Biblical Truth: Christ Jesus is not God.

[Der Alte]

So which one of those guys do you follow? Servetus, 1500s, where was his church for 1500 years? The other three were contemporaries. Where was their church for 300+ years? And if their beliefs were the truth how did the "true church" vanish for 1200 years?

As for the persecution, etc. NO, ZERO, NONE evidence! How could any group wipe out the church that Jesus built for hundreds of years? Jesus said that gates of hell could not prevail against his church.

I'm not a follower of any of them, but I do identify with some their beliefs concerning the nature of God and His Christ.

That is not saying anything. I believe some of things they believed as well, e.g. I believe in God and Jesus.

I am sympathetic toward their struggle. Now, are you a follower of Augustine or how about Thomas Aquinas? See I can do the same thing to you. The difference is I'm willing to answer the questions directly wherever they may or may not lead. You on the other hand for whatever reasons is not willing to do the same.

Why should I answer question about Augustine or Aquinas? I have never quoted them or cited them as representing my beliefs.

The true church never vanished. The kingdom of God is within.

The kingdom of God is within but the church is NOT the kingdom of God. So once again show me the church that Jesus built, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and the late 19th century when your religious group came into existence? This is the church I am looking for.

Mat 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.​

Not some supposedly hidden church of which there is no evidence for 2000 years.

As for the persecution of non-trinitarians by trinitarians...you are either playing ignorant or you are actually ignorant of history.

Neither, you don't get to hide behind "everybody knows." If you think you can, produce credible, verifiable, historical evidence for Trinitarian persecution of, non-Trinitarians so pervasive that Jesus' "true church" vanished from the earth for 2000 years.

 

[razzelflabben]

That is not saying anything. I believe some of things they believed as well, e.g. I believe in God and Jesus.



Why should I answer question about Augustine or Aquinas? I have never quoted them or cited them as representing my beliefs.



The kingdom of God is within but the church is NOT the kingdom of God. So once again show me the church that Jesus built, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and the late 19th century when your religious group came into existence? This is the church I am looking for.

I think we are all looking for this Church, but it isn't made up of denominations or local groups, but rather it is made up of every believer who lives by faith. It is those that do not allow themselves to have a form of religion but deny the power of God. The Church is the believer who lives in the power and might of the Lord Jesus Christ, denying self in an act of humility and servanthood, that God might be lifted up, higher and glorified. The problem is, we are all looking for it, but who is brave enough to be part of it? That is the real question to ask yourself, why aren't you a part of that Church? Sorry, just had to put my two cents worth in there

 

[Der Alte]

I think we are all looking for this Church, but it isn't made up of denominations or local groups, but rather it is made up of every believer who lives by faith. It is those that do not allow themselves to have a form of religion but deny the power of God. The Church is the believer who lives in the power and might of the Lord Jesus Christ, denying self in an act of humility and servanthood, that God might be lifted up, higher and glorified. The problem is, we are all looking for it, but who is brave enough to be part of it? That is the real question to ask yourself, why aren't you a part of that Church? Sorry, just had to put my two cents worth in there

I agree, it is not a denomination but disagree with not being made up of local groups. I believe Jesus when he said.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​

And I would expect this church to be doing this.

Mat 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.​

I don't believe that the church is a religious group that started in the late 19th century, e.g. JW, LDS, SDA, UU, OP, WWCG, kristadelfian, etc., with the exception of Arius in the 4th century, there is no credible, verifiable, historical evidence for the teachings of these groups between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and the late 19th century when all the groups began.

 

[razzelflabben]

I agree, it is not a denomination but disagree with not being made up of local groups. I believe Jesus when he said.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​

And I would expect this church to be doing this.

Mat 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.​

I don't believe that the church is a religious group that started in the late 19th century, e.g. JW, LDS, SDA, UU, OP, WWCG, kristadelfian, etc., with the exception of Arius in the 4th century, there is no credible, verifiable, historical evidence for the teachings of these groups between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and the late 19th century when all the groups began.

But that is why the real Church is not about any local group or denomination, because it is made up of sold out believers that can and will withstand the persecutions of this world. Every local body has both those beleivers and those that are not.

 

[Hentenza]

Notice that I will directly answer your question.

Yes. Jesus is indeed perfect in the sense that he lived a perfectly sinless life. He lived a life of pure love. He followed the will of God perfectly.

Thanks. So in what sense then is Jesus not perfect?

 

[Blueberry2010]

In short, I don't know or believe if the Bible is provides a definitive answer on the exact nature of God. I do not personally believe that Jesus is really a part of the Godhead as it is traditionally understood. I base this mostly on the fact that Jesus himself refers to his work as doing the will of his Father. In addition prior to his crucifixion, Jesus prays to God that there be another way to fulfill the will of the Father (instead of the crucifixion). I recognize and respect the argument that this may simply be a result of his humanity (who wants to be crucified anyway?); however, I argue that it means more because if Jesus were truly God and coequal with the Father, why he be ask the Father if there were another way? Wouldn't he already know the answer or possibly be able to provide another way? My views have changed in the past (from Trinitarian) and are very much open to debate, but the way I reconsile this is to believe that the spirit of God and Jesus are gifts that God has provided as a means of expressing his power and love. Any other questions, let me know. And I'd be interested to know the passages you find most compelling against this argument or for your different belief. To answer, the could Jesus be God question, "Yes, but I do not believe so based on the scriptural text."

 

[razzelflabben]

In short, I don't know or believe if the Bible is provides a definitive answer on the exact nature of God. I do not personally believe that Jesus is really a part of the Godhead as it is traditionally understood. I base this mostly on the fact that Jesus himself refers to his work as doing the will of his Father. In addition prior to his crucifixion, Jesus prays to God that there be another way to fulfill the will of the Father (instead of the crucifixion). I recognize and respect the argument that this may simply be a result of his humanity (who wants to be crucified anyway?); however, I argue that it means more because if Jesus were truly God and coequal with the Father, why he be ask the Father if there were another way? Wouldn't he already know the answer or possibly be able to provide another way? My views have changed in the past (from Trinitarian) and are very much open to debate, but the way I reconsile this is to believe that the spirit of God and Jesus are gifts that God has provided as a means of expressing his power and love. Any other questions, let me know. And I'd be interested to know the passages you find most compelling against this argument or for your different belief. To answer, the could Jesus be God question, "Yes, but I do not believe so based on the scriptural text."

Interesting...personally, I look at the totality of scripture which would logically conclude that Jesus is God in flesh. The other passages that might make it seem that Jesus is not God, and easily be explained by understanding that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. I think most people get messed up on that understanding. Many trinitarians get this idea that Jesus was either God or man, but best I can tell scripture is clear that He was fully both. As such, it is easy to understand scriptures like ...if there be another way....or being on His Father's buisness, with the passages that say...I and the Father are one...before Abraham was I am...etc. IOW's from the best I can tell, the only way to understand scripture is to understand that both are correct, that Jesus was fully man and fully God, therefore every single passage speaks of truth and speaks of mysteries that only the Spirit can explain.

 

[Superfast]

In short, I don't know or believe if the Bible is provides a definitive answer on the exact nature of God. I do not personally believe that Jesus is really a part of the Godhead as it is traditionally understood. I base this mostly on the fact that Jesus himself refers to his work as doing the will of his Father. In addition prior to his crucifixion, Jesus prays to God that there be another way to fulfill the will of the Father (instead of the crucifixion). I recognize and respect the argument that this may simply be a result of his humanity (who wants to be crucified anyway?); however, I argue that it means more because if Jesus were truly God and coequal with the Father, why he be ask the Father if there were another way? Wouldn't he already know the answer or possibly be able to provide another way? My views have changed in the past (from Trinitarian) and are very much open to debate, but the way I reconsile this is to believe that the spirit of God and Jesus are gifts that God has provided as a means of expressing his power and love. Any other questions, let me know. And I'd be interested to know the passages you find most compelling against this argument or for your different belief. To answer, the could Jesus be God question, "Yes, but I do not believe so based on the scriptural text."

one thing that makes the argument confusing is the use of the word god. Lots of different kinds of beings can be and are gods. money can be your god. a stone statue can be your god, some demon masquerading as a god can be one's god.

To make it more simple , consider this.

god is a spirit, the bible says Yahweh is god and that he is one.

so the real question to ask is , Is Jesus Yahweh? Is Jesus a spirit?

If you say Jesus is the spirit being Yahweh, and the human of flesh, human spirit and soul named Jesus, then it becomes abundantly clear that Jesus isn't a spirit being and a human being, He is one or the other. And the bible clearly states that Jesus is a man in no uncertain terms. No scripture says Jesus is a spirit, in fact Jesus himself said he is not a spirit in luke 24.

So to ask if Jesus is god or not is to put the question in murky waters.. to ask if Jesus is the omipresent, omnipotent, omniscient spirit being named Yahweh, makes the question crystal clear. I don't think many people are going to say Jesus is an omnipresent spirit and a human being because it is so utterly ridiculous. Nor is anyone going to say that the omipresent spirit named Yahweh became and is a man, because likewise to assert that is so utterly ridiculous.

so of necessity, the question has to remain in murky waters for trinitarians to claim Jesus is god and man, because they cannot claim Jesus is an omnipresent spirit and a human of flesh, and soul and human spirit.

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]So to ask if Jesus is god or not is to put the question in murky waters.. to ask if Jesus is the omipresent, omnipotent, omniscient spirit being named Yahweh, makes the question crystal clear. I don't think many people are going to say Jesus is an omnipresent spirit and a human being because it is so utterly ridiculous. Nor is anyone going to say that the omipresent spirit named Yahweh became and is a man, because likewise to assert that is so utterly ridiculous.

so of necessity, the question has to remain in murky waters for trinitarians to claim Jesus is god and man, because they cannot claim Jesus is an omnipresent spirit and a human of flesh, and soul and human spirit.

Previous post 36 N.T. verses which address or refer to Jesus as God

Previous 26 O.T. verses which address or refer to Jesus as God, in the N.T.

Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {WHO,} εν {IN [THE]} μορφη {FORM} θεου {OF GOD} υπαρχων {SUBSISTING,} ουχ {NOT} αρπαγμον {RAPINE} ηγησατο το {ESTEEMED IT} ειναι {TO BE} ισα {EQUAL} θεω {WITH GOD;}​

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present active infinitive, not a future tense. “Being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

How does a mere human being, “become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Did the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, cf. [ יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.​

 

[Blueberry2010]

okay, I was told that logic governed the non trinity account, so let me ask this logical conclusion question. If Jesus is not God come in flesh form, how can He be the Messiah or the son of God? That doesn't seem to make logical sense. In addition, if Jesus is not God in human form, then how can He provide salvation for anyone? Speaking logically of course... okay, another logical quandry...if the HS is part of God, why can't Jesus be part as well? I just simply don't get the logic. meaning? getting closer to an answer, but still have some questions, hope you don't mind, and thanks for the answers you did provide.

Jesus is the Son of God because he was born of God-- not conceived in the manner of men but by the power of God. Thus Jesus is the son of God. You can debate the real meaning of the word almah as virgin or maiden if you like, but I don't see any evidence in the Bible to suggest that the Messiah must be the Son of God or a part of God. This certainly was not the expectation of Jewish scholarship before or after Jesus day. Please let me know if you find something compelling for that argument.

My answer to your question about Jesus and salvation is that God (Adonai) is the one that provides salvation, and Jesus is the means through which God chpose to bring salvation to the world (or at least more accessably than in previous days).

I'll grant you that calling the Holy Spirit a part of God and then claiming that God is one presents a logical quandary if not a contradiction. What I should have said is the spirit of God exists. I hold that the spirit of God (Holy Spirit) is not necessarily God but that it shows the power of God. If you grant that the Holy Spirit is a part of God, then I agree that there is nothing logically preventing Jesus from being a part of God as well. I base my belief that Jesus less than God on Jesus' repeated description his work as doing the will of my Father. Furthermore, I place a fair amount of stock in that fact that prior to his crucifixion, Jesus prayed to God to allow for another way (other than the crucifixion) to perform the will of God. If Jesus were truly equal to God, I argue that he would have known the answer to the question and would not have to answer to the will of the Father.

I may cause more confusion for saying this but I will try to clarify my view who and what (or lack thereof) God consists of. Essentially I believe (based on the arguments above) that neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit are a part of God proper. Rather they are physical representations and manifestations of the power of the Almighty God because the human cannot comprehend or fully see the power of the almighty God.

Here's a question for you: if Jesus is fully God, why could the people of Jesus day see God (as Jesus) but Moses was not allowed to see God because God's glory and light were too great? And sorry for the long winded response; hopefully I have clarified my position to make logical sense. If not, by all means challenge my position. And I want to say for the record that I don't think this question ultimately matters that much (do you agree or disagree?). Thanks.

 

[nChrist]

What people think based on feelings means absolutely ZERO. What the Holy Bible clearly and boldly teaches means everything, especially when it's experienced by countless millions of witnesses through these thousands of years.

For those who deny God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit - you don't have any point to clarify because you don't have a point at all. You are simply unbelievers, and you are trying to sell others on your unbelief. You have nothing to sell.

If you cared about what the Holy Bible says, you would already know what the truth is by what has been posted in this thread. Instead, you have tried to butcher the Holy Bible in an effort to get it to bolster your unbelief. You've done a miserable job that won't stand scrutiny. God's Word still says what it says, and the absolute truth is still The Holy Trinity - God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit.

God The Son - Jesus Christ - is who you want to pick on and attempt to deny His Absolute Deity. WHY? Jesus Christ is the only WAY to SALVATION. Those who deny God The Son also deny God The Father according to Scripture. What you do is at your own peril, and it's much more than just disrespecting God.

Matthew 10:32-33 KJV Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.


Good News! -- Are You Lost?
The Holy Bible Is The Word Of God! -- The Word Of God
God The Father, God The Son, God The Holy Spirit - The Creator Of All Things!
"God's Grace" And "Our Works"
American Thanksgiving Proclamations: 1623 to 1863 -- 1961 to 2001
Jesus Christ - Very God - Lord - Saviour - Messiah - King
Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled By Jesus Christ: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4​

 

[Evergreen48]

Prove it! Still the same logical fallacy, poisoning the well, "All Trinitarians scholars are wrong."
And OBTW this is a claim of expertise, i.e. "I know more than all the Trinitarian scholars and they are wrong."

What have I claimed to know more about than than trinitarian scholars? Saying that they are wrong [about their trinitydoctrine], or that I do not agree with them concerning this or that, is not claiming to know more than they. And I have never said, "I know more than all the Trinitarian scholars and they are wrong." That is a false accusation from you about me. But that is okay. I understand how frustrated you must be.

Prove it! Show me credible evidence for any anti-Trinitarian Bible scholar who has written anything at all which has been peer reviewed by other Bible scholars? And that these so-called Bible scholars don't "correct the errors" of Trinitarians because they don't feel truth needs defending? I can name a few anti-Trinitarians who have written anti-Trinity polemics such as Stafford, Bernard, but zero who have made an attempt to write a lexicon or grammar to correct all the alleged errors that uninformed amateurs claim are in ALL existing lexicons and grammars.

I am not familiar with any 'anti-trinitarian Bible scholars' writings. I do not depend on those who may be called 'Bible scholars; either trinitarian or non-trinitarian, to tell me what I should believe. As I believe I have said before, I attended church all through my childhood and for most of my adult life, and I never heard the 'Trinity Doctrine' mentioned at all during my whole church going tenure. The first I had ever heard anything concerned with this 'great argument', or had ever given this subject any serious thought was only a few years ago when I was frequenting the Christian chat rooms.

The correct interpretation of John 8:58 hinges on the tense of the verb "to be."

I doubt it.

I haven't claimed expertise in any field nor have I claimed to know more than the Bible scholars who have written the grammars and lexicons as you have.

I have already covered this comment in my answer to your first comment. It is still okay.

Prove any of this from scripture?

I will, after you have disproved it from scripture.

Unlike you I have not given my opinion, I have provided evidence for my beliefs. For your unsupported opinion see your accusation that all Trinitarian scholars are wrong. And you will note that I pointed out where Winer was giving his unsupported opinion. Were you to actually read Winer his objection to Sharp's rule, although he did not name Sharp, was based on his Theological presuppositions, NOT grammar.

If you wish to use the work and opinions of someone else as evidence of what you believe, that is alright with me.

But you do need to learn the difference between an accusation and a simple statement. When I said. "all trinitarian scholars are wrong", or something like that, that was not an accusation. I was simply stating what I thought.

Let me clarify I could not find any personal reference to Sharp in Winer. He does discuss the TSKS construction without naming Sharp. If you post something to support your argument you should be prepared to discuss it.

I did not post anything about Winer to support any argument. I have repeatedly told you that it was a note to remind that there were other opinions besides the ones of Wallace and Bowman.

As a matter of fact I do. I learned to speak German on my own when I was about 12. I also speak Korean and some Viet Namese. I read Hebrew too.

That is quite an accomplishment. I am happy for you. But having accomplished all this still does not make your word on scriptural matters any more authoritative than that of anyone else.

This is about on the level of "Neener, neener, neener, I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh Huh!"

No, it just means that I did not take your comment seriously.

As I said virtually everybody with a Strong's thinks they are a Bible expert. The average person may never have any need to refer to the Greek or Hebrew unless a disciple of one of these guys comes along saying, "The church has been wrong for 2000 years, this is what the Bible really means!" Joseph Smith, LDS, Charles Russell, JW; R.E. McAlister, OP; Herbert Armstrong, WWCG; John Thomas, kristadelfian, etc.

And as I said, I have a Strong's and I do not think that I am a Bible expert. And as far as the leaders of the paricular cults or denominations that you mentioned leading someone astray because they do not know Greek or Hebrew, I don't believe that would be the reason why they would be taken in by false doctrines. I am aware that the KJV has many translational errors in it, but none so grave that they would prevent the true and sincere truth seeker from being able to discern the rights and the wrongs of these men's doctrines. (All of the doctrines purported by these men have some right things in them, and some wrong things in them.)

Mentioning Elvis was a time reference.

Did you serve in the U. S. Army with Elvis?

I do sing in German. e.g. I know all the words to "Muss i' Denn" recorded by Elvis as "Wooden Heart" I also know all the words to the Horst Wessell lied. The no. 1 song in Germany in 1966 was "Lieber's Kummer Lohn Sich Nicht."

Well, I can sing the refrain to "Jesus Loves Me" in Spanish. (I'm bragging )

Sorry miss, you don't get to blow off my scriptural discussion with "Yeah sure, LOL." then demand that I answer you.

Just as I suspected. You can't do it.

As I have shown from scripture the elders and the beast were not in the middle of the throne.

No, you didn't.

Now let us read a little more of the context.
Rev 5:1-7
(1) And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
(2) And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
(3) And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
(4) And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
(5) And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
(6) And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
(7) And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
At first there was no one worthy to open the book, then the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, the lamb which had been slain has, past tense, prevailed to open book, vs.5 He came and took the book. Quite evidently John means the lamb who is now in the middle of the throne first came, took the book, then stood in the middle of the throne. Here is another reference to the lamb in the middle of the throne.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
So clearly John saw the lamb in the middle of the throne but he said several times there was one who sat on the throne and that the throne was God's and the lamb's.

No, the taking of the book was not in the past, but the prevailing of the 'Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, the lamb which had been slain' had already been accomplished.

I don't take wooden nickels.

Typical anti-Trin indoctrinated reasoning now lets look at what the scripture actually says.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

There are NO gentiles and Jews in heaven, they are all children of God, Gal 3:28. If there is a temple in heaven it was never trodden underfoot by gentiles for 42 months.

Everything John saw was a vision. Nothing was a real happening. It was all shown to him in heaven. And according to the following, there were Jews in heaven:
<< Revelation 7 >>
1. And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. 2. And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, 3. Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5. Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. 6. Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. 7. Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. 8. Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

I shouldn't wonder most of your arguments take the form of "Is not! Nuh Uh!"

I think you probably need some rest. You seem to be hallucinating.

 

[nChrist]

Let's get real - there are no anti-trinitarian scholars. Why? - Because anything they would write would be ripped to shreds by anyone who knows much at all about the Bible. One wouldn't need to be a Bible Scholar to easily refute anti-trinitarian doctrine - assuming one uses the Holy Bible.

Many have written their own bible with a little "b" because they just couldn't get the real Bible to work for their purposes and agenda. The ones I'm aware of are anti-Christ false religions and cults. Denying that Jesus Christ is God is one thing they share in common. Many of them were founded by self-proclaimed prophets just several hundred years ago. It's also common for them to have wild materials that won't stand the scrutiny of any serious Bible student - much less a Bible Scholar.

I give thanks that we have God's Word to study and search. Wise men search God's Word to determine if men are telling them the truth or not, and that includes their personal pastor. A good pastor should encourage this and have no fear of the TRUTH from God's Word. Sadly, the TRUTH is not being taught from many pulpits. Whoever helps you expose the TRUTH is doing you a huge favor.

Isaiah 52:6-7 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I. 7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Romans 10:14-15 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

 

[razzelflabben]

Jesus is the Son of God because he was born of God-- not conceived in the manner of men but by the power of God. Thus Jesus is the son of God. You can debate the real meaning of the word almah as virgin or maiden if you like, but I don't see any evidence in the Bible to suggest that the Messiah must be the Son of God or a part of God. This certainly was not the expectation of Jewish scholarship before or after Jesus day. Please let me know if you find something compelling for that argument.

look, I think there is much more to the deity of Jesus than His simple birth records, but birth records are important to scripture and lay for us the first level or layer if you will, of understanding Deity of Jesus the Christ.

My answer to your question about Jesus and salvation is that God (Adonai) is the one that provides salvation, and Jesus is the means through which God chpose to bring salvation to the world (or at least more accessably than in previous days).

but if Jesus were merely a man and nothing more, then we could not find salvation through Him. That is the point. According to scripture, a spotless lamb, a lamb without blemish was necessary. Also according to scripture no man is capable of being that spotless lamb. Therefore if Jesus was merely a man and nothing more, He could not possibly provide the way of salvation. Either that, or scripture is all wrong.

I'll grant you that calling the Holy Spirit a part of God and then claiming that God is one presents a logical quandary if not a contradiction. What I should have said is the spirit of God exists.

even under that explanation, a spirit that exists in God could certainly become in the form of a man couldn't it? (not saying the HS and Jesus are one, but rather logically looking at non trinitarianism) If the HS could exist in God, why not the son as well? If the son exists in God why couldn't a God allow Him to come to earth as a man? Logically it doesn't follow that Jesus could not be God. That is the point

I hold that the spirit of God (Holy Spirit) is not necessarily God but that it shows the power of God.

you can look at Jesus the son the same way if it helps your understanding of a supernatural thing.

If you grant that the Holy Spirit is a part of God, then I agree that there is nothing logically preventing Jesus from being a part of God as well. I base my belief that Jesus less than God on Jesus' repeated description his work as doing the will of my Father.

which shows His human nature, but He also repeatedly talks about being one with God, which shows His God nature. See the problem is that if we read the scriptures for what they say and not what we want them to say, both natures come through loud and clear. Jesus claims both to be fully man and fully God and still, God is well pleased with Him. If He was lieing about His deity, why wouldn't God condemn Him for blasphame rather than love Him all the more? Scripture is clear about the claims. Claims of being fully man and fully God. The question is not in the claims, but in the belief or denial of those claims.

Furthermore, I place a fair amount of stock in that fact that prior to his crucifixion, Jesus prayed to God to allow for another way (other than the crucifixion) to perform the will of God. If Jesus were truly equal to God, I argue that he would have known the answer to the question and would not have to answer to the will of the Father.

consider this, in fact, maybe I'll include an insert from a study I did, I'll see if I can find it. In order for God to become a man and dwell among us, He had to deny a huge chunk of Himself. this act of humility was so great that parts of Himself, the glory of God that man cannot look upon, had to be left behind. So if, God had to leave behind, huge chunks of Himself, why is it unreasonable for Him to have to ask the part that was left behind if there was another way? It seems more than logical to me and this part of the discussion is about logic isn't it?


Christ give up: His heavenly glory and in so doing, live among men
Christ gave up: His face to face communication with God the Father
Christ gave up: His Godly authority by being subject to the Father's will
Christ gave up: His divine attributes by becoming not just a man, but an uncomely man
Christ gave up: His eternal riches
Christ gave up: His relationship with God, when He took upon Himself the sin of the world and God could not look upon Him in that sin..."my God my God why have you forsaken me"
Christ gave up: His authority of a man by becoming a servant, the lowest of all men
Christ gave up: His very life
Christ gave up: His pride as He endured humiliation even of that of the cross
Christ gave up: His right to defend Himself, when He opened not His mouth.
Christ gave up: His right to self, by obedience

in one of my files I have passages for each of these, if you want them, I'll see if I can locate them. Let me know.

I may cause more confusion for saying this but I will try to clarify my view who and what (or lack thereof) God consists of. Essentially I believe (based on the arguments above) that neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit are a part of God proper. Rather they are physical representations and manifestations of the power of the Almighty God because the human cannot comprehend or fully see the power of the almighty God.

and if this is true, then why can't Jesus be the same? Why can't Jesus also be a physical representation or manifestation of the power and might and glory of the Almighty God? What prevents this understanding of Jesus, the Christ?

Here's a question for you: if Jesus is fully God, why could the people of Jesus day see God (as Jesus) but Moses was not allowed to see God because God's glory and light were too great?

Because in order to be in man form, He had to leave behind massive amounts of His glory...see above. I also love Phil. 2 especially note the highlighted parts....
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.[/quote]

And sorry for the long winded response; hopefully I have clarified my position to make logical sense. If not, by all means challenge my position. And I want to say for the record that I don't think this question ultimately matters that much (do you agree or disagree?). Thanks.[/quote]I think it is an imparative question. consider John 3:16...for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosever believeth on Him should have eternal life. If you don't know who HE is, how can you believe on Him?

And about the discussion, I really want to thank you, I am learning a lot which was my primary reason for entering this thread. In fact, your patience in responding to my questions has taught me more than all the rest of the thread put together and then some. Thanks so much, hopefully, I can keep learning, hopefully you won't tire of all the questions and get angry as so many other people do with me. I am so enjoying learning from you.

 

[Evergreen48]

Let's get real - there are no anti-trinitarian scholars. Why? - Because anything they would write would be ripped to shreds by anyone who knows much at all about the Bible. One wouldn't need to be a Bible Scholar to easily refute anti-trinitarian doctrine - assuming one uses the Holy Bible.

Many have written their own bible with a little "b" because they just couldn't get the real Bible to work for their purposes and agenda. The ones I'm aware of are anti-Christ false religions and cults. Denying that Jesus Christ is God is one thing they share in common. Many of them were founded by self-proclaimed prophets just several hundred years ago. It's also common for them to have wild materials that won't stand the scrutiny of any serious Bible student - much less a Bible Scholar.

I give thanks that we have God's Word to study and search. Wise men search God's Word to determine if men are telling them the truth or not, and that includes their personal pastor. A good pastor should encourage this and have no fear of the TRUTH from God's Word. Sadly, the TRUTH is not being taught from many pulpits. Whoever helps you expose the TRUTH is doing you a huge favor.

Isaiah 52:6-7 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I. 7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Romans 10:14-15 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

1John 2:26."These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

This was written to some Christians over 2000 years ago because they were being besieged by some false teachers and leaders of that day. But I believe it to be an admonition that is just as trustworthy today as it was at that time.

 

[Evergreen48]

but if Jesus were merely a man and nothing more, then we could not find salvation through Him. That is the point. According to scripture, a spotless lamb, a lamb without blemish was necessary. Also according to scripture no man is capable of being that spotless lamb. Therefore if Jesus was merely a man and nothing more, He could not possibly provide the way of salvation. Either that, or scripture is all wrong.

Even though Jesus was a man, there was nothing mere about Him. What He accomplished was accomplished as a man, and not as the Almighty God, or even as a god.


Rom. 5:15 "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

Jesus is God's standard by which He judges us humans. As God is a just and a fair God He would not judge us who are merely flesh and blood by one who could not have sinned. And it is precisely because Jesus was merely a man and nothing more, that we are found to be guilty and in need of a saviour. For if He kept himself from all sin as a human being just like us, then we could have, and should have, done the same also.

 

[razzelflabben]

Even though Jesus was a man, there was nothing mere about Him. What He accomplished was accomplished as a man, and not as the Almighty God, or even as a god.

can you or I be the spotless, sinless, blameless lamb? Scripture says no man can...therefore in order for Jesus to be that lamb, He would have to be both man and God.

Rom. 5:15 "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

Jesus is God's standard by which He judges us humans. As God is a just and a fair God He would not judge us who are merely flesh and blood by one who could not have sinned. And it is precisely because Jesus was merely a man and nothing more, that we are found to be guilty and in need of a saviour. For if He kept himself from all sin as a human being just like us, then we could have, and should have, done the same also.

So you are making my point...only God could remain without sin. Jesus, our Savior, our Lord and God,.

 

[Evergreen48]

can you or I be the spotless, sinless, blameless lamb?

No. But that is not because we could not be sinless and blamless. It is because we are not sinless and blameless. We have a choice. We choose to sin.

Scripture says no man can...therefore in order for Jesus to be that lamb, He would have to be both man and God.

The scripture may say that no man does . . . . . but where does it say that no man can?

So you are making my point...only God could remain without sin. Jesus, our Savior, our Lord and God,

No. We could have remained without sin, but we did not, and do not remain without sin. If the case is that we could not help but sin, then God, who is a just and a fair God, would not condemn us even as we, for an example, would not punish our 10 month old baby for wetting its diaper. God would not punish us for doing something that we could not keep from doing.

God meant it when He said, "Thou shalt not." . He never would have given that command if He didn't know that we were capable of obeying it.

There is a vast difference between 'could Not' and 'would Not'. And we are guilty, guilty, guilty! Because we could have but did not.

 

[razzelflabben]

Even though Jesus was a man, there was nothing mere about Him.

What He accomplished, scripture says no man can accomplish, which means that either Jesus wasn't a man, or scripture lies I'm personally going with Jesus wasn't just a man.

What He accomplished was accomplished as a man, and not as the Almighty God, or even as a god.

so you think scripture lies? Scripture says God became flesh (man) and dwelt among us.

Rom. 5:15 "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

Yep, fully man, fully God....the only way to reconcile the man with the grace is to accept and understand that He was fully man and fully God.

Jesus is God's standard by which He judges us humans. As God is a just and a fair God He would not judge us who are merely flesh and blood by one who could not have sinned. And it is precisely because Jesus was merely a man and nothing more, that we are found to be guilty and in need of a saviour. For if He kept himself from all sin as a human being just like us, then we could have, and should have, done the same also.

do you understand the OT concept of sin and reconciliation for that sin? Let's start there, do you understand what it's all about? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, just asking you the question, do you understand what this sacrifice means/replaces and why?

 

[Don Scott]

Hey there!

So someone just saying "that's not true" is an adequate argument? If it was so blatantly untrue, then why did the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of blasphemy? Does your unnamed source above know more than the Jewish leaders standing there listening to Jesus as he identified himself as I Am? And furthermore, someone saying "Before Abraham was, I am" carries the same connotation as someone saying "I am blind"? Really?

His point was that the exact same phrase is used in the Greek for the blind man except that the latter day translators use uppercase letters in Jesus case.as far as you comparing the "jewish leaders" to that writer,your "jewish leaders" didnt even know Jesus was the Messiah yet that writer does.whos word do you really want to trust?
And as for "before Abraham was" does not Ephesians tell us WE WERE chosen before the foundation of the World?