The mercy of god

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 31 2010,15:49)

Quote (francis @ Aug. 31 2010,07:41) Hello Stu… pleased to meet you. Quote Are you each arguing about what you think reality is, or what Judeo-christian scripture says? I can't speak for Asana… but as for me, I'm arguing what I think Classical Christianity teaches about the nature of God.  As I have consistently stated in here…  I could be wrong about everything.  I could be wrong about the Trinity… about God… about Jesus, etc. But Asana (a Muslim) and I (a Christian) both believe that only ONE GOD exists.  We are not debating the existence of God… but what God's nature is vis-a-vis the Judeo-Christian scripture. Quote You can both assert whatever qualities you want for your god can't you: there is no actual evidence that arbitrates either way on such assertions. It's true that Asana and I can both assert whatever qualities we want for God.  And what we assert may in fact be completely wrong.  I agree with you on that point.  Where you and I seem to differ is on the question of whether there is any ACTUAL evidence which can be brought to bear to help arbitrate either way, on those assertions being made about the nature of God. In point of fact… you and I are more than likely looking for different kinds of evidence than the ones Asana and I are using.   You and I will probably even disagree on what would qualify as evidence.  But with Asana… he and I are both using scriptures as evidence to make our case about the nature of God.  With you (I am assuming you are an atheist)… the use of scriptures would hardly be convincing evidence. So I would disagree that there is NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE which can be used.  What is probably closer to the truth is that you and I would disagree on what constitutes evidence and/or what we would accept as evidence.   But anyway… Asana and I are using scripture as evidence… and so we are at a different starting point than you and I would be. Respectfully Francis Thanks for your response.  Good luck with Bodhitharta! Stuart

You don't believe in luck

[Ed J]

Quote (francis @ Aug. 31 2010,07:41)

Hello Stu… pleased to meet you. So I would disagree that there is NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE which can be used.  What is probably closer to the truth is that you and I would disagree on what constitutes evidence and/or what we would accept as evidence.   Respectfully Francis

Hi Francis,

You're so right, what you or I call evidence for God's existence, Stuart
considers burdensome to even look at! Yet the evidence remains solid!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Stu]

Ed you would take the writings of J.M.Barrie as evidence for the existence of fairies.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 31 2010,23:21)

Ed you would take the writings of J.M.Barrie as evidence for the existence of fairies. Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Are you now claiming clairvoyance?

Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2010,00:10)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 31 2010,23:21) Ed you would take the writings of J.M.Barrie as evidence for the existence of fairies. Stuart Hi Stuart, Are you now claiming clairvoyance? Ed J http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

ED,

Mercy=64 Israel=64

Sacrifice=73 Egypt=73

Didn't the Israelites get delivered out of Egypt.

Are you quitting your numbers now? You don't seem to let them show you anything new.

[Stu]

Of course the exodus never actually happened, so maybe the numbers are irrelevant.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 01 2010,21:30)

Of course the exodus never actually happened, so maybe the numbers are irrelevant. Stuart

are you sure it didn't happen?

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 01 2010,21:30)

Of course the exodus never actually happened, so maybe the numbers are irrelevant. Stuart

Hi Stuart,

I know you're not really interested in proof of God's existence, but…
Here is the proof of the Exodus series on video for those that are.

Enjoy!

[francis]

Hello Asana…

Sorry for the delay… but it took me awhile to compose this long reply.  Just because you don't see me for a bit, this doesn't mean I have quit.  I'm incredibly busy and can only do so much.

Quote

Francis Well I don't… and neither do Christians… believe that The Father is “higher” or “supreme” over the other persons of the  Trinity.   All 3 persons in the Godhead are equal. Asana Jesus says that the Father is greater so that cannot be debated as a direct statement buy Christ himself.

Sometimes it is difficult for me to understand what you are saying or writing.  For example, when I wrote the above it was  in RESPONSE to this from you:

This is from Asana in the post i was directly responding to:
Now this should explain what I am saying about the trinity:   If we define God as THE SUPREME BEING even inside your  idea of the trinity the Father is the Highest Personality. This would in-fact be The Supreme Personality of Godhead(Your  terms)

This is what you wrote to me and this is what I was responding to directly.  Now,  where in the above words of yours does  the word “greater” exist?  It DOESN'T!    And so when I make an honest effort of responding to what you wrote, you  go and introduce a brand new word… “GREATER” which was not in the post I was directly responding to.

When you do this to me, it really, really confuses things for me.  It really does.   I'm sorry for being so dense, but I  can't read your mind.   I can only respond to what you ACTUALLY  WROTE to me.

Allright… so let's amend what you originally wrote in your post and introduce the word “GREATER” into your post  for you,  so that we can go on from here.

Although you don't supply the verse which shows that Jesus made the direct statement that the Father is greater than he is,  I will supply the verse I THINK you might be referring to… although I can't be absolutely sure because I can't  read your mind.

The verse you may be thinking about is John 14:28: “You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you ' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I  go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”

Well… as I have kept stressing, Jesus was also man here on earth… and so Jesus said the Father was greater than He not  because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position.   He was “. . . made  for a little while lower than the angels . . .” (Heb. 2:9).  Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus “emptied Himself,  taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . .”

Jesus was not denying that He was God or even inferior in intrinsic value/substance/Godly nature than the Father.  He was  merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man while we was here on earth which is when he was praying to the Father.   Jesus is both God and man.  And as a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father.  He had added to Himself human  nature (Col. 2:9).  He became a man to die for people.

And so I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical. Asana Greater than is not equal to

This is true, and yet John 14:28 doesn't say that Jesus is admitting He is less than the Father as part of the Trinity.     I already explained above that Jesus made Himself a man… He made Himself a little lower than angels.  And while here on  earth He had emptied Himself and took the form of a bond-servant… and so it is in His human nature that Jesus is praying  and saying that the Father is greater.  Not because Jesus in the Trinity is less, but as a human He was less than the  Father.

And so it still stands that I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the  Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis   So you seem to be agreeing with me that Jesus is divine. Asana Yes, I would say he was divine and the scripture says:   1 Corinthians 8:6 (King James Version) “But to us there is but  one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by  him.” Now you do take note that “Lord” does not mean God, right? But the scripture clearly says here that God is only the  Father.

First of all… did I hear you correctly?  Did you just write that Jesus was Divine?  Doesn't that mean that Jesus was God?   If Jesus was God, then that must mean that Jesus was a greater prophet….  much greater than Muhammad… correct?  Isn't  God greater than a human being?  Of course God is greater than a human being… and because we know that Muhammad was a  human being, then that means that Jesus was greater than Muhammad.  If that is the case, why should I listen to Muhammad  when I've god Jesus… God Incarnate to listen to in Christianity?

But I bet that is not what you meant.  You are probably using the word divine differently than I was.  The word  divine according the the dictionary has many kinds of meanings… but I was using this definition from the dictionary when  I maintain that Jesus was Divine: “Godhead: terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God”

There is no way you would honestly admit that Jesus was God (Divine)… and so I'm sure you are using the word differently  than I was.  Darn.  That would have been so cool if you did admit that Jesus was Divine.  You got my heart racing a bit  there for a moment when you wrote and said that you would say that Jesus was divine.  Oh well.

Secondly… why do you assume that “Lord” is not “God”?  The verse certainly does not say any such thing as you are  claiming.   If the LORD is GOD, then the verse could easily read as follows:

“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one God Jesus Christ, by whom  are all things, and we by him.”

In the above verse, it would be saying that the one God is both the Father and Jesus Christ.    That is, if the LORD is  GOD.  Is it?  Well, according to scriptures, it is.  And here are just a FEW verses which shows that the LORD is GOD.

Deuteronomy 4:35  “To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.”

Deuteronomy 4:39  “Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the  earth below; there is no other.”

Deuteronomy 6:4  “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”

Deuteronomy 4:24  “For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.”

Deuteronomy 4:31 “For the LORD your God is a merciful God…”

Deuteronomy 10:17  “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome…”

Deuteronomy 20:1  “… do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God
, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with  you.”

Deuteronomy 20:4  “For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you  victory.”

Joshua 1:9   “Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.”

Joshua 23:3  “You yourselves have seen everything the LORD your God has done to all these nations for your sake; it was the  LORD your God who fought for you.”

2 Samuel 22:32  “For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?”

2 Chronicles 30:9  “… for the LORD your God is gracious and compassionate.”

Psalms 33:12  “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.”

Psalms 68:19-20   “Praise be to the Lord, to God our Savior, who daily bears our burdens. Selah.  Our God is a God who  saves; from the Sovereign LORD comes escape from death.”

Psalms 84:11   “For the LORD God is a sun and shield”

Genesis 22-23  “And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be  allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”  23 So the Lord God banished  him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. “

Psalm 118:27  “God is the LORD, which hath shewed us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the  altar.”

Psalm 118:27 (amplified)  “The Lord is God, Who has shown and given us light…”

1 Kings 18:24   “Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by  fire, He is God.”  And all the people answered and said, “That is a good idea.”  

*note:..  We know what happens next, don't we?  Elijah calls on the name of the Lord as he said he would  do… and guess who answers?  God.  The Lord answered and as Elijah said, He is God.

Isaiah 44:6   “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the  last, and there is no God besides Me.”

Joel 2:32   “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in Mount  Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.”  (LORD  here is YHWH, the name of God as revealed in Exodus 3:14.)

Exodus 3:14  “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me  to you.’ ”  

*note:…. Guess who else calls themselves “I AM”?   Jesus himself as seen in verse John 8:58:   “Jesus  said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'” 

Now… if God said to Moses that his name is “I AM”… and if Jesus also calls Himself “I AM”… and if Jesus is  known as  the Lord as seen in 1 Corinthians 8:6… and if God is known as the Lord as the above verses shows… then the LORD is GOD  and JESUS is GOD.

That's not all.  In 1 Corinthians 8:6… the verse you yourself brought up…. we not only see that Jesus can be known as  the Lord… and that God can be known as the Father… but we also have Jesus saying in John 10:30  that “I and the Father  are one.”   And so if the LORD is GOD and if JESUS is God and if the Father is known as God and Jesus says the Father and  he are one… then all of this shows that Jesus and the Father are equal… that Jesus and God are equal…. that the Lord  and God are equal… that the Father and Son are equal.  

Indeed, even Jesus' enemies confirm that Jesus thought of himself as equal to God as seen in John 5:18.  Now, unless you  want to say that Jesus is deluded or a liar, then you have to accept the fact that Jesus himself made a “DIRECT  STATEMENT” asserting that He was equal to God… that He and God are one.  The Pharisees and Sadducees understood what  Jesus said, and wanted to stone him.  Failing that, they eventually succeeded in getting Jesus crucified because they  wanted Jesus killed for blasphemy.

So let's pull together what we've got so far.  You have asserted that Jesus said that the Father is greater and that this  was a direct statement by Christ himself.  And yet you have not supplied any verse which shows that  Jesus ever said that  the Father was greater than Jesus.  I went ahead and found the verse you probably were referring to and showed that Jesus  was speaking about His human part/nature while He was here on earth.  

If Jesus had said “…for the Father is greater than I” while Jesus was in heaven (as part of the Trinity)…  and NOT on earth, then you would have a  point.  But because Jesus said that the Father was greater than Him while  Jesus was on earth in a human body, there is no logical contradiction occurring or admission by Jesus that He is not equal  to His Father in an ontological sense or as part of the Trinity.

Not only that… I have shown you many verses which are direct statements from Jesus in which he says that God and himself  are equal and are one… and where the Lord is God.

So to sum up so far…  I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity  is illogical.

Quote

… and in the Quran it is repeated this way: They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord)  Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah. there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him:  (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).   (  ? ???  , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #31)

But until you can demonstrate to me that Muhammad and the Quran can be trusted and is correct when both claim that Jesus  never died by crucifixion, I have no intellectual obligation to assume that the Quran is correct in the above verse you've  supplied for us.

This is why I keep saying to you that the more important discussion we should be having is not about the Trinity or about  the nature of God… but about whether Jesus was really crucified or not.  The Bible says Jesus was crucified.  The Quran  says no… Jesus was not.    Jesus' crucifixion and death is considered to be a historical fact for numerous reasons… of  which I have listed for you.   And yet you have presented no evidence whatsoever to show that it is a historical fact that  Jesus never died by crucifixion.

You want me to accept what the Quran says and to accept that the Quran can be trusted… along with Muhammad… and yet  when it comes to historical facts, you can't defend the integrity of Muhammad or the Quran… and so why should I  uncritically accept what either say?

As for myself… even though I do believe that the original transcripts which make up the Bible are accurate… my faith  does not depend on the inerrancy of the Bible.  Whereas your faith depends on the inerrancy of Muhammad and the Quran… my  faith does not depend on any such thing about the Bible.    That is why it is very crucial for you to be able to show that  the Quran is trustworthy in all things… even in minor things… even on the issue of whether Jesus really died or not.

My faith in Christ
as the Messiah… as the Son of God… as the door to everlasting life… as the sacrifice for my  sins… as God Incarnate…  is not dependent on the Bible being infallible.  My faith rests on facts… and the logical  and reasonable inferences that can be made from those facts.  This is one of the crucial differences between your faith in  Muhammad and my faith in Christ.

Anyway… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical  when you brought up the above verse from the Quran.

Quote

Now the scripture demonstrates how Jesus turned over his lordship of his disciples to God as he was supposed to. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for  all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. (John 15:14-16)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  Where does this verse indicate that Jesus is turning “over his lordship  of his disciples to God as he was supposed to”?    I think you might have left out verse 16.  Here is the Amplified  version of verse 16.

“You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you and I have appointed you, I have planted you, that you might go and bear  fruit and keep on bearing, and that your fruit may be lasting, that it may remain, abide, so that whatever you ask the  Father in My Name as presenting all that I AM, He may give it to you.”

But even after reading this verse, I still don't understand what you are trying to say.  What does this have anything to do  with the Trinity or anything else we are talking about?  I apologize for being so dense, but I honestly am not sure what  you are wanting to point out.

Quote

Francis   I  have no difficulty in imagining that because Jesus wanted to experience the fullness of being a human… he might have  voluntarily put certain limitations and restrictions upon himself. Asana That is illogical in itself because Jesus was not living life in the fullness of being simply human because humans do not  normally turn water into wine or raise others from the dead so any claim that Jesus was living an ordinary life is dwarfed  by his miracles and inherent knowledge of God.

First of all… when I speak of the “Fullness of being a human”, I am referring to the temptations that Jesus  felt… and many of the same weaknesses of being human.  There was not one temptation that man had to go through that Jesus  did not also go through.  And like humans, Jesus also felt hunger and anxiety and fatigue and aches and sore muscles and  itches and pain and love and sorrow and emotions, etc.  

But what is significant and most crucial for our discussion is the fact that Jesus had to face the same temptations that  humans did.  After all, that was the entire purpose of Jesus being here… to take upon himself the sins of the world… to  be a perfect sacrifice.  Whereas all humans (including you and Muhammad and all the prophets) have failed and have  sinned… only Jesus was perfect.  So it is the lack of “sin” in Jesus' life which is all important… and it was in THAT AREA, where Jesus experienced the fullness of being a human.  Jesus fully experienced temptations found in our  lives… in human life.   To be fully tempted was the area of human life in which Jesus NEEDED to live fully because  it was that area of human life that Jesus was dying for… that is to say, he had to be FULLY  tempted to be able to  take our sins upon Himself.

The miracles were done for ONE MAIN PURPOSE as far as I can see… and that was to prove that Jesus was God… to validate  his “credentials” and his ministry here on earth.   It was in the area of miracles that we can see Jesus' unique quality  which allowed Him to be able to resist temptation successfully on our behalf.

Jesus’ miracles show him to be God’s special agent of blessing, healing, liberation, and salvation, as well as the one who  brings about the conditions associated with the final dominion of God.  Since the kingdom of God is portrayed in Scripture  as a reign of peace, prosperity, health, well-being and blessing, Jesus’ miracles of healing, as well as his demonstrations  of power over nature, indicate that He… and only He… is indeed capable of ushering in such a wonderful kingdom.

So it is not illogical at all.  I was using the phrase of experiencing the fullness of being a human in a very particular  and specific manner.  Which was the area of being tempted as all men are… to successfully resist temptation and sin where  all men have failed.

I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Also any attempt at saying Jesus could hide the fact he was God from himself would also be illogical and since he  could not hide that fact from himself if it was true if it were true he would know that he was hiding it from himself.

I'm not a philosopher or a theologian, but I think that a genuine incarnation implies that Jesus had an ordinary human  consciousness and therefore could grow in wisdom and maturity from infancy to manhood. One way to understand this is by  differentiating LEVELS of consciousness in Jesus' person. If much of his superhuman knowledge was subliminal, then  he was not aware of all he knew, just as we are often unaware of knowledge that lies in our subconscious. For example… it  is very possible that he was unaware of his impeccability (the quality of being  without error or fault), or if he knew it,  perhaps his other cognitive limitations were such that he still had to fight against temptation, just as he had to struggle  against anxiety, fear, and fatigue. So… having an ordinary human consciousness, Jesus could still feel the lure of  temptation even though he was divine and therefore incapable of yielding to it.

Postulating that Jesus had different levels of consciousness in his person… (when he voluntarily submitted and limited  himself as a human being for our sake)… gives us a very rational and reasonable idea of how it was possible that Jesus  could be limited in his knowledge about himself.

Therefore… it is not illogical at all as you assert.  So once again, I see no logical rules being violated and you have  yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis   And this:   In this context, Jesus, even though being God, voluntarily submitted to the other person of God, his  Father while Jesus  was here on earth indwelling a fleshly human body. Asana Flawed because Jesus in revelations is still referring to God as his God and our God and this is after he is in heaven with  God. If you were right he would have returned to equal status as God and not still be calling God something outside of his  own being or nature

Here I find it useful to distinguish between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. You can find a fuller  explanation of each of these concepts in Wikipedia&#39
;s discussion of the Trinity.  Type in Trinity and you'll see a subhead  entitled Economic and Ontological Trinity

Basically… The ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists of itself apart from God’s relation to the world. The  economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in relation to the world and  especially in the plan of salvation. In this economic Trinity there is a type of voluntary submission of one person to  another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the  Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of God’s  loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. There is never any actual subordination within the nature of the Godhead  itself.   Ontologically, the 3 persons of the Trinity are equal and completely harmonious in everything.

Therefore, when we understand the Ontological Trinity vs. the Economic Trinity as found in Wikipedia… we can see that  there is absolutely NO LOGICAL FLAWS in what I wrote to you.  And as such, I see no logical rules being violated and  you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis   So why is it not possible that this demon understood that this is what Jesus was doing when he came to earth?  That is  limiting Himself and submitting Himself voluntarily?   Asana So now you are willing to believe that the demons want to humour Jesus and not call him on being God in disguise as it  were? Please Francis, really?

You wrote: “Now notice that this is a demon… he would know whether Jesus was God or not but instead of saying that  Jesus is not divine he appeals to THE MOST HIGH.”  It was to this statement of yours that I was responding to.  I wrote  back saying that I'm not clear what you are trying to say here with this statement… but even so, I went ahead and guessed  what your point was and was suggesting that the reason that the demon did not say that Jesus is not divine is because it  knew that Jesus was divine… and that Jesus was limiting himself as a human being for our sake.

After all… why on earth would Satan himself… the leader of the demons… be trying to tempt Jesus unless he knew that  Jesus had limited his self-awareness (different levels of consciousness as I suggested above) while here on earth?  Does  Satan ever try and tempt God Himself?  No.  Why?  Because Satan knows that God can't be tempted.  But if Jesus, the Son of  God… being fully God himself… being God Incarnate here on earth… having voluntarily limited himself (economic  Trinity) for our sake so that HE COULD BE TEMPTED AS WE HUMANS ARE… then it would make perfect sense for Satan to  try and tempt Jesus.

What a coup-de-grace satan could have achieved if he could have successfully tempted Jesus to sin.

So it wasn't humoring Jesus that was on display… but it was a clear recognition from the demon of Jesus' voluntary  limitations (economic Trinity).

And so… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis Thirdly… the term “THE MOST HIGH” refers to God in general… not to any one specific persons of the Trinity.  “THE MOST  HIGH” is a translation from the Hebrew word Elyon which means “God”.   Asana Elyon is an epithet of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. ?El ?Elyon is usually rendered as English “God Most High”.  The Septuagint translation is ???st?? “highest”. It derives from the Hebrew root ?ly “go up, ascend”. So no it does not simply mean “God” it is never understood as a common form of God

I don't understand what you wrote here.  How does what you wrote show that Elyon does not mean “God”?  Look again at what  you wrote originally.  You specifically was referring to Mark 5:6-8:

“And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee  by God, that thou torment me not.”

Doesn't it say right there… IN THE VERSE YOU CHOSE… that the demon is applying that epithet to the God of Israel?  Who  else is the demon applying the term “THE MOST HIGH” to?   The demon is applying and REFERRING that term to God in  general as I wrote to you.  Read again what I wrote to you above.  I specifically said that “the term “THE MOST HIGH”  refers to God in general… and that is exactly what the demon is doing in Mark 5:6-8.  The demon is referring to God  in general.

Not only that… but you ADMIT that the term “THE MOST HIGH” is an epithet of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible just  like Wikipedia says… (which is where you got your definition from).  So I am correct when I said that the term “THE MOST  HIGH” refers to God in general in the Hebrew Bible. Like Wikipedia said… it is an epithet of the God of Israel in the  Hebrew Bible… and you agreed.

Anyway… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis   Therefore I simply do not see any logical problems.  I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to  demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical. Asana Greater cannot be equal in any sense. Also Jesus says he can do nothing of himself while the Father can. Also a Father  doesn't need a son but a son needs a Father to exist.

1)… Yes… I agree that greater cannot be equal in any sense.  And so?  Where does Jesus ever make the direct statement  that the person “THE FATHER” of the Trinity is greater than the person “THE SON” of the Trinity?  You  yourself said that Jesus made such a direct statement about himself.  Where is that direct statement?  It certainly is not  in John 14:28 as I showed.

You identify a logical problem… “Greater than is not equal to… but you have not applied that to the Trinity.   And therefore, I see no logical rules being violated about the Trinity to show  that the Trinity is illogical.

2)… As for your statement that Jesus says he can do nothing of himself while the Father can, I've already explained the  difference between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity… so how does this statement of Jesus show that Jesus  is intrinsically and fundamentally not equal to the Father in any Ontological sense?  

3)… As for your other statement that a Father doesn't need a son but a son needs a Father to exist… you are confusing  titles with human biology.  That's all you've done here.

And so… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis   ?  Jesus… as part of the Trinity… is THE MOST HIGH and THE ONLY TRUE GOD and THE ONLY SUPREME BEING.  So is God the  FATHER and so is THE HOLY SPIRIT.  All 3 are equal in rank and all 3 are the same ONE GOD. Asana Jesus says th at eternal life is to know THEE The ONLY TRUE GOD(referring to the Father) and then he says and “ALSO” Jesus  Christ.  Now logically Jesus is saying:  He is not the Only True God otherwise he would not say “Also”

I was really confused by your response here.  But after looking at it for a couple of days, I think I know what you wanted  to say and so I will respond to how I understand you here.

To begin with, it appears you are using John 17:3 in an attempt to show that the Trinity does not exist.  You appear to  want to argue that since Jesus says that the Father is the only true God, then Jesus cannot also be the only true God and  was thus denying that He was God.  Is that about right?   As I said, I'm a bit confused about what your point was because  of how you expressed yourself in your writing, but I think this is what you wanted to say and so I will respond to that.   If I've still misunderstood you, then I apologize because I don't want to be guilty of a strawman argument.

We'll start by looking at John 17:3 and see what it says and I'll give a few different translations:

Amplified Bible
And this is eternal life: it means to know, to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand You, the only  true and real God, and likewise to know Him, Jesus as the Christ the Anointed One, the Messiah, Whom You have sent.

New International Version
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

New Living Translation
And this is the way to have eternal life–to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.

New American Standard Bible
“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

American King James Version
And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

This is my answer:…………………..

To me… I personally think that the only way a person can use John 17:3 in an attempt to deny the Trinity… or attempt to  show that the concept of the Trinity is illogical… is if a person were to apriorily assume that God exists only in one  person,  BEFORE they look at the verse.  And I think that is what you're doing.  You deny the possibility of a  Trinity from the outset… before you even start to look at the verse.  Since you are a Muslim who does not believe that  the Trinity is true and that God exists only in one person… I think you've made the honest mistake of looking at John  17:3 with your Muslim PERSPECTIVE/VIEWPOINT.  And so I think you are imposing your prior Islamic assumptions onto the  reading of the text.

First of all… If Jesus had said, “Only you, Father, are the true God,”  then Jesus He would be saying what you  claim… that the Father is the ONLY true God.  However, that's not  what Jesus said at all.  Look again at what Jesus says  to the Father: “you, the only true God.”  The word “only” is not being applied to the “Father,” but instead,  it is being applied to “God.”    The word “only” is in front of “God”… not in front of the Father.

And neither did Jesus say: “Father, only you are the true God”.

What did Jesus actually say?  He said that the Father is the only true God.  Well, the Trinity believes that the Father IS  the only true God.   But the Trinity says that Jesus is ALSO the only true God.  Both are the only true God according to  the Trinity.  All Jesus did in John 17:3 was to state a fact… which is that the Father is the only true God.  And He is.   But so is Jesus himself, and we immediately notice that Jesus does not deny this in John 17:3.  According to the Trinity,  both are the only true God.

And since the one true God exists as a Trinity (as I believe) this means that the three Persons can be addressed as “the  only true God” both individually and collectively.  For example… Each SPECIFIC member of the Trinity is “the only  true God” and thus each can specifically be addressed as such… just like Jesus was addressing the Father as such.    And  the Father could have just as easily addressed his Son as “the only true God”. Both would have been true according to the  concept of the Trinity.  Each member of the Trinity can speak of  another member as “the only true God” without implying  that the 3rd member is not God.  

Now… I'm not saying that John 17:3 proves that the concept of the Trinity is correct… not at all.  What I am saying is  that  scripturally and logically, John 17:3  does not deny the Trinity.    You were trying to use John 17:3 to specifically  show that  the concept of the Trinity was illogical (and thus false) by focusing on Jesus' words to the Father… and I  showed that the verse does no such thing.

And so… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Second of all…  you also wrote that Jesus is logically saying in John 17:3  that He is not the Only True God, otherwise  he would not say “Also”.   Well… how does that logically follow?  To me, Jesus is saying that the Father is the only true  God… AND ALSO Jesus is.   Where is the logical fallacy in that?

Quote

Francis   As I've tried to explain… I have no difficulty imagining that when Jesus voluntarily came down here to earth as a  sacrifice for our sins… He could very well have also voluntarily limited himself and voluntarily submitted himself to  God… as a man… to more fully experience the fullness of being a human for our sake. Asana Makes no sense, You are claiming essentially that God submitted himself to himself knowingly, which would automatically  disqualify his experience of being human because humans do not have a choice or knowledge of capabilities that can render  the experiment as harmless i.e. no possibility of failure or permanent damage.

I've already dealt with both of these issues above.  The person in the Trinity named “SON” voluntarily submitted to the  person in the Trinity named “the Father”.  This concept can be found on Wikipedia and I gave a brief outline above  contrasting Ontological Trinity with Economic Trinity.   I also explained above, that through differentiating levels of  consciousness in Jesus' person, how it is logically possible that Jesus… voluntarily for our sake… wouldn't have  necessarily known everything on a human level.

So… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis   And as I have stated before… the term “THE MOST HIGH” refers to God… not to one of the persons of the Trinity… but to  Elyon… which is “God” in Hebrew. Asana That is incorrect it is always translated in term of being the Highest

I've already dealt with this above.  In the verse you brought up… in Mark 5: 6-8, the demon is applying and referring  this term to the God of Israel.  You even admitted (by copying and pasting the definition from Wikipedia) that this term is  an epithet of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible.  So it is referring to God.

A further look in Wikipedia confirms what i'm saying.  The following is from Wikipedia where it is talking about the  Names of God in Juda
ism:

YHWH is the only proper “name of God” in the Tanakh, in the sense that Abraham or Sarah are proper names by which you  call a person. Whereas words such as Elohim (god, or authority), El (mighty one), Shaddai (almighty), Adonai (master), Elyon (most high), Avinu (our father), etc. are not names but titles, highlighting different aspects of YHWH, and  the various roles which God has.

So… Wikipedia confirms hat the phrase “THE MOST HIGH” is referring to God… it is a title that highlights an aspect of  YHWH and a role which God has.

Therefore… because I was not incorrect as you asserted above,  I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to  name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis So again… I don't see any logical problems.  I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to  demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical. Asana Any substance that can assume different forms can never be equal in substance in other words Ice is not equal to steam and  therefore the trinity is illogical on the basis that God is eternal and yet it is the claim of trinitarians that the PERSON  of JESUS(God the Son) DIED if his substance did not die than your faith is in vain, however the substance of God cannot  die. What's more is Jesus plainly says that the flesh profiteth nothing. This means that Jesus as God could not have died  and Jesus as man the death of his flesh would profit nothing.

I'm completely surprised and utterly baffled why you wrote this because I explained all this within a few posts ago.  Jesus'  spirit did not die in the sense that his spirit ceased to exist.  So of course He was and still is eternal.   His spiritual  death was in the result of spiritual separation.  And in a sense… our spirits are also now eternal because our spirits  will never die.. whether we end up in heaven or hell.

Jesus' substance never changed on the cross.  He never became “unGod” when he died.  He was still God during his time on  the cross.  And you are correct that the flesh profiteth nothing… and I dealt with that also in my other posts.  It  wasn't the physical death of Jesus that saved us… it was his spiritual death… ie, his spiritual separation from God at  the moment our sins were placed on him and Jesus paying the price for those sins… which saved us.  I never said anything  about the flesh being a part of our salvation.  So you're committing a strawman argument.  I never said the things you are  now saying I said.

This clearly shows that you were not reading what I wrote to you.

BTW… Ice and steam are equal in substance.  It is the form that changed, not the substance.  The substance is “water” for  both and the form of that “water” is Ice and Steam.  Both ice and steam is water being expressed differently.

I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis   Sez who?  Not Christianity.  Where do you get the idea that “God” is a rank?   Asana God is a rank if it were not one could not COMMAND, Commands do not come from those without rank they come from COMMANDERS

God may be a commander and God may issue commands.. but that doesn't mean that the name/word “GOD” is a rank.  Give me a  source where it says that “GOD” means rank?   I tried looking for it and I couldn't find any source that said any such  thing.

Wikipedia says that “God is the English name given to the singular omnipotent being in theistic and deistic religions  (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.

No where does it say anything about “GOD” is the English name for rank… or that “GOD” means rank… or that “GOD” is a  rank.  Now… God may have THE rank of a commander… that is to say,  God's rank might be as commander… kind of like  Johnny or Billy or Tommy may have a rank of a general or a sergeant… but neither the words nor the names of Johnny or  Billy or Tommy is a word or a name that means rank or that their names are a rank.

I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis   Where did that come from?  In point of fact, there is no rank or levels in the Trinity.   All 3 persons are equal in Rank  and level. Asana Not true Jesus said that the Father was greater and also subjugated his will to the Father “Not my will but yours” Jesus  expressed he had no desire to die”

I have already dealt with this above and in my last post.  You are confusing the ontological Trinity with the economic  Trinity.  One does not effect or change the other.  Read what  I wrote above.  You can find a fuller explanation of each of  these concepts in Wikipedia's discussion of the Trinity.  Type in Trinity and you'll see a subhead entitled Economic and  Ontological Trinity

But basically, as I outlined above… The ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists of itself apart from God’s  relation to the world. The economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in  relation to the world and especially in the plan of salvation. In this economic Trinity there is a type of voluntary  submission of one person to another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own  account, but on behalf of the Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but  rather is an expression of God’s loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. There is never any actual  subordination within the nature of the Godhead itself.   Ontologically, the 3 persons of the Trinity are equal and  completely harmonious in everything.

Quote

Francis   They may have different names and different functions… but they are all equal and are always in complete harmony and  agreement with each other. Asana False! Jesus said “NOT MY WILL” That means “I DISAGREE”

There is complete harmony ontologically.  As for economic Trinity, the fact that Jesus submitted to the Father's will shows  harmony.  Jesus didn't argue with the Father.  Jesus didn't throw a hissy fit.  Jesus didn't throw a temper tantrum.  Jesus  simply showed his HUMAN emotions of anguish and anxiety and stress when faced with a horrible death.  Jesus was fully  experiencing his “humanness” at that moment.  Jesus does this also when he cries out on the cross in anguish… “Father,  why do you forsake me?”.

To say that you don't want to do something because of the anxiety and anguish you are feeling as you face torture and  death, that does not ONLY have to mean you disagree and that you shouldn't go thru it.

For example… I may not want to go into battle because i'm scared, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree that  I should go into battle if the battle is for a
right cause.  In fact, I hope to have the courage to say “not my will” if  I'm ever called to defend my country or to lay down my life voluntarily for the cause of Christ.

Anyway… the words “Not My Will” does not necessarily have to only mean “I Disagree”… and so this is  actually a non sequitur on your part.

And therefore,  I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is  illogical.

Quote

Francis     Again… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical. Asana 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? if it is I say: “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit  incorruption.”(1 Corinthians 15:49-51)

First of all, as I've repeatedly stated in here, I am not a Christian theologian.  I don't know anything about you and so I  don't know if you are an Islamic theologian… but as for me, I'm not a Christian theologian.  I have not written any books  nor do I have any degrees in this area.   I'm just an average guy trying my best to understand the things that come  across my path.  So everything I write is simply my understanding and my opinion, and therefore should not be taken as the  definitive and all-inclusive answer to your questions.

Now… as I read your statements above and the ones following… it seems that your hang-up is on the word “curse”.  You  seem to have the thought that the curse spoken of in Galatians 3:13 is somehow a force or a substance that alters or  changes the intrinsic nature of the Trinity.  Well… The “curse” is not some kind of melodramatic enchantment like in movies where a person utters angry mystical words and then some vague evil happens. The “curse of the law” is the declaration of judgment  by God against the sins of a person or people.

Paul said in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written:  ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’”    Well… what was the curse of the law?  

Was this curse some kind of force…  or some kind of substance… or some vague evil… or some kind of melodramatic enchantment… or some kind of an appeal and/or prayer for evil or misfortune to befall someone or something?   NO.   Instead, we find out what the curse of the law is by looking at a couple of verses earlier in Galatians  3:10: “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide  by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’”  Therefore, the curse Christianity is speaking of is our  lack of obedience.  We have violated God’s law, by not abiding by the commands God has given to us.  That is the curse of  the law.

Now let's go back to verse 13 — Christ became a curse for us (on our behalf). How did Christ become a curse for us? Paul  answers that Christ became a curse in the way that he died. By dying on a cross, Deuteronomy 21:23 says such a person was  to be considered “cursed by God.”

Every human is cursed under the law because we have not abided by God’s laws.  So we are all cursed under the law. But  Jesus purchased us (redeemed us) from the curse upon us. Jesus alleviated the curse upon us by dying on the cross.  And by  dying on the cross, Jesus became a curse on our behalf because he died in a fashion that people would see Jesus as rejected  and cursed by God, according to Deuteronomy 21:23.

Paul says that Jesus died “for us” (Romans 5:6-8; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10); he also says that he died “for  our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3; Gal. 1:4). “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24; 3:18). Paul  also says that we died with Christ (Romans 6:3-8). Through our union with him in faith, we participate in his death.

It is as if we were on the cross, receiving the curse that our sins deserved. But he did it for us, and because he did it,  we can be justified, or proclaimed as righteous. He takes our sin and death; he gives us righteousness and life. The prince  became a pauper, so that we paupers might become princes.

Jesus became a curse on our behalf so we could escape the curse of the law, which is death.  This is the spiritual death I  have spoken of before.  Spiritual death occurs when we sin, when we disobey.  The curse of the law is our lack of obedience  when we violate God's law… which results in death… spiritual death.  And spiritual death is a separation from God.  So  Jesus became something he was not, so that we could become something we were not. “God made him who had no sin to be sin  for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Anyway… when we understand the word “curse” as understood by the Jews in the OT and the NT… we see that when Jesus  redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us… this is not meaning that Jesus' substance or Spiritual  nature has changed or morphed into something evil.

Therefore in conclusion… you're actually engaging in a strawman argument by setting up false premises of what the Bible  teaches about the “curse”.  You said that “if One Person of the Triune has an alteration in substance becoming cursed or  sin then the entire substance has changed”.  That is a false premise.  The curse/sin does not alter or change the  substance of Jesus as part of the Trinity.

————–

As for 1 Corinthians 15:49-51… I've already dealt with this in my prior post, so I'm surprised (once again) that you  bring this up again.  When we become Born-Again… it is OF THE SPIRIT… not the flesh.  This is what Jesus was explaining  to Nicodemus about how to inherit the Kingdom of God.

Anyway… I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.  You wrote and said: “Yes you do” and attempted to show this by suggesting that when Christ became a curse for us…  He somehow changed in substance.  I showed how this is a false premise by directing you to Galatians 13:10.

Therefore… you have yet to show that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis   How does one logically follow the other?  I've already stated that the 3 persons of the Trinity appear to have different  functions… much like the examples of the “trinities” found in the universe which I listed in my prior post.  Different  functions does not have to mean different levels of importance or primacy.   Asana Yes but all persons would effect the substance of the being. All for one and one for all if one persona is corrupted the  e ntire being and substance is corrupted is context of the whole.

I've just dealt with this above.

Quote

Francis   I also said that Jesus… while here on earth, could certainly have voluntarily, and temporarily submitted Himself to The  Father (one of the persons in the Trinity) for the sake of man's salvation.  Does that make him naturally and intrinsically  less important or significant or unequal with The Father or with God?  Of course it doesn't. Asana Therefore, you are saying that God became tainted and that goes against scriptue as God cannot be tempted by Sin nor can  God sin or take on sin. Francis, GOD is HOLY

God never became tainted.  I've dealt with all of this above.  When Jesus became a man… He was able to be tempted by sin.  And when Jesus successfully resisted sin and never disobeyed God once… this shows that Jesus did not sin.   Muhammad sinned… but not Jesus.  Muhammad was never perfect, but Jesus was.

It is for that reason that I will trust what Jesus says more than what Muhammad says.  It is not only Muhammad's sin and imperfection which prevents me from following him rather than Jesus… but it is also because Muhammad has said things which are historically untrue… like when he says that Jesus never died by crucifixion.  Well… Jesus' crucifixion is an historical fact… a fact that Muhammad denies… and yet neither he nor you can bring any evidence to support the belief that Jesus was not crucified.

The bottom line for this entire post is that I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

You also have yet to show that Jesus was not crucified… whereas as I have given you evidence to show that He was crucified.

Respectfully
Francis

P.S… I don't know how long I can go on with our discussion about the Trinity.  If after a few posts in which you have presumably given it your best shot to show that the Trinity is false,  and yet you have not been able to demonstrate that any logical rules have been violated which would demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical, then why should I expect anything new or stronger in the future?

Not only that… the issue of the Trinity has nothing to do with salvation or whether Jesus was crucified or whether Jesus was the Messiah or whether Jesus is the way to salvation.  I can be completely wrong about the Trinity, and yet still be saved thru Christ… and still be a Christian.   So what's the point?

That is why I would rather go back to our discussion about Jesus' Crucifixion.  I also want to deal with the issue of blood sacrifice as needed for the forgiveness of sins… which you disagree with.

Anyway… have a good day.  And blessings to you.

[bodhitharta]

the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as “the one God exists in three Persons and one substance.

Debunking the trinity has been difficult for the one main reason:

A trinitarian once explained it to me and I finally understood this is what he said:

Quote

This is why I keep saying that the law of Identity is iron clad in logic. Unless we understand what words or phrases or terms or title MEANS to the people USING THEM… we can't communicate rationally. It's that simple.

In other words unless we agree on what we mean by trinity or triune it cannot be debunked but now that I understand what is meant by triune not being polytheistic I have been able to immediately to debunk it based on the very familiar “One for all and all for one” cliche. The trinity can therefore debunked on the basis that if any “person” of the trinity became cursed or took on sin the entire “substance” or “being” would have been altered as such. A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.

So the very Ideas of both trinity and atonement through the sacrifice of God the son would violate one another as all of God would be cursed by way of “substance” taking on sin.

You see all attempts of debunking the trinity rely on focusing on the “persons” of God instead of the substance of God. It would not natter if there were 10,000 persons to the Godhead if the substance were ONE even 1 person would taint the entire batch. This is really quite easy to understand from a Christian viewpoint because Christianity focuses on Original Sin which states that ONE man by Nature can taint all men and therefore this same standard is applied to the Nature of God whereas a trinitarian is virtually concluding that by Jesus becoming sin and a curse for man that God is made as sinful as man instead of God maintaining HIS HOLY NATURE which man should aspire to.

If The trinitarian triune God position is valid it is a proclamation that God is not Holy and incapable of Sin

If it is false then yes Jesus as a Man can be made unholy for a short time without affecting the nature of God as it would simply mean that the innocent has more value then all the guilty and as Jesus would like Job be rewarded after the suffering it would show that God's mercy would still prevail.

It really has been debunked successfully now the only thing to do is to resist the urge to fight the truth. you even went on to say

Quote

BTW… Ice and steam are equal in substance. It is the form that changed, not the substance. The substance is “water” for both and the form of that “water” is Ice and Steam. Both ice and steam is water being expressed differently.

You are right so if poison taints water it taints all of the substance.

You said:

Quote

God never became tainted. I've dealt with all of this above. When Jesus became a man… He was able to be tempted by sin.

You said that Jesus was 100% Man and 100% God are you now saying that Jesus was not 100% God when he was a man? because that is what you said.

Quote

Now let's go back to verse 13 — Christ became a curse for us (on our behalf). How did Christ become a curse for us? Paul answers that Christ became a curse in the way that he died. By dying on a cross, Deuteronomy 21:23 says such a person was to be considered “cursed by God.”

So now you have God cursing God, give this up Francis it is quite silly but I guess trying to get around the inevitable reality is good for others to see the strain in trying to hold on to a position that is no longer honestly sustainable.

Quote

Therefore in conclusion… you're actually engaging in a strawman argument by setting up false premises of what the Bible teaches about the “curse”. You said that “if One Person of the Triune has an alteration in substance becoming cursed or sin then the entire substance has changed”. That is a false premise. The curse/sin does not alter or change the substance of Jesus as part of the Trinity.

If SIN doesn't alter the substance of Jesus then SIN would not alter the substance of man but if SIN does alter the substance of Man and Jesus was 100% man and 100% God as I said before you can't call Jesus “God” have him take on Sin and then deny that SIN changes his substance because that would really be pointless.

I've already wrote on blood atonement but you haven't responded to that post I don't believe. If we are to continue I would really hope you make a commitment to intellectual and spiritual honesty because this is not about what you can wiggle out of it is about clarifying what God wants us to know about HIM.

Blessings!

[francis]

Hello Asana…

Quote

the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as “the one God exists in three Persons and one substance. Debunking the trinity has been difficult for the one main reason: A trinitarian once explained it to me and I finally understood this is what he said: This is why I keep saying that the law of Identity is iron clad in logic. Unless we understand what words or phrases  or terms or title MEANS to the people USING THEM… we can't communicate rationally. It's that simple.   In other words unless we agree on what we mean by trinity or triune it cannot be debunked but now that I understand what  is meant by triune not being polytheistic I have been able to immediately to debunk it based on the very familiar “One for  all and all for one” cliche. The trinity can therefore debunked on the basis that if any “person” of the trinity became  cursed or took on sin the entire “substance” or “being” would have been altered as such. A part of a whole cannot be  disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature. If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God  would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.

Amazing.  I had just explained in my prior post the logical flaw in your understanding of the word “curse” as it is  understood in the Bible… and it's like you never read what I wrote to you.   Your entire argument rests on a false  premise of what the word “curse” means as it is explained in Galatians 3:10-13 and in the dictionary.  Both sources  clearly demonstrates that the “curse” DOES NOT effect the entire “substance” or “being”… and that was the point  of my prior post to you.  I can't help but gently  ask if you know what the word “curse” means as it is used in the Bible  or in the dictionary?   Look up the word in a dictionary if you don't trust me.

And look in Galatians.  Do you understand what Galatians 3:13 MEANT to the writer of that verse??  I'm not asking  what the verse means to you… but what it meant to Paul who WROTE GALATIANS 3:13?  Afterall… you DID NOT  write Galatians 3:13… and I DID NOT write Galatians 3:13… so if we want to understand Galatians 3:13 and how  the word “curse” is being used, we need to understand the word in light of what Paul INTENDED to convey by using  that word.

This is what I mean by the Law of Identity.  What good does it do for either of us to make up what the word “curse” means  and what Galatians 3:13 means, when both ways has absolutely nothing to do with what Paul meant when he wrote those words?   Tell me Asana… what good does that do for anyone?  Well… it does nothing at all… the least of which is that it  doesn't try and look for the truth of what Paul meant.

This is why I told you earlier that we… both you and I… cannot look at the word “curse” or Galatians 3:13 or the bible  through our PRECONCEIVED biases and notions.  You can't look at these things through your Islamic viewpoint… and  I can't look at these things through my Christian viewpoint.  If we look at these questions with our PREJUDICED AND  BIASED viewpoints, then we are not going to understand what Paul intended or tried to convey.  Instead we will be  twisting things INTO OUR viewpoint so that it will line up with our own bias and prejudice.  We will be imposing  our interpretation onto the these words and verses instead of trying to understand what these words and verses actually  meant to the writer.

Can't you see this?  Doesn't this make absolute logical sense?  Isn't this perfect reasoning?  Of course it is.  To deny  what I just said is to deny the very foundation of reason and rationality and common sense.

All of this applies to 2 Corinthians 5:21 as well, which says that Jesus was made to be sin.  What does that mean?  To  understand the truth, we need to understand what it meant to the writer who wrote those words.  It's the same with  Galatians 3:13 which says that Jesus became a curse for us.  What did Paul mean when he wrote those words?

If we don't attempt to try and understand what those phrases and words meant to the writer who wrote them, then we violate  the law of identity as well as purposefully ignoring the truth of the intent of the writer.

With that in mind,let's once more look at what I actually wrote and which you quoted above:

This is why I keep saying that the law of Identity is iron clad in logic. Unless we understand what words or phrases or  terms or title MEANS to the people USING THEM… we can't communicate rationally. It's that simple.

Now… in your post you've given us your understanding of what the word “curse” means to you and what Galatians 3:13 and 2  Corinthians 5:21 means to you.  BUT GUESS WHAT?   You're understanding is NOT THE SAME AS MINE!!  And  neither is your understanding the same understanding as it is found in the dictionary or in the Bible.   What does this do  for our conversation and communication?  Well… if we each use a DIFFERENT understanding of these words and  verses, then it is logically impossible for us to be able to communicate rationally or understand each other.  Can't  you see this Asana?

——————————————

All right.  Now that we've got that out of the way, let's go through these words and verses and examine your understanding  and see if they line up with what the Bible says and what the dictionary says.

Let's start with the word “curse” found in Galatians 3:13.  The verse says: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the  law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’”

Now… how do you understand the word “curse”?  This is what you told us is your understanding:

If any “person” of the trinity became cursed or took on sin the entire “substance” or “being” would have been  altered  as such. A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature.  If Jesus took on  sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot inherit incorruption.

We see right away that you believe this about the word “curse”…

1)… that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”.

2)… When Jesus took on sin then all of the substance of God would have become sin and corrupted.

Okay… now that we've read the verse in question (Galatians 3:13) and we've also read YOUR UNDERSTANDING of that  verse… we'll go thru what the dictionary says about the word “curse” and see how it lines up with your understanding of  what “curse” means and what it can do.  Remember, you said that the “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire  “substance” or “being”.  That was what the word “curse” meant to you.

After we look at the dictionary, then we will look at Galatians and see if we can find any clues as to what Paul was  talking about when he used the word “curse”.  After that, we will then look at 2 Corinthians 5:21 and go through the same  process.

———————————————–

So let's get started… Here are the definitions for the word “curse” found in the dictionary…

curse: Show Spelled [kurs] Show IPA noun, verb, cursed or curst, curs·ing. –noun

1.the expression of a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., befall a person, group, etc.

2. a formula or charm intend
ed to cause such misfortune to another.

3. the act of reciting such a formula.

4. a profane oath; curse word.

5. an evil that has been invoked upon one.

6. the cause of evil, misfortune, or trouble.

7.something accursed.

8. Slang . the menstrual period; menstruation (usually prec. by the ).

9. an ecclesiastical censure or anathema.

From Wikipedia we get this: In particular, “curse” may refer to a wish that harm or hurt will be inflicted by any  supernatural powers, such as a spell, a prayer, an imprecation, an execration, magic, witchcraft, a god, a natural force,  or a spirit. In many belief systems, the curse itself (or accompanying ritual) is considered to have some causative force  in the result.

Now… let's go thru each of the definitions and see if it applies to Jesus on the cross and if it lines up with your  understanding of the word “curse” in the manner you keep maintaining.

1. the expression of a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., befall a person, group, etc.

Where in this definition does it say that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”?  It  doesn't.  It doesn't even use the words “substance” or “being”.

Secondly… how does this definition apply to Jesus?  It doesn't.  God did not WISH that misfortune, evil, doom,  etc befall Jesus.  The above definition is talking about an evil person maliciously wishing misfortune, etc.,  will happen  to another person.  A good person/being does NOT wish misfortune on someone else.   Indeed, it was Jesus WHO  VOLUNTARILY became a curse for our sake.  NO ONE… NO ONE… NO ONE… NO ONE… NO ONE… NO ONE WISHED that misfortune, evil, doom, etc would befall Jesus.

Not only that… but Galatians 3:10 tells us what the curse is.. and it has NOTHING to do with WISHING that  misfortune, etc would befall on a person.  A person who is cursed in the manner they die and as a result of THAT  PERSON'S OWN ACTIONS… and not because someone else WISHED that a curse would fall onto someone.

So obviously this definition has nothing to do with the Jesus on the Cross.

2. a formula or charm intended to cause such misfortune to another.

Where in this definition does it say that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”?  It  doesn't.  It doesn't even use the words “substance” or “being”.

Secondly, this definition obviously does not apply to Jesus because there was no “formula or charm” which was chanted or  recited or enacted by a being that intended to cause such misfortune to Jesus… to another.  This is referring to a  malicious act.

3. the act of reciting such a formula.

Where in this definition does it say that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”?  It  doesn't.  It doesn't even use the words “substance” or “being”.

Secondly… this definition also does not apply to Jesus because there was no act of reciting such a formula.

4. a profane oath; curse word.

Where in this definition does it say that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”?  It  doesn't.  It doesn't even use the words “substance” or “being”.

Secondly, this definition does not apply to Jesus. What profane oath or curse word was directed at Jesus?  God didn't say  “sh*t” or “F*ck you Jesus”… or say anything like that.  There was no profanity uttered by God towards Jesus.  (sorry for  being so blunt)

5. an evil that has been invoked upon one.

Where in this definition does it say that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”?  It  doesn't.  It doesn't even use the words “substance” or “being”.

Secondly… there was no malicious evil that had been INVOKED upon Jesus. Galatians 3:10 explains what the curse is  and it has nothing to do with an evil that  wasINVOKED upon another person.  Not only that, but Jesus VOLUNTARILY became a curse… as is defined in Galatians 3:10.

6. the cause of evil, misfortune, or trouble.

Where in this definition does it say that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”?  It  doesn't.  It doesn't even use the words “substance” or “being”.

Secondly… no one CAUSED evil, misfortune, or trouble.  Jesus' act was a voluntary one and no one could do  anything to Jesus unless He voluntarily allowed it. There was no deliberate MALICIOUS INTENTION to cause evil,  misfortune, or trouble by God.  A curse did NOT cause evil, misfortune or trouble.

7. something accursed.

Where in this definition does it say that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”?  It  doesn't.  It doesn't even use the words “substance” or “being”.

Secondly we need to understand what the word “curse” meant to the writer in the NT. Galatians 3:10 tells us what the word  “curse” means, and it is has nothing to do with the definitions supplied by the dictionary or Wikipedia or you.  

8. Slang . the menstrual period; menstruation (usually prec. by the ).

Where in this definition does it say that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”?  It  doesn't.  It doesn't even use the words “substance” or “being”.

Secondly… this definition obviously this does not apply to Jesus.

9. an ecclesiastical censure or anathema.

Where in this definition does it say that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”?  It  doesn't.  It doesn't even use the words “substance” or “being”.

Secondly, there is nothing in this definition or any of the above definitions for the word “curse” that shows that this  has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with changing or altering the entire “substance” or “being”.   NO WHERE… NO  WHERE… NO WHERE in the entire list of above defintions does it even mention the word “substance” or say that  “substance is being changed or altered”.  NO WHERE!

Look again at what you wrote:

“person” of the trinity became cursed or took on sin the entire “substance” or “being” would have been  altered as such. A part of a whole cannot be disassociated with the whole in reference to substance or nature . If Jesus took on sin then All of the substance of God would have become sin and the corruptible cannot  inherit incorruption.

Where is the word “substance” or “being” or “nature” mentioned in ANY of the above definitions from the dictionary  or Wikipedia or Galatians?  Where in ANY of the above definitions and verses does it say that a curse changes the  entire substance or being or nature?   It's no where to be found.  It's that simple.

You see… your entire argument rests on your false idea of what the word “curse” means and what the word “curse” means in  the Bible as it is explained in Galatians 3:10-13.  No where can we see that the a curse effects or changes or alters the  entire “substance” or “being” as you keep suggesting… and that is the entire point of this exercise.

——————–

All right… now let's see if the Bible will give us any clues about what Galatians 3:13 means.  Although I've already  done this in my previous post to you, we will do it again.

Let's look at the verse again:

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is  hung on a tree.’”(Galatians 3:13)

First of all… what was the curse of the l
aw?  We find out what the curse of the law is by looking at a couple of verses  earlier in Galatians 3:10: “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, ‘Cursed be  everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’”  Therefore, the curse  Christianity… and Paul is speaking of is our lack of obedience.  We have violated God’s law, by not abiding by the  commands God has given to us.  That is the curse of the law.  This tells us what the curse is FOR… this tells us  the reason FOR the fact that we are under the curse.  It doesn't tell us what the curse IS… but only what  it was FOR.

All right now… let's go back to verse 13 — Christ became a curse for us (on our behalf). How did Christ become a curse  for us?  We saw what the curse was FOR… but  the question now is this: WHAT IS the curse?  Is the curse  like you say… that it is the entire “substance” or “being” being changed or altered?

Well no… it isn't that all as we see when we read Galatians.
Paul says that Christ became a curse in the way that he died. By dying on a cross, Deuteronomy 21:23 says such a person  was to be considered “cursed by God.”

No where in Galatians does Paul suggest that he is using the word “curse” to mean that Jesus' entire “substance” or  “being” or “nature” is being altered or changed in any fashion.

Instead… scriptures says that Christ as God is immutable (Hebrews 13:8; Malachi 3:6), and cannot change in His divine  nature. In Hebrews 1:12 the Father says of Jesus, “You remain the same, and your years will never end.”  And so the word  “curse” cannot mean that Jesus' entire “substance” or “being” is being altered or changed.

Anyway… this is all I need to do to show your entire argument is completely fallacious and without merit. I don't have  to go any further if I don't want to because I've successfully rebutted your argument.    But I don't want to leave it  stand as it is.  I want go deeper with you because I care about you.  And I will go more in-depth when we look at  2Corintians 5:21 below, because it is effectively saying the same thing as Galatians 3:13.  You said that both the “curse”  and “sin” changes or alters Jesus' entire “substance” or “being”.  So we will look at this more when we go over  2Corinthians 5:21.

To sum up so far…  I simply do not see any logical problems.  I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to  name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

As I said before, the law of Identity is iron clad in logic. Unless we understand what words or phrases or terms or title  MEANS to the people USING THEM… we can't communicate rationally. It's that simple.  And the fallacy you've  committed is by using a false definition of the word “curse” which cannot be found anywhere in the dictionary or the  Bible.
————————

Quote

So the very Ideas of both trinity and atonement through the sacrifice of God the son would violate one another as  all of God would be cursed by way of “substance” taking on sin.

I've already dealt with this above.  There are no definitions for the word “curse” in the dictionary that suggests that a  person's entire substance/being/nature is changed or altered… entirely or partially.  Not only that… we are talking  about how the writer in the Bible is using the word “curse”… not you… not me.    And Galatians 3:10-13 explains how  the word “curse” is understood by the writer.  And like the iron clad law of identity in logic suggests, we need to  understand what the word means to Paul… not you… not me… but to Paul because he is the one who USED the word  “curse”.

Quote

You see all attempts of debunking the trinity rely on focusing on the “persons” of God instead of the substance of  God. It would not natter if there were 10,000 persons to the Godhead if the substance were ONE even 1 person would taint  the entire batch.

Neither Galatians nor the dictionary nor wikipedia says that a curse changes or alters the entire “substance” or “being”  of a person.   You are using a false definition of what the word “curse” actually meant to the writer of Galatians… or  even how it is defined in the dictionary.

Also… as I will outline in more detail below when I go over 2Corinthians 5:21… there is very good reason to believe  that Jesus in Galatians is being judged and cursed judicially, as He became our substitute and was cursed of God  for the kind of death He died.  Jesus did not personally sin and He was not being personally cursed.  

———————–

Quote

This is really quite easy to understand from a Christian viewpoint because Christianity focuses on Original Sin  which states that ONE man by Nature can taint all men and therefore this same standard is applied to the Nature of God  whereas a trinitarian is virtually concluding that by Jesus becoming sin and a curse for man that God is made as sinful as  man instead of God maintaining HIS HOLY NATURE which man should aspire to.

Neither Galatians nor the dictionary nor Wikipedia says that a curse changes or alters the entire “substance” or “being”  of a person.   You are using a false definition of what the word “curse” meant to the writer of Galatians.  You are  violating the law of identity in logic by rejecting and/or ignoring how the word “curse” was being used in Galatians and  in the dictionary.  I explained all this in my prior post to you and yet you seem to want to ignore me as much as you seem  to want to ignore the dictionary and Galatians and the Bible.

All right… here is where I want to bring in 2Corinthians 5:21 and this idea of yours that because Jesus became sin for  us, then that must somehow logically mean that God's nature was changed, altered, or tainted.

Here is what 2 Corinthians 5:21 says:

2 Corinthians 5:21 (Amplified Bible)
“For our sake He made Christ virtually to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in and through Him we might become endued  with, viewed as being in, and examples of the righteousness of God, what we ought to be, approved and acceptable and in  right relationship with Him, by His goodness.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 (New King James Version)
“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 (American Standard Version)
“Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

2Corinthians 5:21 (King James Version)
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 (The Message)
How? you ask. In Christ. God put the wrong on him who never did anything wrong, so we could be put right with God.

2Corinthians 5:21 (New Living Translation)
For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin,[a] so that we could be made right with God  through Christ.

What we need to intellectually and honestly do is to try and understand what the words “m
ade to be sin for us”  actually meant to the writer.   Now… you have made the assumption that when Jesus was made to be sin for us, this meant  that God is made as sinful as man.  That is what you wrote.  You also made the assumption that because ONE man by Nature  (Adam) can taint all men… this means that this same standard should be, and is applied to the Nature of God when Jesus  became sin and a curse for man. That is what you also wrote.

So let's look at both of these assumptions of yours in detail…

1)… when Jesus was made to be sin for us, this meant that God is made as sinful as man.

2)… Because ONE man by Nature (Adam) can taint all men… this means that this same standard is applied to the Nature of  God when Jesus became sin and a curse for man.

Let's first look at assumption #2 of yours.  

Romans 5:12 states, “Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed  upon all men, for all have sinned.”  Well…  Jesus was NOT the conception of man… so in Jesus' life, he does not  have the Adamic nature.  Jesus is not tainted by sin.  Sin did not enter into him as it did all humans after Adam.   That  is why the virgin birth is so significant.  This is why every human being… including Muhammad… have sinned because all  men have the Adam nature.  But Jesus never did have this Adam nature.

It was the seed of the woman, not the man, that God said would crush the head of Satan. It was the virgin birth that  guaranteed the sinless nature of Jesus and omitted the fallen adamic nature that would have been passed down through Adam  if Jesus would have had a human father.

So right away, we can see that there is not the same standard being applied to Jesus' nature as is being applied to the  nature of man in general as you asserted. Jesus does not have the adamic nature.  Jesus is sinless and maintains his sinlessness throughout his life on earth.

The second part of assumption #2 deals with sin… which goes hand in hand with assumption #1 of yours.  So we'll deal  with assumption #1 now.

When Jesus was on the cross… and when He was made to be sin for us, does this mean that Jesus is now guilty of having  sin in His life?  Is this what 2corinthians 5:21 is saying?   When Jesus is made to be sin for us, does this mean that God  is made as sinful as man?  Is that what the language implies?

I don't think it does at all… and there are several reasons why.  And we'll go over each one.

————————–

2Corinthians 5:21 says that Jesus became sin for us.  That is what it says.  It does NOT say that Jesus became a  sinner on the cross.  Being made sin for us is NOT THE SAME THING as becoming a sinner.  There is a huge difference  between these two statements which makes all the difference in the world.  This is why language is so important and why  the law of identity is so important and crucial.

Now if this difference is true, then it logically follows that when Jesus became sin for us, God IS NOT MADE AS SINFUL  AS MAN as you maintained in your argument.  If you disagree, then you have to give us evidence which shows that “being  made sin for us” means exactly the same thing as “being a sinner”.  As for me, I'm going to give at least 4 reasons why  they are NOT the same thing.

Okay… how can we show that “being made sin for us” does not mean the same thing as “being a sinner”?  

There are a few ways to show this:

1)… If Jesus becomes a sinner… if Jesus is now a sinner when He was “made sin for us”, then this would mean that His  sacrifice and work on the cross becomes null and void.  Remember, in classical Christianity, the whole point of Jesus  being on the cross and paying for our sins is because HE WAS SINLESS to begin with.  He had to be because a sinner  CANNOT pay our debt.. or pay our ransom… or save us. That is what classical Christianity teaches via the Bible.

I mean, if man's sin CHANGED Jesus into… or MADE Jesus as sinful as man when He was made sin, then Jesus wouldn't be the  perfect sacrifice anymore… and thus He would not have been able to die for us… because a sinful person CANNOT SAVE  HUMANITY.

In order for a person to pay the price for sin's redemption, he must first be sinless (Jn. 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet.  1:19). If Jesus had not been sinless, a savior would have been required to die for Him as well!

2)… We see that Jesus was never punished like a sinner, and so this shows that neither Jesus nor God became a sinner or  became as sinful as man.

What happens to a sinner when they die?  We learn that all sinners receive the SAME punishment.  Well then… if  Jesus is not punished like a sinner would be punished, then this would show that Jesus was NOT a sinner.. and  neither did God become as sinful as man as you maintain.

Think about it, if Jesus had committed just a single sin (became a sinner and as sinful as man) then He would have been a  sinner like the rest of us, and He would have had to receive the same punishment that individual sinners require.  But we  don't see that this happened at all.  So… what happened to Jesus?

The Bible tells us that Jesus was ruthlessly tortured and humiliated, and then He was brutally executed on a cross, and  His body stayed in a tomb for 3 days, and it appears that He may have spent some time in Hades but without suffering, and  then He rose from the dead and spent a period of time on the earth in His glorified body, and then He visibly rose up into  the sky and took His place beside the Father in heaven.  

Notice that none of those things which Jesus experienced after He died will be experienced by any sinners after they die.   This shows that Jesus did not experience the same punishment that sinners deserve, and sinners will not experience what  Jesus experienced.

This demonstrates that when Jesus was “made sin for us”, it can't mean that He became a sinner or that God became as  sinful as man, because we would have expected Jesus to receive the same punishment as a sinner does if Jesus was a sinner.

What does this suggest instead? It suggests that when Jesus became sin for us, God was not punishing Jesus for  being a sinner (because Jesus was not punished like sinners are), but instead, when Jesus was “made sin for us”, God was  punishing sin.  Jesus was made sin, that is He became the representative sin-bearer for the world.  As Bible scholars  sometimes put it, Jesus was made to be sin for us in a substitutional way, but He was never made to be sinful in a  personal way.  This can also be seen in the New Living Translation and in the Message translation.

3)… Is there anything in the Jewish religion and past which can shed some light on what it is meant to “be made sin”?  I  think there is.   I think if we keep in mind the Old Testament backdrop of the concept of substitution, it gives us a  great insight on this topic.

Your assumption #1 and #2 above suggests that when Jesus was made sin for us, this sin somehow tainted Jesus and God and  made God as sinful as man.  In your view, being “made for sin” is the same as being made a sinner.. and that this sin  effected and tainted our nature by changing it and altering it.

But if we use your logic, then when an animal was made sin and then sacrificed by the Priests in the OT, you would want us  to believe that the animal's entire “being”… “substance”… “nature” was altered or changed or tainted.  Well.. how can  that be?  Are you suggesting that the “substance” and “being” of an animal as it is being sacrificed in the OT, changes  into a human being?  If not, then what is the animal being changed into?  Does an animal become a sinner?  Of course
not!  Animals don't sin, only humans sin.

Let's go back for a moment to the OT.   The sacrificial victim (animal) had to be “without defect” (Leviticus 4:3, 23,  32).   A hand would be laid on the unblemished sacrificial animal as a way of symbolizing a transfer of guilt (4:4, 24,  33).   Notice that nowhere in the OT… or NT for that matter… does it say that the sacrificial animal did thereby  actually BECOME sinful by nature during the ceremonial sacrifice; rather, sin was IMPUTED to the animal and  the animal acted as a sacrificial substitute.  It was a symbol of sin/guilt being transferred.

In like manner, Christ the Lamb of God was utterly unblemished (1 Peter 1:19), but our sin was imputed to Him and He was  our sacrificial substitute on the cross. Our sin was symbolically transferred onto Jesus like it was onto the animals  during sacrifice.   Simply because our sin was imputed to Him does not mean He changed in nature.  Christ was not sinful  personally, but instead He was made to be sin substitutionally as the OT concept of animal substitution shows.

Just as the animals were not sinful personally, so neither was Jesus when He was “made sin for us” on the cross.

To me it's obvious that when we use your logic and apply it to substitional animal sacrifice (which was a precursor to  Jesus' own substitional sacrifice on the cross)… it is apparent that your argument makes not sense.  It doesn't make  sense that an animal becomes sinful.  Animals can't sin to begin with.

4)… Even if Jesus literally became sin, and was thereby aliened from God and suffered hell before His rebirth as some  Christians maintain… this could easily refer to Jesus' human nature which was being made sin, not His Divine nature.  After all, it was the human being that caused sin to enter the world in the first place, not God.  So neither God… nor  Jesus' Divine spirit…  needed to be punished because neither sinned in the first place.   It is the human part of  Jesus… representing all humanity… which needed to be punished.

The point here is that “committing” sin and “being” sin are not the same thing.  Jesus never sinned during His life on  earth, and He did not become a sinner on the cross. He paid our ransom by becoming our Substitute.  The Father did  not punish Jesus as a sinner, but instead the Father punished sin itself through Jesus' atoning sacrifice.

To sum up so far… When Jesus became a “curse” for us, it never changed Jesus' entire “substance” or “being” as you  asserted.  You used a completely false idea and definition for the word. Your use and understanding of the word “curse” is  not found in the dictionary nor is it found in the Bible.

You also failed to demonstrate that when Jesus was “made sin for us”, this meant that Jesus became a sinner and that all  of the substance of God had become sin and corrupted.  I showed that the phrase “made sin for us” is not talking about  becoming a sinner. “Committing” sin and “being” sin are not the same thing at all.

Therefore, your entire argument completely fails on a logical level and I see no logical rules being violated and you have  yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

—————————–

Quote

If The trinitarian triune God position is valid it is a proclamation that God is not Holy and incapable of Sin If it is false then yes Jesus as a Man can be made unholy for a short time without affecting the nature of God as it would  simply mean that the innocent has more value then all the guilty and as Jesus would like Job be rewarded after the  suffering it would show that God's mercy would still prevail.

I've already dealt with this above.  Your argument and reasoning does not logically follow from the definitions of the word  “curse” as found in the dictionary or in Galatians. You're argument and reasoning rests on false definitions and false  premises.

Quote

It really has been debunked successfully now the only thing to do is to resist the urge to fight the truth. you  even went on to say…

You never debunked the Trinity or showed that it was illogical because you violated the law of identity and used a  definition of the word “curse” not found in the dictionary or in Galatians. You also completely misunderstood 2Corinthians  5:21 and made the false assumption that “being sin” is the same as “committing sin” without offering any evidence.  You  just asserted your assumption with no attempt to back it up.

I however, have successfully debunked your argument on a purely logical basis by appealing to the dictionary and the Bible  and using reason and common sense.  Now the only thing for you to do is to resist the urge to fight the truth.

Jesus loves you… and so do I… because He does.  Jesus died for your sins… Muhammad did not.  It's a historical fact  that Jesus was crucified… and Christianity says that Jesus voluntarily became crucified for you and I.

Not only have you not done anything to support your position of what “curse” means and what “made sin for us” means… you  have also done nothing to support your position that Jesus was never crucified.  

Quote

Francis BTW… Ice and steam are equal in substance.  It is the form that changed, not the substance.  The substance is “water”  for  both and the form of that “water” is Ice and Steam.  Both ice and steam is water being expressed differently. Asana You are right so if poison taints water it taints all of the substance.

But neither sin nor the curse tainted or changed or altered Jesus' or God's “substance” or “being”.  I went in great  detail for you above on this very point.  Your position that poison taints water is a false analogy with what happened to  Jesus on the cross because you started with a false premise of what “curse” means and what “made sin for us” means.

Quote

Francis God never became tainted.  I've dealt with all of this above.  When Jesus became a man… He was able to be tempted by  sin. Asana You said that Jesus was 100% Man and 100% God are you now saying that Jesus was not 100% God when he was a man? because  that is what you said.

No… this is not what I said. This unfortunately only demonstrates that you did not read my entire post.  I went into  great detail explaining that I believe man is made in 3 parts.  Man… his fleshy part… has a body and a soul.  Man also  has a spirit.  Jesus was also composed of these parts.  Except that Jesus' spirit is God.  His body… his soul… his  human consciousness… were completely human… but His spirit was completely God.

If Jesus' spirit was also completely human, that would have meant that He would have inherited the adamic nature like all  men have.  But Jesus was not born of man… because man had no part in Jesus' virgin birth… He was conceived by the  Spirit of God overshadowing Mary in a way which resulted in Jesus being born of a virgin.

Think about it…
sense we both believe in Jesus' virgin birth, you have to logically ask yourself where did Jesus' “y- chromosome” come from?  The female has only “x-chromosomes” and do not supply the “y-chromosome”.   The fact that we both  agree that Mary was a virgin, and Jesus was a male, then that means His “y-Chromosome” must have come from God (thru a  miracle) and not by man.  This is how Jesus escaped the adamic nature and why Jesus is Divine.

So I never said what you said I said.

I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Quote

Francis Now let's go back to verse 13 — Christ became a curse for us (on our behalf). How did Christ become a curse for us? Paul   answers that Christ became a curse in the way that he died. By dying on a cross, Deuteronomy 21:23 says such a person was  to be considered “cursed by God.” Asana So now you have God cursing God, give this up Francis it is quite silly but I guess trying to get around the inevitable  reality is good for others to see the strain in trying to hold on to a position that is no longer honestly sustainable.

I've already explained all this in even more detail above.  God is not cursing God in Galatians.  If you reread what I  actually wrote… you'll see that I said Christ became a curse in THE WAY THAT HE DIED!  It was the WAY HE DIED  that was considered a curse by God according to Deuteronomy.  Jesus Himself, personally was not being cursed.  

Being a curse for us, as Jesus was, is NOT THE SAME THING AS being personally cursed… just as being made sin for  us is not the same thing as being a sinner.

I see no logical rules being violated and you have yet to name one to demonstrate that the Trinity is illogical.

Give this up Asana… it is quite silly, but I guess trying to get around the inevitable reality that your argument is  logically fallacious is good for others to see the strain  required on your part in trying to hold on to a position that  has never been honestly sustainable.

Your entire argument rests on a fallacious understanding of the word “curse”… and on the fallacious understanding of  what Galatians was saying… and on the fallacious understanding of what 2Corinthians was saying.

All of your premises and definitions have been completely false and that is why your argument is logically fallacious.

I apologize if I am being too blunt or unkind.  It is not intended that way at all.   I have taken a great deal of time  away from my family and other commitments so that I could answer in detail each of your objections.  Instead of enjoying  the labor day weekend fully, I too the time to write to you in great depth.   If I did not care about you…  and if Jesus  was not motivating me to make  this effort and sacrifice for you… I would have given up a long time ago and chalked up  my dialogue with you as a lost cause.  

Quote

Francis Therefore in conclusion… you're actually engaging in a strawman argument by setting up false premises of what the Bible   teaches about the “curse”.  You said that “if One Person of the Triune has an alteration in substance becoming cursed or   sin then the entire substance has changed”.  That is a false premise.  The curse/sin does not alter or change the   substance of Jesus as part of the Trinity. Asana If SIN doesn't alter the substance of Jesus then SIN would not alter the substance of man but if SIN does alter the  substance of Man and Jesus was 100% man and 100% God as I said before you can't call Jesus “God” have him take on Sin and  then deny that SIN changes his substance because that would really be pointless.

All this has also been dealt with in detail above.

Sin doesn't alter or change or taint the substance of Jesus because Jesus wasn't being punished as a sinner.  “Committing”  sin and “being” sin are not the same thing at all.  Your assumption was that it is the same thing, and that was the  fallacy in your argument.

While Sin did effect and taint Man, Jesus was not effected or tainted because Jesus never sinned to begin with.  And when  Jesus became sin, it did not mean that Jesus became a sinner.

When you say: “…you can't call Jesus “God” have him take on Sin and then deny that SIN changes his substance  because that would really be pointless”… you are showing that you have falsely assumed that when Jesus became  Sin, He became a sinner.

If Jesus had become a sinner when He became sin… then His sacrifice on the cross would have been pointless because only  a non-sinner could save humanity.

Quote

I've already wrote on blood atonement but you haven't responded to that post I don't believe. If we are to continue I  would really hope you make a commitment to intellectual and spiritual honesty because this is not about what you can  wiggle out of it is about clarifying what God wants us to know about HIM.

I have not responded to your blood atonement posts yet because I have spent all my time crafting these responses about the  Trinity. I already told you that this topic on the Trinity was sidetracking me and I also told you that I do not have a  whole lot of time.

I also told you that if I see that all this effort I've given on this topic does nothing to change your opinion, then I  will quit and venture onto the topic of the blood atonement.  I also want to try and finish our discussion about whether  Jesus was crucified or not.

Quote

If we are to continue I would really hope you make a commitment to intellectual and spiritual honesty because this  is not about what you can wiggle out of it is about clarifying what God wants us to know about HIM.

Well Asana… I am sorry you feel this way, and I initially wrote a response which was defensive in nature because I felt  wrongly accused and I felt it odd that you would end your post with “Blessings” after your above accusation.  After much  prayer and reflection, I took it out and will let you attack my character all you want. Instead I will let others in here  judge between us as to who has made a commitment to intellectual and spiritual honesty.

Personally I don't mind your attacks because I enjoy going thru your posts one line at a time.  It strengthens me  spiritually and intellectually and I have learned so much about Islam and Muhammad and the Quran and you that I never knew  when I first came in here a few weeks ago.  You have asked very good questions and it forced me to do research and use  reason and ask myself very penetrating questions that challenged my assumptions.

Anyone who can do that is looked upon favorably by me.

So ultimately, this has been an emotionally and intellectually satisfying journey and project for me and I hope we can  have more discussions.  But if you wish to have nothing to do with me anymore, that is completely up to you.

God Bless You…

Respectfully
Francis

[francis]

Amendment:  Here is where I wish I could make changes without having to add these amendments in a new post after I've posted the original post.

Here is what I wrote above:

Quote

1. the expression of a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., befall a person, group, etc. Where in this definition does it say that a “curse” somehow alters or changes the entire “substance” or “being”?  It  doesn't.  It doesn't even use the words “substance” or “being”. Secondly… how does this definition apply to Jesus?  It doesn't.  God did not WISH that misfortune, evil, doom,  etc befall Jesus.  The above definition is talking about an evil person maliciously wishing misfortune, etc.,  will happen  to another person.  A good person/being does NOT wish misfortune on someone else.   Indeed, it was Jesus WHO  VOLUNTARILY became a curse for our sake.  NO ONE… NO ONE… NO ONE… NO ONE… NO ONE… NO ONE WISHED that misfortune, evil, doom, etc would befall Jesus.

It's the last sentence in which I was not being very clear about.  Of course the enemies of Jesus wished misfortune, evil, doom, etc would befall Him.  They tried to kill Jesus after all.

What I was trying to say was that just because someone expresses a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., would befall a person, group, etc., that doesn't mean it will.   If a curse is only an expression using words… then everyone has been cursed.

Saying “I curse you” is just words.  It does not mean anything itself.  Words are harmless in themselves.  The words “I curse you” will not change or alter your entire being or substance.  Like the definition says, it is simply words… an expression of a wish.

Sorry for any confusion

[bodhitharta]

Quote

Therefore, the curse Christianity… and Paul is speaking of is our lack of obedience

Are you saying Christ became disobedient for us? If so that would change his nature

Quote

Instead… scriptures says that Christ as God is immutable (Hebrews 13:8; Malachi 3:6), and cannot change in His divine nature. In Hebrews 1:12 the Father says of Jesus, “You remain the same, and your years will never end.” And so the word “curse” cannot mean that Jesus' entire “substance” or “being” is being altered or changed.

So taking on Sin is not a change of nature when it says he BECAME SIN? If he was not always sin and became SIN that would mean his nature has inherently changed. You spend a great deal of time trying to get around hard facts. If what you are saying had any validity the scriptures would not say that the second time he will appear without sin.

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 9:27-28

If he bears SIN you cannot say that God bears sin and at the same time say that there is no sin in God. GOD IS HOLY and cannot bear sin. Francis STOP PLAYING.

I do enjoy our dialogue but I see so you defying reality so much and it's really not what you should be doing. You will say that death doesn't change substance although you say that Jesus is 100% Man and 100% God even if just the Man died that is changing at least the substance of Jesus who is composed of 100% God and 100% Man but you won't even admit that basic clear and logical fact. You will make sin not sinful a curse not be a curse and almost any mental gymnastic you will perform to justify your view.

The bottom line is if the substance of Jesus did not change how is it you believe that the substance of those who believe will be changed?

I have already debunked the trinity completely if you choose to continue believing it that's your choice, it's disrespectful to the Sovereign nature of God but that may not bother you.

God Bless You!

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 01 2010,21:53)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 01 2010,21:30) Of course the exodus never actually happened, so maybe the numbers are irrelevant. Stuart are you sure it didn't happen?

You can't prove a negative, so there is no relevant answer to your question, however there is no archeological evidence for any such event as the alleged exodus. The “burden of proof” lies on the person making the claim. If you need the exodus myth to be true, it is you who must at least supply evidence. There is no evidence for what is an absurd story if taken literally. It is Jewish people working at a university in Tel Aviv who have done the archeology, so you can hardly say there is any bias at play here.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 08 2010,00:10)

You can't prove a negative,

So anti-baryons, antiproton, antihydrogen, and anti-matter can't be proven.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 08 2010,00:10)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 01 2010,21:53) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 01 2010,21:30) Of course the exodus never actually happened, so maybe the numbers are irrelevant. Stuart are you sure it didn't happen? You can't prove a negative, so there is no relevant answer to your question, however there is no archeological evidence for any such event as the alleged exodus.  The “burden of proof” lies on the person making the claim. If you need the exodus myth to be true, it is you who must at least supply evidence.  There is no evidence for what is an absurd story if taken literally.  It is Jewish people working at a university in Tel Aviv who have done the archeology, so you can hardly say there is any bias at play here. Stuart

I asked you are “YOU” sure it didn't happen and I guess your answer is no and you can't prove it didn't either. You made the claim it did not happen I didn't even make a claim I asked you are “You” sure “YOUR” claim is true.

So, how could you shift the burden to me?

Wouldn't it be better to say that “you don't know if such an event occured”? wouldn't that be the best answer you could have gave?

[bodhitharta]

There were lots of offerings that had nothing to do with atonement, I'm sure you know that, right? But most important of ALL and I want you to really read every word and then reflect:

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.Psalm 40:5-7

God is saying that sin offering's were never required can you deny the very word of God? It doesn't matter if they were offered THEY WERE NEVER REQUIRED have you not read what Jerimiah wrote:

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Jeremiah 7:21-23

Now this is my biblical proof will you not accept it? This is not from the Quran but from the book that you say is the complete truth so what will you say now? Will you bring contradictory verses and if so how can you call these verses I have given to you a lie?

[Ed J]

.
                          quran = Babylon

Rev.18:2: And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen,
is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit,
and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. (Psalm 124:7 – Psalm 125:3)

.

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 08 2010,08:08)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 08 2010,00:10) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 01 2010,21:53) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 01 2010,21:30) Of course the exodus never actually happened, so maybe the numbers are irrelevant. Stuart are you sure it didn't happen? You can't prove a negative, so there is no relevant answer to your question, however there is no archeological evidence for any such event as the alleged exodus.  The “burden of proof” lies on the person making the claim. If you need the exodus myth to be true, it is you who must at least supply evidence.  There is no evidence for what is an absurd story if taken literally.  It is Jewish people working at a university in Tel Aviv who have done the archeology, so you can hardly say there is any bias at play here. Stuart I asked you are “YOU” sure it didn't happen and I guess your answer is no and you can't prove it didn't either. You made the claim it did not happen I didn't even make a claim I asked you are “You” sure “YOUR” claim is true. So, how could you shift the burden to me? Wouldn't it be better to say that “you don't know if such an event occured”? wouldn't that be the best answer you could have gave?

No, the best answer is the one I gave in short form, which lengthens to:

There is no evidence to support your assertion that there was such a thing as the exodus described in the Judeo-christian book of mythology. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you: unless you provide unambiguous evidence, then your assertion is as easily dismissed as it was to make it.

If you don't accept the concept of the burden of proof, then you would find me open to making all sorts of untrue accusations about you and then insisting that you show us they are wrong.

As it happens, all the accusations I have made about you have been supported by the enormous amount of clear evidence available online. I accept the burden of proof, why can't you?

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 08 2010,19:51)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 08 2010,08:08) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 08 2010,00:10) Quote (bodhitharta @ Sep. 01 2010,21:53) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 01 2010,21:30) Of course the exodus never actually happened, so maybe the numbers are irrelevant. Stuart are you sure it didn't happen? You can't prove a negative, so there is no relevant answer to your question, however there is no archeological evidence for any such event as the alleged exodus.  The “burden of proof” lies on the person making the claim. If you need the exodus myth to be true, it is you who must at least supply evidence.  There is no evidence for what is an absurd story if taken literally.  It is Jewish people working at a university in Tel Aviv who have done the archeology, so you can hardly say there is any bias at play here. Stuart I asked you are “YOU” sure it didn't happen and I guess your answer is no and you can't prove it didn't either. You made the claim it did not happen I didn't even make a claim I asked you are “You” sure “YOUR” claim is true. So, how could you shift the burden to me? Wouldn't it be better to say that “you don't know if such an event occured”? wouldn't that be the best answer you could have gave? No, the best answer is the one I gave in short form, which lengthens to: There is no evidence to support your assertion that there was such a thing as the exodus described in the Judeo-christian book of mythology.  Therefore the burden of proof lies with you: unless you provide unambiguous evidence, then your assertion is as easily dismissed as it was to make it. If you don't accept the concept of the burden of proof, then you would find me open to making all sorts of untrue accusations about you and then insisting that you show us they are wrong. As it happens, all the accusations I have made about you have been supported by the enormous amount of clear evidence available online.  I accept the burden of proof, why can't you? Stuart

Hi Stuart,

I provided the evidence for this as well,
but you keep calling evidence your unwilling to accept ambiguous?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Author]

Posts