Evidence for God from Science

Yes Fortigurn, you have made your point SEVERAL times. You aren't Christian, you are twisting scripture like any other cult into your liking. As other people have said and now I am saying it, you reject other people's reasoning claiming yourself to be the ONLY right individual, like an atheist. Basically you believe Jesus is not God or not divine, and then say you believe He is special to God. Tell me, has ANY person on this planet at ANY time been perfect such as Jesus? No one has, how could He not be divine? Stop your brainwashing tactics and move on to some other constructive task.

Thinker wrote:Yes Fortigurn, you have made your point SEVERAL times. You aren't Christian, you are twisting scripture like any other cult into your liking.

Instead of throwing insults, would you mind arguing from Scripture?

As other people have said and now I am saying it, you reject other people's reasoning claiming yourself to be the ONLY right individual, like an atheist.

I have never said that I am 'the ONLY right individual'. I haven't even said that my denomination is 'the ONLY right denomination'.

Basically you believe Jesus is not God or not divine, and then say you believe He is special to God.

Basically I believe that Jesus is not God, but that he is the son of God (as the Bible says). That makes him more than 'special to God', it makes him unique, the only begotten of the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father.

Tell me, has ANY person on this planet at ANY time been perfect such as Jesus?

I have already explained this more than once. Please read my posts. God was working in Christ, which is precisely why Christ could do what no other man could.

Fortigurn,

Please do not think me rude or trite on this matter but I would like to simply skip the scripture Judo and ask a simple question: Without any scripture — why do you believe that Jesus cannot be God and that the Trinity is not so?

Do not think I am being impertinent, or cheeky, asking you this as I have no motive other than to try to relate to your mode of thinking for the sole purpose of intelligent discourse.

What is it about the Trinity you find distasteful? In Your own words — no scripture Judo, please.

B. W. wrote:Fortigurn,

Please do not think me rude or trite on this matter but I would like to simply skip the scripture Judo and ask a simple question: Without any scripture — why do you believe that Jesus cannot be God and that the Trinity is not so?

Because it is a logical contradiction.

What is it about the Trinity you find distasteful? In Your own words — no scripture Judo, please.

My issues with the trinity have absolutely zero to do with personal taste, so I can't actually answer that question.

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Fortigurn, please allow me to respond on your behalf and show you how your arguments are old and tiring:

Byblos paraphrasing Fortigurn wrote:
I've been though this many times. Please go back and re-read my response but just in case you don't, here it is one more time. If the Word became Jesus, then clearly the Word was not Jesus to begin with. If X became Y then X is not Y.

That pretty much covers it, does it not?

No it doesn't pretty much cover it. It was simply one of a number of arguments I raised in contention with the interpretation of John 1 which has been presented here.

Well, let's see:

Some definitions are in order:

Word = X
Jesus = Y
God = Z

Then we have:

In the beginning was the Word = X

and the Word was with God = X & Z

and the Word was God. X = Z

The Word became flesh X = Y and X = Z

Your process of reasoning here omits certain facts:

* If X becomes Y, then X is not X any more, X = Y (I can show you examples in the New Testament of this same grammatical phrase, and in all cases when X becomes Y it does not remain X)

* The trinitarian dogma doesn't actually say that X became Y, it actually says that X added Y to X (which is how the early trinitarians attempted to get around the logical contradiction of X becoming Y and still remaining X), the problem here being that the text doesn't say X added Y to X, it says that X became Y

* If X is God, then X is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - you need the text to say that the Word was 'God the Son'

* If X is God (unqualified), and God became flesh, then God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all became flesh

I know you will argue that if the Word became flesh then it wasn't the word to start with...

No, that is not at all what I am arguing. Please read my posts.

This is a fatal logical contradiction as by definition the word is eternal so it cannot 'become' anything other than eternal. Therefore, even mathematically it can be proven that Jesus is eternal.

Your argument here states:

* The Word is eternal
* The Word cannot become anything other than eternal
* The Word became flesh
* Therefore flesh is eternal

You might want to think about revising that.

Nope. What you described above is your position, not mine. You are the one saying the Word became flesh (or Jesus) but Jesus is a mere man; therefore you just simply killed God. If the word is eternal and it became a mere man then it is no longer eternal. That is your argument and that is the fatal contradiction of it.

My argument is the complete opposite. I'm saying the Word is eternal, the Word became Jesus, Jesus is eternal; no contradiction and nobody dies. Simple. Checkmate.

Fortigurn wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:There is nothing which needs to be implied or assumed in these passages. They are explicit. As I have said, you have merely resorted to ungrammatical readings and flawed reasoning (please deal in particular with the fact that I proved your 'Socrates' analogy to be flawed).

Well your accusations of "ungrammatical readings", and "flawed reasoning" though unbecoming, is to be expected I suppose reading the majority of your posts within this thread.

Hey, don't take my word for it - I invite you to go to a professional Bible translation email list, post your arguments that these verses are all 'implicit' rather than explicit (together with the grammatical justifications you use), and see how your arguments are received. I'll just sit back and watch.

If they are, I think you have done a poor job or illustrating how they are "explicit". Is it fairly clear? Yes. But this is different from "explicit" which requires a direct association comment like "The Father is God." You can't provide this can you? My idea of "explicit" is much stricter than yours. But this does not really matter. I'm quite willing to accept your own idea of "explicit"—I have no qualms about doing this. It just means when I previously said Scripture doesn't implicitly affirm Christ as God, or the Holy Spirit as God, or God as a Trinity, that I now affirm them all as "explicit" (according to same understanding by which you say the Father is explicitly God).

Fortigurn wrote:

Now you are quite entitled to consider the passages you provided as "explicit" ignoring my comments of how they were actually "implicit", but then by your idea of "explicit" I believe we have "explicit" statements of Christ being God, and "explicit" statements of the Holy Spirit being God by virtue of Him "explicitly" possessing attributes that can only be considered divine. And as such, the concept of the Trinity is "explicitly" taught in Scripture. I believe these doctrines to all be "explicit" if I employ your idea of "explicit".

If I grant that we have explicit statements of Christ and the Holy Spirit being God, that still does not consiitute an explicit teaching of the trinity in Scripture. It simply provides passages from which the trinity is syllogistically derived.

How does it not constitute an explicit teaching of the Trinity? I think it quite explicit that all three (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are believed to be one God.

Fortigurn wrote:An explicit teaching of the trinity in Scripture would describe God explicitly as three persons in one being. That is the essential concept of the trinity.

The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And all the significant hallmarks of the Trinity are "explicitly" taught in Scripture.

Fortigurn wrote:

K wrote:Now "explicit" statements regarding Christ's divinity found in John 1, which I believe still remain unsatisfactorily refuted (and I'm going to continue honing in on this until I either feel a satisfactory response has been given, or you admit Christ is "explicitly" being referred to as God):

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him [the Word] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him [the Word] was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him [the Word; from v.3 "Through him all things were made"], the world did not recognize him. 11He [the Word] came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him [the Word], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15John testifies concerning him [the Word]. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

...

29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'

So from v.29 Jesus is "explicitly" him ("the Word") in v.15; who was "the Word" that became flesh in v.14; who was "the Word" through which the world was made in v.10; who was the one with God in the beginning in v.2; who was "the Word" who was God in v.1.

I have replied to this before, and no one actually addressed my reply. If I reply to this, will you read my reply and respond to it?

Let's say, I'm left unmoved by your previous comments as I feel you are simply reading what you want to read, and ignoring the obvious of what is said in John 1. I think much of what Byblos says highlights this.

Kurieuo

Byblos wrote:Nope. What you described above is your position, not mine.

Can we back up a bit so that I can see how I've misrepresented you? I understood you to be saying the following:

* The Word is eternal
* The Word cannot become anything other than eternal
* The Word became flesh

Are you or are you not saying this?

You are the one saying the Word became flesh (or Jesus) but Jesus is a mere man; therefore you just simply killed God.

Can you explain to me how I 'just simply killed God'?

If the word is eternal and it became a mere man then it is no longer eternal. That is your argument and that is the fatal contradiction of it.

The problem is that you and I don't have the same understanding of what the 'Word' is here.

My argument is the complete opposite. I'm saying the Word is eternal, the Word became Jesus, Jesus is eternal; no contradiction and nobody dies. Simple.

But you also said that the Word cannot become anything which is not eternal. How do you therefore reconcile this with the statement that the Word became flesh?

By the way, I'm actually the one saying that the Word became Jesus. The orthodox trinitarian understanding is that the Word was Jesus, not that it became Jesus. For the Word to become Jesus would require that Jesus did not exist prior the Word becoming Jesus (trinitarian theology requires that Jesus is the Word, not that the Word became Jesus).

Fortigurn wrote:

Deborah wrote:Jesus and the father are one. (possably how man and wife are one)

Thank you for your list of passages Deborah. If you had read this thread, you would have discovered that these have been presented to me before - more than once - and that I have answered them (more than once).

I should point out to you also that if God and Christ are one in the same way that man and wife are one, then God and Christ are two separate beings who share a close relationship. That isn't the trinity, so I suggest you don't go there.

*sigh* yes two different beings.
but they both form God, just as we form part of the body of Christ.
The trinity I am not sure of.
I believe in God the father and god the son, but the holy spirit I know is Gods messenger.
I am not saying I do or don't believe in the trinity I am saying I just don't know.
I listed those scriptures regardless of them being listed before because alongside the others I listed they support that Jesus is infact god.
It is complete lack of respect such as this that makes me believe that Christianity is nothing but a name given by those who did not even believe in our Lord Jesus Christ or God the father!
Christians pull each other to pieces because of differences in understanding, We are all Children of God!
A mere man would not have been an acceptable sacfrice for the sins of humanity!

You know what, I don't care anymore. I have no faith in the Churches and no faith in my fellow man! I am lost, I know not where to turn, but I have seen too much and felt to much to live as I once did. (not so long ago) I often find myself wishing he had not saved me. And I really don't need snide little STUPID comments like just don't go there!
Writing for me is a form of understanding and learning. Take that from me and I have nothing and even worse I was saved for nothing.

Deborah wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Deborah wrote:Jesus and the father are one. (possably how man and wife are one)

Thank you for your list of passages Deborah. If you had read this thread, you would have discovered that these have been presented to me before - more than once - and that I have answered them (more than once).

I should point out to you also that if God and Christ are one in the same way that man and wife are one, then God and Christ are two separate beings who share a close relationship. That isn't the trinity, so I suggest you don't go there.

*sigh* yes two different beings.
but they both form God, just as we form part of the body of Christ.
The trinity I am not sure of.

The orthodox dogma of the trinity denies that God and Christ are two separate beings.

I believe in God the father and god the son, but the holy spirit I know is Gods messenger.
I am not saying I do or don't believe in the trinity I am saying I just don't know.

I suggest you discuss this with those here who believe in the trinity.

I listed those scriptures regardless of them being listed before because alongside the others I listed they support that Jesus is infact god.

I have previously explained why I do not believe they support the idea that Jesus is in fact God.

It is complete lack of respect such as this that makes me believe that Christianity is nothing but a name given by those who did not even believe in our Lord Jesus Christ or God the father!

I am sorry if you think I am being disrespectful to you. Please let me know what I'm doing wrong.

Personally I find it disrespectful when people don't read my posts.

A mere man would not have been an acceptable sacfrice for the sins of humanity!

Christ was not a blood sacrifice to God, so this is not an issue.

You know what, I don't care anymore. I have no faith in the Churches and no faith in my fellow man! I am lost, I know not where to turn, but I have seen too much and felt to much to live as I once did. (not so long ago) I often find myself wishing he had not saved me. And I really don't need snide little STUPID comments like just don't go there!

I'm sorry you felt that way about that comment. I thought you believed in the trinity, and I was demonstrating that you were in fact inadvertedly arguing against the trinity. If it was your intention to argue against the trinity, I must have misunderstood you.

If you are having difficultlies with your life as a Christian, I suggest you start a new thread in the 'Questions for Christians' forum. There is a thread here in which another Christian is receiving counselling. You may find it useful.

Fortigurn wrote:By the way, I'm actually the one saying that the Word became Jesus. The orthodox trinitarian understanding is that the Word was Jesus, not that it became Jesus. For the Word to become Jesus would require that Jesus did not exist prior the Word becoming Jesus (trinitarian theology requires that Jesus is the Word, not that the Word became Jesus).

Let's look at Scripture:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

The Word was God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Word became flesh (it doesn't say "became Jesus"). Jesus is "The Word" and "The Word [who] became flesh." Unless you wish to argue that God can stop being God (i.e., the Word stopped being God upon taking up fleshly form), then I think you're at a dead end.

Kurieuo

Deborah wrote:Christians pull each other to pieces because of differences in understanding, We are all Children of God!
A mere man would not have been an acceptable sacfrice for the sins of humanity!

You know what, I don't care anymore. I have no faith in the Churches and no faith in my fellow man!

Hi Deborah,

I believe I understand where you are coming from, but at the same time I think it is important to understand that people aren't "really" pulling each other to pieces (at least here), but rather everything said here is all in debate. The context of this as debate should be realised, as outside of debate I'm sure comments would be very different. Yet, many love the intellectualism of debate, getting heated, trying to corner the other, and although I think sometimes sadly so, throwing unnecessary comments is all apart of it. There are strong disagreements here, and I believe they are over important issues. But it should be realised comments made here are within the context of debate, and therefore it may appear as though people are tearing each other apart.

Yet, I think it important to realise, for example within the thread Fortigurn referred to in his last post the other side when not debating an issue. Fortigurn, August, myself and others can all come together when the gloves are off, and appreciate the other truths we do agree on. And so, I think it important to realise that discussions like these on the Trinity and Christ's divinity say nothing about how we would act toward that person in real life or on a more personal level. Infact I only debate this because I am ultimately concerned for Fortigurn and others who may read. I'd certainly like to think if I met Fortigurn in real life, that we'd have other things to discuss than the Trinity and maybe be able to have a drink together or something. Yet, when debating issues like this, I think one needs to understand the context of debate and so be prepared to put on their gloves.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:By the way, I'm actually the one saying that the Word became Jesus. The orthodox trinitarian understanding is that the Word was Jesus, not that it became Jesus. For the Word to become Jesus would require that Jesus did not exist prior the Word becoming Jesus (trinitarian theology requires that Jesus is the Word, not that the Word became Jesus).

Let's look at Scripture:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

The Word was God.

Yes, the Word was God (qualitatively).

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Word became flesh (it doesn't say "became Jesus").

I agree that the Word became flesh. That flesh was Jesus. Yes, as I have pointed out, saying that 'the Word became Jesus' contradicts the trinitarian theology.

Jesus is "The Word" and "The Word [who] became flesh." Unless you wish to argue that God can stop being God (i.e., the Word stopped being God upon taking up fleshly form), then I think you're at a dead end.

You are assuming that the Word was Jesus to start with. I suggest you look up the word 'logos' in a standard lexicon and see if it means 'Jesus'.

The Word became flesh. It was no longer 'word', it was 'flesh'. As I have said, I can show you other examples of this grammar pattern in the New Testament. You can then see for yourself if X remains X after X becomes Y.

Kurieuo wrote:Yet, I think it important to realise, for example within the thread Fortigurn referred to in his last post the other side when not debating an issue. Fortigurn, August, myself and others can all come together when the gloves are off, and appreciate the other truths we do agree on. And so, I think it important to realise that discussions like these on the Trinity and Christ's divinity say nothing about how we would act toward that person in real life or on a more personal level. Infact I only debate this because I am ultimately concerned for Fortigurn and others who may read. I'd certainly like to think if I met Fortigurn in real life, that we'd have other things to discuss than the Trinity and maybe be able to have a drink together or something. Yet, when debating issues like this, I think one needs to understand the context of debate and so be prepared to put on their gloves.

Thanks, that was a great post.

Fortigurn wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Word became flesh (it doesn't say "became Jesus").

I agree that the Word became flesh. That flesh was Jesus. Yes, as I have pointed out, saying that 'the Word became Jesus' contradicts the trinitarian theology.

Nowhere does it say "that flesh" was "Jesus". Rather it says "the Word became flesh." It is therefore more correct to say Jesus is "the Word [who] became flesh".

Fortigurn wrote:

K wrote:Jesus is "The Word" and "The Word [who] became flesh." Unless you wish to argue that God can stop being God (i.e., the Word stopped being God upon taking up fleshly form), then I think you're at a dead end.

You are assuming that the Word was Jesus to start with. I suggest you look up the word 'logos' in a standard lexicon and see if it means 'Jesus'.

The Word became flesh. It was no longer 'word', it was 'flesh'. As I have said, I can show you other examples of this grammar pattern in the New Testament. You can then see for yourself if X remains X after X becomes Y.

You are reading something into the text to fit your own preconceived ideas. If "the Word" is God, and God becomes flesh, then God does not cease being God (for it is logically impossible, in virtue of who God is, for God to cease being God). Jesus is the Word that became flesh, and this did not mean the Word ceased... as Colossians 1:16-17 says:

• 16 For by him [the Son—as revealed by the previous verses] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
  17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And so Christ, the Son, was before all things and by the Son all things were created (just like the Word in John 1:10).

We also read in Philippians 2:

• 5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
  6Who, being in very nature God,
  did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
  7but made himself nothing,
  taking the very nature of a servant,
  being made in human likeness.
  8And being found in appearance as a man,
  he humbled himself
  and became obedient to death—
  even death on a cross!
  9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
  and gave him the name that is above every name,
  10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
  in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
  11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
  to the glory of God the Father.

Here we see in verse 6 that Christ was in the very nature God (just like the Word in John 1:1). This means Christ existed as God before he became flesh. If Christ is God, then by virtue of being God, he cannot cease being God even if he takes upon himself fleshy human form. This is also evidenced by the fact Christ had to "humble" himself as a man (v.8) something Christ would not need to do if he was no longer God but only a man.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:And so, I think it important to realise that discussions like these on the Trinity and Christ's divinity say nothing about how we would act toward that person in real life or on a more personal level. Infact I only debate this because I am ultimately concerned for Fortigurn and others who may read.

Very well said.

Fortigurn wrote:The Word became flesh. It was no longer 'word', it was 'flesh'. As I have said, I can show you other examples of this grammar pattern in the New Testament. You can then see for yourself if X remains X after X becomes Y.

I commented on this line of thought quite a while ago. But I really think you're missing the nature of life. Both body and spirit together make life, and Jesus was no different. The eternal nature of Jesus is the Word; essentially His spirit. The Word became flesh means that the Word became Jesus' body also. It's like when we die, we all believe that WE continue to exist. Just as we continue to exist without a body, so too did Jesus exist as the Word before (and after) becoming flesh.

Just to reinforce the eternal and unending spirit of Jesus, note that it's His spirit by which we have eternal life. Clearly, the Word coexisted at that time with the body/flesh of Jesus. Note also that the Jesus ascended to 'where he was before' which would also indicate that Jesus existed before being born of flesh.

John 6:54-56, 61-63
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
...
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Although I think Kurieuo has the matter covered, I did want to reitterate that point.