Christians and Jesus

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Since people are claiming Jesus is God, and if one needs to be called "God" in order to be God ontologically, rather than functionally, I'm going to go a step further and say Melchizedek is God. Yep, that's right, this man precedes Jesus by a long shot.

11Q13 The figure of Melchizedek, the heavenly savior of those predestined to belong to him. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, pp. 590, 591

Col. 2 [. . .] And concern what Scripture says, "In [this] year of jubilee [you shall return, every one of you, to your property" (Lev. 25:13) and what is also written, "And this] is is the [ma]nner of [the remission:] every creditor shall remit the claim that is held [against a neighbor, not exacting it of a neighbor who is a member of the community, because God's] remission [has been proclaimed" (Deut. 15:2):] [the interpretation] is that it applies [to the L]ast Days and concerns the captives, just as [Isaiah said: "To proclaim the jubilees to the captives" (Isa. 61:1). . . .] and whose teachers have been hidden and kept secr[et], even from the inheritance of Melchizedek, f[or][. . .] and they are the inherit[ance of Melchize]dek, who will return them to what is rightfully theirs. He will proclaim them the jubilee, thereby releasing th[em from the debt of a]ll their sins.

This word [will thus co]me in the first week of the jubilee period that follows ni[ne j]ubilee periods. Then the "D[ay of Atone]ment" shall follow at the e[nd of] the tenth [ju]bilee period, when he shall atone for the Sons of [Light] and the peopl[e who are pre]destined to Mel[chi]zedek. [. . .] upo[n the]m [. . .] For this is the time decreed for "the year of Melchiz[edek]'s favor" (Isa. 61:2, modified) and for [his] hos[ts, together] with the holy ones of God, for a kingdom of judgment, just as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, "God has taken his place in the coun[cil of God;] in the midst of the gods he holds judgment" (Psa. 82:1). Scripture also s[ays] about him, "Over [it] take your seat in the highest heaven; God will judge the peoples" (Psa. 7:7, 8 ).

Concerning what scripture s[ays, "How long will y]ou judge unjustly, and sh[ow] partiality to the wick[e]d? [S]el[ah" (Psa. 82:2),] the interpretation applies to Belial and the spirits predestined to him, becau[se all of them have reb]lled, turn[ing] from God's precepts [and so becoming utterly wicked.] Therefore, Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the vengeance required by Go[d's] statutes. [In that day he will de]liv[er them from the power] of Belial, and from the power of all the sp[irits predestined to him.] Allied with him will be all the ["righteous] gods" (Isa. 61:3). [Th]is is that wh[ich . . . al]l the gods.

I guess Melchizedek is God.

[Lukyo]

Pseudo-Onkelos

Under my view, yes, because it has no biblical foundation. Under the trinitarian view, no, because trinitarians use "God" to mean "divine nature". And as I presumed, this is done because saying Jesus has a divine nature doesn't mean Jesus is God, as in person. Trinitarians need to keep this up, otherwise to say Jesus is both God and man would mean Jesus is two persons.

What else has a divine nature other than God?

Pseudo-Onkelos

You may think that, but I see trinitarianism as modified tritheism. The only reason why trinitarians claim to be monotheists is because the Greek Testament teaches that there is only one god, and rightfully so.

"Godhead" means nothing more than "godhood", another word for "divine nature". Simply put, godhood is the state of being a god or divine, just as manhood is the state of being a man.

Excuse me but theism is like the Trifoce from Zelda and that's 3 separate gods working together. I'm not denying that there are different emphases is on the three persons of God but they are all still only one God.

Pseudo-Onkelos

Perhaps not, but you've done nothing to disprove it.

The argument is basically your word against mine. There's nothing to disprove. Not to mention the video didn't give a reasonable alternative to the Garden of Eden story. The secular view of Genesis being a polemic against paganism makes more sense then this.

[Taikyoku]

You may as well ask why they're Christian at all. The same could be asked of anyone who has ever prayed to any venerated saint or prophet. I'm pretty sure there are some Muslim people in that group as well.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Lukyo

What else has a divine nature other than God?

Other gods and angels. That which is from heaven is divine.

Lukyo

Excuse me but theism is like the Trifoce from Zelda and that's 3 separate gods working together. I'm not denying that there are different emphases is on the three persons of God but they are all still only one God.

Theism in The Legend of Zelda is tritheistic. If you use "God" to mean "divine nature", as it is the custom to use it in trinitarianism, then this is no different than saying that there exists three gods who share the same divine nature.

I still haven't seen "God" used as a nature anywhere in the Bible.

[Lukyo]

Pseudo-Onkelos

Other gods and angels. That which is from heaven is divine.

That makes sense.

Pseudo-Onkelos

Theism in The Legend of Zelda is tritheistic. If you use "God" to mean "divine nature", as it is the custom to use it in trinitarianism, then this is no different than saying that there exists three gods who share the same divine nature.

Trinitarians say that there are three persons with the same essence; One God identified with three persons. In Tritheism, or any polytheism, each different god has their own essence.

Pseudo-Onkelos

I still haven't seen "God" used as a nature anywhere in the Bible.

I haven't used it either.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Lukyo

Trinitarians say that there are three persons with the same essence; One God identified with three persons.

If you can prove that the three persons are of the same essence—Father is God, Son is God, and Holy Spirit is God—well for you. It doesn't mean the reverse is true. In this case, "One God identified with three persons", which is to say God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, "Joshua is white" does not mean "white is Joshua".

Lukyo

In Tritheism, or any polytheism, each different god has their own essence.

Can you support this?

Lukyo

I haven't used it either.

I believe you have, even in your recent post. "One God identified with three persons." That certainly cannot mean, "One person identified with three persons" because that's a contradiction. "One divine nature identified with three persons" isn't a contradiction.

[Lukyo]

Pseudo-Onkelos

Lukyo

Trinitarians say that there are three persons with the same essence; One God identified with three persons.

If you can prove that the three persons are of the same essence—Father is God, Son is God, and Holy Spirit is God—well for you. It doesn't mean the reverse is true. In this case, "One God identified with three persons", which is to say God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, "Joshua is white" does not mean "white is Joshua".

What are you asking me here? If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not of the same essence then they are not one God.

Pseudo-Onkelos

Lukyo

In Tritheism, or any polytheism, each different god has their own essence.

Can you support this?

Only theory. In polytheistic religions the worship of any specific god is directed toward that specific god. When you are worshiping Zeus you are only worshiping Zeus, not Hades, not Athena, and especially not Thor, only Zeus. There is a distinctness among gods which would mean that they have their own essence, otherwise it would just be a larger form of the Trinity where the worship of any god can be considered worship of any god. Of course those gods are just larger than life men and often if not always in conflict with each other.

Tritheism my be an idea for Unitarians to criticize Trinitarians but that would mean that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each a god and each god requires individual worship; and from the biblical standpoint that is not the case.

Pseudo-Onkelos

Lukyo

I haven't used it either.

I believe you have, even in your recent post. "One God identified with three persons." That certainly cannot mean, "One person identified with three persons" because that's a contradiction. "One divine nature identified with three persons" isn't a contradiction.

Maybe if I were Unitarian I would say that God is a synonym for person, but I'm not.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Lukyo

What are you asking me here? If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not of the same essence then they are not one God.

I'm not asking you anything. I'm simply saying that Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God doesn't mean God = Father + Son + Holy Spirit, just as a father, a son, and a friend are humans, but humans aren't the father, son, or friend. This permits other views, such as modalistic monarchianism, dynamic monarchianism, and/or tritheism.

Lukyo

Only theory. In polytheistic religions the worship of any specific god is directed toward that specific god. When you are worshiping Zeus you are only worshiping Zeus, not Hades, not Athena, and especially not Thor, only Zeus. There is a distinctness among gods which would mean that they have their own essence, otherwise it would just be a larger form of the Trinity where the worship of any god can be considered worship of any god. Of course those gods are just larger than life men and often if not always in conflict with each other.

If by "essence" you mean "existence" true, but only true in that respect. They all share godhood.

Lukyo

Tritheism my be an idea for Unitarians to criticize Trinitarians but that would mean that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each a god and each god requires individual worship; and from the biblical standpoint that is not the case.

Trinitarians are criticized with tritheism, while unitarians also acknowledge that trinitarians aren't tritheists because of the way "one" is understood as a unity and not a singularity. Monotheism means "only [one] god", but trinitarians use "god" to mean an essence, nature, substance, or whatever word they wish to employ, rather than "god" being a person.

Lukyo

Maybe if I were Unitarian I would say that God is a synonym for person, but I'm not.

I know, and it's unbiblical.

[Lukyo]

Pseudo-Onkelos

I'm not asking you anything. I'm simply saying that Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God doesn't mean God = Father + Son + Holy Spirit, just as a father, a son, and a friend are humans, but humans aren't the father, son, or friend. This permits other views, such as modalistic monarchianism, dynamic monarchianism, and/or tritheism.

Only if humans are willing to permit them, because the scriptures are certainly NOT permitting.

Your human analogy need better structure. Did you mean to say: all fathers, sons, and friends are human but are not all humans are fathers, sons, and friends? That makes more sense.

But we're not talking about the nature of humans were talking about the nature of God.

Besides from a mathematical standpoint both of the equations are the same and theologically they are identical as well as accurate (although addition might not be the right symbol in this case; maybe a comma or a slash).

Pseudo-Onkelos

If by "essence" you mean "existence" true, but only true in that respect. They all share godhood.

But I though godhood was synonymous with "the Godhead"?

Pseudo-Onkelos

Trinitarians are criticized with tritheism, while unitarians also acknowledge that trinitarians aren't tritheists because of the way "one" is understood as a unity and not a singularity. Monotheism means "only [one] god", but trinitarians use "god" to mean an essence, nature, substance, or whatever word they wish to employ, rather than "god" being a person.

But God is three persons. Due to your lexicon your arguing for a distinction that I as a Trinitarian don't make. (Or at least not yet)

Pseudo-Onkelos

Lukyo

Maybe if I were Unitarian I would say that God is a synonym for person, but I'm not.

I know, and it's unbiblical.

Trinitarianism?

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Lukyo

Only if humans are willing to permit them, because the scriptures are certainly NOT permitting.

I can equally say the Bible doesn't permit trinitarianism. It's simply a formula made because trinitarians believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, and yet they cannot believe in three gods, but one god. Do you see why permits modalistic and/or dynamic monarchianism, or tritheism?

Lukyo

Your human analogy need better structure. Did you mean to say: all fathers, sons, and friends are human but are not all humans are fathers, sons, and friends? That makes more sense.

I didn't refer to all fathers, sons, and friends because according to Christianity, there are three persons. In like manner, I was using only three persons.

Lukyo

But we're not talking about the nature of humans were talking about the nature of God.

That's fine, but I'm using everything that is analogous to trinitarianism. "God" means "divine nature", so "man" means "human nature". The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God according to trinitarianism, and a father, son, and friend are man. The moment one change is made in trinitarianism, I will equally alter my example so it coincides with trinitarianism, and so that you and others may know that trinitarianism isn't the only view, nor can it be said it's the correct view.

Lukyo

Besides from a mathematical standpoint both of the equations are the same and theologically they are identical as well as accurate (although addition might not be the right symbol in this case; maybe a comma or a slash).

Mathematics wasn't on my mind. I was lazy to type in a conjunction.

Lukyo

But I though godhood was synonymous with "the Godhead"?

That's correct, which is equally just another word for "divine nature" or the state of being a god. The gods of hard polytheism are, well, gods.

Lukyo

But God is three persons. Due to your lexicon your arguing for a distinction that I as a Trinitarian don't make. (Or at least not yet)

What distinction?

Lukyo

Trinitarianism?

I believe that to be unbiblical, but no, I was referring to the word "God" meaning "divine nature". That's not found anywhere in the Bible as far as I'm aware.

[Lukyo]

Pseudo-Onkelos

I can equally say the Bible doesn't permit trinitarianism. It's simply a formula made because trinitarians believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, and yet they cannot believe in three gods, but one god. Do you see why permits modalistic and/or dynamic monarchianism, or tritheism?

Seriously? It never occurred to you that the Trinity was the answer to explain how there is only one God and yet there be a distinction between Jesus and the Father who are one?

Pseudo-Onkelos

I didn't refer to all fathers, sons, and friends because according to Christianity, there are three persons. In like manner, I was using only three persons.

Which is why your analogy didn't make any sense.

Pseudo-Onkelos

That's fine, but I'm using everything that is analogous to trinitarianism. "God" means "divine nature", so "man" means "human nature". The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God according to trinitarianism, and a father, son, and friend are man. The moment one change is made in trinitarianism, I will equally alter my example so it coincides with trinitarianism, and so that you and others may know that trinitarianism isn't the only view, nor can it be said it's the correct view.

But your just arguing for the validation of your personal lexicon.

Pseudo-Onkelos

That's correct, which is equally just another word for "divine nature" or the state of being a god. The gods of hard polytheism are, well, gods.

Still hasn't made any sense.

Pseudo-Onkelos

Lukyo

But God is three persons. Due to your lexicon your arguing for a distinction that I as a Trinitarian don't make. (Or at least not yet)

What distinction?

The distinction of having a different meaning for the word God due to God being a Trinity.

Pseudo-Onkelos

I believe that to be unbiblical, but no, I was referring to the word "God" meaning "divine nature". That's not found anywhere in the Bible as far as I'm aware.

And I'm not arguing for it.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Lukyo

Seriously? It never occurred to you that the Trinity was the answer to explain how there is only one God and yet there be a distinction between Jesus and the Father who are one?

It wasn't the only answer, so just because numerous councils decided what was orthodox and what was heresy doesn't make it true.

Lukyo

Which is why your analogy didn't make any sense.

You didn't explain why "all fathers, sons, and friends" would make sense, as opposed to using simply three persons as an example.

Lukyo

But your just arguing for the validation of your personal lexicon.

No I'm not. The Greek words ousia and hupostasis, prior to the time of the Cappadocian Fathers, were understood synonymously. In fact, if you translated either ousia, or hupostasis from the Greek to Latin, you would end up with the word substantia, the very word Tertullian used when he said of the Trinity, una substantia tres personae, "one substance, three persons". In English, both hupostasis and substantia are translated as "substance".

The Cappadocian Fathers decided they wanted to differentiate ousia from hupostasis because their opponents understood ousia and hupostasis to mean the same thing. Athanasius still used hupostasis with reference to the divine nature. If you speak of the hypostatic union, it's understanding hupostasis as a divine nature, as opposed to the human nature of Jesus. With reference to the persons of God, hupostasis is understood as an "individual reality", not "substance", or "that which stands underneath", as a foundation of a house, for example.

In case I am asked to prove this, I liberally leave this.

Lukyo

Still hasn't made any sense.

What hasn't?

Lukyo

The distinction of having a different meaning for the word God due to God being a Trinity.

So explain how you understand the word "God" with respect to the Trinity.

Lukyo

And I'm not arguing for it.

I don't know why you'd accept the Trinity, if you're not going to defend its terminology.

[Azriel_eph210]

Muslims view Jesus differently than Christians view Him. Muslims view Jesus as a great prophet of God; similar to how Christians would view Paul or Peter, or how Jews view Elijah. However, Christians view Jesus as God, which would explain why we pray to Him. Why would we make such a claim? Well, Jesus himself made such claims:

- Jesus deserves the same honor that God (the Father) receives (John 5:19-23)
- Jesus only accepted divine testimony about himself, and He came to earth from heaven (John 5:33-37; 6:38; 8:13-18 ) ++ this points to Jesus' claim of divinity
- Jesus has seen God (the Father) and lived (John 6:46). For a Jewish person, who believed that seeing the face of God would bring death to a human, this statement of Jesus' would come across as, "I'm not just a mere human, like the prophets of old."
- Jesus claims to be God (John 8:46-47) ++ the verses proceeding these verses gives the context of this claim

I'll stop there so this doesn't get really long to read. As it stands, Jesus made some pretty outrageous claims. He was either telling the truth, a lunatic, or a liar. If He was telling the truth, why haven't we listened to Him? If he was a lunatic, why would anyone, Christian or Muslim, celebrate him as a great person of God? If he was a liar, then we've all been deceived. After all, Jesus is celebrated by two of the largest belief systems in the world (Islam and Christianity).

[Abdul Salaam]

Azriel_eph210

Muslims view Jesus differently than Christians view Him. Muslims view Jesus as a great prophet of God; similar to how Christians would view Paul or Peter, or how Jews view Elijah. However, Christians view Jesus as God, which would explain why we pray to Him. Why would we make such a claim? Well, Jesus himself made such claims:

- Jesus deserves the same honor that God (the Father) receives (John 5:19-23)
- Jesus only accepted divine testimony about himself, and He came to earth from heaven (John 5:33-37; 6:38; 8:13-18 ) ++ this points to Jesus' claim of divinity
- Jesus has seen God (the Father) and lived (John 6:46). For a Jewish person, who believed that seeing the face of God would bring death to a human, this statement of Jesus' would come across as, "I'm not just a mere human, like the prophets of old."
- Jesus claims to be God (John 8:46-47) ++ the verses proceeding these verses gives the context of this claim

I'll stop there so this doesn't get really long to read. As it stands, Jesus made some pretty outrageous claims. He was either telling the truth, a lunatic, or a liar. If He was telling the truth, why haven't we listened to Him? If he was a lunatic, why would anyone, Christian or Muslim, celebrate him as a great person of God? If he was a liar, then we've all been deceived. After all, Jesus is celebrated by two of the largest belief systems in the world (Islam and Christianity).

You forget 4) Other people lied about him.

[Azriel_eph210]

The Irish Economy

You forget 4) Other people lied about him.

Haha! Wow...this is another, separate conversation. After all, this scenario would only be a valid one IF Jesus was in fact a liar or lunatic, and ONLY IF Jesus' disciples were aware of that fact. A lot of "if's" there, wouldn't you say?