Is Jesus God or a god?

[Pythagoras]

Hi S.,

Pytagoras I and Sparko are telling you what IS trinity. We are willingly giving you our understanding FROM official church sources we do not make it up, but give you what IS.

What the heck does "official church source" mean? Was Gregory of Nyssa an "official church" source?

Did you know that Paul of Samasota could take the same "official church source" and interprete differently than you and Sparkey?

What you do is all the time saying no it is not, trinity is... bla bla bla... where you put some non-trinity definition or perverted description of it - straw man.
Start from the bottom - from offical church understanding and then try 1st to understand what it says and then may be then you will be able to argue against it. Until you don't understand what you are dealing with you are not able to argue against it. It looks like me in the school when I hated chemistry very much and I could argue why the chemistry is stupid science... and I argued not against chemistry but against everything related to chemistry what I don't like personally. My view does not change chemistry.
All the time you are fighting straw man, at the begining you was making straw man up by yourself, later you went to NON offical sites for straw man made allready for you by somebody calling themselves trinitarians. And again in your view comes JW inability to understand when word describes reality and when it is mere title. In this case title "trinitarian" is applied to somebody and you do not judge by their words but by the title they have given to them.
But trinity is defined in offical church, the term comes from church so go to church and ask them what it means. We all the time are telling you WHAT is trinity.

Here is one more definition http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

I am not chatolic, I am Lutheran, but I even can give you chatolic source of definition. Stop fighting straw man and try to understand what and how christians understand trinity and how it is defined, IF you care atall. It seams like you just don't want to understand what is trinity, you feel comfortable in company of straw mans coz burning them gives you illusion that your own view is true, and still you let the reality slip through your fingers, coz I admit that knowing reality when you live in illusion is very unpleasant thing.

And church allways claimed that even the definition is clumsy coz we are trying to describe NATURE of God which is impossible a priori by limited human mind. Yes JW and meny anti trinitarians are very uncomfortable when somebody claims their mind limitation to understand God's nature, coz whole WT teaching is based on "obtaining knowledge about God"... and still they are torn apart by reality... reality that does not allow to understand everyghing and WT claims that without this knowledge they are damned and sinners.

Boy , you make Sparko sound like a genius.

best wishes,

[Shazard]

Hi S.,
What the heck does "official church source" mean? Was Gregory of Nyssa an "official church" source?

The source which describes the term. It is common way of human mind to put some nontrivial concept into words. Word "car" is nothing while you do not describe concept behind it. The same goes with "trinity".

Just simple. Go to source. You can't define words allready defined. So if you want to understand what "trinity" menas go to source where it appears and read what it means. It is like I am saying "bamboocha" is pleasure from Fanta drink. But you argue that no I am wrong and "bamboocha" can't be pleasure atall. So I define some word and put some meaning into it and you say that it is not so. You build your straw man and try to burn it. I say go to source and find out what is trinity first, then argue against it and try to find "contradictions" in it. We allready provided you that in reality there are meny things whcih can be three and one at the same time. Three persons one nature.

Boy , you make Sparko sound like a genius.

If you say so!

[Pythagoras]

Hi S.,

The source which describes the term. It is common way of human mind to put some nontrivial concept into words. Word "car" is nothing while you do not describe concept behind it. The same goes with "trinity".
Just simple. Go to source. You can't define words allready defined. So if you want to understand what "trinity" menas go to source where it appears and read what it means. It is like I am saying "bamboocha" is pleasure from Fanta drink. But you argue that no I am wrong and "bamboocha" can't be pleasure atall. So I define some word and put some meaning into it and you say that it is not so. You build your straw man and try to burn it. I say go to source and find out what is trinity first, then argue against it and try to find "contradictions" in it. We allready provided you that in reality there are meny things whcih can be three and one at the same time. Three persons one nature.

Official definition is the "concept behind the creed".? You fool, don't you know that conceptual definitions vary from individual to individual and from church to church? Don't you even realize that the eastern church has a different concept on the distinction of the persons than the western church ? The east believes the west doesn't go far enough in drawing out the true distinction or separation of persons(accusation of modalism), conceptually speaking, and the west counters by accusing the east of tritheism, of going too far in the separation , just as Sparkey also accuses the link I furnished of tritheism

If you say so!

You still haven't answered my question Dumbo.Was Gregory of Nyssa's rendering of the trinity doctrine an "official definition" ?

best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,



The author of the link I originally furnished doesn't consider himself to be Mormon Sparkey, nor is he; he is trinatarian and ardently so, and he claims to be trinitarian. You're burning a strawman. Don't you even get it? This is the classic struggle between the Western trinity (your) and the Eastern trinity. Both claim to be champions of the true trinitarian faith, with the western church accusing the eastern of tritheism and the eastern blaming the western for modalistic heresy. Dinoysus of Alexandria is a good example I this regard:

"Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 190-265) is another example of the misunderstanding concerning the discussions of the Triune God. He was strong to oppose Sabellius, but in doing so he appeared to lean to the other extreme and was charged with teaching tritheism."





Thank you.



Sparkey, the problem with you is that you're ignorant of the evolution and development of the trinity doctrine.

And it is clear that you dont have a clue what the trinity doctrine truly is. You insist on fighting strawmen and telling me what I believe and know. You quote rinkydink personal websites and claim that they are the "true" definition of what the trinity doctrine is. It makes you look silly. I happen to know what I believe and I happen to know it agrees with all of the majory orthodox Christian denomination's definition of the trinity. I even quoted one for you. If you think I do not believe in trinitarianism but in modalism, would you care to prove it by quoting me and comparing it to the official trinitarian statement of a major orthodox Christian denomination? (that's orthodox with a little "o" btw)

By now it's clear that your thinking is very simplistic and linear.

and its clear that your thinking is nonexistant.

Sparkey, when will you realize that you're not the one who decides who a trinitarian is and who isn't??

NO DUH! Although AS a trinitarian my statement of what I believe is the trinity is at least more reliable than YOUR statement of what I believe. That is why I am insisting you use an official definition of what the trinity is from an official orthodox church statement. I won't force my personal definition on you and I don't want you to hoist your wacky definitions at me. That way we both have an official source to refer to. I agree with the SBC statement I quoted earlier as an official and true statement of the the trinity. Do you?

Infact many eastern trinitarians will probably brand you a modalist for not mantaining enough distinction or spearation between the persons of the trinity.

You don't even have a clue what you are talking about!

Men far more intelligent than yourself have charged even "great" trinitarians like Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysus of Alexandria, Paul of Samasota,and many others of not being trinitarian at all:.



"At various times, Gregory of Nyasa (A.D. 330-395) was attacked both for being modalistic and also for being tritheistic, depending upon what Scriptures he used in expounding the incomprehensible mystery of the Triune God. [39] On the Holy Trinity Gregory of Nyssa says:

They charge us with preaching three Gods …. Then truth fights on our side, for we show both publicly to all men, and privately to those who converse with us, that we anathematize any man who says that there are three Gods, and hold him to be not even a Christian. Then, as soon as they hear this, they find Sabellius a handy weapon against us, and the plague that he spread is the subject of continual attacks upon us. [40] "

Wow I feel so close to Gregory right now. Because apparently he went through the exact same thing I am going through here. YOU and Topherlee both accuse me of believing in three Gods and when I deny that you accuse me of Sabellism (modalism) when I have publicly shown to you and everyone else that I believe in only ONE God and do not believe in modalism or "role-playing" by God. You do to me exactly what those idiots were doing to Gregory. I guess there really IS nothing new under the sun. You arians use the same dishonest tactics over 1000 years later. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Does that mean Gregory of Nyssa was a tritheist?.Ofcourse not. He believed himself to be a trinitarian.

It just means that there were idiots like you back then too.

Why do you cry foul when I accuse you of modalism but you yourself turn around and accuse a bona fide trinitarian link of tritheism? Aren't you being hypocritical?

They use terms like three separate BEINGS to describe God. To me that sounds like tritheism. Maybe they are just careless in their language. Either way, it is NOT a good definition of the trinity. Why do you fight so hard against using the definition from an official orthodox church source? Are you afraid you can't repudiate that?

Sparko I've come to the conclusion that you're very dense.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

I understand the trinity doctrine better than you do Sparkey. That's just a fact of life.

A pure example of the Dunning Effect in action, folks.

And the following says it all:



“Thus the problem of misunderstanding and even outright misrepresentation had again surrounded the struggle to be able to utter the mystery of the Triune God without being placed in a false position by the opposers.” [41] "

best wishes,

ref:
http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/responses/booklets/modalism.html

Dang! Do you realize that by quoting that verse you are admitting to outright misrepresentation of my views? Because that is exactly what is happening here. You insist on telling me what I 'really' believe despite my adamant denial of being sabalistic or tritheistic. I even quote an official trinitarian definition from the SBC and say I agree with that and you still accuse me of heresy. I accuse YOU of outright misrepresentation of my views.

[PaulT]

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

No genius. It just goes to show that the term son of God was applicable to agents of God , or those with intimate relationships with Him. The term carries absolutely no trinitarian notions of equivalency with God what so ever. Even the trinitarian Catholic encyclopedia does not dare to suggest son of God meant God in Jewish paradigms or in the Old Testament usage :



"The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero , a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God.Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).



The leaders of the people, kings, princes, judges, as holding authority from God, were called sons of God. The theocratic king as lieutenant of God, and especially when he was providentially selected to be a type of the Messias, was honoured with the title "Son of God". "

And here's the clincher and just what I've been stating all along. That son of God was an equivalent term denoting Messiah in Jewish thought. From the horse's mouth:

"But the Messias, the Chosen One, the Elect of God, was par excellence called the Son of God (Ps. ii, 7). Even Wellhausen admits that Ps. ii is Messianic (see Hast., Dict. the Bible", lV, 571).



The devils called Him by the same name, the Jews ironically, and the Apostles after He quelled the storm. In all these cases its meaning was equivalent to the Messias, at least."

Bud, you shift from the discussion regarding the only “Begotten” to the term son of God. This dispute isn’t the meaning of the term when used to describe men, but whether or not the term when identified as the “Only Begotten” provides a different meaning.



Nevertheless, I take it your inability to answer the question resulting in you providing evidence that has nothing to do with the question means, you cannot show Adam was ever considered “the” or “a” Messiah. IOW, what other “agent” of God was ever called the “Only Begotten Son of God”.

Hi Paul,

Being that you're not very logical to begin with, your blank , inane opinion means very little to me.

The reformation continues I see.

Hi Paul,

You're the consummate obfuscator Paul, after all speaking from both sides of the mouth is the trinitarian's forte.

Pot calling the kettle black, eh?

Hi Paul,

Answer my question: Are you still holding on to the notion that son of God meant God to first century Jews like Caihapas the high priest?

Yes, not only I’m I holding to it, but I’ve demonstrated convincingly over on the Mormon thread that this is in fact the Biblical case.

Hi Paul,

P.S. Only begotten son of God does not mean God as even the Jewish encyclopedia succinctly puts it, but beloved son, chosen servant:

"The phrase "the only begotten son" (John iii. 16) is merely another rendering for "the beloved son." The Septuagint translates ("thine only son") of Gen. xxii. 2 by "thy beloved son." But in this translation there is apparent a special use of the root , of frequent occurrence in rabbinical literature, as a synonym of ("choose," "elect"; see Bacher, "Die Aelteste Terminologie der Jüdischen Schriftauslegung," s.v.); the "only begotten" thus reverts to the attribute of the "servant" who is the "chosen" one."

ref:

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=964&letter=S&search=Son+of+God

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm [/QUOTE]

And you suggest my argument is inane, based on what you’ve provided above, I’m not sure you understand the definition of the word.



In order for you to prop up your argument you resort to a document developed by those who presuppose Christ was not who He said He was, and this is supposed to validate your claims. Did it ever occur to you that the Jews killed Christ, and that admission of what the term meant would validate their ancestors were wrong.



Not surprisingly, BAG, gives a few meanings that cast a completely different rendition of the term. According to BAG, the word monogenes means Only or Unique not beloved. The lexicon goes on to provide the meanings as in an only-begotten, God or a God begotten of the Only One. These meanings convey the view as being of the same substance, nature or attributes, in a similar view as my son carries my genes. The term is only applied to Jesus in the Johannine literature, indicating that Christ is just not an “agent” of God, as you’ve pointed out “son of God” can be used of men in the OT, but rather is God.



Again, I go back to my question, did John get it wrong in stating the Christ was the ONLY Begotten Son of God or was Adam as well Begotten of God. Even using your luricous definition of the word monogenes, are you now saying Adam was not a “beloved” son of God, or did John not understand how the Jews used the term?

Regards,

Paul

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparkey,

And it is clear that you dont have a clue what the trinity doctrine truly is.

This is a non-answer.

You insist on fighting strawmen and telling me what I believe and know. You quote rinkydink personal websites and claim that they are the "true" definition of what the trinity doctrine is. It makes you look silly. I happen to know what I believe and I happen to know it agrees with all of the majory orthodox Christian denomination's definition of the trinity. I even quoted one for you. If you think I do not believe in trinitarianism but in modalism, would you care to prove it by quoting me and comparing it to the official trinitarian statement of a major orthodox Christian denomination? (that's orthodox with a little "o" btw)

The "official trinitarian definition" is subject to varying interpretations by varying churchs genius. What's the official trinitarian statement anyway? The Athanasian creed?

and its clear that your thinking is nonexistant.

Another non-answer.

NO DUH! Although AS a trinitarian my statement of what I believe is the trinity is at least more reliable than YOUR statement of what I believe. That is why I am insisting you use an official definition of what the trinity is from an official orthodox church statement.

Do you know the eastern church has traditionally accused the western of modalism and the western has accused the eastern of tritheism ?

I won't force my personal definition on you and I don't want you to hoist your wacky definitions at me. That way we both have an official source to refer to. I agree with the SBC statement I quoted earlier as an official and true statement of the the trinity. Do you?

What "official source"?

You don't even have a clue what you are talking about!

Another non-answer.

Wow I feel so close to Gregory right now. Because apparently he went through the exact same thing I am going through here. YOU and Topherlee both accuse me of believing in three Gods and when I deny that you accuse me of Sabellism (modalism) when I have publicly shown to you and everyone else that I believe in only ONE God and do not believe in modalism or "role-playing" by God. You do to me exactly what those idiots were doing to Gregory. I guess there really IS nothing new under the sun. You arians use the same dishonest tactics over 1000 years later. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Bingo! You accuse that link of believing in three Gods(tritheism) even though it claims to not believe in three gods.

It just means that there were idiots like you back then too.

Another non-answer.

They use terms like three separate BEINGS to describe God. To me that sounds like tritheism. Maybe they are just careless in their language. Either way, it is NOT a good definition of the trinity. Why do you fight so hard against using the definition from an official orthodox church source? Are you afraid you can't repudiate that?

That sounds like "tritheism" to you because you're misrepresenting them, you're burning a strawman against them. They use terms like separate beings because they wish to draw a proper distinction between the three persons, unlike yourself, yet they do not say the three beings have a different nature. That link claims to be trinitarian but you keep burning a strawman against it, accusing it of tritheism. Can you not follow a simple train of thought, Sparkey?

A pure example of the Dunning Effect in action, folks.

Another non-answer.

Dang! Do you realize that by quoting that verse you are admitting to outright misrepresentation of my views? Because that is exactly what is happening here. You insist on telling me what I 'really' believe despite my adamant denial of being sabalistic or tritheistic. I even quote an official trinitarian definition from the SBC and say I agree with that and you still accuse me of heresy. I accuse YOU of outright misrepresentation of my views.

Do you realize that by quoting that verse you are admitting to outright misrepresentation of the link's views? Because that is exactly what is happening here. You insist on telling everyone what that link "really" believes despite their adamant denial of being non-trinitarian.

You're a smart one sparkey. .

best wishes anyhow,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Paul,

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.





Bud, you shift from the discussion regarding the only “Begotten” to the term son of God. This dispute isn’t the meaning of the term when used to describe men, but whether or not the term when identified as the “Only Begotten” provides a different meaning.



Nevertheless, I take it your inability to answer the question resulting in you providing evidence that has nothing to do with the question means, you cannot show Adam was ever considered “the” or “a” Messiah. IOW, what other “agent” of God was ever called the “Only Begotten Son of God”.

Your entire thesis in another thread was based upon the assertion that in Jewish paradigms the phrase son of God meant God.

Do you still believe this nonsense? Yes or No?

good luck,

[PaulT]

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

Your entire thesis in another thread was based upon the assertion that in Jewish paradigms the phrase son of God meant God.

Do you still believe this nonsense? Yes or No?

good luck,

You misstate my premise on the other thread. My entire premise on the other thread was that the Jews claimed Christ blasphemed God because He equated Himself to God. Yes, I still believe this concept and I’ve I backed up my case to the point you have no response. After all it is hard to argue with the clear text of Scripture, remember John 10:33.

The title Son of God takes on a much different connotation when combined with the terminology “Only Begotten” aka monogenes. Your silence as evidenced by you inability to address the significance of the issue is deafening. Tell me, is it your position that the men identified in the Bible as sons of God were not beloved by God? If not, then why did John say Christ was the ONLY “beloved” of God? Your argument, based on the bogus explanation provided by the Jewish Encyclopedia is ridiculous.

Regards,

Paul

[Pythagoras]

Hi Paul,

You misstate my premise on the other thread. My entire premise on the other thread was that the Jews claimed Christ blasphemed God because He equated Himself to God. Yes, I still believe this concept and I’ve I backed up my case to the point you have no response. After all it is hard to argue with the clear text of Scripture, remember John 10:33.

You're speaking from both sides of your mouth again. Plus your thesis has shifted. You cannot logically say son of God = God and at the same time say son of God takes on a much different connotation when combined with the terminology "Only Begotten" and still insist son of God on it's own means God. Typical. Furthermore Christ was accused by the Jews at his trial of being son of God, not only begotten son of God, which further highlights the utter impossibility of your position , even granting your silly theory that son of God used in conjunction with begotten son means God.

The title Son of God takes on a much different connotation when combined with the terminology “Only Begotten” aka monogenes.

You just shot yourself in the foot as usual. The high priest accused Christ of blasphemy in Matt. 26:63 after Christ acknowledged he was son of God, not only begotten son of God. By your own reckoning therefore Christ was not charged with blasphemy for claiming to be God .

Your silence as evidenced by you inability to address the significance of the issue is deafening.

Unfortunately the silence is from you. I've already shown you from the Jewish encyclopedia the title only begotten son of God means beloved son and has no trinitarian connotations of equality with God whatsoever.


Anyway, keep fooling yourself and keep speaking from both sides of your mouth.-- your trinitarian forte. When will you stop believing in mumbo-jumbo three headed father, son ,holy spirit nonsense ? It reminds me of the three headed monsters from Hindu and Greek mythology, with multiple arms , elephant heads, monkey brains and so forth.

best wishes,

[mickiel]

Greetings,

I think Christ himself sums up this topic preety well in John 17:3," And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, The Only True God". Jesus called his Father the Only True God, so what does it matter what men are calling Jesus? There is only one true God and Jesus himself defines him here. I think people fail to properly understand who God is, or even Christ for that matter. In Rev.3:14, Jesus is called " The beginning of the creation of God". Again he is called the " Firstborn of all Creation". The Father has no birth of any kind. Jesus said in John 6:57, that he Lives BECAUSE of the Father. He owes his very existance to God, God lives because of no one. Jesus stated in John 8:42 that he proceeded forth and came from God, not of his own will. The Father never does anything based on anyones will but his own.

These are very distinct differences that reveal the Father as equal to none.

Peace, Mickiel.

[Sparko]

Hi Sparkey,




This is a non-answer.



The "official trinitarian definition" is subject to varying interpretations by varying churchs genius. What's the official trinitarian statement anyway? The Athanasian creed?





Another non-answer.






Do you know the eastern church has traditionally accused the western of modalism and the western has accused the eastern of tritheism ?




What "official source"?






Another non-answer.






Bingo! You accuse that link of believing in three Gods(tritheism) even though it claims to not believe in three gods.






Another non-answer.






That sounds like "tritheism" to you because you're misrepresenting them, you're burning a strawman against them. They use terms like separate beings because they wish to draw a proper distinction between the three persons, unlike yourself, yet they do not say the three beings have a different nature. That link claims to be trinitarian but you keep burning a strawman against it, accusing it of tritheism. Can you not follow a simple train of thought, Sparkey?



Another non-answer.






Do you realize that by quoting that verse you are admitting to outright misrepresentation of the link's views? Because that is exactly what is happening here. You insist on telling everyone what that link "really" believes despite their adamant denial of being non-trinitarian.

You're a smart one sparkey. .

best wishes anyhow,

well if I can't get you to be honest in your debating, I will just have to use your own tactics....

Yes, I agree with you pythagoras! You are right! God is a trinity. I completely agree with you that the following is a great description of the Trinity doctrine:

The doctrine of the Trinity is the belief that there is
only one living and true God. Yet, the one God is three
distinct Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Spirit. These three have distinct personal
attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or
being. They enjoy eternal communion and are coeternal
and coequal.

The doctrine of the Trinity denies tritheism.
Tritheism is the belief that there are three gods. There is
only one God. The doctrine of the Trinity also refutes
modalism. Modalism is the belief that God is only one
Person who appears in different modes at different
times. The three Persons of the Trinity exist simultaneously.
They are distinct and eternal Persons in the one
God.

I am so glad that you are now a trinitarian and believe the above. Thank you.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,

well if I can't get you to be honest in your debating, I will just have to use your own tactics....


Yes, I agree with you pythagoras! You are right! God is a trinity. I completely agree with you that the following is a great description of the Trinity doctrine:



I am so glad that you are now a trinitarian and believe the above. Thank you.

Didn't even address a single point from my last post! I think this is your way of conceding the points ..

Here's the bottom line Sparkey:

You accuse a link which claims to be trinitarian of tritheism but cry foul when someone else says your trinity boders on modalism.

(a) you're a hypocrite.
(b) you're not logically consistent.

As I mentioned in an earlier post trinitairan premises cannot find equilibrium because they are inherently illogical The centuries old battle between east and west is ample testimony in this regard.



best wishes,

[PaulT]

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for your response.

Hi Paul,

You're speaking from both sides of your mouth again.

You are delusional. I’ve never spoken from both sides of my mouth.

Hi Paul,

Plus your thesis has shifted.

You need to reread the discussion in the Mormon thread. My thesis has not shifted.

Hi Paul,

You cannot logically say son of God = God and at the same time say son of God takes on a much different connotation when combined with the terminology "Only Begotten" and still insist son of God on it's own means God. Typical. Furthermore Christ was accused by the Jews at his trial of being son of God, not only begotten son of God, which further highlights the utter impossibility of your position , even granting your silly theory that son of God used in conjunction with begotten son means God.

We’ve already demonstrated ad nausea your inability to reason, so your view of what is and is not logical means nothing.

You are too much, did you just say on post #174, “Because both terms , son of God and only begotten son of God in the context used are Messianic title” ? Even you apparently recognize that terminology takes on different connotations based on the context. The fact that you cannot provide 1 insistence of where the term used of Adam = Messiah, disproves your point, regarding the meaning of the term “Son of God” as Messianic related, however it does support my view that the term can take on different meanings based on the context. I do thank you for your assistance in helping me prove my case.

Christ was accused at His trail of blasphemy because He claimed to be the “Son of God”. Based on the Jewish reaction not only Matt, but other texts, like John 10:33, clearly they took the meaning that He was claiming to be equal with God. We’ve argued this to the point of your capitulation on the Mormon thread.

Hi Paul,

You just shot yourself in the foot as usual. The high priest accused Christ of blasphemy in Matt. 26:63 after Christ acknowledged he was son of God, not only begotten son of God. By your own reckoning therefore Christ was not charged with blasphemy for claiming to be God .

Again, your ability to determine who is shooting who in the foot has been demonstrated to be problematic.

You’ve already capitulated on your point that claiming Messiah would be considered blasphemy, now you ask us to accept, claiming to be man with a “special” relationship would be construed as blasphemy. Neither of your 2 views is supported by the Biblical definition of blasphemy. However, we’ve clearly demonstrated that Jews accused Christ of blasphemy because while being a man He made Himself God.

Unfortunately the silence is from you.

I’m sorry, I believe I have answered each and every one of your questions; you on the other hand remain mute on the subject.

Unfortunately the silence is from you. I've already shown you from the Jewish encyclopedia the title only begotten son of God means beloved son and has no trinitarian connotations of equality with God whatsoever.

Again your failure to address the logical following of your argument goes to show how, what did you call it, “inane” your argument truly is. Will you ever answer, “Tell me, is it your position that the men identified in the Bible as sons of God were not beloved by God? If not, then why did John say Christ was the ONLY “beloved” of God? Your argument, based on the bogus explanation provided by the Jewish Encyclopedia is ridiculous.” undoubtedly no, eh? Again, who is shooting who in the foot?

Do you have any thoughts on why BDAG doesn’t agree with the definition of your source.

· 1. pertaining to the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, including Judges 11:34; Tobit 3:5; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son […] Hebrews 11:17. Of an only son […] Luke 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter […] of Jairus 8:42 […]

· 2. pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category […]. The renderings only, unique may be adequate for all occurrences here […] John 3:16 […]. verse 18; John 1:14 […].[…] See also on verse 18 an only begotten one, God (according to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective see John 10:33-36) […] Some […] prefer to regard [monogenēs] as somewhat heightened in meaning in John and 1 John to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on [to be born of God] (John 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to [prōtotokos (first-born)] (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15 al.) […]

Based on the above understanding of the word it would be understandable for the Jews to view Christ’s claims as blasphemy. However, we’ve previously shown on numerous occasions how truly void of reason your argument is.

Anyway, keep fooling yourself and keep speaking from both sides of your mouth.-- your trinitarian forte. When will you stop believing in mumbo-jumbo three headed father, son ,holy spirit nonsense ? It reminds me of the three headed monsters from Hindu and Greek mythology, with multiple arms , elephant heads, monkey brains and so forth.

Why do you keep denying who Christ is?

Regards,

Paul

[Pythagoras]

Hi M.,

I think Christ himself sums up this topic preety well in John 17:3," And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, The Only True God".

Yep! This kills trinitarianism instantly. According to Jesus the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD.

What else could Jesus have said in as many words had he wanted to show people he didn't believe in trinitarian philosophy?

Jesus succinctly said what we non-trinitarians say using many more words. As a non-trinitarian I would say stuff like this, "The son and the holy spirit are not really God, only the Father is truly God. No other person is God, except God. .." Jesus said it better than I.

best wishes,

[mickiel]

Hi M.,





Yep! This kills trinitarianism instantly. According to Jesus the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD.

What else could Jesus have said in as many words had he wanted to show people he didn't believe in trinitarian philosophy?

Jesus succinctly said what we non-trinitarians say using many more words. As a non-trinitarian I would say stuff like this, "The son and the holy spirit are not really God, only the Father is truly God. No other person is God, except God. .." Jesus said it better than I.

best wishes,

Greetings,

Yes Jesus showed it right there for all to see, they see, but they do not understand. Going about within their own understanding, they have not submitted themselves to the Righteous understanding of God. But it is not because they don't want to, we cannot forget that. People want to understand, but they have been given a faulty understanding literally from Birth. So they have built upon that error, as if it were truth.

Jesus is the Image of God, not God himself, so he looks to be God in their understanding. Notice Col.1:15," He , Jesus, is the Image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all Creation." The Father is Literally invisible to humanity, so humans relate to Christ as being God, because they cannot see God the Father, so they hold to Christ Image of him, I understand that, we need to hold to something. Verses 16-18 explain all that Jesus is, and Verse 19 explains that Jesus is those things BECAUSE of the Fathers good Pleasure, or will. Which also means that Jesus wouldNOT be those things if it were not Gods will, which means The Father is vastly Superior to him. Verse 26 calls true Spiritual Understanding, A Mystery, and vs. 27 plainly shows its the Father who must will that these mysteryies be understood in the human mind. This is why Jesus said no one can even come to him unless the Father draws them first, because the Father is predominant in all things.

Peace to you, Mickiel.