
Originally Posted by
David M
Hi Richard
Humans forgive other humans every day
Yes, but I do not think humans forgive in the sense of forgetting and never calling to mind. Our minds have the capability of remembering what we have done every minute of our lives and we cannot erase what is in our memory. We do not forget, we just fail to recall.
Hey there David,
Forgetting in the sense you suggest has nothing to do with the concept of forgiveness. If God is anything like what Christians teach, then he certainly cannot "forget" in the literal sense that you suggest, but that doesn't stop them from saying that God forgets our sins, and neither does it stop the Bible writers from saying the same thing:
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Originally Posted by
David M
I am crossing over from my thread in which I am saying (as I understand the Bible) that Jesus is not God. I expect you are observing before wading in on my thread. I knew it would be contentious.
It's not only contentious, it is an ancient dispute amongst Christians. It seems pretty obvious that folks just believe what they want since both claim to be basing their claims upon the Bible.

Originally Posted by
David M
Your post is in a similar vane, dealing with human nature which Jesus had before he was resurrected and transformed.
Really? I don't see how my question relates, since I am asking about why God can't forgive like people do. It has nothing directly to do with the question of the divinity of Jesus as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by
David M
For the benefit of those new to the forum (like me), I will give a summary without copying the references as to why I say Jesus was a man.
OK - but that's not the topic of this thread. We should probably continue this conversation in the thread you started.

Originally Posted by
David M
I have no difficulty seeing how in God's plan (as God foretold through the prophets) Jeus was born of a human (it was God by His power which fertilized the egg of Mary). Jesus grew up as a boy to become a man and suffered from colds and chills just the same as ourselves.
From the age that Jesus knew he had to be about his Father's business, Jesus was preparing. We are told; he grew is wisdom and stature and found favor with God and man. Jesus was God's only begotten Son of whom God said (at the time Jesus was given (had unlimited access to) God's power (Holy Spirit). God spoke from the clouds saying; "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him."
God would have renmained close to His Son, always observing him and we know that Jesus led a life of prayer in which Jesus communicated to his Heavenly Father. Jesus was thirty when he started his 3.5 year ministry. It took him that long to prepare and as we know, Jesus was well versed in the Scriptures that have become our Old Tesatment and Jesus beleived them and would recall them. I expect his grasp of the scriptures was better than most, yet he had to learn them. The moment it said that Jesus' nature was the same as God, it is fudging the matter. God does not lie, he does not need to fudge a matter, God had confidence that if he gave rise to a Son born of a virgin, His Son would do it; that is live a sinless life and doing His will. God has been vindicated, do not let us take away the glory and that is due to Jesus for his achievement.
It seems you skipped a beat here. Your assertion that it would be "fudging the matter" to say "Jesus' nature is the same as God" is a huge non-sequitur. And then to "refute" that point by merely asserting that "God does not lie" leaps over all the Biblical reasons Christians have for believing in the Trinity. It makes it seem like you have not studied the history of this question much at all. There was a HUGE debate about the relationship between the Father and the Son way back in the 4th century. Your position lost that debate. Maybe they were wrong, and you are right, but merely asserting "God does not lie" does not help anyone understand the issues involved. And as far as I can tell, you have not dealt with the actual reasons that the early church finally concluded that the Bible teaches the divinity of Christ.

Originally Posted by
David M
Jesus grew up as a man having to battle with human nature by which is disposed to sin, hence this explains the concept of the devil which Jesus destroyed in the flesh. God is vindicated from anyone saying it was impossible for a man (or woman) to live a sinless life. To say that Jesus was anything but a man is denying him the victory that was his.
That's why the Doctrine of the Trinity plainly states that Jesus was 100% human. The fact that he also is 100% divine is accepted as a mystery. And when dealing with the nature of God, it is not an unexpected thing to encounter a mystery or two.

Originally Posted by
David M
Jesus was close to God in prayer and God did everything Jesus requested of Him. When Jeus called on God's power people were raised from the dead and the storms calmed. It appeared as if Jesus was God, and why should not anyone think this seeing it was God at work behind the scenes. It was God's power at work; I doubt Jesus had to have any knowledge of the science of how the Holy Spirit operated; it was sufficient that he trusted God not to let him down when Jesus called upon his Heavenly Father to grant Jesus his requests whenever asked. This does not change the nature of Jesus (the man), or his relationship to God. There is always this relationship of God (the Father) and Jesus (the Son), never a direct equality. Jesus was given many titles. Even God gave His Son the title of God, but that does not change the actual relationship or nature of the two of them.
None of those points are relevant to the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity. You need to address the reasons that Christians developed the doctrine. They didn't just "make it up" our of whole cloth, you know. They were trapped in a dilemma of conflicting verses in the Bible - some that indicate Jesus was a man, and some that indicate he was God incarnate. All the other talk is pretty irrelevant. You need to deal with the facts that gave rise to the doctrine.
And the "science of how the Holy Spirit operates?" I didn't know there was such a thing. Where did you learn this "science?"

Originally Posted by
David M
We have to acknowledge that Jesus could have failed; what then? This is what is so marvellous; despite all the temptations including having the power of God at his disposal to use for his own gains, Jesus never gave it. The temptations are easy to explain and does not require an external devil as wrongly understood; all the teptations were from within generated by his own thoughts and so he had to overcome and suppress those thoughts.
Well, the Bible presents the devil as a real person who tempted Christ. It's fine if you want to say that language is just metaphorical for internal personal struggles, but then you would do well to admit that your interpretation is a private interpretation. This just goes to show how the Bible is useless to determine truth. Everyone interprets things however they want. It's nothing but vain words with no way to test for truth.

Originally Posted by
David M
Jeus was dead in the tomb for 3 days. His body died, hence the mortal nature that Jesus bore. It was God (his Heavenly Father that raised him). Jesus did not raise himself, though he had complete confidence that his Heavenly Father would raise him. Now that Jesus is raised, God has given him and immortal body which is incorruptible and like the body that will be given to believers who are judged worthy. Hence Jesus is the firstfruits and is like those who will be resurrected and given immortality.
Now you are directly contradicting the Bible which says that Jesus raised himself:
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
This is the problem with the doctrines you are promoting. They contradict or disregard the plain meaning of many verses.

Originally Posted by
David M
Right at the very end after Jesus has set up the Kingdom and finally destroyed the last enemy which is sin and death, Jesus hands the kingdom over to his Heavenly Father and becomes subject to Him. Jesus shows by this that he is subject to his Heavenly Father just the same as all the brethren of Jesus shall be in the kingdom of God to come on earth (The Good News).
Relationship within the Godhead does not prove your point.

Originally Posted by
David M
So then, Jesus who I maintain was a man when he was first on earth following his birth (genesis - coming into existence) and who was subsequently raised from the grave and given an immortal body and given the highest position in Heaven (at God's right hand) is never equal to God. Therefore, humans with mortal bodies can never be greater than God or greater in status to that of Jesus.
Why then does the Bible equate Christ with God as Creator?
Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 ¶ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
I get the impression that you have not dealt with the actual reasons Christians believe in the Trinity.
I'm getting the impression that you have received your anti-Trinitarian doctrines from some religious group like the Worldwide Church of God. Is that correct?

Originally Posted by
David M
I respect everyone's sincere belief's and thanks to you Richard for putting up this platfrom. You were right to reject Christendom in the way that it is generally taught. The true Jesus and the true God of the Bible is not being taught. There are a lot of lies being taught and misunderstandings put forward as truth which are lies. This is the same as the children being taught lies in school from the text books that say man came from a rock 400 million years ago. I hear the same phrase repeated in the nature documentaries on the TV. People are conforming to the state religion that Evolution has become. They spoutthe lies without understanding and without investigating for themselves and finding the truth. I expect there is another thread on Evolution in the archives. Maybe the subject is due for another airing.
All the best
David
Well, you are not the first to confirm that Christianity in general is false and filled with lies, liars, charlatans, and similar crap. That's one of the most interesting things to arise from my public rejection of the faith. Practically everyone says that yes, Christianity as seen in most churches is crap, but then they go on and suggest that I should convert to their odd little variation of Christianity that they think is the "real truth."
Could you post a link to the source of the claim that there are "text books that say man came from a rock 400 million years ago"? I've never heard such an absurd claim, and I'd really like to verify it.
And evolution is not a religion. It's just a fact sitting atop a mountain of evidence. I'd love to discuss this with you if you are so inclined.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to share you views with us. I find them fascinating and look forward to further discussion.
Great chatting!
Richard
Bookmarks