Jesus is God !

Hilltrot

Well-known member
The highlighted portion is false, as Hebrews has the phrase "only begotten son":
Jesus didn't use it. John did. This is what I meant from the beginning.
As to the rest of what you said, more question begging.
You don't understand what begging the question is.
You're assuming your position is true, and then arguing from that assumption.
Begging the question is using the premise to prove the premise or in other words, using the conclusion to prove the conclusion.

Having a preconception is not "begging the question."

In this case, "the Greek words being in past tense", "the only begotten son being used by John but not Jesus", etc, is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that Jesus likely didn't say the words.

As for the rest of it, you do make good points. One good reason not to quotes other peoples's works. I'll take some time to examine more closely myself.
I don't use the NIV. I use the NKJV because it is closer to the Hebrew/Greek.
That's your belief. I think the TR has significant problems. The history of Erasmus and its creation leaves me to doubt it is the most accurate.
Because you say so?
Why do you keep on saying this when immediately afterwards, I give the explanation? It makes you seem annoying and mean.
They weren't?
No, they weren't. Read the Gospel. By John 3, the disciples did not know all of this and in such great detail.
Context please?
Jesus went out of his way to teach parables about the Kingdom to the crowds while reserving the explanations to his disciples. Why did Jesus do an about-face and tell his enemy - Nicodemus - more than his disciples? It doesn't make much sense.
If you had read the entirety of John 3, you might understand the context of why Jesus would talk to Nicodemus. I recommend you start in verses 1 and 2.
The chapter break is wrong. You need to start on Chapter 2, verse 23.
Wrong book.
Typo. Thank you for pointing it out.:)
So what?

Did you lose focus? The point is that Jesus is using third person in the verse.
Again, so what? The point is that Jesus was using third person in the verse, and in other verses, which gives precedent for John 3:13-21 to also be seen as Jesus speaking in third person.
The point is not that Jesus never spoke in the third person. The point is that, since he usually didn't, and John does add commentary, one has to determine where John commentary is and where Jesus' words are.

But as I mention is another discussion, I'm examining this again after reading Matthew 16:13-14.
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
But it does say that Jesus is God.

You're just covering your eyes because you don't want to see it in the Bible.

Let me ask you this:

What if you're wrong?

What if, despite all the arguments you've brought to this discussion, you find out after you die that Jesus really is God?
The Bible assures that my salvation is not dependent on my stating or knowing that Jesus is the one true God or having the proper trinitarian beliefs - whatever those may be.
Versus, what if you're right?

What if, despite the countless arguments and amount of evidence trinitarians have brought to support the claim that Jesus is God, it turns out that He isn't?
The New Testament and the Bible has made far more sense to me once I was willing to let go of my trinitarian beliefs and examine what the Bible actually said. It's even worse for the trinity if you read the pre-Nicene patristic fathers. If you read about the Nicene Council, the trinity idea becomes an even worse idea.

I was using a trichotomy when speaking with a Calvinist and he responded once with Jesus is ALL GOD and ALL MAN. I started to think a little bit. After that Trump Girl mentions Mary, mother of God. I actually respond against it from a protestant trinitarian view. However, after those two instances, I started looking into it. I wanted to make sure that I had the best understanding in order to properly refute Calvinism and Mariology. What I found was that I was wrong about the trinity and that it was not, in any way, Biblical.

Immediately after I saw that that was the case, I came to this forum to ask others to try to refute me. I was, quite frankly, disappointed but only for a while. So, I stopped posting about it for a while about the Bible, while I reread the Bible and for the first time as Jesus merely human. It made complete sense. I choose an interpretation of the Bible which makes sense, which doesn't require Jesus to have two wills or be eternally begotten.

Discovering the human Jesus has helped me tremendously.
 
Last edited:

Hilltrot

Well-known member
So, in other words, there's very little reason to call into question the veracity of those red letters being Christ's words?
Remember those words you keep on inappropriately telling me, "Because you say so?"

At a certain point, you need to ask that of those like Talmage who is a Calvinist. Do you trust Talmage's Biblical interpretation? If so, why aren't you a Calvinist?

I don't ask you or anyone else to trust me. This is why I gives reasons for what I believe. Did Lon give reasons or name-dropping?
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
You might want to go to the site I’m posting to see the error and false teaching about the Bible project.com. https://thewordlikefire.wordpress.com/2020/04/29/almost-snookered-by-the-bible-project/ scroll down to the warning video it is very informative.
Seriously though. The author is upset that Mackie won't push Anselm's atonement theory. I personally don't believe everything Mackie says and Tim Mackie is fine with that. After all, Tim Mackie is a trinitarian. So, obviously he's pretty majorly wrong with something.

If all you look for is to create dissension, then yes, you can always find someone disagreeing with someone else about something and stoke the flames.
 

Leatherneck

Active member
Seriously though. The author is upset that Mackie won't push Anselm's atonement theory. I personally don't believe everything Mackie says and Tim Mackie is fine with that. After all, Tim Mackie is a trinitarian. So, obviously he's pretty majorly wrong with something.

If all you look for is to create dissension, then yes, you can always find someone disagreeing with someone else about something and stoke the flames.
That is rich will not push what is clearly taught in scripture.
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
That is rich will not push what is clearly taught in scripture.
Taught by Anselm - not scripture. That is why this atonement theory doesn't appear in history until Anselm in the late 11th century. Since Anselm was English, it became predominant among the English and their ancestors. It's in his book, "Why a God-man?", if you want to look it up.
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
Yet, you disagree with this, is that right?
Yes, I do. But I do not disagree with what he is trying to do. In fact, he inspired me down this road. I support the Bible Project and what it's trying to do. The Bible project is there to give enough information to get people to read the books themselves. Tim Mackie doesn't get upset if someone disagrees with him and he has generally been humble enough not to assume that he has to be right on any one issue of the Bible. He simply tries to encourage others to read the Bible.

A lot of times people complain that his videos oversimplify, but once again, he's not trying to tell people what the Bible says as much as he is trying to encourage people to read the Bible and learn for themselves.
 

OZOS

Well-known member
Taught by Anselm - not scripture. That is why this atonement theory doesn't appear in history until Anselm in the late 11th century. Since Anselm was English, it became predominant among the English and their ancestors. It's in his book, "Why a God-man?", if you want to look it up.
The death of Jesus was not an atonement, but a propitiation, and there is a major difference between the two. The former covers sin, the latter takes sin away, once and for all.
 

Leatherneck

Active member
Taught by Anselm - not scripture. That is why this atonement theory doesn't appear in history until Anselm in the late 11th century. Since Anselm was English, it became predominant among the English and their ancestors. It's in his book, "Why a God-man?", if you want to look it up.
You obviously have no clue what propitiation means.
 

Lon

Well-known member
So Lon, you know a little about the Old Testament, right?

What does Israel mean?
Changing the subject? Why does this matter? Anybody with a concordance or a bit of Bible education can either remember or look it up. A better question is 'Why do Arians/Unitarians need to so often do a 'set up' with rationalizations of men?' What is abundantly clear is simply this:
John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "You are the Lord of me, and God of me." Why does ANYTHING else matter? Why not simply believe the scripture? Too simplistic? Okay, fine, but that is exactly what it says. Why WOULDN'T you give God benefit of the doubt with His own conveyances? Why does a mere man want to 'qualify' what God says as if He did not? This never has made any sense to me, in all the years I've wrestled with Arians/Unitarians. It just doesn't add up to anything but rationalizations and "I'm smarter than the rest of you all put together."
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
Changing the subject? Why does this matter?
I didn't change the subject. If you had any clue what Israel meant, you'd know that. Maybe you should read Job as well.
A better question is 'Why do Arians/Unitarians need to so often do a 'set up' with rationalizations of men?'
You've repeatedly demonstrated that you haven't read any church history whatsoever. Otherwise, you'd understand that you are far closer to an Arian belief than I am.
What is abundantly clear is simply this:
John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "You are the Lord of me, and God of me." Why does ANYTHING else matter?
Because context matters and quoting a verse completely out of context does not in any way prove your point. John 10:34, John 20:31

Quoting scripture out of context is an awful hermeneutic.
Why does ANYTHING else matter?
Because God inspired more than one verse in the Bible.
Why not simply believe the scripture?
That's a good question. Well? What's your answer?
Why does a mere man want to 'qualify' what God says as if He did not?
Well, what's your answer?
Too simplistic?
Another good question. Well, what's your answer? Why do you choose the most complex and least likely interpretation?
Okay, fine, but that is exactly what it says. Why WOULDN'T you give God benefit of the doubt with His own conveyances?
Another good question. Well, what's your answer?
This never has made any sense to me
Which is why I suggest you examine the Bible again and open your eyes to the possibility of a simpler explanation. The one that is explicitly stated in the Bible - not the one that had to be forced onto it.

Jesus is human. Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah. Jesus died. God raise him from the dead. Is this not all explicitly and repeatedly said in the Bible? Start with that.
in all the years I've wrestled with Arians/Unitarians.
You really don't know what an Arian is. I suggest you study church history with open eyes.
It just doesn't add up to anything but rationalizations and "I'm smarter than the rest of you all put together."
The opposite is true. I had to humble myself to come to the realization that I had been wrong for quite some time.
 
Top