The Unitarian belief that Jesus is not God causes those who offer worship to the Father's Throne (where Jesus sits) to be guilty of idolatry.

[synergy]

Good morning synergy

There is absolutely nothing you or anybody else can do to convince me that Jesus is YHWH, the Only and True God.
I have read the Scriptures many times. I have defended the Trinitarian position. I know every single argument our brothers have brought to the Forum... and it is OK. Let's not get frustrated about this.

To ease our frustration, let's remember that theologians have been debating this FOR CENTURIES! Have they agreed?

So, let's take this as a game of chess in which we develop skills to debate, get to know better our own arguments, and more importantly, get to know better the people we debate with. They are not silly, nor perverse. They have reasons to believe what they believe.

You have not presented anything that directly and explicitly nullifies what John 8:58 explicitly says. Nowhere does Jesus say he is not God. Until then, what is explicitly mentioned in John 8:58 stands. You see, I am not against our conversations, I just want explicit statements, preferably from Jesus himself.

 

[civic]

I have. Many times. Not just "now" like you have. Many many years ago. I once believed like you do. It is study that changed my mind.

Lets make this simple.......

Lust IS CONCIEVED.

Lust never exists without conceiving something to lust after. It is first the expression of thought relative to desire. It is literally a EVIL DESIRE.

You can not have the word "lust" without it referencing a sinful thought. That thought itself is sinful.

Do you even know why you have such thoughts?

Mankind all lose their innocence through learning. Even the law itself imparts knowledge of how to commit sin.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Once innocence is lost, the mind is tainted. Then experience permanently alters our minds. For example, experiencing sex leaves a lasting impression on your brain. It imparts knowledge that you would not otherwise have. Which is why Paul spoke of how a man/women that is a virgin isn't tainted to the point where they "burn in their lust" for one another.

1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

It is why Jesus said......

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jesus never experienced sex. Jesus never lusted for another women. Never. To say otherwise is to charge Jesus Christ with sin.

Now YOU. You lust all the time. All men that have experience "lust" as such do. You can't help it. Your mind is tainted/tarnished through knowledge imparted to your in your innocence and your own experiences.

Yes you are correct and his accusations against Christ are blasphemous

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You have not presented anything that directly and explicitly nullifies what John 8:58 explicitly says. Nowhere does Jesus say he is not God. Until then, what is explicitly mentioned in John 8:58 stands. You see, I am not against our conversations, I just want explicit statements.

I see your point, synergy
I appreciate the need of explicit statements.

Please bear with me a little in this reflection and let me know if you understand my point, even if you don't agree with it.

Trinitarians and Unitarians demand explicit statements on the deity of Jesus from a different perspective:

Trinitarians think: "Unless I find an explicit statement in which Jesus says "I am not God", I will keep believing that He is God"
Unitarians think: "Unless I find an explicit statement in which Jesus says "I am God", I will keep believing that God is the Father"

Why do we come from so different positions?


THE UNITARIAN PERSPECTIVE

For a Unitarian, the unquestionable premise is that God is a Person (or at least, we should conceive Him and relate with Him as if He were a Person).
Therefore, once the Bible says explicitly who God is, we don't need any specific statement from anyone else saying "I am not God".
For example, we don't need Paul, Moses, Caesar or "The Angel of Jehovah" stating "I am not God". We take for granted that if they are not the Person who the Bible explicitly identifies as God, that person can't be God.

The Bible specifies that God is the Father of Jesus, Our Father

• in the most explicit terms
• from the lips of Jesus, in addition to his apostles
• over and over and over and over

So, for Unitarians the debate is... well... over.

THE TRINITARIAN PERSPECTIVE

For a Trinitarian, the unquestionable premise is that God is a category or family in which Persons with certain attributes belong.
So, once those attributes are present, that Person can be considered God.... unless that Person explicitly said "I am not God".

In considering those attributes, it does not really matter whether they are "given" or "intrinsic". Also, it does not matter if many of the attributes are also present in men to some extent. If the Person is "godly enough", so to speak, and worthy of our total loyalty, that Person is God, unless proven otherwise by a explicit statement of the kind "I am not God".

This applies not only to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit.
Let's take the example of the "Angel of YHWH". If that Angel displays the right divine attributes, that Angel is not an Angel, but God. Then we can argue that such being is not a fourth, fifth or sixth Person of the Godhead, but Jesus Christ pre-incarnated, so that we stick to Three Persons and no more.

 

[synergy]

I see your point, synergy
I appreciate the need of explicit statements.

Please bear with me a little in this reflection and let me know if you understand my point, even if you don't agree with it.

Trinitarians and Unitarians demand explicit statements on the deity of Jesus from a different perspective:

Trinitarians think: "Unless I find an explicit statement in which Jesus says "I am not God", I will keep believing that He is God"
Unitarians think: "Unless I find an explicit statement in which Jesus says "I am God", I will keep believing that God is the Father"

Why do we come from so different positions?

I'm perfectly fine with both statements. As a matter of fact, I applaud both statements.
I've done my part. I've supplied John 8:58 and Ex 3:14.
Have the Unitarians done their part?

 

[synergy]

THE UNITARIAN PERSPECTIVE

For a Unitarian, the unquestionable premise is that God is a Person (or at least, we should conceive Him and relate with Him as if He were a Person).
Therefore, once the Bible says explicitly who God is, we don't need any specific statement from anyone else saying "I am not God".
For example, we don't need Paul, Moses, Caesar or "The Angel of Jehovah" stating "I am not God". We take for granted that if they are not the Person who the Bible explicitly identifies as God, that person can't be God.

The Bible specifies that God is the Father of Jesus, Our Father

• in the most explicit terms
• from the lips of Jesus, in addition to his apostles
• over and over and over and over

So, for Unitarians the debate is... well... over.

Actually, there are statements that nullify Moses or anybody else as being God. Here's one at the top of my head:

Num_23:19 God is not a man that He should lie, neither the son of man that He should repent. Has He said, and shall He not do it? Or has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

Mind you, that doesn't support Unitarianism because that is an OT verse. Now in NT times we have Christ who is both man and God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

THE BAHA'I PERSPECTIVE

Let me share with you as well the perspective of my religion

God is One Mind, One Person.
However, God cannot be truly known, understood, seen, touched, heard.
What God does is to REVEAL things of Him to men. He does it through several channels, but mainly through Manifestations. Jesus is a Manifestation of God.
This means that we can know God through the words and works of Jesus. If we want to see God, we can see Jesus and have an idea of God that is relevant to our lives. If we want to hear God, we can hear Jesus. Even if we want to kneel before God, we can kneel before Jesus. If someone calls this "worshiping", that's fine. I see no practical difference, and nobody in this Forum has brought a single example of a practical difference.

Whatever we do with God's Christ, we do it to God Himself. If we honor Christ, we honor God. If we reject Christ, we reject God.

It is in this regard that Bahá'u'lláh said that Christ is the perfect mirror that reflects the attributes of the Sun... so perfect, that if we said "Look, the sun is in the mirror!" we would be right. By the same token, Bahá'u'lláh said that if Jesus had said "I am God" he would have spoken the truth.

So, what would happen to Baha'is if someday a lost original gospel is found, in which the text Jesus said "I am God" ? No problem at all. We would regard this as we regard what the Angel of YHWH said in the burning bush: a Messenger talking on behalf of the God that we cannot imagine nor reach, except by his Messenger.

 

[synergy]

THE TRINITARIAN PERSPECTIVE

For a Trinitarian, the unquestionable premise is that God is a category or family in which Persons with certain attributes belong.
So, once those attributes are present, that Person can be considered God.... unless that Person explicitly said "I am not God".

In considering those attributes, it does not really matter whether they are "given" or "intrinsic". Also, it does not matter if many of the attributes are also present in men to some extent. If the Person is "godly enough", so to speak, and worthy of our total loyalty, that Person is God, unless proven otherwise by a explicit statement of the kind "I am not God".

I'm not sure where you get this "godly enough" apotheosis thinking from? Trinitarians do not believe in Apotheosis. There rest of your argument falters because we do not believe in Apotheosis.

This applies not only to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit.
Let's take the example of the "Angel of YHWH". If that Angel displays the right divine attributes, that Angel is not an Angel, but God. Then we can argue that such being is not a fourth, fifth or sixth Person of the Godhead, but Jesus Christ pre-incarnated, so that we stick to Three Persons and no more.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Actually, there are statements that nullify Moses or anybody else as being God. Here's one at the top of my head:

Num_23:19 God is not a man that He should lie, neither the son of man that He should repent. Has He said, and shall He not do it? Or has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

Mind you, that doesn't support Unitarianism because that is an OT verse. Now in NT times we have Christ who is both man and God.

But in Num 23:19 Moses does not say "I am not God". The explicit statement you demand is not there. So, those imaginary believers in Moses deity could still challenge you that way.
I just mentioned Moses as an example.
But we could think, for example, in Enoch. Enoch never said "I am not God". So, an imaginary believer in the deity of Enoch could argue that God took him from earth without seeing death because Enoch was a Divine Person of the Godhead.
Perhaps, Enoch was the "Angel of YHWH" appearing to Moses and to other people. Who could refute that?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I'm not sure where you get this "godly enough" apotheosis thinking from? Trinitarians do not believe in Apotheosis. There rest of your argument falters because we do not believe in Apotheosis.

Then my apologies.
What I meant to say is that, if such Person is believed to have enough attributes as to be considered God, that Person is God, unless an explicit stament "I am not God" is found.

 

[praise_yeshua]

THE BAHA'I PERSPECTIVE

Let me share with you as well the perspective of my religion

God is One Mind, One Person.
However, God cannot be truly known, understood, seen, touched, heard.

Isn't it wonderful that a person will make such a statement and then proceed to ignore it by explicitly defining God?

Oh, the ignorance of men.......

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm not sure where you get this "godly enough" apotheosis thinking from? Trinitarians do not believe in Apotheosis. There rest of your argument falters because we do not believe in Apotheosis.

As always. Unitarians don't know the doctrine of the Trinity. They haven't spent time studying it at all.

 

[synergy]

THE BAHA'I PERSPECTIVE

Let me share with you as well the perspective of my religion

God is One Mind, One Person.

John 1:1 contradicts that when he says "the Word was with God". Since you cannot be both a Baha'i and a Christian, then you are purely a Baha'i.

However, God cannot be truly known, understood, seen, touched, heard.

Then your God will never be known as we know our God, Jesus Christ.
Everyone has the freedom to believe whatever they want.

What God does is to REVEAL things of Him to men. He does it through several channels, but mainly through Manifestations. Jesus is a Manifestation of God.
This means that we can know God through the words and works of Jesus. If we want to see God, we can see Jesus and have an idea of God that is relevant to our lives. If we want to hear God, we can hear Jesus. Even if we want to kneel before God, we can kneel before Jesus. If someone calls this "worshiping", that's fine. I see no practical difference, and nobody in this Forum has brought a single example of a practical difference.

The fact that you admit that you "can hear Jesus" proves Jesus' omnipresence.
The fact that you "kneel before Jesus" proves that you offer obeisance if not worship to Jesus as God.

Whatever we do with God's Christ, we do it to God Himself. If we honor Christ, we honor God. If we reject Christ, we reject God.

Sounds like Jesus is God to you.

It is in this regard that Bahá'u'lláh said that Christ is the perfect mirror that reflects the attributes of the Sun God... so perfect, that if we said "Look, the sun is in the mirror!" we would be right. By the same token, Bahá'u'lláh said that if Jesus had said "I am God" he would have spoken the truth.

So, what would happen to Baha'is if someday a lost original gospel is found, in which the text Jesus said "I am God" ? No problem at all. We would regard this as we regard what the Angel of YHWH said in the burning bush: a Messenger talking on behalf of the God that we cannot imagine nor reach, except by his Messenger.

Now the big question: What do you do with the Muhammad "manifestation"? Muhammad and Jesus are like matter and anti-matter in multiple respects as I clearly outlined earlier in our discussions. One cannot exist alongside the other. You must choose.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Actually, there are statements that nullify Moses or anybody else as being God. Here's one at the top of my head:

Num_23:19 God is not a man that He should lie, neither the son of man that He should repent. Has He said, and shall He not do it? Or has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

Mind you, that doesn't support Unitarianism because that is an OT verse. Now in NT times we have Christ who is both man and God.

God can not lie..... Paul references this verse in

Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie,

Given these facts and how Unitarians treat Jesus, one would think that Unitarians would insist that Jesus lied.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Isn't it wonderful that a person will make such a statement and then proceed to ignore it by explicitly defining God?

Oh, the ignorance of men.......

Nobody can define God, my friend.
The mere fact of defining God is thinking that we can grasp God within our human limitations.

If I say that God is a single mind or person, I am just repeating as a parrot what I think I get from Scriptures and personal reflection.
If you say that God is One Being in Three Persons, you are just repeating as a parrot what you think you get from Scriptures and personal reflection.
Neither you nor me understand what God is.

That's why what is relevant is not to define God, but to experience God.
That's why all these debates should start from recognizing our inability to define God.

 

[synergy]

But in Num 23:19 Moses does not say "I am not God". The explicit statement you demand is not there. So, those imaginary believers in Moses deity could still challenge you that way.
I just mentioned Moses as an example.
But we could think, for example, in Enoch. Enoch never said "I am not God". So, an imaginary believer in the deity of Enoch could argue that God took him from earth without seeing death because Enoch was a Divine Person of the Godhead.
Perhaps, Enoch was the "Angel of YHWH" appearing to Moses and to other people. Who could refute that?

The OT statement "God is not a man" can be flipped over as "Man is not God" (and used by any man). It's the same statement.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Then your God will never be known as we know our God, Jesus Christ.

I think you got my point.
The knowledge you have of Jesus Christ is much deeper and relevant that the knowledge we all could get from an unknowable God.

 

[synergy]

Then my apologies.
What I meant to say is that, if such Person is believed to have enough attributes as to be considered God, that Person is God, unless an explicit stament "I am not God" is found.

What I'm trying to say is that I could easily just fixate on John 8:58 and give you no wiggle room and call it a day. But I'm giving you a chance to prove me wrong. If you don't want to take that offer, that's fine. Jesus is God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The OT statement "God is not a man" can be flipped over as "Man is not God" (and used by any man). It's the same statement.

This time I didn't get you.
For a hypothetical believer in Enoch's deity, Enoch would not be just a man, in the same way that for a believer in Jesus' deity, Jesus is not just a man.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nobody can define God, my friend.

We are not friends. You can stop that nonsense now. Friendship requires fellowship in Truth.

The mere fact of defining God is thinking that we can grasp God within our human limitations.

Then abandon your theology and stop trying. You don't even realize just how lost you are in realty with such rhetoric. Double minded nonsense. You believe both are true. You believe you're defining God and denying your defining God at the same time. At least be intellectually honest in your dialogue. Call yourself an agnostic. Do you even know what that is?

If I say that God is a single mind or person, I am just repeating as a parrot what I think I get from Scriptures and personal reflection.
If you say that God is One Being in Three Persons, you are just repeating as a parrot what you think you get from Scriptures and personal reflection.
Neither you nor me understand what God is.

I use the word "parroting" when it is true. I want to hear your own voice somewhere in this. Surprise me. I'll acknowledge it when I see it.

That's why what is relevant is not to define God, but to experience God.
That's why all these debates should start from recognizing our inability to define God.

Then stop defining God. I'm not going to accept your experience as actual proof of anything. Have you ever referenced the English word deception?

 

[synergy]

I think you got my point.
The knowledge you have of Jesus Christ is much deeper and relevant that the knowledge we all could get from an unknowable God.

Then why go with your Baha'i "unknownable God" as you call him?