Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

The Bible says Jesus "Emptied Himself" and that even the angels he created were greater than him as a man. (who is still a man ressurrected and mediating today) Because Jesus emptied himself is not a weakness, its the strength of him.

Apparently the Father is still greater than him even after he is ressurrected. That's why he has to receive revelation from God.

Jesus made himself the lowest as a man.

"Lowest"? What do you mean by "Lowest"? That he's lower than the Canaanite woman he calls a dog? John, who no man is greater than, says that he's unworthy to even untie his sandal strap.

What does the "Son of Man" mean?

It's a title that Jesus uses for himself to indicate that he's just a man.

Hence my belief in the Trinity

The Trinity concept says that they are completely equal and that they are in effect the same Being, you said that Jesus is "Everything the Father is". Contradiction.

 

[CMike]

There is one and only one G-D

 

[Shermana]

which is the Greek that Jesus spoke and that was around durring and before Jesus' Birth.

One more thing, we don't know if Jesus spoke Greek. I'm an Aramaic Primacist and that's for another thread, there is much evidence that the Greek is a Semetic dialect based on translation from an Aramaic original. There is much evidence in the text that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and that the Greek is a translation of what he was saying.

But again, there is no such thing as "The Septuagint" anymore than there is "The Bible", it's a matter of versions, and these versions contain critical differences. To deny Theodotion and Philo and Aquila and their renditions of the phrase in Exodus 3:14 just because the Sinaiticus or the Greek orthodox "Septuagint" says differently is evidence of the common Trinitarian inability to realize that there wasn't just one version of the text ,it's akin to saying that 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is part of "The Bible" and refusing to address the other manuscripts.

http://concordances.org/hebrew/1961.htm

Look up the word "Ehyeh" and see how its almost always used as "Will be" or "become" or "have been", and when it is used as "Am", other translations have "have been", as that's the sense that "Am" is being used. Then notice that there is no word for "I am" in Hebrew, it's just "I".

 

[Jehovah'sWitness]

Jesus cannot be God,
there is multiple reasons for this:
1. He is CLEARLY referenced as "the son of God"
2. When he is on earth clearly he is still praying to God his father
3 Philipians Chapter 2 verses 5-7 state "Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form(he was a spirit like God), gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form(by coming to earth) and came to be in the likeness of men." (brackets mine)

 

[1robin]

Jesus cannot be God,
there is multiple reasons for this:
1. He is CLEARLY referenced as "the son of God"

That is a title and a role not a description of capability or capacity.

2. When he is on earth clearly he is still praying to God his father

Because he was to be an example as to the way men should act and he was in a voluntarily deminished state of capability that enabled him to identify with men and them with him.

3 Philipians Chapter 2 verses 5-7 state "Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form(he was a spirit like God), gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form(by coming to earth) and came to be in the likeness of men." (brackets mine)

I have no idea what bible you got this version from. It is different from all the major ones that I could find.
NIV
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! 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 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
NLT
5 You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.
6 Though he was God,[a]
he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges[b];
he took the humble position of a slave[c]
and was born as a human being.
When he appeared in human form,[d]

NKJV
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

Philippians 2:5-7 NKJV - The Humbled and Exalted Christ - Let - Bible Gateway

Here is the explanation from the most excepted commentator in history.

Verses 5-11 The example of our Lord Jesus Christ is set before us. We must resemble him in his life, if we would have the benefit of his death. Notice the two natures of Christ; his Divine nature, and human nature. Who being in the form of God, partaking the Divine nature, as the eternal and only-begotten Son of God, Joh. 1:1 , had not thought it a robbery to be equal with God, and to receive Divine worship from men. His human nature; herein he became like us in all things except sin. Thus low, of his own will, he stooped from the glory he had with the Father before the world was. Christ's two states, of humiliation and exaltation, are noticed. Christ not only took upon him the likeness and fashion, or form of a man, but of one in a low state; not appearing in splendour. His whole life was a life of poverty and suffering. But the lowest step was his dying the death of the cross, the death of a malefactor and a slave; exposed to public hatred and scorn. The exaltation was of Christ's human nature, in union with the Divine. At the name of Jesus, not the mere sound of the word, but the authority of Jesus, all should pay solemn homage. It is to the glory of God the Father, to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; for it is his will, that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father, ( John 5:23 ) . Here we see such motives to self-denying love as nothing else can supply. Do we thus love and obey the Son of God?
Philippians 2 - Matthew Henry Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible
As can be easily seen these verses attest to Christ's devinity and co-equal relationship with the father.

 

[F0uad]

Couple of verses that i do not understand that fit the Jesus(p) god teaching.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Yet Jesus(p) is man and a son of man.

James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
we can see that the scriptures say that Jesus(p) was tempted: Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Now you can off-course interpret the story differently but as how i read it he was tempted on many places and the verse 1 clearly says he was tempted.

"Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39
Yet Jesus(p) is on earth and the spirit is somewhere floating around..

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only [monos] God" 1 Timothy 1:17
....

I hope someone can explain or clarify the verses i quoted.

 

[1robin]

Couple of verses that i do not understand that fit the Jesus(p) god teaching.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Yet Jesus(p) is man and a son of man.

Hello F0uad, I threw so much at you in the other thread I will try to be brief. Jesus' humantity was not God. That is why he says that he is the son of God and the son of man. His natural non-devine nature was the son of man. His devine nature was the son of God. I will add a respected commentary on the bible.
<A href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/Numbers/23-19.html">Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie
Man is a creature consisting of a body of flesh and blood, and of a soul, a created and finite spirit; but God, though he has the parts of an human body ascribed to him in a figurative sense, yet is not to be conceived of in a corporeal manner; and though he is a Spirit, yet eternal, immense, and infinite; and much less is as a sinful man, who goes astray from the womb speaking lies; no, let God be true, and every man a liar: he is God, that cannot lie; his counsels of old are faithfulness and truth; his promises yea and amen in Christ; the Scriptures inspired by him are true, and the prophecies of them are punctually accomplished, particularly what he foretold of the people of Israel, and promised unto them; that they should be happy, and inherit the land of Canaan; that be would be true and faithful to them, and there could be no hope, by any means whatever, to make him false and unfaithful to his word: neither the son of man, that he should repent; repentance is found in men, who repent for what they have done, or change their minds, as to what they intended to do or set about; perceiving it to be wrong to do it, or that they are able to do it, some unforeseen thing turning up they were not aware of: but nothing of this kind belongs to God, or can befall him; he never changes his mind, alters his counsels, purposes, and decrees, and never varies in his affections to his people, nor makes void his choice of them, or covenant with them; and his calling of them by his grace, and his gifts of grace bestowed upon them, are without repentance: and particularly with respect to the people of Israel, there was no reason to hope or believe that God would change his purposes or promises respecting their outward happiness, and enjoyment of the land of Canaan; or that ever he would be prevailed upon to curse them, or admit them to be cursed, when he was determined, and had so peremptorily promised that he would bless them:
Numbers 23:19 - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, New Testament Commentary If you read these verses in context (the same thing you require for the Quran) most issues go away quickly.

James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
we can see that the scriptures say that Jesus(p) was tempted: Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Now you can off-course interpret the story differently but as how i read it he was tempted on many places and the verse 1 clearly says he was tempted.

Ok this is an easy one. To say he was tempted is not to say that he could have possibly been persuaded to give in. The temptation is in a passive tense in the original. It implies a completely ineffective and impotent attempt. It's like saying you shot a battleship with a rifle. You did in fact shoot it but because of it's nature the battleship was completely unaffected by what you did. Yes he did tempt Jesus but Jesus himself was never tempted to give in. Keep in mind Jesus did many things as an example for us not because he needed to.

"Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39
Yet Jesus(p) is on earth and the spirit is somewhere floating around..

This appears to support my position. I do not understand how this relates to Jesus not being God.

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only [monos] God" 1 Timothy 1:17
....

IMO God has never been seen. God is spirit and so has no physical description. The shell or body that Christ was in is not what Jesus devine (God) nature looks like nor was the burning bush etc... I believe this is a correct view but even I am not satasfied completely by what I said here. F0uad If you really desire truth why do you not research commentaries before asking these questions? They can clear up most issues. There are dezens of them so you can compare and contrast. I say this because i know you to be a person who values information.

I hope someone can explain or clarify the verses i quoted.

I hope I added something useful. However Muslims are hard to please. Just kidding

 

[F0uad]

you read these verses in context (the same thing you require for the Quran) most issues go away quickly.

I did read it in context and the commentary didn't make sense and was dull sorry for not reading it fully.

Ok this is an easy one. To say he was tempted is not to say that he could have possibly been persuaded to give in. The temptation is in a passive tense in the original. It implies a completely ineffective and impotent attempt. It's like saying you shot a battleship with a rifle. You did in fact shoot it but because of it's nature the battleship was completely unaffected by what you did. Yes he did tempt Jesus but Jesus himself was never tempted to give in. Keep in mind Jesus did many things as an example for us not because he needed to.

Yet the verse clearly says God does not get tempted it doesn't say he doesn't give in the word there is tempted and i used the NIV translation.

This appears to support my position. I do not understand how this relates to Jesus not being God.

I think the dots have been placed in the wrong spots or you didn't fully understand it, it says that there is no other God in the heavens or Earth yet Jesus(p) was on earth..

IMO God has never been seen. God is spirit and so has no physical description. The shell or body that Christ was in is not what Jesus devine (God) nature looks like nor was the burning bush etc... I believe this is a correct view but even I am not satasfied completely by what I said here. F0uad If you really desire truth why do you not research commentaries before asking these questions? They can clear up most issues. There are dezens of them so you can compare and contrast. I say this because i know you to be a person who values information.

I remember when you said that the Biblical teaching was that Jesus(p)'s died for the sins of man but if hes body alone was killed then surely Jesus(p) himself didn't really die according to your argument above. I find the commentaries on most bibles very confusing and dishonest since its mostly based on weird kind of tricks of word-uses and own made teachings to justify or explain something.

I hope I added something useful. However Muslims are hard to please. Just kidding

I am not sure about Muslims but i personally am.

 

[1robin]

I did read it in context and the commentary didn't make sense and was dull sorry for not reading it fully.

Well the context and commentary apparently make sense to the millions who have bought the commentary.

Yet the verse clearly says God does not get tempted it doesn't say he doesn't give in the word there is tempted and i used the NIV translation.

It doesn't matter since saying satan tempted him does not mean that Christ was actually effected by the temptation, the same way that the battleship is not effected even though you actually did shoot it. It like saying I tempted you to accept the earth is square. That would have no effect on making you want to believe it is. However if someone wrote that he saw my tempt you it would be correct just like satan tempted Christ is accurate even though Christs was un effected by that. It's a simple semantic concept.

I think the dots have been placed in the wrong spots or you didn't fully understand it, it says that there is no other God in the heavens or Earth yet Jesus(p) was on earth..

This is what you posted "Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39
Yet Jesus(p) is on earth and the spirit is somewhere floating around.. "

This verse is making the point that there is only one God for earth and heaven and there is no other. It says in heaven and on earth which is exactly my position. This might have a bearing concerning the holy spirit but not Christ. However the bible also claims that God is omnipresent which means his spirit is everywhere including earth.

I remember when you said that the Biblical teaching was that Jesus(p)'s died for the sins of man but if hes body alone was killed then surely Jesus(p) himself didn't really die according to your argument above. I find the commentaries on most bibles very confusing and dishonest since its mostly based on weird kind of tricks of word-uses and own made teachings to justify or explain something.

I am not sure about Muslims but i personally am.

The fact that he suffered physically for one thing is not meaningful for salvation. It was his alienation from God (as in hell) that was taking our punishement for us. He suffered hell so we don't have to. His body didn't do that his spirit did.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Well the context and commentary apparently make sense to the millions who have bought the commentary.



It doesn't matter since saying satan tempted him does not mean that Christ was actually effected by the temptation, the same way that the battleship is not effected even though you actually did shoot it. It like saying I tempted you to accept the earth is square. That would have no effect on making you want to believe it is. However if someone wrote that he saw my tempt you it would be correct just like satan tempted Christ is accurate even though Christs was un effected by that. It's a simple semantic concept.


This is what you posted "Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39
Yet Jesus(p) is on earth and the spirit is somewhere floating around.. "

This verse is making the point that there is only one God for earth and heaven and there is no other. It says in heaven and on earth which is exactly my position. This might have a bearing concerning the holy spirit but not Christ. However the bible also claims that God is omnipresent which means his spirit is everywhere including earth.






The fact that he suffered physically for one thing is not meaningful for salvation. It was his alienation from God (as in hell) that was taking our punishement for us. He suffered hell so we don't have to. His body didn't do that his spirit did.

You say your god is omnipresent, yet, if you believe Hell is separation from him, this invalidates his omnipresence, which invalidates this idea that Jesus went to Hell, etc.

 

[F0uad]

Well the context and commentary apparently make sense to the millions who have bought the commentary.

I really doubt that millions have bought the commentary its free on the web and its very dishonest in many ways sometimes. Also there are so many commentaries that do not see eye-to-eye that i am not even sure what to read any-more.

It doesn't matter since saying satan tempted him does not mean that Christ was actually effected by the temptation, the same way that the battleship is not effected even though you actually did shoot it. It like saying I tempted you to accept the earth is square. That would have no effect on making you want to believe it is. However if someone wrote that he saw my tempt you it would be correct just like satan tempted Christ is accurate even though Christs was un effected by that. It's a simple semantic concept.

The words are: HE WAS TEMPTED and it did had a effect on him he went to different places.

If i shoot a battleship then it is effected, if you would tempt me to belief in the earth being a square then you have tempted me it doesn't mean you actually have convinced me but you tempted me and the verse clearly says that God cannot be tempted.

This is what you posted "Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39
Yet Jesus(p) is on earth and the spirit is somewhere floating around.. "

This verse is making the point that there is only one God for earth and heaven and there is no other. It says in heaven and on earth which is exactly my position. This might have a bearing concerning the holy spirit but not Christ. However the bible also claims that God is omnipresent which means his spirit is everywhere including earth.

Sorry for putting the dots on the wrong spots like i said.

Anyway like the verse says God is one and everywhere in a sense. Then everything outside of hes spiritual being (if i may call it that) is not him.. for examples humans, animals, trees, air.. and Jesus(p).

I would say that God's knowledge is everywhere and he is outside of this world/universe but that has nothing to do with anything we have said.

The fact that he suffered physically for one thing is not meaningful for salvation. It was his alienation from God (as in hell) that was taking our punishement for us. He suffered hell so we don't have to. His body didn't do that his spirit did.

Please try to stick to the premises and question.. If a soul doesn't die then the person didn't really die... according to scripture and logical understanding?

 

[1robin]

You say your god is omnipresent, yet, if you believe Hell is separation from him, this invalidates his omnipresence, which invalidates this idea that Jesus went to Hell, etc.

Hell is a very little understood subject, there are several different ideas on what it is. The one I find the most logical suggests hell is not a geographical location but a spiritual condition. I will not suggest this one is the correct one except in my opinion. If it is correct however your points are invalid. Regardless even if a person sent to a geographical hell is seperated from his spiritual connection from God that does not imply that God is not spiritually present in that location. It is a condition not a location. Another version suggests hell will be destroyed at some time and all the souls in it as well this also makes your position problematic. As I do not have a firm committed position I will not spend much time defending it.

 

[waitasec]

Hell is a very little understood subject,

wonder why...?

 

[1robin]

I really doubt that millions have bought the commentary its free on the web and its very dishonest in many ways sometimes. Also there are so many commentaries that do not see eye-to-eye that i am not even sure what to read any-more.

The books were composed in the early 1700's so it has been selling for quite a while before the internet. Of course the millions was a guess. However the fact that virtually every Church and a large number of Christians have this commentary it surely isn't hard to believe it might even be 10s of millions by now. Regardless the numbers whatever they are are definately huge. The same can be said about Muslim resources. I have even seen Shabir accept a hadith on one verse and reject it on another.

The words are: HE WAS TEMPTED and it did had a effect on him he went to different places.

If i shoot a battleship then it is effected, if you would tempt me to belief in the earth being a square then you have tempted me it doesn't mean you actually have convinced me but you tempted me and the verse clearly says that God cannot be tempted.

This is really splitting hairs. There is no mention of Jesus actually being swayed or giving in whatsoever. If you remember that much of Christ's mission was to be an example of how to be perfectly obedient when faced with the same trials we are, then this is a very reasonable event. Satan did his role in tempting Christ and Christ performed his role by not even for a second feeling compelled to give in. If you read the verses Christ responded back to every attempt instantly with scripture and a flat refusal. Again there is no indication that satan's attempts had any effect. Regardless even if it was known that Christ felt some momentary desire to give in then that could easily be explained by his non-devine weakness of flesh which was instantly subdued by his devine spirit. Either way this isn't a very effective way to prove Jesus isn't God. Here is something else I found:In the New Testament, when Jesus is tempted in Matt. 4, the word for tempt is peirazo. Again, according to the Enhanced Strong's Lexicon, it means 1) "to try whether a thing can be done, 2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quallity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself.
http://carm.org/god-cannot-be-tempted-jesus-was-tempted
There is nothing in that definition that suggests Christ could or did even for a second become swayed or influenced by satan. His temptation was completely impotent. I changed the bolded word from quantity to quality because I thought it was a typo hoever this does not effect anything either way.

Sorry for putting the dots on the wrong spots like i said.

I am not able to interpret dots anyway. Maybe you could tell me where to learn it.

Anyway like the verse says God is one and everywhere in a sense. Then everything outside of hes spiritual being (if i may call it that) is not him.. for examples humans, animals, trees, air.. and Jesus(p).

God is one being composed of three persons. His oneness refers to being, person refers to manifestation or role. Jesus is not outside God's spirit but I will agree with your other examples except possibly a born again Christians soul. This God or no God, Trinity or no trinity debate, to me is a secondary issue regardless of which way you believe. The important issue is whether faith in Christ's sacrifice is necessary to get to heaven, everything else is mere comentary.

I would say that God's knowledge is everywhere and he is outside of this world/universe but that has nothing to do with anything we have said.

The most accepted Christian view is God is in and outside of our temporal universe but he is not dependant on it. He can pop into time, and assume a material form or he can pop out of time, space, and matter.

Please try to stick to the premises and question.. If a soul doesn't die then the person didn't really die... according to scripture and logical understanding?

This is incorrect. The bible and quran both record the DEATHS of many people. Since both these faiths also claim the soul does not die at all or atleast until the final judgement then it is consistent to say Christ died even though his soul didn't. The bible says king David, and Solomon died. The Quran says that Muhammad died. Since we both believe their souls did not die then death means that the body died not the soul. By the biblical or Quranic definition of death Christs qualifies and is consistent. If you invent another definition for death outside the books own definition then that is meaningless. This is a very simple and obvious issue.

 

[1robin]

wonder why...?

The bible doesn't cover it in detail. It spends far more time telling us how to avoid it than describeing it. I can't say I don't wish it was more clearly described but unlike many I don't have the knowledge or arrogance to suggest to almighty God what he should or should not do. Did the administrators ever tell you how I managed to defy natural law and post a that picture?

 

[waitasec]

The bible doesn't cover it in detail. It spends far more time telling us how to avoid it than describeing it. I can't say I don't wish it was more clearly described but unlike many I don't have the knowledge or arrogance to suggest to almighty God what he should or should not do. Did the administrators ever tell you how I managed to defy natural law and post a that picture?

why would anyone want to avoid it if we don't know what it is?

 

[1robin]

why would anyone want to avoid it if we don't know what it is?

I can't believe you actually thought this was a worth while question to ask. Because no matter what correct interpretation of the doctrine of hell it is universally terrible. The bible is consistent on the utterly undesirable nature of Hell whatever the actuall experience is. Be honest. Was this an actuall question or did you need to say something and that was all you could think of?

 

[F0uad]

The books were composed in the early 1700's so it has been selling for quite a while before the internet. Of course the millions was a guess. However the fact that virtually every Church and a large number of Christians have this commentary it surely isn't hard to believe it might even be 10s of millions by now. Regardless the numbers whatever they are are definately huge. The same can be said about Muslim resources. I have even seen Shabir accept a hadith on one verse and reject it on another.

I am getting the expression that you are in love with Shabir hehe joke.
I don't really care about the commentaries of the bible or the numbers of it assuming something is different then knowing something. A hadith has to be authentic and reliable before its accepted by any scholar so the hadith he rejected was probably a unreliable one, even if a Hadiths speaks in favour of Islam we still need to look at its reliability and authenticity.

This is really splitting hairs. There is no mention of Jesus actually being swayed or giving in whatsoever. If you remember that much of Christ's mission was to be an example of how to be perfectly obedient when faced with the same trials we are, then this is a very reasonable event. Satan did his role in tempting Christ and Christ performed his role by not even for a second feeling compelled to give in. If you read the verses Christ responded back to every attempt instantly with scripture and a flat refusal. Again there is no indication that satan's attempts had any effect. Regardless even if it was known that Christ felt some momentary desire to give in then that could easily be explained by his non-devine weakness of flesh which was instantly subdued by his devine spirit. Either way this isn't a very effective way to prove Jesus isn't God. Here is something else I found:In the New Testament, when Jesus is tempted in Matt. 4, the word for tempt is peirazo. Again, according to the Enhanced Strong's Lexicon, it means 1) "to try whether a thing can be done, 2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quallity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself.
God cannot be tempted. Jesus was tempted.   Therefore, Jesus cannot be God. | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
There is nothing in that definition that suggests Christ could or did even for a second become swayed or influenced by satan. His temptation was completely impotent. I changed the bolded word from quantity to quality because I thought it was a typo hoever this does not effect anything either way.

Didn't i say you can interpret the story as you want the verse clearly says he was tempted period. Please read my first post again, i specially used the NIV translation because you use it. I agree with the second translastion of the word being ''tested'' but how does this change anything of what i have said or the verses?

God is one being composed of three persons. His oneness refers to being, person refers to manifestation or role. Jesus is not outside God's spirit but I will agree with your other examples except possibly a born again Christians soul. This God or no God, Trinity or no trinity debate, to me is a secondary issue regardless of which way you believe. The important issue is whether faith in Christ's sacrifice is necessary to get to heaven, everything else is mere comentary.

The trinity again.. can you please define a person for me?

The most accepted Christian view is God is in and outside of our temporal universe but he is not dependant on it. He can pop into time, and assume a material form or he can pop out of time, space, and matter.

I agree but the verse says he doesn't and isn't.

This is incorrect. The bible and quran both record the DEATHS of many people. Since both these faiths also claim the soul does not die at all or atleast until the final judgement then it is consistent to say Christ died even though his soul didn't. The bible says king David, and Solomon died. The Quran says that Muhammad died. Since we both believe their souls did not die then death means that the body died not the soul. By the biblical or Quranic definition of death Christs qualifies and is consistent. If you invent another definition for death outside the books own definition then that is meaningless. This is a very simple and obvious issue.

I am not sure what the Quran has anything to do with this and no Mohammed(saws) didn't die according to the Quran it would make no sense. When we say someone died it doesn't mean he or she really died, but hes Physical body died however when we are going to say ''Somebody needs to die for our sins'' then that person's soul has to die. A Physical body isn't the person, i am not sure if you understand where i am getting to..

Where did i make a new definition both Scriptures say that a soul cannot die and we both agree.

 

[waitasec]

I can't believe you actually thought this was a worth while question to ask. Because no matter what correct interpretation of the doctrine of hell it is universally terrible. The bible is consistent on the utterly undesirable nature of Hell whatever the actuall experience is. Be honest. Was this an actuall question or did you need to say something and that was all you could think of?

that sounds like a disclaimer to me...

so then your post that says this:

The bible doesn't cover it in detail.

was what then?

the only place where we get the idea of hell is from the bible.
hell actually presents a problem for the unbeliever. how can heaven be heaven knowing a loved one is in hell?

once you reconcile that dilemma then we can discuss the lost ability to empathize in heaven.


so yeah, it was a worth while question to ask.

 

[1robin]

that sounds like a disclaimer to me...

so then your post that says this:


was what then?

the only place where we get the idea of hell is from the bible.
hell actually presents a problem for the unbeliever.

I couldn't believe that anyone wouldn't know exactly why Hell is undesirable no matter what it actually is. Apparently your are sincere so I drop the assertion.

how can heaven be heaven knowing a loved one is in hell?

I do not believe that you will know that regardless of Hells nature.

once you reconcile that dilemma then we can discuss the lost ability to empathize in heaven.

I don't see a dilemma. There will be a drastic change of our nature when we go to heaven. I believe it is biblicly cosistent to suggest that there will be nothing to empathize about. Since in protestant (or biblical) Christianity there are only two choices. One horrible and one great regardless of any minor unclear details, and that is suffecient enough to base a decision on. God never said we will know everything about everything and so why expect it or demand it. Many things are and wil be mysterious. I prefer it that way. The loss of wonder as we mature is a tragedy.

so yeah, it was a worth while question to ask.

I still don't see the weight of the issue but I have concluded you are sincere so just forget my suprise.