Bart's Invitation

[FFC]

John 10:30-34

30I and the Father are one."

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Don,
Does this not prove that Jesus was claiming to be God and that the Pharisees picked up on it to the point that they wanted to stone Him on the spot?

[Fortigurn]

Hi Fortigurn!

Nice to see you here. Makes me consider the possiblity that I may not be completely nuts after all - or at least I'm not the only one who is nuts!

You're welcome. Of course you're not the only one. After all, the Jews never had any idea of the trinity, worshipping God as one person, and He certainly never told them otherwise.

Then there's the fact that the apostles never taught the trinity (have you noticed that trinitarians cannot present any examples of the apostles teaching the trinity?). The apostles repeatedly taught that there is one God, who is one person, the Father.

Then there's the fact that the earliest extra-Biblical witnesses to the Christian community say nothing of the trinity, but display a belief in one God, who is one person (the Father), and Jesus Christ as His son (the earliest creeds are clear on this).

Then there's the demonstrable history of the gradual development of the trinity from a syncretism of the Greek logos concept with the Biblical teaching, through binitarianism and modalism to the trinity in the 4th century.

This development is seen very clearly when we compare three early Christian creeds. You can see that the 'Apostles' Creed' is the simplest and most Biblical, containing no trinitarian doctrine, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed departs from it significantly in elevating Christ to the postion of a Divine being, but it is only in the Athanasian Creed that we finally come across a widely held Christian statement of faith which contains the trinity.

You will also note that there's almost nothing of the 'Apostles' Creed' left in the Athanasian Creed, since the two contain definitions of God and Christ which are completely incompatible (the description of God and Christ in the 'Apostles' Creed' was by this time condemned as heresy).

This is how far the 5th century Christians had strayed from the original teaching.

[Fortigurn]

John 10:30-34

30I and the Father are one."

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Don,
Does this not prove that Jesus was claiming to be God and that the Pharisees picked up on it to the point that they wanted to stone Him on the spot?

It proves that they thought he was claiming to be God, but he clearly was not. Remember, the 'oneness' here which he says he has with the Father is exactly the same 'oneness' which he prays the disciples will also have with the Father. It is not an ontological unity.

[Fortigurn]

In all these ramblings I fail to see why you can't associate Christ to God or God to Christ... Just what is the point of denying this? Is it evil to think not? What is the thesis here?

It's simple - the Bible doesn't say it, the apostles never taught it, and the earliest Christians didn't believe it.

When you mock Christ you mock God Himself.. Is that hard to understand?

No one is mocking Christ or God here.

[bizzt]

Due to the recent Discussion I have to refer you to the Board Purpose seen here http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=2517. Fortigurn you have been warned once before for arguing against the Trinity! Due to these recent posts I am forced to Lock The Thread until Further Notice

Thank You