Religion Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh?

[Scottty]

It does not say what the trinity is, or that it is the truth.

Hi @King Arts
The doctrine of the Trinity as we have it today was only formulated a few centuries after the time of the Apostles, so asking for a specific Bible verse that explicitly teaches it is a bit like standing outside at night with a telescope, and asking where in the sky you should look to see the Law of Gravity.

The Trinitarian interpretation is the only one that fully makes sense of everything the Bible says about Jesus. All other interpretations require waving away or twisting some or other parts of Scripture.

The passage I cited there refers to the Holy Spirit as

• The Spirit
• The Spirit of God
• The Spirit of Christ
• Christ
• The Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead

So the same Spirit is both that of Jesus and the Father.

 

[King Arts]

The doctrine of the Trinity as we have it today was only formulated a few centuries after the time of the Apostles, so asking for a specific Bible verse that explicitly teaches it is a bit like standing outside at night with a telescope, and asking where in the sky you should look to see the Law of Gravity.

The Trinitarian interpretation is the only one that fully makes sense of everything the Bible says about Jesus. All other interpretations require waving away or twisting some or other parts of Scripture.

The passage I cited there refers to the Holy Spirit as

• The Spirit
• The Spirit of God
• The Spirit of Christ
• Christ
• The Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead

So the same Spirit is both that of Jesus and the Father.

If it's not in the Bible, then you can have someone who is sola scriptura Christian and they can argue that the Trinity is not true because it's a dumb concept that makes no sense.

Early Christian Heresies

webspace.ship.edu

Then all of these would be logical and they could honestly claim to be Christians. Modalism for example does not violate any passage in the Bible, yet it explains the away the Trinity which all of Christianity had accepted, through tradition.

 

[Stargazer]

If it's not in the Bible, then you can have someone who is sola scriptura Christian and they can argue that the Trinity is not true because it's a dumb concept that makes no sense.

Early Christian Heresies

webspace.ship.edu

Then all of these would be logical and they could honestly claim to be Christians. Modalism for example does not violate any passage in the Bible, yet it explains the away the Trinity which all of Christianity had accepted, through tradition.

I think you may not quite understand that "sola scriptura" actually is. Sola Scriptura is the view that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith in the church. Key words "sole" and "infallible". "Infallible" is particularly relevant here.

The point is the doctrine of Trinity is a necessary conclusion of several teachings found in Scripture. You can't reject the Trinity without rejecting something directly taught in Scripture. If you reject something taught in Scripture on the basis of "well that just doesn't make sense", you are saying that Scripture is wrong, and you have to allow the possiblity for Scripture to be wrong. You are saying that Scripture is fallible.

If you are a "Sola Scriptura Christian", by definition you can't make an argument that involves the premise that it is possible for Scripture to be wrong, that it is fallible. You don't believe in Sola Scriptura if you allow for that.

And modalism is wrong because it does in fact violate passages of the Bible.

 

[King Arts]

I think you may not quite understand that "sola scriptura" actually is. Sola Scriptura is the view that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith in the church. Key words "sole" and "infallible". "Infallible" is particularly relevant here.

The point is the doctrine of Trinity is a necessary conclusion of several teachings found in Scripture. You can't reject the Trinity without rejecting something directly taught in Scripture. If you reject something taught in Scripture on the basis of "well that just doesn't make sense", you are saying that Scripture is wrong, and you have to allow the possiblity for Scripture to be wrong. You are saying that Scripture is fallible.

If you are a "Sola Scriptura Christian", by definition you can't make an argument that involves the premise that it is possible for Scripture to be wrong, that it is fallible. You don't believe in Sola Scriptura if you allow for that.

And modalism is wrong because it does in fact violate passages of the Bible.

Where does modalism proven wrong in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is the belief that the ONLY thing that is determined for the Christian faith is found in the Bible, not tradition of the Church or other things.

 

[Stargazer]

Where does modalism proven wrong in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is the belief that the ONLY thing that is determined for the Christian faith is found in the Bible, not tradition of the Church or other things.

The thread isn't about modalism vs trinitarianism, if you would like to make a case that the Bible teaches modalism you can go ahead and make that thread. My point is that you are making claims based on assumptions that actual "Sola Scriptura" Protestants would reject. If you realize that, you're arguing in bad faith; if you don't realize that, you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[ATP]

@ATP It's good that you are actually reading the Pauline Epistles there. But when arguing from them, you seem to be making the same invalid argument over and over, with every passage you quote.
Paul does not mention Jesus' Deity all the time when expounding the Gospel to people. This is not evidence that he did not believe it. We don't see him always telling everyone a lot of other things we know he believed.

Here's a passage you might not be so familiar with:

Romans 8:9-11
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

That is why i try to undarstandt what Paul wanted to say without using my knowledge coming from Tradition
What you citated show that Spirit of God and Jesus could be the same,which imply Trinity - but not ay it openly

Here,another:


Romans 12:5
5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

If i was not catholic,i would thought that Jesus and people together create one God.

 

[ATP]

Can you show me where the trinity is in the Bible?


I think ATP is just bad at English I see him misspell Mahmud, and Stalin as Machomad, and Sralin. He probably got Yahweh confused with the father.

1.He could not.There are places where it could be impled,but that is all.It is from Tradition.
2.true about Mahomet/i think it is properly this time/ Sralin is joke - Stalin mean man of steel,sralin mean man of shit.
And God/Yahwe,Jesus,and Holy Spirit together made Trinity - at least,i belive so.

Here,something which probably could help them


Romans 14:7-12


7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b]

12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

I think,that here it could be implied that Jesus is God.
0,5 point.

 

[ATP]

We could start with the passage from Romans I just quoted. What do you make of it?

That it could be implied as such,nothing more,nothing less - without Tradition
Here,another:

Romans 14:18

18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

Serving Jesus made God happy - but,Jesus is not God.

 

[ATP]

Given all the passages you just quoted, you should be able to answer that.




I just quoted that same passage earlier - and you actually do see it there, even. But you won't admit it.

With knowledge of Tradition i knew that - but,without that,i could made another explanation.
Here,another :


Romans 15:2-6

2 Each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up. 3 For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.”[a] 4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

5 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, 6 so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here,we must follow Jesus,but - God is God,and Jesus is Jesus,not God here.

 

[ATP]

It's about both the New Testament and the Old Testament, since the question is does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. So it's important to establish just what the New Testament and Old Testament are, according to your own tradition, since you seem to be confused about that.

Jesus is openly described as God in 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13. Those are books of the New Testament. Whether the apostles actually wrote those books isn't the question of the thread.

Actually it's not just me claiming Jesus claimed it openly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does. You're free to disagree with the Catechism, but then you have to stop saying you believe in the tradition of the Catholic Church, because you clearly don't.

Both letters are writen not by Apostles - so,part of Tradition which you deny.
I already explained your mistake about Catechism

Here,another:


Romans 15:7-8

7 Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews[a] on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed

Jesus is model to follow for us here,not God.

 

[Stargazer]

Both letters are writen not by Apostles - so,part of Tradition which you deny.
I already explained your mistake about Catechism

Did I say anything about denying tradition? I don't believe I did. My claim is that I can know that Jesus is God just through the teaching of the New Testament; church tradition apart from the NT is not required to know that. You're the one going around saying we need church tradition to be able to know that at all.

And bull, you explained absolutely nothing about the Catechism. You didn't even touch it.

 

[Scottty]

If it's not in the Bible, then you can have someone who is sola scriptura Christian and they can argue that the Trinity is not true because it's a dumb concept that makes no sense.

The concept makes perfect sense, once you understand it.
Hard to get there for most people though, as it's typically explained in an incoherent way by people who do not themselves understand, and don't expect you to either. The doubletalk in the Nicene creed about Jesus' eternal nature doesn't help.

 

[ATP]

This maybe off topic here, but do we need to do a Catholics vs Protestants thunderdome esque thread I can't help but think there is a lot of stuff going on underneath besides this question alone.

Tradition vs protestants,not catholics.Orthodox and chalcedonians churches need Tradition,too.

And entire tread is about if NT alone could prove that Jesus is God,or not.
For example:


Romans 15:15-19


15 Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

17 Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. 18 I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— 19 by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.

Here,Paul serve Jesus,but Jesus is not God.

 

[ATP]

Paul doesn't need to refer to Jesus as God every time he mentions Jesus in order for him to believe that. You don't call me a human every time you mention me, I guess that means you don't think I'm human.



I didn't ask "what you would use", and I certainly don't care about you "offending my Protestant feelings". I asked you what is the New Testament, and what writings comprise the New Testament. Can you answer those questions? If you can't or won't say what the New Testament even is, then you have no basis for saying what the New Testament does or doesn't teach and you have no business answering the question of the thread, does the New Testament teach that Jesus is God. Just like how leftists have no business talking about "women's rights" if they can't actually answer the question "what is a woman?"



I reject your arbitrary and absurd standard of proof, and so does the tradition you claim to believe in. To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures"

If it's recorded in Sacred Scripture, it is without error. It is truth that God wished to be taught. So if something is taught even once in Scripture, that makes it true. No further standard needs to be met.

I don't care about your "count", and neither does Catholic tradition.



It's really not a Catholic vs Protestant issue. At this point I'm using Catholic sources to support my claims.

1.Not every time,but at least in 50%,then it would be proven.But most cases are,just like Paul before Agrippa,when we have Jesus described as Messiah.

2.Then i would check faked letters after i go through real one.

3.Yet in most cases NT drscribe Jesus as Messiah and human.Which mean,that we could not declare using few exception that Jesus is God using NT alone - we need Tradition for that.

4.You do not undarstandt what you read.Becouse in that case we must agree that Jesus was Messiah only,using NT.

Here,another:


Romans 15:30-3

30 I urge you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. 31 Pray that I may be kept safe from the unbelievers in Judea and that the contribution I take to Jerusalem may be favorably received by the Lord’s people there,

See - Jesus is Lord,and God is God.
Not the same.

 

[ATP]

Hi @King Arts
The doctrine of the Trinity as we have it today was only formulated a few centuries after the time of the Apostles, so asking for a specific Bible verse that explicitly teaches it is a bit like standing outside at night with a telescope, and asking where in the sky you should look to see the Law of Gravity.

The Trinitarian interpretation is the only one that fully makes sense of everything the Bible says about Jesus. All other interpretations require waving away or twisting some or other parts of Scripture.

The passage I cited there refers to the Holy Spirit as

• The Spirit
• The Spirit of God
• The Spirit of Christ
• Christ
• The Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead

So the same Spirit is both that of Jesus and the Father.

Which mean,that Trinity is part of Tradition,and could not be taken from NT alone

Here,another paul:


Romans 16:18-20


18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

Again,Jesus is Lord,God is God.

 

[ATP]

If it's not in the Bible, then you can have someone who is sola scriptura Christian and they can argue that the Trinity is not true because it's a dumb concept that makes no sense.

Early Christian Heresies

webspace.ship.edu

Then all of these would be logical and they could honestly claim to be Christians. Modalism for example does not violate any passage in the Bible, yet it explains the away the Trinity which all of Christianity had accepted, through tradition.

True.And the same could be told about Jesus being God

Here:


Romans 16:25-27

25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from[a] faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

Paul is establishing gospel about Jesus Christ- but glory is to God through Jesus.
If i do not use Tradition as source,i would consider Jesus as only Messiah here.

End of Romans - 22,5: 2,5 .
/one that Jesus is God,3 which could be disputed,21 that Jesus is somebody else then God.
All in all - if i read only that letter,i would not consider Jesus as God.
Just like with Acts.

 

[ATP]

I think you may not quite understand that "sola scriptura" actually is. Sola Scriptura is the view that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith in the church. Key words "sole" and "infallible". "Infallible" is particularly relevant here.

The point is the doctrine of Trinity is a necessary conclusion of several teachings found in Scripture. You can't reject the Trinity without rejecting something directly taught in Scripture. If you reject something taught in Scripture on the basis of "well that just doesn't make sense", you are saying that Scripture is wrong, and you have to allow the possiblity for Scripture to be wrong. You are saying that Scripture is fallible.

If you are a "Sola Scriptura Christian", by definition you can't make an argument that involves the premise that it is possible for Scripture to be wrong, that it is fallible. You don't believe in Sola Scriptura if you allow for that.

And modalism is wrong because it does in fact violate passages of the Bible.

You take part of Tradition which you like/Trinity/ and is against anything which you do not like.Which made you ini super-pope,like Luder.

Here,another proof:


Matthew 16:13-19

Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”

From text alone,you have clear message: Jesus is only Messiah,and Peter is ruler of church.
What protestants did with it? Jesus is God and part of Trinity,and bad first pope do not have any special power.

It is even funny.

 

[Scottty]

Which mean,that Trinity is part of Tradition,and could not be taken from NT alone

It's almost as if you don't understand what I said there at all, and are just repeating yourself over and over.

No, it's not "Tradition", whatever that's supposed to mean. It's what the Bible teaches.

 

[Stargazer]

ATP has never referred to me as "human" so he must not think I'm human. @ATP, why don't you think I'm human? That's just rude.

 

[Scottty]

ATP has never referred to me as "human" so he must not think I'm human. @ATP, why don't you think I'm human? That's just rude.

None of the sermons in the book of Acts by Peter or Paul ever mention the virgin birth of Christ, so obviously that's just "tradition".
Because if it was true, they would always tell everyone about it all the time.
/sarcasm