• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Discussion with logic man on the nature of Jesus Christ

Notice, John was clear.....

Which scripture, which verse.

John is Clear. John 17:3

3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
 
I think I did but you didn't want to accept the implication. It's the doctrinal Christians who are destroying the clear gospel message of hope, and supplementing it with useless and arcane theology, which only weakens the Christian witness.

The message of God's transformation love, as expressed through his willingness to let his only son die to prove it, resonates through the centuries and is told on streetcorners today. It changes people.

The obscure incoherent arguments about trinities and original sin only make Christianity appear odd and soulless. That's why traditional Christianity is on the wane. Nobody, I mean nobody, has ever been transformed by the doctrinal story about God being three persons, but different yet one, which you have to believe and profess to be "saved" even if it's impossible to understand. It's the church of the four-sided triangle. In contrast, hundreds of millions have been transformed by the simple narrative of the gospel, embodied in John 3:16.

Mind you, it's clear to me Jesus is divine, though the implications of that are profound and can't be reduced to trinities, much less some empty creed. But be that as it may, that's not the gospel narrative and that's the one that counts. Not what you or I think about God's essence.

____

I see, I thought you were making the argument that Jesus was refering to the divine name, in saying "I AM."
But yes, Jesus was saying that he existed in some form prior to abraham.

Show me the scripture in revelation so I can respond to the actual scripture, it can get tricky because there are 3 greek words sometimes translated "worship" the most common one is proskuneu, which is used for King David, Angels and others, put show the the specific verse so I know what you're talking about.

As far as the rich man, here is the text in Mark. (similar wording in Luke)
17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Matthew
16 Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.

If he was talking about himself he would have said so, had this been understood as Jesus referring to himself as God, you don't think the rich man would have picked up on it? Obviously he didn't.

Trying to make that text be Jesus talking about himself when he says "why do you call me good, only God is good?" Is stretching it to the point of absurdity.

I've brought both of your responses here.
I appreciate your apparent desire to know the truth. I am of the same bent. As you indicate, we can have our opinions all day long, but the truth will not be shaken. We'd best try to grasp the truth then, as it is the only firm foundation on which to build our lives.
I will give my questions, then arguments, then my opinions.

Question: If Jesus is divine, but not God, what / who is he? Another god? I am not clear on your reasoning here. I agree, even the trinitarian view is a difficult thing for the mind to grasp, so your own idea of what the paradigm is might be equally difficult. Can you take a stab at it?

Arguments:
The scripture in revelation can be found here, although I didn't quote it. It does not say he is worthy of worship. They simply said he is worthy, and then they bowed down and worshiped him. The meaning is I think the same in spite of my misquote.
Revelation 5 NIV

The Lamb and God are sitting together, Jesus at God's right hand, and this is the final statement in the passage:
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”
14The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

There are several other attributes that could lead one to understand that Jesus is God. These are:
Living a sinless life.
The forgiveness of the sin of others. The Jews understood that only God could do this.
Laying down his life and taking it up again. What other created being can do this?

Opinions:
I don't know how you can make such a factual statement that Trinitarian doctrine has saved no person. You can't actually know this. It is clear that it has strongly affected you at some point. Can you talk about that a bit?
Traditional Christianity is a construct of man. Living Christianity is the one true church. Accepting his son, having a personal relationship, and doing the Father's will is what makes up the true church. It is love. It is truth. If Christianity is on the wane, my belief is that this is due to deviation from these basic things. Jesus summed it up as: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind."
Even the recent Biblical series got this simple part wrong when they had Jesus say the most important thing is to love your neighbor as yourself. It was a lie plane and simple. I believe this was an attempt possibly at trying to "make Christianity relevant" (I may be being generous) but in doing so, it destroyed the true Gospel. In my mind this is why the church is suffering. Itching ears....
 
Which scripture, which verse.

John is Clear. John 17:3

3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

1 God, 3 persons, Father, Son, Spirit. John Chapter 1, if you would read my posts, was very clear that Jesus is in fact God. The Word was with God, the Word WAS God.
 
I've brought both of your responses here.
I appreciate your apparent desire to know the truth. I am of the same bent. As you indicate, we can have our opinions all day long, but the truth will not be shaken. We'd best try to grasp the truth then, as it is the only firm foundation on which to build our lives.
I will give my questions, then arguments, then my opinions.

Question: If Jesus is divine, but not God, what / who is he? Another god? I am not clear on your reasoning here. I agree, even the trinitarian view is a difficult thing for the mind to grasp, so your own idea of what the paradigm is might be equally difficult. Can you take a stab at it?

He can be a God the same way angels are described as gods, or powerful divine beings. As Jesus quoting Psalms says even Isrealite judges are called gods.

Arguments:
The scripture in revelation can be found here, although I didn't quote it. It does not say he is worthy of worship. They simply said he is worthy, and then they bowed down and worshiped him. The meaning is I think the same in spite of my misquote.
Revelation 5 NIV

The Lamb and God are sitting together, Jesus at God's right hand, and this is the final statement in the passage:
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”
14The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

There are several other attributes that could lead one to understand that Jesus is God. These are:
Living a sinless life.
The forgiveness of the sin of others. The Jews understood that only God could do this.
Laying down his life and taking it up again. What other created being can do this?

Perfect (unlike logic man, you at least make actual arguments yourself using scripture and exegesis).

Now in Revelation 5 notice it doesn't say WHO they worshiped.

Also notice verse 9, 10 the song they sing.


They sing a new song:

“You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God
saints from every tribe and language and people and nation;
10 you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving[c] our God,
and they will reign on earth.”


clearly the lamb is ransomed FOR GOD (not for the father), and made a kingdom of priests serving OUR GOD (not himself, not the father).

Also why is the priase honor and glory given to Christ? Because Yahweh gave it to him.

Laying down his life and GOD RAISED IT UP, not himself, no where does it say that Jesus raised himself up.

As far as Jesus forgiving sins, of coarse he can, if Yahweh commissions him to. Infact look at the verse in Mark 2

6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.”


Notice he doesn't say "you're right only God has the authority, but I am god." He says that the Son of Man also has authority ... He DISAGREES with them. Why? The forgiveness of Sins happened at the temple, Jesus is the new temple through which God forgives sins, so he has that authority because God gives it to him.

Opinions:
I don't know how you can make such a factual statement that Trinitarian doctrine has saved no person. You can't actually know this. It is clear that it has strongly affected you at some point. Can you talk about that a bit?
Traditional Christianity is a construct of man. Living Christianity is the one true church. Accepting his son, having a personal relationship, and doing the Father's will is what makes up the true church. It is love. It is truth. If Christianity is on the wane, my belief is that this is due to deviation from these basic things. Jesus summed it up as: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind."
Even the recent Biblical series got this simple part wrong when they had Jesus say the most important thing is to love your neighbor as yourself. It was a lie plane and simple. I believe this was an attempt possibly at trying to "make Christianity relevant" (I may be being generous) but in doing so, it destroyed the true Gospel. In my mind this is why the church is suffering. Itching ears....

I agree with you here, theology IS important. The God that Jesus commands us to love, is his God as well, Yahweh.
 
1 God, 3 persons, Father, Son, Spirit. John Chapter 1, if you would read my posts, was very clear that Jesus is in fact God. The Word was with God, the Word WAS God.

I answered that in the OP.

In the begining was the word, and the word was with Ton Theon (the god), and theos (god) was the word. (transliteration.)

This is the ONLY TIME, where in the same context theos is used once with the definate article and once without, why? Because John is talking about 2 distinct beings. The word was with THE GOD, now if he wanted to say the word was that same God he would have said "THE GOD" again, he didn't, the word was "God," a distinction was being made, which makes sence since the word was with the god, how could be also be that same god?

Now if God here means the trinity, then it's saying that the word was with the trinity and was the trinity, which makes no sense, John wouldn't say that. CLEARLY although The word is a divine being, the word is not Yahweh, THE God.

Look at the greek, there is a distinct use of the article in the first theos (theon) and a distinct UNUSE in the second. Using John 1:1 as a trinitarian verse makes no sense in the origional greek.

I mean look at John 3

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.


He didn't say God sent himself, nor did he say the father sent the son.

John 1:1 is NOT a trinitarian verse.
 
I answered that in the OP.

In the begining was the word, and the word was with Ton Theon (the god), and theos (god) was the word. (transliteration.)

This is the ONLY TIME, where in the same context theos is used once with the definate article and once without, why? Because John is talking about 2 distinct beings. The word was with THE GOD, now if he wanted to say the word was that same God he would have said "THE GOD" again, he didn't, the word was "God," a distinction was being made, which makes sence since the word was with the god, how could be also be that same god?

Now if God here means the trinity, then it's saying that the word was with the trinity and was the trinity, which makes no sense, John wouldn't say that. CLEARLY although The word is a divine being, the word is not Yahweh, THE God.

Look at the greek, there is a distinct use of the article in the first theos (theon) and a distinct UNUSE in the second. Using John 1:1 as a trinitarian verse makes no sense in the origional greek.

I mean look at John 3

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.


He didn't say God sent himself, nor did he say the father sent the son.

John 1:1 is NOT a trinitarian verse.

Jesus said the Father and I are one. He also claims to be I AM, who is I AM? You are taking apart pieces that must go together for full understanding in context.
 
Jesus said the Father and I are one. He also claims to be I AM, who is I AM? You are taking apart pieces that must go together for full understanding in context.

Yes, Jesus said I and the father are one, he also said his apostles are one with him, many times.

He says ego eimi, meaning I am the one, the one that was before Abraham, NOT "ego eimi ho on" (or "esomai hos esomai") which is what it says in the Greek Septuagent of Exudus 3 (where Yahweh calls himself I AM), so in that verse he isn't refering to himself as Yahweh, not at all. I'm understanding the whole thing in context.

He was saying ego eimi, not as a title or name, but as in the same way the blind person was. Remember what the dispute was, he was calling himself the son of God. So he was saying "yes, even before I abraham I am he" i.e. the son of God.

Translating it as "I AM" in all caps and without the "he" dispite elsewhere translating it regualrly with the "he" is simply translations assuming the trinity. Ego Eimi, has nothign to do with the Exedus "I AM" statement, and is used elsewhere by other humans.
 
I supported my position, you haven't.

Incorrect. In posts past I documented where Jesus is God, where Jesus is Jehovah, and where Jesus claimed to be God (eigo eimi), and where he is the divine "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament. You attempted to negate the evidences I presented with your own interpretations and rebuttals, but I haven't found those compelling. So thanks for your views, but I'm off for other topics. But I will leave you with what I originally presented in another thread, which you attempted to address.

Jesus Must be Jehovah « The Righter Report
 
Yes, Jesus said I and the father are one, he also said his apostles are one with him, many times.

He says ego eimi, meaning I am the one, the one that was before Abraham, NOT "ego eimi ho on" (or "esomai hos esomai") which is what it says in the Greek Septuagent of Exudus 3 (where Yahweh calls himself I AM), so in that verse he isn't refering to himself as Yahweh, not at all. I'm understanding the whole thing in context.

He was saying ego eimi, not as a title or name, but as in the same way the blind person was. Remember what the dispute was, he was calling himself the son of God. So he was saying "yes, even before I abraham I am he" i.e. the son of God.

Translating it as "I AM" in all caps and without the "he" dispite elsewhere translating it regualrly with the "he" is simply translations assuming the trinity. Ego Eimi, has nothign to do with the Exedus "I AM" statement, and is used elsewhere by other humans.

So then, is Jesus higher than God?
 
Incorrect. In posts past I documented where Jesus is God, where Jesus is Jehovah, and where Jesus claimed to be God (eigo eimi), and where he is the divine "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament. You attempted to negate the evidences I presented with your own interpretations and rebuttals, but I haven't found those compelling. So thanks for your views, but I'm off for other topics. But I will leave you with what I originally presented in another thread, which you attempted to address.

Jesus Must be Jehovah « The Righter Report

Posting a link isn't documenting anything.

I alreayd answered eigo eimi, you havn't shown ANYTHING to show he's the angel of the lord.

I addressed all the stuff, (just posting scriptures without posting the text followe by unbacked up claims), but fair enough.
 
Jesus is often said to be illiterate having not been schooled. But how does that enter in to the lost time that no one knows where he was or what he was doing?
 
Jesus is often said to be illiterate having not been schooled. But how does that enter in to the lost time that no one knows where he was or what he was doing?

Jesus read from the Book of Isaiah (in Hebrew) in the Gospels.

There are a few accounts of his childhood, about him speaking with the pharisees in the Temple. In addition, two of the Gospels begin when Jesus was fully grown. The other two have birth narratives and early family travels.
 
King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Name above ALL names.

God doesn't have a name (or a knowable name), as any orthodox Jew will tell you. The whole point of the tetragrammaton is that it is a way of referring to God without naming him, since when Moses asked God's name he said only "I am that I am" Exodus 3:14.

So this doesn't help you. You've totally ignored the Hebrew Scriptures, which I find is a common trait of literalists when it's convenient to do so.
 
Last edited:
Jesus said the Father and I are one. He also claims to be I AM, who is I AM? You are taking apart pieces that must go together for full understanding in context.

Yep, the Father and Son are one. And thus we must ask what that means. Your assumption that it means the Jesus is the father not only doesn't make sense, but it prevents us from exploring the spiritual meaning of Jesus' saying.

I would note that Jesus also prays that his followers would be one with God, so under your interpretation, Christians are God.

"I in them,and you in me,4 that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me." John 17:23.

By the way there are lots of such passages, expressing the oneness of God and Christians.

So this doesn't help you.
 
God doesn't have a name (or a knowable name), as any orthodox Jew will tell you. The whole point of the tetragrammaton is that it is a way of referring to God without naming him, since when Moses asked God's name he said only "I am that I am" Exodus 3:14.

So this doesn't help you. You've totally ignored the Hebrew Scriptures, which I find is a common trait of literalists when it's convenient to do so.

Elohim
Jehovah
Yahweh

All are names of God. All are in the Hebrew Texts.
 
Yep, the Father and Son are one. And thus we must ask what that means. Your assumption that it means the Jesus is the father not only doesn't make sense, but it prevents us from exploring the spiritual meaning of Jesus' saying.

I would note that Jesus also prays that his followers would be one with God, so under your interpretation, Christians are God.

"I in them,and you in me,4 that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me." John 17:23.

By the way there are lots of such passages, expressing the oneness of God and Christians.

So this doesn't help you.

You are making a ton of assumptions.

Jesus being in us and us in Him refers to the church and his being the bridegroom and the church His bride.

He and the Father are one being in three persons. Genesis said let US make man in OUR own image. 1 being, three persons. Father, Son, Spirit.
 
Elohim
Jehovah
Yahweh

All are names of God. All are in the Hebrew Texts.

Nope, you don't understand how Hebrew is written. Those words do not (and cannot appear) in biblical Hebrew. Do you even know what the tetragrammaton is?

This is another trait of evangelicals who purport to hark back to the "Old Testament". They generally know nothing about Hebrew and the Hebrew scriptures. They get their opinions from poorly educated preachers whose lack of scholarship is appalling.
 
You are making a ton of assumptions.

Jesus being in us and us in Him refers to the church and his being the bridegroom and the church His bride.

He and the Father are one being in three persons. Genesis said let US make man in OUR own image. 1 being, three persons. Father, Son, Spirit.

See, we have interpret the texts. That makes my point. You claiming that the Jesus saying he and God are one proves the Trinity is simply assuming the conclusion. That's a common flaw of evangelical thinking.

Ultimately the texts are utterly ambiguous on Jesus status. They clearly claim he's the Son of God, the Son of Man, and the Messiah. What that means is ambiguous. So it's probably not a good idea for doctrinal Christians to base their entire theology on what is not clear, rather than what is, and make pompous claims that unless you believe in the Trinity you're not a Christian. What a dubious basis for authentic faith.
 
Last edited:
Nope, you don't understand how Hebrew is written. Those words do not (and cannot appear) in biblical Hebrew. Do you even know what the tetragrammaton is?

This is another trait of evangelicals who purport to hark back to the "Old Testament". They generally know nothing about Hebrew and the Hebrew scriptures. They get their opinions from poorly educated preachers whose lack of scholarship is appalling.

Oh really, I guess you don't think Adonai is there either. :roll:
 
See, we have interpret the texts. That makes my point. You claiming that the Jesus saying he and God are one proves the Trinity is simply assuming the conclusion. That's a common flaw of evangelical thinking.

Ultimately the texts are utterly ambiguous on Jesus status. They clearly claim he's the Son of God, the Son of Man, and the Messiah. What that means is ambiguous. So it's probably not a good idea for doctrinal Christians to base their entire theology on what is not clear, rather than what is, and make pompous claims that unless you believe in the Trinity you're not a Christian. What a dubious basis for authentic faith.

They are only ambiguous to those who are blinded by the foolish sense of knowledge. The texts are QUITE clear and it doesn't take a scholar to realize that. You choose not to see and you work hard to make it not fit because you don't want it to.
 
Oh really, I guess you don't think Adonai is there either. :roll:

Actually Adonai just means Lord, and isn't God's name. Orthodox Jews use that term to refer to God.

Honestly, can't you do at least a little reading on this topic before posting? I'm embarrassed for you.
 
Actually Adonai just means Lord, and isn't God's name. Orthodox Jews use that term to refer to God.

Honestly, can't you do at least a little reading on this topic before posting? I'm embarrassed for you.

I've done plenty of reading on the topic, and quite frankly you are wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom