Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't deny the deity of Jesus. I said reading verses where one word is used three times and seeing the doctrine of the trinity is clearly imagining a mysterious meaning by projecting preconceived ideas onto the text.
Jesus is the express image of the unseen God, not the express image of the unseen Son. Why would someone say "You are the express image of your person" ? Doesn't make sense.
Then we have to start making up phrases like "eternally begotten".
Anyway, I'm not big on trinity debates because it always ends up looking like kindergarten students debating string theory. And when no one can explain it they still threaten hell if you don't accept anyway.
Yeah, and wasn't Micheal Servetus burnt at the stake on account of not professing belief in the trinity? Jeepers!
The Trinity can't be explained for good reasons which is because it isn't explainable. But it's incorrect to claim that since something is beyond explaination means that it therefore doesn't exist or is taught.
Only belief in the correct God will save a person. Who God is what seperates the false beliefs from the true one. The true belief is in the Triune God. And that knowledge is only known by revelation through the Holy Spirit.
Which is why only "blaspheme" against the Holy Spirit is never forgiven.
The trinity can't be explained because it's nonsensical Plato/Greek philosophy. God is not the author of confusion, but, human beings who are trying to make the "truth" palatable to the pagans of their time are.
"Not" vs. "never" and what Jesus said. (And who was he talking to?).......................................
Suppose I am a farmer and I say: "Will NOT plant corn this season nor the following season." And someone then passed on this statement and said: "Ray said that he will NEVER plant corn." Is that an accurate statement of what I said? NO IT ISN'T. Neither is your assertion that "not he has sending off into the age" means "never has forgiveness EVER."
The word "never" does not appear in ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT. I checked three more Greek Interlinear and they all have the word "not." "Never"is a totally different word with a totally different meaning.
Jesus said that "...blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not forgiven NEITHER IN THIS WORLD (age), NEITHER IN THE WORLD (age) TO COME."
The Trinity can't be explained for good reasons which is because it isn't explainable. But it's incorrect to claim that since something is beyond explaination means that it therefore doesn't exist or is taught.
Only belief in the correct God will save a person. Who God is what seperates the false beliefs from the true one. The true belief is in the Triune God. And that knowledge is only known by revelation through the Holy Spirit.
The above pretty much sums up my beef with mainstream Christianity. You have to jump through hoops that are impossible to jump through unless you (supposedly) have supernatural revelation which allows you to jump through them. Or else you are damned forever.
I agree that the mysteries of God are only understood by supernatural revelation, but to imply eternal damnation awaits those who don't understand the trinity is beyond absurd. And ridiculous.
The trinity (as taught by the Christian religion) is at best ambiguous in the bible, so clearly saying this (correct understanding of the trinity) is what separates the saved from the damned is nuts (IMO).
The above pretty much sums up my beef with mainstream Christianity. You have to jump through hoops that are impossible to jump through unless you (supposedly) have supernatural revelation which allows you to jump through them. Or else you are damned forever.
I agree that the mysteries of God are only understood by supernatural revelation, but to imply eternal damnation awaits those who don't understand the trinity is beyond absurd. And ridiculous.
The trinity (as taught by the Christian religion) is at best ambiguous in the bible, so clearly saying this (correct understanding of the trinity) is what separates the saved from the damned is nuts (IMO).
I'm not aware of any religion that wants to protray itself as legit who doesn't have finite definition of who their god is. Be that Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Mormon, JW's, Greek methology, athesists, Satanists ect.
Yet when it comes to Christianity .. some want God to be ambiguous. Why is it ok for false religions to insist on specificity but Christianity ...that is what is absurd.
The God of Christianity is Triune.
IMO why some insist otherwise is because they have convinced themself that they are when in fact they're not ... Christian. So instead changing from unbelief, they change God and his word. Jesus' baptism is as clear as God makes it.
The Father spoke
The Son came out of the water
The Holy Spirit descended
I'm not aware of any religion that wants to protray itself as legit who doesn't have finite definition of who their god is. Be that Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Mormon, JW's, Greek methology, athesists, Satanists ect.
Yet when it comes to Christianity .. some want God to be ambiguous. Why is it ok for false religions to insist on specificity but Christianity ...that is what is absurd.
The God of Christianity is Triune.
IMO why some insist otherwise is because they have convinced themself that they are when in fact they're not ... Christian. So instead changing from unbelief, they change God and his word. Jesus' baptism is as clear as God makes it.
The Father spoke
The Son came out of the water
The Holy Spirit descended
Well, the God of the universe is one-une and there have always been Unitarian Christians.
Since I was apprehended by Christ Jesus (and not the other way around) I have nothing to convince myself of being or not being. Placing labels for the purpose of inclusion/exclusion is the religionist's job.
As you point out - world religions place a premium on proper dogma. Jesus puts a premium on fruit.
Believe as you wish - my only gripe is those who condemn all who don't follow trinitarian theology.
Yeah, and wasn't Micheal Servetus burnt at the stake on account of not professing belief in the trinity? Jeepers!
Actually, he did profess a belief in the trinity - he simply had a non-orthodox view of the trinity. That and opposing Calvin's infant baptism doctrine were his main two "crimes".
Disciples: "Show us the Father!"
Jesus: "You're looking at 'im!!"
Jesus: "Go and baptize in the (singular) NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
Disciples: "Be baptized in the name of Jesus." (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:5)
And lastly:
Paul: "For Christ sent me not to baptize." (1 Cor. 1:17)
In the book of Acts, Peter the Disciple gives a sermon that appears to reflect the EARLIEST Christian view of Jesus. He says in Acts 2:36:
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Later in the same book (Acts 13:32-33), Paul has this to say:
And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘ You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
Note that the "raised up" refers to Jesus' alleged resurrection mentioned in verse 30. To the early Christians, Jesus becomes the "son of God" after the resurrection. Before that he was a mere man that God empowered to do great things who was killed by the religious leaders in his prime. God thus, vindicates him by raising him from the dead and then giving him an elevated title - son of God.
Did the early Christian stop there? No. It was an easy leap from there to believe that Jesus must have been the son of God even earlier than that. For those, the belief was that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism. Not surprisingly, the Gospel of Mark, the first Gospel reflect this. In Mark 1:11 at Jesus' baptism, God thunders down the confirmation that Jesus is his son. Here, it does not mean that a "son" in a father participating in a sexual act to bring about a son. "Son," in biblical terms can mean a variety of things, simply one chosen by God to do his will on earth as a type of intermediary. Outside of this, the book of Mark gives no idea that Jesus is more than just a special man, chosen of God at the start of his ministry to be his agent (anointed messiah/son) on earth. There is no Virgin birth or Christians story involved or needed and so Mark begins with Jesus' adult ministry when he is officially anointed as son of God.
The progression moves from there when we get to the later Gospel of Luke, for example. Here Jesus is the son of God at his birth. Luke then goes on to provide an explanation as to how this was possible and the explanation is found in the oft disputed and incredulous story of the "Virgin birth." Jesus comes into existence AT his special birth when the Holy Spirit of God impregnates Mary.
By the time the Gospel of John rolls around years after the appearance of Mark's Gospel, Jesus is regarded as more than just a mere man who is chosen by God to do his bidding. His has no genesis and has always been with God and frankly, is God himself by extrapolation. He THEN comes into the world AS God in human flesh even though john does not tell us how. We are left to assume John is working with the understood version that he was born of a virgin, but actually existed in eternity past.
This view became the standard within later Christianity. Jesus was the preexistent Word of God who became flesh. As we have seen, however, this was apparently not the original view held by the early Christians. The divinity of Jesus was a later Christian invention found only in one Gospel, John.
The above pretty much sums up my beef with mainstream Christianity. You have to jump through hoops that are impossible to jump through unless you (supposedly) have supernatural revelation which allows you to jump through them. Or else you are damned forever.
I agree that the mysteries of God are only understood by supernatural revelation, but to imply eternal damnation awaits those who don't understand the trinity is beyond absurd. And ridiculous.
The trinity (as taught by the Christian religion) is at best ambiguous in the bible, so clearly saying this (correct understanding of the trinity) is what separates the saved from the damned is nuts (IMO).
RESPONSE:
>>I agree that the mysteries of God are only understood by supernatural revelation,<<
In the book of Acts, Peter the Disciple gives a sermon that appears to reflect the EARLIEST Christian view of Jesus. He says in Acts 2:36:
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Later in the same book (Acts 13:32-33), Paul has this to say:
And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘ You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’
Note that the "raised up" refers to Jesus' alleged resurrection mentioned in verse 30. To the early Christians, Jesus becomes the "son of God" after the resurrection. Before that he was a mere man that God empowered to do great things who was killed by the religious leaders in his prime. God thus, vindicates him by raising him from the dead and then giving him an elevated title - son of God.
Did the early Christian stop there? No. It was an easy leap from there to believe that Jesus must have been the son of God even earlier than that. For those, the belief was that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism. Not surprisingly, the Gospel of Mark, the first Gospel reflect this. In Mark 1:11 at Jesus' baptism, God thunders down the confirmation that Jesus is his son. Here, it does not mean that a "son" in a father participating in a sexual act to bring about a son. "Son," in biblical terms can mean a variety of things, simply one chosen by God to do his will on earth as a type of intermediary. Outside of this, the book of Mark gives no idea that Jesus is more than just a special man, chosen of God at the start of his ministry to be his agent (anointed messiah/son) on earth. There is no Virgin birth or Christians story involved or needed and so Mark begins with Jesus' adult ministry when he is officially anointed as son of God.
The progression moves from there when we get to the later Gospel of Luke, for example. Here Jesus is the son of God at his birth. Luke then goes on to provide an explanation as to how this was possible and the explanation is found in the oft disputed and incredulous story of the "Virgin birth." Jesus comes into existence AT his special birth when the Holy Spirit of God impregnates Mary.
By the time the Gospel of John rolls around years after the appearance of Mark's Gospel, Jesus is regarded as more than just a mere man who is chosen by God to do his bidding. His has no genesis and has always been with God and frankly, is God himself by extrapolation. He THEN comes into the world AS God in human flesh even though john does not tell us how. We are left to assume John is working with the understood version that he was born of a virgin, but actually existed in eternity past.
This view became the standard within later Christianity. Jesus was the preexistent Word of God who became flesh. As we have seen, however, this was apparently not the original view held by the early Christians. The divinity of Jesus was a later Christian invention found only in one Gospel, John.
RESPONSE
Yes. I was about 85 AD, as reflected in John's gospel, that Jesus was claimed to be a co-eternal (?) divinity along with God. And it wasn't until about 250 AD that the Trinity idea was introduced.
Although many try to argue that the term "God of God" proves Jesus' divinity, it doesn't.
"The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord:Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.)." (Catholic Encyclopedia, and elsewhere)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
