Who is Jesus?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================
Collossians chapter 1 verse 15 to be precise,
==================================

Robbie, I already dealt with Arius' misusage of Col. 1:15 And I don't think I saw any rebuttal from you.

You speak of "church dogma". Yet you dogmatically assert Col 1:15 upholds the Arian heresy of the incomplete Deity of Christ.[/b]

ah yes jaywill, 'the firstborn of all creation', Col 1:15, now wasn't it your hypothesis that this was a reference, in respect of your dogged adherence to that pre christian blasphemy, the trinity 🙂, to Christs prehuman position, and did you not cite two references of Paul? well then i suggest that we look at the thirty or other so references, where first born is used in the inspired word of God, you know, just to put the scripture not only in its immediate context, but in the context of the Bible as a whole, for as you are ware, 'all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial', " 2 timothy 3:16,17, but it must wait till tomorrow, for i work outside and today i almost got sun stroke, for we are not used to this where I live.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ah yes jaywill, 'the firstborn of all creation', Col 1:15, now wasn't it your hypothesis that this was a reference, in respect of your dogged adherence to that pre christian blasphemy, the trinity 🙂, to Christs prehuman position, and did you not cite two references of Paul? well then i suggest that we look at the thirty or other so references, wher work outside and today i almost got sun stroke, for we are not used to this where I live.

I am willing to look at all other references to Firstborn. But its usage in Co. 1:15 and 1:18 are the most important to the matter.

Now two things: It baffles me how you could think that people would make up such a troublesome concept of the Trinity in "christian" times let alone "pre- christian" times.

It is not too convincing to me that the Christians would invite the difficulties that the Trinity teaching has caused. If they came up with such a word it was because they were forced to do so because of your heretic Arius and his attack against the Person of Christ.

I am afraid that I do not think you are my brother in Christ if you say that what I have written concerning the incarnation of God in Christ is blasphemy. Though you spoke well about love and such things, I don't think the brotherhood of Christians is so vehement to call the Trinity a blasphemy. You certainly are not acting like a Christian brother to say such things.

I do not know why you would not plainly state that you are or are not of the Jehovah Witnesses. If you are not you can plainly say so. We know you are a human being.

There is also the Way International who have taken in the Arian heresy. And probably a few other modern groups have also.

Now your challenge of "Where did Jesus say He was Almighty God?" is not impressive to me. There are many many names for God in the Bible. Jesus did not specifically apply all of them to Himself.

Lastly, in an attempt to avoid what you consider a wrong teaching of three Persons in the Godhead you come up with something worse. You have TWO Gods in John chapter 1.

You have the God whom the Word was plus the God whom the Word was with. So I have one God in Three ------. You have TWO Gods. What a heresy.

Above I said "One God in Three ----". I intentionally left it blank. I left it blank because human language is not adaquate to express such a profound mystery.

Oh, the New Testament said Christ is "the mystery of God." So I did not originate the concept that the Triune God is a mystery.

Originally posted by jaywill
I am willing to look at all other references to Firstborn. But its usage in Co. 1:15 and 1:18 are the most important to the matter.

Now two things: It baffles me how you could think that people would make up such a troublesome concept of the Trinity in "christian" times let alone "pre- christian" times.

It is not too convincing to me that the Chr ery of God." So I did not originate the concept that the Triune God is a mystery.[/b]

jaywill, i put a little smiley face beside the statement for i knew it was controversial, i was only having some fun with you, but if you do not consider me a christian, then its ok, for i genuinely believe the trinity to be pre christian, its obvious, for it is found in Greek, Babylonian and even Egyptian culture, and was not introduced into Christianity until the fourth century, which is when i believe the great apostasy, as spoken of by Christ and Paul was in full sway. 'the man of lawlessness'.

thankyou for stating that i am a human being and that will suffice, for as i have stated, close to where i live, there have been more people senselessly killed, because of labeling and denominations, than i care to mention, therefore, this is really offensive to me, I am a pentecostal, i am a catholic, i am a protestant, i belong to Paul, I to Apollos etc etc etc

here is another man killed Jaywill, a father of three, on his own doorstep, beaten to death, because he was of a different denomination, so enough of it Jaywill, i do not like it and all I will ever state is that I am a human.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/father-killed-in-sectarian-football-violence-in-northern-ireland-1690572.html

actually i do not post to impress others, I am interested in the truth of the matter, and if others are unimpressed, or whatever, then so be it, for I am convinced, that there is nothing as potent as truth. i have the assurance from Christ, that Gods word is truth, it is enough for me, for if i can substantiate my claims Biblically, then those who contend with me, are not infact contending with me, but with the Word of God, and that is fine. for who can instruct God?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
jaywill, i put a little smiley face beside the statement for i knew it was controversial, i was only having some fun with you, but if you do not consider me a christian, then its ok, for i genuinely believe the trinity to be pre christian, its obvious, for it is found in Greek, Babylonian and even Egyptian culture, and was not introduced into Christi uk/news/uk/crime/father-killed-in-sectarian-football-violence-in-northern-ireland-1690572.html

===================================
jaywill, i put a little smiley face beside the statement for i knew it was controversial,
=====================================

I apologize if I am not too into those little graphic faces. Being a bit Internet old fashion I kind of ignore them. When I make them it is always by accident.

===================================
i was only having some fun with you, but if you do not consider me a christian, then its ok, for i genuinely believe the trinity to be pre christian, its obvious, for it is found in Greek, Babylonian
===========================================

Where did you first get this concept that the Trinity concept was an ancient Greek or ancient Babylonian idea? Who taught you that ?

===================================
and even Egyptian culture, and was not introduced into Christianity until the fourth century, which is when i believe the great apostasy, as spoken of by Christ and Paul was in full sway. 'the man of lawlessness'.
=====================================

The Person of Christ was attacked from various and sometimes differing angles. Some attacked His humanity. They said that He was too good to be truly human. This concept of the incomplete humanity of Jesus was rejected by the orthodox teachers.

Then from the opposite side some attacked His divinity to teach the incomplete Deity of Christ. These too on the opposite extreme were declared heretical, and rightly so.

Some taught that the two natures were merged to become a completely new nature. These two were rejected as not being true to the New Testament.

Had it not been for these multi flanked assaults on the Person of Christ as presented in the Bible than maybe the term Trinity might not have been invented at all. For years Christians were too busy experiencing and enjoying Christ to argue about these things.

But the Devil in his subtlety launched his attacks from opposite sides to push the Christian church in to one extreme error or the opposing one. He does not care which one as long as people stop experiencing Christ as life as God indwelling them.

I read much of Alexander Hislop's scholarly treatise on ideas of ancient Babylon which Roman Catholicism adopted into Christiandom, ie. Christmas, Mary worshop[, Easter, yul logs, Christmas Trees, Mother and Child portraits, bunnies, reefs, and the extensive set of garbs and religious objects which clutter Roman Catholicsm. The concept of God being Father,Son,and Holy Spirit I do not remember as one of the things he found fault with.

Refering to Paul is the exact worst person you should appeal to to fight against the Triune God. His epistles are filled with the thought of God being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

And I don't see what is "lawless" about quoting the New Testament passages on Christ, the Father, and the Spirit all being God.

===================
thankyou for stating that i am a human being and that will suffice, for as i have stated, close to where i live, there have been more people senselessly killed, because of labeling and denominations, than i care to mention, therefore, this is really offensive to me, I am a pentecostal, i am a catholic, i am a protestant, i belong to Paul, I to Apollos etc etc etc
===============================

Here you are partially appealing to emotions. So if we deny that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God then there will be no murders ?

Now I understand you to say that you are of no "division". I understand that better than you think I do.

There is no need for me to label you. I can simply point out that your wrong to say that the New Testament does not teach that God was incarnate in the Son Jesus.

You can't use your disdain from denominations as an excuse to deny the Deity of Christ.


Once more. You have TWO Gods in John chapter 1. You have the God Whom the Word WAS . And you have another God Whom the Word was WITH.


Two Gods there Robbie. But there is only one God.

==================================
here is another man killed Jaywill, a father of three, on his own doorstep, beaten to death, because he was of a different denomination, so enough of it Jaywill, i do not like it and all I will ever state is that I am a human.
======================================

That a man was beaten to death is tragic.

I do not for that reason twist the passages which teach that God was incarnated to be the man Jesus Christ. The outrage that someone was beaten in a religious riot or whatever, does not cause me to take a pair of scissors and cut out of the Bible passages on the incarnation of God in Christ.

Sorry.

If we use Occams razor--Jesus is God's Son, yet both are deities.

There are far too many instances in the NT gospels that refer to Jesus as the literal Son of God who prays to God.

I believe Jesus is the actual, true Son of God and I don't hesitate to pray to One, the Other, or Both.

There are so many Bible verses that have to be explained figuratively, to force-fit the triune God concept into the Gospels of the NT. Though I admit the possibility of the triune God or Godhead concept, I don't subscribe to it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh really, and where did Christ state that he was Almighty God?

John 8:58-59

Why do you supposed they picked up stones to stone him? Because he had claimed to be God by saying "I Am" the I Am is a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God speaks to Moses through the burning bush. Yahweh is derived from the Hebrew word for "I AM". Jesus's audience understood exactly what he meant when he said this and that's why they were ready to stone him.

John 10: 25-30

Jesus is speaking of his Father (God) and then at the end says that the Father and he are one. There is two thirds of the trinity right there. How could it have been more clear? If they are one then Jesus is God.

John 4: 25-26

Jesus comes right out and says that he is who the woman declared! It couldn't be clearer.

Originally posted by jaywill
===================================
jaywill, i put a little smiley face beside the statement for i knew it was controversial,
=====================================[/b]

I apologize if I am not too into those little graphic faces. Being a bit Internet old fashion I kind of ignore them. When I make them it is always by accident.

======= ssors and cut out of the Bible passages on the incarnation of God in Christ.

Sorry.

i learned that the trinity was of pagan origin because i was fond, as a teenager of reading platonic philosophy. also in school we had two subjects, classical studies, which as the name suggests was just that, studies of Greek and Roman culture, myths, religious beliefs, history etc and also we had a class, religious education, where many different types of religious ideas were discussed, openly and candidly!

it is generally well accepted, or at least i thought it was, among those who know anything about it, that nominal Christianity has absorbed many elements from polytheistic nations, practically all the christian festivals, as Alexander Hislop details in his book, the two Babylons, are borrowed from pre christian cultures, as are many beliefs, the immortality of the soul, the trinity etc etc and there are many references, straight from ancient Greek writings where one can trace the origin of the trinity and the immortality of the 'soul' directly.

i reject the claim that i was appealing to emotions, for it is well known, by those who study the Bible, that denominations are strongly condemned, why ? for they produce divisions and strife.

for example, the passage that i quoted to you is taken from 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verses 10 to 17,

Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.  For the disclosure was made to me about you, my brothers, by those of the house of Chloe, that dissensions exist among you. What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to Apollos,” “But I to Cephas,” “But I to Christ.” The Christ exists divided. Paul was not impaled for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?  I am thankful I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,  so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.  Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. As for the rest, I do not know whether I baptized anybody else.  For Christ dispatched me, not to go baptizing, but to go declaring the good news, not with wisdom of speech, that the torture stake of the Christ should not be made useless.

therefore i have every reason to dismiss any claims of denomination, for it has been and continues to be, my experience that they are not scriptural nor conducive to understanding and foment nothing but strife and prejudice. you may disagree, but this has been my experience.

you will Jaywill, not need a pair of scissors to cut any pages from your Bible that detail that the Christ is anything but a direct creation of God, that he had a pre human existence along side of God, that all things were created for him and through him, that he took the form of a man, that he died an ignominious death so that we could have a relationship with god on the basis of his sacrifice and forgiveness of sin and the wonderful prospect of everlasting life, but you will not find any reference that he is the Almighty Father, not not one!

Originally posted by chappy1
John 8:58-59

Why do you supposed they picked up stones to stone him? Because he had claimed to be God by saying "I Am" the I Am is a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God speaks to Moses through the burning bush. Yahweh is derived from the Hebrew word for "I AM". Jesus's audience understood exactly what he meant when he said this and that's why they were ...[text shortened]... esus comes right out and says that he is who the woman declared! It couldn't be clearer.

sorry perhaps you can point out the reference where Christ states that he is Almighty God, for as much as i try, it seems to evade me at present.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry perhaps you can point out the reference where Christ states that he is Almighty God, for as much as i try, it seems to evade me at present.

I already did, if you didn't read it or perhaps you didn't understand it then I can't help you.

Originally posted by chappy1
John 8:58-59

Why do you supposed they picked up stones to stone him? Because he had claimed to be God by saying "I Am" the I Am is a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God speaks to Moses through the burning bush. Yahweh is derived from the Hebrew word for "I AM". Jesus's audience understood exactly what he meant when he said this and that's why they were ...[text shortened]... esus comes right out and says that he is who the woman declared! It couldn't be clearer.

About this text (exodus 3:13,14),

The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (Hebrew text with English translation and exposition, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz) says that in the phrase “I am that I am . . . the emphasis is on the active manifestation of the Divine existence.” Its use as a title or name for God was therefore appropriate because by delivering them from Egyptian bondage, God was about to manifest his existence in behalf of his people in an outstanding way. Hertz says that “most moderns follow Rashi [a renowned medieval French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering ‘I will be what I will be.’”

Thus by your use of an inaccurate and archaic translation of the original text, you have come to a complete misunderstanding of the text.

At John 8:58, once again the King James Version has Jesus using the expression “I am” in connection with himself, saying, “Before Abraham was, I am.” But here the expression is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or title but simply as a means of explaining his prehuman existence.

and lastly the Bible, remember that the Bible, clearly demonstrates that he could not be referring to himself as Almighty God, for it clearly states, at Philippians 2:6, 'who (Christ), although he was existing in Gods form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

therefore who am i to believe, you and the Pharisees or the bible?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i learned that the trinity was of pagan origin because i was fond, as a teenager of reading platonic philosophy. also in school we had two subjects, classical studies, which as the name suggests was just that, studies of Greek and Roman culture, myths, religious beliefs, history etc and also we had a class, religious education, where many different t lasting life, but you will not find any reference that he is the Almighty Father, not not one!

Robbie,

1.) Where in Alexander Hislop's book, The Two Babylons, is there a discussion on the pagan origin of the doctrine of the Trinity? Please refer me to the chapter and if necessary the specific pages.

2.) You refered to Paul's exhortation to the church in Corinth to avoid divisions and to be of the same mind and opinion. Fine. But where in that exhortation is there something arguing that Christians should not believe in the Trinity ?

I am not sure if you were using 1 Cor. 1:10-17 as a discouragement of having denominations (to which I fully agree) or something more.

Elaborate if there is something particularly anti- trinitarian about 1 Cor. 1:10-17.

=====================
for example, the passage that i quoted to you is taken from 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verses 10 to 17,

therefore i have every reason to dismiss any claims of denomination, for it has been and continues to be, my experience that they are not scriptural nor conducive to understanding and foment nothing but strife and prejudice. you may disagree, but this has been my experience.
===================================

I have no argument attempting to defend denominationalism or non-denominationalism.

Are you saying though that Christians holding to the belief that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are God, is the root cause of all divisions in the Body of Christ ?

You translate "cross" as "torture"? What is the name of the version of that English translation of the New Testament that you quoted me ?

I am occustomed to knowing that Jehovah's Witnesses usually refer to the "torture stake" rather than the cross. What translation of the Bible did you quote ?

=================================
you will Jaywill, not need a pair of scissors to cut any pages from your Bible that detail that the Christ is anything but a direct creation of God, that he had a pre human existence along side of God, that all things were created for him and through him, that he took the form of a man, that he died an ignominious death so that we could have a relationship with god on the basis of his sacrifice and forgiveness of sin and the wonderful prospect of everlasting life, but you will not find any reference that he is the Almighty Father, not not one!
=================================

In other words in John 1:1 there are TWO Gods in you understanding? One is God Almighty Whom the Word was "with" and the other is a CREATED God who is not God Almighty whom the Word "WAS "?

If so then how do you explain Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 8:6?

"Yet to us there is one God, the Father, out from whom are all things, and we unto Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ ..."

Does the "us" refer to Christians ?

Is Paul right to say that for the Christians there is one God? Or based on your understanding of a God Almighty and a lesser created God - the Word, there are TWO Gods for the Christians ?

Based on your interpretation of John 1:1 should the Christian church have a belief in two Gods ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Robbie,

1.) Where in Alexander Hislop's book, [b]The Two Babylons, is there a discussion on the pagan origin of the doctrine of the Trinity? Please refer me to the chapter and if necessary the specific pages.

2.) You refered to Paul's exhortation to the church in Corinth to avoid divisions and to be of the same mind and opinion. Fine. But where rpretation of John 1:1 should the Christian church have a belief in two Gods ?[/b]

there is no discussion in Mr. Hislops book with regard to the pagan origin of the trinity, nor can i check it for you, for i have given my copy to a friend, i think, for i cannot find it at present. the reference to Mr. Hislops book was not intended to show that he himself stressed the idea, but to simply state that there are many pagan elements in nominal Christianity, are you willing to deny that?

yea i was using 1 Corinthians as a basis for why i loath denominations, that was all, nothing more.

i do not deny that Christ was a divine being, no question about that, what i will continue to assert is that he is a distinct entity from the father and no part of a triune God, no part, for it is as far as i am aware, of pagan origin, and if you can refute this, then be my guest, but i warn you, there is a plethora of Greek material on the subject, a plethora.

i have on many occasions brought your attention to a much older and therefor more accurate translation of John 1:1, the sahidic coptic text, but you have sought to ignore it, for it without question, accurately depicts what Christians thought in the second century, rather than the forth, and why, because it contradicts your long cherished belief in a mystery, an inexplicable mystery, ironic considering that the will of the father is that we take in accurate knowledge of him, don't you think, John 17:3

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
About this text (exodus 3:13,14),

The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (Hebrew text with English translation and exposition, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz) says that in the phrase “I am that I am . . . the emphasis is on the active manifestation of the Divine existence.” Its use as a title or name for God was therefore appropriate because by delivering them ...[text shortened]... ould be equal to God.

therefore who am i to believe, you and the Pharisees or the bible?[/b]

Then why after he said I AM where they going to stone him to death? Because he blasphemed! He said he was God! Blasphemy is punishable by death.

Robbie Carrobie- I want to know how you can call yourself a Christian and not believe that Jesus Christ was God.

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is no discussion in Mr. Hislops book with regard to the pagan origin of the trinity, nor can i check it for you, for i have given my copy to a friend, i think, for i cannot find it at present. the reference to Mr. Hislops book was not intended to show that he himself stressed the idea, but to simply state that there are many pagan elements in ...[text shortened]... the will of the father is that we take in accurate knowledge of him, don't you think, John 17:3

===============================
there is no discussion in Mr. Hislops book with regard to the pagan origin of the trinity, nor can i check it for you, for i have given my copy to a friend, i think, for i cannot find it at present.
=================================

I don't have my copy around either. But I do not remember the Trinity being discussed in it.

======================================
the reference to Mr. Hislops book was not intended to show that he himself stressed the idea, but to simply state that there are many pagan elements in nominal Christianity, are you willing to deny that?
=====================================

No I do not deny it. I already indicated that I was aware of it.

========================================
yea i was using 1 Corinthians as a basis for why i loath denominations, that was all, nothing more.
==================================

Okay.

===============================
i do not deny that Christ was a divine being, no question about that, what i will continue to assert is that he is a distinct entity from the father and no part of a triune God, no part, for it is as far as i am aware, of pagan origin, and if you can refute this, then be my guest, but i warn you, there is a plethora of Greek material on the subject, a plethora.
==============================

Christ is distinct from the Father. But He is not separate from the Father.

That is how I would put it.

======================================
i have on many occasions brought your attention to a much older and therefor more accurate translation of John 1:1, the sahidic coptic text, but you have sought to ignore it,
=======================

I asked you about your English translation. You have not answered me yet. I will see if you answer me below.

=================================
for it without question, accurately depicts what Christians thought in the second century, rather than the forth, and why, because it contradicts your long cherished belief in a mystery, an inexplicable mystery, ironic considering that the will of the father is that we take in accurate knowledge of him, don't you think, John 17:3
==============================

You did not answer my question about your English translation, though you did address some other questions. Thanks

Is the English translation you quoted from called "The New World Translation" ?

By the way, I have two copies of the 1901 American Standard Bible published by the Watchtower Society. I really like the 1901 ASV.