• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Are Trinitarians Christians?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by edpobre, Aug 22, 2002.

  1. YES

  2. NO

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by Pastor N.B.
    Please support your OPINION with scripture.

    Ed
     
  2. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by Pastor N.B.
    I'm sorry I can't understand what you are saying.

    Ed
     
  3. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by LightBearer
    Then why do you find it necessary to say that "Jehovah God AS CREATOR is called Father?" 

    If you go to my post again, you will notice that I said "SO-CALLED" spritually begotten Christians.  Not everyone who say he is a DISCIPLE of Christ is  TRUE disciple of Christ. Hence, NOT everyone who says he is "spiritually begotten" is a Christian.

    Are we not talking about a specific verse and NOT the whole Bible? We do NOT have our own translation of the Bible like what the JWs did. We are not saying that the SmithGoodspeed Translation is the best. We are only saying that as far as Isaiah 9:6 is concerned, the Smith-Goodspeed Translation is ACCURATE while others are NOT.

    Are you saying that what Jesus said in Matt. 23:9 is FALSE?

    We call Jesus our Lord and SAVIOR - not Lord and Father. That's what the apostles TAUGHT and did.

    No. Jesus does NOT have his fleshy body in heaven. What he has is an incorruptible body. Nevertheless, he is still a MAN - not a spirit creature. Just because Jesus could appear unnoticed on certain ocassions does not make him a spirit creature. It's like saying that because Jesus could forgive sins, he is God. God worked miracles THROUGH Jesus (Acts 2:22).

    I go by what the Bible teaches. Jesus is a MAN who was appointed to judge the world (Acts 17:31). Jesus is a MAN who IS the MEDIATOR between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). Jesus will be SEEN when he comes again (Matt. 24:30).

    These do NOT prove your statement that "Jesus ascended to heaven to PRESENT the value of his sacrifice to Jehovah." This is an EVIDENCE of how JWs TWIST the mening of a verse to suit their doctrine.

    Ed
     
  4. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by TScott
    Hey TScott,

    If you don't like your posts to be commented upon, don't post, period. Don't expect your FALSE beliefs to be taken, hook, line and sinker.

    Ed
     
  5. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by Messenger
    Nobody is forcing you to post here Messenger. If you find this NONSENSE, stay out of it. But if you decide to stay, please keep your voice down.

    Everyone is free to say what one wants as long as one can prove it with scripture. That's what this forum is all about.  I understand that "Christians" base their belief on the word of God and the word of God is the Bible. Salvation is by the grace of God and Jesus is the Savior. It is only wise that we ABIDE by what God and Jesus say, NOT on what a council of men says.

    You're WRONG Messenger. God has already DECIDED who is a Christian and who is not. The DISCIPLES of Christ were first called CHRISTIANS in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Thus, only DISCIPLES of Christ are CHRISTIANS. But who is a DISCIPLE of Christ. Again, God speaks. A DISCIPLE is one who BELIEVES in Jesus and ABIDES in his word (John 8:31).

    Jesus TAUGHT that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the FATHER alone is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). A DISCIPLE is one who BELIEVES in Jesus and ABIDES  in these doctrines.

    Trinitarians BELIEVE and TEACH that Jesus is God IN ADDITION to being a MAN. This is a violation of God's COMMAND not to ADD to His word (Deut. 2:32). This is also OPPOSED to what Jesus TAUGHT. Apostle John wrote that anyone who does NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ DOES NOT have God (1 John 1:9).  Thus, according to the word of God, Trinitarians do NOT have God!

    Am I saying this because I hate Trinitarians? No. I'm doing this in COMPLIANCE with God's COMMAND to "save others by pulling them out of the fire" (Jude 1:23).

    Let me ask you Messenger. If you see your neighbor on his bike going 60 miles per hour down a road toward a river where the bridge used to be there, wouldn't you try to stop him from plunging right into the river? 

    Isn't that what LOVE is all about?

    Ed
     
  6. cougan

    cougan Senior Member

    766
    +6
    Christian
    Heres another arguement for you to deal with.

    While it is true that Jesus Christ, in his role as the Son of God, subordinated Himself to the will of His Father (see Philp 2:6) He nevertheless still retained the nature of deity, and there are numerous indications of this in the New Testament. One of these is as follows: 1 Thessalonians 3:11 Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you. There are several significant points wrthy of serious reflection.

    First, it is significant that the grammatical construction is in the form of a petition (the optative mood) which is addressed to both the Farther and the Son. This would only be appropriate if Jesus was Deity.

    2nd, though the subject of the sentence is compound (God the Father Himself and our Lord Jesus) the verb "direct" is singular. This is a clear affirmation of the unity of divine nature that the Father and Son share in common, even though they are are seperate in terms of personality.

    Third, the apostle unquestionably affirms that Christ is involved in the providential direction of the lives of his people, again an indication of divine activity.


    Next arguement comes from Deuteronomy 6:4 " Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

    Again, yes I belive that there is only 1 God/divine nature. Notice is this verse that the word God is the Heb word Elohim which is plural. Then the word one is the Heb word Ehad, a word that can denote a compound unity. Ehad "stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness" (Theological WordBook of the Old Testament Vol. I, p. 30) Compare Gen 2:24, for example, where the same term is employed to describe the unity that obtains in marriage. So you see God is one in divine nature but consisting of the Father, the Son, The Holy Ghost.

    You claim that Jesus was just a man a created being. So, when we become a christian and we are united with Christ as Rom 6:5 says you are saying that we are just being united with a fellow created being. Is this what you are claiming? How can Jesus be begotten of the father and not be both God and man. When something begats something it has the same properties. A dog begats a dog, a horse begats a horse and so on.

    1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    Ok, how are you going to twist this scripture. It plainly says that God was manifest (phaneroo, verb ind aor pass 3rd per sing , make known, reveal, show; make evident or plain; pass. be revealed or made known; be evident or plain; appear, reveal oneself) in the flesh. Who was revealed in the flesh? Jesus.
     
  7. Sean R. Sherman

    Sean R. Sherman Junior Member

    20
    +0
    Pentecostal
    Non - Trinitarians Are Christians for christianity is a way of life, to live as christ lived.
    Yes the Holy spirit is God, Jesus is God and the Father is God.
    ISAIAH 9:6
    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

    Ok so this ONE child shall be called Wounderful, Counsellor(Holy spirit), The mightly God(that's a given), The everlasting Father(The Father), The Prince of Peace(The Son.) and what was that name? Jesus. Therefore concluding that all three TITLES are for this ONE God who has ONE name. The only seperation between the son and the father is Flesh and Spirit. The name Jesus Christ literally means "Yahweh is salvation" so there fore if Yahweh or God or The Father is the one who saves then why would the saviour be someone seperate(Matt 1:21). And why then...(Acts 4:12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. So therefore concluding that the one name for the Father, for The Son, and for the Holy Spirit is Jesus.
    Jesus is God. The word God is not a name. It never was and never will be. Its a Title of a divine being which im sure we all come to conclude that there is Just one of. Which is the one true God. But God is what he is, Jesus is who he is(John 1:1) The word WAS God. Who is "The Word". He never gives his name in the Old Testiment But it was always his name. When Jesus prays to the father in scripture its Flesh praying to spirit. The conciousness of the man praying to the God within him. For it is written in Colossians 2:9 That in him dwelleth ALL the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When christ prays in the garden he says (John 17:6)"I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world:...." Where in the bible does Jesus "manifest" the name of God...? Does he come out and say "Hey guys god's name is this..." no, BUT by his own name which is also the Father's. Therefore meaning that the name of The Father is Jesus and that the name of the son was Jesus and since God is the Holy spirit then it is also the Father and with the same name. (Acts 4:2) The Sadducees were grieved because Peter and John preached THROUGH JESUS the ressurection of the dead. Calling Jesus the Holy spirit for what other did the Apostles preach THROUGH. (1 jphn 2:1)My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:. This calls Jesus Christ The Father. (1 luke 8) 38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
    39 Return to thine own house, and show how great things GOD hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things JESUS had done unto him.
    40 And it came to pass, that, when Jesus was returned, the people gladly received him: for they were all waiting for him.

    So we have scripture containing evidance that Jesus is the father and the son and the holy spirit. So where did Trinity come from? in the years A.D. 170 - 325 is the Old Catholic age. This is before the Council of Nicea. This is were the Trinity doctrine was formed, the sprinkling method and the baptism of infints. All because it was the first fusion of church and state. And so the Emporer of Rome of course wanting to please the people gave persuasian to the catholics. Many doctrines and practices characteristic of the later Roman Catholic Church and the medieval age first
    made their appearance or first received widespread
    acceptance during this time. Church leaders and writers
    began to examine the doctrines of God and of Christ, and
    while they did not resolve the issues to general satisfaction,
    they began to hammer out a comprehensive theological
    system. Pretty scarry if you ask me. First before This age were the post-apostolic writters of which some studied under ther apostles themselves and they also preached and wrote of the Oneness of God(The name jesus) and then the Apologist with somewhat of the same effect(The name Jesus)
    And then the Old Catholic Age. The most debated point in scripture for the Trinity is Mathew 18, The great commision. Well if jesus said Father, son , holy spirit. and by these three titles didn't mean One name then the apostles were all wrong. So now on this theory we cannot trust the apoostles at all for there cannot be lies within the truth and this would also disrupt the consistency and unity of the scripture. And so if we cant trust the apostles then we can just throw out the bible completely because then we cant trust any man inspired by God in the bible and we also cant trust the account of Matthew when he tells us Jesus says Father son and hoy spirit. So the theory of Jesus is right and the Apostles are wrong, goes out the window. And the theory of They're both right comes into place. Can it be possible that in Matt 18 Jesus when saying Father, Son and Holy spirit actually ment in his own name for this is the one name for all of these titles or modes of God and the only one under heaven among men of which to be saved by. So to conclude I give you one more scripture which defines the oneness and Truth of the one God and his name(1 john 5:20)
    And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

    So the son has come and now we have understanding so we can know him thats true(the name is the understanding thats finally been revealed in the NT) and we are in him who is true(Jesus Christ) This is the true God, and eternal life.

    I write this unto you not to offend any one of you but that the revelation of his name may be spread through you and your brethren alike. I say all of this out of love and never by my own judgment. If there be any conviction it is not of me but of the truth I write to you of. For I write to you not that you dont know the truth but that you do know it and that there cant be any lies within it. To my beloved brethren of the Church upon Christ I pray thee all that you do well. Amen.
     
  8. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by cougan
    The Bible teaches that GOD = the CREATOR while MAN = the CREATED being (Gen. 1:27). While MAN may have some of God's nature (e.g. holiness and righteousness, authority or power), MAN cannot be God (Ezek. 28:2).

    Thus, Jesus who says he is a MAN (John 8:40) may have had some of God's nature (nature coming from God is "divine") but that is NOT an INDICATION that he is God.

    Again, you are IMPOSING your pre-conceived belief into this verse. The word "one" is a number meaning "alone" or "no one beside God"or "none other" (Is. 44:8; 45:5-6;46:9). God ALONE created ALL things (Is. 45:7: Rev. 4:11) and that God, who ALONE created ALL things, is the FATHER (Is. 63:16; 64:8; Malachi 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:6).

    Why do you keep QUESTIONING God's word? Jesus SAID that he is a MAN (John 8:40). The apostles SAID that Jesus is a MAN (Acts 2:22; 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5). MAN was CREATED by God (GEn. 1:27). Therefore, Jesus is a CREATED being. Jesus  lived and died like a MAN should live and die. What is it to you if God says Jesus is His begotten SON but Jesus is a MAN not God?

    Are you saying that God does NOT know what He is saying?

    Again, you are IMPOSING on the verse what you believe in. You ask: "Who was revealed in the flesh?" And your answer is: JESUS! That's FALSE! It was GOD who was manifest in the flesh!

    God was MANIFEST or revealed or mde evident IN the flesh. The flesh in which God was made evident or manifest is Jesus, the MAN. Apostle Peter explains in Acts 2:22 that Jesus is the MAN attested to by God by miracles, wonders and signs which God DID through him.

    God is MANIFEST or made evident by the things He has CREATED and by the things which He DID through Jesus.

    Ed
     
  9. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Ed, you are wresting and twisting scriptures. I am not rejecting anything, you are, I do believe what Jesus said about Himself, but not just the one or two verses you keep repeating. You deliberately omitted (rejected) part of John, to try to make it support you man-made doctrine.

    John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
    20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
    21[/b] For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

    Vs. 19 you omitted the words, “but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” So this passage does not prove that Jesus cannot, does not, act alone. Jesus acts alone, but He is guided, instructed, or commanded by the Father, as in John 10:18.

    Therefore, when Jesus said, in Jn 2:19, “I will raise it (the temple of His body) up.” that is what He meant. Because all power and authority in heaven and earth had been given to Jesus and He had specifically received commandment from the Father to take up His life again. Your twisted interpretation of John 5:19, makes Jesus a liar in John 2:19 and 10:18.


    Vs. 21, the Son gives life to whom He wants to, see John 17:2, below.

    As I said you need to read the Bible and learn what it actually says, instead of just repeating your Iglesias Ni Manalo doctrine, over and over again.

    John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

    Jesus was commanded by, and given power by, God to take up His life again.


    John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

    Jesus said that He would raise up His body. Note, “all things”, “all authority”, “all power”, was given to Jesus by the Father.

    Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

    Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father:

    John 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

    John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

    John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
     
  10. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by Sean R. Sherman
    You are WRONG! Being a Christian is NOT determined by the way one lives! A Christian is a DISCIPLE of Christ (Acts 11:26). And a DISCIPLE of Christ is one who BELIEVES in Jesus and ABIDES in his word (John 8:31).

    Jesus says he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the FATHER is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, Jesus is NOT God. Anyone who says Jesus is God is NOT a disciple of Christ and therefore, NOT a Christian.

    People who BELIEVE that Jesus is the one True God composed of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are NOT Christians either even if they do NOT believe the Trinity.

    Ed


     
     
  11. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Kain,

    OK. Let’s review all the verses that you posted before and see if they are relevant or irrelevant. That is do any of these verses somehow prove that Isa 44:6, is not, cannot be, speaking about a Trinitarian God.


    6 Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God.

    Let me clarify what I mean by Trinitarian God. I do not mean the mongrelized, illegitimatized three god, horse droppings, that virtually all anti-Trinitarians drag out every time they talk about Trinity, as Kain did in his previous post. If you are here attacking the Trinity and you don’t know what you are attacking, then go look it up and I’ll discuss the truth with you when you come back. Start with the assumption that Trinitarians believe in ONE God!

    First, who is the audience in Is 44:6? Israel and Jacob. This is direct address, I-you, see verses before and after 44:6, vss. 2 and 7, “ye” and “thee”, not “him” or “his”.

    In verse 6, YHWH still addressing Israel/Jacob directly, we would expect YHWH to say “your redeemer”, first person, but He says “his redeemer” (וגאלו), third person.


    Isa 44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.* * *
    8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses.

    Isa 47:4 As for our redeemer, (גאלנו) the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.

    As you noted elsewhere “ga’alnu” is correctly translated “our redeemer”, because “ga’al” has the 1mp pronominal suffix, (נו) “nu”, “of us”, whereas in Is 44:6, “ga’al” has the 3ms pronominal suffix “waw” (ו), “of him”, his.

    I can affirm this verse, “our redeemer, the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.”. There is absolutely nothing in this verse which even hints, and certainly doesn’t prove, that YHWH is not or cannot be Triune in nature.

    Isa 43:3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

    Kain: ”He is not talking of Himself as seperate beings, or persons. He is listing the functions He holds as one.”
    That is correct, in this verse. But there is also no third person reference to a distinct “redeemer”, as in Isa 44:6. See previous comment. No proof that YHWH is not, cannot be, Triune in nature.

    Isa 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, (וגאלך) the mighty One of Jacob.

    ”Ga’al” has the 1ms pronominal suffix, ך, correctly translated “thy.” Again YHWH is the redeemer, does not contradict Isa 44:6 and no proof that YHWH is not, cannot be, Triune in nature.

    Isa 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, (וגאלך) the Holy One of Israel

    Kain: ”From the same KJV, over here, it's translated properly as 'thy.'

    Again, in this verse, ”ga’al” has the 1ms pronominal suffix, ך, correctly translated “thy”, as you stated. But notice, in your previous post you were arguing that the correct translation in Isa 44:6 should be “thy redeemer”. However when confronted with a little Hebrew scholarship you quickly dropped that argument, hoping nobody would notice, and simply said that YHWH was speaking of Israel. This shows you don’t really know what you are talking about. YHWH is the Redeemer, no proof that YHWH is not, cannot be Triune in nature.

    44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

    Kain: ”Again, here the proper translation of 'thy' is used.”

    Same comments as Isa 41:14, above.

    Kain: ”Given the context of the rest of Isaiah (and the rest of the Tanach), you would be hard pressed to convince any non-trinitarian that there are multiple presonalities being presented in that verse.”

    Bintheredunthatgothetshirt. I produced evidence of orthodox Jews discovering the Trinity in the Hebrew scriptures. You blew it off because;

    Kain: ”If you search real hard, you can find 'trinitarians' among the Rabbis, but they are no longer Jewish since they accept Christ as their savior instead of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. . .However, the trinitarians among the Jews have about the same treatment among the rest of Judaism as non-trinitarian Chrisitans have among the rest of Christianity.”

    How absolutely fantastically convenient, a Jew who accepts the Trinity is no longer a Jew and anything he says is worthless. In other words, I’m talking to someone whose mind is set in concrete. D#mned if you do, d#mned if you don’t.

    Kain: ”When it supports your trinitarian view, the Jews become perfect translators. It's a common theme I see repeated from many.”

    See previous response. This is a copout not a rebuttal. I accept sources which are legitimate, recognized, and not contradictory. Except for this little snide flatulence, you have ignored JPS and LXX twice. Therefore we can assume you do not have a meaningful response.

    Kain: “Especially considering, the testimony of Jews-for-Jesus (Christians disguised as Jews) converts doesn't sit will with Judeism.”

    ”(Christians disguised as Jews)” Exactly the kind of mindless, infantile, attack that I would expect from someone like you. I happen to know some Messianic Jews, they are not masquerading as anything. They are Jews who have recognized and accepted ישוע המשיח and they are still Jews in every respect.

    While you are pondering all this, here are more verses, from the T’nakh, which support the Trinitarian view.

    The strange 'us' passages in Gen 1.26, 3:22, 11.7; Is 6.8.
    • Gen 1.26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,
    • Gen 3.22: And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us,
    • Gen 11.7: Come, let us go down and confuse their language
    • Is 6.8: Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"


    Did YHWH consult the angels, as some Talmudist write? Did YHWH consult all of His creation, as other Talmudists write? Or maybe this is the perennial favorite, the “plural of majesty”, which, oh BTW, did not exist in Israelite culture or any ancient near east culture with which Israel had contact.

    More Comments on the Trinity foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

    Isa 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
    16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
    17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

    In this passage the LORD (1) who laid the foundation of the earth, who was from the time of the beginning, speaks, “and now the Lord GOD (2), and his Spirit, hath sent me. (3) ” One LORD GOD and His Spirit sent a second LORD!

    Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

    The LORD (1) rained down fire from the LORD (2), out of heaven.

    I can already see the argument.
    “Well, that only means the LORD sent himself or the LORD sent down fire from himself, etc., etc.” The Trinity interpretation, and my belief, is that these verses, as do all scriptures, mean exactly what they say. Unless God or one of the Biblical writers specifically states elsewhere it has another, figurative, spiritual, etc. meaning.

    Did Moses and Isaiah make a mistake when they wrote these verses? Did they mean something else? Unless we have clear and convincing proof we must accept that these verses, inspired by God, mean exactly what they say. Had Moses or Isaiah intended to say “God himself” they would have done so, as they did in many other places.

    To Be Continued
     
  12. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    1 Sa 3:21 And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the LORD.

    This verse does not say, “the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by “his word!” Therefore, unless there is a mistake in God’s word, we must accept this as stating that the LORD, of “the word of the LORD” is somehow distinct from the LORD who is revealed. Do I need to point out that the Trinity interpretation, and mine, is it means exactly what it says.

    “2. God Is At Least Two Elohim and YHVH Applied to Two Personalities.
    As if to even make the case for plurality stronger, there are situations in the Hebrew Scriptures where the term Elohim is applied to two personalities in the same verse. One example is:

    Psalm 45:7-8
    "Thy throne, which is of God, shall stand for ever and ever: The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

    It should be noted that the first Elohim is being addressed and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God's God has anointed Him with the oil of gladness.
    A second example is:

    Hosea 1:7
    "But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Jehovah their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses nor by horsemen."

    So the Targum (Aramaic translation), “and I will save them by the Word of the Lord their God;''

    The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of Jehovah, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

    Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God. One example is:

    Genesis 19:24 "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven."

    Clearly we have Jehovah number one raining fire and brimstone from a second Jehovah who is in heaven, the first one being on earth. A second example is:

    Zechariah 1:17 Cry yet, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; My cities through prosperity shall yet be spread abroad; and the LORD shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem.

    “the LORD of hosts” refers to the cities of Israel as “My cities”, in the first person, but speaking in the third person says “the LORD” somehow distinct from Himself, shall comfort Zion. He does not say “I will yet comfort Zion.”

    Zech 2:8-9
    "For thus saith Jehovah of Hosts; for your glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you; for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. For, behold, I will shake my hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me."

    Again we have one Jehovah sending another Jehovah to perform a specific task. The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton ("Personal Name of God of Israel," written in Hebrew Bible with the four consonants YHWH.). . .The name Jehovah is a hybrid misreading of the original Hebrew letters with the vowels of 'Adonai.' Encyclopedia Dictionary of Judaica Page 593) and wrote:

    "
    Come and see the mystery of the word YHVH: there are three steps, each existing by itself: nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other. The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three heads, which are united into one, and that head is three exalted. The Ancient One is described as being three: because the other lights emanating from him are included in the three. But how can three names be one? Are they really one because we call them one? How three can be one can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit." (Zohar, Vol. III, pg 288, Vol. II, pg. 43)”

    http://www.familybiblestudy.net/b2_s10_c2.htm

    Am 6:8 The Lord GOD hath sworn by himself, saith the LORD the God of hosts, I abhor the excellency of Jacob, and hate his palaces: therefore will I deliver up the city with all that is therein.

    One, “The LORD the God of hosts” is speaking about a second, “The Lord GOD” in the third person, somehow separate from Himself. The speaker, “Lord GOD” does not say I have sworn by myself.
     
  13. Pastor N.B.

    Pastor N.B. Member

    434
    +0
    *****
    Which remark?
    Both Everlasting Gospel & Everlasting Covenant ones :)
    Try Rev. 14:6's verse for Everlasting (ETERNAL) Gospel.
    And Heb. 13:20's last part for the Everlasting COVENANT.
    Both of course are in the N.T. & are subject to 1 Cor. 14:32---P/N/B/
     
  14. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    This is in response to an earlier post about John 8:58.

    John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

    Posts on this forum argue that when Jesus said “I Am”, in John 8:58, he was not identifying Himself as God.

    Matthew 16:18 upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church that He built on the rock. Therefore, His church, and its teachings, should be visible in every generation, especially the years immediately following the apostles, i.e. 50-300 AD. There should be clear, substantial, evidence of His church in every age. So, were the doctrines taught by the UPCI (ca. 1913) or Iglesias Ni Christi (ca. 1931), which have been posted on this forum, ever been taught by the church, prior to 1913 or 1931, when these sects were formed?

    I challenge any anti-Trinitarian, on this forum, who viciously attacks the Trinity doctrine, to search the writings of the early church fathers, and learn if any of the early Christians ever taught the anti-Trinity doctrine you believe. In the first three centuries of the church many, many hundreds of faithful Christians were tortured and horribly killed by sword, spear, and arrow, wild animals, and even burned alive, because they would not denounce Jesus and worship the man Caesar, as deity. Did any of these early saints believe that Jesus was not God, that He was merely a man? Click (Here), to link to the writings of the early church fathers.

    Here are writings of the early church that address this issue. Ignatius, who was a disciple of John, the beloved, author of the gospel, the three epistles, and Revelation, wrote this first epistle. If Jesus was only a man and not God, then a believer who was taught by John, the apostle, would most certainly know that.

    The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Tarsians (30-107 AD), Chap. IV.--Continuation.

    And [know ye, moreover], that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was "the first-born of every creature,"(14) and God the Word who also created all things,. For says the apostle, "There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; (Note, Ignatius said that He that was crucified, i.e. Jesus, is “God the Word!” Did John teach him wrong? OS)

    Nor is He a mere man, by whom and in whom all things were made; for "all things were made by Him."(6) "When He made the heaven, I was present with Him; and I was there with Him, forming [the world along with Him], and He rejoiced in me daily."(7) And how could a mere man be addressed in such words as these: "Sit Thou at My right hand?"(8) And how, again, could such an one declare: "Before Abraham was, I am?"(9) And, "Glorify Me with Thy glory which I had before the world was?"(10) What man could ever say, "I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me?"(11) And of what man could it be said, "He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world: He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not?"(12) How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,(13) and the Word was God."(14) And in another place, "The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me."(15)

    The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Antiochians
    Chap. II.--The True Doctrine Respecting God And Christ.


    For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said, "The Lord thy God is one Lord,"(4) and thus proclaimed that there was only one God, did yet forthwith confess also our Lord when he said, "The Lord (יה&#1493ה) rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord. (יה&#1493ה)”(5) And again, "And God(6) said, Let Us make man afterour image: (Note, 1st century Christians, who understood the Hebrew scriptures, recognized that these O.T. passages clearly showed a plurality within God. OS) and so God made man, after the image of God made He him."(7) And further "In the image of God made He man."(8) And that [the Son of God] was to be made man [Moses shows when] he says, "A prophet shall the Lord raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me."(9)

    Chap. III.--The Same Continued.

    The prophets also, when they speak as in the person of God, [saying,] "I am God, the first [of beings], and I am also the last,(10) and besides Me there is no God,"(11) concerning the Father of the universe, do also speak of our Lord Jesus Christ. "A Son," they say, has been given to us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong and mighty God."(12) (Note, “the strong and mighty God.” Ignatius did not have Today’s English Version, or any other 20th century mistranslated, per-version, of the Bible. All he had was the Hebrew scriptures and the LXX. OS) And concerning His incarnation, "Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son; and they shall call his name Immanuel."(13)

    Chap. V.--Denunciation Of False Teachers.

    Whosoever, therefore, declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil,(3) and an enemy of all righteousness. He also that confesseth Christ, yet not as the Son of the Maker of the world, but of some other unknown(4) being, different from Him whom the law and the prophets have proclaimed, this man is an instrument of the devil. And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist.(5) Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, (Note, The heresy being taught today that Jesus was not God, only a man, was anathema (accursed) to the 1st century church. OS) according to the [declaration of the] prophet,(6) since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. Wherefore also he is unfruitful, like the wild myrtle-tree.

    The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Philippians, Chap. V.--Apostrophe To Satan.

    For if the Lord were a mere man, possessed of a soul and body only, why dost thou mutilate and explain away His being born with the common nature of humanity? Why dost thou call the passion a mere appearance, as if it were any strange thing happening to a [mere] man? And why dost thou reckon the death of a mortal to be simply an imaginary death? But if, [on the other hand,] He is both God and man, then why dost thou call it unlawful to style Him "the Lord of glory,"(7) who is by nature unchangeable?
    (Note, the disciple of John, Ignatius, taught that Jesus is, present tense, both God and man. OS)

    Chap. VI.--Continuation.

    And how can He be but God, who raises up the dead, sends away the lame sound of limb, cleanses the lepers, restores sight to the blind, and either increases or transmutes existing substances, as the five loaves and the two fishes, and the water which became wine, and who puts to flight thy whole host by a mere word?

    Chap. VII.--Continuation: Inconsistency Of Satan.

    And how, again, does Christ not at all appear to thee to be of the Virgin, but to be God over all,(11) and the Almighty? Say, then, who sent Him? Who was Lord over Him ? And whose will did He obey? And what laws did He fulfil, since He was subject neither to the will nor power of any one?

    Why, then, does He suffer hunger? In order to prove that He had assumed a body subject to the same feelings as those of ordinary men. By the first fact He showed that He was God, and by the second that He was also man. (Note, Jesus both, God and man. OS)

    thou who didst raise up against Abel the murderous Cain; thou who didst take arms against Job: dost thou say to the Lord, "If Thou wilt fall down and worship me?" Oh what audacity! Oh what madness! Thou runaway slave, thou incorrigible(5) slave, dost thou rebel against the good Lord? Dost thou say to so great a Lord, the God of all that either the mind or the senses can perceive, "If Thou wilt fall down and worship me?" (Note, Ignatius taught that when Satan was tempting Jesus, he was speaking to “the God of all that either the mind or senses can perceive.” OS)

    Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV. (120-202 AD)

    But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning ("Before Abraham was," He says, "I am"(4)), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it. (Note, ‘Before Abraham was, I Am.’, was spoken by the ‘Word of God’. OS)

    Fragments From The Lost Writings Of Irenaeus

    The(7) sacred books acknowledge with regard to Christ, that as He is the Son of man, so is the same Being not a [mere] man; and as He is flesh, so is He also spirit, and the Word of God, and God. And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature; and as He hungered, so did He satisfy [others]; and as He thirsted, so did He of old cause the Jews to drink, for the "Rock was Christ"(8) Himself: thus does Jesus now give to His believing people power to drink spiritual waters, which spring up to life eternal.(9) And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham.(10) And as He was the servant of God, so is He the Son of God, and Lord of the universe. (Note, the Word of God, and God, was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham. OS)
     
  15. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Origen, Against Celsus, Book VIII. (185-230-254 AD.)

    "I and My Father are one." We worship one God, the Father and the Son
    , (Note, one God, Father and Son. OS) therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not "reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared," as though He did not exist before;(7) for we believe Himself when He says, "Before Abraham was, I am."(8) Again He says, "I am the truth;"(9) and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared.(10) We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will.So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person,"' has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself.

    A Treatise Of Novatian Concerning The Trinity. (200-258 AD) Preface.

    Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God. For in the manner that as man He is of Abraham, so also as God He is before Abraham himself. (Note, Jesus as God is before Abraham himself. OS) And in the same manner as He is as man the "Son of David,"[3] so as God He is proclaimed David's Lord. And in the same manner as He was made as man "under the law,"[4] so as God He is declared to be "Lord of the Sabbath."[5] And in the same manner as He suffers, as man, the condemnation, so as God He is found to have all judgment of the quick and dead. And in the same manner as He is born as man subsequent to the world, so [bas God He is manifested to have been before the world.[/b] And in the same way as He was begotten as man of the seed of David, so also the world is said to have been ordained by Him as God. And in the same way as He was as man after many, so as God He was before all. And in the same manner as He was as man inferior to others, so as God He was greater than all. And in the same manner as He ascended as man into heaven, so as God He had first descended thence.

    Chap. XII. Argument.--That Christ Is God, Is Proved By The Authority Of The Old Testament Scriptures.

    Why, then, should we hesitate to say what Scripture does not shrink from declaring ? Why shall the truth of faith hesitate in that wherein the authority of Scripture has never hesitated ? For, behold, Hosea the prophet says in the person of the Father: "I will not now save them by bow, nor by horses, nor by horsemen; but I will save them by the Lord their God."[1] If God says that He saves by God, still God does not save except by Christ. Why, then, should man hesitate to call Christ God, when he observes that He is declared to be God by the Father according to the Scriptures? (Note, Jesus is declared to be God, by the Father, according to scripture. OS) Yea, if God the Father does not save except by God, no one can be saved by God the Father unless he shall have confessed Christ to be God, in whom and by whom the Father promises that He will give him salvation: so that, reasonably, whoever acknowledges Him to be God, may find salvation in Christ God; whoever does not acknowledge Him to be God, would lose salvation which he could not find elsewhere than in Christ God.

    For in the same way as Isaiah says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and ye shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, interpreted, God with us;"[2] so Christ Himself says, "Lo, I am with you, even to the consummation of the world."[3] Therefore He is" God with us;" yea, and much rather, He is in us. Christ is with us, therefore it is He whose name is God with us, because He also is with us; or is He not with us? How then does He say that He is with us? He, then, is with us. But because He is with us He was called Emmanuel, that is, God with us. God, therefore, because He is with us, was called God with us, The same prophet says: "Be ye strengthened, ye relaxed hands, and ye feeble knees; be consoled, ye that are cowardly in heart; be strong; fear not. Lo, our God shall return judgment; He Himself shall come, and shall save you: then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be eloquent."[4] Since the prophet says that at God's advent these should be the signs which come to pass; let men acknowledge either that Christ is the Son of God, at whose advent and by whom these wonders of healings were performed; or, overcome by the truth of Christ's divinity, let them rush into the other heresy, and refusing to confess Christ to be the Son of God, and God, let them declare Him to be the Father. For, being bound by the words of the prophets, they can no longer deny Christ to be God. What, then, do they reply when those signs are said to be about to take place on the advent of God, which were manifested on the advent of Christ?

    In what way do they receive Christ as God? For now they cannot deny Him to be God. As God the Father, or as God the Son? If as the Son, why do they deny that the Son of God is God? If as the Father, why do they not follow those who appear to maintain blasphemies of that kind ? unless because in this contest against them concerning the truth, this is in the meantime sufficient for us, that, being convinced in any kind of way, they should confess Christ to be God, seeing they have even wished to deny that He is God. He says by Habakkuk the prophet: "God shall come from the south, and the Holy One from the dark and dense mountain."[5] Whom do they wish to represent as coming from the south?

    If Christ was only man, how did He say, "Before Abraham was, I Am?"(1) For no man can be before Him from whom he himself is; nor can it be that any one should have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. And yet Christ, although He is born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Either, therefore, He says what is not true, and deceives, if He was not before Abraham, seeing that He was of Abraham; or He does not deceive, if He is also God, and was before Abraham. And if this were not so, it follows that, being of Abraham, He could not be before Abraham. If Christ was only man, how does He say, "And I know them, and my sheep follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish?"(2) And yet, since every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and therefore is unable to keep himself for ever, much more will he be unable to keep another for ever. But Christ promises to give salvation for ever, which if He does not give, He is a deceiver; if He gives, He is God. But He does not deceive, for He gives what He promises. Therefore He is God who proffers eternal salvation, which man, being unable to keep himself for ever, cannot be able to give to another.

    If Christ is only man, what is that which He says, "I and the Father are one?"(3) For how can it be that "I and the Father are one," if He is not both God and the Son?--who may therefore be called one, seeing that He is of Himself, being both His Son, and being born of Him, being declared to have proceeded from Him, by which He is also God; which when the Jews thought to be hateful, and believed to be blasphemous, for that He had shown Himself in these discourses to be God, and therefore rushed at once to stoning, and set to work passionately to hurl stones, (Note, why did the scribes and Pharisees try to stone Jesus, inside the temple? Because He had shown Himself to be God! OS) He strongly refuted His adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. "If," said He, "He called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, ye say of Him whom the Father sanctified, and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God."(4) By which words He did not deny Himself to be God, but rather He confirmed the assertion that He was God. For because, undoubtedly, they are said to be gods unto whom the words of God were given, much more is He God who is found to be superior to all these. And nevertheless He refuted the calumny of blasphemy in a fitting manner with lawful tact.(5) For He wishes that He should be thus understood to be God, as the Son of God, and He would not wish to be understood to be the Father Himself. Thus He said that He was sent, and showed them that He had manifested many good works from the Father; whence He desired that He should not be understood to be the Father, but the Son. And in the latter portion of His defence He made mention of the Son, not the Father, when He said, "Ye say, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God." Thus, as far as pertains to the guilt of blasphemy, He calls Himself the Son, not the Father; but as pertaining to His divinity, by saying, "I and the Father are one," He proved that He was the Son of God. He is God, therefore, but God in such a manner as to be the Son, not the Father.

    But this the Son of God, "The Lord rained from the Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire." And this is the Word of God. And the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. It was not the Father, then, who was a guest with Abraham, but Christ. Nor was it the Father who was seen then, but the Son; and Christ was seen. Rightly, therefore, Christ is both Lord and God, who was not otherwise seen by Abraham, except that as God the Word He was begotten of God the Father before Abraham himself.

    For if John himself says, that He Himself who sets forth the bosom of the Father, as the Word, became flesh in order to declare the bosom of the Father, assuredly Christ is not only man, but angel also; and not only angel, but He is shown by the Scriptures to be God also.
     
  16. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Gregory Thaumaturgus, Twelve Topics On The Faith. (213-275 AD)

    Wherein Is Given Also The Formula Of Excommunication, And An Explication Is Subjoined To Each.(1)

    Topic V.

    If any one affirms that the Son of God who is before the ages[/I] is one, and He who has appeared in these last times is another, and refuses to acknowledge that He who is before the ages is the same with Him who appeared in these last times, even as it is written, let him be anathema.

    Explication.
    How could it be said that the Son of God who is before the ages, and He who has appeared in these last times, are different, when the Lord Himself says, "Before Abraham was, I am;"(4) and, "I came forth from God, and I come, and again I go to my Father?"(5)

    Topic VI.
    If any one affirms that He who suffered is one, and that He who suffered not is another, and refuses to acknowledge that the Word, who is Himself the impassible and unchangeable God, (Note, the Word, John 1:1-2, is (present tense) Himself the impassable and unchangeable God. OS) suffered in the flesh which He had assumed really, yet without mutation, even as it is written,

    Explication.
    How could it be said that He who suffered is one, and He who suffered not another, when the Lord Himself says, "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be killed, and be raised again the third day from the dead;"(6) and again, "When ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the Father;"(7) and again, "When the Son of man cometh in the glory of His Father?"(8)

    I realize that this is very long, but I wanted to be thorough in presenting what the early church taught concerning Jesus’ statement in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I Am.”, also other writings which relate to this verse.
     
  17. LightBearer

    LightBearer Veteran

    +19
    Jehovahs Witness
    Because the fact that Jesus is called "Eternal Father" does not make him "God Almighty" others such as the devil are also called father as well as "The Father"




    So you are now saying that this statement is correct?
    He is also the Father of spirit-begotten (Not supposedly ones) Christians, the Aramaic term ´Ab·ba´' being used as an expression of respect and of close filial relationship. (Ro 8:15.)




    Why do you leave the weight of all other translations on this point and rely on a single rendering. It goes against all reason. Surely if a rendering is an error it would lay with the single translation and not the vast majority including all the scholarly modern translations.

    Please would you quote in full from Goodspeeds translation these verses. Isaiah 9:5-7. Much appreciated.



    Absolutely not. Can you show me in any of my posts where I said we should call Jesus Father. I said he was prophecitcaly refered as "Eternal Father" because he was going to give life to certain individuals and so it would become one of his titles. He has many, although I still refer to him as Jesus or Christ.


    I have never suggested that we should refer to Jesus as Father. You are to quick to jump down peoples throats and assume they are saying things they are not. Calm down.

    You didn’t answer the question. Life giving to who? And is this scripture correct that Jesus is a Life giving SPIRIT?

    Just because he is referred to as a man does not mean Jesus has to be flesh and blood. The Angel Gabriel’s name means “Able bodied MAN of God”. Is the Angel Gabriel a man or a spirit?
     
  18. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by OldShepherd
    By saying this OldShepherd, you are showing the LIAR that you are. You say I am twisting scriptures when I even quote these verses word for word. Jesus said: "of myself I can do NOTHING." Can Jesus do anything by himself? The answer is NO!

    Romans 10:9 - "that if you CONFESS  with your mouth the Lord Jesus and BELIEVE in your heart that God RAISED him from the dead, you WILL be saved."

    Is this a man-made doctrine? You DON'T believe in your heart that it was GOD who RAISED Jesus from the dead, don't you?

    John 8:40 - "But now you seek to kill ME, a MAN who has told you the TRUTH which I heard from God..."

    Is this a man-made doctrine? You DON'T believe that Jesus is a MAN, don't you?

    John 17:3 - "And this is eternal life, that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ whom YOU have SENT."

    Is this a man-made doctrine? You DON'T believe that the FATHER (alone) is the ONLY true God, don't you?

    Aren't you REJECTING John 8:40 and John 17:3? C.mmon OldShepherd, be HONEST!

     You are the one TWISTING verse 19 to prove your point that Jesus CONTRADICTED himself in the SAME verse. Jesus has SAID that "of himself he can do nothing" yet you INSIST that yes, he CAN by TWISTING what Jeus says next in the SAME verse.

    Of course, it is CLEAR that Jesus CANNOT do anything UNLESS he is COMMANDED by God. This PROVES that Jesus is NOT God and what Jesus said about himself (that he is a MAN) is TRUE.

    Obviously you don't know the mening of TWISTING the scripture. Otherwise, you would even be ashamed to say it.

    Someone HIGHER than Jesus GAVE him all power and authority. That shows Jesus is NOT God because NOBODY is HIGHER than God. Jesus SAID that "off himself he can do NOTHING." Therefore, John 2:19 and John 10:18 are NOT literal but figurative statements of Jesus.

    Jesus knew and was confident that whatever he SAID, God the Father will grant. HE knew that God was working miracles, wonders and signs THROUGH him. So when he said "Destroy this temple and I will build it in 3 days," he was DEPENDING on God the Father to do it.

    John 10:17 explains what Jesus meant in John 10:18. Jesus was saying that God loves him because he was HUMBLE and OBEDIENT to DIE that he may LIVE again.This is reiterated by Apostle Paul in Phil. 2:8-9.

    Jesus will give life only to those that God has GIVEN him. Thus, if you were NOT given to Jesus by God, Jesus will NOT save you.

    Our doctrine is NOT ours but God. Jesus is a MAN and the FATHER is the ONLY true God. This is God's word NOT ours. Anyone who believes what you are saying must be INSANE!



    Does this mean Jesus is God? You must be out of your mind!



    As I said above, Jesus was DEPENDING on the Father to do it for him. Apostle Paul CONFIRMS this by saying that "God RAISED Jesus from the dead." God GAVE all these power and authority to Jesus, the MAN but it was God who was DOING all these mracles, wonders and signs THROUGH him (Acts 2:22").

    Thank you for compiling these verses for me OldShepherd. All these verses PROVE that "of himself, he can do NOTHING." Jesus would NOT have any power or authority at all IF God did NOT give any to him. Jesus would NOT have anyone to give eternal life to IF God the Father does NOT give him any.

    Jesus could  NOT execute JUDGMENT unless God GAVE him the authority (John 5:27). Jesus could NOT have FORGIVEN sins UNLESS God GAVE him the AUTHORITY to do so (Acts 5:31).

    You are NOT getting any younger OldShepherd. Why don't you open your eyes and use the little intelligence that God GAVE us to discern what is right and what is wrong!

    Jesus is a MAN and NOT God. The Savior SAID it himself. You better BELIEVE it!

    Ed
     
  19. Help-me-learn

    Help-me-learn Member

    143
    +0
    Are Trinitarians Christians?

    It is a start.
     
  20. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by OldShepherd
    Okay OldShepherd. I ASSUME that Trinitarians believe in ONE God. Is my ASSUMPTION correct? Do Trinitarians REALLY believe in ONE God?

    You are a Trinitarian OldShepherd, aren't you? Then answer me please. Isn't the Father God? Isn't the Son God? Isn't the Holy Sprtit God? How many times was God mentioned in my question OldShepherd?

    Can you answer that TRUTHFULLY?

    Ed
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...