The Trinity

[razzelflabben]

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.

yep, Lexicon says that when it is used to describe Jesus it means God the Messiah....notice the highlighted, it is referring to Jesus, iow's the subject is Jesus, thus the meaning that is used when describing Jesus, that being God the Messiah.

geesh...

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.

Nope, wrong again and I already explained to you why....when will you listen to something other than the voices you have been taught to hear? Actually, based on the TRUTH as evidence by this being a public forum, I addressed your accusation here by showing how that your accusation is an illogical one from the standpoint of the text, the totality of scripture and logic. You accusing me otherwise is just false accusations that we don't have to tolerate on the forums...the question becomes whether or not your continuation of false accusations is intentional or accidental...I'm beginning to think intentional in which case it would be flaming and would need to be reported. We will see if you do any better now that you have been shown again that false accusations are not acceptable.

 

[justlookinla]

yep, Lexicon says that when it is used to describe Jesus it means God the Messiah....notice the highlighted, it is referring to Jesus, iow's the subject is Jesus, thus the meaning that is used when describing Jesus, that being God the Messiah.

geesh...Nope, wrong again and I already explained to you why....when will you listen to something other than the voices you have been taught to hear? Actually, based on the TRUTH as evidence by this being a public forum, I addressed your accusation here by showing how that your accusation is an illogical one from the standpoint of the text, the totality of scripture and logic. You accusing me otherwise is just false accusations that we don't have to tolerate on the forums...the question becomes whether or not your continuation of false accusations is intentional or accidental...I'm beginning to think intentional in which case it would be flaming and would need to be reported. We will see if you do any better now that you have been shown again that false accusations are not acceptable.

If you wish to present the view of two Gods in Phil 2:11, that's your business, but it's not going to go unchallenged. And ignoring the issue isn't going to make it go away.

 

[razzelflabben]

If you wish to present the view of two Gods in Phil 2:11, that's your business, but it's not going to go unchallenged. And ignoring the issue isn't going to make it go away.

Well, since I am showing you that it is talking about one God, you can challenge all you want. Repeating your own bias doesn't change that you aren't hearing anything being said, in fact, it testifies to the fact.

So, one last attempt to get you to hear and then, I will assume you intend to flame and report is as such.

Phil. 2:11
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Now, I know that you have been taught, and from the way you are talking, maybe even brainwashed into thinking that this is a polytheistic verse, but the opposite is actually true if you understand what it is saying.

and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God the Messiah, to which would glorify God the Father. Go to Isaiah 53, what does verse 10
Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.


Notice that according to Isaiah 53, God the Father had something invested in Jesus coming to earth, in fact, Jesus suffering and death, pleased the Father because of what the result would be. Thus, by giving up the most precious part of Himself, God gave a sacrificial offering so great that accepting that offering glories God the Father.

Look at it another way, since you aren't good at this stuff...when our son was coming home from the military, his vehicle broke down and we couldn't get to him or get money to him to find another way home, he himself had only a few dollars on him and no way to access his account to get more (long story) We did manage to get him bus fare and so he took the bus with only a few dollars in his pocket for anything he would need. On his way home, he met a young kid that had been abandoned by his parents and left to fend for himself. Our son and the young man talked. Someone had paid for a hotel room for one night for the kid, but he still didn't have food or transportation or anything else. So, our son took the last few dollars he had, bought all the food he could and that night, the two of them ate. The kid repaid him by letting him stay in the hotel room with him and so for one night, both boys had a room and a full belly. Our son, having no other money, went the next 3 days with nothing to eat and no place to sleep. In fact, one night (this was just before Christmas and so cold out) he slept in the alley with the other travelors and shared every blanket or thing he had that could be used as a blanket to keep as many people warm as he could.

Now, here is the point of the story as it applies to the discussion at hand. Our young military son, did all this to the "glory" or "honor" or whatever word you might want to apply here, who he is, that is, his character. He didn't do it to the honor of us his parents, we were proud of him, but he didn't do it for us. He didn't do it to honor his siblings or this Navy or his country, though all of us were proud of him, NO, HE DID IT TO THE HONOR OF WHO HE IS. IOW's though he is a son, his actions glorified who he is as a person.

Likewise, with trinity understanding, Jesus being the Son nature of God, suffered and died that the head nature or Father nature of God would be glorified. Both natures fully in tact, ONE God, NOT two. It really isn't that hard of a concept when you stop trying to see things through the eyes of the flesh.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, since I am showing you that it is talking about one God, you can challenge all you want.

No, it's not talking about one God in the interpretation you're presenting, it's talking about two.

Phil. 2:11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is [God], to the glory of God the Father.

You have someone confessing that Jesus Christ is God to the glory of another God, God the Father. The thing is, as I pointed out earlier, if the writer would have wanted "Lord" to actually mean "God", he would have used "God" as he did when writing of God the Father. He didn't use "God" though, he used another word knowing that if he had used "God" instead of "Lord", he would be presenting two Gods.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, it's not talking about one God in the interpretation you're presenting, it's talking about two.

no honey, it's talking about ONE God two different persons/manifestations/whatever semantic you want to call it of the ONE God. Seriously, how can you grasp trinity teaching enough to feel like you can argue against it and not be able to see that in the verse?

Phil. 2:11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is [God], to the glory of God the Father.

You have someone confessing that Jesus Christ is God to the glory of another God, God the Father. The thing is, as I pointed out earlier, if the writer would have wanted "Lord" to actually mean "God", he would have used "God" as he did when writing of God the Father. He didn't use "God" though, he used another word knowing that if he had used "God" instead of "Lord", he would be presenting two Gods.

the possible meanings here according to Thayer are quite telling....

1. god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
   
   
2. the Godhead, trinity
   1. God the Father, the first person in the trinity
      
   2. Christ, the second person of the trinity
      
   3. Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3. spoken of the only and true God
   1. refers to the things of God
      
      
   2. his counsels, interests, things due to him
4. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
   
   1. God's representative or viceregent
      
      1. of magistrates and judges

IOW's what I am telling you about the meaning is not only possible but very very probably and when we look at the totality of scripture and see that in other places the trinity is expressed (though not using the word trinity but the idea/concept) we have a very strong case that you can't explain away simply by proclaiming your view to be true and all else false. it will take a lot more than that to change the meaning into what you want to change it into.

 

[razzelflabben]

In fact, look at all the times the same word is used to describe Jesus....http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2316&t=KJV

even the very first passage listed, called Jesus God.

 

[justlookinla]

no honey, it's talking about ONE God two different persons/manifestations/whatever semantic you want to call it of the ONE God. Seriously, how can you grasp trinity teaching enough to feel like you can argue against it and not be able to see that in the verse?

It's certainly talking about one God, God the Father. As I pointed out, and you keep ignoring, the writer had no problem identifying who was God in the passage.....the Father, who wasn't Jesus. You on the other wish to have two Gods in the passage when in fact there was only one...who wasn't Jesus.

the possible meanings here according to Thayer are quite telling....

1. god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
   
   
2. the Godhead, trinity
   1. God the Father, the first person in the trinity
   2. Christ, the second person of the trinity
   3. Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3. spoken of the only and true God
   1. refers to the things of God
      
      
   2. his counsels, interests, things due to him
4. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
   1. God's representative or viceregent
      1. of magistrates and judges

IOW's what I am telling you about the meaning is not only possible but very very probably and when we look at the totality of scripture and see that in other places the trinity is expressed (though not using the word trinity but the idea/concept) we have a very strong case that you can't explain away simply by proclaiming your view to be true and all else false. it will take a lot more than that to change the meaning into what you want to change it into.

Oh, I'm not wanting to change it. Let God be God in the passage......God the Father. Stop trying to introduce other one

 

[razzelflabben]

It's certainly talking about one God, God the Father. As I pointed out, and you keep ignoring, the writer had no problem identifying who was God in the passage.....the Father, who wasn't Jesus. You on the other wish to have two Gods in the passage when in fact there was only one...who wasn't Jesus.

and yet, I used strong's on line concordance to show instances where the word used for "God" The Father here is also used for Jesus....iow's both words are used for both Jesus and the Father, yet only ONE God. IOw's you haven't proven your case, all you have done is ignore evidence so you can assert your ideas as right, which amounts to "cause I say so"....if you want to prove me wrong, provide some evidence rather than simply asserting your bias to be right cause you say so. Oh and for the record, I ignored nothing, in fact, I addressed your claim and showed you to be wrong.

Oh, I'm not wanting to change it. Let God be God in the passage......God the Father. Stop trying to introduce other one

I'm showing you what the scripture says when we use word study to eliminate the possibility of translational issues. I am also showing you that the totality of scripture is consistent with what I am telling you and I am doing so with much more than the simple "cause I say so" argument you are bringing to the table...so how about it, you want a good discussion, how about offering something more than "cause I want to interpret it my way, thus, cause I say so."?

 

[justlookinla]

and yet, I used strong's on line concordance to show instances where the word used for "God" The Father here is also used for Jesus....iow's both words are used for both Jesus and the Father, yet only ONE God. IOw's you haven't proven your case, all you have done is ignore evidence so you can assert your ideas as right, which amounts to "cause I say so"....if you want to prove me wrong, provide some evidence rather than simply asserting your bias to be right cause you say so. Oh and for the record, I ignored nothing, in fact, I addressed your claim and showed you to be wrong.

The evidence is in the passage. "God" is used for the Father but "God" isn't used for Jesus. Again, if the writer would have meant God when speaking of Jesus, he would have used "God" just as he did with the Father. Nothing complicated here.

I'm showing you what the scripture says when we use word study to eliminate the possibility of translational issues. I am also showing you that the totality of scripture is consistent with what I am telling you and I am doing so with much more than the simple "cause I say so" argument you are bringing to the table...so how about it, you want a good discussion, how about offering something more than "cause I want to interpret it my way, thus, cause I say so."?

Oh, I don't want to force "Lord" to be "God" when in the passage the writer had no issue using "God" to mean God.

 

[razzelflabben]

The evidence is in the passage. "God" is used for the Father but "God" isn't used for Jesus. Again, if the writer would have meant God when speaking of Jesus, he would have used "God" just as he did with the Father. Nothing complicated here.

and yet, throughout scripture, both words are used for Jesus, why is that do you think if Jesus is not God? Like you said, nothing complicated about it....Now, let me throw something else at you, not sure you can handle it, but here goes anyway....according to the concordance and you can see that in Strong's on line concordance. Do you know what a concordance is? It is a "book" (in this case and online tool) that lists every single time a specific word is used in scripture. The on line version is extremely easy to use, in fact, much easier than the hard copy version. Anyway, if you need help using the tool, let me know and I will talk you through it. As you click on the Lexicon word you want to use, then scroll down the page, you will see a list of passages that all use the specified word. In the case of the two words we are talking about, both the one interpreted LORD and the one interpreted GOD are used both for Jesus and for God the Father. IOW's ONE GOD, not two, so we see throughout scripture that both kyrios and theos are used interchangeably when talking about either Jesus or God. The only logical (remember I said I was showing you through word study, totality of scripture and logic) explanation is trinity, that meaning 3 different manifestations/persons/whatever semantic we want to put on it, but only One God.

Oh, I don't want to force "Lord" to be "God" when in the passage the writer had no issue using "God" to mean God.

but you also don't allow it to say what it says, cause you try to manipulate it rather than trying to allow God to tell us His intent through word study, totality of scripture, and the witness of the indwelling HS who is our teacher.

 

[justlookinla]

and yet, throughout scripture, both words are used for Jesus, why is that do you think if Jesus is not God?

In Phil 2:11, "God" is used for God.

Like you said, nothing complicated about it....Now, let me throw something else at you, not sure you can handle it, but here goes anyway....according to the concordance and you can see that in Strong's on line concordance. Do you know what a concordance is? It is a "book" (in this case and online tool) that lists every single time a specific word is used in scripture. The on line version is extremely easy to use, in fact, much easier than the hard copy version. Anyway, if you need help using the tool, let me know and I will talk you through it. As you click on the Lexicon word you want to use, then scroll down the page, you will see a list of passages that all use the specified word. In the case of the two words we are talking about, both the one interpreted LORD and the one interpreted GOD are used both for Jesus and for God the Father. IOW's ONE GOD, not two, so we see throughout scripture that both kyrios and theos are used interchangeably when talking about either Jesus or God. The only logical (remember I said I was showing you through word study, totality of scripture and logic) explanation is trinity, that meaning 3 different manifestations/persons/whatever semantic we want to put on it, but only One God. but you also don't allow it to say what it says, cause you try to manipulate it rather than trying to allow God to tell us His intent through word study, totality of scripture, and the witness of the indwelling HS who is our teacher

The Holy Spirit taught me that Jesus is not God in Phil 2:11.

 

[razzelflabben]

In Phil 2:11, "God" is used for God.

you still have not answered the question...if Jesus is NOT God as in part of the trinity One God, then why is the word for God, that is theos used in Phil. 2 also used to describe Jesus in several other places in scripture?


The Holy Spirit taught me that Jesus is not God in Phil 2:11.[/QUOTE]If it was the HS teaching you, your teachings would line up with scripture, but they don't as shown above, so maybe you should take a break and ask your teachers how to explain the words kyrios and theos both being used to describe Jesus and God the Father....since you don't want to allow scripture or the HS to teach you this, maybe your teachers can help you out of this predicament.

 

[justlookinla]

you still have not answered the question...if Jesus is NOT God as in part of the trinity One God, then why is the word for God, that is theos used in Phil. 2 also used to describe Jesus in several other places in scripture?

My focus is on Phil 2:11 and it's failure to use "God" for Jesus, instead choosing to use "God" only for the Father.

If it was the HS teaching you, your teachings would line up with scripture, but they don't as shown above, so maybe you should take a break and ask your teachers how to explain the words kyrios and theos both being used to describe Jesus and God the Father....since you don't want to allow scripture or the HS to teach you this, maybe your teachers can help you out of this predicament.

If it was the HS teaching you, you would see that the only person identified as God in the passage was the Father.

 

[razzelflabben]

My focus is on Phil 2:11 and it's failure to use "God" for Jesus, instead choosing to use "God" only for the Father.

now wait one moment...you have been trying to argue that the word for Lord in this verse does not mean "God the Messiah" as the Lexicon tells us it does, only to be caught up with the word theos and your refusal to look at the word meaning there....why the double standard? The HS doesn't do double standards and your claim is that you were taught by the HS, so you have to put an end to the double standard if you want to evidence your claims and show why the totality of scripture would show that both kyrios and theos are used to describe both the Son, Jesus and the Father, God...it shouldn't be hard for someone claiming to be taught by the HS to show the very reason why both words being used to describe both Jesus and the Father are not used interchangeably here....what specifically would this verse hold that would tell us to change the meaning of the words from both Jesus and Father to one or the other? Be specific, I want to learn all I can from you about the truth of scripture, but until you explain through scripture why when scripture uses both kyrios and theos interchangeably we can't do the same here in Philippians, and "cause you say so" isn't an answer.

If it was the HS teaching you, you would see that the only person identified as God in the passage was the Father.

kyrios means God the Messiah, so your making this claim means nothing because I showed you with consistency, scripture, logic, word study and totality of scripture, all things that God tells us to use when studying scripture, to show you that you are wrong. So, basically, it boils down to this...I demonstrated trinity using the tools God Himself tells us to use in order to rightly divide the word, while you relied on "cause I say so" arguments and double standards to get to your point. Hum...evidence of the HS teaching, vs. evidence of man's teaching, I'll personally take HS teaching over your version of man's teaching. You have the God given right to believe whatever you want, but unless or until you can show through the power of the HS that trinity is a false teaching, it's just God against man and I will choose God every dog gone time.

Thanks for playing the game, too bad you couldn't answer such a simply question as the one above. I would leave you with a blessing but some people take them as flaming, not sure why, but it happens, so I am leaving you with a silent blessing.

 

[justlookinla]

now wait one moment...you have been trying to argue that the word for Lord in this verse does not mean "God the Messiah" as the Lexicon tells us it does, only to be caught up with the word theos and your refusal to look at the word meaning there....why the double standard?

I've presented the fact that the writer used "God" when he was referring to "God" and didn't use "God" when he wasn't referring to God. Your attempted rewrite of the scripture to fit your personal belief doesn't work

 

[razzelflabben]

I've presented the fact that the writer used "God" when he was referring to "God" and didn't use "God" when he wasn't referring to God. Your attempted rewrite of the scripture to fit your personal belief doesn't work

actually, I didn't rewrite anything and you know it....I showed the same word, theos being used throughout scripture to describe Jesus as well as the Father...it is up to you to show why we should change the usage of the word in this passage but you refuse to do so.

You see, you started us down this road by trying insist that we do the beginnings of a word study on the word kyrios, a word that is also used to describe Jesus and the Father. Now you want to change the rules and say, "No word study necessary for God (theos)" so that you can interpret it any way you want to. It doesn't work that way....if we need word study for kyrios, we need word study for theos. If we need to apply context to kyrios we need to apply context to theos. If we need to look at usage throughout scripture for kyrios, we need to look at usage throughout scripture for theos.

Seriously, you maybe should go ask your teachers how to answer this question using the word study method you tried to use for kyrios but failed.

 

[razzelflabben]

So, I have written a death scene, peeled and dices my potatoes for supper and started dishes, have you gotten ahold of your teachers yet and asked them what in the text or the totality of scripture tells us how to interpret the words differently than they are used throughout scripture?

 

[justlookinla]

actually, I didn't rewrite anything and you know it....I showed the same word, theos being used throughout scripture to describe Jesus as well as the Father...it is up to you to show why we should change the usage of the word in this passage but you refuse to do so.

I'm not the one who's attempting to change the verse to read "Jesus is God" when in fact it doesn't. There's only one reference to God in passage and it's in reference to the Father. Them's the facts, mam.

You see, you started us down this road by trying insist that we do the beginnings of a word study on the word kyrios, a word that is also used to describe Jesus and the Father. Now you want to change the rules and say, "No word study necessary for God (theos)" so that you can interpret it any way you want to. It doesn't work that way....if we need word study for kyrios, we need word study for theos. If we need to apply context to kyrios we need to apply context to theos. If we need to look at usage throughout scripture for kyrios, we need to look at usage throughout scripture for theos.

"Kyrios" has several meanings. If the writer would have meant "God" in the passage, he would have used the same word that he used to indicated that the Father is God. He didn't do that though, he used a term which was different in order to distinguish between the God in the verse and the one who isn't God.

Seriously, you maybe should go ask your teachers how to answer this question using the word study method you tried to use for kyrios but failed.

This is from the word study method in the verse.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not the one who's attempting to change the verse to read "Jesus is God" when in fact it doesn't. There's only one reference to God in passage and it's in reference to the Father. Them's the facts, mam.

so, your answer to how to reconcile the usage of both theos and kyrios when referring to Jesus and the Father, is to try to claim that you have some "special revelation" that should convince us that it is not referring to Jesus being God when the same words are used for both.

Sorry, I don't do modern day "special revelations" God warns us about trusting only Him and HIs word and those that pass the test He instructs us to give. I'm guessing that if you could reconcile it, you would have by now. So after showing your opinions on the matter to be false, I will bid you a wonderful day, thanks for the debate.

"Kyrios" has several meanings. If the writer would have meant "God" in the passage, he would have used the same word that he used to indicated that the Father is God. He didn't do that though, he used a term which was different in order to distinguish between the God in the verse and the one who isn't God.

lol okay, let's explore that argument for truth or lack thereof. Two huge glaring problems come into view. The first is a literary problem, as a writer, I will tell you that it is not profitable to the written communication to repeatedly use the same word. For example, if I were to say, John wanted to party, so he went to the party of his friend who was having a party in his party pad. It is redundant and boring and loses the reader. If however, I change the word, same meaning but different word, the whole thing comes alive and has a huge impact. John wanted to party so he went to an event of his friend who was having a group of people over.

The second huge problem with your assertion is that of text, according to the Lexicon, whenever kyrios is used to describe Jesus it means God the Messiah. This text clearly is using kyrios to refer to Jesus. We did already talk about that one however, so let's talk about a third

Thirdly, both words are used to refer to God and Jesus, again one we already talked about...but let's take this one a step further, your claim is that God clarifies who we are talking about....so that would be like saying, a member on the forums, justlookinla is justlookinla. It doesn't work, in fact, the only way the verse makes any sense at all is if it is telling us about the deity of Jesus and the ONEness of God. Something you absolutely refuse to hear.

This is from the word study method in the verse.

no, that is from a partial word study, you repeatedly refuse the truth of real word study here.

 

[razzelflabben]

Okay, so let's summarize your view...according to your view of the verse in Phil.,

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

according to you should be translated, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ, God the Messiah, but not God, to the glory of God the God.

Now, I have some really serious problems with this interpretation on a lot of levels as I already pointed out some of them to you. But what you still fail to explain is why you feel justified to interpret it this way?