Is Jesus separate from the father?

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Wrong, He stated many times.
Jesus said if you've seen me you've seen The Father. He also said He and The Father are one.

obviously these verses are added and Jesus PBUH never said that. But thanks for trying.

Yes,Jesus does say this,but it in no way means that Jesus and God the Almighty are one,literally.It speaks of a spiritual union,not a literal one.Also,it never mentions the holy spirit in this union.

Good argument. The Holy spirit is ignored again.

How come holy spirit is so much ignored in the bible:
1) The father is greater than me .....(where is holy spirit?)
2) me and the father are one....(where is holy spirity again?)
3) God has sent me.....(where is holy spirit?)

 

[Ingledsva]

I just have, they seem pretty adamant that it is in the Bible.
Trinity in the New Testament
But of course, I'm sure with your fluent ancient Greek and impeccable knowledge of Christian interpretation, you'll show us all that we just don't understand.

ING - LOL! If you did an actual search - as I said - then you found that NO trinity doctrine is in the Bible!

It is not there. It is made up in the fourth century after Pagan contact.

"The truth is that the Trinity isn't even mentioned in God's word, the Holy Bible (5) A check of any concordance will prove this fact. Not only is it not mentioned, but the doctrine is neither found in the New Testament,(6) nor the Old Testament. ...(7)"

"One idea that became popular among Christians around the fourth century was that of a trinity of gods. It was not, however, a new idea conceived by Christians, for there is much evidence of widespread belief in similar ideas throughout earlier recorded history.

Many scholars believe that the Trinity, as taught by Christians, comes from Plato as suggested in the Timaeus, but the Platonic trinity is itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples.(3) "

The Trinity -- Fact or Fiction?

Firstly, it's three persons in one being. This is not a trivial semantic distinction. If you're going to criticise the trinity, don't strawman it.

Secondly, the how can be summed up in a single word; consubstantiality.

Consubstantiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Consubstantial (Latin: consubstantialis) is an adjective used in LatinChristianchristology, coined by Tertullian in Against Hermogenes 44, used to translate the Greek term homoousios. "Consubstantial" describes the relationship among the Divine persons of the Christian Trinity and connotes that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are "of one being" in that the Son is "generated" ("born" or "begotten") "before all ages" or "eternally" of the Father's own being, from which the Spirit also eternally "proceeds." In Latin languages it is the term for homoousism.

The Son is begotten by the Father, from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. Your mere incredulity is in no way shape or form an indication of incoherence. The concept itself is coherent, although the how is beyond human grasp. (ING - THIS IS HILARIOUS!) We can talk about God coherently, but we cannot capture God with logical categorisation.


Christ took on a full human nature for our sake. This included experiencing our dependence on (and sometimes feeling our apparent abandonment) by God. It in no way detracts from Christ's divinity.

ING - The Bible does not say that! It says in the original language - that the Logos was with God from the beginning. It does NOT say Jesus is the Logos. Logos is God's full Law. It tells us Logos became ENFLESHED in Jesus - not that Jesus is it!!!!! He needed the Logos/Law to function as the Messiah.

Do you actually understand what Christians believe when we say Christ became man?

EXPAND HIS TO READ ALL REPLIES -

Of course I do. I was raised Christian, and took Comparative Religions courses. There is no trinity doctrine in the Bible. Jesus never says he is God. He treats YHVH as a totally separate being - as any Jew would - as they believe in ONE God - no trinity crap.

Your post is PURE BULL! You have three separate beings recorded at the same time - at one event - in the Bible. There is no trinity.

PS. "Christ" didn't become man. Christ-Christos means anointed. You are trying to tell us Iesous is a God that became flesh - which the Bible does NOT say!

*

 

[Desert Snake]

EXPAND HIS TO READ ALL REPLIES -

Of course I do. I was raised Christian, and took Comparative Religions courses. There is no trinity doctrine in the Bible. Jesus never says he is God. He treats YHVH as a totally separate being - as any Jew would - as they believe in ONE God - no trinity crap.

Your post is PURE BULL! You have three separate beings recorded at the same time - at one event - in the Bible. There is no trinity.

PS. "Christ" didn't become man. Christ-Christos means anointed. You are trying to tell us Iesous is a God that became flesh - which the Bible does NOT say!

*

CHRISTIANITY ISN'T JUDAISM.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yep. No matter how they cut it they have three Gods in different places at the same time. In other words it says Jesus prayed to his father/God - meaning a separate God somewhere else. And they have the Holy Spirit flitting all over the place at the same time as Jesus, proclaiming him, etc.

I can't for the life of me, - understand how they get Jesus is God, or the trinity idea, from their own religious texts. They do not say such. He was a Jew = ONE God.

Again that's your opinion, and that opinion will send you straight to hell.

LOL! Opinion! It is FACT!

Let me repeat - Your Bible has all three of the supposed ONE being - in the same event - at the same time - as three separate beings.

NO TRINITY!

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I want to know how you think three different beings active in one place at the same time are ONE God?

The Holy Spirit is there to proclaim Jesus at the baptism. AND - God speaks from Heaven! Three DIFFERENT beings active together at the same time.

Jesus prays to his Father - so a separate being - at the same time.

Jesus asks God to take the coming burden from him.

Is he skitso?

Lady you're annoying, don't resort to personal attacks... I doubt we'd listen to someone who is into witchery anyhow.

LOL! How you get a personal attack out of that is beyond me! I suggest you re-read it!

Now as to ACTUALL personal attacks - how in the hell did you come up with the false idea of me being into witchery?

*

 

[Ingledsva]

CHRISTIANITY ISN'T JUDAISM.

JESUS WAS A JEW.

Christianity is a later altering of Biblical content, and what Jesus actually said.

THE BIBLE HAS NO TRINITY DOCTRINE - as scholars will tell you.

*

 

[Desert Snake]

JESUS WAS A JEW.

Christianity is a later altering of Biblical content, and what Jesus actually said.

THE BIBLE HAS NO TRINITY DOCTRINE - as scholars will tell you.

*

Jesus taught against the Temple teachings, and also against traditional teachings. So He was a really bad Jew? Where are you getting this information from, anyways. According to the Bible, Jesus is called G-d, and is given all the power in Heaven, and on Earth.
You are presenting a fictional portrayal, surmised from a religious text.

This is a religion, not a tale of a fisherman failing at Rabbinic Judaism, lol.

 

[Ingledsva]

Jesus taught against the Temple teachings, and also against traditional teachings. So He was a really bad Jew? Where are you getting this information from, anyways. According to the Bible, Jesus is called G-d, and is given all the power in Heaven, and on Earth.
You are presenting a fictional portrayal, surmised from a religious text.

This is a religion, not a tale of a fisherman failing at Rabbinic Judaism, lol.

Not true! he taught against certain groups whom had altered or left out the original meaning of the law.

A fictional portrayal from a text? - well of course, - however, - they are using the text, - and I will debate them from THAT TEXT. You obviously believe differently than the text.

PS. He isn't called God either. He is called a word which also mean magistrate, and he points to a Tanakh text which makes that perfectly clear. They were not saying he was calling himself a god, but that he was claiming to be God's Magistrate - in power over them.

*

 

[Desert Snake]

Not true! he taught against certain groups whom had altered or left out the original meaning of the law.

A fictional portrayal from a text? - well of course, - however, - they are using the text, - and I will debate them from THAT TEXT. You obviously believe differently than the text.

PS. He isn't called God either. He is called a word which also mean magistrate, and he points to a Tanakh text which makes that perfectly clear. They were not saying he was calling himself a god, but that he was claiming to be God's Magistrate - in power over them.

*

Facepalm. Jews do not casually call each other God, or Lord. That is blasphemous. The reason why he is called such, is to differentiate from 'Rabbi', etc. Paul, I think, was really arguing against the misconceptions of other people at the time, who were not willing, for whatever reason, to recognize the religion for what it was, ie, Jesus as a manifestation of YHWH. Very simple. I believe that you have interpreted things, sort of ''backwards''. As in, you seem to be assuming a secondary meaning to these Deity titles, when they are foremost, according to traditional belief. Even the trinity doctrine is a slightly confusing example of an apologetic that is actually somewhat in line with your interpretation style. They were trying to ''figure out'' the belief, in a context of Judaic belief....but....they knew that Xianity, actually, Jesu followers, were of the belief that Jesus is G-d. The early church thinkers were not inventing a religion, they were adhering to a religion, and writing Scripture. There is a big difference there. We can't forget that Judaism as we know it today was not even extant in the time of Jesus the mans time in Israel.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Wrong, He stated many times.
Jesus said if you've seen me you've seen The Father. He also said He and The Father are one.

Only in John, the last written and most embellished.

 

[Ingledsva]

Facepalm. Jews do not casually call each other God, or Lord. That is blasphemous. The reason why he is called such, is to differentiate from 'Rabbi', etc. Paul, I think, was really arguing against the misconceptions of other people at the time, who were not willing, for whatever reason, to recognize the religion for what it was, ie, Jesus as a manifestation of YHWH. Very simple. I believe that you have interpreted things, sort of ''backwards''. As in, you seem to be assuming a secondary meaning to these Deity titles, when they are foremost, according to traditional belief. Even the trinity doctrine is a slightly confusing example of an apologetic that is actually somewhat in line with your interpretation style. They were trying to ''figure out'' the belief, in a context of Judaic belief....but....they knew that Xianity, actually, Jesu followers, were of the belief that Jesus is G-d. The early church thinkers were not inventing a religion, they were adhering to a religion, and writing Scripture. There is a big difference there. We can't forget that Judaism as we know it today was not even extant in the time of Jesus the mans time in Israel.

Where did I say they did?

I said the word used also means Magistrate, etc.

Jesus - and those in the Tanakh text WERE NOT being called Gods.

To them there was only ONE God.

John 14:10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? the sayings that I speak to you, from myself I speak not, and but the Father who is abiding in me, Himself doth the works;

Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by my Father.

 

[Desert Snake]

Where did I say they did?

I said the word used also means Magistrate, etc.

Jesus - and those in the Tanakh text WERE NOT being called Gods.

To them there was only ONE God.

John 14:10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? the sayings that I speak to you, from myself I speak not, and but the Father who is abiding in me, Himself doth the works;

Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared by my Father.

This is very one dimensional interpretation. That is fine, I'm done debating this.

 

[Ingledsva]

This is very one dimensional interpretation. That is fine, I'm done debating this.

How can it be one dimensional interpretation - when it is a fact - which you can look up in a language dictionary - that the WORD used has other meanings?

And Jesus himself - in the story - when they use the word - points to a Tanakh text - that shows the meaning is NOT GOD.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jesus is referring to a Tanakh text - in which YHVH OBVIOUSLY did NOT call the Hebrew leaders GODS.

The Tanakh text uses Elohiym, and the Greek uses Theos, both of which are also have the meanings of Magistrates, Kings, Leaders, etc., = CHOSEN ONES.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

How can it be one dimensional interpretation - when it is a fact - which you can look up in a language dictionary - that the WORD used has other meanings?

And Jesus himself - in the story - when they use the word - points to a Tanakh text - that shows the meaning is NOT GOD.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jesus is referring to a Tanakh text - in which YHVH OBVIOUSLY did NOT call the Hebrew leaders GODS.

The Tanakh text uses Elohiym, and the Greek uses Theos, both of which are also have the meanings of Magistrates, Kings, Leaders, etc.


*

Whuppity-do. I consider myself under a Continuation Covenant anyway, I'm not even baptized. Have fun/

 

[FollowerOfTheLord]

Pagans wish they were first

 

[Ingledsva]

Pagans wish they were first

Whom are you replying to?

And what is the meaning of your sentence in reference to the subject?

*

 

[arthra]

In the Baha'i Faith we view Jesus as manifesting the attributes of God to humanity... If you were to be in the presence of Jesus it would likely be the closest you could be to God.

1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,..."

(King James Bible, Hebrews)

1:26 "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints"...

(King James Bible, Colossians)

 

[Ingledsva]

In the Baha'i Faith we view Jesus as manifesting the attributes of God to humanity... If you were to be in the presence of Jesus it would likely be the closest you could be to God.

1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,..."

(King James Bible, Hebrews)

1:26 "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints"...

(King James Bible, Colossians)

But you do not believe he is God, just another teacher sent to the people.

*

 

[arthra]

But you do not believe he is God, just another teacher sent to the people.

*[/QUOTE

As a Manifestation of God.. Jesus perfectly reflected the attributes of God to humanity. The essence of God is unknowable.

"As regards to your questions concerning the station of Jesus Christ, and His return as explained in the Gospel. It is true that Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of God, but this, as explained by Bahá'u'lláh in the 'Íqán, does not indicate any Physical relationship whatever. Its meaning is entirely spiritual and points to the close relationship existing between Him and the Almighty God. Nor does it necessarily indicate any inherent superiority in the station of Jesus over other Prophets and Messengers. As far as their spiritual nature is concerned all Prophets can be regarded as Sons of God, as they all reflect His light, though not in an equal measure, and this difference in reflection is due to the conditions and circumstances under which they appear."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, November 29, 1937)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 491)


Was Jesus "just another teacher"? No. In our view Jesus as a Manifestation had innate knowledge.. He didn't need to be schooled by anyone. He had a higher station than the average human being.

He had a corporeal body that was abused and crucified.

 

[Ingledsva]

Indeed I have read the Baha'i material.

They believe Jesus, and all the other teachers provided for mankind over the centuries, - were NOT GODS.

They were special teachers/prophets.

*