Thomas... My Lord and my God

[mikesw]

The fact that I'm a physical body, and mind does not make 2 of me. And the "Word" that is the wisdom, plan, or purpose of God did become flesh when Jesus Christ was born. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

It would not make sense to scramble so many ideas into the passage just to say what you interpret here. Oh let me tell you about God's message. Nevermind. I'm going to tell you about God. No. Squirrel!!
Let me talk about Jesus. Nah. that's not important. Let me tell you how glorious a mere man was. Oops. I want to talk about light bulbs. Uh no. I'm going to talk about things coming into being. Oh my! I (John) am so confused what I want to talk about now. Uh. Let me shift to John the Baptist and forget about Jesus.
If this sounds crazy, it is just a mirror of what you have reflected about the text.

 

[Runningman]

So you still think you are arguing against people who think there are multiple gods in Christian doctrine? That indicates that you do not have sufficient knowledge of the viewpoint you wish to reject. You create a strawman and beat it to death while the real truth of the Trinity remains unstained by your attempts to misconstrue it. No wonder your arguments have no force to them.
You can quote scriptures like the Pharisees but still fail to follow the true Christ. It is not the passages you quote that are important. Only the passages you skip or misinterpret that makes your arguments completely unpersuasive. We could add that the failure of your arguments also result from your denial of God's ability to interact in his creation. Too many errors in your thinking.

The Bible is a cohesive text, a bit like an interwoven tapestry, hence all of the cross references across the Old and New Testament. To have completely missed the big picture about who God is is inexcusable for someone who pushes their ideas on the Internet all day. Why do you not believe that YHWH is the only God as Scripture states and that adding additional persons in a transgression? I believe it's partly because you have a skewed idea about who God is and ultimately yours makes God out to be a thing. I guess this is why your arguments have completely ceased at this point and why you having chosen to bicker about your perceived problems with the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

The fact that I'm a physical body, and mind does not make 2 of me. And the "Word" that is the wisdom, plan, or purpose of God did become flesh when Jesus Christ was born. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

Yes they apply a completely different standard to Jesus as they do other people who share the same exact qualities as he does.

 

[Runningman]

It would not make sense to scramble so many ideas into the passage just to say what you interpret here. Oh let me tell you about God's message. Nevermind. I'm going to tell you about God. No. Squirrel!!
Let me talk about Jesus. Nah. that's not important. Let me tell you how glorious a mere man was. Oops. I want to talk about light bulbs. Uh no. I'm going to talk about things coming into being. Oh my! I (John) am so confused what I want to talk about now. Uh. Let me shift to John the Baptist and forget about Jesus.
If this sounds crazy, it is just a mirror of what you have reflected about the text.

Unfortunately for you, Jesus is God's idea of what our example is. The Caths and Prots probably invented a different Jesus because they didn't understand him. It wasn't that you needed to be perfectly sinless, but rather that you were meant to strive toward that level of perfect and, in doing so, you remained in God's grace with Jesus' sacrifice to back you up.

 

[mikesw]

The Bible is a cohesive text, a bit like an interwoven tapestry, hence all of the cross references across the Old and New Testament. To have completely missed the big picture about who God is is inexcusable for someone who pushes their ideas on the Internet all day. Why do you not believe that YHWH is the only God as Scripture states and that adding additional persons in a transgression? I believe it's partly because you have a skewed idea about who God is and ultimately yours makes God out to be a thing. I guess this is why your arguments have completely ceased at this point and why you having chosen to bicker about your perceived problems with the Bible.

You still misunderstand the essence of God and the Trinitarian doctrine. We will have to remember you are arguing against a non-existent doctrine of multiple gods.

 

[Runningman]

You still misunderstand the essence of God and the Trinitarian doctrine. We will have to remember you are arguing against a non-existent doctrine of multiple gods.

I understand that you believe that the trinity is not multiple gods so my argument isn't that there are multiple gods.

 

[mikesw]

Unfortunately for you, Jesus is God's idea of what our example is. The Caths and Prots probably invented a different Jesus because they didn't understand him. It wasn't that you needed to be perfectly sinless, but rather that you were meant to strive toward that level of perfect and, in doing so, you remained in God's grace with Jesus' sacrifice to back you up.

it is not a surprise that you have such corrupted doctrine reducing who Christ is.

 

[Peterlag]

It would not make sense to scramble so many ideas into the passage just to say what you interpret here. Oh let me tell you about God's message. Nevermind. I'm going to tell you about God. No. Squirrel!!
Let me talk about Jesus. Nah. that's not important. Let me tell you how glorious a mere man was. Oops. I want to talk about light bulbs. Uh no. I'm going to talk about things coming into being. Oh my! I (John) am so confused what I want to talk about now. Uh. Let me shift to John the Baptist and forget about Jesus.
If this sounds crazy, it is just a mirror of what you have reflected about the text.

I have a problem with folks who use the term "a mere man" when referring to Jesus. There's no place in the Bible that refers to Jesus as "a mere man." Jesus Christ was the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian. That is nowhere near "a mere man."

 

[Runningman]

I have a problem with folks who use the term "a mere man" when referring to Jesus. There's no place in the Bible that refers to Jesus as "a mere man." Jesus Christ was the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian. That is nowhere near "a mere man."

And he is now at the "right hand" of God. It really sounds like Jesus isn't in the same position as God. Am I reading this wrong?

 

[mikesw]

I have a problem with folks who use the term "a mere man" when referring to Jesus. There's no place in the Bible that refers to Jesus as "a mere man." Jesus Christ was the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian. That is nowhere near "a mere man."

Maybe you do not like the terms people might use in trying to form a big picture of your doctrine. That hardly is our fault since there is no detailed explanation of all that you have conceived in your doctrines.

 

[Runningman]

Maybe you do not like the terms people might use in trying to form a big picture of your doctrine. That hardly is our fault since there is no detailed explanation of all that you have conceived in your doctrines.

The Unitarian view of God is quite intuitive. For example, you aren't your own son (if you have one) then if Jesus is the Son of God then Jesus is not God. I don't see any difficult or strange concepts here.

 

[mikesw]

The Unitarian view of God is quite intuitive. For example, you aren't your own son (if you have one) then if Jesus is the Son of God then Jesus is not God. I don't see any difficult or strange concepts here.

That is like saying if Hunter is son of Joe Biden then Hunter is not Biden. I think I get your logic now. It does not get you very far.

The truth is that the Son carries forth that which is his Father's. Some reason you don't follow the basic concept.

 

[Runningman]

That is like saying if Hunter is son of Joe Biden then Hunter is not Biden. I think I get your logic now. It does not get you very far.

The truth is that the Son carries forth that which is his Father's. Some reason you don't follow the basic concept.

Don't nuke it. You're your father's son and and you aren't your own father. The language of the Bible is where Unitarianism has its greatest strength.

 

[mikesw]

Don't nuke it. You're your father's son and and you aren't your own father. The language of the Bible is where Unitarianism has its greatest strength.

That is too bad that the misunderstanding of the language is Unitarian's greatest strength. Everything is downhill from their beginning weak point. Hunter has his dad's blood. He is not some sort of Martian or snake that has nothing of his father. He has genes and physical features passed on from his parents.

 

[Runningman]

That is too bad that the misunderstanding of the language is Unitarian's greatest strength. Everything is downhill from their beginning weak point. Hunter has his dad's blood. He is not some sort of Martian or snake that has nothing of his father. He has genes and physical features passed on from his parents.

You got the wrong idea. God being us Christian's Father doesn't mean we are also God. That's because God is a singular person, not three persons. Why did you note believe Jesus when he said such?

Acts 17 KJV
29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

 

[Peterlag]

And he is now at the "right hand" of God. It really sounds like Jesus isn't in the same position as God. Am I reading this wrong?

We talk day and night about God and Jesus. But what about the Holy Spirit? Here's a one page clip for your enjoyment... https://walking-by-the-spirit.com/data-on-the-holy-spirit/

 

[mikesw]

You got the wrong idea. God being us Christian's Father doesn't mean we are also God. That's because God is a singular person, not three persons. Why did you note believe Jesus when he said such?

Acts 17 KJV
29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

You keep misapplying and misinterpreting passages. This was not a doctrinal teaching to Christians but of Paul preaching the gospel to people in Athens. You repeated this from a month ago. And that was Paul, not Jesus, speaking -- but that is a normal accident we all make.

 

[Peterlag]

Maybe you do not like the terms people might use in trying to form a big picture of your doctrine. That hardly is our fault since there is no detailed explanation of all that you have conceived in your doctrines.

I would just like to use words that are in the Bible. And trinity, deity, mere man, or incarnate are not in the book.

 

[mikesw]

I would just like to use words that are in the Bible. And trinity, deity, mere man, or incarnate are not in the book.

Then you will constantly miscommunicate ideas and leave points muddled.

 

[Runningman]

You keep misapplying and misinterpreting passages. This was not a doctrinal teaching to Christians but of Paul preaching the gospel to people in Athens. You repeated this from a month ago. And that was Paul, not Jesus, speaking -- but that is a normal accident we all make.

Just sounds like you found a way to wiggle your way out of what Paul said. Paul didn't say "Nope, you got to read it the right way, go through Sunday school, etc" He spoke to them in the language they already understood which would be the common person's tongue.