We're making big changes. Please try out the beta site at beta.ccel.org and send us feedback. Thank you!

Discussions on Jesus (combining Was Jesus God & Jesus in the Bread)

Loutzenhiser's picture

Both these threads are covering about the same territory now and getting long again. Continue both threads here.

michael_legna's picture

If it is important one should research every piece of evidence

duu1der said -
You are absolutely right. I do not answer every verse of scripture you hold as "proof" that Jesus is God. I presented several very well respected theologians from various backgrounds whom you have dismissed because they do not agree with you.

Well you appear to be a respecter of men and I am not. I respect ideas and logical arguments based on an infallible source - scripture.

I would recommend if you truly wonder (as your name seems to want to imply) you should not replace one set of scholars (those who first came to understand the Trinity) with another group of scholars. I say this because there will always be some new self proclaimed scholar with some new theory and you will be blown about on the winds of doctrines. You could offer one respected theologian like Bullinger and I offer another like Aquinas - what does that prove? I guarantee I am going to be able to offer more and more impressive theologians who support the idea of Trinity than you are going to be able to offer who provide any support for some other idea.

duu1der said -
Dr. E.W. Bullinger’s “A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament" is one of the most widely used sources by many theologians because of it's highly respected author, but, in all your pomp and arrogance you think you have the ability to argue with him and many others.

First Bullinger was a Anglican Protestant theologian so he is respect in a small subset of Christianity and since he was a believer in the Trinity he would probably argue with your use of his quotes and definitions.

Second stop being so impressed by men and their ideas simply because of their reputations or degrees and instead put out the effort on your own to test those ideas with logic.

duu1der said -
I have shown you proof in several ways that you choose to ignore and declare invalid.

And each time I offered a reason from formal as to why they were invalid - which you would have been able to follow if you had spent your time learning formal logic instead of leaning back and putting your dependence on other men's opinions.

duu1der said -
I'm done. I choose not to continue this discussion not because you win, but because I obviously do not have the time that you do to justify every scripture you present.

That is your decision but I wonder just how much you really wonder if you do not care enough to test each and every idea that may lead you to the correct understanding of the Incarnation and Trinity. But then maybe you have already made up your mind and so all this checking I was asking you to do was pointless in your mind. To someone who really is interested in finding the truth it is apparent that even one unanswerable issue is enough to prove an idea is not correct. This is especially true when one has an inerrant source for data. Therefore the need to address all the verses offered for consideration.

duu1der said -
Since you have equated Jesus to YAHWEH who "For I Yahweh do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed" does not change.. God can be no less than God and since God cannot be tempted by evil, Jesus could not be God.
Throughout your "proofs" your interpretation is riddled with assumption, which is not proof.

I merely showed you that your logic was man made and was in effect placing a limit on God, since you say God is not capable of being anything but God and limiting God from being able to be with another nature within a being and not interfer with that nature. All these limits on God and all imposed by men - meaning you - do not prove that the Incarnation is not a reasonable doctrine.

ML said: "In light of the foregoing, is it any wonder that the Church from its inception believed that the Lord Jesus Christ is Yahweh God Almighty".

duu1der said -
Since this point has been so hotly contested for so many years, I guess all of the "church" didn't accept your proof.

It is true that in the first couple hundred years there was a period of development of the understanding of Christology. But you over estimate the amount of resistance the Trinity had and are wrong in the assumption that resistance came from within the Church. Also that was a long time ago and so the Church has been unified in its position (except for a very small fringe contingent in society) for over 1500 years.

ML said: "Besides your new approach has an additional problem in that you now must be claiming that Jesus was a normal man, then at His baptism He was filled with the power of God but is still only a man, and then after He is risen THEN He becomes God?! Nonsense, we do not become God when we receive our glorified body – there is only one God!"

duu1der said -
You must remember my position is that Jesus was not God but elevated to a position above all others and seated at the right hand of God, which is a place of honor, normally reserved for the most respected servant, but, not a position of equallity.

That was what you stated but your last argument about these events applying to post-resurrection Jesus implies that Jesus was some how different after resurrection then he was even after his Baptism. And not just different but even superior else why bring it up as a explanation for some (but not all) of the verses I presented. I therefore assumed since the verses showed an equivalence between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in accomplishing these acts you were saying that not only was Jesus empowered by God at the Baptism to do some works, but that these works had to be explained by another difference beyond his being empowered, therefore I assume you had Him being elevated even further (to be God since that was the only way to reconcile the verses). You may not recognize this extension of your doctrine by this defense but it is implied and I notice it because I have been trained in logic.

duu1der said -
Since I can't devote enough time to pander to your request I will drop any further discussion. Not conceding the point, since as I said, your logic has not swayed my belief.

I really don't care as I was merely addressing your arguments (and few others were even willing to give you ideas a second thought - which also surprises me) to show you the doctrine is supportable and no other covers all the issues Scripture presents us. But if it is not that important to you to research each and every point of consideration then perhaps you should consider changing your name to - "Idont1der"