The purpose of life in Christianity

Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,021
Likes
8,957
John 1:1-5
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
The famous verse lol doesn't explain anything at all. Ok he was there (according to you. If I get time I'll get back to you on my take on this verse)

Even if I agree with you and say ok Jesus was there, it doesn't tell me what form or in which capacity he was there at all so how can I come to the same conclusion as you? How do you come to such a 'clear' conclusion with such a vague verse?
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
4,021
Likes
8,957
John 17:1-5
"Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christwhom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
Again another vague verse, doesn't tell me where jesus was and what he was doing and what form he was in.
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
494
Likes
873
So I'm saying, because they are different in terms of positioning they can't be of the same essence.
Why not?

What is their commonality for them to be the same?
The fact that worship is strictly directed to God and God alone. Again if Jesus allowed his disciples to worship him and he was just a prophet then he let them commit a grievous sin.

Jesus did nothing alone without the father. So this tells me from the start, their essence isn't equal as the power Jesus had was given by the father. Unless you can prove prior to Jesus becoming a servant, he was still capable of the things he did and had the essence of a creator/a divine being?
Jesus came to Earth as a servant to carry out a purpose. That was the role he took on but the bible is clear that it is not his only role. Revelations says a lot about Jesus power by the end of the age and resonates with his prayer to receive glory alongside God as he did "before the earth was".

Where was jesus and what was he doing before he was a servant? Whilst he was on earth he certainly wasn't of the same essence of God.
In Revelation 2:1 to Ephesus, Jesus describes Himself as “He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands.” This is a reference back to the Revelation 1:10-20 where Jesus, the Son of Man, reveals Himself to John in His glorified state.

In Revelation 2:8 to Smyrna, Jesus describes Himself as “the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life.” These descriptions refer to His death and resurrection. For additional scriptures on these events see Revelation 1:18; Ephesians 1:19-20; 4:8-10; Colossians 1:18, 21-22; 2:12.

In Revelation 2:12 to Pergamos, Jesus reminds us that He “has the sharp two-edged sword.” This description mirrors His initial revelation to John in Revelation 1:16. Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12liken the Word of God to a sword. Revelation 19:15 and 21 describe how Christ will use His sword-God’s Word will be the basis for judgment and destruction of those who disobey God’s law. Revelation 19:13 reveals another closely associated name for Jesus: “The Word of God.”

In Revelation 2:18 to Thyatira, Christ describes Himself as “the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass.” Here is another reference back to His initial description in Revelation 1:14-15, but now He adds that He is “the Son of God.” Revelation 19:12 gives a similar description of His eyes and adds that there is still another name for Jesus to be disclosed at His return.

In Revelation 3:1 to Sardis, Jesus says He “has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars.”

Revelation 3:7 records Jesus’ description of Himself to Philadelphia: “He who is holy, He who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.” This not only represents Jesus’ absolute power and control of events, it also reveals that He is part of David’s ancestry. Jesus is called “the Son of David” numerous times throughout the Bible. As a partial list, see Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9, 15; 22:42. In Revelation 5:5He is described as the “Root of David” and in Revelation 22:16 as “the Offspring of David.”

Jesus doesn't outright say where he was prior to coming to Earth but he definitely seems to imply that he existed alongside God, in God.

The famous verse lol doesn't explain anything at all. Ok he was there (according to you. If I get time I'll get back to you on my take on this verse)

Even if I agree with you and say ok Jesus was there, it doesn't tell me what form or in which capacity he was there at all so how can I come to the same conclusion as you? How do you come to such a 'clear' conclusion with such a vague verse?
It paints a clearer picture when you take all of his words and actions into account. I'm not being malicious when I say I look forward to hearing your interpretation.

Again another vague verse, doesn't tell me where jesus was and what he was doing and what form he was in.
So how else would you interpret "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." He doesn't state his specific role but it does state the same essence -Jesus was glorified with God before the world was created. I've already posted the verses showing God alone demands worship. It doesn't make sense unless Jesus is also God. Hence the "we" and "our" and "us" all throughout Genesis.
 





Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,101
Likes
3,075
Are you not a monotheist yourself?

Matthew 4:10
"You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve."
Yes I am a monotheist, which is why I reject the Trinity doctrine. However if we take Matthew 4:10 literally, then Jesus contradicts himself when he says we are to serve each other, does he not? So maybe the english translation of what Jesus was saying here is not as black and white as you want to make it to be.
Exodus 20:4-5,
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God."
this is talking about idols and images that men would attribute to as place holders for false Gods. This is not talking about showing reverence or respect to other human beings.
Yes, to forgive those who sin against you.
Jesus spoke only what he heard the Father speak. So when he told others their sins against God were forgiven he was simply speaking what God himself was saying.
What about Revelation 22:8-9? Both men and angels rejected worship.
[/quote]
Sometimes when people call me "sir" out of respect I often tell them to call me by my first name. When I pastored a Church, people out of respect would call me "Pastor" but I would often tell them to just call me Todd. It doesn't mean they were wrong for calling me sir or pastor. Because we are taught to walk in humility, my preference was to not have my fellow believers address me by a title, even though it was well within what was acceptable for them to do so.

In Revelation the focus is on God and his messiah, Jesus. The angels and men, out of humility and wanted the focus and attention on God and Jesus and not themselves. It was not that John was sinning by prostrating or bowing before them.

We don't know all the circumstances of the situation and in Rev 22 we are not specifically told it was a sin for John to worship the Angel, only in that situation it was not necessary and the angel was turning John's attention to God.
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
494
Likes
873
this is talking about idols and images that men would attribute to as place holders for false Gods. This is not talking about showing reverence or respect to other human beings.
Where else in the bible are human being worshipped by men saying "my Lord and my God"?

Jesus spoke only what he heard the Father speak. So when he told others their sins against God were forgiven he was simply speaking what God himself was saying.
How did you get to this conclusion? I'm not trying to annoy you, I'm genuinely curious.

Sometimes when people call me "sir" out of respect I often tell them to call me by my first name. When I pastored a Church, people out of respect would call me "Pastor" but I would often tell them to just call me Todd. It doesn't mean they were wrong for calling me sir or pastor. Because we are taught to walk in humility, my preference was to not have my fellow believers address me by a title, even though it was well within what was acceptable for them to do so.

In Revelation the focus is on God and his messiah, Jesus. The angels and men, out of humility and wanted the focus and attention on God and Jesus and not themselves. It was not that John was sinning by prostrating or bowing before them.

We don't know all the circumstances of the situation and in Rev 22 we are not specifically told it was a sin for John to worship the Angel, only in that situation it was not necessary and the angel was turning John's attention to God.
But those people were not worshipping you as a god or as divine.

Acts 10:25-26
"When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”

Can you point me to anywhere else in the bible where a man could claim they were glorified with God before the world was created? It's because we don't know the full circumstances that a straight forward understanding is the most practical way to read it.
 





Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,101
Likes
3,075
Where else in the bible are human being worshipped by men saying "my Lord and my God"?
Who said anything about my Lord and my God? Are you refering to when Thomas put his fingers in Jesus side? If you do something incredible and someone witnessing says "OMG", is that preson making a definitve statement that you are God?

I fail to see how this verse is definitive proof that Jesus is God.

How did you get to this conclusion? I'm not trying to annoy you, I'm genuinely curious.
John 12:49
But those people were not worshipping you as a god or as divine.
And nothing in Revelation says John was worshipping the angel or messenger as God or as divine. My point was more the principle of acting in humility and defering titles or acts of honor or respect that might actually be due to someone.

Acts 10:25-26
"When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.”
Again Peter choosing to act in humility because that is the example he learned from Jesus. Do you really think Cornelius was worshipping Peter as God? This is in no way proving that bowing down in front of someone out of respect is sinful.

Can you point me to anywhere else in the bible where a man could claim they were glorified with God before the world was created?
Can you point to any other man in the bible or anywhere else that compares to Jesus? Of course not. But that still doesn't make him God.
It's because we don't know the full circumstances that a straight forward understanding is the most practical way to read it.
LOL! there is nothing straightforward about the Trinity Doctrine.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,407
Likes
12,448
@Todd

Job 9 poses an interesting dilemma. How can someone fully represent God and fully represent man?

32“For He is not a man, as I am,
That I may answer Him,
And that we should go to court together.
33Nor is there any mediator between us,
Who may lay his hand on us both.

34Let Him take His rod away from me,
And do not let dread of Him terrify me.
35Then I would speak and not fear Him,
But it is not so with me.

Job in perhaps the oldest book in the Bible sets out the state of man. A mediator has to fully understand and represent each party. If Jesus had not been fully man, he could not have represented us.

On the other hand, (and this is significant to the question of the Trinity) if Jesus were to represent an infinite God, he must have those attributes himself. Without being equal to God he must, by logical inference be infinitely unable to comprehend Him.

However, when you do research how the attributes of God (holiness, love, eternality, omniscience etc) are equally applied to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Without having to spell it out in capital letters, the Trinity is clearly revealed in this way.

A more detailed study on the point above for anyone who is interested...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLn37D9Z7GhvrnTmLz8b4H8MFXCLgKWbGp
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
494
Likes
873
Who said anything about my Lord and my God? Are you refering to when Thomas put his fingers in Jesus side? If you do something incredible and someone witnessing says "OMG", is that preson making a definitve statement that you are God?

I fail to see how this verse is definitive proof that Jesus is God.
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me?

It was in answer. It doesn't sound like an exclamation of awe.

"Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come asa light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not [g]believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day."

This is what comes directly before. How do you know that Jesus only forgave sins because he heard it from God? Is the power to forgive sins put on anyone else besides him?

Again Peter choosing to act in humility because that is the example he learned from Jesus. Do you really think Cornelius was worshipping Peter as God? This is in no way proving that bowing down in front of someone out of respect is sinful.
Yet Jesus himself did not rebuke them from worshipping him. What would they have been worshipping him as if not something greater than a man? Why do you take away that this "worship" was merely out of respect or custom?

Can you point to any other man in the bible or anywhere else that compares to Jesus? Of course not. But that still doesn't make him God.
No because according to his own biography he does not share the same paternity as every other man. No one else can claim perfect righteousness either.

LOL! there is nothing straightforward about the Trinity Doctrine.
I was actually referring to reading Revelation, not to the trinity.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,101
Likes
3,075
@Todd

Job 9 poses an interesting dilemma. How can someone fully represent God and fully represent man?

32“For He is not a man, as I am,
That I may answer Him,
And that we should go to court together.
33Nor is there any mediator between us,
Who may lay his hand on us both.

34Let Him take His rod away from me,
And do not let dread of Him terrify me.
35Then I would speak and not fear Him,
But it is not so with me.

Job in perhaps the oldest book in the Bible sets out the state of man. A mediator has to fully understand and represent each party. If Jesus had not been fully man, he could not have represented us.

On the other hand, (and this is significant to the question of the Trinity) if Jesus were to represent an infinite God, he must have those attributes himself. Without being equal to God he must, by logical inference be infinitely unable to comprehend Him.

However, when you do research how the attributes of God (holiness, love, eternality, omniscience etc) are equally applied to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Without having to spell it out in capital letters, the Trinity is clearly revealed in this way.

A more detailed study on the point above for anyone who is interested...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLn37D9Z7GhvrnTmLz8b4H8MFXCLgKWbGp
Alot of assumptions there. I disagree that the Trinity is clearly revealed here.
Why does Jesus have to be God to be our mediator? I can understand why a sinful soul cannot be a mediator between man and God. However Jesus is the only perfect human being who lived a completely righteous and sinless life. That is what enable him to be our mediator. Paul confirms this in 1 Timothy 2:5 when he says there is only mediator between God and man and that is "the man, Jesus Christ". If being God was a pre-requisite to being the mediator why did Paul not state this here? It seems like the perfect time to clarify and give credence to the Trinity doctrine if in fact it were true.

Jesus was able to represent God, because he wasn't tainted by sin. That is the unique and important factor here.
 





Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
445
Likes
834
I'm lazy and as I was writing this my PC had some problem and I lost all that I had written previously so here we go:

Nihilism according to wikipedia (i'm not gonna search anymore)


"is the philosophical viewpoint that suggests the denial of, or lack of belief in, the reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value".


To nihilism things don't make sense, everything is result of chance... To christians, the answer to this is that God gives sense to things because they were created with with a sense and a purpose wich we might or might not realize or know.


Now, specifically... what is the sense of life??


I'll call in Viktor Frankl, who was a concentration camp survivor and fellow neurosomething stuff colleage to freud or something. He stated that the purpose of life wasn't created, but found: something that you, and you alone could do (be it raise your children or make the best coffee in the street). He stated that his fellow prisoners kept going after everything was stripped from them because they still had reasons to live, as in example their loved ones outside the camp (he also stated other examples but I don't recall them right now).


One could say that to a christian this world makes sense because God created it with a sense, things aren't random. And that to a christian the sense of life would be the salvation of the soul (a thing that you and you alone can do), hence why it is the opposite to nihilism.


And have a sense in life is an important question: people literally DIE when their lives have no meaning.


tl;dr: christianity give both a sense and purpose to life and the world, being the oposite to nihilism that is the lack of purpose or sense to the world.


BUT, I don't ask you to agree that christianity is the right religion or wathever however I present you a system that opposes nihilism

Connection on PC too unstable.
 





Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,101
Likes
3,075
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me?

It was in answer. It doesn't sound like an exclamation of awe.
The issue at stake that Thomas didn't believe was that Jesus was resurrected. There never was a question or debate among the disciples about Jesus being God. The doubt that Thomas had was the about the other disciples testimony that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. They never debated or had questions about Jesus being God, because there never was an expectation among the Jews that the Messiah would be God himself. All the more reason if Jesus was indeed God there would have been much more explicit teaching by the disciples about it. Hwoever the evidence of the disciples explicitly teaching that Jesus was God is severely lacking. The most obvious explanation is that it was only important to them to show and witness that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, and there was no expectation that the Messiah would be God himself.

The belief that Jesus is God, was only introduced after Christianity's merger with Roman pagan beliefs.

"Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come asa light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not [g]believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day."

This is what comes directly before. How do you know that Jesus only forgave sins because he heard it from God? Is the power to forgive sins put on anyone else besides him?
No it is not, because the man, Jesus Christ (not the God, Jesus Christ) is the only mediator between God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5)
Jesus says right in the bold, that when we believe in him, we are not really believing in him, but in him who sent him. The most reasonable explanation for that statement is that Jesus was a messenger of God. Now I believe Jesus is much more than a messenger, but he is still a man. A unique and perfect man that acted 100% by the Spirit of God, but still a man.
Yet Jesus himself did not rebuke them from worshipping him. What would they have been worshipping him as if not something greater than a man? Why do you take away that this "worship" was merely out of respect or custom?
Because the greek word (and the hebrew word also) translated as "worship" in English bibles, literally means "to bow down". The same word is used when people bowed before human leaders and rulers. It is only the dogma and tradition of instutionalized religion that has indoctrinated Christians to believe "worship" is an act only done unto a divine being.

No because according to his own biography he does not share the same paternity as every other man. No one else can claim perfect righteousness either.
Agreed. This is what makes Jesus, the son of man, worthy of our respect or adoration. Because of his obedience to God's will, Peter said that God made him "Lord and Christ". (Acts 2:36) How could God "make" Jesus "Lord and Christ", if Jesus was already God?

I was actually refeeinf go a reading Revelation, not the trinity.
So the principle of straight forward reading only applies when it is convenient to your argument? I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the point you are making.
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,125
Likes
5,183
You really love speaking all over the place. If someone intentionally sets up their own death, its suicide, if they don't and they are killed by someone else regardless, its murder.

Elsbet said its not suicide because its not "intentional" but if God sacrificed "himself" in order to give people salvation, it HAS to be intentional otherwise God was just murdered no?
That isn't what I said.

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised you use the word "suicide" in place of the word "sacrifice" ... all things considered.







*
*
*
*
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,125
Likes
5,183
Who said anything about my Lord and my God? Are you refering to when Thomas put his fingers in Jesus side? If you do something incredible and someone witnessing says "OMG", is that preson making a definitve statement that you are God?
That is comical. One of the disciples, at the sight of the risen Christ, saying, Oh-Em-Gee!

:rolleyes:

Obviously, the lexicon says otherwise...

κύριος, ου, ὁ​
He to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has the power of deciding; master, lord; used a. universally, of the possessor and disposer of a thing, the owner ... this title is given α. to God, the ruler of the universe ... after his resurrection Jesus is addressed by the title ὁ κύριοςμου καί ὁ Θεός μου, John 20:28
Thomas, one of the Twelve, the onecalled Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord.”

But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hands into His side, I will never believe.”

And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them, the doors having been shut. Jesus comes, and He stood in the midst and said, “Peace to you.” Then He says to Thomas, “Bring your finger here, and see My hands; and bring your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.”

Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!

Jesus says to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed arethose not having seen, yet having believed.”
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,894
Likes
6,594
That isn't what I said.

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised you use the word "suicide" in place of the word "sacrifice" ... all things considered.







*
*
*
*
It is like saying a soldier going into battle is either getting murdered or committing suicide and refusing to see the third option - the soldier choosing to sacrifice their life during battle in order to save others' lives/ protect their country.

Jesus choose to sacrifice His life to save other people's lives from eternal death.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,894
Likes
6,594
Ok thanks for that.

Well there is a lot of contradiction amongst their testimonies:

A few examples:

In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus (peace be upon him) there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus (peace be upon him) there, not in or near Jerusalem...

Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.

Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

My issue is that whilst we agree there was a death, how can you prove it was Jesus when the narrators weren't there...

Whose account is considered more probable and why?
You should give the website address to be fair to the author. http://www.quransearch.com/contra_res.htm

Answering bible difficulties:
https://carm.org/matthew-mark
https://carm.org/luke-john-and-acts

https://carm.org/methods-muslims-use-attack-christianity
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
494
Likes
873
The issue at stake that Thomas didn't believe was that Jesus was resurrected. There never was a question or debate among the disciples about Jesus being God. The doubt that Thomas had was the about the other disciples testimony that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. They never debated or had questions about Jesus being God, because there never was an expectation among the Jews that the Messiah would be God himself. All the more reason if Jesus was indeed God there would have been much more explicit teaching by the disciples about it. Hwoever the evidence of the disciples explicitly teaching that Jesus was God is severely lacking. The most obvious explanation is that it was only important to them to show and witness that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, and there was no expectation that the Messiah would be God himself.
Thomas uses the terms "kryios" and "theos" which are names that are used consistently for God in the NT. You'd have a compelling case if there were other instances of people using this as an exclamation of surprise or awe but your claims that every time the disciples "worshipped" Jesus it was only in the context of conveying respect or that Thomas words were simply an expression of shock are just as much assumptions.


The belief that Jesus is God, was only introduced after Christianity's merger with Roman pagan beliefs.
But the term "homoousios" (i.e. Jesus being of the same substance as God) predates the RCC and the Nicene Council.

No it is not, because the man, Jesus Christ (not the God, Jesus Christ) is the only mediator between God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5)
Jesus says right in the bold, that when we believe in him, we are not really believing in him, but in him who sent him. The most reasonable explanation for that statement is that Jesus was a messenger of God. Now I believe Jesus is much more than a messenger, but he is still a man. A unique and perfect man that acted 100% by the Spirit of God, but still a man.
Do you believe that he was divinely conceived or do you think that was a metaphor?

Because the greek word (and the hebrew word also) translated as "worship" in English bibles, literally means "to bow down". The same word is used when people bowed before human leaders and rulers. It is only the dogma and tradition of instutionalized religion that has indoctrinated Christians to believe "worship" is an act only done unto a divine being.
How do you make the distinction between worship when offered as an act of respect to man and where it's offered as submission to God? I might be mistaken but I don't recall any other place in the bible where a godly man was worshipped but did not reject it.

Agreed. This is what makes Jesus, the son of man, worthy of our respect or adoration. Because of his obedience to God's will, Peter said that God made him "Lord and Christ". (Acts 2:36) How could God "make" Jesus "Lord and Christ", if Jesus was already God?
I'd be interested in knowing how you interpret the book of Revelation and the descriptions of the Lamb? If I understand you correctly you don't believe Jesus died to save the world from their sins right? I don't want to misrepresent what you believe so correct me if I'm wrong. I know that it's a highly symbolic and confusing book and that probably no one can say for certain that they understand it entirely but what do you make of verses like this:

Revelation 5:9-14
"They took up a new song, saying, “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slain, and by your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe, language, people, and nation. You made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will rule on earth.”


So the principle of straight forward reading only applies when it is convenient to your argument? I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the point you are making.
That wasn't what I was saying. I was referring to a straight forward reading of Revelation when you said there was nothing simple about the trinity. I just clarified that I wasnt talking about the trinity. The principle of straight forward reading applies wherever I can't derive an alternative meaning without twisting scripture or cutting chunks of it.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,406
Likes
5,631
That isn't what I said.

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised you use the word "suicide" in place of the word "sacrifice" ... all things considered.







*
*
*
*
I used the word suicide after considering all things, we've been doing that since page 1. Not our fault, you can't answer your own flawed logic.
 





Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,101
Likes
3,075
That is comical. One of the disciples, at the sight of the risen Christ, saying, Oh-Em-Gee!
Why, do you think the disciples were not ordinary men, that had ordinary respopnses to exceptional and unexpected events? It's no more comical than using the words of a doubter to prove that Jesus is God, because you can't find explicit teaching of it anywhere in scripture.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,407
Likes
12,448
Why, do you think the disciples were not ordinary men, that had ordinary respopnses to exceptional and unexpected events? It's no more comical than using the words of a doubter to prove that Jesus is God, because you can't find explicit teaching of it anywhere in scripture.
The thing with Thomas was...

He was a doubter but history records the fact that he did not stay a doubter. Here we see his turning point.

After this, his life appears to have taken a dramatic turn:-

“St. Thomas the apostle also known as Didymus arrived in the shores of Kerala, India in 52 AD, preaching the good news to the Malabaris and he established 7 and 1/2 churches in Kerala. Saint Thomas Christians (also known as Syrian Christians or Nasrani) include Syro-Malabar Catholic, Syro-Malankara Catholic, Malankara Orthodox, Jacobite, Marthoma and Church of South India.

He organized Christian communities, in several places and established seven churches in Kerala and then at last got martyrdom in Mylapore, Chennai, in 72 A.D.“

 





Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,101
Likes
3,075
Thomas uses the terms "kryios" and "theos" which are names that are used consistently for God in the NT. You'd have a compelling case if there were other instances of people using this as an exclamation of surprise or awe but your claims that every time the disciples "worshipped" Jesus it was only in the context of conveying respect or that Thomas words were simply an expression of shock are just as much assumptions.
Agreed it is an assumption. I only brought it up to make the point that using the words of Thomas in a moment of change from doubt to belief as proof of doctrine that is not explicitily taught anywhere in scripture is just as suspect.

But the term "homoousios" (i.e. Jesus being of the same substance as God) predates the RCC and the Nicene Council.

Do you believe that he was divinely conceived or do you think that was a metaphor?
If you are asking do i believe in the virgin birth, yes I do. But he was still a man, completely filled with the holy spirit and un-tainted by sin. A unique human for sure, but not God himself.

How do you make the distinction between worship when offered as an act of respect to man and where it's offered as submission to God? I might be mistaken but I don't recall any other place in the bible where a godly man was worshipped but did not reject it.
Well Jesus uses the same word that is translated as "worship" in Matthew 18:26 and 18:29. The first time the ungrateful servant bows down to the King. The second time, the ungrateful servant goes to collect debt from another person and that person "bows" down before the ungrateful servant. In this parable is Jesus teaching that it is wrong for one to bow down to another human being? No that is not what the parable is about. If bowing down, should only be done to God, why would Jesus tell us about two people bowing down to other human beings and not tell us it is wrong? Jesus appears to have no issue describing a person bowing down out of revernece or seeking mercy, in front of another human being.

Another example is 1 Sam 24:8. Daivd bowed down or worshipped in front of King Saul. This the same David, who was called a man after God's own heart.

I'd be interested in knowing how you interpret the book of Revelation and the descriptions of the Lamb? If I understand you correctly you don't believe Jesus died to save the world from their sins right? I don't want to misrepresent what you believe so correct me if I'm wrong. I know that it's a highly symbolic and confusing book and that probably no one can say for certain that they understand it entirely but what do you make of verses like this:

Revelation 5:9-14
"They took up a new song, saying, “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slain, and by your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe, language, people, and nation. You made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will rule on earth.”
I do believe Jesus died to free us from the power of sin. What I disagree with is that Jesus came to pay the price, i.e. take the penalty for our sin. The Bible says the wages of sin is death and the soul who sins shall die. Christians mistakeningly assume the penalty for sin is eternal torment in hell and that Jesus somehow paid the price for that, even though he never burned in eternal torment.
Everyone of us will still pay the price for our sin, as we will all die. But because the blood of Jesus we will be freed from the power of sin and death and be resurrected.


That wasn't what I was saying. I was referring to a straight forward reading of Revelation when you said there was nothing simple about the trinity. I just clarified that I wasnt talking about the trinity. The principle of straight forward reading applies wherever I can't derive an alternative meaning without twisting scripture or cutting chunks of it.
Agreed and that is why I reject the Trinity. Every verse that is used to "support" the Trinity doctrine has a more simple straightforward explanation, when one isn't already indoctrinated and biased by the trinity doctrine. Conversely Trinitarians come up with strange explanations for the words of Jesus himself that clearly show he did not consider himself God.

A person who never heard of the Trinity doctrine and read the bible for the first time, would never come up with the Trinity doctrine on their own.

Now if you believe that by faith, God has shown you that the Trinity doctrine is true and you embarce that, I'm not going to condemn or judge you for it. While I may not agree with you, it doesn't change my ability to accept you as a sister in Christ. Thank God our salvation is not dependent on our theology being 100% correct or none of us could be saved.

I believe Jesus was completely indwelled by God, so in the figurative sense he was God in the flesh. But according to the New Testament we all have been given this gift of the Holy Spirit and each one of us has access to this promise that the Spirit of God can indwell us. We all are in a figurative sense supposed to be God in the Flesh, when we let the Spirit of God indwell and move through us. Paul explains it when he says it is no longer I that live but (the spirit) of Christ that lives within me. We can experience glimpses of that, but unfortunatley most of us still walk according to our flesh as much as we walk according to the spirit of God.

Bottom line, I don't believe that Jesus is the third person of a triune God. He was a perfect man completely and 100% indwelled with the spirit of God. That is why it is acceptable and right to worship (to bow down in respect) Jesus.