The Atheist Asks

[Rookie]

Another example of the flawed reasoning is shown by “eternally begotten”.

“Abraham begat Isaac”
This means Abraham fathered Isaac who came to be by his mother giving birth to him

Simple, right.

God begat his son.
This would mean God fathered His son who came to be by his mother giving birth to him.

But you would disagree.
You would say, God begat His Son from all eternity.
Now no one can understand.
If eternity has no beginning, then there is no sense to the word begotten. It’s meaningless.

So again, something that makes no sense and is meaningless is supposed to be believed.

In order to keep some sense to the words “father”, “son” and “begotten”. We could look at it this way; God begat His son by causing his mother to become pregnant with a son in the line of Abraham.

There, we have kept the sense and meaning of the words father, son and begotten.
Wouldn’t you think it best to start from something that makes sense and has meaning?

As Free said, If God made sense to you, then He's not really God, because it is by definition, impossible for a fallen finite mind to encapsulate an infinite impenetrable God. You used a human example to explain a Divine miracle, thus stripping away the very miracle and divinity of Christ Jesus.

If God is truly omnipotent, and omniscient (and we as humans aren't) and is limitless, surely His purest state would be unexplainable to the human mind.

 

[LeviR]

As Free said, If God made sense to you, then He's not really God, because it is by definition, impossible for a fallen finite mind to encapsulate an infinite impenetrable God. You used a human example to explain a Divine miracle, thus stripping away the very miracle and divinity of Christ Jesus.

If God is truly omnipotent, and omniscient (and we as humans aren't) and is limitless, surely His purest state would be unexplainable to the human mind.

I don’t buy that for a second.

 

[Rookie]

I don’t buy that for a second.

You can buy it or not buy it if you want, but it doesn't change facts. The atheist can deny God and not want Him to exist all he wants, but doesn't change the fact that God exists bro.

 

[RandyK]

If God existed prior to Creation of the universe I wouldn't know how to describe how He looked at that point, prior to the crreated universe?

 

[LeviR]

You can buy it or not buy it if you want, but it doesn't change facts. The atheist can deny God and not want Him to exist all he wants, but doesn't change the fact that God exists bro.

Saying God is three persons doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said his Father was alone the true God.
Jesus’ God and Father is the only true God. There is no one else, He alone is God.
Anyone can understand that.

 

[Rookie]

Saying God is three persons doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said his Father was alone the true God.
Jesus’ God and Father is the only true God. There is no one else, He alone is God.
Anyone can understand that.

Then Jesus is a blasphemer and a liar when He said he was God. Refusing to believer something uncomprehendable to your or my human mind is an insult to Christ.

 

[LeviR]

Then Jesus is a blasphemer and a liar when He said he was God. Refusing to believer something uncomprehendable to your or my human mind is an insult to Christ.

Just because you don’t understand the context of him being called God doesn’t give you a right to invent something entire new to scripture and something incompatible.

 

[Runningman]

I agree--a good witness in terms of good behavior is mandatory. However, it is God *in the witness* that testifies to others of the truth of God. That is, it requires the supernatural help of God to indwell our works and then speak to others about it.

Proof can be rational, but God is not limited to that. He can give dreams and visions, He can speak audibly to people, He can show people miracles, etc. etc.

Proof is given as God sees fit. And the way He sees fit is sufficient to judge people because He knows what each individual really needs as proof.

That's true. God can speak to people, do miracles, give dreams, and visions. Those are powerful experiences and proofs that may turn a skeptic into a believer. However, the skeptic may still be inclined to dismiss such things or explain them away unless they experience them themselves.

In Scripture, Jesus normally required some faith before a miracle was performed. It's not that God cannot operate without faith, but rather He doesn't typically do it because He won't compromise His standards. The fastest way to get a miracle or have an answered prayer isn't just to say a prayer and go on your way, but rather say your prayer, hear God's reply, acknowledge it, have a conversation, and be grateful. In my experience that has been pleasing to God.

However, for the skeptic approaching prayer from a place of unbelief it seems counterintuitive. One of their thoughts me be "How can I believe in God when He hasn't proved Himself to me?" God sees this differently. God wants people to prove themselves to Him and first.

 

[RandyK]

That's true. God can speak to people, do miracles, give dreams, and visions. Those are powerful experiences and proofs that may turn a skeptic into a believer. However, the skeptic may still be inclined to dismiss such things or explain them away unless they experience them themselves.

In Scripture, Jesus normally required some faith before a miracle was performed. It's not that God cannot operate without faith, but rather He doesn't typically do it because He won't compromise His standards. The fastest way to get a miracle or have an answered prayer isn't just to say a prayer and go on your way, but rather say your prayer, hear God's reply, acknowledge it, have a conversation, and be grateful. In my experience that has been pleasing to God.

However, for the skeptic approaching prayer from a place of unbelief it seems counterintuitive. One of their thoughts me be "How can I believe in God when He hasn't proved Himself to me?" God sees this differently. God wants people to prove themselves to Him and first.

Right, I don't think God wants to reveal Himself much to the disinterested. Why throw yourself at someone? Why make a fool of yourself?

In this case, God can never make a fool of Himself. But He won't disgrace Himself by begging others to believe in Him. He knows when they don't want to know the truth. And to some degree I think He accommodates them.

I just think my point is, God will always give enough of the truth to judge someone eternally. That's the frightening thing. We may want to live in a place of ignorance, complaining about how uncertain everything is. But before God we won't have any excuses like that.

 

[Free]

In fact, the Trinity is necessary precisely due to the fact we are dealing with infinite truths that extend beyond our understanding. God was before the creation we are a part of. We can never understand anything more than Divine revelation extends from some point before creation.

In an instant we then recognize that God is a Person before Creation and simultaneously is the revelation of His Person within Creation--at a minum, 2 Persons of the same Deity. In fact, God can reveal His Person in an innumerable number of ways, indicated by the fact He revealed Himself as a human in Jesus, and also as humans or angels in the form of theophanies in the OT Scriptures.

Clearly, by necessity we see God as more than one Person. It is best understood from our point of view in human terms, as "one substance in 3 Persons." And just one Deity.

We should be careful here. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God was three persons prior to creation. That is, there has never been a “time” when all three divine persons did not exist.

 

[RandyK]

We should be careful here. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God was three persons prior to creation. That is, there has never been a “time” when all three divine persons did not exist.

I don't believe in an Eternal Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit. However, I think all 3 Persons of the Trinity originate from eternity.

I believe that God before Creation is beyond description with the full capacity of God's Word to express God in an infinite number of ways--not just a Trinity.

If you can describe how the Son exists prior to his becoming a man without simply referencing him as God or as God's Word, I will consider that. But I don't believe you can.

My belief is that God's Son is identified as a Person distinct from the Father prior to creation only because in creation they are revealed as such. God is the eternal origin of His revelations. The Word expresses God from eternity in time in a variety of ways, including the Spirit, the Son, theophanies, and numerous revelations of God's spoken Word.

To say that God is limited to a Trinity is beyond what is said in Scriptures and is in fact contrary to the reality, in which God has revealed Himself in theophanies. The *only reason* Jesus is identified as an "Eternal Son" from eternity is because he existed as God's Word, ready to reveal God in the form of man.

Good luck showing me anything different. Usually what I get is an attempt at expressing some orthodox formula, which only wishes to present Jesus as the eternity Deity--something I fully agree with.

Jesus was "with" God in the beginning. In what way was Jesus "with" God? He was with God in the same way God's Word is with Him. God is the origin, and His Word is the expression. They are distinct because one is in eternity, before time, and the other is the eternal God being expressed in time.

How can God be expressed in eternity? From our point of view He can't, because God is infinite and beyond human expression. But we can describe the fact that He was from eternity and had with Him from eternity His Word by which to express Himself in time.

Rest assured, I know this is easily misconstrued. I do believe that all 3 Persons of the Trinity originated from eternity. In my view, all 3 are the eternal God and represent emergent revelations from God depicting His Person in a variety of ways that by definition must be distinguished from the Divine source of these revelations.

And each time an independent Personage of God is revealed, it must necessarily be distinct from another Personage of God that is revealed. See the distinction between theophanies, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and even with the revelation of God as Father.

Each of them by necessity must be distinguished from the Father as the source of the Son and as the source of all other revealed Personages of God. Sounds like a word game, but my reason must have a basis for it--not just conformity to someone's preferred formulation of a creed.

I'm satisfied that I meet the basic requirements of creedal orthodoxy. The Trinity can only be talked about--not fully understood...by definition.

Take care....

 

[Runningman]

I don't believe in an Eternal Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit. However, I think all 3 Persons of the Trinity originate from eternity.

I believe that God before Creation is beyond description with the full capacity of God's Word to express God in an infinite number of ways--not just a Trinity.

If you can describe how the Son exists prior to his becoming a man without simply referencing him as God or as God's Word, I will consider that. But I don't believe you can.

My belief is that God's Son is identified as a Person distinct from the Father prior to creation only because in creation they are revealed as such. God is the eternal origin of His revelations. The Word expresses God from eternity in time in a variety of ways, including the Spirit, the Son, theophanies, and numerous revelations of God's spoken Word.

To say that God is limited to a Trinity is beyond what is said in Scriptures and is in fact contrary to the reality, in which God has revealed Himself in theophanies. The *only reason* Jesus is identified as an "Eternal Son" from eternity is because he existed as God's Word, ready to reveal God in the form of man.

Good luck showing me anything different. Usually what I get is an attempt at expressing some orthodox formula, which only wishes to present Jesus as the eternity Deity--something I fully agree with.

Jesus was "with" God in the beginning. In what way was Jesus "with" God? He was with God in the same way God's Word is with Him. God is the origin, and His Word is the expression. They are distinct because one is in eternity, before time, and the other is the eternal God being expressed in time.

How can God be expressed in eternity? From our point of view He can't, because God is infinite and beyond human expression. But we can describe the fact that He was from eternity and had with Him from eternity His Word by which to express Himself in time.

Rest assured, I know this is easily misconstrued. I do believe that all 3 Persons of the Trinity originated from eternity. In my view, all 3 are the eternal God and represent emergent revelations from God depicting His Person in a variety of ways that by definition must be distinguished from the Divine source of these revelations.

And each time an independent Personage of God is revealed, it must necessarily be distinct from another Personage of God that is revealed. See the distinction between theophanies, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and even with the revelation of God as Father.

Each of them by necessity must be distinguished from the Father as the source of the Son and as the source of all other revealed Personages of God. Sounds like a word game, but my reason must have a basis for it--not just conformity to someone's preferred formulation of a creed.

I'm satisfied that I meet the basic requirements of creedal orthodoxy. The Trinity can only be talked about--not fully understood...by definition.

Take care....

It’s only in our nature to suppose that just because God is all powerful that He must require two, three, or a theophany to accomplish what one seems to be incapable of. However, while God is hypothetically not limited in the number of ways He can reveal Himself, the number of persons He could hypothetically be, the converse is true; God is not limited by being one person.

Perhaps it seems that God may have required the use of surrogates, prophet, or even a divine "Word" that seems to be a different person, but is actually just God's audibly spoken word because God's audibly spoken words can be just as powerful as God is and everywhere at the same and we call Him the holy Father.

 

[RandyK]

It’s only in our nature to suppose that just because God is all powerful that He must require two, three, or a theophany to accomplish what one seems to be incapable of. However, while God is hypothetically not limited in the number of ways He can reveal Himself, the number of persons He could hypothetically be, the converse is true; God is not limited by being one person.

If I understand you correctly your argument is that if God is thought to be able to express Himself in creation in several ways then He should be also able to express Himself without any of those things?

If so, then your argument is illogical. If God does not express Himself within Creation, by the revelation of His Word, we don't even have a way of understanding that He exists at all! But if He does reveal to us His existence, then automatically we already have two revelations of God's Person, the one from whom the revelation comes and the revelation itself of who He is.

Said more correctly, when God reveals who He is within the context of creation, He must simultaneously reveal to us that He is also a Person *before* creation. Here we get at a minimum 2 Persons.

Perhaps it seems that God may have required the use of surrogates, prophet, or even a divine "Word" that seems to be a different person, but is actually just God's audibly spoken word because God's audibly spoken words can be just as powerful as God is and everywhere at the same and we call Him the holy Father.

My argument is that God reveals Himself in so many ways, which includes His verbal expressions, or His Word. That also is a distinct Personage of God expressed in what He says.

Any word that God speaks is a distinct revelation of God, independent of the Holy Spirit who may be appearing in various church services across t he world. This word is distinct from Jesus who sits on the right hand of God in heaven, or when he was on earth ministering to people.

The point is, any place that God reveals Himself, and in any way He reveals Himself, He shows Himself to exist in a plurality of Personages, each of them independent of the other. And that's because God's Word can express God's Person in an unliminated number of ways. This reveals God as many Personages.

Typically we see God only in a Trinity. And that's because those are the most common revelations in the Bible of God's Person. They constitute independent Persons because they show God in different places, which necessitate that each Person relate with the other Person separately.

 

[Runningman]

If I understand you correctly your argument is that if God is thought to be able to express Himself in creation in several ways then He should be also able to express Himself without any of those things?

If so, then your argument is illogical. If God does not express Himself within Creation, by the revelation of His Word, we don't even have a way of understanding that He exists at all! But if He does reveal to us His existence, then automatically we already have two revelations of God's Person, the one from whom the revelation comes and the revelation itself of who He is.

Said more correctly, when God reveals who He is within the context of creation, He must simultaneously reveal to us that He is also a Person *before* creation. Here we get at a minimum 2 Persons.

My argument is that God reveals Himself in so many ways, which includes His verbal expressions, or His Word. That also is a distinct Personage of God expressed in what He says.

Any word that God speaks is a distinct revelation of God, independent of the Holy Spirit who may be appearing in various church services across t he world. This word is distinct from Jesus who sits on the right hand of God in heaven, or when he was on earth ministering to people.

The point is, any place that God reveals Himself, and in any way He reveals Himself, He shows Himself to exist in a plurality of Personages, each of them independent of the other. And that's because God's Word can express God's Person in an unliminated number of ways. This reveals God as many Personages.

Typically we see God only in a Trinity. And that's because those are the most common revelations in the Bible of God's Person. They constitute independent Persons because they show God in different places, which necessitate that each Person relate with the other Person separately.

I am basing my explanation just on what Scripture says so it must be accurate or the Bible may as well be just as illogical. The Bible plainly says in Isaiah 45:5 that YHWH created alone. The Bible plainly says in Genesis 1 and 2 that YHWH created the heavens and the earth. There isn't the slightest hint, peep, or clue about another person there named the Word saying or doing anything. All of the prophets, religious leaders, and Jewish people had no idea who or what the Word is until John wrote about it in John 1. It's just personification of God's words, not actually God, but perhaps a god in a figurative sense.

The Bible repeatedly identifies YHWH as a singular person we call God. There are thousands of examples to list, but I guess some of the plainest ones are Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:1 where YHWH isn't Jesus and Jesus isn't YHWH. Jesus called the Father the only true God in John 17:3.

So believe it or not, yes, YHWH is actually the Father. We can find some 1:1 correlations between the Father and YHWH. One of them is Acts 3:13 and Exodus 3:14,15. Another one is Psalm 2:7 and Acts 13:33. There are many for the Father, but the same can't be said for Jesus.

People try to make God fit who or what they may believe He is and resist who He actually is because the heart of the matter is that more Christians are skeptical about Scripture than they are willing to admit.

 

[RandyK]

I am basing my explanation just on what Scripture says so it must be accurate or the Bible may as well be just as illogical. The Bible plainly says in Isaiah 45:5 that YHWH created alone. The Bible plainly says in Genesis 1 and 2 that YHWH created the heavens and the earth. There isn't the slightest hint, peep, or clue about another person there named the Word saying or doing anything.

It seems you're showing your Unitarian bias. I never said there was a person "named the Word." If you're arguing against an idea I haven't expressed, then you're regurgitating old arguments you've made in the past against others.

All of the prophets, religious leaders, and Jewish people had no idea who or what the Word is until John wrote about it in John 1. It's just personification of God's words, not actually God, but perhaps a god in a figurative sense.

If you truly went by the Bible you wouldn't be saying this. The Bible says that the Word was God--not a "personification" of God.

The Bible repeatedly identifies YHWH as a singular person we call God.

The Bible repeatedly says that God is one. It never says God cannot reveal Himself *within creation!* If so, then there will be, at a minimum, at least 2 personages of God in order to make sense of that. And do we see the Word made flesh, ie Jesus, communicate with God his Father? Yes.

There are thousands of examples to list, but I guess some of the plainest ones are Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:1 where YHWH isn't Jesus and Jesus isn't YHWH. Jesus called the Father the only true God in John 17:3.

What does this have to do with the price of rice? Jesus didn't exist *as Jesus, the man* before he was born! Why state such truisms if they mean nothing?

Of course YHWH isn't Jesus in the OT, before he was born. Jesus preexisted his human form as the Word of God. The Bible says, "the Word became flesh," and that flesh was Jesus.

So believe it or not, yes, YHWH is actually the Father.

The term "Father" only makes sense with respect to the creation of mankind. God, prior to creation, is known either by who He was known as then or by what He is known as now. Doesn't matter.

YHWH is actually also the Son, Jesus. The Word of YHWH became flesh and dwelt among us, ie Jesus, the Son.

We can find some 1:1 correlations between the Father and YHWH. One of them is Acts 3:13 and Exodus 3:14,15. Another one is Psalm 2:7 and Acts 13:33. There are many for the Father, but the same can't be said for Jesus.

See above.

People try to make God fit who or what they may believe He is and resist who He actually is because the heart of the matter is that more Christians are skeptical about Scripture than they are willing to admit.

Seriously? Conservative, Bible-believing Christians generally are very aware of the mutitudes of pathetic liberal theologians and their weak, compromised followers among the people in nominally-Christian churches or among Christians who fish on Sundays.

 

[KV-44-v1]

People try to make God fit who or what they may believe He is and resist who He actually is because the heart of the matter is that more Christians are skeptical about Scripture than they are willing to admit

Yes, like you. you trying to FIT God into your small box!
Yes, you resisted accepting that God is 3 Persons.

God is 3 Persons, mere men are one person.

Yes, you are VERY skeptical of Jesus' Divinity!

Well i dont know your stances today now, they may have changed - the above assumes you are still a unitarian.

 

[KV-44-v1]

illogical

What's illogical is denying Jesus' divinity. Jesus asked if He was good, not if He was God.

If Jesus denied being God, then He absolutely denied being good.

But His question was in no way a denial of His Goodness, so there you go.

 

[miamited]

Hi KV-44-v1

How can God and a "not-God" be One? Answer: No, Unitisim is false. Jesus truly is God

I know this goes waaaay back in the discussion, but I believe it's a point worth making. Jesus said a prayer shortly before his arrest. In that prayer, he claimed to be one with the Father. But in that prayer, he also said that we, the coming believers, would also be one with the Father. So, how are you, obviously a 'not-God' going to be one with the Father?

 

[RandyK]

Hi KV-44-v1

I know this goes waaaay back in the discussion, but I believe it's a point worth making. Jesus said a prayer shortly before his arrest. In that prayer, he claimed to be one with the Father. But in that prayer, he also said that we, the coming believers, would also be one with the Father. So, how are you, obviously a 'not-God' going to be one with the Father?

You're right if you are assuming that we can be "one with God" without *being God.* Jesus' unity with his Father is indicated to be different from how Christians in general are "one with God." Jesus not only inferred that he was the Messiah, but he also inferred that he is the source of human redemption, is sinless, and carries all of the authority of God over all of creation.

The difference, obviously, is that Jesus identified with God's *Person,* whereas Christians in general identify with God's character, or nature. Spiritual unity is one thing, and identification of divine Personhood is another thing.

You have to ask yourself the question: Was Jesus declaring his unity with God to be different than human conformity to God's word in general? Was Jesus declaring himself to be different from all other men? Was he, in other words, declaring himself to be Messiah merely because he, like all other men, obeyed God's word?

Jesus, again, declared himself to be sinless, knowing that all other men were sinners. As a redeemer he had to be sinless and he had to be identified with the *Person* of God. If it wasn't God who was forgiving what is the sense in Jesus dying for sin?

 

[miamited]

Hi RandyK

Jesus not only inferred that he was the Messiah, but he also inferred that he is the source of human redemption, is sinless, and carries all of the authority of God over all of creation.

Yes, I get that Jesus said he was the Messiah. He announced that in the very beginning of his ministry. He stood up before a group in a synagogue and read the words of Isaiah the prophet where Isaiah was telling about the things that the Messiah would be doing and told that crowd that what that passage was speaking of was being fulfilled in that moment in their very hearing. Yes, he did say that his Father had given him all authority over the earth. But none of that has anything to do with this oneness principle that is being discussed here, as far as I can tell.

I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one."

"I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one..."

What Jesus is claimed to have said by John is that "they may be one AS WE ARE ONE. He didn't expound upon how our being one was any different than the oneness relationship between God and the Father. Now, we are all free to take that as we see it, but these are the actual words that Jesus spoke according to many, many, many translators of the Scriptures. Were they wrong? Should there have been some addendum to that oneness to explain that he wasn't really asking the Father to give us the same relationship that he has regarding the oneness that God and Jesus share?

You see, I believe that the oneness that Jesus was speaking about is what we gain when we receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is, in my understanding, all about the Spirit and the oneness that comes from our having the same Spirit as God and Jesus have. And yes, there is no reason that such oneness would be any different between God and Jesus and God and us. because it is the same Spirit.

The Scriptures in the Revelation, tell us that we are co-heirs with Jesus. Co-heirs. What does 'co' mean when attached to a group of people? God and Jesus both want us to live just like Jesus. Yes, our origins are different. God is the Father of Jesus. Jesus proclaimed God to be his Father and God proclaimed Jesus to be His Son. And other than the fact that we come from a different seed, God's desire is that we live like Jesus. Jesus even said that anyone who follows after him must walk as he does. Must live as he does.

The Scriptures also tell us that Jesus is the 'firstborn' from the dead. Hmmm? Wouldn't that mean that there are more coming to be born from the dead? You see, I can strive to be like Jesus, but I can never think to be like God

Was he, in other words, declaring himself to be Messiah merely because he, like all other men, obeyed God's word?

No, the term Messiah means 'anointed one'. Jesus was the anointed one. Yes, absolutely there is a difference in the source and calling of Jesus. But as far as I can tell, the issue of oneness is that we have the same relationship with God that Jesus has with God. And really, "like all other men?" Please name me one man that you can say obeyed God like Jesus. Also, from the Scriptures, as regards mankind, there is no one righteous! (and just in case you might think to offer up your cousin Earl) the Scriptures rather forcefully repeat, "No not one!" Then they continue, "No one who understands. No one who seeks God. They have all together turned away." So I ask again, what other men obeyed God's word like Jesus did? It would seem that you'll need to remind God who that was.

Jesus, again, declared himself to be sinless, knowing that all other men were sinners

Now I'm really curious how you got from the statement that I quoted above that about Messiah merely because he, like all other men, obeyed God's word????? And now you say that Jesus knew that all other men were sinners. How does that work that there are apparently men who obeyed God's word like Jesus did, but all men were sinners?