Nuclearboy: as requested -

Would you be so kind as to indulge my own key concerns about "Christianity" -

They are -

1. The claim that Jesus is God

2. The Claim that Jesus is the only begotten son of God

3. The claim that Jesus was born of a virgin

4. The claim that his death on the cross is salvation for mankind

5. The claim that belief in that sacrifice is required for salvation

Because i have a sense that you might bring fresh insight to this that i may have missed in my numerous attempts to discuss same. . .

Hello DeepSight:

Please note that everything I write remains just my own view and is based on my personal understanding. Any perceived failure(s) are mine and I do not claim to speak as God.


The Claim that Jesus is God

DeepSight, humor me and touch yourself! If I am right, you just touched a part of your body. Try again! Same ehn? Now get someone to call you and answer. YOU just answered. I posit that YOU ARE YOUR WORD. Going to lower animals, lets consider say, your dog. As you approach your home, you honk the vehicle horn and he starts to bark - have you noticed you automatically go "Oh yeah, that is BINGO barking"? Or by chance, did you ever hear a bark and assume it was a neighbor?

John tells us that in the Beginning was the Word which was with God and was God. I do not believe in the Koran yet it also says the same though they find cause to explain it differently. But here, I have explained how I see it.

Again, I wish to go into Character. Sinless, Blameless, Miracle-working, loving, kind, humble etc. What other attributes would you have? I negate the word "Pride" which would require God be a bully for all proud entities are bullies. Were He that, many of us on NL would be long dead.

Lets get this first one clear before I go to the second query you've presented me with. Your serve?

My younger brothers have often advanced this proposition to me.

I accept that my word emanates from me.

Just like my thoughts. Yet no particular thought of mine is me.

On touching myself: i touch my physical body: i verily believe that there is an intangible aspect to me. The real me.

Nevertheless the foregoing remains irrelevant: to the extent that if the word of God is God, then ANY messenger of God bringing the word of God must perforce by your analogy be God himself.

I positively assert that:

1. Jesus brought the word of God - like many others have: this does not qualify any of the truth bringers to be GOD HIMSELF.

2. Is a person who brings the word of God necessarily the singular embodiment of that word?

John 1:1 contains a mistranslation. The word used as "the word was God" when you revert to the Greek, should properly have been interpreted: "The word was divine (or Godly)" This is different from the greek word used in the second refrain where it is stated that the word was "with God." The use of different greek words by the original writer is highly suggestive.

I accept that you can listen to and hear your thoughts. But no-one else can! The comparison is not apt.

Your word not only emanates from you. It is your inner being expressed for others to see/feel/hear/whatever.

The messengers of God you speak of had personal aspirations, life-plans, lusts etc IN ADDITION to the particular message they had from God. Those messages were in fact, incidental, in their lives. Jesus was nothing else except the word He bore. He came only as that Word and there was no dilution through His lifetime! That to me is the distinction.

Your re-translation of the Bible is funny. I will not say you are wrong over the "Godly divinity" issue but I use the KJV. What it says is "was God". Would you take me as a serious character if I were now to drop the KJV and follow your position? Suppose you were to say it said "wasn't more than the smallest angel"? What would you I do?

I don't know if you have read Mavenbox's post in "The rise of Counterfeit Christianity" and my response to it. I am bringing it here

QUOTE
Mavenbox wrote:

DeepSight and Nuclearboy: i really must chip this in. Its One thing to worship Jesus the man and another to Worship the Word who become flesh. I believe one reason why no corpse was left behind for Christ is so that men would not worship it as another idol. Moses made a bronze serpent to be lifted up to save the sinning Israelites and Jesus likened himself to it. Did you know that the Israelites didnt understand that the serpent was just a vessel and not the real source? They started worshipping Nehushtan (that exact bronze serpent), see 2Ki 18:4 rather than look up to God. Jesus emphasized that only God in his divinity was good &to be Worshipped (Matt 4:10), and that his human form was only a vessel prepared for him (Heb 10:5). I think u are both right but the Word needs to be well divided, is it Jesus the man or The "non-human" Word who was known on earth as Jesus that is not to be Worshipped? (see John 4:24, Phi 3:3)

Think of it like a Hollywood star in a movie and in reality. The guy in the movie is the man Jesus, he is not worthy of an Oscar. The real actor gets the Oscar. As a participator in the Godhead as Son of God, Jesus deserves worship. But not Jesus the Man. "Jesus" the Word.

In Revelations, the Word was worshipped (who was known on earth as the Son of Man) and in Joshua 5:13-15 in pre-incarnate form he appeared as the captain of the Lord's hosts &allowed Joshua to worship him (something that angels wont do, see Rev 19:10, Rev 22:9). Not once as man did Jesus require worship of anyone IMO.
UNQUOTE

I believe this explains my point about Jesus as it were, perfectly! I am copying part of my response too to this page for the benefit of others reading who may glean something or other from our "swordsmanship".

QUOTING MYSELF
I think the problem is the inability to separate the Human and the entity behind the Human yet seeing them together as it were, in one entity. That is why on our "Nuclear holds a Sword" thread, I pointed out the limitation brought on by the flesh clothing. In that "situation", He was as it were, the actor Mavenbox has called Him and not meant to be worshiped. Yet! Yet He still remained essentially what He was: The Word of God who was the Son of Man. My context is the now I exist in 2000 years after He said those words. His context was the THEN in which He spoke. At times I have decided (comes and goes in my mind) that He deliberately allowed this confusion and went back and forth in history (from where I stand) because He wants us to know to a point then move further in "trust/faith".
UNQUOTE

And i am copying my responses there over here too. . .

And the one point I will respond to is – you guessed it – your belabored struggle to separate Christ’s humanity from his Deity.

Perhaps I should at this point, since I promised to be brief, only throw a few posers, and reserve the thesis for a later post.

Here are the posers –

1. Did Christ lose his perfect Divine nature, by becoming human?

2. If he did lose that nature, then the sacrifice was a sacrifice of an imperfect being, and not that of a perfect being, yes? Out-the-window goes all the talk about a “perfect” “unblemished” savior being required, yes?

3. On the other hand, if he did NOT lose the Divine nature, then he perforce remained perfect – thus fully in tandem with the Divine will; such as to make the request in Gethsemane an incongruity and a paradox, yes?

4. Did Christ lose all his knowledge about the DIVINE plan concluded in heaven with his father, about the redemptive work on the cross?

5. If he did not lose such knowledge (as apparently from scripture he did not); then why would he seek, within human form, to change that which he himself as ALMIGHTY GOD had perfected and concluded in heaven?

Man, I hope you see the point clearly; your “hypostasis” on the simultaneous humanity and deity of that carpenter leaves gaping wide holes.

It surprises me that each time I repeat these obvious facts, you resort to empty platitudes about Christ being “human”, and then promise to deal with the issue in future.

Let’s carry on . . .

You spoke about the “Divine will” being different from the “Divine person”.

OH MY GOD, WHAT A GAFFE; DOES IT NOT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IN STATING THIS, YOU DIRECTLY DENY THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY, FOR IN THAT TREASURED DOCTRINE OF YOURS, THEY ARE ALL SAID TO BE ONE!

AS A FOLLOW-UP: HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY YOUR SUMMATION THAT THE WILL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PERSONAGE, WHEN CHRIST SAID A ZILLION TIMES THAT THAY ALL AGREE AS ONE, AND THAT HE WAS “ONE” WITH THE FATHER, AND THAT THEIR WILL WAS IN ONE ACCORD? THUS HOW COULD THE “PERSONAGE” HAVE A DIFFERENT WILL FROM THE “WILL”? YES, THE LAUGHABLE NATURE OF THIS JOKE OF A DOCTRINE IS BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

I HOPE YOU SEE IT’S BEGINNING TO FALL APART IN SENSELESSNESS FOR YOU VIARO – BUT THAT IS NOT SURPRISING: INCOHERENT DOGMA LIKE THE TRINITY MUST NECESSARILY FALL APART. . .

Christ! (No pun intended).

Deal with the five questions above, and then we may take it from there.

Finally – Although I did not want to do it, I am going to introduce more scripture that suggests clearly that Christ DID NOT want to be crucified, and that the crucifixion was in fact NOT the will of God. Go and read up Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard, and then we will address that.

More -

Divinity is the core nature and principle of original existence, or original being. It is eternal, infinite, and accordingly an absolute. It thus is not capable of the sort of whims and caprices attributable to imperfect human beings (or to the Abrahamic God).

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” I draw these from scripture, in the hope that your escapism will not be so great as to be desirous of evading the unchangeability of God which is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

It is with the foregoing in mind that your response fell way below the mark.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how ludicrous it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will
2. The Purpose of the redemptive work
3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

You MUST accept that the foregoing is simply pushing the boundaries of all reason into absolute insanity. If not insanity, it is at the very minimum, evidence of a woefully failed philosophical schooling – nay – it borders on suspected truancy in English Comprehension classes, in earlier stages of the life of anyone who advocates this incomparably outlandish myth.

Viaro – in this, I demand the most exacting sincerity from you: although I know I will not receive it for one reason: dogma is a terrible blindfold.

Already I have a hint of the fading of your sincerity in this matter as you did not hesitate to tell an outright lie in your desperation to deify the Jewish carpenter whom you worship –


Quote
Now, I'm not calling you A SlowPoke, nor being pejorative against your person; but your assumptions are quite cowardly and not man enough to see that He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place.
.

Please retract this shocking falsehood; I needn’t paste the whole of the prayer in Gethsemane here before you accept that you have definitely lied here. Christ DID request that the “cup” should be taken away from him - yes, that "cup" which we have defined above, which AS GOD, he must have known all about.


Quote
If anything, not only did He frequently tell His disciples that such an event was inevitable
.

If he knew it was inevitable why in hell would he make that odd prayer in Gethsemane? Was he hoping against the “inevitable?” Just remember that this is almighty God you are referring to.

And given the analysis of divinity and the divine will that I set forth above, that, dear Viaro, positively affirms that he is not GOD, could not be, unless we speak of an inferior god, than that which is divine and unceasing in its perfection.

It was amazing how you also sidestepped the core issue on the evident dichotomy of wills in the statement – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. You merely stated –


Quote
There is no grounds to assume a dichotomy of 'wills' - if there was, you have not demonstrated such a grounds but are only yapping. I would like to invite you at a set time to discuss why I believe in the Trinity - the time will come. For me, it is not a matter of additions and multiplications, but of subsistence (you can hold me to that statement when the time comes). And yes, in that discussion I will share many matters with you about the divine hypostasis of Christ being both Deity and Human. I shall not preempt it here; but mark my summations until then.

- And left it at that! Good grief, again I ask you, you can accept a possible difference of wills within the Godhead, after all Christ’s statements about being “one” with the father, and all ? ? ? ?

I hope it is now not lost on you that beyond attacking my cosmological theories (which have nothing to do with this dogmatic issue) you made absolutely no sense, and not a single valid point at all in all your responses: because you did not address the issues, but evaded them in favour or absurd taunts.

I shudder at the way in which dogmatic Christians such as yourself are happy to debase the perfection of God in order to justify dogma! What is most terrifying is that you are normally a very reasonable man, but once your dogma is fluttered, you are willing to consign all reason and all obvious truth to the waste bin, in a rabid attempt to justify your worship of a fellow human being, which has been handed to you by your colonial master.

But heck, worship the dead Jewish carpenter all you want. . . you are entitled to do so just as surely as the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star are entitled to insist that Olumba Olumba Obu is God. And just as surely as Hindus are entitled to worship cows.

The last bit. . .

You have talked about His essence being different from his will.


Let us grant that that is the case. It still begs my core question –


“Could the will ever disagree with the personage?”


This is an odd question, but that is the oddity that the Trinity leads us to: I ask again – Could the “Will” of God ever differ from that which resides within the “essence” of God? That is – could the will be of a different or contradictory desire or direction, to the essence


In my view, it certainly cannot, because the will proceeds directly from the person, or, as you put it, the “essence” of God. For this reason the will can only be reflective of the essence, and certainly could not contradict the essence.

Once you accept this, as you per force must, you have conclusively ceded the debate: because as you will see below, God's will could not request of God that God should change God's will to suit the will of God who was on Earth at the tinme.

I dare you to suggest tat the will can contradict the essence, or bear a different desire, and let us see just how far you are prepared to carry this absurdity.


Answer now, and let the issue rest. We have reached a head; with this cardinal question, which will resolve this debate once and for all!


You did answer in the affirmative that Jesus did not become less divine by becoming human, you also naturally agree that he was the perfect embodiment of God’s will (He was God in fact, you say, which ties the noose of wills only tighter).


Given this, the simple question is ask; for the umpteenth time is this –


How could he say: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt?”


Does this not show God (or Christ, who you stated did not become less divine by becoming human - remember that) willing or pleading for something that was AGAINST the Divine will.


Does this not show a possible dichotomy of wills? That his will could conceivably be different from the Father’s will?


Could the son have a different desire from the father? If he does, would that not do sacrilege to the concept of their “oneness”?


Indeed Viaro – I have a second sure plank of victory (not that this discourse is about victory, of course) – your acceptance that he did not become less divine by becoming human nails away all your assertions about his “human” side, showing up such to have been poorly thought-up excuses for absurdities that your dogma presents.


This debate is effectively concluded against you, based on your own responses and now I think some history is apt. If I might ask, do you know anything of the Arian heresy and the Council of Nicea?

nuclearboy:

I accept that you can listen to and hear your thoughts. But no-one else can! The comparison is not apt.

Your word not only emanates from you. It is your inner being expressed for others to see/feel/hear/whatever.

The messengers of God you speak of had personal aspirations, life-plans, lusts etc IN ADDITION to the particular message they had from God. Those messages were in fact, incidental, in their lives. Jesus was nothing else except the word He bore. He came only as that Word and there was no dilution through His lifetime! That to me is the distinction.

Your re-translation of the Bible is funny. I will not say you are wrong over the "Godly divinity" issue but I use the KJV. What it says is "was God". Would you take me as a serious character if I were now to drop the KJV and follow your position? Suppose you were to say it said "wasn't more than the smallest angel"? What would you I do?

I would take you as a serious character if you went and researched what the original greek said!

@Pastor_AIO:

Sure you would! Unfortunately for you though, it is not integral to me that I do so.

Right now, I assume that you can speak Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek too. Have you also studied the Arabic language to understand the Math we learnt in school since much of that came from Arabic. Some words in the English Vocabulary come from French too. You've studied and are fluent in that too? If you cannot provide an affirmative answer to all of them, you're obviously not serious by your own standards of seriousness.

@Deepsight:

This copying from Thread to thread is making me dizzy. Not sure I have the presence of Mind. Could we please stay on this one thread from now? For the last time, here's my response on the other thread:

I personally have always argued against the word Trinity. The word came from pagan Rome. It is to me wrong that three are one. Rather, I have always seen it as one shown as three. Given this scenario of one shown as three, I could expand to that one being then shown as a myriad which could include a dog, a snail and a piece of chalk. Taking these three examples as a "population sampling" for my illustration, would you take them to be the same or have the same capabilities? Or do you believe the Almighty unable to be 2 different things in different places?

Would you expect say, the snail to eat meat or the chalk to crawl since they are same? I have used the flesh covering of Jesus to argue for limitation. Remember that the spirit is said to struggle against the flesh plus there's still the soul in this human mix. A cry for help can come from tortured flesh struggling against a Spirit rigid in its purpose. And the cry of a tortured soul is even worse. At Gethsemane, foreknowledge of what the next 24 or so hours held would have caused great grief for the soul. Remember the Spirit was not going to be the one feeling the pain. It was Flesh-Time! It caused sweat of blood, didn't it? To what? Spirit or flesh. I believe the flesh rose here and struggled. I come from a military background and know that the "Rambo" personality sold on TV is ridiculous. If God didn't cheat and Jesus was both fully Man and fully God, there was a distinct clash between the different portions of His being that I believe explains away the seeming turnarounds. Total humanity explains the fear. Total Divinity explains the acceptance of the Divine will. This I believe resolves the issue of "will" versus "personage". Of course, here, will would be Spirit whist personage is the mishmash. As an example, I would (my will) that I jog 10 miles every morning. Bros, I assure you my personage doesn't wish to get up early in the morning.

@ Nuclear - could a divine being (even in flesh) ever request the shelving of a divinely concluded eventuality?

What is divinity?

What is fear?

Deep Sight:

@ Nuclear - could a divine being (even in flesh) ever request the shelving of a divinely concluded eventuality?

What is divinity?

What is fear?

We know in part, DeepSight! 2,000 years ago, what would a roman have said told that me and you would be conversing separated by many miles, without audio and without seeing ourselves through a screen? Why do you think it fair or reasonable to rationalize God into the question above? Time, Science, exposure are all limited. I refuse to put God into a box or assume I know His limitations.

Let me start with this verse or prophecy from the Old Covenant:

Isa 9:6  For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace. [Isa. 25:1; 40:9-11; Matt. 28:18; Luke 2:11.]

@Pastor AIO: I have the Bible in Greek here, and the two words used for GOD in John 1:1 are the same, the word θεός
theos (theh'-os), meaning the Exceedingly, Supreme Divinity

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)
Joh 1:1  The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God,  (Message)

Now, on to DeepSight's post brought forward from the other thread.

@DeepSight: Let me attempt to be brief in my response, expanding my previous analogy and deepening Jesus' perspective.

On Gethsemane:

Using my analogy of Keifer Sutherland acting as Jack Bauer in the action series "24", I know you will agree with me (if you watch the series) that many times, Jack Bauer is close to death, and like every other human being, he does not want to die unless he absolutely has to. In a hypothetical scene, he has been left inside an underground chamber while he tries to deactivate a scheduled nuclear warhead, guarded by Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.

Jack Bauer (in his mind): Not my will, director (The director is Keifer Sutherland), but yours be done. I really want to get out of this scene alive, and save the people of the United States. (frantically tries to deactivate the warhead, while still shooting the Fundamentalist terrorists that are trying to gun him down and prevent him from doing the work)
Casual Observer (someone who has seen the movie last night on MNet): what nonsense?! Doesn't Keifer know that he will not die, and the CTU will rescue him in the next few minutes? Why is he acting like he doesn't know? Are you sure Jack Bauer is Keifer Sutherland? 'Cos he was interviewed last week and he already told us about this scene!
Maven: But of course he has to behave like that, because that is what his role requires! And if Jack Bauer dies in that movie, Keifer Sutherland will never be Jack Bauer again. At least until another movie. Self-preservation is a fundamental human trait, and he's only human to act that way

Furthermore, I want you to note that everything Jesus did and said was for our benefit. If he acted all macho and marched to the cross, how would we know how to deal with circumstances where it seems our will is far easier than God's more complex (difficult?) will? Here, Jesus was going to undergo a three-day journey that would at first separate him from the Godhead due to the enormity of man's sins. For the FIRST time, the Son of God was going to be divorced, so to speak, from His Father. In actuality, He knew it was temporary, but for our benefit, he had to take it like a man (no pun intended).

Jesus took his disciples along with him so as to show them how it is to battle out such spiritual tussles, but they were just sleeping like logs

Hang on there!

You stated:

Mavenb0x:

Let me start with this verse or prophecy from the Old Covenant:

Isa 9:6  For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace. [Isa. 25:1; 40:9-11; Matt. 28:18; Luke 2:11.]

To which i have previously answered on this forum:

On Isaiah – NOTICE that he says that the child born will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father”. I ask you – is Jesus the Father? No – he is the son, and he made it very clear that he is not the Father in two statements –

“The father is greater than I” – John 14:28 and -

“Of that day no one knows, not the angels, nor the son, but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

THEREFORE it is clear that when Isaiah calls him “Everlasting Father”, it is meant in a representative fashion: to wit – He represents the Father. Thus “Mighty God” must be understood in the same way: he represents God. This is clear because you cannot deny that Jesus is not the father. That much he himself made clear in the two quotes above. So Isaiah’s statement is representative. Please read the Bible with a compound approach.

Happy on Isaiah?

Buttressing my reply about John 1:1, let us examine it carefully

Joh 1:1  In_G1722 the beginning_G746 was_G2258 the_G3588 Word,_G3056 and_G2532 the_G3588 Word_G3056 was_G2258 with_G4314 God,_G2316 and_G2532 the_G3588 Word_G3056 was_G2258 God_G2316.

In the "with God", the word πρός (pros) indicates a preposition of direction, it means the Word was forward to, and directed from, God meaning that it proceeded from God. As for the "was God", the word ἦν ēn (ane) means agree with, take charge of, hold and use. The words for God are the same.

So, an accurate understanding of the translation is found in the Message version, rather than the Weak English of the KJV:

Joh 1:1  The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God,
Joh 1:2  in readiness for God from day one.

Mavenb0x:

As for the "was God", the word ἦν ēn (ane) means agree with, take charge of, hold and use.

I hope u recognise that in the above you have conceded that Jesus is not god, but perhaps some sort of Primus Inter pares

@DeepSight: As to your response on Isa 9:6, I think it will be vital to our discussion if you understand that (read the red part)

Col 2:8  See to it that no one carries you off as spoil or makes you yourselves captive by his so-called philosophy and intellectualism and vain deceit (idle fancies and plain nonsense), following human tradition (men's ideas of the material rather than the spiritual world), just crude notions following the rudimentary and elemental teachings of the universe and disregarding [the teachings of] Christ (the Messiah).
Col 2:9  For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form [giving complete expression of the divine nature].

and so, Isaiah 9:6 was clearly showing that the entirety of the Godhead was being assumed in bodily form

Isa 9:6  For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace. [Isa. 25:1; 40:9-11; Matt. 28:18; Luke 2:11.]

Wonderful Counselor is a precursor to the name of the Holy Spirit.
Mighty God is an indication of God's power in entirety, cutting across His revelations to us as the Son, Father and Spirit
Everlasting Father of Eternity is the name of the Father, who appeared to Abraham as YHWH
Prince of Peace was a precursor to the role Jesus came to play on Earth.

In Christ was the fullness of Deity, bodily.  

Alright: Let's streamline issues; Is Jesus THE FATHER?

Clarify for me.

As for the "was God", the word ἦν ēn (ane) means agree with, take charge of, hold and use.

Deep Sight:

I hope u recognise that in the above you have conceded that Jesus is not god, but perhaps some sort of Primus Inter pares

No, sir!!! I keep saying, Jesus was God expressed in human form! Agree with, take charge of, hold and use. Isn't that what the Word did when the Word became flesh?

The Word AGREED with God, because God is ONE in agreement!

Mar 12:29  And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
1Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (I am not debating Trinitarianism here, i am using this to indicate that they are in agreement)

Understand that, assuming I was a perfect person with no guile, my words must conform with my person, which must conform with what I say. I AGREE, so to speak, with my own words and deeds and literature! It does not place one above the other primus inter pares.

Just answer me this: Is Jesus THE FATHER.

MARK MY WORDS: I do not ask if he is God, i ask if he is THE FATHER.

Now I'm in . . . .

Deep Sight:

Just answer me this: Is Jesus THE FATHER.

MARK MY WORDS: I do not ask if he is God, i ask if he is THE FATHER.

No, he is God the Son.

Now I'm out . . . . .

Deep Sight:

Alright: Let's streamline issues; Is Jesus THE FATHER?

Clarify for me.

This is a "tricky" question because it depends on who's asking. Speaking from the physical angle, Jesus is not the Father. In actuality, the Father is the same person as Jesus.

If you look into a mirror, is what we see in that mirror YOU? No, it's not you, but for a barber who looks into the mirror to trim your hair, he says "You are getting bald here", pointing at the mirror. This would be confusing for someone who has never seen a mirror before, but looking away from the mirror into reality, we will see the same "baldness" appearing on the client's head. If we keep staring in the mirror, we get a PROJECTION of the client. Being the SON of God does not only indicate childbirth or progeny through Mary like many think. The same way we say someone is a "chip off the old block" i.e. the Father has been repeated in the Son, is the way Jesus is the earth-ward projection of the Father, doing His will in entirety on earth!

Joh 10:36  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh 10:37  If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Joh 10:38  But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

If you look from outside the mirror into the mirror, you know that Jesus the man, is not the Father. He is the Son. If you consider that its only a mirror, you understand that Jesus, the Father and the Spirit, are revelations of God's various interactions with man through eternity.

Deep Sight:

Just answer me this: Is Jesus THE FATHER.

MARK MY WORDS: I do not ask if he is God, i ask if he is THE FATHER.

LOL Bros you go chill na!   Please be a bit patient, I'm in Nigeria at the moment (The hols are here, yippee!) and this GLO 3G connection is wack. I just saw this when I tried to post again. The post that appeared like a reply to you, I had already typed it up. Im quite a slow typer. THIS (above) is your response.

@ttalks:

Isaiah said he was the Father!.

@Deepsight:

Jesus is God! Father, Son, Spirit are semantics and only represent how God shows Himself as at differing times based on Mankind's needs. You will notice that where He is named as the Everlasting Father, He is also called the Mighty God. "Mighty" not Almighty! Seems to be another contradiction. Way I see this, God wants our trust. I buttress this by asking you why He planted the Tree of Knowledge in Eden if not to require that they trust His Judgment? Would you rather Jesus visits you with a hundred thousand angels shining like the Sun to convince you? In Eden, He gave them enough but Nope, they needed more. Same with you as I see you're trying to rationalize all of this based on words and their meanings. I thought it was only Muslims that liked to try using the Bible as a trap to win arguments. Another term used for Him is Judge. Would you like He present us His gown and wig before you believe that claim too? Think about it.

Maven/ Nuclearboy -

As much as i would have liked to progress to the other questions in the OP, you both astound me.

It cannot be seriously asserted by anybody that Jesus is the Father. I crafted that question carefully because of the trinitarian problem of identification whereby all three are said to be God, but never identified as being one another: in other words - is the son the Holy spirit as well?

Biblically your assertion that the son is the father collapses very very easily indeed as we will see:

1. Jesus positively asserted that the FATHER was greater than him - Jn 14:28

2. In the event that you attempt the lame line that he was only saying that because he was here on earth in the physical, then what about Jesus' assertion that he would ascend to be sitted on the right hand side of the father? after being resurrected? This makes it abundantly clear that he is not the same entity at whose rigfht hand he sits. It is made clear in the Gospel that he rose and sat at the right hand side of the Father - Mark 16:19.

3. Jesus makes it clear that the father has the same relationship with us (being our father) as with Jesus (being his father). This is emphasized by the text in Jn 20:17. Even after Jesus had died and risen, there remains a clear difference between the two as Peter writes - "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" - 1 Pet. 1: 3

4. “Of that day no one knows, not the angels, nor the son, but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

5. To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane? To who did he cry "Eli Eli, La ma sabathacni?" Doubtless to the father. In Gethsemane he makes the crucial statement - "Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt" - making it clear that the Father had a different mind, will and selfconsciousness, because if he were the father himself, that prayer would be moot and paradoxical.

It is glaring from the foregoing that Jesus cannot ever be said to be the father. Not even within trinitarian dogma. And the serious inconsistencies above reveal what must perforce happen when irrational ideas seep into what was once pristine truth. I am frankly waiting to see to what bizzare lengths you both will go in attempting to debunk the above and insist that he is the father.

Mavenb0x:


1Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (I am not debating Trinitarianism here, i am using this to indicate that they are in agreement)

Maven do me a big favour and scour through this verse in any modern version of the bible, not the KJV.

The words above have been removed from ALL modern versions! I'm serious, go check it out.

Reason: the discovery of older manuscripts after the printing of the KJV in the 17th century showed that the earliest manuscripts did not contain these words. These words were deliberately inserted by the church in order to advance trinitarian dogma.

You can confirm for yourself. Just check out modern bible versions, you'll see that what you quoted above is no longer there.

How curious!

Thanks for sharing your views, DeepSight. I will reply from my laptop when I get back home.

Simply put, DeepSight, could God be 2 different things in 2 different places at the same time?

I need you to answer that question?

@nuclearboy
I am suprised you submit to the trinitarian doctrine despite all the knowledge you have about the how christianity was distorted by the early catholic church. Trinity is an inherent part of that distortion.

You're right that Trinity came from the RCC system. But then you seem to have missed my point. I DO NOT AGREE THAT THERE ARE THREE GODS MAKING UP ONE "GOD". My position is that there is only ONE God.

Where we seem to differ is this:- you believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also gods but lower than God. Sort of like somewhere between Angels and God. This would in fact, suggest it is you believing in trinity. If they are lower, they're not the same and that makes them three. I hope you follow?

I refuse to accept this and believe that the ONE God shows Himself in differing manner at differing times. He, I believe manifested as Jesus yet was in heaven at the same time (BECAUSE HE IS GOD) and also shows Himself as the Holy Spirit. By default, He is Jehovah, a God of Judgment, Strong, Powerful etc. When relating to us, He showed a physical manifestation represented as Jesus (remember someone accepted worship in the OT and angels do not do that) and today, He reveals Himself to us as the Spirit of Love (in effect, He lives and walks with us).

Look at it this way: God physically walked with Adam and Eve in Eden! The Bible is clear on that or do you not accept that? If the sacrifice of Jesus was what we say it is and effectual, it has brought us back to that situation since Adam walked on earth, not heaven and I would expect God walking with you or myself today just as much as then. When last did you shake hands with Him? My position is that the Holy Spirit which I believe we all claim we have is His manifestation. Anything less than that and Bro, Jesus did nothing for us and the point of the sacrifice was not met.

@nuclearboy
I really don't like debating this trinity issue as it has been over flogged on this forum, but even if you read a few of deepsight's recent posts and quoted scriptures, it is glaring that Jesus is an entity distinct from the God the father and not a manifestation. He is an Image/ perfect likeness of God as the bible describes and NOT God the father as Jesus himself made it crystal clear that the father is greated than he is.

Nuclear - you have not answered the posers i raised from the bible about Jesus and the Father.

In this, please remember that even if ONE GOD manifests as three persons, it is manifestly unlikely, nay, impossible that the different manifestations should disagree or that one manifestation would petition another manifestation requesting the shelving of a divinely ordained event, as happened in Gethsemane.

Capisce?

@DeepSight & KunleOshob:

I sincerely thought my response negated the argument your posers brought up. I just didn't want to go the argument way. If you want I'll take another look at them and attempt to present my own perspective. For now though Sirs, humor me and allow me digress for a bit. I think we can solve this issue very very simply by me trying to show you what you in fact, are claiming to be the truth.

Trinity I believe means three Gods in the GodHead. You say you do not believe in Trinity and so do I.

We agree that there is "God". So I ask you about the 2 other names in the mix i.e. Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

[1] Do you believe Jesus exists?
[2] Do you believe the Holy Spirit exists?
[3] Is Jesus Divine?
[4] Is the Holy Spirit Divine?
[5] If Jesus is Divine, is He lower than God?
[6] If the Holy Spirit is Divine, is "it" lower than God?

If your answers to the above questions are YES, then you have a serious problem here as you then have said there are three DISPARATE divinities in Christianity and like the Muslims would say, we have three gods. Are you Muslims, by any chance?

If your answers are NO, then what are we arguing about since obviously you deny the Bible.

If there is a middle ground somewhere in this, please detail it to me. Following your response to the above, I'd be pleased to look at the posers you said I ignored.