Question on the "Immortal Soul" doctrine?

Our body has a mind. For those who believe we have an immortal soul, does it have a mind too?
If Yes, does that mean we have two minds? If No, how does it do anything after the body dies?

The question seems inevitable to consider.

------------------
My preemptive responses to anticipated answers:
'No. The soul takes our body's mind.'
Response: Our body's mind is tied-into our brain, so when our brain dies, so does the mind.
'Yes, it has a mind of its own too.'
Response: How can we have two minds?
------------------

If you could use the Bible to document your answers, that would be great.

Best Answer
Those who believe in an immortal soul believe that when we die, we take with us our thoughts, personality, memories, etc.

But we know that all that stuff is tied physically to our brain.

So those who hold to this doctrine have to explain why, if the soul has the capability to carry our mind away from the body, why does the physical body even have a brain to handle these function? It is needlessly redundant.

Either we have a functioning physical brain, plus a non-functioning spiritual "brain" that starts working immediately at death, downloading information from the physical brain then taking over.

Or we have two functioning brains - a physical and spiritual - carrying on redundant double duty.

LINK

Note: The primary reasoning I use for dismissing the immortal soul doctrine is due to the Passion Narratives. See:

A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-lesson-from-jesus-rebuke-in-order-for.html

Unbelievers, I have proof that Jesus is God?

Look, in John 10:38, it says "The Father is in me and I in the Father." John 14:11 reads much the same. Jesus is your Lord and Savior!

Wait a minute...

John 14:20 - "At that day you (i.e. the disciples) will know that I am in my Father and you in me, and I in you" Herp derp merp.

So a dozen disciples are partners with Jesus and God?

Or...maybe the language is FIGURATIVE, which would make sense since Aramaic and Hebrew possess far greater capacity for metaphor than English.

CHRISTIANS, stop using that verse as proof for Jesus' divinity, k thx bye.

Best Answer
I hear ya! Furthermore, in John 10:38, 14:9-11 and 17:21 the Greek word 'en,' translated as "in" as in "in the Father" and "the Father is in me," may also be translated as "in union," as seen in 14:20 and 17:21 where the disciples are also 'en' the Son and the Father. Clearly, "in union" is the intended meaning there, and surely in the other occurrences as well. This finds support in John 17:22, 23, where the NET Bible reads:

"The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one – 23 I in them and you in me – that they may be completely one [footnote: Or “completely unified.”], so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me."

Here Jesus explains that being 'en' another means being unified with another, as the NET Bible footnote points out. That unified is the intended meaning is also corroborated by John 6:56, where Jesus said: "The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him." (NET Bible) Clearly, Jesus' body and blood cannot literally reside in all Christians simultaneously, for two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

So we can see that when we follow Trinitarian reasoning to its logical conclusion, that it leads to insurmountable problems.

Source:
Read more at: Exploring a Trinitarian Black Box

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/12/exploring-trinitarian-black-box.html

LINK

Why is it so hard for some people to understand the concept of the Christian trinity?

To me its fairly simple to understand. An analogy of the Trinity is water, or H2O. Water is a liquid. Water can also be vapour. And it can be a solid, ice. The liquid state is not ice, ice is not vapour and vapour is not liquid. They are distinct. But they are all H2O. This is the same as the trinity. God the Father, the son Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct but all the same being.

Best Answer
The H2O illustration is on the Never Use list of Trinitarian apologists like this one:

Quote:
“The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts, one thing.” Ever heard that? How about this, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.” Or how about THIS, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like water: three forms (ice, steam, liquid) one substance.” But the greatest I ever heard was by a guy in one of my classes. He said that he thought that the Trinity was like 3-in-1 shampoo: three activities, one substance.” [Emphasis added.]
Stupid statements. Creative, but stupid. Don’t use them. Any of them. Ever.[1]

He prefers to use the diagrammatic Scutum Fidie instead, and calls the H2O illustration modalistic: "Ice, steam, and liquid are examples of the same nature which *at one time or another* has a particular mode of existence. Sometimes it is liquid, sometimes it is ice, and sometimes it is steam. God is not sometimes Son, sometimes Father, and sometimes Spirit. He is eternally each, always at the same time." Thus it is on the Trinitarian Never Use list.

I understand it that there are three people in the impersonal Trinitarian Godhead as shown in the scutum fidei. As one Trinitarian apologist explained:

Unlike traditional Judaism and Islam, the God of Christianity possesses a unique and mysterious plurality of personhood within its single divine essence. In other words, while God is one in being, he nevertheless exists as three distinct persons (or centers of consciousness). One way of expressing this special monotheism is to say that God is "one what and three whos." That is, in terms of what God is, God is one and only one divine being. But in terms of who God is, God is three distinct persons. (end quote)[2]

Thus God for the Trinitarian is not a person but a What, an impersonal Godhead, composed of three whos or divine people.

Yet, this is diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the Lord Jesus Christ who fearlessly declared with a doubtlessly booming voice that the Father is the "only true God." (John 17:1-5) Thus Jesus Christ clearly believed that God is a single person, the Father.

Additionally, Hebrews 5:7 informs us that Jesus Christ even relied on his Father and God to be resurrected from death, and that his prayers were favorably heard due to his his godly fear or piety.[3]

Thus, despite all the intellectual acrobats Trinitarians must go through to support their man-made, non-biblical doctrine, it still fails to accurately and scripturally describe the Lord Jesus Christ and his almighty Father, the only true God, Jehovah.


Source:
[1] Patton, C Michael. “The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo”. . . And Other Stupid Statements. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/20...

Popular Arguments some Trinitarians use that are on a Trinitarian "Never Use" List
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/06...

[2] What a tangled web we weave...
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04...

[3] Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09...

LINK

Jehovah's Witnesses. Why does Satan hate the "Trinity" doctrine?

Note:
I am including this as it demonstrates the depths of intellectual depravity some Trinitarians are willing to plumb.

LaVey shaved his head as part of a formalized founding ritual, in the tradition of medieval executioners, carnival strongmen, and black magicians before him, to gain personal power and enhance the forces surrounding his newly-established Satanic order. It was the enactment of an allusion at the end of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Kubla Khan: an incantation rejecting the Holy Trinity and the spiritual life in favor of one devoted to Hell and material pursuits.
http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/CShistory3COS.html [asked by surfari]

Best Answer
Please notice that it does not say that Satan hates the Trinity as such. Please read it again, this time with more astute comprehension:

"an incantation rejecting the ***Holy Trinity and the spiritual life*** in favor of one ***devoted to Hell and material pursuits.***"

Did you catch the real meaning this time? You can replace "Holy Trinity" with "God and Jesus" and the meaning remains intact, for it is connected to the words "and the spiritual life."

Thus, the first clause could be replaced with 'A' meaning "Godly devotion," and the final clause "devoted to Hell and material pursuits" could be replaced with 'B' meaning "selfish materialism."

Thus that sentence can read like this: "an incantation rejecting A in favor of B." The only reason why they wrote "Holy Trinity" is because they think it's Christian, when ironically it's apostate and satanic!

Edit:
[Trinitarian*]: "God is not a person."
Jesus Christ: "God is a person." (John 17:1-5)
The Trinity and its promoters contradict Jesus Christ.


Source:
Reading comprehension

LINK

* user Grey Tower

See also: Jehovah's Witnesses. Why do demons hate the "Trinity" doctrine? http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2014/10/jehovahs-witnesses-why-do-demons-hate.html

Jehovah's Witnesses. Why do demons hate the "Trinity" doctrine?

Note:
I am including this as it demonstrates the depths of intellectual depravity some Trinitarians are willing to plumb.

You teach the union of three persons in one Godhead ... This is a piece of human fallacy and is an absurdity. (p.265) ... Christ taught a unipersonalist God ... He knows of no triune God of Whom the Catholic and other Christian denominations teach. Only the Father is God. (p. 364)
Communications with the Spirit World, Johannes Greber.

The reason the Bible does not clearly teach the Trinity doctrine is simple: It is not a Bible teaching. Had God been a Trinity, he would surely have made it clear so that Jesus and his disciples could have taught it to others. And that vital information would have been included in God’s inspired Word. It would not have been left to imperfect men to struggle with centuries later.
Watchtower 11/1/91 p.23 [asked by surfari]

Best Answer
How do you know Greber received his knowledge that the Trinity is false doctrine from the demons? Was he totally incapable of independent thought? How could you possibly know, unless you claim to have the uncanny ability to read minds? How ironic then.

It therefore appears very clear that ones who say 'Greber was a spiritist' + 'he rejected the Trinity' = 'demons hate the Trinity' are extremely shallow in their reasoning abilities, for they fail to be objective enough to think of another possibility, that he was capable of independent thought--which is apparently what Trinitarians are incapable of.

Source:
See related Q: Jehovah's Witnesses. Why does Satan hate the "Trinity" doctrine? [archived in link below] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqtgp2kkZsVmeL4d26r0iCzsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130723072617AA1kw0W

LINK


See also:

• Jehovah's Witnesses. Why does Satan hate the "Trinity" doctrine? http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2014/10/jehovahs-witnesses-why-does-satan-hate.html
• Extent of involvement with spiritist Johannes Greber? http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2011/06/extent-of-involvement-with-spiritist.html

---

How this same questioner surfari continues to abuse over Greber:

Jehovah's Witnesses. Under what circumstances will you trust demons to tell the truth?

My answer:

Under no circumstances.

You were refuted in your two earlier attempts at presenting this same topic:
In your question "Jehovah's Witnesses. Why do demons hate the "Trinity" doctrine?" you were exposed as incapable of rational and independent thinking.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjGsVQNSrp_21AZ.4YGDIJPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130723080036AApGiQm

In your question "Jehovah's Witnesses. Why does Satan hate the "Trinity" doctrine?" you were exposed as having extremely poor reading comprehension.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqtgp2kkZsVmeL4d26r0iCzsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130723072617AA1kw0W

I will close with this:

"You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear." (James 2:19, NET Bible) Ironically, Trinitarianism rejects that "God is one," promoting instead that God is three. The demons know this is false but use it, the Trinity, to lead people away from Christ and salvation. People who can think for themselves also reject the Trinity.

Edit: Thanks for proving my point.
(Just because it's in that book doesn't necessarily mean he got it from demons. Your quote doesn't specifically say he got it from demons. It looks like you're simply assuming that, which in turn suits your sensational purposes.)

Further reading, including an appendix from JWD2: http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2011/06/extent-of-involvement-with-spiritist.html

Edit: People who say our message and/or NWT is demon-inspired have blasphemed the holy spirit. They are also liars.

LINK (proceed at your own risk)

Jehovah's Witnesses: what is an Uninspired Prophet wouldn't that be the same as a false prophet?

Best Answer

No. Per Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22 a false prophet ADDS to God’s word by making NEW predictions that fail and/or advocates worship of false gods.

An uninspired person cannot by definition add to God’s word. An uninspired INTERPRETATION of prophecy in God’s word that turns out to be a misreading of that prophecy is not a false prophecy.

Source:
False Prophecy or Misguided Interpretation of Prophecy? The Test of a Prophet.

http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/prophecy.htm

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/03/false-prophecy-or-misguided.html

http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-of-prophet-god-provided-means-of.html

LINK

Jehovah's Witnesses. Why did this guy not do exactly as Jesus told him to?

Luke 8:39 (NWT)
“Be on your way back home, and keep on relating what things God did for you.” Accordingly he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what things Jesus did for him.

According to you, Jesus is not God, so, when told to keep relating what God did, instead he went around talking about what the Archangel Michael / God's representative or anyone else who is not God did.

Or did he in fact do exactly as requested? He went and proclaimed what God did for him?

Best Answer

He did do what Jesus said. It went like this: "Jesus healed me through God's power." It's all in the semantics.

Also, take heed that Trinitarianism does not teach that Jesus is God. No, it teaches that Jesus is the second person of the impersonal Trinitarian Godhead with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Why can't Trinitarians ever actually say what they believe?

Additionally, Jesus said he would be killed. Peter rebuked him, saying that he would not be killed. Trinitarianism actually agrees with Peter here. But Jesus disagrees with that thinking, calling it Satanic.

See:

A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-lesson-from-jesus-rebuke-in-order-for.html

LINK

Trinitarians: Why didn't Jesus describe the Trinity for us at John 16:27-28?

Here Jesus was speaking 'plainly' about theology. The NET Bible has it like this:
"16:27 For the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 16:28 I came from the Father and entered into the world, but in turn, I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.” Footnote: "The statement I am leaving the world and going to the Father is a summary of the entire Gospel of John. It summarizes the earthly career of the Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, on his mission from the Father to be the Savior of the world, beginning with his entry into the world as he came forth from God and concluding with his departure from the world as he returned to the Father."

Thus both Jesus and the NET Bible here equate God with Father. Thus Jesus came from the Father and God and will return to Him. But according to Trinitarian theology, the Father shares the impersonal godhead with the divine person of Jesus as well as the holy spirit. So why then didn't Jesus say he was a person of the impersonal Trinitarian godhead? Why did he lead us to believe that God is the Father and not a Trinity?

He was speaking plainly and had a perfect opportunity to explain the Trinity. Instead, he told us that the Father is God.

[Trinitarian]: You said: "2) Thus both Jesus and the NET Bible here equate God with Father.
As does the doctrine of trinity, of course."

Actually it teaches that the Father is not alone in the impersonal Trinitarian godhead. So I'm afraid you misrepresented Trinitarian theology.

According to Trinitarianism, three people exist within the impersonal Trinitarian godhead, including the divine nature of Jesus.

So, why when Jesus switched from speaking in "figures of speech" (16:25) to speaking "plainly" did Jesus say that the Father is God and NOT describe the Trinity while speaking plainly?

@ TeeM, I like what you said: "According to these verses only the Father is God, because Jesus is the one sent by God, and is telling us that he is returning to God. … Jesus isn't speaking in riddles or figuratively, but 'plainly' so that we can understand Jesus' position with his God and Father." This is the crux of my question I wish Trinitarians would address.

Best Answer:

This scripture is teaching us how close God the Father is to his only begotten Son (3:16)

According to these verses only the Father is God, because Jesus is the one sent by God, and is telling us that he is returning to God.

Vs 13 tells us that the spirit can not speak a single thing of its own initiative.

NASB13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative,.

Again showing the submissive position of the holy spirit. (the spirit is always 'of God' or "God's" denoting ownership)

29 His disciples *said, “Lo, now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech. 30 Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.”

Jesus isn't speaking in riddles or figuratively, but 'plainly' so that we can understand Jesus' position with his God and Father. There is not mystery or 2 Jesus' one fleshly and one Godly.

32 and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me."

If Jesus and the Father are the same God, then Jesus would be alone, but he isn't because God is with him.

.

The entire context of John 16 refutes the idea that the Father, Son and holy spirit are all one and equal.

LINK

How long does it take for a Jehovah's Witnesses to know more than MDivs & Doctorates?

"20 seconds" - Walter Martin

Honestly it depends on the specific subject. But notice what the "MDivs & Doctorates" themselves have said:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses can make a doctrinal pretzel out of the average Christian [Trinitarian] in 20 seconds,” the late U.S. evangelical minister Walter Martin once said.

American Christian fundamentalist Ron Rhodes said Jehovah’s Witnesses pose a significant challenge. “They have been trained better than any Christian [Trinitarian] denomination that I’m aware of.”^[1]

“Christians [Trinitarians] tend to be inept at responding to antitrinitarian thought and argumentation of ... Jehovah’s Witnesses.”—Contending with Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors, page 205. By Paul Copan and William Lane Craig.^[2]

LINK

(Question closed soon after I answered.)

Footnotes:
^[1] Witnesses keeping the faith http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=b3d5d95d-c598-43e5-8c0c-6811dd1895ed&sponsor=

^[2] The complete quote is: “inept at responding to antitrinitarian thought and argumentation of Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormons.”

Additional reading:

• “New Poll Finds Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies” http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/10/new-poll-finds-evangelicals-favorite.html

Trinitarians: how was Jesus strengthened by an angel?

At Luke 22:42 Jesus is praying to the Father for strength, and verse 43 has an angel strengthening him.

• Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus is a divine person with human and divine natures.
• Trinitarianism teaches that it was Jesus' human nature that needed strengthening.

So why wasn't the divine person of Jesus able to strengthen his human nature?

One answer:

When you read the commentary on this scripture, they say those exact words. They say his human nature, being lower than his divine nature, needed cheering and support.

This makes no sense when you think about it. It means the divine nature was incapable of doing anything. Notice, this is the second time angels came to strengthen him. The first is at Matt 4:11.

Me:
Excellent reference. Mat. 4:11 says "angels came and began to minister to him." If Trinitarianism were true, then surely those angels would not be so indiscreet to presume that they could encourage the human nature of the divine person of Jesus!

An answer from a Trinitarian:

1) Trinitarians: how was Jesus strengthened by an angel?

Supernaturally, of course. The Bible doesn't give the details - so how would anyone know the details? You don't; I don't. Jesus knows.

2) So why wasn't the divine person of Jesus able to strengthen his human nature?

Who told you that it wasn't? Why did you believe them? The Bible certainly does not teach that the divine person of Jesus was unable to strengthen his human nature. Are you saying that non-Biblical doctrine is one you accept as true?

Me:
Hi! "Who told you that it wasn't?" Luke 22:43.

"The Bible certainly does not teach that the divine person of Jesus was unable to strengthen his human nature." Then why did he rely on an angel?

If the Trinitarian paradigm is true, then it is most inappropriate for a mere angel to strengthen Jesus' human nature when his divine person was fully capable of doing so. Hence, my question.

Trinitarian response:
I don't know why he relied on an angel - and neither do you. Why did God rely on an angel for anything? God relies on angels throughout the Bible - though the Bible never tells us why he does so, and it is absolutely certain that he does not NEED to do so.

Me:
God uses angels in the OT but never to receive strength. But I'm glad to see you say that you don't know, that was humble of you.

Related reading:
Could Jesus Have Had Faith in God?

Related blog entries:
Defending Trinitarianism
Who was the Interceding Angel?

Link

When Jesus said "No one is good except God alone"?

Based on these three scriptures, especially the last two:

Matthew 19:17
“Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good."
Mark 10:18
“Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."
Luke 18:19
“Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."

(All from the New American Standard Bible)

Thus we have a question followed by a clarification.

Can the question be understood as:

(1) A Repellent Question indicating an objection?
Jesus was no stranger to Repellent Questions, as he used one on his own mother in John 2:4, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” Meaning, “Don't tell me what to do, it's not time yet.” Thus, as applied to this question, Jesus said: "Don't call me good, for only God is good (and I'm not God)!"

(2) Or can the question be understood in the Trinitarian sense of Jesus making us "stop and think for a moment about who Jesus really was." (NET Bible footnote for Mark 10:18) As in, "Stop and think, if I'm good and God is good, then I must be God in the sense of God being an impersonal construct and me being the second person within it in hypostatic union with my human nature!"

But Jesus also declared that the Father is the "only true God," thus God is a singular person, the Father at John 17:1-5.

So, which option is more reasonable with scriptural precedent?

Update: If #1, Jesus is calling God good in the sense of recognizing his Father as the ultimate standard of what is good. (Not that everyone else is evil as someone suggested. Their post is now gone for some reason.)

@ XXX1, hi there. Philippians 2:6 can be translated differently and that chapter actually does not support Trinitarianism, but that's a separate subject. Seeing Jesus is seeing the Father in the sense that Jesus perfectly represents his Father, and actually works against the Trinity the way you're using it as Jesus is not his Father. John 17:5 confirms Jesus' prehuman existence in heaven. No support for the Trinity there either.

Update: @ XXX2: Please be advised that 1+1+1=3, not 1. I also note that your comment is mere spam for the Trinity and actually does nothing to address this question.

Update: @ XXX3: As I wrote above, Jesus is calling God good in the sense of recognizing his Father as the ultimate standard of what is good, not that Jesus and everyone else are evil--they are just excluded from being the ultimate standard of what is good.

Jesus Christ ALWAYS deflected attention away from himself and directed it towards his Father. (John 7:16-18; 12:28; 17:6)* Could the same be true with this question I'm asking?

* Look up Scriptures here: http://tinyurl.com/au2mfwx

And as you know, Jesus and his Father are one in purpose just like Christians and Jesus are one--John 17:21.

Best Answer Asker's Choice

Greetings,

Some Trinitarians say that Christ wanted the man to realize that his calling Jesus "good" meant Jesus was God since only God is good.

Non-Trinitarians interpret this as an example of Jesus denying that he was equal to God: the man was using the title improperly in an absolute sense and Jesus corrected him showing that only God should be considered to be supremely good, and not Christ.


What is clear is that the Trinitarian interpretation must arbitrarily import ideas into the text. Nothing in the context leads to the conclusion that Jesus wanted the man to believe Christ was equal to God. This conclusion has to be forced into the text by a presupposed theological bias. Further, the grammar argues against it. This is noted even by many Trinitarian scholars:

Interpreter's Bible:
"Why do you call me good? ...later theologians interpreted it otherwise: 'If you call me good, you imply that I am God'--but this is wholly impossible, both in the original setting and for Mark." (7:801).

The Catholic NAB:
"Why do you call me good?: Jesus repudiates the term "good" for himself and directs it to God, the source of all goodness who alone can grant the gift of eternal life; cf. Mt 19:16-17"--(ftn. on Mk. 10:18).

John A.T. Robinson:
Footnote:"Indeed, by implication he DENIED being God: 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone'" (Mk 10:18)--(Honest To God, pp. 72-73).

The literal rendering of Luke 18:19 is: "There is none good, but the one God" (EI MH EIS hO QEOS). Use of the article (hO QEOS) here is significant. In Mark only the Father is hO QEOS, never Jesus (cf. 15:34). Christ's words then specifically identify God the Father as the only one who is good and explicitly excludes himself (and all others). Jesus could not have used this syntax to mean what Trinitarians claim. This fact is placed beyond debate when we notice the same exact Greek expression in other passages that have no theological baggage.

For instance: Mk. 2:7: "Why is this man talking in this manner? ...Who can forgive sins except one, God?"

This question and answer is almost an exact parallel, making it very clear that the grammatical structure is designed to exclude the subject from the identification in the response. The Pharisees certainly wanted to explicitly exclude Jesus from being God. Their argument was explicit: "This man is NOT God since ONLY God can forgive sins."

If Jesus meant to imply that he be considered "good" in the sense the man used why would Jesus use syntax which could only be understood as excluding himself?

The ultimate and final authority on what Jesus meant lies in how the man understood the correction. We get a definite answer when the man in his very next words dropped the "Good" and addressed Jesus simply as "Teacher." It was obviously very clear to the man that Jesus was excluding himself from being called good since he was not God. Jesus obviously thought the man got the correct point since he did not correct the man this time. Rather, Jesus "loved him" and invited him to be his follower! Would Jesus have done this if the man was so obtuse as to miss or reject Jesus' point?


In conclusion, it is first clear that the context and the grammar shows that Jesus gave no indication that the man must recognize he was Almighty God. To the contrary Jesus' response was a clear correction of what was said, rejecting the application of the term "good" to himself in this circumstance.


The fact that others are properly called "good" in the Scriptures proves that Christ was obviously applying "Good" in an absolute sense here. If he wasn't using it in an absolute sense, then his statement that "No one is good except God alone" would be a lie. This is because the word "good" (Grk. agathos) is properly used in Scripture of many things, even by Jesus Himself as a generic term for others. (Matt. 5:45; 12:35; 13:38; 22:10; 25:21,23).

Normally, calling Jesus "good" was appropriate. Yet, in this context the man was placing Jesus as ultimate/supreme judge of what is required for eternal life. The man seemed to be assuming Christ was so "good" that he could decide the requirements for salvation on his own.

Colin Brown Theological Dictionary:
"What stands out is what has been asserted in every period of Israel's history,... namely that God himself is the One who is really and exclusively good. In the language of the LXX, he is the highest good....However, this does not prevent a natural application of the predicate "good" to the moral differences between men, who do good as well as evil (Matt. 12:35; 25:21; and par. Lk. 6:45; 19:17)."

Yours,

BAR-ANERGES

Asker's rating & comment

5 out of 5
Thank you, the Colin Brown Theological Dictionary quote was excellent! Why Trinitarians can't understand this is quite revealing...

LINK

Is Behemoth a dinosaur? Is this based on Job 40:17 only?

Job 40:17 states that it moves or bends its tail like a cedar. Based on this, some identify Behemoth with a sauropod dinosaur. But notice:

40:21 states that it lies under the lotus tree, is concealed by reeds, and lies in swamps. Verse 23 adds that it lives in a raging river. Both conditions are physically impossible for a sauropod dinosaur. Note that in verse 17 it's the actions of its tail that are compared to a cedar, not that it looked like a cedar, otherwise its long neck would look like a tree too, but no mention is made of that.

Plus, verse 19 indicates that it has a "sword," understood to be tusks. The NET Bible in its footnote states: “The sword is apparently a reference to the teeth or tusks of the animal, which cut vegetation like a sword. But the idea of a weapon is easier to see ... The [Revised Standard Version] probably has the safest: ‘He that made him has furnished him with his sword’ (the sword being a reference to the sharp tusks with which he can attack).” It must be noted that sauropods do not have tusks, but the hippopotamus does have two dangerous tusks that can penetrate crocodile hide. Likewise, the hippopotamus uses its tail for a variety of important functions, thus it acts as a strong and stiff appendage.

Thus, considering all the verses that exclude a dinosaur identification, is it only verse 17 that dinosaur-proponents use?

Related point:
Have dinosaur and man footprints been found together? Creationists say no:
"In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had *serious problems*. They decided that, pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could *no longer be safely used as evidence* ... that man and dinosaur lived at the same time."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n2/magic-bullet

Select responses to an interlocutor:

It's not necessarily about one's worldview, but about reading comprehension and honesty. The habitat of both Behemoth and Leviathan is described as being associated with water, so they cannot be dinosaurs since dinosaurs were primarily terrestrial. Some could have visited watery places, but they could not have lived there like Behemoth and Leviathan. About Job 40:17: You're evidently confusing "looking like" with "acting like." Being stiff like a cedar matches a hippo tail just fine. Like I said, it's not about worldview but about reading comprehension. Also, animal death and human death are different per Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 and Psalm 49:12. Since man has fallen into sin and death, he is now at the same level as the beast.

I am not arguing semantics. I am arguing for accuracy. Dinosaurs do not match the descriptions in Job 40-41. 40:23 certainly does show that Behemoth withstood rushing rivers. Otherwise, it could have said anything no matter how unrelated. And I have a professional library on paleontology, so your quote there is either outdated or from an inaccurate source. The quote from Faussett, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown is reading way too much into a simple verse. Again, it's not about worldviews, but about responsible reading comprehension.

(I had another response, but Yahoo! deleted it when it switched over to a new format. It went something like this:)

About Mokele-mbembe, I noticed that in 2006 National Geographic had an expedition that failed to find it. I believe it remains elusive.

Thanks for posting that website. It appears to answer my question that the sauropod identification is based solely on Job 40:17. Also, concerning Leviathan, it compares the description of pyrotechnics in Job 41:18-21 with a bombardier beetle that sprays a high-temperature jet of gas out of its hind end. Problem: the Leviathan's pyrotechnics come from its head, not behind. Wrong end!
============================

Let me include the entire discussion log. At the time of me originally posting this, it appeared to be truncated as I commented on above, but it is all included now:

Update:
@ Donald: Hi there! Even a child can see that sauropods do not have horns or tusks.

@ Robert: Hi there! You're playing fast-and-loose with those definitions.

Update 2:
@ I worship Jehovah: Hi there! Actually the crocodile has been identified as Leviathan. Since we're on that subject, the Leviathan spends time in the water per 41:31-32, thus also not a dinosaur to educated people.

Update 3:
@ Donald again: ironically, what's "patently absurd" is that definition which ignores the entire description of Behemoth. Very dishonest and sensational in fact.

Update 4:
@ Alex de Alex: Hi there! It's not necessarily about one's worldview, but about reading comprehension and honesty. The habitat of both Behemoth and Leviathan is described as being associated with water, so they cannot be dinosaurs since dinosaurs were primarily terrestrial. Some could have visited watery places, but they could not have lived there like Behemoth and Leviathan. About Job 40:17: You're evidently confusing "looking like" with "acting like." Being stiff like a cedar matches a hippo tail just fine. Like I said, it's not about worldview but about reading comprehension. Also, animal death and human death are different per Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 and Psalm 49:12. Since man has fallen into sin and death, he is now at the same level as the beast.

@ a Real Truthseeker: Looks like your answer is a blind cut-and-paste job that has nothing to do with seeking truth. Step one in truth seeking is READING.

Update 5:
@ Alex de Alex again: I am not arguing semantics. I am arguing for accuracy. Dinosaurs do not match the descriptions in Job 40-41. 40:23 certainly does show that Behemoth withstood rushing rivers. Otherwise, it could have said anything no matter how unrelated. And I have a professional library on paleontology, so your quote there is either outdated or from an inaccurate source. The quote from Faussett, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown is reading way too much into a simple verse. Again, its not about worldviews, but about responsible reading comprehension.

Update 6:
You're welcome Alex, and thank you for the dialog. About Mokele-mbembe, its identification remains elusive, so it really cannot be called a sauropod. Wikipedia has a nice summary too. It says that in May 2006, National Geographic tried to find it, but failed. The "Dinosaurs and the Bible" site answers my question, that the dinosaur identification is based solely on verse 17, and a misreading of it at that, and dismissing the other the verses that exclude a dinosaur identification. (Dismissing verses in God's word!) It says it was brachiosaurus, yet it is known that it did not have tusks or horns and it is much too large to have found shade under the lotus tree. Good reading comprehension would have saved them from that egregious blunder.

Update 7:
(As an aside, that site, like other YECs, identifies Leviathan with Kronosaurus, not a dinosaur but an aquatic pliosaur. The pyrotechnics in Job 41:18-21 are hyperboles like elsewhere in Job's descriptions [see how the horse is described with exaggerations in Job 39:20, 22, 24]. But the site compares these pyrotechnics to the bombardier beetle's. One problem with this: The beetle is specifically designed to dispense with its noxious chemical spray in a rapid burst of pulses from special glands in its abdomen, not in its mouth. Wrong end. Thus, Leviathan's pyrotechnics are hyperbolic for the fear of death it gives its observer. Their exegesis is thus seen to be cartoonish.)



LINK

See also:

• Identifying Behemoth www.jimspace.000space.com/YEC/EB.htm

Are dragon legends evidence that dinosaurs lived with man, or?

Are dragon legends evidence that man found dinosaur bones and told legends about them?

Which is more reasonable?

(And the Bible book of Job does not describe dinosaurs, so please do not use that reasoning.)

Dino and man footprints found together? Creationists say no:
"In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had serious problems. They decided that, pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could no longer be safely used as evidence ... that man and dinosaur lived at the same time." (emphasis added) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v25/n2/magic-bullet

About Behemoth in Job, please read in 40:21 that it lies under the lotus tree, is concealed by reeds, and lies in swamps. Verse 23 adds that it lives in a raging river. Both are physically impossible for a sauropod dinosaur. The actions of its tail in verse 17 are compared to a cedar, not that it looked like a cedar, otherwise its neck would look like a tree too, but no mention is made of that.

LINK

See also:

• Identifying Behemoth www.jimspace.000space.com/YEC/EB.htm

Credits:

• Picture from the young-earth creationist book Dinosaurs of Eden.

Trinitarians: what exactly did Jesus sacrifice?

Trinitarians have told me that Jesus took back the same body that was crucified and that Jesus didn't die because he is the immortal second person of the Trinitarian Godhead and that he also has an immortal soul.

So, the person of Jesus didn't die, it was his human nature that died, but he got that back when that was resurrected and rejoined with his immortal soul and divine nature which obviously never died.

So since Jesus AS A PERSON never died (as he was conscious as a divine person and an immortal soul while his human nature was dead) and since he got his same body back, then what exactly did Jesus sacrifice?

References:

“Jesus died physically, but remained alive spiritually,” and that Jesus’ “essence did not die, nor could it” and “His physical body died, but His inner being is eternal and could not die.” (Houdmann, S. Michael. “Did God die? If Jesus was God, and Jesus died on the cross, does that mean God died?” www.gotquestions.org/did-God-die.html) This position was also presented by one of the brightest minds of Trinitarianism, Dr. William Lane Craig, in this video: “Was God Dead for Three Days?” youtu.be/g4uhWvEpAvk [1]

Also, blood is liquid flesh so when the resurrected Jesus said he was "flesh and bones" blood was clearly included as he was not a zombie.

To review:
What did Jesus sacrifice that he did not still have or get back per the Trinitarian paradigm?

[The Trinitarian responses were that Jesus sacrificed his blood and that he was separated from the Father. But they also openly and publicly declare (wittingly or unwittingly) that Jesus still had blood and that he was NEVER separated from the Father as he was the second person of the impersonal Trinitarian Godhead the entire time. Thus, my question remains open.]

Footnote:
[1] Specifically from 0:55 to the end. Here he stated:

“So when Jesus died on the cross, his human nature died, not his divine nature, he died as a man. Human death is the separation of the soul from the body, and that's what happened when Jesus expired on the cross. His soul was separated from his body, which then became a lifeless corpse and was laid in the tomb, and then later we Christians believe was raised from the dead. So you can see that the divine nature, the divine person of Christ, is not in any way, um, extinguished in the death of the human nature of Christ on the cross.”

Thus he confirms the Trinitarian position that the person of Jesus never died, it was just his human nature on earth that expired. See also “Do You Reject Trinitarianism? (Point 1).” jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html

Link

JW's, Can you explain to me why the Holy Spirit is an Active Force instead of a 3rd person in a trinity?

i would like as much info as i can about the holy spirit, thanks.

Answer:

Consider the virgin birth of Christ. If the holy spirit is a person, the third person of the Trinitarian Godhead, then a person is responsible for Mary's pregnancy. Period. (Or in Mary's case, no period.)

Thus, it sure sounds like Trinitarianism unwittingly teaches that God had sex with Mary. It looks like a sexual union of an alien person with a human female, giving the holy spirit the role of an incubus.

If Trinitarianism responds saying that the Holy Spirit Person of God (God the Holy Spirit) used power to make Mary pregnant, then how is that any different from the holy spirit being a spiritual energy, an active force from God fulfilling God's purposes?

But there is something else to ponder. If the third person of the Godhead, the holy spirit, begot Jesus, then why is the first person of the Godhead, the Father, the father? Should it not logically be the holy spirit person? That it's not Jesus' father is another devastating yet ignored dilemma for Trinitarianism.

============
Edit:
2 Corinthians 3:17 "Now Jehovah is the Spirit." Since Jehovah is the Father, who per Trinitarianism is the First Person of the Trinitarian Godhead, this does nothing to address the Holy Spirit person. It is clearly teaching that the Father Jehovah has spirit nature. So Trinitarianism must desist from misusing this scripture like it does address the Holy Spirit person when it most clearly does not.

In conclusion, the preponderance of scriptures makes the holy spirit impersonal. Other scriptures that have the holy spirit speaking are anthropomorphisms. Remember, if the holy spirit is a person, then:

1. The holy spirit filled the role of an incubus
2. Mary was not a virgin mother of Jesus
3. The holy spirit is Jesus' father, not the Father person

All three of these are anathema. Thus, we can be most thankful that the holy spirit is an 'active force.'

@ [name removed]. Thanks for asking. Trinitarianism teaches that a person got Mary pregnant. That it was a divine spirit person is irrelevant. The Trinitarian Holy Spirit acted like an incubus demon and simulated sexual intercourse with Mary, getting her pregnant. Thus, she could hardly be an honest virgin. Jesus replaces Adam as our father, and it is significant that Jesus never called the Holy Spirit his father, like he surely would have if Trinitarianism were true. Mary is only an honest virgin if the holy spirit is an impersonal utilitarian divine energy.

@ [name removed]: Trinitarianism teaches that the Holy Spirit person got Mary pregnant. What you're uncomfortable with are the unrealized implications of that doctrine. Mind you, I'm being objective as opposed to warped.

Source:
Holy Spirit and the Virgin Birth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-you-reject-trinitarianism-part-ii.html

LINK

Note: The iconographic depiction of the Trinidad trificela (three-faced Trinity) seen above fell into disuse after being outlawed as heterodox in the wake of the Reformation.

When Jesus said he would return did he stipulate it would be in the flesh ?

Best Answer

No, Jesus did not stipulate what body he would return in, much less in the flesh. He did indicate though that it would NOT be flesh at John 8:21-3 where he said that he came from a higher realm where people could not enter on their own.

Annsan_In_Him compared Acts 1:11 with 1 Corinthians 15, that we “do a mental replay in reverse” with Acts 1:11. Based on that, Jesus ascended with a physical body and was obscured by a cloud (Acts 1:9) and then he returns with a different body, a “'heavenly body'”. This is correct. But notice also that the apostles were not literally watching Christ’s journey all the way to heaven. Thus he must have entered the spirit heavens as a spirit being, as 1 Corinthians 15:45 says that Jesus “became a life-giving spirit,” invisible to human eyes. (1 Corinthians 15:50) So, at most, the apostles saw only the beginning of Jesus’ journey; they could not watch its ending, his return to the heavenly presence of his Father. (John 20:17) This they could only discern with their eyes of faith.

In fact, in harmony with John 8:21-3, Jesus said shortly before his death: “A little longer and the world will behold me no more.” (John 14:19) He also said that “the kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness.” (Luke 17:20) So he indicated his return would not be in the flesh.

However, Annsan_In_Him also said: “beware any translation that tries to use 1 Peter 3:18 to say Jesus was resurrected as a spirit.” Yet, the NET Bible, NASB, NRSV (main text and interlinear), NJB, and the ASV read “in the spirit,” and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot has the similar translation of “to the spirit.” So it is not just the NWT that has “in the spirit.” Thus that concern about the NWT has been deflated.

Additionally, the account at Luke 24:36-43 that she referred to actually proves that Jesus is a spirit as he appeared in the midst of people inside a locked room: thus he was materializing a human body from his spiritual existence.


Source:
Jesus’ Resurrection Body http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/10/jesus-resurrection-body-this-blog-entry.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130620014508AA6nWjp

LINK

Jehovah's Witnesses, Does St. Paul agree with Christ' Physical Ressurection?

In 1 Timothy 1:20, the apostle Paul said he had handed Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. The two blasphemers had been excluded from the church. Out in the world, away from the church, they would be open to the full force of the god of that worldly system. In 2 Timothy 2:17–18, we discover what these men did to warrant expulsion from the church: they had denounced the physical resurrection and were dividing the church by teaching an early form of the heresy of Gnosticism


2 Timothy 2:17–18 (ESV)
17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.

Answer:

The expression “saying that the resurrection has already happened” is vague and firm definitions of what Hymenaeus and Philetus taught is frankly impossible as we do not have their versions of what they taught. Saying it was Gnostic is difficult to prove as Gnostics believed in a divine spark that was entombed in human flesh.[1] Thus when the flesh died the divine spark was liberated, not resurrected.

Evidently this was their teaching: that the resurrection was merely a spiritual one in the sense of being a **symbolic kind,** and that the dedicated Christians had **already had their resurrection,** that this was all there was to the matter and there was no further resurrection in the future under God’s Messianic Kingdom. Perhaps they were quoting out of context Paul’s statement that Christians had been dead in their sins but were made alive through God’s spirit. (Ephesians 2:1-6) Indeed, twisting Paul’s words to promote errant teaching was a problem in the first century as Peter testified at 2 Peter 3:15-16.

That Jesus was resurrected as a spirit is shown in 1 Corinthians 15:45, that plainly declares that Jesus was resurrected as a “life-giving spirit.” (NET Bible)

Concerning 1 Peter 3:15: If the NWT “has been deliberately altered” to say “in the spirit,” translating the Greek word DE as “in,” then to be consistent the Trinitarian NET Bible, NASB, NRSV (main text and interlinear), NJB, and the ASV have also been deliberately altered as it reads the same! (The Apostolic Bible Polyglot has the similar translation of "to the spirit".) Thus that accusation has gone up in a puff of smoke. The NET Bible in its footnote says in part that this verse is about “modes of existence: the realm of unregenerate earthly life versus eternal heavenly life.” Thus, the translation of “in the spirit” is both valid and harmonious with other scriptures, like 1 Corinthians 15:45 and Jesus' appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus at Acts 26:13. There, Jesus Christ radiated light "beyond the brilliance of the sun" at midday. Clearly then he was a transcendent spirit being and not a resurrected human in outer space micromanaging his flesh![2] Another scripture harmonious with “in the spirit” is Hebrews 5:7 as it places Jesus' being in the flesh in the past! Therefore when the resurrected Jesus said at Luke 24:39 that “a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have” he was speaking with a materialized body. It must be remembered that he appeared in their midst in a locked room, thus proving he was a spirit being materializing before them.

Thus the unanimous voice of Scripture clearly shows that Jesus is thankfully no longer in the flesh.

In conclusion, the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus is not the same as the Bible teaching of Jesus’ resurrection as a spirit being. Their teaching was more of a symbolic abstraction that denied the full force and reality of the resurrection.

Source:
[1] This is actually akin to the Trinitarian Jesus who was a divine person encased in his human nature flesh. Thus, Trinitarianism is clearly akin to the Gnostic heresy.

[2] According to Trinitarian Chalcedonian Dyophysitism, Jesus is now “truly man” “soul and body” in outer space lacking an astronaut suit and thus Jesus must eternally micromanage his flesh so it can survive! How absurd and insulting to Jesus Christ!

Additional reading:
Jesus’ Resurrection Body http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/10/jesus-resurrection-body-this-blog-entry.html

Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09/hebrews-57-and-trinitarianism_11.html

LINK