About the Trinity and being Christian

[Agent327]

Interesting analogy - as well as illustration. (The main problem with the Trinity -as with any doctrine - is ofcourse that it has to be accepted.)

His bodily self, which you can perhaps say is the form into which he was incarnated?

To a Dive Being a human form has no value. Ergo nothing of value is being sacfriced. (In other words, God just 'gives up' something that has no relevance to 'Him'-self. Since God is also omniscient, 'He' knows that the Divine part of Jesus can never die - it has no choice but being resurrected. Having a human die isn't a sacrifice by God, it is a sacrifice by a human only.)

His bodily self, which you can perhaps say is the form into which he was incarnated?Yes, but I'm not talking about who is right anyway.

Nor is this at issue. You asserted that Jesus has to be Divine. That is but one interpretation, as I've shown.

His bodily self, which you can perhaps say is the form into which he was incarnated?How so? Please post a syllogistic critique of my argument or something (i.e. put up).

Your argument itself is a syllogism:

If man cannot redeem himself, then it follows that Jesus can't have been just a man.

If man cannot redeem himself, then it follows he needs some agent of redemption. That might be Jesus, but it also might simply be the Grace of God (a Protestant doctrine), or faith alone. (To name but two examples.) At any rate, it does not necessarily lead to the Divinity of Jesus, as this is not necessarily a related doctrine. Logically speaking, if one believes in God, there will always be an agent of redemption - the belief in God being the first one, as it is a necessary premise for redemption in the first place.*

Note how that last sentence may be termed a syllogism.

 

[aelf]

To a Dive Being a human form has no value.

Who said so?

Since God is also omniscient, 'He' knows that the Divine part of Jesus can never die - it has no choice but being resurrected. Having a human die isn't a sacrifice by God, it is a sacrifice by a human only.)

Jesus was also capable of feeling human, as the prayer in Gethsemane shows. Experiencing pain and death as a human being seems to be what made it a sacrifice.

Nor is this at issue. You asserted that Jesus has to be Divine. That is but one interpretation, as I've shown.

I never argued that that is the correct interpretation.

If man cannot redeem himself, then it follows he needs some agent of redemption. That might be Jesus, but it also might simply be the Grace of God (a Protestant doctrine), or faith alone. (To name but two examples.)

Those alone don't render the concept of redemption through Jesus' sacrifice unnecessary, particularly since God's grace is often linked to the act of sending his only begotten son to die for man's sins, while faith is often associated with the belief that Jesus offers man the only way to salvation through his sacrifice.

How familiar are you with the actual discourses that appear in Christian preaching?

At any rate, it does not necessarily lead to the Divinity of Jesus, as this is not necessarily a related doctrine. Logically speaking, if one believes in God, there will always be an agent of redemption - the belief in God being the first one, as it is a necessary premise for redemption in the first place.*

No, it does not necessarily lead to the divinity of Jesus, but it offers a somewhat coherent logic behind the need for redemption through the cross and the significance of the Trinity - that is, in order to redeem all of mankind, a being without the sins of mankind is needed, and since the wages of sin is death, that is the price demanded by a just God.

 

[Agent327]

Who said so?

It's not really a matter of 'who said so?': a Divine Being can take on any shape or form if he so wishes. The destruction of said form or shape is meaningless, and in no way can be conceived as being 'a sacrifice', as it diminishes a Divine Being none whatsoever.

Jesus was also capable of feeling human, as the prayer in Gethsemane shows. Experiencing pain and death as a human being seems to be what made it a sacrifice.

For Jesus yes.

I never argued that that is the correct interpretation.

We seem to be in agreement then.

Those alone don't render the concept of redemption through Jesus' sacrifice unnecessary, particularly since God's grace is often linked to the act of sending his only begotten son to die for man's sins, while faith is often associated with the belief that Jesus offers man the only way to salvation through his sacrifice.

You seem to misread. I merely offerred examples of how redemption might also be conceived.

How familiar are you with the actual discourses that appear in Christian preaching?

We have no idea about Jesus' actual discourses. The first texts referring to Jesus date from over 30 years after his death and weren't written by eye-witnesses.

 

[aelf]

It's not really a matter of 'who said so?': a Divine Being can take on any shape or form if he so wishes. The destruction of said form or shape is meaningless, and in no way can be conceived as being 'a sacrifice', as it diminishes a Divine Being none whatsoever.

Who said so?

If a divine being assumes the form of a human being and experiences pain and death as a human being, then at the very least the divine being has experienced human pain and death. No one said that the sacrifice has to involve killing a god, merely that it has to involve the killing of someone who has no sin.

You seem to misread. I merely offerred examples of how redemption might also be conceived.

Yeah, and redemption might be conceived as being fulfilled by posting on CFC. That's not the typical trinitarian view, though.

We have no idea about Jesus' actual discourses. The first texts referring to Jesus date from over 30 years after his death and weren't written by eye-witnesses.

Again, the last I checked the thread is about trinitarian views, not about Jesus' teachings, especially not as constituting the entirety of Christian teachings. Talk about misreading!

 

[Agent327]

Who said so?

If a divine being assumes the form of a human being and experiences pain and death as a human being, then at the very least the divine being has experienced human pain and death. No one said that the sacrifice has to involve killing a god, merely that it has to involve the killing of someone who has no sin.

I'm beginning to wonder why you are using the phrase 'Who said so?'. In this particular case I am saying so. However, I'm merely pointing out some logical issues about the sacrifice of Jesus'crucifixion. It seems to me that the 'sacrifice' you claim is there, is only a play at human sympathy with the suffering of a fellow human being. Another inconsistency is the claim you now produce about a god being killed. That is not at issue. I am trying to show that for a Divine Being (i.e. one that is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal) it would be very hard to sacrifice anything of meaning. A real sacrifice would be, for instance, the Divine Being surrendering one of its qualities, say, omniscience. The claim that God sacrificed his Son, however, is, logically speaking, meaningless. It would be possible for God (being omnipotent) to produce countless offspring in human form. That a Divine Being should produce one human son, then have him killed, seems to be rather an act of cruelty than a sacrifice. I might even term that a sign of perversion rather than of mercy - but then again, I would be emplyoing human concepts to a Divine Being.

Yeah, and redemption might be conceived as being fulfilled by posting on CFC. That's not the typical trinitarian view, though.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Again, the last I checked the thread is about trinitarian views, not about Jesus' teachings, especially not as constituting the entirety of Christian teachings. Talk about misreading!

Indeed, as I was answering your question.

 

[aelf]

I'm beginning to wonder why you are using the phrase 'Who said so?'. In this particular case I am saying so. However, I'm merely pointing out some logical issues about the sacrifice of Jesus'crucifixion. It seems to me that the 'sacrifice' you claim is there, is only a play at human sympathy with the suffering of a fellow human being. Another inconsistency is the claim you now produce about a god being killed. That is not at issue. I am trying to show that for a Divine Being (i.e. one that is omnipotent, omniscient and eternal) it would be very hard to sacrifice anything of meaning. A real sacrifice would be, for instance, the Divine Being surrendering one of its qualities, say, omniscience. The claim that God sacrificed his Son, however, is, lgically speaking, meaningless. It would be possible for God (being omnipotent) to produce countless offspring in human form. That a Divine Being should produce one human son, then have him killed, seems to be rather an act of cruelty than a sacrifice. I might even term that a sign of perversion rather than of mercy - but then again, I would be emplyoing human concepts to a Divine Being.

You are simply asserting that God being incarnated into human form and suffering human pain and death does not constitute a sacrifice. There is no authority on which your unsupported assertion rests such that it may be admitted as an argument in a discussion about Trinitarian views on the divinity of Jesus. This has nothing to do with what you refer to as "logic", by the way, which you bring up whether or not it has any bearing on the topic at hand, probably because you seem to know next to nothing about it and need something to say in order to appear intelligent. Your "logic" is also weird in that it hinges on your unsupported assumptions about the relationship between divinity and sacrifice - in other words, it's not so much logic but an edifice of your own intellectual incompetence.

Indeed, as I was answering your question.

Really? I was asking about your familiarity with discourses in Christian preaching (which appears to be negligible). So it appears that if anyone is incapable or reading, it would be you.

 

[Agent327]

You are simply asserting that God being incarnated into human form and suffering human pain and death does not constitute a sacrifice. There is no authority on which your unsupported assertion rests such that it may be admitted as an argument in a discussion about Trinitarian views on the divinity of Jesus. This has nothing to do with what you refer to as "logic", by the way, which you bring up whether or not it has any bearing on the topic at hand, probably because you seem to know next to nothing about it and need something to say in order to appear intelligent. Your "logic" is also weird in that it hinges on your unsupported assumptions about the relationship between divinity and sacrifice - in other words, it's not so much logic but an edifice of your own intellectual incompetence.

Getting personal are we? Its not my fault you are incapable of accepting certain logical inconsistencies. That a Divine Being in human form can experience pain still does not consitute any 'sacrifice'. Every human experiences pain, so again it would be rather an act of empathy (on the part of God towards humanity), than a sacrifice.

Really? I was asking about your familiarity with discourses in Christian preaching (which appears to be negligible). So it appears that if anyone is incapable or reading, it would be you.

(Reads) How does my answering your question constitute some inability to read? (Not to mention your follow up of not having brought up the subject.)

 

[_random_]

Except God had no need to have those empathetic experiences. He chose to take on weakness when he didn't have to for our sake. Hence, sacrifice.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm sorry if this has been addressed earlier.

When Jesus was alive, was he considered human or Divine? Question is sparked by random's comment of taking on a weakness.

 

[aelf]

I'm sorry if this has been addressed earlier.

When Jesus was alive, was he considered human or Divine? Question is sparked by random's comment of taking on a weakness.

Speaking from a mainstream Trinitarian perspective, AFAIK, both - which is what I've been trying to explain.

My (simplistic) reading of redemption is that Jesus was sacrificed as a human being but was able to redeem humanity through his sacrifice because he was sinless due to his divine origin.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, there are a bunch of questions floating around this discussion.

Is the Trinity correct? Is the Trinity a coherent doctrine? What does the Trinity mean, exactly? are ones I am not going to answer.

But: is the doctrine of the Trinity so essential to the definition of Christianity that one cannot reject the doctrine and still be considered Christian? is one I will answer: no, obviously. Which should shock no one who is familiar with LDS beliefs.

To say that it is an essential doctrine of Christianity is to say that the Nicene Council - which codified it in preference to several other possible models of the relation between God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, all just about as consistent with Scripture as the Trinity - had ultimate authority to define who is and isn't a Christian, from that moment until the end of time. (Whether non-trinitarian pre-Nicene Christians are thus to be excluded is not a question I have ever seen anyone answer.)

 

[timtofly]

I'm sorry if this has been addressed earlier.

When Jesus was alive, was he considered human or Divine? Question is sparked by random's comment of taking on a weakness.

It seems that he was considered very human by those who saw him. He was a miracle worker by those who knew him, and saw his miracles. I don't think that any one actually grasped that he was God until after the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

The reason why most do not even consider the Holy Spirit, because he would validate the "Scriptures" more so than just an historical miracle worker who raised from the dead.

Jesus never convinced the Jews that he was the divine chosen one, ie Messiah. If the record is correct, there was only one follower who even stood by him upon his judgment and death. It was only after the ressurection and even more so after the Holy Spirit coming that Christianity "took off".

It seems to me that there may have been a few early believers who may have grasped the concept of the Trinity. Nor should it have even been an issue. Most people just accepted what they were taught or they rejected it and started to teach other things, ie heretical views. The Nicene creed did not establish anything. It just solidified what was already being taught.

Most people accept that there were errors, but even with errors the continuity of thinking was either established within 30 years of Jesus' death or it would not even exist today. Most just want to accept that it was all made up hundreds of years later, that just does not follow. Their history may be slightly off, but not enough to be a fabrication of total historical events happening.

Most people today do not even get the events of the American civil war that wrong. People do not agree on why it happened though.

 

[Agent327]

Except God had no need to have those empathetic experiences. He chose to take on weakness when he didn't have to for our sake. Hence, sacrifice.

That's an incorrect interpretation of what it constitutes to be God: 'weakness' is not a Divine attribute, so it cannot be assigned to a Divine Being.

What you are referring to is the human nature of Jesus, who obviously was fully human. That hoever does not distract from what I tried to explain.

I'm sorry if this has been addressed earlier.

When Jesus was alive, was he considered human or Divine?

The simple answer is: human. The divine nature of Jesus is a later developed doctrine. It didn't exist when Jesus was alive. (And I mentioned this earlier: the Gospels primarily have Jesus speak of himself as 'Son of Man'. Another issue is that a Jew calling himself 'Son of God' would obviously be blasphemous to devout Jews. A human being being a 'child of God' is only accepted in the spiritual, not the literal sense in Judaism, as far as I'm aware of. The concept is clearly Christian, not Judaic.)

It seems that he was considered very human by those who saw him. He was a miracle worker by those who knew him, and saw his miracles. I don't think that any one actually grasped that he was God until after the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Attrribution of miracles to a person is a common feature of religious and philosophical literature in Antiquity and beyond. But in this particular case it is striking that other contemporary records never mention these miracles. The Gospels aren't eyewitness account, they fall into the category of hagiography; inclusion of miracles would be natural.

It seems to me that there may have been a few early believers who may have grasped the concept of the Trinity. Nor should it have even been an issue. Most people just accepted what they were taught or they rejected it and started to teach other things, ie heretical views. The Nicene creed did not establish anything. It just solidified what was already being taught.

Most people accept that there were errors, but even with errors the continuity of thinking was either established within 30 years of Jesus' death or it would not even exist today. Most just want to accept that it was all made up hundreds of years later, that just does not follow. Their history may be slightly off, but not enough to be a fabrication of total historical events happening.

The different Gospels differ considerably as to the events related. I'm not sure what you mean by 'the continuity of thinking... within 30 years of Jesus' death'; we have litle idea of the 'thinking' at the time of Jesus except from what can be distilled from teh Gospels themselves and what is known from the religious history of Judaism and other contemporary records, to which any Christian concepts would be completely unknown - other than that what was known from Judaism, which in itself was also a relatively obscure minority religion. As to 'continuity of thinking', it is interesting to note that Paul's teachings already differ substantially from what we may suspect were the teachings of Jesus himself, and Paul's letters predate the Gospels.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Father = Universal consciousness, includes all the forces which shape up the Universe

Son = individual spirit/soul consciousness who is in process of involution/evolution manifesting the Divine

Holy Ghost = transcendental consciousness which is all the time beyond the forces of Universe and untouched by them

 

[Gatsby]

I'm sorry if this has been addressed earlier.

When Jesus was alive, was he considered human or Divine? Question is sparked by random's comment of taking on a weakness.

To non-believers he would have been considered human. To the uninitiated faithful, he might have been considered divine. But the initiated faithful would have understood Jesus to be a human conduit of the Divine.

The story of Jesus has a great deal in common with the spiritual redemption stories of various "god-men" found in Mystery religions that were widespread throughout much of the ancient world. It seems like the stories of these god-men, including Jesus, followed a common template. Many of these god-men stories and their associated Mystery religions emerged long before Jesus' time, and apologists for literalist Christianity tried to explain this by saying the Devil had pre-emptively plagiarised Jesus' story in order to mislead people.

Another explanation might be that Jesus and his spiritual community sought to physically act out the archetypal god-man story of the Mystery religions in an elaborate public ritual, thus elevating the story to a whole new level of psychological and spiritual potency for humanity. This does not necessarily mean that the events of the crucifixion were faked: indeed, a real crucifixion would have probably been far more powerful from a ritualistic perspective than a simulated one.

 

[timtofly]

That's an incorrect interpretation of what it constitutes to be God: 'weakness' is not a Divine attribute, so it cannot be assigned to a Divine Being.

What you are referring to is the human nature of Jesus, who obviously was fully human. That hoever does not distract from what I tried to explain.

Being empathetic is not a weakness. Allowing himself to be a weak human was the empathetic act. When the word became flesh, he experienced weakness, but never succumbed to that weakness. In fact Jesus did not die until he chose to when he said "It is finished" and the sacrifice was complete. There was the point when Jesus told Mary in the garden that he was still in an unclean body and not to be touched, until he appeared in Heaven and given a resurrected body. IMO, when Jesus gave up the ghost, it went to sheol and took the OT "believers" along with Abraham and gave them the ability to go to heaven. It was in heaven after dissapearing from the two travelers that Jesus had a cleansed body and that body is what he offered doubting Thomas to touch in the upper room. Adam had a divine body. It was the image of God. That changed, when Seth was born. Seth was born in Adams' fallen image.

The gnostics and arians more than likely knew all about the divine "nature" of Adam and those created with Adam. God told Moses that these beings died in the Flood, that is all that needed to be known. Did the early church go overboard in trying to keep these groups from proliferating? I do not know, nor even claim to know, since all I can do is read about what people said actually happened. Even the devil uses a little bit of truth and twist it so to get people to deny God and follow him.

The simple answer is: human. The divine nature of Jesus is a later developed doctrine. It didn't exist when Jesus was alive. (And I mentioned this earlier: the Gospels primarily have Jesus speak of himself as 'Son of Man'. Another issue is that a Jew calling himself 'Son of God' would obviously be blasphemous to devout Jews. A human being being a 'child of God' is only accepted in the spiritual, not the literal sense in Judaism, as far as I'm aware of. The concept is clearly Christian, not Judaic.)

I think that the "religious" leaders did know that Jesus had a power that would destroy them, or at the least do away with all the traditions that they knew. There were even divisions among them who believed and did not believe in a resurrection of the body. All they knew about was Abraham's bosom or paradise. When Jesus brought back one's from the dead, they knew that God was with him. When he proclaimed that he was God that is when their hatred grew, because they refused to accept it. They did know that a prophet declared that there would be a child of David that would be called God with us.

When you say that the concept is Christian, to me that means they came up with it. It seems the only ones who accepted it were those who did know the Old Testament scriptures and applied them to the Messiah. They were called Christians because they followed the Christ or Messiah that was the man Jesus. It was not from Judaism, because they rejected that Jesus was the Christ.

Attrribution of miracles to a person is a common feature of religious and philosophical literature in Antiquity and beyond. But in this particular case it is striking that other contemporary records never mention these miracles. The Gospels aren't eyewitness account, they fall into the category of hagiography; inclusion of miracles would be natural.

If Jesus did not do what was claimed, why did the Sanhedrin want him dead? It seems to me that you would also have to deny that there was a cross and resurrection also. Why would the contemporary records do so? Jesus was obscure. His ministry only lasted for 3 short years and at the most a few thousand came to see him, but soon forgot about him. His closest followers were scattered for more than a month before they regrouped. That was only after Jesus and his resurrected body appeared to them about the same way he found them the first time; back at their former jobs like they had never left. It was only after the Holy Ghost was given to them that they had the power to do anything in God's name.

The different Gospels differ considerably as to the events related. I'm not sure what you mean by 'the continuity of thinking... within 30 years of Jesus' death'; we have litle idea of the 'thinking' at the time of Jesus except from what can be distilled from teh Gospels themselves and what is known from the religious history of Judaism and other contemporary records, to which any Christian concepts would be completely unknown - other than that what was known from Judaism, which in itself was also a relatively obscure minority religion. As to 'continuity of thinking', it is interesting to note that Paul's teachings already differ substantially from what we may suspect were the teachings of Jesus himself, and Paul's letters predate the Gospels.

The Gospels were recollections of Jesus life and teachings, not the Gospel of Christianity. The term gospel is just the good news that Jesus was God and that his death and resurrection allowed humans to connect with a divine God. Jesus teachings if one does accept them as the Gospel dealt with how the law allowed man peace with man not peace with God. In fact if one loved God with all their heart and their neighbor as their own self, they would not even need the law to live by.

Paul did understand the law since he was educated in it. The disciples were only educated from what Jesus taught them. Would you consider the Law a religion? Would you consider a personal relationship with God a religion? If one can relate to a God by convincing themselves that He exist, then every time a person accepts the Bible as the word of God, they create their own new religion. I am not a Christian because there is a Catholic church that has been around for 1000's of years. I am a Christian because I accept the Bible as God's word, not something created by man.

 

[Agent327]

To non-believers he would have been considered human. To the uninitiated faithful, he would have been considered divine. But the initiated faithful would have understood Jesus to be a human conduit of the Divine.

That's demonstrable incorrect, as I related in my previous post. Those that knew Jesus in the flesh might have thought him special, but the concept of him being Divine would have been alien to them: it's a theological development from early Christianity, so literally from after Jesus' death. In short: Jesus' disciples did not not think him Divine, nor 'a human conduit of the Divine'; these terms would be meaningless to them.

Being empathetic is not a weakness. Allowing himself to be a weak human was the empathetic act. When the word became flesh, he experienced weakness, but never succumbed to that weakness. In fact Jesus did not die until he chose to when he said "It is finished" and the sacrifice was complete. There was the point when Jesus told Mary in the garden that he was still in an unclean body and not to be touched, until he appeared in Heaven and given a resurrected body. IMO, when Jesus gave up the ghost, it went to sheol and took the OT "believers" along with Abraham and gave them the ability to go to heaven. It was in heaven after dissapearing from the two travelers that Jesus had a cleansed body and that body is what he offered doubting Thomas to touch in the upper room. Adam had a divine body. It was the image of God. That changed, when Seth was born. Seth was born in Adams' fallen image.

The term 'weakness' wasn't mine; whether being emphatic implies 'weakness' is debatable, but I'd say it's an attribute befitting to humans, not to a Divine Being.

I think that the "religious" leaders did know that Jesus had a power that would destroy them, or at the least do away with all the traditions that they knew. There were even divisions among them who believed and did not believe in a resurrection of the body. All they knew about was Abraham's bosom or paradise. When Jesus brought back one's from the dead, they knew that God was with him. When he proclaimed that he was God that is when their hatred grew, because they refused to accept it. They did know that a prophet declared that there would be a child of David that would be called God with us.

The concept of a 'resurrection of the body' is present in Judaism; it's not exclusively Christian. There are many concepts shared between Judaism and Christianity; the Trinity is an example of a non-Judaist concept, exclusively Christian.

You mention that the Messiah should be of the 'house of David': this is why there is the story of the travel to Bethlehem in the Gospels (but not in all of them). Yet Jesus was of Nazareth; when Jesus lived he was not considered as the Messiah, simply because his circumstances excluded him from being so. (As it says in most depicitions of the crucifixion: INRI, Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews; one cannot be 'of Nazareth' if one isn't born there.)

When you say that the concept is Christian, to me that means they came up with it. It seems the only ones who accepted it were those who did know the Old Testament scriptures and applied them to the Messiah. They were called Christians because they followed the Christ or Messiah that was the man Jesus. It was not from Judaism, because they rejected that Jesus was the Christ.

If a concept is 'Christian' that simply means that is endemic to Christianity. And the concept of a Messiah is obviously Judaic in origin; saying that is 'was not from Judaism' is incorrect. However the concept of the Messiah was further developed in early Christian theology, so that the end result differs from the Judaic version. (In short, there's no Christ in Judaism, but there is a Messiah.)

If Jesus did not do what was claimed, why did the Sanhedrin want him dead? It seems to me that you would also have to deny that there was a cross and resurrection also. Why would the contemporary records do so? Jesus was obscure. His ministry only lasted for 3 short years and at the most a few thousand came to see him, but soon forgot about him. His closest followers were scattered for more than a month before they regrouped. That was only after Jesus and his resurrected body appeared to them about the same way he found them the first time; back at their former jobs like they had never left. It was only after the Holy Ghost was given to them that they had the power to do anything in God's name.

You are confusing some known facts with theological concepts. Nor Jesus' living disciples nor the Pharisees would have been aware of the Christian concept of resurrection at the time of his arrrest, ergo it could not have played a part as a reason for having him arrested by the Roman authorities. (Nor would it have mattered to the Romans; religious beliefs were generally tolerated.)

The Gospels were recollections of Jesus life and teachings, not the Gospel of Christianity. The term gospel is just the good news that Jesus was God and that his death and resurrection allowed humans to connect with a divine God. Jesus teachings if one does accept them as the Gospel dealt with how the law allowed man peace with man not peace with God. In fact if one loved God with all their heart and their neighbor as their own self, they would not even need the law to live by.

Paul did understand the law since he was educated in it. The disciples were only educated from what Jesus taught them. Would you consider the Law a religion? Would you consider a personal relationship with God a religion? If one can relate to a God by convincing themselves that He exist, then every time a person accepts the Bible as the word of God, they create their own new religion. I am not a Christian because there is a Catholic church that has been around for 1000's of years. I am a Christian because I accept the Bible as God's word, not something created by man.

Christians often forget about the fact that the Bible was written by man, or, to be more precise, by a number of men over an extended period time, and that the various Christian denominations have always disputed over what should be considered God's word and what not. The Trinity is the result of one such disputes.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Father = Universal consciousness, includes all the forces which shape up the Universe

Son = individual spirit/soul consciousness who is in process of involution/evolution manifesting the Divine

Holy Ghost = transcendental consciousness which is all the time beyond the forces of Universe and untouched by them

Hmmm..."involution" is an uncommon term. Perhaps you might go a bit deeper into its importance?

 

[timtofly]

The term 'weakness' wasn't mine; whether being emphatic implies 'weakness' is debatable, but I'd say it's an attribute befitting to humans, not to a Divine Being.

The point is that empathy is not a weakness.

The concept of a 'resurrection of the body' is present in Judaism; it's not exclusively Christian. There are many concepts shared between Judaism and Christianity; the Trinity is an example of a non-Judaist concept, exclusively Christian.

The point is whether it happened or not. Not who believes in what.

You mention that the Messiah should be of the 'house of David': this is why there is the story of the travel to Bethlehem in the Gospels (but not in all of them). Yet Jesus was of Nazareth; when Jesus lived he was not considered as the Messiah, simply because his circumstances excluded him from being so. (As it says in most depicitions of the crucifixion: INRI, Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews; one cannot be 'of Nazareth' if one isn't born there.)

Every one thought that he was from Nazareth. Why would that change today? That is why no one accepts he was born in Bethlehem.

If a concept is 'Christian' that simply means that is endemic to Christianity. And the concept of a Messiah is obviously Judaic in origin; saying that is 'was not from Judaism' is incorrect. However the concept of the Messiah was further developed in early Christian theology, so that the end result differs from the Judaic version. (In short, there's no Christ in Judaism, but there is a Messiah.)

Are we denying that the term Christian was used for the followers of Jesus? There seems to be a group of people that thought that Jesus was the Christ, which is the greek form of Messiah. We can go the route that people in the 200s made everything up and that all is a lie, but the only point to that is that it is false. Like I said though, one may as well just say that Jesus never died on a cross and was resurrected.

You are confusing some known facts with theological concepts. Nor Jesus' living disciples nor the Pharisees would have been aware of the Christian concept of resurrection at the time of his arrrest, ergo it could not have played a part as a reason for having him arrested by the Roman authorities. (Nor would it have mattered to the Romans; religious beliefs were generally tolerated.)

How many types of resurrection are there? Jesus was not sentenced by the Sanhedrin because he said he would rise from the dead, but because he claimed to be God. They feared that he would rise and thus demanded that a Roman guard be placed at the tomb. Did the jews not hate the fact that above the cross it said the King of the Jews instead of that he claimed that authority?

Christians often forget about the fact that the Bible was written by man, or, to be more precise, by a number of men over an extended period time, and that the various Christian denominations have always disputed over what should be considered God's word and what not. The Trinity is the result of one such disputes.

I think the term would be God breathed.

 

[Agent327]

The point is that empathy is not a weakness.

That's one view, but not necessarily the only view. Which is my point.

The point is whether it happened or not. Not who believes in what.

The point is, it's very hard to separate the two.

Every one thought that he was from Nazareth. Why would that change today? That is why no one accepts he was born in Bethlehem.

You're missing the point. For Jesus to be the Messiah, he needed to be born not in Nazareth, but in, say, Bethlehem. So according to Judaic tradition Jesus could never have been the Messiah. Early Christians were very well aware of this, and this explains the whole Behlehem episode; there is no record of an empirewide census by Augustus at this time, nor of any act by Herod to exteminate all male firstborns.

Are we denying that the term Christian was used for the followers of Jesus? There seems to be a group of people that thought that Jesus was the Christ, which is the greek form of Messiah. We can go the route that people in the 200s made everything up and that all is a lie, but the only point to that is that it is false. Like I said though, one may as well just say that Jesus never died on a cross and was resurrected.

Greek didn't have a 'form' for Messiah, as it was a Judaic concept. The term Christos/Christos was introduced to make a concept entirely unknown outside of Judaism comprehensible to a Graeco-roman audience.

How many types of resurrection are there? Jesus was not sentenced by the Sanhedrin because he said he would rise from the dead, but because he claimed to be God. They feared that he would rise and thus demanded that a Roman guard be placed at the tomb. Did the jews not hate the fact that above the cross it said the King of the Jews instead of that he claimed that authority?

Jesus wasn't sentenced by the Sanhedrin period. What 'the jews' did or did not hate we have no way of knowing of. Jesus was a Jew, as were all of his disciples. And the Romans did not place a guard at his tomb. There were only Roman soldiers present at the crucifixion. After death was ascertained, permission was given to remove the body. And I already explained that the resurrection was a later doctrine. Remember what Jesus said to this fellow on the cross next to him? That he would be with him in heaven that day. Now, the Gospels date from decades after the events, and by that time the Resurrection had become part of Christian teaching. (Also, resurrection of the body is an integral part of Judaism - which is one reason why Jews bury their dead. So Jews would have no problem with early Christians sharing that belief, let alone hate anyone for it.)

I think the term would be God breathed.

Sorry, I'm not following here...