Who do YOU say Jesus is?

[IndigoChild5559]

Just going by what scripture says. It's the circumcision of the heart.

No. Circumcision of the heart is what God wants. It makes one a better Gentile (a figurative Jew, although not one in reality) or a better Jew, part of the remnant. But it is not the standard for being a Jew. A Jew is a descendant of Jacob, or a halakhic convert.

 

[rrobs]

Interesting answers!

As to Blu's answer, I'm not sure where he derived the formula X= (Jesus + Father) / Ghost from the example I gave.

As to Rrobs, the teacher says nothing about the Trinity.

Let's shorten the exercise and see if we have any other anti-Trinitarian takers.

View attachment 28895​

You have a bowl of Apples and the equation 1x1x1 on the board. Little Johnny illustrates the equation by taking one apple out of the bowl, then taking two more, taping them together resulting in an apple that is 3 times as big as the original.

Demonstrate to Johnny, using the apples, why he is correct or incorrect. Remember, the teacher was illustrating an equation, not demonstrating the Trinity. That's something little Johnny accused her of doing, and I find it extremely interesting that both Blu and Rrobs present arguments that do the same.

My first reply was tongue and cheek, so I'll get more to the point.

Neither Jesus nor God are apples. It has nothing to do with;

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

As I said before, even if the Bible spoke of God the Son, he wouldn't be God. Jesus is Lord, but he's not God. God made him both Lord and Christ when He raised him from the dead and not one minute before.

Acts 2:32 & 36,

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses....

36 Therefore (because God did raise him from he dead) let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
​

Why would God have had to make Himself anything at all? That makes no more sense than using apples to prove the trinity.

​

 

[Oeste]

Your post made it clear that the persons of the Trinity were mathematical objects amendable not only to addition (which brings with it subtraction) but to multiplication (which brings with it division). Why stop there? Why not powers eg God to the power of Ghost, or extraction of roots eg the 13th root of Jesus?

I'm actually pointing out that your mathematical argument entails such nonsense.

Nah. It was YOU who brought up the mathematical nonsense, not me Blü. Did you forget already?

I'm not a Trinitarian, of course, but the doctrine is easy to understand in its entirety once you know it's incoherent. Baldly put, it says 1+1+1=1. But whether in the realm of maths or the realm of counting your cows home, 1+1+1=3.

That's called 'projection' ─ accusing your colloquist of your own crime.

Nor, since we're talking about the Trinity doctrine, is one apple 100% of either three apples or of three apples' worth of pulp.

By contrast, each of the persons of the Trinity, Father, Jesus, Ghost, is 100% of God. That's why the doctrine is incoherent.

Demonstrate please. There are three 1's on the chalkboard residing in the equation 1x1x1. There are 3 apples in the bowl. How many apples are you pulling from the bowl, and are you saying it's incoherent for all three 1's to represent 100% of an apple?

That's to say, your argument from analogy is a false analogy. A Trinity 'person' has highly relevant qualities that neither a real person nor an apple possess.

I haven't made a Trinity analogy here Blu, and neither did the teacher in my example. It's the student who saw one where there was none, and though you question Little Johnny's conclusion, it seems you would have been quick to accuse the teacher of teaching the Trinity when she was only demonstrating 1 x 1 x 1.

 

[Oeste]

My first reply was tongue and cheek, so I'll get more to the point.

Neither Jesus nor God are apples.

Agreed.

But then neither is the number one, two or three.

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

If you concluded Jesus is not God from this verse, then you must have also concluded that the Father is not Lord.

As I said before, even if the Bible spoke of God the Son, he wouldn't be God. Jesus is Lord, but he's not God. God made him both Lord and Christ when He raised him from the dead and not one minute before.

"Son of" means "in the order of". The "Son of God" means "in the order of God". God the Son would mean "God in order of" which is meaningless, which is why its never used.

Acts 2:32 & 36,

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses....

36 Therefore (because God did raise him from he dead) let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Why would God have had to make Himself anything at all?

Because we couldn't and wouldn't. We can not raise anyone from the dead and as the biblical narrative makes clear, rather than declare him both Lord and Christ we crucified him instead.

That makes no more sense than using apples to prove the trinity.

I didn't use apples to prove the Trinity, I used apples to illustrate and ask a math problem. However I find it interesting you think I did.

 

[blü 2]

Nah. It was YOU who brought up the mathematical nonsense, not me Blü. Did you forget already?

You brought it up. You multiplied 1x1x1 as Father x Jesus x Ghost as a demonstration of the Trinity, and I've simply pointed out that this is a confusion of real with mathematical objects, and a false analogy.

Demonstrate please. There are three 1's on the chalkboard residing in the equation 1x1x1. There are 3 apples in the bowl. How many apples are you pulling from the bowl, and are you saying it's incoherent for all three 1's to represent 100% of an apple?

Read what I wrote. I pointed out that one apple does not represent 100% of three apples BUT one Jesus represents 100% of God, and one Father represents 100% of God and one Ghost represents 100% of God, resulting in the said false analogy.

I haven't made a Trinity analogy here Blu, and neither did the teacher in my example. It's the student who saw one where there was none, and though you question Little Johnny's conclusion, it seems you would have been quick to accuse the teacher of teaching the Trinity when she was only demonstrating 1 x 1 x 1.

Then the story ends with Little Johnny getting an F.

 

[Oeste]

You brought it up. You multiplied 1x1x1 as Father x Jesus x Ghost as a demonstration of the Trinity,

Not on this thread. You brought it up first, and I believe you brought it up on virtually every thread where we discussed the subject.

and I've simply pointed out that this is a confusion of real with mathematical objects, and a false analogy.

Aha! That may explain a lot. So if told you I had a body, soul and spirit and that my body wasn't a third of me but 100% of me, ditto for my soul and spirit, you would see this as a confusion of real and mathematical objects and a "false analogy"?

Read what I wrote. I pointed out that one apple does not represent 100% of three apples.

Excellent! I agree, but I have to point out you just used real and mathematical objects without confusion.

BUT one Jesus represents 100% of God, and one Father represents 100% of God and one Ghost represents 100% of God, resulting in the said false analogy.

Not quite.

There is no "of" God. "Of" represents the relationship between a part and a whole. The Father, Spirit and Jesus do not represent different "parts" or sections "of" God.

Then the story ends with Little Johnny getting an F.

Well that's something we can both agree on.

Another question, without any real world objects:

1 x 1 x 1 = 1

In the above equation, is the first 1, boldly underlined on the left side of the equation, the same as the 1 on the right? Or does it represent a part of a whole? What about the 2nd and 3rd 1's? How much do they represent? Are they a percentage of the result are they the result itself?

The fact is, in the above equation, we are multiplying the object by itself and not another object. so the object is always equivalent to itself no matter how many time we multiply it by. And contrary to your earlier assertion, this CAN be transferred to real world objects without confusion, without "false analogy" and with perfect confidence for as virtually long as we've had math.

Thus the first 1 is 100% one, the second 1 is 100% one, and the 3rd one is 100% one. They are not "of" one but one. That's because if they were "of" one you would be implying they are parts of a whole, which by necessity would raise the value of 1 on the right side of the equation to 300% or 3.

 

[blü 2]

Not on this thread. You brought it up first, and I believe you brought it up on virtually every thread where we discussed the subject.

You're correct that I said 1+1+1=3 but the Trinity doctrine, incoherently makes a claim that may be represented as 1+1+1=1. This is a proper analogy and I see no reason to resile from that position.

You, as sponsor of Little Johnny, introduced the false analogy 1x1x1=1, and it's false for the reasons I stated before.

So if told you I had a body, soul and spirit and that my body wasn't a third of me but 100% of me, ditto for my soul and spirit, you would see this as a confusion of real and mathematical objects and a "false analogy"?

If you were to add, on the model of the Trinity doctrine, that your body was not your 'soul' or your 'spirit', and your 'soul' was not your 'spirit', then indeed the maths would be a false analogy, for the same reason as above.

If you were to say instead that the identity of 'me' was the sum of body, soul and spirit, something the Trinity doctrine denies, then no problem, though unless they were the same thing (body=soul=spirit=me) each would necessarily be a fraction of 'me', the fractions totaling 100%.

There is no "of" God.

Ah, there's your confusion, right there. If you were correct, then the Trinity doctrine would be coherent, and cease to be 'a mystery in the strict sense'.

However, the doctrine says that if you're talking to Jesus you're talking to 100% of God, just as the diagram shows. Jesus IS God. And if you're talking to the Father you're talking to 100% of God, just as the diagram shows. The Father IS God. And if you're talking to the Ghost (though most people don't) you're talking to 100% of God, just as the diagram shows. The Ghost IS God. The problem that gives rise to the 'mystery in the strict sense' is that the Father is not Jesus or the Ghost, and Jesus is not the Ghost, and that 100%+100%+100%=300%=3 gods, which the doctrine expressly denies, and that fractions eg 33⅓%+33⅓%+33⅓% may add up to 100%, but fractions are something which the doctrine also expressly denies.


If you disagree, please don't fail to spell out for me exactly why the churches call the doctrine 'a mystery in the strict sense', something that can neither be discovered nor demonstrated by reason?

 

[Marcion]

The ones I presented by Habermas are real scholarship.

They are not, they are a joke.

The historical record of the Gospels has been around for millennia. Skeptics like you have made about as much of a dent in them as a tack hammer on the pyramids of Egypt.

I'm sorry to have to tell you again, they are NOT historical records, stop living in cloud-coockoo-land.
Their age means nothing, for centuries people have been satisfied with religious myths, that time is now over and done with my friend.
I am not a skeptic, but a realist.
However I do believe strongly in the REAL spiritual teachings and instructions of Yeshua in the sayings collection of Q-lite.

May I remind you that in the more developed countries with a Christian history, the number of people who subscribe to a church and the authority of the Christian scriptures has dropped dramatically in the past decade? That initial dent has already grown into a massive gorge. And it will never close again.

 

[Spartan]

They are not, they are a joke.

You haven't even read them (Habermas' "The Historical Jesus"; "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus") Nor, I'm afraid, are you a fair arbiter of what good scholarship is.

I'm sorry to have to tell you again, they are NOT historical records, stop living in cloud-coockoo-land.
Their age means nothing, for centuries people have been satisfied with religious myths, that time is now over and done with my friend.
I am not a skeptic, but a realist.
However I do believe strongly in the REAL spiritual teachings and instructions of Yeshua in the sayings collection of Q-lite.

May I remind you that in the more developed countries with a Christian history, the number of people who subscribe to a church and the authority of the Christian scriptures has dropped dramatically in the past decade? That initial dent has already grown into a massive gorge. And it will never close again.

Once again, show me ONE (1, just your best ONE) example of a person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been shown to be fictitious? Cite the pertinent scripture and your evidence.

Until you can do that, your claim that the Gospels are not historical cannot be taken seriously.

May I remind you that in the more developed countries with a Christian history, the number of people who subscribe to a church and the authority of the Christian scriptures has dropped dramatically in the past decade? That initial dent has already grown into a massive gorge. And it will never close again.

First of all, there's no way you can conclude that. But second, if that is the case, the Bible has already concluded that in the end times there will be a falling away from the faith: "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (the falling away from the faith) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." - 2 Thessalonians 2:3

 

[Spartan]

You're correct that I said 1+1+1=3 but the Trinity doctrine, incoherently makes a claim that may be represented as 1+1+1=1. This is a proper analogy and I see no reason to resile from that position.

Here's a good reason: God is a divine "species" consisting of 3 individuals: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three individuals (1+1+1) = 1 divine species called God.

Piece of cake, blu. Embrace it.

 

[blü 2]

Here's a good reason: God is a divine "species" consisting of 3 individuals: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three individuals (1+1+1) = 1 divine species called God.

And the acknowledged and avowed fact that the Trinity doctrine doesn't make sense doesn't worry you, I take it.

Good luck with that.

 

[Spartan]

And the acknowledged and avowed fact that the Trinity doctrine doesn't make sense doesn't worry you, I take it.

Good luck with that.

It just did make sense, and instead of accepting that you kicked it to the curb again because otherwise it would have upset your apple cart.

 

[Marcion]

First of all, there's no way you can conclude that. But second, if that is the case, the Bible has already concluded that in the end times there will be a falling away from the faith: "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (the falling away from the faith) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." - 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Oh, but I DO conclude that. You may not like it, but that is the REAL Jesus. The religious Jesus is for people like yourself, for religious folk.

 

[Spartan]

Oh, but I DO conclude that. You may not like it, but that is the REAL Jesus. The religious Jesus is for people like yourself, for religious folk.

Sure you can conclude it, but not based on anything but your conjecture!

 

[rrobs]

If you concluded Jesus is not God from this verse, then you must have also concluded that the Father is not Lord.

1Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

I would say the verse speaks for itself. Notice the words "to us." This verse is not speaking to Israel, as was the entire OT, including the Gospels. In this age of grace, born again believers are members of the body of Christ (Col 1:18, 2:19, et. al). Israel is the bride of Christ. The revelation that God gave to Paul and he gave to us in Romans to Thessalonians is the part of the scriptures that apply directly to born again believers. They are like letters with our address on the envelope. The OT, including the Gospels, is addressed to Israel. Jesus declared on a couple of occasions that he came for the lost sheep of the tribe of Israel. I assume you are aware of the different administrations in the scriptures. By the way, please don't construe that I am saying the OT is of no value.

Rom 15:4,

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
​

There is a million things (way more actually) we can learn from the OT, but they do not apply directly to born again believers in the administration of grace which began on the day of Pentecost. Otherwise we better be offering our burnt sacrifices every morning and evening. I'm glad we don't have to do that.

In any case, the criteria for getting born again (not even available in the OT) was that we confess Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9-10). Maybe that is not tradition, but it is the word of God. I didn't write the book. I just believe what's written and confess that.

"Son of" means "in the order of". The "Son of God" means "in the order of God". God the Son would mean "God in order of" which is meaningless, which is why its never used.

I always thought that "God the Son" was a major part of trinity jargon. I agree it doesn't make sense.

Because we couldn't and wouldn't. We can not raise anyone from the dead and as the biblical narrative makes clear, rather than declare him both Lord and Christ we crucified him instead.

Didn't Jesus raise a couple of folks from the dead?

John 14:12,

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.​

I didn't use apples to prove the Trinity, I used apples to illustrate and ask a math problem. However I find it interesting you think I did.

I just misunderstood. Not a hard thing to do in these forums!

God bless...

 

[Marcion]

Sure you can conclude it, but not based on anything but your conjecture!

My free choice to prefer scholarship over superstition and religious dogma, yess!

 

[Spartan]

My free choice to prefer scholarship over superstition and religious dogma, yess!

"superstition"? You haven't done your homework.

 

[rrobs]

"superstition"? You haven't done your homework.

Scholars once said the earth is flat.

 

[Spartan]

Scholars once said the earth is flat.

But the Bible didn't. Not when you really dig into it.

 

[Oeste]

You're correct that I said 1+1+1=3 but the Trinity doctrine, incoherently makes a claim that may be represented as 1+1+1=1.

No, it‘s correctly represented as 1 x 1 x 1. We just showed that and you verified it with the math example. You correctly determined the apple was still 1 apple no matter the number of ones (1’s) on the left side of the chalkboard. We can do that with multiplication, but not with addition.

This is a proper analogy and I see no reason to resile from that position.

Then you’re left with little Johnny’s argument which you’ve already expressly denied.

In order to get addition, we have to change the equation on the chalkboard. Likewise, in order to get 3 Gods in the Trinity, you have to change the Doctrine. The chalkboard does not have a number 3 on the right side of the equation any more than the Trinity Doctrine has a number 3 before God.

We can’t solve an existing equation by creating a new equation ourselves. If we could everyone would have an “A” in math!

If you were to add, on the model of the Trinity doctrine, that your body was not your 'soul' or your 'spirit', and your 'soul' was not your 'spirit', then indeed the maths would be a false analogy, for the same reason as above.

If you were to say instead that the identity of 'me' was the sum of body, soul and spirit, something the Trinity doctrine denies, then no problem, though unless they were the same thing (body=soul=spirit=me) each would necessarily be a fraction of 'me', the fractions totaling 100%.

I don't think even the heretics claim to be composed of 1/3 body, 1/3 spirit, and 1/3 soul. Neither do Trinitarians. It would certainly be interesting to hear from a religion that does.

You, as sponsor of Little Johnny, introduced the false analogy 1x1x1=1, and it's false for the reasons I stated before.

Where did I “sponsor” Little Johnny?

Yes, I sponsored an analogy, but the analogy introduced two main characters. I’m surprised to learn you think I would sponsor Little Johnny rather than Trish, the teacher.

Ah, there's your confusion, right there. If you were correct, then the Trinity doctrine would be coherent, and cease to be 'a mystery in the strict sense'.

It is still a mystery in the strict sense. A mystery is simply something that was hidden in the Old Testament but revealed in the New. So it is a revealed truth.

A mystery truth has two elements:

1. It was a truth hidden but not revealed in the Old Testament

2. It is revealed in the New Testament.​

However, the doctrine says that if you're talking to Jesus you're talking to 100% of God, just as the diagram shows. And if you're talking to the Father you're talking to 100% of God, just as the diagram shows. And if you're talking to the Ghost (though most people don't) you're talking to 100% of God, just as the diagram shows.

Christ is 100% God because he is God. Ditto for the Holy Spirit and the Father.

The Trinity defines God as 3 Divine, coeternal, coequal, triune hypostases or persons (not 3 Gods, and not 3 individuals). The three are one God as to substance (God) but three as to person (Father, Son, Spirit).

If this is difficult for you to conceptualize, think of equation on the chalkboard:

1 x 1 x 1 = 1

Each 1 is distinctive (left side of the equation) but not individual, else we would pull 3 apples from the bowl, but there is still 1 apple (not 3) on the right side of the equation. To demonstrate the equation, we pull one apple from the bowl and not 3.

The problem that gives rise to the 'mystery in the strict sense' is that the Father is not Jesus or the Ghost, and Jesus is not the Ghost,

Correct. If they were all the same the equation would look more like this:

1=1.

Instead we have 3 distinct 1’s on the left side.

and that 100%+100%+100%=300%=3 gods, which the doctrine expressly denies,

Correct. If Trinitarians believed in 3 Gods, then your equation of

1 + 1 + 1= 3

Would be correct. But then we would no longer be Trinitarians. We would be Tritheists.

and that fractions eg 33⅓%+33⅓%+33⅓% may add up to 100%, but fractions are something which the doctrine also expressly denies.

Correct. Each is fully God, just like each 1 on the left side of the chalkboard equation represents a full, and not a third of an apple.