now are there any verses to indicate that Jesus is God? Yes.

Part 1
Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

Jesus is the Son of Man Luke 22:48 but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"

So Jesus is calling the angels His.

Now lets look at Luke 12:8-9 "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.

Luke 15:10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

He clearly states that the angels are God's. Not only do the angels belong to God they belong to Jesus.


Part 2
Mark 2:5-7
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Here Jesus forgives the man's sins and he is healed. Since only God can forgive sins the teachers accuse Jesus of blasphemy.

Jesus does not disagree with the teachers observation and goes on to say in verse 10:
But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic,

Jesus takes on a task that only God is capable of.

Part 3
Matthew 25:31-46
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46;&version=31;

(It's large, hence the link)

Here Jesus judges the world, which again is the sole domain of God.

I'll leave it with these three for now. based on responsibilities and power.

BrianCalgary

This is the best phrase I have ever seen on the trinity:

The Father always commends the Son and works through the Spirit.

The Son always yields to the Father and promotes the Spirit.

The Spirit always points to the Son and does what the Father says.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

This has come up for discussion on a couple of threads. I'd like to lock those threads and bring the discussion regarding the trinity to here.

babyvaio and T-1 are bringing the trinity theology into question.

Please discuss the Biblical proofs on the deity of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit to here.

Never really got why people don't get the trinity, or seem confused as to how God could exist in different forms.

I mean I as most know am an atheist, so I don't believe in God, but the concept that a god could exist in different forms never troubled me. He is God after all

Think of it as the T-1000 in Terminator (work with me here), the bit where he gets split into lots of different pieces. They are all still the T-1000, they all still operate with a similar function, a similar goal and purpose (ok maybe God isn't trying to kill John Conor).

Or maybe a more poetic and biblical way to think about it is the ocean is one big body of water, but once in a while a puddle gets seperated from the ocean on the beach. While the ocean can move land masses this tiny piece of water is less powerful. But that water is still the ocean, even if it isn't connected to the rest of the ocean, and once the tide comes in it reforms with the ocean.

If you think of God as like a liquid that flows through everything it is easy to imagine different elements seperate from the main but still the same entity


Maybe thats just me

T-1111111111111

Puck wrote:

T-1111111111111, if you wish to engage in discussions on this board I'd like to see a bit more respect for your fellow users please. Warning #1.

Look, u warn whom u want, im allowed to "ban" the user i want to.

Let me just clarify what I mean by my "ban" - if i "banned" somebody then I dont talk to them.

BTW the post just before this one made a laugh out of my username. I dont wana call him wicks**** , so shud I?

T-1111111111111

BrianCalgary wrote:

Ok we'll use servant. The reason I used subordinate is because servanthood implies subordination. So we agree that Jesus is man, we also agree that God is one and that He is everlasting. We disagree on the Deity of Christ.

Now are there any verses to indicate that Jesus is God? Yes.

Part 1
Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

Jesus is the Son of Man Luke 22:48 but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"

So Jesus is calling the angels His.

Now lets look at Luke 12:8-9 "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.

Luke 15:10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

He clearly states that the angels are God's. Not only do the angels belong to God they belong to Jesus.


Part 2
Mark 2:5-7
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Here Jesus forgives the man's sins and he is healed. Since only God can forgive sins the teachers accuse Jesus of blasphemy.

Jesus does not disagree with the teachers observation and goes on to say in verse 10:
But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic,

Jesus takes on a task that only God is capable of.

Part 3
Matthew 25:31-46
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46;&version=31;

(It's large, hence the link)

Here Jesus judges the world, which again is the sole domain of God.

I'll leave it with these three for now. based on responsibilities and power.

I appreciate u posting thse, They're all good - but all against a belief that Jesus was who u think he was.
See, its english, u shud understand it better than me, but ul see that there nothing wrong with my interpretation. Since I have to finish my coffee (Im very tired today man), Ill reply to ur Part 1 so now, and later to the other 2, OK?

So, let's read the Bible carefully and Allah Willing we will see the real meaning. One verse at a time. Here is goes:

Part 1
Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

Jesus peace upon him was helped with the Spirit, which BTW was Gabriel, peace upon him. This verse does not say the Jesus is God. This verse only says he sent his angels. "His" can be interpreted here as "under his command as ordered by God", not bcos Jesus initiated the initial command to them.

Jesus is the Son of Man Luke 22:48 but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"

OK, this verse does not talk about our point of interest. It's referring to a Son of Man. (not "son" of God).

So Jesus is calling the angels His.

Same as for the 1st one.

Now lets look at Luke 12:8-9 "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.

This verse is saying what u already know, whoever acknowledges him as "The Christ = The Messiah, The Anointed One, The Appointed One , The Messenger of God" (but not God Himself, and not God's "son") then etc. and whoever does not, then etc.
So it's talking about accepting that son of Mary was merely one to follow like a messenger of God, nothing more and nothing less than that.

Luke 15:10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

And this verse obviously is not talking about Jesus as God or His "son".

Brian, I think we can both see that what ur taking out of the Bible are merely verses which dont even implicitly imply that Jesus was divine in any form.

For instance, if some people think that Jesus was God cos he raised somebody out of the grave, then why dont u believe the same for another son of man who did the same thing? Ezra, or Ilijas, or u know who I mean, I wudnt know the English "version" of his name, peace upon him.

So now we have somebody else, who by God's Permission, raised somebody from the dead. A micacle? Of course. God? No. Only His Messenger, who did that by God's Permission.

I have to finish by coffee now Brian.

Please respond to the Bible assertion about "Jesus being God's servant".
How can God be a servant to himself?

Dades

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Look, u warn whom u want, im allowed to "ban" the user i want to.

Let me just clarify what I mean by my "ban" - if i "banned" somebody then I dont talk to them.

Why don't you just put your fingers in your ears and shout:

"I'm not listening, I'm not listening".

They do that a lot here, too.

T-1111111111111

The Atheist wrote:

Why don't you just put your fingers in your ears and shout:

"I'm not listening, I'm not listening".

They do that a lot here, too.

Dont be nasty now. I didnt hear what u said ur walking in the dark area anyway.

Dades

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Dont be nasty now.

I'm not being nasty.
It just reflects badly on you to ignore arguments that make you uncomfortable.

T-1111111111111

The Atheist wrote:

I'm not being nasty.
It just reflects badly on you to ignore arguments that make you uncomfortable.

No. I ignore only nasty or arrogant "arguments" and nonsense.

Puck

Right, no more making fun of peoples usernames.
<sigh>

T-1111111111111

Puck wrote:

Right, no more making fun of peoples usernames.
<sigh>

Exactly, cos my username is not Terminator 1 or something, but T-1111111111111. I dont really care about the stupid username, its only a username, but if I see somebody attacking me as a person, then that's a different (nasty) story.

athena 2000

T-1111111111111,

I'm sure Wicknight was referring to a model number of the Terminator from the movie series of the same name. The android gets split up, yet acts in unity with its purpose. Your username could have reminded him of the movies.

It was to illustrate his point - not to personally insult you.

T-1111111111111

athena 2000 wrote:

T-1111111111111,

I'm sure Wicknight was referring to a model number of the Terminator from the movie series of the same name. The android gets split up, yet acts in unity with its purpose. Your username could have reminded him of the movies.

It was to illustrate his point - not to personally insult you.

Too many movies is not good for your mind and soul

athena 2000

AhHA! You must be speaking from experience.

T-1111111111111

athena 2000 wrote:

AhHA! You must be speaking from experience.

Maybe, it's a waste of time 90% I guess.

Schuhart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

ccc

Clearly you can debate with whomever you will. For my part, I simply find the case you are making holds no water.

Zombrex

T-1111111111111 wrote:

BTW the post just before this one made a laugh out of my username. I dont wana call him wicks**** , so shud I?

My post was no reference to your username. I've no idea what T-111111.. means, but if it is a reference to the Terminator movies I didn't get that. I was only thinking about Terminator because it was on the telly a few nights ago

MeditationMom

I am just learning about this Qu'ran/Bible "fight" about the trinity, and Jesus as the son of God/servant of God. This is all quite interesting.

Soneone please define to me what they mean by "son" in this context.

Didn't Jesus himself correct the desciples about this, by saying "we are all God's children" (Brian?), and calling himself the Son of Man? There is a vast difference between calling God "My Father in Heaven" and "I am God's Son". Jesus couldn't possibly have said that, but prove me wrong if it is somewhere in the Bible. Brian, is God not also your Father in Heaven?

In the Gospel of Judas - gnostic heresy, according to the Church, but equally, if not more valuable to scholars - Jesus vehemently denies and ridicules the disciples' misunderstanding about him being the son of God.

by Brian Calgary- This is the best phrase I have ever seen on the trinity:

The Father always commends the Son and works through the Spirit.

The Son always yields to the Father and promotes the Spirit.

The Spirit always points to the Son and does what the Father says.

Commends? or Commands?

This idea of the trinity is actually a helpful one from a psychological/spiritual point of view. Therefore it is to be found in many myths and theologies. Even Freud thought he invented it, and called it a great psychologicl discovery and system of ananlysis and treatment. All it represents is the ancient inner conflicts and workings of the human mind/body/spirit, which need to be in harmony in exactly the way it is described above, for allignement, at-one-ment with the devine.

I find myself agreeing with the idea that God having a "son" is a misunderstanding by the desciples - easier to leave your wives and children, or to be cruzified upside down, for the "Son of God" than the "Son of Man".

The idea of the trinity - I understand the idea and its usefullness, but find it to be misunderstood if it turns God into a devided being of three qualities. God is One. A Oneness, Wholeness and Holyness, beyond our imagination. True Monotheism still seems to be beyond most peoples' religious capacity for understanding.
Oneness implies that God cannot even be separated from his own creation, or it from him. This Oneness contains all, trinity, multi-whatever-nity, universality.
Much easier, and very human to think God "made" something, and "had" a kid. The Greeks also had Gods that became human, fertilized human women of superior qualities and had devine/human children. These are all just older religious ideas. They are hard to let go of, it seems.

One problem always with religions is when they lay claim to "the only Son of God" as Christians do, being "God's chosen people" as Jewish People do, or -well - I don't know what Muslims do - but they seem to be just as fanatic about something. This always results in bloodshed and so much suffering, that peace becomes the only option. So it must be good.

JimiTime

There is God the father, who is the almighty sovreign of the universe.

His only begotton son who he gave up for our salvation, Jesus.

2 different beings. Mystery solved:D One is the Father the Alpha and Omega, the other the son. Tri-god introduced from paganism. Just like christmas is pagan, easter is pagan, and in catholicism, the bishops hat has connections with the fish god, and the eucharist holder is a bit of an ode to the sun God. If Christ came in our day, he would see all of this as he did the pharisees, the saducees and scribes of old. Full of haughtiness, completely overlooking what we should be concentrating on. I am going to make what is going to seem like a very brash statement. But as a God fearing person and intelligent being, you cannot possibly believe in this man made doctrine. 'The mystery of the trinity', does that not raise the alarm bells.
God be with you all. May your ears be opened and your eyes granted vision.

T-1111111111111

JimiTime wrote:

There is God the father, who is the almighty sovreign of the universe.

His only begotton son who he gave up for our salvation, Jesus.

2 different beings. Mystery solved:D One is the Father the Alpha and Omega, the other the son. Tri-god introduced from paganism. Just like christmas is pagan, easter is pagan, and in catholicism, the bishops hat has connections with the fish god, and the eucharist holder is a bit of an ode to the sun God. If Christ came in our day, he would see all of this as he did the pharisees, the saducees and scribes of old. Full of haughtiness, completely overlooking what we should be concentrating on. I am going to make what is going to seem like a very brash statement. But as a God fearing person and intelligent being, you cannot possibly believe in this man made doctrine. 'The mystery of the trinity', does that not raise the alarm bells.
God be with you all. May your ears be opened and your eyes granted vision.

2 different beings. God the Creator, Jesus the created one - the human and nothing but the human. Disciples didn't get him incorrectly, it was Saul the pagan who merged paganism and the original teachings of Jesus and invented a religion unknown to Jesus himself which is nowadays called Christianity. Jesus never called anyone a Christian, ever. Jesus was not a Christian. Christianity as it exists now (Christianity as that particular religion which support the idea of trinity) was unknown to the original followers of Jesus, why do you think the Church dumped so many Gospels and kept only the canonical 4? No brains are needed to figure that out.

By the way, 2 evangelists couldn't even agree on the family tree of Jesus, they messed up the whole thing, 1 was claiming that there was X numbers of generations from Abraham to Jesus, the other one was claiming Y numbers of generations - undeniable contradiction. Who got it right - if anyone? The Bible clearly has many undeniable and unsolvable errors/contradictions.

Asiaprod

Strange, I always thought the exact phrase Jesus was surposed to have said was "I am a Son of God" and not I am the Son of God. Very big difference in meaning here.

Wibbs

MeditationMom wrote:

I am just learning about this Qu'ran/Bible "fight" about the trinity, and Jesus as the son of God/servant of God. This is all quite interesting.

Confusing more like.:D

Soneone please define to me what they mean by "son" in this context.

Good point. What does son mean in this context. Obviously it doesn't mean biological son.

Didn't Jesus himself correct the desciples about this, by saying "we are all God's children" (Brian?), and calling himself the Son of Man? There is a vast difference between calling God "My Father in Heaven" and "I am God's Son". Jesus couldn't possibly have said that, but prove me wrong if it is somewhere in the Bible. Brian, is God not also your Father in Heaven?

Well son of man could mean exalted among men. Highest example of Man that exists. God breathed as it where.

All it represents is the ancient inner conflicts and workings of the human mind/body/spirit, which need to be in harmony in exactly the way it is described above, for allignement, at-one-ment with the devine.

That could be it. Simply he considered himself and others considered him the perfect balance of the three. Perfect harmony kinda thing.

God is One. A Oneness, Wholeness and Holyness, beyond our imagination. True Monotheism still seems to be beyond most peoples' religious capacity for understanding.

Pantheism basically. A very old Idea. Probably the oldest as hunter gatherer shamanistic faiths hold that idea and they make all world religions look like new kids on the block. That "faith", which is pretty consistent in it's basic beliefs worldwide is at least 60,000 years old and probably older. Also it's monotheisic although there are helper spirits they all come from the great spirit, the divine spark. I remember reading of San Bushmen shamans being informed about Jesus and Mohammed and their response was that they were heavy shamans and they weren't too surprised at most of their pronouncments. In fact the Jesus story can be looked at from that shamanistic point of view. The 40 days in the desert, the healing, the casting out of evil. The resurrection is also a shaministic tradition as shamans usually go through a spiritual "death" and rebirth in order to become spiritual teachers. Jesus just went the whole hog and that impressed them no end apparently.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

it was Saul the pagan who merged paganism and the original teachings of Jesus and invented a religion unknown to Jesus himself which is nowadays called Christianity.

Accorsing to the story Saul was a Jew, not a Pagan. Not even close to Paganism, unless you consider jews Pagans. Indeed he was a devout Pharisee and sent out by same to stop the early Christians(who would likely have also thought of themselves as Jews)

Jesus never called anyone a Christian, ever.

True.

Jesus was not a Christian.

Well presumably he was the founder of what is called Christianity, to christians at least.

Christianity as it exists now (Christianity as that particular religion which support the idea of trinity) was unknown to the original followers of Jesus,

I would agree. I'd say they tought of themselves as a newer version of Judaesim.

The Bible clearly has many undeniable and unsolvable errors/contradictions.

As does every religious text out there except to it's faithful. Remember the other thread on other holy books?

Who got it right - if anyone?

Exactly.

robindch

> What does son mean in this context. Obviously it doesn't mean biological son.

Well, I think it does mean biological son. The story goes that it was announced to Mary, that the holy spirit "will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:26-35). Clearly, the biological son of god is what's meant here.

And he's following in a steady tradition: the top Greek god, Zeus, regularly descended from the spiritual plane at the top of mount olympus to impregnate women -- Hercules, the greatest human hero before Jesus, was one such son of god. And the very popular indian guru Sai Baba -- apparently suspected of complicity in child abuse -- also claims a virgin birth.

Medina

Some thoughts I have had on the subject while reviewing both the Cathechism, the Nicene Creed and the idea of the Trinity.

The Nicene Creed states:

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And it also states:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.

What I'd be wondering really is how this section fits with the idea of the trinity.
I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible

This 'one God' is very clear and yet we as Christians usually deny to other faith believers that we believe in three Gods, rather they are three individualities in one God. But this seems to contradict the Nicene Creed.

Does not the term 'Son of God' not imply that Jesus was not HIMSELF God but the 'Son of' this other being who is 'God'. Now leave aside whether he is or is not the 'Son of' before we get there I think the matter of the Trinity versus the Nicene Creed saying 'one God, the Father Almighty' should be cleared up first.

Slav

Isn't it strange that the 21st century Christians are still confused with the matters that their religion puzzled out some sixteen centuries ago?..

Medina wrote:

This 'one God' is very clear and yet we as Christians usually deny to other faith believers that we believe in three Gods, rather they are three individualities in one God. But this seems to contradict the Nicene Creed.

Where do you see a contradiction? Does the Nicene Creed say that there are two or three gods?
Indeed it identifies the Son as a substance (or a hypostasis if you like) of One God, emphasising that the Son is "of one being with the Father" (in original: οµοούsιον tώ Πatρί)

Medina wrote:

Does not the term 'Son of God' not imply that Jesus was not HIMSELF God but the 'Son of' this other being who is 'God'

No, it does not imply that. And ironically this very question was that reason why the lads gathered in Nicaea in 325. The only purpose of the Nicene Creed (the very original one, not to be confused with Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) was to make a statement that Son is not a Creature, that He is God and is of the same essence with the Father. See Arianism for details.

ISAW

JimiTime wrote:

There is God the father, who is the almighty sovreign of the universe....etc.

a heresy dealt with before on this forum.
Can we post a skicky FAQ on this?

ISAW

T-1111111111111 wrote:

2 different beings. God the Creator, Jesus the created one -

manchianisn jianism - all dealt with before.

By the way, 2 evangelists couldn't even agree on the family tree of Jesus, they messed up the whole thing, 1 was claiming that there was X numbers of generations from Abraham to Jesus, the other one was claiming Y numbers of generations - undeniable contradiction. Who got it right - if anyone? The Bible clearly has many undeniable and unsolvable errors/contradictions.

You clearly have a very weak standard of debate.

who was evangalist 1 in your example?
Who is evangalist 2?
How many generations are X and how many Y?
Where in the Bible is this stated?

You really should check out the things other people tell you. Ill bet you cant support this allegation. care to provide evidence for your claims?

ISAW

Medina wrote:

Some thoughts...Does not the term 'Son of God' not imply that Jesus was not HIMSELF God but the 'Son of' this other being who is 'God'. Now leave aside whether he is or is not the 'Son of' before we get there I think the matter of the Trinity versus the Nicene Creed saying 'one God, the Father Almighty' should be cleared up first.

No it doesnt! we have been over this heresy before.

ISAW

for information on creeds and heresies see here:
http://www.abelard.org/councils/councils.htm