"The Divinity of Christ"

csuguy

Well-known member
Saying it doesn't make it so.

I don't merely say so - its a fact that I have elucidated in some detail already.

Which is somewhat of part of the reason I don't hold to any particular "doctrine," I just recognize that there is one God and He is three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

This is some progress then - you admit that you can't defend the Trinity from scripture. However you insist upon this idea that God is divided into three personages - which you can't establish from scripture either.


Here's the problem:

You're attacking some doctrine that I do not hold to, rather than what I believe, which is that God is triune.

Could you focus more on what I believe, rather than what some doctrine says, in this discussion?

You are moving the goal because you recognize you can't defend the position you took just a post earlier. But changing your position from arguing that the Trinity is biblical to this idea that God is Triune won't help - both are equally unsupported by scripture.


Which I reject.

Which I don't particularly have any feelings for, one way or the other.

Look, I thought I made it clear that I don't agree with everything the catholics say. I just thought it might help you understand my position.

If you reject the Trinity doctrine and recognize that its indefensible, then that is fantastic! Great progress has been made. However, it also undermines your position that it's been the position of the church since the beginning; for you are admitting that by the fourth century the Catholic Church was formulating false Christology. I can't reasonably be sure what you mean by "Trinity" if you use and defend the term, claiming it's a core belief of Christianity since the beginning, and yet you can't point to anything historically that describes what you think is meant by the term.

I agree that "eternally begotten" is not in scripture.

Yet we have Jesus Himself saying that He was with God the Father before the world began, and that He created all things. That means He's not a created being, and has existed since before the creation began.

Not even the angels existed prior to day 2.

"Eternally begotten" is more than simply not being created - it's the idea that Jesus is constantly in a state of being begotten, the Father constantly in a state of begetting the son. Since God is perfect and since - they say - God cannot change, then he could never have not been the Father. Nor could he have at one point begot the Son and the next not be begetting him - for that would mean that God changed in some sense, and thus challenge his perfection. A really dumb argument - but that's the Trinity for you.

As for for John 1, that can be interpreted a number of different ways. For example, one classic approach that Church Fathers have used is to assert that the Word = Wisdom in the Proverbs...


Proverbs 8:22-31 The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,[a]
the first of his acts of old.
23
Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
25
Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth;
26
before he had made the earth with its fields,
or the first of the dust[c] of the world.
27
When he established the heavens, I was there,
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28
when he made firm the skies above,
when he established[d] the fountains of the deep,
29
when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30
then I was beside him, like a master workman;[e]
and I was daily his[f] delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31
rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the sons of men.



It's not hard to see the parallels between what is said of the Word in John and of the Wisdom is Proverbs. An important point here is that Wisdom is said to have been the very first of God's works - before all else, and the foundation through which all else was made.

Personally, I'm inclined to view both the Wisdom of Proverbs and the Word in John as being more poetic than literal. "The word became flesh" = the manifestation of God's Wisdom, his plan for creation since the beginning, in the birth of the man Jesus Christ.

God the Father has always been God the Father, but not because He does not change.

Ok - on what basis then do you claim that God has always been the Father? If there never was a time when the Son was not - then he can't very well have originated from God.


Obviously, we're not talking about people. We're talking about the idea that God is three "Persons." (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) Please address THAT, and not this straw man you keep wanting to beat up.

Use your own words to define what you mean by God being three persons - because right now you are just throwing out a term belonging to a doctrine that you now claim to not hold. And then back-up your definition with scripture.

The First Person of the Trinity is called "The Father."
The Second Person of the Trinity is called "The Son."
The Third Person of the Trinity is called "The Holy Spirit."

These three Persons ARE in fact found in Scripture, and referred to as God.

Many more individuals than those three are called God in scripture. Why isn't "Moses" to be counted among them? It's not sufficient to find individual's in scripture that have in one sense or another been addressed as God.

Moses, whom you give as an example below, is called god, and even the Israelites were called gods (iirc), but the context clearly indicates that they are not, in fact, God, or gods for that matter.

However, the Father is God, based on context, and the Son is God, based on context, and the Holy Spirit is God, based on context.

You will have to demonstrate this supposed context that demonstrates that when the Son is called God or the HS is called God that it means that literally as opposed to the precedent established in scripture as seen with Moses and the angels. Merely insisting upon it doesn't make your case.

Either He is or He is not God. There's no in between, csu.


John 10:34-35 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),



Since scriptures call those to whom the word of God came gods - and there is only one God - where do they fit into your Triune God? As you said - they either are or aren't God, there's no in between - and as Jesus said, scripture cannot be broken.

Yes, the Son's God is the Father, because the Father is, positionally, above the Son.

1. Good for you for recognizing that the two aren't equal and further rejecting the Trinity doctrine in favor of scripture.
2. If the Son has a God above him, then he cannot be God Almighty.


This begs the question that God is not triune.

If God IS triune, then what I said above stands.

It does not beg the question - if they are not equals then you have division and hierarchy among those individuals you claim to be one God. This is a contradiction - what you are really describing is polytheism.

This is where both capitalization in English and context come into play. I addressed this above.

That's not a valid argument - there is no capitalization in the underlying Hebrew and Greek


Again, context is important, especially within the same sentence.

What God said was that He made Moses as God to Pharaoh, and He made Aaron Moses' prophet.

God isn't saying "I have literally made you into God." No.

He's saying that it's like Moses is God, to Pharaoh, and that Aaron is his prophet.

So the Lord said to Moses: “See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet. - Exodus 7:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus7:1&version=NKJV

Clearly, Moses wasn't God, nor was He ever made to be God. It's called a metaphor. Moses wasn't literally God.

Christ, on the other hand, IS literally God.

First of all, there is no "as" in the Hebrew. It literally renders: I have made you God to Pharaoh (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/7-1.htm). I do agree that he wasn't being literal, of course. The point is that between Moses and the angels, there is plenty of biblical precedent in the OT for addressing agent's of God as if they were God. That means not only do you need to find scriptures that call Jesus God, but you need to demonstrate how these verses are applying the term literally vs symbolically.

That was God Himself, not an angel.

Read closer:

Exodus 3:1-2 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.




No, again, that was God Himself, specifically, God the Son, appearing in what is known as a "Theophany," or "Christophany."

False, Christ was never an angel. Hebrews chapter 1 is very explicit on this point.


Hebrews 1:5-8 For to what angel did God ever say, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? 6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” 7 Of the angels he says, “Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” 8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God,[a] is for ever and ever,...



But not "God" capital G.
A capital "G" has no significance; there's no capital letter in the underlying Greek & Hebrew scriptures. That's just the translators following convention.


Except that they aren't.

Thus, Jesus being referred to as God would be blasphemy if he was not actually God.

They are and I've provided numerous examples


Trinitarians are monotheistic. Please keep that in mind.

Insisting you are monotheistic while also declaring that there are multiple, distinct entities with a hierarchy that are each God Almighty is just contradictory gibberish. You can't expect to be taken seriously when you are constantly contradicting yourself.


As I've said repeatedly, I don't hold to any particular "Trinity doctrine."

First it's "Trinitarians are monotheistic. Please keep that in mind." Then it's "I don't hold to any particular Trinity doctrine." Make up your mind.

Why do you assume they didn't?

AND

Why do you assume that it had to be explicitly taught?

Why do you assert that they did not?

See my last post so I don't have to keep repeating myself.

Appeal to the stone.

Incorrect - I didn't simply state your position was absurd without reason. Go back and re-read what was said and try again.


It is recorded, just not as explicitly.

If it's not explicit then it isn't recorded. You can try to extrapolate it - but you appear to have given up any attempt to defend the Trinity (or w/e you claim to believe now) via scripture.


This is why going beyond Scripture for doctrine is problematic. The "Church Fathers in the early church" you refer to are not, repeat, NOT authoritative when it comes to biblical doctrine. They were NOT inspired by God directly to write what they wrote, and so their writings are NOT to be taken as authoritative over the what the Bible says. Yes, they sometimes say things that agree with the Bible, but they also say things that do not align with it.

Their input is useful, to be sure, but not to be taken as absolute.

I never suggested that we should just believe whatever theology is put forth by the Church Fathers. Once again - I'm referring to them as historical witnesses of what the early church actually taught and believed. This isn't difficult to understand.


God being triune isn't true or false based on whether it was taught by the early church.
Apparently your position is that God is triune because YOU say so, and without any other justification.

The difference is that Moses was not God.
Neither is Jesus. There are numerous scriptures which differentiate Jesus from God and none which insist that when Jesus is called God that it is meant literally as opposed to how it is applied to God's other agents.

The verse I provided earlier states, almost explicitly, that the Holy Spirit is God:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” - Acts 5:3-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts5:3-4&version=NKJV

If that isn't clear enough, here is what is said:

"Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit, to God?"

Peter was equating the Holy Spirit to God.

"Almost explicitly" lmao! Aka it doesn't - you are interpreting it that way without justification because that's what you want it to say. You haven't demonstrated from the context why we should interpret it any differently from when Moses or the angels and their words and deeds are referred to as if being God's. Unless you can demonstrate from scripture that this usage of the word "God" is distinct from how it has been applied throughout the OT to those who aren't themselves God Almighty, then biblical precedence is obviously the more objective interpretation.

Find me one person in the Bible who was righteous in the eyes of God, aside from Christ, who said any of those things in the same way Christ meant them.

You can't, because no one could be considered righteous if he said "follow me," "pray and act in my name," "believe in me," that you are "sanctified by faith in me," etc.

No one denies that Jesus was unique - that does not establish that he was God. Least of all because he didn't claim to be God - but his Son. Believe what he says about himself rather than trying to redefine what "Son" means to suite your theology. Christ gave himself over to God completely, and chose to sacrifice himself for man of his own freewill - thus he was rewarded with being made King over the rest of creation (but not over God).

Did you even bother reading what it was that I quoted Christ as saying? Forget the verses they're in for a moment, can you honestly say that a righteous man could demand someone to love him "more than" someone's family members if it wasn't God? Can you honestly say that a righteous man could claim to be "greater than the temple," "than Jonah," "than Solomon"? How about "Keep my commandments," which is both claiming God's commandments as one's own, and demanding that a person keep them? How about accepting worship? Not even the perfect angels accepted people worshipping them, pointing the one worshipping to God, yet Jesus accepted it when people worshipped Him.

The ball is in your court on this one.

None of your examples make the argument that Christ had to be God. Your disbelief is not an argument.

As for worship, there is no prohibition against worship. Moses worshiped his father-in-law Jethro (Exodus 18:7); note that the same word in Hebrew translated as 'worship' is the same word used here that is translated as bowing down/prostrating. It is purely a product of our English translation that this fact is hidden - the translators, by convention, translate the word as 'worship' when applied to God but as 'bowing down' or 'prostrating' etc when applied to others.

You're forgetting that such things do not need to be explicit.
You are forgetting that you need to substantiate your claims. You are engaging in an Argument form Ignorance - "you can't show the early church didn't secretly believe it, so there!"

I didn't say "God is a 'What'."

I said God is WHAT the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is.

The three Persons are God. It is WHAT they are.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are WHO they are. He is God (WHAT).

Now you can't even get through two sentences without contradicting yourself ....

Scripture never treats God as a thing/substance. God is a WHO in scripture. But go ahead and try to argue from scripture that God is a mere substance - I'll go grab some popcorn.


Start one, if you like. I'm game!

Perhaps after this one; responding to these long posts is time consuming.


In what way am I mocking Christ's life and sacrifice?

Bald-faced assertions like this demand evidence.

I've already explained this in detail. You need to stop and read all of what I wrote before replying.

In what way does my position deny Him free will or the accomplishment of overcoming temptations?
God cannot be tempted, cannot sin, can never not do God's will. There's no freewill if you don't have a choice and you can't overcome temptation if you can't be tempted. Thus - if we adopt the Trinitarian position - all of Christ's suffering and trials were nothing more than a bit of theatrics.


I just gave you sufficient evidence.

Here's some more (and where I got the above chart from):


You haven't given sufficient evidence - as I addressed in detail in my last post. Perhaps if you questioned the resources you are citing before posting them, then you would understand why that chart is flat out wrong.

Nope. This is why you don't "get it."

There are three PERSONS, not three Gods. The three PERSONS are ONE God.

He is Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

You have yet to define what you mean by "person" and "God" and to defend these definitions using scripture. Nor have you explained, logically, how three persons can be one God. You go back and forth on whether you even identify as a Trinitarian.


It seems like part of the problem you have is your definition of what it means to die.

Christ (God the Son) died physically when He gave up His spirit. (John 19:30)
He died Spiritually when He was separated from His Father in Heaven ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"), becoming sin for us and nailing the law to the cross

So at which point did God proper die? Or are you in fact walking back and denying that God ever died.

He wasn't putting on an act. He really was tempted.

Then he wasn't God - for God cannot be tempted by evil.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I don't merely say so - its a fact that I have elucidated in some detail already.

No, you haven’t.

This is some progress then - you admit that you can't defend the Trinity from scripture.

I have admitted no such thing.

What I said was that I don’t hold to any particular doctrine.

However you insist upon this idea that God is divided into three personages - which you can't establish from scripture either.

I already have, yet you keep obfuscating with “but there are more than three people in the Bible…”

So which is it, are there more than three people in the Bible, or is there only one God?

That’s what I’m getting from you.

You are moving the goal

I’m not.

because you recognize you can't defend the position you took just a post earlier.

My position hasn’t changed in the slightest.

But changing your position from arguing that the Trinity is biblical to this idea that God is Triune won't help -

The Trinity IS Biblical, and God IS triune.

It’s not “either or.” It’s “both and.”

both are equally unsupported by scripture.

False.

If you reject the Trinity doctrine and recognize that its indefensible,

When you keep attacking straw men, it’s guaranteed you’ll be able to beat them up.

Again: I don’t hold to any particular “Trinity doctrine.”

That doesn’t mean I don’t believe God is Triune, nor does it mean that I cannot defend and support that belief from scripture.

However, it also undermines your position that it's been the position of the church since the beginning; for you are admitting that by the fourth century the Catholic Church was formulating false Christology. I can't reasonably be sure what you mean by "Trinity" if you use and defend the term, claiming it's a core belief of Christianity since the beginning, and yet you can't point to anything historically that describes what you think is meant by the term.

The problem is that you’re looking for “doctrine,” rather than scripture, and in the wrong place.

"Eternally begotten" is more than simply not being created - it's the idea that Jesus is constantly in a state of being begotten, the Father constantly in a state of begetting the son.

Supra, RE: agreeing (or not) with the catholics.

Since God is perfect

Agreed.

and since - they say - God cannot change,

Not my position.

then he could never have not been the Father.

The Father was always the Father because the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit, is co-eternal.

Nor could he have at one point begot the Son and the next not be begetting him - for that would mean that God changed in some sense, and thus challenge his perfection. A really dumb argument - but that's the Trinity for you.

It’s a logical argument, but inherently flawed, because its premise, that “God does not change,” is false.

It’s wrong, not because the conclusion is wrong, but because the premise is wrong. You have made what is called a “fallacy fallacy,” a rare one indeed.


You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.



As for for John 1, that can be interpreted a number of different ways. For example, one classic approach that Church Fathers have used is

one that I do not hold to as being valid.

God has always been wise.

Personally, I'm inclined to view both the Wisdom of Proverbs and the Word in John as being more poetic than literal. "The word became flesh" = the manifestation of God's Wisdom, his plan for creation since the beginning, in the birth of the man Jesus Christ.

Proverbs is a book of poetry that contains nuggets of wisdom, written by the wisest man to have ever lived, before he turned away from God.


The Gospel of John is not a book of poetry. It is an account of Jesus’ life.

Three of the Gospels start out with different geneologies, all of Christ, describing different aspects of Him, while Mark doesn’t have one, not because it doesn’t follow the same rule, but because Mark describes Christ as a servant, and records of family trees aren’t usually kept for servants, historically speaking. Matthew describes Him as a King, providing a geneology from King David. Luke describes Jesus as human, providing a geneology from Adam. John describes Jesus as God, declaring that He was in the beginning with God, and was God.

Ok - on what basis then do you claim that God has always been the Father?

It’s the other way around.

The Father has always been God, just as the Son has always been God, just as the Holy Spirit has always been God.

As John said:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.He was in the beginning with God.All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. - John 1:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:1-5&version=NKJV

The word “Word” there is LOGOS (which means “logic,” by the way, and doesn’t really mean or make sense as “word,” even though that’s how it’s been translated).

The Greek has it this way:

“in beginning was the Logic and the Logic was with the God and God was the Logic.

Funny thing about that is that there’s a rule in Greek grammar that, in my opinion, applies here (and if it actually does, it’s one of the strongest arguments for Christ being God in the Bible), though it mostly applies to two other verses, mentioned in the link below. It’s called the Granville Sharp Rule.


The Granville Sharp Rule states, “When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle” (Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 3).



“with the God and God was the Logic”

See if you can figure out where I’m going with this…

If there never was a time when the Son was not - then he can't very well have originated from God.

Scripture calls Jesus God's only begotten Son, and Jesus says He was around at creation, and Scripture says He was the one who created.

What more do you want?

Use your own words to define what you mean by God being three persons -

What do you think I’ve been doing?

Humans are one WHAT and one WHO.
God, on the other hand, is one WHAT and three WHOs.

JudgeRightly is WHO I am, and a human being is WHAT I am.

The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit is the three WHOs He is, and God is WHAT He is.

because right now you are just throwing out a term belonging to a doctrine that you now claim to not hold. And then back-up your definition with scripture.


Many more individuals than those three are called God in scripture. Why isn't "Moses" to be counted among them? It's not sufficient to find individual's in scripture that have in one sense or another been addressed as God.

Explained previously.

You will have to demonstrate this supposed context that demonstrates that when the Son is called God or the HS is called God that it means that literally

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

“you are the temple of God” and “the Spirit of God dwells in you” should make that clear.

Just as John 1:1-5 shows that Jesus was with and was God from the beginning.

as opposed to the precedent established in scripture as seen with Moses and the angels.

Supra.

Merely insisting upon it doesn't make your case.

Moses was just a man.

Jesus was both man and God.


John 10:34-35 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),



Since scriptures call those to whom the word of God came gods - and there is only one God - where do they fit into your Triune God? As you said - they either are or aren't God, there's no in between - and as Jesus said, scripture cannot be broken.


1. Good for you for recognizing that the two aren't equal

Correction: The three are equally God, but the subordination describes an internal relationship within the Godhead.

and further rejecting the Trinity doctrine in favor of scripture.

1) I have never not held scripture as priority
2) You keep accusing me of holding to a “doctrine,” when I have repeatedly stated that I don’t hold to that “doctrine.” Please stop. Bearing false witness is a sin.

2. If the Son has a God above him, then he cannot be God Almighty.

This begs the question that the Son is a different being than the Father.

The Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Sun and Father, and the Son subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity.

It does not beg the question - if they are not equals then you have division

There is no division. There is only one God.

Maybe this image will help you understand:

Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

and hierarchy among those individuals you claim to be one God.

Which, again, is an internal relationship within the Godhead between the three Persons.

This is a contradiction - what you are really describing is polytheism.

No.

If I were a polytheist, then I would be saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different Gods. But they’re not, they are simply three Persons within the one Godhead. Thus, it’s not polytheism, since there is one God, not three.

That's not a valid argument - there is no capitalization in the underlying Hebrew and Greek

I didn’t say “Hebrew” or “Greek.” I said English.
Second, I also said the context comes into play here, which you seemingly ignored.

First of all, there is no "as" in the Hebrew.

Yes, I’m aware.

I do agree that he wasn't being literal, of course.

Thus, “as.” It doesn’t change the meaning of the verse, and it helps to understand what is being said.

The point is that between Moses and the angels, there is plenty of biblical precedent in the OT for addressing agent's of God as if they were God.

Wrong.

Read closer:

Exodus 3:1-2 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.



False, Christ was never an angel.

Never said He was.

A capital "G" has no significance;

It has plenty of significance in English.

“When God twice knocked over the god of the Philistines, Dagon, He was mocking them.”

Capitalization matters in English. So does context, which usually explains WHY the word is capitalized.

They are and I've provided numerous examples

You’ve given ONE example, and it doesn’t really work for you anyways because it’s used as a figure of speech, not a literal description.

Insisting you are monotheistic

The very fact that I claim that there is only one God makes me monotheistic.

while also declaring that there are multiple,

Three.


Correct.


Persons.

with a hierarchy

Which describes an internal relationship within the Godhead, not external.

that are each God Almighty

Correct.

is just contradictory gibberish.

Rather, it’s a place that I’m just going to have to appeal to mystery, and say that I can’t explain it, because I’m not sure that we’ll ever be able to fully comprehend HOW God can be one God while also being three Persons. But I WILL say that we can know that He is.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you are constantly contradicting yourself.

There’s no contradiction here.

The problem you’re having isn’t that there is a contradiction, it’s that we don’t have the context to understand how God is triune, justs like we don’t have the context for understanding how God could have always existed with no beginning throughout an infinite past, since we have a beginning.

First it's "Trinitarians are monotheistic. Please keep that in mind." Then it's "I don't hold to any particular Trinity doctrine." Make up your mind.

I’m not switching between the two.

If it's not explicit then it isn't recorded.

False dichotomy.

Just because something isn’t explicitly stated doesn’t mean it isn’t recorded. Rememberit’s the glory of God to conceal a matter.

You can try to extrapolate it - but you appear to have given up any attempt to defend the Trinity

What do you think I’ve been doing the last 3 posts?

(or w/e you claim to believe now)

Trinity is just a word used to describe the nature of God.

A “doctrine” a statement that “codifies” (so to speak) a belief or set of beliefs held by a group, such as the church.

Thus, when you say “Trinity doctrine,” I immediately think of what the Catholics came up with. That’s why I say “I don’t hold to any particular doctrine” regarding the Trinity. Does that clear things up for you?

via scripture.

See the “Trinity-Bible” link above.

I never suggested that we should just believe whatever theology is put forth by the Church Fathers.

Good.

Apparently your position is that God is triune because YOU say so, and without any other justification.

Wrong.

God is triune because Scripture says so, and that’s all the justification that I need.

Neither is Jesus.

That’s what you’re trying to prove. Begging the question won’t get you there.

There are numerous scriptures which differentiate Jesus from God

Such as?

Because there are other scriptures that show that the verses you claim show Him as “not God” are not doing that, but rather, making the disctinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while affirming that the three are God.

and none which insist that when Jesus is called God that it is meant literally as opposed to how it is applied to God's other agents.

Rather, Scripture shows He IS God, literally, unlike with other agents.

"Almost explicitly" lmao! Aka it doesn't -

Don’t get ahead of yourself.

I meant that that’s as close as you can get to outright stating that the Holy Spirit is God without actually outright stating that He is God.

you are interpreting it that way without justification because that's what you want it to say.

No, that’s ACTUALLY WHAT IT SAYS. I’m simply removing some words to make it clearer.

But, please, by all means, show me how I’m “interpreting it that way without justification because that’s how I want it to say.”

You haven't demonstrated from the context why we should interpret it any differently from when Moses or the angels and their words and deeds are referred to as if being God's.

I already have.

Unless you can demonstrate from scripture that this usage of the word "God" is distinct from how it has been applied throughout the OT to those who aren't themselves God Almighty, then biblical precedence is obviously the more objective interpretation.

Peter makes it clear:

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” . . . Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” - Acts 5:3-4,9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts5:3-4,9&version=NKJV

Peter is talking about the Holy Spirit.

He then says “you haven’t lied to men, but to God.”

How much clearer do you need it to be?

Lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God.


No one denies that Jesus was unique - that does not establish that he was God.

It shows He is special.

Least of all because he didn't claim to be God -

Except that He did claim to be God.


but his Son.

The Son of God is God.

Believe what he says about himself rather than trying to redefine what "Son" means to suite

*suit

your theology.

Right back atcha!

Christ gave himself over to God completely,

Rather, He submitted His will to His Father’s.

and chose to sacrifice himself for man of his own freewill -

He went willingly, yes, however, it wasn’t by His will, but His Father’s:

saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” - Luke 22:42 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke22:42&version=NKJV

thus he was rewarded with being made King over the rest of creation (but not over God).

I seem to recall that God is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and that He is not willing to share His glory with another…

None of your examples make the argument that Christ had to be God.

They ARE the argument, csu!

Again, the ball is in your court to show any other person, in scripture or otherwise, making the same claims that Jesus did, saying the same things He did, demanding the same things He did, while still remaining righteous! THERE. AREN’T. ANY.

As for worship, there is no prohibition against worship.

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.“You shall have no other gods before Me.“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. - Exodus 20:2-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:2-6&version=NKJV

Moses worshiped his father-in-law Jethro (Exodus 18:7); note that the same word in Hebrew translated as 'worship' is the same word used here that is translated as bowing down/prostrating. It is purely a product of our English translation that this fact is hidden - the translators, by convention, translate the word as 'worship' when applied to God but as 'bowing down' or 'prostrating' etc when applied to others.

Showing respect to one’s parents, even one’s father-in-law, was the custom back then, csu.

He wasn’t worshipping him as God, but honoring him as his father-in-law, which God DOES say to do, just two chapters later!

The word has different meanings based on the context. There’s no conspiracy by the translators to hide anything. It’s simply how language is. However, God makes the distinction when He prohibits bowing down to other gods or idols or images, and prohibits having any other god before Him.

You are forgetting that you need to substantiate your claims. You are engaging in an Argument from Ignorance - "you can't show the early church didn't secretly believe it, so there!"

You’re the one making the claims, not me. I’m simply saying that what the “Early Church” believed is irrelevant, because of what Scripture says.

Now you can't even get through two sentences without contradicting yourself ....

I’m not contradicting myself.

Scripture never treats God as a thing/substance. God is a WHO in scripture.

In case it wasn’t clear (because it seems like you missed it), I fully agree with this.

I’m just trying to help you see what I’m saying by using such language as to make a distinction.

But go ahead and try to argue from scripture that God is a mere substance - I'll go grab some popcorn.

Not my position.

Perhaps after this one; responding to these long posts is time consuming.

You mean to tell me you can’t participate in multiple threads simultaneously? :p

God cannot be tempted,


cannot sin,

Actually, God can sin but chooses not to, because He cannot be tempted by evil, but that’s a topic for another thread. If you’re interested, I recommend watching this debate between Carm.org’s Matt Slick and OpenTheism.org’s Will Duffy:

Will does an excellent job explaining why.

can never not do God's will.

God can choose to do otherwise.

There's no freewill if you don't have a choice

Duh…

and you can't overcome temptation if you can't be tempted.

Jesus was tempted, and therefore overcame it.

Thus - if we adopt the Trinitarian position - all of Christ's suffering and trials were nothing more than a bit of theatrics.

Repeating your accusation won’t make it come true, csu.

There were no theatrics involved. Jesus, who is God, really was tempted.

You haven't given sufficient evidence -

You’re in denial.

Perhaps if you questioned the resources you are citing before posting them,

Why do you assume I haven’t?

then you would understand why that chart is flat out wrong.

You haven’t provided any reason for me to believe that it’s wrong.

Did Jesus not say those things? Did He not really mean them? What about the chart is wrong? All I’m getting from you is “oh, the chart establishes Jesus as God, then it must be wrong!”

You have yet to define what you mean by "person"

You don’t know what a person is?

Then how can you say God is not three Persons?

and "God"

The Creator, the Uncaused Cause, the One who was, and is, and is to come.

and to defend these definitions using scripture. Nor have you explained, logically, how three persons can be one God.

Supra, re: appeal to mystery.

You go back and forth on whether you even identify as a Trinitarian.

No, I don’t.

So at which point did God proper die?

Define what you mean by “God proper.”

Or are you in fact walking back and denying that God ever died.

Nope.

Then he wasn't God - for God cannot be tempted by evil.

Supra, re: AiG link
 

7djengo7

Well-known member
I've numerous times asked you: By your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

Obviously nothing is wrong, or tricky, or illegitimate about this question. Either, by your word, "God," YES, you are referring to the Father, or NO, you are not referring to the Father. You do not escape from that fact. Yet, so far, you've not answered this question. Understandably, you refuse to answer this question, because your calculation warns you that, whether you were to answer it in the affirmative, or, instead, were to answer it in the negative, you'd necessarily, thereby, further embarrass your anti-Trinitarianism. I got news for you, though: your failure to answer it at all—your resort to stonewalling against it—embarrasses your anti-Trinitarianism just the same. You're trapped by a trilemma. So, what you're trying (in futility) to do, now, is to shift attention away from your failure to answer the question, by saying silly stuff like what you wrote, here:


What you are doing is equivalent to person A asking person B: "Why did you murder the old lady?"

You don't really think that, do you? I mean, imagine just how mentally degenerate one must needs be in order for him/her to be able to, in all seriousness and sincerity, say that saying "Why did you murder the old lady?" is equivalent to asking "By your word, 'God,' are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?"

I don't merely say so - its a fact that I have elucidated in some detail already.

But, on the contrary, you do merely say it's a fact. Saying it's a fact doesn't make it a fact. Nor does saying it's a fact make anyone believe it's a fact. Nor does saying it's a fact make anyone obliged to believe it's a fact.
 

7djengo7

Well-known member
Use your own words to define what you mean by God being three persons

By your word, "God," here, are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

1. There is no "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" in scripture

Thanks, Captain Obvious, for pointing out for us the fact that the phrases, "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit," are not found in the Bible, just as we do not find the phrase, "Solomon's grandfather," used in the Bible in reference to Jesse, Solomon's grandfather. What "point" were you trying to make, then?

2. If God the Father did not die, then God did not die - and thus your whole argument about how God had to die falls on its face.

When you say, "then God did not die," and "your whole argument about how God had to die," by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?

If you're referring to the Father, then this is what you've just told us: "If God the Father did not die, then [the Father] did not die". But every Trinitarian believes that the Father did not die.

If you're referring to the Father, then this is what you've just told us: "your whole argument about how [the Father] had to die". But no Trinitarian argues that the Father had to die.
 

7djengo7

Well-known member
There's a big problem here for the Trinitarian: While in one breath it speaks of him as "O God" in the next it speaks of "your God." ie, the Son has a God - and it is this God who has raised him up "above your companions." Obviously the Son is not God Almighty if he has a God who is raising him up and empowering him.

There's a big problem here for the heretic, the anti-Trinitarian: You use this extra-Biblical phrase, "has a God," but you have not told us what (if anything) you mean by it. Though you say "the Son has a God," you have not told us what it would be for the Son to "have a God". We, of course, nowhere in the Bible read your words, "the Son has a God," and so, since the Bible does not say the words, "the Son has a God," the Bible does not mean anything by the words, "the Son has a God." The Bible obviously does not mean something by words it does not say, so it would be silly for us to say, "What does the Bible mean by 'the Son has a God'?" So, it is up to you, the anti-Trinitarian, to tell us exactly what (if anything) you mean by your extra-Biblical phrase, "has a God".

Interesting to note, too, that the heretic, the anti-Trinitarian likes to find a Scripture text in which Jesus refers to or addresses the Father by the phrase, "my God," and then say to us, "See, there you go: the Son has a God!" whereas I do not recall ever having seen him say "the Son has a Lord". Maybe he has said that, and I just missed it? But, though we find Jesus referring to the Father by the phrase, "my God," does Jesus ever refer to the Father by the phrase, "my Lord"? If you think He does, then by all means quote and cite for us the Bible verse(s) in which you think He does.



 
Top