Christians..."Trinity"?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The Hebrew meaning of the name Michael is "who is like God?" Who is like God besides Jesus? Hebrews 1:3 tells us that only he is!

Apparently Micah was like God also, because that is also the Hebrew meaning of “Micah”, which is “Who is like God”. And since we are going by meanings of names, Matt 1:23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him “Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

So if you want to take the meanings of names literally, Jesus is God based on the meaning of Immanuel alone. And Immanuel holds more weight than your “Michael” meaning, because it is one thing to say he was “like God”. But it is another thing to say that God is “with us” based on the birth of Jesus. Not only that, but the meaning of Immanuel makes so much sense…for him to be named Immanuel which means “God with us”, if you harmonize that with John 1:14 “The Word (God) was flesh and made his dwelling among us”. “With us…Among us”..all referring to Jesus himself!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_ut_Deus%3F

See above. The passage in question invalidates your assumption that Christ could not be tempted due to his "nature".

My point is, his mind can’t process a sinful act based on his nature.

No he wasn't. But "good" and "bad" are relative terms that we tend to judge by human standards. The point that Jesus was making is that in the eyes of God, no man should ever be called good by another man.

Or he could have been saying “Why do you call me good…only God is good..are you calling me God?” Remember, Jesus is like God based on the meaning of Michael, right? So once again, based on that, Jesus is good, because God is good, and Jesus is like God.

Since only God is "truly good", then only God can declare another man to be good (as he did with Abraham). My point is that "Jesus's point" would have fallen on deaf ears if he thought that the man viewed him as God! If he was God, then that point no longer makes any sense to the man. If Jesus was God, why would he tell the man not to call HIM good? It doesn't make any sense!

So if only God is “truly good”, then what is Jesus? Not so good? Slightly good? A quarter of good? A pint? Of alllll the many names Jesus is called throughout the bible, good isn’t one of them, right?

No. All authority to judge mankind has been given to Jesus Christ. The Son is the only redeemer of sins, therefore it is appropriate to pray to Jesus, just as one would pray to God.

It is ok to worship Jesus though too, right?

John 5:22-23
22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Jesus said worship God and serve him only…so is it ok to worship Jesus or not? Yes or no?

But that wasn't the question. The question is whether one must be God to perform healing and exorcisms. As scripture establishes, the answer to that is NO.

I granted that, that is why I said do you have to be God to be prayed to and worshipped, and it sounds as if that is the route you are headed. We are free to worship and pray to Jesus despite the fact that Jesus isn’t God, on your view.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No. He WOULD be in paradise. But he wouldn't be in paradise on "that day". That is merely what Jesus told him "that day". Think about it, Jesus didn't even ascend to heaven on that day. He rose three days later! So how could the criminal (not thief) be with him in on that day? That doesn't make any sense!

His BODY rose three days later. That says nothing about his spirit. If you believe Jesus had a pre-existence before he was born of Mary, then that same pre-existence continued to exist after he died. If I say "today me and you are going to the football game.", what do you think I mean?

Matthew 27:62-64
62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”

Once again, bodily resurrection. Says nothing about the spirit/soul.

John 20:17
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Ascended to where? To heaven? But which heaven. We know of at least three (2Corin 12:2) and Paul calls this third heaven paradise in verse 4. So if this heaven is different than the one where the Father dwells, then Jesus was right, didn't ascend to the Father, he went to that third heaven that Paul talked about, which Paul calls "paradise" and more than likely where the theif on the cross and all other believers go when they die as we wait on the earthly return of Christ.

He didn't HAVE TO, he choose to (as an example for us)! Jesus lived as a humble, meek man (even by human standards). What was he before? He was a created being who was made higher than all of the angels in heaven, who sits at the right hand of "God" (not "the Father").

I got it, but he was still a servant of his Father, right?? Meaning he carried out the will of his Father...just like all of the other angels (since you claim Jesus is an archangel.

The answer is NO. He never did! He was falsely accused of doing this by the men who conspired to have him killed. Even if we assume that his accusers honestly thought that calling God his father equated to making himself equal to God, that's certainly not what Jesus was doing because Philippians 2:6-7 rules that out!

First off, the scripture isn't implying that his accusers THOUGHT he was making himself equal with God..it states that by calling God is own Father, he WAS making himself equal with God. The word "thought" is not said or implied. We are all sons of God, but obviously Jesus meant "Son" in a different sense than us, which the Pharisses caught on to, which wasn't hard to do based on everything else Jesus said and did.

Furthermore, we can infer (based on the fact that they couldn't find any evidence to have him executed) that this charge was false, along with the rest of their charges against him.

If Jesus was falsely making himself equal with God, then that was worthy of death by Jewish standard. The fact that the author states that this is what Jesus was doing, that would have made Jesus death worthy in his accusers eyes. The problem is, what Jesus was saying was TRUE, so he wasn't falsely stating anything.

John 5:17-18
In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

...later...

Mark 14:55-59
55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. 57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

John 10:33-36
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

At no point in time did Jesus EVER refer to himself as God. That is what his Jewish opponents accused him of doing (so that they could execute him). When Jesus challenges their logic according to scripture, they could provide no answer. It just enraged them further! So the evidence shows that it was not Jesus who made himself equal to God. In fact, he does the opposite. If Jesus was making himself equal to God, why would he pray to his own God (his father), who he pronounces as greater than him? Again...

John 20:17
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

John 14:28
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

John 20:28, Jesus is called God by Thomas. Jesus didn't say "Why do you call me God, only the Father is God"....remember, just like he said "Why do you call me good, only God is good" to someone else (sounds familiar, doesn't it?)...so he corrected someone for calling him good, but he didnt' correct someone from directly calling him God, which would have been BLASPHAMOUS if it WEREN'T true. Hmmm.

 

[captainbryce]

Bible teaches the Trinity although that word is not used but actually is used in the Quran which tells you how prevalent and important that teaching is.

Did you really just say that because something is taught in the QU'RAN, a book that for all intents and purposes is Antichrist, that such a belief is somehow validated as "Christian? Just think about that for a moment!

Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the Trinity. All mentioned in Old and New Testament.

No, actually it isn't.

My reply to Mormons that tell me they are Christians is this.

It doesn't matter what you feel about Mormon's. The issue isn't what the LDS church teaches, or what Muslims teach, or any other religion for that matter. The issue is what does the bible actually teach. And unless you can't point to a passage that says there is a father, son, holy spirit trinity, then you have no case! It's as simple as that.

 

[captainbryce]

Now, according to your belief, Jesus was the created Son of God, right? He was created, and from the moment of his creation, he was a servant of his Father, accomplishing the will of his Father, correct? So, if he was the creation and servant of his father from the moment of his creation, why does verse 7 state that he "took the very nature of a servant?" Why would Jesus have to take the form of something that he already was?

Because, the passage is talking about Jesus's life as a human on Earth.

Yet the passage clearly states that he was in the form of God before he came to earth, so that IS his pre-existence in heaven.

No, that's not what it says. It literally says: "Who, in [the] form of God...". It doesn't add the whole "before he came to Earth" bit! He was in the form of God from the moment he was created and always has been. By that, it means he shared the same nature as God. In scripture neither Jesus nor his disciples EVER say he was "equal to" God!

He came on earth to accomplish the will of his Father, right? Doesn’t he do that in heaven too? So why call him a servant on earth but not in heaven when regardless of his location, he still do whatever his Father commands him to do? Makes no sense.

It does make sense! He was always meant to serve God, but his role on Earth was to serve him in a specific way (which included being humble as an example for all mankind). That level of humility was not required in heaven (where the angels will worship him). He was only made lower than the angles while on Earth (to inspire mankind). That's why it says that he lowered himself as a servant as a human.

Hebrews 1:4
So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Ok but regardless of whether or not he is higher than all of the angels, he is STILL a creation of God his Father and he is still obedient to the word of his father, so why call him a servant in human form and not otherwise? Makes no sense. Not only that, but if he wasn’t a “servant” in the sense that he served his father in heaven, then what was he??

You're over analyzing the scripture and thus missing the point of it altogether. Whenever you are reading scripture, you always have to look at it from the context and perspective that it was meant to be read. Who is Philippians 2:5-9 specifically addressing here? That would be us Christians! It opens: "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:", then it goes on to discuss what that mindset is. The phrase "servant" conjures the image of someone poor and "lowly" (peasant, slave, indentured servant, etc.). This is the type of person who is required to be meek and humble in life.

The language chosen is meant to impress upon us how we should generally act in a way that emulates Christ. That is the role he took on Earth because his "mission" was to inspire Christians, and ultimately die for our sins. In heaven, he will reign over us and the Angels, and while he is still technically a "servant" of God, he has been given all authority in heaven and Earth to judge all mankind, and he sits "at God's right hand". This is not the same type of lowly servant that he was on Earth. Would you call a Prince a "servant" of the King? Probably not! Saying that Jesus was still a "servant" while ruling at God's right side would be misinterpreting the intent of the passage and ultimately missing the point.

Reading comprehension is key. Verse 6 states that he was in the form of God, but despite being in the form of God, he didn’t consider equality with God something he had to hold on too, BUT MADE HIMSELF NOTHING, TAKING THE FORM OF A SERVANT AND BEING MADE IN HUMAN LIKENESS. If he was never equal with God in the first place, then there would be no point in emphasizing on his attitude towards equality with God now would there? [/quote]Oh but there was, but I'll get to that later!

Firstly, you are creating a false dichotomy here. You are suggesting that because scripture says that the made himself a servant, this is the opposite of "equality". But as I've pointed out above, that is not necessarily the case. He was never equal to God and the scripture doesn't say that he was. He was HIGHER than all the angels, and by making himself a servant he made himself LOWER than all the angels. Neither one of those positions necessarily equates to "equal with God". Secondly, the reason why Paul mentions him not viewing equality with God "something to be grasped", was (in my opinion) to illustrate the fact he would never make that claim about himself! This is what he was falsely charged with doing, that ultimately led to his death.

Wait a minute, so Jesus is omniscient regarding Simon, but not everything else? Makes no sense.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that he was NOT omniscient, only that Simon viewed him that way because from Simon's perspective, he might as well have been (since he knows everything about Simon and all of the other disciples). But knowing everything about all of your disciples, and even knowing most future events does not necessarily mean that you know EVERYTHING. And Matthew 24:36 tells us that he didnt!

And it doesn’t contradict itself…being a human, Jesus dealt with the limitations of being human, and that is finite knowledge. That is why John 21:7 shows his omniscience after his Resurrection.

Nope, it's still a contradiction because the reason Peter knows that Jesus "knows all things" is presumably because Jesus told him BEFORE HE DIED that Peter would deny him three times! Jesus was human when he had this future knowledge, knowledge that no other human could have possibly had. Therefore, from Peter's perspective, he knew all things. But in fact he didn't know ALL things, because Matthew 24:36 tells us something that Jesus did not know, and Luke 2:52 tells us the Jesus "grew" in Wisdom.

Ok, then you agree that the “Word” in John 1:1 is Jesus, and Jesus is God as that verse indicates…and the Word became flesh in verse 14. So therefore, Jesus is God.

No. Because I'm not reading that passage literally like you are because such a literal interpretation doesn't make any sense. Jesus was "the word" in a figurative sense.

Well, from a scriptural basis for the Trinity, we don’t even need to look further than John 1:1, which I am still waiting for why you are not convinced of the Trinity despite this scripture being the most direct and without question Trinity proof doctrine.

Because it's not literal! Jesus (the person) wasn't a collection of letters to be arraigned as part of a sentence. He was a person who brought the message of God's salvation.

Yeah you said something like the “word” is grammar or something like that. You conveniently took it literally as a way to continually justify your non-acceptance of the Trinity.

I'm not the one taking it "literally", YOU ARE. You're taking it literally, to the point that you can make a trinity work. It's a pick and choose mentality. My point is that it's NOT literal, that's why it isn't talking about a trinity! Jesus wasn't literally a word (and neither is God), therefore Jesus isn't literally God either. Why is that so hard to understand? If Jesus, John or Paul wanted to make the point that Jesus was God ANY of them would have just plainly said so! The fact that none of them did, and the fact that nowhere else in the entire bible can a "trinity" be deduced proves that there isn't one!

The point of the test was to show believers how to fend off the devil by combating him with SCRIPTURE, as for everything the devil said, Jesus had a scripture for it.

But HOW could they be expected to do that that if they are susceptible to temptations that Jesus wasn't? Do you deny that Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are?

 

[Shermana]

Captainbryce, John 1:1c should read "a god was the word" with the indefinite anarthrous, you don't know this or don't accept this?

 

[captainbryce]

Captainbryce, John 1:1c should read "a god was the word" with the indefinite anarthrous, you don't know this or don't accept this?

I am aware of that, and I do accept it. What's your point? This seems to justify the fact that the fact that Jesus was NOT in fact God doesn't it?

 

[Shermana]

I am aware of that, and I do accept it. What's your point? This seems to justify the fact that the fact that Jesus was NOT in fact God doesn't it?

You didn't reference it when addressing COTW's use of John 1:1 as the "End all" argument.

I'm anti-Trinitarian if you haven't noticed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, that's not what it says. It literally says: "Who, in [the] form of God...". It doesn't add the whole "before he came to Earth" bit!

Umm, bryce, Jesus sure wasn't in the "form of God" while he was on earth, so obviously it was talking about his pre-earth existence.

He was in the form of God from the moment he was created and always has been.

All the angels were created, so does that mean that all angels are in the form of God?

By that, it means he shared the same nature as God. In scripture neither Jesus nor his disciples EVER say he was "equal to" God!

So what does it mean to "share the same nature as God?" What does that mean? If Jesus is just a mere angel like you claim him to be, then all angels have share the same nature of God. Second, the very face that he did have the same nature as God would mean that he is God. You can't have a human nature unless you are a human. You can't have an animal nature unless you are an animal..and you can't have the same nature as God unless you are in fact...God.

It does make sense! He was always meant to serve God, but his role on Earth was to serve him in a specific way (which included being humble as an example for all mankind). That level of humility was not required in heaven (where the angels will worship him). He was only made lower than the angles while on Earth (to inspire mankind). That's why it says that he lowered himself as a servant as a human.

No because verse 7 is not making a distinction between his service to God in heaven, and his service to God on earth. It is making the distinction between him being in the form of God in heaven and the form of a human on earth. His position of a servant wouldn't change if he was always in the service of his Father, regardless of whether the service is in heaven or on earth. So there is absolutely no reason why Paul would say he "took the nature/form of a servant" unless there is a radical change being made from a non-servant to a servant.

Not only that, but the whole "...did not consider equality with God something to be grasped", why even say that if Jesus was not equal with God? Jesus would never consider being equal to God, so why make the statement? The statement would be irrelevant unless Jesus was already equal to God.

Hebrews 1:4
So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Right, so if Jesus was/is an angel as you would like to believe, how could he become superior to the angel? Why wouldn't it be rendered to "superior to the OTHER angels"? Makes no sense.

Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Heb 2:5 also CONTRADICTS your view that Jesus is an angel. Verse 5 states "It is NOT to angels that HE has subjected the world to come." But God subjected everything to Jesus (verse 8). So therefore, Jesus is not an angel. It is called "Reading Comprehension", bryce.

The phrase "servant" conjures the image of someone poor and "lowly" (peasant, slave, indentured servant, etc.). This is the type of person who is required to be meek and humble in life.

And also "to serve". A servant is one who serves, and if he had to take the "nature" of a servant, then obviously he wasn't a servant to begin with because if he was, he wouldn't have had to take the nature of something that he already was!!!

The language chosen is meant to impress upon us how we should generally act in a way that emulates Christ. That is the role he took on Earth because his "mission" was to inspire Christians, and ultimately die for our sins. In heaven, he will reign over us and the Angels, and while he is still technically a "servant" of God, he has been given all authority in heaven and Earth to judge all mankind, and he sits "at God's right hand".

Well, I am open to whether or not Jesus is still a servant of God, perhaps maybe his role is still a servant. However, I do not believe he was a servant of God BEFORE he took his human manestification. But regardless, his secondary position to the Father says nothing about his nature of Deity.

But as I've pointed out above, that is not necessarily the case. He was never equal to God and the scripture doesn't say that he was.

Let me break it down for you. It says that Jesus did "not see equality with something to be grasped"? What does the word "grasped" mean? According to dictionary.com, it means "to seize or hold". Now, we can re-word the sentence to...

..."did not see equality with God something to hold on to". Why would Paul say this if Jesus was NEVER equal to God in the first place, or if Jesus never even CONSIDERED himself to be equal to God??? Why would Jesus not see quality with God something to hold on to, if he never had it to hold on too?? See what I'm saying?

He was HIGHER than all the angels, and by making himself a servant he made himself LOWER than all the angels.

But bryce, angels themselves are servants of God...they serve God, do they not? So how could making himself a servant make him lower than the angels when all angels serve God? Makes no sense.

Neither one of those positions necessarily equates to "equal with God". Secondly, the reason why Paul mentions him not viewing equality with God "something to be grasped", was (in my opinion) to illustrate the fact he would never make that claim about himself! This is what he was falsely charged with doing, that ultimately led to his death.

I would almost agree with you on your assessment if it weren't for the fact that it says "but made himself nothing". In this context, "but" is used to draw a contrast between what was before it, and what was said after it. That whole 3 or 4 verses is comparing Jesus' equality with God in the beginning, to him lowering his position thereafter.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that he was NOT omniscient, only that Simon viewed him that way because from Simon's perspective, he might as well have been (since he knows everything about Simon and all of the other disciples).

So he knows everything about the disciples, but that is the extent of his omnisience? Gotcha.

But knowing everything about all of your disciples, and even knowing most future events does not necessarily mean that you know EVERYTHING. And Matthew 24:36 tells us that he didnt!

In that case, then neither does the Father (Rev 19:12).

Nope, it's still a contradiction because the reason Peter knows that Jesus "knows all things" is presumably because Jesus told him BEFORE HE DIED that Peter would deny him three times!

Predicting a future event is hardly reasons for someone to give you the attribute of omniscience. Just sayin.

Jesus was human when he had this future knowledge, knowledge that no other human could have possibly had. Therefore, from Peter's perspective, he knew all things.

I guess we will have to just disagree here. I disagree based on other (in my opinion) Trinity proof texts, and since I believe firmly that these texts have Trinity implications, I can't help but interpret John 21:7 as implying Jesus' omniscience.

But in fact he didn't know ALL things, because Matthew 24:36 tells us something that Jesus did not know, and Luke 2:52 tells us the Jesus "grew" in Wisdom.

Right, the limitations of being a human. I wouldn't expect Jesus to be a baby born, and despite the fact he is a baby his spirit is an adult so he is actually an adult in a child's body just waiting to get older.

No. Because I'm not reading that passage literally like you are because such a literal interpretation doesn't make any sense. Jesus was "the word" in a figurative sense.

Ok but it says the word was God...so whether figuratively or literally what do you think is being implied here?

Because it's not literal! Jesus (the person) wasn't a collection of letters to be arraigned as part of a sentence. He was a person who brought the message of God's salvation.

Ok, granted it isn't "word" in a literal sense but what do you think it means when it says the Word was with God and the Word was God?

If Jesus, John or Paul wanted to make the point that Jesus was God ANY of them would have just plainly said so!

It is...Thomas plainly called Jesus God (John 20:28).

But HOW could they be expected to do that that if they are susceptible to temptations that Jesus wasn't? Do you deny that Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are?

I don't believe that Heb 4:15 means what you think it means. I am tempted every day to fornicate. Was Jesus tempted to fornicate? No. So that right there proves that Jesus wasn't tempted in the same way you and I are. What it does mean is Jesus knows what it is like to be approached by someone that is trying to influence you do to something bad. That doesn't mean that Jesus actually considered to commit such acts in the same way that we are.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You didn't reference it when addressing COTW's use of John 1:1 as the "End all" argument.

I'm anti-Trinitarian if you haven't noticed.

So Sherm, if an angel appeared to me and I tell you about it..and I say "Hey Sherm, a god appeared to me?" Would I be correct?

 

[Shermana]

So Sherm, if an angel appeared to me and I tell you about it..and I say "Hey Sherm, a god appeared to me?" Would I be correct?

Very much so.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Very much so.

So these gods get there power from something else. Wow, some gods.

 

[Shermana]

So these gods get there power from something else. Wow, some gods.

They derive their power from the "god of the gods", who is THE god, the "Most high" god. You simply don't understand what "god" means. It's a common problem. The widespread English use and concept of the word doesn't really convey what the Biblical meaning is, and why Angels are called "gods".

The word "god" simply means "power". It doesn't necessarily mean "Self-propelled power". THE god is still A god.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

They derive their power from the "god of the gods", who is THE god, the "Most high" god. You simply don't understand what "god" means. It's a common problem. The widespread English use and concept of the word doesn't really convey what the Biblical meaning is, and why Angels are called "gods".

The word "god" simply means "power". It doesn't necessarily mean "Self-propelled power". THE god is still A god.

Ok Sherm, lets go through this step by step. I am about to ask you some questions. "The God"...the "Most high" God, as you put...if he came on earth in the form of a human, can he sin while on earth..and WILL he ever sin during his tenure on earth? Please answer these two questions.

 

[captainbryce]

Good points but here is why I disagree. Do you recall the story of Joseph, at which while he was a servant in Potiphar’s house, Potiphar’s wife came on to him, but he refused. She did this day after day, and he refused her offers every single time. Now, was Joseph being tempted? Is it temptation if you have no desire to do it? Or is just the act of someone tempting you called temptation?

Well, first consider what Joseph's response was to Potiphar's wife.

Genesis 39:8-9
8 But he refused. “With me in charge,” he told her, “my master does not concern himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care. 9 No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?”

Can we deduce from this exchange that Joseph had "no desire", or only that he resisted such a desire because of his obligation to his master and God? I would say that there is stronger evidence to suggest the ladder, otherwise why would he make this argument at all? He could have just as easily said "I've taken a vow of celibacy", or "No thanks, you're not really my type", or "I don't find you attractive in that way", or "Sorry, but I'm gay!" (just kidding about the last one ). But his reasoning for not going to bed with her is because he knew she was legally (morally) off limits to him. With that in mind, I would say that she was "tempting" him and that he was indeed "tempted" (in every respect).

If it is just the mere act alone, then yes, Jesus was tempted, because even in the definition that you provided it says “to entice or ATTEMPT to entice”.

I agree.

But my point is Jesus wasn’t tempted in the sense at which he thought about it or took it in to consideration.

And my point is that according to Hebrews 4:15, HE WAS. And IF he wasn't, then how could this legitimately serve as an example for mankind to follow? If Jesus COULDN'T be tempted as we could, then what was the point of the test? Why would the devil "tempt" him if he was incapable of being tempted? That doesn't make any sense!

Jesus said in Matt 5:28 that if a man even looks at a woman lustfully, then he is committing adultery in his heart. So just by thinking about doing something wrong is still considered a sin.

I think your taking the scriptures a little bit out of context. It isn't that "thinking about doing something wrong" is considered a sin, it's that thinking about committing ADULTERY is the same thing as committing adultery. That passage has nothing to do with "being tempted", it has to do with what constitutes adultery. Applying it to any temptation in the general sense is taking it out of context.

All human beings are subject to temptations of the flesh. This is not something in our control and being tempted is not in itself a sin. Sin occurs when we succumb to our temptations and act upon them when we know it's wrong. It is our responsibility to resist temptations (as Jesus did) and act in accordance with his expectations.

James 4:7
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

It is "resistance" in the face of temptation that makes us righteous, and not the inability to be tempted.

So if Jesus thought about doing whatever it was he was being “tempted” by, he would be sinning.

That would be a misapplication of the intent of Matthew 5:28 (for aforementioned reasons). Additionally, this reasoning would further invalidate the point of the story of the temptation of Christ. Again, if he could not be tempted into sin in the way that we can (in the way that Hebrews 4 states), then he provided no lesson for us at all. The intended lesson is that he "resisted" temptation, therefore we must also resist temptation.

So if the bible maintains that Jesus was without sin, then he wasn’t tempted in the sense of taking to heart what was being offered to him. That was my point.

I don't believe that we are meant to draw that conclusion based on Matthew 5:28 and Hebrews 4:15.

The question is, COULD JESUS HAVE SINNED? And can God sin? If the answer is yes, then neither God nor Jesus are morally perfect.

God can not sin (by definition), but Jesus COULD sin because he had free will. The ability to sin does not make someone "tainted" as long as they choose not to. Adam had the ability to sin the day he was created, but the bible says that he didn't become "imperfect" until he chose to sin.

So what you are saying is, it is possible for humans to live our lives without committing one single sin?

Sure it's "possible", (albiet highly unlikely). If every "sin" is in fact a choice made in free will, then you always have the ability NOT to sin.

First off, I disagree that sin was part of Jesus’ nature.

I never suggested that it was in the first place.

I don’t believe there is a way for a mere human to live a life on earth free of sin…and if someone is able to pull off such a great feat, then that person is morally perfect and only God is morally perfect.

You are defining what it means to be "morally perfect" by your own standards, but the bible speaks of others who were "blameless and righteous" in the eyes of God.

Genesis 7:1
The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

Job 1:1
In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.

Luke 1:5-6
5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

Second, sin was part of Satan’s nature. If you have the will and the ability to do something, then it is part of your nature to do it.

That's not what scripture says.

Ezekiel 28:15
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.

 

[captainbryce]

First off, you are making it seem as if “archangel” is used many times in the bible. It is only mentioned twice and only one of those times has Michael obtaining the title. The other time is the 1 Thess scripture in question and it doesn’t have the name of Michael attached to it. So it is not as clear cut as you make it to be.

Fair enough!

So what? You are making it seem as if there is a scriptural rule which states that Michael’s name can only be used when it is in the context of angels battling demons. Sounds like Jehovah’s Witness logic to me.

Okay first of all, this is the second time you've accused me of being a Jehovah's Witness. I've already told you that I'm not. If you're going to continue making false accusations about me and trying to incorporate that as part of your argument, then I am no longer interested in communicating with you. So consider that strike two!

Secondly, don't you think it'd be better to hold this discussion for the separate about Jesus and Michael, instead of hijacking this one?

 

[captainbryce]

You didn't reference it when addressing COTW's use of John 1:1 as the "End all" argument.

You are free to get in the conversation and add whatever thoughts you'd like to add to it. But why tell me? Shouldn't your comment have been addressed to all of the Trinitarians on here?

I'm anti-Trinitarian if you haven't noticed.

I have noticed that. This happens to be ONE issue that we tend to agree on. Again, what's your point?

 

[Shermana]

I was just asking if you agreed or knew that John 1:1c should read "a god" since you didn't counter COTW's use of it with such, that is all.

 

[Shermana]

Ok Sherm, lets go through this step by step. I am about to ask you some questions. "The God"...the "Most high" God, as you put...if he came on earth in the form of a human, can he sin while on earth..and WILL he ever sin during his tenure on earth? Please answer these two questions.

No, he will not ever sin.

Likewise, if an Angel was incarnated on Earth (at least those who did not descend to mate with human women in Genesis 6), especially the Archangels or the highest in command of the Angels, the Firstborn among them, the "Logos", he or she would not sin either.

 

[captainbryce]

My point is, his mind can’t process a sinful act based on his nature.

And my point is, that is just your assumption. We don't know what Jesus's mind could and could not process! Your argument is not consistent with logic. Adam was the first human sinner. Sin did not exist before he committed the first sin. Adam's nature was no more "sinful" than Jesus's UNTIL he sinned for the first time. Yet he WAS capable of processing a sinful act (and was subsequently punished because of it). Why wouldn't Jesus (who unlike Adam, came into a world with full knowledge of what constitutes sin and what doesn't) be unable to process a sinful act? Jesus had more knowledge than Adam, so how could Adam be capable of something Jesus was not?

Or he could have been saying “Why do you call me good…only God is good..are you calling me God?”

Except that he DIDN'T say that! That would be ADDING to scripture. Also, given the context of the conversation, it wouldn't make any sense for him to say that. What would be the point of even bringing that up at that time? Nothing else within that conversation is related to the idea of him being God. So that interpretation seems a bit out of place.

Remember, Jesus is like God based on the meaning of Michael, right? So once again, based on that, Jesus is good, because God is good, and Jesus is like God.

True. But Jesus's point is that he would only be considered "good" by the standards of other men. And the standards of men are faulty. That's why NO MAN should be called "good" by any other man because "goodness" should be measured according to God's standards and not our own. We are unqualified to determine who is good and who isn't by God's standards. I think that's the point Jesus was trying to make.

So if only God is “truly good”, then what is Jesus? Not so good? Slightly good? A quarter of good? A pint? Of alllll the many names Jesus is called throughout the bible, good isn’t one of them, right?

I believe that Jesus was as "good" as any man could ever hope to be (although to point that out about himself would have been a form of vanity). But the fact that he is a man, means that he is not perfect. He was after all made lower than the angels (for a while). I don't think this passage can be taken to be supportive of trinity because I don't think that is the point of his message. If Jesus wanted to proclaim that he was God, he would have said so plainly. He never did!

All authority to judge mankind has been given to Jesus Christ. The Son is the only redeemer of sins, therefore it is appropriate to pray to Jesus, just as one would pray to God.

It is ok to worship Jesus though too, right?

Yes. I believe I just said that!

Jesus said worship God and serve him only…so is it ok to worship Jesus or not? Yes or no?

Okay, first of all, that's not exactly what Jesus said. You left out a couple of key words there!

Luke 4:7-8
7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.” 8 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.

Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament. And he is absolutely correct about what it says!

Deuteronomy 6:13
Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.

However, Jesus's quote has nothing to do with us worshiping Jesus. Remember, Jesus wasn't on Earth when Deuteronomy was written. So at that time, man may only worship God. Jesus's point was that nobody (least of all him) should worship Satan. But John 5:22-23 and Hebrews 1:6 make it clear that Jesus shall be worshiped just as God is worshiped after he ascends to heaven.

Philippians 2:9-11
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

John 16:23-27
23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete. 25 “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

I granted that, that is why I said do you have to be God to be prayed to and worshipped, and it sounds as if that is the route you are headed. We are free to worship and pray to Jesus despite the fact that Jesus isn’t God, on your view.

Correct. But that is only because God has declared that himself!

Hebrews 1:6
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God’s angels worship him"

 

[captainbryce]

I was just asking if you agreed or knew that John 1:1c should read "a god" since you didn't counter COTW's use of it with such, that is all.

Yes, I agree. But I tend not to use this argument if I can help it because it tends to open up a whole can of worms and lead into a tangent about scriptural translation. I think the point can usually be made without bringing this up. But kudos for going there!