A case for the Trinity

[Drew]

Explain divinity please, thanks.

When I assert that Jesus is "divine", I am asserting that He is God in terms of His essence. He is as much "God" as the Father even though I agree with you that there is at least a sense in which Jesus sets Himself "positionally" below the Father.

 

[shad]

Explain divinity please, thanks.

When I assert that Jesus is "divine", I am asserting that He is God in terms of His essence. He is as much "God" as the Father even though I agree with you that there is at least a sense in which Jesus sets Himself "positionally" below the Father.

Drew,

Mark 12:29
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Exodus 20- (New International Version)
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.

According to these verses, Jesus is not God.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

Mark 12:29
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Exodus 20- (New International Version)
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.

According to these verses, Jesus is not God.

None of these verses deny that Jesus is God.

If you study the relevant Biblical (and non-Biblical) history, you will learn that the "God is one" idea was a polemic aimed at the pagan gods. In other words, the meaning of statement was never to suggest that there is not "plurality" within the Jewish God. Instead, the "God is one" statement is a way of saying "Our God, the God of Abraham and Isaac, is the real God, and your god is an idol.

The 1 Corinthians text makes no statement at all that denies that Jesus is God in essence.

And, of course, you entirely ignore my set of detailed Biblical arguments that make the case that Jesus is the incarnation of Israel's God.

I am interested - do you not feel any obligation at all to deal with my arguments?

In serious debates, a position is never considered to have been established unless all opposing arguments have been successfully undermined.

You and MM are not even trying to do this in respect to my arguments.

 

[watchman F]

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Exodus 20- (New International Version)
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.

According to these verses, Jesus is not God.

This is not true. According to this verse there is One god the Father. so Jesus cannot be God the Son, but if there are other scriptures such as Philippians 2:6, and 1st Timothy 3:16 that says He is god this verse does not contradict them. It simply helps confirm what i have been saying all along that the deity of Christ is the Father Himself.

 

[shad]

None of these verses deny that Jesus is God.

Where do you see Jesus in those verses?

 

[shad]

You and MM are not even trying to do this in respect to my arguments.

Because you are ignoring the verses I quote.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote Free : "Say that all you like but that is simply not the case. Firstly, the divinity of Christ, properly defined, is central to the doctrine of the Trinity;"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Free and all :

I would like to say first, that the word "divinity" is not even in our bibles. So how can you properly define that which is not in the bible ?

The next thing I would like to point out from a biblical perspective, is that the words "divine" and divination are in the bible.

The only usage of the word divine in the NT is in I Peter 1:3 & 4 and this is the greek word "theios", which means -- "god like". And in these two verses, the Word of God is telling us, that we as Christians are -- god like.

All the other usages are in the OT, always deals with "divination" < Always !

In case you are not knowledgeable with this word "divination" , then let me give you and everyone a brief explanation.

The word divination deals with false seerers, Liar's, false accusers, and false enchanters.

This is dealing with spirituality in the realm of devil spirits, and Faleshoods !

In the OT the Hebrew words are - "qasam" and "nachash" and "qesem" and "miqsam" and they all deal with divination = evil spirits, evil seerers, and falsehoods.

Here is a verse using the Hebrew word "qasam" -- Zechariah 10:2 - "For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners (qasam) have seen a lie, and have told false dreams; they comfort in vain : therefore they went their way as a flock, they were troubled, because there was no shepherd"

So, when someone claims the divinity of Christ, they are either saying that Jesus Christ represents God, by being god like, but not God. Or, they are claiming that Jesus is a divination of falsehoods.

So when one claims that there is a proper definition of the divinity of Jesus , in order that they can claim that Jesus is God, and that this also represents the trinity is some falsehood. They then are claiming the divination of Jesus, or a false Jesus !

No one can claim that the shepherd of the sheep is a divinity, if they are claiming that Jesus is God. This would be a falsehood and a diviniation.

Jesus Christ is divine, as he is the only begotten Son of God. We as Christians, are also divine, as we are sons of God, both with the Spirit of/from God in us. Jesus Christ is the promised seed, and we as Christians are of the promised seed, because we have Christ in us, the hope of glory.

I am sure that Free and others will disagree with me. But if you are going to disagree, at the very least disagree with me with biblical proof, and substantial biblical evidence using scripture, pertaining to your usage of the divinity of Jesus the Christ.

Bless - MM

 

[Drew]

None of these verses deny that Jesus is God.

Where do you see Jesus in those verses?

Not the point.

I am arguing that none of the verses that you posted logically exclude the possibility that there is
a "plurality" of persons within the Jewish concept of "God".

And, even though you have ignored my Daniel 7 argument, if you actually read that chapter, you will see that this idea of plurality is indeed hinted at:

As I looked,
"thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.

Note the plural thrones, with God the Father taking one seat. Do you really suppose that the other seat is not for a divine person, and this person is not Jesus? Did Jesus not quote from Daniel 7 before Caiaphus and set Himself (Jesus) in the role of the son of man figure?

Now, shad, the readers here are not fools! They will know that both you and MM have simply ignored all my detailed arguments that are grounded in the Old Testament and which make the case for Jesus' "God- ness". They will most certainly conclude that the reason these arguments are not engaged is beause you (and MM) can find no error in them.

After all, both of you are clearly motivated to show they are mistaken.

So why are not dealing with these arguments? When you actually do "respond" to my arguments, you ask evasive questions like "So what is the question for me?". You should realize that this is not the point - these are arguments that you need to address, not a set of questions for you to answer.

 

[Drew]

You and MM are not even trying to do this in respect to my arguments.

Because you are ignoring the verses I quote.

Not good enough.

I am indeed engaging many of your texts. Perhaps I have not gotten to them all yet.

Please deal with my arguments.

 

[shad]

After all, both of you are clearly motivated to show they are mistaken.

I have been showing you the mistakes with the verses.

You bring up the verses that not saying Jesus is God, that the God the Father is speaking of. You cannot prove it with the verses. No one else has.

 

[Drew]

I would like to say first, that the word "divinity" is not even in our bibles. So how can you properly define that which is not in the bible ?

Clearly not the point. The word "abortion" is not in the Bible. Does this mean that we cannot conclude the Bible has a certain position on the issue of abortion? Or that this absence of "abortion" from the Bible means we cannot define the word "abortion".

I suggest that you are engaging in an illegitimate "pre-emptive strike" - trying to rule out the possibility of Jesus' "God-ness" on technical grounds, when there are arguments on the table that make precisely this case - that Jesus is the embodimnet of YHWH. And since you cannot, or will not deal with those arguments, you take this other dubious tack.

 

[Drew]

After all, both of you are clearly motivated to show they are mistaken.

I have been showing you the mistakes with the verses.

No shad. This is not how things work in proper debate.

It is not enough to make your own case, you need to specifically engage the arguments of your opponent.

Let's assume that we all believe that the Scripture are inerrant (except MM who "rolls his own", but that's another story). And let's suppose the people buy your arguments against Jesus' divinity. If you do not engage my argunment for Jesus' divinity, those same people will see two sets of valid arguments that reach different conclusions and will conclude the Bible is self-contradictory on this issue.

So you need to engage the content of my arguments directly. As I am doind with yours.

 

[shad]

So you need to engage the content of my arguments directly. As I am doind with yours.

I have been engage in the arguments directly. This is all about whether the trinity is biblical or not. I have been showing the verses that it is flawed. You bring up and I am refuting it. You still cannot bring up the verses to prove Jesus is the God that the Father is speaking of.

So if you can bring up some more I still can refute it because I know what the God is.

 

[Drew]

In case you are not knowledgeable with this word "divination" , then let me give you and everyone a brief explanation.

The word divination deals with false seerers, Liar's, false accusers, and false enchanters.

This is dealing with spirituality in the realm of devil spirits, and Faleshoods !

A complete rabbit trail......

You are basically making this argument:

1. Drew and his ilk claim that Jesus is "divine";

2. The word "divine" in the Bible is used in relation to those who perform divination, and divination is an evil thing, involving the realm of devil spirits;

3. Therefore Drew and his ilk cannot be right in claiming that Jesus is divine since that would amount to a claim that Jesus is involved in such evil;

Please! We are not fools!

The issue is not about the meaning of the word "divine" - the issue is whether it is Biblical to assert that Jesus has the attribute of "God-hood", that is, whether He has the same "God essence" as God the Father.

And this has been demonstrated by multiple arguments that you have simply ignored.

 

[Drew]

So you need to engage the content of my arguments directly. As I am doind with yours.

I have been engage in the arguments directly.

This a patently false statement, shad.

If you had really been engaging my arguments, you would make statements like this:

"When Drew argues that Jesus' statement about being the new temple constitutes a claim on His part of being the vessel in the which the presence of God lives, as per the Old Testament temple, he (Drew) is wrong because of x, y, or z."

What you are doing is saying that other texts, entirely disconnected with my arguments, show that Jesus cannot be "God". That is not an engagement of my argument, it is you providing your own different argument.

 

[shad]

What you are doing is saying that other texts, entirely disconnected with my arguments, show that Jesus cannot be "God". That is not an engagement of my argument, it is you providing your own different argument.

I am connected to the subject, not being directed by your arguments.

 

[Free]

Quote Free : "Say that all you like but that is simply not the case. Firstly, the divinity of Christ, properly defined, is central to the doctrine of the Trinity;"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Free and all :

I would like to say first, that the word "divinity" is not even in our bibles. So how can you properly define that which is not in the bible ?

The next thing I would like to point out from a biblical perspective, is that the words "divine" and divination are in the bible.

The only usage of the word divine in the NT is in I Peter 1:3 & 4 and this is the greek word "theios", which means -- "god like". And in these two verses, the Word of God is telling us, that we as Christians are -- god like.

All the other usages are in the OT, always deals with "divination" < Always !

In case you are not knowledgeable with this word "divination" , then let me give you and everyone a brief explanation.

The word divination deals with false seerers, Liar's, false accusers, and false enchanters.

This is dealing with spirituality in the realm of devil spirits, and Faleshoods !

In the OT the Hebrew words are - "qasam" and "nachash" and "qesem" and "miqsam" and they all deal with divination = evil spirits, evil seerers, and falsehoods.

Here is a verse using the Hebrew word "qasam" -- Zechariah 10:2 - "For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners (qasam) have seen a lie, and have told false dreams; they comfort in vain : therefore they went their way as a flock, they were troubled, because there was no shepherd"

So, when someone claims the divinity of Christ, they are either saying that Jesus Christ represents God, by being god like, but not God. Or, they are claiming that Jesus is a divination of falsehoods.

So when one claims that there is a proper definition of the divinity of Jesus , in order that they can claim that Jesus is God, and that this also represents the trinity is some falsehood. They then are claiming the divination of Jesus, or a false Jesus !

No one can claim that the shepherd of the sheep is a divinity, if they are claiming that Jesus is God. This would be a falsehood and a diviniation.

How about I disagree with you based on the 21st century meaning of "divinity"? This is especially important since, as you stated, "the word 'divinity' is not even in our bibles." The fact remains that it is a real word, with a common usage and has been used appropriately in this discussion:

2 : the quality or state of being divine
3 often capitalized : a divine being: as a : god 1 b (1) : god 2 (2) : goddess

Now, for clarification, "divine" means:

"1 a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> b : being a deity <the divine Savior> c : directed to a deity <divine worship>"

Jesus Christ is divine, as he is the only begotten Son of God. We as Christians, are also divine, as we are sons of God, both with the Spirit of/from God in us. Jesus Christ is the promised seed, and we as Christians are of the promised seed, because we have Christ in us, the hope of glory.

I am sure that Free and others will disagree with me. But if you are going to disagree, at the very least disagree with me with biblical proof, and substantial biblical evidence using scripture, pertaining to your usage of the divinity of Jesus the Christ.

Firstly, be very careful when applying the phrase "son of God" to both Christ and humans. When applied to Jesus it takes on a much more significant meaning, as a cursory glance at the gospels shows.

Secondly, Drew has done nothing but show how "our" usage of divinity as it pertains to Christ is seen in both the OT and NT. Others, such as myself, have given numerous passages which also show that Jesus is just as much God as the Father is God. But as has been pointed out, yourself and shad continually fail to substantially engage the arguments, if you even engage them at all.

What you are doing is saying that other texts, entirely disconnected with my arguments, show that Jesus cannot be "God". That is not an engagement of my argument, it is you providing your own different argument.

I am connected to the subject, not being directed by your arguments.

.
Shad, what Drew is saying is that you are not even attempting to engage his arguments. Providing prooftexts for your position--taken out of context mind you--is not at all the same as responding to his arguments point by point.

 

[shad]

Shad, what Drew is saying is that you are not even attempting to engage his arguments. Providing prooftexts for your position--taken out of context mind you--is not at all the same as responding to his arguments point by point.

I have been refuting all scriptures he brings up. What did I miss? I showed you how it is all within the context of the scriptures I dont know how you can say it is out of context.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote Free : "Say that all you like but that is simply not the case. Firstly, the divinity of Christ, properly defined, is central to the doctrine of the Trinity;"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Free and all :

I would like to say first, that the word "divinity" is not even in our bibles. So how can you properly define that which is not in the bible ?

The next thing I would like to point out from a biblical perspective, is that the words "divine" and divination are in the bible.

The only usage of the word divine in the NT is in I Peter 1:3 & 4 and this is the greek word "theios", which means -- "god like". And in these two verses, the Word of God is telling us, that we as Christians are -- god like.

All the other usages are in the OT, always deals with "divination" < Always !

In case you are not knowledgeable with this word "divination" , then let me give you and everyone a brief explanation.

The word divination deals with false seerers, Liar's, false accusers, and false enchanters.

This is dealing with spirituality in the realm of devil spirits, and Faleshoods !

In the OT the Hebrew words are - "qasam" and "nachash" and "qesem" and "miqsam" and they all deal with divination = evil spirits, evil seerers, and falsehoods.

Here is a verse using the Hebrew word "qasam" -- Zechariah 10:2 - "For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners (qasam) have seen a lie, and have told false dreams; they comfort in vain : therefore they went their way as a flock, they were troubled, because there was no shepherd"

So, when someone claims the divinity of Christ, they are either saying that Jesus Christ represents God, by being god like, but not God. Or, they are claiming that Jesus is a divination of falsehoods.

So when one claims that there is a proper definition of the divinity of Jesus , in order that they can claim that Jesus is God, and that this also represents the trinity is some falsehood. They then are claiming the divination of Jesus, or a false Jesus !

No one can claim that the shepherd of the sheep is a divinity, if they are claiming that Jesus is God. This would be a falsehood and a diviniation.

How about I disagree with you based on the 21st century meaning of "divinity"? This is especially important since, as you stated, "the word 'divinity' is not even in our bibles." The fact remains that it is a real word, with a common usage and has been used appropriately in this discussion:

2 : the quality or state of being divine
3 often capitalized : a divine being: as a : god 1 b (1) : god 2 (2) : goddess

Now, for clarification, "divine" means:

"1 a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> b : being a deity <the divine Savior> c : directed to a deity <divine worship>"

Jesus Christ is divine, as he is the only begotten Son of God. We as Christians, are also divine, as we are sons of God, both with the Spirit of/from God in us. Jesus Christ is the promised seed, and we as Christians are of the promised seed, because we have Christ in us, the hope of glory.

I am sure that Free and others will disagree with me. But if you are going to disagree, at the very least disagree with me with biblical proof, and substantial biblical evidence using scripture, pertaining to your usage of the divinity of Jesus the Christ.

Firstly, be very careful when applying the phrase "son of God" to both Christ and humans. When applied to Jesus it takes on a much more significant meaning, as a cursory glance at the gospels shows.

Secondly, Drew has done nothing but show how "our" usage of divinity as it pertains to Christ is seen in both the OT and NT. Others, such as myself, have given numerous passages which also show that Jesus is just as much God as the Father is God. But as has been pointed out, yourself and shad continually fail to substantially engage the arguments, if you even engage them at all.

What you are doing is saying that other texts, entirely disconnected with my arguments, show that Jesus cannot be "God". That is not an engagement of my argument, it is you providing your own different argument.

I am connected to the subject, not being directed by your arguments.

.
Shad, what Drew is saying is that you are not even attempting to engage his arguments. Providing prooftexts for your position--taken out of context mind you--is not at all the same as responding to his arguments point by point.

Hi Free

You are guilty of the same thing here Free , that you make reference to Shad not attempting to engage argurments.

I did not ask for your opinion, nor did I ask for the 21st century usage of the word divinity. Yet, you ignore the comments I made . I ask you or anyone else for biblical references and the usage of the word "divine" that is used throughout scripture. I laid out their usages and referenced them with quotes from scripture. You now ignore my comments by brushing off anything that I have brought to this conversation ! The same thing you try and reprove others of not doing, of which you are just as guilty of doing the same .

I asked for substantial biblical evidence, using scripture ! Not your opinion !

You and others are using this word "divinity" in error ! You provide no biblical support for your views, yet you make claim that you do. Now that I bring the truth to this board, all you do is brush it off, just as Drew did likewise. You are quick to judge others, while you yourselves feel untouchable. This should put your comments to your shame.

MM

 

[Drew]

What you are doing is saying that other texts, entirely disconnected with my arguments, show that Jesus cannot be "God". That is not an engagement of my argument, it is you providing your own different argument.

I am connected to the subject, not being directed by your arguments.

Then you are not engaging in proper debate.

Under a properly conducted debate, each party must actually engage the arguments of the other party.

I am engaging yours, you are not engaging mine.

You cannot, legitimately anyway, proceed as you are proceeding.

You are of course in good company - MM has hitherto been entirely refusing to engage my arguments.