Did we ever call him a god? I think he was a son of god??????

These are your own words,

"Listen little child, I've been coming to this board for almost it's entire existence. I've reviewed these same arguments about philosophy and religion proffered by idiotic dullard such as yourself in the vain hope that you'll appear original and inspired by quoting something someone else said. In my single sentence accusing that logic of being weak and circular, I did far more work of my own than HeavenBond who simply copy-pasted from a Christian propoganda website, and I've shown far more open-mindedness in that I was attacking a single argument which I had an entire grasp on, having read it fully, rather than someone who I know little about. We're all so much more complicated than single posts will allow us to demonstrate, even the ignorant masses of which you are a part. I feel completely safe in guessing you haven't read more than three posts of mine on this entire forum, and I'm referring to all the forums now. And I hardly see how saying I post a lot is an insult. Viewing your opinion is a crime now? Or is it that we should all agree with the Bible all the time, and agree with people who agree with the Bible, and gather in a circle singing "Jesus Loves me, This I know"?

Personally, I Acolyte and sing in the choir at my church where I just finished up helping at the summer Vocation Bible School on my own time as volunteer work. So I'm not against Christianity, though I don't believe in organized religions myself. The logic was weak however, in that it was structured in the same way most "Christian" logic is (and by "Christian" logic I mean the log of people who must use Jesus every fourth word out of their mouth and Lord every seventh); they take a single passage from the Bible, isolated and out of context. Add your own interpretation of what the context is. Obscure it beneath a long explanation of why it means what you say it means. Take another isolated quote that really doens't relate. Twist it's context until it means what you think it should mean. Keep on going. Take isolated quote after isolated, quote, add the opinions of "scholars" no one knows, and more isolated quotes from famous men so that it seems like they're agreeing with you. Keep burying the crux of the matter under layer and layer of interpretation and quotes and twisted logic until you've thoroughly confused your enemy. I've seen this strategy used a million times on websites and books and magazines condemning rock 'n roll and Dungeons and Dragons and yoga and martial arts and Catholicism and Protestism and Orthodoxism and Mormonism and everything and anything under the Sun. And frankly it gets to be old. There's only one reason anyone ever feels the need to spend twelve paragraphs and three hundred lines on a single point; their entire argument is based around a lie, and they know it. This is weak logic. This is circular logic. This is what you have no grasp on in your own idiocy. I'm done with you, run along."


Thank you for such a longwinded response that says nothing. You really ought to invest in a new name. You should call yourself the Lord of the Dance. You know that is all you do. You are a master at it. You only danced around my charge to you of your original broad and weak response with an even greater, masterful, say everything but what is asked for reply.
You masterfully avoided my challenge to you to back up what you assert. Now, indeed, you did give many broad and wide sweeping allegations about cover ups and taking things out of context and isolating quotes and isolating even more quotes.
Yet, still.......there is something missing.........AHA
The answer to the challenge I gave you.
You only gave an incredibly thin layered attempt to change the subject from a very detailed post about the nature of the Trinity into a wide ranging spectrum aimed to deflect the attention of your lack of knowledge you so pretensiouly masquerade as having, and in doing so have only solidified in my mind that you are nothing more than a poser.
And now I challenge you for the 2nd time.
Back up what you say. There were many points you need to address in this young man's post. You said, "That's some of the weakest, most circular, stretched logic ever."
Now, dearest little one, back it up. Not with some misguided attempt to sweep it under the rug with vain generalities. Take the points that you make this charge against and back it up.
Shall you say you are not going to waste your time with me, you will only reinforce my charge to you that you are only a poser. Nothing more.
Shall you deflect the charge as an attempt by someone who only wants to cause friction for you, then you will be nothing more than a philosophical and mentally challenged mutt, encapable of using logic and skill to either put up or shut up.
The ball is in your court young man.
Go for it.
The gallery awaits your timely response

I've heard it explained that the trinity is like water:it has 3 forms yet is one in the same (water, ice, steam) Jesus was a version of God but he was sent to earth as a human, so he had human characteristics. Thats why the Father was greater than he. Also at one of Christ's trails they asked him if he was the son of God and he said "I am" (also the words God idintified himself to Moses) Christ also asks Paul (I believe) who he thought he (jesus) was. paul said i believe you are the son of god and Jesus replied that he was right. Also when the angel appeared before Mary the angel stated that she was to bear the son of god and his name was to be Immanuel (literaly "God is with us") There are other things throughout the Bible to back up his claim (if you believe in the Bible that is)
What do you believe in DM?
As for the cross as an idol, believers just dont like seeing their symbol (yes there is a difference) being mis-used because the cross as a symbol represents Christ and the ideal of forgivness and when its mis-used they see it as mocking the free gift of forgiveness.

Hah! How do you spell "Blazing and damnable hypocrite" again?

So in other words, you didn't like my answer. How about explaining some of your own charges, hmm? I explained why that logic was weak and you're an idiot. Explain how I'm a braggart and imbecile and whatever other charges you've arrayed against me.


My answer wasn't any thinner than Heavenbound's logic or your accusations. You said I was making a lot of noise with no knowledge of what I was talking about to try and appear smart, while actually looking like an ass. Let's adress that challenge. Let's ask the people reading this. Simple question people: Who's in the wrong here, me or "Unstained" (you should consider a name change yourself. Anyone notice how these uber-Christians have to call themselves "Pure" or "Angelic" or "Beloved of God" or some other crap like that? Whatever happend to humility?)

What, you didn't like my answer the first time?

Hmmm. Nice try, but I grew tired of this logic in third grade. "Do what I say or you smell funny! If you don't agree with me you still make butt-biscuits in your pants!". Grow up a little, okay kid?


Very chauvenistic of you.

Now, ignoring the fact that I've already done far more of my own work than Heavenbound, who merely copy-pasted off a propaganda website, or you, who's merely accused me over and over again of not adressing the point while adressing no points of your own, I'm going to take the very first quote that was mangled in Heavenbound's little scribble and dissect it.


a) Genesis was orinally written in Hebrew, so the argument of Greek stresses is totally meaningless.

b) The Word being the nature of God wouldn't relate in anyway to God's Messiah, who was written throughout the old testament and the Gospels to be a human delivering God's message and not a part of God.

c) The later testaments referring to Jesus as "The God" were written centuries after her death by people that never knew her in life. How then is it to be held more accurate than first hand accounts of one of the twelve Disciplies?

d) At no point in the Gospels does Jesus say she is God, merely the Messiah, and that in only two of them. This is circular logic on the Christian part that they argue the Messiah is God, then when Jesus says she's the Messiah claim that's the same as saying she's God, which it in no way is.



Okay, your turn, and this time please come up with something other than saying I'm not adressing the point.

Ok, I printed everyone's comments and I'm going to try to answer what I can now. I may write more than one response here, if you've written more than one post:

In response to:
OpheliasDespair: I never said that the Father and the Son are the same person. I did say that they are separate and distinct persons in one Godhead. They are of the same nature, but carry out different functions. And if you want an example of the Trinity being used in the same context, here you go: Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefor and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Also, check out the first few verses of 1 John for an example of the Father and the Son being used in the same context. The Holy Spirit is also mentioned many times in the Bible as being within Christians, and by that, I mean, people who have a true, living relationship with Jesus Christ.

Dark Messiah: No I didn't copy-paste from a "Christian propaganda website"... As I stated in my posts, I typed out what I had posted, from a book. I know that I'm not very good at explaining in detail things which, for the most part, are beyond human understanding. The only way to get the proper understanding of what the Gospels mean when they reveal the Trinity, though it is foreshadowed several times in the Old Testament, is by reading one of them, and asking God to reveal to you the true meaning. Some things we can't understand in this life. But all I know is that God is real, God exists as Three Distinct Persons, the Bible is true, and I am going to Heaven. I know this because God has revealed it to me. That's the only way anyone is going to come to any understanding of the things of God is if He reveals it to them. My mother was, until a few months ago, a strict Buddhist, who would not even begin to talk about beliefs with me, claiming me to be nothing but an extremist. She started reading the Bible, but started in Genesis, and made the mistake of thinking that everything in the Bible is condoned by the Bible, and tried to understand everything all on her own, without asking for God's guidance. She threw it back in my face. A long time passed, where I simply prayed and asked God to draw her to Himself. One day, she agreed to read, "The Case for Christ" by Josh McDowell. She then asked God to reveal Himself to her if the Bible was true, and she started reading the Bible. She initially ignored my suggestion to go right to the center, by reading the Gospels of Jesus Christ (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), and started in Genesis, but by the time she got half-way through Leviticus, she listenend to my suggestion and started reading the New Testament. God has since been showing Himself to be real to her, and she has now got a personal relationship with Jesus. A woman who once had a lot of anger from her past, including a tough childhood growing up in Sri Lanka, and who professed, "You're telling me that God came down from Heaven, and walked around on earth. -I can't believe that!", now refers to the man she once held as unbelievable trash, as "my dear Jesus", and talks to her family and friends about Him and how He's changed her life. The difference between the first and second times she read the Bible? The fact that the first time, my mother approached God on her own terms, and thought she could understand what happened to me, and understand the Bible out of her own wisdom. The second time, she relied fully upon God to teach her. Please, don't rely on people taking things out of context... read one of the Gospels, asking God to reveal Himself to you.

I just got to the end of my print-out of the discussion so far, and I'll answer your response to what I typed out from the book about John 1:1...
a) Where did Genesis come into the conversation? I thought we were discusssing John.
b) For one, have a look at Pslam 2:7 and Isaiah 9:6, and all the other OT Messianic foreshadows as highlighted in http://cyber-church.com/thinkabout/trinity.htm
c) I don't have time to write out a dissertation of NT reliablity, so if you are really looking for answers, have a look at http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Resea...eliability.htm
d) In every single Gospel, Jesus pronounces himself with titles and authority said to belong to God only in the OT. And the OT (see the link in part b about that) refers to the Messiah with titles such as "Lord" and God's "Son".
And why do you keep referring to Jesus as "she"? "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Yeshua", or in English, "Joshua". There is no way that the name could refer to anyone other than a man, and a woman in the ancient Semitic world would not have had much voice in society. The scoiety was so patriarchal that a woman's testimoney was not even recognized in a court of law. A woman getting noticed to be so much as an equal, without men like Jesus standing up for them, seems to be unlikely.

asilentrevolt: Please read my response to OpheliasDespair (above), about the Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus is God by nature, and man by nature, hence he said, "I and My Father are One", yet at other times distinguished himself from the Father. It is through His humanity, that He can be a mediator between us and the Father, the latter part of which relies on his deity. That is, it is because He is God the Son, that He can mediate between us and God the Father.

gArGOyLe^^: Firstly, a quote: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me" -Jesus Christ (in John 14:6). And, the Holy Spirit has always been working in the world. He is mentioned a lot in the Old Testament, too. I think I need to clarify exactly how someone gets to Heaven. I'll go over some of the Ten Commandments, which are how God will judge on the Day of Judgment. Have you ever told a lie? Isn't it true that if you tell 1 lie it makes you a liar? Have you ever stolen something, regardless of it's value? Then that would make you a thief. Have you ever used God's name in vain? Then you've taken the name of the God who gave you life, and reduced it down to the same level as a 4 letter word used to express disgust, and that's called blasphemy. Have you ever looked with lust? Jesus said if you look with lust, you commit adultery in your heart. Jesus also said that if you get angry to hate someone, then you'll be judged as a murderer, because God looks at your inward intentions as well as your actions. If God judges you by this standard on the Day of Judgment, then you'll be judged as guilty. Some people think, "I believe that God is good, and will let me go". Look at it this way: A good judge can't let a penniless criminal off a $50,000 fine or imprisonment because he's sorry. If you told him, "I believe you're a good judge, and because of that, you'll let me go.", he'd turn to you and say, "Yes, you're right about one thing. I am a good man. And it's because of my goodness that I must see that justice is done. Because of my goodness, I must see that you are punished." In the same way, God cannot let someone go just because He's sorry. Of course you should be sorry, you've broken the Law. And no amount of keeping the Law is going to let you escape the Justice of a Holy God. After all, keeping the Law is what we were supposed to do, anyway. Like the judge, God cannot let you go unless someone pays the fine. 2000 years ago, God came down and took the punishment for your sins. You broke the Law; God paid the price. And now, He's waiting in the courtroom waiting for you to accept His offer so that you can go free. How should a sinner approach God? In the same way as a man who has committed adultery should approach his faithful wife. -With a sincere promise never to even think of doing anything like that again. If you accept, in true repentance, then the barrier between you and God will be cleared, and you can start getting to know Him personally. He is willing to totally forget about the past. All you have to do is repent, and put your Faith in Jesus Christ. If you don't know how to pray, read Psalm 51 and make it your prayer. Then read the Bible daily, starting in the New Testament, and obey what you read, and God will never let you down.

My question is, if the trinity does exist, then it should certainly be a very important doctrine..why isnt' there one scripture where it straight out says...the Father, I and the Holy Spirit are one, and not just speaking that they work together, but that they are actually one? Wouldn't the Bible want to very bluntly and straighforwardly want you to know that?

Well, the way I see it, "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6)... so the Bible would be written in a way that would only appeal to someone who was seeking after God with all of their heart. The fact that "God is one" is emphasized along with the Divine authority of the 3 Persons of the Trinity, (sometimes all 3 Persons being categorically mentioned in the same verse), means that the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. However, since God isn't interested in people who are too proud to ask Him to guide them to what He wants them to read (unless they were prepared to humble themselves to get to that stage), God wrote the Bible in such a way as to throw them off. The same reason applies for why Jesus spoke in parables: "So that, 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.'" (The words of Jesus Christ in Mark 4:12, where Christ is quoting from Isaiah).

Chris

1) Can you give me one logical reason why the Gospels wouldn't say Jesus was God if they meant to say Jesus was God? Are you saying God's in the habit of hiding secret messages and code talk and all that trivial crap? I had gotten the idea from the Prophets and what not that God pretty much said what it wanted to say.

2) Jesus was female.

We were talking about the Bible in general, I believe.

4) Jesus also said in every single Gospel, specifically, that she was NOT God.

5) When did they change back to the Devil faces for the emoticons? I musta missed it. Can't say I'm fond of this one here:

Firstly, some Scripture:

"Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, "I said, "You are gods"'? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming,' because I said, "I am the Son of God'? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand." (John 10:22-39)

As I said before, I believe that the Bible is written the way it is, so that proud people couldn't see the true meaning unless God showed it to them. -The same reason as why Jesus spoke in parables. I read some of the Bible, as an unbeliever, and it just didn't say anything to me. I found it very boring, because I was spiritually blind, and I didn't even know it. But, when I got saved (just over one year ago), God removed my spiritual blindness, so that I could see what it meant. The Scriptures tells us that the "natural man" cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. Most Britons would find it difficult to understand the Chinese language. However, a child who is born into a Chinese family can understand every word. That's why you must be born again (John 3:. The moment you become part of God's family, the Bible will begin to make sense. When you begin to have a proper relationship with God, His Spirit instructs you in proper interpretation of the Scripture.

Is that just a dogmatic pronouncement? You haven't given any evidence to me to support your claim, neither have you refuted the argument I put forward of how a woman wouldn't have a man's name.

But you still brought Genesis into the conversation, when the quote was dealing with the Gospel according to John. Please explain why you started talking about the Hebrew text of Genesis, when we were discussing the Greek text of John.

Please give examples of Jesus denying His deity. Why would He allow people to bow down and worship Him as God, if He so denied the claim?

Awaiting your reply with interest,

Chris

I thought they only bowed before God? Angels and Jesus are/were there to guide the people. Why did they call Jesus teacher rather than any other title then?

Please try to explain these scriptures with regard to your belief in the trinity....



Mark 10:18
Jesus said to him: "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God"

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisable God, the f irstborn of all creation (it says firstborn of all creation..meaning he was created, and we all know God had no begginning and no end,..how could he have been created?)

John 12:49
because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who SENT me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak.

John5:19
...."Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing..

John 5:22
For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the son..


Also, a good example to use is marriage. When a couple gets married, in the vows it says that the man and wife must become one flesh. Don't tell me that that literally means they're going to become one...we all know it means that the husband and wife are going to work together in agreement..much like it means when it says God and Jesus are one...

I want a reply damnit:p

Well, the first thing that springs to mind is that Jesus was repeatedly called "Lord", despite only being a poor carpenter. The title "Lord" was one used only for rulers (in which case, it was written as "lord"), or as a title for God.

Also, I found this in an article written by Dr. Phil Fernandes, of the Institute of Biblical Defense:
----------
Jesus taught that He deserved the same honor that the Father deserved:

"For not even the Father judges anyone, But He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him" (John 5:22-2.
Since the Father is God, the honor due Him is worship. Therefore, Jesus taught that He also deserved to be worshipped. Despite the fact that the Old Testament Law forbid the worship of any being other than God (Exodus 20:1-6), Jesus accepted worship on numerous occassions (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:38; 20:28-29). Jesus also stated:

"You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins. . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM!" (John 8:23-24; 58).
The Jewish religious leaders understood Jesus' claim to deity in this passage: "they picked up stones to throw at Him" (John 8:59). The comments of J. Dwight Pentecost are helpful:

Christ affirmed, "Before Abraham was born, I AM!" (v. 58). "I AM" was the name of the Self-existing God who had revealed Himself to Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:14). Jesus Christ was claiming to be "I AM", the Self-existent God. He was claiming eternity. To the Jews this was blasphemy.
Merrill C. Tenney also elaborates on this specific claim of Christ:

In actuality the phrase "I am" is an assertion of absolute, timeless existence, not merely of a personal identity as the English equivalent would suggest. A comparison of the use of the phrase, "I am" with self-revelation of Jehovah in the Old Testament shows that much the same terminology was employed. God, in commissioning Moses (Ex. 3:14), said: "Thus shalt thou say to unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." When the Jews heard Jesus say, "Before Abraham was born, I am," they took the statement to mean not priority to Abraham, but an assertion of deity. To them it was blasphemy, and they picked up stones to cast at Him.
It is important to note two things about this passage. First, Jesus did not say, "Before Abraham was, I was." This would have been merely a claim to have preexisted Abraham. Though this would be a bold claim in itself, Christ actually said far more than that. Jesus was claiming that His existence is always in the present tense. In other words, He was claiming eternal existence for Himself. He was declaring himself to have absolutely no beginning. He was claiming that He was not bound by time. He was declaring Himself to be the eternal God. Second, Christ probably spoke these words in Aramaic (the common language of the Hebrews of his day). Therefore, He probably did not use the Greek words "ego eimi" for "I AM." Rather, He would have used the Hebrew "YHWH." This was the title for the eternal God. Out of reverence for God, the Jews never spoke this word. So here, Christ was not only be speaking the unspeakable title of God (YHWH), but He was using it to refer to Himself. Properly understood, this was probably Christ's most unambiguous claim to deity. The Jews clearly understood this, and for this reason they attempted to stone him. Another clear claim to deity made by Christ is the following passage:

"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make yourself out to be God" (John 10:30-3.
Concerning this passage, Merrill F. Unger wrote, "Jesus asserted His unity of essence with the Father, hence His unequivocal deity. . . and the Jews understood Him."8 In this passage, Jesus clearly claimed to be equal with God the Father. Christ said that His nature is identical to that of the Father. The Jews understood Him to be calling Himself God. They later sentenced Him to death for these claims to deity.

Jesus also made other claims to deity. He said that, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). When He prayed to the Father, He asked the Father to return to Him the glory which He and the Father shared before the universe was created (John 17:5).

The apostles were Jesus' closest associates. They were more familiar with the teachings of Christ than anyone else and they called Jesus God (Matthew 1:23; John 1:1; John 20:28; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). This is further confirmation that Jesus did in fact claim to be God.
----------

And now in response to OpheliasDespair's post:

I had already discussed this in my first post on this thread, but I've got it saved, so here it is again:

Concerning Matthew 19:16-30 (not quoted here to save space)
(cf. Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30)
If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?
PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus "Good Teacher; and Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God (Mark 2:8-10; John 8:58; 10:30), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God (John 20:28-29). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?
SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, "Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying that I am God?"
The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher, but not God, is a figment of human imagination.

Ok, this is dealt with in the same book, so here it is:

Concerning Colossians 1:18
If Christ is only firstborn in creation, then how can He be God?
PROBLEM: John declared Christ to be eternal and equal with God (John 1:1; 8:58; 20:28). But here Paul seems to say that Christ was only a creature, the first one born (created) in the universe.
SOLUTION: Paul clearly declares Christ to be God in this very letter by saying that He "created all things" (1:16) and has "the fulness of the Godhead" (2:9). The reference to "firstborn" does not mean He is the firstborn in creation, but the firstborn over creation (v. 15), since "He is before all things" (v. 17). "Firstborn" in this context does not mean the first one to be born, but the heir of all, the Creator and owner of all things. As Creator of "all things," He could not have been a created thing.

The post got too long, so I split it in half here, to be continued below...