Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[IndigoChild5559]

It is confounding, frankly, that someone talks about a messiah coming or not coming but does not believe the Bible. No questions.

"but does not believe the Bible." I have addressed this remark with you before, so now I am getting angry, because I feel that you are willfully misrepresenting me. One last time I will explain, and if you repeat this accusation yet again, I will simply stop talking to you.

You do NOT have to accept something as historical in order to "believe in it." Let me give you the most obvious example. In your own gospels, Jesus speaks in stories called parables. These stories are not historical, they are fiction. But you "believe in them" because you value the moral lessons that they teach. IOW, it is not necessary to believe there was a literal Good Samaritan in order to believe in the teaching that being a good neighbor means reaching out with compassion to anyone in need, regardless of their ethnicity. You do not need to believe that there was a literal Prodigal Son who left home and later returned in order to believe in the truth that God is a loving Father who wants to reconcile with us. Fictitious stories are the best genre to use for teaching morals and values, which is why Jesus used it.

So this is now a warning. Do not repeat your lie that I don't "believe in" the Tanakh.

 

[YoursTrue]

"but does not believe the Bible." I have addressed this remark with you before, so now I am getting angry, because I feel that you are willfully misrepresenting me. One last time I will explain, and if you repeat this accusation yet again, I will simply stop talking to you.

You do NOT have to accept something as historical in order to "believe in it." Let me give you the most obvious example. In your own gospels, Jesus speaks in stories called parables. These stories are not historical, they are fiction. But you "believe in them" because you value the moral lessons that they teach. IOW, it is not necessary to believe there was a literal Good Samaritan in order to believe in the teaching that being a good neighbor means reaching out with compassion to anyone in need, regardless of their ethnicity. You do not need to believe that there was a literal Prodigal Son who left home and later returned in order to believe in the truth that God is a loving Father who wants to reconcile with us. Fictitious stories are the best genre to use for teaching morals and values, which is why Jesus used it.

So this is now a warning. Do not repeat your lie that I don't "believe in" the Tanakh.

Sorry to have offended you so. I hope we can come to better terms in the future. But if not, so be it. I do understand certain things are parables, or illustrations.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Gospel of John is different. Jesus is not represented as a mere man.

Jesus was not a mere man. Jesus was a Manifestation of God, but a Manifestation of God is not God incarnate. He is a man who manifests God.
Jesus had a twofold nature, one nature human, the other divine.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (John 10:33)

The Jews mistakenly thought that Jesus was claiming to be God, but Jesus never claimed to be God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Instead it identifies John's Jesus with the gnostic demiurge ("craftsman") ─ the Jesuses of Paul and of John existed in heaven with God before coming to earth and created the entire material universe, unlike any of the synoptic Jesuses or indeed what's written in Genesis.

Baha'is believe that the soul of Jesus existed in the spiritual world (heaven) before the body of Jesus was born of Mary in this world.
I guess you think that the Jesus of Paul created the entire material universe because of the following verse?

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

That verse above is patently absurd. Only God could do what that verse says, and God did what that verse says.
Jesus was not God, so Jesus did not create all things.

Why do you think that the Jesus of John created the entire material universe?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I believe that Jesus was the Word.
The Word was God because Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

I do not believe that Jesus was God incarnated in the flesh, because God is spirit, not flesh.

The Word was with God because Jesus was with God in the spiritual world before He was born in this world.

I believe that the following two verses are about God. All things were created by God.

John 1
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[Trailblazer]

That doesn’t mean Jesus is God, only that he’s been saying that he is.

No, Jesus never said that He was God. The Jews mistakenly believed that was what Jesus was claiming.

 

[Trailblazer]

So on what basis do people believe in Christianity at all if they have no Tradition?

Based on what Jesus said.

 

[Trailblazer]

Closer to the people who knew Jesus is a silly argument for Christians?

Okay.

People who knew Jesus drew up the Trinity doctrine? That's new to me.
The Council of Nicaea was held in 325 AD. How could those men have known Jesus?

The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Feb 9, 2010

Council of Nicaea concludes - The HISTORY Channel​

 

[Trailblazer]

You're free to believe whatever pleases you, but the NT gives you no support. There, all five versions of Jesus expressly deny they're God.

What Jesus denies in so many words does not matter to Christians who believe that Jesus is God.
They will find scriptures and twist their meanings to suit their beliefs.

Based upon simple logic Jesus could not have been God because certain attributes are unique to God.
Only God is Sovereign, All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, Unchanging, Impassable, Infinite, Omnipresent, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, and Immaterial, so nobody except God can have those attributes.

 

[Trailblazer]

Only John says the Word was made flesh,

The Word was God because Jesus was God manifested in the flesh, but that does not mean that the Word became flesh.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Word was God because Jesus was God manifested in the flesh, but that does not mean that the Word became flesh.

I guess you don't believe John 1:14. That's okay. Niether do I

 

[Trailblazer]

And since I view God as being outside of space time, it would be inappropriate of me to assign God any location.

or to locate God with a GPS tracker.

 

[Trailblazer]

I guess you don't believe John 1:14. That's okay. Niether do I

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I believe that verse means that when God sent Jesus, God was “manifested” in the flesh and Jesus dwelt among us.
God did not become flesh, but rather the divine perfections of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Bible (including the Tanakh) does not teach that we have an "immortal spirit."

Ecclesiastes 12:7
KJ21
then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

 

[blü 2]

Baha'is believe that the soul of Jesus existed in the spiritual world (heaven) before the body of Jesus was born of Mary in this world.
I guess you think that the Jesus of Paul created the entire material universe because of the following verse?

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Yes, and Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

That verse above is patently absurd. Only God could do what that verse says, and God did what that verse says.
Jesus was not God, so Jesus did not create all things.

Why do you think that the Jesus of John created the entire material universe?

I don't think anyone in the bible created the entire universe. I see nothing indicating purpose or point in the design ─ we have septillions of stars with no planets, a few planets, a lot of planets, yet life is known to exist on exactly one planet, and on that planet human life only after the best part of 14 bn years had elapsed ─ which is to say, if God did it, then God is monumentally, mind-bogglingly, terminally inefficient.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I believe that Jesus was the Word.
The Word was God because Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.

I agree it's arguable that this is what John's author meant. ("Logos", from the verb "légo", to speak, means "a speaking", and from there has a great many further meanings.)

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

I do not believe that Jesus was God incarnated in the flesh, because God is spirit, not flesh.

Then from that point of view, an acceptable interpretation of that verse might be, "God was manifest through [his] human envoy".

The Word was with God because Jesus was with God in the spiritual world before He was born in this world.

That's true of the Jesuses of Paul and John, the gnostic ones. It's not true of the three synoptic Jesuses ─ Mark's Jesus was just an ordinary Jewish lad until God made him [his] son by adoption on the model of David's adoption Psalm 2:7, and the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke were the result of the divine insemination of a virgin, a bald fairy-tale but a best seller in the market square.

I believe that the following two verses are about God. All things were created by God.

John 1
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

For some reason I get an image of Jean-Luc Picard saying to Riker, "Make it so, Number One."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I believe that verse means that when God sent Jesus, God was “manifested” in the flesh and Jesus dwelt among us.
God did not become flesh, but rather the divine perfections of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh.

I'm not trying to hassle you. You are welcome to whatever beliefs you wish. But the verse does not mention manifestation. It states that the Word was made flesh. I you say that Word was NOT made flesh, then you are essentially disagreeing with the verse. Which is fine. I feel the same way.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not trying to hassle you. You are welcome to whatever beliefs you wish. But the verse does not mention manifestation. It states that the Word was made flesh. I you say that Word was NOT made flesh, then you are essentially disagreeing with the verse. Which is fine. I feel the same way.

I see what you mean now, but I believe it is total garbage to believe that God became flesh.
I am not like the other Baha'is who mince words.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, and Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

I believe that verse is total garbage.

Then from that point of view, an acceptable interpretation of that verse might be, "God was manifest through [his] human envoy".

Yes, that is what I believe. God was manifested in Jesus.

 

[Ella S.]

Based on what Jesus said.

This cuts straight to the heart of the matter with deadly precision, I think.

 

[Rival]

Based on what Jesus said.

And how do they know what Jesus said without a tradition of what Jesus said?

 

[Rival]

People who knew Jesus drew up the Trinity doctrine? That's new to me.
The Council of Nicaea was held in 325 AD. How could those men have known Jesus?

The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Feb 9, 2010

Council of Nicaea concludes - The HISTORY Channel​

I wish people would stop misreading me.

It's called the Apostolic Tradition.

It seems no one here is aware of it, for some reason. It's standard Christian doctrine.

How else would a religion be passed on other than orally?