One argument against the divinity of Jesus

[ApologiaPhoenix]

trinities dont teach anything... people do.. and Jesus and Paul taught nothing of the sort.

trinity =a union of three (parts)

Wow. Is this the old "I will repeat my assertions without answering anything raised up and hope that counts as an argument?" trick.

When you want to reply to something I said rather than repeat your position and think it counts as an argument, let me know.

One must wonder... if "Trinity" was so well established, why was the council of Nicea necessary to begin with

The Council of Nicea was NOT about the Trinity, believe it or not.

It was about the question of who Christ is in relation to the Father. We can tell this because there's hardly a peep about the Holy Spirit. Why was it held? Because of a heretical presbyter named Arius and Constantine wanting to bring peace to the church. Thus, rather than force a decision on the church, he had the leaders come together and discuss the issue.

It was hardly a contest. Arius was found to be twisting Scripture and out of over 300 bishops there, only two ended up siding with him.

Really, what's your source on church history other than google?

Saying "God is one person" is easy to understand? I guess if your god is a person, yes. but God typically refers to Abraham's, and "persons" have nothing to do with it.

Allah isn't a person in Islam? Odd. He has a mind I thought and he has desires and he performs actions....

You can make up whatever you want and worship it as your god. You are not wrong in doing that

Actually, someone is wrong in doing that. It's called "Idolatry." Just like making up someone who's a monad is idolatry.

You're wrong to retrofit it into someone else's theology and claim that theirs is the same as yours (e.g. Pauls)

that is where you would be wrong

We can go through Paul and I can show you the Trinity.

Christians wold be much better to stick to Jesus's teachings and that alone --- and not the golden calf painted up like Jesus

Good thing I do stick to his teachings, especially where he claimed deity for himself. (You wanna show me how the texts where he does aren't properly translated or something?)

I do hope next time you'll actually answer my questions and points instead of repeating yours again.

[barnasha]

Wow. Is this the old "I will repeat my assertions without answering anything raised up and hope that counts as an argument?" trick.

When you want to reply to something I said rather than repeat your position and think it counts as an argument, let me know.

if you think I missed something, there's no need to get snarky, a helpful reminder will suffice.

The Council of Nicea was NOT about the Trinity, believe it or not.

It was about the question of who Christ is in relation to the Father. We can tell this because there's hardly a peep about the Holy Spirit. Why was it held? Because of a heretical presbyter named Arius and Constantine wanting to bring peace to the church. Thus, rather than force a decision on the church, he had the leaders come together and discuss the issue.

It was hardly a contest. Arius was found to be twisting Scripture and out of over 300 bishops there, only two ended up siding with him.

you're right, but the council of Nicea's point was to quash any theological differences within the church. what came out of that time period was a the new triune god, which was something not taught by any of the original church fathers, Jesus, or Paul, who were strictly monotheistic (never asserting god had divisible or categorizable natures).

Really, what's your source on church history other than google?

This line of attack is either an admission of defeat on the relevant arguments, or a distraction from the subject matter at hand

Allah isn't a person in Islam? Odd. He has a mind I thought and he has desires and he performs actions....

Abraham's god is not a person... since it is not a creation.

Actually, someone is wrong in doing that. It's called "Idolatry." Just like making up someone who's a monad is idolatry.

One should have intellectual freedom, that was the point.

We can go through Paul and I can show you the Trinity.

I have seen all the arguments and relevant subject matter for the Trinity argument, in depth, if you have something new, I wouldn't mind going over it.

If you're merely towing a party line, save us both the time and effort - unless you have a sincere question, in which case I would enjoy a discussion.

Good thing I do stick to his teachings, especially where he claimed deity for himself. (You wanna show me how the texts where he does aren't properly translated or something?)

since Jesus is a man, and Abraham's god is uncreated, no matter how much "divinity" a person attains or has ascribed to him, he will always be a subject of the All-Mighty.

I do hope next time you'll actually answer my questions and points instead of repeating yours again.

If I missed something, let me know, but this comment doesn't help.

[smaneck]

The Holy Spirit is often seen in a supportive role rather than a leadership role. Naturally, the Holy Spirit will be portrayed in feminine language then.

Naturally that the feminine should be in a supportive role?

Aaaargh!

[smaneck]

what came out of that time period was a the new triune god, which was something not taught by any of the original church fathers, Jesus, or Paul, who were strictly monotheistic (never asserting god had divisible or categorizable natures).

Tertullian was an early church father and he taught the Trinity. But he may have been the first one. It was well in place by the Council of Nicea, however. The purpose of the Council of Nicea was to reach an agreement as to the relationship between the Three Persons.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

if you think I missed something, there's no need to get snarky, a helpful reminder will suffice.

Oh please. All you did was repeat what you said and acted like I'd said nothing.

you're right, but the council of Nicea's point was to quash any theological differences within the church. what came out of that time period was a the new triune god, which was something not taught by any of the original church fathers, Jesus, or Paul, who were strictly monotheistic (never asserting god had divisible or categorizable natures).

Um. The Trinity is strictly monotheistic. Please tell me again your sources on church history. Note how many times in Pauline thought for instance that Paul goes from the Spirit of God to the Spirit of Christ and notice how many passages in the OT speaking of God, Paul applies to Christ.

The ECF got the Trinity straight out of making sense of the writings of the apostles in the NT.

This line of attack is either an admission of defeat on the relevant arguments, or a distraction from the subject matter at hand

No. It's called asking for your sources because you don't know what you're talking about.

Abraham's god is not a person... since it is not a creation.

How does that follow? If something is not created, it is not a person? Can you philosophically back this?

One should have intellectual freedom, that was the point.

One can have freedom to do wrong. One does not have freedom to ignore the consequences.

I have seen all the arguments and relevant subject matter for the Trinity argument, in depth, if you have something new, I wouldn't mind going over it.

If you're merely towing a party line, save us both the time and effort - unless you have a sincere question, in which case I would enjoy a discussion.

So no answer as to going through Paul or not. Figures.

Do tell me what you've read on the Trinity. I'd like to know about these books.

since Jesus is a man, and Abraham's god is uncreated, no matter how much "divinity" a person attains or has ascribed to him, he will always be a subject of the All-Mighty.

Please note my question about the texts was ignored. Do you want to show the texts were wrong or that the texts were mistranslated? Your choice. The texts have Christ claiming deity for himself.

Also, do note that in 1 Cor. 15:28, Paul says that at that time, referring to the end, the Son himself will be made subject to the Father. What does that imply about his position now?

If I missed something, let me know, but this comment doesn't help.

Um. Yeah. You missed everything. It was simply a repetition of everything you've said before. I'd like to see your sources mainly on church history.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Naturally that the feminine should be in a supportive role?

Aaaargh!

Hmmm. Not a reply to what was said. Just a statement of not liking it.

As if that means it's not true.....

The idea of Eve as a helpmeet is not looking down on Eve. God himself was described the same way in the OT. In fact, if men and women are to live together, one does need to be the final authority.

The picture is extended in the NT and the women are given the great honor. They are shown to be the bride of Christ. The life comes into them from the outside. Christ brings about his life in his bride.

There is nothing disparaging of femininity in here. In fact, the Bible repeatedly upholds femininity. (Men and women both bear the image of God.)

[barnasha]

Oh please. All you did was repeat what you said and acted like I'd said nothing.

I'll repeat that I'm willing to address anything you want me to.... now's your chance to bring it up.

It almost seems like you're complaining rather than entering into a dialogue on the topic...

Um. The Trinity is strictly monotheistic.

Fair enough, the Trinity is one god, not three gods.

What I meant to say was before the Christian institution, people did not explicitly identify with God as having 3 specific "persons". That came later ...

Please tell me again your sources on church history.

Is there something specific you would like a source for ?

Note how many times in Pauline thought for instance that Paul goes from the Spirit of God to the Spirit of Christ and notice how many passages in the OT speaking of God, Paul applies to Christ.

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, probably because you're more familiar with Paul's writings than I. Are you trying to imply that the Messiah (who is a person foretold of in prophecy) and God Almighty (which created the universe, macro and micro, in which people are able to live) is somehow the exact same thing? Or are you saying Paul worships Jesus the Messiah as his God?

Paul saw himself as an apostle of Jesus:
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother," (Col 1:1)

The ECF got the Trinity straight out of making sense of the writings of the apostles in the NT.

Yes, they got their ideas out of MAKING SENSE OF the writings attributed to the apostles...

I capitalized the operative words in that sentence.

Anyone can make sense of anything however they please, and it may or may not be valid. I am not (here) saying the church fathers' interpretations are invalid.

No. It's called asking for your sources because you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't mind being corrected in public for something I've said that's wrong.

Instead of asking for my "sources", why don't you address what's wrong in what I've said? No hard feelings here... I am always willing to learn.

How does that follow? If something is not created, it is not a person? Can you philosophically back this?

English is my mother tongue. If you say the word "person" it always refers to a human, an individual. Humans are creatures, creations, they 'exist'.

I do not accept anything in your "church lingo" as part of my vocabulary, so your "special meanings" of person are quite valid in your own circle, but not in this discussion (unless you explicitly clarify it as meaning your "special" meaning).

That is to say, I hope not to offend you if I reject any "special" meanings of the word person you have. Because I sense the conversation may go in that direction, and I want to head you off at that pass in the interest of our time and energy.

One should have intellectual freedom, that was the point.

One can have freedom to do wrong. One does not have freedom to ignore the consequences.

Yes, and also, that's true for anyone.

So no answer as to going through Paul or not. Figures.
Do tell me what you've read on the Trinity. I'd like to know about these books.

I said I've been through it all before, if you're just going to go through canned arguments, while it may be enjoyable for you, it's not worth my time.

I apologize for judging you in assuming your arguments might be 'canned'.

I did say "If you're merely towing a party line, save us both the time and effort - unless you have a sincere question, in which case I would enjoy a discussion."

What I meant by this was I would be happy to do so, ("the answer is yes"), with the stipulation that it would be an intellectual conversation, not a regurgitation of beliefs (from either side, of course).

I did not mean to imply it would be the case with you that it would not be intellectual, only to set a guideline for our discussion.

I apologize for not being clear enough.

Please note my question about the texts was ignored. Do you want to show the texts were wrong or that the texts were mistranslated? Your choice. The texts have Christ claiming deity for himself.

What does "claiming deity" mean - both linguistically and effectively?

Also, do note that in 1 Cor. 15:28, Paul says that at that time, referring to the end, the Son himself will be made subject to the Father. What does that imply about his position now?

1 cor 15:38 says:
"and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the son also himself shall be subject to him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all." (ylt)

What are you saying this has to do about position, exactly, in reference to our conversation?

I am a bit slow sometimes, so you might have to spell it out for me. I apologize for that.

Um. Yeah. You missed everything. It was simply a repetition of everything you've said before. I'd like to see your sources mainly on church history.

What are you looking for a source for?

Your asking for sources makes it seem like I said something wrong. Can I ask what mistake I made?

Otherwise if you can point out what I missed that you would like addressed I would be happy to make sure to address it. Sorry if I miss things, my time is limited.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'll repeat that I'm willing to address anything you want me to.... now's your chance to bring it up.

It almost seems like you're complaining rather than entering into a dialogue on the topic...

My first post to you. Deal with that.

Fair enough, the Trinity is one god, not three gods.

What I meant to say was before the Christian institution, people did not explicitly identify with God as having 3 specific "persons". That came later ...

Why yes. They didn't explicitly teach such before Christianity. Could it be things changed when God revealed himself in his Son? The OT shows a hinting at a plurality in the nature of God. The NT makes it explicit giving us information about this plurality.

Is there something specific you would like a source for ?

Yes. Any claims of yours involving church history.

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, probably because you're more familiar with Paul's writings than I. Are you trying to imply that the Messiah (who is a person foretold of in prophecy) and God Almighty (which created the universe, macro and micro, in which people are able to live) is somehow the exact same thing? Or are you saying Paul worships Jesus the Messiah as his God?

Which is again what I said you were doing earlier. It's called unipersonalism. When I say Jesus is God, I am using theological shorthand. I do not mean that Jesus is the Trinity. I mean that Jesus fully possesses the nature of God. However, Jesus is Almighty and Paul did worship the Messiah as God.

Paul saw himself as an apostle of Jesus:
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother," (Col 1:1)

Yep. An apostle of Jesus goes against my belief in what way?

Yes, they got their ideas out of MAKING SENSE OF the writings attributed to the apostles...

I capitalized the operative words in that sentence.

Good. It only makes my case stronger.

Anyone can make sense of anything however they please, and it may or may not be valid. I am not (here) saying the church fathers' interpretations are invalid.

Oh go on and admit they're wrong please. Just show where they are.

I don't mind being corrected in public for something I've said that's wrong.

Instead of asking for my "sources", why don't you address what's wrong in what I've said? No hard feelings here... I am always willing to learn.

I already did. Now I want to know where the nonsense came from.

[QUOTE] English is my mother tongue. If you say the word "person" it always refers to a human, an individual. Humans are creatures, creations, they 'exist'. [/QUOTE}

Odd because I've referred to God as a person for my life and English is my mother tongue as well. This is a case not of language but of philosophy.

I do not accept anything in your "church lingo" as part of my vocabulary, so your "special meanings" of person are quite valid in your own circle, but not in this discussion (unless you explicitly clarify it as meaning your "special" meaning).

You're the one saying that person has a certain meaning. It's up to you to back it philosophically as the word points to a concept beyond itself.

That is to say, I hope not to offend you if I reject any "special" meanings of the word person you have. Because I sense the conversation may go in that direction, and I want to head you off at that pass in the interest of our time and energy.

I'll be waiting for the philosophical backing.

I said I've been through it all before, if you're just going to go through canned arguments, while it may be enjoyable for you, it's not worth my time.

I apologize for judging you in assuming your arguments might be 'canned'.

I did say "If you're merely towing a party line, save us both the time and effort - unless you have a sincere question, in which case I would enjoy a discussion."

What I meant by this was I would be happy to do so, ("the answer is yes"), with the stipulation that it would be an intellectual conversation, not a regurgitation of beliefs (from either side, of course).

I did not mean to imply it would be the case with you that it would not be intellectual, only to set a guideline for our discussion.

I apologize for not being clear enough.

Still wanting to know what books were read. Curious now if you've even read all of the Bible.

What does "claiming deity" mean - both linguistically and effectively?

It simply means that he claimed to be co-equal with YHWH.

1 cor 15:38 says:
"and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the son also himself shall be subject to him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all." (ylt)

That's 28 actually.

What are you saying this has to do about position, exactly, in reference to our conversation?

I am a bit slow sometimes, so you might have to spell it out for me. I apologize for that.

Note those words in the passage. Then the son also himself SHALL BE subject. What does that imply about the Son's status now?

What are you looking for a source for?

Your asking for sources makes it seem like I said something wrong. Can I ask what mistake I made?

Otherwise if you can point out what I missed that you would like addressed I would be happy to make sure to address it. Sorry if I miss things, my time is limited.

Your information on church history such as the Council of Nicea being about the Trinity and it being made up at that council. You can find the Trinity all throughout the ECF and the first writer to actually use the term was Theophilus who came even before Tertullian. The ECF though constantly said Jesus was and is God.

[barnasha]

My first post to you. Deal with that.

I did, by asking you what I missed.. if you want a response to something you should be able to clarify what it is. I am patient.

Why yes. They didn't explicitly teach such before Christianity. Could it be things changed when God revealed himself in his Son? The OT shows a hinting at a plurality in the nature of God. The NT makes it explicit giving us information about this plurality.

I say it "hints" - actually demands - otherwise, by the very crux of the Abrahamic mythology.

If there is a plurality, why stop at 3? 7 is a sacred number, too. And 72. Ask the jews.

Is there something specific you would like a source for ?

Yes. Any claims of yours involving church history.

For example?

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, probably because you're more familiar with Paul's writings than I. Are you trying to imply that the Messiah (who is a person foretold of in prophecy) and God Almighty (which created the universe, macro and micro, in which people are able to live) is somehow the exact same thing? Or are you saying Paul worships Jesus the Messiah as his God?

Which is again what I said you were doing earlier.

sorry, what is?

It's called unipersonalism. When I say Jesus is God, I am using theological shorthand. I do not mean that Jesus is the Trinity. I mean that Jesus fully possesses the nature of God. However, Jesus is Almighty and Paul did worship the Messiah as God.

Ok

I'm curious what you mean by "Jesus is Almighty"?

Yep. An apostle of Jesus goes against my belief in what way?

I don't know

Yes, they got their ideas out of MAKING SENSE OF the writings attributed to the apostles...

I capitalized the operative words in that sentence.

Good. It only makes my case stronger.

What case does it make stronger?

Anyone can make sense of anything however they please, and it may or may not be valid. I am not (here) saying the church fathers' interpretations are invalid.

Oh go on and admit they're wrong please. Just show where they are.

Why should I make vague characterizations based on who someone is or where they came from or what religion they are? I'm sure I agree with them in some places and disagree in others, I would never assume and make decisions based on politics or categories rather than a thorough understanding of the matter - there seems to be no matter here, just that the church fathers had some interpretations and I'm supposed to make a categorical admission of what I think of their interpretations as a whole as "wrong" or "not wrong" ?

I don't mind being corrected in public for something I've said that's wrong.

Instead of asking for my "sources", why don't you address what's wrong in what I've said? No hard feelings here... I am always willing to learn.

I already did. Now I want to know where the nonsense came from.

where?

English is my mother tongue. If you say the word "person" it always refers to a human, an individual. Humans are creatures, creations, they 'exist'.

Odd because I've referred to God as a person for my life and English is my mother tongue as well. This is a case not of language but of philosophy.

well your theology aside, when someone says the word "person" it usually refers to a person, not a god.

and for the record, I grew up in a very christian part of a very english speaking country, in a christian family, so I have a little authority here.

You're the one saying that person has a certain meaning. It's up to you to back it philosophically as the word points to a concept beyond itself.

like meaning something theological (which is your position here, not mine) ?

I'll be waiting for the philosophical backing.





Still wanting to know what books were read. Curious now if you've even read all of the Bible.

too many to enumerate in a discussion forum, not that I'd ever think that would be a worthwhile use of my time -- even if it were somehow relevant or useful.

It simply means that he claimed to be co-equal with YHWH.

What does "co-equal" mean, in clear language?

1 cor 15:38 says:
"and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the son also himself shall be subject to him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all." (ylt)

That's 28 actually.

What are you saying this has to do about position, exactly, in reference to our conversation?

Note those words in the passage. Then the son also himself SHALL BE subject. What does that imply about the Son's status now?

that's what I was hoping you would explain...

Your information on church history such as the Council of Nicea being about the Trinity and it being made up at that council. You can find the Trinity all throughout the ECF and the first writer to actually use the term was Theophilus who came even before Tertullian. The ECF though constantly said Jesus was and is God.

Well, if I said "the trinity" was "made up at that council" that would obviously be incorrect.

Fortunately in this thread some people have clarified the historical purpose of the council, to which I have had no objections,

Back to the discussion at hand,

What I always find interesting about the history of the trinity, is that Theophilus did not view God as a trinity. Theophilus considered God as a part of a trinity.

At what point was it that the trinity itself became God (or however you want to put it)?

[Sparko]

The following is an argument against the divinity of Jesus

God is the greatest being conceivable
Jesus is God
Greater beings than Jesus can be conceived
Therefore, Jesus is not God.

You fail right from the get go.

who says that we can't conceive of a being greater than God? Our very conceptions of God are limited and biased. So no matter what we think of God, we can always one up it and come up with a better God. Our concept of "better" is flawed though.

For example, you think Allah is the greatest conceivable being. But I can say that an Allah who let's Christians into heaven and makes them rulers over everyone is a better Allah than your conception. Does that mean that my conception is the true one? Or you might say that your conception of God gives you 200 virgins when you die instead of only 70. Does that make it true?

Our conceptions and imagination do not define God.

[Ibn Abu Talib]

For example, you think Allah is the greatest conceivable being. But I can say that an Allah who let's Christians into heaven and makes them rulers over everyone is a better Allah than your conception.

Your argument has more to do with what a certain conception of God ought to do in order to be regarded as the greatest conceivable being. I was not actually arguing along those lines. As my response to Apologia Monk clarified, God has attributes that qualify Him as the greatest conceivable being. Since Jesus was missing these characteristics, he was not God, and certainly not the greatest being one can think of.

[barnasha]

Your argument has more to do with what a certain conception of God ought to do in order to be regarded as the greatest conceivable being. I was not actually arguing along those lines. As my response to Apologia Monk clarified, God has attributes that qualify Him as the greatest conceivable being. Since Jesus was missing these characteristics, he was not God, and certainly not the greatest being one can think of.

since God is not a being, this is all moot,

[Sparko]

since God is not a being, this is all moot,

um.. God IS a "being" - I think you are confusing "being" with "creature"

[Sparko]

Your argument has more to do with what a certain conception of God ought to do in order to be regarded as the greatest conceivable being. I was not actually arguing along those lines.

You weren't?

As my response to Apologia Monk clarified, God has attributes that qualify Him as the greatest conceivable being. Since Jesus was missing these characteristics, he was not God, and certainly not the greatest being one can think of.

gorsh. there you go doing exactly what you said you were not doing. Let me try

Allah doesn't have the characteristics of the greatest conceivable being to me since he is petty and pays off his devotees with virgins and sex. The true God would not do such a thing. Not only that but he expects people to do silly things like repeat the same prayers over and over while facing a location on the earth. A real God would not care about that and would get tired of hearing the same prayers over and over.

There. My concept of God trumps yours and proves that Allah is not God.

[Ibn Abu Talib]

Allah doesn't have the characteristics of the greatest conceivable being to me since he is petty and pays off his devotees with virgins and sex. The true God would not do such a thing. Not only that but he expects people to do silly things like repeat the same prayers over and over while facing a location on the earth. A real God would not care about that and would get tired of hearing the same prayers over and over.

There. My concept of God trumps yours and proves that Allah is not God.

I realize my argument is not accessible to simpletons. I could recast it in terms that might make it more understandable, but considering the following verse from the Quran which specifies how a believer should deal with your likes, I think its best if I simply leave you with the word "Peace".

And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility and when the ignorant address them they say "Peace!" (25:63)