Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
658
Home
✟21,690.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I will try to make this as simple as I can. The word became the sun and the moon.
Are the sun and moon God?
Did the word, sun, and moon continue to be God?
Did the word stop being God, when the word became the sun and moon?
When God made the angel spirits, did Gods spirit that became the angel spirits stop being God.
Are the angel spirits God?


I showed the O/T teaching of “Word” of John 1 from Isaiah 55:11. Can you show me your teaching of “Word” of John 1 from the O/T?
No you didn't. You showed references to "the word of God." There are phrases for "the word of God" in the new testament, and they are not "the word." John clearly says "the word was God." What was God cannot become not God.

God's spoken word is not God, and therefore is not the "Logos" in John 1. God's spoken word became whatever God spoke into existence. But this was all created by and through the Word, that is Jesus (Colossians 1:16).

You should look into what Jews believed about "Logos" in the time when John was writing sometime. It might be an eye-opener...

The word that John is speaking of did not become the sun and the moon. They were created through Him. In other words, He was the means of their creation, but He did not become them.

The Word was God. God does not become anything other than God. The Word is God.
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
In the late 90's at Megiddo the remains of possibly the oldest church found in the Holy Land, (there is another that may be plus or minus 20 years), were uncovered. Dating to 230 A.D. Within is the floor mosaic with the oldest extant mention of Jesus as God found in a structural building. As a dedication about the giving of a Eucharist table, "the God-loving Akeptous," who "offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial." The name for Jesus Christ is abbreviated using only the first and last letters and is delineated as a sacred name by a line placed above it, a practice of a later period; this is the earliest known example of it.

As the word, "triad" is first attested to within 84 years of the writing date of the last canonical book of the N.T. This find is within 143 years from that last book. This is what the early Church, 2nd. and 3rd. generation from John were proclaiming and teaching about Jesus. Jesus is God! The Arian view has no early attestation comparable.


I would not put to much faith in our fathers [2 Timothy 1:15...all they which are in Asia be turned away from me]. O/T scriptural reasons of the Church for this as well, which I wont get into right now.

1 John 2:18(KJV) Little children, it is the last time (G5610 - hōra - hour): and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time (G5610 - hōra – hour (it is the last hour now and has been since John wrote this letter)).​

And all the disciples warning that men already have started bring in false doctrines, and Judes warning verses 3,4, that those that the apostle warned about verses 17,18 are here. Notice Jude states it is the last time in verse 18. How quickly do you think it would have gotten worse, after they passed on.

Think on this, the average time period of the apostles, to round it off, was about 30 AD to about 90 AD, about 60 years, and they had to fight off a lot of false doctrine, even about Christ, and during this time all of Asia turned against Paul 2 Timothy 1:15.

Now, to put this into perspective, after the first 60 years, after the times apostles, add another 60 years, then another 60 years, then another 60 years, then add another 60 years, which brings us to about 330 AD. How bad do you think it would have gotten by then? Especially during the first 60 years of the apostles, things were already threatening. That really starts to put things into perspective.
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
No you didn't. You showed references to "the word of God." There are phrases for "the word of God" in the new testament, and they are not "the word." John clearly says "the word was God." What was God cannot become not God.

God's spoken word is not God, and therefore is not the "Logos" in John 1. God's spoken word became whatever God spoke into existence. But this was all created by and through the Word, that is Jesus (Colossians 1:16).

You should look into what Jews believed about "Logos" in the time when John was writing sometime. It might be an eye-opener...

The word that John is speaking of did not become the sun and the moon. They were created through Him. In other words, He was the means of their creation, but He did not become them.

The Word was God. God does not become anything other than God. The Word is God.


Sure I did in post #349, in Isaiah 55


4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
Show me where it says they accepted worship? It never says that. They accepted the honor which God caused to be bestowed on them, but never worship. As it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only."

Even the angels do not accept worship:
"Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.

9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”10 And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. 11 He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.”" (Revelation 22:8-11)

I would suggest a thorough study, your only seeing one side and not the whole picture.

Again, we are not to be worshipped as the God. We in this age are not to lord it over another believer, for God made Christ the head of the body, head of every man, and who is head of Christ? It does not say the Father, it says, the head of Christ is God. God made him both Christ and lord, and Christ will judge, then will be revealed the sons of God. In the age to come some may rule over one city, some 10 cities, some will be thrown out.

And he is above the angels. All powers and authority's are under him, are you getting the picture now? We only bow to him as king, because there is no other king right now, other then God who is above him. As, Genesis 41:38, 40 says “only in regard to the throne will I be greater then you”, and Paul hints to this in 1 Corinthians 15:27.

The angel said, he was a fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. That is because Jesus is the one sitting at Gods right hand.
Revelation 22:8 I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel
Revelation 3:9 them come and worship before your feet,

Worship before the feet, would be worship of the angel, as you pointed out about the angel in Rev. 22. So, worship before your feet, would be worship of the overcomers, not as God, but as kings.

1 Chronicles 29:20 “and bowed down their heads, and worshiped the LORD and the king.” They worship both, but obviously they did not worship the king as God, we have to use some wisdom here.


There is only one king right now, who is sitting at Gods right hand, other then God Himself.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,911
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I think you raised some very interesting issues, 7xlightray. John clearly says that al things were created in him and through him. There is a very strong pan-en-theistic implication here. The universe could be seen as ontologically part of the being of God. The same also idea is also implied in 1 Cor. 15:18, and also when Paul says that our lives are hid in God. The Incarnation itself dos point to the ontological oneness of God and creation. If the Incarnation is truly revelatory of God, then it is revelatory of God's general MO with creation. That means God is incarnate throughout the entire universe, which is best thought of as his body.
 
Upvote 0

Harfelugan

Newbie
Nov 12, 2010
137
44
✟17,053.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I will try to make this as simple as I can. The word became the sun and the moon.
Are the sun and moon God?
Did the word, sun, and moon continue to be God?
Did the word stop being God, when the word became the sun and moon?
When God made the angel spirits, did Gods spirit that became the angel spirits stop being God.
Are the angel spirits God?

Your simple example is almost a direct quote from the early Manacheans from Augustines time. That kind of thinking never entered Christian thought. So your conception of Trinitarian thought isn't close to Trinitarian thought.
 
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,028
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Once again, this is only true if you approach these passages with your idea that Jesus cannot be both the Son of God and God. Without this preconception clouding the text, none of the scriptures have to be reinterpreted to better appeal to our finite comprehension of God.

No 'reinterpretation'. That's not true at all. I have simply not accepted the same interpretation that you have. I have 'reinterpreted nothing'.

The funny part of your post is this:

The doctrine of 'trinity' is anything but comprehensible. The doctrine itself is defined as 'incomprehensible': a 'mystery'. Even when 'divinely revealed' according to those that 'created trinity', it still remains a 'mystery'.

So there is no such thing as a 'finite' comprehension of God contained within 'trinity'.

I already offered that it's very easy for what one believes to influence how they comprehend scripture. Those that speak in gibberish and call it tongues interpret the letters to the Corinthians as confirming their behavior as correct.

But in truth, the letters Paul wrote to them were letters of rebuke in their abuse of tongues.

So it's a matter of perspective.

I personally understand the words of Thomas perfectly. He felt guilty in his doubting the identity of the man standing before him. He didn't 'believe' that Christ had risen. By doubting this, he not only doubted Christ, but God Himself.

Place yourself in context. You have just openly voiced your doubt that the man standing before you is the Son of God, risen from the grave.

Long before your introduction to the Son, you were a faithful believer and follower of God.

Once the truth was revealed, you couldn't help but feel that you had basically betrayed, (doubted), the man standing before you, but God, the Father who had sent Him as well.

So it's not difficult for me to comprehend that I would owe them 'both' an apology. I would feel guilt towards betraying or doubting them 'both': The man claiming to be the Son of God, and God Himself who had sent the man claiming to be the Son of God.

So the words, "My Lord and my God" are perfectly understandable. I see no reason to believe that Thomas was calling Christ God. No other apostle 'ever' called Christ God. They had all witnessed Jesus praying to God. They had all witnessed Christ telling them He was sent by God. They all heard Him speak of God being His Father. So what kind of dimwit would then, after all they 'knew', call Christ God?

So the evidence points to the preconceived notion of 'trinity' being the unaccountable influence that would lead one to believe that Thomas was addressing Christ as God. For it is clear to me that he was basically acknowledging he had offended 'both' in his denial of the Son. The Son who was telling the truth and His Father, God, who had sent Him.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,028
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Who said Jesus was another God? Jesus is the same God. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Son of God. Why do you keep talking about "another God"?

See, you cannot even grasp what is being offered because of what you have come to believe.

What is being offered is that: If Christ is not God, the entire formulation of 'trinity' would be the formation of a 'different' God.

If Christ is who He stated He is: The Son of God. If you turn the Son into God, and the Son is 'not' God, you have basically created a 'different God'.

The God of the Hebrews/Jews was 'one', unique, uncompounded, no other gods beside Him.

If God is not compounded, then men come along and create a 'new' God that is 'three in one' and the true God is 'not' three in one, then the 'new' God is a 'man made God'. Therefore the God created by men is not the 'same God' as 'the' God of the Hebrews/Jews.

Now, whether you agree or disagree, it shouldn't be a difficult thing to understand what I have offered. Not what I have offered but what others have offered as well.

What has been offered by many is that upon the formulation of doctrines of men, they ended up 'creating a God of their own design'. A God that more closely resembles the gods they previously worshiped. Multi-part Gods like 'trinity'.

The Hebrews/Jews 'never' worshiped a 'multi-part God'. Their God was/is 'singular'. Not 'three in one', but 'one' period. Not other Gods like Him. Uncompounded. Not: 'three in one'.

And that is why they falsely accused Christ of claiming to be equal with God. Christ 'never' claimed equality. He always stated that the Father is greater than the Son. That He was 'sent' by the Father: God. That God was His God as well as 'our' God. He even stated that the Father had 'not revealed' all things to Him. He stated that His power was 'given Him' by God. That the miracles He performed were through the power of His Father. And He also stated that there would come others that would do 'greater works' than Himself.

Now how do you suppose that others could come along and do 'greater works' than God Himself?

So it's quite easy to understand what is being offered. Even if you don't agree, the concepts aren't complicated. They are actually more 'simple' than 'trinity'. I mean 'really', how difficult is it to accept a doctrine that is completely contrary to common sense? If you can do that, certainly you can understand something that does make sense. One plus one plus one equals three. Yet you have come to believe that one plus one plus one equals one. If you can accept that, certainly you can understand something as simple as one plus one plus one equals three.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
658
Home
✟21,690.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I would suggest a thorough study, your only seeing one side and not the whole picture.

Again, we are not to be worshipped as the God. We in this age are not to lord it over another believer, for God made Christ the head of the body, head of every man, and who is head of Christ? It does not say the Father, it says, the head of Christ is God. God made him both Christ and lord, and Christ will judge, then will be revealed the sons of God. In the age to come some may rule over one city, some 10 cities, some will be thrown out.

And he is above the angels. All powers and authority's are under him, are you getting the picture now? We only bow to him as king, because there is no other king right now, other then God who is above him. As, Genesis 41:38, 40 says “only in regard to the throne will I be greater then you”, and Paul hints to this in 1 Corinthians 15:27.

The angel said, he was a fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. That is because Jesus is the one sitting at Gods right hand.
Revelation 22:8 I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel
Revelation 3:9 them come and worship before your feet,

Worship before the feet, would be worship of the angel, as you pointed out about the angel in Rev. 22. So, worship before your feet, would be worship of the overcomers, not as God, but as kings.

1 Chronicles 29:20 “and bowed down their heads, and worshiped the LORD and the king.” They worship both, but obviously they did not worship the king as God, we have to use some wisdom here.


There is only one king right now, who is sitting at Gods right hand, other then God Himself.

Except when the person explicitly calls the person that he is worshiping God.

The word most frequently translated "Worship" in the Old Testament literally means to "bow down." It is applied to all kinds of different situations, such as paying homage, showing reverence for, and bowing down before.

In the new testament, the greek word translated "Worship" has a more specific meaning... to prostrate oneself in adoration, to bow down in adoration, etc.

It is the word Jesus uses in His quotation of Deuteronomy 10:13, but if you read the original text you will find that the word typically translated "worship" in the Old Testament is not the word that is used here. Rather it is the word translated "fear," and used almost exclusively in relation to God. The one exception is when God tells the Israelites that He would put the "fear" of them in the pagan nations around them - but then we must look at why. Why? Because God - the One whom mankind must fear - is their God and is with them.

In the New Testament, you will not find any examples of rightful worship unless it is directed at God.
 
Upvote 0

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
658
Home
✟21,690.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sure I did in post #349, in Isaiah 55


4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
This is not a reference to the Word, nor the theology or understanding on which John draws for John 1. Notice three things:

1. "my word..." not "the word..."
2. "it"
3. Nowhere does God call His word "God"

God's word is not the Word. God's word, as it says in this passage, is an "it." It is impersonal, not an entity with force and will, but literally what God is saying. The Word is a "He." "He was with God in the beginning."

The Word is God. God's word is not. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God..."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,028
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Agreed. But rightful 'worship' and 'worship' in general are no different in action. A person can worship 'anything'. Rightfully or in contradiction to that which is righteous.

So 'worship' is 'not' confined to God. Only 'rightful worship'. Worship is confined to 'nothing', or can be directed at 'anything'.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
658
Home
✟21,690.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No 'reinterpretation'. That's not true at all. I have simply not accepted the same interpretation that you have. I have 'reinterpreted nothing'.

The funny part of your post is this:

The doctrine of 'trinity' is anything but comprehensible. The doctrine itself is defined as 'incomprehensible': a 'mystery'. Even when 'divinely revealed' according to those that 'created trinity', it still remains a 'mystery'.

So there is no such thing as a 'finite' comprehension of God contained within 'trinity'.
You completely miss the point of my post. We cannot comprehend God with our finite minds. There is no such thing as a finitely comprehensible understanding of God. When you try to comprehend God, you end up denying some of His word to fit Him into our finite understanding.

I already offered that it's very easy for what one believes to influence how they comprehend scripture. Those that speak in gibberish and call it tongues interpret the letters to the Corinthians as confirming their behavior as correct.

But in truth, the letters Paul wrote to them were letters of rebuke in their abuse of tongues.

So it's a matter of perspective.

I personally understand the words of Thomas perfectly. He felt guilty in his doubting the identity of the man standing before him. He didn't 'believe' that Christ had risen. By doubting this, he not only doubted Christ, but God Himself.

Place yourself in context. You have just openly voiced your doubt that the man standing before you is the Son of God, risen from the grave.

Long before your introduction to the Son, you were a faithful believer and follower of God.

Once the truth was revealed, you couldn't help but feel that you had basically betrayed, (doubted), the man standing before you, but God, the Father who had sent Him as well.

So it's not difficult for me to comprehend that I would owe them 'both' an apology. I would feel guilt towards betraying or doubting them 'both': The man claiming to be the Son of God, and God Himself who had sent the man claiming to be the Son of God.

So the words, "My Lord and my God" are perfectly understandable. I see no reason to believe that Thomas was calling Christ God. No other apostle 'ever' called Christ God. They had all witnessed Jesus praying to God. They had all witnessed Christ telling them He was sent by God. They all heard Him speak of God being His Father. So what kind of dimwit would then, after all they 'knew', call Christ God?

So the evidence points to the preconceived notion of 'trinity' being the unaccountable influence that would lead one to believe that Thomas was addressing Christ as God. For it is clear to me that he was basically acknowledging he had offended 'both' in his denial of the Son. The Son who was telling the truth and His Father, God, who had sent Him.

Blessings,

MEC
But this again relies on your understanding that the apostles did not understand Jesus to be God. There is no evidence of this in scripture. In fact, the evidence in John, where we find this story of Thomas, speaks to the contrary. If this were the only scripture that supports Jesus being God, then this understanding could be necessary, but it's not. Far from it. I have already posted several others, including John 1, that explicitly portray Jesus as God.

You, on the other hand, can only find references that trinitarians already accept - that Jesus is separate from the Father, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the Father is the Head.
 
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,028
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is not a reference to the Word, nor the theology or understanding on which John draws for John 1. Notice three things:

1. "my word..." not "the word..."
2. "it"
3. Nowhere does God call His word "God"

God's word is not the Word. God's word, as it says in this passage, is an "it." It is impersonal, not an entity with force and will, but literally what God is saying. The Word is a "He." "He was with God in the beginning."

The Word is God. God's word is not. "The Word was with God, and the Word was God..."

When we consider the 'power' of God's word: that He is capable of 'speaking' His will and it come to be. Is it really that hard to recognize the importance of His 'word'? In essence, what God speaks 'is' God. It is the part of God that brings about 'effects'. It is the part of God that communicates His will. And being such, is certainly worthy of mention.

In the beginning, God said, "Let there be light". He 'spoke' light into existence according to these words. God said. God spoke. God's 'word'. It was with Him in the beginning. God's word 'is' God.

Just like 'my word' is me. Or it is that 'part' of me that offers communication of my own will. It is how I speak to myself and to others. It is inseparable from 'myself'. It is 'me'. It has been me since 'my beginning' to be able to communicate through my 'word'.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
Who said Jesus was another God? Jesus is the same God. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Son of God. Why do you keep talking about "another God"?


I see you did not understand my statement.

I am referring to the Old Testament Jews...

What God did they believe in?
Did they believe in a trinity?
Did God teach the O/T Jews that He was a trinity?

No! They did not believe in a trinity, or three persons being one God.

So, If Jesus was teaching he was God, then that would be another God to the Jews, that the O/T Jews did not know. Even if Jesus taught that he was the same God, but just another person in the Godhead. Nor did they believe the Holy Spirit was another person. The Jews knew nothing of this kind of teaching of their God.

So, if Jesus taught anything different, then what God taught them, at the time of Deuteronomy 13:1-3, they would never accept it. And rightfully so.
 
Upvote 0

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
658
Home
✟21,690.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
See, you cannot even grasp what is being offered because of what you have come to believe.

What is being offered is that: If Christ is not God, the entire formulation of 'trinity' would be the formation of a 'different' God.

If Christ is who He stated He is: The Son of God. If you turn the Son into God, and the Son is 'not' God, you have basically created a 'different God'.

The God of the Hebrews/Jews was 'one', unique, uncompounded, no other gods beside Him.
There is only one God. That is precisely why the understanding that has been labeled "trinity" exists. Because there is but one God, and yet His word bears witness that Jesus is God.

If God is not compounded, then men come along and create a 'new' God that is 'three in one' and the true God is 'not' three in one, then the 'new' God is a 'man made God'. Therefore the God created by men is not the 'same God' as 'the' God of the Hebrews/Jews.

Now, whether you agree or disagree, it shouldn't be a difficult thing to understand what I have offered. Not what I have offered but what others have offered as well.

What has been offered by many is that upon the formulation of doctrines of men, they ended up 'creating a God of their own design'. A God that more closely resembles the gods they previously worshiped. Multi-part Gods like 'trinity'.

The Hebrews/Jews 'never' worshiped a 'multi-part God'. Their God was/is 'singular'. Not 'three in one', but 'one' period. Not other Gods like Him. Uncompounded. Not: 'three in one'.

And that is why they falsely accused Christ of claiming to be equal with God. Christ 'never' claimed equality. He always stated that the Father is greater than the Son. That He was 'sent' by the Father: God. That God was His God as well as 'our' God. He even stated that the Father had 'not revealed' all things to Him. He stated that His power was 'given Him' by God. That the miracles He performed were through the power of His Father. And He also stated that there would come others that would do 'greater works' than Himself.

Now how do you suppose that others could come along and do 'greater works' than God Himself?
Now you're just being disingenuous. If you really believed that when Jesus said "whoever believes in Me will do greater works than these" He was talking about the power and awesomeness of the miracles He performed, then I would suggest to you that you should be worried about your salvation, as I very much doubt that you have performed any miracles to rival the power and awesomeness of walking on water, feeding 5,000 with five loaves of bread and 2 fish, raising people from the dead, and obtaining forgiveness for the sins of the world through your own death and resurrection.

Additionally, if you take this to mean that those who follow Jesus will indeed perform greater miracles, you make Jesus into a false prophet. No apostle or disciple that followed Jesus (let alone every single one of them) ever performed greater miracles than those Jesus showed while He was with us. Yet Jesus said "whoever." Not "some."

When the first meaning that you see of a verse or passage in scripture is plainly not the correct interpretation, you must look more closely at the passage, the context, and the rest of scripture for your answer.

A little common sense is in order here. Jesus clearly is not talking about all His works. Otherwise every person who believes in Him will become a perfect sacrifice and save the world from their Sins. So what is He talking about? Look back to the preceding verses:

"Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father."

When taken in context with the text around it, it becomes clear that Jesus is talking about works that cause people to believe in Jesus the Messiah, not miracles performed. That is why Jesus says "the works that I do he also will do..." instead of "the works that I have done he also will do..."

And in terms of greater than? There is one work that Jesus didn't do while on earth that His followers did after His ascension: the giving of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not give the Holy Spirit to His disciples. Indeed, the Holy Spirit could only be given once Jesus had returned to His Father. Yet the disciples were able to give the Holy Spirit by laying their hands on people. That's why He says "greater works than these he will do, because I go to my Father..."

You must also understand that Jesus is speaking here of His works done while in the flesh, and not the work of original creation.
So it's quite easy to understand what is being offered. Even if you don't agree, the concepts aren't complicated. They are actually more 'simple' than 'trinity'. I mean 'really', how difficult is it to accept a doctrine that is completely contrary to common sense? If you can do that, certainly you can understand something that does make sense. One plus one plus one equals three. Yet you have come to believe that one plus one plus one equals one. If you can accept that, certainly you can understand something as simple as one plus one plus one equals three.

Blessings,

MEC
Indeed, God is too awesome and too infinite to truly wrap your mind around, isn't He? One who tries to build a finite understanding of Him will surely fall into error. When we try to remove the mystery from God, we find we must disbelieve His word.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
658
Home
✟21,690.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When we consider the 'power' of God's word: that He is capable of 'speaking' His will and it come to be. Is it really that hard to recognize the importance of His 'word'? In essence, what God speaks 'is' God. It is the part of God that brings about 'effects'. It is the part of God that communicates His will. And being such, is certainly worthy of mention.

In the beginning, God said, "Let there be light". He 'spoke' light into existence according to these words. God said. God spoke. God's 'word'. It was with Him in the beginning. God's word 'is' God.

Just like 'my word' is me. Or it is that 'part' of me that offers communication of my own will. It is how I speak to myself and to others. It is inseparable from 'myself'. It is 'me'. It has been me since 'my beginning' to be able to communicate through my 'word'.

Blessings,

MEC
I'm sorry, I don't accept pantheism. Pantheism is totally and completely unbiblical.

God's word and the Word are not the same. This is demonstrable and has indeed been demonstrated from the Bible.

What God speaks is God's word. Not God. No biblical scholar, Jew, or any other rational person would agree with you on that point.
 
Upvote 0

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
658
Home
✟21,690.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Agreed. But rightful 'worship' and 'worship' in general are no different in action. A person can worship 'anything'. Rightfully or in contradiction to that which is righteous.

So 'worship' is 'not' confined to God. Only 'rightful worship'. Worship is confined to 'nothing', or can be directed at 'anything'.

Blessings,

MEC
I never said worship was confined to God. I said Jesus would not have accepted worship if He were godly, but not God. No godly person would accept worship. I'm glad we agree.
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
Your simple example is almost a direct quote from the early Manacheans from Augustines time. That kind of thinking never entered Christian thought. So your conception of Trinitarian thought isn't close to Trinitarian thought.

They are simply questions. You can answer them, or not.

All things came from God. The earth came from God. Is the earth God? No! Yet, it existed in the mind of God at one time. Christ existed in the mind of God, and came forth.
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
Except when the person explicitly calls the person that he is worshiping God.

The word most frequently translated "Worship" in the Old Testament literally means to "bow down." It is applied to all kinds of different situations, such as paying homage, showing reverence for, and bowing down before.

In the new testament, the greek word translated "Worship" has a more specific meaning... to prostrate oneself in adoration, to bow down in adoration, etc.

It is the word Jesus uses in His quotation of Deuteronomy 10:13, but if you read the original text you will find that the word typically translated "worship" in the Old Testament is not the word that is used here. Rather it is the word translated "fear," and used almost exclusively in relation to God. The one exception is when God tells the Israelites that He would put the "fear" of them in the pagan nations around them - but then we must look at why. Why? Because God - the One whom mankind must fear - is their God and is with them.

In the New Testament, you will not find any examples of rightful worship unless it is directed at God.

Same word “worship” for the overcomes, as is for God. Difference being, one is worshipped as God, others as kings.

Revelation 3:9 them come and worship [G4352. proskuneó - proskynēsousin] before your feet
John 4:23 true worshippers shall worship [G4352. proskuneó – proskynēsousin] the Father in spirit and in truth
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
658
Home
✟21,690.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Same word “worship” for the overcomes, as is for God. Difference being, one is worshipped as God, others as kings.

Revelation 3:9 them come and worship [G4352. proskuneó - proskynēsousin] before your feet
John 4:23 true worshippers shall worship [G4352. proskuneó – proskynēsousin] the Father in spirit and in truth
And as I pointed out before, when we see something that doesn't fit with the rest of scripture, we must look to biblical truth to interpret it.

Again, what is biblical truth?

No man accepted worship (in the sense in which it is used in the New Testament). In fact, they were quick to say "no! Don't worship me!" The same is true of the angels. Why, then, would this be an exception? Even if people did fall down and worship those who "overcome" in Revelation, should they accept that worship or command them to redirect it to God? Should we, as God's children, ever accept the worship of others if it is directed at us?

Only Jesus could rightfully do that, because only Jesus - the Word - was God.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.