Is Christ God.

originally posted by: Smigg
But you keep me guessing, I know the roman catholic church was founded in 30 AD and the catholic church we know today much later but you haven't been clear on the churches you claim preach the same doctrine so I con only assume you mean the main one the catholic church.
Your trickiness has brought this on.

I am telling you, as clearly as I posssibly can, that the roman cathoilc church was NOT founded in A.D. 30.
Or, to put it another way, the church founded in A.D.30was NOT "the roman catholic church". For heaven's sake, there weren't even any Christians in Rome for many years after the church came into existence. How could it be "Roman"?

What existed in the early days was a Christian community, or a collection of local Christian communities. Paul sometimes calls them "the church", but just as often he calls them "the churches". They were "the saints". They were "the elect". In the next century or so the word "catholic" came into use, but that's just a Latin word meaning "everybody". They were just the church in general. "The blessed company of all faithful people", as Cranmer puts it.

It was this general commnuity of local communities that came together, through their representatives in Council, and thrashed out the Christian understanding of the Incarnation and the Trinity, and put together the great declarations of faith in the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon. Not "the roman catholic church". Just the church in general.

As far as I know, ALL the mainstream denominations (e'g Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist) are STILL based on acceptance of the Nicene Creed. It is a fundamental part of the definition of what it means to be Christian. The bodies which abandon the Nicene Creed, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, are the ones regarded as non-Christian cults.

Whereas the "Roman" church could not even begin to develop until barbarian invasions (mainly the Lombards around 700) had isolated the Latin-speaking Christians from the rest of the church and forced them into a detached exstence. That left the bishop of Rome as a big fish in a small pool, the only leading figure in his immediate environment, and encouraged him to develop the idea that he was the boss of the entire world. Then Vatican propagandists worked up the theory that this "papal supremacy" went back to the very earliest days; it' was always a lie, and I don't understand why anti-catholics are so ready to believe them.

You see; the issue is not me being "tricky", but your complete ignorance of the overall course of church history. That is what makes discussion difficult, and that's why I was advising you to get educated a little.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Zeus Jupiter same thing.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Smigg
But you keep me guessing, I know the roman catholic church was founded in 30 AD and the catholic church we know today much later but you haven't been clear on the churches you claim preach the same doctrine so I con only assume you mean the main one the catholic church.
Your trickiness has brought this on.

I am telling you, as clealrly as I posssibly can, that the roman cathoilc church was NOT founded in A.D. 30.
Or, to put it another way, the church founded in A.D.30was NOT "the roman catholic church". For heaven's sake, there weren't even any Christians in Rome for many years after the church came into existence. How could it be "Roman"?

What existed in the early days was a Christian community, or a collection of local Chrsitian communities. Paul sometimes calls them "the church", but just as often he calls them "the churches". They were "the saints". They were "the elect". In the next century or so the word "catholic" came into use, but that's just a Latin word meaaning "everybody". They were just the church in general. "The blessed company of all faithful people", as Cranmer puts it.

It was this general commnuity of local communities that came together, through their representatives in Council, and thrashed out the Christian understanding of the Incarnation and the Trinity, and put together the great declarations of faith in the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon. Not "the roman catholic church". Just the church in general.

As far as I know, ALL the mainstream denominations (e'g Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist) are STILL based on acceptance of the Nicene Creed. It is a fundamental part of the definition of what it means to be Christian. The bodies which abandon the Nicene Creed, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, are the ones regarded as non-Christian cults.

Whereas the "Roman" church could not even begin to develop until barbarian invasions (mainly the Lombards around 700) had isolated the Latin-speaking Christians from the rest of the church and forced them into a detached exstence. That left the bishop of Rome as a big fish in a small pool, the only leading figure in his immediate environment, and encouraged him to develop the idwa that he was the boss of the enire world. Then Vatican progandists worked up the theory that this "papal supremacy" went back to the very earliest days; it' was always a lie, and I don't understand why anti-catholics are so ready to believe them.

You see; the issue is not me being "tricky", but your complete ignorance of the overall course of church history. That is what makes discussion difficult, and that's why I was advising you to get educated a little.

The Roman Catholic Church traces its beginning back to the original church which was established at Pentecost in AD 30. Christians started the church in Rome almost certainly by AD 50. Paul visited the well-established church in AD 63. The Roman Catholic Church can trace its roots all the way back to the original Christian church in Rome.

The Catholic church practice Nicene creed doctrine so we got there in the end, you and Catholics believe that Christ is God.
What's your interpretation as to why Christ referred to himself as the "son of man" ?

a reply to: Smigg

No...

John 6:38
New International Version
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.


1) He distinguishes between him and god.
2) He shows his will and gods will are two different things...

All the bible verses are debunked with this 1 verse.


Jesus cannot be god.

Trinity is bs

Only god. should be worshiped.

originally posted by: seedofchucky
a reply to: Smigg

No...

John 6:38
New International Version
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.


1) He distinguishes between him and god.
2) He shows his will and gods will are two different things...

All the bible verses are debunked with this 1 verse.


Jesus cannot be god.

Trinity is bs

Only god. should be worshiped.

Agreed ?

originally posted by: Smigg
The Roman Catholic Church traces its beginning back to the original church which was established at Pentecost in AD 30. Christians started the church in Rome almost certainly by AD 50. Paul visited the well-established church in AD 63. The Roman Catholic Church can trace its roots all the way back to the original Christian church in Rome.

But when they try to carry their existence as an authoritative community back that far, they are lying. They have no responsibility for the way the church developed in the early days.

The Catholic church practice Nicene creed doctrine so we got there in the end, you and Catholics believe that Christ is God.

"You and Catholics" is an incomplete statement. The message I've been trying to convey is "The Catholics and I AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES accept the Nicene Creed. It is part of the historically official definition of Christian beliefs".
Your shortened version of the statement sets up a misleading insinuation.
I have warned you before about the practice of dishonest manipulations of wording for the sake of scoring cheap debating points.

What's your interpretation as to why Christ referred to himself as the "son of man" ?

There are two sets of Old Testament precedents, both well-known to scholars.
One is the way that God kept addressing Ezekiel, as the one appointed to be his spokesman.
The other is the figure "like a son of man" who appears in the "judgement by God" scene in Daniel ch7; he is the one who takes over the kingdom of the world after the judgement.

Now in the gospels we find Jesus teaching on several occasions that "the son of man" will appear to judge the world.(e'g Matthew ch24 vv30-31).
The implication is that Jesus calls himself "son of man" partly in order to identify himself as the one who would be bringing the later judgement.
This is not just guesswork. In Mark ch10 the sons of Zebedee take it for granted that he will have the chief throne in the time of judgement and ask for the seats on either side. It is important to note that he does NOT deny the assumption "you will have a throne" or rebuke them for it. He admits it, impiictly. All he denies for himself is the ability to decide who sits beside him.

The general teaching of the churches in Acts and the epistles reats on the same assumption, that Jesus himself is the one who will come in judgement. Acts ch17 (Areopagus). 2 Thessalonians ch1 v7 ("when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels"). And so on.

That is my explanation of "son of man". Make the most of it.

Im reluctant to involve myself in these debate anymore... that part of my life is behind me though im compelled to add my two cents... its still hard to resist lol

All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and earth.... Mat 28

IF said power was given to him, there IS clearly a greater power then himself...

He also establishes his submission to the Father saying specifically that the Father is greater then himself, and further more he can do nothing OF himself but it is the Father that does the work

Also as previously stated above.... there is NO trinity in the bible...

1 John 5:7 is the only passage that actually has the trinitarian formula... and it doesn't appear in any of the earliest greek texts that exist.

said trinity has one to believe all three parts of the "godhead" are equal... though as i've already said, Jesus maintains he is NOT equal to the Father...

Even Paul in his opening greetings in his books seems to remove the "holy spirit" from them so Paul knows nothing about the holy spirit being equal to God or Jesus

And Revelation, the last book added to the bible... happen to come along after they established the trinity as standard procedure in Christian beliefs... In my opinion it was added to give weight to the idea that Jesus was God because it states it very clearly

Thus... the trinity is a lie...

Jesus is not, and never considered himself God

I just saw Jesus' face. twas on the back of a red bus on English news! something about migration of lost folk from France.

I like to watch English Tv.

I even sometimes have the odd cup of tea
then pretend I am English shouting "tally ho wot wot"

Genesis states that adam (aka our soul) was made IN the image of God. So the unmanifested image inside Jesus, as well as ourselves, is IN the image of God. Guessing that's why Jesus said “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them".

But "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" means that its an abomination to point to ANY personhood as representing god. There is only one God, the unmanifested, that literally exists closer to us, than ourselves.

Then what about his name ?...

In...

Matthew 1: 23

23“Look! The virgin will conceive a child!
She will give birth to a son,
and they will call him Immanuel,
which means ‘God is with us.'"

& In...

John 1: 1-5

1: In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: He existed in the beginning with God.
3: God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4: The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5: The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it.

& In...

John 1: 18

18:No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God,
is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.

And much more but you get the point

I believe He experienced God through the "I Am."

Which in all Truth is the only way.

God simply Is.

a reply to: Smigg

The answer when researched outside the dogma of old Christendom and it's clergy dominated by Catholicism for centuries, is actually no.

Some that have studied this topic have come to this conclusion, as some have posted in this thread, as to why and how.

I have discussed this topic many times with many people over the years, I have found many Christians have more of a emotional connection to this doctrine that obscures their ability to see the truth of what the bible teaches on this topic.

In the future the Trinity will be viewed the same as the purgatory is viewed in 2021.

Also Jesus is an English human name, he wasn't called that before he came to earth, he had another name before that.
Wondering about that, research it, that name is actually found in the bible.

a reply to: DustyDust

It says "God is with us" throughout the book... it doesn't mean Jesus is actually God

And the other verses are narrative

originally posted by: Smigg
...
When Christ used the term "I Am" He was being truthful in the sense that God has always existed and if Christ is from God then so Has Christ, ...

The last part of the bolder part is called a non sequitur in fancy Latin terminology. Wikipedia describes it as:

Non sequitur means "does not follow." It is a type of logical fallacy: a bad argument that makes no sense.

It does not follow that Christ has always existed just because he's "from God" (who has always existed).

Maybe this will help get a better understanding of John 8:58 (after some background):

...
Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?

Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is panʹta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to panʹta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·kheʹ] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·kheʹ. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)

...

Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma?

A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. Consider the following:

(Unless otherwise indicated, all the texts quoted in the following section are from RS.)

Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus

Alpha and Omega: ...

Savior: ...

God: ...

...

Texts from which a person might draw more than one conclusion, depending on the Bible translation used

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.

John 1:1, 2:

...

John 8:58:

RS reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e·goʹ ei·miʹ].’” (NE, KJ, TEV, JB, NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT, Mo, CBW, and SE.)

Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e·goʹ ei·miʹ as a title to the holy spirit.

Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·miʹ] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·goʹ ei·miʹ] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.

...

Source: Trinity (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

originally posted by: infiniteMeow
I just saw Jesus' face. twas on the back of a red bus on English news! something about migration of lost folk from France.

I like to watch English Tv.

I even sometimes have the odd cup of tea
then pretend I am English shouting "tally ho wot wot"

hmmn turns out he was migratory.

Also does anybody know how to turn this thread into toilet paper?
What with the constantly upcoming apocalypse we have run out.

a reply to: Smigg

Looking at a twice as old religious/spiritual/philosophical tradition?

No.

In the classical sense of "god" on earth or another world/lokka/location? Such a person would accept two servants or slaves. One that serves them in both life and death if either occurred to bring them back. Having lived that route himself? There's no way he would want to point others in the way to such a thing but liberation from it.

In the words of dialog of Christianity? The figure known to them as Jesus Christ as someone that is to return? Would be what others might call a Sakadagami or Anagami with the goal of Arhat.

Sakadagami is sort of the equivalent of what some call a "Bodhisattva" but they have chosen to put off enlightenment until someone like a "christ" returns Anagamin to learn from them, however it is sort of an oxymoron as Bodhi means awake/enlightened and sattva(being) putting of something someone supposedly already is? Has misapprehended it as a concept of "oneness "... like being one with "god/the source/the all/Higher-self(atman)" Anagami means "once returner" however already said to have died and risen? That was accomplished. Having already "taught" it is possible that he became an Arhat or someone finished on the path in a realm that cannot be seen or apprehended by run of the mill or ordinary beings.

Many people choose not to wait as they find out that "salvation" or freedom has to be accomplished all one's own... they may attain to what is called stream entry like John the Baptist gave Christ and he gave the first "disciples" but from there they are on their own to attain. Some realize the truth without help all the way from stream entry to completion or twice released. Gautama Buddha attained such a thing, before realizing too many steps were taken to see if indeed what he experienced was nirvana, the benefit however was he learned all the paths out there and saw as far as they could go... in the end it was inherit my kingdom and take care of my slaves as I continue onward... Christ like Gautama did not make that mistake and accept such offers.

Unfortunately, speaking or talking about anything past? Can be construed as idle chatter or idle gossip... as those people should stop wandering all over and simply take all the practice out of their mouth in the direction of others and actually practice to finish what are termed the "four fruits". Unfortunately, Arhat since many will live on until pari-nirvana or final death as a human? Get slandered and abused as if they are someone that could fall back into states of woe due to others being the ones with attachment to nama and rupa(name and form) instead of them, when all they are is path and a liberated being from all paths until the body of course returns to the elements from which it arises without a womb or further birth as attachment alone is the only cause.

Maybe this helps or maybe this doesn't; however knowing more of the path that one's savior was actually on? Should help free him from you and of course any wrath that he or his followers might dish from not completing it or following it properly only bringing more problems and rebirth pain and suffering where none should exist.

a reply to: Smigg

Yes he is.

a reply to: Smigg

I pose to you:

Is Mohammed God? Krishna? Budda? Yahweh? Well...

With billions of people...their beliefs in those above as a God, gods, messengers....

That being understood...ALL are parts of the whole.


Their beliefs. Your beliefs, my beliefs. Totally different.

Are they? I think "belief" is all that matters.

Not to argue about "who"...and kill each other over it.

Well, I finished my popcorn as the thread poops out.

Put ten people who think they are religious in a room to discuss theology and within 5 minutes the arguments start.

Teaching or preaching on ATS......a waste of time.

originally posted by: Randomname2
a reply to: Smigg

Yes he is.

Thanks for your opinion.