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?

[polonius]

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

RESPONSE: No. The Jews worshiped God long before Jesus appeared on the scene.

And the "Trinity" story, necessary to prove there was more than one God, didn't appear until the fourth century. I think it was at the Council of Constance about 380 AD.

[Elijah John]

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

RESPONSE: No. The Jews worshiped God long before Jesus appeared on the scene.

And the "Trinity" story, necessary to prove there was more than one God, didn't appear until the fourth century. I think it was at the Council of Constance about 380 AD.

And the early Christians too. They worshipped the Father alone. The Ebionites, and other Jewish-Christian sects. The community which produced the Didache, attributed to the apostles. They all mangaged to believe in God, without believing that Jesus is God.

It leads me a bit baffled, as to why so many (even here on these boards) cling to Jesus-worship and the notion that Jesus is God, in light of evidece that he never claimed to be God, and that none of his contemporaires ever called him God. But even if he did, (and they did) that would not be proof os his Divinity either.

[JehovahsWitness]

JOHN 5:23

Jesus [...] stated that He should be honored equally with the Father (Jn 5:23).

Code: Select all

DOUAY-RHEIMS



That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father.  - John 5:23

Jesus never requested equal honour to his Father. The Greek word translated in most English bibles into "as" is kathos and does not necessarily mean "equal". It can be rendered "just as" "as" and expresses some degree of likeness and similitude. Note how Jesus used the word in the following texts:

"And just as [kathos] Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up" - John 3:14, NABRE

For just as [ kathos] Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of man be a sign to this generation. - Luke 11:30 JB

Since we cannot conclude that Moses' snake or even Jonah were equal to Christ, but were in fact lesser indications of a vastly superior event to come, it seems evident then that Jesus did use the word "kathos" to compare like for like, but not necessarily inferring absolute equality.






FURTHER READING

Strongs
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebibl ... .htm#S2531

Further Reading
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... st-as.html

[JehovahsWitness]

JOHN 10:30

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

Jesus could not here have intended to say that he was literally "one God" with the Father since , according to the Catholic NAB translation, he went on to say

Code: Select all

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one - John 17:21 

He used the same Greek word [hen] for his disciples as he did for himself and God. Obviously Jesus was not saying his disciples were Almighty God and part of a trinity!

Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary p. 62, Baker Book House, 1977 states:

“The particle en [hen] being of the neuter gender, can hardly signify ‘one being, i.e. one God,’ but rather ‘one in will, purpose, counsel...�

JW




Further Reading
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... -1030.html

[JehovahsWitness]

JOHN 10:33

... 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.

QUESTION Should we automatically conclude the interpretation of Jesus' words by some Jews was correct?

Many trinitarians insist that we should hold to how Jesus enemies interpreted his words rather than base our conclusion on what Jesus himself explicitly stated. Is this a reasonable position?

• While the humble people delighted in Jesus teachings the religious leaders again and again misinterpreted Jesus words. In an earlier debate, they concluded Jesus was demonized. Jesus response was “I am not possessed; I honor my Father, but you dishonor me." (John 8:49 NAB) So who should we believe? The Jews that concluded he was possessed or Jesus Christ?
  
  When Jesus indicated he existed before Abraham, the Jewish leaders voiced their belief this could not be true since he was clearly a young man, "not yet fifty years old ". Did they understand Jesus's words correctly or did they misunderstand the point?
  
  Obviously, it is erroneous to conclude that because Jesus enemies came to a particular conclusion then that conclusion must have been what Jesus intended to be understood.

How did Jesus respond to the accusation he was {quote} "making himself God?"

• We can note Jesus didn't respond "You understood correctly" or " Yes I am Almighty God YHWH/Yahweh" but rather he responded by drawing their attention to what he had actually said; Jesus explicitly and clearly stated
  

  Code: Select all

  New American Bible 
  
  can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated* and sent into the world blasphemes because I SAID, ‘I AM THE SON OF GOD’?

  CAPS Mine
  
  I SAID I WAS THE SON OF GOD: This was how Jesus concluded his defense! So we have Jesus stating clearly he said he was the SON of God and the Jews saying he was making himself GOD*. Is it reasonable to conclude it was those with whom Jesus was debating that were correct and Jesus was wrong?

CONCLUSION It is most unreasonable to base a theology on the words of a group of people who systematically misinterpreted Jesus words and consistently came to the wrong conclusion. Jesus corrected opposers by restating what he had said, namely that he was GOD’S SON those that hold to truth do well to believe him.

JW


* According to certain TRNITARIAN scholars, the original Greek allows for the translation "making yourself a god" For more details see the link below.
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... -rule.html

[marco]

While some bible translations render the verses in a way that suggests they refer to one individual, the CATHOLIC bibles below clarify matters by rendering the verses as follows...

You are completely correct. Th Latin Vulgate, favoured by the RC Church, contains NO ambiguity. It clearly states ....of our God, and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. There is no question of wrong translation or possible other interpretation. This quotation does not support Jesus being God. Nor was it intended to.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 82 by Elijah John]

Hey EJ! I hope you are doing super well!

I am running a little short on time, but I had some thoughts. From the very beginning of the NT, Jesus was set apart as being more than a man. He was conceived by a virgin, and the angles of the Lord verified this. People came from afar to pay homage to the King, even as an infant or small child. King Herod got wind of this, and even had boys under 2 murdered. John, testified to the significance of Jesus being the Holy one. God himself said, "this is my son with whom I am well pleased." There has been no other man in the entire Bible who claimed to be one with God, and had the very blessing of God himself upon Him. Several times in Isaiah, God says that He will not share His glory with another, but yet He seems to encourage our relationship with Jesus.

Gotta go get children from school, but it is always a pleasure EJ!

[marco]

From the very beginning of the NT, Jesus was set apart as being more than a man.

He was special in that he was carrying a special message.

He was conceived by a virgin, and the angels of the Lord verified this. People came from afar to pay homage to the King, even as an infant or small child. King Herod got wind of this, and even had boys under 2 murdered.

These events are torn from an unknown childhood. We have next to no details of young Jesus, and yet we have the reported speeches of angels to anonymous shepherds and to Mary herself. The Census that sent Mary on her ill-advised journey, during preganancy, never was or at least did not require movement of people, something the Romans would have disliked rather than required. The Massacre of the Innocents like the resurrection of the holy men is added fiction for effect. I like the story of humble straw and farm animals and the baby sleeping peacefully while potentates bring presents but it is just nice poetry, like the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam.

God himself said, "this is my son with whom I am well pleased."

Even if we accept this remarkable pronouncement from God, it indicates favouritism not actual paternity.

There has been no other man in the entire Bible who claimed to be one with God, and had the very blessing of God himself upon Him.

Jesus claimed that he and the father are one - meaning of course that he speaks the wishes of the Father and never contradicts God's word. It's a common way of speaking about consensus. A few of the prophets seem to have been favoured by God in special ways, even to the extent that they could bargain with him.

Several times in Isaiah, God says that He will not share His glory with another, but yet He seems to encourage our relationship with Jesus.

You have just shot down your earlier arguments, nursie. That will need a big bandage. God says he won't and you say he did! Your opposition maintains that God was consistent in what he said and there is but one of him; you are saying he - er - told a little fib. How likely is that? If that's what is needed to deify Jesus, Jesus surely must stay human.



It's sad to find myself in opposition to somebody who is such a great ambassador for beliefs that I once shared. Go well, nurse!

[JehovahsWitness]

HEBREWS 1:8



source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... sion=RSVCE

As can be seen above there should be no contention as to the translation of this verse as their own bibles approve the reading "God is thy throne". The Greek for Hebrews 1:8 literally reads as follows

Toward [but] the SON the throne of you the GOD into the age of the age

Source: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Inte ... 63in-S-if0


According to expert Greek scholars, the original Greek construction of Heb. 1:8 is somewhat ambiguous and can legitimately be rendered in various ways.

• â–ªIt is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative [‘your throne, O God’] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: ‘God is thy throne’ or ‘Thy throne is God.’ Either makes good sense." - Dr. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 339
  
  â–ª Both translations ["Your throne is God" and "Your throne, O God"] are possible, so none of the translations we are comparing can be rejected as inaccurate. - Dr. Jason Beduhn in his book Truth in Translation,

Although the Greek allows for various renditions, we have a clue as to the most likely in Psalms 45 verse 7.

PSALMS 45: A KEY TO UNDERSTANDING HEBREWS 1:8

• Hebrews 1:8 is a direct qoute from Psalms 45. The footnote [ *] to Psalms 45:7 in the Catholic NABRE states that {quote} "Heb 1:8–9 applies Ps 45:7–8 to Christ." {end quote} . With this in mind, note how the the Catholic Jerusalem Bible renders Psalms 45:7.
  

  Code: Select all

  JERUSALEM BIBLE (1966)
   
   Your throne is from God, for ever and ever - Psalms 45:7

  Taking the Catholic reasoning to its natural conclusion then, if Psalms "applies to Christ" and Hebrews quotes Psalms, then Hebrews must mean that Jesus throne is from God.

CONCLUSION Catholic Bibles recognise that the Hebrew and Greek of Hebrews 1:8 can indeed be rendered "thy throne is from God". Based on Psalms 45:7 it seems reasonable to conclude that this translation, which is grammatically sound, better reflects the writer's implied intention.

[*] The footnotes to the NAB were authorized by the American Council of Bishops
http://www.usccb.org/bible/psalms/45:7#23045007-1



JW




For further reading on the grammatical construction of Hebrews 1:8 see LINK below
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... eb-18.html

New Jerusalem Bible
https://www.catholic.org/bible/books_bible.php

[polonius]

Pds Nurse posted:

From the very beginning of the NT, Jesus was set apart as being more than a man. He was conceived by a virgin, and the angles of the Lord verified this. People came from afar to pay homage to the King, even as an infant or small child. King Herod got wind of this, and even had boys under 2 murdered. John, testified to the significance of Jesus being the Holy one. God himself said, "this is my son with whom I am well pleased." There has been no other man in the entire Bible who claimed to be one with God, and had the very blessing of God himself upon Him. Several times in Isaiah, God says that He will not share His glory with another, but yet He seems to encourage our relationship with Jesus.

A few notes:

(1) This story is found in the nativity narratives. Any reason to believe it is other than just a story?

(2) Did Jesus ever specifically say that he was divine himself?

(3) Did Jesus ever say that God was greater than he? (That is he was not equal to God).