Jesus cannot be god according to jesus

[bodhitharta]

Jesus said GOD is a SPIRIT:

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
John 4:23-25

Jesus was not and is not a spirit because after he was “resurrected” what does the scripture say?

Luke 24:39 (King James Version)
39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

So the fact is the resurrected Jesus had FLESH and therefore cannot be GOD who is a SPIRIT

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1 John 4:1-3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:2-4

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2 John 1:6-8

Jesus Christ came in the FLESH and was taken up in THE FLESH and therefore cannot be GOD

[thehappyman]

Jesus came from heaven and became flesh for us .

[bodhitharta]

Quote (thehappyman @ Dec. 07 2010,13:26)

Jesus came from heaven and became flesh for us .

How would that make him God?

[TimothyVI]

That is a good argument Bod.
Using scriptures to refute dogma.

Tim

[francis]

Hello Asana… how are you and your family?  I hope everything is going well.

Quote

Jesus said GOD is a SPIRIT: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:23-25 Jesus was not and is not a spirit because after he was “resurrected” what does the scripture say? Luke 24:39 (King James Version) 39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. So the fact is the resurrected Jesus had FLESH and therefore cannot be GOD who is a SPIRIT Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 1 John 4:1-3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1 John 4:2-4 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 2 John 1:6-8 Jesus Christ came in the FLESH and was taken up in THE FLESH and therefore cannot be GOD

 

Many years ago, I learned a very valuable lesson which I still use today because it is timeless and always true.  And that is the importance of defining and understanding the meaning of words in a dialogue.    Much confusion and frustration and misundertanding and even hurt has been caused in this world because someone will say something, and it was then taken in a wrong way by another person simply because the meaning of a certain word or sentence of words were not understood or agreed upon beforehand.

This is what I see happening in here often, and I can already see in this thread that we need to make an attempt to understand what certain words meant in the scriptures and what they mean to each other.  If we don't do this, then we will be talking AT each other,  instead of speaking TO each other.

To have a constructive dialogue in here… and I hope that this what we all want… we need to make an effort to understand each other so that we can have a genuine discussion.  I'm not saying we need to agree with each other, but we do need to understand each other's position.  And we can't do that if we don't understand how the other person is using words.

With that in mind, I can see right away that for you (Asana) to understand what i'm about to write, you need to know how I define or use certain words like “God”… Flesh… Resurrection body… Spirit… Soul… Natural… etc, etc.  I'm sure you can see the wisdom and truth in this.

And maybe we can go over these terms if the following response of mine gets hung up on what these words means to us.

So anyway… here are a few humble observations I would like to make about your post….

1)… while it is true that God is a Spirit.. (a spiritual Being according to the Amplified translation)… no where in John 4:24… or in any other place n the Bible,  does it say that the 2nd person of the Trinitarian God cannot acquire a human nature.  A human nature  which does not manifest itself corporeally in heaven… but which does manifest itself corporeally here on earth whenever Jesus enters our four-dimensional space-time continuum.

Here is a scientific example to help visualize what I am saying… think of a tuning fork which is plucked and begins to hum.  We can hear it humming.   The vibrations from the fork are manifesting itself to us thru the sound of huming.   But,  if the vibrating fork is then placed in a vacuum jar, though it continues to vibrate, it does not manifest itself to us by a humming noise because there is no medium to carry its vibrations.

In the same way, it is very possible (and very likely as I believe) that Christ's human nature (which is different than His divine nature), no longer immersed in our four-dimensional spacetime continuum (since He ascended into Heaven) does not manifest itself as a body.  But when Jesus was here on earth… when He was resurrected…  when in Luke 24:39 He says to His disciples to handle Him and said that a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see Him have… His human nature could have easily manifested itself corporeally as body.  After all, everyone agrees that there is a distinct difference between a regular body and a Resurrected body.  In Luke 24:39, Jesus has a resurrected body.  And that is a very, very important distinction!!

So just like a tunning fork will or will not manifest itelf to us through sound, depending on which medium it is place… so Christ's human nature… Christ's resurrected body… will or will not manifest itself to us depending on which medium Jesus is in.   In a vacuum, the vibrations of a tunning fork cannot be heard even though it is still vibraing.  In our four-dimensional space-time medium, Christ's human nature is manifested to us as a resurrected body… but when Christ ascended into heaven… when Jesus ascended OUT OF our four-dimensional space-time continuum, His human nature does not manifest itself as a resurrected body.

To sum up, you do not know all that a Spiritual Being (God) cannot do.  And you do do not know all that the 2nd Person of the Trinity cannot do.  It stands to reason that Christ's human nature… a nature which He acquired when He came down from Heaven to be born from a virgin… is manifested as His physical resurrection body when He exists in our spatio-temporal universe.  But when Jesus is in Heaven… when Jesus leaves our particular space-time universe, Jesus' resurrected body is not manifested.

Now this is a guess… but it is not a blind guess.  It is based on the clues which are given to us in places like Corinthians and the Gospels where Jesus is on earth for 40 days in His resurrected body.   Everyone knows that the resurrected body is different than our natural bodies.  Christ was showing His resurrected body to His followers when He encouraged them to touch Him and when He said that the spririt does not have flesh.

Jesus was not showing his spirit… because we all know that the spirit does not have flesh and bone… instead Jesus was showing his body… which we all know has flesh and bone.

Jesus' fleshly body was like the Temple and the Tabernacle in the OT.  It was an earthly place in which God was inhabiting or indwelling.  But just like the Temple was not God… neither is Jesus' earthly body, Jesus.

Your body is not you, it doesn't define you.  The real you… the real Asana is a spirit which happens to be inhabiting a human fleshly body made from dust by God.

So there is no contradiction at all as you want to suppose.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS… nowhere in the verses you've cited in your post does it preclude this understanding of Christ's human nature or of Christ's resurrected body or of my understanding of God's nature as a spiritual Being.

See… what you've done is ASSUMMED certain things apriorily… things which I personally think are unfounded scripturally.  

For example:

1)… You've assumed that God is not Trinitarian.  

2)… You've assumed that the 2nd person of the Trinitarian God (Jesus) cannot acquire a human nature.  

3)… You've assumed that Jesus' Resurrected body MUST BE manifested in the same way,  within two completely different and alien space-time continuums.

4)… You've assumed that when it says Jesus Christ came in the FLESH,  then that must mean that Jesus couldn't be both 100% human and 100% God (the 2nd pers
on of the Trinity), when Christians believe and the Bible teaches that Jesus was both.

5)… it also appears to me that you have assumed that humans do not have at least a dual nature… a soul and a spirit.  

6)… and it appears that you've assumed that God, the Father, did not prepare a body of flesh for Jesus, His son, the 2nd person of the trinity… as recorded in Hebrews 10:5.

Let's look, one more time, at the verses you yourself supplied in support of your contention that Jesus is not God.

—> God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).[/i]John 4:24 (Amplified Bible)

This verse does not tell us that God is not Trinitarian and it does not say that Jesus (the 2nd person of the Trinity) could not acquire a human nature and yet still remain as a 100% Spiritual Being.

—> See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself! Feel and handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.  Luke 24:39 (Amplified Bible)

This verse DOE NOT say that Jesus' spirit has flesh and bones.  What this verse tells us is that NOT ONLY was Jesus Spirit… BUT ALSO that He had a Resurrected body which manifested corporeally here on earth as FLESH!!

Tell me Asana… why can't Jesus be a Spirit (as we also have spirits) that dwells INSIDE a body of flesh… much like God, who being a Spirit, dwelled inside the Temple and dwelled inside the tabernacle tent?  What's the stumbling block in this for you?

LISTEN CAREFULLY ASANA… when Jesus in John 4:24 is showing his followers his Flesh… he is NOT showing his spirit!!  And when Jesus is showing his followers his flesh…  He is NOT saying that he IS FLESH and that he is not spirit!!!  Its obvious to anyone who reads John 4:24 that Jesus is showing the body that his spirit IS IN!!!!  

Think of it this way…. when God was IN THE TEMPLE… or IN THE TABERNACLE, God was not saying that HE WAS THE TEMPLE OR THAT THE TEMPLE WAS PART OF HIM!!!

Can you see this Asana?  You assume too much.  You assume things which are not there in the scriptures.

 
—> By this you may know (perceive and recognize) the Spirit of God: every spirit which acknowledges and confesses [the fact] that Jesus Christ (the Messiah) [actually] has become man and has come in the flesh is of God [has God for its source];  1 John 4:2 (Amplified Bible)

1)… This verse does not tell us that God is not Trinitarian and it does not say that Jesus (the 2nd person of the Trinity) could not acquire a human nature and yet still remain as a 100% Spiritual Being.

2)… Indeed.. when Jesus CAME IN THE FLESH (as this verse says).. where did Jesus come from in the first place?   Well… the Bible teaches, and Christians teach that Christ existed from the beginning as the 2nd person of God and that He temporarily left heaven to COME IN THE FLESH for our sake.  So this verse does not support your contention at all.  To come in the flesh, Jesus had to come from somewhere to begin with.  He had to have existed beforehand.

3)… And neither does this verse suggest that Jesus had Flesh, while in heaven, before He came to earth in flesh.  If Jesus, the 2nd person of the Trinitarian God did not acquire a human nature… if Jesus did not inhabit a body of flesh when He came to earth… if Jesus had not “put on a suit of flesh” (as it were) when He came to earth… what would we have seen?  We would have seen a SPIRIT!!!!  Not flesh.

Isn't that correct?  And since the spirit does not have flesh or bones, then Jesus, as Spirit, would not have been able to be tempted… Jesus would not have been able to go through what we go through in life… Jesus would not have been able to be the 2nd Adam… Jesus would not have been able to bear our sins on the cross… etc, etc.  Can you see this?

So when Jesus left heaven to come to earth… He needed a body of flesh to do all the above.  And that is why Jesus, the 2nd person of the Trinity came in the flesh… inhabited a body of flesh… put on a “suit of flesh” if you will…. and did not come without a body of flesh.   Jesus' spirit had to have a body of flesh… he had to inhabit a body of flesh… to be able to be the acceptable and perfect sacrifice which God's justice demanded.  
So a body was prepared for Him by God as we see in Hebrews 10:5  “Hence, when He (Christ) entered into the world, He said, “Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired, but instead You have made ready a body for ME to offer“  (Amplified Bible)

Jesus is God… He is the 2nd person of the Trinity… and we see in Hebrews that when Jesus left heaven to come to earth… we see that the Father (the 1st person of the Trinity) prepared a body of flesh for Jesus so that it could be offered up as a sacrifice.

—> And every spirit which does not acknowledge and confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh [but would annul, destroy, sever, disunite Him] is not of God [does not proceed from Him]. This [nonconfession] is the [spirit] of the antichrist, [of] which you heard that it was coming, and now it is already in the world.   1 John 4:3 (Amplified Bible)  

Answered above.

—> For many imposters (seducers, deceivers, and false leaders) have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge (confess, admit) the coming of Jesus Christ (the Messiah) in bodily form. Such a one is the imposter (the seducer, the deceiver, the false leader, the antagonist of Christ) and the antichrist.  2 John 1:7 (Amplified Bible)  

And just as you probably believe that Christians are decieved and have been seduced by false leaders… likewise Christians believe the same about Muslims who reject the fact that Jesus is God… the 2nd person of the trinity.

————————————————————–

Quote

Jesus Christ came in the FLESH and was taken up in THE FLESH and therefore cannot be GOD

Yes Jesus came in the Flesh.  God the Father made ready a body of flesh for Jesus when Jesus, Spirit,  left heaven (Hebrews 10:5) so that Jesus could offer up that body of flesh as a living sacrifice for the sins of the world.

And yes, Jesus was taken up in the Flesh, but that flesh was a resurrected body which is NOT the same as our natural bodies.  Everyone knows that the Resurrected body is not the same as our natural bodies.  Paul describes the differences in Corinthians.

Not only that, but there is no verse which says that Jesus' body of flesh and bone went into heaven.  Look at Acst 1:9…

And when He had said this, even as they were looking [at Him], He was caught up, and a cloud received and carried Him away out of their sight.   Acts 1:9  (Amplified Bible)

So Jesus' followers never saw that His body… the body of flesh which Jesus' spirit was inhabiting and indwelling and using while here on earth… went into Heaven as a body of flesh.  Just because Jesus' body of flesh ascended out their sight, does not mean that His body of flesh entered into Heaven.  As I said at the outset of this post, I believe that Jesus' human nature does not manifest itself corporeally in Heaven because Heaven… (and i don't mean heaven as in the term “sky”)… but Heaven as the place where God dwells… that Heaven is not part of our own
four-dimensional space-time continuum.

Indeed, our natural eyes cannot see Heaven.  Heaven is not manifested to our natural eyes.  Now, Acts 1:10 does say ” And while they were gazing intently into heaven as He went…”… but it is talking about the sky.  Back then, and even today sometimes… the word “heaven” was used to mean the sky… and not the actual place where God dwells.  After all, if Jesus' followers were actually looking into the real HEAVEN, they would have seen God or angels or something,  just like when Stephen did as he was being stoned.    But they didn't see anything.  All they saw was Jesus being carried away out of their sight.

——————————————————–

CONCLUSION:

You've done nothing to establish your contention that Jesus is not God.  You've brought up an interesting intellectual question which was fun to think about and to try and answer.  But in your attempt to try and show that Jesus was not God, you failed.  The verses you cited does not demonstrate that Jesus, being the 2nd person of the Trinity, could not have acquired a human nature… which when in heaven, will manifest itself as actual flesh and bones.

You just simply assumed uncritically that the Resurrected body must be the same as the natural body, and thus they both would manifest itself in the same way within two different and alien space-time continuums.

You also failed to appreciate that you and I and Jesus are all spirits who are inhabiting a human body.  Our human bodies does not define us.  It is our spirits…. inhabiting fleshly bodies… which is the real US.  It is our spirits which defines who we are… not our human bodies of flesh and blood.

Anyway… there is so much more than can be said.  I haven't even touched all the information available on this subject… and i'm sure I've missed something or have forgotten to bring up something.  And there might even be someone who is able to give a better answer than the one i've given in here…  but I will wait to read your response so I know in which direction to go with this.

I'm not saying I'm correct in anything I have written.   I am not that arrogant.  The answers I give are my best understanding of the subject we are discussing.  I am not a pastor or a theologian or a philosopher or a preacher.  I'm just an average guy who is trying very hard to think through the topic at hand.  I then go out and do as much research I can.  I try to understand both sides as best as I can and then I attempt to come up with the most reasonable and logical response possible.  But i am fallible.  I am human. I do and will make mistakes.

But one thing I will never do, and that is assume that another human being… like Muhammad… is smarter than I am.  Anyone who wants to intellectualy challenge my opinions about Christianity has to be able to come to the table with some very good logical and rational questions and arguments.  When they do, I will always look at them objectively and fairly.  That is how I do things.

And although you, Asana,  and Muslims have asked some very, very good questions… they ultimately fail to pass the test of reason and rigorous logical analysis.   Indeed, I look forward to your posts because they do challenge my faith.  But I have yet seen anything that gives me any good reason to doubt my faith in Jesus Christ.  

—————————-

I will leave you with this one question:

You've said that Jesus is the Messiah. You've said that Jesus is a great prophet.  You appear to think very highly of Jesus.  So my question is this… can or did Jesus ever lie?

I ask this because the Religious Jewish leaders at the time, accused Jesus of blaspheme… of making himself equal to God… and condemned Jesus to die.  And yet not once did Jesus deny their charges.  In fact, it was Jesus' last answer to the High Priest which resulted in the High Priest renting his clothes and passing judgment on Jesus.

What do you do with this bit of information in light of our present discussion?

It seems to me that the Jews at the time understood their own language… and understood Jesus' words better than You… and better than I… and better than Muhammad would ever be able to, hundreds and thousands of years later!!!

Wouldn't Jesus own words at his trial… and wouldn't the religious leaders' charge of blaspheme be great proof for my side than the verses you've brought up to support your contention?

God Bless
Francis

[francis]

Hello Asana…

I wanted to make a clarification.  I understand that I am also making assumptions.  But my entire point is that if you set forth an argument that does not make use of the same assumptions I am making, then you are in effect creating a strawman.  

That is, you are arguing against a position that I don't hold in the first place… because you are using different assumptions or definitions of words than I use to begin with.

So, for example.. if you assume that God is not Trinitarian, then you're entire argument against Jesus being God is a moot point for me because I don't accept that particular assumption or premise of yours to begin with.  Can you see what i'm saying?

Also… as another example… if you don't believe that Jesus was Resurrected, then OF COURSE you don't believe that Jesus had a resurrected body, and thus you won't believe that there is any difference between a resurrected body and our natural bodies.  

And so if you argue agains Jesus being God because you assume, or lay down as one of your premises that there is no such thing as a Resurrected body, then you've made an argument that is another moot point because you're using a different set of premises than what I am using.

What i'm trying to say is that if you want to show that a Christian is being inconsistent WITHIN THEIR OWN BELIEFS… then you first have to use their words and their beliefs and their assumptions and their premises. Why? because you are trying to show that the Christian is being logically inconsistent WITHIN their own framework of beliefs.

And you can't show any inconsistency without first using the Christians own presuppositions and premises to show the inconsistency you are trying to point out to the Christian.

Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in a type of strawman argument. That is arguing against a position that you say is the Christian position, but in reality, it is not the Christian position at all.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

God Bless
Francis[/B]

[bodhitharta]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 09 2010,08:24)

Quote

Hello Asana… I wanted to make a clarification. I understand that I am also making assumptions. But my entire point is that if you set forth an argument that does not make use of the same assumptions I am making, then you are in effect creating a strawman.

That makes no sense because if I assume the same things I would agree with the conclusion an that is not the basis of logic is it? I am arguing with you based on you having false premises.

Quote

That is, you are arguing against a position that I don't hold in the first place… because you are using different assumptions or definitions of words than I use to begin with.

Exactly, I am arguing against positions you do hold this is why a while back I showed you that “The all for one and one for all” concept would show that your belief would hold that the entire “Triune” God was tainted with sin as you said ontologically they are all ONE ESSENSE or BEING

Quote

So, for example.. if you assume that God is not Trinitarian, then you're entire argument against Jesus being God is a moot point for me because I don't accept that particular assumption or premise of yours to begin with. Can you see what i'm saying?

IF I say God is trinitarian then I cannot say that GOD is JESUS, right? Jesus is not Triune is he? So God and Jesus are two different things in your own belief right?

Tell me do you declare that God is Jesus? This is a different question to you then is Jesus “God” isn't it?

Quote

Also… as another example… if you don't believe that Jesus was Resurrected, then OF COURSE you don't believe that Jesus had a resurrected body, and thus you won't believe that there is any difference between a resurrected body and our natural bodies.

I can point out that Lazarus was raised from the dead after being dead longer than Jesus and he also had a physical body of Flesh and Blood just like Jesus. Jesus said:

Luke 24:39 (King James Version)
39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

He said that it was the same him he didn't even imply that there was a difference in his body and when he got taken up the angels said:

Acts 1:11 (King James Version)
11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

So if they saw flesh going up that is what they will see upon his return.

Quote

And so if you argue agains Jesus being God because you assume, or lay down as one of your premises that there is no such thing as a Resurrected body, then you've made an argument that is another moot point because you're using a different set of premises than what I am using.

Of course there is a rsurrected Body but there will be countless numbers of people resurrected but that wouln't make one of them be God.

Quote

What i'm trying to say is that if you want to show that a Christian is being inconsistent WITHIN THEIR OWN BELIEFS… then you first have to use their words and their beliefs and their assumptions and their premises. Why? because you are trying to show that the Christian is being logically inconsistent WITHIN their own framework of beliefs.

That is faulty logic because you are saying in effect that I would have to accept an illogical framework and then show inconsistency in that framework when in-fact that would be inconsistent with the entire basis of logic which is to have agreeable premises that are true or at least believed to be true. But this is simple

You believe that Jesus is only part of God
I believe that God is not Jesus
so by logic a part of God is not GOD, all of God is GOD
therefor Jesus is not God

Quote

And you can't show any inconsistency without first using the Christians own presuppositions and premises to show the inconsistency you are trying to point out to the Christian.

That was just done

Quote

Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in a type of strawman argument. That is arguing against a position that you say is the Christian position, but in reality, it is not the Christian position at all.

You position is that GOD is a TRIUNE BEING
Your position is that JESUS is not a triune being
Therefor Jesus cannot be the TRIUNE being called GOD

I

Quote

hope that clarifies things a bit. God Bless

God bless!
Francis[/B]

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 09 2010,06:46)

4)… You've assumed that when it says Jesus Christ came in the FLESH, then that must mean that Jesus couldn't be both 100% human and 100% God (the 2nd person of the Trinity), when Christians believe and the Bible teaches that Jesus was both.

Not true Christians. And not any Bible I've read.

[mikeboll64]

Hi B,

Paul says the last Adam became a life-giving SPIRIT. What of that scripture? He also says flesh and blood can't inherit God's Kingdom. (1 Cor 15)

mike

[bodhitharta]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 09 2010,13:14)

Hi B, Paul says the last Adam became a life-giving SPIRIT.  What of that scripture?  He also says flesh and blood can't inherit God's Kingdom. (1 Cor 15) mike

Paul says a lot of things that I am not sure he was too certain about and we should not assume just because Paul wrote it that it is completely accurate as I have shown that Paul misquotes the OT quite often and look what he says:

1 Corinthians 7:12 (King James Version)
12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

[francis]

Hello Asana… How are you?  I hope everything is going well for you and your family.

Quote

Francis I wanted to make a clarification.  I understand that I am also making assumptions.  But my entire point is that if you set forth an argument that  does not make use of the same assumptions I am making, then you are in effect creating a strawman.   Asana That makes no sense because if I assume the same things I would agree with the conclusion an that is not the basis of logic is it? I am arguing  with you based on you having false premises.

This is not what I was saying.  If you are trying to show that a Christian is inconsistent in his belief… you need to show how his premises  contradict each other.  Please note that this does NOT mean you are trying to show that you disagree with the Christians premises or that you  are even trying to show that the Christians' premises are incorrect.. .because both are irrelevant in showing the inconsistentcy or contradiction  that a Christian might be guilty of.  Can you see this?

Maybe it would help if give a concrete example from the present discussion we are having.   If you start with the premise that God is not  Trinitarian and I start with the premise that God is Trinitarian, then our conclusions will of course be different.  But that is not the debate as you  set it up.  You never debated or raised the issue of whether God was Trinitarian or not in our discusion together… you just ASSUMED that God  was not trinitarian when I don't accept your assumption in the first place.

And instead of dealing with that issue, you just keep right on trying to argue for your contention with seemingly no regard and appreciation for  the fact that you and I are not using words in the same way or accepting the same premises.

To help clarify, if you were to say that a Christian is guilty of a contradiction about Jesus being God, and you did this because you start with the  premise that God is not Trinitarian… well then,  i don't have to deal with your argument AT ALL because you've set the argument up with a  premise… and a definition of words… that I disagree to begin with.  In other words, you're assuming i agree with your premises and your  definitions.  Which I don't.

What you should have done… logically speaking… is one of two things:  

(1)… make the claim that EVEN IF God was Trinitarian, I would still be  wrong to say that Jesus is God.. and then list the reasons why you believe that my belief in a Trinitarian God DOES NOT GET ME OFF THE  HOOK in saying that Jesus had a resurrected body which manifests itself differently within an space-time contiumm other than our own.  

Or (2)…  recognize that we believe in the nature of God differently and start a debate about whether God is Trinitarian or not before we can debate  whether Jesus is God.

But you didn't do either of these two.  Instead you started with a premise and definition that I dont' accept… and so your whole argument collapses  because it is essentially a strawman argument.  You're setting up an argument by saying Christians believe in a certain way, but which they  don't.

For an even more indepth explanation, please read further on… about 5 questions below… where I talk about the Formal Suicide Tactic, Sibling  Rivalry, and Reductio Ad Absurdum, etc.

—————————————————————-

Quote

Francis That is, you are arguing against a position that I don't hold in the first place… because you are using different assumptions or definitions of  words than I use to begin with. Asana Exactly, I am arguing against positions you do hold this is why a while back I showed you that “The all for one and one for all” concept would  show that your belief would hold that the entire “Triune” God was tainted with sin as you said ontologically they are all ONE ESSENSE or  BEING

First of all… You didn't read what I wrote in the sentence you yourself just quoted.  Read what I wrote again… here it is:

“That is, you are arguing against a position that I don't hold in the first place…”

See?  I said that you are arguing against a position that i dont' hold in the first place.  And to argue argainst position that I don't hold in the first  place is a classic strawman argument to begin with.   How did you respond?  You wrote back saying:

“Exactly, I am arguing against positions you do hold…”

Now how can you write and say: “EXACTLY, you are arguing against positions I do hold”,  when I just got done telling you that you are arguing a position that I DON'T HOLD IN THE FIRS PLACE??

It's these kinds of exchanges with you which just confuses the heck out of me. I could be wrong, but it sure appears to me that you didn't read  what I had written.

Secondly… If you are going to bring up our discussion from the thread “the mercy of god” found in the Doctrinal Disagreements forum  under “SKEPTICS PLACE”, then I think it is only fair that everyone revisits that discussion to see what actually transpired.

I rebutted your entire contention that it would logically follow from Jesus bearing our sins, that the Triune God would have had to become tainted  with sin.  Your contention was: “If One Person of the Triune has an alteration in substance becoming cursed or sin  then the  entire substance has changed.”  

The follow up question you asked was: “By binding 3 personas to 1 being the effect on one persona effects the entire being  and therefore if  Christ became a Curse and took on sin the entire being would have took on sin and God would have been corrupted, is this   true?”

I answered in the negative and I then went on and spent a great deal of time and energy and wrote lengthy posts in rebuttal.  I did that sentence  by sentence… word by word.  But you never answered any of my rebuttals.  You just dropped the whole entire discussion we were having at the  time.  I went to incredible lengths by using the dictionary… by using the Encyclopedia… by using scriptures, etc to show that your entire  understanding of what the words meant in the scriptures you cited was severly flawed.

When Jesus bore our sins, that DID NOT mean the same thing as becoming sin… just as the dictionary said which I pointed out to you time  and again.  And so when Jesus bore our sins, He didn't become tainted with sin because Jesus didn't become sin or commit sin.   Jesus'  nature… God's nature never changed or become tainted when Jesus bore our sins.

I used the dictionary and other impartial, factual facts and materials to show that you were completely misusing and incorrectly using words right  and left… and i went into great detail to show how you were not using the words correctly… and you never responded back with any refutation to  my point by point analysis. None.

For those who are interested, the begining of the discussion that Asana is refering to, can be found in his original post which is located in the  following forum: Forum » SKEPTICS PLACE » Doctrinal Disagreements » The mercy of god

From the
re, go to page 6, and then look for Asana's post dated Aug. 31 2010 at 09:00  Here is his statement found which can found within  the body of that particular post of his:

Quote

Yes you do because One Person of a Three person being of the same substance can not die without changing the nature of the   substance in Quantity and or Quality. If One Person of the Triune has an alteration in substance becoming cursed or sin  then the entire  substance has changed. “And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted  beasts, and creeping  things.” (Romans 1:22-24) Here is your proof: By binding 3 personas to 1 being the effect on one persona effects the entire being and therefore if  Christ became a Curse  and took on sin the entire being would have took on sin and God would have been corrupted, is this  true?

 

The first of many lengthy and indepth responses of mine to this question from Asana can be found on Page 7 and Posted on Sep. 03 2010 at  19:46.  At the time Asana and I were discussing other things so Asana's question above, and my answer to it is the 3RD QUOTE BOX  from the bottom of my post.

It became clear to me that Asana didn't understand some of the words he was using, and so I went into great detail and supplied definitions,  from impartial dictionaries and from Wikipedia,  for the words he was using.  You can find these definitions and my lengthy response to Asana  on Page 8, posted on Sep. 07 2010 at 12:49.

In response, Asana hardly said anything… and he certainly did not rebut or challenge or try to defend the way he was using certain words, even  though I showed him, from the dictionaries,  that he was misusing them.

It got to the point that I was so frustrated, that I wrote the following which can be found on page 12, Posted on Sep. 15 2010 at 09:45.

Quote

No… it is not.   Becoming sin IS NOT THE SAME THING AS being a sinner.  I have said this over and over in my last  post and I gave at  least 4 rational reasons which supports the contention that they are NOT the same thing.  If you disagree, then you  need to not only rebut each  of the reasons I gave you… but you also need to give positive reasons to SUPPORT YOUR OWN  CONTENTION that they are the same thing.   You have done neither… and because you haven't, this means I have successfully rebutted  your claim that you have “debunked  Trinity”.

AND  I WROTE THIS IN THE SAME POST…

Quote

Jesus was never sin because He was never a sinner… He never sinned.  Now.. when Jesus “became sin for us”… that does NOT  mean  that Jesus became a sinner… and so His nature NEVER changed or was altered.   The thing you appear to be hung up on… and fixated on… (which is something you won't address in here)… is your assumption that to  “become  sin” is the same thing as “being a sinner”.   This is an assumption of yours for which you have done nothing to support  either through the use of  the dictionary or the Bible or Wikipedia or Etymological research.  You just assert it uncritically. Now,  as for my position… in direct rebuttal to this unfounded and unsupported assumption of yours… I went and did some research and then  I  gave you at least 4 rational reasons which supports my contention that  to  “become sin” is NOT the same thing as “being a  sinner”.   And so I'll say it again, if you disagree with me, then you need to not only rebut each of the reasons I gave you… but you also need to give   positive reasons to SUPPORT YOUR OWN CONTENTION that they are the same thing.  You have done neither.   You can't just make  up things  in a discussion or in a forum and then expect that people will simply uncritically accept whatever you assert.   I would never expect  you to  uncritically accept what I say, and therefore there is no reason for me to uncritically accept what you say. Asana… all you need to do is point to the relevant Etymological research that shows that the words and/or phrase,  “become sin” is the  same  thing as “being a sinner”.  When you can do that, then you've made a good case for your contention. But you never did any such thing.  I on the other hand gave you 4 reasons to show that they do not mean the same thing.  It's the same with  the  word “curse”.  I used the dictionary… and you did not.   I could not find any documents which supports your definition and understanding  of the  word “curse” and you won't or can't supply any. And therefore, since you have done nothing to rebut my arguments against your position… or have given any positive reasons to support or   defend your own position concerning  the “curse” and “sin” as found in Galatians 3: 10-12 and 2Corinthians 5:21…  then it can be  reasonably  shown that I have successfully rebutted your claim that you have debunked the Trinity.

AND THEN I WROTE THIS, WHICH IS ALSO IN THE SAME POST….

Quote

Secondly… when we read your latest response, we can immediately see that you have tried very hard to get around the hard fact  that  you'vebasically ignored just about everything I have painstakingly researched and presented to you in rebuttal to your claim that you've   successfully debunked the Trinity.

I wanted to repost the above responses of mine to underscore the fact that Asana never rebutted any of the 4 reasons I gave him which  supported my positive case that to “become sin” is NOT the same thing as “being a  sinner”.

Asana also NEVER gave positive reasons or a positive case to support his contention that to become sin IS the same thing as  being a sinner.

Asana also NEVER pointed to any relevant Etymological research that shows that the words and/or phrase,  “become sin” is the  same  thing as “being a sinner”.

And because he never did any of these things, I said it was reasonable to conclude that I had successfully rebutted his claim that he had  debunked the Trinity.  He didn't respond to that either.

His only response was a couple of lines which can be found on Page 12…  posted on Sep. 15 2010 at 11:23. and posted on Sep. 15  2010 at11:35.

Neither of his couple of lines dealt with any of my rebuttals or my positive case.

Now Asana… isn't this all true?  I gave the page numbers and the times and dates so that everyone can see with their own eyes what had  actually transpired in our discussion,  which for some reason, you felt compelled to bring up in this thread.

Anyway, I'm glad you brought up that past discussion of ours because it only highlights and underscores what is happening in our present  discusion.  And that is that you keep using words differently than I do.. and in many cases,differently than how the dictionary defines them.  We  seem to see the same problem recurring time and again.

This is why I said that it is vitally important that we understand not only what words mean to us today… but what the words
meant at the time the  scriptures were written.   Because if we don't… as you obviously did not during that particular thread… all kinds of confusion abounds.

Anyway… If you want to revisit that past debate/discussion which you brought up (found in forum “the mercy of god”)… that is fine with me… but  from what I saw… you just dropped the whole discussion.  I had no reason to stop.  I only stopped because you did.   But heck… I'm willing to  revisit that debate/discussion whenever you wish.  Just let me know.

————————————————————–

Quote

Francis   So, for example.. if you assume that God is not Trinitarian, then you're entire argument against Jesus being God is a moot point for me because  I don't accept that particular assumption or premise of yours to begin with.  Can you see what i'm saying? Asana IF I say God is trinitarian then I cannot say that GOD is JESUS, right?  Jesus is not Triune is he? So God and Jesus are two different things in  your own belief right? Tell me do you declare that God is Jesus? This is a different question to you then is Jesus “God” isn't it?

What???  Here is another perfect example of you and I not using the English language in the same way.  Just like the above exchange we  had about sin and God being Tainted because Jesus bore sins.  Just as that whole discussion hinged on your misuse of the English Language,  here you are doing the same thing again.

How does it logically follow that if you say that God is Trinitarian, then you cannot say that God is Jesus?  How does that logically follow?   To  me, I don't see how it follows.

But here i suspect the difficulty arises because you and I are not understanding the word “GOD” in the same manner… which again shows the  incredible importance of defining terms.

The way I am using the term “GOD” is that God is a Triune God made up of the Father… the Son… and the Holy spirit.  The term God means  ALL 3 persons.  When I use the word “GOD”… I am talking about all 3 persons of the trinity.

If I want to mention a particular PERSON of the Triune God… then I will specifically say the FATHER… or the SON.. or the  HOLY SPIRIT.   But the bottom line is that each of the persons of the Trinity is God.  But unless I am specific about which person of the  Trinity I am speaking about, You won't know.  If i just say God… you could easily be confused into assuming that i was talking specifically about  all 3 persons when I just wanted to speak about one of the persons… like Jesus… or the Father… or the Holy Spirit.

But Jesus is God… the Father is God…. the Holy Spirit is God.   But per our discussion, unless I specifically state that I'm talking about Jesus or  about the Father or about the Holy Spirit, how will you know which person i'm speaking of if i just use is the word “GOD” in all 3 cases?  You  won't have a clue about which person I'm speaking of.

Can't you see this?

——————————————————-

Quote

Francis   Also… as another example… if you don't believe that Jesus was Resurrected, then OF COURSE you don't believe that Jesus had a resurrected  body, and thus you won't believe that there is any difference between a resurrected body and our natural bodies.   Asana I can point out that Lazarus was raised from the dead after being dead longer than Jesus and he also had a physical body of Flesh and Blood  just like Jesus. Jesus said: Luke 24:39 (King James Version) 39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. He said that it was the same him he didn't even imply that there was a difference in his body and when he got taken up the angels said: Acts 1:11 (King James Version) 11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so  come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. So if they saw flesh going up that is what they will see upon his return.

See.. here once again this shows that you and I are not using words in the same way.

Lazarus was NEVER resurrected.  In fact, NO ONE has been resurrected yet except for Jesus.  The General ressurrection occurs at  the end times… just as the Jews believed.

Jesus was Resurrected… Lazarus was not.   Lazarus died again… Jesus did not.  The Resurrected body does not die.  That is one of the  fundamental differences between the Resurrected body and our natural bodies.  Lazarus' body was a natural body and so he died again.

Secondly… as I explained in my prior post, when Jesus returns and enters into our 4 dimensional spact-time continuum, then Jesus' human  nature could easily manifest itself corporeally on earth.  

But just because Jesus ascended and then He later comes back, this does not automatically mean that his body of flesh and bone will stay  manifested as a body of flesh and bone when He enters into Heaven.  As I said before, Heaven is NOT in our space-time continuum.  And so  there is no reason to suggest that what happens on earth will happen exactly the same way in Heaven.

Especially since we are talking about a Resurrected body which is DIFFERENT than our natural bodies.

———————————————————–

Quote

Francis   And so if you argue agains Jesus being God because you assume, or lay down as one of your premises that there is no such thing as a  Resurrected body, then you've made an argument that is another moot point because you're using a different set of premises than what I am  using. Asana Of course there is a resurrected Body but there will be countless numbers of people resurrected but that wouln't make one of them be  God.

??  I never said that Jesus' Resurrected body makes Jesus God.   When did I ever say such a thing?  In point of fact, Jesus was God before His  earthly body was Resurrected.  Instead, what i have continually maintained is that the Resurrected body… because it is completely different than  the natural body… will not necessarily manifest itself in the same way in Heaven as it does on earth because Heaven and earth operate intwo  completely different space-time continuums.

——————————————————————-

Quote

Francis   What i'm trying to say is that if you want to show that a Christian is being inconsistent WITHIN THEIR OWN BELIEFS… then you first have to use  their words and their beliefs and their assumptions and their premises.  Why?  because you are trying to show that the Christian is being  logically inconsistent WITHIN their own framework of beliefs. Asana Tha t is faulty logic because you are saying in effect that I would have to accept an illogical framework and then show inconsistency in that  framework when in-fact that would be inconsistent with the entire basis of logic which is to have agreeable premises that are true or at least  believed to be true. But this is simple You believe that Jesus is only part of God I believe that God is not Jesus so by logic a part of God is not GOD, all of God is GOD therefor Jesus is not God

FIRST OF ALL… If you take note of what I had actually written, I said:

“that if you want to show a Christian is being inconsistent  WITHIN THEIR OWN BELIEFS… then you have to use their words and beliefs and their assumptions and their premises.”

That is what I actually wrote.

And your above answer shows that you did not read or did not comprehend what I had just written, even though I made the effort of putting the  important words in bold type in my initial response to you.  Asana, even if you could show and demonstrate that one of the premises used by a  Christian is false, pointing it out does NOT show any internal inconsistency between the premises within their own beliefs.  Can you see  that?  In logic, to demonstrate an internal inconsistency within a a person's belief system has nothing to do with the truthfulness or correctness or  veracity of the premises he is using in their argument.

In other words, showing that a premise is false is a DIFFERENT ISSUE alltogether than showning an internal inconsistency BETWEEN the premises!!

Can you see that Asana?

If you wanted to show that my premise that God is Trinitarian is a false one, because you really believed this premise of mine is false… then you should have brought  that up.  But you never did.  Instead of trying to show my premise to be false, you were in fact trying to show how my premises either contradicted each other or how my premises did not lead to my conclusion that Jesus is God.

And since you never challenged my premise… and yet I kept challenging your premise… I went and wrote my response with the notion that God  is Triune in nature.  Because you never initially challenged my premise or clarified your premise.  So whenever you used the word, I went ahead  and used the term to mean a Triune God.

SECOND OF ALL… In logic you can indeed  accept an illogical framework… or accept a false premise… or accept a premise you disagree with… and YET STILL show an inconsistency in the framework… in the argument… in the point of view of the opposing person.  What I'm saying is  recognized and widely used in any logic or philosophy class around the world, and I will list at least 3 tactics in which you can accept a false  premise or accept a premise that you personally disagree with, and yet still be able to show how the other person's argument logically fails  anyway.

TACTIC ONE…

This one is called the “Formal Suicide tactic”.. or the self-refuting argument/view.  When statements fail to meet their own criteria of validity, they  are self-refuting.  These arguments either express or entail contradictions.  And I am not saying that you have to accept an illogical framework…  what i was saying is that to accept them or not is completely irrelevant because you can look at the framework itself and identify within it the  seeds of its own destruction.

But…and this is important…  if you use words differently than a person does in an argument, not only is it impossible to understand them and to  have a rational discussion with them… but it is also impossible to show ANY contradiction or ANY FLAW… because all a person has to do is  say… “hey, that's not what I said. You just used words differently than I did”.   See?

So in a Formal Suicide Tactic, you can still use the other persons definitions of terms, without necessarily accepting them personally, and still  show that their framework was self-refuting.  THAT IS WHAT SELF-REFUTING MEANS!!

So you are mistaken to suggest that I said you had to accept an illogical framework in the first place to show it is self-refuting.  What you can do  is go ahead and for arguments sake, use their own definitions and understanding of words… and then show how that even when you do so, their  arguments contradicts itself and is self-refuting.  Even using the other persons definitions, their argument commits Formal Suicide.

Let me try and give you an example from the top of my head.  For purposes of clarity, I will use an exaggerated example so that it will be easier  to see…

Let's suppose a person was to say that “there is no elephants”.   So you look around and tell the person, well you are wrong, because I see an  elephant across my street.  I'll even take a picture and send it to you.   Then the guy looks at you like you're crazy and says, how can you take a  picture of an elephant?  You then shrug your shoulders and think he's nuts.  What does he mean how can i take a picture of an elephant?  All i  need to do is point my camera or iphone at the elephant across the street and push click, and then send it.

Upon further investigation, you ask him to define the word “elephants”.  He says “elephants” is another word for “truth”.

Well, obviously this is wrong.  Elephants are animals and they are not the same thing as the concept of “truth”.  But the point is that you don't  have to argue with the person about it because you can immediately see the seeds of destruction within his own statement even if you were to  play along and go with the definition of elephant/truth he is using.

So, when we look at what the guy is saying, he was trying to say  that “there is no truth”.  Well, can you see how such a statement is self-refuting?   Just ask him:  “is that a true statement itself?   See?   Therefore you can indeed go with and accept a person's definitions or premises (even if  you personally disagree with them), and still show that their framework was illogical.  It's done all the time.

If you take any philosophy classes or logic classes, you'll see that this is standard methodology.  Maybe you'll recognize this tactic if you hear  someone say: “… for arguments sake, let's say you're right.  But even then, your argument is fallacious because of this and this…”

Does this help you to understand my point?  Can you see this?

TACTIC TWO…

This is kind of related to the above “Suicide Tactic”, but it's called the “Sibling Rivalry Tactic”.  This occurs by pointing out how 2 premises held  by the opposing person, in fact contradict each other.  We see again that in the case, you don't have to reject each of the premises themselves  in order to show the fallacy.  For arguments sake, you can accept their premises, but then turn around and show that even if we accept the  premises on their own terms, they still contradict each other and thus the argument… founded on those premises… logically collapses.

TACTIC THREE…

Another tactic used in logic and philosophy classes is called reductio ad absurdum.  Some people call this “Taking the Roof Off” tactic.   This tactic also accepts, for arguments sake, the opposing person's definitions and premises, and yet is able to show the fallacy of the  argument by reducing their point fo view to it's very basic argument, assertion, principle, or premise.  Then give the idea a “test drive” (if you will)  to see if any absurd consequences result when we CONSISTENTLY apply the logic of the view.  

This is done all the time and is another tactic which shows you can accept, for arguments sake, the other persons' premises without personall  accepting them… in order
to point out the logical flaw being commited.

CONCLUSION:

You wrote the following:

“That is faulty logic because you are saying in effect that I would have to accept an illogical framework and then show  inconsistency in that framework when in-fact that would be inconsistent with the entire basis of logic which is to have agreeable premises that  are true or at least believed to be true.”

This statement of yours is entirely and completely incorrect!!  I just showed you at least 3 tactics used in logic (there are more)… which can be  found in any logic and philosophy classes on University campuses around the world… whereby you can accept false premises or disagree with  a premise and still use them… FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE… and still be able to show how the opposing person's argument ultimately failed  on a purely logical basis.

———————————————————-

Quote

Francis   And you can't show any inconsistency without first using the Christians own presuppositions and premises to show the inconsistency you are  trying to point out to the Christian. Asana That was just done

Ditto.

——————————————————————

Quote

Francis   Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in a type of strawman argument.  That is arguing against a position that you say is the Christian  position, but in reality, it is not the Christian position at all. Asana You position is that GOD is a TRIUNE BEING Your position is that JESUS is not a triune being Therefor Jesus cannot be the TRIUNE being called GOD

I don't know what you mean when you say that Jesus is not a triune being.  I don't know what you mean when you are using those terms.

So all I can do is repeat myself and say that GOD is a Triune Being.  Which means God is composed of 3 different persons… the Father… the  Son… the Holy Spirit.

Each of the 3 persons listed above is God. But at the same time, each person also has a name, a title within the term “GOD”.  I don't know how  much more simple I can explain it.

hope that clarifies things a bit.

God bless you and your family!
And thanks for your interesting questions and insights.
Francis

[mikeboll64]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 10 2010,03:56)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 09 2010,13:14) Hi B, Paul says the last Adam became a life-giving SPIRIT.  What of that scripture?  He also says flesh and blood can't inherit God's Kingdom. (1 Cor 15) mike Paul says a lot of things that I am not sure he was too certain about and we should not assume just because Paul wrote it that it is completely accurate as I have shown that Paul misquotes the OT quite often and look what he says: 1 Corinthians 7:12 (King James Version) 12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Hi B,

1 Cor 7:12 isn't the only time Paul clarifies that this particular thing he is saying comes from HIM only, not Jesus and not the spirit.

And you either accept the NT or you don't I guess. Peter vouches for Paul's teachings in 2 Peter, right?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 10 2010,10:03)

So all I can do is repeat myself and say that GOD is a Triune Being.  Which means God is composed of 3 different persons… the Father… the  Son… the Holy Spirit.

I don't think Francis has ever read Micah 5:4 or Ezekiel 34:24.  For these scriptures CLEARLY list Jesus as someone OTHER THAN and LESSOR TO his God.

And I wonder what he/she (?) does with all the scriptures that list Jesus as someone other than, not the Father, but God.  You know, the ones that say “peace from God AND Jesus” and such.  And what about the ones that clearly say, “Peace from the Father and God OF our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Maybe Francis thinks that God has a God, like Jesus calls the Father 6 times in the NT.  He even says that our God is also his God.

Interesting.

mike

[bodhitharta]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 10 2010,10:14)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 10 2010,03:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 09 2010,13:14) Hi B, Paul says the last Adam became a life-giving SPIRIT.  What of that scripture?  He also says flesh and blood can't inherit God's Kingdom. (1 Cor 15) mike Paul says a lot of things that I am not sure he was too certain about and we should not assume just because Paul wrote it that it is completely accurate as I have shown that Paul misquotes the OT quite often and look what he says: 1 Corinthians 7:12 (King James Version) 12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. Hi B, 1 Cor 7:12 isn't the only time Paul clarifies that this particular thing he is saying comes from HIM only, not Jesus and not the spirit. And you either accept the NT or you don't I guess.  Peter vouches for Paul's teachings in 2 Peter, right? mike

I don't see why the NT cannot be both accepted and at the same time realize that each author has it's own purpose for instance Paul admits to doing whatever needed to get people to accept his views.

But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
2 Corinthians 12:15-17

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1 Corinthians 9:21-23

And here is my personal favorite:

But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
1 Corinthians 7:39-40

[bodhitharta]

Francis,

This is not that difficult, for the sake of argument I will agree that God is a triune being but we only see Jesus as the Son of “GOD”
So if Jesus is called the SON of this “TRIUNE BEING” is Jesus the Son of GOD (The TRIUNE BEING)?

It's really not too difficult, even accepting your beliefs it is the same problem, I have agreed that God is TRiune and I have agreed with the scriptures that “GOD” has a SON so now I have to see how is it that the TRIUNE GOD has a SON, can you help me with that and also this.

The scripture says that Jesus became a CURSE and for the sake of argument I will agree that Jesus is the 2nd person of the trinity which is all the one being called God so I need to understand how would God then not be cursed if the 2nd person is cursed?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 10 2010,12:04)

I don't see why the NT cannot be both accepted and at the same time realize that each author has it's own purpose for instance Paul admits to doing whatever needed to get people to accept his views.

The NT has only one underlying purpose, as did those who wrote it – to spread the good news about Jesus and his God.

You don't seem to thrilled with Paul. But he was almost stoned to death. He received 40 less one 5 different times B. Can you even imagine the bloody jelly his back must have been after 39 lashes with a whip? Can you imagine the pain? CAN YOU IMAGINE NOT QUITTING KNOWING YOU WOULD RECEIVE THAT SAME PAIN OVER AND OVER?

How about all the prison time? And for what? He was a well respected Pharisee and Roman citizen who could have had a very cushy life. If any one truly had the “same mindset as Christ Jesus”, it was Paul.

I admire him and pray that I would have his strength and endurance if faced with what he was faced with. I love him.

mike

[bodhitharta]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 10 2010,12:16)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 10 2010,12:04) I don't see why the NT cannot be both accepted and at the same time realize that each author has it's own purpose for instance Paul admits to doing whatever needed to get people to accept his views. The NT has only one underlying purpose, as did those who wrote it – to spread the good news about Jesus and his God. You don't seem to thrilled with Paul.  But he was almost stoned to death.  He received 40 less one 5 different times B.  Can you even imagine the bloody jelly his back must have been after 39 lashes with a whip?  Can you imagine the pain?  CAN YOU IMAGINE NOT QUITTING KNOWING YOU WOULD RECEIVE THAT SAME PAIN OVER AND OVER? How about all the prison time?  And for what?  He was a well respected Pharisee and Roman citizen who could have had a very cushy life.  If any one truly had the “same mindset as Christ Jesus”, it was Paul. I admire him and pray that I would have his strength and endurance if faced with what he was faced with.  I love him. mike

I never said you should not love him and yes Paul made Christianity spread more than even Jesus himself but that is not what I said, I said that Paul did whatever was needed to spead the GOSPEL of JESUS CHRIST a gospel that Christ never preach for Christ preached THE GOSPEL of THE KINGDOM of HEAVEN.

Paul has said himself:

But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?
Romans 3:6-8

It is primarily Paul who is the reason that there are over 39,000 Christian denominations today.

Jesus said:

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Matthew 23:8-10

Paul said:

1 Corinthians 4:15-16 (King James Version)
15For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
16Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

[francis]

Quote

Francis So all I can do is repeat myself and say that GOD is a Triune Being.  Which means God is composed of 3 different persons… the Father… the   Son… the Holy Spirit. Mike I don't think Francis has ever read Micah 5:4 or Ezekiel 34:24.  For these scriptures CLEARLY list Jesus as someone OTHER THAN and  LESSOR TO his God. And I wonder what he/she (?) does with all the scriptures that list Jesus as someone other than, not the Father, but God.  You know, the ones that  say “peace from God AND Jesus” and such.  And what about the ones that clearly say, “Peace from the Father and God OF our Lord Jesus  Christ.” Maybe Francis thinks that God has a God, like Jesus calls the Father 6 times in the NT.  He even says that our God is also his God. Interesting. mike

Hi Mike… I'm pleased to meet you.  Thanks for your comments and insights.  I always appreciate the opinions and views of other people, even  when they are different than mine.

I surely don't mind getting into a discussion with you about the Trinity, but I wasn't sure if this is the thread for it.  I can see that other threads had  dealt with this issue in depth, and yet I didn't join in those discussions because I was dealing with other questions with Asana.

When Asana began this thread, he never made any distinction between a Triune God and a non-Truine God.  He just used the term “God” in a  seemingly open-faced fashion.  And so I gave my response which depended somewhat on my personal belief in a Triune God.  I was able to do  this because Asana had left that door open,  and so I took advantage of it and walked through it.

Anyway… back to you and your comments.

You were wondering what I do “with all the scriptures that list Jesus as someone other than, not the Father, but God.”

FIRST OF ALL… I think this issue is easily cleared up when we understand the Trinity in an Economic and Ontological way.  You can find more about this on Wikipedia.   On that site, they have material about the Trinity.  And on that page, there is a section that talks about the Economic and Ontological Trinity.

Also… you can see a more indepth exchange between Asana and I on the topic of the Trinity  and thereby get a better and clearer understanding of my position on the Trinity and the various verses you speak of.  I reread what I have written, and I think I articulated my position clearly and satisfactorily and so I offer it for your reading.  To find one of the best posts which lays out my beliefs about the Trinity,  and how it works, etc… go to:

Forum » SKEPTICS PLACE » Doctrinal Disagreements » The mercy of god     Page 7…  Posted on Sep. 03 2010 at 19:46

In a very condensed nutshell, I have no problem believing that when Jesus (2nd Person of the Trinity) came down to earth, he voluntarily… and temporarily divested Himself of His divine power and knowledge in order to more fully experience and live as a human being. Along with that, when He was here on earth… as God Incarnate… living in a body of flesh… He also voluntarily… and temporarily submited Himself to His Father… as a model for us on how we should conduct ourselves.

Understood in this way, the verses you bring up is simply instances in which we see Jesus living and speaking as a human… and so this in no way detracts or makes His Divine nature… His spirit… any less than that of His Father's in heaven.  Now please be careful, this is a very short explanation and is not meant to be indepth or complete.  For a deeper understanding, please read the above material to start with.

And if after reading this material, you still have questions, please feel free to ask me anything you like.  I am not a scholar or a genius, but I will do my best to answer any questions you may have for me.

SECONDLY… I would like to go a bit deeper with you on this subject if you don't mind, because there is a very important observation which we need to keep constantly in mind whenever we are reading the Bible for comprehension purposes.    

And so to me, this comment of yours goes straight to the heart of the work and disciplines of TRANSLATIONS and ETYMOLOGY and ultimately… the LAW OF IDENTITY in logic.

To understand what we are reading, no matter what it is, we first have to understand what the writer MEANT when they wrote the words we are reading.  Isn't this very, very obvious and self-evident?

If I sincerely and truly want to understand what was written, I have to figure out what the writer MEANT…I have to try and figure out what the writers' intention was when they used certain words and certain phrases.   To be completely fair and impartial, I must NOT  put my biases and opinions INTO the words and sentences I am reading.

And so… here are some very real facts and considerations that we must be aware of when we read the Bible.

Fact #1… Because the Hebrew language had far less words than other languages… like for example the English language…  many of their words  had multiple meanings.  And to determine which meaning was the intent of the writer for the word in question, understanding the context was incredibly important.

Here is a very simple example.  The Bible says that God created the earth and the heavens in 6 days.  Well, the Hebrew word for “day” has multiple meanings to it.  You can find in the bible where the Hebrew word “day” is used in different ways.  It's spelled the same, but it meant different things.   The Hebrew word “day” can mean a 24 hour solar day… or it can mean long stretches of time.   So then, how do we know which meaning we are supposed to use when we read the Hebrew word “day”?  It's not an easy task and there are differences of opinion among HEBREW SCHOLARS themselves!!

If there are disagreements among them, how much more ignorant are we who are not Hebrew scholars??

Another example is the commandment “Thou Shall not kill”.  Well.. does it really say that?  The Hebrew word “kill” is used in different ways.  At one time, many scholars thought the word “kill” meant just that.  But now today, most Hebrew scholars will tell you that the word “kill” in that commandment is actually refering to “murder”.

Fact #2… Many words change over time or are used in different ways by different societies and different time periods.

For example, if I say that I had fags.  What would you assume I am saying?  If you are an American, you probably will think that I am saying that I hate homosexuals.  But if you learn that I am English.. British… then you will understand that what I was really saying was that I hate cigarettes.

Here we see the same word being used differently in different languages.  Well, the Bible was not written in English, but in Hebrew.  

An example of words changing over time is the word “gay”.  In America in the 1920's, “gay” meant happy. Today, it often means homosexual.

Fact #3…  Many times there is no direct translation possible of a word from one language into another language.  Translators have to try and explain what a word or phrase was trying to convey… from one language into another language.  And often, the way a word or phrase is understood one day, will change later on as new information and clues come to light during research and scholarship.

Fact #4… Hebrew Scholars TODAY often have difficulty in trying to determine what a Hebrew person was saying in the ancient past.  And this is one Hebrew person reading the words written from another Hebrew person.  Can you imagine how more difficult it is for us to und
erstand what a writer wrote if we ourselves are not conversant in the Hebrew language?

Fact #5… The Hebrew language did not contain punctuation or other sentence structures that we use in our own language.  And as you know, a comma or period in the wrong place, can alter the meaning of an entire sentence.

Fact #6… The Bible is rich with metaphors and idioms, etc.  Sorting the language as to what is what… is a task in itself.

Anyway, these are just some of the facts we need to be aware of.   And so, if we want to read the Bible for comprehension, then just simply reading the words in a verse does not always yield or tell us what the author was INTENDING to say or convey to us.

Now unfortunately, what all this means is that this allows a lot of “wiggle room” to be available for different sides to make their case.  And that is why there are debates and differences of opinions about what a verse might be saying because each side can bring up verses to “support” their contention and/or interpretation.   After all, the discipline and art of translation is not like a mathematical equation where we can find remarkable precision and accuracy.

Nevertheless, not all is lost.  Very passionate and honorable and super intelligent and hard working scholars have made it their life's work and mission to bring us a true and accurate rendering of the Bible and to  help us to understand what the Ancient Hebrews were trying to say to us as they wrote the letters found in the Bible.  And many do this with complete integrity and impeccable honesty.

And so what I do, is try very hard to look at all the available relevant material… listen to what the majority of respected scholars have to say… pray for wisdom… look at what both sides have to say… weigh the facts… and then come to what i feel is the best and most reasonable inference from the facts and the material before me.  And once I have made a determination, I always try and keep an open mind in case someone comes by with new information that might result in having to change my opinion.

It's not easy, but I don't know how else to do it.

SO IN CONCLUSION... I feel the evidence points more convincingly towards the Trinity,  rather than it pointing away from the Trinity.  And i believe that the economic and ontological Trinity (among other approaches) shows that the verses you have brought up does nothing to suggest that Jesus was not Divine.

I'm not saying it can be proved that the Trinity is true and that it actually exists. Not at all.  What I am saying is that I feel that the Trinity is a far more reasonable inference from the avaible facts and evidences and material than for the negative side.

That's the best I can do for now.

God Bless
Francis

[francis]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 10 2010,12:11)

Francis, This is not that difficult, for the sake of argument I will agree that God is a triune being but we only see Jesus as the Son of “GOD” So if Jesus is called the SON of this “TRIUNE BEING” is Jesus the Son of GOD (The TRIUNE BEING)? It's really not too difficult, even accepting your beliefs it is the same problem, I have agreed that God is TRiune and I have agreed with the scriptures that “GOD” has a SON so now I have to see how is it that the TRIUNE GOD has a SON, can you help me with that and also this. The scripture says that Jesus became a CURSE and for the sake of argument I will agree that Jesus is the 2nd person of the trinity which is all the one being called God so I need to understand how would God then not be cursed if the 2nd person is cursed?

Thanks Asana for your question.  I appreciate your gentle spirit and when I get home tonight, I will write out my understanding on what you've raised.

God Bless
Francis

[bodhitharta]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 11 2010,07:11)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 10 2010,12:11) Francis, This is not that difficult, for the sake of argument I will agree that God is a triune being but we only see Jesus as the Son of “GOD” So if Jesus is called the SON of this “TRIUNE BEING” is Jesus the Son of GOD (The TRIUNE BEING)? It's really not too difficult, even accepting your beliefs it is the same problem, I have agreed that God is TRiune and I have agreed with the scriptures that “GOD” has a SON so now I have to see how is it that the TRIUNE GOD has a SON, can you help me with that and also this. The scripture says that Jesus became a CURSE and for the sake of argument I will agree that Jesus is the 2nd person of the trinity which is all the one being called God so I need to understand how would God then not be cursed if the 2nd person is cursed? Thanks Asana for your question.  I appreciate your gentle spirit and when I get home tonight, I will write out my understanding on what you've raised. God Bless Francis

Francis,

Let me just state for the record that you have actually helped me a great deal in my ability to formulate arguments and it really did help when you taught me how I could accept the beliefs of another if my ultimate argument is sound. Thanks so much!

God bless!

[Author]

Posts