If Jesus is God's Son...

a reply to: JimNasium

Thats a real bummer - chronic back pain. Take care my friend

a reply to: Isurrender73
Yes, I'm familiar with the verses that are twisted and then misrepresented without quotations to support the doctrine of the Trinity including the stuff about the holy spirit being a person. That's the reason they are often not quoted, people remember the doctrines of men but not what the bible actually says (just like the phrase "God the Son" which isn't found in the bible, works great for indoctrination though). More importantly, they don't see the bigger picture and all the verses related to that subject that demonstrate that it is a twist or misinterpretation that is being spread.

This is the verse that showed up on top with google when searching for your phrase "the holy spirit will come to you" (the other verses related to that subject, Luke 1:35 and John 16:7 for example, are discussed further below in the more detailed look at this subject, John 16:7 can be put just before the reference to John 16:13, links to those bible verses are on the source page).

Acts 1:8 (NWT):

But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part* of the earth.”
* = Or “to the ends.”

The holy spirit is the active force of God (they will "receive power"). It is not a person but is a powerful force that God causes to emanate from himself to accomplish his holy will.—Ps. 104:30; 2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 4:31.

Luke 1:35 (NWT), an angel speaking to Mary:

In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?

Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person?

Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·raʹkle·tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also pages 380, 381, under the heading “Spirit.”)

The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.

Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.

Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?

Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

Source: Trinity: Reasoning

What is the holy spirit?

A comparison of Bible texts that refer to the holy spirit shows that it is spoken of as ‘filling’ people; they can be ‘baptized’ with it; and they can be “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) None of these expressions would be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person.

Jesus also referred to the holy spirit as a “helper” (Greek, pa·raʹkle·tos), and he said that this helper would “teach,” “bear witness,” “speak,” and ‘hear.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) It is not unusual in the Scriptures for something to be personified. For example, wisdom is said to have “children.” (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are spoken of as being kings. (Rom. 5:14, 21) While some texts say that the spirit “spoke,” other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matt. 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with 21:10, 11.) At 1 John 5:6-8, not only the spirit but also “the water and the blood” are said to ‘bear witness.’ So, none of the expressions found in these texts in themselves prove that the holy spirit is a person.

The correct identification of the holy spirit must fit all the scriptures that refer to that spirit. With this viewpoint, it is logical to conclude that the holy spirit is the active force of God. It is not a person but is a powerful force that God causes to emanate from himself to accomplish his holy will.—Ps. 104:30; 2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 4:31.

Source: Spirit: Reasoning

a reply to: Malocchio

Simple really.


Jesus came from the HOLY SPIRIT and only one mother Mary. Who can claim to be his Father but GOD in that sense alone. Since he had no human father but only a mother.

Some might say well Adam had neither mother nor father? Yes but he came from another source dust. Adam is a son of God as a created being but son of the natural or the carnal.

While Jesus came directly from GOD. Directly from the HOLY SPIRIT. This is why Adam failed and all others, while Jesus was victorious.....HE WON for us!

Jesus is literally God with us.

originally posted by: Malocchio


This thought just hit me. What makes Jesus the Son of God? Even ''Only begotten Son?" God or Elohim has other Sons, the Sons of God of Genesis (called fallen angels but the Bible says Sons of God) and Deuteronomy 32.

And if God has a Son well he must have a wife, right? In order to make a son you first need to have sex , does God have sex? We know historically Yahweh DID have his Asherah who goes back to Cannanite mythology far older than the Bible, it was Josiah who banished Asherah from the Temple essentially exiling the Goddess.

But if Jesus was created first as the Logos of God that only makes him the first creation and if his creation was the same as, just before the angels, nothing really exists to make him a Son. He's the Logos which is the Word but also Reason of God, not a ''begotten Son" until his incarnation in Mary which means he wasn't always God's Son.

Christianity claims that Jesus was the Son of God, Son of man, Word of God and God himself, simultaneously and infinitely.

But Jesus being the Son of God means he came AFTER God and can't be infinite as he was created at some point outside of our time or in it. Again, after and BY God, in the same manner as the angels meaning that Jesus can't BE God. If he was God he would be his own Father and thus, not a Son.

Greetings and Namaste, friend. Master Jesus was both a Son of Man and a Son of God. What does that mean? It meant that he was half human and half divine when he was on Earth. His mind functioned fully as a human being with all the emotions and thoughts. But later on in life, he fully knew that he was The Son of God (this happened after baptism). You see, you and I are also sons of God, but only after we have chosen to do God's Will on Earth. But before then, we are still sons of Man.

With that in mind, Master Jesus represents one of the numerous Sons of God in Heaven, on Earth, and beyond. The Master was special because he came from Heaven. He was already a full-fledge Son of God before he came here. We are still babies compared to him. We are on our way toward Heaven, while Master Jesus descended to be with us to show us the way. The Master was and is not God himself in a literal sense. The Bible was merely telling us that Master Jesus is such a perfected being that just by looking at him, it is like looking at Father God. This is why the BIble said that if you seen the Son, you also have seen the Father. Literally, God and Master Jesus have fused within their minds, and thus they seem to function as ONE. We, as ascending sons, can also fuse and become ONE with God. When you do fuse with God, people see the divinity in you--like looking at God.

originally posted by: Created
a reply to: Malocchio

Simple really. While Jesus came directly from GOD. Directly from the HOLY SPIRIT. This is why Adam failed and all others, while Jesus was victorious.....HE WON for us! Jesus is literally God with us.

Still; all in all I would not want MY FATHER to send me on a Suicide Mission.

For what it's worth the first Jewish Messianic followers of Jesus didn't believe in the virgin birth (a pagan concept) and only believed that Jesus was God's ''adopted" Son at Baptism.

They were called Ebionites and Nazarenes and were loyal to Judaism and the Tanakh and continued to be Jews, just Jews with a Spiritual Messiah.

The Son of God=God nonsense didn't start until the Romans got there thieving mits on the books of the Jews and didn't become doctrine until Nicea.

Rome.

a reply to: Malocchio
Hum? what?! Are you Somebody?

a reply to: Malocchio

IMHO ... if people are willing to accept reincarnation, they maybe would find out like me, ... that Jesus Christ was King David`s reincarnation!!! ... and He is the first person in the Bible ever told to be adopted as son of God, ... before His own son i.e. King Solomon, ... as the second person ever told in the Bible to be the son of God too!!! ... Lol

(The problem that no body knows the secrets of the Kingdom of God so far, ... I think coz is most of us don`t/ never want to accept reincarnation, but only willing to believe in resurrection, such people are Catholics, Christians & Islam)

Jesus knew that thing from the beginning, that people or religions inspired by Him & who read Bible & Quran won`t be willing to accept reincarnation theory!!! ...

>>>Matthew 11:13-15
13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear.

And above Jesus told us that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Prophet Elijah, and later as though as Jesus saying don`t just read your own holy books, ... but whoever has ears hear others too (means other religions theories, myths even just fantasy or movies) ... and mostly only Budhisme and Hinduisme believe in reincarnation/ rebirth & karma, ... but they don`t believe in Jesus & the Bible!!! ... Coz with God nothing is impossible ... Lol

Look in my page from the start about my theories about them below:

plus.google.com...

.

a reply to: Edingo

I think we are all God's sons, Jesus was the Messiah, a Prophet and that Paul is responsible for his paganization/deification.

A view also prevalent in Islam and, minus the Messiah part, Judaism, who today views Christ as a misunderstood Rabbi and not a bad guy. Notwithstanding ancient Talmud traditions, where he is not so honored, modern Judaism is full of people who think the non Pauline Jewish Nazarene movement and Islam were/are true and acceptable Spiritual movements.

Not a universal opinion by any means but more common than you would/might (don't know you) think.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Malocchio
Hum? what?! Are you Somebody?

As far as I am aware, yes, I am somebody.

Were I not, how would I be typing this?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Created
a reply to: Malocchio

Simple really. While Jesus came directly from GOD. Directly from the HOLY SPIRIT. This is why Adam failed and all others, while Jesus was victorious.....HE WON for us! Jesus is literally God with us.

Still; all in all I would not want MY FATHER to send me on a Suicide Mission.

Yes of course. Our flesh does not want what God wants. For God is SPIRIT. And this Spirit of the LORD gives us life.

Our flesh wants to disobey to eat what we want or think what we want and do what we want.

This is why the Father wants us to worship him in Spirit and in truth. The SPIRIT of GOD wants to live inside of us. For the Son has opened this door to everyone who believes on him.

a reply to: Created

I'm surprised no one mentioned (or at least I missed it if anyone did) that this argument has come up before and was completely resolved and settled. Actually, this came up and was debated and resolved some 1700 years ago at the Council of Nicea. At the time Arius (google Arius or check Wikipedia) had basically the same position as the OP, saying how could Jesus be God's son and raising all these same issues.

Well, they resolved it completely with the Nicean creed:
1) Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God", proclaiming his divinity.
2) Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being 'from the substance of the Father'.
3) He is said to be "of one being with The Father", proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God The Father is also "true God", the are "of one being", in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one". And so on and so forth, yadda yadda.....

The emperor himself gave it his stamp of approval and Arius was exiled afterwards so there would be no more debate. This was the foundation of the Catholic church and what we now call Christianity.

So, there you have it folks, signed, sealed, and delivered. No need for any further debate or discussion.

originally posted by: Elcabong
a reply to: Created

I'm surprised no one mentioned (or at least I missed it if anyone did) that this argument has come up before and was completely resolved and settled. Actually, this came up and was debated and resolved some 1700 years ago at the Council of Nicea. At the time Arius (google Arius or check Wikipedia) had basically the same position as the OP, saying how could Jesus be God's son and raising all these same issues.

Well, they resolved it completely with the Nicean creed:
1) Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God", proclaiming his divinity.
2) Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being 'from the substance of the Father'.
3) He is said to be "of one being with The Father", proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God The Father is also "true God", the are "of one being", in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one". And so on and so forth, yadda yadda.....

The emperor himself gave it his stamp of approval and Arius was exiled afterwards so there would be no more debate. This was the foundation of the Catholic church and what we now call Christianity.

So, there you have it folks, signed, sealed, and delivered. No need for any further debate or discussion.

That hardly makes it a settled issue, if you weren't being sarcastic Constantine deciding what was true means nothing and the Nicene creed is a bunch of garbage that made a man into a God in an entirely nonsensical fashion.

Arius version was better and would rival the Nicene creed long after Nicea as not everyone just believes what they are told to believe, like "Only these books are legitimate, but not these."

Unlettered men were the heart of the council of Nicea and it shows in the ridiculous notion that God is now 3 God's but one.

I think logic was not a concept used in formulating this theology of the Trinity.

Continue debate.

a reply to: Edingo

And not for nothing but John denied he was Elijah.

I think he knew who he was, not to mention he was supposed to come back the way he left and not by reincarnation, something not believed in by Jews.

The authors of the NT likely forced those words into Jesus mouth because of that prophecy in Malachi.

It was unnecessary as other would be Messiahs came after Jesus and...no Elijah was needed to convince the followers of Bar Kochba he was the Messiah, or Jesus.

a reply to: Malocchio

....if you weren't being sarcastic....

Yes, I was being sarcastic. Please continue the debate.

a reply to: Malocchio


Mods please delete, duplicate.

originally posted by: Elcabong
a reply to: Malocchio

....if you weren't being sarcastic....

Yes, I was being sarcastic.

Please continue the debate.

Good, I love sarcasm as a form of humor, it can defuse many a heated debate.

Laughter is God's second greatest gift after women.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Isurrender73
Yes, I'm familiar with the verses that are twisted and then misrepresented without quotations to support the doctrine of the Trinity including the stuff about the holy spirit being a person. That's the reason they are often not quoted, people remember the doctrines of men but not what the bible actually says (just like the phrase "God the Son" which isn't found in the bible, works great for indoctrination though). More importantly, they don't see the bigger picture and all the verses related to that subject that demonstrate that it is a twist or misinterpretation that is being spread.

This is the verse that showed up on top with google when searching for your phrase "the holy spirit will come to you" (the other verses related to that subject, Luke 1:35 and John 16:7 for example, are discussed further below in the more detailed look at this subject, John 16:7 can be put just before the reference to John 16:13, links to those bible verses are on the source page).

Acts 1:8 (NWT):

But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part* of the earth.”
* = Or “to the ends.”

The holy spirit is the active force of God (they will "receive power"). It is not a person but is a powerful force that God causes to emanate from himself to accomplish his holy will.—Ps. 104:30; 2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 4:31.

Luke 1:35 (NWT), an angel speaking to Mary:

In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God’s Son.

Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?

Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person?

Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·raʹkle·tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also pages 380, 381, under the heading “Spirit.”)

The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.

Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.

Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?

Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

Source: Trinity: Reasoning

What is the holy spirit?

A comparison of Bible texts that refer to the holy spirit shows that it is spoken of as ‘filling’ people; they can be ‘baptized’ with it; and they can be “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) None of these expressions would be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person.

Jesus also referred to the holy spirit as a “helper” (Greek, pa·raʹkle·tos), and he said that this helper would “teach,” “bear witness,” “speak,” and ‘hear.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) It is not unusual in the Scriptures for something to be personified. For example, wisdom is said to have “children.” (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are spoken of as being kings. (Rom. 5:14, 21) While some texts say that the spirit “spoke,” other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matt. 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with 21:10, 11.) At 1 John 5:6-8, not only the spirit but also “the water and the blood” are said to ‘bear witness.’ So, none of the expressions found in these texts in themselves prove that the holy spirit is a person.

The correct identification of the holy spirit must fit all the scriptures that refer to that spirit. With this viewpoint, it is logical to conclude that the holy spirit is the active force of God. It is not a person but is a powerful force that God causes to emanate from himself to accomplish his holy will.—Ps. 104:30; 2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 4:31.

Source: Spirit: Reasoning

Not sure if I've already done this for this thread, but all spiritual roads lead to Babylon the Great anyway, it all connects; not my fault:
Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find?, page 4

Just remember that everything I quoted from those 2 sources was skipped in the quotation above but is available if you scroll up.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Are you trying to make sense of the bible? Don't you know that's the fastest route to atheism?


a reply to: Malocchio

So true.

originally posted by: Malocchio


This thought just hit me. What makes Jesus the Son of God? Even ''Only begotten Son?" God or Elohim has other Sons, the Sons of God of Genesis (called fallen angels but the Bible says Sons of God) and Deuteronomy 32.

And if God has a Son well he must have a wife, right? In order to make a son you first need to have sex , does God have sex? We know historically Yahweh DID have his Asherah who goes back to Cannanite mythology far older than the Bible, it was Josiah who banished Asherah from the Temple essentially exiling the Goddess.

But if Jesus was created first as the Logos of God that only makes him the first creation and if his creation was the same as, just before the angels, nothing really exists to make him a Son. He's the Logos which is the Word but also Reason of God, not a ''begotten Son" until his incarnation in Mary which means he wasn't always God's Son.

Christianity claims that Jesus was the Son of God, Son of man, Word of God and God himself, simultaneously and infinitely.

But Jesus being the Son of God means he came AFTER God and can't be infinite as he was created at some point outside of our time or in it. Again, after and BY God, in the same manner as the angels meaning that Jesus can't BE God. If he was God he would be his own Father and thus, not a Son.

This is a very thoughtful post and you raise some interesting questions.

I think there's a little bit of revisionist history going on hundreds of years after in the translations. The way the Bible describes Jesus I do not think he did enough to get himself crucified. I think Jesus was preaching we are ALL sons and daughters of God and we do not have to buy our absolution from the temple. Jesus took away the church's cash cow and he got snubbed.

What better way to capitalize on this dangerous doctrine than to rewrite in such a way that it becomes a cult of personality serving the church's treasury. It's perfectly evil in every way. The church gets its central authority worshiping type religion. And nobody has the personal authority to acquire their absolution from God directly.