Who do YOU say Jesus is?

[rrobs]

I've thought about that before. It is true that we weren't under the Jewish law, but as I thought about it, every person has a law which we brake anyways. So I figured, either way, I still needed Jesus.

Romans chapter 1 addresses that very issue. Basically, everybody, Jew and Gentile alike, has a sense of right and wrong and we don't always do what it right, so we do in fact all need Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The synoptic gospels do not support the idea of Jesus being God. The gospel of John, being written the latest in history, begins to hint at this. But it was actually hundreds of years in the future that true Trinitarianism was formulated. You simply don't find it in the Christian Bible.

 

[rrobs]

Unless of course you were, or are, a Jew.

Your subtitle, "Loving God and my neighbor as myself" is fulfilling the whole law. Good one to have and follow.

Rom 13:10,

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.​

 

[rrobs]

The synoptic gospels do not support the idea of Jesus being God. The gospel of John, being written the latest in history, begins to hint at this. But it was actually hundreds of years in the future that true Trinitarianism was formulated. You simply don't find it in the Christian Bible.

Yes. And it was formulated by folks who'd kill those who didn't get on board with the idolatry of more than one God. Went that way until just a few hundred years ago. That in itself out to speak volumes to anyone trying to learn the character of Jesus. Of course, as you pointed out, the Bible is the final authority on the matter and it is clear that Jesus was the son of God. God the Son is a totally man made construct. I don't understand why so many miss it. I guess it's the power of tradition.

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
​

Imagine all the sincere Christians that make God's word of none effect by their tradition. It's incredibly sad.

Take care...

 

[Oeste]

Not quite. I included it as one of seventeen or more statements attributed to Jesus in first person speech that he's not God. There was no discussion at the time about what 'good' means here.
Jesus could be good at those things because he's using God's goodness rather than his own, no?

Was he any good at using God's goodness?

That would be consistent with his saying such things as ─

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

​

Of course...but he wasn't any good at it, right? After all, why would we call Jesus good? Only God is good.

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

So was he good at this, kind of good. pretty good at it or since only God is good, just no good at all?

​

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

Surely if none of us is good at being good then since God is almighty and all-knowing and benevolent, the buck stops with God, no? How can it possibly stop anywhere else?

I try as best I can, not always succeeding, to act with decency and in good conscience towards others in this world, and I suspect this is what everyone, believer or not, ends up doing. The sources of this morality are our evolved instincts as gregarious primates for the main part, and upbringing, culture, education and experience for the rest.

The problem is we try and fail. Jesus could not fail. How do you do that if you're not good?

Once again I query this Christian notion of original sin. It's found nowhere in the Garden story, which doesn't mention sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, &c, and it is baldly contradicted by Ezekiel 18, a substantial discussion which includes ─

20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
​

Of course each is free to believe as each pleases, but why wish oneself innately vile? We didn't raise our kids with such degrading notions, and they turned out fine. Why would Christians?

Thank you Blü! I think you've outlined the problem very succinctly.

I understand your rationale. It presents no problem for skeptics. They doubt the bible's veracity anyways, and if something doesn't make sense or is contradictory it's no big deal. It's like watching Game of Thrones and seeing a Starbucks' cup lying on a medieval table. You see it and move on.

But for non-Trinitarian bible believers, who don't believe Jesus is God,it creates a HUGE problem. Jesus died for our sins, so he has to be good at everything you enumerated above. One slip up, one moment or instance where he doesn't follow the Father's advice, one lapse where he breaks a Law, and it's all over. You can't be kind of good or half-bad and die for mankind after all.It's like an "eye for an eye" and giving the guy a plastic eye to resolve your debt. Atonement just doesn't work that way.

Jesus was the only one good enough, and the only one good is God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your subtitle, "Loving God and my neighbor as myself" is fulfilling the whole law. Good one to have and follow.

Rom 13:10,

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.​

But we have to remember which set of laws we are responsible to. Jews have a much narrower set of responsibilities in terms of Loving God and Loving Neighbor. After all, loving our neighbor as ourselves is a good starting point. But it begins the process of studying, so that we understand how to apply the principle. For example, the Jew is required to keep kosher and observe Shabbat, while the Gentile is not.

 

[Kenny]

Unless of course you were, or are, a Jew.

LOL... well, for sure I'm Jewish now... a wild branch grafted into the Olive Tree.

 

[Kenny]

Romans chapter 1 addresses that very issue. Basically, everybody, Jew and Gentile alike, has a sense of right and wrong and we don't always do what it right, so we do in fact all need Jesus.

Great point. You said it much better than I did.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

LOL... well, for sure I'm Jewish now... a wild branch grafted into the Olive Tree.

Being a Christian doesn't make you a Jew, sir.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus always claimed to be God's son. I don't know exactly how many times he did that, but I suspect more than 17. I do know that he was called the son of God 49 times altogether. Clearly a son can't be his own father, so Jesus was, by any sense of logic and sane thinking, someone other than God.

I can't fault your logic, but I suspect the Trinitarians would reply that by the Trinity Doctrine, each of the three persons of God is of [him]self 100% of God, so 'Son of God' is a rank inside the Trinitarian god.

Rom 2:14-16,

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.​

Right on the money! And not one I'd noticed.

Well, God did tell Eve she would die if she disobeyed. I suppose, as you say, it didn't specifically speak of "original sin."

The snake, with perfect accuracy, said to Eve 'No, you won't die.' And there's the further point that at the moment each of Eve and Adam ate the fruit, they were, by God's design, without knowledge of good and evil, so it was impossible for either of them to form any sinful intention. Nor did God mention sin or disobedience when he gave his reasons for expelling them from the Garden.

However the book of Romans is quite specific on the matter.

Indeed. But since Paul is mistaken as to the source of the idea of original sin, and since Ezekiel 18 passim (but take, say, Ezekiel 18:20 as a sample), rules out the idea that sin can be inherited, the idea is at best of dubious authenticity and more generally, a bald contradiction.

Instead of the term "original sin" I prefer to think of it as a "sin nature." We are born to sin, so to speak.

We are born to compete for places in the peck order in our own tribe, and to compete with other tribes and all other animals for our resources; and we're also born to cooperate, and to have a sense of fairness and justness, and to be capable of civility and altruism (one rather ambiguous form of which is the warrior). We can be smart and stupid, generous and greedy, loving and hating, all these kinds of things are in us. Why not emphasize that we're born with a better nature?

I recall the distress of our eldest coming home from kindergarten having been told for the first time what a vile and hell-bound lot we humans, including him, are (the general idea 'that for a worm a god should die'); and my wife very calmly told him that other people might think these things but that we don't, and that there was nothing to worry about. So he digested that and never looked back. On the positive side, we were able to protect the other two in a more timely manner.

Everything in the original creation, including man was "good." Now the concept of "good" to the ancient Hebrew mind was not at all like we think of "good." We tend to go to a moral quality, but the Hebrews didn't think like that. It is the Hebrew word "tov" and is better thought of as "functional."

But standing back, the Garden story is just that, a story. If it's an allegory, then it would be one that says we start off as infants, protected by our parents, then we reach adolescence, the sexual imperatives in our nature emerge (nakedness / 'the knowledge of good and evil'), and shortly it's time for us to leave home, find a place of our own, get a job and repeat the cycle.

I'm not sure why this contradicts the truth that people have a sin nature, they don't always act in their own best interest or that of others.

It says that our sins are our own, not our parents', and not Adam's. Paul's take on this is a later invention ─ I seem to recall it's found in Alexandrian Jewish thought around the near end of the second century BCE.

But for all our faults, I still argue against characterizing humans as 'sinful'. The idea leaves far too much out.

As far as wishing oneself vileness, I'd only say I never wished myself death, which I consider highly vile. It wasn't my idea. It was thrust upon me the day I was born. I had not choice in the matter. Jesus has paved the way for anybody who thinks like me to avoid death. He promises an eternal life of ease, free from sickness, sadness, worry, fear, and all the other dysfunctional things things we face in this life. I'm willing to follow a guy like that!

But again, if you take one step back, you see that it's good for the world to have generational change, which the presence of one's numerous great-great-great &c forebears would stifle; and they'd own everything too. Death isn't good for the human, but it's essential for humans.

As for belief in life after death, I can't see that either as a real, a credible possibility, or as a desirable thing in itself ─ why? to do what? or as the saying goes, eternity is very long, especially towards the end.

But to you, and to people of goodwill generally, live long and prosper!

 

[Oeste]

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.

For anyone who believes this is a logical deduction we can derive from a reasonable exploration of the Trinity, I have an exercise for you:

Trisha is a substitute school teacher in a private Unitarian school which vehemently denies the Trinity. Today she has a bowl of apples to help illustrate math to her class.

She notices a problem on the black board and decides to demonstrate a solution with some apples she brought in for the class.

“Let’s break a large problem into a smaller problem.

For 3 x 3” she says “we can start by taking out 3 apples. But we multiply by 3, so we need to take out these 3 apples 3 times.” She shows 9 apples on the table. "But we’re not finished, because we also need to multiply what we have another 3 times, so we start with the 9 apples and we take those 3 times." She then pulls out another group of 9, and still another group until she reaches 27 apples. “So 3 x 3 x 3 is equal to 27, or 27 apples. As she replaces the apples she turns to the class and asks: Does everyone understand?”

Her students nod enthusiastically, assuring her they do.

She does the same for 2 x 2 x 2, starting with 2 apples, then taking another group for 4, and then another group of 4 until she has 8 apples on the table. She’s about to offer the apples to the class when little Johnny, who sits in the back raises his hand and asks “What about the 1’s?”

For one 1 x 1 x 1, Johnny’s teacher pulls out one apple. “If we multiply one apple by one apple, it is one apple, and if we multiply it again by one it is still one apple”.

“That’s not quite right!”, little Johnny exclaims. “You have one apple, but now it’s three times as big as it was before.”

“Illustrate” says the teacher.

With that, Johnny gets up, grabs some tape, and proceeds to the front of the class. "We tape all 3 apples together. So we have one apple, just like you said Mrs. Trish but now it's 3 times as big." Putting the finishing touches to his masterpiece he adds “This is your solution, and not that Trinitarian nonsense you were trying to teach us before.” The class nods approvingly as Johnny takes his seat.

​

Given the argument you’ve just presented, I see you and @rrobs siding with Johnny. If not, please discuss how you might present the apple so that Johnny and the rest of the class don’t see 1 x 1 x 1 apple as a single apple that’s now 3 times as big.

Once you've done this I think you just may be able to explain the Trinity doctrine's math accurately and logically to yourselves and a lot of our work here will be done.

 

[blü 2]

These verses have been addressed and none of them stated what you claimed. Then we posted what…a hundred and fifty more verses showing Jesus is God?

In the verses I gave @Spartan, Jesus says, to take a few stark examples ─

Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “... 29 My Father ... is greater than all”.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

John 20:17 "... I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

and Paul chimes in with, for example ─

Philippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

And not once, not anywhere, does Jesus say, "I am God" ─ which if he were indeed God, would not only be an odd omission but a deeply deceitful one.

There's no getting through to you guys, is there. It's GOT to say there's a Trinity, even if the Trinity idea didn't exist back then, even if it's not only an incoherent doctrine but admittedly so, even if it leaves Jesus saying 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?' and being his own father, and so on.

No doubt the rocks they picked up to stone Jesus for blasphemy would have been dropped immediately.

Ah, God is easily frightened! How could I fail to see that!

Too funny blu! It's you who believes the doctrine nonsense, not the traditional church. I'm sure we would have gotten the memo had the church agreed with you.

You did. You just forgot to read it.

The memo reads,

"The [Trinity] doctrine is held to be a mystery in the strict sense, in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed"

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, under 'Trinity'
​

If you go to the online Catholic Encyclopedia and look under both 'Trinity' and 'Mystery' you'll see that the RCC agrees.

Now if something can't be known by reason, or shown to be correct by reason once it's known, what would be an appropriate name for that something? Beyond a doubt, 'an unreasonable thing'. 'A nonsense' would fit too. So would 'an incoherent thing'.

The test of the Trinity doctrine is in scripture…simple exegesis and hermeneutics.

What scripture is that, given that the Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the NT and Jesus expressly and repeatedly denies he's God?

Give me just one place in the NT where Jesus says, "I am God". I've given you five above where Jesus says "I am not God". (Don't give quotes like, "I am" or "I am Alpha and Omega" or "I am Mr Ed the Talking Horse" ─ We're looking for where Jesus says, "I am God".

As for God, Christians are not encouraged to put Him to the test.

It'd be very difficult, since they have no clear idea what God is, and even less if we require God to be real, to have objective existence. Not that I do, but then that's not my problem.

Yes. A mystery in this context is simply a “revealed truth”.

But a 'mystery in the strict sense' is as defined above.

Yet skeptic scoff at the idea there might be things beyond man’s ability to reason.

That would to admit the obvious: that to speak of God is not to have the faintest idea what real thing or entity you're actually talking about.

But, heavens forbid, I don’t want you to think me close minded about this. Since my assertions are based on scripture and faith while you prefer those based on reproducible, objective evidence, kindly post your Theory of Everything.

My Theory of Everything starts with three assumptions. I have to assume them, since they have in common that they can't be demonstrated to be correct without the prior assumption that they are correct.

That a world exists external to the self;
That our senses are capable of informing us of that world.
That reason is a valid tool.​

It seems to me that by posting here you demonstrate that you agree with the first two. If you disagree with the third, now would be a good time to say so.

The rest is a matter of exploring, describing and seeking to explain what exists in the world external to the self ─ objective reality, nature, the realm of the physical sciences.

And the way to do this is by reasoned enquiry. With the physical sciences this takes the form of scientific method.

This also gives rise to our concept of truth. A statement is true to the extent that it conforms with / corresponds to / accurately describes objective reality. Since science proceeds by empiricism and induction, none of its conclusions is ever absolute, simply the best opinion for the time being. There are no absolutes outside this sentence.

You, by contrast, have no definition of God appropriate to a real god, one sufficient to allow us to tell whether any real candidate is God or not. You don't even have a definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god has and nothing else does.

If you did, I could test this keyboard I'm using and determine whether it's God or not; but you don't, so I'll never know.

Meanwhile the only place that God is known to exist is as a concept, a thing imagined that has no objective counterpart, in individual brains.

But if that's wrong, please supply me with those definitions. It might alter my relationship with this keyboard forever.

 

[blü 2]

For anyone who believes this is a logical deduction we can derive from a reasonable exploration of the Trinity, I have an exercise for you:

Trisha is a substitute school teacher in a private Unitarian school which vehemently denies the Trinity. Today she has a bowl of apples to help illustrate math to her class.

She notices a problem on the black board and decides to demonstrate a solution with some apples she brought in for the class.

View attachment 28853​

“Let’s break a large problem into a smaller problem.

For 3 x 3” she says “we can start by taking out 3 apples. But we multiply by 3, so we need to take out these 3 apples 3 times.” She shows 9 apples on the table. "But we’re not finished, because we also need to multiply what we have another 3 times, so we start with the 9 apples and we take those 3 times." She then pulls out another group of 9, and still another group until she reaches 27 apples. “So 3 x 3 x 3 is equal to 27, or 27 apples. As she replaces the apples she turns to the class and asks: Does everyone understand?”

Her students nod enthusiastically, assuring her they do.

She does the same for 2 x 2 x 2, starting with 2 apples, then taking another group for 4, and then another group of 4 until she has 8 apples on the table. She’s about to offer the apples to the class when little Johnny, who sits in the back raises his hand and asks “What about the 1’s?”

For one 1 x 1 x 1, Johnny’s teacher pulls out one apple. “If we multiply one apple by one apple, it is one apple, and if we multiply it again by one it is still one apple”.

“That’s not quite right!”, little Johnny exclaims. “You have one apple, but now it’s three times as big as it was before.”

“Illustrate” says the teacher.

With that, Johnny gets up, grabs some tape, and proceeds to the front of the class. "We tape all 3 apples together. So we have one apple, just like you said Mrs. Trish but now it's 3 times as big." Putting the finishing touches to his masterpiece he adds “This is your solution, and not that Trinitarian nonsense you were trying to teach us before.” The class nods approvingly as Johnny takes his seat.

View attachment 28852​

Given the argument you’ve just presented, I see you and @rrobs siding with Johnny. If not, please discuss how you might present the apple so that Johnny and the rest of the class don’t see 1 x 1 x 1 apple as a single apple that’s now 3 times as big.

Once you've done this I think you just may be able to explain the Trinity doctrine's math accurately and logically to yourselves and a lot of our work here will be done.

So if X = (Jesus + Father) / Ghost

what's the square root of X?

Talk me through it, step by step.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Horus
Buddha
Mithra
Krishna
Osiris

John 1:2

Jesus was NOT some carpenter's son. He was part of the Trinity well before his death and resurrection. He has always been the Savior.

And he will return long after people try to kill off the last Christian.

Jesus did not die to save us from sins. He died, so that we might know we are saved from sin.

 

[Spartan]

And not once, not anywhere, does Jesus say, "I am God" ─

You keep posting that fairy tale over and over again.

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born, I am!" You might not have a clue what that means but the Jews of his day did. They picked up stones to stone him with. They obviously believed he was claiming to be God.

The OP links refute your "Jesus is not God" agenda. Recommend you read them again.

The Deity of Jesus Christ in Scripture
Jesus Must be Jehovah

 

[blü 2]

You keep posting that fairy tale over and over again.

You keep offering me excuses.

I've already pointed out to you that "Before Abraham was born, I am!" is NOT a claim to be God, simply to have existed with God in heaven.

That explanation can be reconciled with eg

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.”

Yours, by contrast, is flatly contradicted by those statements, and by many others eg

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.”

If Jesus is God, why does he need anyone else's authority?

John 14:28 ... I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

If Jesus is God, how can the Father be greater than Jesus?

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

If Jesus is God, how can the Father be the only true God?

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

If Jesus is God, how come he worships the Father?


Oh, and please answer concisely in your own words. No cop-out links please.

 

[Spartan]

You keep offering me excuses.

I've already pointed out to you that "Before Abraham was born, I am!" is NOT a claim to be God, simply to have existed with God in heaven.

That's wrong. The OP articles I posted refute you.

You know, the Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing you do - dredge up quotations of Jesus in his incarnated servant humanity, and fail to comprehend and acknowledge the HUNDREDS OF OTHER SCRIPTURES, TITLES, AND OTHER EXAMPLES THAT SHOW THE DEITY OF JESUS. PICK AND CHOOSE IS WHAT THEY DO.

If Jesus is God, how come he worships the Father?

Because Jesus incarnated as a servant (Philippians 2) and the Father is in heaven and is due respect.

Piece of cake.

 

[blü 2]

That's wrong. The OP articles I posted refute you.

Other way round, ol' buddy.

You know, the Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing you do - dredge up quotations of Jesus in his incarnated servant humanity, and fail to comprehend and acknowledge the HUNDREDS OF OTHER SCRIPTURES, TITLES, AND OTHER EXAMPLES THAT SHOW THE DEITY OF JESUS. PICK AND CHOOSE IS WHAT THEY DO.

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

You haven't come up with a single "I am God" said by Jesus. You only need one. But you don't have even one. Just all these limp little excuses, exactly the reason why apologetics is held is such contempt by honest folk.

Because Jesus incarnated as a servant (Philippians 2) and the Father is in heaven and is due respect.

That's not what Jesus says. Who are we to believe should Paul and Jesus contradict each other.

And Paul was perfectly clear that Jesus is not God ─ you haven't forgotten that in the same passage you're quoting, Paul said
(Philippians 2): 11... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Have you? And you forgot to tell me why Jesus worships the Father? And why he needs authority from the Father?

(Answer: Because he's not only not God, but he doesn't pretend to be.)

 

[Spartan]

Other way round, ol' buddy.
That's called 'projection' ─ accusing your colloquist of your own crime.

You haven't come up with a single "I am God" said by Jesus. You only need one. But you don't have even one.

Sure I do.

 

[JJ50]

Sure I do.

If he really said any of that he was being silly, and had far too high an opinion of himself.