breathilizer

I've heard some funny apologetics claiming that Jesus wasn't God. He was only the Son of God

Because of this, I thought I'd clear up the situation for those who would like to refute such a claim, or possibly for those Christians who believe that Jesus was God.

Jesus + Father + Holy Ghost = God (According to the Trinity)

AND

Jesus + Father = God (I and my Father are one)

And if you can take away one (HG) and get the same result, I see no reason why you couldn't take away another one (Father) and get the same result again.

i.e. Jesus = God

So did Jesus ever SAY "I am God?" No, but this gives reason to believe that the Bible intended to present him as such.

Naturally, I make no claim that Jesus ever even existed. I speak merely from the Biblical standpoint, just like I would stand from a Trekkie standpoint to defend something like, "Vulcan's can't lie"

And no, I'm not a Trekkie

Chili

But they did not crucify the father so exactly how united were they?

The descend of the HS united Jesus with the HS, so really, the trinity was resolved when Jesus spoke these words, yet only Jesus the Jew was crucified and not Jesus the son of God who was one with the father (and his mother because the descend of the HG indicates this).

Jesus did ask Peter, "who do you think I am" and that was a good indication that Jesus was more than what the people knew him to be.

Fortuna

Mathematically speaking, If ;

(1) Jesus + Father + HS = God (abbreviate these as J,F,HS,G respectively)

and we assume that J=G and F=G and HS=G, then by substitution, we have ;

G + G + G = G or 3G = G

This is illogical (violation of the law of equality), except when G=0. Thus, the only possible solution is G=0. This also implies that J=0, F=0, and HS=0.

Another possibility, is to define the trinity as 3 parts of one god, which would properly be expressed mathematically as ;

(2) G/3 + G/3 + G/3 = G

since by definition, J = G/3, F = G/3 and HS = G/3.

The implication is that each has only 1/3 of the total of god.

In either case, this is a peculiar idea.

Of course, the polytheistic mathematical interpretation would be ;

(3) J + F + HS = 3G

While (2) and (3) are logical statements, (1) is only conditionally true, or true for only one possible case or initial condition (when G=0)

Sven

There you have it: Mathematics prove god's nonexistence.

Toto

Um, I just noticed this doesn't have any Biblical Criticism in it, since the Trinity is not in the Bible.

I'll kick it over to GRD

ichabod crane

This argument, though used endlessly by orthodox apologists to prove that Jesus is God, is fatally flawed. Why? Because using identical wording in the Greek, in John 17:22 Jesus states that Christians may be one "as we (i.e. the Father and Jesus) are one". Now are two different human Christians "one substance"? Are two different human Christians God? If not, then I suggest that reading the text in its own context shows that Jesus stating that he and the Father were one does not that he was claiming to be God. It means that they have one common purpose and live in unity together in peace.

I have seen one Christian apologetics site argue that because the word "one" is neuter (hen), it means "one thing" and therefore one substance. If so, then human Christians are also one thing and one substance.

Faith

The Bible did intend to present Him as such. But if you look at the earliest writings (Paul and Mark) and some of the non-canonical texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas), you find few to no references to Jesus as God incarnate and many references to Jesus as Son of God and wise teacher. John, written towards the end of the first century is full of references to Jesus as God in human form.

In short, it seems the earliest accounts of Jesus portray Him as an ordinary human through whom God can be seen and experienced. Later accounts show Him as a miracle-worker and an incarnation of God, who was born of a virgin and was physically resurrected after His crucifixion. The later the account, the more inseparable the Son's identity is from the Father's.

jbernier

I am not sure that the first line holds consistently with the late patristic understanding of the trinity. Or, to put it otherwise, there is no real claim being made in later trinitarian thought that God is the sum of J, F, and HS (an assumption upon which this mathematical argumentation is predicated).

In particular, this argument fails to take account of the Platonic base of later trinitarian thinking. To take account of this one would have to redefine G as not "God" but rather the "Form that is God" and F, J and HS would have to each be identified as an instance of the Form. Or, more precisely, F, J and HS would not equal G as much as they would participate in the essence of the Form. I do not think that you presented a disproof of the trinity as much you have demonstrated how one needs to think in Platonic terms in order to make sense of what the Nicene and Cappadocian fathers were saying. Really, the problem here is that this argumentation is trying to understand the doctrine of the trinity in ways that are totally foreign to the way of thinking of those who formulated it - in that case, no surprise that the trinity cannot be expressed in this idiom, thus appearing as an impossibility. However, this presupposes that this mathematical idiom is the highest form of knowledge - however can you demonstrate that without reference to the mathematical idiom in which you are arguing? In short can you demonstrate why I should prefer your mathematical approach to the trinity over the Platonic approach favoured by the Nicene and Cappadocian fathers?

trendkill

I don't think the Trinity is ever mentioned in the Bible. It's a doctrine of some forms of Christianity, but not all. Mormons are non-trinitarian, for example.

Biff the unclean

Not all the earliest writings. If you look at The Acts of John you find the only gospel written in the first person and actually claiming to be an eye witness account. In it Jesus isn't a man at all, his feet never touch the ground, some times you can touch him and some times your hand passes through him. No two people see the same person when they see Jesus. When John and his brother James meet Jesus for the first time James sees a sad boy while John sees a laughing, handsome but rather bald, middle-aged man.