The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?

[shnarkle]

There are no shortage of online sites providing numerous examples of contradictions and inconsistencies from the biblical texts. While some of these are quite simply the result of poor reading comprehension skills or an unfamiliarity with the texts, others seem legitimate. Many of those that are legitimate are inconsequential, but some could be quite controversial and may have significant ramifications.

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?


One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. While I can see his point, and also agree that none of those pagan deities are real, I do wonder how he is able to disregard the law which he upholds; a law that forbids eating anything that is sacrificed to idols.

The reason this could be looked at as disturbing is because it indicates to me that Paul has attributed capriciousness to Paul's God.

[Bust Nak]

"The text" being referred to here, is literally this: "A is X and A is not X", not the Bible. I am asking you a question on that text: Does "A is X" qualify as a false interpretation of that text, when the first clause clearly says A is X?

Oh, okay. In that case, then, the answer is no. It would not be a false interpretation of A is X to say A is X if the text we are looking at is "A is X and A is not X".

Right, and my follow up point is, contradictory interpretations such as "A is X" and "A is not X" can both be correct interpretation of a contradictory bit of text.

But you do agree with me that, "A is X and A is not X" is logically incoherent, right? Either one is false or they both are. But it cant logically be the case that both A is X and A is not X are true, right?

Sure.

And then, I have to ask, how does this example translate over to your contention that both interpretations can be correct but the text is contradictory if A doesn't represent the text of the Bible? What are the values for A and X in your example then?

I was objecting to you contention that "[two contradictory interpetations] can't both be correct interpretations if the text itself is contradictory. If the text is contradictory then at least one interpretation is still incorrect."

Firstly, right off the bat your contention has problems. Your contention was that there is a contradiction between: "Grace alone" versus "work + grace. Yet, the word grace doesnt even appear in either of these passages and they are pertaining to justification which your contention doesnt mention at all. Did you just make a mistake here or did you mean something else?

How is salvation through faith possible, if not via the grace of God? Come on, stop sweating over the terminology, the concept is well established, even if you don't follow a particular doctine.

All one need do is read the entire chapter of James 2 and it becomes quite apparent that the context is that James is addressing a kind of faith. The kind of dead faith which produces no good works (2:17, 26). That kind of faith is no different than the mere belief the demons have (2:19). And thats a problem because the demons arent justified.

That's the point faith alone is not enough. Faith without work is "death faith." Demons have faith and they are not justified. Faith has to be accompanied by works.

And thats where your arguments continually fail. They dont address context. And thats what you need for a contradiction to stick...

That's why I brought up doctrines that goes with these verses, Christians have been looking at the entirety of the Bible, with the context in mind, without seeking to undermine the text, and still came to the conclusion that faith has to be accompanied by works. The accusation of picking verses out of context, juxtaposing them might work against these verses in isolation but not in wider context of the existence of sects of Christianity and endless debate between scholars and theologians.

Both James and Paul, here, affirm that faith is required in order to be justified. The works James is referring to here are good works like feeding and clothing the poor (James 2:15-17). The deeds Paul is talking about which we are not justified by are the works of keeping the law...

By keeping the law is a good deed, at least in the minds of Paul.

The significance is the impact it has on Christianity. So an inconsequential contradiction on something like where did Jesus land his boat might be useful as an argument against inerrancy for example. But big whoop.

A contradiction on how one enters heaven, however, has eternal consequences and is therefore highly significant. In other words, in my opinion, the significance of the contradiction is the impact of it on Christianity, not whether or not there simply is one.

As for Greek. It carries nuances that English doesnt. Translators may be inadvertently creating the appearance of a contradiction with a poor rendering or may be attempting to smooth out a contradiction for theological reasons. Its always a safer bet to look at the original language. My suspicion is, though, you dont know Greek. Which would explain why you wish to focus on the English translations.

True enough, I don't know Greek.

According to Paul, yes, Jesus is equal to God. Therefore, theres no contradiction between Paul and John.

[re: Bible teaches the Trinity] Irrelevant to my counter argument.

Sure, but you might want to give me a hand with defending the claim that Jesus is God.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 188 by Bust Nak]

Goose says:

Paul implies in 1 Cor 8:6, and elsewhere (Philippians 2, Romans 9:5), Jesus is equal to God as well.

In the passage from Corinthians, it is clear that God is the origin of all there is while Christ is the means or mediator of all that exists. While one could interpret some idea of equality, equality isn't really the point of this passage, is it?

In Romans we read :

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

To say that Christ is over all is not to say that Christ is God. Christ is over all that exists, and God quite simply doesn't exist. God can't exist due to the fact that God is the origin of existence while Christ is the means of existence. For God to exist is to introduce an infinite regression where there is none. This isn't to say that the means of existence has an ultimate beginning; it can't as it already "was in the beginning".

So to deduce equality would be no different than equating what exists with non existence. They may counterbalance each other, but they're certainly not equivalent.

[Bust Nak]

It is not my interjection. It is what the texts state. Here it is again:

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF WHOM all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY WHOM are all things, and we BY him. 1 Corinthians 8:6";

"For IN Him all the fulness of Deity dwells IN bodily form, Col.2:9";
Neither of this say Jesus is not God. Indeed the latter support the claim that Jesus is God.

"For there is ONE God, and one MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2:5"

None of that say Jesus is not God. Indeed the middle one support the claim that Jesus is God, and the last one, Jesus is fully God and fully man.

Of course it isn't paired with something that contradicts it. It's paired with the texts under discussion. That doesn't make it a red herring.

Yes it does. For it not to be a red herring you have to pair it with something that contradicts it.

No...

I don't know how you can say "no" when you clearly do have a problem with my paraphrasing. Entire paragraphs follows that "no..." are dedicated to expressing your grievances with my paraphrasing.

... you're the one who has the problem in that you don't see the rest of the quote which is what is explicitly refering to Jesus. Again, I include the example of the mirror for your benefit. Ignoring it will only increase your confusion. My mirror and my reflection spotlights the fact that you can't have one without the other. You insist on ignoring the fact that Thomas says: "My lord". This is explicitly articulated throughout the texts as referring to Christ. Why do you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with that, I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly ignore the abundant references from the texts(including this one) which repeatedly point out that Jesus is lord?

Because Jesus being the Lord doesn't have any implication of whether Jesus is God or not.

Jesus is the mirror that produces the image. It is "through" him that the "image" of God is seen. The image doesn't originate from him. It orinates from God...

Hence the concept of the Trinity, Jesus is not the Father but both are God.

Because you think that conflating the origin with the means is a contradiction within the texts. It isn't...

Thomas didn't say "My Lord and my window through to God though, did he?

It is a mirror. If someone looks at a picture of a person and says "that's a person", they've lost touch with reality as that is quite simply not a person at all. It is a picture of a person.

So you are telling me: there was Thomas, looking at a picture of God and says "That's God," he had lost touch with reality as that is quite simply not God at all. It's a Jesus, a picture of God.

Obviously for the exact same reason you choose to conclude that external false doctrines, interpretations, etc. can create contradictions in a work of fictional literature.

But theistic evolution is entirely consistent with evolution, just not as parsimonious. That's kinda the whole point of theistic evolution, reconciling the Bible with evolution.

Yes, and it doesn't follow when the exact same methodology is employed with fictional liturature as well. Case in point: your argument.

How is it the same methodology?

It isn't blame, it's just a simple observation, and a helpful suggestion.

Noted.

Well, in point of fact they aren't objecting to its use because it is in the text. "Omni" means "All" and "potent;potence" means power, might, force, etc. Hence "Allmighty" which is used repeatedly at least over a dozen times.

And the trio of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is repeated in the Bible too.

The point here is to present the contradictions within the texts themselves. So all you have to do is present the contradictory concepts within the texts themselves.

Given that you reject the Trinity as contradictory, presenting text that support that doctrine would suffice.

When I or anyone else points out that the texts define their terms and provide those texts to support the actual definition of these terms, the burden of proof is upon you to address and refute those definitions. Ignoring them doesn't relieve you of that burden.

You say that like the last few posts of mine aren't defense of the Trinity.

Again the burden of proof is upon you to prove that they are good sources...

But you just told me they are good sources, that's why I thought it was strange and asked to you to clarify. Now you are challenging me to prove something that you already accept?

You simply can't win when the dice are loaded. They've insured that the dice cannot be contradictory.

Sure the dice are loaded, but for a different reasons. Contradictory are flatly rejected.

The Lord of me, the God of me" doesn't mean "Jesus is God". It means Jesus is his lord. The proof texts have already been provided. Are you going to address those texts and/or refute them?

But Jesus is his Lord doesn't mean Jesus is not God though.

You can obsess over Trinitarian doctrine all you please, it has nothing to do with this topic. Trinitarians beleive that there are three persons in one God. I only see one person; Jesus Christ. People aren't transcendent, therefore the transcendent father cannot be a person except of course "through" the lord. The image cannot be seen except "through" the mirror itself.

Again, that's semantics, "person" doesn't mean human in the context of the Trinity.

The reflected image is not what it reflects. It is the reflected image of what it reflects.

Repeating this doesn't help when the premise that Jesus is a mere refection of God is being challenged.

Actually it doesn't help you one bit. It does support the fact that there is no contradiction.

How?

Right, but then the fact remains that the text doesn't say "Jesus is God".

It does say Jesus is Thomas' God, though doesn't it?

The texts say "When you have seen the son you have seen the father". When you have seen the mirror, you have seen the image.

Image of the Father, as opposed to image of God.

The texts say, "I and the father are one". There is one mirror and one image, and they are the same single image of God.

Now you are sounding like a Trinitian, what is going on?

The reflected image is not what it reflects. It is the reflected image of what it reflects.

So Jesus is not the Father. No one has suggested otherwise. I think it's time you drop this talk of mirror.

Thomas says that Jesus is his lord through whom his God is seen. Thomas doesn't need to conflate the two...

He didn't say that though. He said Jesus is his Lord and his God. Either he was conflating the two, or he was actually equating the two. You say he doesn't need to conflate the two, that means Jesus is God.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 193 by Bust Nak]

shnarkle wrote:

It is not my interjection. It is what the texts state. Here it is again:

Quote:
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF WHOM all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY WHOM are all things, and we BY him. 1 Corinthians 8:6";

"For IN Him all the fulness of Deity dwells IN bodily form, Col.2:9";

"For there is ONE God, and one MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2:5"

None of that say Jesus is not God.

Actually the first quote is quite clearly articulating exactly that:

there is but one God, the Father,

One God, the Father means that the Father is God and God alone. It doesn't say that there is one God the lord.

Indeed the middle one support the claim that Jesus is God,

No, it doesn't. Let's look at it again to see why this isn't the case.

For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Col.2:9"

The first thing to note here is that we don't have to change the verse, but to simply look at the fact that the deity is dwelling in Christ. A cancer can dwell in someone's body. That doesn't mean that that person is cancer. An image can dwell in a mirror, but this doesn't mean that the mirror is what it reflects. It is still a mirror. A fish can dwell in a pond, but no one would ever conclude that the pond was a fish. Birds dwell in the sky but no one would conclude that the sky is a bird.

and the last one, Jesus is fully God and fully man.

Not even close. Again, let's look at what the text actually states:

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2:5"

There is one God, but the mediator is clearly being distinguished from this same God. It doesn't state; "There is one God the mediator Jesus Christ". Christ Jesus is the mediator between God and humanity. He is clearly not God. Once again this is in perfect agreement with Christ being the means "by whom" this deal is mediated.

your grievances with my paraphrasing.

I'm not expressing a grievance. I'm simply addressing your misunderstanding, and correcting it with the texts themselves.

... Thomas says: "My lord". This is explicitly articulated throughout the texts as referring to Christ. Why do you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with that, I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

Then according to the texts dealing with Thomas, you agree that they are saying Jesus is lord. QED

Quote:
Why do you feel the need to repeatedly ignore the abundant references from the texts(including this one) which repeatedly point out that Jesus is lord?

Because Jesus being the Lord doesn't have any implication of whether Jesus is God or not.

It does when God has already been identified and distinguished from the lord. The three quotations from the texts at the top of this post are more than sufficient evidence of this fact. They clearly distinguish the two.

Quote:
Jesus is the mirror that produces the image. It is "through" him that the "image" of God is seen. The image doesn't originate from him. It originates from God...

Hence the concept of the Trinity,

Perhaps, that's neither here nor there, and irrelevant to this discussion. While the concept may be derived from the texts it doesn't then follow that the doctrines derived from the texts produce contradictions within the texts. They produce contradictions outside the texts.

Jesus is not the Father but both are God.

Says you, but the texts don't articulate that idea, not even by implication. The texts already provided point to the fact that Jesus is not the "one God", but is distinguished from the "one God". (See the texts quoted above)

Quote:
Because you think that conflating the origin with the means is a contradiction within the texts. It isn't...

Thomas didn't say "My Lord and my window through to God though, did he?

He didn't have to as it was already articulated by Christ himself and Paul whose writings predate this gospel narrative. When one builds on a theory, it makes no sense to just ignore what has already been presented as evidence and conclude that there's now a contradiction. That's bad science; bad logic and nowhere near anything resembling an argument.

Quote:
It is a mirror. If someone looks at a picture of a person and says "that's a person", they've lost touch with reality as that is quite simply not a person at all. It is a picture of a person.

So you are telling me: there was Thomas, looking at a picture of God and says "That's God,"

No, that's your position. That's what you are assuming from your own ideas. This is what you are claiming; not me.

he had lost touch with reality as that is quite simply not God at all. It's a Jesus, a picture of God.

No, because Thomas quite literally includes Jesus in the articulation just as someone who is looking at a mirror who has not lost touch with reality would point out that they are looking at a mirror which is reflecting an image. This is my mirror I am looking at, AND my reflection. My mirror and my reflection, and never the twain shall meet in reality as anything other than my mirror and my reflection. Both are necessary to reflect my image, but neither can be who I am.

Quote:
Obviously for the exact same reason you choose to conclude that external false doctrines, interpretations, etc. can create contradictions in a work of fictional literature.

But theistic evolution is entirely consistent with evolution, just not as parsimonious.

Perhaps, but again this is beside the point because it assumes the existence of God whereas the theory of evolution isn't operating under that presupposition, and doesn't require it either. Adding it to the theory contradicts the theory, and creates a contradiction in the theory where there none existed before.

That's kinda the whole point of theistic evolution, reconciling the Bible with evolution.

Sure, but again this is beside the point. We aren't attempting to reconcile external doctrines with the text. That isn't what this topic is about. This topic isn't about introducing external doctrines to create contradictions either. It's about presenting contradictions within the texts themselves.

Quote:
Yes, and it doesn't follow when the exact same methodology is employed with fictional liturature as well. Case in point: your argument.

How is it the same methodology?

They're both non sequiturs. It doesn't follow that the contradictions which arise due to the introduction of an intelligently designed universe into the theory of evolution are inherent in the theory itself. By the same token, the contradictions which arise due to the introduction of Trinitarian doctrines injected into the text do not magically create contradictions within the texts themselves. If it doesn't logically follow then it is by definition a non sequitur.

Quote:
Well, in point of fact they aren't objecting to its use because it is in the text. "Omni" means "All" and "potent;potence" means power, might, force, etc. Hence "Allmighty" which is used repeatedly at least over a dozen times.

And the trio of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is repeated in the Bible too.

Yep, and perhaps you might want to develop that into some sort of an argument along with some texts to show that this is a significant contradiction or inconsistency within the texts themselves. The statement itself isn't enough for those of us who aren't as adept at mind reading as others here in this forum.

There are plenty of trios enumerated in all manner of issues and none of them suggest a Trinitarian doctrine to justify them being viewed as contradictory. e.g. Polarity consists of a positive pole, and a negative pole, and the force acting between these two poles. We have these three components all within polarity therefore polarity suggests a Trinitarian god. We have observations which consist of what is observed, who is doing the observing, and the process of observation itself, therefore these three together make up a trinitarian god. Using this technique we can create contradictions ad nauseum within the context of science. This is essentially what you're doing within this thread. It doesn't work in science, and it won't fly here either.

Quote:
When I or anyone else points out that the texts define their terms and provide those texts to support the actual definition of these terms, the burden of proof is upon you to address and refute those definitions. Ignoring them doesn't relieve you of that burden.

You say that like the last few posts of mine aren't defense of the Trinity.

No, I say that like the last few posts of yours are a defense of the Trinity, but the doctrine of the Trinity isn't what the topic of this thread is about. The same texts that may be used to support the doctrine don't prove that the Trinity exists within the texts or out. When one considers this is a work of fiction, this may make more sense.

Quote:
Again the burden of proof is upon you to prove that they are good sources...

But you just told me they are good sources,

Good sources for the doctrine, not good sources for determining contradictions within these texts.

that's why I thought it was strange and asked to you to clarify.

Hopefully I've accomplished that by pointing out that external sources for the Trinity aren't necessarily good sources for determining contradictions within the texts themselves.

Now you are challenging me to prove something that you already accept?

No, I'm challenging you to prove there are contradictions within the biblical texts by actually supplying contradictory texts. The fact that you've supplied a few that have been handily addressed and refuted WITH the TEXTS themselves is where we're at right now. The ball is in your court to either address my refutations, or to make another attempt to find something else that you think is significant.

Quote:
You simply can't win when the dice are loaded. They've insured that the dice cannot be contradictory.

Sure the dice are loaded, but for a different reasons. Contradictory are flatly rejected.

No, the claimed contradictions are shown to be outside the texts themselves. The texts are shown, with the aid of the texts themselves; to be non-contradictory.

Quote:
The Lord of me, the God of me" doesn't mean "Jesus is God". It means Jesus is his lord. The proof texts have already been provided. Are you going to address those texts and/or refute them?

But Jesus is his Lord doesn't mean Jesus is not God though.

You're repeating yourself. You're not advancing your argument. You haven't addressed my refutation of your claim.

Quote:
You can obsess over Trinitarian doctrine all you please, it has nothing to do with this topic. Trinitarians beleive that there are three persons in one God. I only see one person; Jesus Christ. People aren't transcendent, therefore the transcendent father cannot be a person except of course "through" the lord. The image cannot be seen except "through" the mirror itself.

Again, that's semantics, "person" doesn't mean human in the context of the Trinity.

Again, it doesn't matter what it means within the context of the Trinitarian doctrines. We aren't addressing these external sources. We're addresssing the biblical texts themselves and they don't seem to have some special definition of "person".

Quote:
The reflected image is not what it reflects. It is the reflected image of what it reflects.

Repeating this doesn't help when the premise that Jesus is a mere refection of God is being challenged.

It does help when one considers that the authors are using this same idea. It helps when one considers that a reflected image is not what is being used to cast the reflection. It helps when one considers that the thing that exists is not the image that is being reflected; it is quite simply its reflection. One can challenge these facts if they choose to, but without some evidence to support these challenges, there's no reason to suppose that a mirror is anything other than a mirror.

Quote:
Right, but then the fact remains that the text doesn't say "Jesus is God".

It does say Jesus is Thomas' God, though doesn't it?

No, and you've already agreed to the fact that Thomas is explicitly articulating that Jesus is lord; his lord. Here's your statement again:

I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

Quote:
The texts say "When you have seen the son you have seen the father". When you have seen the mirror, you have seen the image.

Image of the Father, as opposed to image of God.

Nope. Christ is the image of the Father. Christ is the image of God. The image isn't in opposition to the Father. The image is the result of God. The image is the means of seeing what essentially can't be seen. It is effectively seen in Christ.

Quote:
The reflected image is not what it reflects. It is the reflected image of what it reflects.

So Jesus is not the Father. No one has suggested otherwise.

You have suggest that Jesus is God, and only the father is God. It's your suggestion.

I think it's time you drop this talk of mirror.

It's an appropriate analogy and one that is reflective of what the texts indicate themselves with the descriptions of Adam and Christ as images of God. The texts use the term "image" so it will have to remain as it's what we're talking about.

He said Jesus is his Lord and his God.

According to you, but not according to the texts themselves as is clear from the texts provided to support the position that they are distinctly different.

Either he was conflating the two, or he was actually equating the two.

Or he was distinguishing the two which is what the texts all indicate. Ignoring the fact that the texts all distinguish Christ from God doesn't negate the fact that the texts all distinguish Christ from God.

You say he doesn't need to conflate the two, that means Jesus is God.

No, it means that he isn't conflating the two. Thomas doesn't need to conflate the two and therefore he doesn't conflate the two. The alert reader doesn't need to conflate the two either. Those who choose to simply look at the verse hanging alone in space without any regard for the rest of the texts isn't providing a contradiction either. Supplying another verse hanging alone without any reference to the rest of the biblical texts isn't much of an improvement.

Providing the necessary biblical texts to show that there is no contradiction within the texts is all that is necessary to refute these baseless assertions.

[Bust Nak]

Actually the first quote is quite clearly articulating exactly that:

there is but one God, the Father,

One God, the Father means that the Father is God and God alone. It doesn't say that there is one God the lord.

I still don't know why this is a problem. I fully accept that it says the Father is God. Why is that being presented as saying Jesus is not God?

No, it doesn't. Let's look at it again to see why this isn't the case.

For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Col.2:9"

The first thing to note here is that we don't have to change the verse, but to simply look at the fact that the deity is dwelling in Christ. A cancer can dwell in someone's body. That doesn't mean that that person is cancer.

Fullness though. If a person is fully cancer, then that person is cancer. A pond is not fully fish, the sky is not fully bird.

Not even close. Again, let's look at what the text actually states:

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2:5"

There is one God, but the mediator is clearly being distinguished from this same God.

Buzz. That's your interjection.

I'm not expressing a grievance. I'm simply addressing your misunderstanding, and correcting it with the texts themselves.

If you think there is a misunderstanding then yes, you do have a problem with my paraphrasing.

Then according to the texts dealing with Thomas, you agree that they are saying Jesus is lord. QED

Great, all you have to do now is explain how that means Jesus is not God.

It does when God has already been identified and distinguished from the lord. The three quotations from the texts at the top of this post are more than sufficient evidence of this fact. They clearly distinguish the two.

God is distinct from the Lord, but why can't a single person be both? A carpenter is distinguished from being the Lord, but Jesus is both.

Perhaps, that's neither here nor there, and irrelevant to this discussion. While the concept may be derived from the texts it doesn't then follow that the doctrines derived from the texts produce contradictions within the texts. They produce contradictions outside the texts.

How is contradictory doctrines derived from the texts, outside the text?

Says you, but the texts don't articulate that idea, not even by implication.

The texts already provided point to the fact that Jesus is not the "one God", but is distinguished from the "one God". (See the texts quoted above)

Says you, but the texts don't articulate that idea, not even by implication.

The texts already provided point to the fact that Jesus is the "one God", but is distinguished from "the Father." (See the texts quoted above) Look here, insisting on this won't get you any further than I would by insisting on the contrary. You have your interpretation and the Trinitians have theirs.

He didn't have to as it was already articulated by Christ himself and Paul whose writings predate this gospel narrative. When one builds on a theory, it makes no sense to just ignore what has already been presented as evidence and conclude that there's now a contradiction. That's bad science; bad logic and nowhere near anything resembling an argument.

And yet there you are ignoring all the text Christ himself says he is God.

No, that's your position. That's what you are assuming from your own ideas. This is what you are claiming; not me.

You are the one who came up with the analogy though. Don't blame me if it fits Thomas.

No, because Thomas quite literally includes Jesus in the articulation just as someone who is looking at a mirror who has not lost touch with reality would point out that they are looking at a mirror which is reflecting an image. This is my mirror I am looking at, AND my reflection. My mirror and my reflection, and never the twain shall meet in reality as anything other than my mirror and my reflection. Both are necessary to reflect my image, but neither can be who I am.

No, Thomas literally called Jesus his God. You are introducing all this mirror business into the text.

Perhaps, but again this is beside the point because it assumes the existence of God whereas the theory of evolution isn't operating under that presupposition, and doesn't require it either. Adding it to the theory contradicts the theory, and creates a contradiction in the theory where there none existed before.

How is this beside the point when I am telling you, adding God into evolution does not contradict the theory, and does not creates a contradiction in the theory where there none existed before.

Sure, but again this is beside the point. We aren't attempting to reconcile external doctrines with the text. That isn't what this topic is about.

And yet that's the analogy you used. The point was the Trinity is not an external doctrines and your analogy is faulty.

They're both non sequiturs. It doesn't follow that the contradictions which arise due to the introduction of an intelligently designed universe into the theory of evolution are inherent in the theory itself. By the same token...

Again, introducing a God to evolution does not introduce any contradiction. Bad analogy. I ask you again, how is it the same methodology?

Yep, and perhaps you might want to develop that into some sort of an argument along with some texts to show that this is a significant contradiction or inconsistency within the texts themselves. The statement itself isn't enough for those of us who aren't as adept at mind reading as others here in this forum...

But it is enough to address your contention that the concept of Trinity can be dismissed because the word itself doesn't appeal in the text.

There are plenty of trios enumerated in all manner of issues and none of them suggest a Trinitarian doctrine to justify them being viewed as contradictory. e.g. Polarity consists of a positive pole, and a negative pole, and the force acting between these two poles...

Note the different between "consists of" and "is."

No, I say that like the last few posts of yours are a defense of the Trinity, but the doctrine of the Trinity isn't what the topic of this thread is about.

It is when my defense of the Trinity is based on what the text says.

The same texts that may be used to support the doctrine don't prove that the Trinity exists within the texts or out. When one considers this is a work of fiction, this may make more sense.

Can you at least acknowledge that the Trinity doctrine does originate solely from the text, and is at worse consistent with the text, even if you don't agree with that interpretation?

Good sources for the doctrine, not good sources for determining contradictions within these texts.

But are they good sources for what the text mean?

No, I'm challenging you to prove there are contradictions within the biblical texts by actually supplying contradictory texts. The fact that you've supplied a few that have been handily addressed and refuted WITH the TEXTS themselves is where we're at right now. The ball is in your court to either address my refutations, or to make another attempt to find something else that you think is significant...

But your refutation amounts to insisting on a contrary doctrine.

Again, it doesn't matter what it means within the context of the Trinitarian doctrines.

It does when you are trying to dismiss it using meaning outside of the context of Trinitarian doctrines.

It does help when one considers that the authors are using this same idea...

That still doesn't help when the idea that the authors are using this same idea is being challenge.

No, and you've already agreed to the fact that Thomas is explicitly articulating that Jesus is lord; his lord. Here's your statement again:

I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

That doesn't help you when being the Lord doesn't exclude being God.

Nope... Christ is the image of God.

Again, that's your interpretation, the text doesn't say that.

You have suggest that Jesus is God, and only the father is God. It's your suggestion.

No where have I suggested that only the Father is God. What I did suggest is that there is only one God, this one God is the Father and this one God is Jesus.

It's an appropriate analogy

Is it though? Explain the analogy in greater and greater detail doesn't help establish that it is an appropriate analogy. It's not like the concept mirror/image is difficult to grasp.

According to you, but not according to the texts themselves as is clear from the texts provided to support the position that they are distinctly different.

No, the text literally says Jesus is Thomas' God. Isn't it ironic that you are appealing to "provided to support the position that..." when your entire rebuttal can be summed up by: it's not about what position the text support but what the text says.

Or he was distinguishing the two which is what the texts all indicate.

So you keep insisting. I will point out it clearly says Jesus is his Lord and his God.

Ignoring the fact that the texts all distinguish Christ from God doesn't negate the fact that the texts all distinguish Christ from God.

I don't know how you are so bold to say texts all distinguish Christ from God, when addressing a verse that says Jesus is God.

No, it means that he isn't conflating the two.

Look, either he said something he didn't mean, or he meant exactly what he said. You can't have it both ways. He said Jesus is his God and his Lord. If he meant something else other than what it literally said, he is conflating the two...

Thomas doesn't need to conflate the two and therefore he doesn't conflate the two.

... By insisting on this, you are left with the conclusion that he meant exactly what he said, Jesus is his God. What does "conflate the two" mean if not mixing them up when he weren't supposed to?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 195 by Bust Nak]

I fully accept that it says the Father is God.

Great! Then you have no argument for a contradiction as you have already admitted that the texts indicate Jesus is lord. QED

Why is that being presented as saying Jesus is not God?

Becauese the text states that the Father is "one God", e.g. "There is one God"

If a person is fully cancer, then that person is cancer.

Sure, if that were possible, but the fact is that a person can have cancer fully dwelling within them and they are still a person that can be distinguished from the cancer that is fully dwelling within them.

A pond is not fully fish, the sky is not fully bird.

Yep, and a pond that is completely full of fish is still a pond; it isn't a fish. A sky full of birds is still the sky.


Quote:
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2:5"

There is one God, but the mediator is clearly being distinguished from this same God.

Buzz. That's your interjection.

No, it isn't. Here's what it says:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2:5

Therefore there is one God. The man, not to be confused or conflated with God; who is the mediator between the aforementioned God and men. God is not a man, and the texts plainly make this point.

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, Numbers 23:19

Jesus also identifies himself with this title as well.

For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.Luke 19:10

I'm not expressing a grievance. I'm simply addressing your misunderstanding, and correcting it with the texts themselves.

If you think there is a misunderstanding then yes, you do have a problem with my paraphrasing.

There's definitely a misunderstanding, but it isn't my problem. The problem is that an assertion has been made assuming that a contradiction exists within the texts, and the texts that have been provided to refute those assertions are not being addressed. That's a problem with those making the assertions, not with the refutations of those baseless assertions.

Then according to the texts dealing with Thomas, you agree that they are saying Jesus is lord. QED

Great, all you have to do now is explain how that means Jesus is not God.

Already did:

I fully accept that it says the Father is God.

Great! Then you have no argument for a contradiction as you have already admitted that the texts indicate Jesus is lord. QED

Why is that being presented as saying Jesus is not God?

Because the text states that the Father is "one God", e.g. "There is one God"

there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Ignoring these quotations, and instead pretending that Thomas is saying "jesus is God" when the text plainly states "My lord AND my God" isn't an argument. It's an assertion in need of deductive proof, which as of yet you still haven't provided.

God is distinct from the Lord,

Great! We now have three statements from you which are in total harmony with the biblical texts. They are:

I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

I fully accept that it says the Father is God.

God is distinct from the Lord,

Therefore according to your own statemets which are in total and complete harmony with the texts; Jesus is not God QED

but why can't a single person be both?

Because God is not a person, and a person is defined as "a man, woman, or child, etc."

How is contradictory doctrines derived from the texts, outside the text?

In the same way a conclusion is derived from evidence. The conclusions do not exist in the texts themselves. The doctrines do not exist in the texts themselves. There is no description of God as a person. The texts explicitly articulate the exact opposite as I've already shown.

God is not a man...Num. 23:19

The texts already provided point to the fact that Jesus is not the "one God", but is distinguished from the "one God". (See the texts quoted above)

Says you, but the texts don't articulate that idea, not even by implication.[/quote]

Sure, but that's only because they explicitly articulate the idea which you have already acknowledged and agreed to. One needn't imply what one is explicitly articulating.

I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

I fully accept that it says the Father is God.

God is distinct from the Lord,

Therefore according to your own statemets which are in total and complete harmony with the texts; Jesus is not God QED

I am telling you, adding God into evolution does not contradict the theory, and does not creates a contradiction in the theory where there none existed before.

The theory doesn't allow for God to direct evolution, primarily because there is no evidence for God in the first place, and can't be as a transcendent God is beyond the observable world. The great irony here is that Science and the biblical narrative are actually in complete agreement here in that they both admit that God cannot be observed, therefore God cannot be introduced into the theory to begin with. There simply is no evidence for positing God in the first place. You might as well introduce flying spagetti monsters and unicorns into the theory as well.

The point was the Trinity is not an external doctrines...

You didn't make your point. However, I did point out that not only does the term "trinity" not appear in any of the texts, but that the doctrine (not to be confused with the biblical texts) explicitly presents God as a person. The biblical texts reject this doctrine. Here it is again:

God is not a man...Num. 23:19

Can you at least acknowledge that the Trinity doctrine does originate solely from the text,

It clearly does not as I've already addressed, and you are still repeating yourself. You aren't advancing an argument here.

and is at worse consistent with the text,

It isn't consistent with the text.

even if you don't agree with that interpretation?

It doesn't matter if I agree with the interpretation or not. Evidence is not interpretation. Evidence is not equivalent to interpretation. Interpretation is what is derived from the evidence. The evidence is in the text, but the interpretation isn't. More importantly, the interpretation contradicts the evidence, not the texts themselves.

No, I'm challenging you to prove there are contradictions within the biblical texts by actually supplying contradictory texts. The fact that you've supplied a few that have been handily addressed and refuted WITH the TEXTS themselves is where we're at right now. The ball is in your court to either address my refutations, or to make another attempt to find something else that you think is significant...

But your refutation amounts to insisting on a contrary doctrine.

No, my refutation amounts to a proof that your assertions are false. My refutation consists of quoted passages from the texts themselves which refute your assertions. My refutation consists of your own statements agreeing with the fact that there is no contradiction within the texts themselves. Here they are again:

I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

I fully accept that it says the Father is God.

God is distinct from the Lord,

Therefore according to your own statemets which are in total and complete harmony with the texts; Jesus is not God QED

Christ is the image of God.

Again, that's your interpretation, the text doesn't say that.

It most certainly does.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
2 Corinthians 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

What I did suggest is that there is only one God, this one God is the Father and this one God is Jesus.

Yep, and then you contradicted yourself, or rather recanted from your suggested contradiction. Here it is again.

I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

I fully accept that it says the Father is God.

God is distinct from the Lord,

Therefore according to your own statemets which are in total and complete harmony with the texts; Jesus is not God QED

It's not like the concept mirror/image is difficult to grasp.

Which is undoubtedly why the biblical authors have employed it, and why I have used it as well.

I will point out it clearly says Jesus is his Lord and his God.

And you have also pointed out the mutually exclusive claims:

I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

I fully accept that it says the Father is God.

God is distinct from the Lord,

Therefore according to your own statemets which are in total and complete harmony with the texts; Jesus is not God QED

I don't know how you are so bold to say texts all distinguish Christ from God, when addressing a verse that says Jesus is God.

Simple logic which you yourself have articulated as well. Here it is again from your own posts:

I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

I fully accept that it says the Father is God.

God is distinct from the Lord,

Therefore according to your own statemets which are in total and complete harmony with the texts; Jesus is not God QED

Only your mutually exclusive statements are contradictory. The above proof from your own posts indicates that you really have no argument with the texts themselves as they all point to the fact that Jesus is not God. Thomas' statements are in complete harmony with what you have already admitted. Reading a contradictory interpretation into the texts is just that; a contradictory interpretation injected into the texts. Thank you for providing me with your own admissions to prove my point. I honestly can't recall that I've ever had anyone do that for me before. I'd like to extend my gratitude by donating some tokens. Please forgive me for my technological inadequacy, but how does one go about doing that?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 196 by shnarkle]

Excellent, so you will agree then, since the Father and Son are one, that the Son, Jesus, slept with his mother to give birth to his Father?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 196 by shnarkle]

Excellent, so you will agree then, since the Father and Son are one, that the Son, Jesus, slept with his mother to give birth to his Father?

So, Jesus slept with his mother to give birth to his father because as one they are interchangeable, but different. This makes perfect sense under the doctrine of the Trinity... or at least as much sense as the trinity itself. Good job, Willum, in exposing the absurdity of the 'mystery.'

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 196 by shnarkle]

Excellent, so you will agree then, since the Father and Son are one, that the Son, Jesus, slept with his mother to give birth to his Father?

So, Jesus slept with his mother to give birth to his father because as one they are interchangeable, but different. This makes perfect sense under the doctrine of the Trinity... or at least as much sense as the trinity itself. Good job, Willum, in exposing the absurdity of the 'mystery.'

One better: God slept with Mary to give birth to himself in order be able to sacrifice himself to himself in order to be able to save the humans from himself.

[Bust Nak]

Great! Then you have no argument for a contradiction as you have already admitted that the texts indicate Jesus is lord. QED

But that's not under contention in the first place.

Becauese the text states that the Father is "one God", e.g. "There is one God"

That doesn't mean Jesus isn't God.

Sure, if that were possible, but the fact is that a person can have cancer fully dwelling within them and they are still a person that can be distinguished from the cancer that is fully dwelling within them.

So it's moot since Jesus cannot distinguished from the fullness of deity within him?

No, it isn't. Here's what it says:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2:5

Yes, but it doesn't say Jesus isn't God, that was your interjection.

Therefore there is one God. The man, not to be confused or conflated with God; who is the mediator between the aforementioned God and men. God is not a man, and the texts plainly make this point.

Plainly according to you, we are not talking about what doctrine that is in your head but what is in the text.

There's definitely a misunderstanding, but it isn't my problem.

Quit being contrary - You have a problem with how I am understanding the Bible.

Already did...

Well, tried to anyway.

Ignoring these quotations, and instead pretending that Thomas is saying "jesus is God" when the text plainly states "My lord AND my God" isn't an argument. It's an assertion in need of deductive proof, which as of yet you still haven't provided.

So says the one who kept pretending that Thomas is saying "jesus is Lord" when the text plainly states "My lord AND my God."

Great! We now have three statements from you which are in total harmony with the biblical texts. They are:

I openly and freely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord according to Thomas (according to John.)

I fully accept that it says the Father is God.

God is distinct from the Lord,

Therefore according to your own statemets which are in total and complete harmony with the texts; Jesus is not God QED

That's a non sequitur.

Because God is not a person, and a person is defined as "a man, woman, or child, etc."

That's the same semantic red herring as before. How about the word "individual" then? Why can't an individual be both?

In the same way a conclusion is derived from evidence. The conclusions do not exist in the texts themselves.

Woah there. Does the text qualify as evidence that Jesus is God?

The doctrines do not exist in the texts themselves. There is no description of God as a person. The texts explicitly articulate the exact opposite as I've already shown.

God is not a man...Num. 23:19

That says "man," not person.

Sure, but that's only because they explicitly articulate the idea which you have already acknowledged and agreed to. One needn't imply what one is explicitly articulating.

But it was explicitly articulating that Jesus is God.

Therefore according to your own statemets which are in total and complete harmony with the texts; Jesus is not God QED

That's the same non sequitur as before. Repeating it doesn't help.

You didn't make your point. However, I did point out that not only does the term "trinity" not appear in any of the texts, but that the doctrine (not to be confused with the biblical texts) explicitly presents God as a person. The biblical texts reject this doctrine. Here it is again:

God is not a man...Num. 23:19

Again, "man" not "person."

It clearly does not as I've already addressed, and you are still repeating yourself. You aren't advancing an argument here.

But it clearly does as I've already addressed, and you are still repeating yourself. You aren't advancing an argument here.

It doesn't matter if I agree with the interpretation or not. Evidence is not interpretation. Evidence is not equivalent to interpretation. Interpretation is what is derived from the evidence. The evidence is in the text, but the interpretation isn't. More importantly, the interpretation contradicts the evidence, not the texts themselves.

I don't understand what you are saying here. What text isn't subject to interpretation?

No, my refutation amounts to a proof that your assertions are false.

Your interpretation doesn't count as proof, this isn't about what doctrine you draw from the text.

It most certainly does.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
2 Corinthians 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

He is talking about the image of the Father.

Yep, and then you contradicted yourself

Not my problem. The text said that.

Which is undoubtedly why the biblical authors have employed it, and why I have used it as well.

That's your interpretation.

And you have also pointed out the mutually exclusive claims.

Then the text is contradictory.

Only your mutually exclusive statements are contradictory.

But they are only mutually exclusive in according to a competing doctrine, and we are not talking about doctrine, as you kept insisting.

I honestly can't recall that I've ever had anyone do that for me before. I'd like to extend my gratitude by donating some tokens. Please forgive me for my technological inadequacy, but how does one go about doing that?

Left of the post, under my user tag, look for [ MPG Donation ].