Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I never mentioned Phil. 2. I'm talking about the resurrection accounts and the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew (which, btw, are part of possibly the earliest source material in the NT). Both allude to Jesus' Divinity.
Regardless of how you view the texts, your issue wasn't, "Is the bible reliable with regard to Jesus' Divinity," but rather, "The bible doesn't say Jesus was God." I've pointed out that historic, cultural and textual criticism show that the texts do, in fact, by their very nature, allude to Jesus' Divinity. Even if -- especially if -- the understanding was the Judaic "Jesus was first to rise from Sheol" (which it patently isn't, BTW), because any form of resurrection -- especially in Judaic thought -- constituted an admission of Divinity.
It talks about Jesus' resurrection and Ascension, both of which constitute an identification of divine status.
I'm Not. Talking. About. Prophecy. I'm Not. Talking. About. Isaiah. I'm talking about Matthew and Luke. Luke, especially, is a direct plagiarism of the story of Augustus, and has very little to do with Isaiah. The birth narrative of Augustus is the birth story of a god-man. It is of a type of literature that commonly describes the birth of god-men. Therefore, Luke's narrative describes Jesus as a God-man. To borrow a phrase from you: GOT THAT? The SIGN is that Jesus is DIVINE.
Your exegetical skills belong in a kindergarten. Of course the Jews were waiting for a human being. But we're not talking about "what the Jews expected."
Again -- It. Doesn't. Matter. It's still in the bible. And that's the argument: Jesus' divinity is outlined in the bible.
This idea you have is in error. First you don't vote into existence an idea. What the vote in the 4th century was was to make the Trinity formulation the official church stance over the other formulations about the nature of the divine that were out there. The Trinity formulation in the form we have today took shape around the beginning of 3rd century with Tertullian, who was refining the Threefold nature of God that began to be spoken of at the end of the 2nd century. So, your statement it was "voted into existence" is misleading and wrong.
You believe they went astray? Are you a theologian? Do you think just surface readings of the text which touch upon such mysteries as the nature of the divine being can be penetrated and fathomed with "common sense logic" of the average lay person?
Let's see "common sense logic" be applied to understanding something that's not even religious in nature, such as "explain infinity". Using common sense logic, describe infinity and let's see if if inherent contradictions don't begin to emerge. What strikes me as funny here is that I've been involved in a discussion in another thread here where the fundamentalists read the Bible in such ways that reflect their own points of view, not able to recognize how others have different points of views reading the exact same verses. The typical response from them is, "It's not me saying this, it's the Bible!". They fail to understand that the Bible says only what we can see, what we are able to interpret from it based upon our own subjective filters which entail culture, language, education, maturity, cognitive development, spiritual development, and so forth. What I hear you saying here is that what you read from the Bible, is not your interpretation of it, but "what the Bible says". What would be the correct way to state what you did above would be, "When I read the Bible, I don't understand how others see the Trinity in it". That would be accurate.
What? I've never heard anyone claim this. John 1:14,15 "And the Logos became 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. John testified about him saying this was he who came before me,." etc That's seems pretty clear to me. John testified of Jesus, and Jesus was the Logos, or Word, become flesh.
No, it does not mean that. The author of John was speaking of Logos to speak about Jesus to his readers. He was using a term they were well-familiar with which was used by Philo of Alexandria to speaking of the mediating principle between the infinite, unknowable God and the visible, manifest world. Logos was the Agent that manifested God, or made God known. That's how Philo used it, and it is how John uses it in the first verses of the Gospel. He starts with this concept of Philo, and builds upon it to introduce Jesus as the "Logos became flesh and dwelt among us".
Oh, I see your quibble now. Yes, you said John 1 does not say this. What you meant to say was John 1:1 does not say Jesus was the Logos. That would be correct. John 1:1 is speaking of what the Logos is. It's not speaking of Jesus because Jesus was a flesh and blood human being that was not "In the beginning with God". John 1:1 sets up what the Logos is as the eternal Manifestor of the invisible unknowable God in order to introduce the radical, novel idea in verse 14 that the Logos became flesh, that Jesus the human, born of a woman, was the Divine Logos incarnating in the person of the human being Jesus.
The Logos is not "creation potential", but rather creation itself. This actually is what the Trinity formula teaches.
Such as Philo of Alexandria, whom the author of John draws from in speaking of the Logos, and how the Logos became flesh, incarnating in Jesus.
There was a least one other prominent group before Nicea which did. The modalistic monarchians did. They would be those who followed the views of Sabellius. They saw the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three manifestations of the same God. As the modern Oneness Christians put it, "He was Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in emanation." They're not Trinitarians as they deny three persons. So it wasn't just those following Tertullian who saw Jesus as God in the flesh.
I glad to see this underlined here. I've been scratching my head at the logic of saying that Jesus being viewed as divine is not in the Bible, and then when you pointed to Luke's nativity story, the argument is that Luke misinterpreted Isaiah in saying it meant Jesus was divine. Wait, what? It doesn't say it? Or when it says it, the author of the text misinterpreted Isaiah in saying he was divine? These are mutually exclusive claims.