Is your belief in God, entirely dependent upon

[Elijah John]

Is your belief in God entirely dependent upon your belief that Jesus himself is God, the 2nd person of the Trinity?

If the arguments of skeptics here on these boards, or the arguments of Historical Jesus Scholars such as Bart Ehrmann or John Dominic Crossan, or even the arguments of Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims or Jews suddenly clicked in your mind, with a light-bulb-"aha" realization that Jesus is not God, never claimed to be God, and none of his contemporaries every called him "God", what would you do?

Would you retain your general belief in God, as Father? Would you join another religion such as Islam or Judaism? Would you attempt to salvage what you can of Chrisitanity in a unitarian (small "u" not necessarily UU) fashion?

Or would that discovery cause you to become an atheist or an agnostic?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Those Jewish Christian sects were in competition with the Pauline sects, and of course Paul won and his version of Christianity is the basis of what we have today, as mainstream "orthodox" (small "o") Christianity.

But victory does not establish veracity.

Victory for Christ’s Church does in fact establish veracity. Christ promised He would remain with His Church – the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Paul was one of the ones He was speaking to when He said, “He who hears you, hear me� So, yeah, what Paul said was what Christ wanted him to say and what we should be listening to. But you want us to believe Charles Taze Russell, who didn’t come on the scene until the 19th century, wasn’t happy with Christianity so thought he would start his own church and that it should be taken seriously? Again, why? Who was Russell? By what authority did he create his own personal interpretation of Scripture?

Your thread is about how can Christians be so hung up on the Trinity. What you seem to miss is we are hung up on Christianity -- on Christ's Church! We go to the source for answers. What is the source of your church? You don't even have your own original Bible -- you took the one my Church gave you, tweaked it to your liking and went from there, continuing to change your teachings every few years or so. Maybe if you wait a few more years, JW's will start teaching the Trinity. If they did, would you remain loyal?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 21 by RightReason]

You seem to have mistaken me for a Jehovah's Witness. True, Jehovah is my God, but I am not a JW or a fan of CT Russell.

I do think they are right on some major issues though. Primarily that Jesus is not God.

Regarding Paul, Jesus also warned there would be false prophets. Paul's teachings are dramatically different than those of Jesus. In effect, Paul himself preached a "different Gospel".

Jesus' God was Jehovah, Paul's? "Christ".. In effect Paul took the religon of Jesus, mixed it with a bit of Mediterranean Pagan philosphy, and transformed it into the religion about Jesus.

As Thomas Paine so aptly put it, "instead of God, a man is preached".

It may well be that Paul was the prototypical heretic. But even heretics speak truth and wisdom from time to time. It's hard to argue with 1 Corinthians 13.

But his whole atonement theology is based on his belief of a literal Adam and Eve. Paul's attempts to tie Jesus execution to the Temple sacrificial system is his attempt to find meaing in the unexpected martyrdom of the would-be Messiah. Theological interpretation and speculation.

Do you, (do Roman Catholics for that matter still), believe the Garden fall story, literally?

By the way, this is a major difference between me and the Jehovah's Witnesses. They have a far higher regard for Paul and his "ransom theology" than I do.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

You seem to have mistaken me for a Jehovah's Witness. True, Jehovah is my God, but I am not a JW or a fan of CT Russell.

Sorry, I did think that.

I do think they are right on some major issues though. Primarily that Jesus is not God.

Aren’t these passages in your Bible too . . .


John 1:1, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . [14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.


Hmmmmmm . . . not a lot of ways to read that.


John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

^ Even the crowd knew what He was saying here because immediately following in John 10:33 they tried to stone Jesus because in their words, “you, being a man, make yourself God.�
So, again it appears even those who heard Jesus knew He was saying He was God.

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!�


Colossians 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

In context, it is the Son Who is being described (1:13); He is eternal (1:15, 17-18), the Creator (1:16), and the unifying principle of the universe (1:17; cf. Heb 1:3): all attributes true only of God. Paul makes the notion even more explicit in the next chapter:

Colossians 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

2 Peter 1:1 . . . our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

St. Paul uses the same phrase in Titus 2:13 as well.

Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.�

This is a remarkable passage, in which God the Father calls His Son “God.� It is a reference to the Old Testament passage, Psalms 45:6-7.

In Hebrews 1:6, God the Father also says that all the angels should worship God the Son. Worship can only be rightly applied to God, as we know from Exodus 34:14 and Deuteronomy 8:19. Yet Jesus accepted worship of Himself on many occasions (e.g., Mt 14:33; 28:9) and stated that He should be honored equally with the Father (Jn 5:23). In Revelation 5:8, 12-13 and Colossians 2:6-7, we find that Jesus is worshiped in every way that the Bible specifically describes worship of God the Father, with all the same words used (see: Rev 4:9-11, 5:13; 7:11-12, and Rom 11:33).

Jesus is omnipotent (possesses all power):

Philippians 3:20-21 . . . the Lord Jesus Christ, [21] who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself.

He's omniscient (all-knowing):

Colossians 2:2-3 . . . Christ, [3] in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

He's omnipresent (present everywhere):

Ephesians 1:22-23 the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all. (cf. Col 3:11)

Another astonishing passage along these lines is one where Jesus speaks about historical events described as being done by God the Father in the Old Testament. He casually applies them to Himself (what might be called “the Divine 'I'�):

Matthew 23: 34, 37 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, . . . [37] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Many attributes that are said to belong only to “God� are applied to Jesus in Scripture. God the Father said, “besides me there is no savior� (Is 43:11; cf. 1 Tim 4:10). Yet Jesus is called the “savior� of mankind in passages like Luke 2:11 and many others.

God the Father stated, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear� (Is 45:23). The same exact description is also applied to Jesus (Phil 2:10-11).

The Bible teaches that “God� is judge (1 Sam 2:10; Ps 50:6; Ecc 12:14; many others). But so is Jesus (Jn 5:22, 27; 9:39; Acts 10:42; 2 Tim 4:1). Therefore He is God.

God the Father sits on His throne in heaven (1 Ki 22:19; Ps 11:4; 47:8). Jesus is on the same throne, too (Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).

At every turn in the Bible, only one conclusion is possible, to make sense of all these statements, taken together as a whole: Jesus is God the Son. He is the eternal, all-powerful, all-loving, self-existent Creator God.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstro ... sus-is-god

Regarding Paul, Jesus also warned there would be false prophets. Paul's teachings are dramatically different than those of Jesus. In effect, Paul himself preached a "different Gospel".

And yet Jesus said to the Apostles, “He who hears you, hears me�. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven�.

Once again, are those passages not in the Bible you use? Sounds like Jesus had more confidence in those He chose then you do.

esus' God was Jehovah, Paul's? "Christ".. In effect Paul took the religon of Jesus, mixed it with a bit of Mediterranean Pagan philosphy, and transformed it into the religion about Jesus.

Riiiiiiiight. Is this the word according to Elijah John? How odd for God to send Jesus and say, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased� And you go on and ignore Jesus.

But his whole atonement theology is based on his belief of a literal Adam and Eve. Paul's attempts to tie Jesus execution to the Temple sacrificial system is his attempt to find meaing in the unexpected martyrdom of the would-be Messiah. Theological interpretation and speculation.

Talk about speculation. Sounds like you think you have Paul all figured out, but since you don’t even seem to be able to acknowledge the passages about Christ, I’d say you are likely wrong about Paul as well.

Do you, (do Roman Catholics for that matter still), believe the Garden fall story, literally?

It is not necessary to take the story of creation about Adam and Eve literally. The point was to establish who God is, who man is, and our relationship with God. Sounds like there is a lot about my faith you erroneously think you know.

By the way, this is a major difference between me and the Jehovah's Witnesses. They have a far higher regard for Paul and his "ransom theology" than I do.

You both seem to be off shoots or splinter groups that broke away from Christ’s Church, more interested in doing your own thing. Good luck with that.

[Elijah John]

Aren’t these passages in your Bible too . . .


John 1:1, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . [14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.


Hmmmmmm . . . not a lot of ways to read that.

I actually agree with you here. "John" seems to want us to believe that Jesus is God. But even John contradicts himself in 17.3. .." that they know you, (meaning the Father) the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.". Even John's Jesus makes a clear distinction here between himself and God.

But let's go with the prologue. Have you ever wondered why the Synoptic evangelists were not nearly as bold in stating (in effect) "Jesus is God"? Did John know something they did not?

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

^ Even the crowd knew what He was saying here because immediately following in John 10:33 they tried to stone Jesus because in their words, “you, being a man, make yourself God.�
So, again it appears even those who heard Jesus knew He was saying He was God.

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!�

Again, only in John. Why do you suppose the Synoptic evangelists once again, missed these statements?

Colossians 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

In context, it is the Son Who is being described (1:13); He is eternal (1:15, 17-18), the Creator (1:16), and the unifying principle of the universe (1:17; cf. Heb 1:3): all attributes true only of God. Paul makes the notion even more explicit in the next chapter:

Colossians 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

2 Peter 1:1 . . . our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

St. Paul uses the same phrase in Titus 2:13 as well.

And from Paul we also get this. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

So, was Paul confused? Conflicted? Or did he believe Jesus was God, but for some reason hesitated to come out and say definitively "Jesus is God". Why didn't he say this as clearly, and as boldly as the OT writers proclaimed "YHVH is God"?

Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.�

This is a remarkable passage, in which God the Father calls His Son “God.� It is a reference to the Old Testament passage, Psalms 45:6-7.

In Hebrews 1:6, God the Father also says that all the angels should worship God the Son. Worship can only be rightly applied to God, as we know from Exodus 34:14 and Deuteronomy 8:19. Yet Jesus accepted worship of Himself on many occasions (e.g., Mt 14:33; 28:9) and stated that He should be honored equally with the Father (Jn 5:23). In Revelation 5:8, 12-13 and Colossians 2:6-7, we find that Jesus is worshiped in every way that the Bible specifically describes worship of God the Father, with all the same words used (see: Rev 4:9-11, 5:13; 7:11-12, and Rom 11:33).

So, because NT authors come along and apply characteristics previously only reserved for God, to Jesus, we should conclude that Jesus is God? Isn't that a bit circular?

Jesus is omnipotent (possesses all power):

Philippians 3:20-21 . . . the Lord Jesus Christ, [21] who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself.

Paul seems to think so, here.

He's omniscient (all-knowing):

Colossians 2:2-3 . . . Christ, [3] in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Yet didn't he say about his return (I think it was in John) that "only the Father knows"?

Also, Jesus had to "grow in wisdom and stature in the sight of God and men". Did Jesus grow into his Omniscience or was he all-knowing from birth?

He's omnipresent (present everywhere):

Ephesians 1:22-23 the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all. (cf. Col 3:11)

At the very most, the passage suggests that Christ is present in his Church. But that is a limited domain. Is he also present in the Mosque? The Synagogue? Hindu Temples? The hearts of unbelievers?

Another astonishing passage along these lines is one where Jesus speaks about historical events described as being done by God the Father in the Old Testament. He casually applies them to Himself (what might be called “the Divine 'I'�):

Matthew 23: 34, 37 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, . . . [37] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

You make a good case, but those are words attributed to Jesus, and not penned by his own hand. Hearsay.

Many attributes that are said to belong only to “God� are applied to Jesus in Scripture. God the Father said, “besides me there is no savior� (Is 43:11; cf. 1 Tim 4:10). Yet Jesus is called the “savior� of mankind in passages like Luke 2:11 and many others.

Right, God the Father through Isaiah said "besides me there is no savior". Besides God the Father there is no savior. You said it, perhaps more than you intended.

The statement from Isaiah pre-empts later writers from calling anyone but Father YHVH "Savior". So where you cite this as proof that Jesus is God because some call him "Savior", I conclude those who call Jesus "Savior" are wrong, and I'm pretty sure Isaiah would agree. According to Isaiah, there is no Savior but YHVH. Jesus is not YHVH.

God the Father stated, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear� (Is 45:23). The same exact description is also applied to Jesus (Phil 2:10-11).

Again, Jesus is not Jehovah. (YHVH) Because Paul lifted and twisted a passage from Isaiah and applied it to Jesus only demonstrates that Paul seems to have considered Jesus his God. Paul's opinion does not make it so.

The Bible teaches that “God� is judge (1 Sam 2:10; Ps 50:6; Ecc 12:14; many others). But so is Jesus (Jn 5:22, 27; 9:39; Acts 10:42; 2 Tim 4:1). Therefore He is God.

God the Father sits on His throne in heaven (1 Ki 22:19; Ps 11:4; 47:8). Jesus is on the same throne, too (Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).

NT authors did a good job in conflation. But they were not always consistent in doing so. (again, John 17.3, 1 Timothy 2.5)

At every turn in the Bible, only one conclusion is possible, to make sense of all these statements, taken together as a whole: Jesus is God the Son. He is the eternal, all-powerful, all-loving, self-existent Creator God.

And yet, many arrive at a very different conclusion and do not agree with you, or the RCC.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstro ... sus-is-god

I have seen quite a few links which demonstrate that Jesus is not God. Mostly by Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses using the New Testament itself. I find their arguments on this matter more convincing.

Regarding Paul, Jesus also warned there would be false prophets. Paul's teachings are dramatically different than those of Jesus. In effect, Paul himself preached a "different Gospel".

And yet Jesus said to the Apostles, “He who hears you, hears me�. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven�.

Once again, are those passages not in the Bible you use? Sounds like Jesus had more confidence in those He chose then you do.

Paul claimed Jesus chose him, but many even in his own time doubted it. How easy would it be for anyone to claim that the "Risen Christ" chose them to preach a new version of the Gospel?

Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, only in a vision. Subjective. Some would say a self-appointed apostle.

esus' God was Jehovah, Paul's? "Christ".. In effect Paul took the religon of Jesus, mixed it with a bit of Mediterranean Pagan philosphy, and transformed it into the religion about Jesus.

Riiiiiiiight. Is this the word according to Elijah John? How odd for God to send Jesus and say, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased� And you go on and ignore Jesus.

Not just my opinion, but many Historical Jesus scholars as well. It sounds as though this is news to you, and that never heard the theories? I wish I could take credit, but I cannot. Have you read any books about the historical Jesus or the development of Christianity without the Imprimatur and approval of the RCC?

But his whole atonement theology is based on his belief of a literal Adam and Eve. Paul's attempts to tie Jesus execution to the Temple sacrificial system is his attempt to find meaing in the unexpected martyrdom of the would-be Messiah. Theological interpretation and speculation.

Talk about speculation. Sounds like you think you have Paul all figured out, but since you don’t even seem to be able to acknowledge the passages about Christ, I’d say you are likely wrong about Paul as well.

Do you, (do Roman Catholics for that matter still), believe the Garden fall story, literally?

It is not necessary to take the story of creation about Adam and Eve literally. The point was to establish who God is, who man is, and our relationship with God. Sounds like there is a lot about my faith you erroneously think you know.

I am a Catholic, though not a good one. Indoctinated in the faith since childhood. I am familiar with the Church's theological teachings, but I have outgrown many of them. I guess that makes me a Catholic "heretic". Just because I no longer embrace the theology in many ways, does not mean I am not familiar or do not understand the theology. In fact, the Church has changed on many matters, includiing the literal existence of Adam and Eve. At least I hope so, the RCC used to take the story literally.

By the way, this is a major difference between me and the Jehovah's Witnesses. They have a far higher regard for Paul and his "ransom theology" than I do.

You both seem to be off shoots or splinter groups that broke away from Christ’s Church, more interested in doing your own thing. Good luck with that.

See above. One thing I learned by questioning was to see even doctrinaire RCs as fellow children of God and spiritual brothers and sisters. If the dogma of the Church and the Trinity works for you, all well and good, go with God. But absolute Monotheism, direct access to YHVH, and simple repentance works better for me. It's not as though I haven't tried conventional Christianity (Catholicism).

I think you make a good (though not perfect) case, supported by good use of many Scriptures, and it's easy to see why so many believe in the Trinity. But still, I am not convinced. Hopefully, my replies indicate why.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

But let's go with the prologue. Have you ever wondered why the Synoptic evangelists were not nearly as bold in stating (in effect) "Jesus is God"? Did John know something they did not?

Why do you differentiate between the Gospel writers? Did they all not write the Gospels? Why believe any of them if you are going to not listen to them all? Why pick and choose some of the passages and disregard others? It makes no sense. A reading of the Bible as a whole is required. Also, one either believes the Bible is from God, or he does not. You don’t get to cite parts of it as true, while dismissing others. That’s illogical.

Again, only in John. Why do you suppose the Synoptic evangelists once again, missed these statements?

Again, we can learn something from each part of Scripture. If Bob & Tom witnessed the same event, they might each describe/report on the event differently. Bob might leave something out that Tom mentioned or vice versa. This doesn’t mean one of them is not telling the truth.

So, was Paul confused? Conflicted?

No, but sounds like you might be. A pet peeve of mine is when some attempt to claim contradiction in the Bible. They tend to say things like, “X claimed to only take the sandals on your feet, but Y said take nothing with youi�, well which is it?� <sigh> I don’t have time for such nonsense.

Yet didn't he say about his return (I think it was in John) that "only the Father knows"?

Also, Jesus had to "grow in wisdom and stature in the sight of God and men". Did Jesus grow into his Omniscience or was he all-knowing from birth?

I’m not sure you even understand the theology you are objecting to. Jesus was true God and true man. Therefore, He would have still had to grow like any man would. He was fully human.

Again, Jesus is not Jehovah. (YHVH) Because Paul lifted and twisted a passage from Isaiah and applied it to Jesus only demonstrates that Paul seems to have considered Jesus his God. Paul's opinion does not make it so.

Again, not sure why you would give any of Scripture any credence if in fact you actually believe this. It is illogical.

It sounds as though this is news to you, and that never heard the theories? I wish I could take credit, but I cannot.

LOL! No, I am well familiar with all the typical heresies. You are correct. You cannot take credit for them. There is nothing new under the sun. Every generation re packages some old heresy and adheres to it as their own – pleased with themselves for recognizing what they think others can’t. They read the same old same old heretical claims and see them as “compelling theories�. Not realizing themselves that they have been debunked long ago. They have been found invalid, invented, and lacking.

I am a Catholic, though not a good one. Indoctinated in the faith since childhood.

And how long have you been indoctrinated in your heretical theories?

I am familiar with the Church's theological teachings
, but I have outgrown many of them.

Why not all of them? Why believe any? We don’t outgrow truth.

One thing I learned by questioning was to see even doctrinaire RCs as fellow children of God and spiritual brothers and sisters. If the dogma of the Church and the Trinity works for you, all well and good, go with God. But absolute Monotheism, direct access to YHVH, and simple repentance works better for me. It's not as though I haven't tried conventional Christianity (Catholicism).

Uuumm . . . the Church teaches direct access to God and repentance soooo . . . again I’m afraid it appears you do not know the faith you left. Also, it is interesting to me to not note the irony. You use the Church’s Bible, but then pick and choose what you want to believe and what you don’t. You trusted the Catholic Church enough to accept her authority and compilation of the Bible, but now you think . . . “I’ll just take it from here . . .� LOL! When people are titillated by books that read more like Dan Brown novels with “compelling theories� that twist/change and alter the Bible until they come up with some new theology of their liking, it makes little sense to me.

As G.K. Chesterton said, “I don’t want a church to be right when I am right, I want a church to be right when I am wrong.�

We don’t get to invent a new church just because it pleases us because like you said I’ve tried conventional Christianity and it didn’t work for me. It doesn’t work that way.

I think you make a good (though not perfect) case, supported by good use of many Scriptures, and it's easy to see why so many believe in the Trinity.

Yes, there is tons of Scriptural evidence supporting the Trinity. Of course quite frankly there need be none (even though there is plenty). Because Scripture is not the Christians sole authority. We have always been expected to follow both Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition! In fact, the Church came before the Bible. The Church is the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ Many people falsely believe Scripture is, but that’s not what Scripture says. Also, the Bible are words on a page – all words need to be interpreted. They need to be understood. Christ left His Church to give us and interpret Sacred Scripture. She and she alone has this authority.

Sooo . . . those who come along thinking they have a new take on Scripture is kind of funny. And we see what happens when people do that. We end up with thousands of splinter groups breaking away from Christ’s Church all teaching different things. From where does their authority come? How can they be sure they are getting it right? Like I said – kinda funny if you think about it . . .

[marco]

Aren’t these passages in your Bible too . . .


John 1:1, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . [14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.


Hmmmmmm . . . not a lot of ways to read that.

We argue this again and again. Logos was there at the start, the reason and power of God. Jesus personified the word of God, calling himself, metaphorically, the Way, the Truth and the Life. He drew his teaching from God to such an extent that he was the incarnate word of God - the walking word.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

"Even the crowd knew what He was saying here because immediately following in John 10:33 they tried to stone Jesus because in their words, “you, being a man, make yourself God.�

This is appeal to a misunderstanding. You think because an excited crowd react adversely this PROVES Jesus is God. The crowd also misunderstood his "Before Abraham was, I am." Some misunderstood his metaphor about being reborn. It is unsafe to consult an anonymous crowd and draw important conclusions from their reactions and misunderstandings.

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!�

It all depends on the actual delivery of this text. Were the words "I believe in" used as well. I am often reminded that we cannot rely on words being used verbatim, since the account was given long after the event and not by the speaker. Could it have been: "My God - you are my Lord" or some variation lost in the decades of poor recall? And is Thomas the doubter a first class indicator of what constitutes deity?

Colossians 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

Bottom of the barrel stuff now. This is true for Christ as God's messenger; he was the incarnation of the word of God. The word was represented by Jesus. And in John we are told that the word was with God and by metonymy the word was God. There's no great revelation here; just the normal claim that Christ was God's special envoy. And many people can be a saviour without being God.

Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.�

This is a remarkable passage, in which God the Father calls His Son “God.� It is a reference to the Old Testament passage, Psalms 45:6-7.

It is a quotation from Psalms. God presumably isn't in need of using second-hand speech. If it has meaning in its second life, then "sceptre" gives a clue to its figurative interpretation.

Jesus is omnipotent (possesses all power):

He's omniscient (all-knowing):

All power, Jesus says, comes to him from the Father. He admits that no one -not even he - knows when the end will be. So he's not omniscient and never claimed to be. His miracles are delivered by the Father; he was raised from the dead by the Father. Jesus instructs us to pray to the Father, who art in heaven, not to himself. He consistently redirects worship to God.


It is just wishful thinking on the part of his followers that their leader be as big as a Roman Emperor, and attain deity. An adjustment of a line here, a hint there - and Jesus becomes God. But he never claimed to be.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

We argue this again and again.

Yes, we do

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

"Even the crowd knew what He was saying here because immediately following in John 10:33 they tried to stone Jesus because in their words, “you, being a man, make yourself God.�

This is appeal to a misunderstanding.

Seriously? The entire reason Jesus was crucified was not simply because they saw Him as a prophet or good story teller. It was because He made Himself God! Honestly Marco, I’m not just basing something on the reaction of the crowd – rather the entire reason for the crucifixion.

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!�



It all depends on the actual delivery of this text. Were the words "I believe in" used as well.

No. The correctly translated Scripture does not indicate that.

Could it have been: "My God - you are my Lord" or some variation lost in the decades of poor recall?

Again, no that isn’t the way the words are translated. Many Biblical scholars take translation very seriously – knowing even the changing or rewording of one word can change the entire meaning of something.

Of course it is also important to bring up here what I always feel I must and that is that we are to turn to Christ’s Church for guidance if we are unclear of a passage. THAT is why Jesus left us with One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. Makes sense, right?

Quote:

Colossians 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,


Bottom of the barrel stuff now

Hmmm . . . as bottom of the barrel as asking perhaps Thomas said, “My God! You are my Lord�. LOL!

Quote:


Hebrews 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.�

This is a remarkable passage, in which God the Father calls His Son “God.� It is a reference to the Old Testament passage, Psalms 45:6-7.



It is a quotation from Psalms. God presumably isn't in need of using second-hand speech. If it has meaning in its second life, then "sceptre" gives a clue to its figurative interpretation.

Huh?

He consistently redirects worship to God.

Uh huh . . . and God redirects worship as well, “This is my son, in whom I am well pleased� An all encompassing reading of Scripture is required. We go thru this every time. Just because Jesus tells us to pray to God does not mean He is not God. Because if we look at the Bible as a whole, we see it actually does tell us that He is. You point to verses that do not negate mine – they simply supplement mine, but you read the Bible in isolated passages of your choosing and draw conclusions that work for you.

An adjustment of a line here, a hint there - and Jesus becomes God.

Ha, ha, ha . . . right back at ya . . . an adjustment of a line here, a hint there – and Jesus is not God. Easy, peasy, lemon squeezie.

[JehovahsWitness]

Colossians 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Colossians 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

While there are various opinions as to how to interpret Paul's expression in Colossians 2:9, Chapter 1 verse 19 makes it clear that whatever it was that "dwelt in Jesus" it was at the instiation and will of the Father that the "fullness" (whatever that is referring to) was in The Son. This hardly supports the idea of Jesus being a coequal, trinitarian god, since nothing can be added to an infinite being whose qualities are already in the absolute.

Code: Select all

New American Standard 1977 
For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him

Various other translations:

New International Version
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

New American Standard Bible
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him,

American King James Version
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;

American Standard Version
For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;

Douay-Rheims Bible
Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father, that all fullness should dwell;

English Revised Version
For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;

Webster's Bible Translation
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;

QUESTION What dwelt fully in Christ?

• The King James Version and the Darby bible refer to the "godhead" dwelling in Christ, in Col 2:9. This expression is not found in this passage in most other bibles.
  
  The Greek word being translated in Col 2:9 theotes (the nominative form, from which theotetos is derived). According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p 792 this word means “divinity, divine nature� so rather than saying Jesus was part of a truine "godhead", the passage is highlighting Jesus divine (or godlike) qualities. This harmonizes with what Paul wrote in the same Chapter in verse 3 when speaking of Christ, when he said "carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge". Thus we read in ...
  

  The Good News Translation
  For it was by God's own decision that the Son has in himself the full nature of God.
  
  The Weymouth New Testament
  For it was the Father's gracious will that the whole of the divine perfections should dwell in Him.
  
  The New World Translation:
  because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily

CONCLUSION Rather than supporting the idea of a coequal, coeternal truine god, to whom nothing can be added and whose nature and qualities are absolute, Colossians 2:9 and Colossians 1:19 present a Jesus endowed with qualities at this Father's good pleasure that fully reflect what Almighy God is like without him (Jesus) being himself being Almighty God.

Further Reading (word study)
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... s-and.html

Search for bible truths
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/201 ... on-at.html




RELATED POSTS

Is Jesus "divine"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 896#870896

[JehovahsWitness]

He is eternal (1:15, 17-18).

Douay-Rheims Bible
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature - COL 1:15

While Colossians 1:15 implies Jesus had a prehuman existence it makes no reference to his being "eternal" rather it refers to his origins. Almighty God had no origin since he had no beginning and cannot rightly be referred to as the "firstborn" .

Further the basic meaning of "eternal" is unending and since other individual, notable spirit anointed Christians) are spoken of as being given immortality, as is the case of Jesus, being "eternal" as in endless, is not synonymous with being Almighty God or part of a trinity.

[JehovahsWitness]

He is eternal (1:17-18).

COLOSSIANS 1:17-18 Douay-Rheims (DRA)
And he is before all, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy:

These verses neither explicitly nor implicitly refer to Christ being eternal. They imply his existence predates all other things, that he is " the firstborn from the dead"