Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO:
QUESTION #2 to FAITH: The verses above, from the same chapter of John that you quoted from earlier, clearly state Jesus had been resurrected from the dead? TRUE or FALSE?

​

FAITH:
True of course.

---

ALTER2EGO to FAITH:
So you are acknowledging that Jesus Christ literally died. And you don't see the significance of that? Look at what the Trinity dogma says. Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be THREE PERSONS, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2011/03/10/article-i/
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/thirtyni.htm DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL":
"Eternal means not having a beginning or an end."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/eternalThe man-made Trinity dogma says Jesus has the same eternity as Jehovah. An eternal person cannot die. Jesus Christ literally died. So who are you going to believe, the apostates who dreamed up trinity? Or the Bible, which is the inspired word of God?

Yawn, like it really mattered.If the Bible is the inspired word of God then that God is not very bright or consistent. If the Bible actually was the inspired word of God then there would actually be "The Bible"; a single Canon that was accepted by all Chapters of Club Christian.Of course a God who is eternal can't die, in fact a God can't really die; so at least while Jesus was alive on the earth he wasn't a god at all but just plain human.The Bible like the Trinity is just a creation of man.

Hi NoNukesI think to answer that we have to look at what is meant by the incarnation. Here is the Webster definition:

quote:

---

a : invested with bodily and especially human nature and form
b : made manifest or comprehensible : embodied

---

I think that both of these definitions (a & b) are useful.Let’s look at a first.The Jews always had a history of understanding that God had taken up residence on Earth. They had a whole temple theology built around it including specifically the Holy of Holies. This was where God connected with His people. This was His specific residence and this was where people would go to meet with Yahweh and to offer up sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins and for healing. So although, in a non-carnal or non-bodily sense, God was incarnate in the Temple.Here is a quote from John 2:

quote:

---

19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

---

That is the clearest quote but when we look at the actions of Jesus we can see that it was clear that Jesus understood that He Himself was the now filling that role. Jesus was going around healing people and forgiving sins — the role that up to then the Temple had always played. The Jews had believed that Yahweh’s place of residence was the Temple, but here was Jesus saying that His body was the residence or the incarnation of the Father. However, this was what the Father was doing through the Son. This is from John 5

quote:

---

16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19 Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

---

It is very clear all through the Gospels that there are the two separate persons but that Jesus’ authority was the authority of the Father given to Him and working through Him.So when we look at the b part of the definition above we can see that Jesus understood that He was the embodiment of the return of Yahweh to His people. He was the manifestation o the Father and as per the definition He made the Father comprehensible to mankind. There are many contradictory images of God in the OT and Jesus was incarnated so that the Father would act and speak directly and clearly through the Son.So yes, I have no problem understanding Jesus as divine but it is a divinity conferred on Him by the Father to whom He prayed, and who He served. Once again it is, IMHO, the point that God will be incarnate in Him. He will embody Yahweh’s return to His people as many of the prophets had suggested He would, although not in the way that they thought He would do it. Even Faith agrees that the Trinity is made up of three persons. If we simply call them all God then we don’t differentiate. I would say that all three are part of the Godhead but that they each fulfill their own role.Edited by GDR, : typo

Uh huh, but Jesus would of course know that Himself, yet He accepted Thomas' calling Him "my God."All those other "gods" are demons anyway, as scripture shows in many places. If you reduce Jesus to a mere "god" you are committing idolatry in worshiping Him, and that IS what Jehovah's Witnesses do. First, it proves that a JEW, who would not EVER address a mere human being as God, in this case was so overwhelmed by the evidence, that he had to recognize that Jesus was not ONLY a human being. That's a HUGE event in the context of Jewish theology.And second, that nobody, and specifically not even Jesus Himself, rebuked Thomas for calling Him Lord and God and that means Jesus was accepting being called God. It also means none of the other disciples objected but agreed, since not a word is spoken against Thomas for saying that anywhere else in scripture.Throughout scripture when human beings are overwhelmed by the presence of angels so that they fall down in worship before them, they are rebuked for it, told to stand up, that the angels too are mere servants of God and not to be worshiped. When the "captain of the Lord's armies" appeared to Joshua, he fell down and worshiped him, and the captain also told him to remove his shoes because the ground there was holy. This is understood to have been an appearance of Christ Himself, and it shows His deity because He not only did not reject Joshua's worship but emphasized His holiness and Godhood by having him remove his shoes. But angels throughout scripture always refuse human worship.Jesus did not refuse Thomas' calling Him God. That more than the fact itself is proof that He regarded Himself as God. And so should we. The incident with Thomas is so clearly an affirmation that Jesus is God based on everything I say above, the idea that the other scriptures you refer to give context is plain wrong. As you understand them they merely contradict the plain meaning of the incident with Thomas. Clearly, both in context and on their own account, "Messiah" and "Son of God" also identify Jesus as God. Um, no, I'm "banking on" what I say above, about how a Jew would never call a mere man God, and especially about Jesus' accepting his calling Him God. Edited by Faith, : correct quote codeEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Jesus Christ is understood in scripture to be BOTH God AND man, Perfect God, Perfect Man. As God He is the Second Person of the Trinity, as Man He died for the sins of those who would believe on Him.BUT there's a further wrinkle here: Even as Man Jesus could not die because scripture tells us "the wages of sin is death" and Jesus was absolutely sinless --AS MAN, not just because He is God. Therefore He COULD NOT die in and of Himself. He had to CHOOSE to die.He CHOSE to take all the sins of those who sould believe on Him onto His own body and He died in our place to pay our debt to the Law for them. God imputed our sins to Him so that He would be forsaken and die in our place, just as He imputes Christ's righteousness to those of us who believe on Him.

quote:

---

FAITH:
Jesus Christ is understood in scripture to be BOTH God AND man, Perfect God, Perfect Man. As God He is the Second Person of the Trinity, as Man He died for the sins of those who would believe on Him.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
I don't recall seeing any scriptures that says that. Please quote the verse from the Judeo-Christian Bible that says: "Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity."

quote:

---

FAITH:
BUT there's a further wrinkle here: Even as Man Jesus could not die because scripture tells us "the wages of sin is death" and Jesus was absolutely sinless --AS MAN, not just because He is God. Therefore He COULD NOT die in and of Himself. He had to CHOOSE to die.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
The fact remains he died and by definition, an eternal person cannot die. Below is another definition of the word "eternal." DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL": "without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting" (Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary) QUESTION #3 to FAITH: Isn't it true that Jesus Christ's life came to an end while he was dead for three days? YES or NO? QUESTION #4 to FAITH: Did Jesus Christ's continue to "exist through all time" during the three days that his life ceased? YES or NO?Faith, this is a rhetorical question. Who are you going to believe? Are you going to believe the Bible, which clearly says Jesus Christ died, and therefore he was not eternal? Or are you going to put traditions of men ahead of what the Bible says? Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.

These are fairly difficult questions to answer with a yes or no. To question three, I'd have to answer yes with some qualification. Jesus' life did continue after it "ended" which is a strange thing to happen, and something that should not be obscured simply because you have requested a one word answer.The answer to the second question is that yes Christ did continue to exist during those three days. I Peter 3:18-19 tells of Jesus preaching to "the spirits in prison" during that period.Further, I think you stretch the dictionary definition f eternal to the breaking point. Dictionaries are not perfect and it makes little sense to ask if something is eternal over a three day period? At most Jesus life might be said to have stopped at the cross, but since Jesus was alive after that event, we cannot say that his life ended at that point.Your questions is thought provoking, but what you are really asking is whether Jesus death and subsequent resurrection prove that Jesus was just a man. I think the answer to that question is self evident.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You're quite the joker. It is you who believe the traditions of men, I follow the Bible from which the Trinity is derived, and since the Trinity IS derived from the Bible so is the concept of the Son of God as Second Person of the Trinity.By the way, the Bible is NOT "Judeo-Christian." Judaism is an entirely different religion from Christianity and they use the Old Testament entirely differently. The full Bible, both Testaments, is Christian, period, although the whole concept is rather strange. Uh, one's life DOES tend to come to an end when one is dead.But no, Jesus as man died ON THE CROSS and that BEGAN the three days, He didn't die WHILE he was dead. He said the words "It is finished" and He died.But I suppose you merely mean to ask, Was He really dead for those three days? And the answer is Yes. Jesus as a MAN was dead. They took His lifeless body off the cross and put it in a tomb, because it was dead. Jesus Christ as God couldn't die, so the answer is Yes in that respect. The answer is No for Jesus Christ as man.===================================Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't doubt that the divinity of Jesus can be shown in the NT scripture. Paul didn't encounter the human Jesus, only his divine state.I had to start somewhere and I don't think the NT writers really presented Jesus as being YHWH.The Trinity presents a god with a split personality to avoid the idea that other gods or divine beings exist.Even Phil 2:11 doesn't claim Jesus as "the Lord".Since kurios and theos are general terms, the challenge is to figure out how the writers made the difference known. Some of it would obviously deal with context, but when talking of two or more divine beings, how did they signal the difference. So far, all I've found is the article in front of kurios or theos.Really they could still have a Trinity of three divine beings. Christians worship God, not Jesus or the Holy Spirit.I don't see that the ancient Hebrews denied the existence of other gods or divine beings. MonolatryThe NT is questionable given the different timeframes for the writings.The impression I get from later writings is that Jesus was to take over running the family business. Hebrews 1:10, the commentary says that God the Father addresses the Son as Lord. Unfortunately the quotes from the OT are from Psalms. That isn't YHWH talking. It's a lament to YHWH. When we check Psalm 102:24-25, neither YHWH nor Adonai are used. I even checked the Septuagint. The writer of Hebrews, exercised some artistic license with his writing. Again the commentary assumes YHWH when bringing the OT in. I noticed that in the NT, the writers don't use the phrase "Lord God" when referring to YHWH (God the Father). Paul consistently presents himself as slave to Jesus Christ. In context of the NT writings, the association of Lord to Jesus seems to more about addressing a master, as opposed to a name or representing a name. As you said, Jesus already has a given name. I feel 1 Cor 8:5-6 actually makes my point. Paul keeps them separate and I think that's his way of doing so. YHWH is God and Jesus is Lord. Lord does not seem to represent YHWH in the NT when used with Jesus or in reference to Jesus.None of what I've argued negates the divinity of Jesus in the NT.

quote:

---

In context, the parallel statement that he "shall also quicken your mortal bodies BY HIS SPIRIT," refers us back to its being the Spirit by whom Jesus was also raised from the dead. If God raised Him by His Spirit it was the Spirit doing the raising. This is the orthodox understanding.

---

Paul is discussing the spiritual and sinful natures. The English doesn't support what you're saying. Simply put the verse says: But if the spirit of God dwells in you, God shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you.It doesn't say or infer that Jesus was raised up by the Spirit being spoken of. So you know I didn't make this up, here's an excerpt from the Bible commentary.

quote:

---

That's a lot of word manipulation PD. He speaks of having POWER to lay it down and to take it again, which isn't required for the mere act of receiving what is offered.

---

No more than yours. Yes Jesus has authority to lay down his life if he chooses. He can choose not to also. He also has the authority to receive back his life that is offered him by God. It isn't saying he raised himself up from the dead. If that was possible, then he wasn't really dead. God gave him his life back.

quote:

---

And both condemned the Pharisees' "traditions of men" which is what the Talmud is.

---

Again, this is a debate board. I give my opinion and provide support for my opinion. If you disagree with my opinion and the support, then you provide your own with support. Not accepting the Talmud doesn't support your position.The point was that the word Lord used in the quote refers to YHWH in the OT. The reading of the verses doesn't take us backward to then read Lord Jesus as YHWH Jesus. If there is a Christian method that allows this, show me.

quote:

---

I can hardly believe you said that. "Divine" refers to the uncreated God and God only, who said "I am God and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22, 46:9). There are no other gods and the "gods" of the heathen are revealed to be demons (or devils in the KJV), (Leviticus 17:7, Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20, Revelation 8:20) nothing divine about them, merely creatures, created angels, fallen angels.

---

The Bible isn't consistent on that issue. Religion evolves. This is basically a list of who they were sacrificing to. Not all are devils. They sacrificed to demons who are not God, gods who they didn't know, gods who were new.It doesn't support the idea that all other gods were demons. Demons were separate from the looks of it.Isaiah speaks a lot of there being no other God but YHWH, but at the beginning of Chapter 45 YHWH lists the things he will do so that his anointed one will know he is YHWH, the God of Israel who is summoning him.Even Paul said: So the Bible doesn't completely support the idea that there are absolutely no other divine beings.

quote:

---

Yes, all the heathen nations of the world have their "gods" who aren't gods at all but demons ruled by Satan since the Fall, and the true God who is above all had to keep teaching His people the difference, which they kept forgetting such as when they set up the golden calf after the manner of the heathen religions, and later on when they kept falling into the practices of the surrounding nations, even sacrificing their children to the demon god Molech.

---

Other than children were sacrificed to Molech, the rest concerning Molech, other gods, and Satan is fiction and not supported in the Bible text. I agree, YHWH didn't want his group to worship like the others.Grandstanding against another group's god, doesn't make that god false or a demon.YHWH is a divine being, but not all divine beings are YHWH. The Bible doesn't really provide concrete evidence there are absolutely no other divine beings or gods.It is interesting that the commentary has a section, which I have been addressing, entitled "Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh", but then further down he has a section entitled "Jesus is not God the Father".I don't see that Jesus is YHWH per the verses provided in the commentary. I think it is changing the meaning of original scripture to make that connection.

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO:
QUESTION #3 to FAITH: Isn't it true that Jesus Christ's life came to an end while he was dead for three days? YES or NO?

​

FAITH:
Uh, one's life DOES tend to come to an end when one is dead.

---

ALTER2EGO to FAITH:
Really? Which scripture says that? Along that line, I have some questions for you. QUESTION #5 to FAITH: Is not death the opposite of life? TRUE or FALSE? QUESTION #6 to FAITH: If the person's life has not ended at death, why bother say they have died, in that case? QUESTION #7 to FAITH: If someone's life does not end at death, then that would mean the person did not really die. TRUE or FALSE?

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO:
QUESTION #3 to FAITH: Isn't it true that Jesus Christ's life came to an end while he was dead for three days? YES or NO?

​

FAITH:
But no, Jesus as man died ON THE CROSS and that BEGAN the three days, He didn't die WHILE he was dead. He said the words "It is finished" and He died.

---

ALTER2EGO to FAITH:
At this point, it's obvious that you are going by philosophies of men and ignoring the scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible--the same scriptures that you previously said you reason on. According to the Bible, Jesus Christ was very much dead."He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." (Acts 2:31King James Version) QUESTION #8 to FAITH: If Jesus did not "die while he was dead," why did Jehovah God have to resurrect him from the dead? QUESTION #9 to FAITH: Are you saying Jehovah resurrected someone that was still alive? QUESTION #10 to FAITH: If Jesus was not really dead, then it means the Bible was lying when it said the above at Acts 2:31; CORRECT?

You don't seem to grasp that I was objecting to your bizarre English, not to the fact that Jesus died.Jesus the man died, Jesus the man was dead, what IS your problem?

I'm not going to argue with you endlessly about things that are well established in orthodox theology, such as that Romans 8:11 is taken to refer to the Holy Spirit's raising Christ from the dead, and I explained the logic of it. Romans 1:4 is also taken to mean the same thing. We've done this one, people will choose which to believe if either.And again Jesus said he had the POWER to lay down his life and to take it up again, which would refer to his power AS GOD, not as man. We've done this one too, and again I leave it to others to decide which to believe.Most of these things are what is known as mysteries, things beyond our understanding, so all we can do is take what the scripture says as true whether we understand it or not.Again, "divinity" refers ONLY to the Creator God, not to all the angels, demons and whatever other CREATED invisible beings there might be, which are "gods" only in a sort of ironic sense, as God clearly says THERE ARE NO OTHER GODS. That doesn't mean there aren't billions of spirit beings, many of which have made themselves out to be gods to various people groups over the millennia, demanding worship and bribes and the works.Nope, Biblical Christianity does not evolve, sorry. It is revealed truth, true for all time. It has depths that will never be fully plumbed so there is a neverending supply of new understandings and surprises but not because anything has changed, just because the truth is deep and unfolds new meanings to those who study it BELIEVINGLY.There is nothing in the Bible that is fiction. When you say such things I realize I'm up against someone who can say anything at all and believe anything at all, and what's the point of wearing myself out debating such a bottomless pit?Yeah this is a debate board but I don't have to follow all your rules for debate. Sometimes I've already made my case, which I do from orthodox theology insofar as I'm able, and there is no point in following out all the objections people dream up against it which are apparently neverending. Again, once the case has been made it's been made, others will accept it or not.The Talmud has nothing to say to Christianity except where it is sometimes inadvertently in agreement. It is the "traditions of men" Jesus condemned the Pharisees for following instead of God's word. You might as well refer to The Upanishads or even The Joy of Cooking for your argument for all its relevance. The Father is one of the Persons, again you are confounding the Persons with the Godhead. The Persons are independent of one another. Jesus is not God the Father, Jesus is not God the Holy Spirit, He is God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Holy Spirit is not God the Father etc., while ALL THREE are Jehovah.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

FAITH:
You don't seem to grasp that I was objecting to your bizarre English, not to the fact that Jesus died.

​

Jesus the man died, Jesus the man was dead, what IS your problem?

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FAITH:
You announced on the open forum that you believe in reasoning on the scriptures; remember that? Now you can't make up your mind whether or not Jesus was dead or alive when God resurrected him. I feel your pain. Jesus' death interferes with the trinity dogma which says Jesus is eternal. And you, being a Trinitarian, will not give up trinity by admitting Jesus' death proves he is not eternal. Interestingly, as soon as I started asking you questions along that line, you suddenly realized my English is "bizarre." Christendom's trinity, written in Article I of The Catholic Faith, is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be THREE PERSONS, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2011/03/10/article-i/
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/thirtyni.htm DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL":
"Eternal means not having a beginning or an end."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/eternal QUESTION #11 to FAITH: Article I of the Catholic Faith says Jesus is eternal. An eternal person cannot die. The Bible indicates Jesus is not eternal because Jesus died. Whose version of facts do you accept: (1) the man-made trinity doctrine that says the Son cannot die? or (2) the inspired word of God, the Judeo-Christian Bible, which clearly says Jesus died? QUESTION #12 to FAITH: You have twice acknowledged that Jesus Christ the Son died. So again, while Jesus the Son was dead for three days, was he still CO-ETERNAL with the Father? YES or NO? DEFINITION OF "ETERNAL": "without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting" (Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary) QUESTION #4 to FAITH: Did Jesus Christ the Son continue to "exist through all time" during the three days that his life ceased? YES or NO?