Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

justcoolforyou · Feb 6, 2016

cgaviria said:
The teaching of the trinity skews the understanding of certain basic truths, and they are the following,

Jesus Christ, birthed in the beginning of creation, which is why he is called a "son", by the Father, whose identity is I AM, as the Father does not have a name, as he is not created as we are to have name, and was said to be "engendered" today, which was day one of creation. A son does not precede a father nor does a son come at the same time as a father, but a father comes first, then a son, and since the father never began, therefore the son did indeed begin, as that is the next natural order of precedence. Jesus Christ is also said to be "only son", and this is because he was the only being created directly by the Father, and then all life came into existence through Jesus.

Before Jesus Christ began speaking things into existence, the Father created first, which included preparing the heavens, founding the earth which had water, and bringing forth the spirit of God that bore upon the water. When these things came into existence, day one had begun, and in that same day, Jesus Christ then uttered his first words, "let there be light".

Jesus Christ was the spirit of God that bore upon the water, and this is the evidence of his pre-existence in the Genesis account, and the identity of this spirit was a mystery until his name was revealed thousands of years later, as Jesus, which is when he became incarnate of a virgin. This spirit of God, is also the one who started speaking, hence why Jesus Christ is also called the word of God, because he spoke things into existence, which included all life.

On day four of creation, when Jesus Christ spoke the luminaries of the heavens into existence, is the first day other living beings came forth into existence, which were angels. Of these angels, the angel YHWH became revealed, which was the name revealed to Moses when the angel YHWH gave his own name to Moses in a burning bush, and this was name that the Hebrews used to seek God in the old covenant until much later we were given a new name, for a new covenant, which is the name of Jesus Christ, which is even higher than the name of YHWH, and by whom only in the name of Jesus can a man now be saved. This angel named YHWH was the being Jesus Christ then spoke to on day six of creation, which is why Jesus said, "Let us...", as he was not speaking to the Father, as the Father already gave Jesus words to speak, but instead, it was Jesus speaking to this angel. This angel, was indeed a holy spirit, that then breathed into man the breath of life, as commanded, and thus demonstrated that life not only came by the utterances of Jesus Christ, but also by holy spirit giving forth breath to bring forth life. And this same type of life giving holy spirit, is the same kind of spirit that is said to raise Jesus Christ from the dead, and also all who are believers and sons of the resurrection as well, as it is holy spirit inside each that brings forth life.

There is not just one holy spirit, but many. Each believer receives a distinct holy spirit, which is indeed an angel given to each believer to inhabit the body of each believer, that is sent from heaven to guide, teach, reveal things of the future, give power, sanctify, and perfect.

For a deeper study on these topics, I recommend reading the following studies,

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/01/08/why-the-trinity-is-a-false-doctrine/

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2015/12/1...-also-began-only-the-father-has-no-beginning/

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2015/12/2...ng-that-lives-in-us-that-is-sent-from-heaven/

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/01/15/the-power-of-the-spirit-and-being-baptized-in-holy-spirit/

Why do protestant believe in the trinity after leaving the catholic church and are now sola scriptora believing Christians that's the bigger questions for they don't belive its a tradition of men but scriptural doctrine. ..

xpower · Feb 7, 2016

justcoolforyou said:
Why do protestant believe in the trinity after leaving the catholic church and are now sola scriptora believing Christians that's the bigger questions for they don't belive its a tradition of men but scriptural doctrine. ..

Because the trinity is not a tradition. The tri-personal nature of God(the trinity) is in the bible.

justcoolforyou · Feb 7, 2016

xpower said:
Because the trinity is not a tradition. The tri-personal nature of God(the trinity) is in the bible.

Tradition meaning teaching... the teaching of (trinity) is extra biblical terminology to express a biblical tradition...

Berean777 · Feb 7, 2016

Imagican said:
Yet this is not offered to us in the Bible. This is what you imagine to exist.

All that is offered is that 'in the beginning'. Certainly you are not implying that God has a 'beginning'?

So we 'know' that 'things' existed before 'in the beginning'. That means that 'in the beginning' is a reference to those things that pertain to 'use': who the Bible was written to. In essence, the words could be offered thus: "In the beginning of the things that pertain to man". For God has 'no beginning'. And we know that there were many 'things' before those 'things' that pertain to us. God wasn't floating in a void twiddling His fingers for eternity. Surely you offer no such concept.

So what you have offered is pretty much 'false understanding' so far as 'in the beginning' or 'things' that were created in that 'beginning'.

Christ refers to Himself as: "The beginning of the creation of God". Now how do you recommend we accept or deny these words? If we accept them, then show us how Christ 'as God' was the 'beginning of the creation of God'. If you can't, then it's obvious that you don't really understand what you so often 'act' like you do.

I believe that the words couldn't have been offered more simply. They are so simple a child can understand them. "The beginning of the creation of God" simply implies that Christ was created FIRST in the beginning of the 'creation of God'.

And we have other scripture that backs up His claim: The 'firstborn' of every creature'. A plain and simple piece of understanding offering that before any other 'creature' was formed, Christ was formed first.

And then there is the word 'made'. As in:

Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Hmmm................. "God hath MADE Jesus both 'Lord' and "Christ". Wow. Pretty profound ain't it? God made Jesus both 'Lord' and "Christ". This plainly shows that Jesus Christ didn't 'make Himself' anything. It was accomplished by His Father: God.

Just like the place that He now sits: "At the right hand of God".

What your 'churches' have erred in teaching you is obvious to any that have actually read the Bible without such 'preconceived notions'.

If there is a 'Jesus' that is God, it is not the same God that the Hebrews/Jews followed and worshiped. For 'that God' is singular, uncompounded, without equal.

And God revealed Himself in such a manner to distinguish Himself from all the other 'multi part' Gods that the rest of the world was worshiping. Including the Greeks and Romans previous to their introduction to Christ.

The apostles never taught Jesus to be God. And Jesus never revealed Himself to the apostles as God. Jesus referred to God as His Father. To His Father as God. And He stated without confusion that the Father is greater than the Son. Even discussed that all He did was for the glory of His Father: God.

Once when called 'Good Master', he rebuked the man in offering that 'there is only one that is good and that is God'. So He wouldn't even allow men to call Him 'good' while dwelling in the flesh.

And when He offered 'how are we to pray', "Our Father who art in heaven.......................... thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven.

And then there are the words that utterly destroy any possibility of 'trinity': "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?" He is not praying to a 'third person of the trinity: the Father', He states clearly who He is praying to: God, who is His Father as well as ours.

And then Paul makes it perfectly clear in almost every letter he wrote:

Ephesians 1King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

How much clearer could it be offered?

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

It's kind of hard to understand how these words are so difficult for some to accept.

But I understand this: If one is insistent upon worshiping Christ 'as God', then it is imperative that one 'make' Christ God.

I do not worship Christ 'as God'. I worship 'only God as God'. But I am sure that the Son is worthy of our worship as well. But not as the Father, but as the Son. The Son is certainly worthy of our worship.

But what if? What if Christ is 'not God'? Then that would mean that the 'Christ' that is being worshiped 'as God' is a 'false Christ'. For we are to worship nothing as God but God Himself. And the only way that we are capable of worshiping the Son is 'as The Son'. If we worship anything as God that is not God, then we are worshiping a 'false God'.

Not my words. These are about as clearly outlined in the Bible as they could be. Yet so many find the means to ignore all that doesn't 'fit' what they 'want' to believe.

There is no indication that the Word referred to in John was anything but the Word of God until the Word became flesh. It was only then that the Word could be considered to be Christ. And even then He plainly states that the words He offered were 'not His own' but given Him by the Father. So in essence, calling Christ the Word is figurative. He is not nor has He ever been the "literal" Word of God. If so, show it. You can't. But I 'can' show that while Christ was living in the flesh on this world a voice from Heaven was heard. By numerous different people. And that voice 'was' the Word of God. Not figurative or symbolic, but the 'literal Word of God'.

Blessings,

MEC

To you what you have presented makes sense from a western mindset, however Jesus did not have a western mindset, rather he had a Semitic mindset and much of the middle eastern fathers of faith when interpreting the test within the context of society and context of situation, came to the understanding of three persona's within the one infinite God-being. They called it the trinity because they wanted to put a label, however the label on its own needs explanation, because many force their western mindset upon the councils decree.

Let me take some examples of how you think and how the culture of the day differed to you. Your western and I'm Semitic, that is Assyrian. So without further ado, let's consider your following statement....

So in essence, calling Christ the Word is figurative. He is not nor has He ever been the "literal" Word of God. If so, show it. You can't. But I 'can' show that while Christ was living in the flesh on this world a voice from Heaven was heard.

You see here lies the confusion. In the Semitic culture when someone gave his word, it was literally associating his very character that makes that person who he is to the word. The word no longer is solely tied to content of what is said, rather it is also tied to the person or character's signature. In this regard Jesus is not only there spoken word of God, but he is also the LOGOS, who in the Greek is the designated one to one EXACT representative of the Father's person. So the a Word is tied to the signet ring that a King gives to his representative to act on behave of him, in his absence. Since the Father is not absense and does not require to deligate his role to anyone, then the Christ isn't another being, but a separate persona, who is actually revealing who the Father is, this is a big difference.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18)

The bosom of the Father is the very heart of the Father, meaning when you see the Son you are.....seeing the Father not in the Son, but through the Son and through the Son, the Father recieves his glory.

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (John 14:9)

The existance of the Father is solely dependent on the Son, that is, no Son, then no Father. The persona's are so intertwined within the one infinite God-being, that if you separate them or chronologically number them or age them, then you destroy the very fabric of who God is.

Jesus did claim to his disciples that he is God and that he had equality with God, as was recorded in Philippians 2:6. Very important to remember that Philippians 2:6 is Jesus's claim. The apostle John in John 1:18 also stated that the Christ "who is God himself" is self evident that the disciples didn't require to spell it out amongst themselves. So to answer your question as to whether Jesus claimed that he is God or the disciples claimed that he is God is a confident yes.

Now you made spurious comments that Jesus prayed to the Father and called him God and so on and so on, yet Philippians informs us that although Jesus claimed be God and have equality with God, he though little of himself by emptying not himself and by taking the role of the suffering servant. So the answer to your question as to why Jesus would pray to the Father, is because he fulfilled the role as a servant, yet all along he is the one true God of the Holy Bible.

Getting back to your use of the word beginning to define it in a way that Jesus had a beginning is a misunderstanding on your part and I will kindly show you.

Here is the verse.....

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1-2)

Within the Semitic culture when the word beginning is used, it is stipulating the notion FROM THE BEGINNING EXISTING. What this means is that before the beginning of THINGS, the Word existed. This is verified when the author spells it out in verse 2, where he associates the Word with God existing before the beginning. The author didn't need to say the same was in the beginning with God, but does so to highlight the fact that the Word is eternal with God before the beginning.

The importance of the following verse...

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made

All THINGS, meaning created things and without the Word no created things would ev have been made or come into existence. So the elaborate way that John writes these versus places the LOGOS eternally preexisting with God and by him all crated things came to be. If Jesus was a created thing that the Father created, then the statement would be false. John goes through labourous ways to try and associate the Words existence with God from before the beginning of all things. It is simple if you want to accept it, will you?

Will you accept the Christ as your Almighty God?

Yes/No.

Let's go through the repercussions of me or you being wrong.

Let's say for the purpose of demonstrating this example, that you were right what you had said, regarding Jesus being a created being and not the one true God of the Bible. I however believed differently, that is, I believed that he is the Almighty God and I worshiped him as God. What is my punishment, if the Father is to judge me?

The Father will say it is an honour that you see my Son as if it were me, for he is every part of me and me of him, in this regard I will pardon your innocent error.

Now let's say that I am right in regards to Jesus being the one almighty true God of the Holy Bible. You on the other hand said that he is not the one almighty true God.

The Father will say to you, that you denied my Son before men and in this regard I will deny you, now away from me.

How do you hedge your faith, on the foundation church fathers or your high stakes gamble.

Strong in Him · Feb 7, 2016

cgaviria said:
Making Moses like God has to do with giving him authority. And yes he was perceived to be as a god by Pharaoh, and this was intended by God, because God was represented by Moses. This same passage alludes to Jesus Christ being made as God by God.

Moses was not made GOD.
Jesus was not made a God, and this passage says nothing at all about it.

As I said, in the prophecy in Isaiah we are told that Jesus would be called everlasting God.
He was not made at all; he made all things.

MerriestHouse · Feb 7, 2016

nomadictheist said:
So what is your position then? Do we have two Gods? Or do we have a God, and someone who's not a God but is somehow equal to God because God "promoted Him" to be?

If it's the former, wouldn't this be polytheism? And if its the latter, wouldn't God be teaching us to practice idolatry? He tells us many times that we are to worship and serve God only. Yet now we are to worship and serve Jesus Christ, the Messiah. If Jesus truly is not God, then the Jews were right to reject Him. They were instructed to worship, give their hearts to, and serve God alone. But Jesus called for them to serve (and later worship) Him.

So I'm sure you, 7xlightray, Imagican, and others will continue to explain away all the passages that point to Jesus' deity, but they are there. If Jesus isn't God, then why do we serve Him?

Some of the Jews rejected him, thousands gladly received him.

Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. Acts 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Christ is the seed of Abraham. Jesus said: "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad," John 8:56. Jesus is Abraham's Savior. We praise our Redeemer because he lives and intercedes for us.

Jesus is the "firstborn, among many brethren." (some translations say "firstborn within a large family) Romans 8:29. We are children of God, in the family of God. Children inherit from their parents. We are heirs of God, and fellow-heirs with Christ.

Romans 8:16 "it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ"

The doctrine of the Trinity has no place in the family of God.

MerriestHouse · Feb 7, 2016

Wgw said:
That is true, and the the Orthodox do not use it at all, liturgically, yet we believe in the equality of honour and glory of the Prosopa, as this doctrine is found in the Nicene Fathers.

However, in your earlier post you specifically mentioned the Nicene Council, and that did of course transpire in 325 AD.

Yes, I did say that. The Nicene Creed is not the creed that was produced at the council of Nicea, but a later creed. The Athanasian creed has nothing to do with Athanasius and some argue that it is not even a creed. The word used to describe Christ's relation to God, homoousion, meaning, of the same substance, was considered heretical a century earlier. Theologians argued that the term was not found in Scripture and that it blurred the distinctions between the Father and the Son. And the creedal confusion goes on . . . . .

nomadictheist · Feb 7, 2016

7xlightray said:
Jesus in one sense did raise himself. Jesus did not say he would literally raise himself. You are reading that into the passage, and ignoring what he meant by it. Jesus did not literally raise himself, the Father did. The scripture declare the Father raised Jesus from the dead. If you are correct, then somewhere we would read, that Jesus raised himself from the dead, but we don't read that, instead we read the Father raised him.

We read both, which is confirmation of the trinity doctrine. In fact, it's not until after Jesus ascended to heaven and the apostles are teaching that we read that God raised Him up.

And, of course, if Jesus is the Word that was God, through whom the Father's power is made manifest, saying that "God raised Him up" is indeed accurate. Whether you say "God the Father" or "God the Son."

Which is why Jesus said that He would raise Himself up. Because He did.

Actually it makes him more, not less, for then he truly was tempted, and resisted sin.

When the Word became flesh, He experienced many things that God never experienced before. That is part of the mystery of the trinity.

One of those was hunger. Without a physical body, Jesus didn't have the need to eat in order to live.

Another was the general weakness, or frailty, of the human body.

This is why I have said previously that the trinity is beyond our comprehension. There is no way for us to understand how Jesus, though having the fullness of the divine nature, could have also the fullness of the weakness of flesh (except, of course, the sin nature).

But perhaps we also need to look at the Greek a little closer in the passages that you quote when you talk about being tempted. It says that God cannot be tempted by evil. But the root Greek word there is not the same that is used elsewhere for temptation. The root Greek word that is typically used for tempt or tempting can also mean "test" or "testing" depending on its context.

Furthermore, we have to understand what the Bible means when it says that Jesus was "tempted in every way as we are." How was He tempted? Certainly not from the sin nature - He was born without that. But we see the temptation of Jesus - which comes from an external source (the devil) - in 3 of the 4 gospels.

Now is this the only time the devil tempted Him? We're not told in the scriptures. It's likely that it wasn't, but God has chosen not to give us any more insight there.

I know the passages that you could use, I know them very well.

I'm sure you do. And I'm sure you've taken the time to draw up an argument that rejects each passage. Which is why this will only go in circles.

Jesus is speaking in dark sayings, when speaking to the Pharisees, and Jews.

Just because John explains what Jesus meant when He said "Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days" doesn't mean that anyone else there did (in fact, we are given to understand that even the disciples did not understand it until after the resurrection from the dead).

And Jesus did not always speak in "dark sayings" to the Pharisees and Jews - especially when asking questions they couldn't answer or knew the answer to. For example, I'm pretty sure everyone understood Jesus' meaning when He said to them "Which of you whose son or ox falls into a pit on the sabbath will not immediately pull him out?" I'm also pretty certain they understood "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." And "If I cast out demons by Beelzebub, then by whom do your sons cast them out?" Of course there are many, many more examples. Including "Before Abraham was, I am."

But as I said, this is going in circles. Because you will most definitely say that anything in the Bible that directly says Jesus is God is a "dark saying" that we can't understand without finding more of the understanding that you have obtained. Amazingly, as we have seen, you even say that about the two places where it says all things were created through Jesus.

nomadictheist · Feb 7, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
Some of the Jews rejected him, thousands gladly received him.

Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. Acts 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Christ is the seed of Abraham. Jesus said: "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad," John 8:56. Jesus is Abraham's Savior. We praise our Redeemer because he lives and intercedes for us.

Jesus is the "firstborn, among many brethren." (some translations say "firstborn within a large family) Romans 8:29. We are children of God, in the family of God. Children inherit from their parents. We are heirs of God, and fellow-heirs with Christ.

Romans 8:16 "it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ"

The doctrine of the Trinity has no place in the family of God.

We've been over this ad nauseam, but let's start here:

If Jesus was only Abraham's seed (and not just in the flesh), then how could He truthfully say "before Abraham was, I am"?

Yes. We see that Jesus is the "firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18). Before the Word who was God became flesh, dwelt among us, died, and rose again, there was no one who had died and been born into eternal life.

Essentially the question before us is how to reconcile the passages that say Jesus is/was God to those who say that there is only one God and that Jesus was a man. You choose to interpret the passages that say Jesus is/was God in a way where they would mean that He actually wasn't/isn't God, and thus make Him a glorified man. I choose to say that both are true.

Wgw · Feb 7, 2016

nomadictheist said:
We've been over this ad nauseam, but let's start here:

If Jesus was only Abraham's seed (and not just in the flesh), then how could He truthfully say "before Abraham was, I am"?

Yes. We see that Jesus is the "firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18). Before the Word who was God became flesh, dwelt among us, died, and rose again, there was no one who had died and been born into eternal life.

Essentially the question before us is how to reconcile the passages that say Jesus is/was God to those who say that there is only one God and that Jesus was a man. You choose to interpret the passages that say Jesus is/was God in a way where they would mean that He actually wasn't/isn't God, and thus make Him a glorified man. I choose to say that both are true.

Hey, ad nauseum is supposed to be my catchphrase!

Nice post, by the way.

MerriestHouse said:
Yes, I did say that. The Nicene Creed is not the creed that was produced at the council of Nicea, but a later creed. The Athanasian creed has nothing to do with Athanasius and some argue that it is not even a creed. The word used to describe Christ's relation to God, homoousion, meaning, of the same substance, was considered heretical a century earlier. Theologians argued that the term was not found in Scripture and that it blurred the distinctions between the Father and the Son. And the creedal confusion goes on . . . . .

Your post has the potential to be somewhat misleading: whereas it is true that the creed in its present form was adopted by the Council of Constantinople in 381 (which was initially presided over by St. Gregory the Theologian, an admirer of St. Athanasius, who wrote a panygeric in his honour, and who had indeed been an ally of the pillar of Orthodoxy whilst he was alive), it is is also true that homoousios was adopted by Nicea and was in the initial 325 version of the creed.

Homoousios also offers us the only logical interpretation of "the Word was with God, and the word was God," "I and the father are One," "God was in Him," and so on.

MerriestHouse · Feb 7, 2016

Berean777 said:
You stated that we are to look at the next two versus, so in this regard I totally agree, only IF you seriously take the verse proceeding the versus that follow, within the context of the verse that makes the following claim.......

The claim within the verse above is not an observation made by others, neither is it suggestive of a status granted after recieving a promotion so to speak, rather it is an inherent personal characteristic of the Messiah, as the verse states WHO BEING IN VERY NATURE GOD. This indicates that regardless of what others think of the Messiah or what honour that he would recieve from the Father, is, by the usage of the personal pronoun CONSIDERS HIMSELF equal with God.
So that Jesus Christ the Nazerean considered himself not only equal with God, but he claimed to have the very nature of God himself. So either people will believe the claim that Jesus made about himself to his disciples or they will reject it, however by rejecting this claim, they also are rejecting him as the true God of the Holy Bible, that the scriptures testify of.

So which one is it, because you can't have it both? Hmmmmmmm...........

I cropped your post. I hope to have time to comment on the other part later. I don't know which translation you are using, but the word "nature" is not the meaning of the Greek word for form, or image.

Philippians 2:7 "but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross." Greek Interlinear.

Paul is describing the visible man Jesus. He was in the image or 'form' of God.
Adam was created as the image of God, and Jesus is the second man Adam.

Paul describes man as "the image and glory of God" in 1 Corinthians 11:7. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, he says "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." He also says "The knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Corinthians 4:6.

Jesus was endowed with the very authority of God, being like God his Father. He did not exploit his royal position but acted as a servant. He adopted the role of a servant and did not abuse his position as Messiah and was prepared to obey God, even giving his life in death on the cross. God elevated him to a position that was second only to him for the glory of God, the Father. Philippians 2:9-11

Jesus is our model. He shows us the right relationship we should have with God. Jesus shows us what God is like.

Imagican · Feb 7, 2016

Matthew 7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Who are these mentioned? The 'many' that will point out the wonderful things they have done in the 'name' of Christ yet Christ doesn't even 'know' them?

And why? Why doesn't Christ 'know' them if they are doing things 'in His name'?

Blessings,

MEC

MerriestHouse · Feb 7, 2016

nomadictheist said:
We've been over this ad nauseam, but let's start here:

If Jesus was only Abraham's seed (and not just in the flesh), then how could He truthfully say "before Abraham was, I am"?

In context: John 8:51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death." 52 The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, 'If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death.' 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?" 54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad." 57 The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." 59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple."

Jesus speaks in verses 55, 56 and 58 as if his present ministry on earth stretches back to the time of Abraham and even before. The Jews rejected that. Jesus did not mean that Abraham had actually experienced his appearance on earth and seen it literally. Jesus was referring to Abraham's spiritual vision of his appearance on earth. At the birth of Isaac, Abraham had foreseen at the same time, the promised Messiah who would be a descendant of Israel. This was God's plan for the redemption of mankind.

Abraham had rejoiced to understand/see that. Jesus could make the claim to be greater than Abraham and the prophets because his blood reached back to Adam and reaches forward to us today. He reconciled man back to God. Galatians 3:29 "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

The gospels were written to make believers in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. When Jesus says "I am he," and "I am the one," he was the one that the Jews were looking for and expecting. He was the one that the OT prophets wrote about. "I am the Good Shepherd." "I am the way, the truth and the life."

A good study of the Old Testament Scripture is necessary if we are serious about understanding the New Testament Scripture.

Wgw · Feb 7, 2016

Imagican said:
Matthew 7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Who are these mentioned? The 'many' that will point out the wonderful things they have done in the 'name' of Christ yet Christ doesn't even 'know' them?

And why? Why doesn't Christ 'know' them if they are doing things 'in His name'?

Blessings,

MEC

I believe they are the promoters of Mormonism, the JWs, and oher cults.

Strong in Him · Feb 7, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
You cannot have a Trinity without three. Trinity - triune - three. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Isn't that the doctrine of the Trinity?

It is, and we do have 3; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

MerriestHouse said:
An image of a person is not the person. No person has looked on God and lived.

And Jesus is not the Father. He is the Son; separate from yet one with the Father.
If you don't believe John 1:1-2 and John 1:14, besides other verses, and don't believe that Jesus was God, then no one has seen God - in all his majesty, magnificence, power and light - and lived. But if you believe that God came into the world that he created, became a real part of it, then that OT belief is no longer true. People DID see God, they heard him, saw him with their eyes and touched him, 1 John 1:1. That was God who raised Lazarus and Jairus' daughter from the dead, fed 5000+ people, queued up with Peter to pay his temple tax, wrote on the ground in John 8, washed his disciples' smelly feet in John 13. That was God who was rejected by the Pharisees, wept over Jerusalem, betrayed by a friend, suffered a miscarriage of justice - and who healed, comforted and blessed. God knows exactly what we all go through, because Jesus went through it too.

MerriestHouse said:
Jesus is the perfect mediator between God and us.

Absolutely. Man and God were separated from each other; we were enemies of God. Jesus can mediate between man and God because he was both.

MerriestHouse said:
He lived on earth as a man, he was tempted as a man, without sinning, he suffered as a man, and he physically died as a man.

If Jesus was not worthy because he was a man, there is no hope for us. Jesus was the mortal human being, the Lamb who died.

Yes, he was. He was also conceived by the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35, the word who was GOD, John 1:1, the lamb chosen from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19 and shared God's glory before the beginning of the world, John 17:5.
If this were no so, he could not give us eternal life; life in all its fullness, and reconcile us to God. No man can give eternal life - not even Noah and Job did this and they were described as righteous and blameless.

MerriestHouse said:
By that definition, he cannot be the one immortal God of all creation.

Then the Scriptures which say that the world was made through him, and Isaiah 9:6, which says he will be called mighty God, everlasting Father - are false.

MerriestHouse said:
Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. Jesus, not God, is the alpha and omega who died.

Jesus was both man and God while he was on earth. Otherwise, it was ONLY a man - and a deluded one at that - who was crucified.

MerriestHouse said:
God is not turned into two or three persons because God never changes.

No of course he's not "turned into two or three persons", or even split into two or three persons. The Father, Son and Spirit are all God and all ONE.

It's not easy to understand; not at all. But the fact of the Father, Son and Spirit all being divine is taught in Scripture, and there is only ONE God.

MerriestHouse · Feb 7, 2016

Strong in Him said:
Isaiah 9:, which says he will be called mighty God, everlasting Father - are false.

King James put his own spin on that passage in Isaiah.

The Septuagint.

Isaiah 9:6 "For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."

7 "His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this."

Wgw · Feb 7, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
King James put his own spin on that passage in Isaiah.

The Septuagint.

Isaiah 9:6 "For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."

7 "His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this."

It was not King James. Rather, Isaiah 9:6 is rendered in that manner in the Hebraic texts; the Vulgate, translated from them, as well as the Masoretic, on which the Hebrew was based.

So interestingly enough, owing to the Vulgate leaning on the Hebrew text rather than the LXX, except in the Psalter, Isaiah 9:6 had never been read according to the Septuagint reading in the English church at the time of the translation of the Authorized Version (which itself was influenced by the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate, as well as Coverdale, the Bishops Bible, et cetera).

This does however provide an argument against pro-Septuagint triumphalism in the Eastern Orthodox communion. Whereas the Septuagint usually does offer a more Christological reading, in some cases the Hebraic text is superior; certainly there is no reason to reject the Vulgate composed by the ever pious St. Jerome.

MerriestHouse · Feb 7, 2016

Wgw said:
It was not King James. Rather, Isaiah 9:6 is rendered in that manner in the Hebraic texts; the Vulgate, translated from them, as well as the Masoretic, on which the Hebrew was based.

So interestingly enough, owing to the Vulgate leaning on the Hebrew text rather than the LXX, except in the Psalter, Isaiah 9:6 had never been read according to the Septuagint reading in the English church at the time of the translation of the Authorized Version (which itself was influenced by the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate, as well as Coverdale, the Bishops Bible, et cetera).

This does however provide an argument against pro-Septuagint triumphalism in the Eastern Orthodox communion. Whereas the Septuagint usually does offer a more Christological reading, in some cases the Hebraic text is superior; certainly there is no reason to reject the Vulgate composed by the ever pious St. Jerome.

Some scholars say that the Septuagint LXX was used by the Apostles and early disciples.

Wgw · Feb 7, 2016

MerriestHouse said:
Some scholars say that the Septuagint LXX was used by the Apostles and early disciples.

If we look at the NT text, there are places where it seems to quote the LXX and others which seem to favour the MT. This is not a black and white question.

Imagican · Feb 7, 2016

Wgw said:
I believe they are the promoters of Mormonism, the JWs, and oher cults.

Really? With such little influence, you believe that we have been warned against such 'small groups'?

Well, from my perspective, that just don't make 'no sense'. For those you have mentioned have so little overall effect upon the nations, it would be pretty ridiculous to even mention them.

I feel that what we are offered in the Bible are those 'things' that have the most profound effects upon the population. Not the least.

And to back my perspective verses yours, we have the word "Many" offered. In regards to the overall population, I wouldn't consider the tiny groups you mentioned to warrant the word "Many". If the words in Matthew were in regards to the groups you mention, I believe that the word 'few' would have been used instead. Like: "in that day, there will be a few that expound upon the wonderful things that they had done in my name".

Many indicates vast numbers, not small numbers. Vast enough to have an effect great enough to mention them. I would say that the use of the word would indicate 'most' or at least over half. For seldom does the Bible mention 'trivialities'. What the Bible offers are the 'things' that matter the most. Not the things that matter the least.

While you are certainly free to believe whatever suits you to believe, I certainly don't agree with your 'list'. While they may certainly be a 'part of the list', many would indicate much 'more' than those you listed.

If you were to offer a warning to 'mankind', would you mention that which was 'most dangerous' or that which was 'least dangerous'? If you were limited to expounding upon that which matters most, which would you choose to mention? For I don't think that anyone would argue that the Bible doesn't mention 'everything' that it could. It limits itself to that which matters 'most'.

Blessings,

MEC

Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Great is thy faithfulness

Active Member

Active Member

Alive in Christ

Alive in Christ

Pray For Brussels!

Active Member

old dude

Active Member

Pray For Brussels!

Great is thy faithfulness

Active Member

Pray For Brussels!

Active Member

Pray For Brussels!

old dude

Similar threads