Jesus - Islam Perspective

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Okay, but you do realize that there is reasoned opposition to this “doctrine” “taught” by the Catholic Church.[/quote]

Listen, if someone has opposition to doctrine taught by the Catholic Church, they have a problem with the canon of the Bible taught by the Catholic Church. Either listen or don’t, but you can’t take the Bible and not the author who wrote it.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Trying to apply “logical and compelling” to Christianity?

Good luck with that. [/quote]

Or Islam. Or any other religion.[/quote]

Sounds of haters.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Okay, but you do realize that there is reasoned opposition to this “doctrine” “taught” by the Catholic Church.[/quote]

Listen, if someone has opposition to doctrine taught by the Catholic Church, they have a problem with the canon of the Bible taught by the Catholic Church. Either listen or don’t, but you can’t take the Bible and not the author who wrote it.[/quote]

Following the above, we can conclude the Catholic Church wrote the Bible?

What exactly are you saying here?

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Another question Sloth. Since it’s so “plain”. Do you deny the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the third and fourth centuries by the Church? If it’s so plain, why would it require development (invention?) of a “doctrine” some 3-400 years after the death of Jesus? Didn’t you say it was “plain English”? Dick and Jane running down the hill? If it’s so plain, why would the Church need to develop a “doctrine”?

I’d like to hear your reply. Thanks. [/quote]

Because people twist the scriptures. It was clear when Jesus taught it.[/quote]

Your conclusion is the exact charge leveled against your Church.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Jesus was repeatedly distinguished from the Father in “language that a 3rd grader could follow, even”. [/quote]

Why wouldn’t he be? The trinity IS a trinity, not a mono-personality. A distinction drawn between the persons, and the ‘roles,’ is just as much a part of the trinity as the ‘One-God’ aspect. In the first place, I’m not sure even how these, distinctions, is supposed to be a challenge to Christianity, which flatly proclaims a triune God. What they didn’t tackle, and hoped noone would bring up, is that scripture flat out identifies the Word as being with God, while also being God, from the beginning. It flat out states that the only Son of God (through whom we can be sons of God. Also in the above passage), is also God—last line of the above passage. Scripture positively identifies seperated personalities/persons of a one God, in my passage.[/quote]

Well, you’re back to appealing to the authority of the Catholic Church aren’t you? Or can you provide clear biblical evidence for the concept of the “trinity” as taught by the Catholic Church? Is it your position there is no debate about the trinity either? For the record, there are “oneness” and “trinitarian” theologists.

Another simple search, another well reasoned rebuttal:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a40.htm

Is it still really as easy as “dick and jane ran down the hill?” I think the Jews would disagree. [/quote]

Jews don’t hold the NT or seven of the OT and sometimes even more of the OT as divinely inspired, why would that matter. They just dismiss it, no argument is needed.

Here is a list of what early Christians before the Bible was canonized said on the subject:

The Didache

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with GodÃ?¢??s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

Justin Martyr

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5Ã?¢??6 [A.D. 151]).

Theophilus of Antioch

“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus

“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics” (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

“Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (ibid., 9).

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, Ã?¢??I and my Father are oneÃ?¢?? [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25).

Origen

“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

“No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words Ã?¢??whenÃ?¢?? and Ã?¢??neverÃ?¢?? are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages” (ibid.).

“For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages” (ibid.).

Hippolytus

“The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).

Novatian

“For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God” (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).

Pope Dionysius

“Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate” (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

“Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is b.asphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd” (ibid., 1Ã?¢??2).

“Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. Ã?¢??For,Ã?¢?? he says, Ã?¢??The Father and I are one,Ã?¢?? and Ã?¢??I am in the Father, and the Father in meÃ?¢??” (ibid., 3).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, Ã?¢??Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,Ã?¢?? understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men” (Letter of Barnabas 5 [A.D. 74] emphasis added).

Hermas

“The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the FatherÃ?¢??s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient” (The Shepherd 12 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father]. . . . [T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased him that sent him” (Letter to the Magnesians 6Ã?¢??8 [A.D. 110] emphasis added).

Justin Martyr

“God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: Ã?¢??Let us make man after our image and likeness.Ã?¢?? . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62 [A.D. 155]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

“I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 [A.D. 155] emphasis added).

Mathetes

“[The Father] sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world. . . . This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old. . . . This is he who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son” (Letter to Diognetus 11 [A.D. 160] emphasis added).

Irenaeus

“It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, Ã?¢??Let us make man in our image and likenessÃ?¢?? [Gen. 1:26]” (Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189] emphasis added).

Tertullian

“While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . . through the unity of substance” (Against Praxeas 2:3Ã?¢??4 [A.D. 216]).

“Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe, now, that I say the Father is other [distinct], and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other.
. . . I say this, however, out of necessity, since they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the selfsame person” (ibid. 9:1).

Hippolytus

“Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, supposing that he had obtained [the position] after which he so eagerly pursued, he [Pope Callistus] excommunicated Sabellius, as not entertaining orthodox opinions” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 228]).

Novatian

“[W]ho does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, Ã?¢??Let us make man in our image and our likenessÃ?¢?? [Gen. 1:26]? Or when he reads [as having been said] to Christ: Ã?¢??Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the heathens for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possessionÃ?¢?? [Ps. 2:7Ã?¢??8]? Or when also that beloved writer says: Ã?¢??The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I shall make your enemies the stool of your feetÃ?¢?? [Ps. 110:1]? Or when, unfolding the prophecies of Isaiah, he finds it written thus: Ã?¢??Thus says the Lord to Christ my LordÃ?¢??? Or when he reads: Ã?¢??I came not down from heaven to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent meÃ?¢?? [John 6:38]? Or when he finds it written: Ã?¢??Because he who sent me is greater than IÃ?¢?? [cf. John 14:24, 28]? Or when he finds it placed side by side with others: Ã?¢??Moreover, in your law it is written that the witness of two is true. I bear witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of meÃ?¢?? [cf. John 8:17Ã?¢??18]?” (Treatise on the Trinity 26 [A.D. 235]).

“And I should have enough to do were I to endeavor to gather together all the passages [of the kind in the previous quotation] . . . since the divine Scripture, not so much of the Old as also of the New Testament, everywhere shows him to be born of the Father, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, who always has obeyed and obeys the Father; that he always has power over all things, but as delivered, as granted, as by the Father himself permitted to him. And what can be so evident proof that this is not the Father, but the Son; as that he is set forth as being obedient to God the Father, unless, if he be believed to be the Father, Christ may be said to be subjected to another God the Father?” (ibid.)

Pope Dionysius

“Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the monarchy, the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it, as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. I have heard that some of your catechists and teachers of the divine Word take the lead in this tenet. They are, so to speak, diametrically opposed to the opinion of Sabellius. He, in his b.asphemy, says that the Son is the Father and vice versa” (Letters of Pope Dionysius to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria 1:1 [A.D. 262]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. . . . We forswear this, because we believe that three personsÃ?¢??namely, Father, Son, and Holy SpiritÃ?¢??are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature” (A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]).

“But if they say, Ã?¢??How can there be three persons, and how but one divinity?Ã?¢?? we shall make this reply: That there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that there is but one divinity, inasmuch as . . . there is one substance in the Trinity” (ibid., 14).

Methodius

“For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one deity in three persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality he is. For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty” (Oration on the Psalms 5 [A.D. 305]).

Athanasius

“[The Trinity] is a Trinity not merely in name or in a figurative manner of speaking; rather, it is a Trinity in truth and in actual existence. Just as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and is God over all. And neither is the Holy Spirit nonexistent but actually exists and has true being. Less than these the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the Jews of the present time, imitators of Caiaphas, or to the level of Sabellius” (Letters to Serapion 1:28 [A.D. 359]).

“They [the Father and the Son] are one, not as one thing now divided into two, but really constituting only one, nor as one thing twice named, so that the same becomes at one time the Father and at another his own Son. This latter is what Sabellius held, and he was judged a heretic. On the contrary, they are two, because the Father is Father and is not his own Son, and the Son is Son and not his own Father” (Discourses Against the Arians 3:4 [A.D. 360]).

A little Scripture:

"See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another; in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard he says: �¢??The Father and I, we are one�¢?? (John 10:30). He teaches us that one refers to their nature, and we are to their Persons. In like manner it is said: �¢??There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one�¢?? (1 John 5:7).

As well “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”[/quote]

[quote]

BROTHER CHRIS:

YOU MUST BE KIDDING ME?

First, I’m not going to take the time to respond to the above because it’s merely restated what you’ve stated numerous times already. You’ve done nothing but cherry picked extra-biblical support in support of your argument. There is not use in my cherry picking the well known opposition (that we both know exists).

I mean, I appreciate the work, and I appreciate your sincerity, and I continue to respect (although I disagree) your beliefs. However, what you did there above, was do nothing but expand on your original argument, and you did nothing but supply a bunch of extra-biblical references that agree with DOGMA.

But the most curious part, is the ONLY SCRIPTURE you referenced in support of your argument is disputed. Surely you didn’t intend to be that disingenuous did you? Or was it a mistake?

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org

Let’s agree that it’s a matter of interpretation, and you believe your Church’s. I respectfully remain very skeptical.

[TheBodyGuard]

By the way Chris, thank you for referencing 1 John 5:7. I’ll post again for everyone else.

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org

[TheBodyGuard]

Would you agree that without the Doctrine of the Trinity that one could reasonably conclude that Jesus is not divine? Would that be fair?

[Tiribulus]

Without a Jesus who is God there is no gospel and the new testament is meaningless. HE is the gospel and the new covenant. What about a triune God then? I suppose it may be conceivable (though not biblically so) that Jesus could be divine without God being triune, but the scriptures everywhere proclaim the existence of one and only one true and living God while referring to three distinct persons as that one God. Do I understand that? Nope, but then again any god that fits inside my puny skull is no God at all.

[LeanMoreThanMean]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Would you agree that without the Doctrine of the Trinity that one could reasonably conclude that Jesus is not divine? Would that be fair? [/quote]

I’m confused why you keep asking such questions. The only problem with any of the scenarios that you put forth is if the Christian belief is inconsistent. Nothing in the gospels makes it inconsistent. What the Christians claim is fully compatible with the Bible, because they wrote the Bible, and they compiled the Bible, always having known what it meant (and didn’t).

Now, to answer your question even more specifically,

Mark 2:7 — Why does this man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?

This happens several times in the gospel (Luke 5:21 again). He is sought after to be killed for blasphemy because he “makes himself God”. It’s the whole point of the gospel. It’s uncertain to me why you are ignorant of this, unless you haven’t read the accounts of what happened.

And if you don’t get what “I AM” John 8:58 means (as I said before “I am who I am” ego eimi o wn = YHWH), there’s no need to progress with this thread, because that should just shut the whole thing down, either way. Or read John 1:1 as has been mentioned, or John 10:30, 33.

In summary, why are they trying to kill him if he is not saying he’s God? Why/How is he forgiving people’s sins? As they say (rightly) no prophet does, or can do, this.

The Christian account makes sense and is not in any way inconsistent, which is the point. That others claim things doesn’t mean they (the Christians) are wrong, unless their position contradicts itself, which I’ve shown, is not the case. More importantly, it never has been.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Following the above, we can conclude the Catholic Church wrote the Bible?
[/quote]

Yes, I have already said this.

[quote]
What exactly are you saying here?[/quote]

That the Bishops of the Catholic Church wrote the books in the Bible. Then later canonized it around 400 A.D.

This also leads into another point, Oral Tradition for ~350 years, plus that of the Jews.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
BROTHER CHRIS:

YOU MUST BE KIDDING ME?

First, I’m not going to take the time to respond to the above because it’s merely restated what you’ve stated numerous times already. You’ve done nothing but cherry picked extra-biblical support in support of your argument. There is not use in my cherry picking the well known opposition (that we both know exists).[/quote]

Not sure how I cherry picked anything, those are within context of the rest of the manuscripts.

I mean, I appreciate the work, and I appreciate your sincerity, and I continue to respect (although I disagree) your beliefs. However, what you did there above, was do nothing but expand on your original argument, and you did nothing but supply a bunch of extra-biblical references that agree with DOGMA.

Surprise, they agree with dogma, they were the Early Church Fathers which Doctrine and Dogma look to when establishing truths.

[quote]
But the most curious part, is the ONLY SCRIPTURE you referenced in support of your argument is disputed. Surely you didn’t intend to be that disingenuous did you? Or was it a mistake?

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org

Let’s agree that it’s a matter of interpretation, and you believe your Church’s. I respectfully remain very skeptical. [/quote]

Okay, but I’d really suggest you take the author’s interpretation on the subject…just saying.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Would you agree that without the Doctrine of the Trinity that one could reasonably conclude that Jesus is not divine? Would that be fair? [/quote]

Doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t really doesn’t establish Jesus’ divine nature, it assumes it. It establishes the triune nature of G-d.

I don’t know how easy it is to twist scriptures. But, I assume that it is possible as people have done it.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Would you agree that without the Doctrine of the Trinity that one could reasonably conclude that Jesus is not divine? Would that be fair? [/quote]

I’m confused why you keep asking such questions.

[/quote]

That’s fair. I think you should have stopped right there

[/quote]
The only problem with any of the scenarios that you put forth is if the Christian belief is inconsistent. Nothing in the gospels makes it inconsistent. What the Christians claim is fully compatible with the Bible, because they wrote the Bible, and they compiled the Bible, always having known what it meant (and didn’t).
[/quote]

“Christians” did not write the Bible. Jesus was a Jew. That aside, the consistency of the gospels is not necessarily predicated on the divinity of Jesus. I think it was a later invention of the Church, and there are many scholars that share this belief. I’m not making it up, and hence I don’t understand your “confusion”.

[/quote]

Now, to answer your question even more specifically,

Mark 2:7 — Why does this man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?
[/quote]

It’s curious you use the above because Jesus does not liken himself to God, but instead says the SON OF MAN has authority on earth to forgive sins. He did not call himself God, or liken himself to God. So, what’s your point?

[/quote]

This happens several times in the gospel (Luke 5:21 again). He is sought after to be killed for blasphemy because he “makes himself God”. It’s the whole point of the gospel. It’s uncertain to me why you are ignorant of this, unless you haven’t read the accounts of what happened.
[/quote]

I’ll reiterate again what I said above. Jesus does not liken himself to God and the passage continues with reference to “glorifying God” - not Jesus.

[/quote]

And if you don’t get what “I AM” John 8:58 means (as I said before “I am who I am” ego eimi o wn = YHWH), there’s no need to progress with this thread, because that should just shut the whole thing down, either way. Or read John 1:1 as has been mentioned, or John 10:30, 33.

In summary, why are they trying to kill him if he is not saying he’s God? Why/How is he forgiving people’s sins? As they say (rightly) no prophet does, or can do, this.

The Christian account makes sense and is not in any way inconsistent, which is the point. That others claim things doesn’t mean they (the Christians) are wrong, unless their position contradicts itself, which I’ve shown, is not the case. More importantly, it never has been.[/quote]

None of the above is new territory. However, I’ll simply state that the consensus among a number of New Testament scholars is that the proclamation of the divinity of Jesus was a development (invention) within the earliest Christian communities.

So, we come full circle. You trust the interpretation of the Church, which did not exist when Jesus walked. I don’t. And for every scriptural reference you made above, I can leave you with the following:

Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.”

Matthew 19:17
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

Colossians 1:15
“The Son is the IMAGE of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”

1 Corinthians 8:6
“yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”

1 Corinthians 15:28
“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

John 14:28
"“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”

1 Corinthians 11:3
“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

John 17: 3
“Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

Acts 2:22
"“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Acts 2:32
“God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.”

Acts 3:26
“When God raised up his servant, Jesus, he sent him first to you people of Israel, to bless you by turning each of you back from your sinful ways.”

Acts 3:13
“The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.”

Matthew 12:18
"“Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.”

Isaiah 42:1
“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations.”

Isaiah 45:5
"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,

Acts 4:24
"When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.”

Mark 16:19
"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.â?? - GOD SAT AT HIS OWN RIGHT HAND? HUH?

luke 4:1
â??â?¦.and Jesus for forty days in the wilderness was tempted by the devilâ?? - GOD HIMSELF WAS TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL?!

But in the Bible we also read that:

â??God cannot be tempted by the devilâ?? 4

Matthew 26:64
"So you say. But I tell you this: from now you shall see the son of man seated at the right hand of Godâ??

I can quite literally go on for a while longer but I think you get the point. I believe I can quote another two dozen or so scriptures along the same lines. So I ask you again, so that I may lift the veil of “confusion” from you, would you agree that without the Doctrine of the Trinity that one could reasonably conclude that Jesus is not divine? Would that be fair?

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Would you agree that without the Doctrine of the Trinity that one could reasonably conclude that Jesus is not divine? Would that be fair? [/quote]

Doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t really doesn’t establish Jesus’ divine nature, it assumes it. It establishes the triune nature of G-d.

I don’t know how easy it is to twist scriptures. But, I assume that it is possible as people have done it.[/quote]

I know logic allegedly does not belong in a dialogue about religion, but the above was completely circular reasoning (with some other fallacious argument forms making an appearance - which is remarkable given that it’s one sentence at issue).

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
BROTHER CHRIS:

YOU MUST BE KIDDING ME?

First, I’m not going to take the time to respond to the above because it’s merely restated what you’ve stated numerous times already. You’ve done nothing but cherry picked extra-biblical support in support of your argument. There is not use in my cherry picking the well known opposition (that we both know exists).[/quote]

Not sure how I cherry picked anything, those are within context of the rest of the manuscripts.

I mean, I appreciate the work, and I appreciate your sincerity, and I continue to respect (although I disagree) your beliefs. However, what you did there above, was do nothing but expand on your original argument, and you did nothing but supply a bunch of extra-biblical references that agree with DOGMA.

Surprise, they agree with dogma, they were the Early Church Fathers which Doctrine and Dogma look to when establishing truths.

[quote]
But the most curious part, is the ONLY SCRIPTURE you referenced in support of your argument is disputed. Surely you didn’t intend to be that disingenuous did you? Or was it a mistake?

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org

Let’s agree that it’s a matter of interpretation, and you believe your Church’s. I respectfully remain very skeptical. [/quote]

Okay, but I’d really suggest you take the author’s interpretation on the subject…just saying.[/quote]

This is disingenuous at best. The early church fathers were authoring the dogma. You’re concluding they agree with themselves.

The “author’s”. The Catholic Church “authored” the Bible? Really? Hmm.

I tried before to end the thread. Let’s agree that this rises and falls upon whether you agree with the allegedly inspired teachings of the Catholic Church. I was skeptical prior. Now, after this dialogue, I’m feeling pretty good about rejecting them. Not rejecting God, but the alleged inspired teachings of your Church. Surely we can agree to disagree right? Would any further discussion be fruitful?

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[
That the Bishops of the Catholic Church wrote the books in the Bible. Then later canonized it around 400 A.D.

[/quote]

I suggest you revisit this claim starting with:

The list was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church.

http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm

Your claim above is patently false and intentionally misleading. Or, you simply misspoke.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Without a Jesus who is God there is no gospel and the new testament is meaningless. HE is the gospel and the new covenant. What about a triune God then? I suppose it may be conceivable (though not biblically so) that Jesus could be divine without God being triune, but the scriptures everywhere proclaim the existence of one and only one true and living God while referring to three distinct persons as that one God. Do I understand that? Nope, but then again any god that fits inside my puny skull is no God at all.[/quote]

Or how about simply that Jesus was sent or inspired by God to teach the new covenant. Much has been lost to the potential invention of his divinity. The message loses nothing if Jesus is teacher and prophet. Christianity chose to hitch it’s wagon to the divinity of Jesus, and I say it was unnecessary.

I’ll again refer you to the disputed “triune God”:

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org

[Sloth]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Or how about simply that Jesus was sent or inspired by God to teach the new covenant. Much has been lost to the potential invention of his divinity. The message loses nothing if Jesus is teacher and prophet. Christianity chose to hitch it’s wagon to the divinity of Jesus, and I say it was unnecessary.

I’ll again refer you to the disputed “triune God”:

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org [/quote]

Ahh, no wonder you’re still ignoring that the divinity of Jesus was flatly stated in my passage…This is a religious belief of yours.

[Sloth]

Nvm. This ended a page ago. Later.

[Tiribulus]

Wow, what’s up with my buddy Sloth? You didn’t even get this aggravated when you and I were goin at it fer days. Regardless, it’s always good to see you here my friend.