That darned trinity.

[Katzpur]

If it is separate from the Bible than it is a different gospel.

And where in the Bible does it say this? The gospel according to Matthew is different from the gospel according to Mark, and the gospel according to Luke is different from the gospel according to John. They all testify of Jesus Christ, but from differing perspectives and each with a different emphasis. So how does the fact that they're all four bound together between a front cover, a spine, and a back cover make them magically still the same gospel, but something that's not found within that same book is automatically "a different gospel," no matter what its message is?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Well, you know what? Since you seem to be such a nice person and have found contentment and satisfaction in what you believe, I'm not even going to attempt to change your mind about any of it. After all, none of us knows anything for sure, do we? We're all just trying to follow the path that feels best for us and doing the best we can in dealing with our unanswered questions. So, that you for your response, too!

Actually, I would welcome your thoughts. My mind is quite capable of change, but without your thoughts and those of others, it will not get the chance to change. So, please, feel free to share.
I do believe we can know things for sure, if those things are supported by the entire Bible, not just a few verses.
How we see God is really not important, imo.
It’s how we respond to Him that makes all the difference.
You and I can have different understanding of things spiritual, yet be equal in God’s kingdom if our fruit on this earth are equal.
We will all be known by our fruit, and be separated by the same upon death. Remember all the goats who thought they did so much in the name of Jesus and He says, ‘I don’t know you’ ?
It’s our heartfelt actions toward others in this life that matter.
Doctrine doesn’t.
But it’s fun to talk about.
I want to ask you a question about your religion.
I think the Mormon religion does a good job in equipping people to be good followers of Jesus. However, the people themselves have a responsibility to do what is right. I have witnessed actions done by some because they feel there is a religious duty. Also, I have seen good actions being performed, but see that the motivation was self. I think these are the people who become the ‘goats’ at judgement. People need to do good for goodness sake, not for personal gain or religious duty.
Have you seen others like this in your church and do you see their consequences as I do?

 

[Oeste]

And where in the Bible does it say this? The gospel according to Matthew is different from the gospel according to Mark, and the gospel according to Luke is different from the gospel according to John. They all testify of Jesus Christ, but from differing perspectives and each with a different emphasis.

That makes them different writers with different styles but not different gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all preached the same gospel.

So how does the fact that they're all four bound together between a front cover, a spine, and a back cover make them magically still the same gospel, but something that's not found within that same book is automatically "a different gospel," no matter what its message is?

I’m aware there are those who, like the Baha’i, believe the canon is/was still open, but we have Old Testament passages showing scripture would be closed and New Testament passages showing that it was. I believe Christ is the full revelation of the gospel and the Christian canon was closed after the penning of Revelation. If there is more “scripture” to reveal it would have to be written prior to Revelation.

“Is the Christian canon open or closed?” would be an interesting topic but rather far afield from this thread. Trinitarians would not consider anything written after Revelation as authoritative.

Also, as you already know, the Trinity doctrine was a response to certain heresies arising within the church. It is doctrine based on scripture, but is not scripture itself.

 

[Katzpur]

That makes them different writers with different styles but not different gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all preached the same gospel.

And why couldn't that same gospel be found anywhere else? Why is anything outside of the Bible automatically "a different gospel"?

I’m aware there are those who, like the Baha’i, believe the canon is/was still open, but we have Old Testament passages showing scripture would be closed and New Testament passages showing that it was. I believe Christ is the full revelation of the gospel and the Christian canon was closed after the penning of Revelation. If there is more “scripture” to reveal it would have to be written prior to Revelation.

I totally disagree. The book of Revelation says absolutely nothing about the Bible as a whole, since the Bible as a whole didn't even exist until long after John received Revelation. Revelation was most likely not the last New Testament book to have been written, even though it is placed last in the Bible. Many reputable biblical scholars believe much of the New Testament to have been written after Revelation Some don't believe that 2 Peter was written until some time in the second century. Revelation says that no man is to add to or remove from that book. That book could be no other than Revelation itself. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament indicating that the canon should ever be closed. That's like man telling God, "Don't bother to tell us anything more. We've decided we have all we need."

“Is the Christian canon open or closed?” would be an interesting topic but rather far afield from this thread.

Yes, it would, and like you, I don't like to see threads veer too far off the topic of the OP. But if you or any one else would like to start such a thread, I will be a willing participant.

Trinitarians would not consider anything written after Revelation as authoritative.

Well, those who recognize that Revelation was most likely not the last book in the Bible to have been written most certainly do.

Also, as you already know, the Trinity doctrine was a response to certain heresies arising within the church. It is doctrine based on scripture, but is not scripture itself.

Okay, you've just said something which, to me, appears to be a contradiction. You have clearly implied that the creeds which formalized the doctrine of the Trinity are not "authoritative" and not "scripture" but that they are "doctrine." I think we can agree that they're not scripture, but if they aren't authoritative, how can they be considered doctrinal? Doctrine certainly ought to be authoritative.

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, I would welcome your thoughts. My mind is quite capable of change, but without your thoughts and those of others, it will not get the chance to change. So, please, feel free to share.

In that case, I will. Please understand that these are just my thoughts and the things I have come to believe. I don't claim to have all the answers.

I do believe we can know things for sure, if those things are supported by the entire Bible, not just a few verses.

I agree that looking at the larger picture makes a great deal of difference. I have found, over the years, that it's possible to find biblical support for pretty much any position you want to take on pretty much any doctrine, simply by focusing on certain verses and ignoring others. Many years ago, I was confident that I could prove my position on a number of different topics, because I knew of certain biblical passages that essentially "proved" I was right. It didn't take long for me to figure out that my "opponent" had his bases covered, too. That was a good lesson for me. It's still hard, though, because when your gut tells you that something is one way, you want to find evidence that you're right. And with respect to the Bible, it can really be difficult, because, whether we like it or not, there are numerous instances in which the various writers at least appear to contradict one another.

Recently, my husband and I were discussing this subject (how we can know things for sure) and he said something to me that made a lot of sense. He said something to this effect: "I don't worry too awfully much about the things I don't know, and I only 'know' what God has taught me." Mormons speak of the Holy Ghost as testifying to us, and confirming to us the truth of all things -- whether it's what we read in the scriptures or what we hear spoken from the pulpit. This is how we come to 'know' what we know. We can weigh what Paul says on the matter of whether we're saved by faith or by works against what James says on the subject, but ultimately it's God (through the Holy Ghost) who is going to clarify to us how they really don't contradict each other at all. So I'd probably add to what you've said (i.e. that we can know something for sure if it's supported by the entire Bible), by adding the witness of the Holy Ghost to the equation.

How we see God is really not important, imo.
It’s how we respond to Him that makes all the difference.

I believe that God wants us to see Him as He is and not believe things about Him that aren't factual. I definitely do not, however, believe that any misconceptions we have about Him are going to make any difference when it comes to our salvation. So I agree with you 100% that it's how we respond to Him that matters -- and, by extension, how we respond to our fellow human beings.

You and I can have different understanding of things spiritual, yet be equal in God’s kingdom if our fruit on this earth are equal.

I essentially agree with that statement, but I also believe that where much is given, much is expected. Let's take two individuals, both the same age. One of them is raised in a home by an abusive, alcoholic father and a drug-addicted, prostituting mother, neither of whom shows him much love and neither of whom teaches him any good moral values. The other is raised by two loving parents who are committed to doing everything they can to teach him how to love and serve others. If these two individuals were to be involved in a car accident and to die of their injuries, I believe that God would take into account the reasons why the fruit they produced on earth was significantly different.

We will all be known by our fruit, and be separated by the same upon death. Remember all the goats who thought they did so much in the name of Jesus and He says, ‘I don’t know you’ ?
It’s our heartfelt actions toward others in this life that matter.
Doctrine doesn’t.
But it’s fun to talk about.

I agree wholeheartedly that our actions matter more than our doctrines. When I stand before God to be judged, I would much rather hear Him tell me that He was pleased with the way I lived my life than have Him say, "Wow. You nailed the doctrines, but you apparently missed the whole point of what I wanted you to learn!"

I want to ask you a question about your religion.
I think the Mormon religion does a good job in equipping people to be good followers of Jesus. However, the people themselves have a responsibility to do what is right. I have witnessed actions done by some because they feel there is a religious duty. Also, I have seen good actions being performed, but see that the motivation was self. I think these are the people who become the ‘goats’ at judgement. People need to do good for goodness sake, not for personal gain or religious duty.
Have you seen others like this in your church and do you see their consequences as I do?

I absolutely do see people like that in my church, and as I kind of implied in the past paragraph, I think they'll find themselves in a position of having nailed the doctrines but not having put them to much use. The most important thing I think we can learn here on life is that God loves us and that He wants us to love one another. I don't believe that misunderstandings or differences in belief regarding the nature of God are going to be the deciding factor, and I believe that before we stand before our Maker to be judged, we'll have a better understanding of Him than we do now.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

In that case, I will. Please understand that these are just my thoughts and the things I have come to believe. I don't claim to have all the answers.

I agree that looking at the larger picture makes a great deal of difference. I have found, over the years, that it's possible to find biblical support for pretty much any position you want to take on pretty much any doctrine, simply by focusing on certain verses and ignoring others. Many years ago, I was confident that I could prove my position on a number of different topics, because I knew of certain biblical passages that essentially "proved" I was right. It didn't take long for me to figure out that my "opponent" had his bases covered, too. That was a good lesson for me. It's still hard, though, because when your gut tells you that something is one way, you want to find evidence that you're right. And with respect to the Bible, it can really be difficult, because, whether we like it or not, there are numerous instances in which the various writers at least appear to contradict one another.

Recently, my husband and I were discussing this subject (how we can know things for sure) and he said something to me that made a lot of sense. He said something to this effect: "I don't worry too awfully much about the things I don't know, and I only 'know' what God has taught me." Mormons speak of the Holy Ghost as testifying to us, and confirming to us the truth of all things -- whether it's what we read in the scriptures or what we hear spoken from the pulpit. This is how we come to 'know' what we know. We can weigh what Paul says on the matter of whether we're saved by faith or by works against what James says on the subject, but ultimately it's God (through the Holy Ghost) who is going to clarify to us how they really don't contradict each other at all. So I'd probably add to what you've said (i.e. that we can know something for sure if it's supported by the entire Bible), by adding the witness of the Holy Ghost to the equation.

I believe that God wants us to see Him as He is and not believe things about Him that aren't factual. I definitely do not, however, believe that any misconceptions we have about Him are going to make any difference when it comes to our salvation. So I agree with you 100% that it's how we respond to Him that matters -- and, by extension, how we respond to our fellow human beings.

I essentially agree with that statement, but I also believe that where much is given, much is expected. Let's take two individuals, both the same age. One of them is raised in a home by an abusive, alcoholic father and a drug-addicted, prostituting mother, neither of whom shows him much love and neither of whom teaches him any good moral values. The other is raised by two loving parents who are committed to doing everything they can to teach him how to love and serve others. If these two individuals were to be involved in a car accident and to die of their injuries, I believe that God would take into account the reasons why the fruit they produced on earth was significantly different.

I agree wholeheartedly that our actions matter more than our doctrines. When I stand before God to be judged, I would much rather hear Him tell me that He was pleased with the way I lived my life than have Him say, "Wow. You nailed the doctrines, but you apparently missed the whole point of what I wanted you to learn!"

I absolutely do see people like that in my church, and as I kind of implied in the past paragraph, I think they'll find themselves in a position of having nailed the doctrines but not having put them to much use. The most important thing I think we can learn here on life is that God loves us and that He wants us to love one another. I don't believe that misunderstandings or differences in belief regarding the nature of God are going to be the deciding factor, and I believe that before we stand before our Maker to be judged, we'll have a better understanding of Him than we do now.

I sure appreciate your response.
It was wonderful to hear your thoughts.
There is nothing you said that I cannot agree 100%.

Your mention of the Holy Ghost is exactly how I look at it, except I don’t use the term Holy Ghost. To me, it is God’s divine wisdom making an imprint on our minds. Just because we call it by different names does not change the fact that it is the same thing we both speak of.

Regarding works, I must say I have been disappointed in most Christian churches preaching that works are not necessary. I think this has led so many people astray. Jesus speaks quite often about a person’s fruit. There is no doubt that we must actually DO something. And that something comes automatically once we have truly repented.

I really enjoy finding someone who is really in touch with the Lord.
It doesn’t happen often enough. Thanks so much for sharing.

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

And thanks for yours! I'm enjoying our conversation.

I see only one God. Mainly because the Bible says so. It uses the word ‘one’ dozens of times. Also, the word savior, redeemer, etc are stated many times throughout the OT in association with God. And we know who is our savior.
So the three entities many Christians refer to as persons are simply God. God is the Father. Probably no one denies this.
Jesus was divine and is God. The Word is God.
The Holy Spirit is not a person, nor an entity. It is the divine nature flowing from God. It flows to all humans, but all do not choose to let it flow through them.
The Lord is the Word, and the entire Word is about the Lord.

The Bible does, in fact, say that the Father and the Son are "one God." Is that self-explanatory and clear-cut? Maybe, but maybe not.

All my life, I've known boys who were part of The Boy Scouts of America. My husband was a scoutmaster of Troop 781 in Salt Lake City for quite some time. That "troop" is an organizational unit comprised of perhaps 15 individual boys. That's the only way I interpreted the word "troop." It was an accurate, but incomplete, way of understanding the word. I can remember the first time I ever really paid any attention to the news, where it was stated that a certain number of American troops were going to be sent to somewhere in the world, such as Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan. The numbers were almost always in the tens of thousands. Based upon what I knew about the boy scouts, I assumed that a "troop" was a group of soldiers. As funny as that seems to me now, I didn't realize that 50,000 troops meant 50,000 soldiers. When I stopped to consider the number of boys in my husband's scout troop, I assumed that 50,000 troops meant something more along the lines of 750,000 solders.

Most Christians say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are "one substance" or "one essence," and the creeds talk about "neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance." The word "one," however, does not need to be referring to the numeral '1'. It can also mean "united," as in the following examples:

Exodus 24:3 says, "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do."

2 Corinthians 13:11 says, "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you."

Acts 4:32 states, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."

Obviously, many people could not conceivably have "one voice." Many brethren could not have "one mind." And a multitude could not have "one heart" or "one soul." In each of these examples, the word "one" is used to describe a unity that has nothing to do with the value of the numeral "1". It's a unity of will and purpose. It's agreement, not contention, between more than one entity.

Jesus, the human did not exist prior to conception. God did. Obviously. The Lord from eternity took on human nature to save us.
When He was on earth he had a human nature given to him from Mary. He had a divine nature from God. That’s why he is called the son of God.

He is called, even more specifically, the Only Begotten Son of God. I agree, though, with everything you have said. Jesus, the human, did not exist prior to conception. But Jesus, as God, did.

We cannot be sons of God, because we do not have the divine nature.

Hmmm. I've got to disagree with you there, but let's hold off discussing it for a while. We have enough on our plate already.

He performed miracles as God. God can do that.

Yes, He can. He did, and He does.

I don’t claim to be an expert, far from it. Plus I’m not super good at getting my understanding across, but I hope this helps.

Well, that certainly makes two of us. I do have a few other thoughts that I'm going to have to hold off on. I'll see if I can finish up saying what I'd like to say tomorrow.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

And thanks for yours! I'm enjoying our conversation.

The Bible does, in fact, say that the Father and the Son are "one God." Is that self-explanatory and clear-cut? Maybe, but maybe not.

All my life, I've known boys who were part of The Boy Scouts of America. My husband was a scoutmaster of Troop 781 in Salt Lake City for quite some time. That "troop" is an organizational unit comprised of perhaps 15 individual boys. That's the only way I interpreted the word "troop." It was an accurate, but incomplete, way of understanding the word. I can remember the first time I ever really paid any attention to the news, where it was stated that a certain number of American troops were going to be sent to somewhere in the world, such as Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan. The numbers were almost always in the tens of thousands. Based upon what I knew about the boy scouts, I assumed that a "troop" was a group of soldiers. As funny as that seems to me now, I didn't realize that 50,000 troops meant 50,000 soldiers. When I stopped to consider the number of boys in my husband's scout troop, I assumed that 50,000 troops meant something more along the lines of 750,000 solders.

Most Christians say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are "one substance" or "one essence," and the creeds talk about "neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance." The word "one," however, does not need to be referring to the numeral '1'. It can also mean "united," as in the following examples:

Exodus 24:3 says, "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do."

2 Corinthians 13:11 says, "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you."

Acts 4:32 states, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."

Obviously, many people could not conceivably have "one voice." Many brethren could not have "one mind." And a multitude could not have "one heart" or "one soul." In each of these examples, the word "one" is used to describe a unity that has nothing to do with the value of the numeral "1". It's a unity of will and purpose. It's agreement, not contention, between more than one entity.

He is called, even more specifically, the Only Begotten Son of God. I agree, though, with everything you have said. Jesus, the human, did not exist prior to conception. But Jesus, as God, did.

Hmmm. I've got to disagree with you there, but let's hold off discussing it for a while. We have enough on our plate already.

Yes, He can. He did, and He does.

Well, that certainly makes two of us. I do have a few other thoughts that I'm going to have to hold off on. I'll see if I can finish up saying what I'd like to say tomorrow.

I will try to explain my problem with the trinity and the three person concept.
We seem to know who God is, what Jesus did, and what we get from the Holy Ghost. We have a clear understanding that we are speaking of God. Period. I think.
My problem is where people get a perception in their minds that there are three individual entities representing God, and some even think of three Gods.
Just because a person verbally professes one God, doesn’t mean they don’t think of three Gods.
I believe there is a trinity (since we must use this word) in one person, God; but not a trinity of persons.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I will try to explain my problem with the trinity and the three person concept.
We seem to know who God is, what Jesus did, and what we get from the Holy Ghost. We have a clear understanding that we are speaking of God. Period. I think.
My problem is where people get a perception in their minds that there are three individual entities representing God, and some even think of three Gods.
Just because a person verbally professes one God, doesn’t mean they don’t think of three Gods.
I believe there is a trinity (since we must use this word) in one person, God; but not a trinity of persons.

Sorry I’ve been away a lot lately.
I wanted to explore another question of mine with you, if you’re up to it?

 

[Oeste]

That makes them different writers with different styles but not different gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all preached the same gospel.

And why couldn't that same gospel be found anywhere else? Why is anything outside of the Bible automatically "a different gospel"?

Anything not “God breathed” is a “different gospel” because there is only one gospel spoken by God.

I’m aware there are those who, like the Baha’i, believe the canon is/was still open, but we have Old Testament passages showing scripture would be closed and New Testament passages showing that it was. I believe Christ is the full revelation of the gospel and the Christian canon was closed after the penning of Revelation. If there is more “scripture” to reveal it would have to be written prior to Revelation.

I totally disagree. The book of Revelation says absolutely nothing about the Bible as a whole, since the Bible as a whole didn't even exist until long after John received Revelation.

It existed, it just wasn't compiled.

Revelation was most likely not the last New Testament book to have been written, even though it is placed last in the Bible. Many reputable biblical scholars believe much of the New Testament to have been written after Revelation

I believe (as do the vast majority of reputable scholars) that Revelation was the last book written, probably some 10 to 20 years after 2 Peter.

Some don't believe that 2 Peter was written until some time in the second century. Revelation says that no man is to add to or remove from that book. That book could be no other than Revelation itself.

He is speaking of all books, not just Revelation. The inspired words of God have been "once and all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) and realized in God's full revelation through Jesus Christ.

When John states that no one should add or take away from the book it is Ultimately God speaking, not John, and it is one canon, not many. If your assertion is true, and John were merely talking about the book of Revelation, then it should be fine to add or subtract a few jots and tittles to any other book…just not “Revelation”.

There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament indicating that the canon should ever be closed. That's like man telling God, "Don't bother to tell us anything more. We've decided we have all we need."

It is not man that tells God when He can speak. God speaks when He wills and He spoke to us through Christ.

It’s not the first time this has happened. There was a 400 plus year period between our Old and New Testaments where God did not speak at all.

Christ is the full and final revelation of God. There is nothing that can be added nor subtracted from the work of Christ. The canon is closed until Christ returns.

“Is the Christian canon open or closed?”

would be an interesting topic but rather far afield from this thread.

Yes, it would, and like you, I don't like to see threads veer too far off the topic of the OP. But if you or any one else would like to start such a thread, I will be a willing participant.

I couldn’t open such a thread now due to time constraints. I do want to open a thread but it will probably be on the Trinity and most likely not until Summer when my clients take vacation (and leave me alone ;-) )This would be a good second option though.

Trinitarians would not consider anything written after Revelation as authoritative.

Well, those who recognize that Revelation was most likely not the last book in the Bible to have been written most certainly do.

Of course they would, and they may believe even more stranger things. The vast majority of Christians are Trinitarians, and they see Revelation as the last prophetic book of God. In any event, for those believing otherwise the burden of “proof” is on them.

Also, as you already know, the Trinity doctrine was a response to certain heresies arising within the church. It is doctrine based on scripture, but is not scripture itself.

Okay, you've just said something which, to me, appears to be a contradiction. You have clearly implied that the creeds which formalized the doctrine of the Trinity are not "authoritative" and not "scripture" but that they are "doctrine." I think we can agree that they're not scripture, but if they aren't authoritative, how can they be considered doctrinal? Doctrine certainly ought to be

I wasn't saying doctrines are not authoritative…they can be for the church that adopts them…but I did say scripture is authoritative. By doctrine I am referring to those church rules, principles, or understandings based on scripture. They are instructive to the church but they should not be classified as scripture.

For example, keeping the Sabbath is something any church can point to in scripture, but whether it’s Saturday, Sunday or some other day will be determined by that church’s doctrine.

 

[Muffled]

It is not the church that just tried to override Colossians 2:9. You need to be able to reconcile “all the fullness of Deity” with your assertion. “All” to me does not mean 33, 50, or 300 percent.

You should not deify Paul. Paul has his opinion and it is not necessarily infallible. Christ did not set up Paul or anybody to be the infallible interpreter. Besides this you are taking what he said too literally. Christ reflected all of the attributes of God perfectly so He had all of the fullness of Diety in a sense.

I believe this because of Baha'u'llah. I investigated Baha'u'llah, saw that all of His fruits were good so He was a Prophet of God. Your opinion is nothing compared to Baha'u'llah.

I don't believe I can see how the Baha'u'llah can be considered good or a prophet due to the fact that not everything he says is true.

I believe Paul speaks by the Holy Spirit unless he specifically says he is giving his opinion which he does on at least one occasion and therefore is infallible.

 

[Muffled]

I think there are different ways of looking at equality. I believe that Jesus Christ is equal to God the Father in terms of their divine nature. In other words, both are equally loving, just, merciful, charitable, knowledgeable, compassionate, etc. In terms of what I would describe as authority, however, Jesus Christ stated that His Father was greater than He. He said, as a matter of fact, that His Father was not merely His Father, but His God. It's kind of like the ranks in the military. In the U.S. Army, a Lieutenant is not "equal to" a General in rank, although as a human being he may be at least his equal or even his superior.

I believe that statement says nothing about authority. I believe the difference is a matter of perception ie The God who we perceive as being limited by a body (He isn't) is not as great as the God who we perceive as inhabiting the whole universe.

I believe that is a pointless statement.

 

[Muffled]

Christians believe Paul’s words are true. That does not mean we “deify” Paul.

Earlier today some friends told me something I also believe true. Have I deified them?

Sorry about that. I went too far with that. Not all Christians believe Paul's Word is true. Even is they did, they still could be wrong.

I believe in truth that while Paul is speaking with the Holy Spirit, he is the deity. I believe that is so for me also.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe that statement says nothing about authority. I believe the difference is a matter of perception ie The God who we perceive as being limited by a body (He isn't) is not as great as the God who we perceive as inhabiting the whole universe.

So may I ask you a question, Muffled? Who calmed the Sea of Galilee by saying, "Peace. Be still." Was it the Father or the Son? When the royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum asked Jesus to heal that little boy, who actually did it, the Father or the Son?

I believe that is a pointless statement.

Wait. Are you saying Jesus' statement (i.e. that God was His God) was pointless? If I understood you correctly, could you please tell me why you believe it to have been pointless?