The Trinity

[razzelflabben]

2 Razyfat & The rest of U. Raz, your epistle was concise,and faith inspired (I think) GOD IS 1/3 OR WHATEVER HE WANTS 2/B.Don't waste your time/love/concern on folks who like to annoy the Lord w/stupid questions like how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin (actual medieval topic Monks pondered while sampling sacramental wine) or the classic (none of our business), Can God make a rock so heavy HE can't lift it. Wasn't there a scripture about insulting the 'Holy Spirit' with mental bovine excrement ??

thanks, I was sitting here wondering if anyone could hear anything and how I could possibly more clear in pointing out the misrepresentations.

Something to ponder (off topic) my kids were joking about the whole can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it thing and then suddenly the answer came to them. Yes, He can create a rock so big that HE (Jesus) cannot lift it, then He (God) lifted it. I think that if we began to think more in terms of God is God and less in terms of our own limitations we would mature in our faith at a much greater rate.

Just something to think about, not intended to be anything more or less

 

[Der Alte]

We can get into a scripture battle if you wish, you post scripture then I'll post scripture and then you'll post scripture and then I'll post scripture, on and on.

​

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (Which God is good Jesus or the Father?

Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Jesus God doesn't have the knowledge of Father God. Two Gods, one less knowing than the other.)

Luk 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Jesus God will is different than Father God will?)

Joh 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (Jesus's God and Mary's God was the same God. Jesus wasn't Mary's God nor was Jesus His own God. )

Posting other scripture does not address the scripture I posted and does not show how, if at all, I am misinterpreting those scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

thanks, I was sitting here wondering if anyone could hear anything and how I could possibly more clear in pointing out the misrepresentations.

Something to ponder (off topic) my kids were joking about the whole can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it thing and then suddenly the answer came to them. Yes, He can create a rock so big that HE (Jesus) cannot lift it, then He (God) lifted it. I think that if we began to think more in terms of God is God and less in terms of our own limitations we would mature in our faith at a much greater rate.

Just something to think about, not intended to be anything more or less

Yes God can create a rock so big/heavy, etc. that He can't lift it so He just uncreates it and creates it somewhere else.

 

[justlookinla]

Posting other scripture does not address the scripture I posted and does not show how, if at all, I am misinterpreting those scripture.

If you wish to post one passage at a time, I'll be more than happy to comment on it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes God can create a rock so big/heavy, etc. that He can't lift it so He just uncreates it and creates it somewhere else.

??????? I'm confused, the point I was making had nothing at all to do with the answer to the question, the question itself is designed to have no answer, and on top of that, this answer you give doesn't even make any sense...I don't know, I just don't get it at all. I get that you felt like you had to say something non trinitarian in response, but doing so not only misses the point but makes the above look like gibberish double talk.

 

[Der Alte]

If you wish to post one passage at a time, I'll be more than happy to comment on it.

My post is still there. Pick one and give it your best shot.

 

[Der Alte]

??????? I'm confused, the point I was making had nothing at all to do with the answer to the question, the question itself is designed to have no answer, and on top of that, this answer you give doesn't even make any sense...I don't know, I just don't get it at all. I get that you felt like you had to say something non trinitarian in response, but doing so not only misses the point but makes the above look like gibberish double talk.

As you stated the question is supposed to have no answer. Whether one answers yes or no, the anti-trinitarian will respond that God is not omnipotent, because either He can't create something, i.e. a rock too heavy for Him to lift, or omnipotent because He can't lift a heavy rock. My answer assumes that God is omnipotent and can create anything that can be created. So if He creates something He can uncreate it, thus eliminating the conundrum. Oh by the way I am staunchly Trinitarian. My post was intended to be tongue in cheek thus the smiley face.

 

[razzelflabben]

As you stated the question is supposed to have no answer. Whether one answers yes or no, the anti-trinitarian will respond that God is not omnipotent, because either He can't create something, i.e. a rock too heavy for Him to lift, or omnipotent because He can't lift a heavy rock. My answer assumes that God is omnipotent and can create anything that can be created. So if He creates something He can uncreate it, thus eliminating the conundrum. Oh by the way I am staunchly Trinitarian. My post was intended to be tongue in cheek thus the smiley face.

no, what I don't understand about your post is how it addresses the question, undoing something isn't important to the question at all...iow's the ability to undo something doesn't depend on being able to do it, look at a snow man, my sons can build it but my daughter is capable of destroying it even though she didn't build it.

 

[Der Alte]

no, what I don't understand about your post is how it addresses the question, undoing something isn't important to the question at all...iow's the ability to undo something doesn't depend on being able to do it, look at a snow man, my sons can build it but my daughter is capable of destroying it even though she didn't build it.

Referring to God "create" does not mean to construct something from existing materials, and as I am using "uncreate" it means to make an existing something not existing. Not just scatter the pieces around.

 

[str8_TALK]

Neither “lower case” nor “upper case” in English Bible translations is a reliable way to determine the intent of the original languages, which is why there is a lot of confusion when reading the English Bible, no matter which translation is being used. The original respective languages bring the distinction between the true and living God, (the Father; the God of Abraham) and this one God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

A good example of this is found in Psalm 110:1 where David clearly distinguishes between the LORD God and his Lord Messiah:

“The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Psalm 110:1

The English translation of Psalm 110:1 hides the Hebrew language’s stark differentiation between “LORD” in all caps and “Lord” in small case letters. The first “LORD” is “Adonai” which appears 449 times in the Hebrew scriptures and always refers to the one supreme Most High God.

The second “Lord” addressed in Psalm 110:1 is “adoni” which appears 195 in the Hebrew scriptures and never means the one supreme Most High God, but, rather, refers to a human (or occasionally angelic) superior (master). For example, Sarah refers to Abraham as “Lord” (adoni) in Genesis 18:12.

“ADONAI” and “adoni” show the biblical distinction between the one true LORD God and the Messiah, Son of the one true LORD God. Psalm 110:1 is worthy of particular attention because it is repeated over 25 times in the New Testament and correlates closely with I Cor. 15:24-28:

“Then the end will come, when he (Christ) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ.

When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”

The Son is always subject to the Father. David knew Who His God (the Most High) was, and he knew who his Lord (master/Messiah) was. Paul understood this distinction also. So should we.

----------------------------------

Razzle, you attempted some sort of argument with the above post on page 24. Scripture is in blue in the above repeated post. Neither David nor Paul have an idea that God and the Son of God are "co-equal". You may want to substantiate your arguments, no matter what your beliefs, with scripture for some modicum of veracity, otherwise your comments are pointless. (just a suggestion)

 

[justlookinla]

My post is still there. Pick one and give it your best shot.

It's your post, you pick one and give it your best shot.

 

[razzelflabben]

Referring to God "create" does not mean to construct something from existing materials, and as I am using "uncreate" it means to make an existing something not existing. Not just scatter the pieces around.

still not getting it, but it's off topic anyway...thanks

 

[razzelflabben]

Neither “lower case” nor “upper case” in English Bible translations is a reliable way to determine the intent of the original languages, which is why there is a lot of confusion when reading the English Bible, no matter which translation is being used. The original respective languages bring the distinction between the true and living God, (the Father; the God of Abraham) and this one God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

A good example of this is found in Psalm 110:1 where David clearly distinguishes between the LORD God and his Lord Messiah:

“The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Psalm 110:1

The English translation of Psalm 110:1 hides the Hebrew language’s stark differentiation between “LORD” in all caps and “Lord” in small case letters. The first “LORD” is “Adonai” which appears 449 times in the Hebrew scriptures and always refers to the one supreme Most High God.

The second “Lord” addressed in Psalm 110:1 is “adoni” which appears 195 in the Hebrew scriptures and never means the one supreme Most High God, but, rather, refers to a human (or occasionally angelic) superior (master). For example, Sarah refers to Abraham as “Lord” (adoni) in Genesis 18:12.

“ADONAI” and “adoni” show the biblical distinction between the one true LORD God and the Messiah, Son of the one true LORD God. Psalm 110:1 is worthy of particular attention because it is repeated over 25 times in the New Testament and correlates closely with I Cor. 15:24-28:

“Then the end will come, when he (Christ) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ.

When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”

The Son is always subject to the Father. David knew Who His God (the Most High) was, and he knew who his Lord (master/Messiah) was. Paul understood this distinction also. So should we.

----------------------------------

Razzle, you attempted some sort of argument with the above post on page 24. Scripture is in blue in the above repeated post. Neither David nor Paul have an idea that God and the Son of God are "co-equal". You may want to substantiate your arguments, no matter what your beliefs, with scripture for some modicum of veracity, otherwise your comments are pointless. (just a suggestion)

well first, I showed that the Lord in I Cor. 12:3 is referring to God as per the word study.
Second, no one is arguing that Jesus as being in the flesh is not in subjection to God the Father, in fact, I addressed this and showed that this was necessary from Him to be our example...since I have to repeat so much, I'm getting lazy, here is a list someone else put together http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Christ-Our-Example
Third I also talked about how Jesus was powered by the HS, we see this in His baptism, the temptations and a few other places if you want me to list all of them...let's see, what else could you be wanting me to address? I was "yelled" at not long ago on a different topic for evidencing everything I claimed but wasn't the evidence or the claim the other person was looking for, so if I missed something, before you go off yelling and falsely accusing, tell me what you think I missed.

I talked about Jesus being fully man and fully God and showed passages that show that, being fully man, it would me necessary for Him to submit Himself to the FAther, both as an example and as a way to avoid sin as we see in the temptations of Christ...do you need that reference? I thought it was common enough that it wasn't necessary for me to repost the addresses...which gospel do you want to read it in? I can find it in all of them if you want.

As to Jesus deity, those passages were presented as well along with a mini word study to evidence what I am saying, not sure what more you could possibly want than passages with word study. You do know what word study is don't you? It is where we look up the meaning in the original text, so that translational issues can't get in the way. It is always wise in such a discussion as this to do word studies before forming any opinion. Something that seems lacking in many posts on this thread, especially those that just ignore the word study like some of this post I quote here has done.

 

[justlookinla]

well first, I showed that the Lord in I Cor. 12:3 is referring to God as per the word study.

As I showed per Matt 6:24, "kurios" does not have to mean "God".

 

[Der Alte]

Neither “lower case” nor “upper case” in English Bible translations is a reliable way to determine the intent of the original languages, which is why there is a lot of confusion when reading the English Bible, no matter which translation is being used. The original respective languages bring the distinction between the true and living God, (the Father; the God of Abraham) and this one God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

A good example of this is found in Psalm 110:1 where David clearly distinguishes between the LORD God and his Lord Messiah:

“The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Psalm 110:1

The English translation of Psalm 110:1 hides the Hebrew language’s stark differentiation between “LORD” in all caps and “Lord” in small case letters. The first “LORD” is “Adonai” which appears 449 times in the Hebrew scriptures and always refers to the one supreme Most High God.

The second “Lord” addressed in Psalm 110:1 is “adoni” which appears 195 in the Hebrew scriptures and never means the one supreme Most High God, but, rather, refers to a human (or occasionally angelic) superior (master). For example, Sarah refers to Abraham as “Lord” (adoni) in Genesis 18:12.

“ADONAI” and “adoni” show the biblical distinction between the one true LORD God and the Messiah, Son of the one true LORD God. Psalm 110:1 is worthy of particular attention because it is repeated over 25 times in the New Testament and correlates closely with I Cor. 15:24-28:

“Then the end will come, when he (Christ) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ.

When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”

The Son is always subject to the Father. David knew Who His God (the Most High) was, and he knew who his Lord (master/Messiah) was. Paul understood this distinction also. So should we.
----------------------------------
Razzle, you attempted some sort of argument with the above post on page 24. Scripture is in blue in the above repeated post. Neither David nor Paul have an idea that God and the Son of God are "co-equal". You may want to substantiate your arguments, no matter what your beliefs, with scripture for some modicum of veracity, otherwise your comments are pointless. (just a suggestion)​

The difficulty with this argument is that in Hebrew both adoni and adonai are written exactly the same, אָדוֹן. Please note that in the Septuagint the Greek translation of the OT in 250 BC the translators translated both occurrences of Lord with the same Greek word κύριος/kurios.

Psa 110:1 Τῷ Δαυιδ ψαλμός. Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου. ​

 

[razzelflabben]

As I showed per Matt 6:24, "kurios" does not have to mean "God".

? so we are suppose to ignore Thayers Lexicon, so that you can assert something else? Why would we do that? If you want to ignore the scriptures that show you wrong and then try to reinvent things to fit your agenda, it is not God who is telling us what and who to believe it, but you. Personally, I think that both God and Thayers have greater authority over your reinventions. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, you don't listen to anything, including but not limited to scripture.

Phil. 2:11 from Thayers Lexicon the word translated Lord (kyrios) this title is given to: God, the Messiah

which is the same word used in Romans 10:9; and the one we were talking about at the time this part of the discussion began, I Cor. 12:3 which again, uses the word kyrios, which according to Thayers Lexicon, when referring to Jesus means God the Messiah...changing the passage that we are talking about to prove some other meaning to the word does nothing to help your case and simply shows your inability to address the issues at hand.

 

[justlookinla]

? so we are suppose to ignore Thayers Lexicon,

No, you are supposed to recognize there are various meanings of the word "kurios".

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 2962
Original Word Word Origin
kuvrioß from kuros (supremacy)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Kurios 3:1039,486
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
koo'-ree-os Noun Masculine
Definition

1. he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
2. 1. the possessor and disposer of a thing
   • the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
   • in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor

is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
this title is given to: God, the Messiah

King James Word Usage - Total: 748
Lord 667, lord 54, master 11, sir 6, Sir 6, miscellaneous 4

so that you can assert something else? Why would we do that? If you want to ignore the scriptures that show you wrong and then try to reinvent things to fit your agenda, it is not God who is telling us what and who to believe it, but you. Personally, I think that both God and Thayers have greater authority over your reinventions. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, you don't listen to anything, including but not limited to scripture.

The truth is, you're ignoring scripture which shows that "kurios" has several meanings.

Phil. 2:11 from Thayers Lexicon the word translated Lord (kyrios) this title is given to: God, the Messiah

If one were to use "kurios" as "God", we'd have this polytheistic rendering of Philipians 2:11....

Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is [God], to the glory of God the Father.

Of course the passage in Phil 2:11 doesn't read that way. It uses "God" when it means "God" and "God" isn't used in reference to Jesus, but to the Father. One God, God the Father, who isn't Lord Jesus.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, you are supposed to recognize there are various meanings of the word "kurios".

oh my...so no one taught you context? Not to mention the Lexicon says that when it is referring to Jesus it means God the Messiah...really, you need to learn context, it is important to every aspect of our communication.

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 2962
Original Word Word Origin
kuvrioß from kuros (supremacy)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Kurios 3:1039,486
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
koo'-ree-os Noun Masculine
Definition

1. he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
2. 1. the possessor and disposer of a thing
   • the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
   • in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor

is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
this title is given to: God, the Messiah

King James Word Usage - Total: 748
Lord 667, lord 54, master 11, sir 6, Sir 6, miscellaneous 4




The truth is, you're ignoring scripture which shows that "kurios" has several meanings.

honey...I am the one pointing out to you that the word have different meanings and that we know the meaning through context. In all the passages I presented to you, it is referring to Jesus. As per the Thayer Lexicon this always means God the Messiah. To add insult to your injury, even in the ancient texts, the name of LORD was given to God as a proper noun or name. Thus when the text says Jesus is Lord it is not only saying Jesus is God but it is using the proper name for God. IOW's

Since I am tired of being ignored I'll let someone else explain it....this quote "
Best Answer: Lord (Grk - kurios ) has a wide variety of meanings but there are good reasons for considering the New Testament denotation of Christ with this word to be a signifier of his deity. Kurios was frequently used in the Septuagint as a rendering of Adonai which was in turn used as a substitute for Yahweh. Though the apostles new of this usage of Kurios they still applied it intentionally to Christ. Paul’s epistles alone contain 275 usages of Kurios to denote Christ. Paul repeatedly speaks of Christ as the Lord. In 1 Corinthians 8:6 he says “There is but one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom all things came and through whom we live.” The Kind of Lordship Paul claims here for Christ goes beyond any of the merely human meanings of kurios. The fact that “No one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3) indicates that a greater than human use is intended for kurios. It would require no such inspiration to say that Jesus is a man with honor or authority, but to confess his deity requires just such an inspiration. Oscar Cullman says the following about this usage of kurios:

"Actually the passages which confer upon Jesus the title Kurios the name of God, are at least as important as those in which he is directly addressed as ‘God’ – and in some cases the former are even more important. We have seen that on the basis of the designation Kurios early Christianity does not hesitate to transfer everything the Old Testament says about God."

Usage of Kurios in New Testament times is also informative. The ptolemies and the Roman Emperors would allow the term to be applied to them only after they had been deified in their religions. Archeological discoveries at Oxyrhyncus confirm this. Revelation 19:16 refers to Christ as the “Lord of Lords.” Christ is more than the boss. He is God the Son.

Thinkenstein · 8 years ago" is from this site https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070616232327AAUoVhO and is pretty dog gone clear.

If one were to use "kurios" as "God", we'd have this polytheistic rendering of Philipians 2:11....

not at all....scripture says that Jesus is God in human form, apparently you are getting yourself all tripped up on name changes to express different manifestations of the one and same God...do you have the same problem understanding how I can be mother, daughter, wife, and just Razz...all at the same time? The name is changed, but not my identity. Same for God in human form. It really isn't that hard of a concept, but I can understand how someone who is not trying to us the indwelling HS cannot understand it. In fact, that is why I keep asking you to set aside your fleshly understanding long enough to grasp the spiritual understanding.

Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is [God], to the glory of God the Father.

Yep...for the world to recognize Jesus as God is to the Father "portion/manifestation/person/etc"s glory. No conflict at all. At least not with people who have their sight given them by the HS.

Of course the passage in Phil 2:11 doesn't read that way. It uses "God" when it means "God" and "God" isn't used in reference to Jesus, but to the Father. One God, God the Father, who isn't Lord Jesus.

see above, you don't listen well and apparently you don't read well for comprehension, so I will be patient.

 

[razzelflabben]

some more references that tell you what I just did....http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/154.htm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Kyrios this one is especially good.

you seem to have a lot of gaps in your understanding of God's name...this might help if you take time to read it for comprehension http://www.yahweh.com/The-Name-Of-Yahweh.html this one also has some easier to understand information about God's name and translations thereof http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2005/03-09.htm


Well, that should keep you busy for awhile at least if you are willing to hear anything but your own voice.

 

[justlookinla]

oh my...so no one taught you context?

Exactly. Look at the context.....

Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

If we were to use your interpretation, the verse would be a polytheistic verse. 'Jesus Christ is God to the glory of God the Father' would indicate two Gods. You of course snipped this bit of information and posted a wall of text in an attempt to evade the issue.

It's not going to go away like that.