Deep Sight:

Really?

Your argument does not fly for the simple reason that his petition was to GOD and not to men - as he said he received this command from God - and not from men. It is thus God he petitioned to avoid it "if possible". As such,the statement "no man taketh my life from me" does not negate the fact that he was unwilling to go through with it.

I have oft said that the prayer in Gethsemane is one of the most potent scriptural pointers against the doctrine of the Trinity.

I posted this arguing this same point with Davidylan years ago -

Here we go again: If Jesus were God, why would he stop a man from calling him good, insisting - no - "only God is Good?" Did Jesus ("God" become less good by dint of being upon the earth?

Did the import of 1 Tim. 2:5 miss you when it states that “there is ONLY ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Jesus Christ.”

What do you understand by the word “mediator”? Can you realistically claim that a mediator is the same person as one of the entities he is acting as a go-between for? You know that is frankly absurd.

Can you tell me if Jesus is equal to the Father. If he is, can you educate me on what he could possibly have meant when he stated : “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). You earlier answer, you well know, was the height of escapism, asking me to go read the whole chapter. . . which I have done anyway.

Most importantly, can you shed light on Jesus’ repeated references to “his God.” He clearly showed himself to be worshipping God, even praying to God on several occasions. Could God pray to God? Does this make sense to you David?

[b]The most spectacular of all his prayers, for me, is the statement in Gethsemane – “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”

This statement shows something cardinal: if Jesus were God, as you lot like to claim, his will, and the will of the Father would be absolutely inseparable! This prayer shows clearly that the Father’s will could be different from Jesus’ will, when he says – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. For me this is the most damning verse against the idea that Jesus is himself God. Because it shows a clear dichotomy of WILL between the father and the so called “son.” But I expect that in your usual fashion you will disregard Jesus’ own words in favour of your dogma.

In defending this, don’t you even dare bring up the lame line that it was his “human fear” that was speaking. Even mere mortals have shown great courage at the point of execution, or in battle, and you want to convince me that ALMIGHTY GOD, in human form, was not capable of stout hearted courage (especially when he was divine, and knew the purpose of his mission on the cross, and how sacred it was).[/b] Mere men have laid down their lives for their countries, happily and without asking for the cup to be removed from them. Gallantly! Now GOD himself, in human form, is not capable of such courage, to save his creatures?

Finally it is most pertinent to note that Jesus showed what sort of relationship he had with God when he says – “I am ascending to your father and my father, my God and your God”. [John 20:17]

This makes it pretty clear that in the same way as God is father for us, he is Father for Jesus, and that in the same way as God is God for us, he is God for Jesus.

No wonder 1 Pet. 1:3 – “Praise be to the God and father of our lord Jesus Christ!”

Whew!
Thank you for shedding light on this issue.

Mr_Anony:

Deepsight, I believe you understand the bible quite well. Are you willing to discuss the deity of Jesus Christ based on the bible?

Yes. But I have done so a great many times already.

If you must discuss it, can we start from addressing these verses please -

Jesus said not to call him " good " as only God is good.[Mark 10:18].

Jesus said he was only a human mediator [1Timothy 2:5].

Jesus said the Father is greater than he is [John 14:28].

Jesus said not to hold on to him, because he too has a God, he said clearly that he worships God, and that he would ascend to his GOD [John 20:17].

Jesus said he was a mere messenger of God and that believers should know God only [John 17:3].

Jesus said he is not omniscient and that there are some things he does not know but only the father knows. [Mark 13:32]?

Omniscience is an attribute of God and so Jesus cannot be God.

Peter wrote that Jesus has a God and Father [1st Peter 1:3].

Luke wrote that Jesus was only a mere man accredited by God [Acts 2:22]

Jesus prayed to God to forgive sinners. [Luke 23.34].

Jesus showed the possibility of a dichotomy of will between himself and God in his Gethsemane Prayer.[Luke 22:42]

The parable of the Vineyard is also cardinal. [Mathew 21: 33-46].

On top of all this, Jesus is described in scripture as the only begotten son of God. The relevant source greek word is monogenes. Being begotten indicates having a beginning. As such, since Jesus had a beginning, he cannot be God, because God is eternal and self existent and has no beginning.

Deep Sight:

Yes. But I have done so a great many times already.

If you must discuss it, can we start from addressing these verses please -

Jesus said not to call him " good " as only God is good.[Mark 10:18].

Jesus said he was only a human mediator [1Timothy 2:5].

Jesus said the Father is greater than he is [John 14:28].

Jesus said not to hold on to him, because he too has a God, he said clearly that he worships God, and that he would ascend to his GOD [John 20:17].

Jesus said he was a mere messenger of God and that believers should know God only [John 17:3].

Jesus said he is not omniscient and that there are some things he does not know but only the father knows. [Mark 13:32]?

Omniscience is an attribute of God and so Jesus cannot be God.

Peter wrote that Jesus has a God and Father [1st Peter 1:3].

Luke wrote that Jesus was only a mere man accredited by God [Acts 2:22]

Jesus prayed to God to forgive sinners. [Luke 23.34].

Jesus showed the possibility of a dichotomy of will between himself and God in his Gethsemane Prayer.[Luke 22:42]

The parable of the Vineyard is also cardinal. [Mathew 21: 33-46].

On top of all this, Jesus is described in scripture as the only begotten son of God. The relevant source greek word is monogenes. Being begotten indicates having a beginning. As such, since Jesus had a beginning, he cannot be God, because God is eternal and self existent and has no beginning.

Good we have begun....I will come back to this later, but first I have a date with logicboy to attend. After that we shall continue. I'm off for now.

Deep Sight:

Really?

Your argument does not fly for the simple reason that his petition was to GOD and not to men - as he said he received this command from God - and not from men. It is thus God he petitioned to avoid it "if possible". As such,the statement "no man taketh my life from me" does not negate the fact that he was unwilling to go through with it.

I have oft said that the prayer in Gethsemane is one of the most potent scriptural pointers against the doctrine of the Trinity.

I posted this arguing this same point with Davidylan years ago -

Here we go again: If Jesus were God, why would he stop a man from calling him good, insisting - no - "only God is Good? " Did Jesus (" God " become less good by dint of being upon the earth?

Did the import of 1 Tim. 2:5 miss you when it states that “there is ONLY ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Jesus Christ.”

What do you understand by the word “mediator”? Can you realistically claim that a mediator is the same person as one of the entities he is acting as a go-between for? You know that is frankly absurd.

Can you tell me if Jesus is equal to the Father. If he is, can you educate me on what he could possibly have meant when he stated : “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

Most importantly, can you shed light on Jesus’ repeated references to “his God.” He clearly showed himself to be worshipping God, even praying to God on several occasions. Could God pray to God?

[b]The most spectacular of all his prayers, for me, is the statement in Gethsemane – “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”

This statement shows something cardinal: if Jesus were God, as you lot like to claim, his will, and the will of the Father would be absolutely inseparable! This prayer shows clearly that the Father’s will could be different from Jesus’ will, when he says – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. For me this is the most damning verse against the idea that Jesus is himself God. Because it shows a clear dichotomy of WILL between the father and the so called “son.” But I expect that in your usual fashion you will disregard Jesus’ own words in favour of your dogma.

In defending this, don’t you even dare bring up the lame line that it was his “human fear” that was speaking. Even mere mortals have shown great courage at the point of execution, or in battle, and you want to convince me that ALMIGHTY GOD, in human form, was not capable of stout hearted courage (especially when he was divine, and knew the purpose of his mission on the cross, and how sacred it was).[/b] Mere men have laid down their lives for their countries, happily and without asking for the cup to be removed from them. Gallantly! Now GOD himself, in human form, is not capable of such courage, to save his creatures?

Finally it is most pertinent to note that Jesus showed what sort of relationship he had with God when he says – “I am ascending to your father and my father, my God and your God”. [John 20:17]

This makes it pretty clear that in the same way as God is father for us, he is Father for Jesus, and that in the same way as God is God for us, he is God for Jesus.

No wonder 1 Pet. 1:3 – “Praise be to the God and father of our lord Jesus Christ!”



https://www.nairaland.com/344297/dr-david-sheds-some-light/1

I'm willing to join Mr Anony to discuss the Trinity and Deity of Jesus if you wish it. But here I'll deal only with the issue of Jesus's willingness or not to go to the Cross.

Even were there no issues of translation as to whether it was no "man" or no "one", which it seems there is, there is the end part of His statement which intimated that the charge/instruction/command that He had received of His Father had been to of His Own Will, Desire or Power lay down His Life. He was under no compulsion even from His Father. In fact, that fact explains what He said later on when Peter tried to rescue Him by force from the mob that came to arrest Him.

He said to Peter, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? Matthew 26:52,53 RSV

That says that He had the choice to go or not and His Father would have completely honored it. Had Jesus then demurred, He would have been causing no offence. His Will had to be at total unity with His Father's for Him to go to the Cross. And while His Father did wish it, He would not have accepted an unwilling atonement.

Hence the picture there that angels were on standby to cancel the whole "project" if Jesus wanted. But He chose the Cross. He did not demur or offer an unwilling sacrifice.

Ihedinobi:

I'm willing to join Mr Anony to discuss the Trinity and Deity of Jesus if you wish it. But here I'll deal only with the issue of Jesus's willingness or not to go to the Cross.

Even were there no issues of translation as to whether it was no "man" or no "one", which it seems there is, there is the end part of His statement which intimated that the charge/instruction/command that He had received of His Father had been to of His Own Will, Desire or Power lay down His Life. He was under no compulsion even from His Father. In fact, that fact explains what He said later on when Peter tried to rescue Him by force from the mob that came to arrest Him.

He said to Peter, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? Matthew 26:52,53 RSV

That says that He had the choice to go or not and His Father would have completely honored it. Had Jesus then demurred, He would have been causing no offence. His Will had to be at total unity with His Father's for Him to go to the Cross. And while His Father did wish it, He would not have accepted an unwilling atonement.

Hence the picture there that angels were on standby to cancel the whole "project" if Jesus wanted. But He chose the Cross. He did not demur or offer an unwilling sacrifice.

I hope you realize how violently everything here clashes with any notion that Jesus is himself God.

Sorry, guys. My Internet's real slow now, that's why I seem to be picking up conversations at the middle or near the end lol

Deep Sight:

I hope you realize how violently everything here clashes with any notion that Jesus is himself God.

I'm sorry I do not. I see it rather uphold that notion. However the more obvious interest here is His humanity.

Ihedinobi:

I'm sorry I do not. I see it rather uphold that notion. However the more obvious interest here is His humanity.

Please go and read your post again. How on earth can you speak about Jesus having an independent and free choice and at the same time not see that this renders him a separate person? How on earth can you speak about Jesus saying he can appeal to his father who can send him angels to help him, and at the same time fail to see that this renders him a different person?

Look at this sentence you further wrote -

That says that He had the choice to go or not and His Father would have completely honored it. Had Jesus then demurred, He would have been causing no offence. His Will had to be at total unity with His Father's for Him to go to the Cross. And while His Father did wish it, He would not have accepted an unwilling atonement.

How on earth can you write this and fail to see that this shows Jesus to be separate from the Father?

Really are you being serious?

Deep Sight:

Please go and read your post again. How on earth can you speak about Jesus having an independent and free choice and at the same time not see that this renders him a separate person? How on earth can you speak about Jesus saying he can appeal to his father who can send him angels to help him, and at the same time fail to see that this renders him a different person?

Look at this sentence you further wrote -



How on earth can you write this and fail to see that this shows Jesus to be separate from the Father?

Really are you being serious?

Yes, I am. And I fully acknowledge that Jesus is a Separate Person from the Father. That's what the Trinity explains: three People, one God, each of Them fully God and all of Them together God.

Mr_Anony:
I think my answer was straightforward enough.


Good. now let us look at your analogy shall we?

Now, the consequences of breaking curfew is that danger may befall you outside. Flogging is not the true consequence of of breaking curfew, it is just a corrective measure to keep you in check. That's an aside.

Now let us come to the part where you admit ftyou are wrong:- I want you to note that by admitting your wrongdoing, you are essentially accepting that you deserve punishment, therefore any punishment meted out to you is justified.

...promising that you will not do it again is fine but it does not get you of the hook. In fact if you are truly repentant, you will not be using that phrase with the hope of manipulating the situation so that you can go scot-free. Rather you will be saying it because you realize that what you did was wrong and ought never to be repeated.

Now this being your state, you can only hope that your father will forgive you and let things go. By law, you deserve punishment. For your father to forgive you, he has to withhold the law. In essence, every time your father shows mercy, he is abusing his laws.

Do you get it up to this point?

no, Anony that was not a straight answer…but moving on.

You see you assume too much: a wrong doer can be SINCERELY sorry in which case his promise/resolve not to go back to the wrong ways indicates the extent of his shame (if you can call it that) AND NOT any hope manipulating the situation to go scot-free. This shouldn’t be that difficult for you to accept unless you believe people can only be innately bad.

Now back to the law. Yes, I deserve punishment BUT to be punished there is what the lawyers call a silent proviso that: I am unrepentant. This is clear because my father does not punish the truly repentant, he forgives, which makes me without sin, thus punishing me in that case would be unlawful .

He is not abusing his laws, he is implementing them to the letter.Perhaps it’s the ‘letter’ you don’t see.

plaetton:

Do you mean to the soldiers who crucified him?

I mean, to the paralyzed man.

And my response was to Ijawkid who believes in Jesus but doesn't believe that Jesus is God - and Son of God.

plaetton:
Whew!
Thank you for shedding light on this issue.

"ya ya . . . what else is new?
Mr Otimkpu"

italo:

I mean, to the paralyzed man.

And my response was to Ijawkid who believes in Jesus but doesn't believe that Jesus is God - and Son of God.

Italo united fc...

How can Jesus be son of God and be d same God he is son of...

Its like u'v been taken some shepke.....

.......

Jesus cried out ""eli eli""......

And he was d same person he was crying to....

Keep deluding urself with the trinity dogma...

I'm way past that wahala.....

I believe in Jesus as the son aÑd servant of Yahweh and also thÉ high priest of Yahweh....

And the mediator between God and man...

There are no 2 ways about it....

Ihedinobi:

Yes, I am. And I fully acknowledge that Jesus is a Separate Person from the Father. That's what the Trinity explains: three People, one God, each of Them fully God and all of Them together God.

i don't know many times christians believe if they repeat that, its going to make sense to the rest of us.

F00028:
i don't know many times christians believe if they repeat that, its going to make sense to the rest of us.

lol...... You could ask questions if you want. I am ready and willing to offer explanations within reason.

Ihedinobi:

Yes, I am. And I fully acknowledge that Jesus is a Separate Person from the Father. That's what the Trinity explains: three People, one God, each of Them fully God and all of Them together God.

1+1+1=1?

Funny arithmetic, no, voodoo arithmetic.

Ihedinobi:

Yes, I am. And I fully acknowledge that Jesus is a Separate Person from the Father. That's what the Trinity explains: three People, one God, each of Them fully God and all of Them together God.

The famous "trilogy was invented 325 years after Jesus' death. Neither Jesus nor the Bible speak of trilogy.
Sometimes it is difficult to understand so much bigotry and ignorance ...
Christians try to validate something, but Jesus never agreed with that!.
Read about the Council of Nicea.
Know you the moment you invented "the trilogy"
My respects.

Here are the Nicean Creed:

First Council of Nicea (325)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

Ihedinobi:

lol...... You could ask questions if you want. I am ready and willing to offer explanations within reason.

ok. first question: did any of God's prophets, chosen, anointed, etc before Jesus teach the trinity?

Ptolomeus, it's not honest to keep offering your respects verbally when your actions belie the fact. You say that neither the Bible nor Jesus holds the doctrine of the Trinity but you are no Christian (at least, I don't know that you've ever declared that you are) so there's a question as to how much respect the Bible enjoys from you.

Again you keep talking of Christian history, and I wonder how schooled you are in it. A council in 325 ratified a doctrine and you decide that it means that the doctrine came into existence then. That doesn't quite follow. What if that council sat to, among other things, deal with disagreements that had surfaced about the doctrine of the Trinity? Is it impossible that the creed it drew up was a safeguard for an accepted doctrine that had come under attack by wrong interpretations of Scriptures?

May I present you with another possibility? In science and engineering as with other fields of learning, there are such things as premises for an argument or first principles upon which theories are based. Their validity depends on the effects that result from them. For instance, if the thermodynamic law of entropy declares that everything tends toward a state of disorder, we may be unable to prove directly that this is so. But we can set up an experimental system bearing in mind that assumption and see if without any outside help, it will deteriorate in efficiency. If it does, then the law is held as true. If it does not, it is thrown out as a law. Engineering runs on laws like that. It takes just one example of its failure for a new science focused on accounting for that failure to come into being.

What if then the doctrine of the Trinity were such a law or first principle? What if it were the very foundation of the Bible? Would it not mean that a refusal of recognition of that doctrine results in discombobulation of Scriptures? As such, would risen confusion on it not necessitate a debate to reach final and binding conclusion on it?

Perhaps the reason the Bible does not devote specific teaching to the subject of the Trinity is that, like so many fundamentals known in science, you cannot fully explain and define a fundamental. You can only understand it in light of its effects or results.

But of course, one can try. But to explain higher principles from lower effects, inductive reasoning is employed. And the problem with inductive reasoning is that it takes only one very loud voice accompanied by little sense and disrespect for the laws of logic to abuse it.

F00028:
ok. first question: did any of God's prophets, chosen, anointed, etc before Jesus teach the trinity?

Please see my response to Ptolomeus.

plaetton: Here are the Nicean Creed:

First Council of Nicea (325)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

Please see my response to Ptolomeus.

Ihedinobi:

Here's your answer, sir. It's the best for your question's demands.

in other words, NO! none of God's appointed, before Jesus, ever taught man such a thing as the trinity.

Ihedinobi: Perhaps the reason the Bible
does not devote specific teaching to the
subject of the Trinity is that, like so many
fundamentals known in science, you
cannot fully explain and define a
fundamental. You can only understand it in
light of its effects or results.

perhaps? you want to hinge my salvation on a "perhaps"?

besides when Jesus was asked the fundamental of all commandments he said: the Lord our God is One Lord! how difficult is that.

F00028:
you and Anony got this thing about not giving straight answers to simple questions :-/

you offered to answer my questions and I have them lined up but if this is how you're gonna be I better just go watch old vi deos of houdini

Here's your answer, sir. It's the best for your question's demands.

Ihedinobi: Perhaps the reason the Bible does not devote specific teaching to the subject of the Trinity is that, like so many fundamentals known in science, you cannot fully explain and define a fundamental. You can only understand it in light of its effects or results.

Ihedinobi:

Here's your answer, sir. It's the best for your question's demands.

in other words, NO! none of God's appointed, before Jesus, ever taught man such a thing as the trinity.

Ihedinobi: Perhaps the reason the Bible
does not devote specific teaching to the
subject of the Trinity is that, like so many
fundamentals known in science, you
cannot fully explain and define a
fundamental. You can only understand it in
light of its effects or results.

perhaps? you want to hinge my salvation on a "perhaps"?

besides when Jesus was asked the fundamental of all commandments he said: the Lord our God is One Lord! how difficult is that.

F00028:
in other words, NO! none of God's appointed, before Jesus, ever taught man such a thing as the trinity.

Ihedinobi: Perhaps the reason the Bible
does not devote specific teaching to the
subject of the Trinity is that, like so many
fundamentals known in science, you
cannot fully explain and define a
fundamental. You can only understand it in
light of its effects or results.

perhaps? you want to hinge my salvation on a "perhaps"?

besides when Jesus was asked the fundamental of all commandments he said: the Lord our God is One Lord! how difficult is that.

Let me ask you a question: What do you know the Trinity to be?

F00028:

You see you assume too much: a wrong doer can be SINCERELY sorry in which case his promise/resolve not to go back to the wrong ways indicates the extent of his shame (if you can call it that) AND NOT any hope manipulating the situation to go scot-free. This shouldn’t be that difficult for you to accept unless you believe people can only be innately bad.

Now back to the law. Yes, I deserve punishment BUT to be punished there is what the lawyers call a silent proviso that: I am unrepentant. This is clear because my father does not punish the truly repentant, he forgives, which makes me without sin, thus punishing me in that case would be unlawful .

He is not abusing his laws, he is implementing them to the letter.Perhaps it’s the ‘letter’ you don’t see.

Interesting how now you are talking about invisible letter of the law......anyway moving on.

I agree that a wrong-doer can truly and sincerely be sorry. However, his sincerity does nothing to absolve him from his crime neither does his sincerity mandate the judge to forgive him.

It is easy to make that kind of connection in the domestic case of you and your father, but when we look at it in the light of the kind of seriousness God looks at it, we have a different situation entirely.

The bible tells us that the deserved punishment for sin is death. A comparison would be the kind of crime we would punish with death - let's say the crime is murder.

I don't think you will agree that a serial killer ought to be let go just because he is sincerely repentant. The forgiveness depends entirely on the extent of the judge's mercy. You follow?


....p/s: there is part of sincere repentance which I would like you to note.
Sincere repentance can be described as the realization that you are in the wrong, that you deserve punishment and that you are willing to accept the deserved punishment.
Repentance is never done in the hope that punishment will be withheld, rather it is a surrender to justice. When you ask for forgiveness, you are not asking not to be punished, what you are really asking for is that your relationship with the offended be restored.

Mercy is entirely up to the offended to grant or not

F00028:
in other words, NO! none of God's appointed, before Jesus, ever taught man such a thing as the trinity.

Ihedinobi: Perhaps the reason the Bible
does not devote specific teaching to the
subject of the Trinity is that, like so many
fundamentals known in science, you
cannot fully explain and define a
fundamental. You can only understand it in
light of its effects or results.

perhaps? you want to hinge my salvation on a "perhaps"?

besides when Jesus was asked the fundamental of all commandments he said: the Lord our God is One Lord! how difficult is that.

I beg you will excuse my language in debate. I'm sure that you noted the context of that comment. It was a response to Ptolomeus and followed a pattern.

Anyway, if it will help you deal with my position, I will declare to you now that I'm absolutely certain that the reason you will find no specific crystallized teaching on the Godhead in the Bible is that it is the fundamental on which the entire Bible is built.

As for the bolded, you are actually making my point. The Bible is founded on the oneness and absolute unity of the Godhead. That is what the Doctrine of the Trinity holds. That although there are multiple Persons in the Godhead, their unity is utterly complete, that although each One has Their Own Will, Their Own Desire, Their Own Preferences, They always choose they same things, desire/want the same things, prefer the same things. They are in absolute unity such that God is essentially One. Or else why the need at all to declare that God is One?

Mr_Anony:
Let me ask you a question: What do you know the Trinity to be?

Ihedinobi:
"That's what the Trinity explains:
three People, one God, each of Them fully God and all of Them together God."

Mr_Anony:
Interesting how now you are talking about invisible letter of the law......anyway moving on.

I agree that a wrong-doer can truly and sincerely be sorry. However, his sincerity does nothing to absolve him from his crime neither does his sincerity mandate the judge to forgive him.

It is easy to make that kind of connection in the domestic case of you and your father, but when we look at it in the light of the kind of seriousness God looks at it, we have a different situation entirely.

The bible tells us that the deserved punishment for sin is death. A comparison would be the kind of crime we would punish with death - let's say the crime is murder.

I don't think you will agree that a serial killer ought to be let go just because he is sincerely repentant. The forgiveness depends entirely on the extent of the judge's mercy. You follow?


....p/s: there is part of sincere repentance which I would like you to note.
Sincere repentance can be described as the realization that you are in the wrong, that you deserve punishment and that you are willing to accept the deserved punishment.
Repentance is never done in the hope that punishment will be withheld, rather it is a surrender to justice. When you ask for forgiveness, you are not asking not to be punished, what you are really asking for is that your relationship with the offended be restored.

Mercy is entirely up to the offended to grant or not

Wow, bro. That is a very clear way to put it @bolded. Thank you.

F00028:

Ihedinobi:
"That's what the Trinity explains:
three People, one God, each of Them fully God and all of Them together God."

Fair enough. So where in that statement dos it say that God is not one?

Anyway I asked what you know Trinity to be and not what Ihedinobi said....or else you want to tell me that you and Ihedinobi agree on what Trinity is ...in which case there would be no need for me to try and explain anything.

Mr_Anony:

I agree that a wrong-doer can truly and sincerely be sorry. However, his sincerity does nothing to absolve him from his crime neither does his sincerity mandate the judge to forgive him....

I didn't say sincerity absolves. sincere repentance is a major factor in obtaining forgiveness. what does absolve is the forgiveness from the one offended (not just a mere uninvolved judge). stop mixing up the two.

Mr_Anony:
Sincere repentance can be described as
the realization that you are in the
wrong, that you deserve punishment
and that you are willing to accept the
deserved punishment.
Repentance is never done in the hope
that punishment will be withheld,
rather it is a surrender to justice. When
you ask for forgiveness, you are not
asking not to be punished, what you
are really asking for is that your
relationship with the offended be
restored.

I AGREE..but (you knew this was coming) once you have been forgiven there is no need to punish you or any one else in your stead.