The Divinity of Christ

[Oeste]

This takes us back to the original problem that the doctrine that Jesus is physically God incarnate is a man made doctrine using man made ideas and rules to support it.

Actually I think the Trinitarians posting here are showing, quite effectively, that not only is this doctrine supported by scripture, but unlike Arianism, consistently throughout scripture.

So while I recognise the authority and authenticity of biblical scripture, I do not recognise the authority of various church councils to create doctrine that has the same authority as scripture. It is simply man overstepping the bounds of propriety that God has given us.

And yet the authority to gather and arrive at consensus is found in scripture…the same scripture you recognize as authentic and authoritative. (Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 3:8-13).

Logic is in the eye of the beholder, and I say that because I believe you are sincere in your beliefs and what you say makes sense to you.

The solution is simple. We are all created in the image of God. (John 10:34)

However Jesus reflects the light God so perfectly and powerfully that He appears more than a man, and appears to be God like. He like a mirror that perfectly reflects the attributes of God.

Colossians 1:15 in regards to Jesus

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

John 5:19

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 8:28

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

You are preaching to the choir. Trinitarians readily accept Jesus could do nothing but what he saw the Father do, otherwise he could not have possibly led a life in full compliance with the law. We also readily accept Christ is the image of God. We were made in the image of God but unlike Jesus we are not the image of God because (a) we are not the Son of God and (b) we sin.

Christianity does not appear to be in great shape generally. The problem has been the impossibility of going against the Nicene creed. Consider Galileo and the hard time he had with the idea that the earth is not the centre of the universe. That was less that 400 years ago and he had science on his side. Luther had a hard time challenging conventions as well and look at the massive bloodshed that resulted.

The overwhelming problem with Jesus being physically God incarnate is the irrationality of fitting the God of the entire universe into one man. Its simply illogical and no reasonable man should feel obliged to accept this.

I really don’t see the Nicene Creed as the cause of Christianity’s problems, but I would agree making a logical argument against it from scripture is nigh near impossible.

Scripture confirm this problem:

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."

Acts 9:-8-9

Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

John 1:14

"The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Exodus 3:11

"Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend."

Isaiah 42:8

“I am the Lord, that is My Name; My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved idols."


As you can see, reconciling these verses are problematic for Arians but rather simple and straight forward for Trinitarians. Jesus is God in the flesh, 100% man and 100% God. Jesus' dual nature allows us to view God in the flesh, and not as another God or guy He gives glory to.

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.

The Son is not the Father, so this fits in perfectly with Trinitarian doctrine.

1 KIng 8:27

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Would you use this as your “proof text” to convince the Jews they were mistaken, and that God couldn’t have possibly dwelled in an ark or Tabernacle?

Would you also use this as “proof text” to show that God could not possibly have humbled Himself, and that Phil 2:8 is mistaken?

Or would you say nothing is impossible for God?


Matthew 19:26

But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Luke 1:37:

For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Malachi 3:6

For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 13:8

"Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

If we apply your literal exegesis rule to these scripture then Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate.

I think we've shown just the opposite.

A further problem is that you are playing with the English language. Jesus spoke Aramaic although He may have also spoken to His disciples in Greek. The first gospels were presumably written in Greek though the earliest fragments we have are two hundred years after He was crucified. The Greek was later translated into Latin and then later to English. Your arguments apply to the English language but the meaning is most likely altered in translation especially with the more symbolic verses where interpreters interpret according to their human understanding.

That doesn’t mean we don’t first translate according to the plain meaning of the text. That is the first approach, regardless of language.

Quite simply, if Aramic were a language where a symbolic rather than literal meaning is first applied then the people who spoke the language would never be able to communicate with each other. Instead there would be constant conjecture on the “deep” or "symbolic" meaning of each and every word written or spoken. In other words, “Nobody says what they mean when nobody means what they say.” The word of God becomes meaningless because everything stated can mean something else entirely.

We don't do that when we talk with each other. We don't do it when we pick up a magazine. We don't do it when we transcribe languages. Such an approach would be untenable so I see no need to employ such a method here.

Remember Being There? You look old enough:

 

[MJFlores]

Babylonia
“The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity” (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).

How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity

Malachi 2:10
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?

 

[Oeste]

Babylonia
“The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity” (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).

First you claim the Holy Spirit gets "quenched" when near Pergamum,

Then you assured us Trinitarian doctrine was first taught at Nicaea in 325 AD although you have absolutely no idea who Arius was.

Next you illustrate Tritheism which isn't Trinitarian at all and then you quote Thomas Dennis Rock, a non-Trinitarian Arian who declared "the scarlet Beast of Revelation" to be none other than Napoleon Bonaparte of France!

Unfortunately you forgot to mention Rock also thought Napoleon's nephew was the "8th or resurrection seventh head of the Apocalyptic Wild Beast" ..."the Beast that was, and is not, and yet is"'.

​

 

[Dawnofhope]

Maybe we are approaching this wrong...

My name is Dad, Ken, Son, Brother Friend.

Thats reasonable

What if Jesus is God but when birthed into a human casing received the title Son of God and yet representing 100% man became the son of man?

This is an example of the intellectual contortions that are required to turn Jesus into God.

What if Jesus isn't God, but has a great and unique relationship with God that He becomes a mediator between God and man, In this manner He is given the designation "Son of God" and the "son of man."

I think it is a possibility because there are other scriptures:

Matt 1:23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Establishes Jesus as "Son of God."

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 14:
7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Only John uses this language, not the other gospel writers. The Word or Logos, could refer to a mediator.

The meaning of logos can be understood in a myriad of ways:

John may have been referring to Philo's perspective of the Logos:

Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE), a Greek Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."

Did John believe that Jesus was God? I doubt it. Especially when we consider some other words of John about Jesus.

1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time
John 5:19 The Son can do nothing of Himself
John 7:29 He sent me
John 8:28 My Father taught me
John 12:49-50 as the father told me
John 14:28 My father is greater than I

 

[MJFlores]

First you claim the Holy Spirit gets "quenched" when near Pergamum,

Then you assured us Trinitarian doctrine was first taught at Nicaea in 325 AD although you have absolutely no idea who Arius was.

Next you illustrate Tritheism which isn't Trinitarian at all and then you quote Thomas Dennis Rock, a non-Trinitarian Arian who declared "the scarlet Beast of Revelation" to be none other than Napoleon Bonaparte of France!

Unfortunately you forgot to mention Rock also thought Napoleon's nephew was the "8th or resurrection seventh head of the Apocalyptic Wild Beast" ..."the Beast that was, and is not, and yet is"'.

View attachment 17285
​

Napoleon Bonaparte of France is the Beast?

Anyways, the Beast is an off topic issue.
It would be nice if someone would open that topic so it could be studied in depth.

Redirect: Let us go back to the alleged divinity of Christ...but you gave me an idea, let us include the antichrist which is really the "beast".

2 John 7 New King James Version (NKJV)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

In other versions of the Bible these are recorded:

CEB
Common English Bible - Wikipedia
Many deceivers have gone into the world who do not confess that Jesus Christ came as a human being. This kind of person is the deceiver and the antichrist.


CJB
Messianic Bible translations - Wikipedia
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do not acknowledge Yeshua the Messiah’s coming as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an anti-Messiah.

ERV
Easy-to-Read Version - Wikipedia
Many false teachers are in the world now. They refuse to say that Jesus Christ came to earth and became a man. Anyone who refuses to accept this fact is a false teacher and the enemy of Christ.

EXB
Expanded Bible (EXB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com
[L For] Many ·false teachers [deceivers] ·are in [L have gone out into] the world now [Mark 13:5–6, 22] who do not confess that Jesus Christ came to earth ·as a human [T in the flesh]. Anyone who does not confess this is ·a false teacher [L the deceiver] and ·an enemy of Christ [L the antichrist;C one who radically opposes Christ; 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3].

GNT
Good News Bible - Wikipedia
Many deceivers have gone out over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and the Enemy of Christ.

Now that is the Enemy of Christ - the Beast is one of the Antichrists. If you find yourself in the other side, it is recommendable to switch sides before the end of life or end of the world. Your soul, your choice.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You say the rhyme is harmless and want Little Johnny to read it in class but someone shrewdly points out that nowhere in the nursery book does it tell us we have to interpret the rhyme at face value, in the same manner you pointed out (in red) above.

We take the plain, face value of the text first. Any other meaning to the text becomes secondary. If the plain face value of the text makes no sense then we are free to apply another sense to it, not before. Otherwise even my response to you now will not say what it means and will not mean what it says.

We can not compare the inspired word of God to nursery rhymes. It is irreverent IMHO to compared the two.

Sacred texts are filled with hidden intrinsic meanings. They are not nursey rhymes and or even history books for that matter.

Jesus spoke using parables. Why?

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Matthew 13:9-16

Jesus spoke in this manner to convey spiritual truths and so it is likely that the gospel writers and apostles would take a similar approach.

If you take scripture literally you will believe the earth was literally created in six days, six thousand years ago. That did not happen and to see that as being the central message of the creation story of Genesis would be to entirely miss the point. The first nine chapters of genesis are allegory but if you take it as a literal story you collide with irrefutable sciencific proof most of it couldn't have happened.

 

[Dawnofhope]

for me the best way is the Trinity and the coming of Christ in this world.

Thanks for sharing. This is the best explanation of the trinity I have found to date:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 113-115

 

[Dawnofhope]

Actually I think the Trinitarians posting here are showing, quite effectively, that not only is this doctrine supported by scripture, but unlike Arianism, consistently throughout scripture.

The Nicene Creed appears holy on account of the holes in its constitution, not its Holiness. However I'm not arguing for Arianism. I'm arguing against a set of man made doctrines that have the same authority as the sacred text itself. Had Arius won, it would have probably been an equally problematic set of doctrines proposed. The whole council had the Emporer Constatine presiding over it after all.

Jesus being a perfect reflection of the Divine attributes and virtues makes sense. Jesus being God in the flesh doesn't.

And yet the authority to gather and arrive at consensus is found in scripture…the same scripture you recognize as authentic and authoritative. (Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 3:8-13).

You are reading too much into these verses. They didn't give the Deacons and elders the authority to interpret sacred scripture and become partners with God.

You are preaching to the choir. Trinitarians readily accept Jesus could do nothing but what he saw the Father do, otherwise he could not have possibly led a life in full compliance with the law. We also readily accept Christ is the image of God. We were made in the image of God but unlike Jesus we are not the image of God because (a) we are not the Son of God and (b) we sin.

Agreed.

I really don’t see the Nicene Creed as the cause of Christianity’s problems, but I would agree making a logical argument against it from scripture is nigh near impossible.

The Nicene Creed is not the cause of Christianities problems but symptomatic of it. Of course a logical argument can be made against the Nicene Creed. The belief that it is impossible is yet another symptom of how entrenched Christianity remains in a bygone era.

Acts 9:-8-9

Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

John 1:14

"The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Exodus 3:11

"Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend."

Isaiah 42:8

“I am the Lord, that is My Name; My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved idols."


As you can see, reconciling these verses are problematic for Arians but rather simple and straight forward for Trinitarians. Jesus is God in the flesh, 100% man and 100% God. Jesus' dual nature allows us to view God in the flesh, and not as another God or guy He gives glory to.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Regardless I'm not an Arain, but a Baha'i.

The Son is not the Father, so this fits in perfectly with Trinitarian doctrine.

In admitting that distinction you have two Gods.

Would you use this as your “proof text” to convince the Jews they were mistaken, and that God couldn’t have possibly dwelled in an ark or Tabernacle?

Would you also use this as “proof text” to show that God could not possibly have humbled Himself, and that Phil 2:8 is mistaken?

Or would you say nothing is impossible for God?


Matthew 19:26

But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Luke 1:37:

For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Just because God can do something does not mean He has done something. If He says He hasn't done something then I believe Him. He has clearly indicated He is not God in the flesh and that is the prupose of the scripture I have quoted.

Hebrews 13:8

"Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

The spiritual reality perhaps. The physical reality in all certainty not. You are making my argument for me. Did Jesus not begin His physical life in Mary's womb and grow and develop....and change!?

I think we've shown just the opposite.

I think you have demonstrated how problematic a belief in Jesus as God in the flesh really is.

That doesn’t mean we don’t first translate according to the plain meaning of the text. That is the first approach, regardless of language.

Quite simply, if Aramic were a language where a symbolic rather than literal meaning is first applied then the people who spoke the language would never be able to communicate with each other. Instead there would be constant conjecture on the “deep” or "symbolic" meaning of each and every word written or spoken. In other words, “Nobody says what they mean when nobody means what they say.” The word of God becomes meaningless because everything stated can mean something else entirely.

We don't do that when we talk with each other. We don't do it when we pick up a magazine. We don't do it when we transcribe languages. Such an approach would be untenable so I see no need to employ such a method here.

Remember Being There? You look old enough:

People say what they mean, but sacred texts communicate spiritual meaning that can be interpreted according the man's limited understanding. The Jews failed to recognise Jesus as they interpreted their texts literally. They expected the Messiah to literally rule on the throne of King David and for Elijah to literally return first. Neither happened literally but they did happen.

 

[Oeste]

Anyways, the Beast is an off topic issue.
It would be nice if someone would open that topic so it could be studied in depth.
Redirect: Let us go back to the alleged divinity of Christ ...but you gave me an idea, let us include the antichrist which is really the "beast".

I don't see why you'd want to "redirect" when you've directed us to so many unrelated things before.

You brought up Pergamum and suggested the Spirit is quenched there. You brought up Nicea and claimed the Trinity started there. Then you stated you had no idea who Arius was and suggested anyone who doesn't agree with you might be demonized. Then you illustrated Tritheism and attempted to equate it with the Trinity. Then you quoted Thomas Dennis Rock who believed Napoleon Bonaparte was the scarlet beast of Revelation, and now you want to "redirect" when we've already been directed to and fro, here and there, up down and all around with each and every post!

I'm afraid reading your posts for biblical perspectives would be a lot like reading the Weekly World for news. . It just can't be done.

 

[Oeste]

We can not compare the inspired word of God to nursery rhymes. It is irreverent IMHO to compared the two.

But I haven't compared the two. The only thing I've discussed is how to interpret, not compare the two passages.

Sacred texts are filled with hidden intrinsic meanings. They are not nursey rhymes and or even history books for that matter.

Agreed, but we employ the same method of interpretation which allows us to analyze whatever we are reading. We are both doing that now.

For example, you are reading this and unless you are paranoid are not packing it full of hidden intrinsic meanings.

Certainly you would not reach for a hidden intrinsic meaning ahead of its clear text meaning unless you were paranoid, or unless I specifically told you there could be a double or symbolic meaning.

Jesus spoke using parables. Why?

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Matthew 13:9-16

Jesus spoke in parables, but he did not always speak in parables. When he spoke in parables he would preface the parable with something like the following: "Look, I tell you a parable". Oft times he would explain the parable immediately. The explanation was not another parable.

Jesus spoke in this manner to convey spiritual truths and so it is likely that the gospel writers and apostles would take a similar approach.

There are always good uses for parables. But unless the author specifically tells us he's about to engage in a parable there is no need to imply one.

If you take scripture literally you will believe the earth was literally created in six days, six thousand years ago. That did not happen and to see that as being the central message of the creation story of Genesis would be to entirely miss the point. The first nine chapters of genesis are allegory but if you take it as a literal story you collide with irrefutable sciencific proof most of it couldn't have happened.

I'm discussing the approach we use to interpret text. The text could be a newspaper article, this post, the bible, or whatever but our approach should be literal first and symbolic or allegorical next, unless the author of the text indicates otherwise.

Sometimes two different meanings can be obtained. That's fine, but if you're meaning is strictly symbolic (and the author hasn't indicated by word or medium that it is) then the literal interpretation is always going to take precedence. It's simply how we as humans understand language, and Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew are no different.

 

[MJFlores]

I don't see why you'd want to "redirect" when you've directed us to so many unrelated things before.

You brought up Pergamum and suggested the Spirit is quenched there. You brought up Nicea and claimed the Trinity started there. Then you stated you had no idea who Arius was and suggested anyone who doesn't agree with you might be demonized. Then you illustrated Tritheism and attempted to equate it with the Trinity. Then you quoted Thomas Dennis Rock who believed Napoleon Bonaparte was the scarlet beast of Revelation, and now you want to "redirect" when we've already been directed to and fro, here and there, up down and all around with each and every post!

I'm afraid reading your posts for biblical perspectives would be a lot like reading the Weekly World for news. . It just can't be done.

View attachment 17291​

"Then you quoted Thomas Dennis Rock who believed Napoleon Bonaparte was the scarlet beast of Revelation"

Who is Thomas Dennis Rock? Maybe it is from someone else. Did not come from yours truly. Napoleon Bonaparte never crossed my mind. The Beast of Revelation is different from Napoleon.

It is true that the Devil has his throne in Pergamum and lives there. How can we deny the words of God written in the Bible? The Revelation of Jesus Christ himself?

Because I believe that there is only one true God, the Father, thus, Jesus is not the true God, but the Son of the one true God. The Lord Jesus Christ Hiself explicitly proclaimed that the father alone is the true God and He is the Son of the one true God, whom the Father has sent:

“Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You...

“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:1,3 NKJV)

To attain eternal life is to believe that the Father is the only true God, and Jesus is the one sent by the one true God. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself attests that He is indeed a man in nature:

“As it is, you are determined to kill me, A MAN WHO HAS TOLD YOU THE TRUTH that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.” (John 8:40 NIV, emphasis mine).

The Bible clearly tells us that “God is not man” and “man is not God”:

“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 come in wrath.” (Hosea 11:9 ASV,emphasis mine)

“Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyre, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet THOU ART MAN, AND NOT GOD, though thou didst set thy heart as the heart of God.” (Ezekiel 28:2 ASV, emphasis mine)

Thus, I and the others reject the teaching that Christ is God.

That teaching that Christ is God is the devil's teaching that even you have a hard time explaining. It is confusing like the devil is confusing.

 

[Oeste]

Jesus being a perfect reflection of the Divine attributes and virtues makes sense. Jesus being God in the flesh doesn't.

Well you yourself made the following point:

Scripture confirm this problem:

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."

If Jesus is "a perfect reflection of the Divine attributes and virtues" then no human should have been able to approach him anymore than they were able to approach the Father or enter the inner sanctum. Your Christology needs to resolve this.

You are reading too much into these verses. They didn't give the Deacons and elders the authority to interpret sacred scripture and become partners with God.

For a particular, individual church it does. It also lays a framework on how various churches can reach consensus. I agree it does not lay the foundation for a global "Governing Board" as the Jehovah Witnesses see it, where all churches must agree to a group of self appointed men who chase after "flashes of light".

The head of the Christian church is, after all, Christ, and if he has us (the body) chasing after every shiny object then we're all in a lot of trouble.

The Nicene Creed is not the cause of Christianities problems but symptomatic of it. Of course a logical argument can be made against the Nicene Creed. The belief that it is impossible is yet another symptom of how entrenched Christianity remains in a bygone era.

We see through a glass darkly now so no one has full truth, but based on the scripture we have in our bible I am not aware of any Christology that can reconcile all Jesus' claims to divinity as does the Trinity.

The discussion between KenS and MJFlores exemplifies the problem for Non-Trinitarians. KenS gives a scripture and rather then address the scripture the immediate response is to point to another scripture. No attempt is made to address or reconcile the scripture given by KenS.

Arians appear to resolve the issue by stating their are conflicts in scripture, or as in the case of Jehovah Witnesses, they simply add to scripture, like the word [other] which doesn't even appear in brackets anymore in the latest NWT and is completely missing from any manuscript we have at present.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Regardless I'm not an Arain, but a Baha'i.

Not a problem. I'm using Arian in it's broadest, "4th century and after" context. It applies to Non-Trinitarians and/or those who believe Christ was created.

In admitting that distinction you have two Gods.

Not at all. I'm admitting to at least two persons, not two Gods. A couple is two persons but one couple. If I admit Harry is not Jane that does not mean I'm admitting to two couples. It means I am admitting to one. And when I say the Triune God is 3 persons I am not admitting to 3 Gods but one.

Just because God can do something does not mean He has done something. If He says He hasn't done something then I believe Him. He has clearly indicated He is not God in the flesh and that is the prupose of the scripture I have quoted.

Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Hebrews 13:8

"Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

The spiritual reality perhaps. The physical reality in all certainty not. You are making my argument for me. Did Jesus not begin His physical life in Mary's womb and grow and develop....and change!?

I am making a Trinitarian argument. I am also showing why Trinitarian is superior to Arian Christology. Jesus also stated:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." (1 Cor 13:11)​

If "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever" applied to his spiritual reality then he never would have reasoned and thought as a child. They are simply too spiritually immature.

Trinitarianism resolves the issue, I don't see how your Christology does.

People say what they mean, but sacred texts communicate spiritual meaning that can be interpreted according the man's limited understanding. The Jews failed to recognise Jesus as they interpreted their texts literally. They expected the Messiah to literally rule on the throne of King David and for Elijah to literally return first. Neither happened literally but they did happen.

Then you are demonstrating exactly what I've been saying all along. They first applied a literal, plain text meaning to the prophesies. They didn't immediately jump into allegorical or symbolic meanings.

In any event, they concentrated on any verse that showed the Messiah a conquering king but ignored or puzzled those that showed him suffering (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22). It reminds me of those that concentrate on verses that show Jesus as man while puzzling or ignoring those showing Jesus as God. (John 1:1, John 1:14, John 5:18).

The International Standard and Jubilee bibles quote the next verse best:

"Therefore I said unto you that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye do not believe that I AM , ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)

Most versions have it "...for if ye do not believe that I am He"... but there is no "He" found in the Greek manuscripts.

 

[Oeste]

Next you illustrate Tritheism which isn't Trinitarian at all and then you quote Thomas Dennis Rock, a non-Trinitarian Arian who declared "the scarlet Beast of Revelation" to be none other than Napoleon Bonaparte of France!

Unfortunately you forgot to mention Rock also thought Napoleon's nephew was the "8th or resurrection seventh head of the Apocalyptic Wild Beast" ..."the Beast that was, and is not, and yet is"'.

Who is Thomas Dennis Rock? Maybe it is from someone else. Did not come from yours truly.

You're kidding us, right? Do you simply cut and paste and not read the articles or vet the people you post???

Here is the article YOU POSTED from Thomas Dennis Rock:

“The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god— as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity” (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).

Geesh!

 

[MJFlores]

You're kidding us, right? Do you simply cut and paste and not read the articles or vet the people you post???

Here is the article YOU POSTED from Thomas Dennis Rock:

Geesh!

Ah that Thomas Dennis Rock!

Well its about the Babylonian Trinity.
They had it and now you have it.

 

[Muffled]

Something being scripturally sound is entirely dependent upon what was first assumed to be scripture in the first place, right? If you determine that Christ was, in fact, not deitic, then what is and what is not scripturally sound becomes totally different, doesn't it?


Pick a topic

I believe there is no assumption. The Holy Spirit led the church to accept valid texts and to not accept invalid texts.

I believe those believing He wasn't divine already did not have the Holy Spirit and any text they supported contrary to scripture only reinforces that fact.

I believe you already did, the deity of Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

My name is Dad, Ken, Son, Brother Friend.

What if Jesus is God but when birthed into a human casing received the title Son of God and yet representing 100% man became the son of man?

Thats reasonable

This is an example of the intellectual contortions that are required to turn Jesus into God.

Wow! That's quite a statement. In the interest of discussion (which I thought it was your intent) I'm harmonizing all scriptures to the best of my ability without simply dismissing scriptures that appear to speak of Jesus as God as if they didn't exist. Your definition of no dismissing scriptures is "intellectual contortions"?

What if Jesus isn't God, but has a great and unique relationship with God that He becomes a mediator between God and man, In this manner He is given the designation "Son of God" and the "son of man."

Ok.. (in the interest of discussion). Then who was Jesus? What was Jesus? How did he come into being? How is it that "Emmanuel-God with us) is then translated into "son of God" as you mentioned?

Only John uses this language, not the other gospel writers. The Word or Logos, could refer to a mediator.

The meaning of logos can be understood in a myriad of ways:

John may have been referring to Philo's perspective of the Logos:

Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE), a Greek Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."

If so... "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, The Word was God"--God, of course being, Theos or God.

In the beginning was the mediator, (fits fine here)
The mediator was with God, (still good)
The mediator was God (broke down here)

When a Theory is presented and you find that it does not work, one must go back to the drawing board.

If so... "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, The Word was God"
Did John believe that Jesus was God? I doubt it. Especially when we consider some other words of John about Jesus.

1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time
John 5:19 The Son can do nothing of Himself
John 7:29 He sent me
John 8:28 My Father taught me
John 12:49-50 as the father told me
John 14:28 My father is greater than I

Again, this is great but I have to reconcile with the other scriptures:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 14:
7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

There would still be questions to be answered if I were to simply hold to your position

However, (at this point), my position seems to remain part of the whole of the puzzle.

As The Word, He is God in the fullest sense.
By coming through a woman, He received the title Son of Man
By resurrecting He became the Son of God.

 

[Muffled]

That's not an argument and doesn't add anything to the discussion, other than to say we have different beliefs and you declaring yours to be real, and mine to be imaginary.



So show me the evidence that says Jesus is physically "Son of God?" You won't be able to find any of course because it is an unprovable belief.

As previously stated I believe Jesus is the "Son of God" but it can not possibly be physical like we have children, as we are applying human concepts to God.

If the absence of a human father was a sign of greatness, then Adam must be even greater, as Adam had neither a father or mother. This of course makes no sense. A much more plausible explanation is that the greatness of Jesus is because He reflects the Divine perfections or qualities to an extraordinary degree.



How can Jesus be "more than God?" Are you not satisfied to have Him as God in the flesh? Now He needs to be even greater!



So what are the arguments one way or the other?



Al least you are considering the historic circumstances and how that might have constrained Jesus. However these circumstances did not prevent Him from claiming to be the "Son of God." (John 3:16)



It works both ways though. I would argue that the problem arose in the first place because the early Christians enshrined their misunderstanding of the divinity of Christ into Doctrine. There is good historical evidence to support that view that is universally accepted (How the Nicene creed came about and the associated Arian controversy.) The paucity of your arguments only weakens your position and strengthens mine.

I believe it is only a debate if you don't accept my statement and that appears to be so, however you have not seen fit to explain how symbolism is involved and how you manage to discount the accounts that say Jesus is real and not just symbolic.

Here you go:
Luke 1:31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

I believe when God is in a body He has human attributes. So your reasoning is not correct.

I believe I never said anything about Jesus not having a father.

I believe Jesus reflects the greatness of God because He is God.

I believe you are thinking of greatness as admirable qualities whereas I am thinking in material terms. Jesus is equal in all the admirable qualities but He has a material body as well which is something the Father does not have.

There is a verse that says that Jesus is an intercessor which in a sense is an intermediary. However this is not based on Jesus having a different spirit but is based on the fact that God is present in the body which is able to speak and do things whereas the Father does not have that ability.

I believe it means the same thing with one exception ie that it has the reality that the body is not God.

I believe that only works if you can prove it is a misunderstanding. I believe it is your position that is the misunderstanding. I believe the majority of Biblical scholars got it right.

I believe you think that but I do not perceive any such thing. My arguments are rational but yours are not.

 

[Muffled]

The biggest tests that Christians will face is from other Christians no doubt.

Jesus anticipated that there would be false teachings amidst the true teachings.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Matthew 13:24-30

It is harvest time so I have been instructed to gather and wheat, and burn the tares. The doctrine that Jesus is physically God incarnate belongs in the fire.

I believe that is a self congratulating attribution that is not based in reality. It is people who go into the fire but only if they have not accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. I believe that is all that is needed and that there will be a myriad of people with false concepts and doctrines saved from the fire.

 

[Oeste]

The biggest tests that Christians will face is from other Christians no doubt.

Jesus anticipated that there would be false teachings amidst the true teachings.

Agreed.

.
...Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. Matthew 13:24-30

It is harvest time so I have been instructed to gather and wheat, and burn the tares. The doctrine that Jesus is physically God incarnate belongs in the fire.

That's interesting but I would consider it a false teaching. Christians have not been instructed to gather wheat and burn tares. That task (reaping) is left for the angels (Revelation 14:14-19).

 

[Dawnofhope]

I enjoyed the clip from 'Being there' so thanks for sharing.

I think its important to acknowledge that you are engaging with this debate thoughtfully, sincerely and with references to scripture although we clearly have different perspectives on the Divinity of Christ.

But I haven't compared the two. The only thing I've discussed is how to interpret, not compare the two passages.

Agreed, but we employ the same method of interpretation which allows us to analyze whatever we are reading. We are both doing that now.

For example, you are reading this and unless you are paranoid are not packing it full of hidden intrinsic meanings.

Certainly you would not reach for a hidden intrinsic meaning ahead of its clear text meaning unless you were paranoid, or unless I specifically told you there could be a double or symbolic meaning.

It is important to realise that sacred texts are an entirely different proposition to other literature. Parables is one example, apocalyptic writing is another. The Olivet discourse, Daniel and Revelations are good examples of style of biblical writing. It is important to recognise the spiritual inspiration of the writers of the gospels and apostles.

For example Paul's experience of Jesus was a mystical one. He wrote:

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
2 Corinthians 12:1-4

There was something quite profound and intoxicating about the experiences of the early believers. Another example is at Pentecost Peter refers to Joel:
For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Acts 2:15-17

So even the style of writing of the NT author is influenced by these spiritual forces.

Jesus spoke in parables, but he did not always speak in parables. When he spoke in parables he would preface the parable with something like the following: "Look, I tell you a parable". Oft times he would explain the parable immediately. The explanation was not another parable.

I think we need discernment in how we view scripture.

The point I'm making is that there are excellent reasons to view 'Son of God' and 'son of man' figuratively rather than literally. The phrase Son of God is used 30 + times and 'son of man' 80+ times throughout the gospels. There is no good reason why we should interpret these specific phrases literally.

Here is another puzzle for you. Jesus when asked how many times we should forgive others, replied seven times seventy times.

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
Matthew 18:21-22

Should we take this literally or symbolically?

I'm discussing the approach we use to interpret text. The text could be a newspaper article, this post, the bible, or whatever but our approach should be literal first and symbolic or allegorical next, unless the author of the text indicates otherwise.

Sometimes two different meanings can be obtained. That's fine, but if you're meaning is strictly symbolic (and the author hasn't indicated by word or medium that it is) then the literal interpretation is always going to take precedence. It's simply how we as humans understand language, and Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew are no different.

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Matthew 24:29-30

Literal or symbolic?

If Jesus is "a perfect reflection of the Divine attributes and virtues" then no human should have been able to approach him anymore than they were able to approach the Father or enter the inner sanctum. Your Christology needs to resolve this.

The Divine attributes and virtues are not the literal image of God.

Remember no one has seen God at any time...EVER

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18

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

For a particular, individual church it does. It also lays a framework on how various churches can reach consensus. I agree it does not lay the foundation for a global "Governing Board" as the Jehovah Witnesses see it, where all churches must agree to a group of self appointed men who chase after "flashes of light".

The head of the Christian church is, after all, Christ, and if he has us (the body) chasing after every shiny object then we're all in a lot of trouble.

I don't want to start criticising denominations. Suffice it to say there is no justification in any scripture that supports the authority of the Nicene Creed.

We see through a glass darkly now so no one has full truth, but based on the scripture we have in our bible I am not aware of any Christology that can reconcile all Jesus' claims to divinity as does the Trinity.

Heard of a Divine mystery? It didn't need reconciliation.

The discussion between KenS and MJFlores exemplifies the problem for Non-Trinitarians. KenS gives a scripture and rather then address the scripture the immediate response is to point to another scripture. No attempt is made to address or reconcile the scripture given by KenS.

There is no uniformity between either Trinitarians or non-Trinitarians. The fact that there are concerns across a broad spectrum of beliefs says a lot. It doesn't require reconciliation. Regardless, the most helpful writing I have come across from my own faith.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 113-115

Arians appear to resolve the issue by stating their are conflicts in scripture, or as in the case of Jehovah Witnesses, they simply add to scripture, like the word [other] which doesn't even appear in brackets anymore in the latest NWT and is completely missing from any manuscript we have at present.

Not a problem. I'm using Arian in it's broadest, "4th century and after" context. It applies to Non-Trinitarians and/or those who believe Christ was created.

Not at all. I'm admitting to at least two persons, not two Gods. A couple is two persons but one couple. If I admit Harry is not Jane that does not mean I'm admitting to two couples. It means I am admitting to one. And when I say the Triune God is 3 persons I am not admitting to 3 Gods but one.

Therein lies the problem. You have the Father and Jesus being distinct, you call them both God, and then say they are One. Say it long enough and I suppose you just end up overlooking the obvious contradiction.

Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

God with us - a figurative designation rather than interpreted literally.

Isaiah 9:5-6 refers to the second coming or Returned Christ. There is no government of Christ's shoulders and He did not bring world peace as envisaged elsewhere in Isaiah.

I am making a Trinitarian argument. I am also showing why Trinitarian is superior to Arian Christology. Jesus also stated:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." (1 Cor 13:11)
If "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever" applied to his spiritual reality then he never would have reasoned and thought as a child. They are simply too spiritually immature.

Trinitarianism resolves the issue, I don't see how your Christology does.

You lose me here.

Then you are demonstrating exactly what I've been saying all along. They first applied a literal, plain text meaning to the prophesies. They didn't immediately jump into allegorical or symbolic meanings.

And the Jews still cling to the literal meaning as you do for verses to justify the Jesus as God in the Flesh.