Sojourner553

NOGO,

Any "good" apologist worth his salt would merely say Jesus was BOTH a "man" AND a "Godly member of a Trinity"...


Sojourner

NOGO

Sojourner553

Yes, you are right but one can still argue. I don't want to go through them all but look at this one for example.

Acts 17:31
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a man
whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead."


The problem here is that we are are talking about after the resurrection so Jesus is no longer on earth as a man. It also says "will judge" so we are talking about a time in the future.

So one is to conclude that Jesus is still a man and will be a man up until judgement day.

If it had said "through his son" instead of "through a man" then it would have been ambiguous but as it stands it is quite clear.

What do you think?

Since DavidH wont return give it your best shot.

davidH

Nogo, I have answered your points, you say it isn't satisfactory and yet post up none of my points to tell me what is wrong with them.

You also give me more verses to explain - which I will do.

Nogo, your answers to my previous questions are not valid, because you cannot back up your answer to them. Therefore it is my points that have remained totally unanswered.

See the passage in Hebrews 1 - I was the one that brought it up.
I asked you the question concerning v 9 - you gave an answer and without explaining rushed on to flood me with more verses. I keep on asking for an explanation but you say I must answer your points first - even though they are posted before you gave me a full answer.

Nogo, prove me wrong by answering the post I made for you. You have to be scientific as Sojourner said.

Any scientist who challenges the theory of evolution by a different interpretation of the facts - must have a theory to which the facts fit in. You have given many different interpretations - but they contradict each other, and that cannot be so - it is not scientific.

Sojourner - you may want to read this.

Ok, lets go over in detail the earlier verses that you talk about.
In fact lets just go through all of Hebrews 1 bit by bit.

Ok, God spoke by his Son. You were saying that the Son = God , this is not so since clearly there is a distinction between God and the Son - they cannot be the same as the writer is saying that God spoke through... if the Son = God then God would have spoke.
Again "his Son" was appointed heir over all things - why, the reason is in the next sentance.

"God made the Universe through the Son" This Son (Jesus) was appointed heir whenever everything came into being. It was made by the Son - the clear distinction from God is apparent again.

Even Wordsymth recognised that the Son = Jesus since he uses the distinction of the Son and God to show that Jesus wasn't God.

Now Nogo, pause for a minute and see if this corresponds with scripture. What do you find? You find that it does.

"He" was with God in the beginning. This "He" that is referred to here as "the Word" is shown to be Jesus later on in the passage. - you will remember when we discussed this.
Wordsymth had to resort to "the Word" being God's laws and commands in Jesus because he could clearly see the connection between "the Word" and Jesus.

Hebrews 1 v 2 says that the Son created the Universe. John 1v 1-3 says that "He" obviously referring to "the Son" was God and was with God, it also says that the Universe was created by this same "He"

Put the 2 together and you get Jesus = God and = creator.

Now let me ask you a question here, How could "the Son" clearly distinct from God and shown to be Jesus have played any part in the creation of the Universe?
Impossible, unless you take the rest of the verse in John 1 1-3 and see that Jesus (the Son) is God.

Now carrying on in Hebrews - does the next verse say anything about the Son being God?

The radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of his being.

Again how could the Son be the exact representation of his being? - Unless he was God?

Do the verses so far suggest the "the Son" refers to Jesus?
Yes, they do. v1. In these last days he has spoken to usthrough his Son.

That can only be Jesus - since he taught everything that his Father had given him to teach.

v3. Still referring to the Son.....after he had provided purification for sins...sat down at the right hand of the majesty in heaven.

Jesus Christ is clearly shown throughout the NT to have died to take away our sins. After he had rose from the dead he ascended into heaven.

Ok, verses 4 is where your problems start - right Nogo?

Keeping the verse in context - that being that it comes straight after saying that "the Son" sat down at the right hand of the majesty in heaven.

Ok, so Jesus would have had to have been less superior than the angels when he was on earth.
That being so - in what respect where the angels more superior than him?

We find this answer in:

Read the passage here if you want - you will see that the writer shows this to be Jesus.

So the writer of Hebrews is saying that Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. This was because Jesus left all of his glory when he came from heaven and became a man.

See my last post - I have put lots of verses were Jesus says that he came from heaven.
Also see the verse which says "Father, glorify me, with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Note the "had" Jesus when he was on earth had had to leave the glory behind.

Again I can back this up:

Jesus didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped (i.e held on to) but made himself nothing...

This was why the angels were superior to Jesus - but once he ascended into heaven all the glory he had had was given back to him and he became more superior than they.

The name he has inherited

Nogo, Jesus always had the thing itself, namely, Sonship; but He "obtained by inheritance," according to the promise of the Father, the name "Son," by which He is made known to men and angels. He is "the Son of God" is a sense far exalted above that in which angels are called "sons of God".

This make sense to you? The name "Son" is the name that we know him as.
But I think that name "Son" is only a name given because it describes his poper name in the best sense for humans.
You may think I'm nuts for suggesting this, but again I can give scripture to support it.

Revelation 19 v 12

The only thing that can describe his name best to us is what he became known to us as "the Son".

ok next verses,

Again the writer here is showing the Hebrews that Jesus wasn't a messenger angel. The distinction is made clearly between Jesus and angels.
(In saying this it would be interesting seeing whether Jehovah Witnesses would have this passage included in their Bibles - since they believe that Jesus was an angel.)

Hebrews 1 v 6,7

Verse 6 is important - when God brings his Son into the world (obviously referring to Jesus here)he says that he is to be worshipped.

Only God is to be Worshipped.

How then can God say worship Jesus? This can only be so if Jesus = God.
This supports everything written so far and it is what the writer is saying. Jesus being God is supported by the very next verse.

Hebrews 1 v 8

God says to the Son, "Your throne, O God" God is calling Jesus (the Son) God."

Nogo, you said that the Son = God, and that is true when you look at this verse,however the Son is also clearly distinct from God (as Wordsymth so clearly saw).
So how can God = God but God not = God at the same time?

I showed that Jesus is shown in this passage and throughout the NT as being "the Son" and so when you admit that the Son = God you have to also admit that Jesus = God.
That is why Jesus is God but is also distinct from God - the Trinity.
Nogo, you have found the concept. You started off saying that you didn't believe that the Son was divine - you do now. But you don't admit that Jesus was the Son - he clearly is.

The problem with your interpretation now is the distinction between the Son and God the Father - there should be no distinction if they are one and the same person.

The next verse;

Firstly in this verse read it continuing on from the one above. God is talking and has just called "The Son" God and he then goes on to say, therefore God, your God...

Is this a massive error? No, it is the Trinity - Jesus = God and his God = his Father. There is no contradiction.
Can you interpret this any other way Nogo?

Secondly, you raised the point about Jesus being raised above his companions.

I said before that this is referring to the angels in heaven as his companions - they were with him in heaven before he came to earth, they(the angels) were superior to him as I have already explained since he was a man, he was exalted above them when he was raised up in heaven with his former glory again.

You must remember Nogo that this whole chapter is a comparision of the Son with Angels.

Hebrews 1 v 10

Note the Son is called "O Lord" the writer assigns the name Yahweh to the Son (Jesus) and again says that he created everything. Can I fortify this? - Yes.
Go back to verse 1 - the Son is said to have created everything, here again speaking of the Son, Yahweh as he is called is said to have made everything.
Again Jesus = God is clearly seen.

The rest of the verses in the chapter go on to speak about the Son and the final verse states the purpose of angels as a final conclusion in the comparision of the Son (Jesus) and angels.

Those are the main questions that you had for me.
I'll answer some of your other questions in the post below.

davidH

Sojourner will answer you later - though I still don't follow how you think Jesus was decieving the people and so "lying"

If Jesus was God and the man doesn't know Jesus is God but calls Jesus "Good master" Jesus could have left it, or said something.

The fact that Jesus said something shows that he wanted to get the people thinking.

Let me put God in place of Jesus and bear in mind that the man has no idea who he is talking to.

God said, "Why do you call me good?" "No one is good except God alone."

Again has God lied - answer = no. Only statement God made was that God was good. - that was true.

Was God decieving the people? Answer again is no.

He asks the man - why do you call me good?

Sojourner - why did the man call Jesus good?

God then says to the man - "No one is good except God alone."

The man doesn't know he is talking to God - now is God saying to the man, "Because you call me good you are basically calling me God." ?

I repeat a normal man would have said, "DON'T CALL ME GOOD....

Sojourner - if you were to take someone to court for this you would never be able to get a conviction.
Surely you can see that Jesus is not deceiving anyone -
Answer the following questions if you have time.

If Jesus was God then:

1. Why did he say what he did?
2. Is there anything in what he says that is a lie?

If Jesus was a man then:

1. Why didn't he say "Don't call me good"
2. Can you show that the only thing he was meaning when he said it was - "I am not God"

Ok, Nogo, I don't have alot of time here to answer your other questions but I'll do one or 2.


What translation is this from? My says "By" in the place of "through".

But anyway, Jesus when he rose from the dead was a "ressurected man" - he could walk through walls, disappear at will etc.
I don't know in what way Jesus changed - but can you show that Jesus can't be a ressurected man and still be God - exactly the same but in heaven?

Again here are some other verses;

Mt 25 v 31 ->

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory....

Acts 10 v 42.

Jesus will be the Judge - he will be in the same form that he left this earth when he comes.

Interceders were those that stood between God and someone to ask God to forgive them.
Jesus doesn't need to intercede for himself because he never sinned - he is perfect and doesn't need to ask God to forgive him.

Again this ties in with what I said in my post on page 12 - Jesus is sinless but only God is sinless - all men have sinned. Therefore Jesus = God.

And what way is that Nogo? What way do we belong to Jesus and Jesus belongs to his Father that contradicts Jesus being God?

Again elaborate Nogo - what do you mean when you say that God is the head of Christ in the same way as Christ is the head of everyman?

Well, lets see the whole verse:

Yes, and again this shows the distinction between the "Son" and God. For if the Son were as you said = God and not Jesus then there cannot be 2 steps can there?
For Once everything was under the Son (God but not Jesus) it would be finished.
The fact that there are 2 steps shows that there is a distinction between the Son and God - and allow the Son is fully God he is Jesus God the Son and hence the distinction.

Listen to this;

Hope this helps answer some of your questions Nogo.Cya

Sorry I don't have time to answer you yet Sojourner - will reply to you soon again. I'll answer what you have written but there is a lot there but I'll take it bit by bit.
Also feel free to comment on what Nogo and I write - it's always helpful to have someone else who could look on something in an entirely different way than both of us.
Cheers Cya.

NOGO

Offering an alternative theory to explain the facts will not make evolution wrong. You will end up with two theories that exaplain the facts.

What I proposed to do from the begining is to show you that the trinity does not fit the facts.
The rest is not important.

You have not answered my ponts, David. You only think that you have but have not.

Let's start with this one.

John 14:10
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His works.


Jesus says that the words are not his nor are the works. They are God's words and works. The spirit of God dwells (abide) in Jesus.

When Jesus sent his disciples to preach he told them not to think of the words to say that it will be given to them.

Peter did miracles, he batized people with the holy spirit, and he spoke the word of God.

So what is the difference between Peter and Jesus?

Look at my previous post and you will find the answer.

Next

John 12:44
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me, does not believe in me but in Him who sent me.

Jesus is a man and nothing else.

Sorry, it looks as though I missed something, I will review your post again.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

davidH

Nogo, I'll answer Sojourner first since I answered you the last time. (I'll answer you additional questions).

Hi Sojourner,

I answered partly in on the "Why do you call me good?" thing, but I'll go over your post and see what I think.

Yes, when the man said , "Good master" he was never implying that Jesus was God - that is obvious.
Now the question that has to be asked by you here is why, if it is totally obvious that the man isn't implying that Jesus is perfect ie God - does Jesus make this statement.

Any ordinary man wouldn't say a thing to this.
If he did say something it would have been "Don't call me good" - You see the logic I am getting at here - right?

To this you wrote:

Again if he was trying to be "humble" he would have said "Don't call me good". The fact is he neither confirms nor denies anything by what he says - and that is not being humble.

Again lets approach this from another angle - the one you did, namely If a "true" God were asked this question, what would he answer?

This is what you wrote:

Ok lets see.

"Thank-you" Now to the man talking this would have meant nothing - correct. Since he wasn't implying Jesus to be God no-one would have thought anything of it.

But what if Jesus was trying to get the people thinking?

By saying this he would have achieved nothing. As I said before Jesus didn't want to reveal himself fully at this time, but he did want people to start thinking for themselves.

By saying the second thing you mentioned he is revealing himself totally - which is not what he wanted to do.

So Sojourner, the question has to be asked is what Jesus said to get the people to think?

He couldn't give the second answer you gave, and to give the first answer would mean nothing to the people.
So the answer we are left with is the one in the Bible.

It is significant that Jesus doesn't have to say this but he does.

1. "Why do you call me good?"
Gets the people thinking here - why was he called good? Answer: Because the people saw him to be good in all he did.

Jesus even says later on: "Can any of you find me guilty of Sin?

Jesus has got the people thinking - they are saying to themselves ....it is obvious, he is called good because he is good - we can all see that.

2. "No one is good except God alone."

This puts the people in an akward position, either they continue to call him good and so call him "God" or they don't call him good.

But the people see him as good - he even asks if they can find him guilty of sin.

Jesus has achieved what he wanted - the people are now seriously thinking about what he has just said.....could he really be divine? The one we have been waiting for?

Can you see what I am getting at Sojourner?
There is no deceit or lying - it was something that Jesus used to get everyone thinking.

Would the same person that is being "humble" say - who of you can find me guilty of sin?

i think not.
If you think about it Sojourner you will see it.

Ok now onto what you wrote next.

Ok for your first statement above I would have to disagree.
If Jesus was as you said, given powers to lead the Jews to freedom from the hated Romans - then why wasn't the scripture altered to show this?

Though you are on the right tracks - the Jewish people and even the disciples were convinced that this was what Jesus had come to do.
I'll show you:

There is the incident when the people Jesus had fed wanted to make Jesus their King......if what you say is true, why then did Jesus slip away?

Also if his supernatural powers were to get rid of the Romans - why did he only heal people - those same people that cried out for him to be crucified. The Romans saw no danger in him for they did nothing - it was the Jews themselves.

Did those Jews final realise that this was not what Jesus was here to do and so turn against him in such a brutal fashion? Remember 10 days or so previously they had been cheering him into the city of Jerusalem....when he rode in on a donkey - a general would have rode in on a horse.

Again hard to see this happening - why in the world would the Greeks take someone who did miracles and failed to lead the Jews to freedom from the Romans, and make him out to be a God?

What in the world pocessed them to do that?

You then come up against some pretty big barriers - They forsake all their God's.

What made them do this?
Did they know for a fact that Jesus actually was a miracle worker? According to other people on this site Jesus did no miracles (possibly your view too) - why then would the Greeks have forsaken all - accepted Jesus and then mixed in some sort of pagan beliefs - again for no apparent reason.
Rather you would have found a gadual change if this were so - firstly Jesus with a position amounst all the Gods, then after a couple of hundred years, Jesus considered supreme amoungst the Gods and finally after all that what we have now.

It's extremely unlikely - plus the fact that there is no evidence for this. - Any manuscripts with Jesus + Greek Gods in a council or something?

I guess your only evidence is based on the fact that there is "no evidence of the Trinity" in the NT.
Again I am showing that there is - if you have been following it so far with Nogo and me you will see this to be so (especially the last couple of posts).

You have shown me a link to evidence that the Bible has been corrected.
I haven't time to discuss it now, but let me ask you if the modifications were elaborating on what was already known to be true.

Also that doesn't make any difference because the Bibles that we have today are from the earliest manuscripts - therefore any modifications that are present in later versions and not the earliest ones make no difference to us now.
So the ones now can be considered "pure".

As I have shown there is no deceit at all - there is no contradiction.

No, I don't. I believe what the Bible says because
1. It predicts the future, even the present future.
2. I have experienced it in my own life.
3. Other Historians also testify to Jesus.
etc.

You would give the book Notradamus as an example of a prediction of the future. The parallels with the Bible would suggest that was where he got a lot of his ideas from, also the fact that it is a prime example of a text that is vague enough for anything to be attributed to it.

(Like i said before this is a big topic and we can discuss it when we are done - i'd be interested in hearing both your and Nogo's opinions on it.)

I'm sure you could. But what I am showing is that the Bible is intirely consistant.

Ok, lets see the examples that you give;

Firstly - Jesus casting demons into a herd of pigs is a sign of his weakness?

(Just say if I mis interpret you)

If you read that passage you will see that it is the demons that beg Jesus not to send them out of the area but into the pigs.
This actually shows the power that Jesus had - that not only could he command demons to come out of people, but he could control where they went.
That is power - not as you suggest a sign of weakness.

Firstly I must correct your opinion that they saw blindness/deafness/muteness as a sign of demon possession.
I am sure you can find many examples of Jesus healing people who were deaf, mute and blind and who didn't have a demon that possessed them.
- Correct?

So it wasn't all the blind etc who were thought to be possessed by a demon.

hmmmm, how do you define harmful? If it is because people rejected them from society and in some cases killed them etc. This is not taught by the Bible - is it?

Also demon possession was known before Jesus. It is written somewhere that the pharasees also drove out demons.

Jesus shows that they can be healed by God and are not to be treated badly - he heals the man that was "chained" and ran around in the tombs - he clothes him and showes compassion to him.

Jesus rather gives hope that these people can be healed - and aren't to be thrown out, killed or rejected.

Surely you can see this Sojourner?

The next statement you raise is a good point:

Yes, in some cases it can be caused by illnesses, but lets look at a few of the examples that you gave to see if it could be illness.


Mark 5 v 3-5
Would you say this was a classic sympton? Patient being able to rip chains apart - amazing strength?

No - this was a demon possession, the man was being controlled by the demon and so had supernatural powers.

So what would you call this?
If today's doctors saw this would they come up for a name for it? Call it an illness?

Each time the person sees Jesus they go bizerk...Shouting out "I know who you are..the Son of the most High God.."
Why when Jesus approached them did they suddenly do this?

The thing today is that the devil has changed tatics - especially in the West. You will rarely if ever see a demon possessed man/woman and know it - for Satan will not want you to believe in the supernatural, rather to believe there is nothing.
Bear with me for a second.

If you were Satan - wouldn't you do the same thing?
If he shows himself people can't explain it and will have to believe in the supernatural - but isn't remaining unseen far better? Letting people think that there is nothing....he is still achieving his aim.

As for Africa, Brazil - those sorts of countries, Satan makes himself "visible" - you may not know but Spirit worship is common, by showing himself he puts fear into the people and that fear binds them - they are too afraid to break through.

There are many many true stories I could tell you, but I don't think you would be interested - maybe you would I dunno.
I have to head here - I'll reply when I can, this week will be pretty busy.

Alright, Cya.

davidH

woah, no reply - it's usually me that takes the longest =)

Haven't got time at the minute to reply further...you still around Nogo and Sojourner?

Yo, Nogo, you got any thoughts on what I wrote about on Hebrews?

Sojourner553

You and I agree this was not a direct lie. You and I do not agree this was not deceitful (ie an indirect lie.)

The dictionary defines the related term of "deceit" as follows: “The act of representing as true what is known to be false”.

Jesus is representing himself as “not good” in this exchange by this statement. That is what makes it deceitful: That is, IF Jesus were truly a member of a Trinity, then it would be false to state that only “God were good”, because Jesus would know that he (a member of a Trinity) was also all-good.
Now if Jesus did not believe himself to be an all powerful member of a Trinity, then agreed this is no longer a deceitful statement.

Unlike some other members of this board – I believe there was a historical Jesus and that he did not consider himself divine—that these powers were later attributed to him by other Greeks who were used to tales of mortals having mothers who were virgins that had sexual entanglements with gods.

By the way: You did not tell me if the king in my example was deceitful:

Your point, I think is that Jesus was not hurting other people from his statement, which is true. But people are not always hurt: I have seen my son implying he had done his homework -- but was really being evasive by his answers. Yes, I would say he was deceitful by not replying forthrightly and with direct honestly.

But remember,most Christian apologists argue that Jesus was being coy in his exchange with the man because he did not want to reveal his true divine identity. “Getting the people thinking” would get people suspicious -- ie it goes against this apology.

Let's take your point in more detail though "that it would get them thinking":

I would argue thinking "what"?-- that everyone is full of sin – full of worms and disease and rot and the like since no one is 100% purely good. I disagree this is even something worthy of discussion!!!

That is few things are 100% pure. I would call many people I know “good”, even though I do not consider them "perfect";. “Perfect” is often an abstract construct that is not very meaningful. Even in math and engineering, one uses an epison term, to indicate how much error (how far away from perfect) our measurements are before we are pretty sure we have the right calculation from an equation (ie perfection). That is even math accepts we typically cannot measure 100% perfection (even if it were to exist.) But that does not mean our math measurements are "not" good. Some may stink, but others are great (even if "not perfect".)


Aye, yi yi—

All ancient religions are based on superstitions

Why do humans have the desire for religion—usually for personal great powers, or to never die. This gives a flavor of this:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/PHILOSO3.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/PHILOSO3.TXT</a>


DavidH, You really need to read some history: I cannot summarize for you all of BASIC HISTORY 101 courses. You seem to think you can just “reason” this out without knowing the background and philosophies of ancient civilizations and Christianity.

As just ONE example: Did you ever check out if Judaism EVER had a tradition of God as a Trinity. If you look at history, the answer is a RESOUNDING NO!


!!!DavidH. If this were true, then ALL the other religions that speak of a Trinity should be enough evidence to convince YOU that these are valid religions… !!!!!


Let’s take Hinduism. They have wonderful claims of miracles and supernaturalism. Why don’t you just take their word for it?? Afterall – their texts are far older than Christianty too.

No they were NOT already known to be true. Please Re-read it again. I think you are throwing out everything you read that does not fit in your preconceived view of the world. Again, this is not a scientific view.
You see how you “assume” things. No one knows where the earliest manuscripts are.
The article I gave you compared the King James version of the Bible with earliest known bibles (circa mid fourth century BC) – and found there were important discrepancies.


Really David, you need to read some more before you start conversing.

There are a number of good articles on the Infidel library. Please start reading.

This is another source:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

I would recommend Sections I- V.

THEN – We’ll talk and you can show me where these are wrong!

Sojourner

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

davidH

Apologies Sojourner - I had written my message to you and wanted to add in a sentence - I tried to start it off with a capital W. However I pressed Ctrl w - and the window obviously went and with it went my answer to you - fustrating but these things happen!
(You wouldn't by any chance know a way of retrieving everything if it does happen again?)

Ah well, I'll get the answer back up - just got to type it all up again...

I'll be back soon.

davidH

Yo, sojourner, I'm gonna leave this until tomorrow - at the minute my computer is playing up - if I try and copy and paste it causes an error and closes all the windows. - I've tried this 3 times and it's the same everytime.
So i'll switch it off and hope for the best.
Cya tomorrow...guess today wasn't meant to be