Divinity of Jesus

Ok, I find this very interesting, but I'm a bit mixed up hahaPeg, are you proposing that christianity is polytheistic ?? As in Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all seperate individuals, but all Gods ?Or that there is one God, and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not to be viewed as God ?

OKokBut if Jesus is just a normal human, why did God call him his son ? (this is my beloved son, etc. during his baptiscim)

Claiming to be God in Israel in those days is equal to a suicide. Because Jesus didn't claim it during his ministry doesn't mean it is not true.Also, there are many things that Jesus said that are not recorded in the gospels.But we know his disciples were there, and heard everything. How can you account for what John says in the opening chapter of his gospel ? I mean, just the verse verses seems to cast doubt in my mind about your opinion that because Jesus sometimes describes his relationship with God as in a two individual perspective, it means that he isn't God.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (here, two individual perspective: God and The Word), and the Word was God (hop, here there is a one individual perspective: The Word was God). He was with God in the beginningJohn in the same verse, refers to the relationship between God and 'The Word' in a two-individual perspective and a one-individual perspective. Can it be possible that John was so dichotomic to do this, in the SAME verse ? I doubt it.The nature of God-TheSon-TheHolySpirit is freakin' almost impossible to understand. How can there be three distinct indivuals, but all the same God ? I've abandonned trying to answer that question. All I do know is that this IS the case, because that in the Bible, both a multiple-individual approach and a one-individual approach is used (and sometimes in the same verse ...)

Didn't he have to be human to die for the sins of Humanity ??

Ok trick question here:If Jesus is not God, than he had a beginning, and so he 'came into existence'.How then can 'all things came into existence through him' ? (as per John 1:3)

I sure don't know a lot about Koine Greek hh. But I understand your point (although you have to agree that the vast majority of translations write that the word was God (John; NIV - The Word Became Flesh - In the - Bible Gateway; even the french translations say this)But if Jesus is not God, but is still divine, doesn't this make him like a 'lesser God' ? Where does that put him in regards to God, angels, demons, humans ? Less then God, but more then angels ? Are angels considered divine also ??

OKAnd where does the Holy Spirit fit in all this ??

So is christianity monotheistic or polytheistic ???????????????????I'm freakin mixed up right now as to the implications of the rejections of the 'trinity' as a true reality

Haaaa come one Brian, did you really say that ?You never heard of the 1985 Habermas vs Flew debate on the ressurection of Jesus Christ ? Where 4 out of 5 judges ruled in favor of Habermas, and the other ruled it a draw ?Even one of the judges said that the arguments advanced by Habermas could lead a reasonable person to believe in the ressurection of Jesus Christ.Applying Occam's Razor to the explanations of the evidence, and you quickly come up with the fact that Jesus's ressurection is proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is in part linked with this quote by GK Chesterton:

quote:

---

The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them

---

Anthony Flew was what ? 62 years old, and 20 years away from his turning to Deism. Still at the top of his campaign against the concept of God.By the time of the debate, he had published the majority of his books and articles about the philosophy of religion, including publishing on a Hume approach to miracles. I'll watch the debate on youtube, (thx for the link cavediver, I won't have to buy the manuscript of the debate hh). If you have a link 'debunking' the christian propaganda in the debate, I would like to have it also. (I mean, you have the right to call BS on all this, but doing only that won't really convince me)But I find it rather difficult to believe that Habermas uses the same crap every time he debates on this subject, but almost every time comes up on the winning side ... its gotta be a christian conspiracy

Of course, if you knew the greek roots of the word 'faith' you would know that it is supposed to be evidenced based ...I'm trying to discuss here, and you and Brian seem only to call BS without backing it up. My comment was accurate, since the gospels are eye-witness accounts, and so if you use Occam's razor between taking the accounts as accurate, or invoking some 'maybe' and 'what if' scenarios; you realize that it is not in your favor, but in mine

Maybe they are anonymous, but it is irrelevant to the fact that they are eyewitness accounts or not ...You got 4 different versions of Jesus's life, and all of them intertwist at many points but yet they stay accurate and don't contradict themselves. By this fact, you have either two options:1- Whoever the authors were, they were eyewitness accounts or getting their information from eyewitnesses.2- One or multiple authors decided to make 4 different versions of the life of Jesus, and consulted themselves to make sure they tell the same made-up stories and be sure they do not contradict each other.3- Many other options similar to no2 can be thought about. But yet again, Occam's Razor will always favor option no1 if there is no valid reason to think the contrary.

This Dilemna you propose is very easily answered with Phillipians 2:5-11

quote:

---

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

---

The key part is in the beginning. Jesus and God are, by nature, exactly equal. But Jesus voluntarily took on the lower position of a servant.The concept of trinity can be translated to the (biblical) concept of marriage. Because the man and the woman, although still two 'centres of consciousness', still become one flesh.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

It is the New International Version (from biblgateway.com)But I have to disagree with your concept of what the trinity is. Even in the doctrine of the trinity, there are three centres of counsciousness. And all of them are God, but not each other (The father, the holy spirit, the son)Maybe this image will make what I'm trying to say a bit clearer:

The Hebrew expression 'firstborn' does not represent priority in time, as we would interpret it today. In the Hebrew culture, it was a refenrece to the pre-eminence in rank. This can also be seen when David is called the 'firstborn' (psalms 89 I think) although he was actually the youngest son.Another expression where it is important to have the original Jewish meaning of it is 'the son of', which actually meant 'of the order of' or 'having the very nature of'. For example, 'sons of the prophets' (1 Kings 20:35) meant 'of the order of the prophets. Same thing with sons of the singers (Nehemiah 12:28).The Jews of the time of Jesus understood that Jesus was claiming to be God, which is why they wanted to kill him for Blasphemy (John 19:7), which you can't explain if you argue that Jesus was actually saying that he was some sort of Angel-being, since the Jews would not have called it Blasphemy.