The Holy Trinity and John 17:3

[Windwalker]

........

You prove you have no credibility.

 

[Windwalker]

NO, it does not teach that Jesus was Divine. - The story was added later to put forth a lie. It is not part of the original texts, and is obviously false.

Okay, so we've established that the texts that those who formulated the Trinity doctrine were in fact working with these later additions which said Jesus was divine. This then annihilates your argument that the Bible they had does not teach that Jesus is divine. In fact, the one you have is the same texts they were working with which includes these supposed later additions. This means one thing, the Bible as we have it teaches Jesus was divine.

As I said end of debate. It's over.

ALL other texts can be countered by translation.

By translation or interpretation? Let's be clear here, because now we're moving away from your original argument that is wasn't there. You've now acknowledge it is there. And in addition here you are now saying the other verses which say Jesus is divine can be countered by saying it's a matter of translation?

So let me summarize your argument for you. You said it's not in the Bible, but now you say it is but in all the places it in fact is can be explained as a later insertion into the texts, or a matter of bad translation? So, again, it's in the Bible. You now must retract your original claim it's not there. Now you arguing "why" it's there. That's very, very different than arguing it wasn't there. Right?

The idea that he was somehow Divine, is NOT there.

Then why argue it's a later addition to the text or a bad translation. If it isn't there, why even bother to argue these points? Makes no sense to me.

Later added lies and falsehoods are. They were not originally there.

But the are there in the text that people read and base their beliefs that Jesus is divine. So why do you think they are misreading the texts and falsely claiming to believe what they see there? Again, makes no sense to me. This line of argument doesn't make any sense.

One later added obviously false story does not make Jesus Divine, - or the Bible say he is Divine. I have stated this many times,

Every text brought up can be countered in translation.

*

But the texts are there. Aren't they?

Your argument now is that the correct translation teaches that Jesus is not divine. Perhaps you might find the translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation a valid scholarly work since it fits with your beliefs that you came to by NOT reading any of the other translations? You came to believe he was not divine by reading the original languages in the original surviving MSS that don't have these later additions which they have preserved somewhere that someone knows about but doesn't tell the rest of the world, I would assume?

 

[Ingledsva]

Doesn't matter. It's still in the bible, and that was the argument -- that Jesus' Divinity couldn't be found in the bible.

And, as I've already stated, in the minds of the Hebrews, any human being so resurrected or ascended is Divine. Heck, even the Hebrews, according to you, would have seen the Messiah as Divine, since he would have to undergo resurrection in order to "rise from Sheol." There is no possible way you can weasel out of this and say that either 1) the Jews didn't view that Messiah as a God-man, or 2) the followers of Jesus didn't see him as Divine in some way from the beginning. No way you can weasel out of those realities. The Trinity? Not as it was fleshed out later. But Jesus' Divine nature is, at least by your own calculations and what we know of the literature surrounding him, undisputed biblically.

You know perfectly well that that is not the whole argument. Though obviously you are trying to change it to such.

The Bible does not say Jesus is Divine in any sense. One later inserted false text says that. ONE! One that we know is false, and inserted later, because we have the Tanakh text.

I am debating with people saying Jesus is Divine, God, part of a trinity.

The group writing the Bible descend from the Hebrew - where God is ONE - and anything else is blasphemy.

SO - the original writing did not say Jesus was Divine in any sense of the word, - and later false editions, for an agenda, do not change this.

No the Hebrew would not have seen him as Divine. They await a HUMAN Messiah - from a HUMAN line, - sent from YHVH for a purpose. He is not Divine/God/trinity.


*

 

[Skwim]

You prove you have no credibility.

Proof is only relevant in mathematics, logic, and liquor.

.

 

[Ingledsva]

Okay, so we've established that the texts that those who formulated the Trinity doctrine were in fact working with these later additions which said Jesus was divine. This then annihilates your argument that the Bible they had does not teach that Jesus is divine. In fact, the one you have is the same texts they were working with which includes these supposed later additions. This means one thing, the Bible as we have it teaches Jesus was divine.

As I said end of debate. It's over.


By translation or interpretation? Let's be clear here, because now we're moving away from your original argument that is wasn't there. You've now acknowledge it is there. And in addition here you are now saying the other verses which say Jesus is divine can be countered by saying it's a matter of translation?

So let me summarize your argument for you. You said it's not in the Bible, but now you say it is but in all the places it in fact is can be explained as a later insertion into the texts, or a matter of bad translation? So, again, it's in the Bible. You now must retract your original claim it's not there. Now you arguing "why" it's there. That's very, very different than arguing it wasn't there. Right?


Then why argue it's a later addition to the text or a bad translation. If it isn't there, why even bother to argue these points? Makes no sense to me.


But the are there in the text that people read and base their beliefs that Jesus is divine. So why do you think they are misreading the texts and falsely claiming to believe what they see there? Again, makes no sense to me. This line of argument doesn't make any sense.


But the texts are there. Aren't they?

Your argument now is that the correct translation teaches that Jesus is not divine. Perhaps you might find the translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation a valid scholarly work since it fits with your beliefs that you came to by NOT reading any of the other translations? You came to believe he was not divine by reading the original languages in the original surviving MSS that don't have these later additions which they have preserved somewhere that someone knows about but doesn't tell the rest of the world, I would assume?

My argument has not changed.

All (but one) of the verses so far brought forward, - when read in the original languages, - do not make Jesus Divine.

That one is a known later false addition to the texts, - false, - mistranslated from Tanakh.

That ONE added text does NOT mean the Bible teaches or ever actually said - that Jesus is somehow Divine.

Jesus never said he was Divine, God, or trinity. He said he was the awaited Messiah - whom was to be a human from the line of David.

*

 

[Windwalker]

You know perfectly well that that is not the whole argument. Though obviously you are trying to change it to such.

The Bible does not say Jesus is Divine in any sense. One later inserted false text says that. ONE! One that we know is false, and inserted later, because we have the Tanakh text.

Plus the other verses you admit are there too now, but can be explained away as a bad translation. Originally you claimed none were there. Then one, now there are several. Let's keep going, so we'll just have to say the entire Bible is a bad translation since there are so many of these verses that are there which people are reading and concluding Jesus is divine from them.

I am debating with people saying Jesus is Divine, God, part of a trinity.

I don't think any credible theologian would imagine Jesus was part of God. 1/3 God is not the doctrine of the Trinity.

The group writing the Bible descend from the Hebrew - where God is ONE - and anything else is blasphemy.

Yes, they did accuse Jesus of that, making himself God. Again though, the Trinity is God is ONE. You know that Philo of Alexandria who spoke of Logos never imaged it as a 2nd god? He was a Jew he believed in One God too. To describe God in these terms does not divide God.

SO - the original writing did not say Jesus was Divine in any sense of the word, - and later false editions, for an agenda, do not change this.

Well, one could argue the entire NT is a conspiracy theory too. The point is, however it got there, it is there.

No the Hebrew would not have seen him as Divine. They await a HUMAN Messiah - from a HUMAN line, - sent from YHVH for a purpose. He is not Divine/God/trinity.

You don't think people's expectations can never be surpassed by the revelation of God? That doesn't sound much like a transcendent God to me.

 

[Ingledsva]

Plus the other verses you admit are there too now, but can be explained away as a bad translation. Originally you claimed none were there. Then one, now there are several. Let's keep going, so we'll just have to say the entire Bible is a bad translation since there are so many of these verses that are there which people are reading and concluding Jesus is divine from them.

....

What "several" are you talking about?

NO other text when read in the original language - says Jesus is Divine.

We have ONE known false virgin birth text repeated in later gospels.

Nothing but this one false added text even attempts to make Jesus Divine.

*

 

[Windwalker]

What "several" are you talking about?

The ones you were referring to that are "bad translations" according to you. Which ones were you referring to?

NO other text when read in the original language - says Jesus is Divine.

Except of course for John 1:1, to mention one very obvious. Your "translation" isn't credible, even less credible than the New World Translation.

We have ONE known false virgin birth text repeated in later gospels.

Except of course Matthew was probably written before Luke.

So, do you honestly believe the all of Christianity based their belief on that one "false" story of the virgin birth that Jesus was divine? Seriously? You say there is no way to translate that Jesus is Divine reading the original language? Yet, why then do those reading the original language see it does say that? Do you read Greek? Are you a scholar? What language did the early church fathers read when they concluded it said Jesus was divine? Sanskrit, or Greek?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Baloney, they do not - in the original languages - say Jesus is God - or part of any trinity. The trinity idea was added much later.

I responded to the claim you made that they don't say Jesus was god. This isn't true: that Jesus was god is in the Bible, in the original languages.

It is very obvious from # 5 (Thus let this mindset/sentiment,) - that - morphe - here in # 6 is - nature of.

Perhaps. It doesn't really matter (well, it does for Christology and presumably Christians, but I meant for this discussion). There are clear statements in the bible that Jesus is God. Of course, I would argue that there are clear statements to the contrary too, but then I'm not trying to defend a position that there was some coherent Christian belief shared by all early Christians that either did or did not affirm Jesus to be god.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus is God, or part of any trinity.

I gave you several examples. You addressed one, and your argument is based on the meaning of a word in a language you can't read.

 

[sojourner]

Later added lies and falsehoods are. They were not originally there.

Nothing was "originally there." You make it sound as if the bible were manufactured as one, complete document at one particular point in time. But that's not the case. It doesn't matter what was "there first." What matters is that it was in there when the church canonized the texts. What matters is that someone, whom the church deemed worthy of contributing to Holy Writ, thought that Jesus was Divine.

One later added obviously false story does not make Jesus Divine, - or the Bible say he is Divine.

It does if it's in the bible. And that's the argument: the bible says.

If someone alters the Constitution by adding you can kill redheads, that does not mean the Constitution actually says you can kill redheads. It means the text was illegally altered later. The Constitution never included kill redheads. The false additions need to be removed.

I see. So, women and blacks don't really warrant equality, because those amendments were "added later," are "false," and "don't count" as "part of the Constitution."

So, nothing can ever be a working document? Nothing can ever change? Peoples' ideas can't change as they grow and learn? I suppose that, since people "originally thought" the earth was flat, that a round earth is "false" and that idea "needs to be removed from our textbooks."

This argument is about as solid as the upper atmosphere.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible does not say Jesus is Divine in any sense. One later inserted false text says that. ONE! One that we know is false, and inserted later, because we have the Tanakh text.

That's not true. There are two accounts of a miraculous birth, one of which is direct plagiarism of the birth of Augustus, who was believed to be a god-man. There is one christological account of Jesus' birth, and how Divinity was "inserted" into him. There are four resurrection accounts, and many later allusions to that event. There are several transfiguration and ascension accounts, both of which allude to divinity. The bible is rife with accounts of Jesus' Divinity.

I am debating with people saying Jesus is Divine, God, part of a trinity.

The group writing the Bible descend from the Hebrew - where God is ONE - and anything else is blasphemy.

Right! God is One. Which is why, if Jesus is Divine, he must be that one God, since, by definition, multiple gods cannot exist. You're just burying yourself here proving our arguments for us.

SO - the original writing did not say Jesus was Divine in any sense of the word, - and later false editions, for an agenda, do not change this.

The earliest copies we have are essentially unchanged from the ones we have today. You can't get beyond "what we have." To do so is to engage in a lot of conjecture.

No the Hebrew would not have seen him as Divine. They await a HUMAN Messiah - from a HUMAN line, - sent from YHVH for a purpose. He is not Divine/God/trinity.

I've already shown that, if the Messiah was to rise from Sheol, he must have risen from the dead, because Sheol is where the dead people are. And to engage in resurrection is a Divine act in the Hebrew thought.

 

[sojourner]

My argument has not changed.

I argue that it has, but nonetheless, it has continued to be an untenable argument. And every time you "defend" it, you just end up knocking more holes in it.

 

[sojourner]

What "several" are you talking about?

NO other text when read in the original language - says Jesus is Divine.

We have ONE known false virgin birth text repeated in later gospels.

Nothing but this one false added text even attempts to make Jesus Divine.

*

What about the transfiguration, resurrection and ascension accounts? You haven't even addressed these elephants in the living room yet. All of them allude to Jesus' Divinity.

 

[Ingledsva]

The ones you were referring to that are "bad translations" according to you. Which ones were you referring to?


Except of course for John 1:1, to mention one very obvious. Your "translation" isn't credible, even less credible than the New World Translation.


Except of course Matthew was probably written before Luke.

So, do you honestly believe the all of Christianity based their belief on that one "false" story of the virgin birth that Jesus was divine? Seriously? You say there is no way to translate that Jesus is Divine reading the original language? Yet, why then do those reading the original language see it does say that? Do you read Greek? Are you a scholar? What language did the early church fathers read when they concluded it said Jesus was divine? Sanskrit, or Greek?

Obviously - bad translations - do not mean the texts actually say what the bad translation do.

And it doesn't matter when the virgin birth story was added - just that it was added - and is known to be wrong.

My translation is credible.

Jesus claimed to be the awaited Hebrew Messiah, - not a God, Divine person, or trinity member. Don't you think he would have mentioned something so important?

*

 

[Ingledsva]

What about the transfiguration, resurrection and ascension accounts? You haven't even addressed these elephants in the living room yet. All of them allude to Jesus' Divinity.

I have already addressed them.

The fairy stuff is added in later.

The originals have to have Jesus doing certain things to fulfill the Messiah roll. In other words he has to ascend to do his job of Judging the souls in Sheol. Nothing Divine about it. God makes it happen. However the empty tomb and zombies walking around the city is just added fairy crap, - by people whom apparently didn't understand the Messiah roll. The Hebrew Messiah is a HUMAN through the line of David. What happens to him to fulfill his mission - is from, and by, God. He is not God. Ask a Jew.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I argue that it has, but nonetheless, it has continued to be an untenable argument. And every time you "defend" it, you just end up knocking more holes in it.

You are of course welcome to your own opinion.

However - we have a story that obviously comes from the Hebrew awaited Messiah story. It has all the markers, though they have been misunderstood and blown into fairy stories.

He comes from the Line of David per the story. The story has him going to the grave/Sheol for three days - first to rise from Sheol to JUDGE. The misuse of the Isaiah Immanuel story - tells us they considered him the Messiah. And finally, - Jesus called himself the Messiah. He nowhere called himself God, Divine, trinity, etc.

Virgin births and walking dead people are just fairy stories added on to a story they no longer understood, - or perhaps for political reasons they needed Jesus to be God.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

That's not true. There are two accounts of a miraculous birth, one of which is direct plagiarism of the birth of Augustus, who was believed to be a god-man. There is one christological account of Jesus' birth, and how Divinity was "inserted" into him. There are four resurrection accounts, and many later allusions to that event. There are several transfiguration and ascension accounts, both of which allude to divinity. The bible is rife with accounts of Jesus' Divinity.

All of these have already been discusses. You are repeating.

Right! God is One. Which is why, if Jesus is Divine, he must be that one God, since, by definition, multiple gods cannot exist. You're just burying yourself here proving our arguments for us.

That does not compute. Such ideas only come from multi-God cultures.

This whole story originally comes from the Hebrew Messiah story. God is thus ONE. No parts, no trinity ideas. The Hebrew Messiah, whom Jesus claimed to be, was to be a special HUMAN from the line of David. What he does is because God ordains it. He has no power of his own. He is not Divine. He is a human born from David's line.

The earliest copies we have are essentially unchanged from the ones we have today. You can't get beyond "what we have." To do so is to engage in a lot of conjecture.

We have the Hebrew Messiah story, and these texts added much later, after Jesus was long dead, bungle the story with added fairy crap, and misunderstandings about the roll of Messiah.

I've already shown that, if the Messiah was to rise from Sheol, he must have risen from the dead, because Sheol is where the dead people are. And to engage in resurrection is a Divine act in the Hebrew thought.

In the Messiah story God makes everything happen needed to bring the end and final Judgment. The Messiah is just a human instrument. If God raises him then he is not Divine. And again - any Jew can tell you this. The Messiah is a special awaited HUMAN born from the Line of David.

Joh 14:10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

The LOGOS is encased in the Messiah, he is NOT the Logos.

*

 

[savagewind]

This whole story originally comes from the Hebrew Messiah story. God is thus ONE. No parts, no trinity ideas. The Hebrew Messiah, whom Jesus claimed to be, was to be a special HUMAN from the line of David. What he does is because God ordains it. He has no power of his own. He is not Divine. He is a human born from David's line.

I agree with you for the most part. What is your definition of the word divine? I believe the Hebrew Messiah is of God, thus divine.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

Later added lies and falsehoods are. They were not originally there.

Nothing was "originally there." You make it sound as if the bible were manufactured as one, complete document at one particular point in time. But that's not the case. It doesn't matter what was "there first." What matters is that it was in there when the church canonized the texts. What matters is that someone, whom the church deemed worthy of contributing to Holy Writ, thought that Jesus was Divine.[/quote]

Baloney, nothing was there. The story obviously comes by way of the Hebrew awaited Messiah story, - which Messiah Jesus claimed to be.

One later added obviously false story does not make Jesus Divine, - or the Bible say he is Divine.

It does if it's in the bible. And that's the argument: the bible says.

If I add - "but Fairies where created by God" - to Darwin's works, - it would not change the original. It would not make the addition true. It is false crap added later.

If someone alters the Constitution by adding you can kill redheads, that does not mean the Constitution actually says you can kill redheads. It means the text was illegally altered later. The Constitution never included kill redheads. The false additions need to be removed.

I see. So, women and blacks don't really warrant equality, because those amendments were "added later," are "false," and "don't count" as "part of the Constitution."
So, nothing can ever be a working document? Nothing can ever change? Peoples' ideas can't change as they grow and learn? I suppose that, since people "originally thought" the earth was flat, that a round earth is "false" and that idea "needs to be removed from our textbooks."

This argument is about as solid as the upper atmosphere.

Red herring! There is a big difference between known false info like the ripped off virgin birth text, - and legal changes discussed and voted on, concerning REAL people, not so called divine beings.

Change that "flat earth argument" to, - someone adds "the earth is flat" to a science book explaining why the earth is an Oblate Spheroid. It is KNOWN to be false - just like the virgin birth story - and does indeed need to be removed.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I responded to the claim you made that they don't say Jesus was god. This isn't true: that Jesus was god is in the Bible, in the original languages.


Perhaps. It doesn't really matter (well, it does for Christology and presumably Christians, but I meant for this discussion). There are clear statements in the bible that Jesus is God. Of course, I would argue that there are clear statements to the contrary too, but then I'm not trying to defend a position that there was some coherent Christian belief shared by all early Christians that either did or did not affirm Jesus to be god.

I gave you several examples. You addressed one, and your argument is based on the meaning of a word in a language you can't read.

List those verses again!

As to that last - are you talking about John 10:32-34? Please quote the verse and numbers. I looked up the text in the original. However, Jesus himself tells us the meaning by quoting a Tanakh text which TELLS US THE MEANING.

That Tanakh text is not calling ALL of the Hebrew People Gods. It is saying they are special and have a charge to lead, to JUDGE.

That Jesus is God, is found nowhere in the NT using the original languages. Only mistranslations.

*