User talk:Oscillate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Well, you said it could continue on your talk page.... 2 Week of Jun 05 3 Week of June 21 4 Regarding titles 5 Note

[edit] Well, you said it could continue on your talk page....

So, here I am :). Your last statement: ""Cut and dry"? Again, yes Jesus said he and the Father were one ("hen"), and he continued to say to the Father at John 17:21,22 in regards to his apostles "that they may be one as we are one." Is Jesus saying the apostles should share the same essence, being 12 parts of the same Apostle? Cut and dry? The same Greek word is used at 1 Corinthians 3:6,8 to describe Paul and Apollos as "one" ("hen"). Are they in the same relationship as a Trinue God? "One" in purpose and unity. It's simple - Jesus is not God and there are no contradictions in the Bible about it. It's a dangerous thing to take lightly. --Oscillate 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)"

And my response:

Jesus frequently mentions the apostoles in that manner because they are one, one in the body of Christ. I would counter that taking this lightly is dangerous as well, as the whole "Body of Christ" thing is no joke. Furthermore, the word may be translated exactly the same, but why must the word always have the exact same context even when the subjects are different? Jesus is one with God because He is God. The apostles are one with Jesus because they are of the Body of Christ. Just because the same exact word is used which means "one" doesn't mean it always refers to "oneness" in the same capacity every single time in the Bible no matter the context. Homestarmy 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Because Jesus was praying to the Father and said that the apostles would be "one" just as they (he and God) are "one". Is God one in the body of Christ? Jesus wasn't talking about the body of Christ there, he didn't change subjects, he made a comparison between the apostles and him and God. Was Jesus changing the meaning of "one" in mid-sentence and thereby making a poor analogy? i.e. "that they might be one in agreement just as we are of the same nature"? That's not very good teaching...

• John 17:16 - Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me."
• John 8:17,18 - In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me. Does God testify for himself twice?
• Mark 13:32 - No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Part of God knows something the other part of God doesn't? If that's just Jesus' "humanity" here, what of the Holy Spirit? Why doesn't it know?
• Revelation 1:1 - The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him This is after Jesus' resurrection - again, a part of God is giving another part of God a revelation?
• When Jesus went off alone to pray, who was he praying to and if it was to himself, why "pray" and not "consult" instead?

--Oscillate 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And these very situations you note are precisely why I can see little alternative but to acknowladge the Duality of Christ, as both a man and God. God is not merely one in the body of Christ, because He sort of is the body, since Jesus is God, so the quality sort of needs to carry over, and besides, why should "One" always have to refer to the same type of oneness every single time it is mentioned? All the times Jesus said that the Father was greater than He and all those sorts of things it seems fairly clear to me that He was speaking as a man in those instances. And Mark 13:32 doesn't seem to say whether the Holy Spirit knows about the day or hour or not. And finally, if Jesus was also a man in addition to being God, it would seem to me a good explanation of why He would pray to God. Either that, or God was talking to Himself, who says that He can't have internal monologue? :/ Homestarmy 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

1. God is always superior to Jesus, before Jesus came to earth, during and after his resurrection. The Bible is clear on that. Look at what the Bible actually says:

• Only the Father is ever called "God Almighty". No one is ever called a "son" of Jesus, but only "brothers" and people are never called "brothers" of the Father or God, but only "sons".
• John 20:17, Jesus said - I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. He equates the Father with "his" God.

There are many many instances when Jesus was on earth and he made it clear he was inferior to God, his Father. Look at some accounts from after his resurrection, though:

• 2 Corinthians 1:3 Paul repeats that - Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 - there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came...and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came.
• 1 Corinthians 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. - The Son is subject to the Father in Heaven.
• 1 Corinthians 11:3 - the head of Christ is God - Christ is still subject to God after his resurrection.
• Revelation 1:1 - The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him
• Acts 5:31 - God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior
• Hebrews 9:24 - [Christ] entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence - separate in Heaven
• Acts 7:55 - Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God - separate in Heaven, Jesus subordinate. Also, no Holy Spirit seen.
• Philippians 2:11 - and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - the glory goes to God the Father.

2. You ask again "why should "One" always have to refer to the same type of oneness every single time it is mentioned?" You read what I wrote and the scripture, right? Jesus was using "one" in the same way in reference to both his apostles and he and God. It refers to the same type of oneness because Jesus used it that way.

3. Mark 13:32 clearly and plainly says "no one" except "only" the Father knows.

4. Internal monologue is different from an act of worship.

5. Again, why would Jesus trick people into thinking he was speaking to someone else, directing others to someone else, speaking to himself from heaven, when it was him all along?

6. If Jesus was God, how did he resurrect himself if he died? God "does not die" (Habakkuk 1:12), so if Jesus never actually died, or just pretended to, then the resurrection wasn't a real resurrection, and the ransom was never really paid - it was just a ruse. Acts 2:24 - God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death. Jesus did die, and was raised by a superior and separate being, his Father. --Oscillate 21:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

1. And why is it impossible for Jesus to simply be speaking as a man every time He says that He is serving God? This still doesn't explain why Jesus could say that He is the father as well, after all, what need is there to say "You are my sons" when one is in a position where one can say "You are God's sons" and still technically mean the same thing anyway?

Because Jesus never said he was the Father. He said he and the Father were one, in the same sentence and same way he used to describe his apostles. Jesus didn't change subjects, he made a comparison between the "one" he and his Father share and the "one" his apostles share. He also says to the Father "I in them and you in me". In that verse at John 10:30 where the Jews are accusing Jesus of making himself a god, what does Jesus say? "I am the Father"? "I am God"? No, he says "God's son". Trinitarians really should not try to use John 10:30 as a supporting verse. Even Jesus argued against those who tried saying he was God. Plus, here you are using very poor circular logic. The Bible never describes anyone as a brother of God, only sons, also no one is a son of Jesus, only brothers. You argue non-objectively that it's the same thing because Jesus is God. It's circular. --Oscillate 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Im sort of glad you mentioned the title thing. See, funny thing about the titles that both God and Jesus are given, while it may be true that they never share the title "God Almighty", I wonder if you may be interested in knowing that they share other titles? As you may well know, the title "Yahweh" (Exodus 3:14, Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 43:10) translates into "I am" which apparently shows up again about 3 times, John 8:24, (Note the "I am not of this world" part, bit hard to be only human that way) John 8:58, and John 18:4-6 (That one may seem a stretch, but it would seem a bit odd that they would fall down in front of someone who is only a man.). First and Last also seem to be commenly attributed remarks referring both to God (Isaiah 41:4, 48:12, Revelation 1:8) and to Jesus Revelation 1:17-18, (Just so the speakers identity is clear, He does say that He was "Dead, and behold I am alive again for ever and ever!" Sounds like Jesus to me) Revelation 2:8, and Revelation 22:12-16. God is called "Lord" in Isaiah 45:23, the same with Jesus in Matthew 12:8, Acts 7:59-60, Acts 10:36, Romans 10:12, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 Corinthians 12:3, and Philippians 2:10-11 (I find it a bit strange that a man could have a name above every name, don't you?). They also share the term "Savior" many times, God in Isaiah 43:3, 43:11, 49:26, Luke 1:47, 1 Timothy 4:10, and Jesus in Matthew 1:21, (Save us from sin, Savior, same difference.) Luke 2:11 (Ah look, there's that "Lord" thing again), John 1:29 (Takes away sin of the world, once again, still savior), John 4:42, 2 Timothy 1:10, Titus 2:13 (Oh my, whats this? The book of Titus says that Jesus is God? Hmmmm....), Hebrews 5:9. They also share the designation "King", God in Psalm 95:3, Isaiah 43:15, 1 Timothy 6:14-16, and Jesus in Revelation 17:14 (Hmm, how many "Lord of Lords" can there be in existance anyway?), and Revelation 19:16 (The rider is Jesus since John 1:1 says Jesus is the Word after all). They also share the designation of Judge, and I don't seem to remember anything in the Bible about both God and Jesus running people through separate judgement runs. God is called "Judge" in Genesis 18:25, Deuteronomy 32:26, Psalm 50:4-6, 58:11, 75:7, and 96:13, whereas Jesus is called "Judge" in John 5:22 (Uhoh, how's God going to judge people if Jesus isn't God?, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and 2 Timothy 4:1. They are both referred to as "Light", God in 2 Samuel 22:29 and Psalm 27:1, and Jesus in John 1:4-9, John 3:19 (fits in with the "Jesus will judge" thing nicely), John 8:12, and John 9:5. They are both referred to as "Rock" as well, God in Deuteronomy 32:3-4, 2 Samuel 22:32, and Psalm 89:26, while Jesus is called "Rock" in Romans 9:33, 1 Corinthians 10:3-4, and 1 Peter 2:4-8. They are both referred to as "Redeemer", God in Psalm 130:7-8, and Isaiah 43:1, 48:17, 49:26, 54:5, and Jesus in Acts 20:28 (Bought with own blood, redeemer, same thing) and Ephesians 1:7. They are both referred to as "Our Righteousness", God in Isaiah 45:24, and Jesus in a prophecy about Him in Jeremiah 23:6, and the verses of Romans 3:21-22. They are both referred to as "Husbands" or close to husbands in a sense, God in Isaiah 54:5 and Hosea 2:16, and Jesus in Matthew 25:1, Mark 2:18-19, 2 Corinthians 11:2 Ephesians 5:25-32, and Revelation 21:2-9. They are both called "Shepard" in some manner as well, God in Genesis 49:24, Psalm 23:1, and Psalm 80:1, and Jesus is known by this in John 10:11-16, Hebrews 13:20, 1 Peter 2:25, and 1 Peter 5:4. In a much more overt comparison, they are each called Creator, God in Genesis 1:1 of course, Job 33:4, Psalm 95:5-6, 102:24-25, Isaiah 40:28, 43:1, and Acts 4:24, and Jesus in John 1:2,3,10 of course, Colossians 1:15-18, and Hebrew 1:1-10 (Might I also note the observation of the Son being the exact representation of God.) Nextly, they are both referred to as a giver of life, God in Genesis 2:7, Deuteronomoy 32:29, 1 Samuel 2:6, and Psalm 36:9, and Jesus in John 5:21, John 10:28, and John 11:25. They are both referred to as the forgiver of sin, God in Exodus 34:6-7, Nehemiah 9:17, Daniel 9:9, and Jonah 4:2, and Jesus in Matthew 9:2, the same situation in Mark in Mark 2:1-12, Acts 26:18, Colossians 2:13 and 3:13 (Ah, there's "Lord" again.) and since this is really taking hours to type because I have to keep copying and pasting hyperlinks and its getting rather late, i'll stop linking them. They are both referred to as Omnipresent, God in Psalm 139:7-12 and Proverbs 15:3, and Jesus in Matthew 18:20, Matthew 28:20, Ephesians 3:17, and Ephesians 4:10. They are both said to be Omniscient, God in one Kings 8:39 and Jeremiah 17:10-16, and Jesus in Matthew 9:4, Matthew 11:27, Luke 5:4-6, John 2:25, John 16:30, John 21:17, and Acts 1:24. They are both said to be omnipotent, God in Isaiah 40:10-31 and 45:5-13, and Revelation 19:6, and Jesus in Matthew 28:18, Mark 1:29-34, John 10:18, and Jude 24. They are both said to be pre-existant, God of course by simple logic and Genesis 1:1, and Jesus by John 1:15,30, 3:13,31, and 32, 6:62, 16:28, and 17:5. They are both referred to as eternal, God in Psalm 102:26-27 and Habakkuk 3:6, and Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:2, and John 8:58. They are both described as immutable, God in Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17, and Jesus in Hebrews 13:8. They are both, get this, referred to as recievers of worship, something one would think a Jealous God, (1st Commandment) wouldn't tolerate anyone but Himself to recieve, God is listed as this in Matthew 4:10, John 4:24, Revelation 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 194,10, and Jesus is listed as this in Matthew 2:8,11, 14:33, 28:9, John 9:38, John 9:38, Phillippians 2:10-11, and Hebrews 1:6. Both God and Jesus speak with divine authority, God in sort of, well, most of the OT, and Jesus in Matthew 23:24-37, John 3:5, and John 7:46. They are both said to of raised Jesus from the dead, God in Acts 2:24, 32, Romans 8:11, and 1 Corinthians 6:14, and Jesus is said to of done it in John 2:19-22, John 10:17-18, and Matthew 27:40. And lastly, Both God and Jesus should get the glory, God in Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11, and Jesus in Hebrews 13:21. So sure, they might not share the name "God almighty", but the Bible only holds so many pages and I think the comparisons are pretty plentiful enough as it is.

I will come back to detail every scripture you have here. But much of it can be summed up in that Lord is a title that can be used for humans as well, the usage of Lord for Jesus and God certainly does not equate them. Jesus has special power from God, he is appointed as judge and king of God's kingdom. God sent Jesus to earth to save mankind, making God savior, and Jesus fulfilled his commission on earth perfectly, sacrificing himself, making him also savior. That does not equate them, they are both saviors. YHWH more accurately means (if you look at the verb tenses) something more along the lines of "I will become whatsoever I choose". God can become whatever role he needs to fulfill his purposes: law-giver, executioner, judge, savior, etc. The phrasing Jesus used is different, he was speaking in terms of time (look at what he is responding to), and as "firstborn of creation", of course he existed before Abraham - I will explain in more detail. Each verse I will respond to. --Oscillate 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

3. It still doesn't mean that Jesus as a man couldn't know while Jesus as God still couldn't know, as I've listed above, Jesus is described as omniscient. It's either a contradiction or Jesus is God one way or another.

Simply, they are different beings. "God is not a God of confusion". You say Jesus is omniscient, but Jesus says otherwise, and those verse above certainly don't prove he was. More powerful and wise, yes, omniscient no. --Oscillate 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

4. So I was trying to think outside the box, hmph :/. Maybe it could of been a really worshipful internal monologue? Ah, the point is, Jesus was praying as a man there, yet was also God, why can't the man part of Him ever get a word in edgewise?

You are saying God has multiple personalities? Again, why does Jesus have to approach God on his throne in heaven? Why is Jesus on God's right hand in heaven? Why is Jesus still subordinate to God after his resurrection? --Oscillate 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

5. Because Jesus wasn't tricking anybody, He was speaking to someone else, because his human nature wasn't God.

"God is not a God of confusion." I see no support in the Bible for such a stretch. Please give me reasons to support such a statement about Jesus' human nature talking to his other nature and all this. It's not there. --Oscillate 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

6. I see we both know the worth of Habbakuk, not every day you see stuff cited from it :). Since God cannot die, then I can only conclude that the human nature of Jesus died on the cross. However, even a single man cannot come close to bearing the judgement of his own sin, so how could even an extremely exalted man do the same for every single human on earth while simply being a man? Jesus was raised from a literal death, but His nature as God couldn't very well die with it, just His nature as a man. Going on the same general topic here, I'd also like to call attention to how at this time Jesus was made a "Little lower than the angels", implying that beforehand, Jesus was quite a bit higher than the angels; so high in fact, than where angels always had to call on the Lord's name to ever send out demons or anything like that, Jesus could simply say "Away with you!" and they went. While it is true that God certainly gave Jesus authority in such matters, how could any angel do anything at all without God's authority, and if Jesus was just a man, surely He would of at least had to of called on God as well? And yet, no such thing seems to of happened.... Homestarmy 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So just part of God died? But he didn't really die. How is Jesus still inferior to God in heaven then, after his resurrection? Through the power of God, Jesus was a perfect human being in the same manner that Adam was a perfect human being before he sinned. God is a God of justice. It required a perfect human life to atone for the loss of human perfection by Adam. Of course Jesus was higher than angels - he is the archangel - the first creation of God and the only creation made entirely by God himself, leader of God's armies of angels. Everything else is made "through" Jesus. That's the Bible speaking right there. Jesus was sent by God into the world and given his power and spirit to perform miracles, expell demons, raise the dead - much like the apostles were given that power. Jesus was God's son on earth who had God's approval and blessing. He was given special authority from God to do these things. Notice when he was baptized, God anointed him specially with holy spirit. Jesus, having spent countless years learning from God had earned God's approval more than any other creation can. --Oscillate 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I fail to see how "I am the Father" translates into "I am God's son" as opposed to "I am God", if Jesus has 2 natures as I claim, then it would seem to me perfectly possibly for Jesus to both be God and God's son at the same time. Besides, He does mean the same thing about the apostles being one with Him and Himself being one with the Father, that whole "Body of Christ" thing still isn't a joke, when one is saved, one becomes part of the body of Christ, "Brothers in Christ", not "Brothers of Christ". Unless of course, when we are chosen out of the world, we just kind of get our souls detached out into random space someow? I think you don't understand what im saying with this whole duality thing, It's not "Part of God" or "Part of a man" speaking whenever Jesus speaks, its either Jesus's nature as a man or Jesus's nature as God, bit hard to divide them up.

Jesus never said "I am the Father", so I fail to see how you think he did. The phrase "God the Son" is an invention that never appears in the scriptures, only the "only-begotten" son. You say: "bit hard to divide them up" - well, if Jesus was both, then it was evidently easy enough for just one nature to die. That seems pretty divisible to me in that case. You do realize that this idea of duality of nature is an idea taken purely from Greek philosophy, right? Col 2:8. (And notice there is no Holy Spirit as a person of God in any of these discussions, either).

1 Corinthians 15:24 - Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. --Oscillate 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

2. I will wait until you have finished your analysis of the verses then before I respond.

3. I would also agree that "God is not a God of confusion", and right now I am very confused how a man could take up the sins of the world and take the punishment for them while only being a man. Since Jesus is perfect, then of course Jesus wouldn't have to take punishment for Himself, but as for taking the punishments of others...well....without Godly type fortitude, I sort of don't see the survivability soul-wise here.

He had power from God, as he was anointed by God with holy spirit. Jesus reflects his Father's qualities, and "God is love". Jesus showed tremendous love for all by what he did. John 5:19 - the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing. This scripture also highlights Jesus' subordination to God. 1 Corinthians 11:3 - the head of Christ is God.

1 Peter 3:18 - Jesus was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. If he was already fully God, why would Jesus have to have been "made alive in the spirit"? --Oscillate 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

4. I am saying that Jesus specifically has the nature of being God and the nature of being a Man, they don't just randomly bump into each other, their each quite pronounced. I would think it difficult for Jesus to be compleatly God and not a man at all considering even the entire universe cannot contain God, and that people who would see Jesus's face might get a bit, well, err, you know....dead.

Who did God approve of when Jesus was baptized? Himself? His human nature of himself? God's human nature was beloved by his God-nature? --Oscillate 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Whenever Jesus is speaking to God, i'd say its fairly obvious that he'd have to be speaking as a man each time if you insist that He wouldn't have personal monologue.

Obvious? I'm sorry. Praying is different from "personal monologue". I see no Biblical evidence of Jesus "switching natures" at certain times. Matthew 20:20-23 where Jesus said the positions in heaven were not his to give, he was just speaking from his human nature? If he was fully God and fully man at the same time, he was lying, because he could have said just as easily that the positions were his to give because he was both God and man. Whether he was speaking from a human nature or not at that moment, if he was fully God at the same time, the positions were his to give. --Oscillate 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

6. It's not "Part of God died", it's Jesus mortal nature which died a predictably mortal death, those sort of things tend to happen when one is giving themself as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the entire world. And hold on a second, what's with "Jesus is an archangel" thing, are you a Jehovah's witness by any chance? I would also wonder just how exactly being at one's side automatically makes one inferior, and besides, what's wrong with the man nature of Jesus standing to the side and Jesus's Divine nature being represented by God standing next to Him anyway? And where exactly is this "God created Jesus first" verse, I seem to recall several verses about Jesus being pre-existant, and God creating the universe, but I don't seem to recall anything about Jesus being created with the universe at some point....And finally, of course Jesus would have to of met God's approval, I mean, He was perfect. But how does simply being perfect morally give one the capability to withstand God's infinite justice multiplied for the sins of every single human on earth? Homestarmy 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So if it only was God's mortal nature that died, what was resurrected? God's mortal nature? Acts 2:24 - God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death. What happened after God resurrected Jesus? Acts 5:31 - God exalted him to his own right hand. Does God continue to have a human nature in heaven? A mortal nature in heaven?

Being at God's side, and not on God's throne, in heaven is a good sign of subjectivity, Jesus is on God's right hand side, has to approach God, has to receive Revelations from God, etc because he is not God. If Jesus is God in Heaven, why in Rev 1:1 would John say that God gave God's other nature a revelation? Jesus is called several times the "firstborn of creation", that's clear enough.

1 Corinthians 15:24 - Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. After his resurrection, Jesus is subject to God. Matthew 12:31, 32 - Blasphemy against the holy spirit is unforgivable, but blasphemy against the "Son of man" is forgivable? If the Holy Spirit is God as well, then that means the Holy Spirit is greater than Jesus. (Because the Holy Spirit belongs to God.)

Regarding Jesus being created:

• Colossians 1:15, 16 - He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
• Revelation 3:14 - the beginning of God's creation.

"Through one man sin entered the earth". Jesus is the "last Adam", the Bible is pretty clear in the 1-to-1 correspondence there. Adam was a perfect man and it took a perfect man to gain back what was lost. It is the gift of God that we have the opportunity to have our sins cleared, through the sacrifice of Jesus. 1 Corinthians 8:6 - for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. Paul makes a clear distinction. --Oscillate 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Week of Jun 05

1. Jesus didn't need to say "I am the Father", that's what "I and the Father are one" means, its a mere stylistic difference. Now, i'll give you this, if the context of the verse truly proved to be deeply metaphorical i'd say you'd have a case here, but the disciples of Jesus literally are a part of the body of Christ spiritually speaking, so I just don't see the problem here. And im not sure if you remember, but all men have eternal souls, Jesus's body died but His soul certainly didn't, I mean, you'd have a problem there since the OT says...somewhere that our souls were created to exist forever. And yes, i've kept in mind what you said about it similar to Greek Philosophy, but if I may be so bold, as User:King Vegita has pointed out and started several edit wars and I think a mediation request over, the ancient Egyptians had some sort of odd thing going on with Osiris which apparently people enjoy arguing was somehow a directly related precurser to Jesus's ressurection, but similarities do not make religions false. Many religions have methods to deal with sin, does that mean Christianity is wrong to elaborate on Sin because other religions have done it? Many philosophical questions have sprung up over the whole "Problem of Evil" thing, does this mean Christianity cannot answer this question because "other people" have maybe tried answering it first? And more importantly, many religions before Christianity were theistic in nature. Does this mean Christianity is paganistiand false for believing in a creator? I just don't see how bringing up how different philosophies and religions have similarities is a necessarily legitimate aregument.

You say "literally are ... spiritually speaking" Which is it? Plus, saying "I am the Father" goes against the way the Trinity is taught to be formed. The Son is not the Father ever. The context doesn't have to be "deeply metaphorical", Jesus is plainly stating that he is one with the Father as his apostles are one.

Eternal souls? Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 - the dead know nothing. Clear and simple (Psalm 146:4 - in that very day his thoughts perish). Adam was created a living soul (Genesis 2:7), not given a soul. Souls die (Ezekiel 18:4, 20 - the soul that sins, it shall die; Acts 3:23; Revelation 16:3). The Hebrew word ne'phesh never refers to something outside the body: Job 6:7; Psalm 35:13; 107:9; 119:28.

• Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity - If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.
• James Hastings' Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics - In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality," which is "triadically represented."
• Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel - The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.

It's not just similarities. It's the source. And it's common in mainstream Christianity, look at all the extra stuff around Christmas, even the day itself was once a Roman pagan holiday. The day, the tree, the lights, the wreaths, the easter egg, etc etc etc. So much from mainstream Christianity is lifted straight from pagan religion and celebrations. The trinity is no different, and we can be sure God detests all such pagan influence. --Oscillate 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Power from God is one thing, infinite power to withstand infinite judgement multiplied by the many, many sins of mankind is quite another. While God may be love, God also is a being of justice. As for that Peter verse, well, if Jesus is also a man, then I see no problems with His soul being made alive again in heaven.

God's soul? Jesus received his power from God, but where does it say he had infinite power? God is a God of justice, definitely, Jesus was raised incorruptible as a spirit in heaven and exalted for his work. God's justice is "soul for soul", and He also tells us that through one man sin entered the earth, and so Jesus gave a corresponding ransom for that one man. Recall the many parallels between Adam and Jesus (the last Adam) (1 Corinthians 15:22). It's a 1-to-1 correspondence, not 1-to-all humans. What was lost was from one perfect human, Jesus sacrificed his perfect human life to pay the debt.

Acts 2:25-27 speaks of Jesus not being "left in hell" for long.

Tell me, is God a priest? Jesus is - the high priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:15; 5:9, 10). Who is Jesus the high priest of? God, YHWH, Jehovah. Jesus is also called an apostle in 3:1 there. --Oscillate 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

4. God approved of Jesus, whether it was for Jesus's obedience, Jesus's perfection, or Jesus's all around awesomeness, the verse doesn't seem that specific. I suspect this sort of deal was where alot of motivation for development of the trinity doctrine came from, so people could more clearly rationalize God approving of Jesus without making it seem too much like God was somehow being redundant, so at the end of the day, God approved of Jesus, and the specifics apparently wern't elaborated on.

You mean God approved of himself...? And I don't think there is anything clear or rational about this explanation. In fact, saying that it is clear and rational goes against the tenants of those who came up with it, that it was a mystery unexplainable. And the specifics are elaborated on, it's easy to see when you recognize Jesus is not God Almighty.

The motivation behind the Trinity was so that the pagan tribes could more easily be integrated into the Roman Catholicism. Many of them were already familiar with triune gods, since it's a wholly pagan idea, and Satan wishes to blind the eyes of people to keep them away from knowing God or serving him in truth. The explanations are all from Greek philosophy and the idea of a triune god in one isn't new.

Another way Satan blinds the eyes of people is in the removal of God's name. This lead to some of the confusion as well. You see everytime LORD appears in the Bible, YHWH is actually there, but has been removed. Psalm 83:18 says (KJV) That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth. But newer versions just say LORD now. God's name is supposed to appear 7,000 times in the Bible, but each and every one of those has been removed and replaced with a title. Do you think that's the way God wanted his word to be? If he wanted people to replace his name in the Bible, he wouldn't have revealed it or had his people use it all the time. It was even in the Greek manuscripts the apostles and Jesus had available to them, and so it's more than likely Jesus also spoke God's name when reading from the Old Testament. There are many verses that can have multiple translations depending on how you approach the verse. I would prefer to not put my trust in translators who have removed God's name from where it rightfully belongs. 7,000 times! Don't you think God was placing some importance on his name? Trinitarians and others have removed it completely and replace it with just a title. Everyone who calls on the name of LORD? You, whose name is LORD? I don't think that's what God had in mind.

Additionally, YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah is God's name, NOT just a title as you said. The Bible makes that more than abundantly clear.--Oscillate 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Ok, really now, I was only speculating there. I mean it's not like the Bible says that it wasn't personal monologue, just that Jesus was praying. And the positions wouldn't be His to give if Jesus was speaking as a man, its not like He was speaking as both God and a man at the same time every time Jesus said a word, that's be sort of confusing i'd think.

No, even if Jesus was speaking as a man, if he was fully God at the same time, the positions were most definitely his to give. Understand? Even if he spoke as a man, if he was always God also, the positions were always his to give and Jesus was simply lying when he said they weren't. You were the one who told me his natures weren't divisible. Now you say they are. Talk about confusing. Can't you see how the truth is more simple? You are making a large assumption and insertion to say that because the Bible doesn't say Jesus was speaking to himself that he was. It clearly shows he was praying to his God. --Oscillate 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

6. What was ressurected was Jesus in the flesh of course, is there any other way? :). Being in a position of subjectivity doesn't mean Jesus can't have dual natures, they don't have to express themself at the same time. Besides, Jesus doesn't just stop having two natures at any one time, it seems compleatly sensable to me that at most times Jesus would seem to be in a position of inferiority to the Father because Jesus is also a man. I've looked up the collosians verse you keep referring to, and I see "The firstborn over all creation", followed by the "All things created through Him" (Jesus) verse and then of course the "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" verse, which certainly together doesn't seem like a "God created Jesus" kind of moment. And Jesus's unique nature certainly does require distinction, but distinction alone does not mean that Paul was trying to shout to the masses that Jesus wasn't God. Homestarmy 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So God has a fleshly part in heaven? Of course there is another way: We know that spirit creatures can materialize into human form, many spirit creatures have done so. The room in which Jesus appeared to the apostles was locked and yet he appeared inside (John 20:26, 27). If he was only resurrected as flesh, how could that have been so? Why did no one recognize Jesus by looking at him? Why does the Bible say that which is corruptible cannot enter into heaven? Heaven is a place for spirits, not flesh.

• 1 Corinthians 15:42-50 - the last Adam [became], a life-giving spirit not a resurrected fleshly man. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. No flesh there. I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. I'd say that's extremely clear that Jesus does not have a fleshly body in heaven.
• If someone pays a debt and takes the money back, is the debt paid? If, when he was resurrected, Jesus had taken back his human body of flesh and blood, which had been given in sacrifice to pay the ransom price, was the price for sin paid?
• Recall that when Peter looked in the tomb after Jesus died (John 20:6, 7) the linen cloth was still there. But Jesus was always clothed when the apostles saw him after resurrection. Did Jesus walk someplace naked and pick up some clothes?
• Jesus was resurrected a spirit who also had the ability, just like many of the other angels, etc. in the Bible, to materialize at will in human form, but he most certainly was not resurrected in the flesh, nor does he have flesh in heaven. God is clear about that.

When you say Jesus is inferior to his Father at time, you mean that Jesus would have times of inferiority to himself.

"No man has seen God at any time."

The reading of "firstborn over all creation" is an interpretation added in to some later translations. It reads "firstborn of all creation", which matches perfectly with the other times he is called the beginning of the creation of God or the chief of the creation of God in Rev 3:14 and John 6:57 - I live because of the Father. Or the only-begotten Son. "Firstborn over" is a poor interpretation. Firstborn in the Bible always refers to a generative sense. If firstborn means, as some Trinitarians put it, that it is an expression of almightiness, then why are the Father or Holy Spirit never referred to as such either? Just the only-begotten, firstborn, beginning of creation Son, the created, separate being Jesus.

The same word (panta or pas) used in all of those instances for "all things" is translated in other places as "other things" (Luke 13:2) . Which matches with God creating allthings through Jesus. Jesus was God's Master Worker. It's so simple and you're making it so unnecessarily clouded. God's word is simple and he wants people to come to know him. This confusing mixture of natures and the problems that arise in the Bible if one assumes this idea are completely unnecessary. --Oscillate 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Well our souls do literally exist, literally just means that its factual, (And yes, I did dictionary.com that) and I would say it is quite factual that souls are quite real. Don't tell me we need to argue over that please :). And I don't know what traditional trinity teaching your referring to, but who says Jesus didn't mean the Father as in God as this verse? The Catholic church? Because really, it's not like I hate the Catholic church or nothing, but I don't really listen to them too much, honestly, it always looks to me like they just think too hard about how to separate God as much as possible yet keep Him equal, yeesh. So then, if its not deeply methaphorical, it seems to me you've got it, Jesus is one with the Father just as the apostles are one with Jesus, though considering you seem to be carrying on your argument steadfastly, I doubt that what I think you say you think is really what you think here heh. Nextly, seriously, are you a Jehovah's witness? Because it really looks like your at least leaning towared their theology quite a good deal here. So the dead might know nothing, people who have gone brain dead don't know anything either, does that mean they've stopped existing? And sure Adam was made with a soul, but the eternal existance goes forwards, not backwards. We started existing because God made us start existing, and we will continue to exist forever and ever, whether it be in heaven....or hell. Now on the historian type people, on the first guy, before I start royally blasting that Deism comment, do you happen to know what exactly he means by that, because if it means the type of Deism I'm thinking about, then that just looks to me like a man who either hasn't read much of the Bible or read it and doesn't care at all somehow. The second guy is just like I said, pointing out similarities and trying to connect the dots, and if we did that with many things in Christianity, then pretty much all of it from head to toe except maybe salvation by faith alone is gonezored, and thats not right! On the third guy, how did all ancient pagan religions get the trinity when Greece was not the first of civilization, nor the founder of the world's first pagan religion? The inference of developing the trinity straight from the Greeks seems just more pointing of fingers at various religions and saying that since they had common ideas, that the only possiblity is that they took them all from each other. Humans do not need to copy each other to learn stuff, I mean China sure seemed to develop a whole lot of similar stuff without Europe's help for one thing. On Christmas, im pretty sure the Church put that date there on purpose to try and lure people away from that pagan thing they were doing, sure one could argue it might seem cheap on the outside, but hey, it apparently converted people, did the Church start by worshipping the tree or something and then wean people off of it?

One is a soul, I'm not making these things up, it's straight from the Bible. Man is a soul, souls die. I provided scriptures to back it up and there are more. That verse in Ecclesiasates continues by saying the dead have no more works. Psalm 146:4 - man's throughts cease. What did God tell Adam and Eve when they died? "You will continue to live and be punished forever"? No, he said they would return to the ground. If the soul always exists forever, what is resurrected? Why is there a need for a resurrection if the soul is always existing separate from the body. I already showed above how there is no flesh in heaven, so what gets resurrected? The soul that was already alive? What did Jesus tell people when Lazarus died? He was sleeping. If the souls of those who had died were sopmeplace better, why would Jesus resurrect them and bring them back to earth? The imortality of the soul and the idea of resurrection are incompatible.

You say "Adam was made with a soul", but that's exactly not what the Bible actually says. It says Adam was made a living soul (nephesh) - Genesis 2:7. Change it at your risk. Ezekiel 18:4,20 says the soul that sins will die, as does Numbers 23:10, 35:11, Leviticus 24:17, Deuteronomy 27:25, and many many others.

• Leviticus 23:30 - souls working, will be destroyed. Interestingly, newer Bibles like the NIV translate the same word used here as "person" instead of soul, as they do other places...hmm?
• Psalms 22:29 - none can keep alive his soul
• Deuteronomy 12:20 - souls thirsting; Deuteronomy 24:7 - souls being kidnapped; Psalm 119:28 - sleepy souls; Micah 7:1 - soul hungry for figs; Jeremiah 2:34 - souls have blood; Leviticus 21:11 - dead souls (original Hebrew word nephesh). Leviticus 17:12 - souls not eating blood.

Animals are described as being souls many numerous time as well, especially in Genesis. 10 of the first 13 occurances of nephesh in Genesis are applied to animals. Genesis 1:30; Revelation 16:3, etc etc. Nephesh is even used to refer to animals and man in the same sentence together (Genesis 9:4,5).

None of the 850 times or so nephesh is used in the Old Testament does it refer to the soul being immortal, rather, it refers many many times to it dying. Like God's name, most Bibles translate as they please this word to "person", "body", "animal", "fish", etc.

• *** This is one of my favorites: Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 - Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath (or spirit); man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.
• In Matthew 16:25, Jesus says that whoever gives his life for his sake will find it, but the real word translated "life" is the same translated other places as soul.
• 1 Peter 3:20 - 8 souls psyche saved from the water. Matthew 2:20 - sought the young child's soul (psyche).
• Matthew 20:28 - Jesus gave his soul (psyche) as a ransom. Jesus gave his soul! John 10:11 again.

Regarding the trinity's definite pagan roots: It's not just Greek, it was many religions before then as well. The Greeks came up with the ideas you are currently using to try and explain this thing. Don't try and cover up the problems inherent in most of the "religious" holidays, nearly every single aspect has some pagan background. Look at many parts of Brazil, people worship African gods on the same day as Catholic saints, many of them are equivalent and worshipped alongside each other. The church allows this for the same reason the church encouraged all these pagan rituals and aspects to be a part of the holidays, to assimilate people more easily. Very wrong. Go ahead and tell God you're using items from pagan worship to celebrate his Son's birth and see what God thinks about that. These are the same people that encourage people from the same religion and different countries to go and kill each other, each side saying they have God's blessing in their slaughter. Not very good readers of the Bible. The Trinity is derived from pagan ideas and falls right in line with them. I've seen many pictures of pagan idols that are nearly identical to statues or busts or paintings of the Trinity. It's really interesting to see how identical they are. --Oscillate 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

3. No, Jesus's soul. I mean He was a man, how does one be a man without a soul anyway? Matthew 28:18 seems quite clear Jesus was omnipotent, all authority in heaven and earth seems to sum it up quite nicely there. And where is this "Soul for soul" verse you speak of, I seem to recall many verses of the Bible about God's infinite justice being sort of, well, infinite, not just stopping at a single soul. And I sure hope that Jesus didn't come just for Adam's soul, what about the rest of us? Adam may of introduced sin but how could Adam possibly commit every single possible sin, including all the differen degrees of all sins, that's like an infinite variety of Sin, come on now. Why would God instruct the Israelites to sacrifice animals for their sins if Adam's personal sins were the only one God cared about? And where does that leave Eve, it would seem to me Eve commited the first sin, what with commiting idolatry for believing the snake when the snake basically said that God could not be trusted. Finally, what im getting at is that Jesus was sacrificing Himself for an infinite amount of Justice to be inflicted upon Him instead of man, not just a limited amount of justice that He would be able to withstand if He wasn't God, and being perfect doesn't immedietly translate into the ability to withstand an onslaught of infinitly punishment. It would take something like, say, infinite power as well, much like God has..... Homestarmy 04:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I showed above how it's more than possible for man to not have a soul. It's in the Bible. Of course the Bible says "soul for soul", but translations have covered it up as usual. Leviticus 24:18 says nephesh for nephesh, though most translations say "beast". Deut 21:23 speaks of soul for soul in the original language in terms of men.

Jesus was given the authority, not that he had it already, don't forget. Being given all authority doesn't mean all power. Jesus is never called Almighty, and he can never be more powerful than the one who gave him the authority over the rest. The animal sacrifices were given to remind the Israelites of their need for a redeemer. Jesus' sacrifice covered all their sins by countering the source of the defection.

Imagine someone making a bowl from a mold. If the mold has an imperfection, all subsequent bowls will be imperfect as well. Adam caused the imperfection and it is because of him we all sin. he made the first sin, we are imperfect and try as we might, we will sin. It took effort for Adam to sin, just as it takes effort for us not to. Jesus ransom corresponds to what was lost, that imperfection in the mold. Through him we can have forgiveness of our sins, as a gift from God.

Eve committed the first sin, but Adam was her head and had the final decision. He could have stayed true to God and refused what Eve offered. Only she would have been punished, everything else would have been fine. I don't see the Biblical support for saying Jesus was supporting an "infinite" amount of justice. There haven't been an infinite amount of humans anyway, and a perfect human life is far more valuable than many many many imperfect ones. And I certainly don't see any basis for saying that Jesus had to be God for the sacrifice to be meaningful. In fact, by saying he was God, you are causing all kinds of problems regarding the sacrifice I already mentioned above. i.e. He didn't really die, (don't forget the Bible says he gave his soul), he took back what he sacrificed, etc. It's very problematic. --Oscillate 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Seriously, when im talking about the hypostatic union, im not kidding when im telling ya that it's supposed to be 1. Jesus is God and 2. Jesus is also a man, that also part isn't just thrown in there because I want more syllables in my sentences, God approved of Jesus. How is it not rational that God cannot approve of His son? And I really think the "Mysteriously unexplainable" type of crowd really kind of overblows that, because you really can explain it to a point, there's no need to just say "Its a mystery" and then give up. We don't need to know everything about something to know it is rational, take Quantum theory for example, it is quite a mystery indeed how electrons literally move around the atom because we can't literally see the things in motion, yet logically we know they must be moving around those atoms alright, all the VSPER theory and stuff sort of hinges on this motion. Humans do not have to have infinite knowladge for things to be rational. On Roman Catholicism, once again, I sort of don't tend to listen to that church much, so I don't know what to tell ya. Now, im not sure where the whole name thing entered into this discussion, but i'd like to point out the KJV seems to have it right in that verse, and im fairly certain the NIV specifically mentions in its introduction that it has replaced all instances of "YHWH" and "Jehovah" with Lord, the reason I can't remember, but the mention is there, so Satan must of dropped the ball to do such a shoddy coverup. Besides, didn't the ancient Jews remove God's real name from all manuscripts anyway so that people could never ever burn it, so that we can only make a guesstimate about the real name? And finally, if God is not the Lord, then what is He, a prince? A Grand Mufti? A Sultan? Im pretty sure its a title for "Lord of everything" if you get my drift.

How is it not rational that God approve of himself? What kind of question is that?

The Bible says to "call on the name of Jehovah", how many people do that? As for the "reasons" for not using it: pronounciation is definitely not a valid one, no one knows for sure how Jesus' name was pronounced and that doesn't stop anyone, so why God's name? I would worry about rationalizing the removal of God's name from the Bible. If you want to try to explain that to God, go ahead. That's a serious offense. I also wouldn't try rationalizing it by saying the Jews, whose traditions Jesus completely rejected, did it so it's ok...Satan most certainly did not "drop the ball", the removal has been quite effective for him. There are many Lords, Abraham was called Lord, etc, it's a title like sir or master. You didn't answer my question, is God a priest? Because Jesus is, a priest of God. --Oscillate 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

5. This is sort of how the hypostatic union works, Jesus has a nature as God and a nature as man, and Jesus's nature as a man didn't have the authority to give those positions. Now if I believed the thing that you're debating against here then sure, i'd be in pretty big trouble, but what your trying to debate against isn't what I believe....the 2 natures aren't separate, but there's a very large difference between concieving of Jesus's nature in separate terms and His nature actually being separate literally.

But he was fully God at the same time (as you say the natures aren't separate), so if he had dual nature (no holy spirit here again), he had the authority at the same time. You say above he was omnipotent. If he was fully God and fully man at the same time, then whether it was his human nature speaking or not, he had the authority to give those positions. Or, he is not God and he did not have the authority, just as he said. --Oscillate 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

6. Im saying ressurected in the flesh as in His body was sort of sitting there in the tomb all, well, you know, corpse-y, and then when Jesus came back He was ressurected physically there. and what's this "spirit creature" stuff, you means things like demons and angels? And remember, I do think Jesus is God, so why can't Jesus pass material objects through walls, especially His own body? And you say that Jesus has merely been given authority from God, so even then, i'd certainly think that's enough power to do a little teleportation/transmutation hovever-Jesus-did-it-ification to go through that wall. I'd also think that's more than enough power to stop people from recognizing Jesus as well, that's mostly like a thought pattern anyway, just suspend the neurons or something, I dunno how God did it. And as for poor interpretations, are you using the KJV here or what, and I don't see what evidence there is that the word underlying "Over" or whatever it is in the original languages doesn't actually mean "over". And to conclude this, I don't see how it is so simple that an infinitly just God could somehow deliver infinite justice upon one person and that person still be quite alive spiritually and existing, not undergoing eternal torment of any kind, thusly symbolizing that He had the power to pay the debt instantly, and yet somehow not have infinite power. There's such a thing as being so simple that it is wrong, learned that the hard way on the SATs, ruddy later-in-the-test math questions and their trick answers, hmph. Homestarmy 04:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is precedence in the Scriptures for spirit beings materializing into flesh. There is no precendece for the opposite,which you insist is what happened in an effort to rationalize. One doesn't need man's philosophy and pagan ideas to rationalize the scriptures. 2 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 22:18. I'm just hoping you can see that, you seem to have a love for God that not many have. Always good to see. --Oscillate 15:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It seems we disagree over what exactly death means in this sense. I don't supposed you've ever watched The Colbert Report by any chance? On the show, he has a rather interesting list used to quite humerous effect, called his "Dead to me" list, as I recall, the number one spot goes to bears, a recurring joke in which Colbert is afraid of bears for some reason. Yet the things on his list aren't actually dead in a "cease to exist" sense; their dead to Colbert. The theme of death to sin is most certainly a recurring one throughout the Bible, but let me ask you this, of all the verses you've quoted, do any of them actually say that the actual souls themselves cease to exist, or that they simply die/know nothing/etc. etc.? Ephesians 2 for one shows us how that through our sins, we are certainly "dead", but before anyone is saved, are our souls non-existant? Souls certainly do "Die", and from the moment we are born, they are indeed already "dead", so then, how could something be born again if there is nothing there to be born at all? Furthermore, if as you say the death of our souls causes them to stop existing, then how do you explain Revelation 20:14 and the second death, do we stop existing twice? Of course, the context of these verses alone seems to hardly assure that they must cooperate with the verses you've already provided, so let's dig a little deeper into Eccelsiates with the help of this little gem of a website I found. Ecclesiates 12:7 seems to indicate a belief that the dust that our bodies turn into makes the soul return to God, as opposed to it suddenly ceasing to exist. So then, it would seem the Old Testament does not only contain references which can be used to try and support the idea that souls are not eternal, hmm....Next, on Eccleiates 3:18-21, im sorry, but I recommend you find a new favorite verse. Ecclesiates is all about this teacher guy trying to think up things about God and morality and whatnot and his progressing thought train, the verse begins "I also thought...." indicating the past tense; in other words, the author no longer believes one of your favorite verses. The book goes on to detail how the author is looking upon various aspects of creation and the situation going on around him, even making new declarations from time to time on various things, so im afraid that your verse was never meant to mean what you say it means. On the Adam thing and the "Living Soul" part, well, that's not hard at all, our souls are eternal in that they were created and will continue to exist forever, but their not pre-existant. Besides, Genesis 2:7 says that God formed the man And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, not then breathed, I see no problems here. Nextly, on the Greeks, which Greeks are we even talking about, because of course the Greeks who were converted to Christianity would think up the exact idea of the hypostatic union concerning Christ, I mean, they were Christians thinking up this particular belief. It still doesn't change that borrowing ideas from other philosophies and religions doesn't make new religious ideas false, I suppose they were simply taking what they knew and using it to reconcile difficult to understand parts of the Bible taking into account things that the Bible would support. And finally, enough with the Catholic church bashing, really now, im not Catholic. All your really doing is giving me constant +1's on my mental "Reason's why I am not a Catholic" list, most of which I already knew already and don't generally use myself as main reasons to not be a Catholic since I normally keep in mind more powerful ones. I don't know whether the claims you make about the church are true, but even if they are, I don't see how they apply to me, I mean, I don't go out and buy that Christmas tree every year and then sing songs to Norse gods while getting presents either.....And while the Church certainly does seem to of mis-read parts of the Bible many times in history concerning, well, alot of things, their frequent mistakes throughout history doesn't mean that everything they say must of been a mistake, including the trinity.

Wow. Keep reading that verse in Ecc: "So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?". He is not saying "I thought" and so he changed his mind. Actually read it. He thought that and his conclusion was "so therefore..." Not at all that he had changed his mind, come on. "this teacher guy"? This is pointless.

Ecclesiates 12:7 says the "spirit" NOT the soul. The words are different and used differently throughout the Bible. All life belongs to God, the force that generates all life, in humans, in the animals, all of it belongs to God and returns to him. Also note that verse, which you thankfully mentioned, says man's spirit returns to God. The writer is not talking about good or evil people, all people. A good scripture I use sometimes in showing there is no hell nor immortality of the soul. Plus, that verse says nothing about continuing thought nor existance. The Old Testament says nothing about the soul living on, sorry.

I gave you plenty of scriptures showing more than enough, and it was a small percentage, showing the soul dying, being destroyed, being hungry, etc.

I would also like to know what your thoughts are on the fact that Jesus gave his soul...

Regarding Rev 20:14, are you trying to use that to show immortality of the soul? What gets thrown into the symbolic lake of fire also? "Death and Hades". The preceeding verse says: The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Knowing that God has the power to resurrect dead ones, there is nothing here to say that these are souls were still existing. The second death means the ultimate destruction with no return. --Oscillate 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Some of this i've answered mostly already in number one. However, after the Adam bit, if Jesus has all authority in heaven and isn't God, then where does that actually leave God? Are they sharing authority or what, and if they truly are compleatly separate beings, how can they each have all of the authority for themselves at the same time? Of course, Jesus was indeed "granted" the authority, but then how could this be if God is suppose to be Lord, and the Son is supposed to be compleatly inferior in all ways? Maybe...just maybe....Jesus is also God in addition to being a man, hmm, yes, that might just work out fine logically...... :D . Nextly, if Jesus is appointed Judge, and does not judge by an infinitly just standard, then on judgement day, what will God say, something like "Well, i'd sure like to be infinitly just, but i'll just let my Son, whom I love of course, give a sort of...incompleate rendition of justice, I mean come on, justice sure is hard to give out these days, what with all these people constantly whining to me about being "cruel" or other nonsense in the old testament whenever I condemn people, yeesh, I need a break!". If God is infinitly just, then how can He stand by and see justice not be done against those who have not accepted the gift of eternal life and recieved forgiveness through the Son? Sin can't just be swept under the rug after all and left there for all eternity. Nextly, if there was an infinite amount of people the problem would simply be compounded, for the infinite amount of sins that an infinite amount of people would commit would need like, what, infinite^3 amount of judgement from God? His infinite justice works when, as the Bible points out in numerous places, (And please, don't suddenly become a universalist) sinners are sent to Hell for all eternity, and the punishment thereof is therefore infinitly just by continuing for such a span. Nextly, Jesus having to be God in order to be a sacrifice isn't simply a matter to me of ceremonial differences, im saying that it is impossible for Jesus to of not been God yet somehow bear the sins of the entire world, not out of differences in signifigance, but simply because it would not literally be possible for Jesus to bear infinite judgement for the entire world without being God. It's a matter of logic, not of signifigance. And note how the problems seem to dissapear when Jesus's dual nature is accepted, hmm, yes, I can totally see Jesus dying if Jesus was a man as well as God, good thing too that souls are eternal so that His soul doesn't cease to exist or something, yeeees.....

God delegates as it pleases him. Giving authority doesn't mean he has none left himself. If someone in a position of authority delegates full authority to someone else, that person still retains it. And no where does the Bible say Jesus is as powerful as God anyway. This is not complicated. I don't even know how to respond to the stuff you wrote about judging...it makes no sense at all.

It's a matter of logic for Jesus to have not been God. God doesn't die, Jesus wasn't resurrected in human form again (what he sacrificed). Your poor solution of dual natures opens up sooooo many more problems and it doesn't close a single one of them. "No man has seen God at any time". --Oscillate 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

4. The question, whether you believe that Jesus has 2 natures or not that can be conceived of in separate terms yet are not separate, is how is it not logical that God can approve of Jesus. If you really want to get all formal about it, it appears that the idea of the hypostatic union more precisely states that Jesus's duel nature acts as one unit which sort of makes sense considering Jesus never spazzed into split-personality episodes or anything, and therefore, I see no reason why God could not approve of Jesus, I mean, God doesn't have a duel nature while Jesus does. Nextly, im still not sure how this name discussion got started, but if I may be so bold, when God was telling Moses about all sorts of stuff including God's name, was it "Jehovah" or "Yahweh", and how exactly does "YHWH" have to be pronounced "Yahweh" anyway when 2 letters are missing? And how did "Yahweh" turn into "Jehovah", was it translated from Hebrew to an English sort of equivalent? Because if it was, well then, it would seem to me that on judgement day when we're both standing up in front of Jesus for being naughty name-of-God mis-pronouncers, we'll both be getting an earful for sure.....And lastly, I didn't see your question, but if Jesus wasn't a preist, then it'd be a bit hard for Him to be descended from that house or preists or whatever it was, bit hard to be the Messiah when you wouldn't fulfill the prophecies and all, but no worries, Jesus has a nature of being a man, no reason He can't be a preist....Homestarmy 07:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If Jesus' dual natures act as one unit, why did he say those positions in heaven weren't his to give?

Again, Jesus is not how his name was pronounced either, so you have no basis to stand on regarding pronunciation. Jehovah is the common transliteration into English, just as Jesus is the common transliteration into English. This dual nature stuff is hilarious. It comes up when you want it to: "oh yeah, there he was a man" "there he was God". --Oscillate 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

5. You know, you keep mentioning "No holy spirit again" a whole lot, itching to turn the conversation towards the trinity are we? :D Anyway, their not separate in the sense that Jesus couldn't be just a man for 30 minutes, then 30 minutes later be only God, but conceptually Jesus's 2 natures can be looked at separatly even when they aren't literally separated compleatly. So once again, Jesus's nature as a man didn't have the authority that only God has.

I thought that's what this whole discussion was about, the Trinity, just mostly that Jesus is not God.

But I thought Jesus was God, fully God at the same time?...tell me again why someone fully God didn't have that ability? It doesn't matter if he was "speaking as a man" for 3 seconds, he was fully God, I thought. --Oscillate 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

6. The spirit didn't turn into a flesh-spirit combo, the flesh was already sitting there in a cave with a rock in front of it. Why should the spirit make new flesh when Jesus's flesh is still right there? And in conclusion, all this philosophy made by man that im using is, as far as I can tell, supported by the Bible, it just takes a little thinking to put it all together. But technically sure, nobody literally had to come up with the idea of the trinity or the hypostatic union, the church could of just stopped itself from asking those questions, so thousands of years later when we're all trying to witness to Atheists and they ask "So, how did Jesus appear submissive yet Timothy call Him "My Lord and my God"?" all we can answer is "Uhhh, well, see, i'd tell you the answer, but um.....God is love! Yea! That answers it for sure! Answers everything! Accept Jesus into your heart and you'll, err, stop caring about that question my Atheist friend....." Homestarmy 07:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've shown you more than enough of what is actually in the Bible and what it actually says about all this. I hope one day you will read it. --Oscillate 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

1. "This teacher guy" isn't a pointless designation, he's called a teacher in the very beginning in verse 1:12. And yes, it was past tense in the sense of no longer believing something, as Ecclesiates 1:17 shows while referring to the thoughts you are depending upon, the "understanding of wisdom" the teacher undertakes is something the teacher learns is "a chasing after the wind" sounds like fruitlessness to me. Much of the first part of the entire book is discussing the things he believed that he figured out were wrong later on. And in Ecclesiates 12:7, I must of missed the word "All" in that verse; because it doesn't sound like he's defining which spirits, just "The spirit", definition of which spirit/s these are doesn't seem to be included. And if the spirit isn't the soul, then what is it? Just life-force? Then where does that leave the spirit of God, for God is certainly not limited by the same standards of life that our lives (or spirits) all have, and using your perspective, is most certainly not limited by annihilationism. And as for your testimony that the Old Testament never says the soul lives on, that doesn't necessarily surprise me, after all, our salvation was not yet even outlined specifically, so how could anyone even know how to obtain eternal life in the first place? Simply not being mentioned doesn't make it start falling towards the "Souls stop existing" idea, which is still separate from souls "dying", and most certainly separate from the verses you've given showing that the soul can get hungry and thirsty and so on. (Remember, "Thirst for righteousness"?) For Jesus giving His soul, well, men have souls, and Jesus was the sacrifice for our sins, so I would think Jesus would have to be giving His soul. Is there a problem with this? People "give" their souls to Christ all the time, does that mean their souls stopped existing and they all turned into hollow shells? For revelations, my take on this does admittedly depend entirely on my above argument concerning souls existing forever, however, it does nonetheless mean that a person's soul would have to be punished forever to take the infinite justice of God. And what makes you think the lake of fire is symbolic, or that in order to ressurect something from the dead, it has to cease existing first? When Lazarus died, did he stop existing, and if so, what was left to bring back? When something stops existing, it doesn't tend to come back, and if it does, that's probably a sure sign it didn't stop existing in the first place.

Come on...if he meant it as something he stopped believing, then why does he say "I thought this, and so everything is vanity". In absolutely no way is he changing his mind. Really, come on. He's the richest man around, he talks about all the things he had - THAT is what is vanity and chasing after wind. Not understanding of wisdom! Read it. "The spirit" is inclusive because he's talking about man in general. The spirit is the life force, the soul is a person, the body, the thoughts, etc. The spirit belongs to Jehovah because all of the force of life in everything, animals, plants, humans, comes from him. The Bible is explicitly clear that souls die, souls get hungry, souls bleed, etc, in a very literal sense. Even the New Testament speaks of souls dying, so it's not just the Old Testament. Jesus gave his soul, he died, and he had to be resurrected. Tell me how a resurrection to spirit life works with the soul always existing in the first place. If the soul always exists, what is resurrected? Flesh does not inheirit the kingdom of God, the Bible says, so what is resurrected? God tells us the say we die our "thoughts perish". Simple

The lake of fire is symbolic because if you read your Bible, in that same sentence "death" and "Hades" or Hell are thrown into it as well. Tell me a literal place where death can be thrown. And is hell thrown into itself? It's in the very same sentence, hard to miss.

What did Jesus say about Lazarus when he died? He was "sleeping". "Asleep in death", that matches very well with Ecc and the dead knowing nothing. This is Jesus speaking, not an Old Testament writer, not a scholar - Jesus. And are you telling me that God doesn't have the power to regenerate a human being from the dust again if someone dies and their body completely decays? Is that what you're saying now? --Oscillate 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

3. If someone gains the same authority as someone else, how is this not saying that Jesus was as powerful as God? On my judging speech, what im trying to say is that God is, of course, infinitly just. He will not ignore Sin; this isn't Islam where if you get a 60/40 ratio of goodness to badness you're okay. (Unless your a Jew, Christian, Atheist, or Polytheist, then you're in for it or something) Therefore, because God's justice is infinitly just, and Jesus payed the price for our sins, then Jesus would of needed to be able to pay an infinite price. A man alone cannot pay an infinite price for something, having special authority alone doesn't give one the power to survive paying such a price, there has to be infinite power to be able to survive an infinite punishment, or an infinite amount of time for someone to suffer such a punishment. Considering Jesus came back, the former must be true, therefore Jesus simply had to have infinite power, which is only exibited by God. The reason Jesus had to be God isn't simply because that one thing Timothy said and that one verse in the book of Titus say so, its because if Jesus wasn't God, then what can make the payment? It's one thing to not have to pay anything yourself, it's quite another to then pay the price for everyone else, the price didn't simply get ignored by Jesus being perfect, Jesus had to pay and have the capacity to continue existing throughout in order to actually pay the full price. Nextly, if Jesus's body wasn't resurrected, where are the bones, and why did the Bible say Jesus rose from the dead if the body never actually came back to life? And why did the stone have to be moved, why did Jesus still have holes in His hands and feet from the crucifixion, and why do you suppose so many people would get the impression that the Bible says that Jesus rose bodily? Finally, whether you agree with me or not, I see nothing here that the duel nature has not "closed", nor do I see a single "problem" which the duel nature doesn't get around, so im afraid simply declaring your points won doesn't convince me of anything.

Because God is all-powerful, Supreme, Almighty - none of which describes Jesus. A father can give a son authority over the father's company without giving up the same authority or more. If Jesus was God in the first place, then he never "came back" anyway. What does the Bible say about Jesus' resurrection, that the Father resurrected him? No, it says "God" resurrected him. Jesus was a perfect human, a corresponding ransom to Adam.

Look, read this carefully: If God demanded something infinite to be a ransom, then how could animal sacrifices ever do anything at all? They couldn't wipe out sins completely, but they certainly did something. If God required himself to die to match an infinite crime, animal sacrifices would not have been good for anything at all. But they were, they were not only a reminder, but also served to temporarily cover sins. Adam lost human perfection, Jesus was a perfect human life that was sacrificed in Adam's place.

Tell me again how it's impossible for God to remove the bones and flesh. It was so people would believe! Jesus "rose from the dead" because he was dead, like Ecclesiastes says, he was non-existant for those days. If Jesus was risen in flesh, where did he go get clothes? Was God walking around naked for a while looking for clothes? Did he steal them from someone? If you say "He materialized new clothes", then what's to stop God from removing the body of Jesus after being entombed? Dual nature is an affront to God and causes so many problems in the Bible. You just refuse to listen to God's Word. The next point illustrates one large problem here. --Oscillate 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Jesus's 2 natures are not simply mixed together into one super God-man fusion, nor are they separated with Jesus's nature as man standing to one side while Jesus's nature as a God stands on the other, but His natures have to be conceived of separatly even when their not literally compleatly separated. As a man, Jesus did not have the authority to do these things, once again, this is sort of how the whole Hypostatic union thing works, whether you insist that it should be a mixture or not. On translation, so what your telling me, is if a word is translated into another language and retains the original meaning, then its fine? So then why do you suppose Isaiah 26:4 specifically refers to "Jehovah" (Not in the NIV for some weird reason, its in the KJV though) as "LORD"? Is Jehovah Lord or not? It's both God's name and a title. And I would argue that, from your perspective, this really shouldn't be very funny at all; by your perspective, I should be heading for Hell :(. I mean, I don't think Jesus is whom you say He is, so in your perspective, I see absolutly no reason why you should regard me as saved; we don't believe in the same Jesus.

You say "nor are they separated with Jesus's nature as man standing to one side while Jesus's nature as a God stands on the other". In heaven God and Jesus are seen separate only, Jesus on God's side, Jesus approaching God, etc. Which is it now? Is Jesus God at the same time, or is he separate? So when Jesus died, did he die as a man or die as God? If he died as a man, then he didn't match that "infinite price" you keep talking about. If he died as God, he would have matched the "infinite price", but now God has died...So, you say Jesus was God, but he lied when he said he didn't have the authority to give those positions, only his Father in the heavens did.

Isaiah 26:4 uses the title Lord and then says "Lord Jehovah", like "Jehovah God". It's a combination of title/name used many times, like "Jesus Christ" is a title/name combination. You are directly contradicting God here by saying Jehovah is a title. It is called all over the Bible as God's name, never as God's title. --Oscillate 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Actually, I was under the impression this was just about the Hypostatic union. The thing of it is, for all the importance the Trinity gets, if you look at something like Oneness Pentecostals, they say that Jesus is God, God is God, and the Holy Spirit? Also God. It's just to them, there's no one idea that separates them, no concept like the trinity which will actually envelop the idea of their relationship, so therefore, they simply renounce trying to figure it out. Of course, i've heard many times that they take it way too far and say that Jesus is only God and not a man at all, but their perspective doesn't necessarily scream to me "Must be believing that Jesus isn't whom the Bible says He is.", and in the end, that's the bigger thing that matters. Surely if our salvation depended upon acknowladgement of the Trinity in modern understanding, then Jesus would of told us. But rather, Jesus simply told us that whosoever believes in Him is saved and that we must be born again, rationalizing as much as we can about how Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit fit together isn't a pre-requisite to salvation, though it certainly does make things make a whole lot more sense. If you were simply a non-trinitarian yet believed Jesus to be both God and a man and didn't have any really odd beliefs besides being a non-trinitarian, I probably wouldn't of brought this to your talk page at all; I simply would of assumed there wasn't a good reason you wouldn't be saved. Many times of course, non-trinitarianism ends up being rooted into some deeper heresy, like the aforementioned "Jesus is God alone" thing I mentioned or other oddities, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. However, in your case, when I saw that you did not believe Jesus to be both God and a man, that's what made me care; it's because I am commanded to seek and save the lost that im here and because you don't seem to agree on whom Jesus actually is, and I don't think either of us wants the other to go to the Hell that must await one of our perspectives :(. If I were to convince you to be a trinitarian, so be it. But I don't see why I must convince you to be a trinitarian for you to know salvation, all I see is that I have to convince you that Jesus is both God and a man, maybe I have to figure out how to debate with you on the annihilationism thing or the name thing to do it, maybe I don't. But my main objective is to somehow convince you of Jesus's true nature, the other things you're arguing for are pretty wrong, but I don't see why you would go to Hell for believing that souls stop existing or that God's true name should never be rendered as "Lord" in almost all circumstances, it's not like you're calling God a liar or anything like that, you simply believe something......very odd about what the Bible means. But there's a difference between believing something odd and something that leads to Hell. Now that im done with discussing that, on the Fully this and fully that thing, that should be in my answer concerning number 4.

Salvation depends on (John 17:3) accurate knowledge of God and Jesus. I reject your opinion that believing what the Bible actually teaches is an "odd" belief. There is no hell, so I don't think either one of us should be worried about going there. I've read the Bible, I see what God teaches, and he does not teach that he is Jesus, that Jesus was God or had a dual nature. Tell me why God's true name should be rendered with a title all the time? Tell me a good reason for that. Why did God put His name in the scriptures 7,000 times if he wanted people to cover it up? Hmm? Because some people said it was ok? --Oscillate 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

6. I've seen many quotes from you regarding what certain scholars believe the Bible should "actually" say, but as for what it really means I would say we are still in heated dispute. Homestarmy 06:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've barely quoted scholars. I quote scripture and use God's Word much much more than what any human has to say. --Oscillate 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Week of June 21

1. So if it was not in the past tense as in not believing something and everything after that is what he really believes then is life meaningless or not? Because Ecclesiates 9:9 seems to say that life is meaningless, and verse 7 seems to be an exoration to drunkeness and gluttony, (It might not be gluttony though, it doesn't actually say that the gladness isn't from appreciation of recieving it from God or not). But if life has no meaning, then what was up with all that "Be fruitful and multiply" stuff concering Noah? No, the author has to be recounting the vanity (Or meaninglessness as the NIV puts it) of beliefs he previously held. And it still states that "I said in my heart", and that's still past tense. With the spirit thing, the verse still doesn't say specifically which spirit, I fail to see how it must apply to man in general when he's talking about almond trees and grasshoppers in the previous verses. And your right, the Bible does talk about all those things literally; but something doesn't have to exist in a material sense that can be seen or detected by our senses for it to be literal, it only has to have reality. Matthew 5:6, straight out of Jesus's mouth in the Beatitudes, says "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled", that doesn't sound like you have to hunger and thirst for mere material things like ordinary food and water to me, so I don't see how souls eat ordinary food or drink ordinary drinks. And remember Deuteronomy 8:3, "Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord"? (And yes, before you start berating me over Jehovah, I recognize that other translations say "Jehovah" here) I don't recall our physical bodies typically feeding on the words of God, just hearing them or seeing them, unless it means like eating the pages of the Bible, I dunno what that would taste like....Nextly, what do you mean by "spirit life"? Life is life, unless you mean life here without a body, and it's quite simple to ressurect something that is dead and still exists, even modern medicine can do that to an extent, (You know, resucitation and all that) so why can't God do the same thing with something that exists? The soul dies and is still there, all dead and stuff, and then God makes it start living again, simple. God's will is pretty powerful. Flesh does not enter the kingdom of heaven, but then if the soul is just our bodies, then how exactly do we inherit the kingdom of heaven and yet not inherit it through faith in Christ if our souls are the flesh? And sure thoughts may perish, but as I think i've showed, there's no reason that perishing in a Biblical sense here or concerning our souls or spirits or whatever means they must stop existing. My question right back at you is how can God ressurect something that doesn't exist anymore at all, does He just sort of reach back in time to the last point that it existed and haul it to the present? I don't mean simply piecing back together the body from the molecules as they decay into the earth and putting them back onto the bones, if the parts of the body still exist, then the body still exists even if its not all in one place, just because man chooses to define things restrictively for reasons of legality and whatnot does not retroactively make the words of the Bible conform to man's modern, technical definitions. When you tell me "Does not exist" I don't think rotting in the ground, I think that the stuff making up the object in question no longer exists inside the universe or outside, which is quite a different way of not existing. Nextly, once again on literal objects, they don't have to be recognizeable by our senses for things to be literal, death literally exists for sure, and Hell is just the kind of place to throw death into, where does the Bible say that Hell conforms to all the limitations of our universe? And Hell is not thrown into itself, rather, the temporary hell of a lake of fire is thrown into a new Hell for pretty much forever. Nextly, your right, it does match well with Ecclesiates; but how can a person who doesn't exist sleep, and once again, not knowing things doesn't mean you aren't inside existance. Finally, God does have the power to rejenerate all of those things, but if the body compleatly decays, the individual parts that make up the body still exist, its just not considered a body by man's definition because we can't look at it and say "Oh look, all these molecules together are one body" and legal stuff would get weird, I mean think about it, we all would legally be cannibalizing people because we could be using molecules once in their bodies....on second thought, don't think about that too much, its very creepy.

3. A father can give less authority to a son over something, but not when the son is given "All" authority over it. And remember, Jesus is His own unit by being both God and a man, so of course He can come back to things. And its true that the Bible doesn't say that "The Father" rose Jesus, But it does say that Jesus rose Himself too, John 2:19-22 says that He will "raise it again in three days", referring to His body, (Mirrored in Matthew 27:40) and Jesus says that He has the authority to take up His life again because of the command He recieved from His Father. So which is it, did Jesus raise Himself, did God, or did both....hmmm....Nextly, your question over animal sacrifices is quite a good one, as it deals with how God displays His justice. You are right to say that the sacrifices were temporary coverups for our sins, they did certainly do something....but they didn't do everything, not yet. God is infinitly just, but also patient and forgiving, He often holds off on delivering justice due to His great mercy, and certainly does so in the Old Testament many times despite all the skeptics you may hear going on about "It wasn't nice for God to kill those people because God shouldn't do that because I say so!!11!!11111oneone!!1". The temporary nature of animal sacrifices was not to actually fulfill the requirements of infinite justice, it was just to temporarily absolve God's people from their sins. The temporary nature of it came from it not actually paying the price, just staving it off. All of that judgement was still stored up, and Jesus had to take all of it because only He, being God, would be capable of actually being powerful enough to take it all. Adam lost human perfection, but Jesus didn't gain perfection back for us, I certainly can't say that I don't sin anymore, just that when I do sin and repent of it that I am forgiven. The sacrifice didn't pay for Adam's crimes alone and then mean that our sinful nature was now somehow an ok thing to have. Sin is still evil, we can just be truly saved from it now if we so choose it. Nextly, it of course wouldn't of been impossible for God to of removed the flesh and bones, but the Bible doesn't say that God removed the flesh and bones, so I don't see a reason to believe that God did this. And if Jesus didn't exist for those days, What made Him stop existing, could He not take the price for the sins of man or could he? If He could, then why would He stop existing, and if as you claim the soul is just the body, then how did the body stay up there after Jesus's death and how was it entombed? What's wrong with materializing the clothes and not dematerializing the body to put said clothes on? I am listening to God's word, and that's how I know the Bible never says Jesus's body was vanished away when it was entombed. Why did the stone get rolled back if nothing was in there?

4. They are seen separatly because Jesus is His own unit as God and a man. When Jesus died, only His nature as man could die, but as i've argued, a man dying doesn't make them stop existing, a soul is not merely the body, and Jesus's soul didn't simply vanish. He matched the infinite price because it was not merely Jesus's body which was inflicted with punishment, all of Himself had to withstand it, including His nature as God, but since God of course cannot die, Jesus's body was the only thing which ended up dying. That's what makes what God did so special, He sacrificed His Son and in a way Himself at the same time because that's what it had to take. As i've tried to explain several times, with Jesus being His own unit, then He can not know things that God can, but if you won't accept this explanation I cannot force you to understand that I do not believe Jesus was lying. For "Jehovah", it appears from what i've seen that the word comes from the Jews replacing the consonents of "Yahveh" with the vowels on "Adonai", which apparently formed the pronunciation of the word "Jehovah", which seems to have never really existed and just got rendered into the KJV simply because they didn't know about this. Do you have any explanations for this theory?

5. And that is, of course, precisely why I am here, because our knowladge does not agree. I admit, I didn't think about annihilationism coupling up with canceling out infinite justice like that, but whether one of us stops existing or goes to Hell, i'd hardly think either of those situations would be considered good. And of course the Bible does not teach that Jesus is just God, like I said earlier, heresy much? But still, Thomas must of been pretty delusional to think Jesus to be God then and Jesus must of been pretty un-caring to just let Thomas go without any admonition there. And while the Bible doesn't specifically say "Jesus has 2 natures", it also doesn't specifically say "Jesus's body was eradicated from existance", each one of those conclusions has to be done by drawing conclusions from other verses, of which we each seem to be attempting to do. The Jehovah thing I don't know about, because im waiting for your answer on the above section.

6. Erm, all the content of this number seems to of been absorbed by other sections.... Homestarmy 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding titles

If titles or descriptive phrases are used in one place in the Bible, it shouldn't be assumed that they always refer to the same person. For example:

• King of kings is a reference to Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:37).
• Savior is applied to Jehovah (provided his Son as a sacrifice - Jude 25 - through Jesus), Jesus (went through with the sacrifice of his life) and Judge Othinel (Judges 3:9) using the same word. Isaiah 43:11, read in context, shows that God alone in comparison to the false gods of the nations could be the nation's savior.
• Apostle is used in reference to Jesus' apostles as well as Jesus himself (Hebrews 3:1).

None of these references mean that they are the same person. There are several verses that can change depending on the context and the reading of the rest of the scriptures, and so it's important to get the full view.

• "I AM"

Exodus 3:14 - God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM often translated "I will be what I will be", indicating God's ability to become whatever is necessary to save his people and fulfill his purposes.

John 8:58 - before Abraham was, I am (e·go' ei·mi') also translated "I have been/I was born/was alive before Abraham was born".

Now, look at what question Jesus was answering in John. Jesus had said he had seen Abraham and the Jews contested that, saying he was not even fifty years old. Then Jesus responds with the abocve words. Is Jesus answering their question or talking about something else, stating his identity/name? He was logically answering their question in regards to the length of his life (See also Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14). The translation into "I AM" does not carry the full signifigance of what God was saying. This phrase "ego eimi" is also used by humans.

YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah not a title, and Jesus never tries to use that name for himself.

• Savior

Again, like I stated above earlier, God is our Savior through Jesus, they are both Saviors through different actions.

• Titus 2:13 - our great God and Savior Christ Jesus also translated our great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus

Which is a valid translation that also agrees with Titus 1:4, which says God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior, separately not the same? What about 2 Thessalonians 1:12 (our God and the Lord Jesus Christ) that was written in the same construction as Titus 2:13 but where God and Jesus are separate? The context clearly demands that it be read as though God and Jesus are being referred to separately here, but let's look at the translation to make sure that it a valid translation. The literal translation from the Interlinear is "glory of the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus." Some say there is a Greek rule that states that the lack of a second article before Savior means "God" and "Savior" are the same. Henry Alford in The Greek Testament, Vol. III states: "No one disputes that it may mean that which they have interpreted it." But, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963) states about Titus 2:13: "The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately." Nigel Turner admits: "Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive." (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) As to the Greek construction used, Professor Alexander Buttmann points out: "It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception, . . . "\x{2014}A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. In The Expositor's Greek Testament, Dr. N. J. D. White observes: "The grammatical argument . . . is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before" 'Savior' in 1 Timothy 1:1; 4:10. And Dr. Alford stresses that in other passages where Paul uses expressions like "God our Savior" he definitely does not mean Jesus, for "the Father and the Son are most plainly distinguished from one another." (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3-5).

So which valid translation agrees with the rest of Titus and the Bible? The book of Titus does not say that Jesus is God.

• Judge

Let's let Jesus speak for himself:

John 5:22, 23 - Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son

John 5:30 - By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

• no part of the world

Jesus prayed for his followers to be no part of the world as well. Jesus refused earthly kingship because his kingdom was no part of the world, either. He was no part of the world because he wasn't embroiled in the politics of the world governed by Satan, instead, he was concerned with his Father's kingdom.

• First and Last

I already commented on how Jesus is the last Adam, and there in Revelation, one old manuscript links "first" with "firstborn".

To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be 'sons' of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his 'brothers.' (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those 'brothers' of Jesus are referred to as "sons of God." (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be "the first and the last," which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. It is evident that a number of persons are represented as speaking in this chapter of Revelation; verses 8 and 9 show that the angel spoke to John, verse 16 obviously applies to Jesus, the first part of verse 17 is credited to "the spirit and the bride," and the one speaking in the latter part of verse 20 is manifestly John himself. "The Alpha and the Omega" of verses 12-15, therefore, may properly be identified as the same one who bears the title in the other two occurrences: Jehovah God. The expression, "Look! I am coming quickly," in verse 12, does not require that these aforementioned verses apply to Jesus, inasmuch as God also speaks of himself as "coming" to execute judgment. (Compare Isa 26:21.) Malachi 3:1-6 speaks of a joint coming for judgment on the part of Jehovah and his "messenger of the covenant."

A check of the context shows this "First and Last" was with definite limitations, was relative to just the matter of Christ Jesus' death and resurrection, as verse 18 shows. Christ was the first one raised in the first resurrection, and the last one that will be raised directly by Jehovah God. Others who follow in that resurrection will be raised by God through Christ. (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 6:14) Christ was the firstfruits of those asleep in death. (1 Cor. 15:20) When "First and Last" is again applied to Christ Jesus, at Revelation 2:8, note that again it is with respect to death and resurrection. But when it speaks thus of God Jehovah no limitation is set on the meaning.

• Exact representation/image

This is clear enough that Jesus is not God, but rather his perfect reflection because of his closeness to Him. He has spent more time with God than any other creation and has a specially close relationship with Him. If you watch someone for long enough, you can imitate them. if you are perfect and have watched and imitated someone for countless millenia, you would be able to say you were an exact representation. That definitely doesn't mean you're the same. Remember Jesus said several times he only does what he sees the Father doing.

Just to ask, should I wait until your done with all the verses and terms I mentioned before I start responding? Homestarmy 02:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free, there's a lot for me to respond to in that big point you wrote. Much of it is covered here and there, but I'll try to get them. Don't neglect the responses in the crazy 1 to 6 list above, though. There are very very important points in there. --Oscillate 13:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Right then, firstly, for "Lord" and the similar ones:

Err, I know that Isaiah 43:11 refers to God, I mean, that is where I talked about how God is called "Savior", I don't see the problem there...? I don't know what the apostles thing is for either, but I didn't just pick and choose verses willy nilly to find this whole argument, this came from something called "Christ before the Manger" by one Ron Rhodes, I didn't just randomly look up the words to see how many times I could find a match, I think I even excluded some of the verses because they seemed stretches to me, so I was indeed paying attention to context for each individual instance. "Apostle" im pretty sure wasn't part of my rant there....

Of course apostle wasn't part of your "rant", I was pointing out, just like "king of kings", a title being applied to someone else doesn't make the persons the same. I didn't "just pick and choose verses willy nilly" either. I was making a point, and I really don't like your insinuations that I'm just looking things up to find a match and all that. I was making a point, and it's a valid one. --Oscillate 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Nextly, "I AM":

On the exodus verse, often translated that way by whom may I ask? Ditto with John, which unfortunently makes it hard for me to answer part of what your asking me to pay attention to :/. However I can answer the later part, considering Jesus answered in the present tense format that seems a bit odd to me that Jesus would choose the wording "I am" rather than "I was", which certainly seems to stick out. Bit awkward way to simply answer a question. And if Jehovah isn't a title, then why do alot of translations try to translate it as "Lord" anyway, I mean seriously, beyond the whole "Because their being influenced by Satan" thing you believe, they've got to of had a reason for that.

Well, Look at BibleGateway, "Or I will be what I will be" footnote [1]; "I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE" [2]; "I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS" footnote: "Or I AM WHO I AM, or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." [3]; "I AM THAT I AM" [4]; "Or I AM WHAT I AM, or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE" [5]; "Since it seems related to the word translated " I am," it may mean " I am the one who is" or " I will be what I will be" or " I am the one who brings into being." footnote [6]; "I AM THAT WHICH I AM" [7] and etc.

John 8:58 - "I am who I am long before Abraham was anything" [8]; "I existed before Abraham was even born!" [9]; "even before Abraham was, I was, and I am." [10]; "before Abraham was born, I was and am and always will be" [11]; "I already was before Abraham was born" [12].

Jehovah is God's name!!! That's what the Bible plainly says (Ps 83:18), if you want to say it's just a title, that's your own deal. Translations make it LORD because of Jewish superstition (do not take God's name in vain, so they remove it completely - going too far. God tells us to use his name and his people did many many times) and to make it easier for the Trinity to be (poorly) interpreted. Not because it's a title. I think you're the first person I've ever seen that thinks Jehovah is just a title. --Oscillate 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For "Savior":

On the through thing, I don't think I have time tonight to answer both halves of all this, so I'll have to wait to see what you've written and think about it up above this later. I mean really, do you realize how long this is getting, it takes a good bit of thought and effort to debate all this :/. On Titus, once again I find myself asking, "Translated that way by whom"? I mean it's not that im calling you a liar or something but i'd really like to know. I am not familiar with the intricacies of Koine Greek and in my experience such debates really do lose their focus on what really matters and turns into a debate over grammer rules, and surely if our salvation depended on learning grammer rules for languages thousands of years old, Jesus would have told us :). Perhaps it would be easier to tell me which Bible you prefer in all this alternate translation business, otherwise I might have to drag CTSW into this cus he seems the only guy who's been to collage and whatnot and would be much more likely to know stuff about Koine Greek debates.

Jesus did tell us over and over and over again, "my God", "the Father is greater than I", "the Son does nothing by his own initiative", etc etc etc. That's the whole point, Jesus did tell us. --Oscillate 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On "Judge"

So then what about all that stuff in the OT about God doing the judging, where does that leave poor old Isaiah? Both of those verses seem to fit well with a hypostatic understanding of things, for if Jesus was alone, then He certainly couldn't even be God to begin with, and the first one just looks like a relegation of roles, seems downright, well, trinitarian if I do say so myself.

Jesus said himself he judges as he hears and was entrusted with the judging from someone else, just as he was given special authority. --Oscillate 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On "no part of this world"

Uhh, im not really sure where this comes from because I don't recall mentioning it as a similarity or anything, but im fairly certain Jesus will be King after all that revelations stuff is done with anyway, what's the problem?

King of God's kingdom, not a human kingdom. I was saying he wasn't part of the human political system, which is ruled by Satan as the god of the world until Armageddon. --Oscillate 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On "First and last"

Man, I really dislike these scholar arguments, really gets things far, far away from salvation and into grammer rules. Do I need to drag Slrubstein in here or something? :D Anyway, on Revelation 1:8, who exactly are these "scholars", and why does it matter, of course that one is referring to Jehovah, I mean im looking at the page here in the Evidence Bible right now and it clearly shows up in the "Father" Column, so I dunno what the problem here is. On Revelation 22:12, it may or may not appear in Greek, but does it appear in the Hebrew or Aramic I ask you? Just because translators didn't come out with the verse you think is good doesn't mean their out to convert you to Satanism, often times they have good reasons for whatever their translating. On verse Now On Revelation 1:17, Im not sure there if your talking about verses applying to people here or in the other part, but for 1:16-18 I don't see anything that leads me to conclude that a change in subject between verse 16 and 17 has taken place at all, unless John omitted some long pause or something, it seems to flow right along without any indication of subject change at all. On verse 22:12 and whatnot, considering so much of Revelations cconcerns Jesus "Coming again", I see no reason for me to believe that this must apply to God and not Jesus, I mean think about it, im not the one assuming that He isn't God, so I don't just jump onto all verses automatically that have God-like characteristics and simply assume that it can't be Jesus. I mean Jesus was always talking about and talked about about as "Coming quickly" and especially "like a theif in the night", and if God speaks of Himself as coming to give judgement, well, that works out quite well then if Jesus is God, then they both are coming at the same time, and everything works out fine. See, this whole trinity stuff ain't so confusing after all, is it? Im not sure what you meant by "Verse 18", but if it's 1:18, that just has "Living One" in it, where's the first and last comparison? On 2:8, why must the two characteristics be inter-twined, Jesus most certainly died on the cross and came to life again, but where in this verse or the surrounding context does "first in terms of death and last in ressurection" come into play, it looks like just mention of two of Christ's traits, what makes them be referring to each other in the terms your speaking of? Simply placing them side by side doesn't force them to be referring to each other.

I've already showed that many translations very often are tilted toward interpreting based on a certain POV, so just because the translators of your Bible put something there doesn't mean it 100% is true. You must check for yourself, it's important. All verses must be interpreted in light of the whole scriptures, which demonstrate clearly that Jesus is not God and most certainly that the holy spirit is not a person of God. --Oscillate 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On "Exact representation"

Err, I can't seem to recall any reason to debate for this, which verse was it? I mean its not in this list of similiarites here that I can tell and since you removed alot of text to shorten this page I can't see my original rant anymore :/.

I didn't remove a single character, I don't know what you're talking about. Check the history. --Oscillate 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it must of been one of the verses I used. Well if He is the exact representation of God, then He must be able to represent God, well, exactly. God is infinitly powerful, infinitly knowing, infinitly good, infinitly just, etc. etc., so then Jesus would have to be all of those things to be an exact representation, almost as though Jesus was God Himself.....otherwise that'd be downright polytheistic, and that's pretty wrong.Homestarmy 00:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were things he didn't know, things he deferred to God, etc. Being able to reflect God's qualities doesn't mean he is God. --Oscillate 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That ought to cover this first part, please tell me if I missed discussing any verses. Homestarmy 05:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to "Lord": I meant that since you seemed to be on a bit of a roll trying to make my verses say nearly the exact opposite of what I was saying I say, that it would seem to me entirely feasible for your perspective to be that I am merely picking and choosing verses to find similarities. However, on to the objection, what contextual evidence do you have that God as Lord in Isaiah 45:23 was not synonimous with the title's in Matthew 12:8, Acts 7:59-60, etc. etc., besides your perspective that Jesus could not possibly be God and that all scripture must somehow point to this conclusion?

"I AM" Ok, so all the different versions of the Bible render the Exodus verse and John verse differently. The meaning of "I AM" generally in both senses refers to existing before basically everything else (Especially Isaiah 43:10) or something deity-related and that's sort of the point, even if you somehow disqualify Exodus or that one John verse with those varying ways of rendering it, you've still got Deuterononmy and Isaiah there and the 2 remaining John verses, and the verses concerning Jesus still contain clear parallels on pre-existance, which is sort of a big point here. Though I think we may already be discussing that above someplace? Also, it seems there is a good bit of dispute over "Jehovah" as well, especially considering God is also called "Adonai", "Elohim", "El Shaddai", "Eloah" in Isaiah 44:8, and "Yahveh", there seems to be something about it on This webpage, but whether whoever wrote this is trustworthy or not, im fairly certain anyway that at least some of those names are definently in the Bible somewhere without being translated through like 5 languages, so how does "Jehovah" take precendence over them all again?

Psalm 83:18 and so many more scriptures, that's why. God says it is His name. That should be more than clear enough for you. --Oscillate 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On "Savior": Ok, those aren't grammer rules, that's just what the sentences means, I mean grammer rules like how Koine Greek somehow transliterates into English and stuff people go to collage and study manuscripts for like 4 years just to get started on really learning about. But if Jesus is His own unit of sorts, then I see no reason why the authority can't be relegated to the Father alone, and think about it, if Jesus is both God and a man, then by simply having a nature as man He would be lesser than the Father that way, and of course the Son can't do anything by His own intiative when He is also God by nature, it would be like God taking the initiative and yet not taking the initiative, they can't both be true at once.

Why does Jesus subject himself to the Father when he's back in Heaven then? --Oscillate 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On "Judge": So what about Psalm 9, where David must be referring to God since he is referring to God as the being responsible for upholding David's "right and my cause", and where it then says He will judge the world in righteousness, was there a convienent switch to prophecy mode there between verses 7 and 8, or will God somehow judge and yet at the same time not judge? And how about Revelation 20:11-15 where the dead, small and great, stand before God specifically (Waaaait a minute, how can non-existant "dead" souls stand in front of anyone, suspiiiciooous.... :D ), is Jesus convienently standing to one side doing the judgement and John just never writes this down?

Why would the need to be resurrected if they were never dead or non-existant in the first place? If they are always existing, why even use the word "resurrection"? --Oscillate 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On "no part of this world": Doesn't Earth simply become part of God's kingdom after all is said and done anyway, and besides, why would Jesus need to even interact with politics anyway to change things, I mean if He can overcome death, then I don't think bypassing the morass of today's political system is beyond His power.

On "First and last": I've seen you give many quotes from scholarly looking type people who seem to generally follow a thread of "This is not quite certain" or "This grammer rule might not of been formalized" and so on and so forth, but I don't see any stirring condemnations of the majority of these verses for how they are translated today, just some vauge sounding doubts. Considering the vaugness that supposedly exists in these verses, it would seem the only NPOV thing to do would be to simply make them say nothing at all, and especially in Revelations case, that's really not an option. However, something must of made these Bible versions translate the verses they way they do, and I don't see how only seeing a side of "Erm, well, it could of, maybe it would of, perhaps it should of..." gives a full perspective on everything you could possibly know about these verses.

There are several verses that must be read in the context of the scriptures as a whole. You are saying the exact same thing about many of your support. --Oscillate 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And finally, on "Exact representation": Well, if Jesus was the exact representation of God, then He must of represented at the very least infinite power. Either things get Bitheistic from here and I think we can both agree that would be just, well, pretty insane, or Jesus is God, unless im missing some hidden third option which allows Jesus to represent infinite power without actually, you know, representing infinite power? Or infinite knowladge, or infinite wisdom, etc. etc..

If he was God he wouldn't be a representation. Ever hear someone say that a person is the splitting image of someone else? They look similar or they act the same, etc. Who ever said Jesus had infinite power/wisdom/knowledge? Certainly not Jesus. He said he didn't know something, didn't do certain things, etc. --Oscillate 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think that got everything. If I may, I'd like to say something though about my whole argument here, see, the way this argument works isn't that every single verse in the list must correlate exactly for this point to me made, the point is in the extensive list of similarities between Jesus and God. If only a few general sorts of traits applied to both Jesus and God in just plain looking sort of situations, (I.E. They both exist and the like) then this sort of argument wouldn't hold much, however, when you look at everything in this argument together the pattern is unmistakeable. And thusly, you may be able to get around a few verses here and there with translation things which, quite frankly, I am not really qualified or experienced much in to debate about, (Unless, you know, I spend a couple hours or something reaserching scholar people or ask CTSW or Slrubstein to help me or something) but remember, there's still many important categories in my argument we haven't even talked about compleatly, such as reciever of worship especially, "who gets the glory", Giver of Life, (Though I think we did touch on several of these verses already), and other categories including all the "Eternal", "Immutable", "Omnipresent" etc. etc. verses, and then there were even more after that which wern't quite as major, but it is the strength of all the verses together that really gives this argument its kick, so even if you are able to get by a few of the verses, (And I even made your job easier, some of the verses I threw out myself at the beginning because even I thought they didn't quite demonstrate a link adequatly) there will still be more than enough verses left to draw a pretty clear connection to the idea that Jesus was God. It's a very extensive argument :D Homestarmy 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made more than clear to you above with so many different arguments and God's own word, and Jesus' own words that he is not God. The usage of similar titles or same titles is a weak leg to stand on, especially since they all have alternate explanations and some titles given to Jesus or God are used for others as well. The dual nature bit throws in more problems than you allow yourself to recognize, and many of those points above you have no explanation for, or your explanation makes no sense at all. Jesus is not Almighty God. --Oscillate 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And here we go again! On "Lord": Our conversation seems to of gotten off-track on this one. As we were saying, the context of Jesus being Lord and God being Lord are hardly as radically different as one referring to Lord of the universe and the other referring to like king Nebuchadnezzer, that guy's authority pales in comparison to Christ's. Matthew 12:8 for one says that Jesus is the lord of the Saabath, not merely a lord as if God had delegated the authority but retained it for Himself, but The Lord. Now, if God's authority is absolute, then how can He possibly have absolute authority and yet not be the Lord of everything? Unless of course, Jesus is God. You see, it is how these pieces of the puzzle fit together which truly makes the argument for Christ's divinity strong. Homestarmy 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

On "Savior": Because as a separate unit, Jesus can act subordinate to God while still being God by nature.

On "Judge": And here's the heart of it, you can be dead without ceasing to exist, and that's exactly what happens. People will be ressurected from the dead, not re-created again after not existing.

On "First and last": The reason I say the same thing over and over about my support is because you don't seem to be understanding this whole thing.

On "Exact representation": The situation you describe is where someone is like someone else, not as so someone else, and an exact representation has to be as something else, or else its not exact. For instance, an exact model of something would have to be like something in every way, to the point where they would be as if they were identical. And once again, Jesus could not know things because, having the nature of a man, He did not know all things as a man.

Finally, I still maintain that I have showed plenty of ways that Jesus can both be God and a man at once, you just simply call them all problematic despite my apparent lack of problem in eventually coming up with reasons for what I believe. Jesus is both God and a man :) Homestarmy 02:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Just a note, I apologize for any excessive exclamation points or any side-comments or edit summaries I made that might have been written in haste or in the passion of a response. I appreciate the opportunity to have a very wide and deep discussion about important Biblical topics that certainly affect the both of us. --Oscillate 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's no problem, I may of been a bit too sarcastic at times myself, I normally write my replies very late at night and sometimes things may come out wrong :(. It's just, quite frankly, i've never been in a discussion like this except once a long time ago, and i've never had to actually defend Christ's divinity in such an extensive manner before :/. Homestarmy 04:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, im afraid I won't be able to answer anything for a few days probably, i'll be off on a trip and I don't know if i'll have internet. Homestarmy 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, im back, i'll see about writing up a reply post-haste. Homestarmy 20:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)