Who do YOU say Jesus is?

[blü 2]

I believe I am skeptical about that. I believe it is more likely that any valid argument will be viewed as flawed. The skeptic can't force himself to believe no matter how cogent the argument.

Then let's test that.

Offer a better method of exploring the question, What's true in reality? than reasoned enquiry, honest and transparent argument from examinable evidence.

To be clear, when I say reality, I mean objective reality ─ the world external to the self, nature, the realm of the physical sciences.

And as for truth, a statement is true to the extend that it conforms to / corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

Go!

 

[Oeste]

If skepticism is a bias, it's a bias if favor of discovering what's true in reality by carefully examining the evidence and impartially reasoning from it.That of course is not what faith does

Didn’t you just posit that anything beyond human reasoning is nonsense, an unproven premise you expected us to accept on faith rather than evidence?

No. As I hoped I'd made clear, I'm in complete agreement with the churches ─ it's a mystery in the strict sense, which is the same thing as a nonsense. The difference between you and me is that I know why the churches say that, but you apparently don't.

So “a mystery in the strict sense is the same thing as a nonsense”. As I stated before, you do have a sense of humor Blu.

I'll refrain from a rude retort, and simply observe that we irreconcilably disagree.

This is why we dally at the crossroads. Eventually discussions between skeptics and Christians come to this point.

The documents simply don't say what you want them to say. Instead they flatly contradict you. sic vita.

Yet I’m having great difficulty finding any reputable scholar who agrees with your rather peculiar analysis of the biblical text (even from the ranks of Sabellianists and Arians) and little difficulty finding scholars to defend mine. It’s most peculiar.

I tried to warn you to steer clear of those danged apologists.

Given the lack of scriptural and scholarly support for the heresies you’ve espoused we can certainly understand why.

John's Jesus makes that very plain:

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me”

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”​

​

We explained how you can answer these verses yourself Blu. Is Jesus speaking as a man or is he speaking as God? If he can do nothing of his own accord, and can do nothing on his own authority, then he is speaking as a man. The distinction you have to make is that Jesus is also Divine. You are also a man, yet you can do pretty much anything on your own accord, whilst Jesus could not, and you can do anything you had a mind to do, whilst Jesus could not.

Jesus "could not" because as a man he is subject to the Father. Thus he does the will of the Father who sent him.

Notice that Jesus said if ye believe in God, believe also in me. That's blasphemy unless Jesus is God. We do not put faith in prophets, but in He from whom the prophets are sent.

I told you earlier ─ the Jesuses of Paul and John were of divine origin, incarnated for a visit to earth because the Father, the only true god, the god they worshiped, had sent them.

Great! So who do you say Jesus was prior to his incarnation? Was he an angel ? A divine being that could say “I Am”? Little God junior? Or do you take Peter’s approach, and simply say you have no idea who Jesus is at all?

which is to say, Jesus has come from heaven as the agent and envoy of the only true god.

So who or what was Jesus prior to his incarnation?

This, from the guy who won't go near ─
John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

Again and again I get you to try to answer the question yourself rather than just spell it out for you. The reason I do that is that you are much more likely to believe an answer you arrive at then if I simply state it here on this forum.

So I’ll ask another question since you’re unable to answer my prior. If one knows Jesus Christ, does one know God also? If you can answer that, you can answer John 17:3.

If Jesus says that the Father is the only true god, that's close enough for me.

Okay. So we agree the Father is God. Nothing new to understand here folks…let’s keep it moving.

It makes it logically impossible for the Trinity doctrine to be correct.

Nah. The Trinity doctrine shows scripture to be logical.

So does that fact that Jesus worships the Father.

All men are to worship the Father. We just agreed the Father is God, did we not?

Nope. I'm pointing to Jesus' plain words, that the Father is the only true God.

Correct. He’s not a false God.

Which translates as your saying, "the authors of the gospels, not least of John, are repeatedly, inexcusably, stupidly. ignorantly mistaken, as conclusively proved by the fact that they disagree with me." Okay. That's your view and you're sticking to it.

Let’s not get confused as to who is saying what here. This is something Blü states, not me or the gospel authors.

First, nothing in the Garden story imputes sin to Adam.
The ONLY reason Adam and Eve got kicked out the Garden was, and I quote:

Second, Ezekiel 18:20 (like the rest of Ezekiel 18) makes it perfectly clear that guilt for sin can't be passed across generations:

Enough rabbit holes! This is simply “busy work” you want me to chase, was addressed in my last post and ventures far from thread theme.

Still can't work out what "“And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” means?

Sheesh! Okay, since you insist:

It means they’re are one. If you know Jesus, you also know God. If you know God you know Jesus.

It means Jesus once again denies he's God.

Actually it means the converse.

You'll instantly have noticed that again the word is 'God',

I'm not going to argue with that. John 1:1 states the same.

Now, who is the Word?

not 'the Father'.

Correct, and this is an important distinction you’ve made here. As scripture states, “The Father and I are one” but never “The Father and I are the same”. One God but 3 distinct (not individual) persons.

 

[Spartan]

Besides making baseless condemnations, you have failed to offer any proof to back up your wild claims.

Yeah, I did, in Post #318. And they weren't wild claims.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness who believes Jesus was once the Archangel Michael?

 

[Oeste]

Hello Oeste,

Well, it seems like you are trying really hard to squeeze a few verses to fit a preconceived idea while ignoring many clear verses that are diametrically opposed to that idea.

Actually all the verses I’ve seen lead me to the same idea. There were over 150 of them in all, so I wouldn’t refer to them as a “few”.

Why should it be surprising that Jesus never lied or repented?

It’s not at all surprising to me, because Jesus is God and man. It should be surprising to you, because Jesus is only a man.

Let’s go back to Num 23:19 and exegete this properly.

1. God is not a man, that he should lie

2. Neither the son of man, that he should repent.​

This verse tells us that men sin and need to repent. So if scripture is telling you that all men need to sin and repent it should certainly surprising to learn of a man who does neither.

This does not mean Num 23:19 is lying, nor does it give us license to declare some men don't sin in direct contrast to scripture that tells us all men sin. Men sin, and Num 23:19 is correct. So we need something more than man that he should not lie, and something more than man that he should not have to repent in order to end up with an unblemished lamb.

Didn't he always do God's will?

You are presupposing that Num 23:19 doesn't apply to all men, that there are certain exceptions, when there are none.Quite simply, if Jesus was just man then any verse that applies to you and me would also apply to him. God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:11) so there is not one set of scripture for us and another set of scripture for someone else. Scripture applies equally to everyone, no matter the man.

With that in mind, lets look at some more:

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:
None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.” Romans 3​

Wasn’t Jesus a Jew? So how does Paul, writing under the Spirit, tells us that there is NO Jew, not even one, who is righteous, and that no one does good, not even one???

Perhaps Paul was mistaken? Or should we side with the skeptics, and decide Paul simply had no idea who or what he was talking about?

In fact that is precisely what qualified him to be the lamb without blemish.

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. Romans 3:20​

Didn’t Christ obey the Law? Isn’t Christ righteous? Does “no one” actually mean “no one” to you or does it mean something else?

All men sin, so being a man, even an extraordinary man, does not qualify you to be a lamb without blemish:

"When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near (1 King 8:46)​

I've never said Jesus was not a most extraordinary man. He certainly was, but as the scriptures plainly declare many times, he was a man.

You appear to miss the forest for the trees.

Being an extraordinary man does not mean you do not sin. In fact 1 King 8:46 tells us there are no men that do not sin. Neither Num 23:16 nor 1 King 8:46 have a footnote with exceptions for extra ordinary men. Why are you creating or inserting one here?

And yes, Jesus was a man. No one here is arguing that point so pointing this out when we already agree is pointless.

But he had to be more than man to not sin.

Look, I think you would agree that Adam was extraordinary when it comes to men. Yet he still sinned. Creating a 2nd Adam but expecting different results would be the very definition of insanity. Remember, God created Eve too. She sinned, and Adam followed suit!

There is nowhere that he is clearly called God.

He called himself God when he said before a Jewish audience that before Abraham was born, I am! @Spartan pointed that out and made it abundantly clear, so what is your response?

Who do you say “I AM” is? @blü 2 essentially argues that "I am" is an incomplete sentence because he didn't finish it off with "God". Do you agree? Perhaps the Jews acted hastily, picking up stones before they gave Jesus a chance to finish his sentence? What of Moses? Should the Jews have been a little more inquisitive when they heard "I AM" sent him? Perhaps Moses wandered off before God could complete His sentence?

As far as Isaiah 42:8 is concerned, I think you are ignoring the context and assuming God means His own glory. All the verses leading up to verse 8 are clearly speaking of Jesus and verse 8 is talking about the glory God will give to Jesus.

This sentence you gave is a knot. Did you mean to say something else?

Since God is giving glory to Jesus, then whose glory is God giving? Some angel's? All praise and glory belong to God does it not?

Glory belongs to God, whose power is at work in us. Ephesian 3:20​

That’s pretty clear… “Glory belongs to God”. Not some glory, not most glory, just plain glory…and it belongs to God. We do not give glory to another because He does not share the glory with anyone. If he did we could have idols and worship God through that idol. That didn't work prior to Jesus being born, and it certainly wouldn't work after his ascension.

Now let's read another verse:

All honor and glory to God forever and ever! He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen
​

Before we go on, we need to answer a question. How much glory is ALL? Is it some glory or all glory? Do you have an answer? Good! Hold on to it. Remember He alone is God and it ALL belongs to him.

Now read one more, and this will end if for the "glory" series:

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5

How on earth or heaven could Jesus have HIS OWN GLORY when it ALL belongs to God? This is not glory Jesus "earned while on earth", it's glory he already had!

There is ONLY one answer @rrobs: JESUS IS GOD.

When you point out these verses to Unitarians, suddenly all doesn't really mean "all". What do you say?

I think it was blu 2 who suggested that as God's perfect representative, Jesus represented God perfectly and thus much of what can be said of God can also be said of Jesus.

If Jesus is just man, and he states that looking upon him is the same as looking upon God, then you have an idol. The Jews tried that before with they attempted to worship God through the calf, remember? Pharoahs have tried it, Caesars have tried it, Jesus did not.

There is no one "like" God (Isaiah 46:9) so there is no one who can say that when you look at them you’re looking at God. That includes any man or any calf. The only way Jesus gets a pass on saying something like this is if he’s not only man but also God. Anything or anyone less than God is an idol.

One notable exception is that God is the only God and there is none other beside him.

Correct. He's also a jealous God and doesn't want us worshiping any McGod's. Also I think He would take a very dim view of anyone claiming to be "I am!".

You arrive at the end and works your way back rrobs. I need you to start at the beginning. Why is Jesus making all these fantastic claims BEFORE he's CRUCIFIED rather than AFTER?

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.

Before Abraham was born, I am!

Truly, truly, I tell you, whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you.
​

It is because of that that 1 Corinthians rings true;
1Cor 15:27-28,

This shows a clear hierarchy. God will be above Jesus. The word "subject" in verse 28 is the Greek word "hupostasso" and it means "subordinate" everywhere it is used in the New Testament. I do believe that trinity doctrine declares God and Jesus to be equal in all ways

​

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the Trinity and this is one of them. The doctrine does NOT state that God and Jesus are “equal in all ways”. It simply isn’t in the doctrine.

Jesus as man is subordinate to the Father. Jesus as God is not subordinate to anyone.

This is just one example of what I mean when I say there are many clear verses that make a distinction between Jesus and God.

How many times and how many examples have we given on this thread that spell out clear distinctions within the Trinity? Any reading of the doctrine will tell you the same.

There are many distinctions between man and God. For instance, God doesn’t lie but man does. God doesn’t need to repent, but man does. Number 23:19 makes this clear, so if Jesus is just man, he lies and needs to repent no matter how extraordinary he or other people think he is. We do not have two sets of scriptures, one for Jesus the man, and another for "all other" men. Remember "no one" actually means "no one" (Romans 3:20). I'm not sure how Unitarians can twist these verses around to reverse engineer a person that scripture explicitly states couldn't possibly be there.

I don't know how it could be construed in any other way, but I have never failed to be amazed at how trinitarians can twist things around to fit an idea that just isn't there. I guess that in itself takes a certain talent.

No twist, just simple exegesis. We look upon scripture as a whole, not isolated into separate silos ready to be fired off in the form of a proof text. I’d like to see Unitarians be a bit more critical with their exegesis. This would require diligent analysis and less presumptive reasoning.

But here is another question for you, the same one I posed to Blu:

Who do you say Jesus was prior to his birth? Was he in the loins of Joseph, or in heaven? If heaven, was he a man, an angel, another God, or some kind of spirit "creature"?

 

[blü 2]

Didn’t you just posit that anything beyond human reasoning is nonsense, an unproven premise you expected us to accept on faith rather than evidence?

An unproven premise is entirely different to 'beyond human reasoning', just as 'the bus will leave at 6.20 pm today' is entirely different to '1+1+1=1'.

So “a mystery in the strict sense is the same thing as a nonsense”. As I stated before, you do have a sense of humor Blu.

And as I stated before, your answer shows you don't understand what a 'mystery in the strict sense' is.

Yet I’m having great difficulty finding any reputable scholar who agrees with your rather peculiar analysis of the biblical text (even from the ranks of Sabellianists and Arians) and little difficulty finding scholars to defend mine. It’s most peculiar.

Ah, if only you'd stayed away from those truthless apologists and actually looked at the texts. Pity.

Given the lack of scriptural and scholarly support for the heresies you’ve espoused we can certainly understand why.

Heresy is a political tool, the enforcement of the views of the team in power, certainly not interested in what's true in reality. For that reason many apologists are fond of it. 'The supernatural', being an imaginary realm, has no objective test for 'truth'. Arguments based on the wording of texts can however give such a basis.

We explained how you can answer these verses yourself Blu. Is Jesus speaking as a man or is he speaking as God?

Come, let us reason together.

Is Jesus God? Well, he declares that the Father is 'the only true God' and that the Father is the god he worships, so Jesus can't be God.

So is Jesus speaking as God? Nope, he's ruled that out. But as God's envoy he can, I dare say, speak for his principal.

Notice that Jesus said if ye believe in God, believe also in me. That's blasphemy unless Jesus is God. We do not put faith in prophets, but in He from whom the prophets are sent.

I don't see how the words of God's envoy can be blasphemy, since Jesus is simply assuring his audience of the source of his authority.

Great! So who do you say Jesus was prior to his incarnation?

A divine being of some kind, possibly called 'the Son' who wasn't God. John's Jesus makes that clear.

So does Paul, in a passage for which I'm indebted to @rrobs ─

1 Corinthians 15:27 “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection under him,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.
28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.​

So I’ll ask another question since you’re unable to answer my prior. If one knows Jesus Christ, does one know God also? If you can answer that, you can answer John 17:3.

Yes, of course. We have

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."​

and this is more fully explained in

John 17:20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.​

So the Father tells Jesus what to do, and Jesus does it. The Father, after all, is 'the only true god', and the god Jesus worships.

Okay. So we agree the Father is God.

Not just God but in Jesus' words, 'the only true god' AND the god Jesus worships. But you knew that, if only because I already said it above.

As scripture states, “The Father and I are one” but never “The Father and I are the same”. One God but 3 distinct (not individual) persons.

Where does it say "One God but 3 distinct (not individual) persons"?

Or is it just you saying that?

 

[blü 2]

Who do you say “I AM” is? blü 2 essentially argues that "I am" is an incomplete sentence because he didn't finish it off with "God".

No, that's not what I said. Instead I pointed out that "I am" would have to be an incomplete sentence before it could provide what you still lack, any statement from Jesus "I am God". As I told you more than once, it refers instead to Jesus as a being who has resided in Heaven with God from the start, part of the gnostic views that the author of John shares with Paul.

(And for @rrobs).

 

[rrobs]

Actually all the verses I’ve seen lead me to the same idea. There were over 150 of them in all, so I wouldn’t refer to them as a “few”.

It’s not at all surprising to me, because Jesus is God and man. It should be surprising to you, because Jesus is only a man.

Let’s go back to Num 23:19 and exegete this properly.

1. God is not a man, that he should lie

2. Neither the son of man, that he should repent.​

This verse tells us that men sin and need to repent. So if scripture is telling you that all men need to sin and repent it should certainly surprising to learn of a man who does neither.

This does not mean Num 23:19 is lying, nor does it give us license to declare some men don't sin in direct contrast to scripture that tells us all men sin. Men sin, and Num 23:19 is correct. So we need something more than man that he should not lie, and something more than man that he should not have to repent in order to end up with an unblemished lamb.



You are presupposing that Num 23:19 doesn't apply to all men, that there are certain exceptions, when there are none.Quite simply, if Jesus was just man then any verse that applies to you and me would also apply to him. God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:11) so there is not one set of scripture for us and another set of scripture for someone else. Scripture applies equally to everyone, no matter the man.

With that in mind, lets look at some more:

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:
None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.” Romans 3​

Wasn’t Jesus a Jew? So how does Paul, writing under the Spirit, tells us that there is NO Jew, not even one, who is righteous, and that no one does good, not even one???

Perhaps Paul was mistaken? Or should we side with the skeptics, and decide Paul simply had no idea who or what he was talking about?

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. Romans 3:20​

Didn’t Christ obey the Law? Isn’t Christ righteous? Does “no one” actually mean “no one” to you or does it mean something else?

All men sin, so being a man, even an extraordinary man, does not qualify you to be a lamb without blemish:

"When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near (1 King 8:46)​

And yes, Jesus was a man. No one here is arguing that point so pointing this out when we already agree is pointless.

But he had to be more than man to not sin.

Look, I think you would agree that Adam was extraordinary when it comes to men. Yet he still sinned. Creating a 2nd Adam but expecting different results would be the very definition of insanity. Remember, God created Eve too. She sinned, and Adam followed suit!

He called himself God when he said before a Jewish audience that before Abraham was born, I am! @Spartan pointed that out and made it abundantly clear, so what is your response?



Who do you say “I AM” is? @blü 2 essentially argues that "I am" is an incomplete sentence because he didn't finish it off with "God". Do you agree? Perhaps the Jews acted hastily, picking up stones before they gave Jesus a chance to finish his sentence? What of Moses? Should the Jews have been a little more inquisitive when they heard "I AM" sent him? Perhaps Moses wandered off before God could complete His sentence?



This sentence you gave is a knot. Did you mean to say something else?

Since God is giving glory to Jesus, then whose glory is God giving? Some angel's? All praise and glory belong to God does it not?

Glory belongs to God, whose power is at work in us. Ephesian 3:20​

That’s pretty clear… “Glory belongs to God”. Not some glory, not most glory, just plain glory…and it belongs to God. We do not give glory to another because He does not share the glory with anyone. If he did we could have idols and worship God through that idol. That didn't work prior to Jesus being born, and it certainly wouldn't work after his ascension.

Now let's read another verse:

All honor and glory to God forever and ever! He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen
​

Before we go on, we need to answer a question. How much glory is ALL? Is it some glory or all glory? Do you have an answer? Good! Hold on to it. Remember He alone is God and it ALL belongs to him.

Now read one more, and this will end if for the "glory" series:

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5

How on earth or heaven could Jesus have HIS OWN GLORY when it ALL belongs to God? This is not glory Jesus "earned while on earth", it's glory he already had!

There is ONLY one answer @rrobs: JESUS IS GOD.

When you point out these verses to Unitarians, suddenly all doesn't really mean "all". What do you say?



If Jesus is just man, and he states that looking upon him is the same as looking upon God, then you have an idol. The Jews tried that before with they attempted to worship God through the calf, remember? Pharoahs have tried it, Caesars have tried it, Jesus did not.

There is no one "like" God (Isaiah 46:9) so there is no one who can say that when you look at them you’re looking at God. That includes any man or any calf. The only way Jesus gets a pass on saying something like this is if he’s not only man but also God. Anything or anyone less than God is an idol.


Correct. He's also a jealous God and doesn't want us worshiping any McGod's. Also I think He would take a very dim view of anyone claiming to be "I am!".

You arrive at the end and works your way back rrobs. I need you to start at the beginning. Why is Jesus making all these fantastic claims BEFORE he's CRUCIFIED rather than AFTER?

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.

Before Abraham was born, I am!

Truly, truly, I tell you, whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you.
​

​

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the Trinity and this is one of them. The doctrine does NOT state that God and Jesus are “equal in all ways”. It simply isn’t in the doctrine.

Jesus as man is subordinate to the Father. Jesus as God is not subordinate to anyone.



How many times and how many examples have we given on this thread that spell out clear distinctions within the Trinity? Any reading of the doctrine will tell you the same.

There are many distinctions between man and God. For instance, God doesn’t lie but man does. God doesn’t need to repent, but man does. Number 23:19 makes this clear, so if Jesus is just man, he lies and needs to repent no matter how extraordinary he or other people think he is. We do not have two sets of scriptures, one for Jesus the man, and another for "all other" men. Remember "no one" actually means "no one" (Romans 3:20). I'm not sure how Unitarians can twist these verses around to reverse engineer a person that scripture explicitly states couldn't possibly be there.



No twist, just simple exegesis. We look upon scripture as a whole, not isolated into separate silos ready to be fired off in the form of a proof text. I’d like to see Unitarians be a bit more critical with their exegesis. This would require diligent analysis and less presumptive reasoning.

But here is another question for you, the same one I posed to Blu:

Who do you say Jesus was prior to his birth? Was he in the loins of Joseph, or in heaven? If heaven, was he a man, an angel, another God, or some kind of spirit "creature"?

Uncle! I give up. Not that I now think Jesus is God (the idea is actually repulsive to me), but that I realize at this point in your walk you prefer tradition over truth. When Jesus is made into a God-man creature then admittedly all the things trinitarians say is true. They can always fall back on the "man part" for this or the "God part" for that, whatever is convenient.

Nonetheless, I predict that one day you will see the true greatness of God's plan for redemption and the love Jesus had in carrying it out by his own free will and not because he was God and thus had no real choice in the matter.

God bless...

 

[Ancient Soul]

Yeah, I did, in Post #318. And they weren't wild claims.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness who believes Jesus was once the Archangel Michael?

You did NO such thing.

I replied to your baseless comment about JESUS, so switching tracks and trying to "refute" my comments with a verse about DAVID is, well, kind of makes me wonder if you are even worth debating with. As replying to you is more like a game of dodge ball.

 

[Spartan]

You did NO such thing.

I replied to your baseless comment about JESUS, so switching tracks and trying to "refute" my comments with a verse about DAVID is, well, kind of makes me wonder if you are even worth debating with. As replying to you is more like a game of dodge ball.

I just looked at Post # 318 again and it was fine. You have something else bothering you?

 

[Oeste]

Now you’re no longer a skeptic but an “unbiased onlooker”?
You really do have a sense of humor Blu.

One can be both. Skeptically is a way to be an onlooker.

Granted, but for Blu to allege he had suddenly become both does requires a certain sense of humor.

Scripture is of little value to the unbeliever. Again I ask, is that surprising or unexpected?

I would disagree with your premise. Scripture has been of tremendous value to believer and unbeliever alike, shaping our morality and heavily influencing our culture, politics and history.

Then why quote scripture to unbelievers as if it were as authoritative to them as it is to you?

I mentioned why on another thread, but in a nutshell:

Blu is able to argue as if scripture were authoritative to him. This requires either a good deal of intellect or a certain amount of empathy which is rare. If you read his postings you can sometimes forget you're arguing with a skeptic. I think it's something that should be encouraged even if I mostly disagree with his conclusions.

Secondly, but importantly for my purposes, he asks good, logical, challenging questions of the Trinity which help showcase how and why the doctrine survived the many heresies confronting the early church.

you have yet to put the words "I am not God" in Jesus' mouth.

Isn't that what all non-Christians did when they rejected the claim that Jesus is/was God?

There are Christians and non-Christians alike who reject that Jesus is God. The point here is to show that scripture doesn’t do the same.

you have yet to put the words "I am not God" in Jesus' mouth. I understand you guys have been trying for 2,000 years, but if you haven't come up with it by now I really don't think you're going to.

I did it about 35 years ago, when I left Christianity. It took much less than 2000 years to do.

I think we can all agree that many people have put words Christ never spoke into his mouth, and that this has been going on long before your 35 years, even before any of us were born.

We are made in His image after all.

Not in the image of the Bible god, who we are told most of the time is unfathomable to us - that we couldn't possibly understand him with our puny human minds.

We were made in the image of God, but we’re not replicas. God is Spirit, while man is flesh and bones. Nevertheless we have a certain amount of His attributes, just not all of them. We have a spirit but we're not made of it.

We are also told that we are born inherently evil, infected with sin, whereas this god is said to be sinless and perfectly good.

Agreed.

Moreover, according to dogma, this god is invisible, immaterial, immortal, perfect, infinite, lives outside of space and precedes time. That's not the image of man.

Correct. God is not made in our image but we in His.

This god is also said to be omniscient, omnipresent, supernatural and has magical power. This also doesn't resemble man much.

With the exception of magical power I would agree. Magical infers demonic power to me. I realize to others it may infer something else.

This god never had a spouse, never had sex, never experienced lust, divorce or a broken heart.

This god was never born, never had parents, never raised children and never had a sibling or a friend.

This god has never slept or had a nightmare, never had a headache, has never had the flu, felt hot or cold or been hungry.

This god has never had to support himself, never had to study or learn. never been humiliated, felt guilt, blame or shame, and has never been afraid.

None of that describes me or you.

While Jesus never had a spouse, engaged in sex or divorce (despite claims to the contrary) many men have never experienced these things either, and yet count themselves among the body of men. Certainly if God is in the Unitarian mode He is aloof and impersonal, hiding Himself behind the Son, always observing but never quite personally experiencing the things you’ve mentioned.

I do believe he was born, had parents, had siblings, friends, and experienced heart break, cold, heat, hunger and a number of other things. As Jesus the man, God experienced all of these things first hand and invited us to form a personal relationship with Him.

So in what sense are human beings like you and I, and your god alike? That you can speak and count, or make moral judgments? That's not much. Some birds can fly, and they don't sin. I'd say that makes them as close if not closer to the image of this god than you or me.

We have His attributes but not all of them. For instance, we have grace, mercy and intellect but not omniscience. Some of these attributes are shared by animals.

 

[Oeste]

I'd say that skepticism is a bias, one of the most successful biases mankind has ever conceived, up there with great ideas like justice and the rule of law. As you note, it's a repudiation of faith-based thought, a repudiation that has borne untold fruit.

I would respectfully disagree. Historically, Skepticism questions the certainty of knowledge. In other words, it denies we can be certain about anything, so in its most extreme form states we should suspend judgement about everything, because arriving at any certainty of knowledge would be impossible.

Skepticism has its adherents but I would question (be skeptical) as to whether it has any broad appeal. Of course, if anyone here is a true skeptic, they would also question any claim of broad, but to a narrow or focused appeal as well.

However there are new forms of skepticism which have arisen since the 17th and 18th centuries with the rise of the scientific method. IMO, Blu makes argument for Empiricism as witnessed by his avocation for scientific methods of inquiry. But modern science makes no claim that it has proven or disproven God through empirical study.

Besides, there is little evidence that advances in empiric methods of inquiry leads to disbelief in God. Religion continues to grow, not shrink despite what can only be said are some rather amazing advances in technology and science.

Again I want to make it clear that I don’t doubt scientific inquiry has helped explain our external world, but I certainly do question that it has, can, or will explain all of it. I also question the underlying vanity (or arrogance, depending on one's POV) that the actual external world has somehow been made subject to human external sense or reason. To my knowledge, no reputable scientist has ever made such a claim nor have I seen objective evidence to support it.

As far as justice and the rule of law, this is a “bias” also supported in scripture from the time of Moses, long before the Greeks came into the picture. So whether it’s in the form of philosophy or modern day empiricism, Skepticism is rather late to the party and IMO, would be properly stand towards the end of the line.

If skepticism is a bias, it's a bias if favor of discovering what's true in reality by carefully examining the evidence and impartially reasoning from it.

I believe Skepticism can be traced back to the early Greeks, but there have always been skeptics. We have skeptics who claim the earth is flat, that the lunar landing was faked, even those who question whether the holocaust ever happened. Like any endeavor, it has its share of wins and losses.

However, I really don’t want to get into a long discussion of Skepticism, Empiricism or even Rationalism. IMO, it’s simply one of those discussions that can drag the whole day long and as stated previously, I barely have time to post here. It would make an interesting discussion but it’s rather far afield from thread theme.

Bias is not a bad thing per se. It can be rational and helpful, such as a bias against driving drunken, or it can be irrational and useless or destructive, as with bigotry.

Totally agree!

 

[Oeste]

An unproven premise is entirely different to 'beyond human reasoning', just as 'the bus will leave at 6.20 pm today' is entirely different to '1+1+1=1'.

Yes, they’re both different, but neither is unreasonable, neither the unproven premise nor something ‘beyond’ human reasoning. As stated earlier, the notion everything is ‘within’ human reasoning is a human vanity.

And as I stated before, your answer shows you don't understand what a 'mystery in the strict sense' is.

My answer is in keeping with the historic Church. As for yours, who knows?

Ah, if only you'd stayed away from those truthless apologists and actually looked at the texts. Pity.

Lol, if only you'd stay away from @It Aint Necessarily So. Pity.

Heresy is a political tool, the enforcement of the views of the team in power, certainly not interested in what's true in reality. For that reason many apologists are fond of it.

Heresy is simply unsound doctrine. I would agree that it can be used as a political tool.

'The supernatural', being an imaginary realm, has no objective test for 'truth'.

Not in Christianity. We've handed skeptics, especially empiricists,all the tools necessary to show whether the supernatural exists or not.

Arguments based on the wording of texts can however give such a basis.

I'll agree with that.

Come, let us reason together.

Is Jesus God? Well, he declares that the Father is 'the only true God' and that the Father is the god he worships, so Jesus can't be God.

So is Jesus speaking as God? Nope, he's ruled that out. But as God's envoy he can, I dare say, speak for his principal.

Then Jesus misspoke. Instead of saying “I am” he should have said, “the Father is” or some such thing.

There's simply no getting around that Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience and that he was speaking of himself, not of his Father. Your assertion only makes half-sense if we strip Jesus’ comments from their context.

I don't see how the words of God's envoy can be blasphemy, since Jesus is simply assuring his audience of the source of his authority.

That’s how idols are made., something strictly prohibited under scripture.

You can't say "I am!" in front of a Jewish audience and point to a statue. Ditto for any man, and certainly for any man pointing to himself.

A divine being of some kind, possibly called 'the Son' who wasn't God. John's Jesus makes that clear.

That would make it impossible to resolve these verse:

Revelation 22:8-9

I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, "Do not do that I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God."

Matthew 4:9-10

and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"

Luke 4:7-8

"Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours." Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"

Romans 1:25

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Colossians 2:18

Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,​

Great! So who do you say Jesus was prior to his incarnation?

A divine being of some kind, possibly called 'the Son' who wasn't God. John's Jesus makes that clear.

So does Paul, in a passage for which I'm indebted to @rrobs ─

1 Corinthians 15:27 “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection under him,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.
28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.

This is Christ’s functional subjection to the Father and has nothing to do with his nature or being. Christ came to live as man on earth and not to live as God on earth. That’s something Satan wanted Jesus to do. As a man he is subject to the Father but as God He is subject to no one.

Again, look to the verse and see whether it speaks of Jesus as a man, or as God.

So the Father tells Jesus what to do, and Jesus does it. The Father, after all, is 'the only true god', and the god Jesus worships.

"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent

Nothing here conflicts with Trinitarian understanding of the Triune God. There is only one true God and Christ was most certainly sent.

Remember the context here. Christ is speaking as a man.

Where does it say "One God but 3 distinct (not individual) persons"?

Or is it just you saying that?

My goodness, it's all over the biblical text! When Marie Antoinette's head came rolling off the guillotine nobody had to ask "Is she dead?"

@Spartan gave plenty of verses showing Jesus is Jehovah. Nobody's refuted that. I'd pull out the post for you but I can hardly keep my eyes open. It's late.

 

[Spartan]

@Spartan gave plenty of verses showing Jesus is Jehovah. Nobody's refuted that. I'd pull out the post for you but I can hardly keep my eyes open. It's late.

Here's the link on Jesus Must be Jehovah

Jesus Must be Jehovah

 

[blü 2]

IMO, Blu makes argument for Empiricism as witnessed by his avocation for scientific methods of inquiry.

The question is, 'What's true in reality?' Where else than reality should you, can you, look for information on that question?

But modern science makes no claim that it has proven or disproven God through empirical study.

The reason for this strongly appears to be that gods are not elements of reality, existing only in the imagination of individuals. One striking piece of evidence for that is the total absence of a definition of a real god, such that if we found a candidate we could determine whether it were God or not. This comes hand in glove with the absence of a definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have that a real superscientist ─ or a real teaspoon or a real dachshund ─ would lack.

Without such definitions, what is science supposed to be looking for, what's the proposition that's to be shown to be an accurate statement about reality or not?

 

[blü 2]

Yes, they’re both different, but neither is unreasonable, neither the unproven premise nor something ‘beyond’ human reasoning. As stated earlier, the notion everything is ‘within’ human reasoning is a human vanity.

What test do you use to tell whether anything is outside of human reasoning? I can't think of one. Yet without one, every incoherent statement is suddenly declared to be true, accurate, satisfactory, in your book ─ by virtue of being incoherent. Strongly disagree.

My answer is in keeping with the historic Church. As for yours, who knows?

Your understanding is not 'in keeping with the historic Church' unless you understand why the Trinity doctrine 'cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, and cannot be cogently demonstrated by reason when revealed'. The clear demonstration of your failure to understand is that all your purported explanations of the doctrine try to make sense.

Not in Christianity. We've handed skeptics, especially empiricists,all the tools necessary to show whether the supernatural exists or not.

No, once again you haven't given any meaningful definition, this time of 'supernatural', 'immaterial', 'spiritual' at all ─ again, such that if we encountered an example, we could tell whether or not it was indeed supernatural, immaterial, spiritual, or as the case may be.

Then Jesus misspoke. Instead of saying “I am” he should have said, “the Father is” or some such thing.

Why would Jesus' saying 'I am' be inconsistent with the proposition, found in Paul and John, that Jesus existed in heaven from the start with God, and was indeed God's agent in creating the universe?

And that reminds me of another point. In Matthew 28:18, the risen Jesus says, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,' (ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). First, who gave Jesus that authority? Second, that leaves the Father and the Ghost powerless, not each 100% of God ─ indeed, why need anyone every mention either of them again?.

That would make it impossible to resolve these verse:

Ahm, why would the angel saying 'Worship God' rule out Jesus as God's envoy. God doesn't have just the one envoy, after all.

And why would Satan bother with Jesus if Jesus were god? God doesn't need all the kingdoms of the world. So it makes perfect sense for Jesus to tell him to stop clowning around and get on with worshiping their common boss.

And so on.

This is Christ’s functional subjection to the Father and has nothing to do with his nature or being. Christ came to live as man on earth and not to live as God on earth. That’s something Satan wanted Jesus to do. As a man he is subject to the Father but as God He is subject to no one.

"This is Christ’s functional subjection to the Father and has nothing to do with his nature or being." I'm trying to think of the theological word for your proposition ─ is that 'bunkum', would you say, or 'balderdash'?


Anyway, this topic is getting boring, so when you reply, just give me those definitions ─ they're the only interesting things here after all this time.

 

[We Never Know]

In the Bible Jesus is clearly identified as the divine, pre-incarnate God, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Trinity). Two articles provide backup for this:

The Deity of Jesus Christ in Scripture
Jesus Must be Jehovah

The Bible also identifies Jesus as the Creator of all things: "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him." - Colossians 1:16

The Bible also says that Jesus existed as God BEFORE his incarnation as a man (Philippians 2:5-7, etc.).

The primary purpose of this thread is designed to find out who people say Jesus is. Is he God incarnate? Is he the Creator God like the Bible says or is he a created being? WAS JESUS RESURRECTED from the dead as all four Gospels attest (i.e. is Jesus the resurrected Savior)?

Is he Rob Zombie?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Scripture has been of tremendous value to believer and unbeliever alike, shaping our morality and heavily influencing our culture, politics and history.

Perhaps, but I can't find value in it. I turn to it for nothing.

I think that political theory (and hence culture and the human condition) took a quantum leap forward with Enlightenment such as democracy, limited and divided government, church-state separation, egalitarianism, and guaranteed personal freedoms replaced the biblical model and the doctrine of the divine right of kings.

There are Christians and non-Christians alike who reject that Jesus is God. The point here is to show that scripture doesn’t do the same.

I thought that blu made a compelling case for there being multiple scriptures supporting the idea that Jesus never claimed to be God. You showed contradictory scriptures. That's common. The Bible makes both claims.

We have His attributes but not all of them. For instance, we have grace, mercy and intellect but not omniscience. Some of these attributes are shared by animals.

As I argued, I think that I am more in the image of a chimp than the god of the Christian Bible. The chimp an I are both mortal, were both born, experience fear and hunger, etc.. If a chimp could speak, we could compare the human condition to the chimp condition and commiserate on the similarities - how we both cared about feeding and protecting our young, and taking shelter from the elements. If there was a god nearby listening in, what could the god add? What it's like to make a universe? You mentioned that we are in His image intellectually, but I suspect that we would be closer to the chimp in intellect than to an omniscient god.

Skepticism questions the certainty of knowledge. In other words, it denies we can be certain about anything, so in its most extreme form states we should suspend judgement about everything, because arriving at any certainty of knowledge would be impossible.

Yes, the educated rational skeptic understands that very little knowledge is certain, and that philosophical doubt must be maintained in all cases except possible doubting one's own conscious existence.

The most salient feature of skepticism is its rejection of received wisdom and instead, believe only that which can be supported empirically (with evidence properly understood). As I indicated, it has been one of the most fruitful notions in man's intellectual history. Question revealed wisdom. It's an ancient precept :

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

Skepticism has its adherents but I would question (be skeptical) as to whether it has any broad appeal.

Skepticism underlies the sciences. Although people would be well advised to be skeptical themselves, they will benefit from the advances brought on by the skepticism of others even if they continue to prefer received wisdom to verified claims.

Of course, if anyone here is a true skeptic, they would also question any claim of broad, but to a narrow or focused appeal as well.

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you are suggesting being skeptical of skepticism, I would say that I have been, and the practice has enough evidence to justify continuing it. Being skeptical has paid off time and again, where taking the words of others on faith has been costly. That's evidence of the value of the principle.

Reconsider the point made above about rejecting the received wisdom of the Bible commanding man to submit to earthly rulers appointed by God. Skepticism says show me. If you can't show me a god commanding this, there is no reason to assume that it happened. Skepticism says maybe there are better ways to govern, And going down that road has paid tremendous dividends.

Skepticism says throw out the received wisdom about the stars controlling the lives of men and your sterile horoscopes, and instead fix your gaze to heavens and decide how the world works not from received wisdom, but empirically. And with that, the useless astology became the very successful science of astronomy

That's the evidence in support of the principle of skepticism.

I want to make it clear that I don’t doubt scientific inquiry has helped explain our external world, but I certainly do question that it has, can, or will explain all of it.

You should question that. That's skepticism. We'll take all of the help we can get from science, and thank it for what it has accomplished rather than berate it for what it has not.