Jesus’ body

Jesus’ body was conceived in the womb of Mary; newly created flesh, blood, bone and brain. This is irrefutable in terms of biblical text.

It therefore follows that if there was a component of Jesus which was/is eternal, then it can only be his spirit I.e. the spirit of God the father living in his created veil of flesh.

One spirit, one Lord, one God.

But a trinitarian will have you believe that there are three spirits 1) the spirit of God the father, 2 the spirit of God the son (a phrase not mentioned anywhere in the bible btw) and the Holy Spirit.

Of course as there is no “eternal son” (another phrase not mentioned anywhere in the bible btw) then there is no eternal spirit of the son. Jesus only became a “son” when his flesh was born. So the spirit of God was in Jesus. So if follows then that we are down to two spirits 1) the spirit of God and 2) the Holy Spirit.

But hold on… the New Testament says that it is the spirit of Christ which is within us! So that means that the Holy Spirit is also the spirit of God which is the same spirit which was in the created body of Jesus.

One spirit, one God, manifested in several ways.
No “trinity”, no “god the son”, no “eternal son” are mentioned anywhere at all in the bible.

Hear oh Israel, the Lord your God is ONE.

@divegeester said
Jesus’ body was conceived in the womb of Mary; newly created flesh, blood, bone and brain. This is irrefutable in terms of biblical text.

It therefore follows that if there was a component of Jesus which was/is eternal, then it can only be his spirit I.e. the spirit of God the father living in his created veil of flesh.

One spirit, one Lord, one God.

But a tri ...[text shortened]... ernal son” are mentioned anywhere at all in the bible.

Hear oh Israel, the Lord your God is ONE.

Unbelievers often struggle with this, since they can find little logic in it. The works of God are far above our ability to comprehend. As I've said here a number of times, there are some things you have to take on faith.

@mchill said
Unbelievers often struggle with this, since they can find little logic in it. The works of God are far above our ability to comprehend. As I've said here a number of times, there are some things you have to take on faith.

The Trinity, like so much else in Christian dogma, is the invention of 3d and 4th c. theologians, for the 'benefit' of educated Greeks and Romans (gentiles), not what Jesus taught.

@divegeester said
Jesus’ body was conceived in the womb of Mary; newly created flesh, blood, bone and brain. This is irrefutable in terms of biblical text.

It therefore follows that if there was a component of Jesus which was/is eternal, then it can only be his spirit I.e. the spirit of God the father living in his created veil of flesh.

One spirit, one Lord, one God.

But a tri ...[text shortened]... ernal son” are mentioned anywhere at all in the bible.

Hear oh Israel, the Lord your God is ONE.

Tell us again about YOUR version of Trinity.

@mchill said
Unbelievers often struggle with this, since they can find little logic in it. The works of God are far above our ability to comprehend. As I've said here a number of times, there are some things you have to take on faith.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way is that Believers often struggle with logic. They call such instances "faith". 😂😂😂

@mchill said
Unbelievers often struggle with this, since they can find little logic in it. The works of God are far above our ability to comprehend. As I've said here a number of times, there are some things you have to take on faith.

I’m not an unbeliever.
What “works of God” are you referring to in reference to my OP?
Take what “on faith”?

@suzianne said
Tell us again about YOUR version of Trinity.

I don’t have a “version of the trinity” and therefore have never mentioned it before, and so I can’t “tell you again”.

@mchill said
Unbelievers often struggle with this, since they can find little logic in it. The works of God are far above our ability to comprehend. As I've said here a number of times, there are some things you have to take on faith.

The works of God are far above our ability to comprehend.

Well, well. This is such a Swiss army knife-type debating point.

@fmf said
The works of God are far above our ability to comprehend.

Well, well. This is such a Swiss army knife-type debating point.

Actually, unbelievers don’t struggle with the Trinity at all. It’s Christians who do.And they have been excommunicated for falling on the wrong side of it, whichever side that is, for 1700 years.

@fmf said
The works of God are far above our ability to comprehend.

Well, well. This is such a Swiss army knife-type debating point.

Well, well. This is such a Swiss army knife-type debating point.


Yes, as I recall you've played this card a few times in the past when responding to my posts. Your sarcasm aside, the fact remains there are some things in the bible that simply cannot be explained logically.

@mchill said
the fact remains there are some things in the bible that simply cannot be explained logically.

Due to its tendency to be illogical and underpinned by myth and scientific errors.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Due to its tendency to be illogical and underpinned by myth and scientific errors.

Due to some people's will to believe in illogicalities, myths, and scientific errors. The Bible isn't at fault for that, but merely an expression of it.

@divegeester said
Jesus’ body was conceived in the womb of Mary; newly created flesh, blood, bone and brain. This is irrefutable in terms of biblical text.

It therefore follows that if there was a component of Jesus which was/is eternal, then it can only be his spirit I.e. the spirit of God the father living in his created veil of flesh.

One spirit, one Lord, one God.

But a tri ...[text shortened]... ernal son” are mentioned anywhere at all in the bible.

Hear oh Israel, the Lord your God is ONE.

Stop trying to interpret spiritual messages as if they were biological facts, and all of your doubts will dissolve.

"Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue, a sixpence in your shoe."

I don't know if all this hopping around a specific subject does it justice. Threads and threads of thoughts, opinions, and citations go for naught. It seems that this kind of zigzagging is very typical around these forums. The subject is quickly dropped and later resurfaces somewhere else in another form and title. We keep going over the same ground and never sit still long enough to seem to have brought a few minds together. Everyone seems like an epicure who snatches a taste of every dish which is successively brought to the table, not having allowed themselves time to enjoy the one before, so we have gone from one thread to another without having discovered the nature of the subject.

Intertextuality is where to look for groundbreaking ideas. And a little help from music helps with the concentration.

THEODORUS: Here we are, Socrates, true to our agreement of yesterday; and we bring with us a stranger from Elea, who is a disciple of Parmenides and Zeno, and a true philosopher.

SOCRATES: Is he not rather a god, Theodorus, who comes to us in the disguise of a stranger? For Homer says that all the gods, and especially the god of strangers, are companions of the meek and just, and visit the good and evil among men. And may not your companion be one of those higher powers, a cross-examining deity, who has come to spy out our weakness in argument, and to cross-examine us?

THEODORUS: Nay, Socrates, he is not one of the disputatious sort—he is too good for that. And, in my opinion, he is not a god at all; but divine he certainly is, for this is a title which I should give to all philosophers.

SOCRATES: Capital, my friend! and I may add that they are almost as hard to be discerned as the gods. For the true philosophers, and such as are not merely made up for the occasion, appear in various forms unrecognized by the ignorance of men, and they 'hover about cities,' as Homer declares, looking from above upon human life; and some think nothing of them, and others can never think enough; and sometimes they appear as statesmen, and sometimes as sophists; and then, again, to many they seem to be no better than madmen. I should like to ask our Eleatic friend, if he would tell us, what is thought about them in Italy, and to whom the terms are applied.

THEODORUS: What terms?

SOCRATES: Sophist, statesman, philosopher.

THEODORUS: What is your difficulty about them, and what made you ask?

SOCRATES: I want to know whether by his countrymen they are regarded as one or two; or do they, as the names are three, distinguish also three kinds, and assign one to each name?

THEODORUS: I dare say that the Stranger will not object to discuss the question. What do you say, Stranger?

STRANGER: I am far from objecting, Theodorus, nor have I any difficulty in replying that by us they are regarded as three. But to define precisely the nature of each of them is by no means a slight or easy task.

YouTube

@moonbus said
Stop trying to interpret spiritual messages as if they were biological facts, and all of your doubts will dissolve.

I’m not trying to do that.

Anything to add on OP rather than try to grandstand over me?