Is Jesus really God ?

[Asyncritus]

Dear All

This is an extremely important subject being debated in interesting, but disorganised fashion.

I wonder if, in the interests of having a structured discussion, we could organise a proper debate on the subject:

Is There A Scriptural Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity?​

The supporters I would nominate are Cornelius and FrancisdeSales, and the opposers would be Zionwarrior and perhaps one other, and these would be the only permitted contributors.​

There could be a parallel thread for other contributors to comment in, but not to derail.​

Ad hominems and insulting or personal remarks will not be permitted, and repetitions of such should receive a warning from the moderator/s. Two strikes and you're out.​

I am very keen to hear this discussion, as I'm sure others are.​

The word 'scriptural' would exclude the dozens if not hundreds of Early Church Fathers' opinions, and restrict us to the scriptures, which, after all, is the only thing that matters at the end of the day.​

I propose that each side make an initial presentation of their case, to a maximum of 1000 words without interruption, and this be followed by a question and answer session. Each question should be in a single post, taken in turns.​

Replying to each question is compulsory, and no further questions or answers to other questions are permitted until a response is received. 'We/I don't know' is deemed an acceptable answer, if somewhat weakening.​

The debate must be moderated and perhaps one or two of the Forum Moderators may be prepared to so act.​

It would give this vital subject a proper airing, and be of interest to all readers, of whatever persuasion. Who knows, perhaps it may save a brand or two from the burning.​

 

[francisdesales]

Sorry dude, im not here to debate, im here to make a statement, take it or leave it ...
As I said, I have no need to 'debate' or indeed, defend my position.
Why dont you try to ask God to defend his position ;)

Francisdesales statement became inane the second time he stated it ...

When someone posts inaccurate history, and someone TWICE (at least) refutes it with evidence that any unbiased person would accept, one can presume that either you are not interested in truth, just being right, you are obstinate and just like to argue, or you are here just to stir the pot and cause dissent.

In any case, error should be refuted and rejected wherever it is found. By ignoring your correction, your charecter has been weighed and found wanting. Is there really a point in discussing matters such as "Trinity" with someone who won't even listen to historical evidence?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Dear All

This is an extremely important subject being debated in interesting, but disorganised fashion.

I wonder if, in the interests of having a structured discussion, we could organise a proper debate on the subject:

Is There A Scriptural Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity?​

The supporters I would nominate are Cornelius and FrancisdeSales, and the opposers would be Zionwarrior and perhaps one other, and these would be the only permitted contributors.​

There could be a parallel thread for other contributors to comment in, but not to derail.​

Ad hominems and insulting or personal remarks will not be permitted, and repetitions of such should receive a warning from the moderator/s. Two strikes and you're out.​

I am very keen to hear this discussion, as I'm sure others are.​

The word 'scriptural' would exclude the dozens if not hundreds of Early Church Fathers' opinions, and restrict us to the scriptures, which, after all, is the only thing that matters at the end of the day.​

I propose that each side make an initial presentation of their case, to a maximum of 1000 words without interruption, and this be followed by a question and answer session. Each question should be in a single post, taken in turns.​

Replying to each question is compulsory, and no further questions or answers to other questions are permitted until a response is received. 'We/I don't know' is deemed an acceptable answer, if somewhat weakening.​

The debate must be moderated and perhaps one or two of the Forum Moderators may be prepared to so act.​

It would give this vital subject a proper airing, and be of interest to all readers, of whatever persuasion. Who knows, perhaps it may save a brand or two from the burning.​

Asyncritus,

While I am honored that you think I could defend "Trinity" well enough, my last post states why it would be useless to debate the idea with Zionwarrior. The doctrine of the Trinity is profound and requires looking at Scriptures through a particular mindset. Considering that even history is rejected, which is usually pretty black and white, how are we going to advance the topic when Scriptures themselves can be twisted out of the context of how the Church wrote them?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I tend to filter out innane statements.

Yea, it's better to be ignorant of history and just make it up as you go...

 

[francisdesales]

To those here who do believe in the trinity: Do you also believe that those who do NOT believe in the trinity will NOT be saved?

He who rejects the Apostles' teachings rejects Christ.

Go from there...

 

[bibleMAN]

To those here who do believe in the trinity: Do you also believe that those who do NOT believe in the trinity will NOT be saved?

He who rejects the Apostles' teachings rejects Christ.

Go from there...

At John 3:16 the Bible says that those who believe in the Son shall gain everlasting life.

To suggest that people who have honestly studied the Bible in relation to the idea of the trinity and seen that it is not Biblical will not be saved is, in my opinion, absurd.

You say the disciples taught the trinity which is absolutely not true. Have you even read the New Testament? This topic is not addressed which leads me to believe it is a man made idea. And that's before I even start thinking about the history of "tri-gods" in pagan faiths, and the history of how this doctrine got injected into Christianity after Jesus' death.

In my opinion both trinitarians and non-trinitarians will be saved, depending on their faith, repentance and of course how God see's their heart.

 

[francisdesales]

At John 3:16 the Bible says that those who believe in the Son shall gain everlasting life.

They don't believe in Him who reject His Apostles' teachings. Luke 10:16. People can talk the talk about 'me and Jesus', but He simply states that rejecting the Apostles' teachings is a rejection of Jesus. And many will say "Lord, Lord", and Jesus "never knew them"...

To suggest that people who have honestly studied the Bible in relation to the idea of the trinity and seen that it is not Biblical will not be saved is, in my opinion, absurd.

People who "honestly" study the Bible and reject Trinity have not "honestly studied" the Bible from the Apostles' point of view. They look at things from THEIR OWN point of view. They accept Jesus on THEIR OWN terms. This is not an act of faith, Bibleman. Faith leads to understanding. Jesus desires a faithful response to Him and to His teachings. The Pharisees had their own opinions on interpreting Scriptures. They were rejecting what the Apostles taught as well. When one rejects what the Apostles teaching, it is not an act of faith in the Word, but an act of relying on one's own understanding.

You say the disciples taught the trinity which is absolutely not true. Have you even read the New Testament? This topic is not addressed which leads me to believe it is a man made idea.

False. Yes. Wrong.

And that's before I even start thinking about the history of "tri-gods" in pagan faiths, and the history of how this doctrine got injected into Christianity after Jesus' death.

"Tri-gods"? Ever hear of Mithraism? We can compare Christianity to it, as well. Are you ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater just to prove your own point of view that rejects what the Church has taught for so long? Just because their are some surface similarities does not mean one came from the other.

In my opinion both trinitarians and non-trinitarians will be saved, depending on their faith, repentance and of course how God see's their heart.

That may be true, but that is not what you asked. You asked about rejecting the teachings of the Apostles, not about being ignorant about them. I think a person who knows the doctrine of the Trinity, is familiar with it, sees the Biblical proofs and the Church's teachings of it, and still rejects it, is rejecting Christ. There is no faith in Christ and His presence within the Body.

The faith is in one's own personal exegesis of Scriptures... That is not a faith that saves.

Regards

 

[bibleMAN]

Nowhere in the Bible is the trinity taught. That is a fact and everyone knows it.

And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Jesus said here that noone except God is good.

I know, I know, you really want to tell me "What Jesus really meant" according to your view of the trinity..

I only hear what Jesus said though. He respect the Father in a way that was higher then himself, and he did this many times.

Jesus prayed this to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane:

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
Luke 22:39-46

Here Jesus shows that his will is DIFFERENT to that of The Father's, yet he shows extreme respect and love for The Father by saying "yet not my will, but yours be done."

Jesus' was in intense anguish (as you can imagine. He was about to be crucified) and his will was for the cup to be taken, but God's will was for Jesus to go through with the sacrifice.

This shows that the Father and the Son at this time had different wills...

I know, I know, you want to tell me "what Jesus really meant" or that "Jesus was in a less perfect form" etc but is the Bible says that?. Or is man?

I see God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as a super close knit team. I see them kind of like how I see Arsenal.. they are ONE team.. but they are individuals. And in this case, the Father is the greatest, for Jesus said: 'for the Father is greater then I" John 14:28 I see them as close as possible, but NOT as one exact same essence.

This is what the Bible says. I would happily change my beliefs if the evidence was there, or if someone showed me that these scriptures are somehow not true or so totally out of context that they mean the opposite of what they do on the surface.

 

[Drew]

Sorry dude, im not here to debate, im here to make a statement, take it or leave it ...
As I said, I have no need to 'debate' or indeed, defend my position.

This is not a very good strategy, I suggest, if you want to advocate for your position. Any reader who has been following this thread will know that you tend to make bare assertions (not necessarily always, but often), which are then effectively countered by actual arguments.

In addition, you simply ignore a number of clear, detailed arguments that support the Trinity. Surely you understand that any objective reader will be asking themselves the following question: "If ZW is correct, why is s/he unable, or unwilling to respond to arguments that challenge his position?"

The sophisticated reader is not here to be simply "told" what to believe - they want to know the underlying reasons. So I suggest you need to actually address a number of posts, which you have hitherto let pass, which clearly argue that Jesus sees Himself as the very embodiment of Israel's God.

The posts in question are these: 121, 122, 140, and 144. I look forward to your explanation as to how these posts do not argue for the divinity of Jesus.

Why dont you try to ask God to defend his position ;)

This statement, of course, simply begs the very question at issue.

 

[Drew]

Far weaker in your mind perhaps, but luckily we don't all think as you do. Our position is strong because it comes directly from Gods word. And we take God at his word and don't try to read more into it than what was intended.

"The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view." Albert Einstein

Obviously begs the question - you cannot, legitimately anyway, simply "declare" that your position is correct, especially in the presence of a number of counter-arguments that you simply have ignored.

 

[Drew]

To those here who do believe in the trinity: Do you also believe that those who do NOT believe in the trinity will NOT be saved?

That's a good question. I have not thought about this, but I am inclined to suggest that a person would not lose their place in God's family by not believing in the Trinity. However, we know from Romans 8, if not elsewhere, that it is the Holy Spirit that works in the believer in order that the person may be ultimately saved. I am not sure I see how a person who does not believe in the reality of the Holy Spirit can be involved in that ultimately salvific process.

 

[Drew]

Nowhere in the Bible is the trinity taught. That is a fact and everyone knows it.

Like others, you simply have not engaged a number of posts that argue for the Trinity. Are you aware of such posts? - you simply dismissed one of them in the past as "human reasoning". I suggest the reader will draw the conclusion that you dismissed this post because you were either unable or unwilling to engage it. Either way, simple refusal to engage counter-arguments speaks rather loudly.

Please read and respond to posts 121, 122, 140, and 144. I look forward to your explanation as to how these posts do not argue for the divinity of Jesus.

Please - we are not fools. The objective readers of this thread will know that a lot of pro-Trinity arguments have been presented which have been either "dismissed" or simply ignored.

 

[bibleMAN]

I didn't read it cos it was far too long. All I was pointing out is that "human reasoning" is responsible for alot of "beliefs" in the Bible. I've listened to people justify homosexuality using scripture by using extensive reasoning to try and twist it into reality.

About the fact that the trinity is not taught in the Bible and how that is a "Fact" I am referring to the trinity being a passive teaching (not explicitly said) as opposed to a direct teaching.

That doesn't necessarily make it any less valid, but because of it's important nature I would have thought it would have been clearly stated and easily attained from a reading of the Bible, rather then needing analysis to finally come to it's conclusion.

I am not sure I see how a person who does not believe in the reality of the Holy Spirit

That's made of straw. No one denied the reality of the Holy Spirit.


God bless

 

[Drew]

I didn't read it cos it was far too long.

Not a good reason. The post is clear. You cannot, if you want to be seen as engaging in responsible debate, simply ignore arguments against your position.

IAll I was pointing out is that "human reasoning" is responsible for alot of "beliefs" in the Bible. I've listened to people justify homosexuality using scripture by using extensive reasoning to try and twist it into reality.

An invalid argument as I believe I have already argued in detail. You are no more, or no less, a "human reasoner" than I am. When people deploy this fallacious "it is human reasoning" argument, it is really a way of saying "My reasoning tells me something other than your reasoning, and since I am either unable, or unwilling, to find the errors in your reasoning, I will play the "human reasoning card".

Everyone's point of view is someone's point of view. we need to get rid of this "your position is based on human reasoning" line of thinking. Bibleman, what is your position based on, if not human reasoning? Do you not read the Bible? Do you not process its content using, yes, your brain? So how is it that you can critique other people for doing exactly what you do?

Please address the specified posts - they are clear arguments for the divinity of Jesus. If you do not engage them, the reader will most assuredly draw the conclusion that you can find no errors in them. After all, it appears you are motivated to argue against the Trinitarian position. And now a lot of pro-Trinitarian material is now on the table for you to critique.

Please have at it.

 

[savedbygrace57]

More scripture indicating the Deity of Christ and why !

For we should not believe for a moment that an finite being would be joined with the Almighty and called the Temple and Light of Heaven as per rev 21:

22And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

Remember Jesus words jn 10:

30I and my Father are one.

23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.​

 

[Drew]

About the fact that the trinity is not taught in the Bible and how that is a "Fact" I am referring to the trinity being a passive teaching (not explicitly said) as opposed to a direct teaching.

Well I would agree - there is no specific declarative statement in the Bible expressing the content of what has become the doctrine of the Trinity.

That doesn't necessarily make it any less valid, but because of it's important nature I would have thought it would have been clearly stated and easily attained from a reading of the Bible, rather then needing analysis to finally come to it's conclusion.

I understand what you are saying, but I see no reason to expect that the Bible would be expressed in the form of a set of doctrinal statements. While there are indeed such statements here and there, the Bible is really more of a narrative story. And it is by honouring this story, I suggest, that we come to understand that Jesus takes up the role of God in implementing the promised return of YHWH to Zion.

 

[Drew]

Remember Jesus words jn 10:

30I and my Father are one.​

​

To be fair to those who deny the Trinity, I have heard a qualified Bible scholar who I greatly respect suggest that this particular phrase is not good evidence for Jesus' divinity. In fact, if this scholar knows his Jewish history (and I think that he probably does), such a statement could be made by any "regular human being" who felt that s/he was "one in purpose" with God. So, on such a view, this "I and the Father are One" statement is not necessarily a claim to divinity.

 

[zionwarrior]

When someone posts inaccurate history, and someone TWICE (at least) refutes it with evidence that any unbiased person would accept, one can presume that either you are not interested in truth, just being right, you are obstinate and just like to argue, or you are here just to stir the pot and cause dissent.

In any case, error should be refuted and rejected wherever it is found. By ignoring your correction, your charecter has been weighed and found wanting. Is there really a point in discussing matters such as "Trinity" with someone who won't even listen to historical evidence?

Regards

back at you brother ...

Is there really a point in discussing matters such as "Trinity" with someone who won't even listen to the word of God?

 

[zionwarrior]

I do agree with Asyncritus, there is absolutely no structure to the discussions here.

I am a teacher, and I understand the psychology and pedagogy behind effective learning.

As we learn, we alter the way we perceive our environment, the way we interpret the incoming stimuli, and therefore the way we interact, or behave.

Francisdesales has already stated "The doctrine of the Trinity is profound and requires looking at Scriptures through a particular mindset."

He and others have demonstraited they are only prepared to debate from their given 'mindset' and while I may have begun with an open mind, my mind has now become closed due to my perception of the combative environment.

 

[zionwarrior]

This kind of environment is the very reason I became involved with Access Christianity.com

Because the team there are experienced in a whole range of areas including communication, and mediating these kinds of discussions. Unfortunately it is yet to take off because, I believe, people are fearfull of such a structured environment.