Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

On the contrary, I assume from the stories he could indeed write. However we have nothing from him, that is the issue I raised.

edit: Same for the buddha, only his followers wrote his stuff down, in case thats any consolation for anyone lol.

We have nothing from most historical figures in heir own hand. The primary works for Caesar's Gallic wars is only two examples written by someone else almost a thousand years later. Yet colleges around the world teach even tiny details about his battles as fact. Many of he historical figures left far less behind. The bible is entire orders of magnitude better in every category for textual integrity and historical accuracy yet you deny any certainty or reliability for it's main character. Why the double standards?

BTW I have no idea what you actually believe but this is what you said, and it is extremely suggestive that Christ was illiterate.

A person could read but not write, very peculiar

 

[1robin]

NT Bible is a mix; if it states a correct thing I accept it; if it states something wrong I reject it on merit.

Regards

The merit of what you stated is completely dependent on the standards and methods by which you take what it says as true or false. Using the exact same standards used for other works of ancient history the bible beats them all in every single category. It is not perfect but it is hands down far better than anything else of similar type and light years of what we could reasonably expect.

 

[idav]

We have nothing from most historical figures in heir own hand. The primary works for Caesar's Gallic wars is only two examples written by someone else almost a thousand years later. Yet colleges around the world teach even tiny details about his battles as fact. Many of he historical figures left far less behind. The bible is entire orders of magnitude better in every category for textual integrity and historical accuracy yet you deny any certainty or reliability for it's main character. Why the double standards?

Jesus is in major contention and it would just be nice to have his writings. It seems to be an area where accuracy of truth is highly important and I cannot rely on second or third hand accounts. Nobody tries to base their lives on Caesar or Plato or Aristotle or whomever else needed to writer their own stuff.

The only thing that gives me hope is the same thing happens to Buddha but their followers seemed to manage to get the gist of it out there.

I do understand that bible must have managed to get the original message out. It is only other works found like the gospel of thomas and the major discovery of the dead sea scrolls that gives me a hint that any of the original message managed to be transcribed. Copying the same scripts over and over ad nausea is not impressive to me as far as accuracy is concerned, it has to correlate with other writings outside itself, and it does, barely. Only from what we can find only because people burned everything that they though heresy. The destruction of the Library of Alexandria was a huge terrible loss.\

Socrates of Constantinople provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria, in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica, written around 440:

At the solicitation of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum. [...] Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples.

—Socrates; Roberts, Alexander; Donaldson, James (1885), "Socrates: Book V: Chapter 16", in Philip Schaff et al., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, II II
Destruction of the Library of Alexandria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So perished that marvelous monument of the literary activity of our ancestors, who had gathered together so many great works of brilliant geniuses. In regard to this, however true it may be that in some of the temples there remain up to the present time book chests, which we ourselves have seen, and that, as we are told, these were emptied by our own men in our own day when these temples were plundered—this statement is true enough—yet it seems fairer to suppose that other collections had later been formed to rival the ancient love of literature, and not that there had once been another library which had books separate from the four hundred thousand volumes mentioned, and for that reason had escaped destruction.

—Paulus Orosius, vi.15.32
Destruction of the Library of Alexandria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW I have no idea what you actually believe but this is what you said, and it is extremely suggestive that Christ was illiterate.

Sorry you read it that way, it was to who I was responding to, Mud I think, that I got that impression.

 

[1robin]

Jesus is in major contention and it would just be nice to have his writings. It seems to be an area where accuracy of truth is highly important and I cannot rely on second or third hand accounts. Nobody tries to base their lives on Caesar or Plato or Aristotle or whomever else needed to writer their own stuff.

Actually Jesus' historical existence is one of the few areas where there exists any consensus among NT scholars (regardless of which side they are on). It is simply granted along with his crucifixion, his empty tomb, and at least the sincerity of his post mortem appearances to even his enemies.

If you meant what he taught you will have to be more specific. For example the last chapter of Mathew is unreliable and the woman caught in adultery. The rest with few exceptions is pretty certain.

I am not talking about who we base our lives on. I am talking about what is taught as fact and what is so often claimed as myth. The evidence is exactly the opposite from what would legitimize this.

The only thing that gives me hope is the same thing happens to Buddha but their followers seemed to manage to get the gist of it out there.

Do you mean being enlightened (whatever that means) and then dying (if such a person ever existed) is where you find hope? That would make me sad not hopeful.

I do understand that bible must have managed to get the original message out. It is only other works found like the gospel of thomas and the major discovery of the dead sea scrolls that gives me a hint that any of the original message managed to be transcribed. Copying the same scripts over and over ad nausea is not impressive to me as far as accuracy is concerned, it has to correlate with other writings outside itself, and it does, barely. Only from what we can find only because people burned everything that they though heresy. The destruction of the Library of Alexandria was a huge terrible loss.\

1. Even among the bibles greatest critics like Ehrman the believe is that the original message is still there.

"Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching."

The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus.

2. That teaching is and has been the most profound the human race has ever had:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

3. I do not know what is important to you but that copying manuscripts over and over has ensured a manuscript tradition that is massively more reliable than anything similar. That is potentially the most valuable thing that man has ever accomplished.

Sorry you read it that way, it was to who I was responding to, Mud I think, that I got that impression.

I could have been wrong but it was the easiest of mistakes possible.


I did not know what purpose you used the Socrates quote so did not know what to do with it.

 

[`mud]

hey 1Robin,
I didn't ever say that Jesus wrote the bible.
And from reading the NT and a lot of the OT, I see nowhere that Jesus wrote anything in either treatise.
I'm being a little smartarse about the OT here, but I'm not sure about your knowledge yet, Issaiah had some prophesies that came close.
Everything that is written in those vessels of non-informative mythology, is pure invention on most parts.
Now......Where in those scriptures does it say anything about what Jesus wrote ?
I don't know if he could write or not, I would think he read from the texts and recited them to the elders,
like I said, when he was about 12 years old or so, so says Paul in his assummsions(sic).
If he could write anything, I have to wonder, why didn't he ?
~
You mention a couple of great people in your blog, and I have to guess you don't think they wrote anything,
or were they trying to make a comparison to later stories of them, I'm sure they both wrote a lot.
Anyway.....You don't understand me ...and I certainly don't understand you.
~
If you run across anything that Jesus wrote, let me know, even Matthew didn't know, as I've read.
Good will to your endeavers,
With good wishes and prayer, if it helps,
'mud

 

[1robin]

hey 1Robin,
I didn't ever say that Jesus wrote the bible.
And from reading the NT and a lot of the OT, I see nowhere that Jesus wrote anything in either treatise.
I'm being a little smartarse about the OT here, but I'm not sure about your knowledge yet, Issaiah had some prophesies that came close.
Everything that is written in those vessels of non-informative mythology, is pure invention on most parts.
Now......Where in those scriptures does it say anything about what Jesus wrote ?
I don't know if he could write or not, I would think he read from the texts and recited them to the elders,
like I said, when he was about 12 years old or so, so says Paul in his assummsions(sic).
If he could write anything, I have to wonder, why didn't he ?
~
You mention a couple of great people in your blog, and I have to guess you don't think they wrote anything,
or were they trying to make a comparison to later stories of them, I'm sure they both wrote a lot.
Anyway.....You don't understand me ...and I certainly don't understand you.
~
If you run across anything that Jesus wrote, let me know, even Matthew didn't know, as I've read.
Good will to your endeavers,
With good wishes and prayer, if it helps,
'mud

Hello Mud, No I did not think you did. I believe you stated that he did not write it in a context that was intended to take the fact he did not write it as an indication that we could not know anything about him in that case. In fact I went back and made sure that is what I said. You seem to claim here that I stated the exact opposite from what I actually did.

The rest of what you stated above is also based on a misunderstanding of very clear language use on my part. You seem to draw the exact opposite conclusions from what I actually stated. For example I never said that Caesar did not write anything. I actually said he did. I also said we do not have a single word of it today and only have copies that date to 1000 years after he died. What he wrote was even known in it's day as simply propaganda anyway. He was trying to convince the people he was a great general because he was new to office, lacked military experience, and it was traditionally expected. I cannot account for this level of disconnect between what, what I wrote states and what you respond back with.

I appreciate your sentiments but I am not sure if even prayer can further my endeavors. I work in a defense lab, and on the worst piece of technology ever devised to bedevil the days of man. Even if I used it as a boat anchor which I contently threaten to, it would probably float.

 

[idav]

I did not know what purpose you used the Socrates quote so did not know what to do with it.

Same issue I was raising.

As Socrates did not write philosophical texts, the knowledge of the man, his life, and his philosophy is entirely based on writings by his students and contemporaries.

Socrates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

Same issue I was raising.

I see the quote again. I even agree with it. I still have no idea to what purpose it was included. In what way is that quote supposed to impact the theological context of my or your claims?

 

[Nothingness888]

When satan said worship me and I will give you the word, Jesus replied, " Begone satan for it is written to worship the Lord and serve Him only."

 

[Muffled]

hey Muffled,
I don't get your inference to "Fly and Family Stone"
but I'm not into music or lyrics....any lyrics in particular ?
Now about "God"....do you think that Jesus and "God" are the same ?
You mention that "God" doesn't bother with stuff that other entities can do,
like referring to Jesus in this instance ?
What does "God" have to with Jesus writing anything or not ?
~
And to that thought....I made a reference about "Simon" to 1Robin in referrence to "Peter",
you know...the inventer of all the stories of Jesus' escapades with the disciples,
and the apostles....that "Paul" and "Simon"....maybe I got names wrong,
wasn't Simon known, to Jesus, named Peter, by Jesus.
Oh well.......doesn't matter.
But you probably don't get that either, do you ?
~
Where in the new testament, or any other scripture, does it be said that Jesus could write anything ?
Where does it say that Jesus could write at all, or did He write anything...ever....
except once that was mentioned in the sand before a crowd that gathered to stone a hooker ?
~
Now can you explain any of this to me....about the writing of course...and the lyrics,
please explain the lyrics.....very confusing this is...but I did have a stroke once !
~
forever in debt to the confusion here,
I remain faithfully yours,
'mud....writing as we go

I believe the meaning of strokes in the song refers to saaying or doing nice or nasty things to people. The concept was that people were being mistreated because they were a different color or for any other reason.

I believe, No. The difference is that Jesus has a body and God does not.

I believe God can't delegate His love so the concept of God being in Jesus as He dies on the cross demonstrates the love of God in that this is greatest love one man can demonstrate for another by laying down his life for him.

I believe, same person, same way of doing things.

I believe you have an inventive mind. There was a Simon-bar-Jomah who didn't invent anything but ghost-wrote Mark. Then there was Simon the apostle who travelled with Paul and didn't write anthing. They are two different people just as John Mark is a different person from John the Disicple.

I believe it is moot point.

I believe strokes run in my family and I have had warning signs but I take it you fare well and wish you well as well.

 

[Muffled]

Did Jesus say he was God???

Even if a human claims for himself that he is god; that claim does not make him a god.

Regards

Jesus does not claim to be a god but to be one with Him. I believe you understand the concept of one God.

God is a jealous God. If one were making a false claim He would not support him. Jesus received a great deal of support including the statement by God that "this is my Son in whom I am well pleased."

 

[Muffled]

When satan said worship me and I will give you the word, Jesus replied, " Begone satan for it is written to worship the Lord and serve Him only."

I believe however this statement does not exclude Jesus, just Satan.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus is in major contention and it would just be nice to have his writings. It seems to be an area where accuracy of truth is highly important and I cannot rely on second or third hand accounts. Nobody tries to base their lives on Caesar or Plato or Aristotle or whomever else needed to writer their own stuff.

The only thing that gives me hope is the same thing happens to Buddha but their followers seemed to manage to get the gist of it out there.

I believe that Jesus through the Holy Spirit has His hand on the writing but the reality is that we have the author, Jesus so we have all of the information available withut the Bible. It is just good to have the biblical record to compare so that we can be more sure that we are hearing the Holy Spirit and not a false spirit.

 

[1robin]

I believe that Jesus through the Holy Spirit has His hand on the writing but the reality is that we have the author, Jesus so we have all of the information available withut the Bible. It is just good to have the biblical record to compare so that we can be more sure that we are hearing the Holy Spirit and not a false spirit.

That reminds me of something. I often hear it claimed that the ten commandments were not not new to Christianity. Despite the fact hat many of them are that was not the claim. It was an act of God that officially recognized the moral conscience within us all. He was re-enforcing our moral intuition as his creation not inventing morality at that point. I believe that agrees with the sentiment in your point.

 

[AK4]

The word God is a title and not the name of the Father. Therefore Jesus was given from His Father (who He also called God) the title God. (He was also given His Father/God name)

And yes Jesus did call Himself God and Lord numerous, numerous times. Yet if you think that Jesus was not the God of the OT also then you will never get it. And if you think its just limited to the four gospels then you will never get it. How many times did Jesus say in Revelation that He is the Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, the is, was, and will be?

 

[Muffled]

The word God is a title and not the name of the Father. Therefore Jesus was given from His Father (who He also called God) the title God. (He was also given His Father/God name)

And yes Jesus did call Himself God and Lord numerous, numerous times. Yet if you think that Jesus was not the God of the OT also then you will never get it. And if you think its just limited to the four gospels then you will never get it. How many times did Jesus say in Revelation that He is the Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, the is, was, and will be?

I haven't seen any posts from you for awhile and I certainly enjoy your views.

I suppose you were thinking of this verse? John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

 

[AK4]

I haven't seen any posts from you for awhile and I certainly enjoy your views.

I suppose you were thinking of this verse? John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Hey glad you remember me and thank you. No I wasn't thinking of that verse and never thought of it to prove my point but actually it does...

"For God...gave His...Son"---now it makes no sense to say God gave His self or part of His self. Just on that alone, it destroys the doctrine of the trinity.

But a verse that just bookends the doctrine of the trinity (the reason why I keep mentioning the trinity is because the trinity doctrine will blind people from seeing that the Father and the Son are not the same entity (cant say person cause the Father is not a man but Jesus is called "The Man" after His resurrection to glory) is John 5:37 (and others like it) but this just nails it...

And the Father himself, which has sent me [didn't Jesus say the one who is sent is not as great as the sender, another nail in the coffin for the trinity doctrine] , has borne witness of me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape

This verse and the many others show there is a distinction between the Father and the Son, although it should be common sense that a father and a son cant be the same age yet the trinity says that their both eternal, thus the same age.

Sorry for being longwinded lol but when you know those scriptures/principles like John 5:37 and one of my favorites John 1:18, one can see there is a distinction between Jesus and His Father and then you can notice verses that show Jesus calling Himself God. Heres one example

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught by God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

At first glance one may not see it. But notice when you take in that Jesus also said no man has seen God [well Jesus is quoting a scripture to people at this time and they are seeing Him] and no one has heard His voice [well He is talking to them] He quotes "And they shall be all taught by God" then finishes with "Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me"... Jesus taught teachings no one else did or maybe better stated He taught the teachings on a far higher level, spiritual level, than previously taught in the OT. Look at the sermon on the mount. Oh I got a good example, in the OT, Isaiah, God says "I will open My mouth in parables" then this is restated in Matthew and notice this

13:34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. 35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
“I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”[a]

Keep into account Jesus also said "no man has seen God or heard His voice"

Sorry my kids kept interrupting me and threw me off one the ways I was going to prove this statement by Jesus that He is calling Himself God. So Ill just do it this way (and try to keep it short lol)

Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says TO ME, ‘Lord, Lord,’.....22 Many will say TO ME..., ‘Lord, Lord, .... 23 Then I...

The breakdown

"To Me, Lord, Lord."---People can argue that "oh that's the people calling Jesus Lord not Jesus calling Himself Lord." So just to save time lets go with that argument and grant that. But notice since Jesus acknowledges them calling Him Lord, [Im pretty sure everyone knows only God/The Lord is to be worshipped] when Jesus says "Then I", that is Jesus not only recognizing them calling Him Lord, but also Him saying that He indeed is the Lord.

I will leave it there for now

 

[Muffled]

at Quran :
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
1. Say: He is Allah, the One;
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4. And there is none like unto Him. 112.İkhlas

I believe this is all true and Jesus is one with Allah meaning that is His identity.

 

[Muffled]

Hey glad you remember me and thank you. No I wasn't thinking of that verse and never thought of it to prove my point but actually it does...

"For God...gave His...Son"---now it makes no sense to say God gave His self or part of His self. Just on that alone, it destroys the doctrine of the trinity.

But a verse that just bookends the doctrine of the trinity (the reason why I keep mentioning the trinity is because the trinity doctrine will blind people from seeing that the Father and the Son are not the same entity (cant say person cause the Father is not a man but Jesus is called "The Man" after His resurrection to glory) is John 5:37 (and others like it) but this just nails it...

And the Father himself, which has sent me [didn't Jesus say the one who is sent is not as great as the sender, another nail in the coffin for the trinity doctrine] , has borne witness of me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape

This verse and the many others show there is a distinction between the Father and the Son, although it should be common sense that a father and a son cant be the same age yet the trinity says that their both eternal, thus the same age.

Sorry for being longwinded lol but when you know those scriptures/principles like John 5:37 and one of my favorites John 1:18, one can see there is a distinction between Jesus and His Father and then you can notice verses that show Jesus calling Himself God. Heres one example

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught by God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

At first glance one may not see it. But notice when you take in that Jesus also said no man has seen God [well Jesus is quoting a scripture to people at this time and they are seeing Him] and no one has heard His voice [well He is talking to them] He quotes "And they shall be all taught by God" then finishes with "Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me"... Jesus taught teachings no one else did or maybe better stated He taught the teachings on a far higher level, spiritual level, than previously taught in the OT. Look at the sermon on the mount. Oh I got a good example, in the OT, Isaiah, God says "I will open My mouth in parables" then this is restated in Matthew and notice this

13:34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. 35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
“I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”[a]

Keep into account Jesus also said "no man has seen God or heard His voice"

Sorry my kids kept interrupting me and threw me off one the ways I was going to prove this statement by Jesus that He is calling Himself God. So Ill just do it this way (and try to keep it short lol)

Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says TO ME, ‘Lord, Lord,’.....22 Many will say TO ME..., ‘Lord, Lord, .... 23 Then I...

The breakdown

"To Me, Lord, Lord."---People can argue that "oh that's the people calling Jesus Lord not Jesus calling Himself Lord." So just to save time lets go with that argument and grant that. But notice since Jesus acknowledges them calling Him Lord, [Im pretty sure everyone knows only God/The Lord is to be worshipped] when Jesus says "Then I", that is Jesus not only recognizing them calling Him Lord, but also Him saying that He indeed is the Lord.

I will leave it there for now

I believe God is diverse and yet unitary and athat is a difficult concept for most people. That means that even though God is perceived as being in parts, the reality is that He is one.

I don't understand why. I give myself to other people all the time and am doing so now as I write. Why should God be considered less able to give than me?

I believe your premise is false and therfore your conclusion is false.

I don't believe I have ever been blinded by a doctrine and that the evidence is that they are one entity.

I don't beleive it does. The reason is that God does not have to be a human to reside in a human form. I am not a human either because I am a spirit residing in a body.

I do not believe so becaue a perceived portion of God can't be greater than the entirety of God.

 

[AK4]

I believe God is diverse and yet unitary and athat is a difficult concept for most people. That means that even though God is perceived as being in parts, the reality is that He is one.

Ok two things...Notice, if there--God was a trinity, Jesus never prayed or gave thanks to the "3rd half" of His Father/God [Well for that fact, tell me how Jesus calls His Father God, if He is God? [check Revelation where after Jesus was raised to glory, He still mentions He has a God]] and also notice that there must be something extremely wrong with Paul because in every one of his epistles' introductions he mentions the Father and the Son, never the Holy Spirit. Either something is wrong with T(t)hem, or with people who believe in the trinity.

I don't understand why. I give myself to other people all the time and am doing so now as I write. Why should God be considered less able to give than me?

Nice try. By that logic then one can say this; God gave His Son, then Jesus gives Himself for other people, the world. Is He considered less than you now? Another note, God the Father is not a created being or thing, His Son is. How is some thing created the exact same thing as the thing that created it?

I believe your premise is false and therfore your conclusion is false.

Ok this is where my premise starts, quote "no man has seen God at anytime", "seen His shape", "heard His voice". Now square the trinity with those quotes from scripture. If Jesus is the Father, you know God of Gods, then you have a major contradiction on your hands and many many many scriptures you have to rip out your bible.

I don't believe I have ever been blinded by a doctrine and that the evidence is that they are one entity.

You can link this part with my last statement, how do you square no man has seen or heard God or seen His shape yet Jesus was seen and heard? Even if its just "parts of God", Jesus said no man has seen His shape or form---Moses seen Gods back parts. Adam talked to God and the gospels...many talked to with Jesus, You have a major contradiction to defend with the trinity.

I don't beleive it does. The reason is that God does not have to be a human to reside in a human form. I am not a human either because I am a spirit residing in a body.

Notice that last sentence. You used it to prove your first, so now square that up with this

1 Cor 15:46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven... 49 And just as we have borne [Sounds like he is talking present tense right?] the image of the earthly man, so shall we [that sounds like some time in the future doesn't it?] bear the image of the heavenly man.

I know in some sects of Christianity they teach we are spirit beings [which means man has an immortal soul and therefore never really die when they die] in physical bodies but that doesn't square up with those verses and tons of others.

I do not believe so becaue a perceived portion of God can't be greater than the entirety of God.

Whoa whoa, careful what you say now, not for my sake but for your sake. You have almost said that Jesus isnt the express image of His Father and that He wasn't the perfect example of everything God gave to man. Don't get me wrong I know what you are saying, Im just saying be careful.

But anyway, until we reach PERFECTION like Jesus, Jesus IS all of the perceived portion of God. Let me let you know a little secret that I think you already know. In short, Jesus is His Fathers proof of what He [the Father] can do AND will do to each and everyone who was every created/born...so that "God will be ALL IN ALL" or better stated, we will be just like Him, Jesus. Now if you can ungrasp the trinity doctrine you can see that Jesus is called God and guess what? We will be just like Him [1 John 3:2].

1 Corinthians 15:28
When he [He who? God the Father] has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him [How so? If the trinity is three co-equal parts of God?]who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. ...

That above verse means nothing if you are still believing in a trinity...you can not and will not see it hence my earlier statement you highlighted...

"the trinity is because the trinity doctrine will blind people from seeing that the Father and the Son are not the same entity" and let me add this God is a expanding family aka Father, Son then the firstfruits then eventually everyone and thing else will be included [sons and daughters]