The Deity of Jesus

[dwight92070]

God always was - this is illogical and confusing. Logic says that everything and every being came from something or someone. Not God - He always was! He always wil be! He is not bound by our logic - He created logic. He is Lord of logic. The "person" of God - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is illogical and confusing. Nonetheless it is still Biblical.

[darinhouston]

God always was - this is illogical and confusing. Logic says that everything and every being came from something or someone. Not God - He always was! He always wil be! He is not bound by our logic - He created logic. He is Lord of logic. The "person" of God - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is illogical and confusing. Nonetheless it is still Biblical.

You're simply wrong about that - that is not a logical contradiction unless you have a premise that assumes nothing can be forever. This is a good example of a mystery - something we don't understand and have no analogy to point to and is beyond our comprehension. But, it is not a contradiction. Logic doesn't make factual claims - it is a tool for understanding and assessing truth claims.

You have a theory that derives from biblical statements which are subject to multiple interpretations and others have different theories derived from those same scriptures - as such, both certain trinitarian and certain non-trinitarian beliefs can be said to be biblical to the extent they are derived from scripture, but that doesn't mean that each theory is equally reasonable - logical or internally consistent (or true).

[darinhouston]

Apparently you have a presupposition that when you speak of the ontology of God, specifically in reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it must be logical, or else it cannot be valid. I disagree with that, and I gave you scripture as to why. Did you forget that Christ is God's mystery? That means that WHO He IS cannot be fully comprehended, because God cannot be fully comprehended, yet you seem to think that He can be.

Mystery is not logical contradiction in revelation - it is incomplete revelation beyond our understanding. Not in conflict with sound reasoning.

Dwight - These statements themselves are inconsistent. If we have incomplete revelation, then that means that there is knowledge that we don't know about. So there is no way to know whether that unknown knowledge contains logical contradictions or not. Therefore it is possible that yet unknown knowledge (which is mystery) could contain logical contradictions.

How the Spirit operates is a mystery - how Jesus could be born of a virgin is a mystery. The way in which the atonement works is in large part a mystery. Saying someone is both x and not x is not a mystery - it is a logical contradiction and God is not the author of confusion. Partial revelation, yes, but not confusion. Confusion comes from doctrines of men.

It is possible, perhaps, but we have not had such revealed and we are told to test our doctrines against scripture - that requires logic and reason - if we don't have to use those tools because there could be some truth that defies reason then there's no point in even trying to understand anything in any context. Logic is like arithmetic - there could be some universe in which 1+1 does not equal 2, but that's a slippery slope to assessing any form of knowledge.

[darinhouston]

Quoting Darin: "Saying someone is both X and not X is not a mystery - it is a logical contradiction, and God is not the author of confusion."
The Bible does not say that Jesus, the Son, is both the Father and not the Father. It appears to say that He is distinct from the Father but He is also the Father. Even though Jesus is different from the Father, He still remains the Father.

" ... God is not the author of confusion ..." 1 Corinthians 14:33 The context here is order during the assembly of church. God wants us to have order and peace during our assembly together. You cannot apply that verse to the ontology of God. You cannot obligate God to change his very being, in order for us to not be confused by Who He is, or what His makeup is. He is beyond our little brain to comprehend. I AM THAT I AM or I AM WHO I AM. If we are confused by the ontology of God, so be it, God's not going to change, just so you and I won't be confused about His very being. He doesn't owe us a full-on 100% explanation of Who He is or what form He takes.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Here we see the Word as distinct from God, but He is also God.
This does not say: "The Word is both God and not God". It seems to be saying: "The Word is distinct from God, yet at the same time, He is God." Confusing? Of course it is. So what? The Bible nowhere says that He has to fully explain Himself to us. Our salvation doesn't depend on it, thank God, so if it's confusing, not a problem - we can still be content, saved, and yet remain confused about that particular issue.

I don't obligate God to do anything - but, he would not reveal something about himself that is both true and not true - that is simply not who he reveals himself to be. There are things we can't understand, but we can expect him to be coherent when he speaks of himself and the apostles likewise since they were led by the spirit in their understanding and revelation. If he plainly said something that "seems" illogical, then I need to re-assess my pre-suppositions. If it's adequately plain and straightforward and I still can't understand how it can be true, then I must submit to it and consider it a mystery. But, if the contradiction is caused by my interpretations and theories, well then I should reconsider those interpretations and theories or I'm not being intellectually honest. I seek the most coherent interpretation - that is my only motivation since I believe that generally reflects Truth best.

[dwight92070]

This is typical of the way you argue. We start out with plain and simple truths from the Bible and then you lead us into a rabbit trail of philosophy and other nonsense. All of that makes it easier for you to twist the actual meaning of scripture and then - in your own mind, think that you have proven that Jesus is not God. We've heard it many times - scripture interprets scripture, which I think is true, but you use the confusion of man's "wisdom" and philosophy and your own presupposition that Jesus cannot be God, to "interpret" scripture and get it to say what you want it to.

[dizerner]

Just whatever you believe, make sure you figure it out with your powerful intellect and trust your rational powers, instead of humbling and simply asking and seeking God.

That's why God gave ya that brain to be more than a hat rack! Only dumb people have bad doctrine!

[darinhouston]

This is typical of the way you argue. We start out with plain and simple truths from the Bible and then you lead us into a rabbit trail of philosophy and other nonsense. All of that makes it easier for you to twist the actual meaning of scripture and then - in your own mind, think that you have proven that Jesus is not God. We've heard it many times - scripture interprets scripture, which I think is true, but you use the confusion of man's "wisdom" and philosophy and your own presupposition that Jesus cannot be God, to "interpret" scripture and get it to say what you want it to.

One man's plain and simple truth is another man's head-scratcher. What seems plain and simple to me sounds irrational to you. That's why we MUST utilize the tools of philosophy including logic and reason to test our positions. If you are uncomfortable with that, then there's again no point of continuing the discussion (unless you just want to rely on a warming in your bosom when you read your plain and simple truths).

[dwight92070]

This is typical of the way you argue. We start out with plain and simple truths from the Bible and then you lead us into a rabbit trail of philosophy and other nonsense. All of that makes it easier for you to twist the actual meaning of scripture and then - in your own mind, think that you have proven that Jesus is not God. We've heard it many times - scripture interprets scripture, which I think is true, but you use the confusion of man's "wisdom" and philosophy and your own presupposition that Jesus cannot be God, to "interpret" scripture and get it to say what you want it to.

One man's plain and simple truth is another man's head-scratcher. What seems plain and simple to me sounds irrational to you. That's why we MUST utilize the tools of philosophy including logic and reason to test our positions. If you are uncomfortable with that, then there's again no point of continuing the discussion (unless you just want to rely on a warming in your bosom when you read your plain and simple truths).

Peter telling Cornelius to get up (from bowing down to him), because he too was just a man, should not be a head-scratcher for anyone. It's plain to see that Peter was saying that since He was not God, that Cornelius should not bow down to him. Reaffirming the same truth, the two angels in Revelation told John on two separate occasions to not bow down to them. They both told John, "Worship God". So, it's plain that both Peter and the two angels thought that bowing at the feet of someone to worship is only appropriate to do before God Himself. There may be other instances in the Bible where men bowed down to other men or to an image, but all of that was wrong. The Bible never approves of that. Then Jesus again affirms the same truth when Satan asks Him to fall down and worship him. Jesus replies that that expression of worship is only reserved for God Himself and He tells Satan to get lost.

Since Jesus received and even welcomed that kind of worship toward Him, it doesn't take philosophy to figure out that He is affirming that He Himself is God. If you can't see that, then there is no reason to continue this discussion (unless you just want to rely on your crystal ball and tarot cards when you read the scripture).