Jesus and the Trinity

[Harlin]

Hi 2ducklow,

[/size][/font]

hardly . that';s exceedingly weak proof that Jesus preexisted.
My father brought his firstbegotten into the world me. everyone would understand that to mean my father sired me not that i existed before I was born and my dad grabed me and brought me into the world.

I think you missed a vital point here, Hebrews 1:5 states "and again, I will be to him a Father,a nd he shall be to me a Son"

How can God be a Father again if this is the first time He has actually begotten a Son and become a Father?........the only way is that if He was a Father already, to then become a Father again. When Jesus came to earth and was born of Mary, He didn't become the Son of God, He became the Son of Man. Jesus pre-existed the earth as He made the earth, the Bible is very clear on who the creator was, the Son wrought the Fathers will in the creation, that is how you get "our image" in Genesis.

In the vision of Joshua, (Joshua 5:13) who was it that made the ground "holy", was it the Father or the Son of God, as no created being can make the ground "holy", just like in with Moses and the burning bush. This gives evidence to a pre-existant Son, as noone has seen the Father at any time, so who else could it be?

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Odsolo]

. . . When the trinity doctrine is carefully probed , and severely dissected, it's always shown to be tritheistic.

best wishes,

Rubbish! When ALL anti-Trinitarian arguments are examined every single one of them misrepresent the Trinity, and waste their time and effort tearing down their own strawman and/or
misquote scripture, quote it out-of-context, or deliberately misrepresent scripture.

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow,



I think you missed a vital point here, Hebrews 1:5 states "and again, I will be to him a Father,a nd he shall be to me a Son"

How can God be a Father again if this is the first time He has actually begotten a Son and become a Father?........the only way is that if He was a Father already, to then become a Father again. When Jesus came to earth and was born of Mary, He didn't become the Son of God, He became the Son of Man. Jesus pre-existed the earth as He made the earth, the Bible is very clear on who the creator was, the Son wrought the Fathers will in the creation, that is how you get "our image" in Genesis.

Heb 1:5For to which of the messengers said He ever, `My Son thou art -- I to-day have begotten thee?` and again, `I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son?`YLT
'An again' indicates a restatement of the first part of that verse. It is pointing out a truth as testeified by 2 OT scriptures. 2 old testament verses are being quoted here , 'an again' is not part of the second verse being quoted which is 'I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son?' Notice that YLT puts quotation marks around the quoted OT scripture.

In the vision of Joshua, (Joshua 5:13) who was it that made the ground "holy", was it the Father or the Son of God, as no created being can make the ground "holy", just like in with Moses and the burning bush. This gives evidence to a pre-existant Son, as noone has seen the Father at any time, so who else could it be?

God Bless

Harlin

Jos 5:14And He saith, `No, for I [am] Prince of Jehovah`s host; now I have come;` and Joshua falleth on his face to the earth, and doth obeisance, and saith to Him, `What is my Lord speaking unto His servant?`
Jos 5:15And the Prince of Jehovah`s host saith unto Joshua, `Cast off thy shoe from off thy foot, for the place on which thou art standing is holy;` and Joshua doth so;YLT

This verse says nothing about who made the ground holy, It merely states that the ground is holy. god is holy, so it would have to be god that made the ground holy , just as it is God who makes us holy, by his indwelling presence in our bodies. The ground had to be holy because God was there.
It was a prince spirit such as Miachale or Gabriel who was there with a host of Angels.

 

[SpaceMan]

"and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them"

So…why can’t we say that there was/is a dualistic nature to the Creator God, and say that there was a “Mother” along with “The Father?” This seems as likely as the interpretation that the plural references were of The Father & Son… (IMO, at least).

 

[DjDan]

One in unity(mission, will and purpose) ofcourse. Jesus is aseparate being from his Father but "one" with Him(John 10:30) in that he does everything his Father wills;on his own he does nothing. He's not God because he said,"I and the Father are one" anymore than the apostles are God because Jesus prayed that they may be one with the Father as he is one with the Father (John 17:11) . No, no the "oneness" spoken of in these sorts of cases is the "oneness" of unity, will and mission. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. John 17:11 , on it's own, destroys the trinity doctrine.

Adam and Eve are said to become "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). But no one in their right minds suggests Adam and Eve are one being because of it. Maybe you do.


Look it, if you think Jesus is God because he said "I and the Father are one" then to remain consistent you must also admit Jesus prayed for the apostles to become God in John 17:11 because he prayed that they may become one with the Father .

x 100000.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Harlin,

Sorry you didn't understand what I meant. 1. Yes I do believe that Jesus is truly God but not the one true God which is the Father.

You believe "Jesus is tuly God " yet you also believe "Jesus is not the one true God." The only way this can be true is if there is more than one God. It is senseless to say "Jesus is truly God" and "Jesus is not the one true God" if you also believe there is only one God.

2. No, I don't believe Jesus is created, I believe Jesus was brought forth from the Father, once, not eternally begotten and therefore is devine by virtue of His coming forth.

therefore you believe in two Gods, though you probably won't admit it.

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi,

Rubbish! When ALL anti-Trinitarian arguments are examined every single one of them misrepresent the Trinity, and waste their time and effort tearing down their own strawman and/or
misquote scripture, quote it out-of-context, or deliberately misrepresent scripture.

That's not even an attempt at a refutation.

Odsolo, where's the logic in saying "God is three persons yet one God".? Please explain(or am I "misrepresenting the Trinity" by saying this?)

Lol.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi,

So…why can’t we say that there was/is a dualistic nature to the Creator God, and say that there was a “Mother” along with “The Father?” This seems as likely as the interpretation that the plural references were of The Father & Son… (IMO, at least).

Because there's nothing here that says God has a dualistic nature:

"and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them"

This simply says man is created in the image of God, and woman also is created in the image of God.

best wishres,

 

[SpaceMan]

Well, I read it as talking about division in humanity: male and female. So my point is, why cannot the same sense of ying/yang, male/female division characterize God?

 

[Balthasar]

Well, I read it as talking about division in humanity: male and female. So my point is, why cannot the same sense of ying/yang, male/female division characterize God?

Well, you read it wrong, just like trinitarians read it wrong when they conclude Jesus is God because he said in John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

best wishes,

 

[Harlin]

Hi 2ducklow,

Heb 1:5For to which of the messengers said He ever, `My Son thou art -- I to-day have begotten thee?` and again, `I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son?`YLT
'An again' indicates a restatement of the first part of that verse. It is pointing out a truth as testeified by 2 OT scriptures. 2 old testament verses are being quoted here , 'an again' is not part of the second verse being quoted which is 'I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son?' Notice that YLT puts quotation marks around the quoted OT scripture.


Jos 5:14And He saith, `No, for I [am] Prince of Jehovah`s host; now I have come;` and Joshua falleth on his face to the earth, and doth obeisance, and saith to Him, `What is my Lord speaking unto His servant?`
Jos 5:15And the Prince of Jehovah`s host saith unto Joshua, `Cast off thy shoe from off thy foot, for the place on which thou art standing is holy;` and Joshua doth so;YLT

This verse says nothing about who made the ground holy, It merely states that the ground is holy. god is holy, so it would have to be god that made the ground holy , just as it is God who makes us holy, by his indwelling presence in our bodies. The ground had to be holy because God was there.
It was a prince spirit such as Miachale or Gabriel who was there with a host of Angels.

Was the ground holy before this Prince of Jehovah's host arrived?.....NO. The ground was only holy because of the being that was present, this is the Son of God, who is also named Michael. If not then Michael as an angel or Gabriel also an angel made the ground holy???....Created beings don't make the ground holy only God....Look at the similarity of the incident with Moses and with Joshua, it was the presence of God on both occasions that made the ground holy. The only reason that we become holy is because of the presence of God dwelling in us, God's presence, not the presence of created angels. We have guardian angels around us all the time, but we are not told to take off our shoes for we are standing on holy ground!!!.

Nothing else but God makes anything holy.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Harlin]

Hi Balthasar,

Hi Harlin,




You believe "Jesus is tuly God " yet you also believe "Jesus is not the one true God." The only way this can be true is if there is more than one God. It is senseless to say "Jesus is truly God" and "Jesus is not the one true God" if you also believe there is only one God.






therefore you believe in two Gods, though you probably won't admit it.

best wishes,

I guess in a sense I do believe in two Gods, but only one of them is the only true God, and that is the Father. I believe the Father exalted His Son to a position as of Himself. My version of Phil 2:6 says that "Jesus who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" Jesus is the form of God, but He is not the one true God, that is the Father Ephe 4:6.

Isaiah 43:10-11 states " Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me, 11. I, even I, am the LORD: and beside me there is no saviour"

There is only one Son of God, and because He is the Son of God formed from the Father, he is naturally God. His Father is still the God of Him, John 20:17.

Can I ask you a question? I believe Jesus is worthy of worship, do you?

God Bless,

Harlin

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Harlin,

I guess in a sense I do believe in two Gods,

Thanks for being honest about it . But the Bible says there is only one true God.

I believe the Father exalted His Son to a position as of Himself. My version of Phil 2:6 says that "Jesus who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" Jesus is the form of God, but He is not the one true God, that is the Father Ephe 4:6.

The Greek word "form" does not speak to essence but to image or pattern, i.e. as Adam before the fall was a sinless image/form of God. That's why Jesus is called the Second Adam. You don't think Adam was God(or do you?) , so why do you think Jesus is God?

Isaiah 43:10-11 states " Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me, 11. I, even I, am the LORD: and beside me there is no saviour"

Therefore Jesus cannot be God.

Can I ask you a question? I believe Jesus is worthy of worship, do you?

Nope, Jesus is not worthy of worship, only the One True God is worthy of worship.


best wishes,

 

[Harlin]

Hi Balthasar,

Thanks for being honest about it . But the Bible says there is only one true God.

I think if you contemplate my previous post, you will see that is what I believe. There is only one True God.

The Greek word "form" does not speak to essence but to image or pattern, i.e. as Adam before the fall was a sinless image/form of God. That's why Jesus is called the Second Adam. You don't think Adam was God(or do you?) , so why do you think Jesus is God?

In Genesis 2:7 it states that God formed man of the dust of the ground. We are told that man returns to dust when he dies, from which he was formed. God even says that He remembers that we are dust. That shows essence wouldn't you say?. Adam was made in the image of God but was formed from the dust, Jesus was formed from God not from dust as was Adam. He is the essence of God, just as Adam is the essence from which he was formed.

Therefore Jesus cannot be God.

Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus, the Mighty God, amongst other titles.

Nope, Jesus is not worthy of worship, only the One True God is worthy of worship.

I feel sad for you that you don't feel that your redeemer is worthy of worship.....To me that is harder to understand than the trinity.

Obviously you believe that a human sacrifice was sufficient to atone for the worlds sins, and to justify the demands of the law for the guilty sinner?. I believe that only the Son of God could be a sufficient sacrifice. Again Phil 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7. But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men"

If Jesus isn't the pre-existant Son of God before the incarnation, How could He possibly make himself of no reputation and take upon Himself the form of a servant, How could He even know to do this if He didn't exist until conceived in the womb of Mary. Logically it doesn't make sense, He must have know prior to the incarnation that this was going to happen because He "made Himself of no reputation". Otherwise He did this without having a choice, the Father placed Him in the womb of Mary to become a sacrifice for mans sins without His consent. Well Zechariah 6:13 says "...................and the counsel of peace shall be between them both".

Look at the figure of the heavenly sacrifice, which was Abraham and Isaac, Abraham told Isaac what God required of him and Isaac could have resisted his father, but, Isaac agreed and became the willing victim. Same goes for the Lamb of God. It is illogical to think otherwise. Christ must have know beforehand, and if He was only created on this earth He couldn't have.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Harlin,

I think if you contemplate my previous post, you will see that is what I believe. There is only one True God.

You've said the Father is God, you've said Jesus is God. You've also said the Father is the only true God. What kind of God is Jesus, if not the only true God?.

In Genesis 2:7 it states that God formed man of the dust of the ground. We are told that man returns to dust when he dies, from which he was formed. God even says that He remembers that we are dust. That shows essence wouldn't you say?. Adam was made in the image of God but was formed from the dust, Jesus was formed from God not from dust as was Adam. He is the essence of God, just as Adam is the essence from which he was formed.

But according to you Jesus is not the one true God, only the Father is. .

I believe that only the Son of God could be a sufficient sacrifice.

This God the Son is not the only true God, according to you.


I want you to stop playing word games and start thinking about the ramifications of your claims.

good luck,

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow,



Was the ground holy before this Prince of Jehovah's host arrived?.....NO. The ground was only holy because of the being that was present, this is the Son of God, who is also named Michael. If not then Michael as an angel or Gabriel also an angel made the ground holy???....Created beings don't make the ground holy only God....Look at the similarity of the incident with Moses and with Joshua, it was the presence of God on both occasions that made the ground holy. The only reason that we become holy is because of the presence of God dwelling in us, God's presence, not the presence of created angels. We have guardian angels around us all the time, but we are not told to take off our shoes for we are standing on holy ground!!!.

Nothing else but God makes anything holy.

God Bless

Harlin

God says for us to be holy for he is holy. there is no commandment to take your shoes off because god has made us holy. It was not the prince of the host and the host that made the ground holy it was someone else who made the ground holy, God. God required that they take thier shoes off because he, God, had made the ground holy. not the prince of the host. The requirement was for that situation, not every situation that god makes something or someone holy. I don't know what reason god had for that requirement in that situation. Nothing in that verse says the prince is Jesus norr does it say that the prince made the ground holy. The prince says the ground is holy, not that he made the ground holy. you are assuming that the prince is Jesus and you are assuming that he made the ground holy. But scripture doesn't say what your suppossitions assume.

 

[2ducklow]

Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus, the Mighty God, amongst other titles.

It doesn't. it says his name shall be called the mighty God". People who believe Jesus is God uniformedly misquote this verse to say just what you said. It does not call Jesus or anyone in that verse the mighty god.
Isa 9:6For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


His name will be called the might god, the everlasting Father, not he will becalled the mighty god , the everlasting Father. Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

My name will be called America. Because I live in france and that's what they call my name. Does that mean I am america?
his name will be called 'money' because he is rich.
his name will be called 'swim' because he is a good swimmer.
his name will be called 'misrepresent' because he always mistrepresents god's word.
john 17:11 states that God gave Jesus his own name which conforms to isaiah 9;6 which states that they shall call the name of Jesus the everlasting father. Jesus has his daddy's name. ja oshea "He who saves" or "jahweh the savior' Jesus has his daddys name, not Jesus is his daddy.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 2ducklaw,

It doesn't. it says his name shall be called the mighty God". People who believe Jesus is God uniformedly misquote this verse to say just what you said. It does not call Jesus or anyone in that verse the mighty god.
Isa 9:6For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


.

I think trinitarians should immediately clue in that the tense here is future , his name shall be called mighty God(El Gibbor) . God has always been God, he doesn't get to be called God only sometime in the future.Also , El Gibbor is a mighty El, a great Elohim . Terms like El , Elohim etc. are common nouns applicable to men and angels in the OT, apart from God. This is another easy trinitarian argument to refute.
Besides 9:6 also refers to Messiah as the Everlasting Father. Now, if we read scripture like trinitarians do, then this phrase Everlasting Father actually proves Modalism true and Trinitarianism false. Once again trinitarians shoot themselves in the foot with their strange interpretation of Scripture.

best wishes,

 

[SpaceMan]

Well, you read it wrong...

Simple as that, huh...?

 

[Balthasar]

Simple as that, huh...?

Yep, since your exegesis is far out.