Trinity

[Razanir]

For Jesus being eternal, in the Jewish encylopedia the Messiah existed before the word began. Red it for yourself.

God said those words in revelation not Jesus

Did the Apostle Paul say those words? Citation please

1. I’m not quite sure of your point in saying the Messiah’s eternal. IMO, that supports our point that Jesus IS the Word. If Jesus is just a person and the incarnation of the Word, as opposed to the second person of the Trinity, it would imply he was created and therefore not eternal
2. Rev 22:13 is the famous “Alpha and Omega” quote. It’s also encased in the same set of quotation marks as Rev 22:16 which begins “I, Jesus…” This implies it’s him talking in both quotes.
3. Titus 1:3– God is our Savior. Titus 1:4– Jesus is our Savior. There’s only one capital-S Savior

1.In the greek text there is no capital little on the word.
2.There is no distinction from big G Elohim and Small G Elohim. From my understanding it does not mean many gods but a reference to a single god
3.I didn’t say the word is not God. I meant Jesus is what the word became, Jesus is not word as trinitarians make it out to be.

1. In Ancient Greek AND Latin, they didn’t have capital and lowercase letters. John 1:1 would have read in Latin “IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBUM…”
2. There are 3 words in Hebrew that translate to deity. El means little-g god. Elohim with a plural verb is little-g gods. Elohim with a singular verb is capital-G God. (I think I remember that all correctly)

 

[YiiNaa]

The Paschal Mystery resulted in need for a new doctrine on the nature of God.

1.Only God can save.
2.Jesus Christ saves.
3.Therefore Jesus Christ is God.

In Christ

You’d have to “prove” premise one.

I guess I could use a similar argument to show that moses is God.

1.God is the only redeemer
2.Moses redemmed the Israelites out of Egypt
3.Therefore Moses is God

 

[Monergistic]

They did tht because he was a king. There are different types of worship in the bible. ( eg In the OT David and other kings were worshipped)

Is there any sense in which you’re leaning toward a more Jewish identity, perhaps some type of syncretism between Judaism and Christianity? Or is your thought process a bit more Unitarian?

Never mind, you’re clearly Unitarian. But is there some syncretism involved, do you think?

 

[benjohnson]

His actions show that he was an agent of God, not God himself. Read a jewish encylopedia on the law of agency. Jesus even claimed to be an agent(John 17:3,8:28,etc)

Jesus said the shema, so there is no need to bring a trinity into christianity. He never claimed to be God.

That you take the sacred text out of it context and come up with your own conclusion is to be expected.

That Jesus does not specifically and exactly call out his divinity in Biblical texts is not a quandary for Lutherans - other authorities, and our church, proclaim it in our creeds.

But if I may say about your logic:

By your logic, then anything with God-like powers may not be God, but an agent of God. That would also apply to the God of Abraham - for at times he did not announce his divinity at every appearance. We would then have God curl up upon himself logically, only being God when he claims it and only being an agent when not.

 

[jakasaki]

The status of your religion states: Religion: Anglican / Unitarian

Anglicans believe in the Holy Trinity

Unitarians do not

How can you be both?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

In the context of NT, eigo imi doesn’t mean deity. Jesus used this before the Sanhedrin, and I’m sure you if you read that in context you would not come to such conclusions.

For Jesus being eternal, in the Jewish encylopedia the Messiah existed before the word began. Red it for yourself.

God said those words in revelation not Jesus

Did the Apostle Paul say those words? Citation please

The Jewish encyclopedia doesn’t retain Jesus as being eternal though. Arius also believed that Jesus was created “before the world” and yet, not eternal. He frequently stated that there was a time that Jesus “was NOT” as opposed to “AM” which is what Jesus stated in John 8:58.

Why did the Jews pick up rocks to stone Jesus if it not because he claimed divinity?

As for the Apostle Paul:

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13** Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;** 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:11-14)

To what is Paul referring here? Please explain .

 

[ffg]

Quote me just **one **verse where he claimed to be divine.

If you can conclude world history and it’s events as having occured.

You can deduce divinity upon learning of the appearance of Jesus to Thomas a full week after he stood before the other apostles days after they saw him hanging on a cross.

Happy Easter!

 

[JMJ_coder]

You’d have to “prove” premise one.

I guess I could use a similar argument to show that moses is God.

1.God is the only redeemer
2.Moses redemmed the Israelites out of Egypt
3.Therefore Moses is God

Logical fallacy - your premises are wrong. Particularly, Moses did not redeem the Israelites, rather he liberated and delivered them.

As for a proof of the premises of the earlier proof that only God saves, and Jesus saves: you can begin with Isaiah 33:22, Matthew 1:21, Acts 4:12, and James 4:12 (these are but the tip of the iceberg).

 

[JMJ_coder]

If Jesus said the Shema, what is the need for a new doctrine on the nature of God? We should accept Jewish doctrine instead of adding our own because Yeshua was Jewish

The Shema: Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! (Dt 6:4 - NAB translation).

As Catholics, we whole-heartedly agree and proclaim this. There is only ONE God! There is no contradiction between the oneness of God and the Trinity. As we profess in the Athanasian Creed (and elsewhere):

The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
*And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. *

 

[JonNC]

The Shema: Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone! (Dt 6:4 - NAB translation).

As Catholics, we whole-heartedly agree and proclaim this. There is only ONE God! There is no contradiction between the oneness of God and the Trinity. As we profess in the Athanasian Creed (and elsewhere):

The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
*And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. *

Yep. Lutherans, too.

Jon

 

[YiiNaa]

1. I’m not quite sure of your point in saying the Messiah’s eternal. IMO, that supports our point that Jesus IS the Word. If Jesus is just a person and the incarnation of the Word, as opposed to the second person of the Trinity, it would imply he was created and therefore not eternal
2. Rev 22:13 is the famous “Alpha and Omega” quote. It’s also encased in the same set of quotation marks as Rev 22:16 which begins “I, Jesus…” This implies it’s him talking in both quotes.
3. Titus 1:3– God is our Savior. Titus 1:4– Jesus is our Savior. There’s only one capital-S Savior
4. In Ancient Greek AND Latin, they didn’t have capital and lowercase letters. John 1:1 would have read in Latin “IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBUM…”
5. There are 3 words in Hebrew that translate to deity. El means little-g god. Elohim with a plural verb is little-g gods. Elohim with a singular verb is capital-G God. (I think I remember that all correctly)

I didn’t say that the messiah is eternal. I said he existed before the world began therefor you can’t use john 17:3 to say that jesus is god. Jesus is not the word, but rather what the word became(john 1:14).

Scholars do not know the meaning of the “Alpha and Omega” in the context of the bible. This term is hardly used in ancient Hebraic literature.

Jesus is our saviour because he is an agent. It was God’s plan for the salvation of the world) not Jesus (Luke 22:42, John 3:16,17:3). He came to do the work he was given to do, on Gods authority(John 8:28) not his own.

 

[simspt]

You’d have to “prove” premise one.

I guess I could use a similar argument to show that moses is God.

1.God is the only redeemer
2.Moses redemmed the Israelites out of Egypt
3.Therefore Moses is God

Why do you think the earliest Christians worshiped Jesus? Guys like Paul. The same Jews who worshiped the monotheistic God?

In Christ

 

[YiiNaa]

Is there any sense in which you’re leaning toward a more Jewish identity, perhaps some type of syncretism between Judaism and Christianity? Or is your thought process a bit more Unitarian?

Never mind, you’re clearly Unitarian. But is there some syncretism involved, do you think?

I can’t deny the fact was a first century jew, and I want to understand him from a 1st century jewish perspective, not a 4th century christian one.

 

[YiiNaa]

That you take the sacred text out of it context and come up with your own conclusion is to be expected.

That Jesus does not specifically and exactly call out his divinity in Biblical texts is not a quandary for Lutherans - other authorities, and our church, proclaim it in our creeds.

But if I may say about your logic:

By your logic, then anything with God-like powers may not be God, but an agent of God. That would also apply to the God of Abraham - for at times he did not announce his divinity at every appearance. We would then have God curl up upon himself logically, only being God when he claims it and only being an agent when not.

1.I’m trying to view he NT from a 1’st century jewish perspective and i don’t see whats
wrong with that.

2.What if I said that Abraham saw an agent of God, but never actually saw God?

 

[YiiNaa]

The status of your religion states: Religion: Anglican / Unitarian

Anglicans believe in the Holy Trinity

Unitarians do not

How can you be both?

You could argue that I am not an anglican. I believe in many anglican doctrines except a few. I guess I should change my flair to Protestant.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I can’t deny the fact was a first century jew, and I want to understand him from a 1st century jewish perspective, not a 4th century christian one.

From a 1st century Jewish perspective, they clearly believed that Jesus claimed himself to be equal to God and Jesus confirms that they have understood him correctly. That is the reason the leaders at that time had Jesus crucified.

Mark 14:61-64

Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?”

Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”

At that the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as deserving to die.

 

[Razanir]

I didn’t say that the messiah is eternal. I said he existed before the world began therefor you can’t use john 17:3 to say that jesus is god. Jesus is not the word, but rather what the word became(john 1:14).

Shortly afterward in John 1:18 “18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” I’d say it makes it pretty clear that the Son of God is God.

Scholars do not know the meaning of the “Alpha and Omega” in the context of the bible. This term is hardly used in ancient Hebraic literature.

I thought it was well accepted that it’s a reference to the Greek alphabet meaning the beginning and the end.

Jesus is our saviour because he is an agent. It was God’s plan for the salvation of the world) not Jesus (Luke 22:42, John 3:16,17:3). He came to do the work he was given to do, on Gods authority(John 8:28) not his own.

Luke 22:42– Jesus is fully human and fully divine. He has a human will and a divine will. Being human, he naturally had an aversion to death. However, he, like all the martyrs, overcame that and willingly subjected himself to death.

I can’t deny the fact was a first century jew, and I want to understand him from a 1st century jewish perspective, not a 4th century christian one.

Who exactly are you referring to? You left the subject out of your nested clause. I’m assuming you meant “Jesus was a first century jew,” but I just want to make sure

 

[YiiNaa]

Logical fallacy - your premises are wrong. Particularly, Moses did not redeem the Israelites, rather he liberated and delivered them.

As for a proof of the premises of the earlier proof that only God saves, and Jesus saves: you can begin with Isaiah 33:22, Matthew 1:21, Acts 4:12, and James 4:12 (these are but the tip of the iceberg).

From thefreedictionary.com
redeem

6.To set free; rescue or ransom.

Maybe redeem is not the right word but you know what I mean.

Even if only God can saves, this does not mean that Jesus is God. Jesus is simply an agent of God.

 

[YiiNaa]

From a 1st century Jewish perspective, they clearly believed that Jesus claimed himself to be equal to God and Jesus confirms that they have understood him correctly. That is the reason the leaders at that time had Jesus crucified.

Mark 14:61-64

Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?”

Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”

At that the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as deserving to die.

Being the Son of man does not mean that you are equal to God. It means that you have been elevated to the highest possible position. It is not blasphemy in my view, but is understandable why the Jews would think that.

 

[YiiNaa]

Shortly afterward in John 1:18 “18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” I’d say it makes it pretty clear that the Son of God is God.

Which translation did you get that from?

I thought it was well accepted that it’s a reference to the Greek alphabet meaning the beginning and the end.

You are right, but from a theological perspective we can’t know exactly what it means

Luke 22:42– Jesus is fully human and fully divine. He has a human will and a divine will. Being human, he naturally had an aversion to death. However, he, like all the martyrs, overcame that and willingly subjected himself to death.

Whatever his will, it is inferior to that of his father. In my view he submitted to the will of God, obeyed his father and was rewarded.

Who exactly are you referring to? You left the subject out of your nested clause. I’m assuming you meant “Jesus was a first century jew,” but I just want to make sure

I personally want to see it from the perspective view of a first jewish century christian.