So Jesus is not God?

[Muffled]

Apart from ‘The [SPIRIT] does not want the body to suffer], what you just said is Tosh!!! Total tosh!!!

The MIND is the SPIRIT... the SPIRIT is the MIND.

Jesus has ONE mind. With this one mind he can choose to do one of [a number] of things.

In the garden, he thought of the pain and anguish, the suffering, the ignominious death that awaited him ... it was overwhelming... he faultered.

Sweating blood is real phenomena. Extreme stress can cause this to happen. Blood vessels burst and seep through pours in the skin or out of the eye.

However, at this late stage, Jesus knew he was so close that ‘...another way...’ was not possible and would defeat everything he had accomplished in the last three and half years (as well as his pre-Anointed years).

Jesus’ ONE MIND changed from a ‘defeatist’ to a ‘conformist’ mindset...

Two ‘MINDSETS’ is what he had. Two ‘trains of thought’... one, to do the easy thing... and the other to do the Will of HIM who sent him...

You do remember Jonah, don’t you...?

Jonah feared they Ninevehians... and gave in to his defeatist mindset. But YHWH brought him back and Jonah changed his ONE MIND to a COMFORMIST mindset...

It’s not a NUMBER of MINDS... it’s ONE MIND with multiple TRAINS OF THOUGHT (‘Mindsets’)

I believe you may think it is tosh but it is what Jesus says it is. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[Soapy]

I believe you may think it is tosh but it is what Jesus says it is. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

I think you misunderstand what Jesus was saying. There certainly was no intent from him to suggest that he had two spirits.

And, in any case, since Jesus was ‘born’ a human Being (which is flesh) then he most certainly has a HUMAN SPIRIT.
And that human spirit was what he gave up on the cross when he stated: ‘Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!’.

Im sure you can see there that Jesus gave his INE AND ONLY SPIRIT to his Father, YHWH God....

...‘And then he died’...

BUT, the spirit that Jesus spoke of in the latter part of your quote means something DIFFERENT.

It means: ‘He who LIVES BY THE SPIRIT OF JEHOVAH GOD is SON OF GOD’.

This ‘Born of the Spirit’ does not mean a procreation... SPIRIT does not PROCREATE... it means, in turgid English, “Carried along by the Spirit of God’... effectively, ‘Borne by the spirit’ (notice the “e” on the end!

Jesus is saying that if you have a mind on the fleshly things then fleshly things is what you will bear... limited, weak, and mortal. But if you have a mind towards the SPIRIT OF GOD then there are limitless things achievable and immortality is thrown in for free. But it’s not a simple choice... huge effort is required to achieve being ‘born’ by the Spirit... Human Beings are subject to much pressure to live in the flesh and do fleshly things... even Angels envied fleshly humans at one time... to their detriment... I’m sure you know!

 

[metis]

In a sense, I tend to think we all have a "piece" of God within us, that we can tap into if we bother to spend the time.

 

[Soapy]

In a sense, I tend to think we all have a "piece" of God within us, that we can tap into if we bother to spend the time.

Please can you define what you mean by ‘God’.

I think the greater majority of people do not know what they mean when they say, ‘God’.

I think they think that ‘God’ is a white haired, white-bearded, ancient-aged man sitting on a physical throne made of precious metals and jewels looking down upon us from ‘Heaven’ through a hazy cloud - like as portrayed in iconic paintings and drawings...

But, hey, remember that the scriptures says we should not make [models/pictorial views] of the Heavenly realm. When we bring ‘Heaven’ down to ‘Earth’ then we destroy the sanctity of the Heavenly realm and thus we MORTAL-ISE the IMMORTAL.

 

[metis]

Please can you define what you mean by ‘God’.

I have posted numerous times here at RF that I don't really attempt to define God, sometimes referring to God or Gods as "Something". And, with my naturalistic bent, I tend to think that this "Something" is at least partially within us.

Gotta go for now, so if my post is confusing, I'll try and clarify later on.

 

[Soapy]

I have posted numerous times here at RF that I don't really attempt to define God, sometimes referring to God or Gods as "Something". And, with my naturalistic bent, I tend to think that this "Something" is at least partially within us.

Gotta go for now, so if my post is confusing, I'll try and clarify later on.

Sorry, not having a go at you... it’s just that people ALWAYS AVOID defining the very thing that the core of their belief is concerning.

This leads to woolly and completely differential points of discussions (and debate!). If everyone has their own ‘definition’ then no agreement can ever be reached - just endless purposeless discussions snd angry debates as each side stamps their own meaning and disagrees with their correspondents. Pointless.

But, ok, if you don’t, or won’t, define what you are believing in then I have ask how you can ever convince anyone that what you are discussing (or better: Debating!!) has any merit!!!

Can I ask you to think about this deeply and see that it makes no sense if you cannot define the core element (God) of a belief system (Christianity / Judaism / Muslims. These three believe in the SAME ‘God’ person but in different manners, though they disagree so widely, “He” is actually the same ‘ONE and ONLY GOD’)

 

[metis]

But, ok, if you don’t, or won’t, define what you are believing in then I have ask how you can ever convince anyone that what you are discussing (or better: Debating!!) has any merit!!!

My "convincing" is that since there is no objectively-derived evidence for a god or gods, anything we believe must be based on faith derived from quite possibly "Something" within us, imo.

Can I ask you to think about this deeply and see that it makes no sense if you cannot define the core element (God) of a belief system (Christianity / Judaism / Muslims.

These three believe in the SAME ‘God’ person but in different manners, though they disagree so widely, “He” is actually the same ‘ONE and ONLY GOD’)

All three of these religions didn't exist 4000 years ago, and yet humanity goes back an estimated 6 million years b.p. Therefore, their theologies are relatively recent, thus only tiny fraction of the time humans have been here.

And all three developed in one very small area of the Middle East, so didn't God care about the other areas? What about the Americas up until 1492? What about Homo erectus 1 million years ago?

Thus, since I believe in God, that belief is not based on the history of the three religions but is based on a personal journey that involved "premonitions" as nuts as that may seem, and I know many others have take about such "experiences" happening to them as well.

Therefore, I do believe "Something" is there, and I do believe it involves love and compassion and empathy towards others and nature itself, but I simply cannot take it much further.

 

[Muffled]

I think you misunderstand what Jesus was saying. There certainly was no intent from him to suggest that he had two spirits.

And, in any case, since Jesus was ‘born’ a human Being (which is flesh) then he most certainly has a HUMAN SPIRIT.
And that human spirit was what he gave up on the cross when he stated: ‘Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!’.

Im sure you can see there that Jesus gave his INE AND ONLY SPIRIT to his Father, YHWH God....

...‘And then he died’...

BUT, the spirit that Jesus spoke of in the latter part of your quote means something DIFFERENT.

It means: ‘He who LIVES BY THE SPIRIT OF JEHOVAH GOD is SON OF GOD’.

This ‘Born of the Spirit’ does not mean a procreation... SPIRIT does not PROCREATE... it means, in turgid English, “Carried along by the Spirit of God’... effectively, ‘Borne by the spirit’ (notice the “e” on the end!

Jesus is saying that if you have a mind on the fleshly things then fleshly things is what you will bear... limited, weak, and mortal. But if you have a mind towards the SPIRIT OF GOD then there are limitless things achievable and immortality is thrown in for free. But it’s not a simple choice... huge effort is required to achieve being ‘born’ by the Spirit... Human Beings are subject to much pressure to live in the flesh and do fleshly things... even Angels envied fleshly humans at one time... to their detriment... I’m sure you know!

I believe that is an assumption not a fact. In my experience and according to the Qu'ran God does not partner up with anyone. He could allow another spirit in but why would he wish to muddy the waters?

Again that is an assumption with no basis in fact. The fact is that the Holy Spirit in Jesus returns to the Father state and that is what that statement means.

I believe there is no truth in that statement.

I do not believe that is correct. A birth is a new creature in the world, not a carrying. One can be carried by the Spirit of God without being born again.

I believe He is saying no such thing. You are putting words in his mouth.

I believe that is patently false. It is easy peasy.

 

[Muffled]

In a sense, I tend to think we all have a "piece" of God within us, that we can tap into if we bother to spend the time.

I believe God is one and not in pieces. You either have invited Him to reside within or you have not.

 

[metis]

I believe God is one and not in pieces.

The Trinitarian concept does not put God "in pieces".

You either have invited Him to reside within or you have not.

Ditto, and I have.

 

[Soapy]

I believe that is an assumption not a fact. In my experience and according to the Qu'ran God does not partner up with anyone. He could allow another spirit in but why would he wish to muddy the waters?

Again that is an assumption with no basis in fact. The fact is that the Holy Spirit in Jesus returns to the Father state and that is what that statement means.

I believe there is no truth in that statement.

I do not believe that is correct. A birth is a new creature in the world, not a carrying. One can be carried by the Spirit of God without being born again.

I believe He is saying no such thing. You are putting words in his mouth.

I believe that is patently false. It is easy peasy.

I believe that you are wrong on every count you made.

 

[Muffled]

The Trinitarian concept does not put God "in pieces".

Ditto, and I have.

I believe it depends on how one views the Trinity. In my view there is one God and one person in the three members of the Trinity. However that is going by the definition of person as that which has personality instead of a living human being. A single living human being only describes one member of the Trinity: Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

I believe that you are wrong on every count you made.

I believe you have no evidence to back up your belief.

 

[metis]

I believe it depends on how one views the Trinity. In my view there is one God and one person in the three members of the Trinity. However that is going by the definition of person as that which has personality instead of a living human being. A single living human being only describes one member of the Trinity: Jesus.

But that "one member" could also have the "essence" of the other two within him.

 

[Soapy]

But that "one member" could also have the "essence" of the other two within him.

Isn’t all this ‘my definition’ a great fault in the discussion of Trinity? If each individual uses their own definition then there can never be a consensus of agreement on anything - the discussion and debate becomes purely ‘Pundit’.

‘The Definition’ of trinity (or ‘Godhead’) in the Christian faith ... is so farcical that it leaves the very great room for pundit commentary that leads to it being properly classed as PAGAN!!!

The definition has CHANGED so much over time that a third century ‘Christian??’ would not recognise it as the belief set out in their time.

Even worse, every debate on the topic of Trinity results in a new definition in parts BECAUSE the defender comes to realise the exact falsity of their claim and is forced to ‘invent’ a new claim.

For instance, Phil 2 is used so often to claim that Jesus is ‘GOD’... but it is clear that even the false reading of Phil 2 puts Jesus as completely different to ‘the Father’ ...and.. there is not even a sniff of a reference to a THIRD person in a ‘Godhead’ of three.

Additionally, no one can answer the question as to why Jesus BECOMES the ruler (‘The God’) over the created world (which Satan is ruling as Steward at present: ‘It is mine to give to whom I will’... ‘The ruler of this system of things is coming into his realm with much anger knowing his time is short’, et al) when Jesus is, by trinity, ALREADY ruler over the greater kingdom of HEAVEN?

And, in line with that, no one can stake a claim that the Holy Spirit ‘person’ is ruler over ANY KINGDOM (We all agree the the Father is ruler, King, and God, OVER ALL).

To farcically try to get around this reality, Trinitarians variously claim a HEIRACHY, a RANK, among the three ABSOLUTE CO-EQUAL entities in the godhead....

I ask you: does that make ANY SENSE?

Answer: Absolutely no sense at all!!!

Why: Because it is simply not true.

And, please remember that by ‘trinity belief’, “God” is the ESSENCE in which the three SHARE!!!

So, how can there be a RANK order if they partake of the SAME ‘essence’? And since Jesus BECOMES MAN (flesh) then a great question arises:

• Is Jesus GREATER/LESSER than the other two because he has/is something that the other two don’t have/are not?

Any answer should not knee jerk an equivalent of: “They are all the same, it’s just that Jesus is different... and the Holy Spirit is a ‘sleeping partner’”

 

[metis]

Isn’t all this ‘my definition’ a great fault in the discussion of Trinity? If each individual uses their own definition then there can never be a consensus of agreement on anything - the discussion and debate becomes purely ‘Pundit’.

Yes and no.

1st century Judaism and, thus, Christianity as well, was heavily influenced by Hellenization, which included the great Greek philosophers. Also the Christian texts, being circulate in that same century, were mainly written on Koine Greek, thus there logically would be a Hellenized influence that one can see in the use of certain terms plus the style of writing that would include what Aristotle and Plato called "essence" [in English].

To put it another way, the view was that Jesus and the Holy Spirit would be of the "essence" of God, even though the word "essence" itself is not used. If one knows what to look for, this kind of Greek influence heavily shows up in Paul's epistles especially, probably due to his Greek education.

But here we are almost 20 centuries later reading our Bible in English, and there's a tendency to have our cultural influences versus the ancient Hebrew and Greek dominate, thus the confusion.

 

[Soapy]

Yes and no.

1st century Judaism and, thus, Christianity as well, was heavily influenced by Hellenization, which included the great Greek philosophers. Also the Christian texts, being circulate in that same century, were mainly written on Koine Greek, thus there logically would be a Hellenized influence that one can see in the use of certain terms plus the style of writing that would include what Aristotle and Plato called "essence" [in English].

To put it another way, the view was that Jesus and the Holy Spirit would be of the "essence" of God, even though the word "essence" itself is not used. If one knows what to look for, this kind of Greek influence heavily shows up in Paul's epistles especially, probably due to his Greek education.

But here we are almost 20 centuries later reading our Bible in English, and there's a tendency to have our cultural influences versus the ancient Hebrew and Greek dominate, thus the confusion.

I’m not sure about what you just said in regard to the purists of the time. For sure, I guess there would be external (Hellenised, for one, Muslim, Roman, etc, also) influences among the left and right of centre of this new Christian faith - which led to fractioning of it...(just as Jesus stated there would be!!!) belief in almost ‘physical’ GODS (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as ‘Persons’) in a Heaven setting. In other words, in order to persuade new members away from their pagan (or even, Heathen) beliefs, it was easier to appeal to their current mindset (multiple ‘GODS’, typically THREE... each responsible to one or more aspect in the physical and/or spiritual world) and then put a Christian spin on it. Hence we get the confused belief that:

• “Although there are THREE persons who are ‘GOD’, they are not ‘THREE GODS’ but ‘ONE GOD’” (paraphrased)

It is easier to persuade a person who has little intelligence, learning, and education or has high levels of religiousness or simple belief in nefarious spirit worlds, towards a corrupt new Christian faith and earn supposed ‘brownie points’ for conversion (proselytisation). There’s less work to do. I often raise the point about ‘the dead going to Heaven’, which is used to appease young or vulnerable persons about their loved ones passing. I completely disagree with this approach as it is UNTRUE and UNSUPPORTED by Scriptures in terms of how we should view what happens when a person dies. This terrible concept is also used even towards Pets and other creatures. We know, absolutely, the truth!!! We know that the dead in humanity have their Spirit:

• ‘RESTING With God who gave it’

This is different to the Spirit of the dead one LIVING IN HEAVEN and ‘looking down at us’ - and even sending us messages or guiding the life of the living...and the Spirit of creatures, animals, pets, are not preserved as they are not ‘Made in the image of God’...

SO where does all this nonsense come from... it is NOT CHRISTIAN!

The response I get concerning this silliness is that it helps to make the living person feel better about their passing loved one (person or pet!!). I say it’s a gateway back to paganism from Christian-believing souls.

But, my favourite topic... Trinity!!! Ha!!! The greatest lie perpetrated onto a worldwide nation of people who are persuaded towards the fallacy even as the truth is shown to them. This is reflected in the verse:

• “And God will send them a spirit of untruth such that they will believe the lie [and die in their sins]”

Now, please don’t get me wrong. I’m not judging those who believe in trinity .. I’m judging TRINITY itself... the philosophy, the belief system, the idea of it... and the FACT that it makes no sense at all... at one moment claiming the three are completely equal, and the next moment struggling to justify that the three are RANKED but yet are still equal, down to why ONE of the three coequal-somes is DIFFERENT (better/worse?) by being his own supposed creation (human)!!! So many questions arise that no trinity-believing person WOULD ever attempt to answer: such as: Could the Father have been the one who gave his life to save humanity? And how does a God (a God ‘composed’(?) of three persons) DIE?
And a favourite question I’ve still not heard answered: Why does ONE of the coequal three acquire AS A REWARD the seat of rulership over the created world that HE SUPPOSEDLY CREATED in the first place and is therefore ALREADY GOD over it... a nano-kingdom of creation within the terra-kingdom of Heaven - which he is ALSO God over???

Do you see what I’m saying. Philosophical debates about Trinity Christianity leads to nowhere because such debates typically attempt to justify trinity - which just doesn’t work: it just leads to a protagonist carrying out huge amounts of disingenuous nattering and deflection from direct answering of questions which seek clarification on matters of the trinity belief (a bit like trying to get incumbents Boris Johnson (Uk Prime Minister) or Donald Trump (U.S. President) to answer questions on COVID-19).

 

[metis]

I’m not sure about what you just said in regard to the purists of the time. For sure, I guess there would be external (Hellenised, for one, Muslim, Roman, etc, also) influences among the left and right of centre of this new Christian faith - which led to fractioning of it...(just as Jesus stated there would be!!!) belief in almost ‘physical’ GODS (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as ‘Persons’) in a Heaven setting. In other words, in order to persuade new members away from their pagan (or even, Heathen) beliefs, it was easier to appeal to their current mindset (multiple ‘GODS’, typically THREE... each responsible to one or more aspect in the physical and/or spiritual world) and then put a Christian spin on it. Hence we get the confused belief that:

• “Although there are THREE persons who are ‘GOD’, they are not ‘THREE GODS’ but ‘ONE GOD’” (paraphrased)

It is easier to persuade a person who has little intelligence, learning, and education or has high levels of religiousness or simple belief in nefarious spirit worlds, towards a corrupt new Christian faith and earn supposed ‘brownie points’ for conversion (proselytisation). There’s less work to do. I often raise the point about ‘the dead going to Heaven’, which is used to appease young or vulnerable persons about their loved ones passing. I completely disagree with this approach as it is UNTRUE and UNSUPPORTED by Scriptures in terms of how we should view what happens when a person dies. This terrible concept is also used even towards Pets and other creatures. We know, absolutely, the truth!!! We know that the dead in humanity have their Spirit:

• ‘RESTING With God who gave it’

This is different to the Spirit of the dead one LIVING IN HEAVEN and ‘looking down at us’ - and even sending us messages or guiding the life of the living...and the Spirit of creatures, animals, pets, are not preserved as they are not ‘Made in the image of God’...

SO where does all this nonsense come from... it is NOT CHRISTIAN!

The response I get concerning this silliness is that it helps to make the living person feel better about their passing loved one (person or pet!!). I say it’s a gateway back to paganism from Christian-believing souls.

But, my favourite topic... Trinity!!! Ha!!! The greatest lie perpetrated onto a worldwide nation of people who are persuaded towards the fallacy even as the truth is shown to them. This is reflected in the verse:

• “And God will send them a spirit of untruth such that they will believe the lie [and die in their sins]”

Now, please don’t get me wrong. I’m not judging those who believe in trinity .. I’m judging TRINITY itself... the philosophy, the belief system, the idea of it... and the FACT that it makes no sense at all... at one moment claiming the three are completely equal, and the next moment struggling to justify that the three are RANKED but yet are still equal, down to why ONE of the three coequal-somes is DIFFERENT (better/worse?) by being his own supposed creation (human)!!! So many questions arise that no trinity-believing person WOULD ever attempt to answer: such as: Could the Father have been the one who gave his life to save humanity? And how does a God (a God ‘composed’(?) of three persons) DIE?
And a favourite question I’ve still not heard answered: Why does ONE of the coequal three acquire AS A REWARD the seat of rulership over the created world that HE SUPPOSEDLY CREATED in the first place and is therefore ALREADY GOD over it... a nano-kingdom of creation within the terra-kingdom of Heaven - which he is ALSO God over???

Do you see what I’m saying. Philosophical debates about Trinity Christianity leads to nowhere because such debates typically attempt to justify trinity - which just doesn’t work: it just leads to a protagonist carrying out huge amounts of disingenuous nattering and deflection from direct answering of questions which seek clarification on matters of the trinity belief (a bit like trying to get incumbents Boris Johnson (Uk Prime Minister) or Donald Trump (U.S. President) to answer questions on COVID-19).

Confucius supposedly said that the more one knows, the more one knows they really don't know much.

The concept of the Trinity is an attempt to possibly explain the relationship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God, but whether it is spot-on or way off is objectively impossible to prove. Needless to say, I really don't lose any sleep over this.

 

[metis]

Now, please don’t get me wrong. I’m not judging those who believe in trinity .. I’m judging TRINITY itself... the philosophy, the belief system, the idea of it... and the FACT that it makes no sense at all..

I have to just comment on this before moving on, and it's that many do not seem to understand the concept of "essence" in this context, which is a logical concept, but not necessarily a correct one. Again, it's an attempt-- nothing more, nothing less.

We know from the scriptures that the apostles believed that there was this intrinsic relationship that Jesus and the Holy Spirit had with God but that they were not entirely all the same, which is why there are different names for them. This is where the concept of "essence" comes in, namely that God is fused within them is some way, according to the scriptures, and this relationship is established within the Gospels and epistles, but it is not defined to the point of being very clear, thus there's plenty of room for give & take.

Again, that "argument" is of little concern to me, nor do I see it in any way being destructive with its acceptance in regards to the Church. But it's too much like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" for my blood.

Over & out.

 

[Soapy]

I have to just comment on this before moving on, and it's that many do not seem to understand the concept of "essence" in this context, which is a logical concept, but not necessarily a correct one. Again, it's an attempt-- nothing more, nothing less.

We know from the scriptures that the apostles believed that there was this intrinsic relationship that Jesus and the Holy Spirit had with God but that they were not entirely all the same, which is why there are different names for them. This is where the concept of "essence" comes in, namely that God is fused within them is some way, according to the scriptures, and this relationship is established within the Gospels and epistles, but it is not defined to the point of being very clear, thus there's plenty of room for give & take.

Again, that "argument" is of little concern to me, nor do I see it in any way being destructive with its acceptance in regards to the Church. But it's too much like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" for my blood.

Over & out.

Discussion and debates about the trinity always end with the trinity protagonist ‘running away’.

Why?

Because, given the truth, the trinitarian realised their belief makes no sense. What they then do is go down the line of disingenuous arguments, claiming to being attacked by the truth-speaker, inventing unheard of concepts claiming their personal view (spontaneous new trinity concept), and insisting that perfectly clear non-trinity verses are actually supporting trinity...!

• When Jesus patently stated to the Jews that he did not call himself God, Trinitarians rush to claim that the Jews knew he WAS CLAIMING to be God...!
• When Jesus claimed he was greater than Abraham and that Abraham himself had rejoiced in the knowledge that the Messiah was to come from his loins (so to speak), Trinitarians rush to claim that Jesus WAS CLAIMING to pre-exist Abraham!!! Abraham ‘foresaw’ Jesus’ day and was glad. How does that say Jesus was pre-existent? The part concerning the Jews wanting to stone Jesus was exactly because Jesus claimed to be greater than Abraham... they didn’t know who Jesus was except that he was a young man, the ‘son of a man called Joseph’. Prophets were elderly.... in fact the whole story didn’t make sense because they asked Jesus if he had SEEN ABRAHAM. Jesus did not say he had seen Abraham. Jesus reported from the scriptures that Abraham had foreseen the great day of the coming messiah - someone indeed GREATER THAN ABRAHAM!! The text used (‘Before Abraham’) does not declare a previous time... it declares a greaterness. See how John the Baptist states that Jesus is ‘BEFORE ME’... (“he came after me but he is before me!”) It is not a small coincidence that scriptures states that John was six months OLDER THAN Jesus... it is in fact for this very reason. The book/film “Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy” uses this very concept to illustrate a GREATER computer system coming after what was supposed to have been the ultimate computer system.