Jesus and the Trinity

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow,



It's easy to be cool when one is in the right, and especially when your oponent does not even put up a fight.

Maybe for you but not me when people are continually impolite, rude and obnoxious I find I can't handle it. perhaps I don't have the self confidence you seem to have.

""For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army."

WEll see youngs literal says
Eze 26:7For, thus said the Lord Jehovah: Lo, I am bringing in unto Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, From the north -- a king of kings, With horse, and with chariot, and with horsemen, Even an assembly, and a numerous people




See I don't have a knowledge of hebrew, and very little of greek. so maybe that's the diff

See the difference? And even to someone who does not speak the Hebrew, the context is clear, and it clearly calls him King of Kings, not a king of kings

I believe there is no definite or even indefinite article in hebrew. correct? so the insertion of A depends on context I suppose. Personally I don't see where it makes a difference in this verse whether you call him a king of kings or king of kings.

The Hebrew word Elohim in the OT is used both of God and of human judges(Psalm 82) and of Moses(Ex. 7:1). For example, the Hebrew word for God(Elohim) in Mark. 12:29 ,"Here O Israel the Lord our God(Elohim) is one God(Elohim)" is translated Theos is the Greek . Similarily, the Hebrew word Elohim in Psalm 82 for human judges is translated Theos in the Greek in John 10:34. So the words Elohimand Theos are used both of God and of Gods(as in human judges ) as the example proves in both the Hebrew and in the Greek.

there seems to be an extreme reluctance on the part of many who believe Jesus is God in this forum to acknowledge that elohim can refer and does at times refer to someone other than god. the point is obvious. how do you debate with someone who says a stop sign doesn't mean stop? That is the frustrating thing for me. I have seen this point ignored many times.

 

[gort]

Balthasar quotes:

His assertion is so far out I don't even know where to begin. First of all he doesn't even translate Eze. 26:7 correctly. Here's the NIV :

""For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army."

See the difference? And even to someone who does not speak the Hebrew, the context is clear, and it clearly calls him King of Kings, not a king of kings as this fella Odsolo would have everyone believe. And his "from the north" claim is outrageous, a red herring, it has no bearing on the "king of kings" appelation. Besides he doesn't even translate this part correctly! See NIV.

The KJV,NKJ,CEV and ASV version translate it king of kings, not King of Kings. What's interesting is I have a NIV NT, and disconcerting to me is that God is not referred to as Him, He, etc., but in the small case.

I'm quite certain a King of Tyre would not be in the same line of reference as God would be, regarding King of Kings. Far from it.

In your statement the other day regarding satan being a cherub, it is actually a statement to a King of Tyre, who also proclaimed themselves as gods, yet are referenced in tune to satan. There are no verses that actually say satan was a cherub.

here is a commentary from John Gill regarding Eze 26:7


I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon; a prince whose name was terrible, having conquered many nations: the Lord is said to bring him against Tyre, because, he inclined his heart to steer his course this way; encouraged him to this work; led and protected his army; and, at last, gave him success: it held out thirteen years against him, and then was taken. The siege began, according to Mr. Whiston (f), A.M. 3650 or before Christ 586; and was taken A.M. 3663 or before Christ 573; according to Bishop Usher, (g), it began A.M. 3419 or before Christ 585; and was taken A.M. 3432 or before Christ 572. The Phoenician historians make mention of the siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar; and Berosus speaks of his subduing the whole country of Phoenicia, in which Tyre was; with whom agree Philostratus and Megasthenes (h):

a king of kings from the north; who had many kings tributaries to him; the metropolis of whose kingdom lay somewhat, though not fully, north to Tyre:

with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people: with a very numerous army, consisting of a large cavalry; horses being very numerous in the countries subject to him; and which he mounted his men on, both for their more easy travelling, and for their better fighting, and for the terror of their enemies.


<><

 

[gort]

Hi daneel,



"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; .."

Jesus is the first born of all creation, hence he's partitive of creation just as the first crayon in a pack of 10 is part of the pack.

Sorry, I still don't see the word 'created'.

'Firstborn' has more reference to 'pre-eminece' than it does with a numerical order of creation.

Besides, as all things were created by Him, how does one create themselves? Does'nt make sense. Sorry...



<><

 

[gort]

2ducklow quotes:

that is not correct. Jesus speaking as a standin for the first adam said "the glory I had with the before the world. The greek word is kosmos which means world system basically.

My definition shows:

G2889
&#954;&#959;&#769;&#963;&#956;&#959;&#962;
kosmos
kos'-mos
Probably from the base of G2865; orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

More along the line of the physical world, which jives as the Word created all things, etc.

The bible says god foreknew christ which means god knew christ by foreknowledge before he existed. Which negates the idea that christ pre existed.

Then let me clarify that Jesus is also the Word, and the Word was manifest as Jesus. And the Word is an EXACT expression of God. Which includes the wisdom of God....and for your enjoyment, this is an interesting proverb which show wisdom to be much more than wisom...

Pro 8:1 Does not wisdom call? And does not understanding put forth her voice?
Pro 8:2 She stands in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the path.
Pro 8:3 She cries in the gates, before the entrance of the city, at the doors.
Pro 8:4 To you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.
Pro 8:5 O simple ones, understand wisdom; and, fools, be of an understanding heart.
Pro 8:6 Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.
Pro 8:7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is hateful to my lips.
Pro 8:8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; nothing twisted or perverse is in them.
Pro 8:9 They are all plain to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge.
Pro 8:10 Receive my instruction and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.
Pro 8:11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
Pro 8:12 I, wisdom, dwell with sense, and find out knowledge of discretions.
Pro 8:13 The fear of Jehovah is to hate evil; I hate pride, and arrogance, and the evil way, and the wicked mouth.
Pro 8:14 Counsel and sound wisdom are mine; I am understanding; I have strength.
Pro 8:15 By me kings reign and princes decree justice.
Pro 8:16 Princes rule by me, and nobles, all the judges of the earth.
Pro 8:17 I love those who love me; and those who seek me early shall find me.
Pro 8:18 Riches and honor are with me; enduring riches and righteousness.
Pro 8:19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and what I give is better than choice silver.
Pro 8:20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment;
Pro 8:21 I may cause those who love me to inherit riches; and I will fill their treasuries.
Pro 8:22 Jehovah possessed me from the beginning of His way, before His works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was anointed from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth ever was.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no springs heavy with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought forth.
Pro 8:26 before He had made the earth, or the fields or the highest part of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle upon the face of the deep;
Pro 8:28 when He set the clouds above; when He made the strong fountains of the deep;
Pro 8:29 when He gave to the sea its limit that the waters should not pass His command; when He appointed the foundations of the earth;
Pro 8:30 even I was a workman at His side; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him;
Pro 8:31 rejoicing in the world, His earth; and my delight was with the sons of men.
Pro 8:32 And now listen to me, O sons; for blessed are those who keep my ways.
Pro 8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and do not refuse it.
Pro 8:34 Blessed is the man who hears me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
Pro 8:35 For whoever finds me finds life, and shall obtain favor from Jehovah.
Pro 8:36 But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; all who hate me love death.

<><

 

[gort]

2ducklow quotes:

I'm not sure what you mean here. God in christ is the express image of god? or christ is the express image of god. if the later then I agree.

yes, the latter

If you take 'the image of god' to mean that Jesus is an exact reproduction of God in every respect, and therefore he is god, then you have 2 gods which contradicts scripture that says there is only one god. you have the original god, god the father, and a rerproduction of that original god, Jesus. 2 gods. calling your 2 gods one god is just denying reality.

The Word is the express image of God. Jesus was made lower than the angels, and took on the flesh, to suffer.

It still is One God, in three persons.

yea i guess.

ok

well, not responding to someones points is a good indicator that one doesn't care for learning the truth. I have learned things even changed my beliefs on some issues as a result of coming here because I investigate points people bring up. I want to know the truth, but I will not accept contradictions, illogic as truth. you have in this post responded quite well to what I said in my previous post.

I usually post on the fly and may forget, or just not interested in replying. But usually on the fly, cuz I'm at work and have time to play once in awhile during the day hours. My time for this in the evening is going to lessen, as I have a "This Old House' project that's been going on for 10 years now, and I want out of it. My 2nd victorian restoration, and I find it to be a time sucker, working now on project # 273 of this old house, and project #'s 4,5, and 6 are yet incomplete.

ok

For articulation purposes I will post this commentary from Matthew Henry regarding 'firstborn'

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1133493282-4358.html

You'll find the entirety of the commentary at the above addy..

II. Concerning the person of the Redeemer. Glorious things are here said of him; for blessed Paul was full of Christ, and took all occasions to speak honourably of him. He speaks of him distinctly as God, and as Mediator. 1. As God he speaks of him, v. 15–17. (1.) He is the image of the invisible God. Not as man was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), in his natural faculties and dominion over the creatures: no, he is the express image of his person, Heb. 1:3. He is so the image of God as the son is the image of his father, who has a natural likeness to him; so that he who has seen him has seen the Father, and his glory was the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, Jn. 1:14; 14:9. (2.) He is the first-born of every creature. Not that he is himself a creature; for it is proµtotokos paseµs ktiseoµs—born or begotten before all the creation, or before any creature was made, which is the scripture-way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us: I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was; when there was no depth, before the mountains were settled, while as yet he had not made the earth, Prov. 8:23–26. It signifies his dominion over all things, as the first-born in a family is heir and lord of all, so he is the heir of all things, Heb. 1:2. The word, with only the change of the accent, proµtotokos, signifies actively the first begetter or producer of all things, and so it well agrees with the following clause. Vid. Isidor. Peleus. epist. 30 lib. 3. (3.) He is so far from beginning himself a creature that he is the Creator: For by him were all things created, which are in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, v. 16. He made all things out of nothing, the highest angel in heaven, as well as men upon earth. He made the world, the upper and lower world, with all the inhabitants of both. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made which was made, Jn. 1:3. He speaks here as if there were several orders of angels: Whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, which must signify either different degrees of excellence or different offices and employments. Angels, authorities, and powers, 1 Pt. 3:22.

Christ is the eternal wisdom of the Father, and the world was made in wisdom.

He is the eternal Word, and the world was made by the word of God. He is the arm of the Lord, and the world was made by that arm. All things are created by him and for him; di’ autou kai eis auton. Being created by him, they were created for him; being made by his power, they were made according to his pleasure and for his praise. He is the end, as well as the cause of all things. To him are all things, Rom. 11:36; eis auton ta panta. (4.) He was before all things. He had a being before the world was made, before the beginning of time, and therefore from all eternity. Wisdom was with the Father, and possessed by him in the beginning of his ways, before his works of old, Prov. 8:22. And in the beginning the Word was with God and was God, Jn. 1:1. He not only had a being before he was born of the virgin, but he had a being before all time. (5.) By him all things consist. They not only subsist in their beings, but consist in their order and dependences. He not only created them all at first, but it is by the word of his power that they are still upheld, Heb. 1:3. The whole creation is kept together by the power of the Son of God, and made to consist in its proper frame. It is preserved from disbanding and running into confusion.

The very essence of God is expressed divinely in Christ Jesus.

<><

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 2ducklow,

WEll see youngs literal says
Eze 26:7For, thus said the Lord Jehovah: Lo, I am bringing in unto Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, From the north -- a king of kings, With horse, and with chariot, and with horsemen, Even an assembly, and a numerous people

At least you are trying your best to be impartial. I too do my best to use trinitairan documents as much as possible, like NIV, so they have no excuse. However here's how the Jews render it:

&#1494; &#1499;&#1468;&#1460;&#1497; &#1499;&#1465;&#1492; &#1488;&#1464;&#1502;&#1463;&#1512;, &#1488;&#1458;&#1491;&#1465;&#1504;&#1464;&#1497; &#1497;&#1456;&#1492;&#1493;&#1460;&#1492;, &#1492;&#1460;&#1504;&#1456;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497; &#1502;&#1461;&#1489;&#1460;&#1497;&#1488; &#1488;&#1462;&#1500;-&#1510;&#1465;&#1512; &#1504;&#1456;&#1489;&#1493;&#1468;&#1499;&#1463;&#1491;&#1456;&#1512;&#1462;&#1488;&#1510;&#1468;&#1463;&#1512; &#1502;&#1462;&#1500;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456;-&#1489;&#1468;&#1464;&#1489;&#1462;&#1500; &#1502;&#1460;&#1510;&#1468;&#1464;&#1508;&#1493;&#1465;&#1503;, &#1502;&#1462;&#1500;&#1462;&#1498;&#1456; &#1502;&#1456;&#1500;&#1464;&#1499;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501;--&#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1505;&#1493;&#1468;&#1505; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1462;&#1499;&#1462;&#1489; &#1493;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1508;&#1464;&#1512;&#1464;&#1513;&#1473;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501;, &#1493;&#1456;&#1511;&#1464;&#1492;&#1464;&#1500; &#1493;&#1456;&#1506;&#1463;&#1501;-&#1512;&#1464;&#1489;. ​

7 For thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring upon Tyre Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and a company, and much people.



http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1226.htm

I believe there is no definite or even indefinite article in hebrew. correct? so the insertion of A depends on context I suppose. Personally I don't see where it makes a difference in this verse whether you call him a king of kings or king of kings.

It actually makes little difference but I've learnt you can't take any thing for granted when dealing with trinitarians.

there seems to be an extreme reluctance on the part of many who believe Jesus is God in this forum to acknowledge that elohim can refer and does at times refer to someone other than god. the point is obvious.

Ofcourse it is, and I'm not going to be driven into a nonsensical argument in which I'm arguing the obvious!

how do you debate with someone who says a stop sign doesn't mean stop?

Exactly!

Error begets error. Roman Catholicism, the mother of trinitarianism, believes God is a wafer! It doesn't , can't, get more senseless than that.

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

I'm quite certain a King of Tyre would not be in the same line of reference as God would be, regarding King of Kings. Far from it.

You finally got the gist of it! Why therefore should Christ be in the same line of refrence as God would be, regarding King of Kings? Far from it.

It is our view that simply because Nebuchadnessar or Christ are called King of Kings does not make either of them God Almighty. Similarily, Moses is referred to as Elohim in Ex. 7:1. But we don't make him God, or do we?

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Sorry, I still don't see the word 'created'

In every single instance in the Bible, the one that is being referred to is part and parcel of the group of which he is firstborn. And this includes the fact that Jesus was firstobrn from the dead; he is partitive of those who die and are raised. Christ is both numerically and pre-eminently "first" from the dead. Is Col. 1:15 the only instance in the entire Bible wherein the one that was being called "firstborn" was NOT one of the group of which he was firstborn?

'Firstborn' has more reference to 'pre-eminece' than it does with a numerical order of creation.

How does this change anything?

Besides, as all things were created by Him, how does one create themselves? Does'nt make sense. Sorry...

As I've already told you "by" here, and in context, must be understood as "through" . John 1:10, "and the world was made through him", etc.

The very same Greek word (monogenes) translated "only begotten" in reference to our Lord in John 1:14 is in Heb. 11:17,18, applied to Isaac, the son of Abraham: By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, that in Isaac shall your seed be called. Clearly begotten means he was born. This is the trinitarian enigma for which they have on logical response. Since he is the Son of God...and a son is, by definition, one that comes after the father, otherwise the definitions of son and father are meaningless .

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Pro 8:22 Jehovah possessed me from the beginning of His way, before His works of old.

Lol!. Here's how your trinitairan NIV translates this, v. 22 "The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works."

v. 24 "When there were no oceans, I was given birth."

The book of Ecclesiasticus describes Wisdom as having been "created before all things," etc.


If you think Jesus is wisdom, then the OT thinks he was created.


best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

yes, the latter



The Word is the express image of God. Jesus was made lower than the angels, and took on the flesh, to suffer.

It still is One God, in three persons.





<><

How is it sensible to say something is three persons yet one being?

Do you have an example from nature, perhaps, to show this? Or failing that, perhaps logically or mathematically show us how this is true and not absurd?

 

[Harlin]

Hi daneel,



Lol!. Here's how your trinitairan NIV translates this, v. 22 "The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works."

v. 24 "When there were no oceans, I was given birth."

The book of Ecclesiasticus describes Wisdom as having been "created before all things," etc.


If you think Jesus is wisdom, then the OT thinks he was created.


best wishes,

Hi balthasar,

just been following this discussion, quite interesting really. Wondering though, I am not trinitarian, but still believe in the Deity of Christ, my question is this, If God commands the angels of God to worship Jesus and calls Him God also, why should we then say that Jesus is not equal with God and in effect not worthy of worship?. Only God is worthy of worship and the Father commanded worship of the Son. (Heb 1:6-9). Isn't disputing that dishonoring the Father?.

There is a huge difference between God creating something, eg man and animals, and bringing forth a Son. One is God by virtue of His birth, the other is created by the Word of God. Adam was formed by the dust of the earth, Jesus was brought forth from the Father, His substance. His own kind, which is divine.

If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive. There is no doubt whatsoever that John 1:1-5 is talking about Jesus as the Word. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" John 1:14, the divine Son of God was the only one who dwelt among us. "In him was life: and the life was the light of men" John 1:4. Jesus states "I am the resurrection and the life". Jesus has life in himself John 5:26, if Jesus was not divine, He would not have life in himself, only those with inherent life are able to create. Created beings cannot create and give life, Jesus claims that He is the "life".

Jesus was not just a man, He is the Son of God, by virtue of His birth alone, He is divine. All these attributes were given to Him at His birth, just like we give our genetic traits to our children when we give birth to them.

When God makes His Son equal with Himself, I think that is the prerogative of God alone, who are we to argue with God?

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Harlin]

Hi daneel,





How is it sensible to say something is three persons yet one being?

Do you have an example from nature, perhaps, to show this? Or failing that, perhaps logically or mathematically show us how this is true and not absurd?

Hi,

I have always wondered why God would teach us to count, give us logic and reasoning and then expect us to do away with it completely??. It's a bit like me teaching my child to count and then telling him that 1 really means 3 and 3 means 1, wouldn't that just be plain confusing???.

To conclude: If I plant three trees in my orchard, have I in reality actually got nine trees? or if I plant 10 trees do I really have 30??

God is not the author of confusion, man is!!!

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Harlin,

just been following this discussion, quite interesting really. Wondering though, I am not trinitarian, but still believe in the Deity of Christ, my question is this, If God commands the angels of God to worship Jesus and calls Him God also, why should we then say that Jesus is not equal with God and in effect not worthy of worship?. Only God is worthy of worship and the Father commanded worship of the Son. (Heb 1:6-9). Isn't disputing that dishonoring the Father?.

The Greek word used for worship here is proskyneo and the act of proskyneo is received also by humans; it means revrence, homage. When due creations like Jesus and human agents it's akin to the Muslim Salaam. For example in the parable in Matthew 18:25-27 the servant proskyneo's his master. Is the master God? Context, Harlin. :


"Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
"The servant fell on his knees(proskyneo) before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go."

There is a huge difference between God creating something, eg man and animals, and bringing forth a Son. One is God by virtue of His birth, the other is created by the Word of God. Adam was formed by the dust of the earth, Jesus was brought forth from the Father, His substance. His own kind, which is divine.

Can you please tell me where it says Jesus is of the same "substance" as God? Isn't Jesus the "second adam", and thus of the substance of man and different from God's substance? If Jesus was of the "substance" of God, he coudn't possibly die and coudn't possibly be a man, for God is not a man and neither is he the son of a man, as the Scripture so clearly says, and the Scripture also says God doesn't die.

If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive.

Through Christ all things were made, read John 1:10. In Col 1:15 it says Christ is the firstborn of creation therefore he falls within the sub-set of things created.

There is no doubt whatsoever that John 1:1-5 is talking about Jesus as the Word. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" John 1:14, the divine Son of God was the only one who dwelt among us. "In him was life: and the life was the light of men" John 1:4. Jesus states "I am the resurrection and the life". Jesus has life in himself John 5:26, if Jesus was not divine, He would not have life in himself, only those with inherent life are able to create. Created beings cannot create and give life, Jesus claims that He is the "life".

Jesus said he received everything from God his Father and on his own he could do nothing. This is a big problem for a Modalist like yourself. If Jesus is the Father, i.e. Jesus is the father, how come the Father is greater than Jesus?

Jesus was not just a man, He is the Son of God, by virtue of His birth alone, He is divine. All these attributes were given to Him at His birth, just like we give our genetic traits to our children when we give birth to them.

Jesus was a man , but I don't know how you derive all this other stuff about him being God. It certainly isn't in the bible.

When God makes His Son equal with Himself, I think that is the prerogative of God alone, who are we to argue with God?

God Bless

Where do you get the idea that God made the son equal to himself, especially when Christ' clearly says , "The Father is Greater than me". Do you take Christ's words at face value or not? Or are you going to tell me about the doctrine of the hypostatic union ,to explain his words away?

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Harlin,

Hi,

I have always wondered why God would teach us to count, give us logic and reasoning and then expect us to do away with it completely??. It's a bit like me teaching my child to count and then telling him that 1 really means 3 and 3 means 1, wouldn't that just be plain confusing???.

To conclude: If I plant three trees in my orchard, have I in reality actually got nine trees? or if I plant 10 trees do I really have 30??

God is not the author of confusion, man is!!!

God Bless

Harlin

You're quite right. Trinitarians say God is three persons yet one being.In other words they say 1+1+1=1 which is nonsensical.

Harlin,by your own admission you're a Oneness Pentacostalist(Sabellian/Modalist). I will say this, Modalism is logically sound, since it says 1x1x1=1. However biblically it's unsupportable(not that trinitarianism is). For example, how can Christ be the Father yet still honestly say "The Father is Greater than Me"? And why would he need to pray to himself? And ths is just the tip of the ice-berg. Sabelliasm is an very ancient doctrine and has it's roots in hinduism. The Hindu trimurthi(trinity) says in Sanskrit, "Eko Deva trimurthi" or "One God three Modes". Naturally then their Supreme being comes in three modes, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva and the Universe came into being by the unified, compressed sound of the names of the Deity's three names, OuM.

Harlin, you're essentially a Hindu.(FYI, I've been to India. I speak a little Hindi and some Sanskrit. Also I've been to China, and have a working knowledge of Mandarin)




best wishes,

 

[nb_christseeker]

8 billion pages later

 

[gort]

Hi daneel,



You finally got the gist of it! Why therefore should Christ be in the same line of refrence as God would be, regarding King of Kings? Far from it.

It is our view that simply because Nebuchadnessar or Christ are called King of Kings does not make either of them God Almighty. Similarily, Moses is referred to as Elohim in Ex. 7:1. But we don't make him God, or do we?

best wishes,

Nice twist of what I was saying, which originally had nothing to do with Neb, and king of kings. It was you who made the original paralell, however showing correctly that the 2 could not be compatible.

My references pertained to Christ Jesus, being the PERFECT image of God in all ways. So, if Jesus is the PERFECT image of God in all ways personified.....He is far from "far from it" as you point out.

Moses, Noah, Joseph and many others are known as types of Christ, but are not the real thing.

<><

 

[gort]

In every single instance in the Bible, the one that is being referred to is part and parcel of the group of which he is firstborn. And this includes the fact that Jesus was firstobrn from the dead; he is partitive of those who die and are raised. Christ is both numerically and pre-eminently "first" from the dead. Is Col. 1:15 the only instance in the entire Bible wherein the one that was being called "firstborn" was NOT one of the group of which he was firstborn?

'Firstborn' is reference to pre-eminence and not the first crayon out of the box. Logically, the firstborn (first crayon out of the box) could not have created the first crayon out of the box, eh?

Likewise with Jacob and Esau. Esau was first, but Jacob had the pre-eminence.

As I've already told you "by" here, and in context, must be understood as "through" . John 1:10, "and the world was made through him", etc.

The very same Greek word (monogenes) translated "only begotten" in reference to our Lord in John 1:14 is in Heb. 11:17,18, applied to Isaac, the son of Abraham: By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, that in Isaac shall your seed be called. Clearly begotten means he was born. This is the trinitarian enigma for which they have on logical response. Since he is the Son of God...and a son is, by definition, one that comes after the father, otherwise the definitions of son and father are meaningless .

Begotten means brought forth. Begotten can also mean born, born of.

Yet the Word has always existed eternally.

Lol!. Here's how your trinitairan NIV translates this, v. 22 "The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works."

v. 24 "When there were no oceans, I was given birth."

The book of Ecclesiasticus describes Wisdom as having been "created before all things," etc.

If you think Jesus is wisdom, then the OT thinks he was created.

Jesus is wisdom personified. The wisdom of God.

Ecc. does'nt seem to show wisdom personified.

Do you have an example from nature, perhaps, to show this? Or failing that, perhaps logically or mathematically show us how this is true and not absurd?

Dry ice, as far as I know is the only substance that is in 3 states at the same time. solid, liquid, and vapor.


<><

 

[2ducklow]

Jesus was not just a man, He is the Son of God, by virtue of His birth alone, He is divine. All these attributes were given to Him at His birth, just like we give our genetic traits to our children when we give birth to them.

Actually, if God had some kind of spritual seed that he procreated with godesses with and then he decided to procreate with a human, and his spiritual seed fertilized Mary's egg, then Jesus would be half god and half man. just like a mule is half horse and half donkey. But god doesn't have spiritual seed that he procreates with godesses with to produce gods. Nor did God procreate a god with Mary. It takes a human male seed to fertilize a human female egg. no other seed will fertilize it. if we weren't discussing religon you would readily agree, no other seed but human seed will fetilize a human female egg. God created a human male seed, thus making Mary's egg fertile, and thus making Jesus fully human.

god doesn't begat other gods, there is only one god always has been and always will be only one god. God the father created male seed thus making him rather than a man , the father of Jesus. God doesn't have sex, he doesn't have genitalia, god is not a man god is a spirit being.

 

[gort]

Hi,

I have always wondered why God would teach us to count, give us logic and reasoning and then expect us to do away with it completely??. It's a bit like me teaching my child to count and then telling him that 1 really means 3 and 3 means 1, wouldn't that just be plain confusing???.

To conclude: If I plant three trees in my orchard, have I in reality actually got nine trees? or if I plant 10 trees do I really have 30??

God is not the author of confusion, man is!!!

God Bless

Harlin

Hello,

Man is finite, yet God is infinite.

Along the lines of logic and the ability to count with a finite mind, perhaps someone here can also tell us exactly how it is that Jesus made a boys lunch feed 5000 people, and there was also some left over?

If somebody can do this, and show me logically how it was done, I could give up my trinitarian beliefs because somebody with a finite mind can give me a 'logical' underestanding of an infinite God......

Or take a good shot at:

1. How to make the blind see?
2. How to heal the lame?
3. How to walk on water?
4. How to create something from nothing?
5. etc., etc., etc......



<><

 

[2ducklow]

It still is One God, in three persons.

<><

It is a contradiction to say one being in three beings according to a prominant trinitarian scholar, James White. In this document below of his he proves that trinity teaches 3 beings are in one being which he states is a contradiction.

We must first remember that very few have a good idea of what the Trinity is in the first place - hence, accuracy in definition will be very important. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day.

Here he is either attempting to show that a person isn't a being. or a being isn't a person. a task he fails in for we all know a person is a being.

We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.
The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels.

Ok he says there are two types of beings persons and non person beings
person beings are god, man , and angels.
non person beings are rocks dogs and cat. So he just here proved that trinity is a contradiction by stating that a person is a certain type of being where as god is a being like a rock or a dog or a cat. then he contradicts that by saying god is a personal being or a person. so again in his contradiction he proves that 3 persons are in one person which he states is a contradiction. If your top scholars are so confused that they prove trinity is a contradiction, unbeknownst to them, then what hope does the average Joe have in understanding trinity? none James white just proved it is a contradiction. and contradictions cannot be understood.

What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

http://solagratia.org/Articles/A_Brief_Definition_of_the_Trinity.aspx




more proof from james white that trinity is a contradiction. I think he was so confused he didn't know what he was saying. here he is saying god is like a rock being (one what) and the persons of god are (3 whos) are personal beings. so he has just proved that trinity teaches what he flat out stated is a contadiction and therefore wrong. Imagine comparing god to a being like a rock. one what= a rock like being, 3 who's = personal beings. Gives a whole new meaning to the song "He is my rock, and my salvation".

trinity proven to be a contradiction by a top trinitarian scholar. amazing.