Jesus and the Trinity

[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.

Hi 2ducklow,

I think a thorough look into who appeared in the burning bush is necessary here.

Mark 12:26 - And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"

Exodus 3:4 - "And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here I am. "Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground"

Here we see clearly that it was the presence of God himself that made the ground holy that Moses had to remove his shoes. Paul has another explaination

Acts 7:35 - "This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush"

Now here we have Paul calling the being which appeared in the bush an angel, and yet Mark and Moses both said it was God who was in the bush. So which is it?..................Jesus is on occasions referred to as the angel of the Lord, or Captain of the Lords host. Only a divine being, eg:God can make the ground holy, not the presence of a created being. There is no way around it. There is plenty of evidence for a pre-existant Son of God if one chooses to look with an open heart.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Harlin]

Hi 2ducklaw,





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,

I am not a trinitarian, and I can still see the meaning here. "Behold, a virigin shall be with child,and shall bring forth a son, and thy shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us"

Here we have an example of future "tense", and yet it doesn't change the fact that this name was still belonging to Jesus, even if it was in the future. What was your point here?

When one looks at Isaiah 9:6 and reads He will have the name of "Everlasting Father" this does not mean that Jesus is the Father, eg:

"Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion" - Isaiah 8:18

"Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel ackowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer, thy name is from everlasting" Isaiah 63:16

Christ is also our spiritual Father, Christ claims fathership of Israel.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Harlin]

Hi Balthasar,

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?.

He is God, who is equal to the Father, but who is NOT the Father. The Father is the one true God, and the Son is exalted to a position of equal with the Father, this does not make Him the actual Father though!!. As I said earlier, the Father is the source of all life, including the life of the Son, this makes Him the one True God over the Son. It's not that hard to understand, you only make out it is.

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

Jesus cannot be the one True God, because He was formed from the One true God. An image or pattern of even "express image" is still an image, not the original is it? Jesus is the same essence as the Father, as Adam is the same essence as the dust. My child is not me when he is born, but he is still of the same essence as me, still 100% human. It's Simple really.

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

good luck,

I'm sorry Balthasar, but it's not about what you want, it's about what the bible says. Have you in turn thought about the ramifications of your claims?, eg: Jesus not being the divine Son of God, not being worthy of worship, only a human sacrifice necessary for the atonement for the worlds sins. This degrades the Son of God and makes him only human like me and you, and yet He is the Son of God, conceived of the Holy Spirit, not only of man.

Why did Jesus have to come to earth in the first place if all that was needed was a human sacrifice?, why didn't Adam just pay the penalty for his own transgression of God's holy law?. Why is only Jesus the way, the truth and the life, not just the Father?. Jesus has the power to save us because He is God and all things have been given into His hand, and yet you don't recognise that.

Matt 5:25-26 " Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself"

The Son of God is our hope of resurrection in His divine power, not just as a man. Only Jesus is the resurrection and the life, no created being.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Harlin,

He is God, who is equal to the Father, but who is NOT the Father. The Father is the one true God, and the Son is exalted to a position of equal with the Father, this does not make Him the actual Father though!!.

According to you the Father is God,and the Son is also God but they are not the same person(that would make you a modalist). . So how exactly are you different from trinitarians, I'm curious to know?

 

[Harlin]

Hi Harlin,



According to you the Father is God,and the Son is also God but they are not the same person(that would make you a modalist). . So how exactly are you different from trinitarians, I'm curious to know?

Hi Balthasar,

For starters, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the trinity. Secondly I believe that there was a time when the Son was begotten of the Father and therefore there must have been a time when the physical presence of the Son was not. I believe that yes the Son always existed in the mind of the Father but was begotten once, not is eternally begotten. Thirdly, I also separate the two persons but don't confound them.

Yes I believe that Jesus is rightfully God, therefore making two Gods, one is the one true God, the Father, the other is the Son of God who is all God by inheritance, or by virtue of His coming forth from the one true God. Actually quite different from the trinity.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow,

I think a thorough look into who appeared in the burning bush is necessary here.

Mark 12:26 - And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"

Exodus 3:4 - "And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here I am. "Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground"

Here we see clearly that it was the presence of God himself that made the ground holy that Moses had to remove his shoes. Paul has another explaination

Acts 7:35 - "This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush"

Now here we have Paul calling the being which appeared in the bush an angel, and yet Mark and Moses both said it was God who was in the bush. So which is it?..................Jesus is on occasions referred to as the angel of the Lord, or Captain of the Lords host. Only a divine being, eg:God can make the ground holy, not the presence of a created being. There is no way around it. There is plenty of evidence for a pre-existant Son of God if one chooses to look with an open heart.

God Bless

Harlin

Harlin, how are ya?

Heb. 1:1 says god spoke in the prophets of old unto his people, if god can speak in a man he suredly can speak in an angel.

only god can make the ground holy but the angel didn't make the ground holy in the burning bush, nor did the prince of the host make the ground holy in joshua 5:15. Neither do those verses say angels or anyone made the ground holy , they merely state that the ground was holy, and the ground had to be holy because God was there,not because angels or anyone else was there.
It is illogical to say jesus is the angel who is god who made the ground holy but also god the father is god, but that isn't two gods that is one god. and besides in the book of hebrews it states that god's son is not an angel. "unto which of the angels said he at any time 'thou ar my son"?" it doesn't make sense, and god doesn't say things that are nonsensical, only mans interpertations of his word are nonsensical. if jesus is god and his father is god that makes 2 gods, not one. you're trying to interpret scripture to come up with nonsense. you can do that not only here but many places. for me an interpretation that is nonsesnical automatically proves it isn't correct.
As to the idea of a pre-existant Jesus. I find that wrong on several points.
1. you can't exist before you exist. so the term is an oxymoron term
2. luke says the beginning of Jesus was when he was conceived in marys womb. the greek word translated birth is genisis which primarly means beginning.
3. pre-existant christ would be reincarnation.
4. if jesus pre-existed as god the son, then there would be somemention of it somewhere in the ot. there is none. likewise with god the holy spirit.

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklaw,





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,

hi balthasar;
a little hard getting use to polite conversation hence my reluctance to use normal greetings. but anyway. 2 good points you brought up thanks. 1/ future tense. God has always not will be called the everlasting Father. 2. If this verse means Jesus is the father then correct it supports the nonsensical belief that Jesus is his own daddy which many oneness people hold. to support trinity it should read,
'he shall be called the verlasting son, the mighty god the son, etc. but with a doctrine chock full of illogicalities and contradictions what's one more?

 

[2ducklow]

Hi Balthasar,

For starters, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the trinity. Secondly I believe that there was a time when the Son was begotten of the Father and therefore there must have been a time when the physical presence of the Son was not. I believe that yes the Son always existed in the mind of the Father but was begotten once, not is eternally begotten. Thirdly, I also separate the two persons but don't confound them.

Yes I believe that Jesus is rightfully God, therefore making two Gods, one is the one true God, the Father, the other is the Son of God who is all God by inheritance, or by virtue of His coming forth from the one true God. Actually quite different from the trinity.

God Bless

Harlin

are you aware that Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb? How do you believe this conception took place? I believe god created human male seed, not godly male seed that he used to fertilize mary's egg thus making Jesus 100 percent human and not half god half man. Have you any thoughts on this issue of conception? you seem to be saying that Jesus is half human half god, true? Adam came forth from god who made him, that doesn't make adam god, and i feel that because god created male seed that resulted in the new creation of god of whom Jesus is the first-born that doesn't make Jesus god either.
respectfully
2dl

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Harlin,

You have a peculiar theology .

For starters, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the trinity.

So you have only two people in your "Godhead"?

I believe that yes the Son always existed in the mind of the Father but was begotten once, not is eternally begotten.

Even the Torah always existed in the mind of the Father according to Midrash. So your Son is eternal in the same manner that the Torah is said to be "eternal".

Thirdly, I also separate the two persons but don't confound them.

Trinitarians would say they don't confound the persons of their trinity.

Yes I believe that Jesus is rightfully God, therefore making two Gods, one is the one true God, the Father, the other is the Son of God who is all God by inheritance, or by virtue of His coming forth from the one true God. Actually quite different from the trinity.

You're not quite dissimilar from the trinitarians, in my opinion ; you believe in two Gods, they believe in three . But whereelse you are honest about it, they aren't .

best wishes,

 

[gort]

Balthasar quotes:

You're not quite dissimilar from the trinitarians, in my opinion ; you believe in two Gods, they believe in three . But whereelse you are honest about it, they aren't .

best wishes,

Try to be a little bit intellectually honest in your misrepresentation of what Trinitarians believe. Right now, you're lying.

But to help you out, again, it is One God in 3 persons.

<><

 

[Snashin]

Thank you for your reply - that helps a bit - puts things in a better perspective.

On the trinity subject - [Staff Edit]
Thanks again,
Snashin

To the heretics in the hall;

I have been censored twice now for posting what I believe to be Christian views. Once was for speaking of preterism in the orthodox section, and once for giving a link to a Christian web site that discussed the very topic the thread was about. Apparently both are not deemed christian by christianforums.com.

What gives? The administrator wouldn't answer my protest other than to say this IS a christian forum.

Is there another area here where you can discuss freely? Or is it not Christian to debate Christianity? I believe in testing and debating everything in the Bible. What's wrong with that?

I post on an evolution forum with hopes of bringing people to Christ - and they don't like me there either.

Is there no place for me to lay my head? Not looking for sympathy, just a nice coffee shop.

Here's my statement to the administrators and their response:

quote by Snashin
I don't understand. The topic is a debate about the trinity - isn't the whole thread in violation then?
How is anyone suppposed to get anything straight if you won't allow people to talk about it. I thought the Unorthodox section was put there for just this purpose.
If you believe that Jesus is your Lord and Savior - there is nothing that can snatch you away from Him. The purpose of the debates is to strengthen the faith, not weaken it. Editing a post for this reason only leads people to distrust CF, and to wonder about the issue that was edited.
If a person believed in Preterism, believed that the Trinity wasn't real - you are forbidding them to discuss it. So they will just leave - what does this solve? If this is false, then the truth will be revealed, no?
There must be some pretty powerful forces behind this plug in the free flow of information.
Your reply would be appreciated,

Quote by Administrator (shall remain nameless)</FONT></FONT></FONT>
There IS a pretty powerful force behind the rules of the forum that is why it is called [size=+1]CHRISTIAN FORUMS.[/size]

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks,
Snashin

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Try to be a little bit intellectually honest in your misrepresentation of what Trinitarians believe. Right now, you're lying.

But to help you out, again, it is One God in 3 persons.

<><

How is it "intellectually honest" to say "One God in three persons(Gods)"? Logic dictates that if there are three persons then there must also be three Gods. You're not making any sense at all.

Daneel I would in all honesty have to say you're lying to yourself and not being intellectually honest by stating "One God in three persons". Logic and common sense defies you.

good luck,

 

[2ducklow]

3rd Grade math test
How many persons of God and how many Gods are there when;

God the Father is God
God the Father is a person of God.
a person of God is God.

God the Son is god
God the Son is a person of God
a person of God is God

God the Holy spirit is god
God the holy spirit is a person of God/
a person of God is God.

how many gods are there? how many persons of God are there?
A. 3 gods and 3 persons of God
B. 1. god and 3 persons of God
c. 3 Gods and 1 person of God
d. 6 persons of god and 6 gods
E. 3 persons of god are 3 gods
F. man's puny brain can't comprehend 3rd grade math questions about an infiinite God.

Carefull all test scores will be made public.
actually I'm not sure if it is A. or E. sure hate to flunk my own test.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 2ducklow.



If I were a trinitarian I would answer F, but if I were being intellectually honest about the claim made by the trinity doctrine, namely "One God in three persons", I would have to answer E.

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Check out the following. The redded portions ...well, speak for themselves. Check out the bolded red comment in particular.




http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html

In simplest terms, it is that there are three Persons who can accurately be called 'the One God'. The early church would convene 'thinktanks' (e.g. councils, although some of them were apparently more akin to political circuses!) to come up with better notions, and ended up with "three Persons in one essence", and by this they meant "three Persons in one Being".

"Orthodoxy" maintains this definition. I feel a little uncomfortable with the notions of 'being' and 'essence'--relative to 'person'--so I prefer the notion of 'unit'. So I get "three Persons in one ultimate unit".

A couple of points about this. First, the adjective 'ultimate' is the 'god-word' in this definition. If I had 15,000 persons, each of which was 'ultimate', I would still only have ONE ULTIMATE. (This is the somewhat obtuse philosophical discussion about not being able to have multiple 'ultimates' because then the principle which distinguishes them is MORE ULTIMATE--a nonsensical phrase. For example, this is the objection to ethical dualism--if good and evil are both ultimate, then they are THE SAME--but we KNOW they are NOT and the distinction between them MUST be the 'REAL' ultimate. But I REALLY don't want to get into that now! But I will come back to some of the philosophical/theological issues at the end of these discussions.)

So the notion basically says that ALL the 'things' I find that can appropriately and accurately be called "God" or "Ultimate", are 'one in essence' ALREADY--by DEFINITION of 'ultimacy'.

The second point is this: I am not sure we could ever really understand how the "persons" and the "essence/unit" are related--especially in GOD! We don't understand these things in HUMANS, much less God. But then again, we probably don't have to.

And, to be QUITE FRANK, I would expect a "God" to be a bit more complex than everything He created! I would expect SOME overlap, perhaps, say in the notion of 'personality' but for me to say that God COULD NOT have three interior Persons would be VERY intellectually presumptuous (especially for a mortal creature of only 5'10"!) To say that a God who could speak a universe into existence HAS TO BE no more complex in His nature that humans are would be GROUNDLESS speculation of the most ludicrous sort! I think Feuerbach would call it 'making God in OUR image'!

best wishes,

 

[Harlin]

Harlin, how are ya?

Heb. 1:1 says god spoke in the prophets of old unto his people, if god can speak in a man he suredly can speak in an angel.

only god can make the ground holy but the angel didn't make the ground holy in the burning bush, nor did the prince of the host make the ground holy in joshua 5:15. Neither do those verses say angels or anyone made the ground holy , they merely state that the ground was holy, and the ground had to be holy because God was there,not because angels or anyone else was there.
It is illogical to say jesus is the angel who is god who made the ground holy but also god the father is god, but that isn't two gods that is one god. and besides in the book of hebrews it states that god's son is not an angel. "unto which of the angels said he at any time 'thou ar my son"?" it doesn't make sense, and god doesn't say things that are nonsensical, only mans interpertations of his word are nonsensical. if jesus is god and his father is god that makes 2 gods, not one. you're trying to interpret scripture to come up with nonsense. you can do that not only here but many places. for me an interpretation that is nonsesnical automatically proves it isn't correct.
As to the idea of a pre-existant Jesus. I find that wrong on several points.
1. you can't exist before you exist. so the term is an oxymoron term
2. luke says the beginning of Jesus was when he was conceived in marys womb. the greek word translated birth is genisis which primarly means beginning.
3. pre-existant christ would be reincarnation.
4. if jesus pre-existed as god the son, then there would be somemention of it somewhere in the ot. there is none. likewise with god the holy spirit.

Hi 2ducklow,

I am good thanks, I am in no way disputing that God can speak through an angel, my point here is that Paul calls the being in the bush an angel and Moses and Mark say it is God talking to Moses from out of the bush. Who is it, an angel or God?. I believe it to be God and more specifically the Son of God.

I understand what you are saying about being pre-existant, your right it doesn't make sense, so I will say pre-earth. Yes the conception of Mary was the beginning of Jesus, the Son of Man, but it was not the beginning of the Son of God. No it wasn't reincarnation, the Son of God did not die and then become Jesus, it was incarnation, the Son of God became the Son of Man. Hebrews is saying that Christ is not created like the angels, there is nothing that says that He cannot be Michael the Archangel, or Captain of the Lords Host, or Michael your prince for that matter (Daniel).

There is mention of the Son of God in the OT.

"Who hath ascended up into heaven or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists?, who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? Proverbs 30:4. I believe the evidence is there if one looks hard enough.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Harlin]

Hi Balthasar,

Hi Harlin,

You have a peculiar theology . Likewise



So you have only two people in your "Godhead"? Well, all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily, so I would say so. I do believe the Holy Spirit plays an important, infact vital part in the plan of Salvation, just not as a separate person from the Father and Son.



Even the Torah always existed in the mind of the Father according to Midrash. So your Son is eternal in the same manner that the Torah is said to be "eternal". Yes I agree, that is how I understand it, if you look at it that way we all must have existed eternally in the mind of the Father. But physically He was not always existant, just as we were not always existant. He is not physically co-eternal with the Father like what the trinitarians believe.



Trinitarians would say they don't confound the persons of their trinity.

Well thats true, they say they don't but by not separating them in my opinion they confound them. Hypostasis is just not logical in my realm of reasoning.



You're not quite dissimilar from the trinitarians, in my opinion ; you believe in two Gods, they believe in three . But whereelse you are honest about it, they aren't .

best wishes,

I don't believe in two or three True Gods though, just one. There is a difference between them, just like there is a difference between my son and myself, even though we are both human. Logically it makes sense to me, when I believed in the trinity I found there were plenty of scriptures I couldn't reconcile with that belief, with this understanding it is clear in my mind, that is all I can go on, my convictions.

God Bless

Harlin

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Harlin,

I don't believe in two or three True Gods though, just one.

Sometimes you frankly admit to believing in two Gods, at other times you don't.

There is a difference between them, just like there is a difference between my son and myself, even though we are both human.

The Bible doesn't allow for the possibility of God reproducing himself. This is a figment of your immagination.

Logically it makes sense to me, when I believed in the trinity I found there were plenty of scriptures I couldn't reconcile with that belief, with this understanding it is clear in my mind, that is all I can go on, my convictions.

Can I ask you a question? What denomination, if any, do you belong to?


best wishes,

 

[gort]

Hi daneel,



How is it "intellectually honest" to say "One God in three persons(Gods)"? Logic dictates that if there are three persons then there must also be three Gods. You're not making any sense at all.

Daneel I would in all honesty have to say you're lying to yourself and not being intellectually honest by stating "One God in three persons". Logic and common sense defies you.

good luck,

Balthasar quotes:

You're not quite dissimilar from the trinitarians, in my opinion ; you believe in two Gods, they believe in three . But whereelse you are honest about it, they aren't .

best wishes,

I'm quite sure you are aware of how trinitarians define the Triune God. We don't believe in 3 Gods, and are quite open about it.

Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of misleading impressions through the use of rhetoric, logical fallacy, fraud, or misrepresented evidence. It may stem from an ulterior motive, haste, sloppiness, or external pressure to reach a certain conclusion. The unwary reader may be deceived as a result.

Scientists and scholars generally consider plagiarism a serious form of intellectual dishonesty. Other examples include the incorrect attribution of a quotation or quotation out of context, use of obfuscated or irrelevant citations, deceptive omission of contextual text through ellipsis, and the unsupported amplification of a relationship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

<><

 

[gort]

Hbr 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Rev 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Interesting that Jesus is to worshipped, and only God is to be worshipped.

<><

let the parsing begin....