if one doest accept the trinity then what was jesus?

[francisdesales]

You are confusing Orthodox Judaism with the Judaizing Christians. Paul was in conflict with the Orthodox Jews about circumcision. The Judaizing Christians in the 2nd 3rd and 4th century AD were against Trinitarianism, Sunday Sabbath, Gnosticism, and the authority of the pope.[/size][/color]

Paul was in conflict with both, not just with "Orthodox Judaism". Naturally, he went to synagogues where Orthodox Jews were found, for the purpose of conversion, but he also fought stenuously against Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah BUT continued to fully implement ALL of the Torah, to include dietary restrictions and circumcision. THUS, the argument in Romans! Is Paul writing to Christians or to Orthodox Jews??? For another clear example, read carefully the beginning of Acts 15, which gives a more specific clue on who these "agitators" were...

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. Acts 15:1-2

Were these Orthodox Jews? No...

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment. Acts 15:24

Clearly, there were Judaizing Christians in Jerusalem, part of the Christian community who believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, men who thought that a Gentile must obey ALL of the Torah before being part of the People of God. Paul also makes mention of this in Galatians to Peter, calling Peter a hypocrite, despite God's revelation to Peter personally.

As to what the "Judaizing Christians of the 2-4th Century" believed, one would be hard pressed to identify them as you have, especially the last anachronistic remark about the pope. I am pretty well-versed in ancient Christianity and do not recall any such comments from "Judaizing Christians", such as the Ebionites. I would agree that they were not Trinitarian, and it would stand to reason they continued to celebrate the Sabbath on Saturdays, but the papacy, they would have no reason to be uncomfortable with, as the High Priest as an office of authority to bind and loosen was one that they were quite familiar and comfortable with. And of course, the papacy of the 2-4th century was not as developed as it became much later. Thus, I have to say this is an anachronistic statement.

Regards

 

[shad]

lol, shad. name one incident in my service record where i killed anyone.
hmm

But you are willing to do it. What's the difference?. You are with the institution which kills their enemy and trained to kill their enemies. God looks into our heart. The Bible says clearly that if you are with evil doers, you are sharing the same guilt, and you are supporting them. We cannot mock God.

Please talk like an adult instead of evading the point I am making. You are lowing yourself with this kind of comment.

 

[shad]

I will bring up all clear verses so we dont have to rely on scholars and anyone else. You trinitarians are making up your own doctrines by relying on all vague verses. That's why it is all out of context with clear verses. Are you going to open to my claim? or you just argue and insisting how unlearned I am?

I don't think you are "unlearned". Just misguided. Go ahead and post all the verses where Jesus calls the Father, "God", where Jesus prays to God, etc. Trinitarians don't run from these verses, as non-trinitarians run from Jn. 20:28, Col. 2:9, ALL the "I AM" verses, etc. When these verses are presented to non-trinitarians, you cry; "you're misinterpreting the verse", even going so far, as in the case of Jn. 20:28 to say that Thomas is not talking directly to Jesus, but to God, even though the CLEAR WORDS OF SCRIPTURE contradict you. And you can say with a straight face WE misinterpret verses???

Go ahead and post them, my friend.

You sound like you are not open to my point. You are ready to ridicule me. Never mind, I dont like your input because this kind of discussion won't produce any fruit. I am not interested in arguing and insulting.

But I will start my new thread. I am still preparing because I have to gather them up. There are tons of clear verses that don't need scholers' help to understand the Bible.

 

[shad]

BTW Dad,

Misguided and unlearned are the same difference.

 

[watchman F]

For anyone who is interested in a good, quick Greek study,

http://www.aomin.org/GRANVILL.html

2 Peter 1:1--tou theou hemon kai sotaros lesou Christou---is translated "Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"

2 Peter 1:11--tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros lesou Christou--is translated "Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"

Granville Sharp's Rule--Granville Sharp was an abolitionist and biblical Greek scholar in the late 1700's. Many theologians who do not want to accept that Jesus is God have tried to disprove his translations but on a strictly grammatical argument cannot disprove him.

Westtexas

Hi Westtexas :

May I ask you a few simple questions ?

Can God die ?

Is God Spirit ?

Did Jesus Christ die ?

I am sure you do believe as I do, that Jesus Christ indeed did die for our sins. So if Jesus Christ is dead, then who raised him from the dead ?

These are questions I would expect from a 10 year old, not someone that is supposed to be studied.

 

[watchman F]

You sound like you are not open to my point.

18 pages in and you still have no point as dad said all those verses that say that the Father is God, do not say Jesus isn't God and they certainly do not negate all the verses that plainly state that Jesus is indeed God Himself.

 

[watchman F]

BTW Dad,

Misguided and unlearned are the same difference.

Misguided and unlearned are not the same thing. Unlearned is not taught at all. Misguided is taught incorrectly. However in your case you seem to be purposely self misguided which is far worse, because it shows and inability to see truth, and hardness of the heart.

 

[Mysteryman]

For anyone who is interested in a good, quick Greek study,

http://www.aomin.org/GRANVILL.html

2 Peter 1:1--tou theou hemon kai sotaros lesou Christou---is translated "Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"

2 Peter 1:11--tou kuriou hemon kai sotaros lesou Christou--is translated "Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"

Granville Sharp's Rule--Granville Sharp was an abolitionist and biblical Greek scholar in the late 1700's. Many theologians who do not want to accept that Jesus is God have tried to disprove his translations but on a strictly grammatical argument cannot disprove him.

Westtexas

Hi Westtexas :

May I ask you a few simple questions ?

Can God die ?

Is God Spirit ?

Did Jesus Christ die ?

I am sure you do believe as I do, that Jesus Christ indeed did die for our sins. So if Jesus Christ is dead, then who raised him from the dead ?

These are questions I would expect from a 10 year old, not someone that is supposed to be studied.

------------------------

Hi Watchman

If these questions are too difficult for you, then let Westtexas answer them for you. First, these question were not directed towards you. Second, this is an open board, so you could have given it your best.

If not answsering the questions is your best, then I would hate to see your worse effort.

But thanks anyways for your fruitless imput.

 

[watchman F]

Hi Watchman

If these questions are too difficult for you, then let Westtexas answer them for you. First, these question were not directed towards you. Second, this is an open board, so you could have given it your best.

If not answsering the questions is your best, then I would hate to see your worse effort.

But thanks anyways for your fruitless imput.

They are not difficult at all the problem is they are elementary. You seem to be having a hard time grasping things a child can grasp.

God did not die the man Jesus Christ did. Does that negate all the verses that say Jesus is deity? Of course not or else the Bible is false and we need to burn it, and find a new religion.

How could Jesus be God, and yet die without God dying? This is found in the duality of Christ Himself. He had two natures God, and man.

If Jesus was God, and if God is one then why does there seem to be a distinction between the Father and Jesus. Paul seperated them in every epistle he wrote. Look at Romans 1:1-4, I Corinthians 1:3, II Corinthians 1:2-3, Galatians 1:3-4, Ephesians 1:2-3, Philippians 1:2,Colossians 1:2-3, I Thessalonians 1:1, II Thessalonians 1:1-2, I Timothy 1:2, II Timothy 1:1-2, Titus 1:4, Philemon 1:3.

You see Jesus is God, fully God, 1 Timothy 1:1 and Titus 2:13 he was also man, fully man made in every way like unto us. Hebrews 2:17

It was the man Jesus Christ that was born of Mary as the Son of God. He lived as an example to show us how to live. He remained sinless, died for our sins, rose again in a glorified body, ascended to the Father and is now sitting on the right hand of God. References: Romans 1:3-4, II Corinthians 5:16-19, Ephesians 1:20-21, Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:21-22, Timothy 2:5-6,

The man Jesus Christ chose to remain sinless, and died for our sins but it was God the Father who chose to become a man. St. John 1:1-3 & 14, The distinction between Jesus and the Father does not seperate God the Father from God the Son. It does separate Jesus' divinity from his humanity. His humanity was the Son of God and his divinity was God, the Father himself.

The incarnation of God was actual and permanent. The man Jesus Christ will never cease to exist, just as you and I will never cease to exist and He will always be distinguished from the Father.

 

[dadof10]

I will bring up all clear verses so we dont have to rely on scholars and anyone else. You trinitarians are making up your own doctrines by relying on all vague verses. That's why it is all out of context with clear verses. Are you going to open to my claim? or you just argue and insisting how unlearned I am?

I don't think you are "unlearned". Just misguided. Go ahead and post all the verses where Jesus calls the Father, "God", where Jesus prays to God, etc. Trinitarians don't run from these verses, as non-trinitarians run from Jn. 20:28, Col. 2:9, ALL the "I AM" verses, etc. When these verses are presented to non-trinitarians, you cry; "you're misinterpreting the verse", even going so far, as in the case of Jn. 20:28 to say that Thomas is not talking directly to Jesus, but to God, even though the CLEAR WORDS OF SCRIPTURE contradict you. And you can say with a straight face WE misinterpret verses???

Go ahead and post them, my friend.

Hi dadof10 :

As usual, these types of conversations don't usually produce any fruit.

If by "these types of conversations" you mean conversations where unsubstantiated accusations are thrown around (i.e. unlearned) to distract from the lack of exegesis of posted verses (i.e. Jn. 20:28), then I agree. If you will objectively look back on the post that lead to the "unlearned" accusation, you will see there was nothing in it that even hints of my calling Shad "unlearned".

The reason why, is because of the contradictions of scripture that are produced by those who make such claims.

No contradictions are present in our arguments. Do I really have to go into the two Natures of Christ yet again?

As the Word of God can not contradict itself, one would have to manipulate the Word in such a way as to make false claims while contradicting other verses of scripture.

"My Lord and my God" can only be interpreted one way. We are not the ones manipulating. There are verses that CLEARLY teach that YHWH is Jesus' God. There are also verses that CLEARLY teach that Jesus is, in some way, YHWH. These are the two FACTS that you must reconcile. To hold one and interpret away the other does damage to the entire NT.

A simple question would be, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ?

Of course.

If you were to say yes, he is the Son of God, then by shear logic, he can not be God. A son "of" is an offspring "of".

A Son of a Being that is outside time can be both. Besides, Jesus is a "son" in the sense that He is ETERNALLY GENERATED by God, not in the sense that He was created.

This is why Jesus Christ is called the only begotten Son of God, as he is the offspring of God Almighty.

It's interesting you use the word "begotten". What zebra begets is zebra, what tree begets is tree, what God begets is God. If you believe that Jesus is begotten, then how can you say He is NOT God?

 

[dadof10]

I will bring up all clear verses so we dont have to rely on scholars and anyone else. You trinitarians are making up your own doctrines by relying on all vague verses. That's why it is all out of context with clear verses. Are you going to open to my claim? or you just argue and insisting how unlearned I am?

I don't think you are "unlearned". Just misguided. Go ahead and post all the verses where Jesus calls the Father, "God", where Jesus prays to God, etc. Trinitarians don't run from these verses, as non-trinitarians run from Jn. 20:28, Col. 2:9, ALL the "I AM" verses, etc. When these verses are presented to non-trinitarians, you cry; "you're misinterpreting the verse", even going so far, as in the case of Jn. 20:28 to say that Thomas is not talking directly to Jesus, but to God, even though the CLEAR WORDS OF SCRIPTURE contradict you. And you can say with a straight face WE misinterpret verses???

Go ahead and post them, my friend.

You sound like you are not open to my point. You are ready to ridicule me. Never mind, I dont like your input because this kind of discussion won't produce any fruit. I am not interested in arguing and insulting.

What point have you made on Jn. 20:28? That's what I asked about. I really don't think you would be this thin-skinned if you actually had a point.

But I will start my new thread. I am still preparing because I have to gather them up. There are tons of clear verses that don't need scholers' help to understand the Bible.

Great. I'll be looking forward to it.

 

[dadof10]

BTW Dad,

Misguided and unlearned are the same difference.

un·learn·ed /?n?l?rn?d for 1, 2, 5; ?n?l?rnd for 3, 4/ Show Spelled[uhn-lur-nid for 1, 2, 5; uhn-lurnd for 3, 4] Show IPA
–adjective
1. not learned; not scholarly or erudite.
2. uneducated; untaught; unschooled; ignorant.
3. not acquired by instruction, study, etc.
4. known without being learned.
5. of or pertaining to uneducated persons.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unlearned


mis·guid·ed /m?s?ga?d?d/ Show Spelled[mis-gahy-did] Show IPA
–adjective

misled; mistaken:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misguided

Not even close. I think you are being misled and are mistaken. I don't think you are uneducated or ignorant.

I truly hope you are not offended by this post, as you seemed to be by the previous one.

 

[Mysteryman]

I will bring up all clear verses so we dont have to rely on scholars and anyone else. You trinitarians are making up your own doctrines by relying on all vague verses. That's why it is all out of context with clear verses. Are you going to open to my claim? or you just argue and insisting how unlearned I am?

I don't think you are "unlearned". Just misguided. Go ahead and post all the verses where Jesus calls the Father, "God", where Jesus prays to God, etc. Trinitarians don't run from these verses, as non-trinitarians run from Jn. 20:28, Col. 2:9, ALL the "I AM" verses, etc. When these verses are presented to non-trinitarians, you cry; "you're misinterpreting the verse", even going so far, as in the case of Jn. 20:28 to say that Thomas is not talking directly to Jesus, but to God, even though the CLEAR WORDS OF SCRIPTURE contradict you. And you can say with a straight face WE misinterpret verses???

Go ahead and post them, my friend.

Hi dadof10 :

As usual, these types of conversations don't usually produce any fruit.

If by "these types of conversations" you mean conversations where unsubstantiated accusations are thrown around (i.e. unlearned) to distract from the lack of exegesis of posted verses (i.e. Jn. 20:28), then I agree. If you will objectively look back on the post that lead to the "unlearned" accusation, you will see there was nothing in it that even hints of my calling Shad "unlearned".

The reason why, is because of the contradictions of scripture that are produced by those who make such claims.

No contradictions are present in our arguments. Do I really have to go into the two Natures of Christ yet again?

As the Word of God can not contradict itself, one would have to manipulate the Word in such a way as to make false claims while contradicting other verses of scripture.

"My Lord and my God" can only be interpreted one way. We are not the ones manipulating. There are verses that CLEARLY teach that YHWH is Jesus' God. There are also verses that CLEARLY teach that Jesus is, in some way, YHWH. These are the two FACTS that you must reconcile. To hold one and interpret away the other does damage to the entire NT.

A simple question would be, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ?

Of course.

If you were to say yes, he is the Son of God, then by shear logic, he can not be God. A son "of" is an offspring "of".

A Son of a Being that is outside time can be both. Besides, Jesus is a "son" in the sense that He is ETERNALLY GENERATED by God, not in the sense that He was created.

This is why Jesus Christ is called the only begotten Son of God, as he is the offspring of God Almighty.

It's interesting you use the word "begotten". What zebra begets is zebra, what tree begets is tree, what God begets is God. If you believe that Jesus is begotten, then how can you say He is NOT God?[/quote]
----------------

Hi

LOL ---- the word "God" is a title, Just as the word "King" is a title. A King does not begat a King !

God is Spirit

God does not begat a god

Apple trees produces apples

A god does not produce a god !

God is Spirit, and Christ is the only begotten of the Father =The Spirit of God. Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God/Father/Spirit.

When Jesus asked Peter, who do you say that I am. You do remember the reply by Peter, and the reply back by Christ ? ?

 

[dadof10]

Why do you have to make up extra qualification for salvation? What is wrong with believing in Jesus that He is our Savior and our Lord? And serve Him with all our heart and soul and strength and mind?

Are you familiar with the Shema? Serve GOD with all of our heart, soul, strength, etc.???

You are again proving my point. Those words from Deuteronomy are reserved for GOD and GOD ALONE! And yet, you apply them to Jesus. Thus, Jesus = God in your mind.

I am serving Jesus with all my might and you are still insisting that I am not a Christian because I dont believe in trinity?

It sounds like you are a trinitarian, you just don't realize it or want to admit it.

Priceless...

 

[ORwarriOR]

I personally think Jesus was a man in the flesh and since he was completely free of sin he was the perfect reflection of God, and messenger of God's will; the son of God. I see him more as a vessel of the holy spirit which worked in perfect synergy with the holy spirit as opposed to most of us who are far from perfect, therefore we can't perfectly reflect the holy spirit. So that said everything Christ said came directly from God since he was in total cooperation with the holy spirit. So yes by that logic I could even admit he was God in the flesh. But the man himself I just have a hard time believing was a God figure but rather a reflection of God. Son of God? Of course. My lord and savior? Would never deny it. But I still see him as a separate entity from God. Rather than "Three in one".

 

[shad]

I personally think Jesus was a man in the flesh and since he was completely free of sin he was the perfect reflection of God, and messenger of God's will; the son of God. I see him more as a vessel of the holy spirit which worked in perfect synergy with the holy spirit as opposed to most of us who are far from perfect, therefore we can't perfectly reflect the holy spirit. So that said everything Christ said came directly from God since he was in total cooperation with the holy spirit. So yes by that logic I could even admit he was God in the flesh. But the man himself I just have a hard time believing was a God figure but rather a reflection of God. Son of God? Of course. My lord and savior? Would never deny it. But I still see him as a separate entity from God. Rather than "Three in one".

I am with you Warrior. :yes

 

[francisdesales]

I personally think Jesus was a man in the flesh and since he was completely free of sin he was the perfect reflection of God, and messenger of God's will; the son of God. I see him more as a vessel of the holy spirit which worked in perfect synergy with the holy spirit as opposed to most of us who are far from perfect, therefore we can't perfectly reflect the holy spirit. So that said everything Christ said came directly from God since he was in total cooperation with the holy spirit. So yes by that logic I could even admit he was God in the flesh. But the man himself I just have a hard time believing was a God figure but rather a reflection of God. Son of God? Of course. My lord and savior? Would never deny it. But I still see him as a separate entity from God. Rather than "Three in one".

What do yo mean, "Jesus is your Lord and Savior", but is a "separate entity from God"??

Are you suggesting Jesus is a demigod or some other such being from the gnostic pleroma? Some sort of demuirge, perhaps?

Why was Jesus named Jesus? Refer to Matthew 1:21... "God saves". Note the connection between "Savior" and "God".

In addition, Matthew also calls Jesus "Emmanuel", "God is with us", when refering to the name of this infant...

Who alone saves, in the Bible?

It is quite interesting on how "Savior" and "God" are coupled together in the Bible - but you do not see that connection?

Regards

 

[shad]

It is quite interesting on how "Savior" and "God" are coupled together in the Bible - but you do not see that connection?

Regards

Of course we see the connection. Jesus is working for God and He is the most faithful One. He is connected to His Father deeply. We are trying to connect with God as deeply as we can like Jesus is connected to Him. Jesus is teaching us how to connect to the Father in the New Testement.

 

[ORwarriOR]

I personally think Jesus was a man in the flesh and since he was completely free of sin he was the perfect reflection of God, and messenger of God's will; the son of God. I see him more as a vessel of the holy spirit which worked in perfect synergy with the holy spirit as opposed to most of us who are far from perfect, therefore we can't perfectly reflect the holy spirit. So that said everything Christ said came directly from God since he was in total cooperation with the holy spirit. So yes by that logic I could even admit he was God in the flesh. But the man himself I just have a hard time believing was a God figure but rather a reflection of God. Son of God? Of course. My lord and savior? Would never deny it. But I still see him as a separate entity from God. Rather than "Three in one".

What do yo mean, "Jesus is your Lord and Savior", but is a "separate entity from God"??

Are you suggesting Jesus is a demigod or some other such being from the gnostic pleroma? Some sort of demuirge, perhaps?

Why was Jesus named Jesus? Refer to Matthew 1:21... "God saves". Note the connection between "Savior" and "God".

In addition, Matthew also calls Jesus "Emmanuel", "God is with us", when refering to the name of this infant...

Who alone saves, in the Bible?

It is quite interesting on how "Savior" and "God" are coupled together in the Bible - but you do not see that connection?

Regards

I don't see him as a demigod. I see him as his most faithful servant. The perfect reflection of God. It makes sense to me because Emmanuel meaning God with us, would also apply since Christ was the perfect vessel of the holy spirit. He is the son of God, he was always even referred to as the son of God. What's the sense of making the distinction of separate entities if they are all the same?

 

[francisdesales]

I don't see him as a demigod. I see him as his most faithful servant. The perfect reflection of God.

Let's expand on what that means. "The perfect reflection of God". What does this mean, to you?

It makes sense to me because Emmanuel meaning God with us, would also apply since Christ was the perfect vessel of the holy spirit. He is the son of God, he was always even referred to as the son of God. What's the sense of making the distinction of separate entities if they are all the same?[/quote]

Yes. God is literally WITH us in Christ...

There is only one God, one Being. That Jesus and the Father are "distinct" is only in origination. The relationship between a Father and Son signifies that they are not the same, since one person cannot have such a relationship. What makes this difficult is that "Person" and "Being" are ordinarily synonymous. With God, we are dealing with Something different, my friend.

Regards