Who raised Jesus from the dead?

[NorrinRadd]

It sounds like you haven't seriously attempted to wrestle with these issues, haven't bothered to attempt to understand other's efforts, and are content to overlook apparent contradictions. Forgive me if I don't find that outlook particularly convincing.

The last point first: I am not trying to "convince" anyone of anything. I'm just telling you how things sound to me and people who are like me. It's one reason I've mostly abandoned "apologetics" at anything more than a superficial level.

You're mostly right, I don't expend a lot of time and effort wrestling with the issues. I'm mostly content to let Scripture say what it says, especially in regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation. I believe those things to be inherently mysterious and "above my pay grade," so to speak. If I wrestle with anything, it's the things that affect how I live: grace vs. works, patriarchy vs. egalitarianism, etc.

The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures is fully capable of continuing inspiration in the church, yes?

It's my understanding that the view you express here is inconsistent with "traditional orthodoxy," at least among Protestants. My understanding is that the Protestant view is that only the Protestant Scriptures are "inspired." "Illumination" continues, but not "inspiration."

[Tassman]

Speaking as one who --

-- has no formal training in "theology" or "apologetics"

-- has taken a total of two or maybe three philosophy classes, back in the early '80s

-- has never in my nearly 40 years as a believer been part of a church that holds "creeds" and "confessions" in high regard...

Discussions like this seem pointless and almost silly. There are certain things that Scripture says pretty clearly. Some of these are hard to reconcile at face value. Attempts to explain or reconcile them involve going beyond what Scripture actually says, and introducing a lot of speculation and magical theologisms like "hypostatic union." And to me, the worst part is that certain of these explanations are taken as uniquely authoritative orthodoxy, on par with the direct words of Scripture itself.

Your claim that “there are certain things that Scripture says pretty clearly” is somewhat contradicted by the variety of sects and denominations that disagree with each other as to what scripture says. This to the extent of accusations of heresy and a history of religious wars fought over “what scripture says”.

[NorrinRadd]

Your claim that “there are certain things that Scripture says pretty clearly” is somewhat contradicted by the variety of sects and denominations that disagree with each other as to what scripture says. This to the extent of accusations of heresy and a history of religious wars fought over “what scripture says”.

Obviously there are many points of disagreement. I avoided anything even as strong as affirming that there are *any* points so clearly, unambiguously, and explicitly stated that they are *universally* held.

[Same Hakeem]

The fact remains that Jesus Christ addressed the Father in name as "the only true God" in John 17:1-3; therefore, no one is the true God but the Father.

[JimL]

The fact remains that Jesus Christ addressed the Father in name as "the only true God" in John 17:1-3; therefore, no one is the true God but the Father.

Jesus also denies he's god in Mark 10:18 when he said in rebuke to the speaker "why do you call me good, there is none good but God."

[Tassman]

The fact remains that Jesus Christ addressed the Father in name as "the only true God" in John 17:1-3; therefore, no one is the true God but the Father.

Ah, but you are dispensing with the notion of the Holy Trinity, i.e. the Christian belief in one God that exists in three persons — God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - which is the foundation of Christian orthodoxy.

[mikewhitney]

Jesus also denies he's god in Mark 10:18 when he said in rebuke to the speaker "why do you call me good, there is none good but God."

It is a very weak argument you are making from this verse. Your argument would have had some validity if Jesus had said "You are wrong for calling me good, there is none good but God."

Jesus answers this man according to the man's assumption of Jesus being a mere teacher. It is valid to recognize that Jesus is saying indirectly, "you shouldn't call any typical teachers good, but it is appropriate to call me good since only God is good." The indirect implications aren't fully necessary, though, when viewing Jesus' words operating within the assumptions of this man.

[Same Hakeem]

I quote the Bible when Jesus addressed specifically the Father as "the only true God" in John 17:1-3.

[Same Hakeem]

Ah, but you are dispensing with the notion of the Holy Trinity, i.e. the Christian belief in one God that exists in three persons — God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - which is the foundation of Christian orthodoxy.

I quoted you the exact words of Jesus in John 17:1-3. Jesus addressed in John 17:3 specifically the Father as " the only true God"

[JimL]

It is a very weak argument you are making from this verse. Your argument would have had some validity if Jesus had said "You are wrong for calling me good, there is none good but God."

Jesus answers this man according to the man's assumption of Jesus being a mere teacher. It is valid to recognize that Jesus is saying indirectly, "you shouldn't call any typical teachers good, but it is appropriate to call me good since only God is good." The indirect implications aren't fully necessary, though, when viewing Jesus' words operating within the assumptions of this man.

So, your argument is that Jesus' reply to the speaker was, "why do you call me god, there is only one god?" The same intent is implied, i.e. why the heck are you calling me god?

[Tassman]

I quoted you the exact words of Jesus in John 17:1-3. Jesus addressed in John 17:3 specifically the Father as " the only true God"

Yes, I realize that. But Christians have a history of making scripture mean what ever they want it to mean (maybe the same applies to Islam). And what Christians want Jesus vis-a-vis the Father to mean is defined in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - as articulated at length in the Athanasian Creed: https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

[Same Hakeem]

Yes, I realize that. But Christians have a history of making scripture mean what ever they want it to mean (maybe the same applies to Islam). And what Christians want Jesus vis-a-vis the Father to mean is defined in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - as articulated at length in the Athanasian Creed: https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Early Christians even now have been debating over what God is (i.e. Triune vs One God) and the nature of Jesus Christ.

So the scripture needs to be referred to.

I always quote Jesus words in John 17:1-3 where Christ addressed specifically as "the only true God"

So according to Christ, no true God but the Father.

[Tassman]

Early Christians even now have been debating over what God is (i.e. Triune vs One God) and the nature of Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is fundamental to Christian orthodoxy.

So the scripture needs to be referred to.




So according to Christ, no true God but the Father.



I always quote Jesus words in John 17:1-3 where Christ addressed specifically as "the only true God."

The canon of scripture was put together by the very Christians that define the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - including the passage to which you refer.

[Same Hakeem]

Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is fundamental to Christian orthodoxy.



The canon of scripture was put together by the very Christians that define the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - including the passage to which you refer.

The fact remains:

1. The debate still goes on and
2. The debate is on what the very same scripture teach on the nature of God. For example, Jews believe the Old Testament never teaches trinity but the trinitarian christians disagree.

[Tassman]

The fact remains:

1. The debate still goes on and

The debate does NOT go on within orthodox Christianity, the Trinity is one of its foundational doctrines. It is regarded as the true revelation of God about himself. I think it is nonsense of course, as an atheist, but this is what the majority of Christians believe.

2. The debate is on what the very same scripture teach on the nature of God. For example, Jews believe the Old Testament never teaches trinity but the trinitarian christians disagree.

They serve different purposes. The Old Testament purports to present the story of God from creation to the predicted coming of the Messiah. Whereas the New Testament claims that Jesus IS the Messiah as predicted - descended from the paternal Davidic line– hence the Christ, which means messiah. Thus, in their view, God’s story is fulfilled.

By contrast, your religion doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God, or the second person of the Holy Trinity, but it does revere him as a holy prophet.

All religions have their idiosyncratic characteristics.