Are God and Jesus the same?

[Falx]

Heb 12:2 looking to Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and sat down at the right of the throne of God.

There as well.

I see quite a few people mentioned not having access to their bibles... if the mods would allow it, I would like to encourage everyone to download e-Sword. It's free software with multiple translations of the bible for free legal downloading and some which you need to pay for.

That's where I got my sig, it's John 3:16 from the Kougo bible.

It's got built-in daily devotionals and plenty of study tools.

[Nate]

[quote="That Dude"]Which I would add is extremely evident throughout the bible if you study diligently, like in Genisis 1:26 "Then God said, “]
That's not very good evidence, as God could have been talking to angels (if you assume angels existed at that point in time). Especially since in the following verse,

"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."

"His" own image, "He" created them, singular, as opposed to "they created" or "in their image." Remember also Genesis is not just part of the Christian Bible, but the Torah. Since Jews do not believe in the Trinity, then obviously this cannot proof of the Trinity's existence (since they believe in the oneness of God).

God is talking to angels is one interpretation of that verse. A verse that would seem to back that up is Psalms 8:5 (and Hebrews 2:7 which quotes that verse) which states that man was made a little lower than the angels. Another is Luke 20:36 where it states that in Heaven, we will become like the angels.

Another, which is obviously less popular in Christianity, is that God is talking to other gods. This sounds weird, but remember that in the OT, there is no statement that there are not other gods. It only says not to worship those other gods. There actually are a few places where the OT does imply other gods exist, just that God is above these other gods. Remember that we're only reading a translation of the original text, and translations always lose meaning. From what I've read, the verse where God is talking and says "Let us create man in our image," the noun used there is a generic noun for any god, not the usual names of God that the Jews use.

There are also verses where the Bible shows God talking to spirits in His courts, such as 1 Kings 22 and of course the book of Job.

So while again, I will state that there ARE verses that can be used to support the Trinity (Midori's verse, Jesus' words), Genesis 1 doesn't really count.

[That Dude]

Ok Nate, I'll give you that, that it isn't really the best verse to use, but as you said, there are verses that support the doctrine, and I might add more than just a few. There's a ton of verses referring to God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, not to mention ones talking about "The Angel Of The Lord" which is pretty consistently by many authorities in the area of theology, thought to refer to a pre-incarnate Christ Jesus.

But anyway, once again, yes in most peoples views Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons in one. Though even though I personally haven't seen enough evidence to convince me otherwise, there are people who don't believe in the trinity, and there are some who believe that God is only one but he chose to appear in different forms at different times...

I personally believe that if you diligently study the bible the only logical conclusion is that the three in one trinity does exist.

[Nate]

The problem with that statement is that there are Christian groups who do not believe the Trinity exists. I myself even have some doubts about it, because I have read the Bible. I won't go so far as to say "The Trinity does not exist," but I'm definitely in the area of "Well...it isn't necessarily true."

[Mr. SmartyPants]

That Dude, I think that instead of quantifying it as truth, that it is more appropriate to hold the trinity as a mystery.

I personally believe that if you diligently study the bible the only logical conclusion is that the three in one trinity does exist.

I disagree. One can study the bible diligently and come to any sort of conclusion which they want. Factors such as context of scriptures during its time, context of scripture in our time, factors which we already presume (i.e. the Bible's inspiration and what that may mean), as well the finiteness of ourselves and how language will inevitably distort reality must be accounted for.

[edit]This all plays a big part to the analysis of scripture, and theology in history has never come to a reconciliation. For example, some theology discredits all of the miracles in the gospels, saying that they are no longer necessary because myths are no longer needed to expound on beliefs of human nature anymore. Therefore, to understand the gospel existentially is to "demythologize" it (Bultmann). As long as humans are finite, I do not believe we ever will. But for me, this is why faith is so beautiful. Because there is so much uncertainty to it. And what is faith without uncertainty? Not faith at all, I say.[/edit]

I have no problems with you nor anyone believing in the Trinity. I encourage you to embrace this belief if it is your belief. Nonetheless, I think this belief only exists in your mind based off of previous ideas which people already take granted for (language being a big one). I think one ought to have a belief, yet still embrace uncertainty.

I make the assertion that you cannot know anything about God, Jesus, or any form of spirituality. Instead, it's all entirely revealed to you by God. And this revelation is ultimately subjective. So ultimately, "subjectivity is truth" because that's all we are able to work with. Reason is far too limited for us to "know" anything by it.

But that's just me. I could be entirely wrong. In the end, I don't even know. My belief in God is ultimately only foundational on the fact that I already presume God's existence.

[Peanut]

I disagree. One can study the bible diligently and come to any sort of conclusion which they want. Factors such as context of scriptures during its time, context of scripture in our time, factors which we already presume (i.e. the Bible's inspiration and what that may mean), as well the finiteness of ourselves and how language will inevitably distort reality.

I have no problems with you nor anyone believing in the Trinity. I encourage you to embrace this belief if it is your belief. Nonetheless, I think this belief only exists in your mind based off of previous ideas which people already take granted for (language being a big one). I think one ought to have a belief, yet still embrace uncertainty.

This is true and it also reminds me, once again, of the importance of tradition within our own faith. The trinity happening to be one of them from our own need to explain how Jesus is God without being polytheistic.

I make the assertion that you cannot know anything about God, Jesus, or any form of spirituality. Instead, it's all entirely revealed to you by God. And this revelation is ultimately subjective. So ultimately, "subjectivity is truth" because that's all we are able to work with. Reason is far too limited for us to "know" anything by it.

I know this is a point where we have a fundamental disagreement on in which neither of us can say anything to change the other's mind. But I think you need to look at the wording here a little more closely. If revelation is all subjective, what is to stop me from saying God has revealed that I am to enact his holy judgment for him, starting with you? I think you would agree with me that even if revealed truth is filtered through our own subjectivity, there are still certain interpretations and theological beliefs that are completely false and can be rejected.

[Cognitive Gear]

This is true and it also reminds me, once again, of the importance of tradition within our own faith. The trinity happening to be one of them from our own need to explain how Jesus is God without being polytheistic.

This is very true. I have recently been reading some Church history, and was actually very surprised by all of the trouble that this single issue caused prior to the trinity idea. There were quite a few doctrines that I found to be strange which had stemmed from the various ideas preceding the trinity, since the nature of Christ is very important to how we ultimately interpret the scriptures.

It's also given me something to mentally chew on as I try to figure out what I believe when it comes to other, similarly obfuscated ideas such as the "rapture".

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I know this is a point where we have a fundamental disagreement on in which neither of us can say anything to change the other's mind. But I think you need to look at the wording here a little more closely. If revelation is all subjective, what is to stop me from saying God has revealed that I am to enact his holy judgment for him, starting with you? I think you would agree with me that even if revealed truth is filtered through our own subjectivity, there are still certain interpretations and theological beliefs that are completely false and can be rejected.

Oh you're correct for sure. And you make a very valid point. Honestly at this point it's not something I've exactly reconciled yet. But this line of thinking is something that I'm beginning to really appreciate. There's a lot of Kierkegaard/Barth in this which I'm sure you're aware. XD Perhaps I'm just applying far more skepticism than they have. Or maybe I just need to read them more. XD

I guess me saying that "revelation is subjective" is actually a criticism of proponents of revelation, while still maintaining it as revelation. I dunno, man. There is no doubt that my own beliefs are still incomplete, haha. I just love Kierkegaard! XD

This is true and it also reminds me, once again, of the importance of tradition within our own faith. The trinity happening to be one of them from our own need to explain how Jesus is God without being polytheistic.

This is also very true. While I believe that traditions can be ultimately deconstructed, there is still a necessary value in them. Why that is so is something I'm not quite sure of though...

[Peanut]

Oh you're correct for sure. And you make a very valid point. Honestly at this point it's not something I've exactly reconciled yet. But this line of thinking is something that I'm beginning to really appreciate. There's a lot of Kierkegaard/Barth in this which I'm sure you're aware. XD Perhaps I'm just applying far more skepticism than they have.

I guess me saying that "revelation is subjective" is actually a criticism of proponents of revelation, while still maintaining it as revelation. I dunno, man. There is no doubt that my own beliefs are still incomplete, haha. I just love Kierkegaard! XD

Just throwing something out here which sort of popped into my head, but why can't it be both objective and subjective? I'm not sure how that would exactly work (maybe the flawed filter idea or something else) but I really don't think Theology, or most of the humanities for that matter, is entirely subjective or entirely objective. I think its somewhere in the middle.

This is also very true. While I believe that traditions can be ultimately deconstructed, there is still a necessary value in them. Why that is so is something I'm not quite sure of though...

Well, we have to be careful with these deconstructions of tradition since ultimately our entire religion (and all religions for that matter) reduces to traditions passed down from one generation to next with some additions. With that being said there is a lot that can be benefited from by tracing these traditions back to their source. I've already hinted at this with the origin of the idea of the Trinity however another interesting example is the use of philosophy in Theology. Interestingly enough, there was a marriage of sorts between those two schools in the early church after some contention. That contention also produced two awesome quotes which go along the lines of "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem" (anti-philosophy in Theology) and "Plunder Egypt for the sake of Rome" (pro-philosophy in Theology). Another example would be the origin of Christian Theology itself. Incredibly, the early "theological" writings of the church fathers were apologetic in nature. So, in some ways, our form of Theology is an extension of apologetics. Its stuff like this that really makes me wonder what the Church would have looked like if it hadn't had all the external and internal pressure it did early on.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Just throwing something out here which sort of popped into my head, but why can't it be both objective and subjective? I'm not sure how that would exactly work (maybe the flawed filter idea or something else) but I really don't think Theology, or most of the humanities for that matter, is entirely subjective or entirely objective. I think its somewhere in the middle.

Maybe because we can't ever know the object? All that S<->O does is try to prove that there IS an object, and nothing about it. However, I think it's only a negative proof. He doesn't prove an object. He only disproves pure subjectivity (or attempts to, I suppose).

But man. I don't really know. XD

Well, we have to be careful with these deconstructions of tradition since ultimately our entire religion (and all religions for that matter) reduces to traditions passed down from one generation to next with some additions.

Again, very true and I agree. There is significance there for us, and as humans we ought to embrace them.

[Nate]

One can study the bible diligently and come to any sort of conclusion which they want. Factors such as context of scriptures during its time, context of scripture in our time, factors which we already presume (i.e. the Bible's inspiration and what that may mean), as well the finiteness of ourselves and how language will inevitably distort reality.

I am posting this to emphasize how much I agree with it. I don't really mind if anyone believes wholeheartedly in the Trinity. I encourage it, even. If you believe it, awesome! The problem is saying "Well if anyone reads the Bible they'll obviously agree with me." It's a way of trying to put opinion as fact, same as if I said "I personally believe that if you play Golden Sun the only logical conclusion is that it is the best RPG on the Game Boy Advance." Talk to Fish and Chips, who played Golden Sun and absolutely hated it.

Anyway yeah, just sayin'.

[Peanut]

Maybe because we can't ever know the object? All that S<->O does is try to prove that there IS an object, and nothing about it. However, I think it's only a negative proof. He doesn't prove an object. He only disproves pure subjectivity (or attempts to, I suppose).

But man. I don't really know. XD

To pull a Davis, you are differentiating here and relating to said object. Therefore proving S<-->O. XD

[Atria35]

I'm with Nate and Smartypants.

Just sayin'.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

To pull a Davis, you are differentiating here and relating to said object. Therefore proving S<-->O. XD

I'm gonna hit you tomorrow... XD

[shooraijin]

I, myself, enjoy expressing exceptional points of logic with threats of violence. :-D

[TopazRaven]

Another, which is obviously less popular in Christianity, is that God is talking to other gods. This sounds weird, but remember that in the OT, there is no statement that there are not other gods. It only says not to worship those other gods. There actually are a few places where the OT does imply other gods exist, just that God is above these other gods. Remember that we're only reading a translation of the original text, and translations always lose meaning. From what I've read, the verse where God is talking and says "Let us create man in our image," the noun used there is a generic noun for any god, not the usual names of God that the Jews use.

It might be a bit late to be posting a response to this particular piece of information, but oh well. I'm reading through the OT right now and this is something that I noticed and rather confused me a bit. In Exodus when Moses is trying to convince the Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go whenever he used the staff to show them God's miracles it is said that either the priest or the Pharaoh's gods would perform the same acts, such as creating a snake when the staff turned into a snake or changed water to blood, though not to the same extent that Moses had through God. Doesn't this prove then that in least Egypt's gods where in some sort of existence? If they where can they really even have been considered 'gods'? They may have been beings higher then humans, but definitely lower then God. For it is God that created the world and everything in it and God who is the most powerful being ever. I don't really think any of these other gods actually existed, but I am a person who takes great interest in Egyptian, Greek and Roman mythology.

Edit: Considering I am in no way worshipping these gods and don't even think they actually exist is it safe to say this interest of mine is not dangerous then? I like learning about other cultures and such to begin with.

[Peanut]

It might be a bit late to be posting a response to this particular piece of information, but oh well. I'm reading through the OT right now and this is something that I noticed and rather confused me a bit. In Exodus when Moses is trying to convince the Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go whenever he used the staff to show them God's miracles it is said that either the priest or the Pharaoh's gods would perform the same acts, such as creating a snake when the staff turned into a snake or changed water to blood, though not to the same extent that Moses had through God. Doesn't this prove then that in least Egypt's gods where in some sort of existence? If they where can they really even have been considered 'gods'? They may have been beings higher then humans, but definitely lower then God. For it is God that created the world and everything in it and God who is the most powerful being ever. I don't really think any of these other gods actually existed, but I am a person who takes great interest in Egyptian, Greek and Roman mythology.

Edit: Considering I am in no way worshipping these gods and don't even think they actually exist is it safe to say this interest of mine is not dangerous then? I like learning about other cultures and such to begin with.

The three ways I see to read those texts are that the Pharoh's priests performed those acts the same way a magician performs magic tricks, that they were performed through the power of demons, or that the account was either added as an argument against the practice of worshiping other gods besides Yahweh or as the result of a false belief that Yahweh was greater then the other gods and not the only god. Nate's post is referring to this last theory while your post seems to be more in line with the second. I tend to like the first one myself mostly because I see nothing wrong with naturalistic explanations for these miracles. In fact, there is a good bit of evidence that suggests they may have been caused by a volcano in Greece. With that being said, it does not change their state as miracles when you think about it. Even if Moses went up to the Pharaoh and just said something general like "If you don't let us go, bad things are going to happen" the timing of those events is truly miraculous. Anyway, to answer your questions, it all really depends on how you see the world. If you believe that the supernatural is involved in everyday life in supernatural ways, then that is an acceptable interpretation. If you tend to have a more naturalistic view like myself and Nate, then you'll just chalk it up to an explanation of illusion or symbol instead. But there is nothing wrong with how you are reading that text.

[That Dude]

That Dude, I think that instead of quantifying it as truth, that it is more appropriate to hold the trinity as a mystery.

I disagree. One can study the bible diligently and come to any sort of conclusion which they want. Factors such as context of scriptures during its time, context of scripture in our time, factors which we already presume (i.e. the Bible's inspiration and what that may mean), as well the finiteness of ourselves and how language will inevitably distort reality must be accounted for.

[edit]This all plays a big part to the analysis of scripture, and theology in history has never come to a reconciliation. For example, some theology discredits all of the miracles in the gospels, saying that they are no longer necessary because myths are no longer needed to expound on beliefs of human nature anymore. Therefore, to understand the gospel existentially is to "demythologize" it (Bultmann). As long as humans are finite, I do not believe we ever will. But for me, this is why faith is so beautiful. Because there is so much uncertainty to it. And what is faith without uncertainty? Not faith at all, I say.[/edit]

I have no problems with you nor anyone believing in the Trinity. I encourage you to embrace this belief if it is your belief. Nonetheless, I think this belief only exists in your mind based off of previous ideas which people already take granted for (language being a big one). I think one ought to have a belief, yet still embrace uncertainty.

I make the assertion that you cannot know anything about God, Jesus, or any form of spirituality. Instead, it's all entirely revealed to you by God. And this revelation is ultimately subjective. So ultimately, "subjectivity is truth" because that's all we are able to work with. Reason is far too limited for us to "know" anything by it.

But that's just me. I could be entirely wrong. In the end, I don't even know. My belief in God is ultimately only foundational on the fact that I already presume God's existence.

Oh it's ok you are entirely wrong :p

I do agree that one can study the bible and come to any conclusion that they want to, what I disagree with is that what conclusion they come to is always right. I do believe that you have to study in context of the time it was written, and find the concept that it conveys in general, just cause something was written to a specific people at the time saying "do this" doesn't mean that it won't mean the same thing later, it just means that it might be a little more work finding out that he meant "do this" as the general principal he was trying to get across.

You are right that theology has never come to an agreement over the years, but if you do believe in Christ's inspiration of the scriptures and that they are infallible, it means that many theologies are completely wrong, such as the de-mythologizing of the scripture. You cannot accept it's logical outcome if the bible is infallible, because you'd be making God himself into a liar.

I do still accept uncertainty in belief, but not like you describe it as...If you suscribe to any sort of absolutes than I would say that it's absurd to say believe in your beliefs and you'll be doing right (which you didn't exactly say, but that's the message that's coming across.) Anyway as far as the uncertainty, it will always be there, since we are finite creatures, we can never fully understand the infinate, but we can truly understand parts of it. Just like you can never fully grasp the number of Pi, we can all truly know that 3.14 is still Pi. Truth works the same way, you can truly grasp truth, you just won't ever be able to understand it completely.

I know this is later in the post, but would you say that you have faith that if you sit on a throne made of concrete it will hold you up? You can have faith and still have certainty and faith is no less beautiful...Another example, say you have the perfect spouse, faith in her fidelity isn't lessened because of uncertainty, it's enhanced by your certainty. Again this goes back to the idea of being able to know truth in certainty, but not entirety...So it is with faith, you can have faith with certainty, but not entirety and that's where the -as Scheaffer would put it- faith faith comes in.

It's interesting how extremely Kierkegaardian you are in your thought. Though it's to be expected seeing how he's your hero.

Anyway I have quite a few more objections, but I will save them for later, or if you are interested in continuing this, I'd PM you.

[Midori]

That offer of taking things to PMs is a good idea, That Dude. This discussion is going in directions that we'd really rather not have discussed on the forums right now, so I'm gonna close this thread. I think maybe it should have been closed earlier, but we're still learning in this experiment of ours. Thank you in advance for understanding, everyone.