According to Christian tradition, Jesus isn't God

Originally posted by pyrodude
But what is your point in telling us this or is it just to make a statement?

He has a desperate need for attention!
(After all, it's hardly as if it's an original objection!)
V

but Jesus is part of the Trinity, so it would make sense.

reply to post by Vicky32


So...you're taking a view of something that is entirely extra-Biblical and is based on...well...basically pulling it out of a theologian's rear end as an explanation of this issue?

Furthermore, there are those who still argue that Jesus was omniscient even though he clearly didn't know this one thing.

Also, I didn't know the Christian God could 'de-power' so to speak. I thought the whole 'unchanging nature' thing...sort of prevented that.

reply to post by Theophorus


So...you're logically contradicting yourself? And what is a 'nature' anyway? Can you outline this philosophical idea that you've just so casually tossed out there.

Also, I'd like to point out that you threw out a massive non-sequitur by claiming the Jesus is God because he demonstrates something different from God's nature...

reply to post by Vicky32


Is there really such a thing as an original objection to a book that's been circulated quite widely from hundreds of years?

reply to post by randomname


How would the trinitarian conception, which I'm not going to take as necessarily valid because there have been more than a few different objections including that Jesus is not divine or that Jesus was entirely the father in a human suit or the general Unitarian objection, explain this problem away?

The OP raises an interesting point, although I don't see the atheist stake in the dispute.

If there is some religious hitch, then it is a controversy between the majority of Nicene Christians who aren't sola scriptura, against the minority of Nicene Chrsitians who are both sola scriptura and inerrantist literalists. When the video asks Christians to "choose between" their apologetics and scriptures, for most that was settled sometime in the Second Century. The church functions to explain scriptures. Most orthodox Christians take both.

I am unsure how "orthodox" the theory of Moreland and Craig is, discussed in the video. On the other hand, it is consistent with contemporary psychological understanding of the architecture of the human mind. The gospel story, the whole thing, not just this particular point, depicts the universal hero deed of an emergent waking consciousness coexisting with and atop a potentially overwhelming unconscious maelstrom.

It is reasonably clear that "The Father" is Jesus' archetypal expression for this maelstrom. "The Spirit" seems to be his expression of the possibility of orderly and purposeful waking activity of the "The Father." Of course, "The Son" is his waking consciousness.

Except for the choice of specific words, taken from the native religion of this particular person, that last paragraph might describe any well adjusted human being who has ever lived.

Ironically, the cited parallel passages from Mark and Matthew are lucid. They could be a transcription of how many people speak when asked to offer spontaneous conscious commentary about unconscious contents. As problems in the nature of human identity and self-knowledge go, this is pretty much surface level. It's right up there with asking a well-off person whether they're hungry, and they look at their wristwatch.

It is simply a fact of human experience that having potential access to the answer to a fact-question does not necessarily coincide with spontaneously answering the question with that knowledge. The spontaneous answer is often an explanation of the absence of the fact answer. "God only knows" may well be heard in this connection, when what is meant is "I don't want to go there right now."

You know, madness, if the scripture thing really were all so very easy, then I wouldn't be an agnostic. But, if it helps, I thought your syllogism was much better than the video.

reply to post by eight bits

Originally posted by eight bits
The OP raises an interesting point, although I don't see the atheist stake in the dispute.

Not really one. Been looking at my Bible a bit in preparation for an exam (unfortunately my metaphysics class spent half its time on Catholic theology) and it sort of just came up while reading Corinthians.

No atheist stake, just trying to get people to think.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

So...you're taking a view of something that is entirely extra-Biblical and is based on...well...basically pulling it out of a theologian's rear end as an explanation of this issue?

If you'd bothered to read either of the links, you'd know it wasn't extra-Biblical... But you're too scared of being found to be wrong.
V

reply to post by Vicky32


I'm actually well-versed in the idea and don't have to resort to personal attacks to prove my points. Scared? I challenged you to a debate...a challenge which you ignored. Scared people don't often challenge people to public discussions over their positions.

Hell, I even found that I'd been to that same exact page on New Advent about a year ago because of a discussion I had on the issue with a Catholic friend of mine.

What I'm saying is extra-Biblical is the content of what he emptied himself of. A lot of Christians I know think he emptied himself of his glory, the sort of thing that caused Old Testament people to think that seeing God would kill them. So God merely toned down the attribute that would cause everyone who witnessed them on Earth to die.

You instead claim, without reason, that he emptied himself of....omniscience...but there's no justification to actually make a claim on what specifically was emptied.

To cite the passage specifically:

But emptied [ekenosen] himself,

No specific thing is mentioned.

taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as man.

Form, likeness, habit...but not substance or nature. There is an aesthetic difference, there is no mention of a difference of mind. Granted, you could argue that the form of his brain did that...but then you'd just be dismissing the idea of a soul.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by the4thhorseman

 

So Jesus is God...and yet Jesus doesn't know something that God knows....I'm sorry, that's just as illogical as the following statement:

But of course one would have to believe in the Bible to truly understand it. I hope this helps

This is a special pleading fallacy of sorts. Saying that I have to accept the claim before I understand the claim is to tell me that you have special knowledge or understanding that I am not privy to due to your position of accepting the position.

You took my comment out of context maybe "believe" was the wrong word. One can not take one verse out of the entire Bible and say "see this verse contradicts these others". Or you can not take one verse out of the Bible and base a doctrine on it (Not saying you are but others do) You are to divide the Word of Truth Gods logic never fails and everything falls into place.

I posted verse showing that the Word was God and is God and that Word became flesh and dwelt among us..Jesus Christ. I posted additional verses showing you that Jesus still had some omniscience ability.

Jesus was God in the flesh. That is the only way Jesus could die. He had to be made flesh to die for our sins. Look at Hebrews 9.

The logic is there in the Bible but it takes faith to believe that logic. Faith is the corner stone of Christianity.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The OP is ridiculous. The Christian God, "Elohim", is a Triune God. (Trinity)

The only thing the OP has "proved" is that Jesus is not the Father.

We know this already.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Theophorus

 

So...you're logically contradicting yourself? And what is a 'nature' anyway? Can you outline this philosophical idea that you've just so casually tossed out there.

Also, I'd like to point out that you threw out a massive non-sequitur by claiming the Jesus is God because he demonstrates something different from God's nature...

+

First off lets take a closer look at mark 13:32. technically speaking Jesus never claimed in this passage that "he" did not know of that day,and that hour. He did not say that no man,no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither "I" but the father. He used the term "the Son". He was speaking of his human nature. If he would have used the word "I" he would have been speaking of the two natures he possessed. He did not.
In simplest form, Nature answers the question of 'What' something is Example: Jesus is the son of god. Just like
the son of a billy goat would be a billy goat. only able to do billy goat things.
The son of a ox would be a ox.Only able to do ox things.
The son of a fish would be a fish.Only able to do fish things.
The son of a man would be a man.Only able to do man things.
The son of a god would be a god. only able to do god things.
However, the bible clearly states that Jesus had two natures.That being son of man, and that being son of god.

hope this sheds a little light and understanding.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I was unaware that historical genocide was a justification for absolute statements. To claim that trinitarianism is inherent to all Christianity is to be ignorant of the early history of Christianity and the presence of modern unitarians.

reply to post by the4thhorseman

The logic is there in the Bible but it takes faith to believe that logic.

And this is the special pleading fallacy right there. I have to accept the idea and believe in it before I gain access to the special knowledge required to understand it.

Faith is the corner stone of Christianity.

And it's such an empty cornerstone. I prefer evidence and skepticism, which have tangible benefits and help people.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I was unaware that historical genocide was a justification for absolute statements. To claim that trinitarianism is inherent to all Christianity is to be ignorant of the early history of Christianity and the presence of modern unitarians.

I don't claim it's 'inherent to all Christianity'. So that's a straw man. Paul, Peter, James, John and the early church fathers taught that God was Trinitarian. I'll stick with the apostles, their disciples (Polycarp, Clement of Rome et al), and the ante-Nicene fathers fathers on this one.

Again, all you've shown is that Jesus is not the Father. We already know this, that's why we call Him the Son.

reply to post by Akragon

And he always speaks of God or "the Father" as a seperate entity...

Brilliant!

Perhaps that's because He isn't the Father but the Son?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


This is one of those rare times I am forced to agree with MIMS and his OP.

Just a side point, I have talked to christians that have been to Greece and they tell me the Greek Orthadox christians that believe in the Trinity do not use John 1:1 to support it, because they can't, they actually understand the proper way that verse is to be read and understood. But they use other scriptures to support the trinity. I thought this was a very good point because many christinas in North America use this scripture in supporting the trinity. But they don't understand Greek.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


The other book by John (Revelation) is far greater for grasping Jesus's divinity than his gospel.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Correction,the greeks used this term (word)not only of the spoken word but also of the unspoken word,the word still in the mind-the reason.when they applied it to the universe,they meant the rational principle that governs all things. Jews used it as a way of referring to god. Thus john used a term that was meaningfull to both jews and gentiles.with god.the word was distinct from the father.was god.tell me something,what is the proper way to view john 1?