Who do you believe?

[NonTrinitarian]

Who do you believe? The religious leaders who killed Jesus or the common people who praised him? I raise this question because Trinitarians always believe the religious leaders when it suits them. I mean, sure, you don’t believe them when they call Jesus a drunken, demon-possessed Samaritan. You don’t believe them when they say he expelled demons by the power of Beelzebub. You don’t trust their correct understanding of Jesus’ words when they think he meant they really had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. You don’t like Nicodemus’ understanding of being born again by crawling back into the womb. Oh no, you all despise their lack of understanding and wicked conclusions to what Jesus says. But low and behold, let them draw the conclusion that Jesus is God and you’re on the Pharisee band wagon!



Case in point. Marks account of Jesus forgiving sins. You know that one. It’s the only account you’ll refer to when you discuss the subject. You like it because it has Jesus haters concluding that he must be God because he forgave sins. Then you all run around, flapping your arms in the air yelling “Oh, the religious leaders correctly knew that only God could forgive sins.”



Never mind the parallel account in Matthew 9 where the people who “praised God” for what they saw concluded that God had given Jesus, a man, the authority to forgive sins. Never mind that later the disciples still had questions as to Jesus’ identity even though they knew he could forgive sins. Never mind that after Jesus forgave the sins he didn’t say, “Now you know I’m God because only God can forgive sins.” He said, “Now you know that the SON OF MAN has the authority to forgive sins.” Never mind that later Jesus gave his followers the authority to forgive sins. No, forget all that. Forget that the religious leaders often mis-interpreted Jesus’ words and falsely accused him of many things.



Well, you can forget about it all you want. I won’t. I don’t except their testimony for much of anything. I’ll take the people who praised God for what they saw over the religious leaders any day. You all keep reading Mark’s account of Jesus forgiving sins. It’s a good account and I have no problem with it. But for me, I’ll read Mark’s and Matthew’s and reference them both in my faith.



So who do you believe?

[One Bad Pig]

Who do you believe? The religious leaders who killed Jesus or the common people who praised him? I raise this question because Trinitarians always believe the religious leaders when it suits them. I mean, sure, you don’t believe them when they call Jesus a drunken, demon-possessed Samaritan. You don’t believe them when they say he expelled demons by the power of Beelzebub.
I don't believe trash-talk, no.


You don’t trust their correct understanding of Jesus’ words when they think he meant they really had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. You don’t like Nicodemus’ understanding of being born again by crawling back into the womb.
I believe their lack of understanding. Then again, the common people didn't understand this either.


Oh no, you all despise their lack of understanding and wicked conclusions to what Jesus says. But low and behold, let them draw the conclusion that Jesus is God and you’re on the Pharisee band wagon!
IOW, the Pharisees were ALWAYS wrong? :no:


Case in point. Marks account of Jesus forgiving sins. You know that one. It’s the only account you’ll refer to when you discuss the subject.
Wrong. I'd reference all three (including the account in Luke 5 that you omitted).


You like it because it has Jesus haters concluding that he must be God because he forgave sins. Then you all run around, flapping your arms in the air yelling “Oh, the religious leaders correctly knew that only God could forgive sins.”
All three accounts are equivalent in that respect. You'll also note that Jesus never says they are wrong about what they're saying; instead, he affirms that he has the power to forgive sins.


Never mind the parallel account in Matthew 9 where the people who “praised God” for what they saw concluded that God had given Jesus, a man, the authority to forgive sins. Never mind that later the disciples still had questions as to Jesus’ identity even though they knew he could forgive sins.
Never mind your assumption that the common people are always right because it happens to fit your interpretation here. Who do you think educated the common people? The Pharisees! Who had a vastly larger knowledge of the scriptures?


Never mind that after Jesus forgave the sins he didn’t say, “Now you know I’m God because only God can forgive sins.” He said, “Now you know that the SON OF MAN has the authority to forgive sins.”
:ahem: Nice display of cultural ignorance there.


Never mind that later Jesus gave his followers the authority to forgive sins. No, forget all that.
No, he gave them the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins.


Forget that the religious leaders often mis-interpreted Jesus’ words and falsely accused him of many things.
On the contrary, the religious leaders often understood him just fine; they just didn't like what he was saying.


Well, you can forget about it all you want. I won’t. I don’t except their testimony for much of anything. I’ll take the people who praised God for what they saw over the religious leaders any day. You all keep reading Mark’s account of Jesus forgiving sins. It’s a good account and I have no problem with it. But for me, I’ll read Mark’s and Matthew’s and reference them both in my faith.So who do you believe?
I'm not going to look at these passages in isolation. However, IMO both the Pharisees and the common people were correct in this case.

[serapha]

Well, you can forget about it all you want. I won’t. I don’t except their testimony for much of anything. I’ll take the people who praised God for what they saw over the religious leaders any day. You all keep reading Mark’s account of Jesus forgiving sins. It’s a good account and I have no problem with it. But for me, I’ll read Mark’s and Matthew’s and reference them both in my faith.



So who do you believe?


Hi there!

:hi:


great... what a joy! I love this passage. Let's talk about the Matthew account.




1 And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
7 And he arose, and departed to his house.
8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.


Now, let's just take a look at the who, what, when, where, and how of it all.


The location is in first-century Capernaum, a more particular location is identified as Peter's house in Capernaum which has been completely excavated and identified. The house itself was an insulae construction with two courtyards, each surrounded by numerous rooms, with no evidences of any of the wall structure strong enough to have supported a second story, thus, the house was a one-level structure, the courtyards would have been shaded by using limbs/leave to make a temporary roof.

The population of first-century Capernaum is estimated to be less than 1,000 people and with a centurian present, it should be noted that a centurion governed over 100 soldiers, so 1/10 of the population would be known to be Roman soldiers. This is also evidenced by the recovery of the Roman bath and what is beleived to be large structure that would have housed the garrision in Capernaum.

Now... considering the size of the house, the capacity would/could be projected to hold possibly 50 people. Capernaum was actually considered a "village" because it was small, and in all probability, Jesus probably had seen this man before this day. But on this day, the man is brought to Jesus by his friends to be healed, so there is faith being exhibited already.

So.. we know who, we know what, we know when, we know where, and now how.


Jesus seeing their faith

said unto the sick of the palsy;

Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Let's note here that the verb tense of "be forgiven" indicates a one-time action having already been completed in the past, and not needing to be done again. And the passive voice tells us that the recepient of the actions is the subject of the sentence. Seeing the men's faith, the sick man was already forgiven of his sins before Jesus spoke the words. That's one thing the Greek text tells us.

And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.



And Jesus knowing their thoughts (Omniscience, another attribute of deity) said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,

Thus, as an evidence to the Jews, the incarnation of God (Son of man) says...

(then saith he to the sick of the palsy,)

Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.


And he arose, and departed to his house.

But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.



And I quote you...



I’ll take the people who praised God for what they saw over the religious leaders any day.

Let's be certain we understand here that the multitudes are not necessarily within the house of Peter as believers of the incarantion of God, but could be anyone who observed the healed man walking through the village of Capernaum. The text tells us that the multitudes marveled but it doesn't tell us that the multitudes knew that Jesus was the incarnation of God. The multitudes were yet to know that Jesus was the incarnation of God. They thought it marvelous that God had given such power to a mere mortal.

But elsewhere in the gospels when the "multitudes" came to know of the resurrected Christ... they knew he was no mere mortal.

So... now that you are enlighted on that passage, can you accept that Jesus, with omniscience and omnipotence... was deity?


~serapha~

[NonTrinitarian]

1 And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
7 And he arose, and departed to his house.
8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.


Now, let's just take a look at the who, what, when, where, and how of it all.


The location is in first-century Capernaum, a more particular location is identified as Peter's house in Capernaum which has been completely excavated and identified. The house itself was an insulae construction with two courtyards, each surrounded by numerous rooms, with no evidences of any of the wall structure strong enough to have supported a second story, thus, the house was a one-level structure, the courtyards would have been shaded by using limbs/leave to make a temporary roof.

The population of first-century Capernaum is estimated to be less than 1,000 people and with a centurian present, it should be noted that a centurion governed over 100 soldiers, so 1/10 of the population would be known to be Roman soldiers. This is also evidenced by the recovery of the Roman bath and what is beleived to be large structure that would have housed the garrision in Capernaum.

Now... considering the size of the house, the capacity would/could be projected to hold possibly 50 people. Capernaum was actually considered a "village" because it was small, and in all probability, Jesus probably had seen this man before this day. But on this day, the man is brought to Jesus by his friends to be healed, so there is faith being exhibited already.

So.. we know who, we know what, we know when, we know where, and now how.


Jesus seeing their faith

said unto the sick of the palsy;

Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Let's note here that the verb tense of "be forgiven" indicates a one-time action having already been completed in the past, and not needing to be done again. And the passive voice tells us that the recepient of the actions is the subject of the sentence. Seeing the men's faith, the sick man was already forgiven of his sins before Jesus spoke the words. That's one thing the Greek text tells us.

And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.



And Jesus knowing their thoughts (Omniscience, another attribute of deity) said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,

Thus, as an evidence to the Jews, the incarnation of God (Son of man) says...

(then saith he to the sick of the palsy,)

Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.


And he arose, and departed to his house.

But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.



And I quote you...




Let's be certain we understand here that the multitudes are not necessarily within the house of Peter as believers of the incarantion of God, but could be anyone who observed the healed man walking through the village of Capernaum. The text tells us that the multitudes marveled but it doesn't tell us that the multitudes knew that Jesus was the incarnation of God. The multitudes were yet to know that Jesus was the incarnation of God. They thought it marvelous that God had given such power to a mere mortal.

But elsewhere in the gospels when the "multitudes" came to know of the resurrected Christ... they knew he was no mere mortal.

So... now that you are enlighted on that passage, can you accept that Jesus, with omniscience and omnipotence... was deity?


~serapha~
How can someone write so much and not say squat? You give us your imagined scenario about house size, who was there, yada yada yada. And took great liberties in doing so. You make it sound as if Jesus was in the house and no more than 50 people could have witnessed this. Tell us, oh wise one, how you came to that conclusion? The verses say they brought the man to Jesus. Then Jesus tells the man to go to his house. The man picks up his cot and goes to his house. You have quite an imagination, appartently out of desperation to hold your belief. Then all you did was repeat the account, inserting your comments between verses like this where the bolded part is not in the verse (probably hoped I would think it was)



But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,

Thus, as an evidence to the Jews, the incarnation of God (Son of man) says...

(then saith he to the sick of the palsy,)

Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.


And he arose, and departed to his house.

But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

Now I think you don't reallize the point I was making. Trinitarians say Jesus' forgiving sins made them think he was God. This account, to your own admission, affirms that. These people did not know he was the incarnation of God. (How could they have, quite frankly?) And they didn't draw that conclusion after he pronounced the forgiveness of sins. (Neither did his disciples) Thanks for supporting my argument. Feel free to continue to help me get the message across if you want.

BTW, if God gve Jesus the power to heal and forgive sins, then he also could have gave him the power to read hearts. I mean, he gave it to Peter so that Peter know what Ananias and his wife had done with their money. Peter, knowing what they had done (somehow? Maybe he is deity too, accoriding to your logic) and then killed them with power from God.

[JAY-PC]

How can someone write so much and not say squat? You give us your imagined scenario about house size, who was there, yada yada yada. And took great liberties in doing so. You make it sound as if Jesus was in the house and no more than 50 people could have witnessed this. Tell us, oh wise one, how you came to that conclusion? The verses say they brought the man to Jesus. Then Jesus tells the man to go to his house. The man picks up his cot and goes to his house. You have quite an imagination, appartently out of desperation to hold your belief. Then all you did was repeat the account, inserting your comments between verses like this where the bolded part is not in the verse (probably hoped I would think it was)



Now I think you don't reallize the point I was making. Trinitarians say Jesus' forgiving sins made them think he was God. This account, to your own admission, affirms that. These people did not know he was the incarnation of God. (How could they have, quite frankly?) And they didn't draw that conclusion after he pronounced the forgiveness of sins. (Neither did his disciples) Thanks for supporting my argument. Feel free to continue to help me get the message across if you want.

BTW, if God gve Jesus the power to heal and forgive sins, then he also could have gave him the power to read hearts. I mean, he gave it to Peter so that Peter know what Ananias and his wife had done with their money. Peter, knowing what they had done (somehow? Maybe he is deity too, accoriding to your logic) and then killed them with power from God.





Your problem is that you want to take one argument (Jesus forgiving sins and only God can forgive sins) and then try and show how this argument doesn’t stand (I think you are wrong but..).

The facts are that there are many reasons why people believe in the Trinity and this (Forgiving sins) is one of many.

Why not take the whole Bible and think about who Jesus is.

He is God, Savior, Redeemer, Son of Man, Son of God, The image of God, The glory of his being, Jesus has the very essence and nature of God, Is the creator, the Sustainer, The reason the creation is here, He is before all things, holds all things together, The Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End, the First and the Last.

Wrap all that up in the statement by God in Isaiah that there is no other gods, he alone created the heavens and the earth, He knows of no other god formed before him and there will be no god formed after him.

And just in case you want to pull out that old tired misinterpreted scripture were God says to Moses he will be likened unto god. Just remember that he was not God by nature yet Jesus is.


So will you not repent and come to Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Trinity).

[NonTrinitarian]

Your problem is that you want to take one argument (Jesus forgiving sins and only God can forgive sins) and then try and show how this argument doesn’t stand (I think you are wrong but..).

The facts are that there are many reasons why people believe in the Trinity and this (Forgiving sins) is one of many.

Why not take the whole Bible and think about who Jesus is.

The whole Bible? Hey, I never thought of that! Seriously though, you can't discuss the "whole Bible" in one thread. What you do is pick each part of the argument, prove it is invalid and move on to the next one. Either forgiving sins did make people think he is God, (which I demonstrated that those there who saw it did not draw that conclusion, including his apostles since later they wondered how he could control the weather) or it did not. Once we demonstrate it did not, we toss it out.


He is God, Savior, Redeemer, Son of Man, Son of God, The image of God, The glory of his being, Jesus has the very essence and nature of God, Is the creator, the Sustainer, The reason the creation is here, He is before all things, holds all things together, The Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End, the First and the Last.

Wrap all that up in the statement by God in Isaiah that there is no other gods, he alone created the heavens and the earth, He knows of no other god formed before him and there will be no god formed after him.

Can't discuss all of these in one thread.


And just in case you want to pull out that old tired misinterpreted scripture were God says to Moses he will be likened unto god. Just remember that he was not God by nature yet Jesus is.
Jumped to your conclusion while bypassing the evidence. The point that Moses and others were also called gods by God is merely to demonstrate that if they can be called god, then so can Jesus. The leap you took was jumping to the conclusion that Jesus is God by nature. That's kinda what we're discussing. You can't use your conclusion as an argument. (Circular reasoning)

By taking each part of Jesus' life and evaluating it, we can see if he was God. Forgiving of sins is just one of those arguments wherein Trinitarians today say proves he is God while apparently people in his day, including his apostles, did not draw the same conclusion. So that one gets marked off the chart as points that prove Jesus is God.



So will you not repent and come to Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Trinity).

Take off the "(Trinity)" part and I've done all of that.

[Meh_Gerbil]

NonTrinitarian:

People in authority aren't always corrupt and they don't always lie.
Claiming that the act of believing one group of leaders while not believing another group of leaders is inconsistent is a silly claim.

Since all leaders lie I have to wonder how you feel about the leaders of the JWs.

Please do not double-post to the same person in a thread.

[Arnold]

Either forgiving sins did make people think he is God, (which I demonstrated that those there who saw it did not draw that conclusion, including his apostles since later they wondered how he could control the weather) or it did not. Once we demonstrate it did not, we toss it out.By this reasoning we can assume Christ did not rise from the dead either. After all, Christ told His disciples over and over that He would rise from the dead, but they never believed Him...

[NonTrinitarian]

NonTrinitarian:

People in authority aren't always corrupt and they don't always lie.
Claiming that the act of believing one group of leaders while not believing another group of leaders is inconsistent is a silly claim.

Why don't you quote the part where I said they always did? My point is that you throw your hands in the air and praise the thoughts of the Pharisees when it suits your purpose but then condemn their opinions at other times. And I didn't say they were always wrong either, show me where I did.

The verses in question, Matthew 9, shows the people who praised God didn't draw the conclusion that Jesus was God by his forgiving sins. Neither did his apostles because later they still wondered how Jesus could control the weather. But you all throw that evidence aside and say "Ah no, we believe the Pharisees were right, to heck with the fact that both the ordinary people who saw it and the apostles didn't feel the same way."

Same with John 5:18. You all want to say the Pharisees are correct in that Jesus was making himself God but don't want to agree with the Pharisees when they say he broke the sabbath. You pick and choose your points never factoring in the possibility that they were wrong.

BTW, you can't post back to back posts

[NonTrinitarian]

"By this reasoning we can assume Christ did not rise from the dead either. After all, Christ told His disciples over and over that He would rise from the dead, but they never believed Him..."

Arnold's argument is completely different from mine. The difference is that in his suppossed parallel account, the apostles did believe after they saw the resurrected Jesus. In the account on forgiving sins, they didn't believe he was God even after the event because they later wondered how he controlled the weather. The only way Arnold's example and mine would be parallels was if the discples said "Only God can forgive sins and Jesus isn't God", then saw Jesus forgive the man's sins and heal him, then said, "Wow! You are Almight God!" and fell down and worshipped him. But they didnt' do that. After the event they still didn't think he was God.

The only other way that Arnold's account would be a parallel of mine was if after the disciples saw the resurrected Jesus they still doubted he was resurrected. See the difference Arnold? You're arguing about what they thought before the event, not after. I'm arguing that they thought the same way both before and after the event. At that point in time, no one including the apostles thought Jesus was God.

[Arnold]

Arnold's argument is completely different from mine. The difference is that in his suppossed parallel account, the apostles did believe after they saw the resurrected Jesus. In the account on forgiving sins, they didn't believe he was God even after the event because they later wondered how he controlled the weather. The only way Arnold's example and mine would be parallels was if the discples said "Only God can forgive sins and Jesus isn't God", then saw Jesus forgive the man's sins and heal him, then said, "Wow! You are Almight God!" and fell down and worshipped him. But they didnt' do that. After the event they still didn't think he was God.

The only other way that Arnold's account would be a parallel of mine was if after the disciples saw the resurrected Jesus they still doubted he was resurrected. See the difference Arnold? You're arguing about what they thought before the event, not after. I'm arguing that they thought the same way both before and after the event. At that point in time, no one including the apostles thought Jesus was God.Nice dodge by inserting all of that peripheral stuff. The comparison is between what was witnessed and what was concluded. There is no need to go further - and you didn't in the first post of yours that I quoted.

Your reasoning:

1) Disciples witnessed Christ forgive sins

2) Disciples did not believe Christ was God

3) Therefore Christ is not God

Your reasoning again:

1) Disciples witnessed Christ tell them he would rise from the dead

2) Disciples did not believe Christ would rise from the dead

3) Therefore Christ did not rise from the dead

You have been hoisted by your own petard...

[NonTrinitarian]

Nice dodge by inserting all of that peripheral stuff. The comparison is between what was witnessed and what was concluded. There is no need to go further - and you didn't in the first post of yours that I quoted.

Your reasoning:

1) Disciples witnessed Christ forgive sins

2) Disciples did not believe Christ was God

3) Therefore Christ is not God

Your reasoning again:

1) Disciples witnessed Christ tell them he would rise from the dead

2) Disciples did not believe Christ would rise from the dead

3) Therefore Christ did not rise from the dead

You have been hoisted by your own petard...

Are all Trinitarians this stupid? Let me correct you on your little bullet presentation.

1) Disciples witnessed Christ claim to have the authority to forgive sins

2) Disciples did not believe Christ was God

3.) Disciples witnessed Christ miracle as proof that he had the authority to forgive sins.

4.) Disciples still did not believe Christ is God

5.) Therefore witnessing the forgiving of sins did not tell them Christ is God

Resurrection:

1) Disciples witnessed Christ claim that he would rise from the dead

2) Disciples did not believe Christ would rise from the dead

3.) Disciples witnessed the miracle of Christ's resurrection

4.) Disciples believe Christ was resurrected

5.) Therefore witnessing the resurrection of Christ told them Christ was raised

BTW, it's the "peripheral stuff" that brings out the correct conclusion. A 10 year old can see the difference between your attempted parallel to the forgiving of sins. One group didn't believe either before nor after the event. The other group didn't believe before but did after. I can try to simplify that for you if I need to. Now go stick your head back in the sand, you're embarrassing yourself and don't realize it.

[Arnold]

Are all Trinitarians this stupid? Let me correct you on your little bullet presentation.

1) Disciples witnessed Christ claim to have the authority to forgive sins

2) Disciples did not believe Christ was God

3.) Disciples witnessed Christ miracle as proof that he had the authority to forgive sins.

4.) Disciples still did not believe Christ is God

5.) Therefore witnessing the forgiving of sins did not tell them Christ is God

Resurrection:

1) Disciples witnessed Christ claim that he would rise from the dead

2) Disciples did not believe Christ would rise from the dead

3.) Disciples witnessed the miracle of Christ's resurrection

4.) Disciples believe Christ was resurrected

5.) Therefore witnessing the resurrection of Christ told them Christ was raised

BTW, it's the "peripheral stuff" that brings out the correct conclusion. A 10 year old can see the difference between your attempted parallel to the forgiving of sins. One group didn't believe either before nor after the event. The other group didn't believe before but did after. I can try to simplify that for you if I need to. Now go stick your head back in the sand, you're embarrassing yourself and don't realize it.Thanks for the personal attack... :ahem:

How's it feel up there on your own petard? Must be pretty confusing for you - you can't keep straight your own comparison, so you add stuff to muddy the waters.

Nice try though...

[NonTrinitarian]

Must be pretty confusing for you - you can't keep straight your own comparison, so you add stuff to muddy the waters.

Nice try though...

And a powerful debater you are. Remember, that was your comparison, not mine. Nothing muddied the waters other than you not wanting to compare apples to apples. It's not my fault you picked a bad example.

The forgiving of sins
Claim
denial
witness claim
still non-belief

Resurrection
Claim
denial
witness claim
belief

That's a good comparison structure. Now here what you proposed

The forgiving of sins
Claim
denial
witness claim
still non-belief

Resurrection
Claim
denial

But I understand your being upset about it. It is a little embarrassing to get called out like that. It happens to all of us.

[Arnold]

And a powerful debater you are.Hey! I am not debating with you. Everything I have said is compatable with your reasoning.

Your reasoning concludes that Christ isn't God.

Your reasoning concludes that Christ wasn't resurrected.

Whatever you say boss...

[NonTrinitarian]

Hey! I am not debating with you. Everything I have said is compatable with your reasoning.

Your reasoning concludes that Christ isn't God.

Your reasoning concludes that Christ wasn't resurrected.

Whatever you say boss...

It's kinda fun pulling your chain. My reasoning is posted above for all to see. So is your faulty comparison/reasoning. We'll leave it at that. I'm sure others will get a kick out of it.

[Arnold]

It's kinda fun pulling your chain. My reasoning is posted above for all to see. So is your faulty comparison/reasoning. We'll leave it at that. I'm sure others will get a kick out of it.Christ isn't God.

Christ wasn't resurrected.

Gotcha... :thumb:

[NonTrinitarian]

Christ isn't God.

Christ wasn't resurrected.

Gotcha... :thumb:

If you say so. I say...
Christ isn't God

Christ was resurrected

It will be Christ that gets ya

[Arnold]

If you say so. I say...
Christ isn't God

Christ was resurrected

It will be Christ that gets yaMaybe you could teach me the secret handshake next... :whistle:

[NonTrinitarian]

Maybe you could teach me the secret handshake next... :whistle:

It requires logical thought to do the secret handshake. You're not qualified.

[Arnold]

It requires logical thought to do the secret handshake. You're not qualified.Wall, I dun lerned ma reasonin' from duh best - you, pardner.

I'se even got duh passworrds mezmorized:

"No divinity - No resurrection"

[serapha]

The whole Bible? Hey, I never thought of that! Seriously though, you can't discuss the "whole Bible" in one thread. What you do is pick each part of the argument, prove it is invalid and move on to the next one.



Hi there!


I believe that is what you did .... take one part of the argument and try to prove it is invalid... when in fact...



I said...

Let's be certain we understand here that the multitudes are not necessarily within the house of Peter as believers of the incarantion of God, but could be anyone who observed the healed man walking through the village of Capernaum. The text tells us that the multitudes marveled but it doesn't tell us that the multitudes knew that Jesus was the incarnation of God. The multitudes were yet to know that Jesus was the incarnation of God. They thought it marvelous that God had given such power to a mere mortal.

But elsewhere in the gospels when the "multitudes" came to know of the resurrected Christ... they knew he was no mere mortal.


You have made an assumption on the multitude that simple doesn't exist.


~serapha~

[Topherlee]

Wall, I dun lerned ma reasonin' from duh best - you, pardner.

I'se even got duh passworrds mezmorized:

"No divinity - No resurrection"


Quick insert if I can.
If you believe Christ to be the one God and Christ was resurrected. How is it that we, being mere humans, can be assured that we will be resurrected?
What, as humans, have we learned?

[Arnold]

Quick insert if I can.
If you believe Christ to be the one God and Christ was resurrected. How is it that we, being mere humans, can be assured that we will be resurrected?
What, as humans, have we learned?Sorry, I didn't come here to have a discussion on assurance. Start a thread - I'm sure you'll get some responses.

[Sparko]

I think you are all missing the trees for the forest.

Nontrin, who but God has the authority to forgive sins that are not against themselves?

You can forgive a sin against you by another. (not the eternal consequences though). But only God can forgive the sins of anyone.

The reason they thought Jesus was claiming to be God was because he did claim to forgive sins that were not against himself. He forgave completely like God would.

Either he was God or he wasn't. The Jews clearly thought he was claimng to be since only God could forgive sins.

We know that Jesus actually DID forgive sins.

So it was not just a claim, it was a fact.

therefore

1. if only God can forgive sins

2. and Jesus forgave sins (not just claimed but actually did)

3. then Jesus must be God.

the rest of your OP is just smoke and mirrors.

[Topherlee]

Quick insert if I can.
If you believe Christ to be the one God and Christ was resurrected. How is it that we, being mere humans, can be assured that we will be resurrected?
What, as humans, have we learned?

Then what is it that you're talking about?

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrin, who but God has the authority to forgive sins that are not against themselves?
Whomever God wishes to grant that authority to. Who but God can heal? Who but God can walk on water? Who but God can raise the dead? You have taken it upon yourself, (rather presumptious I would say) to decide what authority God can grant another. Unless God gave you that right.



1. if only God can forgive sins

2. and Jesus forgave sins (not just claimed but actually did)

3. then Jesus must be God.

the rest of your OP is just smoke and mirrors.

The incorrect premise is #1 because is doesn't take into accoun that God can grant people that authority. Matthew 9:8 says that's exactly the conclusion the people who witnessed it drew, including his apostles. If the apostles thought Jesus was God because he forgave that man's sins, why did they wonder how he could control the weather later on? Why int he world didn't they fall down in worship him then and there? The biggest argument in my mind against Jesus being God is the way his followers acted around him throughout his whole ministry. Apparently they didn't agree with your points #1 nor #3.

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi there!
Let's be certain we understand here that the multitudes are not necessarily within the house of Peter as believers of the incarantion of God, but could be anyone who observed the healed man walking through the village of Capernaum. The text tells us that the multitudes marveled but it doesn't tell us that the multitudes knew that Jesus was the incarnation of God.
Uh, that's my point serapha. I thought you were trying to refute me but I see now you are not. My whole argument is that people (including his apostles) did not think Jesus was God because he forgave sins.



The multitudes were yet to know that Jesus was the incarnation of God. They thought it marvelous that God had given such power to a mere mortal.
Thanks, will you pass that information onto Sparko?


But elsewhere in the gospels when the "multitudes" came to know of the resurrected Christ... they knew he was no mere mortal.
The resurrected Jesus was no mere mortal. But for that matter, neither or the angels. Neither are Christians who are granted immortality.

[Arnold]

Then what is it that you're talking about?I just popped in to illustrate how NonResurrectarian had tripped over his own sand castle.

[NonTrinitarian]

I just popped in to illustrate how NonResurrectarian had tripped over his own sand castle.

Yeah, that Arnold is a powerful teacher. Did you all see his argument? I'll repeat it for you so you have something to strive for as you go through logic school.

According to this brilliant theologian, if I say Jesus is not God because they didn't believe he was God after they saw him forgive sins, then by Arnold's theory, I shouldn't believe that Jesus was resurrected because the disciples didn't believe he would be resurrected when he told them he was. Of course, Arnold wants to stop right there, he wants to wave his hands to and fro and make you forget that the difference between the two accounts is that the disciples didn't believe he was God AFTER he forgave the sins. Is that what happened with the resurrection? No. Once they saw Jesus, they then believed.

By Arnold's logic, if I'm going to use the argument that Jesus isn't God because the people who witnessed him forgive sins didn't draw that conclusion, then I also shouldn't believe Jesus was resurrected because people who had not yet witnessed it didn't think he would be.

Trinitarians, is this guy really who you want defending your beliefs at TWeb? Don't you already have enough embarrassment with the doctrine without having this guy drum up arguments like this?

Hey Topherlee, what do you think of Arnold's brilliant argument? Sparko, can you throw in your two cents on it (and do so honestly?) Crusader, what do you think of Arnold's argument? I mean, I've discussed this with both of you before and neither one of you ever came up with it. Is it because Arnold is just smarter than you or is it because you two are smarter than Arnold. (As much as it pains me to say the following), I conclude you two are a few steps higher up on the common sense board. (Blah, must wash out mouth) Don't take that as a compliment!:lol:

[Arnold]

(Blah, must wash out mouth)I guess NonResurrectarian got sand in his mouth when he tripped over his own sand castle...

[Sparko]

Whomever God wishes to grant that authority to. Who but God can heal? Who but God can walk on water? Who but God can raise the dead? You have taken it upon yourself, (rather presumptious I would say) to decide what authority God can grant another. Unless God gave you that right.



The incorrect premise is #1 because is doesn't take into accoun that God can grant people that authority. Matthew 9:8 says that's exactly the conclusion the people who witnessed it drew, including his apostles. If the apostles thought Jesus was God because he forgave that man's sins, why did they wonder how he could control the weather later on? Why int he world didn't they fall down in worship him then and there? The biggest argument in my mind against Jesus being God is the way his followers acted around him throughout his whole ministry. Apparently they didn't agree with your points #1 nor #3.

obviously you dont agree nontrinitarian, or you would be 'trinitarian'

Can you demonstrate how a third party can forgive sins against God?

Or even how such a third party can PAY for our sins in our stead? How could God punish a third party for sins we commit against Him? How would that be justice?

If a judge picked a volunteer out of the crowd to execute instead of a serial killer, and let the serial killer go free, would that be justice?

[Sparko]

Yeah, that Arnold is a powerful teacher. Did you all see his argument? I'll repeat it for you so you have something to strive for as you go through logic school.

According to this brilliant theologian, if I say Jesus is not God because they didn't believe he was God after they saw him forgive sins, then by Arnold's theory, I shouldn't believe that Jesus was resurrected because the disciples didn't believe he would be resurrected when he told them he was. Of course, Arnold wants to stop right there, he wants to wave his hands to and fro and make you forget that the difference between the two accounts is that the disciples didn't believe he was God AFTER he forgave the sins. Is that what happened with the resurrection? No. Once they saw Jesus, they then believed.

By Arnold's logic, if I'm going to use the argument that Jesus isn't God because the people who witnessed him forgive sins didn't draw that conclusion, then I also shouldn't believe Jesus was resurrected because people who had not yet witnessed it didn't think he would be.

Trinitarians, is this guy really who you want defending your beliefs at TWeb? Don't you already have enough embarrassment with the doctrine without having this guy drum up arguments like this?

Hey Topherlee, what do you think of Arnold's brilliant argument? Sparko, can you throw in your two cents on it (and do so honestly?) Crusader, what do you think of Arnold's argument? I mean, I've discussed this with both of you before and neither one of you ever came up with it. Is it because Arnold is just smarter than you or is it because you two are smarter than Arnold. (As much as it pains me to say the following), I conclude you two are a few steps higher up on the common sense board. (Blah, must wash out mouth) Don't take that as a compliment!:lol:

I guess you don't recognize irony when you see it nontrin. If you think Arnold's argument sucks, then you are right. He was parodying your OWN argument, you ninny.

[Krusader]

I guess you don't recognize irony when you see it nontrin. If you think Arnold's argument sucks, then you are right. He was parodying your OWN argument, you ninny.

I guess the anointed remnant are right - they are the smartest in the organization.

[NonTrinitarian]

I guess you don't recognize irony when you see it nontrin. If you think Arnold's argument sucks, then you are right. He was parodying your OWN argument, you ninny.

I knew you wouldn't answer honestly Sparko, which is why I called it into question in the first place. Go ahead and give me another moderator warning. I could care less.

You're right that Arnold's argument sucks. But you're too stupid to see it's not my argument.

Aronald's argument that I am supposedly making is this:

Forgiveness of Sins account:
Claim: Jesus can forgive sins
Disciples say: Only God can forgive sins and you're not God
Witness: Jesus demonstrates he can forgive sins
Result: Disciples now believe Jesus can forgive sins but don't think he is God

Resurrection account:
Claim: Jesus will be resurrected
Disciples: No you won't
Result (according to what Arnold says I should make): Jesus wasn't resurected because disciples said he wouldn't be

Summary: Arnold let's the forgiveness go through the complete process (claim, denial, witness, result) but the resurrection account he doesn't allow go through the complete process and says I "muddy the waters" when I allow the 2nd acount go through the process even though I let the first account go through the process. Why do Arnold and you want to compare apples to oranges?

My account as I say it (regardless of your idiotic insistance that Arnold is arguing for mine perspective) is this:

Forgiveness of Sins account:
Claim: Jesus can forgive sins
Disciples say: Only God can forgive sins and you're not God
Witness: Jesus demonstrates he can forgive sins
Result: Disciples now believe Jesus can forgive sins but don't think he is God

Resurrection account:
Claim: Jesus will be resurrected
Disciples: No you won't
Witness: They see the resurrected Jesus
Result: They admit they were wrong

The part that is missing from the forgiveness account that does appear in the resurrection account is that the disciples admit they were wrong in the resurrection account. What we don't see in the forgiveness account is them falling down at Jesus' feet and worshipping him as God because he could forgive sins. The Mods around here better hurry up and put me on suspension because I'm making you all look bad to the many visitors that are reading these threads.

As a former Trinitarian, I would be embarrassed to have you out here trying to defend the doctrine.

[NonTrinitarian]

I guess the anointed remnant are right - they are the smartest in the organization.

Once again Crusader has nothing intelligent to say. But hey, I don't mind making you look stupid in front of the many visitors that come here. It's kind of a hobby of mine.

[Sparko]

Nontrin, you suffer from the worst case of the Dunning Effect (http://maxedoutmama.blogspot.com/2005/05/dunning-effect.html) I have ever seen.

:lmbo:

[Jeckle&Hyde]

I don't know if I can use healings/miracles as an example of proving Diety since others were given the same power under the old/passing administration. The examples of forgiving sins is not a run away example for me either, but perhaps there might be something in that? I think Jesus would have done something very unique to try and prove his Diety, unless he wanted to purposely cloud it...for a time?

Just thinking out loud. :huh:

Anways...time for a beer. :cheers:

[Topherlee]

Once again Crusader has nothing intelligent to say. But hey, I don't mind making you look stupid in front of the many visitors that come here. It's kind of a hobby of mine.

Jesus can forgive sins because he has been given this authority. This is not a hard question to answer.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Who gave Jesus this authority? His God our Father Jehovah (John 20:17)

[Jeckle&Hyde]

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Who gave Jesus this authority? His God our Father Jehovah (John 20:17

And this has to do with a part of my post....

When Jesus said..."ALL POWER"..does this mean then that G-d no longer had any power or authority?

There is a cloud there in the wording?

[Topherlee]

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Who gave Jesus this authority? His God our Father Jehovah (John 20:17

And this has to do with a part of my post....

When Jesus said..."ALL POWER"..does this mean then that G-d no longer had any power or authority?

There is a cloud there in the wording?

I see what you mean. But to give a person power doesn't mean the one who gives loses it. I know there is scripture out there that says Jesus will give this authority back to the one who gave it. I just cannot remember that verse right now.
But the keyword I wanted to express is that Jesus was given this authority. If Jesus were indeed the Almighty, would he not have already obtained authority?

[NonTrinitarian]

I see what you mean. But to give a person power doesn't mean the one who gives loses it. I know there is scripture out there that says Jesus will give this authority back to the one who gave it. I just cannot remember that verse right now.
But the keyword I wanted to express is that Jesus was given this authority. If Jesus were indeed the Almighty, would he not have already obtained authority?

"For God subjected all things under his feet. But when he says 'all things have been subjected', it is evident that it is with the exception of the One who subjected all things to him."- 1 Cor 15:27

Even though all authority has been given to Jesus, there is still someone not subject to Jesus. That is obviously the One who gave Jesus his authority in the first place.

[God_is_personal]

Hi, everyone...thank you for having me here. This is my first post.
...There are ones who believe that because Jesus forgave sins and only God can forgive sins, that this proves Jesus is God.
...Well...we have Ephesians 4:32..."And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." So, God wants us "even as God" to forgive "one another". In order to forgive like God, it will take God Himself through us having us be forgiving like He is...sharing this with us. So, before we get into just arguing about if Jesus forgiving proves He is God...we do need to make sure we ourselves are doing the loving God wants, by forgiving people in the same loving way that God forgives us. So, THANK You, God our Father.
...Obviously, if our being able to forgive like God does not prove that WE are God...oh-oh, about that argument.
...But...what about how ones worshiped Jesus, and Jesus Himself did not obviously object?
...And I have some fun with how God made man in God's image. And then, in Genesis 1:27 it says, "male and female He made them." Mm-hmmm...so this makes man in God's image TWO persons...the male and female. And children make three basic persons...father, child, mother...in the image of how God is Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. God is the Supreme Being of Family caring and sharing love. He is personal, with three sharing and caring Persons of this one love. And man the image of God is a family being made up of three basic persons.
...The human child is man like the father is; the divine Son is God like His Father. And notice how these are LOVE-Persons...Father and Son; and the Holy Spirit is clearly a love Person---"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5) Only God can be the Spirit of His very own love in us; so the Holy Spirit is God...personally sharing His very own love with us, in our hearts.
...God bless you, too.

[Sparko]

Bill the difference between us forgiving those who sin against us and what Jesus did wsa that he forgave sins that people committed against others, not himself.

If I walked up to you and said "Bill, I forgive you for speaking angrily to your wife last week" you would think I was nuts.

[NonTrinitarian]

Bill the difference between us forgiving those who sin against us and what Jesus did wsa that he forgave sins that people committed against others, not himself.

If I walked up to you and said "Bill, I forgive you for speaking angrily to your wife last week" you would think I was nuts.

Hi Bill,
Welcome to TWeb. Some of us think Sparko is nuts anyway so join the crowd!

[One Bad Pig]

"For God subjected all things under his feet. But when he says 'all things have been subjected', it is evident that it is with the exception of the One who subjected all things to him."- 1 Cor 15:27

Even though all authority has been given to Jesus, there is still someone not subject to Jesus. That is obviously the One who gave Jesus his authority in the first place.
Yes, Jesus is functionally subordinate to the Father. Most, if not all, Trinitarians have no problem with this.

[NonTrinitarian]

Yes, Jesus is functionally subordinate to the Father. Most, if not all, Trinitarians have no problem with this.

My question is "why"? Why does the Son need to subject himself to the Father? Did they draw straws? Is the "Father" the father because Jesus decided to take the role of the "Son". Could the person who is now called the "Father" have been the one called the "Son" and vice versa? What is it that makes the "Father" the father and the "Son" the son?

[One Bad Pig]

My question is "why"? Why does the Son need to subject himself to the Father? Did they draw straws? Is the "Father" the father because Jesus decided to take the role of the "Son". Could the person who is now called the "Father" have been the one called the "Son" and vice versa? What is it that makes the "Father" the father and the "Son" the son?
Their functions. The Father is the seat of the divine Will (like our brain, for example). The Son and Holy Spirit carry out the Will of the Father (like our mouth/hands/feet). The Son is the divine Incarnation, in whom dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily. The Spirit resides in all believers, guiding them in their daily life.

[God_is_personal]

Bill the difference between us forgiving those who sin against us and what Jesus did wsa that he forgave sins that people committed against others, not himself.

If I walked up to you and said "Bill, I forgive you for speaking angrily to your wife last week" you would think I was nuts.

Hi, Sparko and Bad Pig and Nontrinitarian...I can see that we are not copies of each other.
...Well, Sparko, we agree that Jesus forgave sins. It seems to me you say Jesus forgave sins people did against others, but not sins against himself(?).
...On the cross, right while those people were still busy torturing and murdering Jesus, and hating Him and despising Him, and not egg-zactly asking Him for forgiveness, He prayed forgiveness to them..."'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.'" (in Luke 23:34) So, it looks like He did forgive sins they did against Him directly...as our Example to follow.
...If you were to come to forgive me for talking badly against my own wife...good for you, because I believe if you love others as yourself, you will be concerned about what is done against them, and so you will need to deal with whether or not you choose to forgive what is done against those you care about (and we need to love ALL; so we need to care about ALL people; so I pray forgiveness to everyone, for what they have done to others). You could be showing me that you care about my wife. That would be good.
...And I would be intrigued...to have you come to tell me you forgive me for talking angrily to my wife---
...Where is she? Do you know who my wife is, by any chance? If I have her, somewhere, I still don't even know what her name is. I could use a little help here.

...Very interesting question, Nontrinitarian, i.eeee., something like, How did the Father and Son, if equal (if I understand you right), figure out who would be subject to whom? Is this a standard fare question that Watchtower Society training equips you with so you can use it to confront trinitarians, or is this an original that you came to understand?
...Now, this question is dealing with God, in any case. Right now, God is personally involved with each of us. Very present with us, now...not just some distant theological subject to discuss or argue. So, now, we can be personally sharing with You, O God. God is loving, kind, personal, sensitive, considerate...because "God is love", we have in 1 John 4:8&16.
...So, what I understand is the Father and Jesus had no problem figuring out who was the boss. They were loving each other, before the foundation of the earth. Our Father was so pleased with His Son Jesus, that He wanted to have more like Him...as His children and His Son's Bride Church. So God created this marvelous universe as the place for producing (adopting, yes) children, and bringing us up in His love and correction...correction to be discovered in personal relating with our Father...Hebrews 12:3-11.
...Also, this earth is the place where Satan was thrown from Heaven as lightning (Luke 10:18). So, this place is a prisoner-of-war camp for Satan and his...pretty generous of God who is love, to let Satan be here on this beautiful planet. So, I can see God is kind even to Satan...as our Example.
...So it's like in your relationship with your best friend...how you may be equal, but love can have things work out for one of you to be subject to the other...for a loving purpose...like how you can be in Jehovah's Witnesses and equal with another brother, but with esteem you submit to him if he is the leader, and yet it says, "submitting to one another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:21); so there is mutual submission, I would say, even with one in leadership. And, lo and behold, the Father was also subject to Jesus, because He answered Jesus' prayer. How's that for pulling things out of a hat? I offer the credit to You, O God.
...So what's your personal experience of God?...what you've actually found out, yourself, and not just what you've been prompted.

...Yes, Bad Pig, I need to be prayerfully sensitive so I don't get cocky with just knowledge.

[Sparko]

Bill you could use a little more care in formatting. your posts are hard to read.

You never answered my question. You just dodged around with silly comments.

Yes Jesus did forgive the ones who crucified him. But he also forgave the adultrous woman who did not sin against him. He forgave sins of many people who did not sin against him directly. If he was not God, he had no right to do that.

IF you were married and I forgave you for yelling at your wife, what good would that do? How can I forgve you for something you did to your wife?

so stop with your silly word games.

[God_is_personal]

...But I DO forgive people who have not done things directly against me. This does not mean they are forgiven, by God, though...just that I myself have forgiven, which I understand Jesus says to do > > > "'And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.'" (Mark 11:25)
...What you do against one person CAN be against others, also...against ones who are connected with that person.
...But if I am isolated, mainly or all about only my own self, then what is done to others does not concern me.
...God cares about all people; so sins against a person are also against God since He does not want this. So, I can see that every wrong against another person is against Jesus, too. So, what she did in adultery WAS against Him.

[Sparko]

...But I DO forgive people who have not done things directly against me. This does not mean they are forgiven, by God, though...just that I myself have forgiven, which I understand Jesus says to do > > > "'And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.'" (Mark 11:25)
...What you do against one person CAN be against others, also...against ones who are connected with that person.
...But if I am isolated, mainly or all about only my own self, then what is done to others does not concern me.
...God cares about all people; so sins against a person are also against God since He does not want this. So, I can see that every wrong against another person is against Jesus, too. So, what she did in adultery WAS against Him.

...using ...and cramming all your sentences together makes it hard to read your posts.
...you see what I mean?
...How can you forive me for something I did to someone else? That makes no sense and is nothing but hutzpa on your behalf. Who do you think you are? God or something? What gives you the right to forgive Fred for what he did to me? Only I can do that, and even then it is only worldly forgiveness and not salvational forgiveness
...Only God can forgive sins in a salvational sense.

[anewlife]

Who do you believe? The religious leaders who killed Jesus or the common people who praised him? I raise this question because Trinitarians always believe the religious leaders when it suits them. I mean, sure, you don’t believe them when they call Jesus a drunken, demon-possessed Samaritan. You don’t believe them when they say he expelled demons by the power of Beelzebub. You don’t trust their correct understanding of Jesus’ words when they think he meant they really had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. You don’t like Nicodemus’ understanding of being born again by crawling back into the womb. Oh no, you all despise their lack of understanding and wicked conclusions to what Jesus says. But low and behold, let them draw the conclusion that Jesus is God and you’re on the Pharisee band wagon!

Apparently, Jesus had a beef with the religious leaders of his day and their view of the law. I am not sure why we should believe the Pharisees when they stated that Jesus—a drunken—demon possessed Samaritan. Are you suggesting that Jesus was demon possessed? As far as the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood that would be a hyperbole or trope utilization. Jesus made the claim in John 10:30 The Father and I are one. For me it is more of the issue that Jesus was correct—not the Pharisees.



Case in point. Marks account of Jesus forgiving sins. You know that one. It’s the only account you’ll refer to when you discuss the subject. You like it because it has Jesus haters concluding that he must be God because he forgave sins. Then you all run around, flapping your arms in the air yelling "Oh, the religious leaders correctly knew that only God could forgive sins."

In John 20:23 [Christ, speaking to the apostles] "If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained." In addition, in Matt. 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven." Moreover, Matt. 16:17–19 "And Jesus answered him, ‘You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! In addition, I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven." [Sola Ecclesia arguments] Are you holding the Sola Ecclesia view? The point is the forgiveness of the sins against one another. So should we be going to a Bishop, or a fellow Christian to confess our sins, or should we go to Christ, or G-d?

The issue of Christ forgiving sins is not a sole basis for a Trinitarian claiming the deity of Christ. It would not be a stand alone argument—in fact I would not add this in the top ten reasons of why I think Jesus is the second person in the Godhead. There is, however, a basic creed of essential beliefs that has evidenced this ontological unity and the mutual indwelling of the Holy Spirit since the beginning of the Church, but this creed is functional, not exhaustive. You may want to change your first statement to "some Trinitarians believe the early religious leaders when it suits them".



Never mind the parallel account in Matthew 9 where the people who "praised God" for what they saw concluded that God had given Jesus, a man, the authority to forgive sins. Never mind that later the disciples still had questions as to Jesus’ identity even though they knew he could forgive sins. Never mind that after Jesus forgave the sins he didn’t say, "Now you know I’m God because only God can forgive sins." He said, "Now you know that the SON OF MAN has the authority to forgive sins." Never mind that later Jesus gave his followers the authority to forgive sins. No, forget all that. Forget that the religious leaders often mis-interpreted Jesus’ words and falsely accused him of many things.

Matt 9:1 After getting into a boat he crossed to the other side and came to his own town. 9:2 Just then some people brought to him a paralytic lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Have courage, son! Your sins are forgiven." 9:3 Then some of the experts in the law said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming!" 9:4 When Jesus saw their reaction he said, "Why do you respond with evil in your hearts? 9:5 Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? 9:6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" – then he said to the paralytic – "Stand up, take your stretcher, and go home." 9:7 And he stood up and went home. 9:8 When the crowd saw this, they were afraid and honored God who had given such authority to men.

So what you are implying is that the people back then—that witnessed this account had full understanding of who Jesus was or was not? Can you please why the people were afraid? I don’t think these people had any inclination of who Jesus really was. It’s not as if they were habitués with David Copperfield [smoke and mirrors] or Criss Angel’s magic show—healing, calming storms, walking on water, and raising people from the dead.


Well, you can forget about it all you want. I won’t. I don’t except their testimony for much of anything. I’ll take the people who praised God for what they saw over the religious leaders any day. You all keep reading Mark’s account of Jesus forgiving sins. It’s a good account and I have no problem with it. But for me, I’ll read Mark’s and Matthew’s and reference them both in my faith.


So who do you believe?

I believe the inspired authors [I hold the verbal plenary view of inspiration/illumination]. It is quite apparent that people did not fully understand who Jesus was in that time era. Here were some of the non-orthodox early views of Christ.

1. Ebionism
2. Docetism
3. Dynamic Monarchianism (Adoptionism)
4. Modalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism)
5. Arianism


So do you think any of these views hold any water? If so why?

Why would the early Church fathers even suggest [such as Tertullian] trinity? Why would first century believers chant hymns that Jesus was God?


The biggest problem I see is that when anyone denies who Christ is—then there is almost always the propensity that the resurrection was only spiritual, and then it dwindles down from there. This would occur with the JW and the hyper-Preterist. Where do we draw the line honestly? No where in Scripture is Jesus called Michael, nor did any of the Apostles assume he was Michael. We have plenty of evidence to prove the physical resurrection of Christ within scripture—some just choose to ignore them due to their hermeneutics. [Solo Scriptura]

[NonTrinitarian]

Apparently, Jesus had a beef with the religious leaders of his day and their view of the law. I am not sure why we should believe the Pharisees when they stated that Jesus—a drunken—demon possessed Samaritan. Are you suggesting that Jesus was demon possessed?
That you think I was suggesting that Jesus was a demon possessed Samaratin calls into question your understanding of what I wrote.


As far as the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood that would be a hyperbole or trope utilization. Jesus made the claim in John 10:30 The Father and I are one. For me it is more of the issue that Jesus was correct—not the Pharisees.
I agree. I think there are a number of times the Pharisees were incorrect but some Trinitarians (per your request below) always want to say they are correct when it comes to their understanding of what Jesus was claiming.


In John 20:23 [Christ, speaking to the apostles] "If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained." In addition, in Matt. 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven." Moreover, Matt. 16:17–19 "And Jesus answered him, ‘You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! In addition, I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven." [Sola Ecclesia arguments] Are you holding the Sola Ecclesia view? The point is the forgiveness of the sins against one another. So should we be going to a Bishop, or a fellow Christian to confess our sins, or should we go to Christ, or G-d?[/quote]
I am not holding the sole ecclesia view and wonder why you wold suggest such a thing? You're the one bringing up Matt 16, not me. Don't put words in my mouth. However, Jesus' words to the apostles at John 20 suggest more than forgiving sins against each other. He first blows holy spirit on them and then says, "If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained."

Now Jesus was not saying that if you don't forgive them their sins then you have retained them. That would be about the dumbest thing anyone could say. Of course if someone doesn't forgive someone for a sin then that person has still not forgiven him. I can't pass such an idiotic meaning coming from Jesus' mouth. What Jesus is saying is that these apostles (just the apostles) had a special gift of being able to tell who was repentant and then pronounce forgiveness on behalf of God. That's why Jesus blew HS on them. If it was as you describe it, each just forgiving each others sins against them, then those words could have been uttered by anyone at anytime without the need of HS. And to further demonstrate that this was a special power given to them, note that Peter killed Annanias and his wife for lying to him. He said lying to him was the same as lying to God because Peter was God's representative.

As far as confession, what does the Bible say? "Is there anyone sick among you? Let him call the older men of the congregation to him, and let them pray over him...Also, if he has committed sins, it will be forgiven him. Therefore openly confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may get healed. A righteous man's supplication, when it is at work, has much force."- James 5


The issue of Christ forgiving sins is not a sole basis for a Trinitarian claiming the deity of Christ. It would not be a stand alone argument—in fact I would not add this in the top ten reasons of why I think Jesus is the second person in the Godhead. There is, however, a basic creed of essential beliefs that has evidenced this ontological unity and the mutual indwelling of the Holy Spirit since the beginning of the Church, but this creed is functional, not exhaustive. You may want to change your first statement to "some Trinitarians believe the early religious leaders when it suits them".
It may not be for you but it is for many. I'm just knocking them down one at a time.



Matt 9:1 After getting into a boat he crossed to the other side and came to his own town. 9:2 Just then some people brought to him a paralytic lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Have courage, son! Your sins are forgiven." 9:3 Then some of the experts in the law said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming!" 9:4 When Jesus saw their reaction he said, "Why do you respond with evil in your hearts? 9:5 Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? 9:6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" – then he said to the paralytic – "Stand up, take your stretcher, and go home." 9:7 And he stood up and went home. 9:8 When the crowd saw this, they were afraid and honored God who had given such authority to men.

So what you are implying is that the people back then—that witnessed this account had full understanding of who Jesus was or was not?

No, I'm demonstrating that Jesus' forgiving sins did not cause people to think he was God. That part is obvious.


Can you please why the people were afraid? I don’t think these people had any inclination of who Jesus really was. It’s not as if they were habitués with David Copperfield [smoke and mirrors] or Criss Angel’s magic show—healing, calming storms, walking on water, and raising people from the dead.
They were afraid because they started to recognize that Jesus had some power from God. You are right that they did not realize who he was, even after this event. That includes his apostles who later wondered how Jesus could control the weather.


I believe the inspired authors [I hold the verbal plenary view of inspiration/illumination]. It is quite apparent that people did not fully understand who Jesus was in that time era. Here were some of the non-orthodox early views of Christ.

1. Ebionism
2. Docetism
3. Dynamic Monarchianism (Adoptionism)
4. Modalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism)
5. Arianism
First of all, I think people did know who Jesus was. Peter confessed he was the Christ, the Son of God. Martha said Jesus was the coming Messiah. Why do you say they didn't know who he was? Because they didn't fall to the ground and worship him after he forgave sins?



Why would the early Church fathers even suggest [such as Tertullian] trinity? Why would first century believers chant hymns that Jesus was God?
Do you endorse all of Tertullian's teachings? I would say apostasy has started. I'm not aware of any first century believers chanting hymns calling Jesus God. (unless you're talking about certain Bible translations and verses in the NT).



The biggest problem I see is that when anyone denies who Christ is—then there is almost always the propensity that the resurrection was only spiritual, and then it dwindles down from there. This would occur with the JW and the hyper-Preterist. Where do we draw the line honestly? No where in Scripture is Jesus called Michael, nor did any of the Apostles assume he was Michael. We have plenty of evidence to prove the physical resurrection of Christ within scripture—some just choose to ignore them due to their hermeneutics. [Solo Scriptura]



My biggest problem is people who don't want to accept what the Bible says and instead read greek philosophy into their beliefs.

[anewlife]

I am not holding the sole ecclesia view and wonder why you wold suggest such a thing? You're the one bringing up Matt 16, not me. Don't put words in my mouth. However, Jesus' words to the apostles at John 20 suggest more than forgiving sins against each other. He first blows holy spirit on them and then says, "If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained."

I was not suggesting, merely asking. You mentioned the ability for the Apostles (and us) to forgive sin and this form of apostolic succession [Sola Ecclesia] being passed on to us. I wouldn’t put words into your mouth—however you did rashly generalize Trinitarians (and did not state whether it was some or all). As far as the Holy Spirit being a breath or gust of wind—I would fail to see how that is articulated within scripture. The scripture I quoted is on track with the forgiving of sins.


Now Jesus was not saying that if you don't forgive them their sins then you have retained them. That would be about the dumbest thing anyone could say. Of course if someone doesn't forgive someone for a sin then that person has still not forgiven him. I can't pass such an idiotic meaning coming from Jesus' mouth. What Jesus is saying is that these apostles (just the apostles) had a special gift of being able to tell who was repentant and then pronounce forgiveness on behalf of God. That's why Jesus blew HS on them. If it was as you describe it, each just forgiving each others sins against them, then those words could have been uttered by anyone at anytime without the need of HS. And to further demonstrate that this was a special power given to them, note that Peter killed Annanias and his wife for lying to him. He said lying to him was the same as lying to God because Peter was God's representative.

Ok let me affirm that I do not hold the Sola Ecclesia view either. Before this gets further out of context here…What is your view of the Holy Spirit?


It may not be for you but it is for many. I'm just knocking them down one at a time.

That is noble…. and I wish you well in convincing a Trinitarian [let alone nearly 2 millennia of Christianity beliefs] to becoming a Unitarian.


No, I'm demonstrating that Jesus' forgiving sins did not cause people to think he was God. That part is obvious.

Oh it seemed more like a Trinitarian bash-fest on the OP. My bad—carry on.



They were afraid because they started to recognize that Jesus had some power from God. You are right that they did not realize who he was, even after this event. That includes his apostles who later wondered how Jesus could control the weather.

Agreed!



First of all, I think people did know who Jesus was. Peter confessed he was the Christ, the Son of God. Martha said Jesus was the coming Messiah. Why do you say they didn't know who he was? Because they didn't fall to the ground and worship him after he forgave sins?

Well yes—but not initially [including Doubting Thomas]. Yes he was the coming Messiah –I agree but not all accepted him as the Messiah, and many still did not know who he was… That is why I listed the 5 different views of Christ and the need for a statement of faith in the Nicene Creed.



Do you endorse all of Tertullian's teachings? I would say apostasy has started. I'm not aware of any first century believers chanting hymns calling Jesus God. (unless you're talking about certain Bible translations and verses in the NT).

Do I endorse all of Tertullian’s teachings? No, do I need to agree with him fully on every issue? I don’t believe so. Do you endorse all of Arius’ teachings?

Not sure, what you mean on how you connect the Bible translations with early church father writings or historical writings? We can talk Bible translations if you like but I fail to see where this is going—as compared to historical writings outside the Bible (Early Church fathers, Jewish or Roman Historians)?


My biggest problem is people who don't want to accept what the Bible says and instead read greek philosophy into their beliefs.



I agree, why have faulty hermeneutics or commit Biblical docestism, or any anachronistic fallacies? So really, why have Trinitarians been wrong for all this time? So who do you say Jesus is?

[Jeckle&Hyde]

I see what you mean. But to give a person power doesn't mean the one who gives loses it. I know there is scripture out there that says Jesus will give this authority back to the one who gave it. I just cannot remember that verse right now.
But the keyword I wanted to express is that Jesus was given this authority. If Jesus were indeed the Almighty, would he not have already obtained authority?

"Tophee"...I am not totally sure if you know what i mean....

Perhaps you are asking the wrong question? The disciples of Jesus never considered the question you ask...but they still accepted something about this Jesus?

[God_is_personal]

The scripture about Jesus giving back His authority to the Father is in the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians...1 Corinthians 15:24-28 >

"Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

"For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

"The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

"For 'He has put all things under his feet.' But when He says 'all things are put under Him,' it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.

"Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

So, it is clear to me that Jesus has received "all power" from our Father, AND that He will deliver the kingdom to the Father...which, I can see, means He will give power "BACK" to the Father.

So, I can see how ones would decide to interpret...that if Jesus received power, then He was not almighty (if for a while He did not have that power, before He was given it). But, then, if you get literal in this way, about what GIVING means > well...if the Father GAVE power to Jesus, is the Father STILL almighty, i.eeee., once He has given power...ALL power, it says...to Jesus?

Hmm...so "maybe" this is not supposed to be interpreted literally, quite like this.

In any case, at least it is clear there are TWO individuals involved here...the Father and the Son.

And I think of how the Father and His Son Jesus are relating lovingly with each other. So, I would say love has a lot to do with what giving and receiving power really means, here.

If you and your wife love each other very dearly, and you give her your credit card so she can go do something...it's still your credit card. You have given, but not given totally AWAY. And since you have love together, it's her card, also, even before you hand it to her.

So, I think how things are in a love relationship can help to explain what was going on between our Father and His Son.