Was Jesus God or is it just a name of a human being used by our Creator?

[Cino]

I've found there's little chance of changing the mind of a Trinitarian.

Well, attempting to change the basic premises of people's religious world-views is not done on this interfaith dialogue forum. It is interesting to learn about your views, and this is meant to be a safe place for sharing those, but just as you hated it when people tried to convince you to adopt their beliefs, it is also the other way around. Golden Rule of interfaith dialogue.

 

[Ella S.]

I've found there's little chance of changing the mind of a Trinitarian.

In my experience, I can't change the mind of anyone. At most, I can persuade people to pursue whatever they want in a way that appears more beneficial to them. The upside of this is that I realize advertising only works on people who want to be sold something and, thus, I am invulnerable to it.

 

[Muckah]

I understand what you're both saying, but we should all be willing to change our mind, especially when there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to do so - pointing in another direction. My experience with Christians, for example, who believe in pre-trib and Trinity, is they refuse to consider other views and change their mind even when there's a mountain of contradictory evidence against what they believe. They adamantly adhere to what they already believe regardless of the evidence. I believe they do so is because to "change their mind" is actually an admission of 'being wrong' and the words, 'I was wrong' typically is not found in a Christian's vocabulary. They prefer to overcome those contradictions by 'fabricating' their way out of them. That in my view is especially true with TRINITY and pre-trib which are the most contradictory and fabricated of all Christian doctrines. Let me give you a few examples.

Pre-trib...
Jesus said the gathering happens AFTER the tribulation. In Mathew 13, the wheat and tares are gathered by angels AFTER tribulation AKA - at the end of the world, NOT 7 years before like pre-trib teaches.

Paul says the gathering/parousia/ happens AFTER the revelation of the antichrist. Pre-trib believers say the AC is revealed BEFORE the gathering. These are clear contradictions that pretribulationist disregard and have worked hard to 'fabricate' their way out of.

Trinity...
Trinity teaches Jesus is co-equal to the God the Father in knowledge, power, and authority. However, Jesus said 'the Father is greater'. He said he doesn't know the day and hour of his return. He said he can do NOTHING on his own. Over and over again, Jesus acknowledges his subordination to the Father. How do Trinitarians overcome these clear contradictions of co-equality? The TWO NATURES - Trinity's most outstanding cop-out.

Another thing most Trinitarians deny is the developmental history of the Trinity.

1. Jesus became God in AD325 at the council of Nicaea. 2. The holy spirit became God in AD381 at the council of Constantinople. 3. Then, because the Bishops of Rome could not resolve the multiple contradictions I mentioned earlier, they overcame those contradictions in AD 451 under Pope Leo the Great. That's when Jesus acquired TWO NATURES.

These are two of Christianity's most contentious doctrines. In my view, they are not at all complicated but VERY simple to understand. My experience is that the correct interpretation of anything is the most simple, logical, and least contradictory one. Both Pre-trib and Trinity are the most fabricated and contradictory doctrines in Christianity.

Four times in John 17 Jesus prayed for Christians to be united. For some reason, that didn't happen. Christianity is the most divided religion in the world. Some is wrong here.

My views have changed considerably from even 15-20 years ago and have changed my mind on several other issues over the years.

We should all be cautious believing others on the basis of their credentials or position. For example - John Macarthur. I don't like this man whatsoever. People hold him in high esteem and believe just about everything he teaches. His most outrageous teachings are he condemns those of us who reject Trinity and teaches that God will destroy the entire universe at the end on the Millennium.

Christianity is what I know but it's no longer my gig. I've become a member of the DONES AND NONES. Done with the religion of Christianity and want NOTHING to do with any organized religion. I'll work out my own salvation void of Christianity.

 

[Muckah]

Well, attempting to change the basic premises of people's religious world-views is not done on this interfaith dialogue forum. It is interesting to learn about your views, and this is meant to be a safe place for sharing those, but just as you hated it when people tried to convince you to adopt their beliefs, it is also the other way around. Golden Rule of interfaith dialogue.

Should that be my last reply here.? There's no debate on any of these issues? This forum use to be very busy years ago. Maybe that's why it have become so inactive.

 

[Cino]

Should that be my last reply here.? There's no debate on any of these issues? This forum use to be very busy years ago. Maybe that's why it have become so inactive.

If constant shouting and overwhelmed moderators is your thing, I can recommend a different forum. But by all means, stay around! Maybe once you adjust to what is going on here, you'll start to appreciate the activity happening at greater depth. Want to give it a try? But I'm not here to change your mind.

 

[RJM]

Christianity is what I know but it's no longer my gig. I've become a member of the DONES AND NONES. Done with the religion of Christianity and want NOTHING to do with any organized religion. I'll work out my own salvation void of Christianity.

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you had converted to Islam

 

[Ella S.]

I understand what you're both saying, but we should all be willing to change our mind, especially when there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to do so - pointing in another direction. My experience with Christians, for example, who believe in pre-trib and Trinity, is they refuse to consider other views and change their mind even when there's a mountain of contradictory evidence against what they believe. They adamantly adhere to what they already believe regardless of the evidence. I believe they do so is because to "change their mind" is actually an admission of 'being wrong' and the words, 'I was wrong' typically is not found in a Christian's vocabulary. They prefer to overcome those contradictions by 'fabricating' their way out of them. That in my view is especially true with TRINITY and pre-trib which are the most contradictory and fabricated of all Christian doctrines. Let me give you a few examples.

I agree that people ought to be willing to change their minds in accordance with new data and that one should favor conclusions with better evidence.

However, I think you should be more understanding. Christians are raised to believe in many things that almost certainly never happened on "faith." There is immense social pressure to conform to these beliefs and this faith is lauded as a virtue.

In fact, in most Christian communities, the people who have faith deserve to live in a utopian paradise where nothing bad ever happens and the people who do not have faith deserve to be tortured forever and ever, choking on the toxic smoke coming from their burning flesh.

For that reason, most Christians are terrified of losing their belief in Christianity. They're afraid of questioning it. Questioning it is evil and they don't want to go to Hell. Their beliefs tie them to their community and give them their sense of meaning in life. Sure, they might have doubts, but they would never let themselves doubt too much. In fact, when they have doubts, the first people they turn to are clergy, apologists, and theologians because these are the people they have been taught to trust.

It's rare that any Christian seeks out interfaith dialogue for any reason other than evangelizing, which is really just another way of reassuring themselves about their own beliefs. Look at how most evangelists dehumanize non-believers and the bizarre conspiracies spread about atheists.

These people aren't interested in finding truth. They're just trying to avoid misery. They aren't receptive to reason because reason has the potential to make them lose their beliefs, which would make them evil and condemn them to eternal torment. Reason is a threat to them. They're terrified. Don't be so hard on them. It isn't their fault that they were conditioned that way.

 

[Ella S.]

Should that be my last reply here.? There's no debate on any of these issues? This forum use to be very busy years ago. Maybe that's why it have become so inactive.

If this forum is inactive due to there being less debate, then I think that might actually be a good thing. By my mileage, I don't think debate is productive.

I was in correspondence with a few members on an Evolution vs Creationist debate forum, all of whom were proponents of the Theory of Evolution. I had several users who claimed to have been active on a variety of similar forums for decades and they said that, in all of their debating, they had never seen a creationist start to accept evolution. They also had never seen anyone who believed in the Theory of Evolution turn to Creationism, either.

This is no surprise to me. The premise of debate is to defend your position and attack the position of the other person. In formal debates, debaters often learn both sides of the argument specifically so that they can argue either one if they get chosen to support that position. Nobody is interested in discovering truth when it comes to debate.

If you actually want to cooperate in productive discourse, then you need to operate in good faith. You can't assume that the reason people don't agree with you is because they're unreasonable. You always have to start with a notion that other people might be right and know more than you do. That doesn't mean that you can't make any claims but it does mean that your focus shouldn't be on changing anyone's mind. What you're really aiming for is an understanding of why people believe what they do and what evidence they have for their conclusions that you might not have been aware of.

In doing this, you might refine your own understanding. In other words, in a productive discussion, you should be trying to change your own mind, not someone else's. That doesn't mean that you have to accept anything they say. Keep your wits about you. It also doesn't mean that you can't share with them what you think, as they might be interested in understanding your perspective, too. But you can't approach it with this mindset that you're right and they're wrong and you're going to prove it to them; that doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[Thomas]

I understand what you're both saying, but we should all be willing to change our mind, especially when there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to do so - pointing in another direction.

There is no point in rehearsing arguments here, I'm just making the point that from my Trinitarian POV, that the idea that the evidence against the Trinity is overwhelming or irrefutable is not the case.

In brief, we're at Aquinas' answer in the Summa, Question 1: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine, Article 8: Is it a matter of argument?

Over and over again, Jesus acknowledges his subordination to the Father.

But this argument is ancient, and has been answered.

The TWO NATURES - Trinity's most outstanding cop-out.

Or one of its most breath-taking Revelations.

1. Jesus became God in AD325 at the council of Nicaea.

There's strong evidence that suggests a belief in Jesus as God prior to Nicaea.

The Councils determine 'definitions' in the face of dispute, the beliefs do not originate with or in the Councils.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no point in rehearsing arguments here, I'm just making the point that from my Trinitarian POV, that the idea that the evidence against the Trinity is overwhelming or irrefutable is not the case.

In brief, we're at Aquinas' answer in the Summa, Question 1: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine, Article 8: Is it a matter of argument?

..our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."

That is where the problem lies, imo .. the concept of "Canonical Scriptures" .. their infallibility and interpretation.

 

[Thomas]

That is where the problem lies, imo .. the concept of "Canonical Scriptures" .. their infallibility and interpretation.

Indeed.

 

[Ella S.]

There's strong evidence that suggests a belief in Jesus as God prior to Nicaea.

The Councils determine 'definitions' in the face of dispute, the beliefs do not originate with or in the Councils.

Thank you for this. I agree.

I would also add that, as far as I can tell, everyone in these councils seemed to be earnestly trying to find the truth and put forward what they themselves believed. I don't think there was a lot of intentional deception going on. Rather, people were trying to find common ground, not push their own individual agendas.

It's less of a shady cabal writing propaganda and more of a religion written by committee. Most of the ideas that they decided upon were already in popular use beforehand.

Except maybe Trinitarianism. I don't know the full history of Trinitarianism but from what I've gathered it looks like Trinitarianism was constructed as a way to compromise between Modalists and Partialists. Both of which, of course, believed that Jesus was God, though.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ella —

I would also add that, as far as I can tell...

I think this is a fair assessment.

Most of the ideas that they decided upon were already in popular use beforehand.

This is a point so often overlooked, but important to understand.

Except maybe Trinitarianism. I don't know the full history of Trinitarianism but from what I've gathered it looks like Trinitarianism was constructed as a way to compromise between Modalists and Partialists...

I'm not so sure, or rather I see it as an attempt to explain someone that is, in essence, inexplicable.

Some here would argue that Scripture – when it comes to Christ's self-disclosures – are fraught with contradictions. On the other hand, perhaps not, perhaps they are clues ... and the Church has grappled with those clues, and continues to do so today.

"At the heart of Christianity stand two mysteries: the Trinity and the Incarnation" wrote Timothy A Mahoney, at the start of an essay: Christian Metaphysics: Trinity, Incarnation and Creation

Those two mysteries, even today, are not fully resolved, nor will they ever adequately be, because the human is a being with a view of the infinite horizon, no matter how far one proceeds, the horizon is always in the distance.

The Catholic theologian Jean Borella quotes the philosopher of phenomenology Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who said that to see an object is "to be able to make a tour of it." (The Phenomenology of Perception). The same rule applies here, I think, in that the essential mysteries of being will always lie beyond the human gaze, human knowing (and here, too, is the essential mystery of faith).

Back down to earth, and ask the Catholic-in-the-pew to talk about the Trinity and probably within 30 seconds you'll be into one heresy or another. (I know, we tried it on my degree course ). But then what the world really needs is saints, not theologians, and the former are not necessarily the latter.

 

[Ella S.]

I'm not so sure, or rather I see it as an attempt to explain someone that is, in essence, inexplicable.

Some here would argue that Scripture – when it comes to Christ's self-disclosures – are fraught with contradictions. On the other hand, perhaps not, perhaps they are clues ... and the Church has grappled with those clues, and continues to do so today.

"At the heart of Christianity stand two mysteries: the Trinity and the Incarnation" wrote Timothy A Mahoney, at the start of an essay: Christian Metaphysics: Trinity, Incarnation and Creation

Those two mysteries, even today, are not fully resolved, nor will they ever adequately be, because the human is a being with a view of the infinite horizon, no matter how far one proceeds, the horizon is always in the distance.

The Catholic theologian Jean Borella quotes the philosopher of phenomenology Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who said that to see an object is "to be able to make a tour of it." (The Phenomenology of Perception). The same rule applies here, I think, in that the essential mysteries of being will always lie beyond the human gaze, human knowing (and here, too, is the essential mystery of faith).

Back down to earth, and ask the Catholic-in-the-pew to talk about the Trinity and probably within 30 seconds you'll be into one heresy or another. (I know, we tried it on my degree course ). But then what the world really needs is saints, not theologians, and the former are not necessarily the latter.

You make many fair points here. I definitely think that, regardless of whether a specific dogma was agreed upon at whatever later date, ultimately most of it is an earnest attempt at interpreting scripture.

 

[moralorel]

According to this passage found in the Bible, it appears the answer Jesus gave to the Jews shows that he isn't God, the Lord and Savior that Christians believe in.

John 7
13: Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him.
14: About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught.
15: The Jews marveled at it, saying, "How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?"
16: So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me;
17: if any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
18: He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

Jesus is saying that He is not the Father. He isn't saying that He's not God.
Philippians 2:5-6 “You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.”
John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.“ (Note: This would mean that Moses met Jesus, not the Father).
John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.“
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.“
John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.“
1 John 5:20 “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
John 20:27-28 “Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

So in summary, John and Thomas referred to Jesus as God. If they were lying, then they weren't apostles. So Jesus is God.

 

[The Anointed]

So in summary, John and Thomas referred to Jesus as God. If they were lying, then they weren't apostles. So Jesus is God.

John 20: 17; Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Thomas Didymus Jude was wrong, Jesus, the biological son Joseph the son of Alexander Helios AKA Heli, wasn't.

It was not uncommon for Jewish men in Galilee to carry three names, one in Hebrew, one in Greek and one in Aramaic: Thomas=Tau’ma, the Aramaic for twin, is also called Didymus, which is the Greek for twin, he is Thomas/twin, Didymus/twin, Jude, the brother of Jesus and the son of the carpenter.

Jude, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, both having the same father, "Joseph the son of a Father of renowned, was the son of Alexander Helios/Heli, whose name in Greek was Cleophas the masculine form of Cleopatra, which means "Of a renowned Father" and in Aramaic he was called Alphaeus, which also means "Of a renowned Father."

According to the Subject Guide in Young's Analytic Concordance to the Bible, Cleophas is the husband of Mary and is one and the same person as Alphaeus. Alphaeus is the father of James the less who is the full brother to Jesus.

Thomas Didymus Jude, was called the apostle of many names, as he was also called Thaddaeus and Lebbeaus, the Greek and Aramaic words for ‘courageous.’ So, Jude the brother of the Lord is the courageous apostle called ‘The Twin,’ and he should not be confused with the apostle whose actual name was ‘Thomas.’

 

[theMadJW]

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

He is just like his Father.

 

[theMadJW]

When quoting from the Bible, it is important to quote the rest of the words to make sure you don't miss the important parts of it.

John 14
11: Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.
12: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.
13: Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son;
14: if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
15: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
16: And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,
17: even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

23: Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
24: He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.
25: "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you.
26: But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

1 John 2
27: but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.

I got all my knowledge directly from my created existence known as the Holy Spirit. I didn't get it from reading words in a book.

Holy (set aside) spirit (breath, wind)- is te POWER God uses.

 

[wil]

It is like looking into an io time tunnel with mee looking back at me.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Perhaps The Christ is the overself bridge between God and man, perfectly expressed in Jesus, word and action?

I've definitely read that, I even recently saw a graphic where someone used a picture of the cross as a bridge between man and God. It was meant to illustrated the point in their article. If I knew where I had seen that I would post the link.
Edit: Trying to find it I looked it up, that imagery is used a lot, and I remembered I have seen it over the years.