Trinitarian? Sure, sort of

[leov]

I did, since you don't understand the religion, you didn't understand the verses.

He understands as it was intended to be understood by him.

 

[steveb1]

He understands as it was intended to be understood by him.

Thanks. I try to read the NT as the authors wrote it. And they never unambiguously call Jesus "God".

 

[leov]

Right, they mean similar things. Agreed that no one is "saved" by Jesus's resurrection. The standard Pauline theory is that they are "saved" by Jesus's Passion and death - his "Atonement" for our sins.

Paul said that Christ removes ignorance of True God, only this allows to enter the Kingdom.

 

[leov]

Thanks. I try to read the NT as the authors wrote it. And they never unambiguously call Jesus "God".

'Jesus is God' came from men, I agree.

 

[steveb1]

Paul said that Christ removes ignorance of True God, only this allows to enter the Kingdom.

Sure, that's part of what Paul says, but he makes salvation depend upon Jesus's "atoning death" which "crucified" the Law, made it a dead thing, and replaced the Mosaic covenant with a "new" testament in Jesus's blood.

 

[steveb1]

'Jesus is God' came from men, I agree.

Yes, it came from late generations of people who never met or knew Paul or the first apostles...

 

[Desert Snake]

Thanks. I try to read the NT as the authors wrote it. And they never unambiguously call Jesus "God".

If you understood anything about the religion, you would realize, that
John 1:1-10
Is calling Jesus, the manifestation of the Lord, who is God. Again, this isn't 'possession', therefore the persona of Jesus, is God.

 

[leov]

Sure, that's part of what Paul says, but he makes salvation depend upon Jesus's "atoning death" which "crucified" the Law, made it a dead thing, and replaced the Mosaic covenant with a "new" testament in Jesus's blood.

If you look in 1Cor2, Paul clearly divide soul nature in two groups, so his latters, intended for BOTH NATURES, message is mixed and was intended for Spiritual nature to separate and read the message to Soul nature as soul nature was incapable understanding God as Spirit.

 

[leov]

Yes, it came from late generations of people who never met or knew Paul or the first apostles...

It came when Soul nature took over church and prosecuted Spiritual nature of 1Cor2.

 

[leov]

If you understood anything about the religion, you would realize, that
John 1:1-10
Is calling Jesus, the manifestation of the Lord, who is God. Again, this isn't 'possession', therefore the persona of Jesus, is God.

Not Jesus, but Christ, High Aeon.

 

[Desert Snake]

So far, your argument has gone from saying Jesus isn't [g-d, to saying anyone can be called g-d. You don't understand how the word is used, which is why what you're saying makes no sense.

The NT does not consider Jesus to be "God", so Trinitarianism is not supported by scripture.

^

Even in John's Gospel, Jesus explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead when he calls God "you, the only true God". John 1:1 does not call Jesus God - it says that the Logos/Word is God, but Jesus is not the Word. Jesus was not in the beginning with God because Jesus only came to be when he took on a human nature ("became flesh"), so it is illogical and unbiblical to call Jesus "God" without qualification. In John, Jesus has a God and prays to God, whereas God does not have a God and God cannot pray to himself. The NT Jesus is only the Son of God, and never "God the Son".

Actually the verse in greek language is 'only begotten g-d,

Moreover, if the NT thinks Jesus is God, it would be replete with prayer to Jesus as to God, but it isn't. Only God is addressed in NT prayer, "in Jesus's name" or "through Jesus your Son". NT prayer is never addressed to Jesus as to God, which means that the NT does not view Jesus as God.

Yeah, salvation in and through Jesus is a basic Christian teaching. What I'm saying is that the NT never unambiguously calls Jesus "God".

I understand it better than you, otherwise you could have refuted my factual NT citations proving that Jesus explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead in John 17:3 where he calls the Father "you, the only true God".

You failed to answer how God can pray to God (Jesus prayed to God) and why NT prayer is never addressed to Jesus as God.

Until you can refute those points, you're the one who doesn't understand scripture.

^

Charity is also a foundational principle of Christian belief, but James 1:27 says nothing about Jesus being "God", which is the subject of this thread.

Jesus rejects incarnation in John 17:3 when he explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead when he calls the Father "you, the only true God".

If you want to say that Jesus was "Spirit-filled" or that the Word was present in him, that would be okay, but you're saying that Jesus was God because God "manifested" in him. If that's the principle you go by, then all people who manifest God are also God like Jesus. Which doesn't support the supposed uniqueness of Jesus.

^
So, here there is some sort of obfuscation, from not knowing how the names and words are used, g-d, Lord, so forth.
Doesn't know how to read the verses so they aren't ambiguous, in other words

It's time for you to move on from your wacky cult view that James is calling Jesus "God". Jesus himself in John's Gospel explains that calling people "gods" is permissible, as when his Jewish questioners called the ancient Israelite heroes "gods".

Similarly with "Lord", the term was not only used of God, but also of the Messiah, kings of Israel, and even Gentile officials.

You still have not shown that the NT calls Jesus God, whereas Jesus himself excludes himself from the Godhead in John 17:3. Yep...definitely time for you to move on.

Then ends up saying anyone can be called g-d , because you don't understand how to tell the difference, when the names and words are used.

 

[leov]

So far, your argument has gone from saying Jesus isn't [g-d, to saying anyone can be called g-d. You don't understand how the word is used, which is why what you're saying makes no sense.

^

Actually the verse in greek language is 'only begotten g-d,






^




^
So, here there is some sort of obfuscation, from not knowing how the names and words are used, g-d, Lord, so forth.
Doesn't know how to read the verses so they aren't ambiguous, in other words



Then ends up saying anyone can be called g-d , because you don't understand how to tell the difference, when the names and words are used.

Those to whom writings were originally addressed very well understood and properly segregated the writings.

 

[Desert Snake]

Those to whom writings were originally addressed very well understood and properly segregated the writings.

If you can show that book of James, for example, is gnostic, in other words you seem to disagree with my premise, for some reason, then go ahead.

 

[leov]

If you can show that book of James, for example, is gnostic, in other words you seem to disagree with my premise, for some reason, then go ahead.

The entire NT is Gnostic. Except later reductions extend of which we may never know.

 

[steveb1]

If you understood anything about the religion, you would realize, that
John 1:1-10
Is calling Jesus, the manifestation of the Lord, who is God. Again, this isn't 'possession', therefore the persona of Jesus, is God.

If you understood anything about the New Testament you would know that Jesus explicitly excluded himself from the Godhead in John 17:3 where he calls the Father "you, the only true God".

The failing here is all yours. Time for you to move on. Or else acquire some serious education about the New Testament.

 

[Desert Snake]

The entire NT is Gnostic. Except later reductions extend of which we may never know.

You mean, one can read gnosticism into the text.

So,
Matthew 1:20=not gnosticism
Matthew 15:25=not gnosticism
Matthew 22:37-46=not gnosticism
John 1:1-10=not gnosticism
John 1:13=not gnosticism
Matthew 24=not gnosticism

• so, actually, the type of gnosticism, in the text, is theoretical. What you actually have is different descriptions of g-d, however, so what? These are different writers, so one defaults to Jesus.

Then, to derive a foreign g-d, one must "interpret", verses by Jesus, where they then contradict His references, Scriptural context , in other words.

 

[steveb1]

You mean, one can read gnosticism into the text.

If by "Gnostic" is meant an immediate, unmediated experience of the divine, then surely Paul was "Gnostic" (and this is why so many Gnostics favored Paul's writings).

Paul claimed ot have had an immediate knowledge of the spiritual Christ, "whom God revealed in me". Of course, Paul's Jesus is not yet the archetype of the various "Christs" that appear in the Gnostic gospels, but the Spirit of the Son who "possesses" Paul is certainly a prototype of the later Gnostic Christ.

 

[leov]

You mean, one can read gnosticism into the text.

So,
Matthew 1:20=not gnosticism
Matthew 15:25=not gnosticism
Matthew 22:37-46=not gnosticism
John 1:1-10=not gnosticism
John 1:13=not gnosticism
Matthew 24=not gnosticism

• so, actually, the type of gnosticism, in the text, is theoretical. What you actually have is different descriptions of g-d, however, so what? These are different writers, so one defaults to Jesus.

Then, to derive a foreign g-d, one must "interpret", verses by Jesus, where they then contradict His references, Scriptural context , in other words.

Like James wrote : 24*for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was." Know yourself - Gnostic motto, I'm not going to argue with you. Take it or leave it, all NT is Gnostic.

 

[Desert Snake]

The entire NT is Gnostic. Except later reductions extend of which we may never know.

The context makes it so even if the whole NT were gnostic, it still describes the incarnation, so forth.

So, that is sort of a non argument, when regarding the premise.

 

[steveb1]

The entire NT is Gnostic. Except later reductions extend of which we may never know.

Yes, because the Savior of the Epistles is a wholly transcendental spirit entity. Only the later-written Gospels claim that Jesus was a man who had lived on earth. The original Christian experience of Jesus was of a heavenly spirit, not the resuscitated corpse of a mortal man.