scriptures ignored by Trinitarians.

[2ducklow]

Let's make a list of scriptures trinitarians ignore, and have to ignore to keep their doctrine, I can think of 2 biggies that universally get ignored by trinitarians.

John 20:31 but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.

so much of the book of John is used by trinitarians to prove that Jesus is god, yet John says he wrote the book to prove that Jesus is the son of god and the christ.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Seldom do trinitarians deal with the fact that Jesus and the father are one the same way we the church are one, because it destroys their belief that "I and my father are one" means Jesus and the father are god.

anyboy else got some scriptures they feel trinitarians will not deal with? please add them. And trinitarians now is your chance to deal with very troubling scriptures for you.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I don't see how John20:31 has anything to do with it.

 

[Hentenza]

Let's make a list of scriptures trinitarians ignore, and have to ignore to keep their doctrine, I can think of 2 biggies that universally get ignored by trinitarians.

John 20:31 but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.

so much of the book of John is used by trinitarians to prove that Jesus is god, yet John says he wrote the book to prove that Jesus is the son of god and the christ.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Seldom do trinitarians deal with the fact that Jesus and the father are one the same way we the church are one, because it destroys their belief that "I and my father are one" means Jesus and the father are god.

anyboy else got some scriptures they feel trinitarians will not deal with? please add them. And trinitarians now is your chance to deal with very troubling scriptures for you.

It is problematic to force interpretations from single verses. For example, how do you reconcile your interpretation of John 17:11 in light of John 17:5?

Jesus and the Father are one simply because they are one. For your interpretation of verse 17 to work in light of verse 5, then there would be 2 gods since you claim that John wrote his gospel to merely prove that Jesus is only the son of God (not the only begotten son of God) and the Christ while Jesus plainly says that He was before creation. How can that be? How can Jesus be before creation if He is not of the same essence as God? Can there be 2 infinite, perfect, non contingent beings prior to creation?

 

[2ducklow]

I don't see how John20:31 has anything to do with it.

it's obvious, if you can't see it, then I'm quite sure my explaining it won't help.

 

[2ducklow]

It is problematic to force interpretations from single verses. For example, how do you reconcile your interpretation of John 17:11 in light of John 17:5?

Jesus was speaking as a stand in for the first adam, who lost the glory of God's own self in the garden of eden. Proof is that Jesus gave that glory of God's own self to us, and that Jesus already had the glory of God's own self throughout his ministry.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

then latter on in the same chapter Jesus says this.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;

the only way we can be one with the father and the son is to have the glory of God's own self, which Jesus gave to us, after God gave it to him for us.

Jesus and the Father are one simply because they are one.

my point is trinitarians ignore the part of john 17.11 that says "that they (us the church) may be one , as we are one." And you have ignored here the part of john 17.11 that shows how the father and the son are one. You have to in order to maintain your belief that Jesus and the father are one god.

For your interpretation of verse 17 to work in light of verse 5, then there would be 2 gods since you claim that John wrote his gospel to merely prove that Jesus is only the son of God (not the only begotten son of God) and the Christ while Jesus plainly says that He was before creation.

I don't see any reason for your assumption that there would be 2 gods because John wrote the gospel to prove that Jesus is the son of god.

How can that be? How can Jesus be before creation if He is not of the same essence as God?

No verse says Jesus was before creation. No verse says all things were created by Jesus. It says all things were created in, for and unto Jesus, not by Jesus. Translators change the word of god from in to by inorder to maintain their doctrine. the Greek word is en which means in but many translate it as by to keep their preexistant christ doctrine.

Colossians 1:16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

Can there be 2 infinite, perfect, non contingent beings prior to creation?

Jesus didn't exist till he was born.

 

[Dark_Lite]

it's obvious, if you can't see it, then I'm quite sure my explaining it won't help.

Yeah, no it's not obvious. The trinity affirms Jesus as the Son of God, so that verse has no bearing on the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[Hentenza]

Jesus was speaking as a stand in for the first adam, who lost the glory of God's own self in the garden of eden. Proof is that Jesus gave that glory of God's own self to us, and that Jesus already had the glory of God's own self throughout his ministry.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

then latter on in the same chapter Jesus says this.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;

the only way we can be one with the father and the son is to have the glory of God's own self, which Jesus gave to us, after God gave it to him for us.

Was Adam before creation?

my point is trinitarians ignore the part of john 17.11 that says "that they (us the church) may be one , as we are one." And you have ignored here the part of john 17.11 that shows how the father and the son are one. You have to in order to maintain your belief that Jesus and the father are one god.

Nah!! I am merely interpreting John 17:11 naturally not forced. The operating word in the context of John 17:6-18 is God's word which was given to the disciples and now Jesus is praying for the disciples to keep them from the evil one. Again, making a verse its own island is hermeneutical suicide.

I don't see any reason for your assumption that there would be 2 gods because John wrote the gospel to prove that Jesus is the son of god.

No verse says Jesus was before creation. No verse says all things were created by Jesus. It says all things were created in, for and unto Jesus, not by Jesus. Translators change the word of god from in to by inorder to maintain their doctrine. the Greek word is en which means in but many translate it as by to keep their preexistant christ doctrine.

Sure there is. I just showed you one verse. Philippians 2 alone confirms the deity of Christ. Since there can only be one infinite, uncaused, necessary being, Jesus is God. You can claim conspiracy all you want but that still does not prove that Jesus was a merely the son of God. God can only beget God which throws your theory into disarray.

Colossians 1:16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

Yep!!! I completely agree. In God all things were created and through Him all things were created. Indeed. I don't see how this verse aids your position.

Jesus didn't exist till he was born.

Lets entertain this for a moment. What is Jesus now?

 

[k2svpete]

Yeah, no it's not obvious. The trinity affirms Jesus as the Son of God, so that verse has no bearing on the doctrine of the trinity.

Interesting. So trinitarian doctrine has changed from referring to Jesus as 'God the Son' to acknowledging him as the son of God, affirming him as being is submission to God and not being the same. Very interesting.

 

[Hentenza]

No. The argument has remained the same. Those that ignore that Jesus is the only begotten son of God merely have a poor understanding of the theology.

 

[2ducklow]

Was Adam before creation?

Adam was before the new creation.

Nah!! I am merely interpreting John 17:11 naturally not forced. The operating word in the context of John 17:6-18 is God's word which was given to the disciples and now Jesus is praying for the disciples to keep them from the evil one. Again, making a verse its own island is hermeneutical suicide.

the church is composed of many members who are to be one something even as the father and the son are one something. whatever that something is we both are it, both the church and God the father and his son. That's what even as means. you have no explanation of what "that they may be one , even as we are one." means.

Sure there is. I just showed you one verse. Philippians 2 alone confirms the deity of Christ.

Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Phil . 2.6 only proves that Jesus was smart enough to know that he should not grasp at equality with God. I know that too. Plus, since Jesus is in the form of someone else, who is god,and there is only one god, therefore, Jesus cannot be god for he would be the someone else who he is in the form of.

Since there can only be one infinite, uncaused, necessary being, Jesus is God. You can claim conspiracy all you want but that still does not prove that Jesus was a merely the son of God. God can only beget God which throws your theory into disarray.

If one god begats another god, then you have 2 gods. If one god begats himself, Then God is his own father. if god begats a son with flesh seed he created, then he has an only begotten son.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus was born of the flesh, therefore, according to John 3.6, Jesus had to of been begotten of the flesh and conceived of the flesh. spirit doesn't begat flesh. It's agin God's law.

Everyone has to choose which one makes sense.

Yep!!! I completely agree. In God all things were created and through Him all things were created. Indeed. I don't see how this verse aids your position.

because the meaning is that Jesus is the reason for all of god's creation. the meaning is not and cannot be that Jesus created all things. Unless one changes in to by, which some do.

Lets entertain this for a moment. What is Jesus now?

Jesus is the last adam, the only begotten (literally) son of God, He is man indwelt by God, not both man and god. He is the new creation, the last adam, the glorified son of man, the head of the body of Christ, who sits at the right hand of god, and whose father is the one and only true god, god the father (john 17.3, 1 cor, 8.6.)

 

[Hentenza]

Adam was before the new creation.

What new creation? Is there a new genesis? Adam is a type of Christ. Christ is not a type of Adam but an analogy. There is a huge difference.

the church is composed of many members who are to be one something even as the father and the son are one something. whatever that something is we both are it, both the church and God the father and his son. That's what even as means. you have no explanation of what "that they may be one , even as we are one." means.

The "something" is of one mind, of one will, of one understanding but not of equality as Jesus and God are. Both God and Jesus are equals (John 5:18, John 10:33, Phil 2:6). Us and God can never be equals. Mankind will never be the uncaused cause or necessary. Mankind is contingent. Jesus was not contingent even in His humanity, however, humanity is contingent on Jesus.

Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Phil . 2.6 only proves that Jesus was smart enough to know that he should not grasp at equality with God. I know that too. Plus, since Jesus is in the form of someone else, who is god,and there is only one god, therefore, Jesus cannot be god for he would be the someone else who he is in the form of.

The Greek word for "grasp" is "harpagamos' which is a noun the can be translated as 'seize", 'robbery" (it is so translated in several other translations). Jesus was not trying to grasp (understand) God's equality. He already had the equality with God which is why He did not need to 'seize" it. Just like Jesus never argued (or corrected) with the Pharisees when they accused Him of blasphemy.

If one god begats another god, then you have 2 gods. If one god begats himself, Then God is his own father. if god begats a son with flesh seed he created, then he has an only begotten son.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus was born of the flesh, therefore, according to John 3.6, Jesus had to of been begotten of the flesh and conceived of the flesh. spirit doesn't begat flesh. It's agin God's law.

That's the thing. God did not begat another God but His essence. Again, all beings can only beget the same essence. Jesus is of the same essence as the Father. The Father's essence is God not human, therefore, humanity was added to His essence not the other way around.

Everyone has to choose which one makes sense.
because the meaning is that Jesus is the reason for all of god's creation. the meaning is not and cannot be that Jesus created all things. Unless one changes in to by, which some do.

But that is the problem. The Greek proposition "en" is a primary proposition denoting a fixed position. Whether you translated as "by" 'with" 'in", etc. it does not change the fact that it is fixed. Being fixed takes away your argument since only the uncaused cause can effect the first cause. God could not have made Jesus the effective cause since the would be a contradiction.

Jesus is the last adam, the only begotten (literally) son of God, He is man indwelt by God, not both man and god. He is the new creation, the last adam, the glorified son of man, the head of the body of Christ, who sits at the right hand of god, and whose father is the one and only true god, god the father (john 17.3, 1 cor, 8.6.)

Jesus is the analogy of Adam not the type. The verses you quoted are correct but not in the context that you are forcing. Jesus is of the same essence as the Father because He has to be. Jesus is not created because He can't be the uncause cause effective cause. Therefore, Jesus is both fully human and fully God.

 

[2ducklow]

What new creation? Is there a new genesis? Adam is a type of Christ. Christ is not a type of Adam but an analogy. There is a huge difference.

the last adam is the beginning of the new creation of God, Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation of god. we are 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

The "something" is of one mind, of one will, of one understanding but not of equality as Jesus and God are. Both God and Jesus are equals (John 5:18, John 10:33, Phil 2:6). Us and God can never be equals. Mankind will never be the uncaused cause or necessary. Mankind is contingent. Jesus was not contingent even in His humanity, however, humanity is contingent on Jesus.

doesn't explain to me what this means: "that they may be one even as we are one."
My explanation is that the church is suppose to be of one mind, one purpose, just as God and his son are.

The Greek word for "grasp" is "harpagamos' which is a noun the can be translated as 'seize", 'robbery" (it is so translated in several other translations). Jesus was not trying to grasp (understand) God's equality. He already had the equality with God which is why He did not need to 'seize" it. Just like Jesus never argued (or corrected) with the Pharisees when they accused Him of blasphemy.

It can also mean grasp, in fact both translations are grammatically possible. so you can't use that verse as proof text that Jesus is god, because there is an equally plausible translation that does not support in any way your doctrine that Jesus is god. God would not leave so vital a doctrine as who god is left to a grammatical uncertainty as this.

That's the thing. God did not begat another God but His essence.

god is not an essence, humans are not essence. God is a spirit, and humans are flesh, flesh begats flesh, it doesn't begat an essence, spirit begats spirit it doesn't begat an essence.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

god created seed (flesh) to begat flesh with, (Jesus) Mary already had an egg (flesh) which she conceived flesh (Jesus) with.

Again, all beings can only beget the same essence. Jesus is of the same essence as the Father. The Father's essence is God not human, therefore, humanity was added to His essence not the other way around.

flesh begats flesh, not essence.

But that is the problem. The Greek proposition "en" is a primary proposition denoting a fixed position. Whether you translated as "by" 'with" 'in", etc. it does not change the fact that it is fixed. Being fixed takes away your argument since only the uncaused cause can effect the first cause. God could not have made Jesus the effective cause since the would be a contradiction.



Jesus is the analogy of Adam not the type. The verses you quoted are correct but not in the context that you are forcing. Jesus is of the same essence as the Father because He has to be. Jesus is not created because He can't be the uncause cause effective cause. Therefore, Jesus is both fully human and fully God.

Jesus and god are not essences. Jesus is a human being made of flesh, soul, and human spirit, God is a spirit, not an essence. If Jesus is fully human and fully god then he is 2 beings. one a human soul and the other the omipresnet spirit being who is God the Father.

Actually saying Jesus is fully god says nothing because anything can be a god, the point is which god is he, is he the omnipresent YHWH spirit? or is he a human god? so saying Jesus is god says nothing really.

 

[Gareth]

The scripture in 1Cor.15:20-28 is an interesting one for a Trinitarian to explain away. In verse 24 Jesus hands back the Kingdom to his Father when he has completed all that was asked of him which means before this time Jesus didn't have it but his Father did. I thought they were equal? Then verse 27, 28 when Jesus subjects himself to the Father, which is hardly the actions of an equal being either.

Additionally the verses in John where Jesus and his Father are spoken of as being "as one," just where is the holy spirit in this and what is it's "name" in connection with Matthew 28:19, 20?

 

[2ducklow]

actually I guess it's kind of foolish to expect trinitarians to really deal with these scritpures they almost universally ignore simply because that fact is shoved in their face. obviously nothing will cause them to deal with those scriptures, so this post will die a quick death.

 

[Gareth]

We could always try to keep it going I'm sure. As long as there's no digging, back-biting or evangelising going on iron can sharpen iron. The thing that I find interesting is that there were opponents to the trinity even before the Council of Nicea. They were in a part of the Roman Empire not controlled by Constatine. As he wanted the whole Empire for himself he needed the Empire to be united on religious grounds as well. So by forcing the Bishops to put the Duality through the religious side of the Empire was coerced to try and be united. I think the altenative was to be on the wrong end of a sword when Constantine and his armies came a-visiting. Still some did not think the joining of Father and Son was right scriptually and as all Bibles in existence show this is not the case.

The real issue is summed up by the Popes edict to all Catholics to start to read their Bibles again. For many this will be the first time they have ever done this as it is the priest who has been in the past the one who tried to expound God's Word to the faithful, and no-one questions the priest or raises questions, do they?

This is where you said that some Trinitarians refuse to see the facts even though they are from the pages of the Bible. It's because for many they have never read it or understood it. Faith is based on accurate knowledge which comes from careful reading of Scripture. Keep testing, we are urged, keep proving what we are, and, move onto solid food and not the milk of the word, and, let our advancement to visible to all.

All Christians and other faiths are going to face critical times hard to deal with before the end comes. If our faith is surface, an effect or veneer, when tough times arise that faith will fold. Then where will they be? Not where they want to be that's for sure.

 

[2ducklow]

We could always try to keep it going I'm sure. As long as there's no digging, back-biting or evangelising going on iron can sharpen iron.

Uh dream on.

The thing that I find interesting is that there were opponents to the trinity even before the Council of Nicea. They were in a part of the Roman Empire not controlled by Constatine. As he wanted the whole Empire for himself he needed the Empire to be united on religious grounds as well. So by forcing the Bishops to put the Duality through the religious side of the Empire was coerced to try and be united. I think the altenative was to be on the wrong end of a sword when Constantine and his armies came a-visiting. Still some did not think the joining of Father and Son was right scriptually and as all Bibles in existence show this is not the case.

The real issue is summed up by the Popes edict to all Catholics to start to read their Bibles again. For many this will be the first time they have ever done this as it is the priest who has been in the past the one who tried to expound God's Word to the faithful, and no-one questions the priest or raises questions, do they?

This is where you said that some Trinitarians refuse to see the facts even though they are from the pages of the Bible. It's because for many they have never read it or understood it. Faith is based on accurate knowledge which comes from careful reading of Scripture. Keep testing, we are urged, keep proving what we are, and, move onto solid food and not the milk of the word, and, let our advancement to visible to all.

All Christians and other faiths are going to face critical times hard to deal with before the end comes. If our faith is surface, an effect or veneer, when tough times arise that faith will fold. Then where will they be? Not where they want to be that's for sure.

The only good i've got out of debating with people over who Jesus is and who God is, is that I have a surer understanding of my doctrine from scripture and am much better able to persuade the persuadable. No one can persuade the unpersuadable. I think everyone on both sides of any issue can agree with that.

1 Chronicles 28:9 And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

only those of a perfect heart and a willing mind can be persuaded, and the LORD searches for those people.

So 6:12Or ever I was aware, my soul made me like the chariots of Amminadib.

[SIZE=+1]bydn [/SIZE]`Ammiy Nadiyb (am-mee'); naw-deeb' Proper Name Masculine, Strong #: 5993
Amminadib = "my people are willing"

THe shulamite was willing, the daughters of Jerusalem were not willing. Only the willing are persuaded.

 

[He put me back together]

I do not wish to advocate Trinity doctrine, because I don't think there is a consensus on what it is. I've seen people claiming themselves to be "trinitarian" arguing everything from God being essentially 3 distinct deities, under which I am baffled as to how one could profess monotheism, to arguing something that truly has nothing to do with triunity.

But more important is the issue of the deity of Messiah. Messianic Scripture instructs us that without Yehoshua, nothing was made that was made.

~
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim [Theos], and the Word was Elohim [Theos].

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with Elohim [Theos].

Joh 1:3 All came to be through Him, and without Him not even one came to be that came to be.
~

Most I've heard who claim that Yehoshua was the Messiah, that He was not Elohim, but the first born of Creation, believe Him to be a co-creator. That is, יהוה created the Son first, and then the Son continued to be the instrument of the remainder of creation. This, of course, being my understanding of it, which is certainly up for addition or correction.

This first off nearly defeats itself in that if the Son Himself was created, this would be one thing that was created without His involvement. But perhaps more important than this nit-picky semantic is the fact that there is no co-creator to be found in Genesis.

~
Gen 2:7 And [FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT] Elohim formed Adam out of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils breath of life. And Adam became a living being.
~

The Scripture states plainly that [FONT=&quot] יהוה[/FONT]Elohim and [FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT] Elohim alone formed Adam. There is no co-creator. [FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT] has no plural, because its very definition demands singularity.

So then, if Yehoshua is not [FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT] Elohim, in His fulness, not part of Him, not a demigod, not a first-created co-creator, then we have a problem. That problem is, this thing that we call the "New Testament" is a lie. It stands against its foundation, which is Genesis, and is thus not capable of bringing anyone to salvation. But what does the Scripture say about His identity?

 

[2ducklow]

I do not wish to advocate Trinity doctrine, because I don't think there is a consensus on what it is. I've seen people claiming themselves to be "trinitarian" arguing everything from God being essentially 3 distinct deities, under which I am baffled as to how one could profess monotheism, to arguing something that truly has nothing to do with triunity.

There is only one verse in the bible that refers to the trinity, and that in a negative light.

Luke 13:20-21 And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

The trinity doctrine , called 3 measures of meal here, and the church, called the woman here, has leavened or puffed up the whole kingdom of God because it robs the church of knowing who their savior really is and being like him.

The woman (the church) has hidden the kingdom of God in 3 measures of meal (trinity). It almost completely destroyed the light of god in teh church durring the dark ages, but not quite.

But more important is the issue of the deity of Messiah. Messianic Scripture instructs us that without Yehoshua, nothing was made that was made.

~
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim [Theos], and the Word was Elohim [Theos].

ACtually , the word translated 'with' is the Greek word 'pros' which means towards or unto. In fact, this is about the only verse , or possible one of the very few, that has pros translated as 'with.' Overwhelmingly it is elsewhere transtated as 'unto'. So, kthere is no contradiction, just the contradicition that trinitarian bible translators put in the bible. the word was un to god is the meanigng. Which means that the word of god, or the plan of God points towards God, and "the word was god" means that the word reflects who and what god is.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with Elohim [Theos].

Joh 1:3 All came to be through Him, and without Him not even one came to be that came to be.

It shouldbe translated"it" not "he" or "him" because word is an it not a he. Translators put he and him herebecause of their doctrine ,, not grammar.
Plus word or logos is whatgod says, it isn't Jesus literally. so the meaning of The word was god, is 'what god said was god.' which is equivalent in meaning to saying "Your words are you". In other words it has a figurative meaning.

~

Most I've heard who claim that Yehoshua was the Messiah, that He was not Elohim, but the first born of Creation, believe Him to be a co-creator. That is, יהוה created the Son first, and then the Son continued to be the instrument of the remainder of creation. This, of course, being my understanding of it, which is certainly up for addition or correction.

it's only partly what I bleieve. I believe Jesus didn't exist till he was born. he is the product of a new human male seed that god created to enable him (god) to begat flesh with. the bible says 'that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit. spirit doesn't begat flesh does, so the only way God can begat a human is to create human male seed to use, which is why Jesus is the b eginning of that creation, the new creation, which in the final analysis is the only creation because the old creation is dead and dieing. one day the whole old creation will be zip gone, and as far as god is concerned the only creation there really is is the new one.

This first off nearly defeats itself in that if the Son Himself was created, this would be one thing that was created without His involvement. But perhaps more important than this nit-picky semantic is the fact that there is no co-creator to be found in Genesis.

Ibelieve the meaning is that Jesus is the first born, or beginning as rev. 3.15 says, of all the new creations of God. anyone in christ is a new creation, and Jesus is calledalso the firstborn of many brethern.

~
Gen 2:7 And [FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT] Elohim formed Adam out of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils breath of life. And Adam became a living being.
~

The Scripture states plainly that [FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT]Elohim and [FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT] Elohim alone formed Adam. There is no co-creator. [FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT] has no plural, because its very definition demands singularity.

So then, if Yehoshua is not [FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT] Elohim, in His fulness, not part of Him, not a demigod, not a first-created co-creator, then we have a problem. That problem is, this thing that we call the "New Testament" is a lie. It stands against its foundation, which is Genesis, and is thus not capable of bringing anyone to salvation. But what does the Scripture say about His identity?

I think i've cleared up the contradiction with my interpretation. As to the identity of Jesus, he is the last adam, the only begotten son of god. God created human male seed to begat Jesus with. and Mary conceived with the seed (flesh) that god made, thus Jesus is begotten of and conceived of flesh, and he is flesh. Jesus is a full human being. Jesus is man indwelt by God, not both man and god.

there are an abundance of trinitarian interpolations of scriptures, that they put in there to make scripture say somehow that Jesus is God, but their interpolations are not scripture, it is their monkeying with the word of god to try and twist it to somehow support their doctrine. I have just given you a couple of examples of trinitarian interpolations of scripture in just john 1. there's a whole lot more. The result is that people like you see the bible as nonsense, because they twisted it into nonsence.

 

[BlackSabb]

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Seldom do trinitarians deal with the fact that Jesus and the father are one the same way we the church are one, because it destroys their belief that "I and my father are one" means Jesus and the father are god.

This whole "trinity" thing that originated in the Catholic church is utter nonsense! Honestly. Just be reasonable. If Jesus is the Son of God, he is not God. Jesus clearly stated that the Father is greater than he. Jesus also stated that even he did not know the exact time of the end, only the Father.

And as far as your verse that Jesus and the Father are one, he is not referring to actuality. That Jesus is actually the Father. Jesus is referring to all the qualities of the Father. Jesus demonstrated the "Father" to everyone by his miracles, compassion, teachings, parables, right judgements etc. And that everything Jesus demonstrated showed everyone what the Father was like.

There is now way you can be both the Son of God and God. How many of you are parents? You are either the father/mother or the son/daughter. You are not both at the same time.

Come on now, put your thinking caps on. And let's get out of Medieval Europe with this trinity theology. It has no basis in the Bible whatsoever. Also, when Jesus said to his disciples that he was leaving, another would come in his place to be with all believers-the Holy Spirit. Again, a separate entity.

If you believe in the "trinity" you might as well be praying to dead saints.

 

[Gareth]

To add further to BlackSabb's insightful post is this verse in 1Tim. 2:5,6. Translations vary but the gist should be the same. Jesus offered a corresponding sacrifice, his life for what Adam lost so that we can all get our lives back in harmony with God. He acts as a Mediator between us and God. If Jesus is God then the writer of this verse would of known that and would of structured the verse accordingly. Further it calls into question other things that happened in Jesus life especially the temptations. How could Satan tempt God exactly? Later Jesus dying as he was could not be God because God is immortal, and immortals don't die unless you except Greek folk stories then you accept the only Greek god to die was Pan the god of music. Which was the loophole used by the early Church to somehow get around the headache they had as to how their immortal god Jesus could actually die, and then be resurrected by himself or another part of himself. The Bible refuses to support this idea yet if it were true the Bible writers especially in the NT would of made it crystal clear rather than the arguments which have rumbled on for around a couple of thousand years up to now.