John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
It’s not that the Son of God is inferior to the Father, but there is a unity in the Godhead. One nature, doesn't mean separate.
Jesus became man and limited Himself to being human and needing to rely upon His Father.
O.K. Let me see if I got this.
1.) "The Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner."
Interpretation: Since the Son can do nothing of Himself then the Son is a separate being from the Father.
2.) "It’s not that the Son of God is inferior to the Father, but there is a unity in the Godhead. One nature, doesn't mean separate."
Interpretation: The Son is co-equal to the Father and one nature doesn't mean separate so the Son is the same being as the Father.
3.) "Jesus became man and limited Himself to being human and needing to rely upon His Father."
Interpretation: Jesus needed to rely upon his Father so the Son is a separate being from the Father.
Jesus went from being the same being as the Father, to a separate being from the Father, to the same being as the Father in just four sentences. You would have made a great New Testament author.
My argument as a "Christian heretic" would have been against your claim in #2 that the Son of God is not inferior to the Father. The bible suggested to me that Jesus WAS inferior to the Father which meant that he was a separate being. A few examples:
1 Cor. 11:3 - "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
John 14:28 - "...because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
1 Cor. 15:28 - "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
So it stands to reason that Jesus, while still being God in nature, was limited in knowledge as well as physical strength and the other human limitations. So He is saying that God needs to reveal things to Him and the second coming apparently wasn't revealed to Him.
Look at that. I'm a prophet. Referring to Jesus' ignorance of the timing of his second coming, I stated in post #142, "I am going to predict that the answer you will give me will sound a lot like you are trying to round the corners of a square to make it a circle so they can be the same shape. Nothing you say will make sense to me because this is a contradiction. My guess is that you will "round the corners" and say that Jesus didn't have all the attributes in His humanity."
Just kidding. I am not a prophet. It was just a good guess. Something to think about: If Jesus was "limited in knowledge as well as physical strength and the other human limitations", then He wasn't fully God. I'm going to use your phrase and say it "stands to reason" that Jesus is not fully God if there is evidence of Him not possessing all the attributes of God. Saying that Jesus is fully man and fully God is a CONTRADICTION. The Trinity is impossible to understand because CONTRADICTIONS DON'T MAKE SENSE TO LOGICAL HUMANS WHO UTILIZE THE ATTRIBUTE OF "REASON"!
When I said that it's impossible and a contradiction, I'm saying that it takes the Holy Spirit to reveal it in the heart. It's difficult for me to describe, but I don't sense any contradiction here, even though it's tough to put into words.
I think you have this backwards. It's tough to put into words because it is a contradiction. I think I have just spotted a contradiction of contradictions. I hope this doesn't turn out to be an infinite regression of contradictions.
Referring to the apparent contradiction of Jesus being one being with the Father and at the same time not knowing the timing of his second coming you said in post #159, "It's not only a contradiction to a logical human being. It's a contradiction to all human beings."
But now you say, "I don't sense any contradiction here".
You are contradicting yourself saying that you don't sense any contradiction here.
I do think that it's good to think through and be ABLE to explain it, which is part of the reason why I'm here. To be challenged to think and explain.
It is good to think through all of this and be ABLE to explain it. I commend you for being here. I especially respect the fact that you are trying to defend the most controversial and illogical doctrine presented in the bible. The reason why it is challenging for you to explain the Trinity to me is because I have too much ammo from the bible that speaks directly against the notion that there is one God presented in three persons that are co-equal, co-eternal and con-substantial.
You say I twist certain scriptures and as a former "Christian heretic" I would say that you are twisting certain scriptures. The truth is that every Christian apologist has to twist certain scriptures to fit their view of certain doctrines because there are too many apparent contradictions. My conclusion: Either the Holy Spirit is a horrible communicator or this Holy Spirit thing doesn't exist. I have jumped the fence from the land of make-believe to the land of reason and logic and now believe the latter.
Does a person need to believe in the Trinity to be saved? Back to that question.
Great it seems like you are going to finally answer this question directly. I am still confused as to your answer to this question. You said it is important to understand that Jesus is God to understand salvation and then it seemed like you contradicted yourself by saying that it is not a prerequisite to believe that Jesus is "I am" (Yahweh). So a simple yes or no would be great!
So I'm reading your answer.........................aaaaaand once again I am disappointed as you don't answer the question directly. I still have no idea if you believe that one has to believe in the Trinity (or binity) in order to be saved.
I'm left to believe that you might not even have an answer to this. In addition, I'm left to believe, once again, that the doctrine of salvation is unclear in the bible.
I still say that it's important to understand who you believe in. If Jesus is a created being, it doesn't make sense that He could create eternal souls. Since He, Himself isn't eternal.
This sounds like exactly what my former pastor preached. However this is your opinion and not biblical. In addition, this is what you call a non-sequitur (logical fallacy). It is just as plausible that the Father created the Son and then they shared in the creation. Two verses to consider: Proverbs 30:4 and John 17:4.
Furthermore, ask yourself, is there any evidence in the bible where Jesus is GIVEN authority by the Father? Yep! One example:
Matt. 28:18 - "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth." It "stands to reason" that if power had to be GIVEN to the Son then the Son is not co-equal or con-substantial with the Father.
If Jesus is eternal Son, then the idea of a personal relationship with God makes sense because being our Creator, He loved us so much that He went to the cross. Christ loved us so much that He tells the story of leaving the 99 sheep to find the one lost. The prodigal son story, and shows compassion for and rescues the prostitute.
Not to get too off topic but this sounds like I might have a chance at this thing you call salvation. Harbinger says, "The holy spirit won't regenerate the non-elect. Until then, much like yourself, there is no desire to repent nor can there be".
It seems like you (and Jesus) are implying that I am lost and that Jesus will possibly rescue me. Even though the odds are one in a million, are you saying that I have a chance? Harbinger says that the Holy Spirit won't regenerate the non-elect and there can be no desire for a person like me to repent.
Do you agree with him? Do I have a chance? A yes or no would be much appreciated. I'm testing the credibility of my previous conclusion that the Holy Spirit (a.k.a God) is either a horrible communicator or he doesn't even exist.
It's not just Jesus the created being on the cross. It's Jesus your Creator on the cross because He knows you intimately, and loves you.
Why can't it be both? Jesus can be both a created being and my creator right? The definition of SON implies that Jesus was created.
In addition, I have an argument that it was not Jesus' plan to come down to earth to die on the cross for the sins of mankind because he loves people. He only did what the Father commanded him to do. It seems to me that the Son died on the cross not out of love for people so much but out of obedience to his Father. It was the Father's plan and not the Son's. Three verses to consider:
Matt. 26:39 - "And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”
John 8:42 - "...for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me".
John 6:38 - "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me".
TWO DIFFERENT INITIATIVES - TWO DIFFERENT WILLS - TWO DIFFERENT BEINGS! It "stands to reason" that the doctrine of the Trinity is either contradictory or completely unbiblical depending on how one wants to twist scripture to fit their view of Jesus.