The Trinity Doctrine

[barryrob]

That God is invisible does not mean that he can't make himself visible.

I wonder who it was that Stephen saw when he said that he saw Jesus at the right hand of God?

In vision was Jesus NEXT to God so he cannot be God!

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

In vision was Jesus NEXT to God so he cannot be God!

First of all it is a VISION and VISIONS are usually symbolic . . . this is evidenced by WHERE Jesus is . . . He is at the position of Power and Authority . . . so making ANY other doctrinal conclusion beyond this is folly.

Second, YOU COMPLETELY JUST DANCED AROUND THE POINT AND NEGLECTED WHAT WAS SHOWN TO YOU. Bad form. The point, is not anything about the deity of Christ . . . it IS about SEEING GOD. How can one "see" the right "hand" that Christ is "at" IS the point . . . for your contention speaks of NOT EVER SEEING GOD. Yet someone is seen to have a right hand to be stood at.

 

[barryrob]

First of all it is a VISION and VISIONS are usually symbolic . . . this is evidenced by WHERE Jesus is . . . He is at the position of Power and Authority . . . so making ANY other doctrinal conclusion beyond this is folly.

Second, YOU COMPLETELY JUST DANCED AROUND THE POINT AND NEGLECTED WHAT WAS SHOWN TO YOU. Bad form. The point, is not anything about the deity of Christ . . . it IS about SEEING GOD. How can one "see" the right "hand" that Christ is "at" IS the point . . . for your contention speaks of NOT EVER SEEING GOD. Yet someone is seen to have a right hand to be stood at.

In a vision, as God is "invisable"!!

So now God tells lies, for he states:-

Exodus 33:20
And he added: "You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live."

Why did Stephen not drop dead on the spot?

Because he did not literally see God, re. the above, all the spirit realm, where God dwells, is invisible, thus it was a vision.


also

1 Timothy 6:15-16
This [manifestation] the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times, [he] the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see. To him be honor and might everlasting. Amen.

Thus confirming it was a vision Stephen saw.

 

[GraceSeeker]

In vision was Jesus NEXT to God so he cannot be God!

I knew you would say that. I have a whole different understanding of what was going on in that passage and don't read the Bible quite as literally as you seem to.

But the deal is that you claim to take the Bible very literally and thus assert that when Jesus says the no man has ever seen God, or when Paul writes about the invisible God that it excludes any possibility of the very experiences of people like Jacob and Moses. I'm saying that you paint yourself into a corner with that way of interpreting things. I don't think the Bible contradicts itself, but if I was to hold to your interpretations it would contradict itself all over the place.

In a literalists understanding of scripture, Stephen saw God next to Jesus. In a literalist understanding of scripture God is invisible. You can't have it both ways. (Unless of course you are willing to give up your literalistic way of understanding.)

 

[barryrob]

I knew you would say that. I have a whole different understanding of what was going on in that passage and don't read the Bible quite as literally as you seem to.

But the deal is that you claim to take the Bible very literally and thus assert that when Jesus says the no man has ever seen God, or when Paul writes about the invisible God that it excludes any possibility of the very experiences of people like Jacob and Moses. I'm saying that you paint yourself into a corner with that way of interpreting things. I don't think the Bible contradicts itself, but if I was to hold to your interpretations it would contradict itself all over the place.

In a literalists understanding of scripture, Stephen saw God next to Jesus. In a literalist understanding of scripture God is invisible. You can't have it both ways. (Unless of course you are willing to give up your literalistic way of understanding.)

It was a VISION of God etc. etc..

 

[GraceSeeker]

It was a VISION of God etc. etc..

So, you are saying that Stephen saw God, but that God is invisible.

 

[barryrob]

So, you are saying that Stephen saw God, but that God is invisible.

vision n.
1 act or faculty of seeing, sight.
2 thing or person seen in a dream or trance.
3 mental picture (visions of hot toast).
4 imaginative insight. 5 statesmanlike foresight. 6 beautiful person etc. 7 television or cinema picture, esp. of specified quality (poor vision). [Latin video vis- see]

 

[barryrob]

How do Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses view Jehovah and Jesus Christ respectively?​

The scriptures herein are quoted from the ‘New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.’​

​

Jehovah is my ruler.-Judges 8:23 “But Gideon said to them: “I myself shall not rule over YOU, nor will my son rule over YOU. Jehovah is the one who will rule over YOU.”
Jesus in my ruler.-1 Tim. 6:13-15 “In the sight of God, who preserves all things alive, and of Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders 14 that you observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 This [manifestation] the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times, [he] the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords.”

Jehovah is my Saviour.-Isa. 43:3 “For I am Jehovah your God, the Holy One of Israel your Savior.. . .”
Jesus is my Saviour.-Tit. 3:6 “This [spirit] he poured out richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior.”

Jehovah is my Lord.-Ps. 135:5 “For I myself well know that Jehovah is great, And our Lord is more than all [other] gods.”
Jesus is my Lord.-Rom. 15:30 “Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the spirit, that YOU exert yourselves with me in prayers to God for me ...”

Jehovah is my King.-Isa. 33:22 “For Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Statute-giver, Jehovah is our King; he himself will save us.”
Jesus is my King.-John 18:37 “Therefore Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world,. . .”

Jehovah is my God.-Deut. 10:17 “For Jehovah YOUR God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the God great, mighty and fear-inspiring. . .”
Jesus is my God.-John 20:28 “In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!””

I Honor Jehovah.-Rev. 4:11 “You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”. . .”
I Honor Jesus.-Heb. 2:9 “but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, that he by God’s undeserved kindness might taste death for every [man].”

To Jehovah I do bow.-Gen. 24:48 “And I proceeded to bow down and prostrate myself before Jehovah and bless Jehovah the God of my master Abraham, . . .”
To Jesus I do bow.-Phil. 2:9-10 “For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground.”

Jehovah is my Almighty God.-2 Cor. 6:18 ““‘And I shall be a father to YOU, and YOU will be sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah the Almighty.””
Jesus is my “Mighty God”.-Isa. 9:6 “For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

Jehovah is obeyed by Jesus.-1 Cor. 11:3 “But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.”
I obey Jesus.-1 Cor. 11:3 “But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.”

Jehovah I do Worship.-Matt. 4:10 “Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” See Deut 5:9; 10:20-21.
Jesus I do not Worship.-John 4:23 “Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him.”

 

[GraceSeeker]

vision n.
1 act or faculty of seeing, sight.
2 thing or person seen in a dream or trance.
3 mental picture (visions of hot toast).
4 imaginative insight. 5 statesmanlike foresight. 6 beautiful person etc. 7 television or cinema picture, esp. of specified quality (poor vision). [Latin video vis- see]

But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

(Acts 7:55-56)​

Do the scriptures say that this was a vision, or simply that he saw? Why do you suggest that this was a vision, when the scriptures don't say that it was a vision?

 

[barryrob]

But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

(Acts 7:55-56)​

Do the scriptures say that this was a vision, or simply that he saw? Why do you suggest that this was a vision, when the scriptures don't say that it was a vision?

To see a God that says he cannot be seen, then it can only be in vision or God lies!

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

To see a God the says he cannot be seen, then I can only be in vision or God lies!

What about in the Garden . . . do you have any verses that state that God with Adam and Eve was through an angel? Cause Adam and Eve certainly saw God in the Garden . . . yet John says NO ONE AT ANY TIME HAS SEEN GOD . . . no one (oudeis) means NO ONE AT ANY TIME. So either YOUR concept of "seeing" is wrong . . . or we have a contradiction in the Bible.

 

[barryrob]

What about in the Garden . . . do you have any verses that state that God with Adam and Eve was through an angel? Cause Adam and Eve certainly saw God in the Garden . . . yet John says NO ONE AT ANY TIME HAS SEEN GOD . . . no one (oudeis) means NO ONE AT ANY TIME. So either YOUR concept of "seeing" is wrong . . . or we have a contradiction in the Bible.

In Genesis 2-3 it mentions hearing the voice of God what he "said" but no mention of SEEING God!

This he could have done via "The Word" (Jesus) or angels.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Barry, you still haven't sufficiently addressed the fact that the Bible says that Moses saw God face to face as a man does a friend. As Mathetes says our chocies are that either your understanding of what the Bible means when it talks about the invisible God is actually a misunderstanding or the Bible is itself contradictory. If we assume that the Bible isn't wrong, then it must be your understanding of it that is in error.

 

[barryrob]

Barry, you still haven't sufficiently addressed the fact that the Bible says that Moses saw God face to face as a man does a friend. As Mathetes says our chocies are that either your understanding of what the Bible means when it talks about the invisible God is actually a misunderstanding or the Bible is itself contradictory. If we assume that the Bible isn't wrong, then it must be your understanding of it that is in error.

God does not have a face he is a spirit & invisable, if we are to believe what the Bible says, so he give visions etc. in terms we puney small humans can understand.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The Bible says that God spoke with Moses "face to face, as with a friend"; that sure doesn't sound like a vision. Are you saying that the Bible is lying about what Moses experienced?

 

[barryrob]

The Bible says that God spoke with Moses "face to face, as with a friend"; that sure doesn't sound like a vision. Are you saying that the Bible is lying about what Moses experienced?

No.

What I am saying is; what Jesus and his faithful inspired follower believed said is true:-

Jesus - John 4:24
God is a Spirit. . .

Paul - 2 Corinthians 3:17
Now Jehovah is the Spirit; ... ​

Paul - 1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, [the] only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.​

Explain the following?:-
Moses - Exodus 33:23
After that I must take my palm away, and you will indeed see my back. But my face may NOT be seen."​

Remember:-
Luke - Acts 7:38
This is he that came to be among the congregation in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Si´nai and with our forefathers, and he received living sacred pronouncements to give YOU.​

 

[GraceSeeker]

I stand corrected, you are capable of some nuanced discussion and do not take every verse literally. If you did, then Exodus 33:11 would stand in direct opposition to your beliefs: "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend." But you are able to accept to contradictory passages by understanding them as being only contradictory on the surface.

I'm asking you to use that same reasoning ability when it comes to speaking of Jesus as the incarnate God. John 1 tells us that the Word was God (not A god) and that this Word became flesh and dwelt among us. John the Baptist identifies this Word in the flesh as Jesus. This doesn't mean that God isn't invisible in his basic nature as spirit, but just as he can appear in a vision without it being a violation of the larger concept, so too he can put on flesh.

 

[barryrob]

I stand corrected, you are capable of some nuanced discussion and do not take every verse literally. If you did, then Exodus 33:11 would stand in direct opposition to your beliefs: "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend." But you are able to accept to contradictory passages by understanding them as being only contradictory on the surface.

I'm asking you to use that same reasoning ability when it comes to speaking of Jesus as the incarnate God. John 1 tells us that the Word was God (not A god) and that this Word became flesh and dwelt among us. John the Baptist identifies this Word in the flesh as Jesus. This doesn't mean that God isn't invisible in his basic nature as spirit, but just as he can appear in a vision without it being a violation of the larger concept, so too he can put on flesh.

You have glossed over Ex 33:23 & not addressed it??


Re John 1:1
"The title ho theos [the God, or God], which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the N[ew] T[estament] to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). . . . Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—Dictionary of the Bible (1965), by John L. McKenzie, S.J.



The Book 'Truth in Translation' by J. D. BeDuhn, Accuracy and Bais in English Translations on the New Testament gives an exultant coverage of John 1:1 (along with other verses) in which he says:-

On John 1:1- p.124:-
"Surprisingly, only one, the NW*, adheres to the literal meaning of the Greek, and translates "a god."

ibed. p.125:-
"I may very well be that NW* translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek."

p.133:-
"All we can ask is that a translation be accurate starting point for exposition and interpretation. Only the NW* achieves that, as provocative as it sounds to the modern reader.. The other translations** cut off the exploration of the verse's meaning before it has even begun."
*N.W.T.
**KJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, NIV, AB, TEV, LB.[/font]


A further interesting rendering in light of the above comments is taken from 'The Translator's New Testament' published by The British & Foreign Bible Society, London. 1973 p.145, which renders the Greek from John 1:1

"o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn o logoV
"The Word was with God and shared his nature"

The "Transitional note" p.451 reads as follows:-
"Literally the Greek may be translated, 'The word was with God and God was the Word'. There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine'. The translation of the whole sentence then is 'what God was, the Word was' (NEB). TT is an attempt to make this a little more explicit."

In 'The Newberry Reference Study Bible" p.vi- vii; Introduction to the N.T. we read:-
"The greek Article. ... THE ABSENCE OF THE ARTICLE before a word in Greek, signifies, that this word is not understood as objective, but characteristic; that is, it is not simply an object before the mind, but it expresses the character of something with which it is connected. For example, John 1. 1, "The Word was with God." Here the word God with the article is objective.
"And the Word was God." Here the word God without the article is characteristic ; that is, it signifies the Word was divine.""



"The Word" (Jesus) is a god in the sence he has in heaven a divine "nature" like his father, they both are spirit beings!

Jesus is God, Never, past, present or future!

 

[barryrob]

I'm asking you to use that same reasoning ability when it comes to speaking of Jesus as the incarnate God. John 1 tells us that the Word was God (not A god) and that this Word became flesh and dwelt among us. John the Baptist identifies this Word in the flesh as Jesus. This doesn't mean that God isn't invisible in his basic nature as spirit, but just as he can appear in a vision without it being a violation of the larger concept, so too he can put on flesh.

It would seem the Origen does not agree with you!


The following is an example of the ideas of God calling other creatures god, God etc.
Taken from 'THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS' The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 printed July, 1975 THE REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D., EDITORS AMERICAN REPRINT OF THE EDINBURGH EDITION VOLUME 4 TERTULLIAN PART FOURTH; MINUCIUS FELIX; COMMODIAN; ORIGEN, PARTS FIRST AND SECOND.
ORIGEN BK 7 Ch.65 p.1267-8

"In regard to the Persians, we have already said that though they do not build temples, yet they worship the sun and the other works of God. This is forbidden to us, for we have been taught not to worship the creature instead of the Creator, but to know that “the creation shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God;” and “the earnest expectation of the creation is waiting for the revelation of the sons of God;” and “the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who made it subject, in hope.” We believe, therefore, that things “under the bondage of corruption,” and “subject to vanity,” which remain in this condition “in hope” of a better state, ought not in our worship to hold the place of God, the all-sufficient, and of His Son, the First-born of all creation. Let this suffice, in addition to what we have already said of the Persians, who abhor altars and images, but who serve the creature instead of the Creator. As to the passage quoted by Celsus from Heraclitus, the purport of which he represents as being, “that it is childish folly for one to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are,” we may reply that it is easy to know that God and the Only-begotten Son of God, and those whom God has honored with the title of God, and who partake of His divine nature, are very different from all the gods of the nations which are demons; but it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to images."

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE TRALLIANS: LONGER VERSION.​

CHAP. VI.--ABSTAIN FROM THE POISON OF HERETICS.​

"I therefore, yet not l, out the love of Jesus Christ, "entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment."(6) For there are some vain talkers (8) and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, (9) bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and "corrupting the word" (10) of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, (12) as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death. One of the ancients gives us this advice, "Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil." (15) For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak (16) of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."-This document (last modified September 27, 1996) from the "http://ccel.wheaton.edu" Christian Classics Ethereal Library server, at "http://www.wheaton.edu/" Wheaton College.

 

[NorrinRadd]

To see a God that says he cannot be seen, then it can only be in vision or God lies!

Must be nice to be able to decree your own definitions.

I decree that you are wrong, and the correct definition is this:

"As inherently visual media, visions can only portray and contain things that are visible. Ergo, nothing invisible can exist in a vision."