Is Jesus the Son of God or God?

[wolfunchained]

I have not read all the posts in this topic but i have a few thoughts.

Why does there need to be 3 gods that are all different but the same? Surely 1 god is enough and could design a perfect species of humans. Not a bunch of sinners doomed from the first 2 humans created!
Gods says to himself, " better create a human form of me to save all human kind from my stuff up in design!
Ill even make a backup copy in ghost form in case jesus doesnt work out."

I ask what i called "sheep believers" who just follow the herd,  thier understanding of the trinity and i get object lessons, e.g "its like a tree, God is the trunk, jesus is the branches and the holy spirit is the leaves. They r all seperate but they make up one object, a tree".

i can manipulate that in 1000 different ways.  A biscuit is made of flour, cocoa and eggs. Seperatly they are different but together they are a delicous treat called a biscuit. To a sheep im being pathetic and poking holes in thier faith but im merely pointing out they r simply being feed object lessons they can recall at a moments notice to help them understand something that cannot be proven or explained properly.

[wheels5894]

wolfunchained,

If you read my post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25855.msg586738.html#msg586738) in which I detail a little bit of early church history that explains how it came to be that the Christian church talk about the Trinity you will at least understand why it is part of belief today.

As far as your post is concerned, it certainly is the case that one would have thought that al all-powerful god could manage everything on his own so that there is clearly no need for more than one god, yet Christians will tell you they only believe in one god  - albeit one with more than one person.

However the most sense is made by just deleting god from any explanation as one is not needed.

(Link to post added GB Mod)

[Anfauglir]

I doubt I can make any of you understand.....I have to admit I don't understand how it works.....

I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

My apologies: but if this is a topic that YOU don't understand, how can you expect to be able to share verse to enable US to understand?  If the teacher doesn't get it, what hope is there for those he is trying to enlighten?

Harbinger PM'd me a while back to say that I had misunderstood what he said about what he did, and did not, understand.  He suggested that we just wanted to pick holes, didn't really want to understand, and would be leaving the site and not returning.  As such, I didn't see any need to respond.

However, I see he has now returned and is posting again, so I repeat my question.  Harbinger, if I misunderstood what you meant when you said "I have to admit I don't understand how it works", I apologise - presumably then you DO understand exactly how the 3-in-1 works and can explain it clearly and without hyperbole?

[Andy S.]

Hey Harbinger, you lucked out.  You now can admit to Anfauglir that you DO understand the nature of the Godhead.  We live in an amazing age of communication.  God has given you a glimpse into the throne room of heaven and we have a recording of God the Father and Jesus nailing down the correct understanding of the Godhead.  God (they) used the internet to communicate the correct understanding of their nature. Now humans don't have to be confused over the doctrine of the Trinity.  We now know how the 3 in 1 works.       Link:

[nogodsforme]

^^^^They are so gonna burn! And this cute discussion led to actual killing wars back in the day.

You say monophysite, I say duophysite, you say Armenian Church, I say Jehovah's Witnesses. You say Jesus is god in man and I say, you die, infidel heretic and epitome of all that is evil! Eat my sword! 

I love me some Mr. Diety.

[Anfauglir]

Harbinger, I'm not sure what device you are using to post, but I have just removed several posts where you quote and say nothing,  or post responses in different threads to where the questions were asked.

Please review the quoting tutorial that Screwtape has directed you to, first off.

[Patrick Henry]

I'm new to the website.  Just picked a forum at random to get started. 
I will answer the question from a christian perspective. 

What you are referring to is the trinity, so I will answer your question on that basis.
The quick answer is that Jesus is both. Positionally He is the Son of God.  But He is united with God to the extent that we can worship Him as we would God Himself.  I think of it like this:  the name "God" is one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit. 
The way I try to understand the trinity is by relating it to things that we see here on earth.

1.  Marriage.  A man and woman become "one flesh" Two people united to become one union.  Genesis 2:24, Eph 5:31
This means two individuals who are united in thought and in a sense even their bodies, and love one another so much that they give their entire selves to each other.  Also, they know one another so well that one can speak for the other in full confidence.
2.  My son or daughter are people who are related to me so closely and I love them so much and know them so well that I can trust them, speak for them, share my life with them in full confidence that they will never break my trust or abandon me when I need them.  Some day in my old age, this will become more and more the case.   The reverse was true when they were in my household growing up and were dependent upon me (at each stage in their young lives). 

Now obviously we are not perfect people and these are not perfect examples, but God's reality has many parallels here on earth that we can draw from.  Our imperfections give us hope that we will someday see Him in His perfection and enter in with Him in an eternal place where all things that are not perfect here on earth will be redeemed.
- Patrick

[xyzzy]

I'm new to the website.  Just picked a forum at random to get started. 
I will answer the question from a christian perspective. 

What you are referring to is the trinity, so I will answer your question on that basis.
The quick answer is that Jesus is both. Positionally He is the Son of God.  But He is united with God to the extent that we can worship Him as we would God Himself.  I think of it like this:  the name "God" is one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit. 
The way I try to understand the trinity is by relating it to things that we see here on earth.

1.  Marriage.  A man and woman become "one flesh" Two people united to become one union.  Genesis 2:24, Eph 5:31
This means two individuals who are united in thought and in a sense even their bodies, and love one another so much that they give their entire selves to each other.  Also, they know one another so well that one can speak for the other in full confidence.
2.  My son or daughter are people who are related to me so closely and I love them so much and know them so well that I can trust them, speak for them, share my life with them in full confidence that they will never break my trust or abandon me when I need them.  Some day in my old age, this will become more and more the case.   The reverse was true when they were in my household growing up and were dependent upon me (at each stage in their young lives).

Those examples are all to separate, discrete, physical entities. By extension, is Jesus a separate, discrete, physical entity to Yahweh? Would that, then, make Jesus his son and not "god"? If not, I'm missing the analog in your analogy.

Now obviously we are not perfect people and these are not perfect examples, but God's reality has many parallels here on earth that we can draw from.  Our imperfections give us hope that we will someday see Him in His perfection and enter in with Him in an eternal place where all things that are not perfect here on earth will be redeemed.

That sounds very deep. What does it mean?

[wheels5894]

Patrick Henry,

Your analogies are all very well, though in fact they don't work. I have been married for nearly 40 years and we are still two people - separate in where we go, in our tastes etc. Of course we do things together as a couple and we share a lot in common but we are still two people. Whoever wrote the 'one flesh' line must have been thinking not of our modern understanding of marriage of two equal partners but of a man 'buying' a wife and she becoming his property. Even then it doesn't work.

So, the Trinity - I detailed a very sketchy outline of how it got accepted as a doctrine by the church but, honestly, it does mean that people believe it at all. See, if we don't understand the fact that a married couple as 'one flesh' as we can see them separately doing different things and having different personalities and so forth, and this is physical things on earth we can touch and feel and observe, then what chance have we of understanding anything about an undetectable god who effect on earth seems to be nil? Taking the odd lines of text written by people who never met Jesus and claiming that they tell us about a realm of which we have no way of knowing about seems to be highly suspect. There is precisely zero evidence for the existence of any god - yes any of the thousands that have been invented yet we have this doctrine that claims to understand the make-up of one particular god (although it really only states the problem!)

Patrick Henry, can you tell us your basis of believing anything of the Christian faith given this complete lack of any evidence for it? 

[Patrick Henry]

Patrick Henry,

Your analogies are all very well, though in fact they don't work. I have been married for nearly 40 years and we are still two people - separate in where we go, in our tastes etc. Of course we do things together as a couple and we share a lot in common but we are still two people. Whoever wrote the 'one flesh' line must have been thinking not of our modern understanding of marriage of two equal partners but of a man 'buying' a wife and she becoming his property. Even then it doesn't work.

It's important to understand that analogies aren't exact representations of the point.  So yes, you and your wife are still two people.  But, so is Jesus and the Father.  But they are one in nature, meaning they share the same perfect nature and somehow are united in the sense that they share perfect love with one another.  The Christian belief from the bible is that they have always existed together.  From my limited point of view they are two beings who are one in nature.
I see that you don't believe as I do but if a person does believe in God, then he can infere from the bible that we are talking about a God who operates in a multi-dimensional realm.  So it stands to reason that maybe we won't completely understand everything about Him



Patrick Henry, can you tell us your basis of believing anything of the Christian faith given this complete lack of any evidence for it?

I don't see a complete lack of evidence for the Christian faith.  Otherwise I would not believe.  The short answer is that we box ourselves in if we say that only science and physical evidence can be our proving ground.  I believe that humans are more complex than just the physical.  There is evidence of that.  But I think to answer your question in detail may require a different thread, if I understand the rules of the forum correctly. 

[wheels5894]

Patrick Henry,

1. Yes, evidence for the Christian Faith ought to be a new thread so go ahead and start one and I'll be there to discuss.

2. As far as belief in the Trinity is concerned, whilst it is true that the doctrine can find support in biblical texts - though I think the key ones are rather later that the gospel writings - the problem is that the texts equally support other explanations and it is hard to separate out one from another. So, for example

Adoptionsism
Jesus adopted as his son by god either at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.

Sabellianism is the idea that the separate characters of the Trinity are, in reality different aspects of the one god.

Arianism the idea that Jesus, though unique was still part of creation.

The thing about these, and loads more, is that they work with the bible texts as explanations and can only be satisfactorily declared heresies after one of the ideas is accepted. in any if the three I present above, things become much more straightforward than the trinitarian approach and, remember, the church has felt the need to call it a mystery (meaning we don't understand it either) so that it doesn't explain much at all.

[Andy S.]

What you are referring to is the trinity, so I will answer your question on that basis.
The quick answer is that Jesus is both. Positionally He is the Son of God.  But He is united with God to the extent that we can worship Him as we would God Himself.  I think of it like this:  the name "God" is one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit. 
The way I try to understand the trinity is by relating it to things that we see here on earth.

Welcome Patrick Henry!

All analogies concerning the Trinity fail in my opinion and I would say it is impossible to relate the Trinity to things that you see here on earth.  Creating an analogy for the Trinity is impossible from a human perspective because it is contradictory.  It would be like trying to come up with an analogy for a squared circle.  It is not logical!  It's just like imagining a person can have the qualities of man and the qualities of the the God of the bible at the same time.  As a former believer, I struggled with the Trinity as I did not think that the scriptures taught that Jesus was "co-equal, co-eternal, or consubstantial (one being)" with the Father.  It is not logical and extremely contradictory to think that a person can be fully man and fully God at the same time.  That is why the doctrine of the Trinity can only be viewed as a mystery.

I have a question for you or any other Christian on this forum.  It is popularly interpreted that Jesus is the great "I AM" in John 8:58.  If I want to become a Christian do I have to believe that Jesus is the great "I AM" referred to in Exodus 3:14?  In other words, do you let the doctrine of the Trinity overlap into the doctrine of salvation?  John 8:24 says that I will "die in my sins" if I don't believe that Jesus is "I AM".  A lot of bibles have "he" after "I am" which takes away from the Title of "I AM".  Notice that the "he" is italicized which means that this word "he" is not found in any manuscripts that make up the New Testament. 

Should I interpret the "I AM" as a just a verb or a definite title in John 8:24?

Do I have to believe Jesus is the "I AM" in Exodus 3:14 in order to be saved and not "die in my sins"?  Is believing this a requirement for salvation?

P.S. Just for your information, the name "God" DOES NOT just "refer to one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit".  Satan (I think) is called "God" (2 Cor. 4:4), Angels are called "Gods" (compare Heb. 2:7 to Psa. 8:5).  In addition, people (judges and rulers) are called "Gods" (Psa. 82:6) and this Psalm was the scripture that Jesus used to correct the wrong understanding that he was making himself out to be God in John 10:33-36.  The word "God" can be legitimately used in the bible to refer to others than "God" himself.

[wheels5894]

Just thought of a better analogy. Is light an electro-magnetic wave or a stream of particles called photons? Well it can't be both.. can it?

The Double Slit Experiment shows that light can be both wave and particle at the same time. The light's behavious an anaolgy ofr this Trinity thing?

[Andy S.]

Just thought of a better analogy. Is light an electro-magnetic wave or a stream of particles called photons? Well it can't be both.. can it?

The Double Slit Experiment shows that light can be both wave and particle at the same time. The light's behavious an anaolgy ofr this Trinity thing?

Wheels, that is a an excellent analogy of a binity.  I think this Trinitarian God is intentionally making it hard for us finite minded humans to come up with a perfect analogy for this "Trinity thing".  I found your analogy compelling so I went a step further and googled "Triple-slit experiment" to see if such an experiment could result in finding a good analogy for the "Trinity thing".  I couldn't believe that such an experiment existed but the powers of this Trinitarian God really making it hard for anyone to come up with the perfect analogy for his nature.  This article states:

"Although it is easy to add a third slit to the double-slit experiment, it has been more challenging to do it in a way that allows the precise measurements needed to check the validity of quantum mechanics."

Link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19215-tripleslit-experiment-confirms-reality-is-quantum.html#.Uq5x_Y1Y41A

In addition, "The result was a wavy interference pattern that matched the predictions of Born's rule to within the experiment's error margin of 1 per cent."  I think this God of the bible really wants the understanding of himself to remain a mystery that no human analogy can capture. 

This ambiguous doctrine of the "Trinity thing" remains contradictory to me which should not be the case for the God of the bible who doesn't wish "any to perish" (2 Peter 3:9).  I have a hard time believing that any God would make his nature out to be a squared circle. 

And the Christian God would have to be a MASSIVE TURD if he would make believing in a contradiction a requirement for salvation.  I guess it is however one wants to interpret John 8:24 since I believe this is the only verse that makes this belief a requirement for salvation.  Even if it is just a requirement to believe in at least a binity from the correct understanding of John 8:24, I believe the Christian God is a MASSIVE TURD for making this a requirement for salvation.  Especially since it is such an ambiguous verse and can be interpreted differently.  John 8:24 is a verse that deals with salvation and if even one verse about salvation can be interpreted differently--the conclusion is that the doctrine of salvation is unclear.  And who wants to go swimming in the pool of salvation if there is a MASSIVE TURD at the bottom.

I did think of an analogy that (I believe) captures the true essence and nature of the Trinitarian God.  Although my analogy is faulty (as all analogies are), my analogy has all the ingredients that make up the formula for the Trinity. My analogy really brings out the fact that the three "persons" have the same beginning, are co-equal, and are of one essence:

The trinity is like somebody who eats a healthy midnight snack which consists of corn, carrots, and cauliflower. These are all co-equal in that they are all vegetables. In addition, they all have the same beginning in that all three vegetables begin with the letter "c". The next morning the individual wakes up and takes a dump and one MASSIVE TURD comes out. The one turd consists of all three vegetables and all three vegetables make up the one turd. All three vegetables, although separate vegetables, are of one essence in the turd. Thus, you can see that my analogy really brings out the formula of the trinity in that all three entities have the same beginning, are co-equal, and are of one substance. Thus, the trinity can be defined as three separate entities that make up one MASSIVE TURD.

[harbinger77]

Since the question has turned to salvation... No almost everything we discuss on this whole site is not a requirement to believe. Rather road blocks for the wise.

If you Believe (i) you are a sinner in need of a savior. and (ii) That Jesus died for you. Then That his blood will wash you and cover you. ThenThat your sins may be forgiven. and through this unselfish act you can be made right with God and be saved. Christians such as I believe That He rose again on the third day and defeated death. This ability to have your sins removed It's is a free gift. He did all the work for you me. All you have I had to do is was accept it.

Harbinger77,
This post was, in its original form, reported as "preaching" which is against the rules. However, it is rare that WWGHA receives such a definition of "Salvation" and therefore I have allowed the post to stand but in an amended form: it is now "information" supported by personal experience.

I have left as much of the original as possible and therefore the punctuation and capitalisation may seem strange. I hope nothing of importance has been lost.

Please try and avoid anything that might be seen as proselytising.

GB Mod

[Jag]

Believe you are a sinner in need of a savior.

Why would I take your word for this? I'm going to skip everything else you said and just focus on this for now. Why should I believe that I'm a sinner in need of salvation?

Edited to add: I just noticed how late it is here. No more from me tonight, I'll check back tomorrow.

[Patrick Henry]

Patrick Henry,

1. Yes, evidence for the Christian Faith ought to be a new thread so go ahead and start one and I'll be there to discuss.

2. As far as belief in the Trinity is concerned, whilst it is true that the doctrine can find support in biblical texts - though I think the key ones are rather later that the gospel writings - the problem is that the texts equally support other explanations and it is hard to separate out one from another. So, for example

Adoptionsism
Jesus adopted as his son by god either at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.

Sabellianism is the idea that the separate characters of the Trinity are, in reality different aspects of the one god.

Arianism the idea that Jesus, though unique was still part of creation.

The thing about these, and loads more, is that they work with the bible texts as explanations and can only be satisfactorily declared heresies after one of the ideas is accepted. in any if the three I present above, things become much more straightforward than the trinitarian approach and, remember, the church has felt the need to call it a mystery (meaning we don't understand it either) so that it doesn't explain much at all.

It is a mystery but that doesn't surprise me coming from a Being much higher than myself.  I would expect some mystery.  Certainly doesn't get in the way of belief.  Though fun and important to discuss.

[Anfauglir]

Believe you are a sinner in need of a savior. That Jesus died for you. That his blood will wash you and cover you. That your sins may be forgiven. through this unselfish act you can be made right with God and be saved. That He rose again on the third day and defeated death.

But as Jag says: WHY should I believe that?

I have a Jewish friend who is just as firm that I should believe what he says is true - that this "Jesus" you talk about certainly did not die for me sins, likely never even existed.

I also have a Muslim friend who will tell me that while Jesus existed, he was a prophet, not god.

So why should I just believe everything you say, without any evidence whatsoever?

It's a free gift. He did all the work for you. All you have to do is accept it.

Really?  Cool!  I accept.

I'm saved now, right?  I don't have to do ANYTHING else?

Or are there indeed some strings and conditions to this "free gift"?

[Graybeard]

Since the question has turned to salvation... No almost everything we discuss on this whole site is not a requirement to believe. Rather road blocks for the wise.

Believe you are a sinner in need of a savior. That Jesus died for you. That his blood will wash you and cover you. That your sins may be forgiven. through this unselfish act you can be made right with God and be saved. That He rose again on the third day and defeated death. It's a free gift. He did all the work for you. All you have to do is accept it.

Of course that is what you say and you must be aware that this is the same as my telling you about how to cure the disease, "Flakey Hoof" in unicorns. As there is nothing to support the idea of their being unicorns, the disease has nothing to to be a disease of.

All this above also rest on several other assumptions and one inconsistency.

The main inconsistency is that God The Father sacrifices God the Son to... to whom? -> In the OT, there are many instances of animals being sacrificed to Yahweh: You have led an imperfect life, you give something of yours to Yahweh, and Yahweh forgives you - The Cosmic protection racket.

But here, who owned the sacrifice to start with and in whose honour is the sacrifice? Did God the Father (Yahweh) "own" Jesus? Did Yahweh create Jesus, "before the world began" or was there always a Yahweh, a Jesus and "The Holy Spirit" who were separate and independent?.

Once we have decided that, we have to decide: "In whose honour was the sacrifice?" Did Yahweh make a sacrifice to "mankind"? How strange... this is totally out of character. If so, Yahweh was asking mankind to "do Him a favour."

The next is "If I sacrifice my sheep to Yahweh, may I then eat the sheep?" If so, I don't seem to have lost much, so it really isn't a sacrifice, is it? In the same way, "If Yahweh gets Jesus back in heaven, has Yahweh actually lost anything?" After all, Jesus was said to be in heaven since before Creation, and will be there for Eternity, so 30 or so years don't seem very important, do they?

Finally, in the case of Jesus, He must have known He was going to heaven, so anything that happened to Him on Earth, really did not matter, did it? Look at this:

1. My teeth are fine -> Jesus lives in Heaven
2. One of my teeth starts hurting -> Jesus comes to Earth to tell us something is wrong. He has a bad time.
3. The dentist fills the tooth but it is painful -> Jesus is crucified
4. My teeth are fine. -> Jesus is back in heaven.

So can you have one more attempt at explaining to us how all this "Salvation" works?

[wheels5894]

The whole thing is rather like nailing jelly to the ceiling! The fact is, the whole story will have different interpretation on it depending of the part of Christendom Harbinger comes from. So, a question first -

Harbinger, what denomination do you belong to? This is important if we are to understand wher you thinking comes from. Thanks

The basics are simple enough - everything that is a sin (i.e the a priest has declared to be a sin) breaks to relationship of the person with god. To put it right, the person has to do certain things that might include the sacrifice of an animal for example. (Think of Catholics today - confession, absolution and performing various prayers tec.)

When Jesus was killed and the disciples thought they had seen him later, they realised that there was the replication of the process of sacrifice to clear sin and used that model to explain the death of Jesus which was, otherwise, just another killing by the Romans. I'm not sure that the people who came up with this were the ones who thought Jesus was divine, in which case it makes more sense. Paul talks about the ';new Adam' - sinless man to put right the sins of the first Adam. That makes sense, at least in the 1st century

Now, today, it makes a lot less sense because we have the problem of the Trinity - Jesus being part of the godhead and thus sacrificing himself to himself etc. Thus Christians must have to put some of this stuff out of mind to take on salvation. The one thing that puzzles me is, though, why did anyone have to die? All that is needed is the god and a penitent sinner and it can be all sorted out in prayer.I'd love to know the answer to that one.

[harbinger77]

 When I type out a msg and click preview it's all there. when I click post, my response deletes and the quote is posted alone. To my knowledge, your tutorial doesn't cover this issue.

I would also add because of this I have been double checking the post and editing as needed. unless these posts went back a while I am unaware of any blank posts.

I'll get to you salvation questions later.. I have to go to work now.. all good questions though.

[Andy S.]

Since the question has turned to salvation... No almost everything we discuss on this whole site is not a requirement to believe. Rather road blocks for the wise.

If you Believe (i) you are a sinner in need of a savior. and (ii) That Jesus died for you. Then That his blood will wash you and cover you. ThenThat your sins may be forgiven. and through this unselfish act you can be made right with God and be saved. Christians such as I believe That He rose again on the third day and defeated death. This ability to have your sins removed It's is a free gift. He did all the work for you me. All you have I had to do is was accept it.

Many Christian commentators would disagree with you.  They would say that believing Jesus is Yahweh IS A REQUIREMENT and here are a few commentaries on John 8:24 you can look at: 

Matthew Henry:  "He had said, You shall die in your sins, and here he stand to it: "Therefore I said, You shall die in your sins, because you are from beneath;' and he gives this further reason for it, If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins, v. 24. See here, (1.) What we are required to believe: that I am he, hoti egoµ eimi-that I am, which is one of God's names, Ex. 3:14.

John Wesley: "8:24 If ye believe not that I AM - Here (as in John 8:58) our Lord claims the Divine name, I AM, Exod 3:14. But the Jews, as if he had stopped short, and not finished the sentence, answered, Who art thou?"

Chuck Smith: "Jesus is actually using the name of God, "I AM." The word "he" was inserted by the translators (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58)."

David Guzik:  "If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins: Jesus called them to believe that I am. The "He" is rightly in italics and added by the translators. The title "I am" is a claim to deity, and if the Pharisees will be saved from dying in their sins, they must believe in Jesus and in who He really is - God the Son."

John MacArthur: "The word "He" is not part of the original statement.  Jesus' words were not constructed normally but were influenced by OT Heb. usage.  It is an absolute usage meaning "I AM" and has immense theological significance.  The reference may be to both Ex 3:14 where the Lord declared His name as "I AM" and to Is 40-55 where the phrase "I am" occurs repeatedly.  In this, Jesus referred to himself as the God (Yahweh-the Lord) of the OT, and directly claimed full deity for Himself."



Now I'm sure you could find many commentators/Christians who would agree with your stance on this requirement in John 8:24 but that is my whole point.  If one verse concerning salvation can be interpretated differently amongst Christians then the doctrine of salvation is deemed unclear.  And like I said, who would want to go swimming in the Christian pool of salvation with even one MASSIVE TURD in it?

Now who should I believe?  Harbinger77 or Matthew Henry, John Wesley, Chuck Smith, David Guzik and John MacArthur?  You say that it IS NOT a requirement for one to believe that Jesus is Yahweh (I AM) and these other Christian commentators say that IT IS a requirement to believe that Jesus is Yahweh unless I will "die in my sins".  Who's gospel is right?

Who should I believe is "accursed" according to Paul (Gal. 1:9)?  Who is preaching to me a contrary gospel to Paul's gospel?  Do you have a good defense as to why these popular commentators might be accursed in Paul's eyes?  Why should the "I AM" not be taken as a title in John 8:24?  Please, "make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).  What is your "hope" that your gospel is right?

P.S.  Isn't it unfortunate and frustrating that the bible calls this faith "the hope" and not "the assurance"?  I know when I leave a doctor's office I want the doctor to say, "I am assured you will get better" --- Not "I hope you get better". 

[Andy S.]

It's a free gift. He did all the work for you. All you have to do is accept it.

Really?  Cool!  I accept.

I'm saved now, right?  I don't have to do ANYTHING else?

Or are there indeed some strings and conditions to this "free gift"?

Some definitions of "free" (Webster's): 
                                1. "Not burdened by obligations or debts"
                                2. "With no cost or charge"
                                3. "exempt from duties"
                                4. "clear of obstructions"

For a skeptic like me, it could not be considered a "free gift" like Harbinger77 says.  It would take major WORK for me to believe that the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is true.  There are too many "obstructions".  I see nothing supernatural around me and all I am given in this 21st century is a contradictory "word of God".

I am given a contradictory genealogy of Jesus (compare Matt. 1 and Luke 3). I am given a contradictory time of death from these supposed eyewitnesses (compare Mark 15:25 with John 19:14). I am given a contradictory day of death from these supposed eye witnesses among many other contradictions. Did Jesus die on the afternoon on the day before the Passover meal (Jn. 18:28, 19;24) or the mid-morning on the day after the Passover meal (Mk. 14:12, 15:25)?  And I'm supposed to believe that these authors were eye-witnesses?

Tis' the season.  I put Harbinger77's gospel to a classic Christmas song.  Now his gospel might be more catchy to non-believer's since it can be put to a Jingle:


You better watch out, repent if you lie;
Believe you are a sinner I'm telling you why.
Jesus Christ is coming to town.

He knows when you are sinning,
You can avoid the fiery lake;
Just believe that Jesus died for you
and you'll be in heaven through your wake.

Oooooh, you better watch out,
In your sins you will die,
accept this free gift I'm telling you why.
Jesus Christ is coming to town!

[jdawg70]

Patrick Henry,

1. Yes, evidence for the Christian Faith ought to be a new thread so go ahead and start one and I'll be there to discuss.

2. As far as belief in the Trinity is concerned, whilst it is true that the doctrine can find support in biblical texts - though I think the key ones are rather later that the gospel writings - the problem is that the texts equally support other explanations and it is hard to separate out one from another. So, for example

Adoptionsism
Jesus adopted as his son by god either at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.

Sabellianism is the idea that the separate characters of the Trinity are, in reality different aspects of the one god.

Arianism the idea that Jesus, though unique was still part of creation.

The thing about these, and loads more, is that they work with the bible texts as explanations and can only be satisfactorily declared heresies after one of the ideas is accepted. in any if the three I present above, things become much more straightforward than the trinitarian approach and, remember, the church has felt the need to call it a mystery (meaning we don't understand it either) so that it doesn't explain much at all.

It is a mystery but that doesn't surprise me coming from a Being much higher than myself.  I would expect some mystery.  Certainly doesn't get in the way of belief.  Though fun and important to discuss.

Out of curiosity, what would get in the way of belief?

[harbinger77]

The whole thing is rather like nailing jelly to the ceiling! The fact is, the whole story will have different interpretation on it depending of the part of Christendom Harbinger comes from. So, a question first -

Harbinger, what denomination do you belong to? This is important if we are to understand wher you thinking comes from. Thanks

The basics are simple enough - everything that is a sin (i.e the a priest has declared to be a sin) breaks to relationship of the person with god. To put it right, the person has to do certain things that might include the sacrifice of an animal for example. (Think of Catholics today - confession, absolution and performing various prayers tec.)

When Jesus was killed and the disciples thought they had seen him later, they realised that there was the replication of the process of sacrifice to clear sin and used that model to explain the death of Jesus which was, otherwise, just another killing by the Romans. I'm not sure that the people who came up with this were the ones who thought Jesus was divine, in which case it makes more sense. Paul talks about the ';new Adam' - sinless man to put right the sins of the first Adam. That makes sense, at least in the 1st century

Now, today, it makes a lot less sense because we have the problem of the Trinity - Jesus being part of the godhead and thus sacrificing himself to himself etc. Thus Christians must have to put some of this stuff out of mind to take on salvation. The one thing that puzzles me is, though, why did anyone have to die? All that is needed is the god and a penitent sinner and it can be all sorted out in prayer. I'd love to know the answer to that one.

 I agree that knowing a persons denomination can tell quite a bit of their theology in one word. However, you should never assume things.

I claim no denomination. I refer to myself as simply Jesus freak sometimes I throw in narrow minded, Bigoted, Bible thumpin, Gospel preachin, Jesus freak! I stole some of that from a Baptist preacher I like. Most of that is for comedic effect though. Quite honestly, and I have a few ideas as to why, but I would argue with any church doctrine I've ever read. Therefore, I can claim no denomination. I guess for your own knowledge I am fundamentalist and slightly charismatic.

your second question, sins can only be forgiven by blood. Even the Jews knew that. Now days they have no temple so they lie to themselves and say sin may be forgiven by prayer.

[Andy S.]

your second question, sins can only be forgiven by blood. Even the Jews knew that. Now days they have no temple so they lie to themselves and say sin may be forgiven by prayer.

You mean, THE BIBLE LIES TO THE JEWS and says sin may be forgiven by prayer?  In other words there is a contradiction in the bible concerning the fact that "sins can only be forgiven by blood".  2 Chronicles 7:13-14 states:

     "If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and PRAY and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, WILL FORGIVE THEIR SIN and will hear their land."

I thought you said "sins could only be forgiven by blood" and Jews are lying to themselves by thinking that sins might be forgiven by prayer.  Where is the blood in 2 Chronicles 7:13-14?
 

This might be the contradictory verse you are referring to.  Leviticus 17:11 states:

     "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement". 

It seems like all you are doing here is agreeing with one side of a contradiction. 


Option 1.  These are different OT authors writing at different times with different ideas on forgiveness of sins.

Option 2.  OT authors were devious and just made this stuff up.

Option 3.  OT authors were delusional enough to think that God was talking through them.

Option 4.  Sins are forgiven through blood (Lev. 17:11).

Option 5.  Sins are forgiven through 1. humbling themselves, 2. praying, 3. seeking God's face and 4. turning from wicked ways (2 Chron. 7:13-14)

Option 6.  God's teaching on forgiveness evolved from the times of the writing of Leviticus to the times of the wrinting of 2 Chronicles. 

Option 7.  Harmonizing this contradiction by mashing option 4 and 5 together.  This makes a total of 5 requirements (that I know of) for sins being forgiven in the Old Testament.



I would say that option 7 is entirely implausible because I find it unlikely that the God that "inspired" this bible would leave out any requirement for the forgiveness of sins either in Leviticus 17 or in 2 Chron. 7.  Some of these options could overlap but I will know here in a second what the correct answer is.  I could have possibly left out an option but I just bought the newest version of the Christian apologetic survey computer and the computer will let me know if I left out a viable option according to the majority view of Christian apologetics.

Let me plug these options into my Christian apologetic survey computer and see what option is the most plausible.

The Christian apologetic survey saaaaaaaaayys............Option number 7.  Dang it, I'm wrong again.  I should have known it was the option that I found least plausible.  My excuse is that I am spiritually appraised (1 Cor. 2) and the "God of this world" is blinding my mind (2 Cor. 4).

[Patrick Henry]

Welcome Patrick Henry!

All analogies concerning the Trinity fail in my opinion and I would say it is impossible to relate the Trinity to things that you see here on earth.  Creating an analogy for the Trinity is impossible from a human perspective because it is contradictory.  It would be like trying to come up with an analogy for a squared circle. .......  It is not logical and extremely contradictory......

I have a question for you or any other Christian on this forum.  It is popularly interpreted that Jesus is the great "I AM" in John 8:58.  If I want to become a Christian do I have to believe that Jesus is the great "I AM" referred to in Exodus 3:14?...................Should I interpret the "I AM" as a just a verb or a definite title in John 8:24?
Do I have to believe Jesus is the "I AM" in Exodus 3:14 in order to be saved and not "die in my sins"?  Is believing this a requirement for salvation?

P.S. Just for your information, the name "God" DOES NOT just "refer to one name given to three persons who are Father, Son, and Spirit".  Satan (I think) is called "God" (2 Cor. 4:4), Angels are called "Gods" (compare Heb. 2:7 to Psa. 8:5).  In addition, people (judges and rulers) are called "Gods" (Psa. 82:6) and this Psalm was the scripture that Jesus used to correct the wrong understanding that he was making himself out to be God in John 10:33-36.  The word "God" can be legitimately used in the bible to refer to others than "God" himself.

Sorry I messed up your quote......
I relate the trinity to things here on earth as only something to try and attach to for understanding. I believe that clues or reflections of other dimensions are a possibility.  It's like a two dimensional creature (if you know the flatlander concept) trying to understand a three dimensional creature.  It is impossible to completely understand, but clues or reflections of other dimensions can provide a kind of evidence. 
I think that "I AM" is a title with an understanding that it means God has always existed.  It would seem important to understand that for a clear belief in God.  Jesus thought it was important that He be understood in that way.  Since He announced it.
I didn't take the time to look at the original Greek or Hebrew for the words used when calling satan god, or rulers gods.  It's clear when reading those scriptures in their context that they are gods with a little "g" and not God Himself or equated to God at all.  I think actually that Jesus was not denying what He claimed but actually reiterated it again in John 10:38......I am in the Father and the Father is in me.  It certainly made the Jewish leaders angry.  - Patrick

[Angus and Alexis]

Learn to quote please...

[Graybeard]

I claim no denomination. [...] I would argue with any church doctrine I've ever read.

You are not alone in this. If you ask 1,000 Christians which parts of the Bible they agree with and which they think are wrong for today's society, they all have their own opinion. If you then ask them how they understand various passages of the Bible, you would probably get 1,000 different answers.

You see, it is not just religion, it is everyone who learns a philosophy has their own way of interpreting it. Here's an experiment you can do: Ask a few folk about why murder rates are falling in the US. Let them talk for a while.

You will find that everyone has their own opinion that differs in some way from everyone else's.

This should tell you something about religious belief.

I see that you are strong on telling us such things as "only blood can forgive sins" which is quite untrue (as Andy pointed out)... and yet you say it! If I wanted proof that you have invented a religion, I would have it there, wouldn't I?

But again you are not alone. Every religious person invents their own religion: they invent their own god. Their belief is no more than "Fan-Fiction."

The questions that interests me most are (i) "Why do you feel the need to say the things you do?" (ii) "What do you get from saying these things?"