Jesus is not God

[Muffled]

Yes .. Nobody had ever heard of the Trinity never mind believed in such a thing until Tertullian ~200AD - put forth forth something vaguely similar which was declared Heresy by the Church at Large .. taking another century to get any kind of traction as an ideology.

All the Early Church Fathers prior to Tertullian .. and most for many decades after believed Jesus was divine but that he was subordinate to "The Father" ..

I believe sometimes it takes time for a text to be understood.

I believe Jesus is subordinate to the Father but His oneness with Him makes Him God in the flesh.

 

[Muffled]

The trinity is not an easy concept to understand. Perhaps I can help.

God is spirit. He is not some old bearded man, as depicted in some art. He is the essence of the supreme, tripartate being.

The corporate part of the being is Jesus Christ. He was the one who created the physical world and the member of the tripartate being who has bodily form.

The Holy Spirit is the third part of the tripartate being and is the one who was/is given to humans so that those who accept Him become united spiritually with the son, i.e., they are "in Christ".

This is, of course, a brief summary. It is NOT an easy concept to understand, but once you do, you understand what makes the Christian faith unique.

I believe Jesus is not part of a tripartate being. God is one and the three persons of the Trinity are of that One.

 

[jimb]

I believe Jesus is not part of a tripartate being. God is one and the three persons of the Trinity are of that One.

So God is a tripartite being but Jesus ( who is fully God) is not?

 

[Sargonski]

I believe sometimes it takes time for a text to be understood.

I believe Jesus is subordinate to the Father but His oneness with Him makes Him God in the flesh.

Sure -- 1700 years and they still can't figure out how to fit the Trinity Contradicion into the Biblical Text coherently

Indeed the Holy Text depicts Jesus as subordinate to the Father. .of this there is no doubt .. and something that can be understood immediately .. clearly stated on the first page of the NT. The First Page. Page #1 .. of the Story of Jesus on which the 1st century reader or hearer understands immediately that Iesous is not Theos ..

-- in going back and reading I find that OH .. Don't even need to get through the first page.. The first sentence. Sentence 1 .. on Page 1.

"The beginning of the good news about Iesous the Messiah (annointed one of God), the Son of Theos"

The first century hearer/reader knows exactly who the annointed one of God is .. David and Cyrus the two Previous Messiah's. .. Two previous Saviors of the the Israelites .. and then Judahites

Every Jew in the first century is familiar with the "Annointed one of God" .. and most every person in general is familiar with the story.. not the story in Mark but the stories of the other annointed one's of God .. .. these Messianic figures were common among the Jewish people in the first century .. as Messianic Fevor was in the air - the Jewish struggle for autonomy from the Romans and Statehood was all the rage.

The one annointed by God is a Human in the previous instances .. David - Cyrus .. which is all the reader/hearer of the Story knows at this point. .. obviously this Iesous is a man like the others .. but in NO WAY shape or form do they think Jesus fellow is the God that is doing the annointing .. and in fact do not have any reason to think this Jesus is divine at this point in the Story.

The first hint of divinity comes from John the Baptist "8 I baptize you with[e] water, but he will baptize you with[f] the Holy Spirit.”

Oh .. OK .. Cool --- more information .. this Jesus fellow will baptize people with "Holy Spirit" Wow .. what does this Mean to the 1st century reader/hearer ? A new character has been introduced to the Story the Holy Spirit ... who/what is this Spirit ?

Well -- of course you probably don't know -- but fortunately the first century Jew knows exactly what "The Spirit of the Lord" is having met this entity a number of times in the OT --- the Prophets of Old spoke God's word through this entity and or received messages from God through this entity. The Spirit of the Lord is a communication conduit between man and God .. between man and God's Word.

OK .. but .. this passage reads a little strange now what is a baptism "with" this Spirit of the Lord ... is this Spirit going to show up every time Jesus does a baptism ? when we click on the footnote we find the word "in" .. hmmm baptize you in the Spirit of the Lord ..

Hmmm the reader gets the impression that Jesus has some control over this divine force - this divine force is the word of God of which the people will be baptized. A strange but interesting analogy and play on words .. but in any case .. we get that Jesus will have at least a little divine power .. or rather .. the first century reader gets that.

THEN -- two lines further we get a whole lot more information ---
10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted[g] by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.


Totally Cool -- at the Baptism of Jesus --- the Spirit of the Lord steps down from the clouds and delivers God's message - a message that every single first century reader/hearer will be familiar 100 times over in many different ways .. one of the first and oldest stories of great heros adopted by a God --- Sargon of Akkad is a tale everyone knows -- how was put in a basket into a river .. fished out by a gardener .. later Adopted by Patron God -- Goes on to unite the city states of Mesopotamia into the worlds first Empire ~ 2350 BC.

"You are my son" says the voice ---- the God adopts this Man of 30 -- perhaps has recieved some kind of divine spark .. a sliver of the All spark perhaps ?? this is not clear at all but something that might be speculated by the reader -- some kind of divine ability or will be recieving divine help. .

Now .. What happens next makes it crystal clear to the 1st century reader that Jesus is a man . who will go through some kind of Ritual Testing.
Jesus is show as subordinate to the Spirit at this point .. never mind being subordinate to God. Then .. like the ritual the Pharaoh's of Egypt had to go through prior to being considered divine .. Jesus must go through the testing - showing obviously he is not the God speaking to im through the Clouds .. or the "Spirit of the Lord" .. Telling the Reader at this point "Oh BTW -- Jesus is actually God" would be a ridiculous absurdity .. and major Heresy on steroids to the Jewish reader.

THEN however, we get some further evidence of divinity of Jesus... as he interacts with other divinities .. Angels attending to Jesus during his Trial and direct interaction with another God .. one different than the God who adopted Jesus .. but one sent by the Theos God to test Jesus.

This other God is "Ha Satan" -- the Son of God we meet in Job whose Job Title is "Tester of Souls" --- and who has apparently risen to Chief God on Earth - having the whole world in the palm of his hand such that he can deliever it to Jesus if he will worship him.

KK -- This is a God asking a human for worship -- .. not a God asking the Most High God .. his Father .. to worship him. That is not what is happening in the story .. another ridiculous absurdity that is simply not even considered by a first century reader.

Jesus passes the test and goes on to be a great Prophet and Wonder worker who ends up a human sacrifice .. forsaken by this God for reason's unknown .. Thus at the end of the life of Jesus .. his divinity has not risen to the stature of the God .. and certainly not the Most High God.. again a ridiculous absurdity to suggest that it is the Supreme God hanging on the cross .. calling out to himself in some self induced masochistic delerium .. forgetting who he is. .. Once again .. this idea a ridiculous absurdity that the Reader does not consider for a second.

Jesus is a human sacrifice -- a sin offereing like the Scape Goat -- first born "son of Man" .. but unlike Isaac .. God does not rush in at the last moment and provide a substitute as Jesus expects .. "Take this Cup from my hand .. let it be your will not mine" so again we clearly dealing with two separate individuals .. separate Wills which are not the same ... not one in spirit on this point of order and one clearly subordinate to the other.

So Jesus does not want to go through with the sacrifice .. Pleads with his God not to make him do it .. but goes to the cross .. against his will .. thinking that surely God will step in and rescue him somehow .. or provide a substitute. Unfortunately for Jesus .. this is not what happens .. and Jesus is not happy about it ... near cursing this God with his last breath .. bewildered and feeling betrayed .. his last breath "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me"

and thats it .. This Human with a divine spark dies .. like a human .. his body taken to a cave .. then the body disappears .... the reader left to wonder what happend to it ..and here the original version of the story ends .. The reader left to speculate on what happened to the desecrated body of this betrayed prophet of God.

 

[DNB]

Again, keep digging and you might find the truth about the trinity. You seem intelligent, so open your mind and give it a try.

Why do you persist? If you deem me as being intelligent, and that there's not an ounce of any intelligence or soundness within any of the tenets of trinitarian theology, why do you expect me to eventually subscribe to such enigmatic and incomprehensible concepts.
If at least you could provide some trinitarian verbiage within the Bible, it may give one grounds to possibly entertain the unattainable notion - but, I guess I just answered the question.

 

[DNB]

The trinity is not an easy concept to understand. Perhaps I can help.

God is spirit. He is not some old bearded man, as depicted in some art. He is the essence of the supreme, tripartate being.

The corporate part of the being is Jesus Christ. He was the one who created the physical world and the member of the tripartate being who has bodily form.

The Holy Spirit is the third part of the tripartate being and is the one who was/is given to humans so that those who accept Him become united spiritually with the son, i.e., they are "in Christ".

This is, of course, a brief summary. It is NOT an easy concept to understand, but once you do, you understand what makes the Christian faith unique.

But you didn't even attempt to explain anything? You merely identified roles, and that, according to three distinct persons/entities - no one disagrees with that.
Now let's see you, without sounding misguided and absurd, explain the single ontology between all these three, seemingly autonomous (independent roles) persons.

 

[jimb]

Why do you persist? If you deem me as being intelligent, and that there's not an ounce of any intelligence or soundness within any of the tenets of trinitarian theology, why do you expect me to eventually subscribe to such enigmatic and incomprehensible concepts.
If at least you could provide some trinitarian verbiage within the Bible, it may give one grounds to possibly entertain the unattainable notion - but, I guess I just answered the question.

Your claim that, since you are intelligent, there's not an ounce of any intelligence or soundness within any of the tenets of trinitarian theology. I am also intelligent (in the 99th percentile to be exact) and know that the so-called trinity -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit -- exists and is factual.

Your lack of understanding it doesn't mean it's untrue.

 

[jimb]

But you didn't even attempt to explain anything? You merely identified roles, and that, according to three distinct persons/entities - no one disagrees with that.
Now let's see you, without sounding misguided and absurd, explain the single ontology between all these three, seemingly autonomous (independent roles) persons.

I have three elements -- body, mind, and spirit -- in one person. It is the same with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three different aspects of the one God. If that is "misguided and absurd" to you, that is not my problem. It simply means that you lack understanding.

 

[DNB]

Your claim that, since you are intelligent, there's not an ounce of any intelligence or soundness within any of the tenets of trinitarian theology. I am also intelligent (in the 99th percentile to be exact) and know that the so-called trinity -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit -- exists and is factual.

Your lack of understanding it doesn't mean it's untrue.

the entire world's lack of understanding makes it nonsensical and absurd. and thus, untrue, ...obviously.

 

[DNB]

I have three elements -- body, mind, and spirit -- in one person. It is the same with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three different aspects of the one God. If that is "misguided and absurd" to you, that is not my problem. It simply means that you lack understanding.

You sound silly, like, really silly. Are you entirely incapable of putting forth an argument that has anything to do with the subject matter?
The body cannot do what the mind does. The mind cannot do what the spirit does - this is by no means analogous to the doctrine of the unholy trinity, ...obviously

 

[jimb]

the entire world's lack of understanding makes it nonsensical and absurd. and thus, untrue, ...obviously.

To you, it's untrue. To many, many millions of people, it is true.

BTW, who are you to judge "the entire world"???

 

[jimb]

You sound silly, like, really silly. Are you entirely incapable of putting forth an argument that has anything to do with the subject matter?
The body cannot do what the mind does. The mind cannot do what the spirit does - this is by no means analogous to the doctrine of the unholy trinity, ...obviously

Your calling me "silly" is a complement, since it shows that you are unable to judge a person's statements.

Are you entirely incapable of putting forth an argument that has anything to do with the subject matter?

BTW, what percentile of intelligence do you fall in?

 

[Niatero]

Your calling me "silly" is a complement, since it shows that you are unable to judge a person's statements.

Are you entirely incapable of putting forth an argument that has anything to do with the subject matter?

BTW, what percentile of intelligence do you fall in?

I don't know if it matters to you or not, but what you've been saying about the Trinity contradicts the teachings of all the Trinitarian churches.

 

[jimb]

I don't know if it matters to you or not, but what you've been saying about the Trinity contradicts the teachings of all the Trinitarian churches.

It doesn't matter to me. I have given proof from the Bible, so it's irrelevant what all the Trinitarian churches teach (if they actually teach the same thing, which is doubtful). As you know, there are many denominations, and they often disagree.

 

[Dimi95]

Sure -- 1700 years and they still can't figure out how to fit the Trinity Contradicion into the Biblical Text coherently

No it is entirely the oposite , no one has ever proven otherwise without doing straw man on the doctrine.

Indeed the Holy Text depicts Jesus as subordinate to the Father. .of this there is no doubt ..

You mean 'The Father is greater then I' ?
What do we do with 'I and the Father are one' ? Throw it in the basket ? Well , you sure did it.

and something that can be understood immediately .. clearly stated on the first page of the NT. The First Page. Page #1 .. of the Story of Jesus on which the 1st century reader or hearer understands immediately that Iesous is not Theos ..

Again the oposite

Can't you see here the Messiah

In that same chapter verse 21 it reads:
"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."

Funny what Isaiah 43:11 says:

I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

You should use transitivity more

-- in going back and reading I find that OH .. Don't even need to get through the first page.. The first sentence. Sentence 1 .. on Page 1.

You are proven otherwise , you should do your work

"The beginning of the good news about Iesous the Messiah (annointed one of God), the Son of Theos"

Daniel 7
'In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man(human being),coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

As you know yourself in the Bible worship is to God alone.

The first century hearer/reader knows exactly who the annointed one of God is .. David and Cyrus the two Previous Messiah's. .. Two previous Saviors of the the Israelites .. and then Judahites

No , Isaiah 43:11 says otherwise

Also Mark 12
'While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, 'Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:

"The Lord said to my Lord:
'Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet'."

David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”

Again you are proven wrong.

Every Jew in the first century is familiar with the "Annointed one of God" .. and most every person in general is familiar with the story.. not the story in Mark but the stories of the other annointed one's of God .. .. these Messianic figures were common among the Jewish people in the first century .. as Messianic Fevor was in the air - the Jewish struggle for autonomy from the Romans and Statehood was all the rage.

The one annointed by God is a Human in the previous instances .. David - Cyrus .. which is all the reader/hearer of the Story knows at this point. .. obviously this Iesous is a man like the others .. but in NO WAY shape or form do they think Jesus fellow is the God that is doing the annointing .. and in fact do not have any reason to think this Jesus is divine at this point in the Story.

David and Cyrus are anointed - that is however true
But Jesus is THE anointed.
You know what 'the' adds to Messiah , i suppose?

The first hint of divinity comes from John the Baptist "8 I baptize you with[e] water, but he will baptize you with[f] the Holy Spirit.”

Oh .. OK .. Cool --- more information .. this Jesus fellow will baptize people with "Holy Spirit" Wow .. what does this Mean to the 1st century reader/hearer ? A new character has been introduced to the Story the Holy Spirit ... who/what is this Spirit ?

Well -- of course you probably don't know -- but fortunately the first century Jew knows exactly what "The Spirit of the Lord" is having met this entity a number of times in the OT --- the Prophets of Old spoke God's word through this entity and or received messages from God through this entity. The Spirit of the Lord is a communication conduit between man and God .. between man and God's Word.

OK .. but .. this passage reads a little strange now what is a baptism "with" this Spirit of the Lord ... is this Spirit going to show up every time Jesus does a baptism ? when we click on the footnote we find the word "in" .. hmmm baptize you in the Spirit of the Lord ..

Hmmm the reader gets the impression that Jesus has some control over this divine force - this divine force is the word of God of which the people will be baptized. A strange but interesting analogy and play on words .. but in any case .. we get that Jesus will have at least a little divine power .. or rather .. the first century reader gets that.

THEN -- two lines further we get a whole lot more information ---
10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted[g] by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Why did you skip this?

"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.But John tried to deter him, saying, 'I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?
Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.' Then John consented.

This is first person speaking

After that it reads:
"As soon as Jesus was baptized....." - which tells us the writer is speaking.

Totally Cool -- at the Baptism of Jesus --- the Spirit of the Lord steps down from the clouds and delivers God's message - a message that every single first century reader/hearer will be familiar 100 times over in many different ways .. one of the first and oldest stories of great heros adopted by a God --- Sargon of Akkad is a tale everyone knows -- how was put in a basket into a river .. fished out by a gardener .. later Adopted by Patron God -- Goes on to unite the city states of Mesopotamia into the worlds first Empire ~ 2350 BC.

So they copied , you say..
Do you have any evidence to show us how it is done , or its another failed attempt?

"You are my son" says the voice ---- the God adopts this Man of 30 --

Please read Luke 1:26:38

perhaps has recieved some kind of divine spark .. a sliver of the All spark perhaps ?? this is not clear at all but something that might be speculated by the reader -- some kind of divine ability or will be recieving divine help. .

No , it is all clear , but sadly not to you.

Now .. What happens next makes it crystal clear to the 1st century reader that Jesus is a man . who will go through some kind of Ritual Testing.
Jesus is show as subordinate to the Spirit at this point .. never mind being subordinate to God.

Galatians 4:6

Then .. like the ritual the Pharaoh's of Egypt had to go through prior to being considered divine .. Jesus must go through the testing - showing obviously he is not the God speaking to im through the Clouds .. or the "Spirit of the Lord" .. Telling the Reader at this point "Oh BTW -- Jesus is actually God" would be a ridiculous absurdity .. and major Heresy on steroids to the Jewish reader.

THEN however, we get some further evidence of divinity of Jesus... as he interacts with other divinities .. Angels attending to Jesus during his Trial and direct interaction with another God .. one different than the God who adopted Jesus .. but one sent by the Theos God to test Jesus.

This other God is "Ha Satan" -- the Son of God we meet in Job whose Job Title is "Tester of Souls" --- and who has apparently risen to Chief God on Earth - having the whole world in the palm of his hand such that he can deliever it to Jesus if he will worship him.


KK -- This is a God asking a human for worship -- .. not a God asking the Most High God .. his Father .. to worship him. That is not what is happening in the story .. another ridiculous absurdity that is simply not even considered by a first century reader.

What is absurd is to say that every 'Son of God' is God.

You have not paid atention on John 3:16

Jesus passes the test and goes on to be a great Prophet and Wonder worker who ends up a human sacrifice .. forsaken by this God for reason's unknown ...

Ok , now you try to be Dawaghandist , cool.

Thus at the end of the life of Jesus .. his divinity has not risen to the stature of the God .. and certainly not the Most High God.. again a ridiculous absurdity to suggest that it is the Supreme God hanging on the cross .. calling out to himself in some self induced masochistic delerium .. forgetting who he is. .. Once again .. this idea a ridiculous absurdity that the Reader does not consider for a second.

Why did he spoke in parables then , to what purpose?
Why then Jesus prophesied his own death willingly? Who does that?

Jesus is a human sacrifice -- a sin offereing like the Scape Goat -- first born "son of Man" .. but unlike Isaac .. God does not rush in at the last moment and provide a substitute as Jesus expects .. "Take this Cup from my hand .. let it be your will not mine" so again we clearly dealing with two separate individuals .. separate Wills which are not the same ... not one in spirit on this point of order and one clearly subordinate to the other.

So Jesus does not want to go through with the sacrifice .. Pleads with his God not to make him do it .. but goes to the cross .. against his will .. thinking that surely God will step in and rescue him somehow .. or provide a substitute. Unfortunately for Jesus .. this is not what happens .. and Jesus is not happy about it ... near cursing this God with his last breath .. bewildered and feeling betrayed .. his last breath "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me"

and thats it .. This Human with a divine spark dies .. like a human .. his body taken to a cave .. then the body disappears .... the reader left to wonder what happend to it ..and here the original version of the story ends .. The reader left to speculate on what happened to the desecrated body of this betrayed prophet of God.

Why don't we start to talk more about evidence and Scripture , and less about what you think.

 

[Sargonski]

No it is entirely the oposite , no one has ever proven otherwise without doing straw man on the doctrine.


You mean 'The Father is greater then I' ?
What do we do with 'I and the Father are one' ? Throw it in the basket ? Well , you sure did it.

Holy carp what a gish gash response .. a bunch of unsupported claims that ramble on with no point and irrational assertions.

What on earth is "The strawman on doctrine" .. what is the opposite .. and "no one has proven what otherwise ? This is just unintelligible unsupported incoherent rambling. The Trinity doctrine "Jesus is God" as in Jesus claiming he is "The Father" .. is not found anywhere in the Bible -- according to modern Theological Scholarship .. open up any reference Bible and it will tell you tha .. and we could end right there .. your claim "no it is entirely the Opposite" preposterous false nonsense on steroids.

no one has proven what otherwise ? and how does that help your case .. sans those prone to the apeal to ignorance fallacy .. No one has proven Jesus doesn't claim to be "The Father" .. .. um .. yeah .. as per above .. the kind of have .. even though if they hadn't your case is not proven.

No idea what your Strawman doctrine is .. don't think you know what a strawman is .. but matters not as is irrelevant gibberish.

"The Father is Greater than I" is just one of hundreds of passages where Jesus clearly states he is not "The Father" ... If Jesus is "The Father" he can not be greater than "The Father" - hundreds of examples -- showing separate Wills at the end of his time as Jesus begs "Take this cup from my hand but let it not be my will but yours"

The Trinity does not allow for two separate wills .. and obviously they are not one in mind on this subject. then at the end we have Jesus crying out that his God has forsaken him .. Not doing the will of Jesus .. Jesus thinking God was going to intervene in the human sacrifice like in the case of Isaac .. but it was not to be.

To claim that it was "The Father" .. the Almighty supreme God hanging on the cross .. in some kind of masochistic delerium .. such that this all Powerfull God can not figure out how to free himself .. forgets who he is and starts calling out to an imaginary God for forsaking him .. is far far far beyond absurd.

and it doesn't end there .. hundreds of passages where Jesus states the Father is an entity other than himself .. and against this .. you bring one vague cherry picked passage with could have many interpretations .. the most likely being "one in spirit" .. given Jesus is the Logos and all .. but you want us to .. against a backdrop hundreds of examples Jesus clearly stating God is other than him .. and go with the idea that what Jesus really meant was that He is "The Father" No .. go against modern Theological Scholarship ... Go against all early Scholarship -- as none of the Early Church Fathers for the first 200 years of Christianity believed such nonsense .. and we know they thought it was nonsense because when the idea was first being bandied about by Teuterlian ~200 AD the Church called in Heresy.

 

[DNB]

To you, it's untrue. To many, many millions of people, it is true.

BTW, who are you to judge "the entire world"???

I've never, ever heard a trinitarian be able to explain what they believe - the doctrine's explanation is invariably accompanied by the 'mystery' card.

 

[DNB]

Your calling me "silly" is a complement, since it shows that you are unable to judge a person's statements.

Are you entirely incapable of putting forth an argument that has anything to do with the subject matter?

BTW, what percentile of intelligence do you fall in?

the doctrine of the trinity is from the devil

 

[Dimi95]

Holy carp what a gish gash response .. a bunch of unsupported claims that ramble on with no point and irrational assertions.

What on earth is "The strawman on doctrine" .. what is the opposite .. and "no one has proven what otherwise ? This is just unintelligible unsupported incoherent rambling. The Trinity doctrine "Jesus is God" as in Jesus claiming he is "The Father" .. is not found anywhere in the Bible -- according to modern Theological Scholarship ..

What?
Read Isaiah 9:6

open up any reference Bible and it will tell you tha .. and we could end right there .. your claim "no it is entirely the Opposite" preposterous false nonsense on steroids.

Already did it , not need to even look at this

no one has proven what otherwise ?

The doctrine of the Trinity

and how does that help your case .. sans those prone to the apeal to ignorance fallacy ..

Based on what?
Me giving references in Scripture and you just telling what you think?

No one has proven Jesus doesn't claim to be "The Father" .. .. um .. yeah .. as per above .. the kind of have .. even though if they hadn't your case is not proven.

Isaiah 9:6 , i don't have anything else to say.
You do your work

No idea what your Strawman doctrine is .. don't think you know what a strawman is .. but matters not as is irrelevant gibberish.

Sure , ad hominem is your best

"The Father is Greater than I" is just one of hundreds of passages where Jesus clearly states he is not "The Father"

So why does he say 'I and the Father are one' ?
What is your understanding ?

... If Jesus is "The Father" he can not be greater than "The Father" - hundreds of examples -- showing separate Wills at the end of his time as Jesus begs "Take this cup from my hand but let it not be my will but yours"

John 10:18 reads
'No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.'

John 8:54
Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

The Trinity does not allow for two separate wills ..

Sure
From the Father , through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

Do you want the reference or you can find it yourself?

and obviously they are not one in mind on this subject.

More Scripture and less you being the teacher , so we can see the difference.

then at the end we have Jesus crying out that his God has forsaken him ..

Read Psalm 22

Not doing the will of Jesus .. Jesus thinking God was going to intervene in the human sacrifice like in the case of Isaac .. but it was not to be.

Let me ask you a question?
Did Jesus do any wrong to somebody given the evidence?

To claim that it was "The Father" .. the Almighty supreme God hanging on the cross .. in some kind of masochistic delerium .. such that this all Powerfull God can not figure out how to free himself .. forgets who he is and starts calling out to an imaginary God for forsaking him .. is far far far beyond absurd.

Why did he quote the exact words of Psalm 22:1?

and it doesn't end there .. hundreds of passages where Jesus states the Father is an entity other than himself

Give the references please

.. and against this .. you bring one vague cherry picked passage with could have many interpretations ..

I don't care about interpretations
I don't care about NIV , SUV , KJV etc etc.

I don't need them , you need them.
I don't , i only need to read the original language - that's it.

the most likely being "one in spirit" .. given Jesus is the Logos and all .. but you want us to .. against a backdrop hundreds of examples Jesus clearly stating God is other than him ..

Please give the references , don't just state your opinion.

The Gospels have little to do with literal understanding as i suppose you knew , but i was wrong , and i am sorry for not noticing that.

Matthew 13:34
'Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.'

and go with the idea that what Jesus really meant was that He is "The Father"

You don't get it , do you?
The Father is just a person, a title.
God is more then a person or a title.Actually we don't know what is God if we are being honest here.
Even i as a Christian know that much.
In the person of the Father , in the person of the Son and in the person of the Holy Spirit.

No .. go against modern Theological Scholarship ... Go against all early Scholarship

Please give the evidence if you want to discuss

-- as none of the Early Church Fathers for the first 200 years of Christianity believed such nonsense

What?
Ignatius , Tertullian, Polycarp , St Irenaeus ?
What did Paul preach ?

.. and we know they thought it was nonsense because when the idea was first being bandied about by Teuterlian ~200 AD the Church called in Heresy.

Do you know what is heresy?

 

[jimb]

the doctrine of the trinity is from the devil

Your description of yourself is "Christian". Why then do you ascribe a fundamental truth of Christianity to Satan? Does he control your mind?

Why didn't you respond to my earlier questions?

a) Are you entirely incapable of putting forth an argument that has anything to do with the subject matter?

b) what percentile of intelligence do you fall in?