Tell me where in the Bible does Jesus clearly say that he's God

[F0uad]

I agree that salvation is given and not achieved in a way.

The Islamic view of Jesus being a prophet....well Jesus calls himself a prophet, and so does his disciples. I would like to see what else the Islamic view thinks of him specifically though.

I am willing to give you the general view however we should ''discuss'' or post the question on a different thread.

 

[Shermana]

I agree that salvation is given and not achieved in a way.

I remember my Muslim friends telling me that in their belief, your good deeds are weighed against your bad when you die (Which is what I also believe), so are they wrong?

I am willing to give you the general view however we should ''discuss'' or post the question on a different thread.

That would be a good idea, I don't think its been tackled yet. Perhaps the DIRs would be best.

 

[F0uad]

I remember my Muslim friends telling me that in their belief, your good deeds are weighed against your bad when you die (Which is what I also believe), so are they wrong?

In a sense yes but still its God's will he decides who goes in or not. For example if i did so many good deeds and i never did a bad one he still is the decider and not my deeds its hes creation.

That would be a good idea, I don't think its been tackled yet. Perhaps the DIRs would be best.

I will be there to answer you.

 

[sojourner]

That's kind of my point on why it's a crucial doctrine for the orthodox church, it's basically a principle binding factor of a later-developed orthodoxy.

Perhaps a "later-developed doctrine," but not a "later-developed orthodoxy." The church has always been built around the teachings of the apostles.

Apparently it's so broad that the early Fathers labeled each other as heretics when they tried to pin it down.

that's what happens when one tries to put God in a box.

I disagree. The more loose it gets, the less sense it makes from whatever "sense" it made to begin with. The early Church Fathers did NOT have this view.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Since none of us has "all the answers," and since none of us fully understands God, the necessary and reasonable posture is to hold our constructions lightly. The early Church Fathers did have this view, since the Trinity doctrine attempts to do that very thing.

So what's wrong with the Arian perspective?

It's only one, very tight POV.

And again, we have difference of opinion on what "Divine" means. Interestingly, even Trinitarian translations call the Angels (gods) as "Divine beings". So "Divine" apparently applies more than to God.

So what?

So now it's just a Metaphor?

Yes! It's all metaphor. Everything we can say about God is not definition, but description -- and the description is metaphor, since we have absolutely nothing concrete to go on.

If so, then it's not really a solid concept which means that the idea itself is...not solid.

That's why I said that we have to hold our ideas about God very lightly -- they're not really all that solid.

Why should this interpretation make sense to me?

Perhaps it shouldn't...

What's wrong with just believing they're two separate beings made of the same stuff? What's wrong with Arianism? I've asked that like 4 times now?

Look, first off, God isn't "made." Second, even you'll have to admit that the bible treats Jesus wholly differently than all other creatures, meaning that Jesus is, somehow, different from the rest of creation. That's why the apostles asserted that Jesus was "begotten, not made." Even you'll have to admit that John 1 treats Jesus as different. That should be the first clue.

Then, there's the problem presented when Jesus is depicted as the one who saves. It presents a problem, in that God is Savior. Arianism presents a christological construct that cannot be reconciled biblically. It remains only one, tightly-drawn perspective that cannot satisfy the whole body.

Why must Jesus and Father individually each be God? That would be two different Gods. A problem that even the Trinitarian Fathers recognized, and this was part of the major debates on the issue, how to resolve that they're not two separate gods....and they never really did an adequate job patching that hole, they simply plugged it and said "It's too much for the Human mind to understand".

Well...
Remember I did say that our concepts have to be held lightly...

So if we're in agreement, then why not agree that they individually are NOT God each and that God (The Father) has a separate being altogether?

The Father "has a separate being altogether"... from what, exactly?
God doesn't have being. God is being.

I fail to see why being "Divine" means to "Be Being" and not to "Have Being".

Of course you do...

I Don't even think you have a single Trinitarian who agrees with this, this seems to be all your own idea.

You'd be very, very wrong on that point.

A perfect example of the Wordplay and dodgy extrascriptural concepts that has propped up the Trinitarians since the beginning.

We don't think so.

So you agree that the entire Ontology of God changed with the advent of the Trinity and it wasn't what was originally taught, thank you.

NO, that (once again) isn't what I said. Thank you for (once again) twisting my meaning. What I said was that our concept of God changed with the Jesus Event.

But my point was that they INTENDED an original meaning that wasn't meant to be up to personal opinion or change.

I beg to differ. I offer as evidence the four, very different pictures of Jesus we have presented by the gospels.

 

[sojourner]

They stressed for the people to understand who exactly God really is. Meaning one and only, self-sufficient, and not associated with other beings.

Paul in fact believed that Jesus isn't God. Did you know that?

So here's the thing. Many Christian's I know try to use Paul's writings as proof that Jesus is God. But this really isn't fair to Paul, because Paul clearly believed that Jesus isn't God.

Paul wrote in his first letter to Timothy:

“I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions...” (1 Timothy 5:21).

It's clear from this that the title "God" applies not to Christ Jesus, but to someone else. In the following chapter, he again differentiates between God and Jesus when he says:

“In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession...” (1 Timothy 6:13).

Paul then went on to speak of the second appearance of Jesus:

“the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time.” (1 Timothy 6:14-15).

Again, the title "God" is deliberately turned away from Jesus.

Incidentally, many people think that when Jesus is called “Lord” in the Bible, that this means “God.”

But in the Bible, this title means "master" or "teacher", and it can in fact be used for addressing humans (see 1 Peter 3:6).

What's more important for you to understand, however, is to notice what Paul said about God in the following passage, which clearly shows that Jesus isn't God:

“God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever.” (1 Timothy 6:15-16).

Paul said that God alone is immortal. Immortal means he does not die. Check any dictionary. Now, anyone who believes that Jesus died can't believe that Jesus is God.

Such a belief would contradict what Paul said here. Furthermore, to say that God died is a blasphemy against God. Who would run the world if God died? Paul believed that God does not die.

Paul also said in that passage that God dwells in unapproachable light — that no one has seen God or can see him. Paul knew that many thousands of people had seen Jesus.

Yet Paul said that no one has seen God, because Paul was sure that Jesus is not God. This is why Paul went on teaching that Jesus was not God, but that he was the Christ (see Acts 9:22 and 18:5).

When he was in Athens, Paul spoke of God as “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.” (Acts 17:24).

Then he identified Jesus as “the man he (i.e. God) has appointed.” (Acts 17:31).

Clearly, for Paul, Jesus was not God, and he would be shocked to see his writings used for proving the opposite of what he believed. Paul even testified in court saying:

“I admit that I worship the God of our fathers...” (Acts 24:14).

He also said that Jesus is the servant of that God, for we read in Acts: “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.” (Acts 3:13).

For Paul, the Father alone is God. Paul said that there is “One God and Father of all...” (Ephesians 4:6).

Paul said again: “...For us there is but one God, the Father. . . and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ...” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Paul’s letter to the Philippians (Philippians 2:6-11) is often quoted as proof that Jesus is God. But the very passage shows that Jesus isn't God.

This passage has to agree with Isaiah 45:22-24 where God said that every knee should bow to God, and every tongue should confess that righteousness and strength are in God alone.

Paul was aware of this passage, for he quoted it in Romans 14:11. Knowing this, Paul declared: “I kneel before the Father.” (Ephesians 3:14).

The letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:6) says that the angels of God should worship the Son. But this passage depends on Deuteronomy 32:43, in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

This phrase cannot be found in the Old Testament used by Christians today, and the Septuagint version is no longer considered valid by Christians. However, even the Septuagint version, does not say worship the Son.

It says let the Angels of God worship God. The Bible insists that God alone is to be worshipped:

“When the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: ‘Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them. But the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt with mighty power and outstretched arm, is the one you must worship. To him you shall bow down and to him offer sacrifices. You must always be careful to keep the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands he wrote for you. Do not worship other gods. Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. Rather, worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies.’” (2 Kings 17:35-39).

Jesus, on whom be peace, believed in this, for he also stressed it in Luke 4:8. And Jesus too fell on his face and worshipped God (see Matthew 26:39).

Paul knew that Jesus worshipped God (see Hebrews 5:7). Paul taught that Jesus will remain forever subservient to God (see 1 Corinthians 15:28).

In other words: "Blah, blah, blah -- I have no idea what I'm talking about, because I'm a Muslim, not a Christian -- blah, blah, blah." :ignore:

 

[sojourner]

If you actually read the Bible and just understand it in context, then it would all the more clear to you that Jesus isn't God.

For example, in Matthew 9:2, Jesus said to a certain man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” Because of this, some say that Jesus must be God since only God can forgive sins.

However, if you're willing to read just a few verses further, you will find that the people “...Praised God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:8).

This shows that the people knew, and Matthew agrees, that Jesus is not the only man to receive such authority from God.

Jesus himself emphasized that he does not speak on his own authority (John 14:10) and he does nothing on his own authority, but he speaks only what the Father has taught him (John 8:28).

What Jesus did here was as follows. Jesus announced to the man the knowledge Jesus received from God that God had forgiven the man.

Notice that Jesus did not say, “I forgive your sins,” but rather, “Your sins are forgiven,” implying, as this would to his Jewish listeners, that God had forgiven the man.

Jesus, then, did not have the power to forgive sins, and in that very episode, he called himself “The Son of Man” (Matthew 9:6).

Stop wasting bandwidth.

 

[Shermana]

Perhaps a "later-developed doctrine," but not a "later-developed orthodoxy." The church has always been built around the teachings of the apostles.

That in itself is debatable and worthy of its own thread. Can I quote you? I say the Orthodox Church deviated wildly from what the Apostles taught, even from what the early "Apostolic successors" like Clement taught.

that's what happens when one tries to put God in a box.

As opposed to saying whatever you want about Him?

I disagree wholeheartedly. Since none of us has "all the answers," and since none of us fully understands God, the necessary and reasonable posture is to hold our constructions lightly. The early Church Fathers did have this view, since the Trinity doctrine attempts to do that very thing.

I disagree as well, the Trinity doesn't really attempt to make an "Easy one size fits all" construction but just the opposite. Again, that's why they accused each other of heresy.

It's only one, very tight POV.

I asked what's wrong with it. I don't see how being very, very tight is wrong with anything. I'd say something too loose that no one can figure it out, yet they call each other heretics when they try to, is something that can be called "Wrong". I don't see how a concise, "tight" POV that has no holes or weaknesses can be called something "wrong" just because it's "tight". One can argue that any Christian POV has some "Very tight" aspects. Including yours.

So what?

So what? There goes any attempt to correllate "being Divine" with "Being God", scratch a giant one of the Trinity wordplay defenses.

Yes! It's all metaphor. Everything we can say about God is not definition, but description -- and the description is metaphor, since we have absolutely nothing concrete to go on.

So if I said that God rules the Universe and sees everyone and judges everyone, that's just a metaphor? I beg to differ. Perhaps worthy of a whole thread.

That's why I said that we have to hold our ideas about God very lightly -- they're not really all that solid.

I think there's plenty of solid foundation at least if coming from an OT perspective. There's certain aspects to Ontology that pretty much all Theist philosophers, even Deists ascribe to as well. But again, for another thread. The point here is that the "Trinity" is just an attempt to make another construction out of one that never existed.

Perhaps it shouldn't...

What's that supposed to mean?

Look, first off, God isn't "made."

Did I imply He was? I think you're focussing on Semantics of my use of "made" when I said "Made of", He doesn't have to be Made to have a Physical composition. I didn't imply He was "Made", just that he was "made of" substance.

Second, even you'll have to admit that the bible treats Jesus wholly differently than all other creatures, meaning that Jesus is, somehow, different from the rest of creation.

Indeed, the Firstborn of Creation is the Highest of the Souls. I thought I've been over that with you Several times by now.

That's why the apostles asserted that Jesus was "begotten, not made.

I don't really see the difference between "Begotten" and "made", enlighten us.

" Even you'll have to admit that John 1 treats Jesus as different. That should be the first clue.

Right, and I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion about the Firstborn of Creation, the personification of Wisdom, the Being of whom all Creation as made THROUGH is very different than the rest of the lower creation. Several times. Like I every time I bring up Philo.

Then, there's the problem presented when Jesus is depicted as the one who saves. It presents a problem, in that God is Savior.

Did you not see what I said about Obadiah 1:21 how God the Savior SENDS saviors? Or just ignore it?

Arianism presents a christological construct that cannot be reconciled biblically.

Can I quote you for another thread? I beg to differ yet again. I see Arianism as 100% in line with what the text actually says.

It remains only one, tightly-drawn perspective that cannot satisfy the whole body.

Well the Trinity doesn't satisfy some of the Christian body, so you must associate "Whole body" with "most of the whole body", and apparently it's not satisfied several dissenters. What it has satisfied however is the hierarchical leadership of the Church. With that said, I don't see why a doctrine is right just because it 'satisfies the whole church body".

Well...
Remember I did say that our concepts have to be held lightly...

But I just proved that your logic means that they would have to be different gods. So you're admitting that it's too shaky to support in light of this or what?

The Father "has a separate being altogether"... from what, exactly?
God doesn't have being. God is being.

Repeating your assertions doesn't really substitute for countering what I said. There's no reason to say that God doesn't have Being.

Of course you do...

Well then enlighten us as to the reason behind your bold assertion.

You'd be very, very wrong on that point.

Nuh uh. Well then prove it, show a link to a single Trinitarian scholar. (By single Trinitarian, I meant scholar and authority, not layman).

We don't think so.

Of course you don't....

NO, that (once again) isn't what I said. Thank you for (once again) twisting my meaning. What I said was that our concept of God changed with the Jesus Event.

Can someone else explain to me how I twisted what he said and how he's not saying exactly what I accused?

I beg to differ. I offer as evidence the four, very different pictures of Jesus we have presented by the gospels.

Ummm, even if there are 4 "different pictureS", that has nothing to do with how the authors most likely intended what they wrote to only be interpreted exactly the one way they intended it to be when they wrote it and didn't plan on leaving it up to personal interpretation beyond what they said.

With that said, can I quote you here too? The issue of just how different Jesus is up to debate, what I'd rather say is that the Gospels represent 4 perspectives, not 4 radically different pictures to the point they contradict. For instance, I don't really see much difference in the character of Jesus between Mark and Matthew as opposed to the style and events described, perhaps you'd like to contribute on this?

So many assertions! But I thank you for providing a flood of new thread material for debate on these assertions.

 

[Me Myself]

In other words: "Blah, blah, blah -- I have no idea what I'm talking about, because I'm a Muslim, not a Christian -- blah, blah, blah." :ignore:

In other words: I cannot compete with your arguments, so I´ll discredit you because of your religion.

That´s pathetic man.

 

[sojourner]

In other words: I cannot compete with your arguments, so I´ll discredit you because of your religion.

That´s pathetic man.

Nope. There's simply too much wrong with his post, including assumption, interpretations, theological development, and complete lack of exegesis to warrant a longer address. If he so misunderstands that he would present us with that much balderdash, nothing I can say is going to straighten him out -- or even make a dent in his perspective.

What's pathetic is his complete lack of understanding.

 

[Me Myself]

Nope. There's simply too much wrong with his post, including assumption, interpretations, theological development, and complete lack of exegesis to warrant a longer address. If he so misunderstands that he would present us with that much balderdash, nothing I can say is going to straighten him out -- or even make a dent in his perspective.

What's pathetic is his complete lack of understanding.

Then if you are feeling too lazy to give a proper response, just say that.

It is ridiculous to say that he cannot know because he is " a Muslim not a christian".

Even if he were that wrong, you ascribing his lack of knowledge to him being a Muslim is absolutely senseless on any level.

 

[Shermana]

Nope. There's simply too much wrong with his post, including assumption, interpretations, theological development, and complete lack of exegesis to warrant a longer address. If he so misunderstands that he would present us with that much balderdash, nothing I can say is going to straighten him out -- or even make a dent in his perspective.

What's pathetic is his complete lack of understanding.

Shenanigans, the only thing "wrong" with his post is that it doesn't conform to Trintarian thought.

Out of curiosity, would any anti-Trinitarian argument make a dent in or straighten out YOUR Perspective?

One man's legitimate argument is another man's balderdash apparently.

 

[sojourner]

That in itself is debatable and worthy of its own thread. Can I quote you? I say the Orthodox Church deviated wildly from what the Apostles taught, even from what the early "Apostolic successors" like Clement taught.

As opposed to saying whatever you want about Him?
I disagree as well, the Trinity doesn't really attempt to make an "Easy one size fits all" construction but just the opposite. Again, that's why they accused each other of heresy.

I asked what's wrong with it. I don't see how being very, very tight is wrong with anything. I'd say something too loose that no one can figure it out, yet they call each other heretics when they try to, is something that can be called "Wrong". I don't see how a concise, "tight" POV that has no holes or weaknesses can be called something "wrong" just because it's "tight". One can argue that any Christian POV has some "Very tight" aspects. Including yours.

So what? There goes any attempt to correllate "being Divine" with "Being God", scratch a giant one of the Trinity wordplay defenses.

So if I said that God rules the Universe and sees everyone and judges everyone, that's just a metaphor? I beg to differ. Perhaps worthy of a whole thread.

I think there's plenty of solid foundation at least if coming from an OT perspective. There's certain aspects to Ontology that pretty much all Theist philosophers, even Deists ascribe to as well. But again, for another thread. The point here is that the "Trinity" is just an attempt to make another construction out of one that never existed.

What's that supposed to mean?

Did I imply He was? I think you're focussing on Semantics of my use of "made" when I said "Made of", He doesn't have to be Made to have a Physical composition. I didn't imply He was "Made", just that he was "made of" substance.

Indeed, the Firstborn of Creation is the Highest of the Souls. I thought I've been over that with you Several times by now.
I don't really see the difference between "Begotten" and "made", enlighten us.
Right, and I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion about the Firstborn of Creation, the personification of Wisdom, the Being of whom all Creation as made THROUGH is very different than the rest of the lower creation. Several times. Like I every time I bring up Philo.

Did you not see what I said about Obadiah 1:21 how God the Savior SENDS saviors? Or just ignore it?

Can I quote you for another thread? I beg to differ yet again. I see Arianism as 100% in line with what the text actually says.

Well the Trinity doesn't satisfy some of the Christian body, so you must associate "Whole body" with "most of the whole body", and apparently it's not satisfied several dissenters. What it has satisfied however is the hierarchical leadership of the Church. With that said, I don't see why a doctrine is right just because it 'satisfies the whole church body".


But I just proved that your logic means that they would have to be different gods. So you're admitting that it's too shaky to support in light of this or what?

Repeating your assertions doesn't really substitute for countering what I said. There's no reason to say that God doesn't have Being.

Well then enlighten us as to the reason behind your bold assertion.
Nuh uh. Well then prove it, show a link to a single Trinitarian scholar. (By single Trinitarian, I meant scholar and authority, not layman).

Of course you don't....
Can someone else explain to me how I twisted what he said and how he's not saying exactly what I accused?
Ummm, even if there are 4 "different pictureS", that has nothing to do with how the authors most likely intended what they wrote to only be interpreted exactly the one way they intended it to be when they wrote it and didn't plan on leaving it up to personal interpretation beyond what they said.

With that said, can I quote you here too? The issue of just how different Jesus is up to debate, what I'd rather say is that the Gospels represent 4 perspectives, not 4 radically different pictures to the point they contradict. For instance, I don't really see much difference in the character of Jesus between Mark and Matthew as opposed to the style and events described, perhaps you'd like to contribute on this?

So many assertions! But I thank you for providing a flood of new thread material for debate on these assertions.

It's obvious that you're on a mission to crush orthodoxy -- you've said as much yourself in other threads. It's obvious that you're biased and not even open to seeing another POV. That's OK. You've misquoted me in a couple of places and twisted the meanings of several posts, as well (as I've pointed out).

The long and short of it is that you and I disagree at a fundamental level, and neither of us is going to convince the other otherwise. Our exchanges quickly become tedious, with the posting and reply of little snippets of very long posts. I'm not going to play that game any more with you. Either we stay on topic, reply to one thing at a time, and play nice, or we don't play.

I made it clear in the beginning that the Trinity doctrine is not explicit in the texts, but that Jesus' Divinity is at least implicit. I believe that satisfies the terms of this thread.

FWIW, the Trinity is a legitimate and authorized theological construct, that is useful in helping us to a greater understanding of God, ourselves, and others.

 

[sojourner]

Then if you are feeling too lazy to give a proper response, just say that.

It is ridiculous to say that he cannot know because he is " a Muslim not a christian".

Even if he were that wrong, you ascribing his lack of knowledge to him being a Muslim is absolutely senseless on any level.

I believe I did say that, in a roundabout way.
It's not ridiculous to say what I said, because it's more than obvious from his post. He's a Muslim. There's a fundamental difference, both in theological basis and in approach to textual criticism between Islam and Xy. He's obviously approaching Xy from an Islamic POV, then proceeds to tell us that we're all wrong. it just doesn't work that way. He doesn't understand our POV, and therefore does not understand how we approach the texts. It's nothing personal, and it's not a religious slur.

 

[sojourner]

the only thing "wrong" with his post is that it doesn't conform to Trintarian thought.

It doesn't, but that's the least of what's wrong with his line of reasoning.

 

[Shermana]

It's obvious that you're on a mission to crush orthodoxy --

Guilty as charged!

you've said as much yourself in other threads. It's obvious that you're biased and not even open to seeing another POV.

Are YOU open to seeing another POV? I have seen every angle of every Trinitarian AND Modalist argument, so it's more a matter of NOT ACCEPTING. I will quickly, readily admit that I am in fact biased. Will you?

That's OK. You've misquoted me in a couple of places and twisted the meanings of several posts, as well (as I've pointed out).

And I pointed out that I didn't, and then you basically restated in other words exactly what I accused. All you really did was accuse me of misquoting you, and then basically repeating exactly what I said you said in other words.

The long and short of it is that you and I disagree at a fundamental level, and neither of us is going to convince the other otherwise.

Right, now I'll admit that I'm not going to change my perspective based on any Trintiarian argument. I've practically heard them all, except for certain individual ones that no Trinitarian Scholar seems to indicate. Can you admit that you wouldn't change your perspective based on any anti-Trinitarian argument?

Our exchanges quickly become tedious, with the posting and reply of little snippets of very long posts

No, YOU are the one who only posts little snippets, I respond to every single one. You have quote mined me and ignored the bulk of my replies and facts and written off my sources from Trinitarian scholars themselves while repeating your posture on many occasions.

. I'm not going to play that game any more with you. Either we stay on topic, reply to one thing at a time, and play nice, or we don't play.

Can anyone else explain how none of this is on topic to the OP? And I don't see how I'm not playing nice, I think I've been civil this whole time. The issue here is that when your positions are cornered and I critique your logic and defenses, you cheat. If you want to talk about not playing nice, writing off a Muslims' reply (many things I agree with) just because he's Muslim rather than addressing what he says, that's not playing nice. That's cheating. As for "replying to one thing at a time", what do you mean exactly? I reply to everything you say each time, "one thing at a time". Do you?

I made it clear in the beginning that the Trinity doctrine is not explicit in the texts, but that Jesus' Divinity
is at least implicit. I believe that satisfies the terms of this thread.

And as I pointed out, Divinity does not equate to being God. I do agree that it implies "Divinity" but no more so than any other "Divine being" as Angels are often called in Trinitarian translations.

FWIW, the Trinity is a legitimate and authorized theological construct, that is useful in helping us to a greater understanding of God, ourselves, and others

And I disagree, I think its an ILLEGITIMATE construct that is NOT Useful in the slightest of understanding God and only leads to confusion that is "Too much for the Human mind to understand"..

It may be "Authorized", but the "Authority" who authorizes in question is disputable.

 

[Shermana]

It doesn't, but that's the least of what's wrong with his line of reasoning.

What else is "wrong" with it exactly from a scriptural perspective? After all, the OP is about where in the Bible does Jesus clearly say that he's God, not "Where does post 2nd century Trinitarian ideology say so".

 

[Me Myself]

I believe I did say that, in a roundabout way.
It's not ridiculous to say what I said, because it's more than obvious from his post. He's a Muslim. There's a fundamental difference, both in theological basis and in approach to textual criticism between Islam and Xy. He's obviously approaching Xy from an Islamic POV, then proceeds to tell us that we're all wrong. it just doesn't work that way. He doesn't understand our POV, and therefore does not understand how we approach the texts. It's nothing personal, and it's not a religious slur.

You are saying that it is imposible for amuslim to be knowleadgeable of something (in this case, the Christian point of view). This is ridiculous.

Or is it that you are only able to see things from your POv and are completely incapable of seeing things from a non-christian POv for example?

Most people can...

You think Muslims ar unable to see things from perspectives they dont usually take?

 

[sojourner]

Guilty as charged!
I will quickly, readily admit that I am in fact biased.
Right, now I'll admit that I'm not going to change my perspective based on any Trintiarian argument.
I think its an ILLEGITIMATE construct that is NOT Useful in the slightest of understanding God and only leads to confusion that is "Too much for the Human mind to understand".
It may be "Authorized", but the "Authority" who authorizes in question is disputable.

The difference between you and I, with reference to your statements here, is that I don't tear down other faiths, and I don't tell people that their religious views are "illegitimate." I really don't care what they choose to believe, so long as they don't tread on my beliefs.

Again, FWIW, the Trinity doctrine is biblically-based, even if it's not explicitly textual, and it is a legitimate theological construct that has the authorization of the church's apostolate.

No matter what your views on the matter.

 

[sojourner]

What else is "wrong" with it exactly from a scriptural perspective? After all, the OP is about where in the Bible does Jesus clearly say that he's God, not "Where does post 2nd century Trinitarian ideology say so".

See #174

 

[sojourner]

You are saying that it is imposible for amuslim to be knowleadgeable of something (in this case, the Christian point of view). This is ridiculous.

Or is it that you are only able to see things from your POv and are completely incapable of seeing things from a non-christian POv for example?

Most people can...

You think Muslims ar unable to see things from perspectives they dont usually take?

No. I'm saying that it's obvious from his post that he, as a Muslim (with Islam's unique POV), does not have adequate knowledge of the Xtian approach to either theology or textual criticism.

Why should I have to "see things" from a non-Christian POV??? This is exclusive Christian theology, from exclusively Christian texts and exclusively Christian Tradition of the exclusively Christian apostolate. What's ridiculous is to think that any kind of accurate interaction with either the texts, the doctrines, or the theology can be undertaken without a Christian POV.