>>18651738

>Can I be a christian if I deny the trinity and dont think jesus fulfilled any of the old testament "prophecies"?

NO.


>I like the community and morals that christianity brings but dont believe in any of the silly stuff.

YOU LIKE THE FRUIT, BUT DESPISE THE TREE.

>>18651742
>YOU LIKE THE FRUIT, BUT DESPISE THE TREE.
Do you seek an apple tree every single time you are going to eat an apple? No, you buy them from the store because that's the world we live in and its more practical. You like to judge others and dish out sophistry, but are averse to self reflection. OP can do whatever he wants. There is no "correct" christianity.

>>18651750


YOU ARE MENTALLY IMPAIRED AND GODLESS.

>>18651750
>Do you seek an apple tree every single time you are going to eat an apple? No, you buy them from the store because that's the world we live in and its more practical.

This is the most protestant/atheist misinterpretation of metaphor that I've seen in a while. You guys are truly braindead.

>>18651738
Well you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in Christianity but there's nothing stopping you from being active in a Christian community and attending church despite that.

>>18651738
You think exactly like the thinkers of the Enlightenment did. They thought that they could separate the morals and the principles of their society from the religion that they were based on.
It functioned for several generations. Then it stopped.
On a personal level though? Sure you can.

>>18651759
Oh sorry, I should consult Christians who agree with your Hebrew scribes, for the correct and valid metaphors. Since they have all the answers, apparently. Lmfao

>>18651738
What do you believe about Jesus then? Do you consider Jesus divine in any way? If not, then the closest you can be is a Messianic Jew if you still believe Jesus to be the Messiah.

>>18651790
>What do you believe about Jesus then?
I base my theology off the Phillipians 2 hymn. Before he was incarnated on Earth he was an angel, but unlike Satan who chose to usurp God, he humbled himself to the point of death on the cross and because of this God elevated him to his right hand man.

>>18651738
No.
But I'm curious as to why you both believe in God, believe in Jesus' teachings, but believe that Jesus' teachings that he was God aren't true.

>>18651889
oh nvm you're just making it up as you go.
good luck.

>>18651892
>Jesus' teachings that he was God
One verse, your best one so no gish gallop. Red letters only

>>18651894
can you tell me how you can be elevated to something if you were already God to begin with?

>>18651889
Sounds kinda like an adoptionist christology. If you consider them Christian, then sure consider yourself Christian.

>>18651897
>One verse, your best one so no gish gallop. Red letters only
I suspect you will resort to some other cope and say "that Gospel is invalid"
Nevertheless:
>I [the LORD], even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.
-Isaiah 43:25
and thus we find Jesus...
>When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
>But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
>Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
>And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
>Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk
>But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
>I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

>>18651898
God is not bounded by any possibility whatsoever, Therefore, he can do as he pleases. You seem to be under the impression that God is a "thing" that is constrained by other things. Rather, he is greater than any "thing".

Else you'll start saying that I can't be admin in a minecraft server and switch between survival and creative at will (I always retain admin privileges)

>>18651914
>God is not bounded by any possibility
sure but humans are, if someone writes a text saying that someone was 'exalted more highly', the implication is that there is a level of exaltation that they previously didn't have.

>>18651915
If you're really basing this off of Philippians 2, then re-read it
>Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

he MADE himself of no reputation
>God exalted him
okay and? You still seem to believe God cannot do that which he pleases. If The Father wished to exalt the Son by the Incarnation and Passion, why are you then constraining God? And if Jesus Christ as God, did that which was pleasing to the Father, again, why do you intend to constrain God? Have you considered that it was God who desired all the glory in the Universe? and not you? nor a a cherub?

File: Screenshot 2026-05-10 at (...).png (269 KB, 717x635)

269 KB PNG

>>18651914
So your argument is forgiving sins means you're God? You are aware that other human beings were given that authority right? Even in the bible! But not just that we know humans pardoning sins wasn't unheard of in their culture

>>18651922
>So your argument is forgiving sins means you're God?
Yes.
>I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

You can't be a Christian as defined by the majority of those organizations/members that are typically considered to comprise the faith.

You can however be a Unitarian Universalist and believe whatever the hell you want. It's a social club and service organization that believes in nothing, Lebowski.

Or you could join an excessively theologically liberal denomination like the United Church of Canada - the one near me literally has rainbow steps. Be prepared for a lot of lectures about being "diverse, equitable, and inclusive" they seemingly don't really care what you believe as long as you celebrate gay and trans shit.

>>18651921
ackshually the NRSVUE translates it as
>Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,who, though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped
God can do what he pleases but words have meanings. If words do not mean what they say and you can believe whatever you want then just forgo the bible and do that? I don't understand your point there. If someone wrote that someone was exalted, there had to be a state before they were in before they reached the higher exalted state. I am basically taking the text to mean what it says.

>>18651930
>If someone wrote that someone was exalted, there had to be a state before they were in before they reached the higher exalted state.
yeah, did you read it?
>he MADE himself of no reputation
THEN
>[he was] exalted

>NRSVUE
why are you being such a faggot?
even the NIV, the gayest version ever, renders it
>Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

In Greek,
>ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ
In the form of God
>ὑπάρχων οὐχ
it was not the case [that]
>ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
he thought it plunder
>τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ
to be the the same as God

>>18651933
why are you calling me the f-word? that's not very Christ-like of you, and it should be 'emptied' not 'made', which is the better translation choice. though i dont think you have much legs to stand on if you're just arguing for the use of one specific translation.

File: Screenshot 2026-08-24 at (...).png (176 KB, 428x694)

176 KB PNG

>>18651925
Well then you're wrong for the reasons I have already talked about. Jews pardoned sins way before Jesus, there are more examples it's not just a random fluke

>>18651936
If he emptied himself then it still answers the question of how he could be subsequently exalted.
And you're just ignoring ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ because you'd rather believe your fanfic.
>not very Christ-like
what does this even mean if you believe he was "just a really cool angel-guy"? anyways, you are acting like a queer. You'd call Jesus un-Christ-like. if I hated you, I would not tell you. I tell you because you can correct yourself.

>>18651942
it means i dont think jesus would call people the f-word, and if you really wanted me to convert you wouldn't call me that either. emptied himself is an interesting nuance though because the way he emptied himself is by appearing as a human, taking the form as a slave. and even you can understand how the nuance is different if you consider equality with god 'something to grasp'. the parallel is clear imo.

>>18651949
>something to grasp
is how the retards doing the Revised Standard think "plunder", "spoil" or "robbery" should be rendered.
it is something seized by rapine. i.e. plunder or robbery

>emptied himself is an interesting nuance though because the way he emptied himself is by appearing as a human, taking the form as a slave
prior to this, recall, he was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ, not a cherub

>>18651958
studying second temple judaism will lead you to the conclusion that divinity was a broad spectrum in the ancient world. it's not like you could either be 'god' or 'not god'. morphe theou can have multiple implications, being in the form of god definitely means a divine being, but it doesn't really mean capital G 'God'. i dont think 4chan is the place for a serious discussion on how the word harpagmon should be translated, as that is something that even the academics debate on. but even if it is robbery, typically you rob something that you don't already have.

>>18651738
Romans 14:1 in the KJV states, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations."
This says you can’t be received.
Our church would basically tell you it’s best you move on.

File: Screenshot 2026-08-24 at (...).png (155 KB, 431x706)

155 KB PNG

>>18651942
I see you have given up defending your earlier claim. In any case I will also tackle this nonsense
>If he emptied himself then it still answers the question of how he could be subsequently exalted.
No it doesn't unless you believe God isn't the most exalted being by nature. This is just 2nd Adam language btw, just like Adam Jesus here is in the image of God. A spiritual new start for humanity essentially, who is later exalted in the manner Adam could have been. Adam wanted to become God while Jesus humbled himself and got elevated as a reward. It just shows his character and you can't see it because you're reading your theology into the text

>>18651967
>studying second temple judaism will lead you to the conclusion that divinity was a broad spectrum in the ancient world
I dont see why I should care what "second temple judaism" believed when "second temple judaism" crucified Jesus Christ. sounds like they didn't have things quite figured out methinks.

>typically you rob something that you don't already have.
yeah thats why he didN'T think it was robbery.

>>18651974
because christianity was a second temple jewish sect and this is the framework and context that paul was operating under

>>18651973
>No it doesn't unless you believe God isn't the most exalted being by nature.
God is not bounded by any possibility including so-called "nature"
How could God have a "nature"? Who have him this nature?
Non-sensical. You believe in essentially, an animal with instincts, not God.

God, possesses all omnipotence in all possibilities infinitely possible, can enlarge himself, empty himself, enlarge himself again, and so on. or what? do you think you can constrain him?

>>18651977
>because christianity was a second temple jewish sect

Christianity is a third temple Jewish sect; the third temple being Jesus Christ.

>>18651978
>God is not bounded by any possibility
Except the bible makes it clear there are things he cannot do like "lie"
>That by two immutable things, in which it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us
So we can see here that once again you're simply wrong.
>Who have him this nature?
What do you mean who? God as the necessary being always had all his attributes that describe his nature
>do you think you can constrain him?
No but you think you do when you believe a womb and creation in general was enough to constrain him.

>>18651979
yes but words have meanings that you use dependent on the environment that you live in

>>18651979
The third temple's architectural design and dimensions are given in the bible. Last time I checked Jesus is not a building

>>18651986
>Except the bible makes it clear there are things he cannot do like "lie"
Correct. Do you believe that something other than himself has forced this boundary upon him? Why?

>No but you think you do when you believe a womb and creation in general was enough to constrain him.
you tried. God has the ability to constrain himself. if he does not, he is not omnipotent. He is simply "powerful enough" for some reason.
I think you have a moral issue where you could never imagine yourself emptying yourself of power for humility. Thus, you find the concept absurd.

>>18651987
stating a tautology is not an argument
>>18651994
I think that makes it the fourth temple, actually. You should learn to count.

>>18651995
>Correct.
Okay so you admit it's impossible for God to do certain things now, while earlier you were completely opposed to it. Impossible means even if he wanted he could never do it. Logic can be grounded within his nature, no "other" involved here.
>I think you have a moral issue where you could never imagine yourself emptying yourself of power for humility
It is an abomination to believe that your God could be stepped on and shat out indeed, but that has nothing to do with the issue here. You are literally making the case here for a powerless God being actually powerful.

>>18652001
You believe Jesus will be replaced with a building?

>>18652004
>it's impossible for God to do certain things now, while earlier you were completely opposed to it
No, I said God was not bounded by anything outside of himself.
God can constrain himself to any degree.
>Logic can be grounded within his nature
No, it would have to be grounded BY his being. "Logic" is not something which could exist apart from God and then constrain him. Logic is whatever he determines that it is. Or else he is not God, but Logic is.

>It is an abomination to believe that your God could be stepped on and shat out indeed, but that has nothing to do with the issue here

You believe in a "transcendent" God who is also somehow constrained by abstract concepts lol. And yet you accuse me of blasphemy for admitting that God, possessor of all-virtue and all power, expresses his virtue through humility, and by all power, empties his power, to then take it up again.
You have a proud and arrogant soul. It is no wonder you will burn in Hell. Do not act surprised the day that it comes. Humility is the greatest of virtues, which you deny to God.

>>18652014
>God can constrain himself to any degree
If God wanted to lie really really really badly, could he do it? Yes or No
>"Logic" is not something which could exist apart from God and then constrain him
Who said apart? The logic we observe could simply reflect his nature. With your faulty reasoning we can't even call him omnipotent (another reflection of his nature) because that is also whatever he determines it is. And if he determines omnipotence is the ability to do nothing then in your worldview that still means he is omnipotent because words no longer have any real meaning outside the arbitrary.
>you accuse me of blasphemy
Yes you literally believe you can become his God and throw him in hell forever if he willed.
>calls me arrogant
>thinks he can make decisions for God about the afterlife
lol, humility is only a virtue in weak beings for the same reason pride is a virtue in unlimited beings but not in us. It simply is the true state of things

>>18652026
>And if he determines omnipotence is the ability to do nothing
Are you just admitting you are an atheist?
It is self-evident that God has not and never will determine this. The fact we even exist at all is proof. Why do you imagine hypotheticals that will never (in infinite time) occur? to feel intelligent?
>Yes you literally believe you can become his God and throw him in hell forever if he willed.
This one too. what does this even mean? this is as fake as a leprechaun. it has not and never will occur. Is God simply a series of hypotheticals in your mind? Or is he a function or your own desire to feel intellectually stimulated?

>humility is only a virtue in weak beings
>pride is a virtue in unlimited beings but not in us
So you're more humble than God? What if God wanted to be more humble than you so that he can have more glory?

>>18651742
>>18651754
YOU ARE THE GENIUS, WHO EATS THE CUM

>>18652031
Notice how you cannot answer a simple Yes or No question. It's because you're dishonest
>It is self-evident that God has not and never will determine this
I disagree! He could have determined it right this very second according to your silly reasoning. And to keep the universe functioning (though it's not needed) he gave Satan all his abilities.
>this is as fake as a leprechaun. it has not and never will occur
And there you go again, you're refusing to challenge the nonsense you believe in. Why can it never occur? According to you everything is possible
>so that he can have more glory
That doesn't follow lol, what? Why are you so surprised that humans are different from God? We have an imperfect character while God has absolute perfection. Do you think you're more evil than God? What if God wanted to be more evil than you?

>>18652041
>According to you everything is possible
God has willed himself to be That Which He Is before there was anything else in existence. He will never change, as he Is That Which He is since before time began.
How does it logically follow that we will experience some random change in God's being? You being unable to comprehend God doesn't actually make him fickle or subject to change.

>Do you think you're more evil than God? What if God wanted to be more evil than you?
Do you not believe that God's Being is virtuous? You keep asking completely non-sensical questions.

>>18652046
>How does it logically follow that we will experience some random change in God's being?
It doesn't that's the whole point you fool, but that's exactly what you believe is possible. And as a Christian you believe God's being experienced change when he took on a human nature so it for sure happened at least once in your idea of God
>Do you not believe that God's Being is virtuous?
Yes! But you believe if he wanted he could be more evil than Satan and not virtuous at all. Nothing is impossible even if it contradicts who God is according to you

>>18652051
God's experience changed in a limited manner, while his being remained unchanged.
>Yes! But you believe if he wanted he could be more evil than Satan and not virtuous at all. Nothing is impossible even if it contradicts who God is according to you
Let me repeat myself: God cannot change because he has self-determined his being before time even existed.
We both say God cannot change. But you believe that there are outside categories that constrain God. I say that God has constrained himself in an infinite manner.

File: 1779603383338684.jpg (317 KB, 1280x1527)

317 KB JPG

>>18651738
>Can I be a christian if I deny the trinity and dont think jesus fulfilled any of the old testament "prophecies"? I like the community and morals that christianity brings but dont believe in any of the silly stuff.

>>18652055
>God's experience changed in a limited manner
What exactly changed then? It's obvious you believe he died and therefore lost control of his body (otherwise death wouldn't be meaningful, he'd only be pretending to be dead) while the bible says that everything is under his control and that he is immortal.
>But you believe that there are outside categories that constrain God. I say that God has constrained himself in an infinite manner
I absolutely do not say there are any categories outside of God that did anything of the sort. Remember I said they are reflections of his nature, in what world is that anything outside of God if they subsist within him lol? In any case the very fact you admit there are things he cannot do at all, directly goes against your nonsensical idea of omnipotence and his supposed ability to do things that contradict what defines him

>>18652061
>while the bible says that everything is under his control and that he is immortal.
Yes, the Bible says the crucifixion, burial, and Resurrection were all God’s plan, and that Jesus had all the power to save himself bodily if he so chose.
>lost control
This would only make sense if he weren’t God. But he is.

>I absolutely do not say there are any categories outside of God that did anything of the sort.
What are you even arguing against then? You just find the idea of Jesus Christ “icky”?

>>18652067
>This would only make sense if he weren’t God. But he is.
First off that's begging the question but also again if he never lost control of his body then he was simply playing dead for 3 days. Do you believe when Jesus "died" he was just laying there limp with closed eyes? When humans die they actually lose control of their bodies, if he died and he's human the same thing applies to him
>What are you even arguing against then?
pagan mangods, which inherently lead to contradictions with what defines God in the first place

File: ISAIAHTHEPROPHET.jpg (427 KB, 1080x1080)

427 KB JPG

>>18651738
>>18651738
>>18651889
>reject the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity
>believe that Jesus pre-incarnation was an angel
is this a stealth JWanon thread lol
but in all seriousness, no, you can't be considered a Christian if you believe this

but to answer all you questions more simply than the other anon(s) are attempting to, here is simply why Jesus has to be God:

>God says in the OT that human sacrifices are an abomination that he hates, never thought of or commanded
>God in the OT also says HE HIMSELF will blot out the sins and transgressions of the people
>a point is made by the Mosaic Law-understanders in the NT when Jesus tells a cripple his sins are forgiven and heals him that only God can forgive sins
>the levitical animal sacrifices were supposed to correspond to types of sins
>Jesus' sacrifice is supposed to cover ALL of humanity's sins FOREVER
>therefore, if Jesus is actually not God and just a human then it means his sacrifice cannot possibly cover all of humanity's potentially infinite sins forever, he can't forgive sins and is some kind of vicarious human sacrifice middleman, which God hates and commanded against (which would be a contradiction)

Jesus also says there is only one God and that the Lord God is one but then tells his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - this means that God must be the Trinity or it means Jesus contradicted himself and was saying to baptize people polythiestically which is obviously not true

as for the prophecies, see picrel
Prophet Isaiah has been proven to objectively exist based on archaelogy and his writings proven to be written by him pre-Jesus, meaning that the prophecies are real and were really fulfilled
now anon pray to Jesus to save you, find your nearest church and get baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. May the Lord have mercy on you and bless you anon.

>>18651742
>YOU LIKE THE FRUIT, BUT DESPISE THE TREE.
We like the church, not its poison.