Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

I would say it those characteristics the absence of which would render him less than God. Essence might also be that which enables his infinate capacity. I did not look that up as I do not feel the question you asked is actually what you want to know. I think you are steering the issue to some place else you are trying to get to. Perhaps we can just go there and skip all the other stuff as essence is a well known subject to a person as competant and familiar with the issue as you are. Howver if you actually need an official definition I will provide it on request.

Essence IS a well known subject. And what's especially well known is....that it's a vague and undefendable term that the Orthodox didn't feel the need to really spell out and just kinda was one of those "Well...it just...is" concepts. It's a perfect example of the shoddiness and hollowness of the actual terms and definitions used to support this otherwise unsupportable doctrine. I am not steering the issue away, if anything I am steering it to a direction to prove that those who use the term "Essence" have no actual clear definition as to how it actually applies. It's just a "Buzz word" that is inherently meaningless in its use, and when examined objectively, falls apart and doesn't mean what the person using it is trying to say it means, and thus doesn't really support the Trinitarian doctrine. I don't need an actual definition, and I don't think you'd be able to provide an adequate definition upon request that actually fits the subject....because there simply isn't it!

The fact that you say that such Essence is what makes him not "less than God" is all the more reason why such a definition of Essence is so important, yet so impossible to actually make.

Phase 1: Say that Jesus had the same "Essence" as his Father.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Defend Trinity!

To use terms like "Essence" when describing Jesus, or "Person", and then not having concrete definitions of those terms is the basis of enforcement of ideas like the Trinity. Make up terms, don't have any clear definition, then use those terms in hopes that people will just somehow accept them without fully understanding the implications. And no matter what definition you use for "Essence", it will ultimately end up supporting the Anti-Trinity arguments when you must actually attempt to define it and not just let the hollow word get used without question.

 

[1robin]

Essence IS a well known subject. And what's especially well known is....that it's a vague and undefendable term that the Orthodox didn't feel the need to really spell out and just kinda was one of those "Well...it just...is" concepts. It's a perfect example of the shoddiness and hollowness of the actual terms and definitions used to support this otherwise unsupportable doctrine. I am not steering the issue away, if anything I am steering it to a direction to prove that those who use the term "Essence" have no actual clear definition as to how it actually applies.

Actually it is a very very meaningfull word. It's weakness comes in when applying it to an infinate being using a finite mind. It is an actuall termendously important concept. God has a unique essence that makes him God. That has specific criteria. My inability to know exactly how to describe for a subject I do not really have a stake in is neither here nor there. I am quite sure there are books devoted to the subject.

It's just a "Buzz word" that is inherently meaningless in its use, and when examined objectively, falls apart and doesn't mean what the person using it is trying to say it means, and thus doesn't really support the Trinitarian doctrine. I don't need an actual definition, and I don't think you'd be able to provide an adequate definition upon request that actually fits the subject....because there simply isn't it!

First God the father does in fact have an essence that uniquely qualifies him as God. Jesus may or may not have the same as the Holy Spirit as well. You can't make that issue meaningless because you find it inconvenient. Not can you say that you have a suffecient understanding of the issue to claim there is no understanding of the issue in existance. I do not claim competance or interest enough to explain it suffeciently but I do have the competance to claim that the issue is vital and meaningfull. I think you just hate the concept so much that you will vigorously attack any vestage of it, even when given by someone who does not really care. I only begin commenting about methods but people like and another guy just can't help but attept to suck me into a discussion about the Trinity.

The fact that you say that such Essence is what makes him not "less than God" is all the more reason why such a definition of Essence is so important, yet so impossible to actually make.

Then find someone who is competant enough to explain it. Why are you so vitally interested in something you have made you mind up about? Either William Lane craig, Ravi Zacharias, James White, or Thomas Aquinas off the top of my head would be competant on the issue. Here is even a link that you can pretend to find problems with. I kid, I kid.
Edward Feser: William Lane Craig on divine simplicity

Phase 1: Say that Jesus had the same "Essence" as his Father.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Defend Trinity!

No, I do not care enough no matter how bad you want the fight. I think both arguments have equal validity. I was describing what a certain position said about a claim, not necessarily what I believe is true. In fact the issue is unresolvable. I am here to discuss the merits of certain methods or that is what I started out to do.

To use terms like "Essence" when describing Jesus, or "Person", and then not having concrete definitions of those terms is the basis of enforcement of ideas like the Trinity. Make up terms, don't have any clear definition, then use those terms in hopes that people will just somehow accept them without fully understanding the implications. And no matter what definition you use for "Essence", it will ultimately end up supporting the Anti-Trinity arguments when you must actually attempt to define it and not just let the hollow word get used without question.

To say a bridge has the essence of a bridge is valid even if I do not know structural engineering. To say a cloud in essence is water vapor does not require a doctorate in physics. Etc.... I have no dog in this race. I am not driven by precommitment to IMO an unimportant doctrine that requires me to defend that which I do not claim. I have commented on the argument not the conclusion. I have no and require no firm conclusion. Based on you response I might get bored enough to become competant on this issue.

 

[Shermana]

]Actually it is a very very meaningfull word.

I didn't say it wasn't meaningful, I said you had no actual concrete meaning. I said the usage of the term was "inherently meaningless", not the idea itself. The usage of the word. Like the word "person", you still can't actually define it in a way which actually supports your particular interpretation. That doesn't mean the word "person" is meaningless either, it means your USAGE of it may be meaningless. If you say that "God has essence", that's not meaningless. What's meaningless is when I ask you to define Essence and you can't. Then you're just using an empty buzz word. Is it a physical substance? Is it a qualitative concept? Is it a position of authority or rank? Why would Jesus have the same "essence"? Why wouldn't other angels have this essence? Is it spiritual non-physical matter? Ultimately, the argument not only has no meaning but has NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS. It's merely the wordplay of the early Trinitarians without the ability to enforce its use among questioners with the sword.

Most importantly however, this whole "Essence" thing has absolutely no scriptural basis. It's a purely 3rd-4th century Greek development, even if the concept of "Essence" has a basic idea, what EXACTLY that idea is however, as most Trinitarians seem to want to use the term, is not scripturally backed whatsoever. I agree there is a word called "Essence". I can use it like in "The essence of your argument is that poor people are just lazy" or "Essentially, you're wrong". But if I said "Jesus and God have the same essence", slow down there, what the heck does that mean specifically? It's quite important, and why don't the Angels Also have this same essence? Where does the Scripture mention any of this? Do you not feel you need scriptural backing for this crucial, "tremendously important" idea?

It's weakness comes in when applying it to an infinate being using a finite mind.

So basically you can take up any word and then use it in any way for any doctrine you want and claim that any logical inconsistencies are just due to the limitations of the mind, without regard to an objective understanding all parties agree to of it. I completely disagree with this concept. I think the "finite" mind is perfectly capable of comprehending any logical concept. IF your goal is to say that God is not logical or bound by logic, then that's that. I don't see why God being an "infinite being" has anything to do with how to specifically define how the term is being used in application in His case.

It is an actuall termendously important concept.

A tremendously important concept of which you can't actually define and say is too great to be understood by the finite human mind.

God has a unique essence that makes him God.

And what is that "Essence"?

That has specific criteria. My inability to know exactly how to describe for a subject I do not really have a stake in is neither here nor there. I am quite sure there are books devoted to the subject.

So basically you're saying "It just is! But I can't explain it, and the finite mind can't accept it." Not exactly a winning argument.

First God the father does in fact have an essence that uniquely qualifies him as God. Jesus may or may not have the same as the Holy Spirit as well. You can't make that issue meaningless because you find it inconvenient

Please explain why I find the issue inconvenient, and why I said its "meaningless". You apparently don't understand what I even said if you say that I said its 'meaningless". I said that the term itself has no concrete meaning. What's inconvenient for YOU however is the idea that you have to actually have a logical understanding of it to defend as a concept.

.

Not can you say that you have a suffecient understanding of the issue to claim there is no understanding of the issue in existance

Why not? Are you saying that no one can claim any sufficient understanding to point out that you can't define it and are trying to define something that you say can't be defined? Why can YOU say that you have such a sufficient understanding that you can just say "It is" without having to give real meaning?

.

I do not claim competance or interest enough to explain it suffeciently but I do have the competance to claim that the issue is vital and meaningfull.

The competence to claim that it's meaningful and vital requires the same competence to type letters on the keyboard. I appreciate that you are admitting that you are not competent enough to actually substantiate your claim though. Anyone can type. Few can actually adequately support an idea.

I think you just hate the concept so much that you will vigorously attack any vestage of it,

If you'd rather say that I just hate the concept rather than address the fact that you can't actually define what you're defending, feel free to say so.

even when given by someone who does not really care.

If you don't really care, get out of this thread. This is not the first time you've made some excuse about not really caring about what you're unable to defend as if that excuses your illogical unsupportable posts on the thread. If you don't care about all these concepts relative to the thread, stick to the DIRS where you belong. This is a DEBATE thread, read the OP. I'm not the first person to tell you to read the OP.

I only begin commenting about methods but people like and another guy just can't help but attept to suck me into a discussion about the Trinity.

It's their fault for sucking you in after you comment on a debate thread?

Then find someone who is competant enough to explain it.

How about you just admit defeat or quietly stop posting and take the hit instead?

Why are you so vitally interested in something you have made you mind up about? Either William Lane craig, Ravi Zacharias, James White, or Thomas Aquinas off the top of my head would be competant on the issue.

My reasons for debating on this thread's OP are my own reasons. Why are you so vitally interested in making personal attacks and non-arguments when your own logic is exposed as flawed? I would bet $10,000 that none of them could define what "Essence" means in an objective way that is scripturally backed and applies to the Trinity doctrine as it used. Especially WLC, he'd just change the subject and claim he answered it like usual. I'd also bet you couldn't find in the entire Summa Theologica anything by Aquinas that truly nails down what "Essence" actually is that doesn't resort to more undefined vagueries. He says "We do not know the Essence of God", but does he even define what sort of "Essence" that would be in the first place? All he says is that God's Essence is his own Existence. How quaint. How circular.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

No, I do not care enough no matter how bad you want the fight. I think both arguments have equal validity. I was describing what a certain position said about a claim, not necessarily what I believe is true. In fact the issue is unresolvable. I am here to discuss the merits of certain methods or that is what I started out to do.

And I showed that those merits aren't necessarily meritable for one side particularly.

To say a bridge has the essence of a bridge is valid even if I do not know structural engineering. To say a cloud in essence is water vapor does not require a doctorate in physics. Etc.... I have no dog in this race. I am not driven by precommitment to IMO an unimportant doctrine that requires me to defend that which I do not claim. I have commented on the argument not the conclusion. I have no and require no firm conclusion.

[/quote]

Then as "a god", Jesus and ALL the Angels (Because as has been shown 100 times at least on this thread, Angels are called gods) share the same "Essence" with god. You may disagree, but by your own logic, that's what would relate. Even if you say that a "Cloud in essence is water vapor", that in no way whatsoever, in any way shape or form, gives any clue as to the syllogism of how Jesus has the same essence as God. If Water is the essence of Vapor, what is the "Essence" of God? It seems you are saying its a physical substance by using vapor and water as material explanations for "Essence". So are you saying that "Essence" means "Material"? If that's what you're saying we can take that from there, because you'd have to explain where in the scripture it says that Jesus would be of any different "Essence" than the Angels or other Heavenly beings.

Now if you have no dog in this race, kindly stop getting personal and making non-arguments to those who may have one. Not even Aquinas could answer for this unscriptural concept.

 

[1robin]

I didn't say it wasn't meaningful, I said you had no actual concrete meaning. I said the usage of the term was "inherently meaningless", not the idea itself. The usage of the word. Like the word "person", you still can't actually define it in a way which actually supports your particular interpretation.

Sorry, I had to delete some of your statements to make all this fit. So we agree that the issue is meaningfull but I can tell I alone will be relied upon instead of research (which I pointed to) to supply it. I plan to do so but not today if I can remember, and justify the inappropriate resistance it will meet.

Most importantly however, this whole "Essence" thing has absolutely no scriptural basis. It's quite important, and why don't the Angels Also have this same essence? Where does the Scripture mention any of this? Do you not feel you need scriptural backing for this crucial, "tremendously important" idea?

There is no scriptural backing necessary to know that things have an essence that makes them, those very things. The only thing necessary then is to identify or define it. That needs only implications and descriptions of effects. For the love, some aspects are given in the Bible point blank like, Omniprescence, Omnipotence, Omniscience. Others are very clearly implied: eternal, incapable of evil and lieing. In fact I think will be far easier than I thought.

the "finite" mind is perfectly capable of comprehending any logical concept. I don't see why God being an "infinite being" I completely disagree with this concept. I think with how to specifically define how the term is being used in application in His case.

That makes no sence. If I claimed that that essence includes the lack of capability concerning long division then that is not defencable by any method and so your point is meaningless.

A tremendously important concept of which you can't actually define and say is too great to be understood by the finite human mind.

That is not what I said. I said it is problematic or that any weekness in it comes from those descriptions. I did not say impossible, I even provided a link and sources that did in fact make meaningfull descriptions of it.

And what is that "Essence"?

Do you even read my posts?

So basically you're saying "It just is! But I can't explain it, and the finite mind can't accept it." Not exactly a winning argument.

If that is what I thought then that is what I would have actually said. I said it is absolutely a meaningfull issue. God absolutely does have a unique essence, any weekness in the argument that might or might not exist has to do with our perception not it's reality. I only suggested finding someone more qualified than me to illustrate this concept. Apparently that was ignored. Now that I have thought on it I do not think it that difficult at all.

Please explain why I find the issue inconvenient, and why I said its "meaningless". You apparently don't understand what I even said if you say that I said its 'meaningless". I said that the term itself has no concrete meaning.

It is in fact impossible that the term is meaningless (which is what you said). It is even impossible that any attempt at the description is meaningless. May be right or may be wrong it certainly is if sincere not meaningless. There is just about no subject that is more meaningfull or terms which have more justification.

Why not? Are you saying that no one can claim any sufficient understanding to point out that you can't define it and are trying to define something that you say can't be defined? Why can YOU say that you have such a sufficient understanding that you can just say "It is" without having to give real meaning?

Because if God exists he necessarily has an essence that is distinct. That only requires common sence. My being able to explain it has no connection to it's reality. It must be and there fore is. I am also pretty sure it can be known to a large extent but do not have the time today to get into it.

The competence to claim that it's meaningful and vital requires the same competence to type letters on the keyboard. I appreciate that you are admitting that you are not competent enough to actually substantiate your claim though.

Why do you sound so frustrated all the time? I foolishly thought that by admitting my comprable incompetance and providing competant people would mean you would actually look them up and see the issue is very well defined by them. I realise now that you do not care if anyone can meaningfully describe the essence of God. You have no interest in an explenation, the contention is far too valuable.

If you'd rather say that I just hate the concept rather than address the fact that you can't actually define what you're defending, feel free to say so.

I do think that is part of it. I think you unjustifiably resist any attempts at explenations, you magnify every point of contention, trivialise the momentous, and complecate the obvious in an effort to defend something IMO you have an emotional connection to. I am not saying your points are without merit just that you do not wish an answer to exist and make every effort to make it appear they do not. That is not what concerns me the most. The fact that I can make a simple statement to someone else about a method and many times it is used by you to what I can only believe is some kind of emotional commitment to challenge the Trinity issue that you know very well I do not have. I may be wrong but that mistake if wrong is very easy to justify.

If you don't really care, get out of this thread. If you don't care about all these concepts relative to the thread, stick to the DIRS where you belong. This is a DEBATE thread, read the OP. I'm not the first person to tell you to read the OP.

You have no ability or reason to demand I do anything. This just makes my previous statements more credable.

How about you just admit defeat or quietly stop posting and take the hit instead?

How can I loose a debate I never had. I try and be polite and answer your questions even though I was addressing someone else about something else most of the time and unfortunately this leads to some kind of argument that doesn't matter that much to me.

My reasons for debating on this thread's OP are my own reasons. Why are you so vitally interested in making personal attacks and non-arguments when your own logic is exposed as flawed? I would bet $10,000 that none of them could define what "Essence" means in an objective way that is scripturally backed and applies to the Trinity doctrine as it used. Especially WLC, he'd just change the subject and claim he answered it like usual. I'd also bet you couldn't find in the entire Summa Theologica anything by Aquinas that truly nails down what "Essence" actually is that doesn't resort to more undefined vagueries. He says "We do not know the Essence of God", but does he even define what sort of "Essence" that would be in the first place? All he says is that God's Essence is his own Existence. How quaint. How circular.

If you dismissed Craig, White, Aquinas, and Zacharias then my claims above are fully justified. If you did not bother to look then there are as well. Either that or you are far more educated than anything you have posted indicates.

And I showed that those merits aren't necessarily meritable for one side particularly.

I do not remember any discussion about merits and sides. Both have strengths and both have weak points. I have been pointing out primarily the weakness of the ones Islam uses in certain cases, only to have you make claims about the Trinity its self.

Then as "a god", Jesus and ALL the Angels (Because as has been shown 100 times at least on this thread, Angels are called gods) share the same "Essence" with god.

So this essence can't be determined if I say it can but you can determine that it proves your case in one sentence. Quite the standard.

You may disagree, but by your own logic, that's what would relate. Even if you say that a "Cloud in essence is water vapor", that in no way whatsoever, in any way shape or form, gives any clue as to the syllogism of how Jesus has the same essence as God. If Water is the essence of Vapor, what is the "Essence" of God? It seems you are saying its a physical substance by using vapor and water as material explanations for "Essence". So are you saying that "Essence" means "Material"? If that's what you're saying we can take that from there, because you'd have to explain where in the scripture it says that Jesus would be of any different "Essence" than the Angels or other Heavenly beings.

Angels are not eternal Jesus is. Angels have fallen Jesus never has and never will. Angels were created Jesus was not. Everything was not created for, through, and by angels they were by Jesus. Angels do not forgive sins, Jesus came to save us from our sins. Do you see what I meant by trivialising the momentous and complicating the obvious.

Now if you have no dog in this race, kindly stop getting personal and making non-arguments to those who may have one. Not even Aquinas could answer for this unscriptural concept.

I defend no dog in this race I lean towards the belief Jesus is God however I learned long ago just how hostile or maybe commited to this argument you are. In fact that is the main reason I adopted a neutral stance months ago, because it was not worth what had to be dealt with to discuss it as it changes no effects or requirements and very little else.

 

[F0uad]

I thought I had lost you.

I use this website only when i am bored sorry for that.

I think both sides of the debate are equally solid. However I do not think the methods used by Islam to arrive at a conclusion are solid. The arguments Jewish people make on the issue are competant but many of Islam's are dissapointing.

I am not sure what ''Islam or Judaism'' has anything to do with this? Please elaborate and actually reply on what i have said earlier.

I do not recall attempting to. What do you mean? Are you talking about where I posted a verse that said Mary was told by Gabriel that Jesus would save us from our sin? Or maybe the role , essence thing?

I think i have missed that verse, however i was discussing the notion that someone can take your burden upon himself.

I believe God the father does forgive.

Only the father or both?

How can Jesus forgive anything in an ultimate sence unless he were God. We can't do that. We can forgive any animosity between us and them because of sin but we can't erase their guilt before God. Apparently Jesus could and did. However I do not debate this issue much or at least try not to. It is pointles to me. I need faith in his death and resurrection regardless.

I think you have mixed the argument mine was that everyone will be judged for hes own sins and that Jesus(pbuh) didn't die to take your sins it would be contradicting the biblical text.

 

[Shermana]

, I had to delete some of your statements to make all this fit. So we agree that the issue is meaningfull but I can tell I alone will be relied upon instead of research (which I pointed to) to supply it. I plan to do so but not today if I can remember, and justify the inappropriate resistance it will meet.

Well the supplying of such is very important. I even included my thing on Aquinas and you dismissed my dismissal of Aquinas. Why? Just because he's Aquinas? I proved that not even Aquinas could define it, then you just dismiss it as if I have no right to critique a Catholic authority, so what's the point? You call it "inappropriate resistance"? What is that? What makes it inappropriate? All you do in this entire rebuttal is complain about the fact that I'm debating and not accepting non-answers, then you yourself admit the questions can't be answered. What's "inappropriate" is your Personal comments targeting me as a deflection from the fact that my points are valid critiques. Your entire response involves telling me how I "trivialize the Momentous" and "Complicate the Obvious" while later admitting its complicated. In fact, I don't see anything in this entire response whatseover, including your claim that Jesus was not Created as if matter of fact (as if "Firstborn of Creation" is automatically not literal) that's not Prosletyzing.

There is no scriptural backing necessary to know that things have an essence that makes them, those very things. The only thing necessary then is to identify or define it. That needs only implications and descriptions of effects. For the love, some aspects are given in the Bible point blank like, Omniprescence, Omnipotence, Omniscience. Others are very clearly implied: eternal, incapable of evil and lieing. In fact I think will be far easier than I thought.

If you're going to snip my post to make it fit, try not to restate the things I already defined as if I didn't say it. I already went over this exactly. My point was that the Scripture does not speak about what this "Essence" concept is in the way that Trinitarians are using it. If they say that Jesus has the same "Essence" of God, then you have to define what your are comparing them to have the "Same thing" of. How many other ways can I explain it? Your argument is "Jesus and God are the same stuff", and I say "Well what's that stuff and why are they the same stuff", and from there, we have a downward spiral. In essence, all you're doing is repeating the same Trinitarian rhetoric and avoiding the debate part.

That makes no sence. If I claimed that that essence includes the lack of capability concerning long division then that is not defencable by any method and so your point is meaningless.

I have absolutely no idea how this rebuttal makes any sense or is relevant to what I said or defeats what I said, I would appreciate if anyone else can explain what this means, or if 1Robin can go in detail how this pertains. Edit: I think you snipped out some of it to make it fit and then missed the crucial part, let me recheck.

That is not what I said. I said it is problematic or that any weekness in it comes from those descriptions. I did not say impossible, I even provided a link and sources that did in fact make meaningfull descriptions of it

If they had such meaningful descriptions you wouldn't still be scrambling and postponing. Feel free to quote from there anything that's "meaningful" enough to actually qualify as an objective concept that can count as evidence against my own position and supports yours, in the application of the terms you are using as a "meaningful description". How many other ways can I put it?

Do you even read my posts?

How is that an answer?

If that is what I thought then that is what I would have actually said. I said it is absolutely a meaningfull issue. God absolutely does have a unique essence, any weekness in the argument that might or might not exist has to do with our perception not it's reality. I only suggested finding someone more qualified than me to illustrate this concept. Apparently that was ignored. Now that I have thought on it I do not think it that difficult at all.

Seriously, you're not even in the ballpark. Your non-answers in no way actually address what I said. Maybe to you, but I challenge anyone else reading to explain to me how you have in any way rebutted what I said or explain to me what I'm missing. I showed you that other people who are more qualified can't even explain it. You completely ignored the example I used with Aquinas and then you wrote me off for dismissing him. You won't even look at the specific cases.

If you won't even look at the Specific cases and the examples you yourself bring up, and then act as if there's something wrong with me because I critique their claims and demonstrate that even the greatest Catholic Theologian couldn't define Essence admittedly, in his own words, what's the point? Why are you commenting?

 

[Shermana]

It is in fact impossible that the term is meaningless (which is what you said). It is even impossible that any attempt at the description is meaningless. May be right or may be wrong it certainly is if sincere not meaningless. There is just about no subject that is more meaningfull or terms which have more justification.

Do you not remember that I already explained that the term is not itself meaningless but the application? It seems no matter how many times I repeat myself you're going to continue your strawmen and non-answers. I think in all the snipping of my text you seriously forgot what I already said. Did you even read the text you snipped before you cut it? Looks like you didn't.

Because if God exists he necessarily has an essence that is distinct. That only requires common sence. My being able to explain it has no connection to it's reality. It must be and there fore is. I am also pretty sure it can be known to a large extent but do not have the time today to get into it.

He necessarily has an essence that is distinct? Says where? Says who? Distinct from what? The Angels? Material itself? Atoms? These are crucial. It's about material similarity or spiritual similarity, and if spiritual, why not the Angels? These are very important concepts, and if they don't hold water, their application in Trintiarian argument falls apart.

Why do you sound so frustrated all the time? I foolishly thought that by admitting my comprable incompetance and providing competant people would mean you would actually look them up and see the issue is very well defined by them. I realise now that you do not care if anyone can meaningfully describe the essence of God. You have no interest in an explenation, the contention is far too valuable.

So instead of addressing what I quoted about Aquinas, you simply continue the personal comments and dismiss what I said? Even in your blatant appeal to authority, I proved the best of them all, Aquinas, could not define it and resorted to a strange Circular non-argument that didn't reveal any answers. I showed that he himself said he didn't know what the essence was, and showed that he simply resorted to the same tactic of circularity. If you cannot accept a counter-argument to your debate, stick to the DIRs.

I do think that is part of it. I think you unjustifiably resist any attempts at explenations,

Unjustifiably? What makes my debate and argument against the traditional non-answers so unjustifiable? Every single argument you make is unjustifiable and you are aiming at personal comments. I have justified every single argument, where have you? I challenge anyone else reading to point out a single unjustified point of contention.

you magnify every point of contention,

So you're against the idea of debating critical details I see. You're looking for the DIRs then.

trivialise the momentous,

Can you please give an example of what you mean by this?

and complecate the obvious

What's so obvious exactly and what am I complicating? Are you saying that because I don't accept vague circular non-answers that there's something wrong?

in an effort to defend something IMO you have an emotional connection to.

I very much have an emotional connection to my quest to resign Orthodox Christianity to the history books.

I am not saying your points are without merit

Ummm, no, you said exactly just that in the above.

just that you do not wish an answer to exist

So because I don't accept vague non-answers that even Aquinas agreed he could not define, I don't want an answer to exist.

and make every effort to make it appear they do not.

Some people seem to have a problem with debate.

That is not what concerns me the most. The fact that I can make a simple statement to someone else about a method and many times it is used by you to what I can only believe is some kind of emotional commitment to challenge the Trinity issue......

Didn't I tell you to leave the thread if you don't want to debate?

You have no ability or reason to demand I do anything. This just makes my previous statements more credable.

I surely have the ability to tell you get out of the debate threads and stick to the DIRs if this is how you act.

How can I loose a debate I never had. I try and be polite and answer your questions even though I was addressing someone else about something else most of the time and unfortunately this leads to some kind of argument that doesn't matter that much to me.

You cannot stand the fact that I've proved the holes in your claims so you resort to nonstop personal comments.

If you dismissed Craig, White, Aquinas, and Zacharias then my claims above are fully justified. If you did not bother to look then there are as well. Either that or you are far more educated than anything you have posted indicates

You act as if I'm not allowed to quote Aquinas himself and critique it.

I do not remember any discussion about merits and sides. Both have strengths and both have weak points. I have been pointing out primarily the weakness of the ones Islam uses in certain cases, only to have you make claims about the Trinity its self.

Huh?

So this essence can't be determined if I say it can but you can determine that it proves your case in one sentence. Quite the standard.

If it can't be determined, then there goes your whole "complicating the obvious" thing.

Angels are not eternal Jesus is. Angels have fallen Jesus never has and never will. Angels were created Jesus was not. Everything was not created for, through, and by angels they were by Jesus. Angels do not forgive sins, Jesus came to save us from our sins. Do you see what I meant by trivialising the momentous and complicating the obvious.

No I don't see. What I see is you making a blanket unscriptural statement and then accusing me of this or that according to your own unscriptural interpretation. You don't get to say Jesus wasn't Created as if that's that. I say he was the "Firstborn of Creation". Your argument is "No he was not created, how dare you triviliaze the momentous". Doesn't work. All you have done is acted as if your Theology and interpretation is proven right and I am supposed to agree by your terms without concrete definitions of those terms, and then accused me of this of not being cooperative.

I defend no dog in this race.....

[/quote]

You obviously have a dog in this race judging by the entire tone and lack of any actual rebuttal but complaint about my position and method.

 

[Awoon]

I have been asked to produce evidence of the divinity of Jesus. This is not just good evidence, it is overwhelming evidence.


Words of Jesus

John 14:9 ... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father
John 14:10 ... the words that I say unto you , I speak not from myself but from the Father abiding in Me doeth His works
John 14:11 ... I am in the Father and the Father in Me
John 10:30 I and My Father are one
John 10:33 ... thou being a man makest Thyself God
John 8:58 Jesus said ... before Abraham was born, Jah (Jah is the short form of Jeshovah)
John 8:59 They took up stones therefore to cast at Him
Mark 2:5 and Jesus seeing their faith saith ... thy sins are forgiven
Mark 2:7 ... who can forgive sins but one, even God
Mark 10:17 ... good teacher Mark 10:18 Why callest Me good? None is good save one, even God John 10:11 I am the good shepherd
Mat. 1:21 ... call his name Jesus; for it is He that shall save his people from their sins
Prophecies of the Messiah Jesus
Isa. 45:21 ... I, Jehovah? and there is no God else besides Me a just God and savior, there is none besides Me
Isa. 7:14 ... a sign: behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel (God with us)
Isa 9:6 a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called: Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

Attributes of God
Omnipresence
John 1:46 Nathaniel saith unto Him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
John 1:49 Nathaniel answered him, Rabbi thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.
John 1:50 Jesus answered ... thou shalt see greater things than these
Omniscience
Luke 6:8 ...the Pharisees watched Him ... that they might find how to accuse him but He knew their thoughts
John 4:17 ... Thou sayest well, I have no husband
John 4:18 for thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband
Omnipotence
Mark 4:41 ... Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?

(He turned water into wine, multiplied bread, healed the sick and the blind, raised a man who was dead for four days)
Authority
Luke 4:36 ... for with authority and power He commandeth the unclean spirits and they come out
Mat 7:29 for He taught them as one having authority
Mat 28:18 ... Jesus ...spake... saying, all authority hath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth
The "I am" statements of Jesus
John 8:12 ... I am the light of the world
John 14:6 ... I am the way, the truth and the life
John 6:35 ... I am the bread of life
John 10:9 I am the door, by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved
John 11:25 ... I am the resurrection and the life
John 15:1 I am the true vine (this is a reference to Jesus being the Paraclete)

What is God? Please tell us in non Human terms.

 

[mestupid]

No. Jesus never existed. Since he did not exist, he could never claim to be God. When it is verified that Jesus existed, then the debate can start. Until then, no.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No. Jesus never existed. Since he did not exist, he could never claim to be God. When it is verified that Jesus existed, then the debate can start. Until then, no.

Who wrote that what the gospel writers wrote was wrong ?________

Didn't: Tacitus, Suetoninus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus mention Christ ?

 

[1robin]

No. Jesus never existed. Since he did not exist, he could never claim to be God. When it is verified that Jesus existed, then the debate can start. Until then, no.

This is a rediculous statement. There is more textual evidence for Jesus than any other figure of ancient history. Unless you reject Ceaser, Plato, Socrates, Xerxes, Leonidas, or Xenephon you are using double standards. There are twenty plus extra Biblical sources that mention Christ. The majority of the Bible's 40 authors mention or refer to him, and their testimony was said by the greatest expert on evidence in human history to meet every standard of modern law and the historical method. You may reject his existance but at least admit it is based on preference not evidence or lack of.

 

[1robin]

Well the supplying of such is very important. I even included my thing on Aquinas and you dismissed my dismissal of Aquinas. Why? Just because he's Aquinas? I proved that not even Aquinas could define it, then you just dismiss it as if I have no right to critique a Catholic authority, so what's the point?

I am no Catholic and you are free to critique any thing you want. I also know it is very unlikely you have read all of Thomas Aquinas' work including theologica. I also know that your challenge is about a subjective value that your pre-commitment and hostility to the issue will make virtually impossible to resolve. Your definition and mine concerning how much Thomas nailed down about this issue is probably irresolvable.

You call it "inappropriate resistance"? What is that? What makes it inappropriate? All you do in this entire rebuttal is complain about the fact that I'm debating and not accepting non-answers, then you yourself admit the questions can't be answered. What's "inappropriate" is your Personal comments targeting me as a deflection from the fact that my points are valid critiques. Your entire response involves telling me how I "trivialize the Momentous" and "Complicate the Obvious" while later admitting its complicated. In fact, I don't see anything in this entire response whatseover, including your claim that Jesus was not Created as if matter of fact (as if "Firstborn of Creation" is automatically not literal) that's not Prosletyzing.

You basically lost me when you rejected those well respected scholars I provided. I see time and again that bias and pre commitment over rules evidence or logic. You probably caught me when I had exhausted all the patience I had concerning that issue. I found some very good information at the site you sent but that was not what I meant. I meant primary his and the others causal characteristics that God must have as the prime mover. ie.. timeless, omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, personal etc....... that is a very good foundation for essence. Those fit no other being but God and they are applicable to Christ.

If you're going to snip my post to make it fit, try not to restate the things I already defined as if I didn't say it. I already went over this exactly. My point was that the Scripture does not speak about what this "Essence" concept is in the way that Trinitarians are using it. If they say that Jesus has the same "Essence" of God, then you have to define what your are comparing them to have the "Same thing" of. How many other ways can I explain it? Your argument is "Jesus and God are the same stuff", and I say "Well what's that stuff and why are they the same stuff", and from there, we have a downward spiral. In essence, all you're doing is repeating the same Trinitarian rhetoric and avoiding the debate part.

Man, why are you so frustrated? Try the few characteristics I posted above for a start.

I have absolutely no idea how this rebuttal makes any sense or is relevant to what I said or defeats what I said, I would appreciate if anyone else can explain what this means, or if 1Robin can go in detail how this pertains. Edit: I think you snipped out some of it to make it fit and then missed the crucial part, let me recheck.
If they had such meaningful descriptions you wouldn't still be scrambling and postponing. Feel free to quote from there anything that's "meaningful" enough to actually qualify as an objective concept that can count as evidence against my own position and supports yours, in the application of the terms you are using as a "meaningful description". How many other ways can I put it?

You said something about me constructing some definition of essence that allowed me to say something I wanted to. I said that was false because it can't be done. Cause and effect narrows the band of what characteristics a cause must have to produce a certain effect.

Seriously, you're not even in the ballpark. Your non-answers in no way actually address what I said. Maybe to you, but I challenge anyone else reading to explain to me how you have in any way rebutted what I said or explain to me what I'm missing. I showed you that other people who are more qualified can't even explain it. You completely ignored the example I used with Aquinas and then you wrote me off for dismissing him. You won't even look at the specific cases.

I have no doubt that we do not fully understand the issue. We do not fully understand the universe that does not mean that countless theories, facts, and implication can be drawn and many of it's secrets revealed. When someone says big bang do you say we can't know every detail about it and so you may not talk about it? No as with most science and religion evidence based conclusions are used to infer and examine concepts. Should we not conlude anything about the Brain and refuse to operate on it until we know every secret there is concerning it. The hair splitting only begins when the subject is resisted.

If you won't even look at the Specific cases and the examples you yourself bring up, and then act as if there's something wrong with me because I critique their claims and demonstrate that even the greatest Catholic Theologian couldn't define Essence admittedly, in his own words, what's the point? Why are you commenting?

After I thought about it a minute I realised it is unnecessary. Start with this: by cause and effect we know that the uncaused first cause of the universe must be rational, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, personal, eternal. God, tHe Spirit, and Christ can reasonably be assumed to be all these. No other being qualifies as to these characteristics.

 

[1robin]

He necessarily has an essence that is distinct? Says where? Says who? Distinct from what? The Angels? Material itself? Atoms? These are crucial. It's about material similarity or spiritual similarity, and if spiritual, why not the Angels? These are very important concepts, and if they don't hold water, their application in Trintiarian argument falls apart.

I do not get it this is so obvious that something must have been missunderstood. If God's essence is not distinct but yet another being has it then God is not one and he is a liar. Some of his characteristics he may share with others but never the whole. A tree and a sailing ship are made out of wood but a ship is not a tree. As I have stated before it is the characteristics that without them would render God less than God that are important.

So instead of addressing what I quoted about Aquinas, you simply continue the personal comments and dismiss what I said? Even in your blatant appeal to authority, I proved the best of them all, Aquinas, could not define it and resorted to a strange Circular non-argument that didn't reveal any answers. I showed that he himself said he didn't know what the essence was, and showed that he simply resorted to the same tactic of circularity. If you cannot accept a counter-argument to your debate, stick to the DIRs.

Unjustifiably? What makes my debate and argument against the traditional non-answers so unjustifiable? Every single argument you make is unjustifiable and you are aiming at personal comments. I have justified every single argument, where have you? I challenge anyone else reading to point out a single unjustified point of contention.

So you're against the idea of debating critical details I see. You're looking for the DIRs then.


Can you please give an example of what you mean by this?

What's so obvious exactly and what am I complicating? Are you saying that because I don't accept vague circular non-answers that there's something wrong?

I very much have an emotional connection to my quest to resign Orthodox Christianity to the history books.

Ummm, no, you said exactly just that in the above.


So because I don't accept vague non-answers that even Aquinas agreed he could not define, I don't want an answer to exist.


Some people seem to have a problem with debate.

Didn't I tell you to leave the thread if you don't want to debate?
I surely have the ability to tell you get out of the debate threads and stick to the DIRs if this is how you act.

You cannot stand the fact that I've proved the holes in your claims so you resort to nonstop personal comments.

You act as if I'm not allowed to quote Aquinas himself and critique it.
Huh?

If it can't be determined, then there goes your whole "complicating the obvious" thing.

No I don't see. What I see is you making a blanket unscriptural statement and then accusing me of this or that according to your own unscriptural interpretation. You don't get to say Jesus wasn't Created as if that's that. I say he was the "Firstborn of Creation". Your argument is "No he was not created, how dare you triviliaze the momentous". Doesn't work. All you have done is acted as if your Theology and interpretation is proven right and I am supposed to agree by your terms without concrete definitions of those terms, and then accused me of this of not being cooperative.

It is a waste of time to weave around through what you or I or Thomas Aquinas said and I am tired of the personal junk. By the way what happened to the other scholars and links I gave? You picked one that you thought was vague and have dismissed the others. By the way the section you linked was on God's existance and not what his characteristics are, given his existance. Anyway, to cut to the chase. Jesus, God, and the spirit can easily be said to be eternal, omnipotent, personal, omniscient, omnipresent all of which only apply to God and to nothing else. Let's just start again from this simple premise. By the way when I mentioned this issue to someone else it was in refference to what is used a the hypothetical argument. In other words this was what the argument is, I never intended to show it to be true but I think it might be interesting so I will go ahead and defend it.

 

[1robin]

I use this website only when i am bored sorry for that.

No problem.

I am not sure what ''Islam or Judaism'' has anything to do with this? Please elaborate and actually reply on what i have said earlier.

I was just giving my take on the quality of argumentation concerning this issue. I think the 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 or 3, and the did Jesus say he was God and worship him are about the worst arguments against something I have ever seen.

I think i have missed that verse, however i was discussing the notion that someone can take your burden upon himself.

I believe that even Islam has some verses that suggest this concept.

New International Version (©1984)
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

Only the father or both?

I believe both have the capacity and are both perfectly consistent in it's application. However this is about roles not essence or nature specifically.

I think you have mixed the argument mine was that everyone will be judged for hes own sins and that Jesus(pbuh) didn't die to take your sins it would be contradicting the biblical text.

It sure didn't contradict the one above or any of several hundred that suggest he can and did do so.

 

[Shermana]

I am no Catholic and you are free to critique any thing you want. I also know it is very unlikely you have read all of Thomas Aquinas' work including theologica. I also know that your challenge is about a subjective value that your pre-commitment and hostility to the issue will make virtually impossible to resolve. Your definition and mine concerning how much Thomas nailed down about this issue is probably irresolvable.

You basically completely ignored what I said and then resort to saying that I have hostility. You're not even attempting to discuss what Aquinas said. You bring up sources and then don't want to actually discuss them. You accuse me of not wanting there to be an answer because I don't accept your non-answer and point out that you don't actually answer anything. Do you want me to quote everything you've accused me of so far in your attempt to completely wiggle out of the actual debate and the issues? You straight up said that because I dismissed Aquinas, something's wrong, as if I'm not allowed to prove that not even Aquinas says what you're saying. I offered to let you quote any of your sources that you claims gives a "Meaningful interpretation", but you apparently didn't have enough time to actually quote something that supported your argument by this reply.

You say that my hostility prevents this conflict from being resolved? How about the person who writes off every debate point and critique as "magnifying every contention"? How about the person who insists on circular non-answers? How about the person who resorts to personal comments and insults when questions are poised that they can't answer? How about the person who makes no attempt to even discuss his own sources? How about the person who refuses to even address other points of view? How about the person who insists that one must just accept and not "resist" their logic to avoid "Hair-splitting"? Do you even at all think that maybe YOU are the one who in this exchange who is not at all interested in resolving this issue?

Have you presented a single actual argument that's not Prosletyzing? Have you even attempted to discuss any of the contentions? Do you not understand that this whole "Essence" thing has been trampled many times on this thread and all you're doing is repeating the rhetoric and forcing us to repeat the same arguments and contentions in the past? All you seem to be able to do is complain about counter-positions while repeating your Rhetoric, and then you claim you have "No dog in this race". Well you're acting like a typical Trintiarian apologist with your vague non-answers and personal comments on those who dare "Resist".

You basically lost me when you rejected those well respected scholars I provided

This is what I'm saying, all you want to do is name drop and then not even bother to even discuss. I even invited you to quote something. Too much work for you? If you have enough time to reply, take the time to actually discuss your own links instead of just attacking people for dismissing your traditionalist scholars.

. I see time and again that bias and pre commitment over rules evidence or logic.

Excuse me? I have discussed the evidence and logic and you avoid it each time and directly insult me instead. You are speaking of yourself here.

You probably caught me when I had exhausted all the patience I had concerning that issue.

Yes, I caught you. I caught you constantly making personal remarks as a cheap attempt to get out of discussing the specifics. You have absolutely no desire to debate, and then you insult me for debating.

I found some very good information at the site you sent but that was not what I meant. I meant primary his and the others causal characteristics that God must have as the prime mover. ie.. timeless, omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, personal etc....... that is a very good foundation for essence. Those fit no other being but God and they are applicable to Christ.

That has nothing to do with defining how Essence applies to Jesus scripturally. Do you even understand the basis of your own argument? Do you even understand what you are trying to say?

Man, why are you so frustrated? Try the few characteristics I posted above for a start.

I am frustrated because you ignore my counter-argument and write it off with one of many personal comment non-answers and then repeat your same Trinitarian rhetoric. I get frustrated with prosletyzers who refuse to actually debate and come up with dishonest excuses to avoid debating.

You said something about me constructing some definition of essence that allowed me to say something I wanted to. I said that was false because it can't be done. Cause and effect narrows the band of what characteristics a cause must have to produce a certain effect.

What do you mean it can't be done? In the last 5 replies, you have spent more time telling me how horrible you think it is that I dare critique your authorities (Without addressing anything I quoted or critiqued), you absolutely refused to quote from your own source when I asked, and you have not yet presented a definition that actually can be used to justify the concept scripturally. Saying that the essence is God's immortality and characteristics I think is completely wrong. I think it's referring to actual substance, not characteristics, how are we to prove our views? You are looking for one excuse after another to avoid actually discussing the Biblical application of this essence, what this essence is, and why it even applies to the Trinity. Rather than address the criticisms and concerns, you accuse me of things like "Unjustified criticism" and "Trivializing the momentous". I challenge any reader to point out a single critique of mine you actually addressed.

I have no doubt that we do not fully understand the issue.

If you don't fully understand the issue, then stop avoiding the critiques of even Aquinas who admitted he couldn't answer it. Again, all you have done is completely avoided any attempt to address what I've mentioned with personal remarks and complains about the fact I'm not accepting your non-answers.

We do not fully understand the universe that does not mean that countless theories, facts, and implication can be drawn and many of it's secrets revealed

Here's another thing, you assume there are "Secrets" that somehow have to be "revealed" about this concept. I don't. I think that's total shenanigans. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You are looking for excuses within the traditional Trinitarian rhetoric to avoid actual debate. By saying there are "Secrets", you can then continue to say that I'm making "Inappropriate issues" and "Magnifying every contention" and "Trivalizing the Momentous" without addressing what these "Secrets" actually are. I can say that Satanism has secrets about Satan being really God, and then continue to defend that logic if I wanted. You can defend any logic that there are "Secrets you don't understand". And that's what I'm showing: You can't actually defend any of this "Essence" argument without resorting to some non-argument appeal to mysticism or direct insult.

.

When someone says big bang do you say we can't know every detail about it and so you may not talk about it?

There are enough details about the Big Bang to have an entire scientific debate about it, not even close to a direct comparison. Can you dismiss Muhammad as a prophet? How do you know the Quran doesn't have "secrets" that prevent you from knowing the truth? How can you dismiss the Quran without knowing every detail? Do you see how hollow such logic is? Probably not.

o as with most science and religion evidence based conclusions are used to infer and examine concepts. Should we not conlude anything about the Brain and refuse to operate on it until we know every secret there is concerning it. The hair splitting only begins when the subject is resisted.

This is some serious squirming. There's a difference between discussing the Trinity, which I am TRYING TO DO BUT YOU ARE SQUIRMING AWAY FROM THE DETAILS WHICH YOU CLAIM CANNOT BE KNOWN, and DEFENDING THE TRINITY WHICH YOU ARE DOING. What do you mean the "Subject is resisted"? Of course there is hair splitting when the subject is resisted. THAT IS WHAT DEBATE IS ALL ABOUT. Basically you are trying to say "Don't resist the Trinity, it'll be just hair splitting". You are pulling every excuse to avoid debating you can.

After I thought about it a minute I realised it is unnecessary. Start with this: by cause and effect we know that the uncaused first cause of the universe must be rational, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, personal, eternal. God, tHe Spirit, and Christ can reasonably be assumed to be all these. No other being qualifies as to these characteristics

Christ cannot be reasonably assumed to be all those. In addition to your non-debate and non-arguments, as I pointed out, you resort to claiming that your particular Theology is automatically true as if that's that without needing to debate. Just like when you said that Jesus was definitely not created. All you're doing is prosletyzing your Theology without debating it.

If your argument is that "Essence" pertains to "qualities" about God rather than the "Substance of God", we're in two different ballparks. Not even Aquinas went there. He said God's essence was His own existence as a concession, but that still doesn't give any details. There's no reason whatsoever to assume that Essence pertains to qualities of being rather than the quality of substance.

 

[Shermana]

I do not get it this is so obvious that something must have been missunderstood

What's obvious is that you confuse your opinion with fact and then act as if elements of your Theology is already proven true without debate like "Christ was not created".

.

If God's essence is not distinct but yet another being has it then God is not one and he is a liar.

Please prove with scripture that God must have a totally unique "essence". Again, teh word "essence" does NOT necessarily refer to characteristics as you insist, it can very well refer to "substance" which is more of the direction the Greeks went. Your idea that "Essence" relates to things like Omnipresence has no precedent and I think is wrong and not even what your own sources agree with. And it's not so obvious that Essence necessarily means to traits rather than material substance. You can say that Jesus and God share the same characteristics but you in no way have proven this, nor have you demonstrated that Essence must necessarily refer to such qualitatives, rather the traditional Greek concept about Essence is most likely about actual Physical substance, without any indication pertaining to quality. Only when you read the Church Father's apart from their context can you warp the meaning to something else.

Some of his characteristics he may share with others but never the whole. A tree and a sailing ship are made out of wood but a ship is not a tree. As I have stated before it is the characteristics that without them would render God less than God that are important.

Please prove that Essence pertains to Characteristics instead of material substance or kindly admit that your interpretation of "Essence" may not be so scripturally concrete.

It is a waste of time to weave around through what you or I or Thomas Aquinas said and I am tired of the personal junk.

So it's a waste of time to discuss your own source when I actually quote it and prove that it doesn't say what you say it says.

By the way what happened to the other scholars and links I gave? You picked one that you thought was vague and have dismissed the others.

What happened to my invitation for you to quote from your own links? I'm guessing you didn't feel it was necessary to actually discuss your own claims about your sources? If Aquinas can't do it, WLC definitely can't do it. But feel free to actually quote from your own source something to back your claims about them.

By the way the section you linked was on God's existance and not what his characteristics are, given his existance.

No, you didn't even read it. He specifically mentions that he can't define Essence. Nice try. Seriously, you're not even trying.

Anyway, to cut to the chase. Jesus, God, and the spirit can easily be said to be eternal, omnipotent, personal, omniscient, omnipresent all of which only apply to God and to nothing else.

No, it cannot easily be said to be of Jesus in that sense. And again, there's no reason to assume that Essence pertains to characteristics instead of Substance. You can insist that Essence is about characteristics all you want, but can you admit that you have no basis for doing so? Can you admit that not even your own sources considered Essence to be character qualities?

Let's just start again from this simple premise. By the way when I mentioned this issue to someone else it was in refference to what is used a the hypothetical argument. In other words this was what the argument is, I never intended to show it to be true but I think it might be interesting so I will go ahead and defend it.

[/quote]

Well if you're going to "defend" your argument, try actually debating, try not to use circular non-answers, and try not to presume that your Theological interpretation is already true or that your definition is automatically supported, and try not to write off people's counter-arguments with personal attacks instead of addressing them.

 

[Muffled]

this is jesus talking about Muhammed, beacuse paracletos means exactly what muhammed means.

Mohammed means the spirit of God joined to a body. Since when? I have never seen the meaning of the name Mohammed so this is news to me but I suspect this is nonsense.

the meaning of Mohammed is "praiseworthy". (From thinkbabynames.com)

 

[1robin]

You basically completely ignored what I said and then resort to saying that I have hostility. as if I'm not allowed to prove that not even Aquinas says what you're saying. I offered to let you quote any of your sources that you claims gives a "Meaningful interpretation", but you apparently didn't have enough time to actually quote something that supported your argument by this reply.

Debate usually involves making a statement and/or quate and giving the source. I did that. I even provided a link to a very easy to read site by Craig. You basically replied with something by Aquinas on a seperate issue and dismissed the others. It is not a strech to conclude you are not actually going to read things before you dismiss them and must there fore be resistant to the isea it's self. I may be wrong but it is a very easy conclusion to withdraw. I also know you to be prolific and I have never started out to defend the trinity and so have purposefully skirted things I could not justify the time required to debate. No one devotes as much effort and time attempting to debate a subject I have stated many times I do not find necessary and have not been addressing here directly unless they have something powerfull that compels them to do so.

You say that my hostility prevents this conflict from being resolved? How about the person who writes off every debate point and critique as "magnifying every contention"? Do you even at all think that maybe YOU are the one who in this exchange who is not at all interested in resolving this issue?

If you change all that to the person who has countless times said he has no position on the issue that he feels worthy of debate, but who is polite enough to actually reply to most posts then you have an accurate statement.

Have you presented a single actual argument that's not Prosletyzing? Have you even attempted to discuss any of the contentions? Do you not understand that this whole "Essence" thing has been trampled many times on this thread and all you're doing is repeating the rhetoric and forcing us to repeat the same arguments and contentions in the past?

I know that essence as a subject can't be trampled on in general, and I have not seen anything but a equivication over how much of what makes up that essence can be known. So I provided several simple examples of what must compose that essence that also can't be contended and I will see in a minute what you did with that.

This is what I'm saying, all you want to do is name drop and then not even bother to even discuss. I even invited you to quote something.

You said this same thing above. See that reply.

Excuse me? I have discussed the evidence and logic and you avoid it each time and directly insult me instead. You are speaking of yourself here.
Yes, I caught you. I caught you constantly making personal remarks as a cheap attempt to get out of discussing the specifics. You have absolutely no desire to debate, and then you insult me for debating.

I have said about a million times I have no desire to debate the Trinity. I just do not care. I have only commented on the methods used to arrive at conclusions about the issue. These appeals to sympathy are getting tired.

That has nothing to do with defining how Essence applies to Jesus scripturally. Do you even understand the basis of your own argument? Do you even understand what you are trying to say?

Yeah, I'm sarcastic. Since the scriptures are the only sources that give these characteristics to God and Christ then yes they are scriptural.

I am frustrated because you ignore my counter-argument and write it off with one of many personal comment non-answers and then repeat your same Trinitarian rhetoric. I get frustrated with prosletyzers who refuse to actually debate and come up with dishonest excuses to avoid debating.

I resisted any discussion of the Trinity at all now apparently I am full of Trinitarian rhetoric. I can't be both.

Aquinas who admitted he couldn't answer it.

The Aquinas you linked concerned existance not essence assuming existance. If you dig around in his essence papers he covers things in so much detail as in (whether his essence may be seen by natural sight, etc...) that it must be combed through carefully and that takes time which is hard to justify for an issue I not care much what the outcome is but I will provide a few quotes:

I assume you know that Aquinas always posted the challenege and then his answer to it.

I answer that, Those who see the divine essence see what they see in God not by any likeness, but by the divine essence itself united to their intellect
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: How God is known by us (Prima Pars, Q. 12)
This sight is not natural sight in this case but the apprehension by reason.
It is very clear, he says it can be apprehended.

Hence, according to the knowledge whereby things are known by those who see the essence of God, they are seen in God Himself not by any other similitudes but by the Divine essence alone present to the intellect; by which also God Himself is seen.
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: How God is known by us (Prima Pars, Q. 12)
Here he says what should be obvious and logical, in that a personal, benevolent God has the capability and motive to reveal himself to his creation or that portion there of that is needfull.

“A contradiction occurs only when something is A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. God is both three and one at the same time but not in the same sense. He is three persons but one in essence. He is three persons but only one in nature.” (Zacharias, Ravi and Geisler, Norman. Who Made God? And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).
Truth-Based Living | Ravi Zacharias Trinity
If Ravi says a gnat can pull a wagon don't argue hitch it up.

Essence: In its theological usage, essence refers to “the intrinsic or indispensable, permanent, and inseparable qualities that characterize or identify the being of God.”

What God Is Like | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
Apparently the definition isn't so vague or ambiguous and seems to be about exactly what I said.

Origen took this further by teaching that the Son was subordinate to the Father “in respect to essence.”
What God Is Like | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
Apparently even a important early church father and an anti-Trinitarian considered it a meaningfull and usefull issue that has explanitory power.

Here is whole site that exhaustivly covers God's essence in detail. I dissagree with it in the sense they seem to suggest that his essence can by fully grasped but a finite mind can only partially grasp the infinate. However that is all that is necessary. Many of the attributes I listed and you dismissed are on the list at this site. Regardless it is not the etheral vague issue you have suggested.
DOCTRINE OF DIVINE ESSENCE/ATTRIBUTES And another: http://faithbibleministries.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/gods-essence-attributes/

This is from the Blue letter Bible one of if not the most trusted online Biblical resources.
1. There Is Only One God That Exists
Foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity is the biblical teaching of the existence of only one God. No other divine being has real existence. Trinitarians, or those who believe in the Trinity, are emphatic that only one God exists. Furthermore the essence of God cannot be divided.
2. Each Of These Three Persons Is Called God
The Bible teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Each are called God, each possess attributes that only God can possess, each perform works that only God can perform.
3. The Three Persons Are The One God (The Trinity)
The conclusion to the above facts is as follows: if only one God exists, and if there are three distinct persons who are all called God, then the three persons must be the one God. This is the doctrine of the Trinity.
Blue Letter Bible - Help, Tutorials, and FAQs
Without saying true or false the argument its self is about as simple and clear as it gets. My issue with this subeject is that stupid attempts to write off either argument using trivial and meaningless methods do not provide the level of disscource this subject deserves.

You straight up said that because I dismissed Aquinas, something's wrong,

Please quote my statement that said this.

Let me see what you do with quotes and specific posts before I invest any more time.

 

[Shermana]

I have said about a million times I have no desire to debate the Trinity. I just do not care. I have only commented on the methods used to arrive at conclusions about the issue. These appeals to sympathy are getting tired.

Then stop replying like I told you. Go to the DIRs. If you don't want to debate on this thread, leave. If you don't want to debate the Trinity and the concepts that make it up and whether Jesus said he was God, leave. If you want to just state your Theological Rhetoric as if it were true while writing off counter-arguments as "Stupid" and "Meaningless", leave the thread. You don't have to reply to me. Why are you replying to me anyway? What are you trying to prove? I am trying to make this overlong thread RIP, and then I get new Trinitarians trying to defend the concept even though it's been defeated for 600 pages. This is OUR thread, the non-Trinitarians, we have won it, we own it now, and we have planted our flag. We will challenge any challenges now that we have officially dominated this thread, RF's largest thread. If you are going to challenge our turf on the issue, then EXPECT YOUR BASELESS POINTS TO BE CHALLENGED. Otherwise, kindly understand that this thread is now our turf, the anti-Trinitarians, we have defeated other people just as unwilling to look at the facts and counter-arguments, and now it's just annoying when we get these same tactics. If you want to just leave a comment that's hit and run, then take the hit of the counter reply. Don't reply if you're not going to debate on a debate board. I hope that's clear.

Not only that but I can't stand the fact you make false statements like "Aquinas was talking about something else". Oh really? Oh I guess those plain words meant something else. And of course, youY'd be happy to actually quote from him right? Because my quote was about "Something else" even though it flat out says he didn't know how to define "Essence". If you're not honest enough to even admit what a quote about your own source says, please be honest enough to get a quote that supports your position, or kindly put down your appeal to authority.

Debate usually involves making a statement and/or quate and giving the source. I did that. I even provided a link to a very easy to read site by Craig.

I invited you to quote anything from Craig you wanted. YOu denied that invitation. Nothing Craig says on the matter is any more effective than what Aquinas said. All you have done is name drop without discussing the links. And then you say Aquinas was discussing a "Separate manner" again. That's a lie. I already proved to you that Aquinas himself said he was talking about Essence and that he had no words for it. It's pointless to even reply to you if you completely ignore the facts of your own link. You probably didn't even read that quote by Aquinas from your reply. IF you say that Aquinas was talking about something else, then quote something he does say about it or admit you are blatantly distorting your own source and not reading what it says.

Now before I even bother addressing the whole thing, do you at all recognize that what you posted does not answer it at all?

his is from the Blue letter Bible one of if not the most trusted online Biblical resources.
1. There Is Only One God That Exists
Foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity is the biblical teaching of the existence of only one God. No other divine being has real existence. Trinitarians, or those who believe in the Trinity, are emphatic that only one God exists. Furthermore the essence of God cannot be divided.
2. Each Of These Three Persons Is Called God
The Bible teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Each are called God, each possess attributes that only God can possess, each perform works that only God can perform.
3. The Three Persons Are The One God (The Trinity)
The conclusion to the above facts is as follows: if only one God exists, and if there are three distinct persons who are all called God, then the three persons must be the one God. This is the doctrine of the Trinity.
Blue Letter Bible - Help, Tutorials, and FAQs
Without saying true or false the argument its self is about as simple and clear as it gets.

YOu said that's as simple as it gets. BUT IT ANSWERS NOTHING. We have argued the whole "person" thing and how "person" is just as much of a meaningless, non-defined word that was wordsmithed, we have spent MANY pages showing that the "3 persons" thing is totally meaningless and was just an improvised attempt at justifying the Trinity. I think even DP has asked you to define person to no avail. It's not that simple. That's what I'm saying. All you do is present the Rhetoric, call it "Simple" and act as if the non-answers actually define anything. Honestly, how do you feel the above quote in any way actually backs up the definition of "person" or "essence" instead of just simply stating it.

If I said "All crockawahs are made up 3 different hoolihams", and you said "What's a hooliham", and I said "Well see here:" And I respoted something that said "The 3 hoolihams make up the Single Crockawah", that's what you're doing. ALLL you are doing is repeating the rhetoric, and then making one insulting excuse ("Trivializing the momentous"/"Not wanting there to be an answer" when I point out that your answers aren't actually answers.

Not only that, but in your example, the word Essence isn't defined either. Are you truly incapable of understanding that your links don't actually define Essence and Person and merely use them as if there's no need to define the position? Or do you actually think your link somehow defines it?

Seriously. Have you read your own link?

http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/divessence.html

I would bet you did NOT read your link. Otherwise, feel free to quote from it something that's biblically concrete. Otherwise, please admit you did not read your own link you just flinged.

Once again, I repeat, there is NO reason to assume that Essence refers to Characteristics as opposed to Material substance. All you are doing is giving lists of organizations that think "Essence" pertains to characteristics. That's great and fine. But how do you know they are right? Are you simply appealing to their authority like you did with Aquinas? And by the way, you did in fact dismiss me for dismissing Aquinas, so please don't act like I didn't. You want me to quote you on that too?

Do I have to quote from your own link for you to prove that they don't actually fully define what "Essence" is except by their own words? All they do is a breakdown on God's characteristics. Why should we assume Essence refers to Characteristic rather than material substance? Or is this just "magnifying every contention"? as you accused me when I didn't accept your non-answers the first time.

I challenge ANYONE reading to prove that his sites in any way prove what "Essence" actually means and isn't just an ad-hoc attempt, and why "Essence" cannot mean the material substance itself, and why sharing the same "Essence" is even a Biblical concept.

Here is whole site that exhaustivly covers God's essence in detail.

Oh it covers it in detail? Really? Please, by all means show where it definitively gives a concrete proof of what Essence means. I've asked you to quote from your links before. Now when you DO quote, you don't quote anything that proves anything but simply restates the Trinitarian rhetoric without defining the points. I don't think you have any clue what it actually means to discuss what a link says.

But here's the real rub, and sums up your posts and pathetic attempts at countering:

My issue with this subeject is that stupid attempts to write off either argument using trivial and meaningless methods do not provide the level of disscource this subject

You call my critiques of your non-answers "stupid attempts to write off either argument". WHAT ARGUMENT? How is debate a "Stupid attempt"? Do you not see how you are prosletyzing and avoiding actual debate? Not ONCE have you presented an actual attempt to defend the views of your non-answers, all you do is write off this or that as a stupid attempt. You're not even debating. You simply write off my arguments as "Trivial and meaningless". Why? Why are my counter arguments trivial and meaningless? You got upset when I said that the way you used "Essence" Was meaningless, because it was, as you had no term. Then you write off all my concerns as "Trivial and meaningless". It's like you're intentionally trying to show how blatantly dishonest you are.

NONE of my counter arguments have been trivial and meaningless. All you have done, ALL you have done, is insult my responses. Every one of them. And then you repeat the wordsmith Trinitarian rhetoric as if the rhetoric itself is so "obvious" and "Clear", but of course you don't have an actual answer to the critiques. That's just irritating. But it's great proof of how most Trintiarians think.

Do you not understand what I said that all you are doing is repeating the Trinitarian rhetoric without addressing all the critiques and concerns?

 

[1robin]

Then stop replying like I told you. Go to the DIRs. If you don't want to debate on this thread, leave.

I mentioned (to someone else) what I thought about a way they had of testing this issue. The rest is a result of your obsession. You are staring to really disturb me with all this hostility and demands you have no right to make.

This is OUR thread, the non-Trinitarians, we have won it, we own it now, and we have planted our flag.

That's it I don't debate in obsessive hostile word fights. It's all yours.