Jesus Christ

Originally posted by KPrince
Both. But as I said before, ONE is Supreme, The Father is the Supreme God. Neither one is false. Both are True--Both exist as True Gods, but one is over the other.

"Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Colossians 1:12-17

Who do you think is being referred to in these scriptures? Who is the "dear Son"? Who is stated as the one by whom "were all things created..."? Who is this Being in which "all things were created by him"? Who is this Being that is "before all things? [/B]

As what I am saying [I thought you are reading my posts]

Originally posted by by Jury
Jesus Christ Himself did not literally and physically exist from the beginning. He started existing when He was born by Mary.

Jesus Christ was not literally born before Abraham.

Jesus Christ did not literally create everything.

Jesus Christ is not the literal firstborn among creations.

Yet, Jesus Christ is said to be "before Abraham" and "the firstborn among all creations" IN THE SENSE that He was FOREKNOWLEDGED [Gk. proginosko] by God before the creation of everything. It is a grammatical fact both in English and Greek that you cannot FOREKNOWLEDGED and PROGINOSKO something which is already existing. Let us not be absurd and self-contradicting.

It is also mentioned in the Bible that "THROUGH" and "BY" Christ, everything was created. The Bible has explained that one... it is because the Father, the Creator [not the Son], created everything FOR Christ. Meaning, the Son Jesus Christ was the very reason why God created everything.

🙂

Now, here is my contention. I hope you can comprehend this:

In the beginning, God had a plan. He had something in his mind. He wanted this plan to be fulfilled. We all know that if it is God who planned it, it must be fulfilled no matter what because God is powerful and divine as His plans are.

He planned about Something or Somebody that will fulfill His will. But before God can make this happen, He must create everything. He created man and everything... according to His plan and will. In this sense, because of this Somebody, God created everything. It is like this Somebody became the only reason, the very reason why God created everything. But, take note, this Somebody or Something was not yet existing during the time of creation. This Somebody will exist only at the right time as how God has planned it. This Somebody was only a plan yet.

And when the time has come, this plan was fulfilled. The plan... the "logos" was said to be "made flesh". The plan was figuratively "made flesh" in the sense that it was fulfilled.

It was fulfilled when Jesus Christ was born. The planned Savior and Redeemer of God's chosen people.

This is the Somebody who is none other than Jesus Christ. He was planned by God from the very beginning before creating everything. That's why it is said that everything was created THROUGH Him, BY Him, and FOR Him. For without Him, nothing was made that has been made.

It is also said that He was "before Abraham" and "firstborn among creations"... Not literally, but figuratively. Because we all know that Jesus Christ was not literally born first before Abraham since the Bible called Jesus as the "seed of Abraham". Meaning Jesus Christ will come literally after Abraham. It is in the sense that Jesus was foreknown [proginosko] by God in the beginning. Proof enough that the Son Jesus Christ Himself did not literally exist before God created everything.

Originally posted by Jury
Now, here is my contention. I hope you can comprehend this:

In the beginning, God had a plan. He had something in his mind. He wanted this plan to be fulfilled. We all know that if it is God who planned it, it must be fulfilled no matter what because God is powerful and divine as His plans are.

He planned about Something or Somebody that will fulfill His will. But before God can make this happen, He must create everything. He created man and everything... according to His plan and will. In this sense, because of this Somebody, God created everything. It is like this Somebody became the only reason, the very reason why God created everything. But, take note, this Somebody or Something was not yet existing during the time of creation. This Somebody will exist only at the right time as how God has planned it. This Somebody was only a plan yet.

And when the time has come, this plan was fulfilled. The plan... the "logos" was said to be "made flesh". The plan was figuratively "made flesh" in the sense that it was fulfilled.

It was fulfilled when Jesus Christ was born. The planned Savior and Redeemer of God's chosen people.

This is the Somebody who is none other than Jesus Christ. He was planned by God from the very beginning before creating everything. That's why it is said that everything was created THROUGH Him, BY Him, and FOR Him. For without Him, nothing was made that has been made.

It is also said that He was "before Abraham" and "firstborn among creations"... Not literally, but figuratively. Because we all know that Jesus Christ was not literally born first before Abraham since the Bible called Jesus as the "seed of Abraham". Meaning Jesus Christ will come literally after Abraham. It is in the sense that Jesus was foreknown [proginosko] by God in the beginning. Proof enough that the Son Jesus Christ Himself did not literally exist before God created everything.

Don't worry Jury, your argument is not difficult to understand. What is difficult to understand however, is how you have come to the conclusion based on one scripture where Christ says, "you Father, are the one true God..." that He is not a God as His Father is a God. That scripture on the other hand, does not prove that Christ was, and is not a God. It confirms that He is giving His Father proper reverence as the Supreme God. "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John 3:13, Christ here says that He "came down from heaven" and called Himself "the Son of man which is in heaven." Does that mean that Christ has contradicted Himself? No man has ascended up to heaven. Yet Christ refers to Himself as "the Son of Man which is in heaven". John 3:16-17 also records Christ speaking of His heavenly origin, " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Now, Jury, God did have a plan. The word God in the Hebrew scriptures is also "Elohim". This word is singular in its form, but plural in its context, much like the words family, group, organization etc. These words denote single factions comprised of MORE THAN ONE member. Keeping that in mind, this word "Elohim" is found in the first verse of Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Now it can be proven that this Elohim-God was not singular but plural, based on scriptures in Genesis, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" Genesis 1:26. Notice God said "Let US" in this scripture, and we all know that "us" denotes more than one entity.

Genesis 11:5-7, "And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Again, in verse 7, the word "us" is used by God. On a side note, notice the word Lord in the Old Testament, now it is obvious that God is referred to as the Lord, so why is Christ given the same reverence if He is not a True God as His Father is a True God.

Now, as I said before, God the Father does have a plan. It includes His Son and fellow God, Jesus Christ who is to return as King of kings and Lord of lords. There was a reason why God the Father made all things, and made man especially by Jesus Christ. God commanded it, Jesus did it. This is how the universe was made by God. The reason I'm stating this is to give you an indicator of Jesus' history before He came to the earth as a human. Here are more scriptures to prove my points "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11

Jesus thought it not robbery to be "equal with God" and yet had to divest Himself of His former Glory (as the Word) and become a lowly man, a fleshly servant of God the Father and die that the world may be saved. God the Father restored Jesus to the position He had before as a God under the Father.

Originally posted by KPrince
Don't worry Jury, your argument is not difficult to understand. What is difficult to understand however, is how you have come to the conclusion based on one scripture where Christ says, "you Father, are the one true God..." that He is not a God as His Father is a God.

When you say you're the ONLY child in the family, would that mean that you have biological siblings?

When we say ONLY, Lexicons and dictionaries have this to say:

ONLY
adj 1: being the only one; single and isolated from others;
2: exclusive of anyone or anything else;
adv 1: and nothing more;
2: without any others being included or involved;

Now, if Jesus said the Father is the ONLY true God, would we still insist that the Son is ALSO a true God?

🙂 And you didn't answer my question: So, you don't agree that the Father is the ONLY true God because the Son must also be a true God? Please answer. Just making a clarification.

That scripture on the other hand, does not prove that Christ was, and is not a God. It confirms that He is giving His Father proper reverence as the Supreme God.

And that by acknowledging the Father as the ONLY true God and no other, is equivalent to having the promised eternal life.
🙂

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John 3:13, Christ here says that He "came down from heaven" and called Himself "the Son of man which is in heaven." Does that mean that Christ has contradicted Himself? No man has ascended up to heaven. Yet Christ refers to Himself as "the Son of Man which is in heaven".

I would like to emphasize that this statement cannot be compared to the statement made by Jesus in John 17:3.

1. "...and this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God..."
2. ""And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

The two statements are not parallel, so we can't compare them. The first one is specific. The other one is conditional. Notice the preposition.

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. (NIV)

So why would think whether there is contradictory in the statement or none. Why would you compare this statement to the other one when they are not parallel or doesn't talk about the same things? 🙂

John 3:16-17 also records Christ speaking of His heavenly origin, " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

How about the blessings of God? Do they literally come down from heaven?

James 1:17, (NIV), Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Are we to believe that food, shelters, good gifts and blessings came directly and literally from heaven and went down into the world and received it?

John 17:18, (KJV), As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

Are we to believe that God's chosen people and Christ's disciples and followers given to Him by God literally came from heaven and sent into the world or directly went down into the world?

No, KPrince. no2

Whoa....what do we have here?...A war of the denominations??....I wonder which view is correct?whistling

Originally posted by debbiejo
Whoa....what do we have here?...A war of the denominations??....I wonder which view is correct?whistling

I think they are both wrong. 😛

Originally posted by KPrince
Now, Jury, God did have a plan. The word God in the Hebrew scriptures is also "Elohim". This word is singular in its form, but plural in its context, much like the words family, group, organization etc. These words denote single factions comprised of MORE THAN ONE member. Keeping that in mind, this word "Elohim" is found in the first verse of Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Now it can be proven that this Elohim-God was not singular but plural,

Correction: Elohim itself is a plural form, but has more than one definition. 🙂

Do some research and you'll learn that:

The word “God” is Elohim, which is itself a plural form and, like most other words, has more than one definition. It is used in a plural sense of “gods” or “men with authority,” and in a singular sense for “God,” “god,” or “a man with authority, such as a judge.” The Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs, considered to be one of the best available, has as its first usage for Elohim: “rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power, divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels, gods.”

Elohim is translated “gods” in many verses. Genesis 35:2 reads, “Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you,” and Exodus 18:11 says, “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods.” It is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6; 22:8 and 9. It is translated “angels” (KJV) or “heavenly beings” (NIV) in Psalm 8:5. That is its plural use, and there is no evidence that anyone thought of these “gods” as having some kind of plurality of persons within themselves.

Elohim is also translated as the singular “god” or “judge,” and there is no hint of any “compound nature” when it is translated that way. An example is Exodus 22:20, which reads, “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed.” Another example is Judges 6:31: “If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.” In Exodus 7:1, God says that He has made Moses a “god” (Elohim) to Pharaoh. Again, in Judges 11:24, the pagan god Chemosh is called Elohim, and in 1 Samuel 5:7, the pagan god Dagon is called Elohim, yet Christians do not conclude that those gods were somehow composite or “uniplural,” or that the people who worshipped them thought they were.

Exactly how to translate Elohim in 1 Samuel 2:25 has been debated by scholars. The question is whether Elohim in the verse refers to a human judge or to God. The KJV says “judge.” The versions are divided between them, some translating Elohim as a man, others as God Himself. The fact that the scholars and translators debate about whether the word Elohim refers to a man or God shows vividly that the word itself does not have any inherent idea of a plurality of persons. If it did, it could not be translated as “god” when referring to a pagan god, or as “judge” when referring to a man. The evidence in Scripture does not warrant the conclusion that the Hebrew word Elohim inherently contains the idea of a compound nature.

Some teach that the word Elohim implies a compound unity when it refers to the true God. That would mean that the word Elohim somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. There is just no evidence of this. It is perfectly bias. The first place we should go for confirmation of this is to the Jews themselves. When we study the history and the language of the Jews, we discover that they never understood Elohim to imply a plurality in God in any way. In fact, the Jews were staunchly opposed to people and nations who tried to introduce any hint of more than one God into their culture. Jewish rabbis have debated the Law to the point of tedium, and have recorded volume after volume of notes on the Law, yet in all of their debates there is no mention of a plurality in God. This fact in and of itself ought to close the argument.

No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar, Gesenius. I hope you've heard about him. He wrote that the plural nature of Elohim was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Gesenius states,

“That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

The singular pronoun is always used with the word Elohim. A study of the word will show what Gesenius stated, that the singular attribute (such as “He,” not “They,” or “I,” not “We”) always follows Elohim. Furthermore, when the word Elohim is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as “uniplural.”

KPrince, the evidence is clear: God is not “compound” in any sense of the word. He is the “one God” of Israel.

🙂

based on scriptures in Genesis, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" Genesis 1:26. Notice God said "Let US" in this scripture, and we all know that "us" denotes more than one entity.

Genesis 11:5-7, "And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

Again, in verse 7, the word "us" is used by God. On a side note, notice the word Lord in the Old Testament, now it is obvious that God is referred to as the Lord, so why is Christ given the same reverence if He is not a True God as His Father is a True God.

This deserves a long explanation. I'll have it next time.

🙂

Originally posted by Jury
So, would that mean that God is compound like the basic concept of Trinity? 🙄

[b]Correction: Elohim itself is a plural form, but has more than one definition. 🙂

Do some research and you'll learn that:

The word “God” is Elohim, which is itself a plural form and, like most other words, has more than one definition. It is used in a plural sense of “gods” or “men with authority,” and in a singular sense for “God,” “god,” or “a man with authority, such as a judge.” The Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs, considered to be one of the best available, has as its first usage for Elohim: “rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power, divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels, gods.”

Elohim is translated “gods” in many verses. Genesis 35:2 reads, “Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you,” and Exodus 18:11 says, “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods.” It is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6; 22:8 and 9. It is translated “angels” (KJV) or “heavenly beings” (NIV) in Psalm 8:5. That is its plural use, and there is no evidence that anyone thought of these “gods” as having some kind of plurality of persons within themselves.

Elohim is also translated as the singular “god” or “judge,” and there is no hint of any “compound nature” when it is translated that way. An example is Exodus 22:20, which reads, “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed.” Another example is Judges 6:31: “If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.” In Exodus 7:1, God says that He has made Moses a “god” (Elohim) to Pharaoh. Again, in Judges 11:24, the pagan god Chemosh is called Elohim, and in 1 Samuel 5:7, the pagan god Dagon is called Elohim, yet Christians do not conclude that those gods were somehow composite or “uniplural,” or that the people who worshipped them thought they were.

Exactly how to translate Elohim in 1 Samuel 2:25 has been debated by scholars. The question is whether Elohim in the verse refers to a human judge or to God. The KJV says “judge.” The versions are divided between them, some translating Elohim as a man, others as God Himself. The fact that the scholars and translators debate about whether the word Elohim refers to a man or God shows vividly that the word itself does not have any inherent idea of a plurality of persons. If it did, it could not be translated as “god” when referring to a pagan god, or as “judge” when referring to a man. The evidence in Scripture does not warrant the conclusion that the Hebrew word Elohim inherently contains the idea of a compound nature.

Some teach that the word Elohim implies a compound unity when it refers to the true God. That would mean that the word Elohim somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. There is just no evidence of this. It is perfectly bias. The first place we should go for confirmation of this is to the Jews themselves. When we study the history and the language of the Jews, we discover that they never understood Elohim to imply a plurality in God in any way. In fact, the Jews were staunchly opposed to people and nations who tried to introduce any hint of more than one God into their culture. Jewish rabbis have debated the Law to the point of tedium, and have recorded volume after volume of notes on the Law, yet in all of their debates there is no mention of a plurality in God. This fact in and of itself ought to close the argument.

No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar, Gesenius. I hope you've heard about him. He wrote that the plural nature of Elohim was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Gesenius states,

“That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

The singular pronoun is always used with the word Elohim. A study of the word will show what Gesenius stated, that the singular attribute (such as “He,” not “They,” or “I,” not “We”) always follows Elohim. Furthermore, when the word Elohim is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as “uniplural.”

KPrince, the evidence is clear: God is not “compound” in any sense of the word. He is the “one God” of Israel.

🙂

This deserves a long explanation. I'll have it next time.

🙂 [/B]

I know all of this, which is why I showed you where "us" is used in connection with God/Elohim.

Let's try:

Genesis 1:26
And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (KJV)

Elohim and Adonim, Hebrew words for God, occur in the plural. If this literally meant a plurality of persons, it would be translated “Gods.” But the Jews, being truly monotheistic and thoroughly familiar with the idioms of their own language, have never understood the use of the plural to indicate a plurality of persons within the one God. This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a “plural of majesty” or a “plural of emphasis,” and is used for intensification. Many Hebrew scholars identify this use of “us” as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis, and we believe this also.

The plural of majesty is clearly attested to in writing from royalty through the ages. Hyndman writes:

The true explanation of this verse is to be found in the practice which has prevailed in all nations with which we are acquainted, of persons speaking of themselves in the plural number. “Given at our palace,” “It is our pleasure,” are common expressions of kings in their proclamations (p. 54).

Morgridge adds:

It is common in all languages with which we are acquainted, and it appears to have always been so, for an individual, especially if he be a person of great dignity and power, in speaking of himself only, to say we, our, us, instead of I, my, me. Thus, the king of France says, “We, Charles the tenth.” The king of Spain says, “We, Ferdinand the seventh.” The Emperor of Russia says “We, Alexander,” or “We, Nicholas” (p. 93).

The plural of majesty can be seen in Ezra 4:18. In Ezra 4:11, the men of the Trans-Euphrates wrote, “To King Artaxerxes, from your servants.” The book of Ezra continues, “The king sent this reply: Greetings. The letter you sent us has been read and translated….” Thus, although the people wrote to the king himself, the king used the word “us.” It is common in such correspondence that the plural is used when someone speaks of his intentions, and the use of the more literal singular is used when the person acts. Morgridge adds more insight when he says:

It is well known that Mohammed was a determined opposer of the doctrine of the Trinity: yet he often represents God as saying we, our, us, when speaking only of Himself. This shows that, in his opinion, the use of such terms was not indicative of a plurality of persons. If no one infers, from their frequent use in the Koran, that Mohammed was a Trinitarian, surely their occurrence in a few places in the Bible ought not to be made a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity (p. 94).

Some scholars believe that the reason for the “us” in Genesis 1:26 is that God could have been speaking with the angels when he created man in the beginning. Although that is possible, because there are many Scriptures that clearly attribute the creation of man to God alone, I also believe that the plural of emphasis is the preferred explanation. I hope you've heard about it in school.

The name of God is not the only word that is pluralized for emphasis (although when the plural does not seem to be good grammar, the translators usually ignore the Hebrew plural and translate it as a singular, so it can be hard to spot in most English versions)

After Cain murdered Abel, God said to Cain, “the voice of your brother’s bloods cries to me from the ground” (Gen. 4:10). The plural emphasizes the horror of the act. In Genesis 19:11, the men of Sodom who wanted to hurt Lot were smitten with “blindness.” The Hebrew is in the plural, “blindnesses,” and indicates that the blindness was total so Lot would be protected. Leviticus tells people not to eat fruit from a tree for three years, and in the fourth year the fruit is “an offering of praise to the Lord” (Lev. 19:24). The Hebrew word for “praise” is plural, emphasizing that there was to be great praise. Psalm 45:15 tells of people who are brought into the presence of the Messiah. It says, “They are led in with joy and gladness.” The Hebrew actually reads “gladnesses,” emphasizing the great gladness of the occasion. In Ezekiel 25, God is speaking of what has happened to Israel and what He will do about it. Concerning the Philistines, He said, “the Philistines acted in vengeance…I will carry out great vengeance on them” (Ezek 25:15 and 17). In the Hebrew text, the second vengeance, the vengeance of God, is in the plural, indicating the complete vengeance that the Lord will inflict. Although many more examples exist in the Hebrew text, these demonstrate that it is not uncommon to use a plural to emphasize something in Scripture.

🙂

And oh, you didn't answer my question:

So, you don't agree that the Father is the ONLY true God because the Son must also be a true God? Please answer.

🙂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think they are both wrong. 😛

Adoptionism is an early doctrine about the nature of Jesus Christ and his relationship to God. According to those who adhered to adoptionism, Jesus was simply an exemplary person who was "adopted" by God to be his son - only then did he acquire a divine nature.

This doctrine was based upon the story in Mark when Jesus was baptized by John and was widely accepted among those who were reacting to the ideas in Gnosticism and Docetism, where it was argued that Jesus was a wholly spiritual being who merely appeared to be physical. Adoptionism was also popular among those who found it difficult to reconcile monotheism with trinitarianism.

Originally posted by Storm
Adoptionism is an early doctrine about the nature of Jesus Christ and his relationship to God. According to those who adhered to adoptionism, Jesus was simply an exemplary person who was "adopted" by God to be his son - only then did he acquire a divine nature.

Jesus divinity wasn't actually even set until a council voted on in later centuries also...By the Roman Catholic Church, before that it was in question....

The title of this thread is taken from a book I also own.......

Originally posted by Storm
What we have here is a false dilemma (or trilemma, since there are three options).

The false dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument. If you concede to pick one of those choices, you accept the premise that those choices are indeed the only ones possible.

Several possibilities are presented as if they are the only ones available. One is preferred and defended strongly while the others are presented as weak and inferior. It' s an attempt to frame a debate as being a choice between three options when, in fact, there are other options available. Perhaps Jesus was simply mistaken or we don’ t have an accurate record of what he truly said — if, indeed, he even existed.

From page 2 of this thread:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The argument "Jesus Christ: Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?" commits the logic fallacy of False Dilemma; Only a limited number of options are presented, when a number of options exist.

😉

Originally posted by Jury
And oh, you didn't answer my question:

[b]So, you don't agree that the Father is the ONLY true God because the Son must also be a true God? Please answer.

🙂 [/B]

I do not believe that the Father is the ONLY true God because the Son must also be a true God.

Originally posted by KPrince
I do not believe that the Father is the ONLY true God because the Son must also be a true God.

John 17:1-26
New King James Version

Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said:

"Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.

"And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.

"Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.

"Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

"But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

"Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

"O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."

🙂 Amen.

Since you don't believe in what Jesus was saying, this stops our discussion, KPrince.