That darned trinity.

[Oeste]

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”.

I’m fully aware Arians jump off the cliff into polytheism with an aberrant “…a God” at John 1:1…in direct conflict with the whole of scripture which repeatedly tells us there is but ONE God. The idea that God was a God amongst other Gods would have been anathema to the early Christians just as it would have been anathema to first century Jews, despite Arian attempts to “shore up” their argument with Psalm 82:6.

What I wasn’t fully aware of is how quickly Arians…having now fallen off the cliff into polytheism…could so quickly pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and then jump headlong off another cliff by denying the deity of Christ… that is making Jesus “Son of ‘a’ man” (like Joseph) rather than “Son of man”.

There are those who claim Jesus wasn’t "in the order of God", nor was he God’s son or even Joseph’s, but I guess if one is going to attack Christ’s deity it’s best to do it from as many sides and fronts as possible.

I just don’t see how Arians assign Christ partial deity by claiming he is “Son of a God” in one breath then strip it clean away by claiming he was “Son of "a" man” the next.

Thus, in the Arian mindset, God is "a" God among who knows how many Gods, and Jesus was the Son of "a" man... which of course means there was no virgin birth.

As such, Christian theology would have slid right into the Roman pantheon of Gods, much like the Greek and Egyptian Gods were able to do.

It would have been a very different first century experience for the Christians indeed. As we might imagine some skeptics saying, had they been born at that time:

"...everything would be smooth sailing and a great deal of nonsense avoided.

But let's proceed:

The ’aberrant Arian translation’ is in point of fact the correct one.

It is certainly aberrant and incorrect, so I couldn't disagree more. If God is simply "a" God amongst an Arian pantheon of Gods, it begs the question how many Gods Arians have.

But as you said, that is another topic.

Agreed...I really wish I had more time as this would be an interesting topic to discuss in depth.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

Was Job God's chosen representative because notice where God's spirit is found at Job 27:3.

 

[Oeste]

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

As another poster stated recently:

If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13
And if that same Word is God. Jn.1:1, 14,18
Then Jesus is God

If God alone is to be worshiped
And if Jesus receives and accepts worship without any Biblical admonishment but full approval
Then Jesus is God.​

There's not getting over, around, or under it Blü

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.

Actually I’m just following scripture and I see nothing in your proof texts to counter this. As for following the rabbit trails and answering each verse independently, please refer to the OP.

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;

Yes, it could be shorthand for "a dog" but it isn't.

Once I tell you there is only ONE dog, that there has always been ONE dog, that there is no other dog but this ONE dog and that there never was nor will ever be any other dog but this dog and that there are no other dogs besides this dog then your “a dog” translation is meaningless because there is NOTHING “indefinite” about the noun, dog.

(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'.

It is impossible to have Sons of Gods when there is only one God. Your reading is not credible.

And yes, you're going to find many excuses and opportunities to insert multiple Gods when you grab hold of an Arian premise, but as a Trinitarian you have to wonder why they bother to dangle from the ledge.

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

“The son of ‘God A’ is ‘God A’” is not a premise Trinitarians espouse. It’s a couched argument for modalistic Monarchianism that you can certainly bring up with Oneness Pentecostals.

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.

That’s the point…Arians feel there are passages safe to ignore (or attack), while Trinitarians feel it’s unsafe to ignore any.

Look at the Arian translation here:

I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.There is no God except me (Isaiah 45:5 NWT)​

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god (John 1:1 NWT)​

Rather than explain (reconcile) such an obvious contradiction in their Christology, JW’s and other Arians will invariably point (proof-text) to some other scripture, like Psalm 82:6. So now Isaiah 45:6 becomes safe to ignore.

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

Jesus speaking from his perspective as God.

from

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

Jesus speaking from his perspective as man.

Neither contradicts in Trinitarian Christology but be forewarned: Your results with Arian Christology may vary.

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?

No deception. When Jesus did attempt to explain the Jews picked up stones to kill him, but it wasn’t his time yet.

Look, I suppose if there were some Arians traveling alongside Jesus they could have easily explained to the mob:

“Nothing to see here folks, Jesus never said he was God! Move along!!” because it’s certain neither Jesus nor any of his disciples did.​

You guys were just a few centuries too late.

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.

We've already shown the Trinity existed earlier. That's been put to bed. Now it's that the Trinity doctrine was understood differently. So now if the Trinity doctrine wasn't understood as it is now, somehow we can't believe the Trinity.

I'm always amazed and fascinated by the moving goal posts and high bar Arians set for Trinitarians. Does it extend to other fields as well?

For instance, if space travel and theories of propulsion wasn't understood 50 years ago as it is now, do you question whether there was space travel, or does your assertion only extend to the Trinity?

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

“God is not against reason, but above our reason?” Sure.
And “God’s ways are above our ways, and his thoughts above our thoughts?” Sure.

Both statements accord with scripture.

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.

Yes, you would.

Then there's a problem with modalism because Jesus never cried those words.

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.

Well I have no doubt it would have been smooth sailing for the pagans and heretics. I think we’ve given the Arians here ample opportunity to jump in and defend the Word of God but as you can see, they only ring in when they feel a little demolition might take place, hoping beyond hope that someone, anyone, at sometime, somewhere might be (or have been) able to detach the head of Jesus from his existing church body and custom fit it to their own.

 

[Oeste]

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

You can answer this yourself. If you can tell us why the son of frog would still be frog then you can tell us why the son of God would still be God.

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

Colossians 2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of Deity lives in bodily form”​

Note it’s not a “third or 300% of deity” as advocated by Blü and others, but the fullness of Deity. Not more than full Deity, nor less than full Deity…just “full” Deity.

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.

You are “proof-texting”. What’s missing here is any attempt to reconcile your understanding of this verse with other verses that specifically tell us of man has seen God.

1. (Gen. 17:1), “Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless;

2. (Gen. 18:1) Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.”

3. (Exodus 6:2-3), "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD; 3and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.”

4. (Exodus 24:9-11), “Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.”

5. (Num. 12:6-8), “He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. 7"Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; 8With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses ?"

6. (Acts 7:2), "And he [Stephen] said, 'Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran . . . '"​

You have several options here:

You can take a Blu styled approach and simply consider John 1:18 “safe to believe” and the following 6 verses here “safe to ignore” or

You can take the atheist viewpoint, and consider them all safe to ignore (“a nonsense”) or

You can distract by immediately pointing to or bringing up another verse (proof-text) or

You can exegete the text, reconciling all verses into one, consistent and homogeneous Christology.​

Trinitarians have chosen the latter.

 

[Oeste]

That does not work as an analogy because Koreans can be both men and mediators since men are often mediators.

Actually the analogy works because both are men and mediators. They are simply Korean-American 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.

Jesus has always been God (John 8:58) but at his incarnation he became a human being (John 1:14). There is no “exclusive” data set since Jesus operated from both a human (John 4:6) and divine (Mat 14:18-21) perspective. This shows a union, rather than exclusion of his Divine and human natures.

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.

Much like a man can reflect Korean attributes and bring a message from Korea, but a Korean cannot BECOME Korean-American because then the Korean would no longer BE Korean?

Your assertion runs counter to John 1:14

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
​

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

So a man mediates between two entities. He cannot BE the same as the entity that He mediated from?

I don't understand where you're getting this from. If a man has to be different than the entity he mediates from then there is no sense in having men mediate anything at all. No court system. No justice system. No branches of Congress. No United Nations, etc.

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.

That's not a problem at all. There has never been anything to "mediate" between God and God. The Father, Spirit and the Son get along perfectly.

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.

Exactly!!!

Jesus is both God and man!

You developed the right conclusion, the only problem I see is you used the wrong rationale.

 

[Oeste]

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.

That is unfortunate. Christians are not called upon to separate the wheat from the tare, so while I may consider your views heretical I would not personally label you a heretic. If I recall, not even Michael, the arch-angel, dare lay a charge against Satan but asked God to rebuke him (Jude 1:9)

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

I'm not sure what you mean here. Who speaks "through" God except God?

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

I just posted scripture stating "The Holy Spirit Hath said". If scripture tells you the Holy Spirit is speaking, why do you believe He is not?

Have you never gone to a foreign country and asked someone to speak for you, or to give your order to the store owner so that he can prepare your meal to specification?

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.

You believe God lives within space and time. God does not live within His creation, but His creation lives within Him.

What do you mean by “Person?”

In the Godhead? Each of the 3 persons of the Godhead, rather than the unity of the Godhead. Each person is able to speak, breathe, has a will, can think, etc.

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.

Through Acts. He indwells within the believer and seals them until redemption (Ephesians 1:13). He convicts the world and can even turn the unbeliever to Christ . He also makes intercession on our behalf:

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. He who searches hearts knows what is he mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Romans 8:26-27

And He provides fellowship in a hostile world:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:14)

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.

See above.

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.

How do you "grieve" (Ephesians 4:30) a "medium"? If I give you my bounty, and you dishonor me, has my bounty been grieved?

 

[Oeste]

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?

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

I've never “insulted”anyone by claiming they are not persons because they can’t talk, so why you would think I would offer such an insult to God is beyond me.

But if the Baha’i have developed a doctrine that someone needs to speak in audible voice in order to be considered a person, it's certainly a doctrine the Baha’i may want to reconsider.

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)

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

With all due respect Tony Bristow-Stagg, it just may be that I do not offer my respect as lightly as you do.

I appreciate your offer to speak my intentions, but I am fully capable of doing that on my own. If I had intended to offer no respect, I wouldn’t have taken the time to offer any, and if I wanted to offer sarcasm you and everyone here will know it…when I offer someone “respect” with quote marks.

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

No, It says the Holy Ghost spoke, not Agabus. The Spirit spoke through Agabus. If it was Agabus speaking it would simply read thusly:

“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: “In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and hand him over to the Gentiles.’”

Do you see the strike through we would have to ignore? “Thus saith the Holy Ghost” means it is not the prophet but the Holy Ghost that is speaking. It is the Spirit’s words, and not the prophet’s own. It's not a phrase or portion of scripture we can ignore.

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

Unfortunately I do not find any mention of Bahá’u’lláh or the Bahá'í Reference Library in any of the extant manuscripts.

Secondly I have been warned not to accept any gospel that differs from that of the apostles:

No Other Gospel

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

10Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1)

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.

I have no issue with your comment here, except I believe it’s important to note that the Spirit is not limited to speaking through an individual representative (read the book of Acts) and that the Spirit can speak "explicitly" as well as "implicitly":

Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. (Timothy 4:1-2)

And

“The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” Act 8:29​

Scripture (John 6:13) tells us the Spirit (Holy Ghost) is not an “it”:

“However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come.”

Spirit is a neuter noun so one would expect a neuter pronoun, except here we see the pronoun is masculine, not neuter. This construction, unusual in Greek (because of the aforementioned reason) combining “He” with “the Spirit” tells us that the “He” is a person and not simply a bounty one conveys, an “electrical force”, or some divine telephone wire with a speaker at the end.

Lastly, if there is any doubt, neither bounties, electrical forces, nor telephone wires can ever be said to “grieve” (Ephesians 4:30)

I’m just not sure how this can be any clearer but at least you provided context for your remarks.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Oeste said: You can answer this yourself. If you can tell us why the son of frog would still be frog then you can tell us why the son of God would still be God.

I am not into word games... I am all about the evidence.
I guess that means you have no scriptural evidence?

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

Oeste said: Colossians 2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of Deity lives in bodily form”

Note it’s not a “third or 300% of deity” as advocated by Blü and others, but the fullness of Deity. Not more than full Deity, nor less than full Deity…just “full” Deity.

Jesus adamantly denied being God and never once said He was God. How do you explain that? Do you think it is okay for the Church to override what Jesus said? One cherry picked verse from Paul won’t do because elsewhere Paul makes it clear that Jesus and God are separate entities (see end of my list).

You are “proof-texting”. What’s missing here is any attempt to reconcile your understanding of this verse with other verses that specifically tell us that Jesus is not God.

Jesus claimed to reveal God, Whom He called Father, but Jesus differentiated Himself from God:

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:

John 8:40 But now ye seek to slay me, a man that have spoken to you [the] truth, that I heard of God; Abraham did not this thing.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Jesus said that God was greater than He was:

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

How could Jesus pray to and go to the Father if Jesus WAS the God the Father?

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Moreover, Jesus said that no man has ever seen God:

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.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Jesus said He was from God and that God sent Him, again differentiating Himself from God:

John 17:3 And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

John 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

Jesus even stated specifically that the Father had knowledge which was not possessed by the Son.

Matthew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Jesus referred to Himself as a Prophet, and was so regarded. Jesus never referred to Himself as God.

Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

Luke 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

Jesus IS NOT God Bible Quotes... Continued:

2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

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

Hosea 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: 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.
Oeste said: Jesus has always been God (John 8:58) but at his incarnation he became a human being (John 1:14). There is no “exclusive” data set since Jesus operated from both a human (John 4:6) and divine (Mat 14:18-21) perspective. This shows a union, rather than exclusion of his Divine and human natures.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

That does not mean Jesus was God. It means that the soul of Jesus was preexistent in the spiritual world, a Baha’i belief:

(96) PRE-EXISTENCE - of Prophets
The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being. (Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

That means that the Word, God, was manifested in the flesh, not incarnated in the flesh. It means that when God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. That does not mean that God became flesh, but rather that the Attributes of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed God to humanity.

Trailblazer said: 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.

Oeste said: Much like a man can reflect Korean attributes and bring a message from Korea, but a Korean cannot BECOME Korean-American because then the Korean would no longer BE Korean?

Your assertion runs counter to John 1:14

Your analogy does not work because Koreans and Korean-Americans are like entities, because they are both humans. God and humans are not like entities and God cannot become a human.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

It means that when God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. That does not mean that God became flesh, but rather that the Attributes of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed God to humanity.

Trailblazer said: A mediator mediates between two entities. He cannot BE the same as the entity that He mediated from.
Oeste said: So a man mediates between two entities. He cannot BE the same as the entity that He mediated from?

I don't understand where you're getting this from. If a man has to be different than the entity he mediates from then there is no sense in having men mediate anything at all. No court system. No justice system. No branches of Congress. No United Nations, etc.

What are they mediating from and to? A mediator mediates between two entities. He cannot BE the same as the entity that He mediated from. There has to be something in between that is mediated.

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

Jesus mediates between God and man.
There are three entities here: (1) Jesus, (2) God, and (3) man.

Trailblazer said: 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.

Oeste said: That's not a problem at all. There has never been anything to "mediate" between God and God. The Father, Spirit and the Son get along perfectly.

All I can say is that this verse speaks for itself.

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

Trailblazer said: 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.

Oeste said: Exactly!!!
Jesus is both God and man!
You developed the right conclusion, the only problem I see is you used the wrong rationale.

No, Jesus is not both God and man. Nobody can be both God and man because God is UNLIKE man and man is UNLIKE God. Since they have a different nature, they have to be either God or man.

The third option is that they can be a hybrid, a God-man, and that is what Jesus was a Manifestation of God who was a different order of creation, above an ordinary man but below God. Jesus was made from the substance of God but He was not fully God because He was also human. In other words, Jesus had a twofold nature. Since God cannot communicate directly to man (no tie of direct intercourse) that is why we need a mediator. Jesus was a mysterious and ethereal being who was mediator... So Jesus was not FULLY God and FULLY man; Jesus was partly God and partly man. ½ God + ½ man = 1 Manifestation of God (Jesus).

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is....... The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.”” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: 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.

Oeste said: That is unfortunate. Christians are not called upon to separate the wheat from the tare, so while I may consider your views heretical I would not personally label you a heretic. If I recall, not even Michael, the arch-angel, dare lay a charge against Satan but asked God to rebuke him (Jude 1:9)

No, they should not do that... Jesus would not like people judging others, but they do it a lot on other forums... It is much better here, a whole new world.

Trailblazer said: It does not speak like a man speaks. It speaks through God.

Oeste said: I'm not sure what you mean here. Who speaks "through" God except God?

Rather I should have said that God speaks through the Holy Spirit, but I do not believe that God speaks directly to anyone else but Manifestations of God (Messengers/Prophets).

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

Oeste said: I just posted scripture stating "The Holy Spirit Hath said". If scripture tells you the Holy Spirit is speaking, why do you believe He is not?

Have you never gone to a foreign country and asked someone to speak for you, or to give your order to the store owner so that he can prepare your meal to specification?

Because I do not believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to ordinary men.

Trailblazer said: 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.

Oeste said: You believe God lives within space and time. God does not live within His creation, but His creation lives within Him.

I do not believe that God lives within space and time but rather that God is outside of time and space... Time as we know it on earth is measured by the sun; there is no sun in the spiritual world so there is no time as we know it. There is also no physical matter as we know it in the spiritual world so there are no geographical places. That means there can be no such places as heaven or hell, and those are states of the soul, distance and nearness to God, respectively.

More on this later if you are interested...

Trailblazer said: What do you mean by “Person?”

Oeste said: In the Godhead? Each of the 3 persons of the Godhead, rather than the unity of the Godhead. Each person is able to speak, breathe, has a will, can think, etc.

But how do those Persons communicate? The only one that I know of that can speak to us was the Son. I believe that God spoke to the Son through the Holy Spirit and the Son in turn spoke to humanity.

Trailblazer said: 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.

Oeste said: Through Acts. He indwells within the believer and seals them until redemption (Ephesians 1:13). He convicts the world and can even turn the unbeliever to Christ . He also makes intercession on our behalf:

I do not believe the Holy Spirit is indwelt. Intellectual subtleties and mental realities, such as intelligence, love, knowledge, imagination and thought, come about as a result of the Bounty of God which is the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit does not enter, nor come forth, nor descend, into a human body, but rather it has a direct connection to the human mind.

“But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable. This is through the help of the Holy Spirit which comes to man, and this is the condition in which certainty can alone be attained.” Some Answered Questions

So you are right that it helps us in our weakness but I do not know how that happens. The best I can say for now is that the Holy Spirit is God working to help us, the medium by which God helps us... Also, the Holy Spirit comes into the world whenever God sends a Messenger like Jesus...

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. He who searches hearts knows what is he mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Romans 8:26-27

And He provides fellowship in a hostile world:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:14)

And you have experienced this, or is this just what is written in verses?

Trailblazer said: 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.

Oeste said: How do you "grieve" (Ephesians 4:30) a "medium"? If I give you my bounty, and you dishonor me, has my bounty been grieved?

“And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.”

How do you grieve the holy Spirit of God? I am not sure what that verse means.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

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

Tony Bristow-Stagg said: Are you sure you wish to go with such a comparison between the Holy Spirit to offer an insult?

Oeste said: I've never “insulted”anyone by claiming they are not persons because they can’t talk, so why you would think I would offer such an insult to God is beyond me.

But if the Baha’i have developed a doctrine that someone needs to speak in audible voice in order to be considered a person, it's certainly a doctrine the Baha’i may want to reconsider.

I do not know how it communicates but according to the Baha'i Faith official scriptures below, it is the true method of comprehension:

“But the bounty of the Holy Spirit gives the true method of comprehension which is infallible and indubitable. This is through the help of the Holy Spirit which comes to man, and this is the condition in which certainty can alone be attained.” Some Answered Questions

By the way, that passage is from a chapter that compares other methods of comprehension which are fallible: 83 THE FOUR METHODS OF ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE

Oeste said: 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)

Tony Bristow-Stagg said: One should never use 'With all due respect', as it is then intended there is no respect.

Oeste said: With all due respect Tony Bristow-Stagg, it just may be that I do not offer my respect as lightly as you do.

I appreciate your offer to speak my intentions, but I am fully capable of doing that on my own. If I had intended to offer no respect, I wouldn’t have taken the time to offer any, and if I wanted to offer sarcasm you and everyone here will know it…when I offer someone “respect” with quote marks.

I did not take any offense. I use that expression a lot myself and I use it to convey respect.

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

Oeste said: 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

No, It says the Holy Ghost spoke, not Agabus. The Spirit spoke through Agabus. If it was Agabus speaking it would simply read thusly:

“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: “In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and hand him over to the Gentiles.’”

Do you see the strike through we would have to ignore? “Thus saith the Holy Ghost” means it is not the prophet but the Holy Ghost that is speaking. It is the Spirit’s words, and not the prophet’s own. It's not a phrase or portion of scripture we can ignore.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said: 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

Unfortunately I do not find any mention of Bahá’u’lláh or the Bahá'í Reference Library in any of the extant manuscripts.

Secondly I have been warned not to accept any gospel that differs from that of the apostles:

No Other Gospel

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

10Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1)

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The Baha’i Faith is not “another Gospel.” Only Jesus has a Gospel. The Baha’i Faith is a further Revelation from God, separate from the Bible, albeit connected, since there is only one religion of God.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said: 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.
Oeste said: I have no issue with your comment here, except I believe it’s important to note that the Spirit is not limited to speaking through an individual representative (read the book of Acts) and that the Spirit can speak "explicitly" as well as "implicitly":

Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. (Timothy 4:1-2)
And
“The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” Act 8:29

Scripture (John 6:13) tells us the Spirit (Holy Ghost) is not an “it”:

“However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come.”

Spirit is a neuter noun so one would expect a neuter pronoun, except here we see the pronoun is masculine, not neuter. This construction, unusual in Greek (because of the aforementioned reason) combining “He” with “the Spirit” tells us that the “He” is a person and not simply a bounty one conveys, an “electrical force”, or some divine telephone wire with a speaker at the end.

Lastly, if there is any doubt, neither bounties, electrical forces, nor telephone wires can ever be said to “grieve” (Ephesians 4:30)

I’m just not sure how this can be any clearer but at least you provided context for your remarks.

What is not clear to me is how the Holy Spirit communicates to all these people in the NT... I agree with Tony, that 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. So that could be what was happening in those verses... The Holy Spirit talked to Jesus and Jesus talked to their hearts and provided inspiration. I dunno, I am no Bible expert.

 

[syo]

A. If the Spirit and the Lord are two persons, then the Advocate (Spirit) could have come while the Lord was there.

no. while the lord is around, the advocate isn't needed.

 

[Muffled]

And yet there are millions who disagree with you and give biblical support

I believe I was not the one who said that; it must have been a quote from someone else. I would never say that.

 

[Muffled]

My spirit has generally been rum, though I also pay attention to whiskies these days ─ the world is an amazing place. But violations of the spirit indeed occur ─ slivovitz is an example.

I believe rum will not provide much truth but it might give you visions (hallucinations). It might also give fantasies as in that ugly girl sure looks beautiful.

 

[Muffled]

Both God and Jesus (and all angels) are in masculine gender, but God's spirit is neuter 'it' at Numbers 11:17,25.
No where in Scripture did I read God's spirit was in God's nose, or Jesus' nose, but rather in Job 27:3 nose.
I find some peoples bodies are male, some peoples bodies are female, being either a male or female person or body.

I believe that does not matter because God, Jesus and the Spirit are one. However if one wishes to get technical we are not male or female either because we are only inhabiting male or female bodies (I have done both) but we are still persons without the body just not hte same definition of person that includes the body.

I believe that qualifies as metaphorical so it doesn't mean much and the null hypothesis does not work.

 

[Muffled]

no. while the lord is around, the advocate isn't needed.

I believe need does not eliminate the possibility because God can be everywhere. I believe the Holy Spirit is always welcome but it would be a bit confusing to have both at the same time.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I believe that does not matter because God, Jesus and the Spirit are one. However if one wishes to get technical we are not male or female either because we are only inhabiting male or female bodies (I have done both) but we are still persons without the body just not hte same definition of person that includes the body.

Jesus is a flesh body and did not Jesus say 'the Flesh amounts to nothing'. Did not Jesus say 'why call me good there is none good but God'. Did not Jesus say 'not my will but Thy Will be done'.

Christ in the Station of the Son is what is One with God, Muhammad made this clear in the mid 600's with this passage;

People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a 'Trinity'—stop, that is better for you—God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.

— Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa), ayat 171

Islamic view of the Trinity - Wikipedia

Jesus was a Messenger from God. Christ in the Station of the Son was the Holy Spirit within Jesus.

It is that same Spirit that is in all of Gods Messengers/Prophets/Apostles.

Regards Tony

 

[blü 2]

I believe rum will not provide much truth but it might give you visions (hallucinations). It might also give fantasies as in that ugly girl sure looks beautiful.

Perhaps when I was learning about things of the spirit I made mistakes, but with experience, as the Romans wish they'd said, in rummo veritas.

 

[Oeste]

I am not into word games... I am all about the evidence.

I am not into word games... I am all about the evidence.

Not a word game but a simple exercise in logical deduction.

I look for consistency in assertions….yours as well as mine. If you can tell us why the son of frog would still be frog then you can tell us why the son of God would still be God. I see the evidence needed to sustain such a premise all around me.

On the other hand if, you can tell us why the son of frog would NOT be frog, then you can also tell us why the Son of God would NOT be God. However, for this premise you’ll need to produce your own evidence.

I guess that means you have no scriptural evidence?

So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21).

In other words the Son of bird is bird, not sea creature.

Colossians 2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of Deity lives in bodily form”
Note it’s not a “third or 300% of deity” as advocated by Blü and others, but the fullness of Deity. Not more than full Deity, nor less than full Deity…just “full” Deity.

Jesus adamantly denied being God and never once said He was God. How do you explain that?

I explain it by pointing out Jesus never “adamantly denied” being God, but for now you still need to explain Colossians 2:9 preferably through exegesis rather than proof texts.

Do you think it is okay for the Church to override what Jesus said?

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.

One cherry picked verse from Paul won’t do because elsewhere Paul makes it clear that Jesus and God are separate entities (see end of my list).

You are “proof-texting” again. I see this as an effort to distract or ignore the alleged “cherry picked” verse.

It doesn’t matter if a verse is “cherry picked”… even one “cherry picked” verse needs to be addressed and reconciled, not ignored or thrown in the trash. Under Trinitarian doctrine I don’t have to throw out a verse here or there nor point to other verses. Under Arian doctrine it appears you must.

You are “proof-texting”. What’s missing here is any attempt to reconcile your understanding of this verse with other verses that specifically tell us that Jesus is not God.

Not at all. I’m taking a flashlight and simply sticking it into some of our Arian friend’s best “proof texts” so that we can examine all the nooks and crannies.

 

[Oeste]

Jesus claimed to reveal God, Whom He called Father, but Jesus differentiated Himself from God:

Excellent Trailblazer! Something else we can agree on!! Of course, if Jesus is simply a “manifestation” there is no “differentiation” from the Father. In other words, once the manifestation becomes different from the Father it is no longer manifests the Father. It cannot possibly manifest the Father if it is different!

Jesus said that God was greater than He was:

He did Not say “God is greater than I”. He said “The Father is greater than I”.

Jesus is not the Father. At times Jesus will talk from his perspective as man as well as God.

How could Jesus pray to and go to the Father if Jesus WAS the God the Father?

A good question for Baha’i to answer. Remember, Trinitarians don’t claim Jesus is the Father nor that he's only the Father's manifestation.

Moreover, Jesus said that no man has ever seen God:

Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”

Exodus 33:11
So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle.

Consider reconciling (discussing) your assertion…”no man has seen God” with biblical verses that state otherwise. That way you avoid the appearance of "confirmation bias".

Jesus said He was from God and that God sent Him, again differentiating Himself from God:

So the manifestation from the Father is different from that sent by the Father? So how is it the Father's manifestation? If the manifestation is different from the one who sent it, then it is no longer the sender’s manifestation.

Jesus even stated specifically that the Father had knowledge which was not possessed by the Son.

You tell us Jesus is a manifestation of the Father. You tell us this manifestation consists of the “attributes” of the Father. You then state this manifestation, which consists of attributes of the Father is now different from the Father, which means Jesus has now developed a set of attributes that did not originate from the Father.

Now you point out this differentiated manifestation is short a few key attributes.

Quite simply, if Jesus is a manifestation of the Father and he’s short a few key attributes, like knowledge, then the Father is also short on a few key attributes, because Jesus is nothing but the Father’s manifestation!

Conversely, if Jesus is different from the Father then he is no longer a manifestation of the Father's attributes.

The Baha'i Christology is confusing.