Does the TRINITY doctrine CONCUR with John 17:3?

[edpobre]

Friends,

A post in the thread "Is John 17:3 true?" states that the Trinity doctrine FITS perfectly with John 17:3.

I may not be as intelligent as anyone in this board but I can't see how te Trinity Doctrine is NOT contrary or opposite John 17:3.

John 17:3 is Jesus speaking and identifying the Father as the only true God. In any language, this means to me that there is only one true God and that only one true God is the Father only (one God in one person).

The Trinity Doctrine states that there is only one God in the person(s) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (only one God in three persons).

Can Trinitarians explain to me in a straightforward manner how they can believe John 17:3 to be true yet also believe that the Trinity Doctrine to be also true?

Ed

[Josephus]

Well, since Jesus is God and claims to be God, then since Jesus identifies the Father as God too, then there you have Jesus proving there is more than one "person" who is God.

[edpobre]

Josephus,

You wrote: Well, since Jesus is God and claims to be God, then since Jesus identifies the Father as God too, then there you have Jesus proving there is more than one "person" who is God.

You say Jesus is God. But Jesus did not say he is God. Neither do the Apostles say he is God. The truth is: Jesus says he is a man (John 8:40) and the Apostles say he is a man (Acts 2:22; Acts 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5).

Like the Pharisees, you falsely accuse Jesus of claiming to be God. What did Jesus say or do that convinced the Pharisees that he was making himself God? He broke the Sabbath and said God was his Father (John 5:1:cool: . In John 10:36, Jesus proves that the Pharisees thought he was blaspheming (claiming to be God or equal to God) when he said "I am the son of God." Thus, YOU have NOT provided any Biblical proof that Jesus ever claimed to be God.

You say that "Jesus identifies the Father as God TOO" which to you means that Jesus is proving that there is more than 'one person' who is God.

This is an intentional FALSEHOOD Josephus! Your statement is CONTRARY to what John 17:3 says. According to John 17:3, Jesus is saying: "...that they may know YOU (meaning the Father), the ONLY true GOD..." Jesus DID NOT say "the Father is God TOO!"

So far, you have not provided any Biblical proof that the Trinity doctrine concurs with John 17:3.

Thus, since John 17:3 is true because it is God's word and was spoken by Jesus himself who is the way, the TRUTH and the life, the Trinity doctrine is FALSE!

Is there any othre explanation out there?

Ed

[Josephus]

You say Jesus is God. But Jesus did not say he is God.



Jesus did too!
John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM." There is only one I AM - God.

But I also believe Jesus was a man, just like you believe. Thefore scripture to prove Jesus was a man will only make me agree with you more and more on this point. But I believe in addition to his manhood that Jesus was and is God because Jesus and his disciples claimed that too (Phil 2:13). No one can be equal to God unless they are God himself - because scripture says there is no equal to God. Well if there is no equal to God, and Jesus is God's equal as Phil 2:13 says, well then either Paul was a liar or Jesus is simply God.


Is there any othre explanation out there?


Yes. The bible is a lie. That the only other explanation.

[edpobre]

Josephus,

ED: You say Jesus is God. But Jesus did not say he is God.

YOU: Jesus did too!
John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM." There is only one I AM - God.

Let's not get away from the topic my friend. I have heard this argument before and my concern is how can this "interpretation" concur with John 17:3? Jesus says " YOU (meaning the Father) are the true God. How can Jesus imply by saying "I AM" that he is also God? Are you saying that Jesus is a liar or a pretender? Are you suggesting tht your interpretation of what Jesus meant by saying "I AM" can make John 17:3 false?

You wrote: But I believe in addition to his manhood that Jesus was and is God because Jesus and his disciples claimed that too (Phil 2:13). No one can be equal to God unless they are God himself - because scripture says there is no equal to God. Well if there is no equal to God, and Jesus is God's equal as Phil 2:13 says, well then either Paul was a liar or Jesus is simply God.

I repeat. Let's not get away from the topic my friend. I have heard this argument before and my concern is how can this "interpretation" concur with John 17:3? Jesus says " YOU (meaning the Father) are the true God. How can Paul, Christ's disciple imply that Christ is also God? Are you saying that apostle Paul did not believe what Jesus told the Father? Are you suggesting that we must believe your interpretation of what apostle Paul meant rather than believe what Jesus clearly said in John 17:3?

ED:Is there any othre explanation out there?

YOU: Yes. The bible is a lie. That the only other explanation.

Are you suggesting that the Bible is a lie and the Catholic doctrine that Jesus is God is the truth? Please give me a categorical yes or no answer.

Ed

[ZoneChaos]

Here ya go Ed:

First,a matrix of the trinity I will use belos:

God=IAM (A+B+C)

The Father=A
The Son=B
The Spirit=C

17:1 These words spake Jesus , and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father[A], the hour is come; glorify thy Son , that thy[A] Son also may glorify thee[A]: 17:2 As thou[A] hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou[A] hast given him . 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee[A] the only true God[IAM (A+B+C)], and Jesus Christ , whom thou[A] hast sent.

There you go

[Josephus]

*sigh*

Let me state what you want to know ed,:


I believe the Father is the only true God.

I believe Jesus Christ is the only true God.

I believe the Holy Spirit is the only true God.


Of any of these points, you will get no argument from me. I totally agree.

[Josephus]

In regards to I AM:

do I have to spell it out for you?

"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: `I AM has sent me to you.'"

Exodus 3:14


"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

John 8:58

notice Jesus did not say "I WAS" as you or I would say. Instead, Jesus uses the definitive, totally recognizable claim of God: the "I AM" statement.

I'm curious to wonder what you think Jesus is saying when he says "before Abraham was born, I am!" ?

[edpobre]

ZoneChaos/Josephus,

As I said, I understand what you are telling me.What I want to know is if God = I AM (A + B + C) or if Jesus (the Son) is the only true God, how can the Father be also the only true God?

Was Jesus pretending or telling a lie when he identified the Father as the only true God?

I believe that Jesus was telling the truth that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3). Please convince me that your belief that Jesus is God does not make Jesus a liar.

Ed

[Josephus]

I believe that the Father is the only true God too.

I also believe that Jesus is the only true God too.

Obviously if both of these statements are correct, we are talking about two different categories:

Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit = Who

God = What

Who and What are do different things.

Who is God, and what is God?
With God, they can only be two different and distinct categories.

Who is God? He reveals himself in three persons throughout scripture: the Creator, the Redeemer, the Spirit.

What is God? one God.

God is not one person, but he's one God. Scripture doesn't say God is one person, but Scripture resoundingly says that God is one God. Why would God see a need to explain himself as one God if no one questions what he is (how many Gods)? But if someone quesitons who God is (how many persons?), having God explain himself as one God (the "what") is helpful to see HOW God can BE Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, just as scripture reveals each three to be that one and the same God!

Think on that for a minute and then read on.



Let me give you another something to think on. Is God love? If so, then how can God exist eternally - even before creation, if there is nothing for that love to be in existence for? It can only make sense to believe that God is indeed the God of love if God existed before creation as a relationship between distinct persons! It's the only way for love to exist! Without one loving and another being loved, there is no love!

[Navigator]

Here Joe... The Athanasian Creed (http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/CreedsandConfessions/Creeds/AthanasianCreed.html)

[ZoneChaos]

Cool link Nav ;)

[edpobre]

Josephus,

you wrote: I believe that the Father is the only true God too.

I also believe that Jesus is the only true God too.

Your first statement is true because the Bible supports it as recorded in John 17:3 and it wasv Jesus himself who said it.

Your belief that "Jesus is the only true God too" is false because you cannot present Biblical proof that Jesus said it, just as he identified the Father as the only true God in John 17:3.

Besides, you haven't proven logically how the Father is the only true God and the SON is ALSO the only true God.

Please try again.

Ed

[ZoneChaos]

Besides, you haven't proven logically how the Father is the only true God and the SON is ALSO the only true God.

This is what it boils down to everytime. Lets throw out faith and rely on ligic. If fiaht does not make since, lets toss it ans rely on science.

Ahh, the logic and science of man.. where would we be without it.

[Josephus]

hey ZC, you online? do you have AIM?

[edpobre]

Josephus,

You wrote: I believe that the Father is the only true God too.

I also believe that Jesus is the only true God too.

Obviously if both of these statements are correct, we are talking about two different categories:

Your two different categories are dependent on the thought that both the above statements are true. Thus, before you go any further Josephus, please explain to me how both statements can be true.

You and I know that the Father is separate and distinct from the Son. Common sense dictates that if the Father is the only true God, then it is an impossiblity for the Son to be also the only true God.

The only way both statements can be true is IF the Father is also the Son and the Son is also the Father. However, the Bible is clear that the Son is sparate and distinct fron the Father. The Bible further testifies that after everything is placed under the Son, the Son himself shall be subject to the Father.

You wrote: God is not one person, but he's one God. Scripture doesn't say God is one person, but Scripture resoundingly says that God is one God.

Jesus says the Father is the only true God. Isn't this enough indication that the only one God is one person and that person is the Father only?

Ed

[Josephus]

" Common sense dictates that if the Father is the only true God, then it is an impossiblity for the Son to be also the only true God. "

That's common sense, not scripture.

So how can they be? Well, the bible says we were created in the image of God. Are you your mind, or your body, or your spirit? If you say yes to more than one, I think you can get a pretty good understanding of HOW Jesus and the Father are both God.

"Jesus says the Father is the only true God. Isn't this enough indication that the only one God is one person and that person is the Father only? "

The bible doesn't say God is one person, just one God. Anything else or more is an addition to scripture.

[edpobre]

Josephus,

Ed: Common sense dictates that if the Father is the only true God, then it is an impossiblity for the Son to be also the only true God. "

J: That's common sense, not scripture.

Then show me scripture which says that the Son is also the only true God.

You wrote: So how can they be? Well, the bible says we were created in the image of God. Are you your mind, or your body, or your spirit? If you say yes to more than one, I think you can get a pretty good understanding of HOW Jesus and the Father are both God.

How can Jesus and the Father are both God when Jesus says the Father is the only true God? Are you suggesting that Jesus was wrong in adding "only" to his statement? Are you suggesting that your understanding of what Jesus should be has more weight than the words of Christ himself?

Ed: "Jesus says the Father is the only true God. Isn't this enough indication that the only one God is one person and that person is the Father only? "

J: The bible doesn't say God is one person, just one God. Anything else or more is an addition to scripture.

The Bible doesn't say God is three persons either, just one God. But Jesus identified the Father only as the only true God. Are you suggesting that Jesus is a liar?

Ed

[LouisBooth]

"Then show me scripture which says that the Son is also the only true God."

Sure..check John 1:1 ;)

"Are you suggesting that Jesus was wrong in adding "only" to his statement"

God the father is One God, as is Jesus one God as is the Holy spirit ONE GOD..That's what three IN ONE MEANS ED!

"The Bible doesn't say God is three persons either, just one God. But Jesus identified the Father only as the only true God. Are you suggesting that Jesus is a liar?"

Okay ed since you aren't getting it let me just break it down for you in simple english. Jesus said there is one God then said God the father is God then said he was God and that the Holy spirit is God..conclusion..there is ONE GOD. Its three IN ONE. Got it or do I have to do this again?

[edpobre]

LouisBooth,

Ed: "Then show me scripture which says that the Son is also the only true God."

Kouis:Sure..check John 1:1

John 1:1 doesn't say Jesus is the only true God. That's only your imagination or personal interpretation of wht John 1":1 means. John 1:1 is not even referring to Jesus but to the WORD (spoken or expressed idea, plan or promise) of God.

Ed:"Are you suggesting that Jesus was wrong in adding "only" to his statement"

Louis:God the father is One God, as is Jesus one God as is the Holy spirit ONE GOD..That's what three IN ONE MEANS ED!

I know what you mean by "three in one" Louis. But that is not the question. Why do you evade the question? Because you don't have any answer for it. Right?

Ed:"The Bible doesn't say God is three persons either, just one God. But Jesus identified the Father only as the only true God. Are you suggesting that Jesus is a liar?"

Louis:Okay ed since you aren't getting it let me just break it down for you in simple english. Jesus said there is one God then said God the father is God then said he was God and that the Holy spirit is God..conclusion..there is ONE GOD. Its three IN ONE. Got it or do I have to do this again?

You can do it a million times Louis and I still won't believe it because you haven't shown me that "Jesus said he is God." That "three in one God" thing is only a figfment of your imagination that contradicts John 17:3.

Please show me how the Trinity doctrine concurs scripturally with what Joihn 17:3 is telling us. The Father is the ONLY (not three persons) true God. Now show me how your Trinity doctrine concurs with this.

Ed

[drmmjr]

Why is it that in all places where logos is used it means:

"a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea"

"the sayings of God"

Yet in John it suddenly takes on this "new meaning" of physically being Jesus.

This logos, or (plan, promise, idea) that God had is for the salvation of the world. It just so happens that Jesus is the ends and means by which this plan/promise was put into action.

Is Jesus literally this logos? No, the logos is a figurative description of Jesus.

When Mary concieved and Jesus was born, the plan that God had became real. Up to then it was a plan, not a physical thing. When someone thinks about something, whether it is a pencil, calling someone on the telephone, or getting up from a chair. It is only a thought until action is taken. Once that action is taken, the thought becomes real. Prior to that point, the thought can be changed many times but only the end result is real.

Jesus became a part of the physical plan of God when he was born. Prior to that, God knew there would be a son and that the son would have to die. But was the son physically there, no.

[ZoneChaos]

The problem with that D, is that if you look at "the Word" in John 1:1 as nothing more than a "plan" or "idea", then "the Word was with God" makes no sense. This implies that what / whoever the Word is, is a thing or entity that can exist in the presence of God.

[Josephus]

Ed, also, if Jesus was begotten of God, that would mean He is of the Father - meaning he would share the same qualities and characteristics of his Father. He would in a sense have the "God" stuff in his entire makeup - but since there is only one God, then Jesus must be that only one God.

[LouisBooth]

"John 1:1 doesn't say Jesus is the only true God. That's only your imagination or personal interpretation of wht John 1":1 means. John 1:1 is not even referring to Jesus but to the WORD (spoken or expressed idea, plan or promise) of God.
"

Wrong ed, it is speaking about Jesus. Just do the math. Let me help you out. First it says the word became flesh and dwelt among us, then it says John testifies about the word saying this, "He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me." Then in verses 17 and 18 it clearly calls Jesus God, but lets just go on...In verse 29 John sees Jesus and look what he says in verse 30..Surprise!! It is the EXACT SAME THING that he said about the word..why? Because Jesus is the logos. Don't be blinded to the truth Ed.

"I know what you mean by "three in one" Louis. But that is not the question. Why do you evade the question? Because you don't have any answer for it. Right?"

No ed, I answered your question. It was just an answer you don't like..sometimes we dont' always "like" the truth ed, but its still truth.


"Please show me how the Trinity doctrine concurs scripturally with what Joihn 17:3 is telling us. The Father is the ONLY (not three persons) true God. Now show me how your Trinity doctrine concurs with this."

I have many times Ed. You take a verse and look at it indepentantly, but that is NOT THE WAY IT IS MENT TO BE READ. The bible is a whole book and ment to be read that way. If you read it you clearly see that Jesus is God, God the father is God and The Holy Spirit is God hence..3 in one ;)

[edpobre]

Josephus,

You wrote: Ed, also, if Jesus was begotten of God, that would mean He is of the Father - meaning he would share the same qualities and characteristics of his Father. He would in a sense have the "God" stuff in his entire makeup - but since there is only one God, then Jesus must be that only one God.

The speculation that "Jesus must be that only one God" is just that - speculation, and it does not do you any good. We can only be sanctified by the truth and the truth is the word of God - the Bible.

God testified that Jesus is His son in whom He is well pleased. Jesus, the son, testified that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3). The Bible gives us no room for speculation. Either we believe the Bible or we don't.

Ed

[edpobre]

ZoneChaos,

You wrote: The problem with that D, is that if you look at "the Word" in John 1:1 as nothing more than a "plan" or "idea", then "the Word was with God" makes no sense. This implies that what / whoever the Word is, is a thing or entity that can exist in the presence of God.

The "word", "plan" or "idea" was God's. Naturally, it was with God in the beginning. Who else would the "word", "plan" or "idea" be with except the one whose "word", "plan" or "idea" it is?

Ed

[Josephus]

ed, the bible I use when delving in this subject is the Hebrew Old Testament, and Greek New Testatment. Anything else is just a translation.

[LouisBooth]

"God testified that Jesus is His son in whom He is well pleased. Jesus, the son, testified that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3). The Bible gives us no room for speculation. Either we believe the Bible or we don't."

Ahh..you're getting it ed!! This coupled with other statements such as the father and I are one and everything the father has is mine should tell you that Jesus is saying he is seperate from God but yet idential in diety..ie I am God...you're halfway there ed take the last step to the truth.

"Who else would the "word", "plan" or "idea" be with except the one whose "word", "plan" or "idea" it is?"

So the plan is God also..the plan was Christ..he was with God in the beginning and is God..ya got that right ed ;)

[edpobre]

LouisBooth,

Ed: "God testified that Jesus is His son in whom He is well pleased. Jesus, the son, testified that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3). The Bible gives us no room for speculation. Either we believe the Bible or we don't."

LB: Ahh..you're getting it ed!! This coupled with other statements such as the father and I are one and everything the father has is mine should tell you that Jesus is saying he is seperate from God but yet idential in diety..ie I am God...you're halfway there ed take the last step to the truth.

Again you are speculating Louis. "I and the Father are one" doesn't say Jesus and the Father are one God. They are simply one which could mean anything from "one caring for the sheep" or "one in judgment."

Also, Jesus' statement that "everything the Father has is mine" doesn't tell me that "Jesus is saying he is separate from God but yet identical in deity...ie, "I am God." This is pure speculation or conclusion based on distorted interpretation to make the verse fit your false belief that Jesus is God.

Ed: "Who else would the "word", "plan" or "idea" be with except the one whose "word", "plan" or "idea" it is?"

LB: So the plan is God also..the plan was Christ..he was with God in the beginning and is God..ya got that right ed

The plan is NOT a "HE" Louis. The plan is NOT Christ. Let's say you plan to build a house. And let's say you plan to name that house "Louis." That plan was with you since the time the plan was conceived in your mind, but "Louis" was not yet in existence. The only time "louis" appears is after the house has been built.

Got it my friend?

Ed

[LouisBooth]

"Again you are speculating Louis. "I and the Father are one" doesn't say Jesus and the Father are one God. "

:lol: yes it does ed, what to you think "one" means :lol: You're just ignoring the plain words now.

"This is pure speculation or conclusion based on distorted interpretation to make the verse fit your false belief that Jesus is God."

Ed, then you just don't get the assurtion made by Christ. he says EVERYTHING that God has (power, omni-whatever..everything) is his..that makes him God, ed. Just think about it.


"The plan is NOT a "HE" Louis. The plan is NOT Christ. "

Yes it is Ed. Should we go through John chapter one and I can show you SEVERAL places where John clearly says Jesus is God. Its up to you ed, do you really want to know the truth?


"That plan was with you since the time the plan was conceived in your mind, but "Louis" was not yet in existence. "

:lol: but the plan is NOT me. It clearly says the word WAS God.

"And let's say you plan to name that house "Louis"

:lol: so Jesus is named God then huh? Thanks for proving my point for me ed. :lol:

"The only time "louis" appears is after the house has been built."

Wrong ed, it says he is WITH God in the beginning. Not on God's mind, not waiting to be with God, BUT WITH GOD. I think you're just ignoring the plain words here ed.

[edpobre]

LouisBooth,

Ed:"Please show me how the Trinity doctrine concurs scripturally with what Joihn 17:3 is telling us. The Father is the ONLY (not three persons) true God. Now show me how your Trinity doctrine concurs with this."

LB: I have many times Ed. You take a verse and look at it indepentantly, but that is NOT THE WAY IT IS MENT TO BE READ. The bible is a whole book and ment to be read that way. If you read it you clearly see that Jesus is God, God the father is God and The Holy Spirit is God hence..3 in one

Okay, let's test your idea that John 17:3 is not meant to be read independently. Let's compare John 17:3 with John 10:30 and show us how these two verses can both be true.

John 17:3 says the Father is the only true God. "And this is eternal life, that they may know YOU (referring to the Father in verses 1), the only true God, and Jesus Christ whoim YOU have se This is true.

John 10:30 simply says, "I and the Father are one." This verse does not say that Jesus and the Father are both God. The verse is silent about that. Hence, as it is, the verse is also true because it does not contradict John 17:3.

However, once the verse is interpreted to mean that Jesus and the Father are both God, then the meaning of the verse is distorted and no longer true.

That's when false teachers also distort the true meaning of John 17:3 to make it mesh or align with their distorted meaning of John 10:30.

And this method of distortion is true in all verses that fanatics use to defend the Trinity doctrine.

They distort the meaning of these verses, then distort the true meaning of John 17:3 to make it align with their distorted meaning of verses like John 1:1; John 1:14; John 8:58; John 20:28; Col. 9:5; etc).

Other verses like Zech. 12:10; Isaiah 9:6; Heb. 1:8; John 1:18 are mistranslated to provide support for the Trinity and the true meaning of John 17:3 is distorted to satisfy their misguided belkief that Jesus is God.

Ed

[Josephus]

ed, the bible I use when delving in this subject is the Hebrew Old Testament, and Greek New Testatment. Anything else is just a translation.

[edpobre]

Josephus,

You wrote: ed, the bible I use when delving in this subject is the Hebrew Old Testament, and Greek New Testatment. Anything else is just a translation.

You must be reading from the Hebrew Bible which is also a translation from the original Hebrew manuscripts. The Revised Standard Version RSV, Today's English Version TEV, The Living Bible TLBand the Moffat translations of Zechariah 12:10 are ALL consistent in their use of the pronoun "HIM". Only the New International Version NIV and the King James Version KJV among the Bibles I have, use a mixture of the pronouns "ME" and "HIM".

Just like you Josephus, all the translators of these BIBLES claim that they translated from the original Hebrew text. Yet they came up with contrasting translation of Zechariah 12:10.

Thus, the question to ask is, which of these translations reflect the truth? And what is the truth? The truth as stated by Jesus is he is a man (John 8:40) with flesh and bones which a spirit doesn't have (Luke 24:39). Another truth as stated by Jesus is that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3) and God is Spirit (John 4:24) that doesn't have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

Zechariah 12:10 is God speaking and saying that "they will look to the one who is pierced..."

The Hebrew Bible, NIV and KJV translators would like people to believe that it is God Himself who is pierced by saying, "they will look to ME whom they pierced."

Is this accurate? Wasn't Jesus, the man with flesh and bones, the one who said he is a man, the one whom they pierced? Can anyone pierce a spirit which is what God is? Can God who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9) be the same Jesus whom they pierced and himself God raised from the dead?

The other Bibles say that "they will look on "HIM" whom they pierced." Remember that it is God talking here. So God is saying that they will look on "HIM (referring to Jesus) whom they pierced."

Isn't this the more accurate translation of Zechariah 12:10? God cannot be pierced because he is Spirit. Jesus can be pierced because he is flesh and bones.

Ed

[Josephus]

*sigh*
ed, aren't you bothering to read my posts?

This is the bible I use: Notice that it is not a translation of any kind. It IS the original Hebrew. And while you're at it, please notice the "look on Me" and "mourn for Him" and notice the pronouns are totally different. Find me another Hebrew text with it different, and I will believe that this copy is flawed. If not, then I want you to conceede for now that Zech 12:10 says what it really says here.


www.info2000.net/~ise/bible/text.jpg (http://www.info2000.net/~ise/bible/text.jpg)

[Josephus]

And if you can't read it, here it is again:

www.info2000.net/~ise/bible/text.jpg (http://www.info2000.net/~ise/bible/text.jpg)

[Josephus]

and again:

www.info2000.net/~ise/bible/text.jpg (http://www.info2000.net/~ise/bible/text.jpg)

Ed, what do you think?

I'm tryin' not to bible bash ya, but in love I ask you to at least CONSIDER the truth as it is layed out before you. God has a divine appointment for you , and if you wish, call me! Email me now inigmatus@yahoo.com - I'd love to set up a chat time.

[edpobre]

Josephus,

You wrote: I'm tryin' not to bible bash ya, but in love I ask you to at least CONSIDER the truth as it is layed out before you. God has a divine appointment for you , and if you wish, call me! Email me now inigmatus@yahoo.com - I'd love to set up a chat time.

Aren't the RSv, TEV, TLB and MOFFAT recognized Bibles too? What truth are you saying is layed out before me?

Wasn't Jesus saying the truth when he said that God is Spirit? Wasn't Jesus saying the truth when he said he is a man? Wasn't Jesus saying the truth when he said that the Father is the only true God? Wasn't Jesus saying the truth when he said a spirit (God is spirit, remember) doesn't have flesh and bones as he has?

You say Jesus is God. If that is true, aren't you sying Jesus LIED when he said the Father is the only true God?

Your version of Zechariah 12:10 cannot be true because if Jesus was God whom they pierced, then there would have been two Gods. One, the God whom they pierced and mourned for and wept over, and two, the God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9). And the Bible does not support this false idea of two Gods. Moreover, Jesus would have been lying when he said that God is spirit (John 4:24) and therefore could not be pierced.

At any rate, if you want to continue this conversation in a more private manner, my e-mail address is: edpobre@eudoramail.com


Ed

[drmmjr]

Boy, there sure are a lot of threads concerning John 17:3.

Josephus,

I had asked over on the thread titled "Is John 17:3 True" if you were reading the actual Hebrew or the words below the Hebrew in the bible you have shown.

I mean no disrespect. If you are reading the Hebrew, I applaude you. But on the other hand, if you are reading the words below the Hebrew, are you not reading someone's interpretation of what the Hebrew said.

Just curious.

[Michael]

The relationship between God, Holy Spirit, Jesus and us, is crucially interwoven with this passage. John 17 is certainly one of the more crucial passages in the bible regarding the relationship between Jesus and God, as well as OUR relationship with them both.

Jesus taught his whole life from a place of selflessness. He was not on an ego trip at all. He's constantly explaining that his power comes from God, and describes himself as a *MAN* doing the will of the Father.

The trinity doctrine is not what Jesus himself taught, and John 17 clearly demonstrates this to be in error.

Jesus prays to God as son to Father the night before he is to be put to death.

Jesus was not God. He was not killed for suggesting he was God. He was killed for claiming to be the Messiah and Christ, but this is not the same as claiming to be God.

I can't recall a single instance of Jesus refering to himself as God in the first person sense in all of the Gospels. I can think of numerous examples though where he openly states he is *SON* of God, and refers to God in the *THIRD* person.

I think what Ed's been trying to show you is that Jesus didn't claim to be God. That was a church add-on hundreds of years later.

[ZoneChaos]

The "word", "plan" or "idea" was God's. Naturally, it was with God in the beginning. Who else would the "word", "plan" or "idea" be with except the one whose "word", "plan" or "idea" it is?

And who was the word when the Word became Flesh?

[Michael]

>>And who was the word when the Word became Flesh?

The Holy Spirit. The breath of God. This same Spirit has been since before there was a universe, and will be long after this universe has fizzled away into oblivion.

Jesus literally describes himself as a man, unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit. Without question, this is exactly what he was. He explains in John 17 that it is our duty as well to achieve this same unity with God. Should we honor his teachings?

[ZoneChaos]

Michael. this wasn't your question.. also.. that didn't answer my question.. that skirted around it. let me clarify.. for you so you answer too..

After the Word became Flesh, who was the Word?

According to you Miachel, the Holy Spirit became a man... hmm...

[LouisBooth]

"However, once the verse is interpreted to mean that Jesus and the Father are both God, then the meaning of the verse is distorted and no longer true. "

wrong ed...you said it best already..Jesus and God are one..ie one God and that is the one true God..that's the trinity..get it?

Ed, do you know greek or hebrew..learn it then I'll maybe consider your opition on if something is mistranslated or not. Until then I view your opition on this as uneducated.

[LouisBooth]

"The trinity doctrine is not what Jesus himself taught, and John 17 clearly demonstrates this to be in error."

That is a false statement. Jesus DID teach the trinity if you acutally read what he said. John makes it clear in chapter 1 about his diety also.

"I can't recall a single instance of Jesus refering to himself as God in the first person sense in all of the Gospels. "

then you haven't read enough ;)

How about that passage in Luke where he forgives sins?

"I think what Ed's been trying to show you is that Jesus didn't claim to be God. That was a church add-on hundreds of years later. "

Wrong again! Paul himself though Jesus was diety, as did the church at Jer. and that was less then 80 years after jesus asended! Jesus clearly claims to be God and the bible shows he is. If you don't see that then you are just ignoring the words on the page.

[lionsden101]

Jesus is 100% God is 100% Holy Spirit is 100% Jesus

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

-----------------------------------------------------------
John 1:2-3
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
------------------------------------------------------------

Isaiah 42:8
"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.

Isaiah 48:11
I will not yield my glory to another.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 17:1-5
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 54:13
All your sons will be taught by the LORD, and great will be your children's peace.

John 6:42-46
It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
------------------------------------------------------------

Act 20:28
Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with his own blood.
[God had blood.]
------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: `I AM has sent me to you.'"

John 8:56-58
Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad." "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
-Jesus
------------------------------------------------------------
John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
------------------------------------------------------------

John 5:18
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Titus 2:13-14
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed NASB

1 Timothy 3:13-16 NKJV
14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.

Hebrews 1:8 NKJV
But to the Son He says:
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
------------------------------------------------------------
2 Corinthians 3:18
And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit

Romans 9:5
of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen

to be continued:

[Michael]

>>After the Word became Flesh, who was the Word?

The Holy Spirit doesn't fit inside a single human being, but it can enlighten *ALL* human beings.

>>According to you Miachel, the Holy Spirit became a man... hmm...

No, according to me, a man became embued with the presense of the Holy Spirit.

[Michael]

Nowhere in his teachings does Jesus describe this "union with" God, as exclusive. In John 17 he makes it clear in fact what we can literally all become *ONE WITH* both Jesus and God.

John 17:20

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

[Michael]

John 1:32

And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

[ZoneChaos]

>>After the Word became Flesh, who was the Word?

The Holy Spirit doesn't fit inside a single human being, but it can enlighten *ALL* human beings.

BUt that isn't what John says.. John said the Word (person or thing) became Flesh (a living person). So, who now is the living person that the Word became?

>>According to you Miachel, the Holy Spirit became a man... hmm...

No, according to me, a man became embued with the presense of the Holy Spirit.

Fair enough, but that isn't what you said. Nor is it what we are talking about. Answer the question: After the Word became Flesh, who or what is the Flesh? John akes it apparent that it is Jesus Christ. And John makes it apparent that Jesus Christ was born as He is, and did not reach divinity over time. John says that the Word became Flesh. John says that the Word is God. John says that Jesus is the Word. Why you choose to ignore that is beyond me. Why you choose to rationalize John to fit your beleifs is beyond me.

The Holy Spirit doesn't fit inside a single human being, but it can enlighten *ALL* human beings.

nd this does not even answer the question...

The Word is who? John writes about the Wor das a person, and describes the Word as he and other writers describe God.

So we have the Word=God. So, when God became Flesh... who was the person that God was / is? John says Jesus Christ.. who do you think it is?

[Michael]

>>Fair enough, but that isn't what you said. Nor is it what we are talking about. Answer the question: After the Word became Flesh, who or what is the Flesh?

You seem to want me to say that the "Word" takes on the form of Jesus Christ. Does that make you happy? :) Where does that leave the Bible then, for surely it too cannot also be the "Word"? :(

Sure the Word is made manifest through Jesus, but this is not the same as suggesting Jesus is God.

>>John akes it apparent that it is Jesus Christ. And John makes it apparent that Jesus Christ was born as He is, and did not reach divinity over time. John says that the Word became Flesh. John says that the Word is God. John says that Jesus is the Word. Why you choose to ignore that is beyond me. Why you choose to rationalize John to fit your beleifs is beyond me.

Now that's quite amusing actually. I've explained to you the relationship between God, Holy Spirit, and Jesus in great detail now, and I *AGREE* that Jesus was the living *WORD* of God, in that he lived and served God from dawn to dusk, and followed the presense of the Holy Spirit within him.

You on the other hand have been clinging to the bible being the living "Word". Which is it? Is the Holy Spirit the Word, or is a book the Word?

M>The Holy Spirit doesn't fit inside a single human being, but it can enlighten *ALL* human beings.

>>nd this does not even answer the question...

It does answer the question, you just don't want to *HEAR* the answer.

>>The Word is who? John writes about the Wor das a person, and describes the Word as he and other writers describe God.

John (the disciple) also uses the term "WE ARE OF GOD". The presense of the Holy Spirit within, is not an exclusive relationship. It can be in me, and it can be in you, and it can be in everyone simultaneously. This is the part you seem to fail to grasp.

>>So we have the Word=God. So, when God became Flesh... who was the person that God was / is? John says Jesus Christ.. who do you think it is?

As I have explained to you repeatedly, the Holy Spirit is the living Word of God. I'll bet I've said that now a hundred times in the past year.

The Holy Spirit lives within each of us. We need only "hear" it, more accurately "experience" it.

I have no problem with the concept of trinity in the end as I've said. I say this because the union of man to God is through the presense of the Holy Spirit, the living WORD of God. It can become manifest in each of our lives. The fact it is in you, does not prevent it from being in me. It *PERMIATES* reality.

It is the exclusivity aspect of the trinity doctrine which I ultimately reject. It is the idea that no one else can achieve this union with God that goes directly against the teachings of Jesus himself.

In the end, as I've said, the true "trinity" is God(1)->, breathing life into creation through the Holy Spirit(2)-> into each of Us(3). We are all part of that same "trinity". Union with God is our destiny and our duty. It is not limited exclusively to Jesus. That's *NOT* what he claimed in John 17.

[Josephus]

ed you wrote:

Aren't the RSv, TEV, TLB and MOFFAT recognized Bibles too? What truth are you saying is layed out before me?

Wasn't Jesus saying the truth when he said that God is Spirit? Wasn't Jesus saying the truth when he said he is a
man? Wasn't Jesus saying the truth when he said that the Father is the only true God? Wasn't Jesus saying the
truth when he said a spirit (God is spirit, remember) doesn't have flesh and bones as he has?

You say Jesus is God. If that is true, aren't you sying Jesus LIED when he said the Father is the only true God?

Your version of Zechariah 12:10 cannot be true because if Jesus was God whom they pierced, then there would
have been two Gods. One, the God whom they pierced and mourned for and wept over, and two, the God raised
Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9). And the Bible does not support this false idea of two Gods. Moreover, Jesus
would have been lying when he said that God is spirit (John 4:24) and therefore could not be pierced.

Or you're forgetting the third option to explain Zech 12:10:

that "they" are one and the same God.

If "Me", and "Him" are one and the same God, then it quite easily explains the other objections you stated above: both Jesus and the Father are one and the same God. The one and only true God.

[ZoneChaos]

You seem to want me to say that the "Word" takes on the form of Jesus Christ. Does that make you happy?

Only if you accept is a true.

Where does that leave the Bible then, for surely it too cannot also be the "Word"?

Two different uses of the word "word".

Sure the Word is made manifest through Jesus, but this is not the same as suggesting Jesus is God.


Then why does John not say this? Why does John say the Word became Flesh?

You on the other hand have been clinging to the bible being the living "Word". Which is it? Is the Holy Spirit the Word, or is a book the Word?


When have I ever said the Bible is the living word of God?

The Bible is the Word of god, as in it is inspired by God. That is different than The Word that John talks about. The Word that John talks about is the on of God.

Again I stress that you had better find a quote from me that staes that the Bible is the Living word of God.

Holy Spirit is the living Word of God.

Hmm.. well John does not say this, nor any other passage in scripture.. where did you get this idea from?

It is the idea that no one else can achieve this union with God that goes directly against the teachings of Jesus himself.

The Trinity does not, repeat, does not teach that the unity mentioned in John is not possible.

In the end, as I've said, the true "trinity" is God(1)->, breathing life into creation through the Holy Spirit(2)-> into each of Us(3).

Well, why there is a trinity there.. that is not the "Trinity of the Trinity Doctrine.

[ZoneChaos]

And, oh yeah, Michael.. we are using John to suppor tit because it does. You have thrown in a topic form another htread in here. please don't. I foyu must, respond off topic in the other thread, not in here.

[Michael]

>>Only if you accept is a true.

I fully accept that Jesus did the will of God, and lived in the presense of the Holy Spirit, and in this way was indeed unified with God. God->Holy Spirit->Jesus. I believe you'd have a hard time distinguishing the difference here between what came out of Jesus mouth, and what the Holy Spirit conveys. I can see no difference in fact.

M>Where does that leave the Bible then, for surely it too cannot also be the "Word"?

>>Two different uses of the word "word".

Not really. I hear a lot of "fundies" refer to the bible as the "word" of God. It's certainly not the "WORD" that created physical reality, or the WORD the John refers to. The idea it's flawless therefor seems more than a little like bible worship to me.

M>Sure the Word is made manifest through Jesus, but this is not the same as suggesting Jesus is God.

>>Then why does John not say this? Why does John say the Word became Flesh?

Why does John also call Jesus, God's SON? You seem to want to hear only one part of the message, and not the other! He does not come the conclusion that Jesus is God, only that the "Word" is Jesus through the presense of the Holy Spirit which decended upon Jesus at baptism.

M>You on the other hand have been clinging to the bible being the living "Word". Which is it? Is the Holy Spirit the Word, or is a book the Word?

>>When have I ever said the Bible is the living word of God?

Why do you portray it as infallible? How is that not simply idol worship?

>>The Bible is the Word of god, as in it is inspired by God. That is different than The Word that John talks about. The Word that John talks about is the on of God.

It's one thing to put your faith in the living "WORD" of God, the Holy Spirit, but it's quite another to suggest a human created thing is "infallible".

>>Again I stress that you had better find a quote from me that staes that the Bible is the Living word of God.

More threats? Were you tired tonight or what? You have spent days of my time trying to convince me some human written book is somehow a flawless work havent' you, or was that someone else?

M>Holy Spirit is the living Word of God.

>>Hmm.. well John does not say this, nor any other passage in scripture.. where did you get this idea from?

It what the LIVING WORD OF GOD tells me. Even the passage in question suggests the WORD existed before Jesus was born. What was it then?

M>It is the idea that no one else can achieve this union with God that goes directly against the teachings of Jesus himself.

>>The Trinity does not, repeat, does not teach that the unity mentioned in John is not possible.

It does suggest that Jesus is somehow so different from us as to be on some unattainable pedestal. This is not what Jesus taught. He refered to himself as a man, and God as the source of all his strength and abilities. He also insisted that we too are capable of this union with God.

M>In the end, as I've said, the true "trinity" is God(1)->, breathing life into creation through the Holy Spirit(2)-> into each of Us(3).

>>Well, why there is a trinity there.. that is not the "Trinity of the Trinity Doctrine.

No, it's definitely not the party line, but it's the only "trinity" I believe in.

[ZoneChaos]

Not really. I hear a lot of "fundies" refer to the bible as the "word" of God. It's certainly not the "WORD" that created physical reality, or the WORD the John refers to. The idea it's flawless therefor seems more than a little like bible worship to me.

Ahhh!!! That is what I said. we both agree! 2 different uses of the word "word".

Yes, Christians refer to the Bible as the word. NO we do not mean it is the "Word" mentined in John. NO we do not worship the Bible! Get it through your head already. And even if you do not beleoive that they are like this.. I am. and you aretlaking to me. So if anything, when I say something, and you say back that I don't really mean what I say, you are calling me a liar. Is that what you are doing Michael? f not, then accept what I said above as what I said, and what I believe.

The idea it's flawless therefor seems more than a little like bible worship to me.

Seems to you?!? Who are you that I should base my salvation on anything you say? You want to call it Bible worship.. fine do so, but you do so in error. I do think the Bible, in its original autograph of the authors, who were inspired by God, is without error of its original inspired citation from God. And, I do not worship the Bible. Those two statements may not make sense to youin your minds, but they are both true.

Why does John also call Jesus, God's SON?

Umm.. becasue He is God's (the Fasther) Son. Duh! I have answered this for you already many times.. why ask it again?

He does not come the conclusion that Jesus is God, only that the "Word" is Jesus through the presense of the Holy Spirit which decended upon Jesus at baptism.


But john did not say this.. John said the Word becamre Flesh. So I ask, why does John not say this? Why does John say the Word became Flesh? Why doesn't John write it as you wish he would have.. that The word, manifestewd it self, or that the word, slowly changed a man into a messiah?

Why do you portray it as infallible? How is that not simply idol worship?

It isn't idol worship becasue I do not worshpi it. Now, answer my question. When have I ever said that the bible is the Loving Word of God. You said I did.. show ne. If you don't, I assume you madew a statement about me that isn't true.

It's one thing to put your faith in the living "WORD" of God, the Holy Spirit, but it's quite another to suggest a human created thing is "infallible".


I do not claim thast it was only human ceated.. I also claim that God had a direct part in its creation.

More threats? Were you tired tonight or what? You have spent days of my time trying to convince me some human written book is somehow a flawless work havent' you, or was that someone else?

I have said as mush.. I did not say it was alive! You have made a false claim about me. And yes it was a threat.. if you accus eme of something, back it up.

Even the passage in question suggests the WORD existed before Jesus was born. What was it then?

Like you don't already know what I am oing to answer.. hehe.

The WORD is the God the Son.

It does suggest that Jesus is somehow so different from us as to be on some unattainable pedestal.

It and the Bile teaches that Jesus is different than us. HE is God, but the Biblke and the Trinity does ont teach that Jesus is unattainable, only that His Godhood is unattainable by us.

This is not what Jesus taught. He refered to himself as a man, and God as the source of all his strength and abilities. He also insisted that we too are capable of this union with God.

Yes, we are able to achive union with GOd, but that union does not make us Devine. It does not make us equal to Jesus.

No, it's definitely not the party line, but it's the only "trinity" I believe in.

So, sence that sin';t the Trinty we are discussing, why bring it up? To show that I am almost right, but not quite? Good luck.

After you get aroud to answering the questions I asked earlier, without answering them with more questions, tell me what you think about this:

First, the Bible says that whoever denies that Jesus has come in the flesh is of the spirit of the Antichrist (1 John 4:1-2).

How does this relate to the Diety of Christ? JOhn wrote both John and I-III John. We can reasonably assume that he didn't contradict himself in thes writings.

John wrote "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . .and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . ."

Obviously, from the context, John is not simply saying that you must believe that Jesus lived, you must believe that He is the Word made flesh. And since he already said that the Word was God, Jesus, therefore, is God in flesh.

It seems to me you beleive the "Word" translated from the Greek, is logos. signifying the outward form of inward thought or reason, or the spoken word as illustrative of thought, wisdom and doctrine, and that in the very beginning, God’s purpose, wisdom or revelation was proclaimed through His Word. This Word was 'with God' in that it emanated from Him; it 'was God' in that it represented Him to mankind. . ." You sound like a Christiandelphinian.

The problem with this reasoning is not that the definition, in itself, is incorrect. For it can be said that the Word was indeed the wisdom and emanation from God. But that is not all it is saying. It is saying that the Word WAS God. Jesus IS the Word. He isn’t simply a manifestation of some divine attribute or quality.

Also, what about the context? John 1:2-3 "The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

The Word is who created all things. Of course, it is naturally understood that this does not include God Himself. But all that is made, has been made by the Word that became flesh. And, the Word is revered to as a person, not a quality which you seem to have imposed onto the text.


Also, if Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped?

This is especially important since Jesus said that you are to worship God only . Yet, Jesus receives worship and never rebukes anyone for it.

If Jesus is not God, then why He not correct Thomas when He was called God by Thomas who said to Jesus in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God."

You want a verse in scripture that calls Jesus God? Here you go:

Hebrews 1:5-8 "For to which of the angels did He [God] ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire." But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom."

Jesus is called God by God. If He is not God, then why does the Father call Him God? Is the Father wrong? Is the writer of Hebrews wrong?

The SON of God is Jesus. The Father, who is God, is caling the Son woh is Jesus, God. Trippy, huh?

Here are some things John represents Jesus as:

giving eternal life (John 10:27);

the bread of life (6:35,51 - an obvious allusion to the manna given by God out of heaven in 6:32-35);

the way the truth and the life (14:6);

the light of the world (8:12);

being the 'I am" (8:5:cool: .

sharing the glory of God before creation (17:5; note that God shares His glory with no one, Isaiah 42::cool: ;

calling Jesus His own Father making Himself equal with God (John 5:1:cool: ;

receiving the same honor that you give to the Father (John 5:23);

knowing all things (21:17 - something only God can do).

And in 18:5, in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus answers those who came to arrest Him with the statement, "I am", they fall back to ground.

"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am' "

It is clear to me that John considered Jesus, to be God in the Flesh.

[drmmjr]

From 9/2: Josephus,

I had asked over on the thread titled "Is John 17:3 True" if you were reading the actual Hebrew or the words below the Hebrew in the bible you have shown.

I mean no disrespect. If you are reading the Hebrew, I applaude you. But on the other hand, if you are reading the words below the Hebrew, are you not reading someone's interpretation of what the Hebrew said.

Just curious.

Still curious.

[Michael]

>>Yes, Christians refer to the Bible as the word. NO we do not mean it is the "Word" mentined in John. NO we do not worship the Bible! Get it through your head already.

If you did not "worship" the bible, you would not have any trouble noting that it is *NOT* a flawless document, nor does it even come close to all being the will of God. The fact you can't do these things suggests to me that you are still bible worshipping. Books are not "perfect".

>>And even if you do not beleoive that they are like this.. I am. and you aretlaking to me. So if anything, when I say something, and you say back that I don't really mean what I say, you are calling me a liar.

No, but I'm noting there is a difference between what you are saying "I don't bible worship" and what you insist upon, "it's all infallible" are diametrically aposed to one another. If you believe this book to be flawless, then indeed you must accept that you are bible worshiping as well.

>>Is that what you are doing Michael? f not, then accept what I said above as what I said, and what I believe.

I hear what you are saying ZC, and I'm not trying to make you mad, but you are saying two things here which contradict one another. You hold the bible to be infallible, and yet claim this is not bible worship. I don't see how you rationalize that contradiction.

M>The idea it's flawless therefor seems more than a little like bible worship to me.

>>Seems to you?!? Who are you that I should base my salvation on anything you say?

Just another guy with another opinion, just like you.

>>You want to call it Bible worship.. fine do so, but you do so in error. I do think the Bible, in its original autograph of the authors, who were inspired by God, is without error of its original inspired citation from God. And, I do not worship the Bible. Those two statements may not make sense to youin your minds, but they are both true.

These two sentences together make up what's called an oxymoron. It's like saying blue is red. You've elevated a book to the status of "perfection" and claim that's not bible worship.

M>Why does John also call Jesus, God's SON?

>>Umm.. becasue He is God's (the Fasther) Son. Duh! I have answered this for you already many times.. why ask it again?

Try it this way then. Why will you not believe Jesus himself when he says we can all achieve this same union with God?

M>He does not come the conclusion that Jesus is God, only that the "Word" is Jesus through the presense of the Holy Spirit which decended upon Jesus at baptism.

>>But john did not say this.. John said the Word becamre Flesh. So I ask, why does John not say this?

I can't ask him to find out. I can only look to Jesus for the best possible explanation on this subject. Fortunately he provides on in John 17. John was after all simply "interpreting" what Jesus was about after all, just like you and me.

>>Why does John say the Word became Flesh? Why doesn't John write it as you wish he would have.. that The word, manifestewd it self, or that the word, slowly changed a man into a messiah?

I don't know why. These are the metaphors he chose to use, and John also makes it abundantly clear that he believes Jesus to be the son of God, not God. I accept what John is saying, that the Holy Spirit was fully manifest in Jesus. I agree with him also that Jesus was the son of God, and not God. You seem to accept only *PART* of his message whereas I'm accepting the *WHOLE* thing.

M>Why do you portray it as infallible? How is that not simply idol worship?

>>It isn't idol worship becasue I do not worshpi it. Now, answer my question. When have I ever said that the bible is the Loving Word of God. You said I did.. show ne. If you don't, I assume you madew a statement about me that isn't true.

I'm not going back through months of posts now looking for the best example I can find here. It's pretty clear to everyone that you'd rather believe that genocide is God's will rather than to entertain the idea that Joshua was just a liar.

You *WILL NOT* give me a definition of what constitutes "divine inspiration" in any useful was which might allow us to test this theory of yours, and then you claim this is not artificially lifting a book up to the status of godhood. What can I say here? The bible is just a book is it not?

M>It's one thing to put your faith in the living "WORD" of God, the Holy Spirit, but it's quite another to suggest a human created thing is "infallible".

>>I do not claim thast it was only human ceated.. I also claim that God had a direct part in its creation.

A direct part how? Through the presense of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit insists to me that God is love. John agrees with me. Genocide is not a loving act. How do you explain this?

M>More threats? Were you tired tonight or what? You have spent days of my time trying to convince me some human written book is somehow a flawless work havent' you, or was that someone else?

>>I have said as mush.. I did not say it was alive! You have made a false claim about me. And yes it was a threat.. if you accus eme of something, back it up.

You've called it the "word" of God. The WORD as defined by the Bible is the Holy Spirit which manifest this creation. The bible is man's word.

M>Even the passage in question suggests the WORD existed before Jesus was born. What was it then?

>>Like you don't already know what I am oing to answer.. hehe. The WORD is the God the Son.

Well, I agree, and Jesus also seems to agree. He called the Holy Spirit the only begotten son of God in fact.

M>It does suggest that Jesus is somehow so different from us as to be on some unattainable pedestal.

>>It and the Bile teaches that Jesus is different than us.

Sure, we are all unique.

>>HE is God,

Jesus *doesn't* say this however.

>>but the Biblke and the Trinity does ont teach that Jesus is unattainable, only that His Godhood is unattainable by us.

Jesus said that we could achieve this same union with God that he enjoys. To deny this is to deny his teachings. I won't do that. Whatever status you elevate Jesus to based on "union with" God, you must allow for all beings to achieve this state. That is what Jesus said.

M>This is not what Jesus taught. He refered to himself as a man, and God as the source of all his strength and abilities. He also insisted that we too are capable of this union with God.

>>Yes, we are able to achive union with GOd, but that union does not make us Devine. It does not make us equal to Jesus.

You are jumping concepts here as I see it. Union with God is what Jesus claimed he had. He didn't say he was God in the first person. In fact none of you has produced a first person claim to the contrary in the whole of the gospels. "Divinity" is really more of an intangible. How can you measure that within Jesus directly in the absense of the Holy Spirit for instance? I have no idea how you'd begin to define that in terms unrelated the the Holy Spirit with him, but there is an element of Jesus the man here who allowed this to happen, in fact cooperated with it. This unique "soul" is indeed "divine" IMO too, but it is not "GOD" the "FATHER".

M>No, it's definitely not the party line, but it's the only "trinity" I believe in.

>>So, sence that sin';t the Trinty we are discussing, why bring it up? To show that I am almost right, but not quite? Good luck.

Actually, I think this is a *VERY* important topic for christianity. It gets to the heart of what the relationship between ouselves and God is really all about. We all seem to agree it involves the presense of the Holy Spirit, but you seem to believe that the Holy Spirit can descend upon it's own source. I don't buy that concept.

>>After you get aroud to answering the questions I asked earlier, without answering them with more questions, tell me what you think about this:

What have I not answered you - repeatedly?

>>First, the Bible says that whoever denies that Jesus has come in the flesh is of the spirit of the Antichrist (1 John 4:1-2).

I do *NOT* deny that. What are you trying to suggest?

>>How does this relate to the Diety of Christ?

The statement related to Jesus being the Messiah come in the flesh. I certainly believe this.

You however are trying to go a step further and suggest that Jesus was also "divine" in the sense of "being" God. This isn't what Jesus said though, nor is it in alignment with his own experience of fear the night before his death.

>>JOhn wrote both John and I-III John. We can reasonably assume that he didn't contradict himself in thes writings.

Ok, but let's leave some room for honest research shall we? If it turns out that there is convincing evidence some of these writings are not his, then we should listen. I know of none at the moment.

>>John wrote "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . .and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . ."

And depending on how you choose to interpret that statement, I can accept these things. Are we talking about John the disciple here, or John the Baptist however?

>>Obviously, from the context, John is not simply saying that you must believe that Jesus lived, you must believe that He is the Word made flesh.

Indeed, and that Jesus is the Messiah. I believe these things, but I don't believe Jesus is God. He said he wasn't in fact. He called himself a man and God the only true God.

>>And since he already said that the Word was God, Jesus, therefore, is God in flesh.

Jesus IMO resided in the consciousness of the Holy Spirit pretty much his whole life. I have no idea if he lived a "perfect" life (as in never made a mistake), nor do I care. It is an irrelevant point. I can even accept a very human and "flawed" Messiah. It really doesn't matter to me. His teachings are what matter to me.

>>It seems to me you beleive the "Word" translated from the Greek, is logos. signifying the outward form of inward thought or reason, or the spoken word as illustrative of thought, wisdom and doctrine, and that in the very beginning, God’s purpose, wisdom or revelation was proclaimed through His Word. This Word was 'with God' in that it emanated from Him; it 'was God' in that it represented Him to mankind. . ." You sound like a Christiandelphinian.

I never brought up the concept of Logos. That's only going to complicate the discussion. As to pinning labels on me, you know how I resent the idea of *ANY* label in the first place.

John said that Jesus would baptize by the Spirit, and this is what I believe Jesus does. The rest is just opinion.

>>The problem with this reasoning is not that the definition, in itself, is incorrect. For it can be said that the Word was indeed the wisdom and emanation from God. But that is not all it is saying. It is saying that the Word WAS God.

The Holy Spirit is *OF* God, as sunlight is from a sun. A plant absorbs sunlight, but it does not become a sun. If you were to contain a sample of sunlight in some way, the sample would still not be the sun itself.

>>Jesus IS the Word. He isn’t simply a manifestation of some divine attribute or quality.

He's as close to the source as the bible has to offer, on that we both agree. He most certainly is the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the most part, but he calls himself a man, and shows fear the night before his death. This is quite understandable for a man, this is less understandable if Jesus were God. What does God fear?

>>Also, what about the context? John 1:2-3 "The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Just as the sunlight creates all life on earth, it isn't the sun itself. This is the best analogy I can give you. Just as the Holy Spirit eminates from God, it does not define God.

>>The Word is who created all things. Of course, it is naturally understood that this does not include God Himself. But all that is made, has been made by the Word that became flesh.

The WORD existed before Jesus was born. Jesus existed before Jesus was born. The WORD is the creative force from which *ALL* things manifest, including, you, me and Jesus.

>>And, the Word is revered to as a person, not a quality which you seem to have imposed onto the text.

The WORD is not a person. It is the flow of energy through creation, the conscious and directed flow of energy through creation. Jesus was one with this force, emersed in this force.

>>Also, if Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped?

I "worship" what he has done for me. He has shown me the way to the Holy Spirit. For this I am *ETERNALLY* grateful.

>>This is especially important since Jesus said that you are to worship God only . Yet, Jesus receives worship and never rebukes anyone for it.

I can love my grandparents and my parents and my brothers and sisters without regard to status and hierarchy.

>>If Jesus is not God, then why He not correct Thomas when He was called God by Thomas who said to Jesus in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God."

If Jesus is God, why doesn't he just say so? If Jesus is God, why does John call him the *SON* of God?

>>You want a verse in scripture that calls Jesus God? Here you go:

Hebrews 1:5-8 "For to which of the angels did He [God] ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire." But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom."

I was looking for a quote from Jesus himself refering to God in the first person. A simple "I AM GOD" would work nicely. Other peoples opinions about God don't count. Who wrote Hebrews? Was it even Paul? Paul believed women should not speak in church too. Shall we believe everything he says?

>>Jesus is called God by God. If He is not God, then why does the Father call Him God? Is the Father wrong? Is the writer of Hebrews wrong?

Huh? According to the writers of the gospels, God called Jesus his *SON* after baptism.

>>The SON of God is Jesus.

And we are all sons and daughters of God.

>>The Father, who is God, is caling the Son woh is Jesus, God. Trippy, huh?

It's only trippy cause you won't accept that human beings put their opinions in the bible. Some of these opinions were inspired. Others were less than inspired. You refuse to see any distinction, therefor you see "trippy". I don't see it that way.

>>Here are some things John represents Jesus as: giving eternal life (John 10:27); the bread of life (6:35,51 - an obvious allusion to the manna given by God out of heaven in 6:32-35); the way the truth and the life (14:6); the light of the world (8:12); being the 'I am" (8:5 . sharing the glory of God before creation (17:5; note that God shares His glory with no one, Isaiah 42: ; calling Jesus His own Father making Himself equal with God (John 5:1 ; receiving the same honor that you give to the Father (John 5:23); knowing all things (21:17 - something only God can do).

All things attributeable to the Holy Spirit made flesh in the form of the Messiah. The breath of God however, is not God.

>>And in 18:5, in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus answers those who came to arrest Him with the statement, "I am", they fall back to ground.

Well guess what, "I am" too. Did you fall over yet? :)

>>"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am' "

So much for preexistence being a "heresy" eh? Before I was in this body ZC, I AM too. So are you.

>>It is clear to me that John considered Jesus, to be God in the Flesh.

I'm not sure which John you are refering to here, whether you mean John the baptist now, or John the disciple. I think it's clear they believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and filled with the presense of the Holy Spirit. The trinity doctrine however wasn't started till hundreds of years later.

[Josephus]

drmmjr, I can not read hebrew very well, but I understand letters, and being a Messianic Jew, it comes with the territory in that our pastor offers Hebrew classes. Zech 12:10 was one such verse he used as an example, and later with my own research I once looked up the hebrew words specifically written to see and understand what it was I thought was very confusing: that somehow it can only be translated as Me, and then somehow (and illogically) the pronoun switches to Me:

aleph lamed yud (on Me)

ayin lamed (kamatz) yud vav (for Him)

The kamatz changes the tense altogether - and in the original Hebrew before the vowel kamatz was invented, a dot is listed above the lamed, also changing the tense. Many translators that choose to reject it do so on the basis of it not making sense and they reason that it was copyer error. But what those particular scholars fail to realize is that all the texts we do have, there is a dot above the lamed that changes the tense in all the copies available. Of course this tense doesn't make sense if you have a bias concerning doctrine, but the copeyer that put it there obviously didn't put their bias into it as it it probably remained confusing for him, but for him to change the scripture one little jot would amount to blasphemy on his part as he copied it.

[LouisBooth]

Micheal to get back on topic, John chapter 1 makes it clear that the logos is Jesus..check verse 17-18 or verses 15 in accordance with 30..it was pretty clear John was bluntly saying Jesus is God. Oh..and you might was to read Acts 17:11 ;) its about Paul.

[ZoneChaos]

If you did not "worship" the bible, you would not have any trouble noting that it is *NOT* a flawless document, nor does it even come close to all being the will of God. The fact you can't do these things suggests to me that you are still bible worshipping. Books are not "perfect".


I am sorry you ffel that accepting the Bible's original autographs is considered worship. It isn't, but you refuse to be told otherwise. Just know that I do consider it inspired by God, and I do not worship it. Maybe I am just the exceptiojn to the rule.. but there it is.

If you believe this book to be flawless, then indeed you must accept that you are bible worshiping as well.

Only in your mind, dude. I can accept is as inspired and not worship it. Just becasue you can't firgure out how doesn't mean i can't.. it just means you don't understand. Og and indeed I DO NOT accept I am Bible worshipping. Nuff said. I am really getting tired of you claiming I say or beleive things I don't.

but you are saying two things here which contradict one another.

Based upon your perception. They do not contradict.. you just think they do. Noting i can do about that. You could ignore what you think and accept what I say, and trust what I say, but you don't.

You hold the bible to be infallible, and yet claim this is not bible worship.

Becasue it isn't Bible worship.

I don't see how you rationalize that contradiction.


That's probably becasue I do not see the contradiction. You have made it up in your head.

Just another guy with another opinion, just like you.

Exactly.. just aonthe guy with an opinion. I have said what I said. you don't agree.. fine.. keep it to yourself then.

You've elevated a book to the status of "perfection" and claim that's not bible worship.

Yep.. sure do. Deal with it. I claim it infallible, and that claim, I do not do for the sake of the Bible, but for the sake of who inspired it. If any worship is going on, I am worshipping God, who inspired the thing, not the thing it self. Just drop it Michael.

[qoute]It's like saying blue is red[/quote]

No, its like saying Blue is perfect.. yet I don't worship blue.

Why will you not believe Jesus himself when he says we can all achieve this same union with God?


Again.. I repest myself for the blind.. I do beleive it.. I do not beleive it as you beleive it.

Fortunately he provides on in John 17

Does not! Oh, and my God can beat up your god!

John also makes it abundantly clear that he believes Jesus to be the son of God, not God.

Actually John makes it clear that both are true. Heh, go figure.. John, a beleiver in the Trinity. Whoa!

You seem to accept only *PART* of his message whereas I'm accepting the *WHOLE* thing.

You are worng about that.. but whatever.. I can say the same thing to you.

>>It isn't idol worship becasue I do not worshpi it. Now, answer my question. When have I ever said that the bible is the Living Word of God. You said I did.. show me. If you don't, I assume you madew a statement about me that isn't true.

I'm not going back through months of posts now looking for the best example I can fi

Becasue there isn't one.. you made it up.

It's pretty clear to everyone that you'd rather believe that genocide is God's will rather than to entertain the idea that Joshua

And this has nothing to do with my question... and I have repeatdls sai the opposite of what you accuse me of. Again you lie. AND, if everyone read my posts, instead of trusting what you say about me, they would see that you are woirnhg about what you claim I beleive and they would sede that I do not accept Genocide as God's will.

You *WILL NOT* give me a definition of what constitutes "divine inspiration" in any useful was which might allow us to test this theory of yours, and then you claim this is not artificially lifting a book up to the status of godhood.

Not useful to oyu, becasu you do not understand. BUt i di giv you a definition.

What can I say here?

That you give up.

The bible is just a book is it not?

Tn eone I have on my desk.. yes. The inspired message that constitutes it? No.

A direct part how?

Thoruhg inspiration! Please, class, pay attention.

Through the presense of the Holy Spirit?

No.. through inspiration of God.

The Holy Spirit insists to me that God is love.

Me to. He also insists God is other things as well.. but Love is one of them.

John agrees with me.

That's up for debate all over this board.

Genocide is not a loving act.

Tis true.

How do you explain this?

Explain what That God is more than Love, and able to commit an act that is not about love, but about somehting else, like Justice?

You've called it the "word" of God. The WORD as defined by the Bible is the Holy Spirit which manifest this creation. The bible is man's word.


An silly me, I thought originally you understood the difference in meaning when a Christian says "word" in reference to the Bible, and "word" in reference to Jesus. Later I found out that you did not know this, so I educated you. Now you know that I do not think The Bible is alive.

He called the Holy Spirit the only begotten son of God in fact.



:) ROFL! :) Dude.. whatever... He did not... and FYI.. the SOn of God was Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. I also assumed you knew I beleved that... guess not.

Jesus *doesn't* say this however.


Does to! (Does not. Does to. My God can beat up your god.)

Jesus said that we could achieve this same union with God that he enjoys.

Ok Class.. together now.. "That Union is not Godhood."

To deny this is to deny his teachings. I won't do that. Whatever status you elevate Jesus to based on "union with" God, you must allow for all beings to achieve this state. That is what Jesus said.


Great then.. I elivate the union to a fellowship with God, which we all can have.. and that, does not in-validate the Trinity. YAY!

"Divinity" is really more of an intangible. How can you measure that within Jesus directly in the absense of the Holy Spirit for instance? I have no idea how you'd begin to define that in terms unrelated the the Holy Spirit with him, but there is an element of Jesus the man here who allowed this to happen, in fact cooperated with it. This unique "soul" is indeed "divine" IMO too, but it is not "GOD" the "FATHER".


What ever you said here.. don't repeat it.

IIt gets to the heart of what the relationship between ouselves and God is really all about.

This coming form someone who thinks God is a woman. And, yes it is about relationship! That what the "oneness" is about... sheesh. Having a relationship with God does not make us God, it did not make Jesus God. Jesus was already God.

We all seem to agree it involves the presense of the Holy Spirit, but you seem to believe that the Holy Spirit can descend upon it's own source.

Again.. I never siad this. The Holy Spirit doid not acsend from the Son to the Son... He ascended form the Father to the Son.

What have I not answered you - repeatedly?

Right.. the answers that aren't answers.. I remember those...

I do *NOT* deny that. What are you trying to suggest?

You do to. You claim that Jesus is not the Word, and thuse claim that teh Word did not come as Flesh. Since John teaches that the Word is Jesus, you then imply that Jesus (The Word that existed before time) did not come in the Flesh, but rather that Jesus bacem it after some period of time. What am I suggesting? That your teachings and theology are in the Spirit of the Anti-Christ. You are a false prophet, know it or not.

You however are trying to go a step further and suggest that Jesus was also "divine" in the sense of "being" God. This isn't what Jesus said though, nor is it in alignment with his own experience of fear the night before his death.

Yes I am. Yes He was. Yes He did. Yes it is.

Ok, but let's leave some room for honest research shall we? If it turns out that there is convincing evidence some of these writings are not his, then we should listen

Well, there hasn't been any evidence to deny they are Johns writings, and there is alot of evidence to support that they are. Honest research.. we have it.. so was can accept it. Moving on...

And depending on how you choose to interpret that statement, I can accept these things.

I don't ijnterprate them.. I accept them for what they say. I think Johnmeant what he wrote, and wrote what he meant.

Are we talking about John the disciple here, or John the Baptist however?

The writer of the book of John! come on.. stay in the game.

>>And since he already said that the Word was God, Jesus, therefore, is God in flesh.

Jesus IMO resided in the consciousness of the Holy Spirit pretty much his whole life. I have no idea if he lived a "perfect" life (as in never made a mistake), nor do I care. It is an irrelevant point. I can even accept a very human and "flawed" Messiah. It really doesn't matter to me. His teachings are what matter to me.


Nice dodge.. heh.

I never brought up the concept of Logos. That's only going to complicate the discussion. As to pinning labels on me, you know how I resent the idea of *ANY* label in the first place.

I know.. I brougt it up. That is the definition of "word" you are using. ANd as far as labeling you.. I didn't, I just compared you to them.

The Holy Spirit is *OF* God, as sunlight is from a sun. A plant absorbs sunlight, but it does not become a sun. If you were to contain a sample of sunlight in some way, the sample would still not be the sun itself.


Two things here Michael 1, The Holy Spirit id ont the Word. 2. The Holy Spirit is not of God.. The Holy Spirit is God.

He most certainly is the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the most part

Not!

The WORD existed before Jesus was born. Jesus existed before Jesus was born.

two things: Jesis is the Word and How could Jesus exist before He was born, unless He was God?

The WORD is not a person. It is the flow of energy through creation, the conscious and directed flow of energy through creation. Jesus was one with this force, emersed in this force.

Sounds like the Anti-Christ to me. Where did you dream up this? It isn't in the Bible...

>>Also, if Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped?

I "worship" what he has done for me. He has shown me the way to the Holy Spirit. For this I am *ETERNALLY* grateful.


Yeah.. umm.. that's fine and all.. but answer the question.. If Jesus isn't God, then why is He worshipped?

I can love my grandparents and my parents and my brothers and sisters without regard to status and hierarchy.[/quoe]

You lost me... Oh and what do you think about Jesus not rebuking anyone for worshipping Him?

>>If Jesus is not God, then why He not correct Thomas when He was called God by Thomas who said to Jesus in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God."

If Jesus is God, why doesn't he just say so? If Jesus is God, why does John call him t

A. Why not answer the question? B. Jesus did refer to Himself as God. C. Becasue Jesus is the Son of God.

I was looking for a quote from Jesus himself refering to God in the first person. A simple "I AM GOD" would work nicely. Other peoples opinions about God don't count. Who wrote Hebrews? Was it even Paul? Paul believed women should not speak in church too. Shall we believe everything he says?

Hm.. well, sorry to Dissapoint you.

Huh? According to the writers of the gospels, God called Jesus his *SON* after baptism.

Ohh that's right.. if scripture does not agree with oyu, it is false.. I forgot.. my bad.

Some of these opinions were inspired. Others were less than inspired.

Well, sorry but I disagree with you. The bble validates itself, thorugh a MIracle of God. You only thnk parts of it are inspired by God becasue if the whole ting was, you know you would go to Hell.

All things attributeable to the Holy Spirit made flesh in the form of the Messiah. To bad you can't back this up with proof eh?

Well guess what, "I am" too. Did you fall over yet?

Nope.. you must not be God.

So much for preexistence being a "heresy" eh? Before I was in this body ZC, I AM too. So are you.


Sorry, but you didn't exsit before God created you. Jesus on the other hand wa never created.

I'm not sure which John you are refering to here, whether you mean John the baptist now, or John the disciple. I think it's clear they believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and filled with the presense of the Holy Spirit. The trinity doctrine however wasn't started till hundreds of years later.

The writer of the Book john! sheesh. John think s Jesus is God. Sorry, but he does. No amount of "rationalizing will change that.

[Michael]

>>I am sorry you ffel that accepting the Bible's original autographs is considered worship. It isn't, but you refuse to be told otherwise.

I'm sorry you believe genocide to be God breathed too. It isn't, but you refuse to be told otherwise.

>>Just know that I do consider it inspired by God, and I do not worship it.

It's one thing to honor the teachings of Jesus. It's another entirely to suggest Joshua running around commiting acts of genocide against his enemies was God inspired. It's your unwillingness to explain what "inspired" means exactly that I find rather difficult to swallow.

>>Maybe I am just the exceptiojn to the rule.. but there it is.

And maybe you are just naive too.

M>If you believe this book to be flawless, then indeed you must accept that you are bible worshiping as well.

>>Only in your mind, dude. I can accept is as inspired and not worship it.

Anyone who holds a book up and claims it to be the inerrant word of God is upleveling this "book" to the godhood. It's bible worship. No book can or ever will be "perfect".

>>Just becasue you can't firgure out how doesn't mean i can't..

You won't even come up with a testable definition of "inspired" in the first place! How you can define "inspired" here so that you can clearly demonstrate Joshua was inspired when hacking children to death, whereas Hilter was not inspired for gassing them to death. Why is that? Can you?

>>it just means you don't understand.

I don't understand because you won't even define what "inspired" means. How can it be insprired to hack children to death house by house by bloody house?

>>Og and indeed I DO NOT accept I am Bible worshipping. Nuff said. I am really getting tired of you claiming I say or beleive things I don't.

Fine.

M>but you are saying two things here which contradict one another.

>>Based upon your perception. They do not contradict..

Yes they certainly do. If you refuse to consider that killing children isn't God inspired, I'd say you've left your sanity checked at the church door.

>>you just think they do.

I KNOW they do.

>>Noting i can do about that. You could ignore what you think and accept what I say, and trust what I say, but you don't.

Ditto. Why don't you?

M>You hold the bible to be infallible, and yet claim this is not bible worship.

>>Becasue it isn't Bible worship.

What is it then that suggest that killing babies is God inspired?

M>I don't see how you rationalize that contradiction.

>>That's probably becasue I do not see the contradiction. You have made it up in your head.

That's bs. If you won't look honestly at the text and consider it's source (HUMANS), there is little more I can say. You have now elevated all the unknown authors to divine status without even explaining what inspiration really is in any testable way.

M>Just another guy with another opinion, just like you.

>>Exactly.. just aonthe guy with an opinion. I have said what I said. you don't agree.. fine.. keep it to yourself then.

Fine, but I'm not the one suggesting baby killers are "divinely inspired".

M>You've elevated a book to the status of "perfection" and claim that's not bible worship.

>>Yep.. sure do. Deal with it. I claim it infallible, and that claim, I do not do for the sake of the Bible, but for the sake of who inspired it.

You may wan't to believe those baby killers were inspired for going house to house slaughtering innocent people, but I surely do not. I do nothing for their sakes. Their guilt is all recorded in gruesome detail.

>>If any worship is going on, I am worshipping God, who inspired the thing, not the thing it self. Just drop it Michael.

Fine I'll just drop the subject, and ignore the rest of your comments about this in this thread. You can however worship God and still not believe Joshua was inspired for hacking children to death.

M>Why will you not believe Jesus himself when he says we can all achieve this same union with God?

>>Again.. I repest myself for the blind.. I do beleive it.. I do not beleive it as you beleive it.

You choose to believe an invention of the church over the direct quotes from Jesus himself as I see it.

M>Fortunately he provides on(e) in John 17

>:D oes not! Oh, and my God can beat up your god!

:) No doubt. Your's seems rather violent. :(

M>John also makes it abundantly clear that he believes Jesus to be the son of God, not God.

>>Actually John makes it clear that both are true. Heh, go figure.. John, a beleiver in the Trinity. Whoa!

No, he doesn't do that. In fact John (disciple) goes out of his way to explain in great detail how Jesus explained his relationship with God. Some of the best stuff on this subject is recorded in John. We ought to look for some areas in similarity here sooner or later though rather than rehash this in thread after thread.

M>You seem to accept only *PART* of his message whereas I'm accepting the *WHOLE* thing.

>>You are worng about that.. but whatever.. I can say the same thing to you.

Well, indeed, we've reached that point of "opinion" and "interpretation". I choose to follow what Jesus said, and believe we are all capable of union with God and with him and that we are all one in God.

M>You *WILL NOT* give me a definition of what constitutes "divine inspiration" in any useful was which might allow us to test this theory of yours, and then you claim this is not artificially lifting a book up to the status of godhood.

>>Not useful to oyu, becasu you do not understand. BUt i di giv you a definition.

A useful definition here would be one that allows us to clearly see how Joshua hacking innocent children to death is somehow more inspired than say Hitler gassing them wholesale.

>>Thoruhg inspiration! Please, class, pay attention.

How about a useful definition to work with here "teach". How can you objectively prove Joshua was inspired?

M>Through the presense of the Holy Spirit?

>>No.. through inspiration of God.

What form would that take if not through the Holy Spirit?

M>The Holy Spirit insists to me that God is love.

>>Me to. He also insists God is other things as well.. but Love is one of them.

Sure, and God has a wonderful sense of humor. God assures me though that killing your neighbors children is no way to solve a religious dispute.

M>John agrees with me.

>>That's up for debate all over this board.

John did say God is Love, and that the spirit of truth was love. You can't hide from that fact.

M>Genocide is not a loving act.

>>Tis true.

Then why was Joshua doing it to his neighbors children?

M>How do you explain this?

>>Explain what That God is more than Love, and able to commit an act that is not about love, but about somehting else, like Justice?

How can killing an infant for their parents crimes be considered justice?

M>He called the Holy Spirit the only begotten son of God in fact.

>>ROFL! Dude.. whatever... He did not... and FYI.. the SOn of God was Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. I also assumed you knew I beleved that... guess not.

I didn't see you post much useful the last time I brought the John 3 thread back up. Jesus was refering to the Holy Spirit throughout his dialog with Nicodemus.

M>Jesus *doesn't* say this however.

>:D oes to! (Does not. Does to. My God can beat up your god.)

The real God doesn't beat things up for the fun of it.

M>Jesus said that we could achieve this same union with God that he enjoys.

>>Ok Class.. together now.. "That Union is not Godhood."

And I did not claim that it was. It is unity "with" the Godhood.

M>To deny this is to deny his teachings. I won't do that. Whatever status you elevate Jesus to based on "union with" God, you must allow for all beings to achieve this state. That is what Jesus said.

>>Great then.. I elivate the union to a fellowship with God, which we all can have.. and that, does not in-validate the Trinity. YAY!

Like I said all along, it's not the trinity doctrine I have a tough time with, it's the claims of exclusivity that Jesus teaches against.

M>It gets to the heart of what the relationship between ouselves and God is really all about.

>>This coming form someone who thinks God is a woman.

I've stated repeatedly that I'm sex "neutral". I just think it's sexist to keep refering to God as a "he".

>And, yes it is about relationship! That what the "oneness" is about... sheesh. Having a relationship with God does not make us God, it did not make Jesus God. Jesus was already God.

That would be your opinion, but this isn't what Jesus claimed. He claimed to be the *SON* of the ONE TRUE God. I'm not making it up, I'm reading it the red lettering parts of the Gospels.

M>We all seem to agree it involves the presense of the Holy Spirit, but you seem to believe that the Holy Spirit can descend upon it's own source.

>>Again.. I never siad this. The Holy Spirit doid not acsend from the Son to the Son... He ascended form the Father to the Son.

You keep separating these "individuals" whenever you see fit and putting them together with bubble gum and bailing wire when it suits you too. :) What was Jesus afraid of, and who did he pray to the night before his death?

M>I do *NOT* deny that. What are you trying to suggest?

>>You do to. You claim that Jesus is not the Word,

No, I didn't really say that. I said he was UNIFIED WITH THE WORD. You keep twisting my meaning around to suit yourself too I see.

>>and thuse claim that teh Word did not come as Flesh.

No, I didn't make that claim at all. I said that Jesus was unified with God through the presense of the Holy Spirit. That's what I said. In that way, he is indeed the "Word" made flesh.

>>Since John teaches that the Word is Jesus, you then imply that Jesus (The Word that existed before time) did not come in the Flesh, but rather that Jesus bacem it after some period of time.

Actually, the bible insinuates that itself by suggesting that the Holy Spirit descended upon him AFTER baptism.

>>What am I suggesting? That your teachings and theology are in the Spirit of the Anti-Christ. You are a false prophet, know it or not.

Well, I think it's a tad insulting to be compared to the Anti-Christ for following Christs teachings.

Would you please show me where I ever claimed to be a "prophet" of any kind?

M>You however are trying to go a step further and suggest that Jesus was also "divine" in the sense of "being" God. This isn't what Jesus said though, nor is it in alignment with his own experience of fear the night before his death.

>>Yes I am. Yes He was. Yes He did. Yes it is.

Why does Jesus feel fear? What does God have to fear, or is this one of those transformer routines again where you rip the trilogy apart when it suits you?

M>And depending on how you choose to interpret that statement, I can accept these things.

>>I don't ijnterprate them.. I accept them for what they say. I think Johnmeant what he wrote, and wrote what he meant.

You accept what the church told you he meant, nothing more. Jesus himself is quite clear their is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. I don't know how he could have made it any clearer in fact.

M>Are we talking about John the disciple here, or John the Baptist however?

>>The writer of the book of John! come on.. stay in the game.

Patronizing too I see. John the disciple is referencing John the baptist at times. You seem to be intermixing their statements at will.

M>Jesus IMO resided in the consciousness of the Holy Spirit pretty much his whole life. I have no idea if he lived a "perfect" life (as in never made a mistake), nor do I care. It is an irrelevant point. I can even accept a very human and "flawed" Messiah. It really doesn't matter to me. His teachings are what matter to me.

>>Nice dodge.. heh.

No, I thought I was quite honest about my feelings here. For you faith to work, Jesus had to be perfect, a book has to be perfect, and a religion has to be perfect. My faith requires none of these things to remain whole. I suggest you consider what I'm saying here. I can fully accept Jesus as a real human man, capable of making human mistakes, and still know him to be the Messiah. Can you?

M>The Holy Spirit is *OF* God, as sunlight is from a sun. A plant absorbs sunlight, but it does not become a sun. If you were to contain a sample of sunlight in some way, the sample would still not be the sun itself.

>>Two things here Michael 1, The Holy Spirit id ont the Word. 2. The Holy Spirit is not of God.. The Holy Spirit is God.

In your trilogy world, I'm sure that's true. Depending on how you define that precisely, I might even find some middle ground with you. The point however is that Jesus makes a clear and significant distinction between himself and God. I can't deny that fact either.

M>He most certainly is the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the most part....

Not!

So explain his fear again to me? Didn't say the fear was not of God, and could not exist in perfect love? How you come to terms with these statements when looked at together?

M>The WORD existed before Jesus was born. Jesus existed before Jesus was born.

>>two things: Jesis is the Word and How could Jesus exist before He was born, unless He was God?

Jesus the man was created via dna. Jesus the soul is ancient. He says so himself. I see no reason to disbelieve him, and every reason to believe him. All things however are created by the ONE TRUE God to whom Jesus prays and asks for help.

M>The WORD is not a person. It is the flow of energy through creation, the conscious and directed flow of energy through creation. Jesus was one with this force, emersed in this force.

>>Sounds like the Anti-Christ to me. Where did you dream up this? It isn't in the Bible...

It is in the bible, and I'm getting tired of being villianized by you tonight. How about laying of the Anti-Christ comparisons a while, and show a bit of "Christian" tollerance for subtle variations in beliefs. I think the villianizing is more than a little beneath you frankly.

>>Also, if Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped?

M>I "worship" what he has done for me. He has shown me the way to the Holy Spirit. For this I am *ETERNALLY* grateful.

>>Yeah.. umm.. that's fine and all.. but answer the question.. If Jesus isn't God, then why is He worshipped?

Because humans like to do that? Islam does not "worship" Jesus the way you do. Even some christians sects don't "worship" Jesus the way you do. (See ed's sect).

M>I can love my grandparents and my parents and my brothers and sisters without regard to status and hierarchy.

>>You lost me... Oh and what do you think about Jesus not rebuking anyone for worshipping Him?

I'm not altogether clear that Jesus "doesn't" explain it to him. I only got a portion of the conversation to work with. This is a little like me asking why Jesus didn't rebuke the apostles for asking him if the blind man had caused his own blindness as being impossible. You can only get so far with that logic.

Jesus fortunately didn't leave us with some veiled "non-comment", he explains the relationship in great detail.

M>I was looking for a quote from Jesus himself refering to God in the first person. A simple "I AM GOD" would work nicely. Other peoples opinions about God don't count. Who wrote Hebrews? Was it even Paul? Paul believed women should not speak in church too. Shall we believe everything he says?

>>Hm.. well, sorry to Dissapoint you.

Well, it's sure funny that I can find numberous examples of him refering to God in the third person and you can't find one where he refers to himself in God the first person. How disappointing indeed when looking through the whole of his teachings that you can't find a single instance within his teachings to support you ideas.

M>Huh? According to the writers of the gospels, God called Jesus his *SON* after baptism.

>>Ohh that's right.. if scripture does not agree with oyu, it is false.. I forgot.. my bad.

No, that's the way you play it. It's fine to believe Thomas, but who's going to believe God himself, or Jesus? What do they matter? You'd rather believe in everyone else.

M>Some of these opinions were inspired. Others were less than inspired.

>>Well, sorry but I disagree with you. The bble validates itself, thorugh a MIracle of God. You only thnk parts of