Hi POBook,
format_quote Originally Posted by
POBook
I'm working on my response to yours. For now, I'm doing what I can to try and keep the thread "singular" if you understand what I mean. But in defense of raising the Trinity, please know that to me, Atonement, the Trinity, Sacrifice, and love are all intimately intertwined. Thanks for your understanding.
I don't mind including the trinity in our discussion, but from experience I know that the consequence of doing this is that the posts are going to get very looooong.
format_quote Originally Posted by
POBook
Consider this analogy: Water, ice and steam. Water is Water—the Father is GOD; ice is water—the Son is GOD; steam is water—the Holy Spirit is GOD. These are three distinct entities yet they are one. All three exist in their own form but—water is H2O; ice is H2O; steam is H2O. You can destroy the ice, but that does not destroy the water or the steam.
I see you have dropped one analogy and moved on to another. This is typically what happens when trinitarian christians debate - they begin by trying to use analogies to justify the trinity, but once they run out of analogies they end by claiming that "God is beyond our understanding". What this means is that since they have found no logical method of explaining how 3=1, they are agreeing that the trinity is beyond logic, i.e. illogical.
As for this states-of-water analogy that you've used, I've responded to it before as well as the egg analogy, the three dimensional space analogy, the thinker-thinking-thought analogy, the past-present-future analogy and many more. None of them work, but let's examine your water analogy more closely.
The problem here is that the three states of water are simply that - states. They are not distinct entities. If we have a group of water molecules, they will have a certain amount of kinetic (heat) energy. Depending on the amount of energy they have, the molecules will either be in solid state, liquid state, or gaseous state. The same molecules do not exist in all three states at the same time. When they have low energy, they are solid; when they have medium energy they are liquid; and when they have high energy they are gaseous. Does it make sense to say that when God has high energy He is the father, when He has low energy He is the son? No, of course not.
Moreover, Christians maintain that there is still only ONE God, despite the existence of these three 'persons'. On the othert hand, does it make sense to say that there is only one water? No, because water is not an individual object, but a type of molecular compund.
So again, the bottom line is that there is no method of explaining logically how there can be three distinct entities co-existing, each individually God, and yet all-together there is still only one God.
Matthew Henry says concerning this verse: “Moses was God’s representative in this affair, as magistrates are called gods, because they are God's viceregents. He was authorized to speak and act in God's name and stead, and, under the divine direction, was endued with a divine power to do that which is above the ordinary power of nature, and invested with a divine authority to demand obedience from a sovereign prince and punish disobedience.” The next part of this commentary is very important: “Moses was a god, but he was only a made god, not essentially one by nature; he was no god but by commission. He was a god, but he was a god only to Pharaoh; the living and true God is a God to all the world.” Moses was Moses—a great prophet and a great man of GOD. However, Moses did not exist before time and before creation. GOD did not become Moses. Neither was Moses with GOD in the beginning. Jesus was with GOD in the beginning because He was GOD in the beginning.
I don't mind the explanation and I agree that the Bible has used metaphorical and quite ambiguous language in these passages, but my point remains the same. On one hand the Bible says that Moses = God. On the other hand the Bible says that Word = God. The conclusion is that neither of these can be interpreted as a statement of divinity. If you want to prove the divinity of Christ from the scripture, you will ahve to bring explciit unambiguous proof, because there is no other way especially when the Bible employs such figurative language for all the prophets.
I noticed how you try to differentiate by using 'God' and 'GOD' but I must point out to you that in hebrew the word is just elohîm for both - there are no capitals in the language.
Lets look at the next two verses:
Psa 82:6 I said, "You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.
Psa 82:7 However, you will die like men and fall like any other ruler."
Who said? GOD said, “You are elohim—you are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.” He was referring to Israelite people—Jews who thought they were mightier than GOD Himself. What was the result? GOD was the Almighty and all-powerful GOD and was going to implement the destruction of these people who made themselves to be gods.
They were not elohim in the true sense of the word. They were going to “die like men and fall like any other ruler.”
I hope I have brought more clarity to this Psalm 82:6. If I may say, it is very important to consider the context of Scripture verses. We can take many verses out of context and twist them to say what they do not mean.
I agree completely. So how do you know that the Israelites were not God in the true sense, and that the word was God in the true sense? How do we even know what the word is?
You've given me some commentary on the verses, so please allow me to share with you some commentary I have on the verses. Dr. Laurence Br. Brown comments on them as follows:
For those who claim the ‘Word’ of John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) not only refers to Jesus but also implies equality between Jesus and God, I Corinthians 3:23 appears to muddy the doctrinal waters. This verse states, “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.” A person might reasonably question “In what way are ye Christ’s? A follower of his teachings? Then in what way is Christ God’s? An element of His creation, to be sure, but also a follower of His divine law, if the analogy is to be respected. And if Jesus were God, why doesn’t the passage read ‘Christ is God’ rather that ‘Christ is God’s’?”
I Corinthians 3:23 appears to emphasize the fact that just as the disciples were subordinate to the prophet Jesus, so too was Jesus subordinate to God. Surely this distinction comes as no surprise to those who respect the authority of Isaiah 45:22 (“For I am God, and there is no other”), Isaiah 44:6 (“Thus says the Lord...‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.’”), Deuteronomy 4:39 (...the Lord Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; these is no other.”), and Deuteronomy 6:4 (“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!”). Given the above, claiming the wording of John 1:1 to equate Jesus to God certainly could be understood by some to be selective reasoning at best -- which leaves a person to wonder what really is wrong with the Islamic viewpoint on this issue, whether understood in the framework of either Unitarian Christianity or Islam. (Brown, p.55)
This quote is from 2 Corinthians 4:4. I do not have a problem with this verse either. Satan is the theos of this world. That is why our world is so evil. It has chosen to worship Satan instead of the Creator of this world. As the theos of this world, that’s the only power Satan has—is in this world. Unfortunately, Satan is running rampant in this world and has many people under his control. He has many people worshiping himself. He is most definitely the theos of this world but he is nowhere near the theos of the universe. He is nowhere near the theos of creation.
What we see is that here you have a statement in the Bible that Satan is theos and another statement that the word is theos. How can we take the latter as proof of the divinity of Christ and not the former as proof of the divinity of Satan? being the theos of this world does not exclude other worlds, does it?
Now this is where it gets interesting....
format_quote Originally Posted by POBook
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
“But you told me that God died for your sins.”
“But on the other hand, Christians say that God died (i.e. ceased to exist, became extinct) for their sins.”
No, I told you Jesus Christ died for our sins.
This is fascinating! Not only did you explicitly mention before that God died for our sins (which you are now denying) but did you not also say that Jesus WAS God?!
Let me give you your own quotes (emphasis added):
format_quote Originally Posted by
POBook
We believe in one GOD who came to this earth in the form of the man Jesus Christ to pay the penalty of our sin.
GOD did not commit suicide. Neither did GOD kill anyone else. GOD handed Himself over to the Pharisees and Sadducees. They are the ones who crucified Him--who tortered Him and killed Him by their own choice. They did not have to do this. In His Sovereignty, however, GOD knew what they would do and allowed them to do it.
It is clear from these comments that you not only explicitly claim that God died for our sins, but you equate Jesus with God, saying that Jesus is divine.
Yes, for a short period of time, the ice was broken and crushed. But the water never ceased to exist. Jesus Christ never ceased to exist; He never became extinct. He rose from the dead.
When Ice is broken and crushed, it usually melts quickly, acquiring more energy and transforming from a solid state to a liquid state. However, the water molecules are either in solid sate or in liquid state; the same molecules cannot be in multiple states at the same time. So are you saying that the father (liquid) froze into the son (ice) and then subsequently melted into the father once again? This is not correct according to Christian trinitarian theology as the three persons are said to be coexisting not temporarily transforming from one into another.
I appreciate you giving me the freedom to quote Paul. Yes, GOD is immortal. But GOD never died.
I'm glad we agree on this. So if God never died, then why do you claim that God died for your sins?
If God did not die, then you can't claim that God paid the price for your sins. If God didn't pay the price for your sins, who did? Jesus? But you said Jesus was God, so it can't be Jesus. Or ir Jesus wasn't God, then why put your sins on some innocent human being?
GOD had a terribly hard decision to make. Destroy His creation whom He loved deeply, for their sin or find a way out. He knew the best thing for Himself and his creation in the long run, would be to find a way out. There was only one way—He would have to pay the price for their sin—He would have to be the Atonement. Jesus, as GOD in the flesh did not want to go through the pain and suffering that was approaching. But in His heart, He knew this would be right. So yes, Jesus did approach the cross with boldness, but a great desire to not have to go through that pain.
Are you saying that God suffers from indecision and hesitation just like humans? what kind of omnipotent and omniscient God is this?
I say this to say that Jesus did not say, “Please kill me.” If Jesus came in the way you suggested, the people would have probably murdered Him immediately. He would not have been able to share His message of salvation and the purpose of His coming would have been null and void.
What message of salvation? You told me that the entire purpose was that God wanted to forgive his creation but couldn't since someone needed to bear the punishment so He decided to punish Himself. Isn't this true? So what message does He have to give to the people other than "Hello. I'm God and you're all sinners and I'm going to take the burden of your sins so I have the right to forgive you so please kill me." What else needs to be said?
Concerning forgiveness: You can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink. Jesus offers us forgiveness. We can accept it or reject it.
I thought the entire purpose of the atonement was as you said, so God could acquire the right to forgive us. Now He has that right according to you, so why doesn't He forgive us? You mean that He went through all that pain for nothing? His ability to forgive us is still dependent on our will?
If you really love apples and have an apple tree that constantly produces lousy fruit that’s just not worth eating, what might you do about that situation? Constantly pick the lousy fruit and throw it away? Keep the tree and live with the lousy fruit? Or uproot the whole tree and plant a new tree that produces good fruit? GOD looks at us in a very similar way. We, as people, are like bad apple trees. We sin and produce crummy fruit. But this crummy fruit is not the issue. The nature of the tree produced the nature of the fruit. GOD sees our sinful human nature. GOD is more interested in seeing fresh, healthy apples growing. So, he is not going to live with sinful habits; He’s not going to try destroy our sinful habits. GOD wants to see a fresh, clean, new nature in us. The sinful nature must be destroyed and the sins we keep committing will disappear as well. Too often, people judge one another and say other people commit worse sins. GOD overlooks the fruit of the sinful nature and deals with the sinful nature itself—the sinful nature every human has. You see, this is what is sooo wonderful. When GOD destroys our sinful human nature and gives us a clean, healthy nature, we no longer want to sin; we no longer enjoy sin; we no longer pursue sin. We are given the power over sin. Instead of just words out of the mouth, our nature begins to glorify, honor, and worship GOD.
If I understand your analogy correctly, you are saying that (a) yes, God has paid for all our sins but (b) we should still avoid sin because neither we nor God likes it.
With regard to point (b) there are quite a lot of people who love to sin and couldn't care less if God didn't like it. God's already paid for their sins so either way they get salvation in paradise whether they fill their life with sin or spirtuality.
I am not sure what you mean by "When GOD destroys our sinful human nature and gives us a clean, healthy nature". Does God's destruction of our sinful nature refer to when He was allegedly crucified? Clearly humanity is as sinful after that point in time as it ever was before, if not more.
Moreover, you did NOT say that the prupose of the crucifixion was so that He could give us a "clean, healthy nature". You said that it was because God is just and He wanted to pay the price of our sins. Well if He has paid the price of our sins it means that we can sin. If you pay the price of something for me, then its mine.
Regards
Bookmarks