That darned trinity.

[Oeste]

[URL='https://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/12-12.html']Luke 12:[/URL]12 for the "bounty" will teach you at that time what you should say.”
Hmmm.... that doesn't seem to fit there

John 14: 26 But the Advocate, the Bounty, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Nope... doesn't seem to fit there either.

Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Bounty and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

Round peg, square hole on that one

Acts 7: 51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Bounty!

Have to really push to give that any meaning.

Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Bounty said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

There's a mutiny on that Bounty.

I think you will have to come up with a different interpretation. :D

Excellent!

 

[Kenny]

You cannot just plug in a word like “bounty”into a verse and expect the verse to make sense.
.

Actually, you can if you say that Holy Spirit = bounty. If a=b then whenever you insert b into a -- it will always make sense.

If you make a statement that says "The Holy Spirit is not a Person because it cannot talk" and you come across a statement such as Acts 13:2, "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”, your position the Holy Spirit cannot talk is OBVIOUSLY wrong.

 

[Oeste]

So then Jesus made it clear that He was the Son of God, which means He cannot also BE God.

The Son of Frog is still frog.
The Son of Dog is still dog.
And the Son of God is still God.

If Jesus cannot be God because he was the Son of God, then Jesus cannot be man because he was Son of Man. Jesus was our mediator precisely because he was both God and man:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Tim 2:5)

As you know, the Christians later misconstrued the NT and came up with the doctrines of the Church at the Council of Nicaea and that has come to be accepted by the majority of Christians, who are Trinitarians.

I believe it is the Baha'i who have misconstrued for the reasons indicated above.

You cannot just plug in a word like “bounty”into a verse and expect the verse to make sense.

I think Trinitarians and Baha'i can agree on this point. If you plug in "bounty" into the verse and expect the verse to make sense it makes no sense.

But if you plug in a word like "Counselor" is make perfect sense. So let's try Ken's verses again:

Luke 12:12 for the "bounty" Counselor will teach you at that time what you should say.”

Hmmm.... that doesn't seem to fit there

Correct. Counselor works better.

John 14: 26 But the Advocate, the Bounty Counselor whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Nope... doesn't seem to fit there either.

Agreed. Counselor once again works much better.

for the "bounty" Counselor will teach you at that time what you should say.”
Hmmm.... that doesn't seem to fit there

Sounds like 3 winning "insertions" in a row. ;-)
​

I note Deeje and Trailblazer reached agreement...yet neither "bounty" nor her preferred definition of the Holy Spirit as "electrical force" appears to work here.

The Holy Spirit is not a Person because it cannot talk.

Yet we have many who are mute and cannot talk either. Do the Baha'i consider them less than human?

With all due respect, the Holy Spirit seems to say quite a lot for someone who cannot talk:

And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ” (Acts 21:11, ESV)

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (Rev 2:2, ESV)

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if you hear his voice (Heb 3:7)​

 

[Kenny]

Oeste... your replies are much more detailed and informative than mine. A job well done.

 

[blü 2]

Of course you did. You're a skeptic and that's what skeptics do best.

What skeptics do best is question things. You seem to think there's nothing in religion to question. I respectfully but strongly differ.

If you can point to your bible and tell us where God pronounce "God is also a god of lies" you will have proven your point.

I don't have to find those exact words. I simply have to show you examples which the bible acknowledges show Yahweh deliberately deceiving by words; and this I did ─ for example, Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false. Untruth, deception, lies, and Yahweh is the acknowledged dealer.

And why do I have to draw your attention to those texts? Don't you read your own book? Don't you try to understand what it says, instead of what you want it to say?

And as stated in post 100, the Christian God is a mystery to us, the Trinity doctrine never attempts to take the "mystery" out of God

That won't do. If God is the Trinity then God is a 'mystery in the strict sense' NOT because he's God but because he's the Trinity. Absent the Trinity, he's not a 'mystery in the strict sense' ─ ask any Jew, he's their God. Ask any non-Trinitarian Christian church.

The church has declared the Trinity to be a 'mystery in the strict sense' because it's incoherent, simply because 100% of God + a different 100% of God + a different 100% of God = 300% of God = 3 gods ─ a point you keep making excuses for, rather than facing up to.

As I stated before, "proof texts" won't help you and it is you who must climb the hill.

Ah, you acknowledge that the words of the bible get in the way of what you want to believe. Saying it out loud may, fingers crossed, begin a useful clarification of your thinking.

I can cut and pasted quite a few verses in support of the Trinity doctrine, and as far as those quotes you claim don't support it, all I see are quotes that do.

No you can't. You're facing nineteen examples (and counting) of Jesus saying "I'm not God, the Father is the only true God" but you don't want to hear that.

The doctrine is accepted blü.

Yes, as a 'mystery in the strict sense', an incoherence from the 4th century, with no support in the NT or the Tanakh. As I said before, if only they'd followed Tertullian's formulation, that Jesus and the HG are manifestations of Yahweh, the problem would never have arisen, since that, at least, is coherent.

It was argued, debated, sliced and diced a while ago. It came out unscathed leaving its detractors with nothing

When the church itself declared the Trinity doctrine to be a 'mystery in the strict sense', they acknowledged that the detractors were (and are) right on the money.

 

[Kenny]

I don't have to find those exact words. I simply have to show you examples which the bible acknowledges show Yahweh deliberately deceiving by words; and this I did ─ for example, Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false. Untruth, deception, lies, and Yahweh is the acknowledged dealer.

Anybody can pluck up scriptures and make it say something you want it to say at the expense of the scriptures that says God does not lie and that Satan is the father of lies or that God does not tempt mankind with evil.

What commentaries have you looked at from people who know Hebrew and Greek to understand those scriptures you have mentioned? Taking into account Jewish thought?

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually, you can if you say that Holy Spirit = bounty. If a=b then whenever you insert b into a -- it will always make sense.

You cannot plug in bounty because that could mean many things... bounty of what?

You have to plug in Bounty of God, because that is what the Holy Spirit is... for example:

Acts 13:2, "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Bounty of God said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

If you make a statement that says "The Holy Spirit is not a Person because it cannot talk" and you come across a statement such as Acts 13:2, "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”, your position the Holy Spirit cannot talk is OBVIOUSLY wrong.

What does that mean, the Holy Spirit said? It can mean many different things to many different people. It does not mean that the Holy Spirit literally talked to them as a human being would. It means that the Holy Spirit conveyed something to them, but the question is HOW it was conveyed and WHAT was the entity that conveyed it to them?

Apparently you do not understand that Bible verses can mean different things to different people. I just got finished with a post to a Trinitarian Christian on another forum that addresses this so I will post it here:

I want to point out that verses can have many meanings, not just one meaning, so for anyone to insist that their meaning is “the meaning” is arrogant. Another thing is that how can we know what they mean? There are many possibilities and all the different meanings ascribed to verses are one reason Christians do not agree and why there are so many different sects of Christianity. This is logic 101 stuff. Baha’u’llah affirms what I said about the many meanings of the Word of God (the Bible), but He points out that the appointed interpreters of the Bible are best equipped to know what the Bible means. He also says that if the Representative of God among men has interpreted the Bible we should not challenge His interpretation.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

Does Christianity have any appointed interpreters of the Bible? If so, who appointed them? In the Baha’i Faith we have a Covenant which passed down succession of authority from Baha’u’llah to Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, so they have been designated as appointed interpreters. Baha’u’llah is the Representative of God among men because He was a Manifestation of God. Jesus was also a Representative of God among men. Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter but unfortunately there was no written Covenant so nobody had any authority conferred upon them and it was imply a huge big mess after Jesus died. The Council of Nicaea was an attempt to get everyone on the same page with the doctrines of the Church but it did not succeed because not all Christians believe in those doctrines... JWs and Mormons think they have the Truth, Trinitarians think they have the Truth, and they are all reading from the same Bible. So, logically speaking, how do you think anyone can really know what the Truth is?

 

[Trailblazer]

The Son of Frog is still frog.
The Son of Dog is still dog.
And the Son of God is still God.

But the Son of a Frog/Dog is not the same as the Father who begot the Son. They are different entities.

If Jesus cannot be God because he was the Son of God, then Jesus cannot be man because he was Son of Man. Jesus was our mediator precisely because he was both God and man:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Tim 2:5)

Do you know what Son of Man means? It does not mean that Jesus was the Son of a man.

“In the previously quoted passage Baháu'lláh appears to specifically affirm the title 'Son of Man (or 'Son of Humanity, as some modern Christian theologians prefer to translate it) as referring to Jesus. Baháu'lláh does not say what the term means, and Christian tradition has been fairly vague about the terms meaning. It ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah, and is frequently used in the Gospels as a title of Jesus. Presumably the title is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented.” Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

Jesus was a mediator between God and man, but you raise a good point because the reason Jesus can BE a mediator is because He has qualities of both God and man, so He is kind of a hybrid, a God-man, and thus can mediate between God and man. But if Jesus was actually God in the flesh He could not be a mediator because He would be a man, not a mediator between God and man.

Baha’is believe that Jesus was a Manifestation of God rather than an incarnation of God and this article explains the difference:

“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was never perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..”

You can read the whole article on this link: Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

I think Trinitarians and Baha'i can agree on this point. If you plug in "bounty" into the verse and expect the verse to make sense it makes no sense.

As I just told Ken:

You cannot plug in bounty because that could mean many things... bounty of what?

You have to plug in Bounty of God, because that is what the Holy Spirit is... for example:

Acts 13:2, "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Bounty of God said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Now it makes sense.

But if you plug in a word like "Counselor" is make perfect sense. So let's try Ken's verses again:

KenS said:
Luke 12:12 for the "bounty" Counselor will teach you at that time what you should say.”

Hmmm.... that doesn't seem to fit there

Correct. Counselor works better.

Luke 12:12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.
Luke 12:12 For the Bounty of God shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

Now that makes sense.

KenS said:

John 14: 26 But the Advocate, the Bounty Counselor whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Nope... doesn't seem to fit there either.

Agreed. Counselor once again works much better.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Why did you substitute Counselor? Do you believe that the Counselor is the Holy Spirit, which is also the Advocate? I picked this translation below because it shows that Comforter, Counselor, Helper, Advocate, Intercessor, Strengthener, Standby all mean the same thing.

AMPC
John 15:26 But when the Comforter (Counselor, Helper, Advocate, Intercessor, Strengthener, Standby) comes, Whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth Who comes (proceeds) from the Father, He [Himself] will testify regarding Me.

KenS said:
for the "bounty" Counselor will teach you at that time what you should say.”
Hmmm.... that doesn't seem to fit there

Sounds like 3 winning "insertions" in a row. ;-)

for the Bounty of God will teach you at that time what you should say.

Sounds like a winning insertion.

Now, since you keep plugging in the word Counselor, which apparently you believe is the Holy Spirit, how do you think that this Counselor is doing all this stuff? You Trinitarians say that the Holy Spirit is a Person.... What do you mean by Person? It certainly is not a man that can be located with a GPS tracker is it?

I note Deeje and Trailblazer reached agreement...yet neither "bounty" nor her preferred definition of the Holy Spirit as "electrical force" appears to work here.

No, those do not work, but Bounty of God works.

Yet we have many who are mute and cannot talk either. Do the Baha'i consider them less than human?

With all due respect, the Holy Spirit seems to say quite a lot for someone who cannot talk:

And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ” (Acts 21:11, ESV)

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (Rev 2:2, ESV)

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if you hear his voice (Heb 3:7)

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Rev 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

HOW does this Holy Spirit talk to you, that is the 100-dollar question? The Holy Spirit is not human unless you can locate it with a GPS tracker. Can you? Moreover, you Christians say that the Holy Spirit is indwelt, so do you have a human being living inside of you... No, not unless you are pregnant.

The other thing is that the churches did not listen to what the Holy Spirit said to them, about a new name written, which was Baha’u’llah.

 

[blü 2]

Anybody can pluck up scriptures and make it say something you want it to say at the expense of the scriptures that says God does not lie and that Satan is the father of lies or that God does not tempt mankind with evil.

But not everyone can pluck up nineteen quotes (and counting) attributed directly to Jesus in the gospels in which he says "I am not god. The Father is the only true god. I can do nothing of my own accord. I worship the Father." &c.

Especially in the face of not a single example of Jesus saying "I am God".

(Incidentally, the bible says that God creates evil, as well as deceit. I can give you those quotes as well, if you wish. Mind you, if you take omnipotence and monotheism seriously, evil and deceit can have no other origin than in God.)

What commentaries have you looked at from people who know Hebrew and Greek to understand those scriptures you have mentioned? Taking into account Jewish thought?

I have the Ox Dic of Xn Church aforesaid, an Ox Annotated Bible 1971 edn, the Catholic Encyclopedia on the net, and bits and pieces in my library. On the Trinity the ODCC and Catholic Enc closely agree. The Ox An Bible 1971 seems to avoid discussion of the Trinity anywhere, perhaps because its editors intended it to be of use to all Christian denominations, or perhaps for some other reason.

 

[blü 2]

The Son of Frog is still frog.
The Son of Dog is still dog.
And the Son of God is still God.

If Jesus cannot be God because he was the Son of God, then Jesus cannot be man because he was Son of Man.

Your logic's not quite in line. Try this ─

The son of a frog is a frog (or, the son of Freddo the frog is a frog)
The son of a dog is a dog (or, the son of Lassie is a dog)
The son of a man is a man (or, the son of Ronald Reagan is a man)

Therefore, consistently ─
The son of a god is a god (or, the son of Yahweh is a god).

 

[Oeste]

Oeste... your replies are much more detailed and informative than mine. A job well done.

Thanks Ken, even if we both know the opposite is true. I've learned a lot from your post.

In any event, thank you for participating in a totally enjoyable (if sometimes time consuming) thread.

 

[Oeste]

What skeptics do best is question things. You seem to think there's nothing in religion to question. I respectfully but strongly differ.

There are thousands of religions out there. Of course there are things to question.

I don't have to find those exact words. I simply have to show you examples which the bible acknowledges show Yahweh deliberately deceiving by words; and this I did ─ for example, Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false. Untruth, deception, lies, and Yahweh is the acknowledged dealer.

Sometimes you can be totally enjoyable! ;-)

Two excellent examples of what happens when we lift “proof-texts” from their “context”.

nd why do I have to draw your attention to those texts? Don't you read your own book? Don't you try to understand what it says, instead of what you want it to say?

And why do we have to draw your attention from “proof texts” to “contexts”?

Read the verse in context with its surroundings Blü. Even the most basic perusal will show that God was speaking against prophets who presumed to speak when they should remain silent and false prophets whom he never asked to speak at all.

“And if the prophet be deceived…” simply means that if the prophet is deceived into speaking something God never asked him to say, that prophet is a false prophet and He will not stop that prophet from deluding himself. Neither will He prevent the one who has placed an idol in his heart (and thus hypocritically goes before the false prophet) from being deceived. The same applies to 2 Thessalonians 2:11. These people have already rejected God.

I’m not going to get into the whole thing here because it’s totally off thread theme. I’d like us to concentrate on the Trinity even if we note the anti-Trinitarians, the defenders of the “true” faith/religion before the church fell into “apostasy”, remain silent to your charge, having once again fell down on the job.

That won't do. If God is the Trinity then God is a 'mystery in the strict sense' NOT because he's God but because he's the Trinity. Absent the Trinity, he's not a 'mystery in the strict sense' ─ ask any Jew, he's their God. Ask any non-Trinitarian Christian church.

It’s because He’s God and the Trinity doesn’t attempt to explain God but merely apprehend Him through scripture. You claim “That won’t do” because you prefer a God you can completely understand. Unfortunately a God we completely understand is not the God of Christian scripture.

The church has declared the Trinity to be a 'mystery in the strict sense' because it's incoherent, simply because 100% of God + a different 100% of God + a different 100% of God = 300% of God = 3 gods ─ a point you keep making excuses for, rather than facing up to.

Ken was right...we do seem to be running in circles on this.

I did not "excuse" the point but addressed it. Trinitarian doctrine has no parts of a whole. Neither does God. You keep using "of" when there is no "of".

No you can't. You're facing nineteen examples (and counting) of Jesus saying "I'm not God, the Father is the only true God" but you don't want to hear that.

I hear Blü saying there are nineteen examples "of Jesus saying "I'm not God..." I just don't find nineteen example of scripture saying the same. You have a hill to climb on that one.

Yes, as a 'mystery in the strict sense', an incoherence from the 4th century, with no support in the NT or the Tanakh. As I said before, if only they'd followed Tertullian's formulation, that Jesus and the HG are manifestations of Yahweh, the problem would never have arisen, since that, at least, is coherent.

We've explained this before. Modalism or other Christologies where you have “manifestations” of God don’t work. For example, we would have Jesus effectively crying out: “Myself, myself, why have I forsaken me?” on the cross.

Unlike Trinitarianism, it just doesn't work.

 

[Oeste]

But the Son of a Frog/Dog is not the same as the Father who begot the Son. They are different entities.

Trinitarians don't believe the Son is the Father either, so at least on that we can agree.

Do you know what Son of Man means? It does not mean that Jesus was the Son of a man.

Let's look at what I posted again:

The Son of Frog is still frog.
The Son of Dog is still dog.
And the Son of God is still God.

There is no "a" here at all.

The son of frog is still frog, the son of dog is still dog, and the son of God is still God.

Jesus was a mediator between God and man, but you raise a good point because the reason Jesus can BE a mediator is because He has qualities of both God and man, so He is kind of a hybrid, a God-man, and thus can mediate between God and man.

Not a hybrid, but 100% God, 100% man.

But if Jesus was actually God in the flesh He could not be a mediator because He would be a man, not a mediator between God and man

He is mediator because he is both God and man. Telling us that God in the flesh could not be a mediator because "He would be a man, not a mediator between God and man" is a lot like telling a Korean-Americans they could not serve as mediators between North Korea and America because they are Korean.

To use your words they "would be a Korean, not a mediator between America and Korea."

Baha’is believe that Jesus was a Manifestation of God rather than an incarnation of God and this article explains the difference:

In traditional Christian theology, any Christology where God "Manifests" himself is considered heresy. This includes Patripassionism (Sabellianism) or any other form of modalistic Christology.

You cannot plug in bounty because that could mean many things... bounty of what?
You have to plug in Bounty of God, because that is what the Holy Spirit is... for example:
Acts 13:2, "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Bounty of God said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Now it makes sense.

How does that make sense when you just told us the Holy Spirit is not a person because He cannot speak?:

The Holy Spirit is not a Person because it cannot talk.

You've just shown Him "speaking" with your quote above!

What does that mean, the Holy Spirit said? It can mean many different things to many different people. It does not mean that the Holy Spirit literally talked to them as a human being would. It means that the Holy Spirit conveyed something to them, but the question is HOW it was conveyed and WHAT was the entity that conveyed it to them?

So the Baha'i consider someone who "cannot talk" but nevertheless speaks because they would like to "convey something" as something other than a person?

Why did you substitute Counselor? Do you believe that the Counselor is the Holy Spirit, which is also the Advocate? I picked this translation below because it shows that Comforter, Counselor, Helper, Advocate, Intercessor, Strengthener, Standby all mean the same thing.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter (Counselor, Helper, Advocate, Intercessor, Strengthener, Standby) comes, Whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth Who comes (proceeds) from the Father, He [Himself] will testify regarding Me

The Comforter or Counselor is sent by Jesus from (not with) the Father. It is He [Himself] and not It [Itself] that testifies regarding Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is not human unless you can locate it with a GPS tracker. Can you? Moreover, you Christians say that the Holy Spirit is indwelt, so do you have a human being living inside of you... No, not unless you are pregnant.

The Holy Spirit is not human but the Holy Spirit is God. You can no more "track" the Spirit with a GPS than you can track the Father.

 

[Oeste]

Your logic's not quite in line. Try this ─

The son of a frog is a frog (or, the son of Freddo the frog is a frog)
The son of a dog is a dog (or, the son of Lassie is a dog)
The son of a man is a man (or, the son of Ronald Reagan is a man)

Therefore, consistently ─
The son of a god is a god (or, the son of Yahweh is a god).

Nah.

Let's try it again.

This time we're going to leave out the added "a" much like we left out the added "of" you had before:

The Son of Frog is still frog.
The Son of Dog is still dog.
And the Son of God is still God.

Jesus is never referred to as "Son of a Man" in scripture anymore than he is referred to as "Son of a God". He is always referred to as "Son of Man".

Quite simply, if the bible had referred to Jesus this way...as the "Son of a man" and as "Son of a God", the aberrant Arian translation with an extra "a" at John 1:1 would at least have an air of consistent credibility.

But that's another topic altogether.

Therefore, consistently --
The son of God is God (or, Jesus is God).

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Nah.

Jesus is never referred to as "Son of a Man" in scripture anymore than he is referred to as "Son of a God". He is always referred to as "Son of Man".

Quite simply, if the bible had referred to Jesus this way...as the "Son of a man" and as "Son of a God", the aberrant Arian translation with an extra "a" at John 1:1 would at least have an air of consistent credibility.

But that's another topic altogether.

Therefore, consistently --
The son of God is God (or, Jesus is God).

The Greek phrase used in the Gospels for ‘Son of Man’ is ho huios tou anthrōpou = “the son of-the human”. tou is the Genitive (’of’) form of the definite article. Indefinite articles do not exist in Greek. An indefinite article (‘a’) is implied by the absence of a definite article (‘the’). The presence of the definite article here indicates the class of humans and not a specific individual human, since none was previously referenced. The absence of a definite article would have been the equivalent of an indefinite article (‘a’), indicating a particular but unspecified human.

Although the Greek says ‘the son of the human’, the translation ‘the Son of Man’ is appropriate, since ‘the son of the man’ would in English give the wrong impression of a specific man, rather than the class of humans.a

The phrase ‘Son of Man’ derives from Daniel’s dream of the beasts in Daniel 7. The four ugly beasts came from the sea, a common biblical metaphor for evil. But then a figure “like a son of man”, that is, looking like a human being and not a beast, comes “with the clouds of heaven”. The Gospels identify Jesus with the Son of Man, the link to Daniel being very clear in the Olivet Discourse found in the Synoptic Gospels, “the Son of man coming in the clouds”.

The ’aberrant Arian translation’ is in point of fact the correct one. But as you said, that is another topic.

 

[blü 2]

Oeste

I said: ↑

Your logic's not quite in line. Try this ─

The son of a frog is a frog (or, the son of Freddo the frog is a frog)
The son of a dog is a dog (or, the son of Lassie is a dog)
The son of a man is a man (or, the son of Ronald Reagan is a man)

Therefore, consistently ─
The son of a god is a god (or, the son of Yahweh is a god).
​

And you said:

Jesus is never referred to as "Son of a Man" in scripture anymore than he is referred to as "Son of a God". He is always referred to as "Son of Man".

And Jesus NEVER refers to himself as God (or, a god).

So you're setting out to engineer a conclusion with which Jesus, as reported in the NT, expressly disagrees on not fewer than nineteen occasions.

The son of God is God (or, Jesus is God).

But as I pointed out ─

(a) your premises (eg the son of dog is dog) are either shorthand for eg 'the son of a dog is a dog' or else denote eg the generalization 'dog' ─ and so means 'the sons of dogs are dogs', which in this case is the same thing;

(b) so the conclusion that can be consistently derived from your premises can be expressed as either 'the son of a god is a god' or 'the sons of gods are gods'.

But the conclusion you purport to draw, 'the son of God A is God A' is a non sequitur.

And Jesus agrees blü / Trailblazer 19 ─ 0 Oeste.

Two excellent examples of what happens when we lift “proof-texts” from their “context”.

We've been here before. I pointed out that this means there are two kinds of statement in the bible, those that should be taken as correct and authoritative and those that may be freely ignored.

So what's the test that will tell us whether any particular statement is authoritative and any particular statement is ignorable? Talk me through an example of the test in action. Distinguish

I am the way, the truth and the life
​

from

And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
​

for me, please.

And while you're there, please explain why Jesus never once says he's God. What do you say was his purpose in fostering this deception?

It’s because He’s God and the Trinity doesn’t attempt to explain God but merely apprehend Him through scripture. You claim “That won’t do” because you prefer a God you can completely understand. Unfortunately a God we completely understand is not the God of Christian scripture.

Of course there is. You're avoiding the fact that the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist until the 4th century CE, and that if it had simply followed Tertullian and made Jesus and the HG manifestations of Jesus' 'one true god', then Tertullian's trinity is readily understood.

I hear Blü saying there are nineteen examples "of Jesus saying "I'm not God..." I just don't find nineteen example of scripture saying the same. You have a hill to climb on that one.

Paul in his authenticated letters never says Jesus is God. He says Jesus is Lord to Yahweh's God. Jesus says the same thing. Thomas in one story calls the postmortal Jesus 'my god' and the pseudepigraph Titus calls him 'god' and that's about it. The only hill in the NT is for the Trinitarians and their incoherent doctrine to climb.

Do you really think that 'mystery in the strict sense' and 'not against reason but above reason' can be anything but excuses for nonsense?

Modalism or other Christologies where you have “manifestations” of God don’t work. For example, we would have Jesus effectively crying out: “Myself, myself, why have I forsaken me?” on the cross.

Yes, you would.

But you'd avoid the central incoherence of the Trinity doctrine.

And if you followed Jesus' words instead, and didn't have a Trinity doctrine at all, everything would be smooth sailing and a great deal of nonsense avoided.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let's look at what I posted again:
Oeste said:
The Son of Frog is still frog.
The Son of Dog is still dog.
And the Son of God is still God.
There is no "a" here at all.
The son of frog is still frog, the son of dog is still dog, and the son of God is still God.

Why? I mean why is the Son of God still God? What is the scriptural evidence that supports that claim?

Not a hybrid, but 100% God, 100% man.

So you believe that 100% of God became a man? What is the scriptural evidence that supports that claim?

We all know that the disciples and other people saw Jesus, so how do you explain this verse?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

He is mediator because he is both God and man. Telling us that God in the flesh could not be a mediator because "He would be a man, not a mediator between God and man" is a lot like telling a Korean-Americans they could not serve as mediators between North Korea and America because they are Korean.

To use your words they "would be a Korean, not a mediator between America and Korea."

That does not work as an analogy because Koreans can be both men and mediators since men are often mediators. In other words, those are not exclusive data sets. God cannot be both God and man. Those are exclusive data sets because they are not of like nature. A man can reflect God’s attributes and bring a message from God, but God cannot BECOME a man because then God would no longer BE God.

A mediator mediates between two entities. He cannot BE the same as the entity that He mediated from.

Oeste said: "he would be a Korean, not a mediator between America and Korea."

Korean man mediates between America and Korea.
There are three entities here: (1) Korean man, (2) America, and (3) Korea.

God mediates between God and man.
Do you see the problem? There is nothing in between God and God.

Now let’s try this:
Jesus mediates between God and man.
There are three entities here: (1) Jesus, (2) God, and (3) man.
So now we have something in between, Jesus.

In traditional Christian theology, any Christology where God "Manifests" himself is considered heresy. This includes Patripassionism (Sabellianism) or any other form of modalistic Christology.

I know that. I used to post on a forum called The Holy Trinity and I was called a heretic, along with the other non-trinitarian Christians.

How does that make sense when you just told us the Holy Spirit is not a person because He cannot speak?

It does not speak like a man speaks. It speaks through God.

You've just shown Him "speaking" with your quote above!

God speaks to us without words. Didn’t that ever happen to you?

So the Baha'i consider someone who "cannot talk" but nevertheless speaks because they would like to "convey something" as something other than a person?

Quite honestly, I cannot say how the Bounty of God is conveyed in the context of the verses you cited but unless you can locate the Holy Spirit with a GPS tracker it cannot be conveyed by a person. What do you mean by “Person?”

The Comforter or Counselor is sent by Jesus from (not with) the Father. It is He [Himself] and not It [Itself] that testifies regarding Jesus.

Do you mean the Comforter or Counselor is sent by Jesus from the Father from heaven? Is He [Himself] the Comforter or Counselor that testifies of Jesus? How does He [Himself] testify regarding Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is not human but the Holy Spirit is God. You can no more "track" the Spirit with a GPS than you can track the Father.

Then how can the Holy Spirit BE a Person? What do you mean by Person? All those years on the Holy Trinity forum and I never understood that.

I believe that the Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God so it is kind of like a medium that God used to communicate to Jesus, and then Jesus mediated between God and man. The Holy Spirit was sent by God to Jesus and Jesus brought the Holy Spirit to mankind.

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

 

[Trailblazer]

And if you followed Jesus' words instead, and didn't have a Trinity doctrine at all, everything would be smooth sailing and a great deal of nonsense avoided.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yet we have many who are mute and cannot talk either. Do the Baha'i consider them less than human?

Are you sure you wish to go with such a comparison between the Holy Spirit to offer an insult?

With all due respect, the Holy Spirit seems to say quite a lot for someone who cannot talk:

One should never use 'With all due respect', as it is then intended there is no respect.

And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ” (Acts 21:11, ESV)

So if we put it in Context and use verse 10, it was a "prophet, named Agabus" that "said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost".

Acts 2:10-11"10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (Rev 2:2, ESV)

The Spirit in the passage is Baha'u'llah speaking to the Churches, this is all the Tablets where the Spirit Spoke to the Churches - Bahá'í Reference Library - Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if you hear his voice (Heb 3:7)

Again this chapter is speaking about Jesus the Christ and the commentary is telling us not to Harden our Hearts as spoken of by the Holy Spirit, which in these passages Mention Moses and Jesus the Christ.

The Holy Spirit speaks through Gods Chosen Representative, and in turn they can talk to our heart in Spirit in Vision or Dream or inspiration.

John 5:37;"And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form,"

Regards Tony

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The phrase ‘Son of Man’ derives from Daniel’s dream of the beasts in Daniel 7. The four ugly beasts came from the sea, a common biblical metaphor for evil. But then a figure “like a son of man”, that is, looking like a human being and not a beast, comes “with the clouds of heaven”. The Gospels identify Jesus with the Son of Man, the link to Daniel being very clear in the Olivet Discourse found in the Synoptic Gospels, “the Son of man coming in the clouds”.

I find Jesus is ' Son of man ' at Daniel 7:13, but the 4 beasts of Daniel 7:3-7 are: governments.
Please notice Daniel 8:3-8, and Daniel 8:20-25 as to why I say governments.
Those oppressive governments causing beast-like suffering came out of the great ' sea of mankind ' (Isaiah 57:20)

As Jesus ascended to the heavens he disappeared hidden in the clouds. 'In the clouds' shows he can't be seen.
Which is in harmony with John 14:19 that the world would see Jesus No more.
The world will thus ' see' with the mind's eye because of fulfilment of Chapter 24 of Matthew and chapter 21 of Luke.