Why do people say "God" without giving the specific name of said God?

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by JB1234
As I've said many times in this thread, there is not one single reference that Jesus claimed to be Jehovah.THAT would have been blasphemy!

Trinities of gods have flourished in Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt, as well as in Buddhist lands. Christendom too has its “holy” Trinity, which derives it's roots NOT from Scripture but from these pagan civilisations.

edit on 17-10-2011 by JB1234 because: Added detail

Here are two references. The first , Jesus specifically states "I am Jehova." In the second reference, Jesus tells his disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 43: 10 - 12 (Young's Literal Translation)

10 Ye [are] My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And My servant whom I have chosen, So that ye know and give credence to Me, And understand that I [am] He, Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none.
11 I [am] Jehovah, And besides Me there is no saviour.
12 I declared, and saved, and proclaimed, And there is no stranger with you, And ye [are] My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And I [am] God.

Matthew 28:16-20

16 And the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mount where Jesus appointed them, 17 and having seen him, they bowed to him, but some did waver. 18 And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, 'Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth; 19 having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them—to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days—till the full end of the age.'

Isaiah 43:10-12) . . .YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”

(Isaiah 43:12) 12 “I myself have told forth and have saved and have caused [it] to be heard, when there was among YOU no strange [god]. So YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I am God.

"You are my witnesses" is in the plural form, in other words it's more than one person...... it is calling a class of people witnesses to Jehovah..who witness or bear testimony about Jehovah?? Yes Jesus bore witness about his father in heaven but this is the scripture where Jehovah's Witnesses take their name from, previously they were known as Bible students.

We can see this same exhortation in Isaiah 44:8 . . ."Do not be in dread, YOU people, and do not become stupefied. Have I not from that time on caused you individually to hear and told [it] out? And YOU are my witnesses. Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is no Rock. I have recognized none.’”

YOU PEOPLE.... again because reference is made to a number of people...... not speaking about Jesus.

As for Matthew 28:16.... Jesus clearly says he was "Given" all authority..... who gave him that authority if he was God himself??!!

reply to post by Seed76

Consider these two verses :

I am sure we all have considered those verses.
How about contributing the results of your own consideration?
I think that would be more helpful than quoting verses we have read hundreds of times.

reply to post by Akragon

Paul on the other hand, lied specifically about Jesus, which in my opinion corrupts all of his works...

Again, once a liar always a liar...

What was that?

reply to post by Akragon

Unfortunatly it answers nothing... i do not care what paul has to say... I prefer to use the "once a liar always a liar" ideal...

That´s true, it answers nothing for you, since you do not care what he is saying, because it does not fit with your point of view concerning Jesus.

Been there done that, considered, and denied.... I am me... does that mean I AM God?

Not unless you are the God of Abraham. Which is exactly what Jesus said as is mentioned on John:

John 8:58 - "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"

Do i need to give you references as to how many people in the bible used the term I AM?

By all means, if you feel to, then do so my friend.

Realize cherry picking will get you nowhere with me my friend...

Why so Judgmental and touchy my friend?

read the verses after the one you posted....

I have read them my friend.

He flat out denies being God right here... Notice the question mark in the verse i underlined? That means he was questioning them, saying you want to stone me because i said i am THE SON OF GOD? Meaning he did not once say he was God...

Lets see if what you say is true. The quotation starts with verse 34 :

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

which is a reference to Psalm 82:6 / 81 LXX.. It is called " A Psalm of Asaph." where God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers.

Your reference to verse 36 :

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Let´s see what it says:

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Whom the Father hath sanctified - The word "sanctify" with us means to make holy; but this is not its meaning here, for the Son of God was always holy. The original word means to set apart from a common to a sacred use; to devote to a sacred purpose, and to designate or consecrate to a holy office. This is the meaning here. God has consecrated or appointed his Son to be his Messenger or Messiah to mankind. See Exodus 28:41; Exodus 29:1, Exodus 29:44; Leviticus 8:30.

And sent into the world - As the Messiah, an office far more exalted than that of magistrates.

I am the Son of God - This the Jews evidently understood as the same as saying that he was equal with God. This expression he had often applied to himself. The meaning of this place may be thus expressed: "You charge me with blasphemy. The foundation of that charge is the use of the name God, or the Son of God, applied to myself; yet that same term is applied in the Scriptures to magistrates. The use of it there shows that it is right to apply it to those who sustain important offices (see the notes of John 10:34-35). And especially you, Jews, ought not to attempt to found a charge of blasphemy on the application of a word to the Messiah which in your own Scriptures is applied to all magistrates. And we may remark here:

1. That Jesus did not deny that he meant to apply the term to himself.

2. He did not deny that it was properly applied to him.

3. He did not deny that it implied that he was God. He affirmed only that they were inconsistent, and were not authorized to bring a charge of blasphemy for the application of the name to himself.

Source

To make it short and plainly, in the verses 34-38 which you quoted , Jesus simply mock them by saying, even in your law is written about me(i.e. The Messiah), and although you claim to know, you are not able to recongnise who is speaking to you. Further He says if you do not believe me, then believe the work I do, so that you can understand that I am He and He is Me.Which is the reason why the Jews wanted to stone Him again for Blasphemy.

My friend i need no help in understanding Jesus, but many do...

For that i am sure my friend. But keep in mind what you said earlier : "I prefer to use the "once a liar always a liar" ideal... "

Peace

reply to post by JB1234

..... it is calling a class of people witnesses to Jehovah..

The clue is in verse 7.
The English translation does not bring it out clearly. It just says, Made.
This is why you should read the Septuagint and look at the Greek.
κατεσκεύασα, kataskeuazō comes from a word that means, fully equipped.
Look for it in the NT, and you find it in what John the Baptist did, to prepare a people for a specific purpose.
Luke 1: 17
And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Could that be an inference to there being made people to be witnesses of the arrival of Jesus in his campaign?
It uses the exact same word as in
Isaiah 43: 7
everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.

It does not make sense to me to translate it as, made, when there is already that implied in two other words in the verse, created, and, formed.

reply to post by Seed76

That´s true, it answers nothing for you, since you do not care what he is saying, because it does not fit with your point of view concerning Jesus.

Correct... simply because my point of view concerning him is what he said, and what he taught not what others said or taught...

Not unless you are the God of Abraham. Which is exactly what Jesus said as is mentioned on John:


John 8:58 - "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"

Simply meaning he existed before abraham... That does not mean he was God...

look 4 verses before John 8:58

53Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

54Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God

He states he is no greater then Abraham because in honouring himself, his honour is nothing...

So again, two entities... one is greater then the other... He did not call himself God because he knew who he was... which was the SON of God, Not God... The Father can not be the son... and vice versa.

And before you post, I and my Father are one... like everyone else does... i will state again, That does not mean he was God, only that he came from the same source.

Why so Judgmental and touchy my friend?

I wasn't being judgemental, i was telling you that cherry picking is useless for arguements sake...

Lets see if what you say is true.

Yes lets....

Whom the Father hath sanctified - The word "sanctify" with us means to make holy; but this is not its meaning here, for the Son of God was always holy. The original word means to set apart from a common to a sacred use; to devote to a sacred purpose, and to designate or consecrate to a holy office. This is the meaning here. God has consecrated or appointed his Son to be his Messenger or Messiah to mankind. See Exodus 28:41; Exodus 29:1, Exodus 29:44; Leviticus 8:30

Notice he said "the SON of God was always holy"?

I am the Son of God - This the Jews evidently understood as the same as saying that he was equal with God.

And obviously they were incorrect because Jesus states many times he is not equal with God... This was also pauls lie...

He did not deny that it implied that he was God. He affirmed only that they were inconsistent, and were not authorized to bring a charge of blasphemy for the application of the name to himself.

Incorrect... He plainly denied it, by questioning them... stating he called himself the son of God, NOT God... They said "you make yourself God" And he said i am the son of God... He did not say Yes that is true or anything of the sort... Or perhaps you believe he was lying to them...

To make it short and plainly, in the verses 34-38 which you quoted , Jesus simply mock them by saying, even in your law is written about me(i.e. The Messiah), and although you claim to know, you are not able to recongnise who is speaking to you. Further He says if you do not believe me, then believe the work I do, so that you can understand that I am He and He is Me.Which is the reason why the Jews wanted to stone Him again for Blasphemy.

Incorrect... He did not say i am he or he is me... that is your assumption. They already wanted to stone him, and after saying "you want to stone me because i said i am the son of God?" They tried to do so... after giving him a chance to explain himself and yet again misunderstanding him... Even today those of the jewish faith will not even type the word God, they always leave out a letter... They associate the word God in any sence with their God... And any use of said word is considered Blasphemy

For that i am sure my friend. But keep in mind what you said earlier "I prefer to use the "once a liar always a liar" ideal...

Call me whatever you like...that is your judgement... i know what i know... You can assume he was God all you want, but realize as i've said before, When you worship him as God, you make his Father who he spoke about... Non existant...

But feel free to do so, i care not...

And btw this is what happens when you take someone elses word or interpretation... instead of reading what he said for yourself...

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

Paul on the other hand, lied specifically about Jesus, which in my opinion corrupts all of his works...

Again, once a liar always a liar...

What was that?

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Christ did not say that... Not once...

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

Paul on the other hand, lied specifically about Jesus, which in my opinion corrupts all of his works...

Again, once a liar always a liar...

What was that?

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Christ did not say that... Not once...

Yes, he did.
Here:
John 5:17
So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.”

It was understood at that time that only God could continue working on the Sabbath because God owns the world as His home.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

Paul on the other hand, lied specifically about Jesus, which in my opinion corrupts all of his works...

Again, once a liar always a liar...

What was that?

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Christ did not say that... Not once...

Yes, he did.
Here:
John 5:17
So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.”

It was understood at that time that only God could continue working on the Sabbath because God owns the world as His home.

Incorrect my friend, though the jews believed that only God could work on the sabbath, Jesus showed them otherwise... and again, because he worked on the sabbath it does not make him God, though like i've said the jews have this issue with using the word God in any context other then refering to God himself...they consider it blasphamy As you've seen on these forums they won't even type the word... and this is 2k years later...

Look here...

1 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.
2 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy.
3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?
4 And they held their peace. And he took [him], and healed him, and let him go;
5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
6 And they could not answer him again to these things.


and here...

Matthew 12:9-13.
9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had [his] hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched [it] forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.


Him being the "SON of God" he would know the mind of God... And i tell you as he did, even for the jews it is lawful to do Good on the sabbath...

So, even though the jews saw what he did as being equal with God, he never once made himself equal with God.

Remember... man was not made for the sabbath, the sabbath was made for man... The jews seemed to overlook this fact within the bible...

reply to post by Akragon


Doing a single act out of necessity is not the same as working continuously.

Supposedly (I have not found it yet) Philo makes the argument that God did not actually rest on the seventh day, so Jesus could have been thinking of this as an argument that God made the Sabbath for man, and not for God. He being God, even though at the time he was really a man, but was fully empowered to act as God's agent, having known God, personally, previous to his being sent out from God. Though technically he was not god, he was that same person who was god. Being a man, he was as good as dead, as so all men must die. In a way god, as in the god Jesus was, died when Jesus was born.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Is this what you're looking for? Jesus not peter said that the sabbath was made for man...

26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

reply to post by Akragon

Correct... simply because my point of view concerning him is what he said, and what he taught not what others said or taught...

Are you by any chance Gnostic? The reason for asking is that Gnosticism, denies the incarnation of God as the Son. And their view is, that Christ was one of the special Gnostic teachers.

Call me whatever you like...that is your judgement... i know what i know...

I haven´t called you anything my friend. I was simply echoing your words. Because is not right to call a dead person a liar.

You can assume he was God all you want, but realize as i've said before, When you worship him as God, you make his Father who he spoke about... Non existant...

I am not going to explain the "Trinity teachings", because there are many sources over the internet which explains it.

Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since he is the savior, God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man. In other words, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature, God and man.

The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14). Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9). Jesus' divine nature was not altered. Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity.

Source_01

Critics of the Trinity will see this subordination as proof that the Trinity is false. They reason that if Jesus were truly God, then He would be completely equal to God the Father in all areas and would not, therefore, be subordinate to the Father in any way.

But this objection is not logical. If we look at the analogy of the king and the servant we certainly would not say that the servant was not human because he was sent. Being sent does not negate sameness in essence. Therefore, the fact that the Son is sent does not mean that He is not divine any more than when my wife sends me to get bread, I am not human.

Source_02

If my beliefs are wrong, then i am wrong. But you are not in position to tell me that i am wrong, just because you claiming to be right.

But feel free to do so, i care not...

You may not care, but i care when people negating and nullifying the work that Jesus accomplished, by dying on the cross for all mankind, so that those who believe in Him, can have eternal life. A gift that is freely given to anyone who believes in Him. That gift of Salvation, you can not buy it, neither you can achieve salvation, through somekind of special knowledge (gnosis), or by any other means. That free gift, is not a free ticket to continue in sinning, my friend.

And btw this is what happens when you take someone elses word or interpretation... instead of reading what he said for yourself...

Actually, it´s always useful to read the Bible commentaries, in order to gain some insight and context. Further it´s useful to go back to the original language Greek/Hebrew, to do your own study. By doing so, you avoiding the danger to come to contradictions, and start creating cults based on non Biblical teachings.

Peace

reply to post by Akragon

Philo of Alexandria, or also known as, Philo the Jew.
He was a contemporary of Jesus.

reply to post by Seed76


Unlike many trinitarians, i enjoy the debate with you simply because you to not retaliate with slanderous garbage as most do... I've found that when many have no where else to turn they resort to character asassination... which slowly degrades the conversation... you do not use this tactic, which is greatly apprecated and a breath of fresh air...

Now to your post

Are you by any chance Gnostic? The reason for asking is that Gnosticism, denies the incarnation of God as the Son. And their view is, that Christ was one of the special Gnostic teachers.

I've studied the gnostics quite extensively, but i do not subscribe to any religious group or sect... My studies are my own, and thus my authority is also my own... though what i say is backed by what Jesus taught, because i live my life by his example...

I haven´t called you anything my friend. I was simply echoing your words. Because is not right to call a dead person a liar.

i only say what is true... paul did not know christ personally... all his writings were "inspired" which is likely why he did not teach exactly what Jesus did... Not once did Jesus make himself equal with God, though you will find that many said he did... you will not find that teaching within HIS words.

I am not going to explain the "Trinity teachings", because there are many sources over the internet which explains it.

Much appreciated actually, i know the trinity... also somethnig Jesus and his disciples did not teach... that idea was added 300+ years later...

The idea makes God the son and the holy spirit equal, which is flawed... Jesus is not greater then his father as he said many times, and the holy spirit is the life within every single living being in our existence... though it is a part of God, just as you, me and everything else in existence is...

I do not reject his divinity, he states many times he IS "the son of God" which i would not deny... because as i've stated before his teachings are flawless, and he did not lie... though i recognise that there is one greater then he... That is my God, not his servant/son. Something most christians seem to overlook.

If my beliefs are wrong, then i am wrong. But you are not in position to tell me that i am wrong, just because you claiming to be right.

You have your beliefs, i respect that... though the issue is your beliefs clash with mine... which is my arguement. Either way i am not your judge... i do not say you should not believe what you believe, im only here to clairify what is said within the words of Jesus, nothing more.... believe whatever you like.

You may not care, but i care when people negating and nullifying the work that Jesus accomplished, by dying on the cross for all mankind, so that those who believe in Him, can have eternal life. A gift that is freely given to anyone who believes in Him. That gift of Salvation, you can not buy it, neither you can achieve salvation, through somekind of special knowledge (gnosis), or by any other means. That free gift, is not a free ticket to continue in sinning, my friend.

Again my beliefs on this are quite different then your own... He died on the cross to show the world that there is life beyond death... The idea of being "saved" that christians promote is flawed... You are saved by the knowledge and undenible proof he gave to us by returning after his body died... Regardless this isn't something that was changed when he died, this is something that has always been and always will be... Your spirit is a part of God and can not die..... it is eternal. Those that know this are saved because they no longer fear death, as i do not fear death because of this knowledge. And that falls inline exactly with what you said... the spirit is a give given freely to those that believe in him... but the flaw is that the "gift" is given to everyone regardless of what they believe... but those that do not understand and accept this, still live in fear of the day their body will die, because they do not know what is to come... we that understand that life does not end at the death of the body are saved from that fear.

Actually, it´s always useful to read the Bible commentaries, in order to gain some insight and context. Further it´s useful to go back to the original language Greek/Hebrew, to do your own study. By doing so, you avoiding the danger to come to contradictions, and start creating cults based on non Biblical teachings.

Incorrect... by doing soo you run the risk of falling into someone elses ditch... The blind should not lead the blind because both will fall into the ditch... And i've done my studies on greek and hebrew as well my friend... i do not discount anything i learn...

Originally posted by jpaul

Originally posted by Magantice
reply to post by Reptius

 

I became disenchanted with the God of the bible for my own reasons. As for my God, his name is prime creator. He isnt listed in any bible. The difference between my God, Prime Creator, and the god of the bible is my Prime creator is pure love light and energy etc, where as the god of the bible is a vengeful God.

How does the depiction of God sending himself in human form to justify our sins so that we wouldn't have to pay the penalty ourselves portray a vengeful God - I think too often we attribute historical context/situations found in the bible with the characteristics we attach to the God of the Bible. Any open-minded individual (believer or not) can see that Christianity portrays a God of unconditional love.

edit on 2011-1010-07 by jpaul because: (no reason given)

edit on 2011-1010-07 by jpaul because: (no reason given)

Which translated to rational language means, that we safely can disregard ANY literalism in (mainly) OT at all, and on a predetermined-answer-basis can conclude, that Jahveh is overbrimming with 'love'.

That certainly will take some heavy filters and extreme symbolistic interpretation to row ashore; but what the bleep, christianity is about semantic excesses anyway.

reply to post by bogomil

. . .Jahveh is overbrimming with 'love'.

I think the way to see this is:
Old Testament, The Lord = New Testament, Satan
People don't understand the true meaning of the word, Satan.
Pthena pointed out that David, the follower of Yahweh, saw Saul, the follower of Elohim, as being possessed by a satanic demon. That is Pthena's hypotheses.
You can apply the hypotheses to the Jesus / Yahweh situation.
Jesus was in rebellion with Yahweh, as David was forced to be towards Saul. Though David held him in respect, even after Saul's death, because he was the agent of God, past tense, which had to be removed for the new agency (David) to gain power.
In this case, the one with Jesus as the new agent, the fact that the old agent managed to catch and kill the one in rebellion to him, did not matter because it just helped to solidify his new position of power, as the God, or equal at least to that old one he replaced. David was greater, as in, Saul killed thousands, while David killed tens of thousands.
Oh yes, and how we are saved, us being also rebels and the sons of rebels, through association with the master rebel, get what he got, eternal life.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I don't see how david is greater in that sence...

Oh yes, and how we are saved, us being also rebels and the sons of rebels, through association with the master rebel, get what he got, eternal life.

how does that save you?

reply to post by Akragon

That was just the terminology of the day, where your value is measured in how many of the enemy you kill.

Jesus being accounted among sinners makes being a sinner acceptable because Jesus was accepted into heaven.
That means a sinner in the terms of what sin was in the eye of the old god Jesus was in rebellion against. We need to conform to the standards of the company of the rebels.

reply to post by Akragon

Unlike many trinitarians, i enjoy the debate with you simply because you to not retaliate with slanderous garbage as most do...

I am not Trinitarian, but my denomination, has nothing to do as to how i behave. My denomination, if you want to know is Greek Orthodox, since i am a Greek.

I've found that when many have no where else to turn they resort to character asassination... which slowly degrades the conversation...

The problem is that many people, seems to forget, that behind the monitor, it´s another person. And yes this name calling, derailing, trolling, is the daily bread here in ATS.

you do not use this tactic, which is greatly apprecated and a breath of fresh air...

There is no tactic akragon. We are simply discussing. There is no need to be rude when discussing, although as you know sometimes in a heated debate can be little rough.

I've studied the gnostics quite extensively, but i do not subscribe to any religious group or sect... My studies are my own, and thus my authority is also my own... though what i say is backed by what Jesus taught, because i live my life by his example...

That you have studied the Gnostic doctrines, it´s quite evident by reading your posts. Since there are many groups that are called Gnostic it isn't possible to easily describe the nuances of each variant of Gnostic doctrines, which is the reason why i asked you. However, generally speaking, Gnosticism taught that salvation is achieved through special knowledge (gnosis). This knowledge usually dealt with the individual's relationship to the transcendent Beings/Teachers(i.e Jesus etc).

i only say what is true... paul did not know christ personally...

I never knew Socrates personally either. Does that mean when i am writing about Socrates i am writing lies? There are many ways to determine if my writings about Socrates are true or not. Hence the whole debate.

all his writings were "inspired" which is likely why he did not teach exactly what Jesus did...

All the scripture is "Inspired" not just Paul´s my friend.

Not once did Jesus make himself equal with God, though you will find that many said he did... you will not find that teaching within HIS words.

The thing that you seem to ignore, is that Jesus never denied His divinity. When He says i and the father are one, He is meaning exactly that. If he wasn´t divine, He wouldn´t been able to forgive sins for example, He wouldn´t been able to heal the sick, He wouldn´t been able to raise the dead(i.e. Lazarus) etc. In other words Jesus was God in flesh. Fully divine and fully human.

The idea makes God the son and the holy spirit equal, which is flawed...

The word "trinity" , is a term used to denote, that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence. In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the other persons of the Trinity. Each has a will, loves, and says "I" and "You" when speaking. The Father is not the same person as the Son, who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit, who is not the same person as the Father. Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God.

You have your beliefs, i respect that... though the issue is your beliefs clash with mine... which is my arguement.

Every person has it´s own beliefs and that is a good thing. Can you imagine what the world would have been if everyone had the same beliefs and opinions?

He died on the cross to show the world that there is life beyond death...

It´s your belief and i respect that. My beliefs are stated on my previous post.

The idea of being "saved" that christians promote is flawed... You are saved by the knowledge and undenible proof he gave to us by returning after his body died...

That´s the Gnostic teaching, that you are saved by special knowledge(gnosis), which i disagree my friend.

Your spirit is a part of God and can not die..... it is eternal.

Isn´t that the same thing that the serpent said? "..Ye shall not surely die."

but the flaw is that the "gift" is given to everyone regardless of what they believe...

Do you actually believe that a Loving Father wouldn´t give the gift of salvation freely to everyone? Remember Jesus came to do His Fathers will not His own will. So that those who believe in Him can have eternal life.

Incorrect... by doing soo you run the risk of falling into someone elses ditch... The blind should not lead the blind because both will fall into the ditch...

That´s true my friend. That´s why i am also doing my own study.

Peace

reply to post by Akragon

I don't see how david is greater in that sence...

I read my post again, just now and maybe I misunderstood your question.
Earlier I thought you meant, How does that make David greater than Saul?
Now I think you probably meant, How does that Make David greater than Jesus?
I meant the first thing, that David was greater than Saul.
What I failed to explain was why I would throw that factoid in.
As David was greater than Saul, so is Jesus greater than Yahweh.