TRINITARIANS: A Question about the Holy Spirit?

[Cubes]

Then Jesus is not a true God?

Are you a true CK (person)? Of course you are. You are unique and there is no other person quite like you.

More importantly, my belief comes from the scriptures themselves: John 17, Epistles of John. Jesus was not referring to himself when he called the Father that. He also called himself Truth and we believe him. So believe him when he says the father is the One True God. It makes sense when you understand that his father is also his God.

If Jesus is a true God and God the Father is a true God, then we have two gods.

Not when you understand that the Father is really Jesus' God and that Christ is indeed under his Father's authority. These things are also well written in the scriptures. And they are not cosmetic , functional or arbitrary. Believe and use the equations.

So do you justify not worshipping the Lamb by appealing to the reasons God gave for the angels to worship him and saying that we don't have the same reasons? Or do you worship Jesus after all?

If you do worship Jesus, how do you worship him and how is that worship different from worship of the Father?

In Daniel, Nebuchadnezzer is referred to as "king of kings." And yet, Daniel was well aware that he is not Messiah and didn't mean it to be understood as that. Give honor to whom honor is due.

My ultimate and highest worship is reserved to God only because he created all things and by him all things exist, including the son's existence and the gift of his son to us.

I exalt/worship Christ because he is my Lord and gave himself for me and makes me sit in heavenly places with him, according to the will of the Father. He is glorified and and so is the father through him.

Interestingly, we are not given a portrait of worship of the Holy spirit. This makes sense, because he is the Father's spirit. It would be redundant.

Elaborate please.

Rev 15:3 They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying:

"Great and marvelous are Your works,
Lord God Almighty!
Just and true are Your ways,
O King of the saints!
4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name?
For You alone are holy.
For all nations shall come and worship before You,
For Your judgments have been manifested."


That is the testimony of Moses and of Christ, in heaven.

"Great and Marvelous are your works, Lord God Almighty"
He is the maker of heaven and earth and he alone is Almighty.
Yes, he did it through his son.

"Just and true are your ways,"
He is the One True God.
It is he who gives judgment to His Son.

"Who shall not fear you, O Lord, and glorify your name?"
Yes, who?

"You alone are holy":
Jesus is also holy, and even we are called holy when the Holy spirit indwells us. But this indicates the only Source of all holiness...God Almighty, the Father. We are all beneficiaries, Christ and us through Christ.

"For all nations shall come and worship before You"
By him all the families of the earth are named. Ultimate, highest worship belongs to him alone.

"For your judgments have been Manifested."
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Moses= The Law in the desert.
Christ= The spiritual laws and Royal law.

I didn't mean to say you were being evasive. I just mean I don't think we can build a theology on what Jesus could have said in a single passage but chose not to say. Jesus may have had entirely different reasons for choosing not to say what he could have said. Looking at the full scope of scripture, we can see that Jesus does claim to be God.

-CK

OK.

We can only see or know what we are shown. So I was right for doing what I did. It would have been wrong to do the opposite.
And I do very much take the full scope of the scriptures into account...though I am still learning and there is much in the word that I don't yet know or understand.

 

[Fit4Christ]

Interesting to note that several recent threads on or related to this topic have produced over 2,200 posts and yet, some people still just don't get it. Why is that?


FYI... by my count:
Incongruities of Trinity (1) ... 1000 posts
Incongruities of Trinity (2) ... 238
Is God one or three ... 930
This one ... 82
Total ... 2,250 total posts

There are probably more threads, but these were the major ones I saw at first glance. I haven't read all the posts in each thread, but of what I have read, it seems the trinitarian POV has been presented scripturally. It makes sense to those of us (at least me, anyway) who believe in the Trinity. So why, with all that discussion, doesn't it make sense to the others? What could be the difference?

 

[WiseOne77]

Interesting to note that several recent threads on or related to this topic have produced over 2,200 posts and yet, some people still just don't get it. Why is that?


FYI... by my count:
Incongruities of Trinity (1) ... 1000 posts
Incongruities of Trinity (2) ... 238
Is God one or three ... 930
This one ... 82
Total ... 2,250 total posts

There are probably more threads, but these were the major ones I saw at first glance. I haven't read all the posts in each thread, but of what I have read, it seems the trinitarian POV has been presented scripturally. It makes sense to those of us (at least me, anyway) who believe in the Trinity. So why, with all that discussion, doesn't it make sense to the others? What could be the difference?

The difference is the Trinity hasnt been presented scripturally because its just not found in the bible. Being such a mystery that it is then it would seem that one could NOT present it scripturally to begin with. The problem is that Trinitarians just conveniently overlook the scriptures that show that Jesus is a creation, that he has a God, that everything he has (including his life) comes from someone else, and that Jesus own words were that the true worshippers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth. There are tons of reasons not to believe in the manmade doctrine known as the trinity. Im still waiting for anyone to prove scripturally that the bible shows that there is One God which equals 3 persons. No articulation of this in scripture. All we ever see is someone trying to prove Jesus deity. Jesus is divine no doubt about that but he is not equal to his God and Father.

 

[gort]

Interesting to note that several recent threads on or related to this topic have produced over 2,200 posts and yet, some people still just don't get it. Why is that?


FYI... by my count:
Incongruities of Trinity (1) ... 1000 posts
Incongruities of Trinity (2) ... 238
Is God one or three ... 930
This one ... 82
Total ... 2,250 total posts

There are probably more threads, but these were the major ones I saw at first glance. I haven't read all the posts in each thread, but of what I have read, it seems the trinitarian POV has been presented scripturally. It makes sense to those of us (at least me, anyway) who believe in the Trinity. So why, with all that discussion, doesn't it make sense to the others? What could be the difference?

It's because it's one of the Mysteries, given only by revelation.

All of us who have an understanding of the Triune God had no understanding whatsoever at one time in our christian lives. I did'nt understand it at first, but pondered it. I did'nt poo poo it from the get-go, just pondered and put it on the back burner for awhile.

Then one day, pondering it again, the Lord drew me a little picture with a whole lot of understanding.

I find it really no different than any other kind of scripture, that one has no understanding of. One ponders about it honestly, and the one day the Lord gives understanding. It's really no different that the understanding the Holy Spirit gives to a person about that persons need for Jesus.

As I said, it is given by revelation, just as Peter was given revelation about Jesus being the Christ.

It's not an understanding that can be 'put in a box and packaged'


good point there F4C (aka 'the coaxer' )




<><

 

[Fit4Christ]

...
good point there F4C (aka 'the coaxer' )




<><

Just for you, big guy!

 

[gort]

Just for you, big guy!

I would say the Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways


<><

 

[CaliforniaKid]

Hey guys,

I really don't have time to continue this discussion. The end of the semester is coming. I've got finals the first week of May, and until then I've got papers to write and homework to do... it's gonna be a busy couple weeks. In any case, I'd like to leave everyone with a final thought.

I think it is important to consider Jesus' relationship to the Father in light of words' relationship to their speaker. A speaker's words reflect who he is. They are not entirely independent of him, even though they are (in a way) their own entity with their own function to perform. Additionally, there is a sense in which words are spoken but there is also a sense in which a speaker's words have always been a part of him, have always been inside him. The relationship between speaker and Word is hard to enunciate, especially if we personify Word and start writing it with a capital "W". This relationship is further complicated when we identify Word with Wisdom (see Prov. 8), which seems also always to have been an attribute of God but which is first realized in creation, or something along those lines.

The bottom line is that these relationships can't just be boiled down to an easy formula. We can't just say "Jesus is a finite created being separate from and lesser than the Father," and we also can't just say "Jesus is one with the Father and they're both co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial." We've got to pull together the bits and pieces, the hints scripture gives us, and put them together in the most coherent way possible. But our understanding will never be perfect, and the complexity of the Word-speaker relationship will hopefully help everyone to understand and respect that reality.

All the same, I think there are important realities that simply cannot be lost in all of this. First there is the divinity of Jesus. Second there is his humanity. Third is his pre-existence. These three are eagerly defended by the Epistles. It sounds like Cubes pretty much acknowledges all three, which is encouraging to me. I am happy to say I think I could fellowship with him in perfectly good conscience. I am not so sure where WiseOne and NEJTiger come out on these three points.

In sum, this conversation has focused a lot on the details and mechanics of the relationships between the persons. But I recommend as a frame for further discussion that if anyone has a problem with one of the three fundamental points I listed above, that be dealt with first. When everyone agrees on those three, then there is a fairly solid foundation to talk about the mechanics. Thanks for a great conversation.

I will try to keep reading, even though I won't have time to post regularly. Enjoy and God bless,

-CK

 

[Cubes]

I enjoyed posting with you, CK. God bless you and best regards at school. Stop by when you can.

 

[Der Alte]

Hi DA,

I haven't been visiting CFs UT for sometime, so pardon me if I've missed the post that you refer to.

I must confess that I am not much for reading extrabiblical writings on the bible, so I generally confine my arguments to the scriptures. The common man ought to be able to pick up and read the word of God without expertise in other areas of study.

That seems fair, on the surface, but rapidly breaks down in practice. I live and work outside the U.S. The language and customs are different, if I do not make some effort to learn them, I could be in very big trouble.

The Bible was not written in the U.S., in English, within our respective lifetimes, following U.S. customs, etc. It was written by Hebrews, in the middle east, 2000 +/- years, ago, in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, within a Jewish society. To correctly understand the Bible we must understand that.

I am sure you would agree, and I do value your knowledge and insights of that nature much as I value those who labored to translate the bible. I am sure I shall rely on your labors from time to time.

I'm sure you will rely on my insights, etc. as long as they agree with what you have chosen to believe.

Some years ago, I had to make a decision whether to trust all of the contents of the bible as being God-inspired, or just some of it, and I decided it was all or nothing. So my arguments are made in that spirit and I receive other arguments on the merit of the scriptures cited. Every now and then I use a concordance.

I too trust all the contents of the Bible as being God-inspired. You arbitrarily ignored what I posted, dismissing it as, "extrabiblical writings on the bible," when in fact I was talking about the Bible, the Aramaic translation of the Bible, translated about 700 b.c., in Babylon. You, yourself read a translation, the tranlation I referred to is about 2700 years older than the one you trust.

And it goes without saying there is abolutely no Trintarian bias in it. But it certainly reads the Word was literally God, and God was literally the Word. Bible, not something written about the Bible.

Lastly, speaking of what you said here, "... Jesus said the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all have distinct, separate 'selves,'" do you mind giving us the scripture?

I have posted, and discussed them, at least 5 times, maybe more, here are the three most recent.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14793983&postcount=230

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14790357&postcount=226

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14767071&postcount=204

Also, Jesus is the Logos or word of God, yes. I have questions but that can wait and may even have been addressed on another thread.

Here are some of my most recent posts on "Logos." The"Logos," yes, but read how Jews undertood that in their Aramaic Bible. And that "Logos," of God, acting upon Himself became flesh, Jn 1:14. The Greek is absolutely clear on that point.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14744445#post14744445

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14744389#post14744389

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14734388&postcount=167

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14715874&postcount=156

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14713505&postcount=152

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14673968#post14673968

 

[Cubes]

I have often heard Trinitarians say that all members of the "trinity" are co-equals, that Christ's submission is done out of willingness and love for the father and not because he has to submit any more than any member of the "trinity."

It is written of Christ that he delights to do the Father's will...no dispute.
But I do say that it is not the only reason why he submits. The main reason why he submits is because he recognizes the authority of the Almighty, His father, and it is to this authority that he lovingly and willingly submits to.

If that were not so, it should then be argued: Why doesn't he submit to us? He loves the Father. He loves us. He loves us so much he gave his life for us. But I don't see him submitting to us. He willingly turned water to wine when his mother asked, and didn't refuse anyone who needed him, and of his own accord, decided to wash the disciples' feet and teach us to follow his example.

But I can't think of any examples where he submits to us in the way he submits to His father, or the way we are called to submit to him as Lord.

CK pointed out a de facto clause that functionally makes the father the authority. So this authority actual or merely cosmetic? And why is it that the function of authority is not rotated b/n the "three?"

If it is actual, then you may not quite be a Trinitarian. If not, then I hope you have an answer for my question.

 

[Cubes]

That seems fair, on the surface, but rapidly breaks down in practice. I live and work outside the U.S. The language and customs are different, if I do not make some effort to learn them, I could be in very big trouble.

I consider myself blessed to be literate enough to read the bible in one language, rather than not at all. So no, I am not against learning other languages especially the biblical language(s).

The Bible was not written in the U.S., in English, within our respective lifetimes, following U.S. customs, etc. It was written by Hebrews, in the middle east, 2000 +/- years, ago, in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, within a Jewish society. To correctly understand the Bible we must understand that.

Agreed.

I'm sure you will rely on my insights, etc. as long as they agree with what you have chosen to believe.

As a translator, yes. The job of making sense out of the information, however, is the Holy Spirit's, no? Although we are encouraged to exhort, admonish and rebuke one another ...and most of all to talk about the Lord. So here we are.

I too trust all the contents of the Bible as being God-inspired. You arbitrarily ignored what I posted, dismissing it as, "extrabiblical writings on the bible," when in fact I was talking about the Bible, the Aramaic translation of the Bible, translated about 700 b.c., in Babylon. You, yourself read a translation, the tranlation I referred to is about 2700 years older than the one you trust.

I don't disregard or prefer my English Translation to the Aramaic or any authentic translation/version of the Holy Scriptures. It is just a matter of practicality...in that I don't read Aramaic. I should love to if I can understand it.

I have posted, and discussed them, at least 5 times, maybe more, here are the three most recent.

Thanks for the links. I will check them out.

 

[Der Alte]

I have often heard Trinitarians say that all members of the "trinity" are co-equals, that Christ's submission is done out of willingness and love for the father and not because he has to submit any more than any member of the "trinity."

It is written of Christ that he delights to do the Father's will...no dispute.
But I do say that it is not the only reason why he submits. The main reason why he submits is because he recognizes the authority of the Almighty, His father, and it is to this authority that he lovingly and willingly submits to.

If that were not so, it should then be argued: Why doesn't he submit to us? He loves the Father. He loves us. He loves us so much he gave his life for us. But I don't see him submitting to us. He willingly turned water to wine when his mother asked, and didn't refuse anyone who needed him, and of his own accord, decided to wash the disciples' feet and teach us to follow his example.

But I can't think of any examples where he submits to us in the way he submits to His father, or the way we are called to submit to him as Lord.

CK pointed out a de facto clause that functionally makes the father the authority. So this authority actual or merely cosmetic? And why is it that the function of authority is not rotated b/n the "three?"

If it is actual, then you may not quite be a Trinitarian. If not, then I hope you have an answer for my question.

[bible]Philippians 2:5-9[/bible]

Vs. 2:6 Who, being (existing) in the form [SIZE=+1]&#956;&#959;&#961;&#966;&#951;[/SIZE] of God, thought it not something to be grasped "existing," (V-PAP-NSM, Verb, Present, Active, Participle, Nominative, Singular, Masculine), equal with God: The existing equal with God was not a future possibiblity but then present active reality.

Vs 2:7 "made himself of no reputation," it was not done to him, he did it himself. "and took upon him(self) the form [SIZE=+1]&#956;&#959;&#961;&#966;&#951;[/SIZE] of a servant," Again it was not done to Him, He did it Himself. If Jesus was actually, literally a man, a servant, after vs. 7, what was He actually, literally before?

Vs. 2:8 "being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Although He was equal with God, He humbled Himself from that equality, and became obedient, even unto death.

Vs. 2:9 And because Jesus had given up His equality with God, took on the form of a man, and was crucified, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"

 

[Cubes]

Hi DA,

John 5:18: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.


John 10:33The Jews answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34: Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, "I said, 'Ye are Gods?'"
35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the sripture cannot be broken;
36: Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the son of God?


This is the context in which I understand Phil 2:5-9:




Be that as it may, that was not the question for indeed, I am aware of Phil 2:5-9.

The question is, why isn't submission replicated by other members of the so-called Trinity nor is Christ shown submitting to lesser beings, if authority is arbitrary and Christ's submission purely voluntary?

 

[Der Alte]

Hi DA,

John 5:18: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.


John 10:33The Jews answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34: Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, "I said, 'Ye are Gods?'"
35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the sripture cannot be broken;
36: Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the son of God?


This is the context in which I understand Phil 2:5-9:

I'm sorry I don't have a clue what you are trying to tell me with these two unrelated passages. The scribes and Pharisees, were not speaking by inspiration of God, so how does quoting what they thought relate to Jesus existing equal to God? And that is exactly what Paul, who was writing under the inspiration of God, said, "Jesus thought it not something to be grasped, held onto, clung to, existing equal to God."

In the second passage if you read it in context you will see that God speaking in Psalms, and Jesus quoting Psalms, God did not say "you are Elohim." but that God only "said ye are elohim." And reading the rest of the Psalm we can clearly see that God is not talking to gods, but unjust judges who take bribes, and will die like the men they are.

[bible]psalms 82:6[/bible]

Be that as it may, that was not the question for indeed, I am aware of Phil 2:5-9.

Are you aware of Phip 2:5-9? You didn't respond to anything I posted and you blew it off with two unrelated scripture verses. Neither of which as far as I can see relate to Phip 2 at all. The verses I quoted show why Jesus seemed to have less authority than the Father, and why the Father would exalt Him.

The question is, why isn't submission replicated by other members of the so-called Trinity nor is Christ shown submitting to lesser beings, if authority is arbitrary and Christ's submission purely voluntary?

I tell you what I gave you an answer you blew it off with no relevant discussion at all. You want me to address your post you respond to mine with some meaningful discussion. Jesus existed equal with God. That was not uninspired scribes and Pharisees speaking from their own ignorance. Phip 2:5-11, explains why Jesus alone submits.

"[SIZE=-1]nor is Christ shown submitting to lesser beings, if authority is arbitrary and Christ's submission purely voluntary?[/SIZE]" You are talking to the wrong guy, I did not say "authority was arbitrary." The scripture I quoted explained very clearly Christ's submission.

Have you read the Bible? God (Christ) being born in the flesh was submission. God (Christ) obeying His earthly parents was submission. God (Christ) washing His diciples feet was submission. God (Christ) being tortured, beaten, and crucified was the ultimate submission. He could have summoned seven leagues of angels to rescue Him but He submitted.

 

[Cubes]

I'm sorry I don't have a clue what you are trying to tell me with these two unrelated passages. The scribes and Pharisees, were not speaking by inspiration of God, so how does quoting what they thought relate to Jesus existing equal to God? And that is exactly what Paul, who was writing under the inspiration of God, said, "Jesus thought it not something to be grasped, held onto, clung to, existing equal to God."

I am sorry, I should have elaborated. It was late and I didn't want to ignore your post...which I should have done until I had more time.


John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34: Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law, "I said, 'Ye are Gods?'"
35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the sripture cannot be broken;
36: Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the son of God?


The verses that I quoted were significant to me, in that, I was not so much concerned with the Pharisees point of view, but what it was that Jesus actually said and what they understood him to say.

They didn't want to hear Jesus say "I am the son of God." That was too much for them to bear, seemingly. So based on that, they accused him of blasphemy. Jesus had in fact not said he is the Father. So the point of contention is NOT over the claim of a Trinity.

Jesus took the time to also clarify what he meant exactly. And no, he didn't say he is the Father but rather, "I am the son of God."



John 5:18: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Again, they quote Yeshua saying, "but said also that God was his Father."
And for them that was making himself equal to God. By that logic, we can all be said to be equal to our parents. But I don't know of any people group on earth who think children are equal to their parents but all people would agree that humans bear humans, sheep give birth to lambs, bees to bees. So I hope you see my point.


Again, considering these chapters in their entirety, we see that Jesus makes no trinitarian claims but considers God as The only Most High God, with himself as the son. Consistently, we see Jesus present the Father, his kingdom, He Christ and his place in relationship to the Father and in that Kingdom.



Now back to Phil 2:5-9: ***For illustration, I shall replace the word GOD with FATHER, if that is ok.


Philippians 2:5-95 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of FATHER, thought it not robbery to be equal with FATHER: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore FATHER also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:


When I read this, I understand it to mean that:
1. the Father begat a son after his own kind. One who has attributes like his father and the full measure of the holy spirit, for he is the Son of the Most High.

2. The equality to me is in this light. He is in the FORM of the Father, not that he is himself the father. Thus he being heir of all things is the beneficiary of his father's genes, riches, power, authority, etc.... I don't understand it to mean that he no longer honors his father as the greater. The father honors the son, as his son, not as his equal in preeminence, longevity, etc because the relationship itself implies that one was before the other in existence. Paul didn't think he had to explain that concept. And if it isn't clear in Phil 2:9 then consider the mirror text of Hebrews 1:9! But as always, the whole chapter and book, please.


Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (Phil 2:9)

Thou has loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Hebrews 1:9)


I believe that puts things in the right perspective as regards the issue of equality and if you don't agree, then I respect your right to hold on to your disbelief.


Now with regards to the submission of Christ unto the cross, let me tell you how I understand it:

a. Sin = death. Death has authority over mankind because of sin, so we are under a sentence of death and it comes naturally in spite of our best efforts. Jesus came to fix that and we have hope of eternal life now, thanks be to God and to him.

b. Death had no authority over Christ and could not have subdued him because in fact, he was/is Sinless. So the formula for sin = death could not have worked except he voluntarily succumbed as a man.

c. He didn't have to die for us although it was the will of the Father as a holy sacrifice was required for our redemption, and in this he not only humbled himself for the Father but even for us and unto death.

So in that you are right and we don't disagree.

Christ's loving obedience and example though is not to be confused with the fact that God is his God and it is required of him as of us and all creation that we worship him alone as the One True God. Or else should Christ not have called the Father, "My God" and said he worshipped him (John 4). He said it, I didn't. And if "My God" does not imply preeminence and supremacy then you decide.

If we acknowledge that Thomas' "my lord and my God" referred to Christ and implies preeminence..., (although I still believe that the Apostles did not think Christ to be the Most High God...), then how is that different when Jesus says it to the Father? Now the Father calls the son "God", but not "my God." (Hebrews 1).

In the second passage if you read it in context you will see that God speaking in Psalms, and Jesus quoting Psalms, God did not say "you are Elohim." but that God only "said ye are elohim." And reading the rest of the Psalm we can clearly see that God is not talking to gods, but unjust judges who take bribes, and will die like the men they are.

Psalms 82:6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

We are the sons of God, if we believe and are obedient to Christ until the end. We shall indeed be like gods. In a way, the Holy Spirit already indwells the sons of God and it could be arguably said, we are gods. Satan has no authority over us except as he is allowed for the purposes of God. In Jesus' name, we have authority over demons. We sit in heavenly places with Christ.

Are you aware of Phil 2:5-9? You didn't respond to anything I posted and you blew it off with two unrelated scripture verses. Neither of which as far as I can see relate to Phip 2 at all. The verses I quoted show why Jesus seemed to have less authority than the Father, and why the Father would exalt Him.

1 Cor. 15:27-28: for th scripture says, "God put all things under his feet." It is clear, of course, that the words "all things" do not include God himself, who puts all things under Christ. But when all things have been placed under Christ's rule, then he himself, the Son, will place himself under God, who placed all things under him; and God will rule completely over all.

Again, replace God with Father


1 Cor. 15:27-28: for th scripture says, "FATHER put all things under his feet." It is clear, of course, that the words "all things" do not include FATHER himself, who puts all things under Christ. But when all things have been placed under Christ's rule, then he himself, the Son, will place himself under FATHER, who placed all things under him; and FATHER will rule completely over all.

Try replacing it with the Trinity (a suggestion from another forum), if each member is actually 3 in 1 and see how it works. Try not saying, Trinity but rather, Father, Son & Holy Spirit wherever God is mentioned.

 

[Cubes]

I don't know why the Trinity is so inexplicable. I understand it, however, as you have pointed out, have a hard time explaining it. Human terms and understanding is limited. I guess God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) opened my mind and showed me the meaning of it.

I urge you to reconsider and pray to God about it as I feel our salvation depends on the understanding of who God is and believing on his Christ.


God is One.
Had he been three in one, he would have told us so and not left it for us to figure out. It is not a divine test to see which of us are smart enough to figure it out. Little children are supposed to be able to understand the gospel. Mine does. Her only question is why she cannot see God and Jesus.

God is 1 NOT God is 3 in 1. He could have just as easily said God is 3 in 1 -- if it was what he wanted us to know. Since he didn't, you'd better take his word for it. It is a Genesis 3:1 issue, "hath God said..?" Hmm... funny about the 3:1 and 3 in 1 here. Never noticed it before. Better pray on this, F4C and all you who believe in a Trinity God.

To my knowledge, the God-fearing Jews/Remnant always believed God to be One. They knew that there is a spirit of God and that a Messiah is expected. These are not NT concepts.

I didn't know you wanted a full scriptural detail on the Trinity. I thought you were looking for a basic understanding. I apologize for the misunderstanding. These scriptures all mention the members of the trinity: 2 Cor. 13:14, Ephesians 5:18-20, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Thess. 2:13-14, 1 Peter 1:1-2.

2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

***Psalm 51:
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence,
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.



Ephesians 5:18-20
18: And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit,
19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
21 submitting to one another in the fear of *God.

1 Cor. 12:4-6
4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.


2 Thess. 2:13-14
13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,
14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 1:1-2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,


To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

David was praying to the One (1) God.
He asked this One God not to take his Holy Spirit from him. That for me rules out the distinct, co-equal part as I explained earlier on in the thread with regards to Luke 1:31-35. The Holy Spirit belongs to the Father/God who liveth for ever and ever/Who sits on the Throne... who sanctifies, communes with us, gives us new birth, gifts, power, seals, teaches, comforts, helps us by means of his Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit accomplishes the will of the One Almighty God. There is no Trinity in God. This is why we have no portrait of the saints worshiping of the Holy Spirit.

We are given examples of the Holy Spirit talking to the saints of God, but I can't think of any scriptures where the saints of God speak to the Holy Spirit. Rather they speak to Father/God Almighty or to Christ. Mostly to the Almighty in prayer whose spirit it is. But please, I'll appreciate information to the contrary if there is one.

Jesus himself spoke to the Father, not to the Holy Spirit.

Ok and goodnight all.

Thank you all. It is my prayer that the God of Truth would lead us all into his truth by his spirit in Christ Jesus, Amen.

 

[Der Alte]

The verses that I quoted were significant to me, in that, I was not so much concerned with the Pharisees point of view, but what it was that Jesus actually said and what they understood him to say.

They didn't want to hear Jesus say "I am the son of God." That was too much for them to bear, seemingly. So based on that, they accused him of blasphemy. Jesus had in fact not said he is the Father. So the point of contention is NOT over the claim of a Trinity.

Jesus took the time to also clarify what he meant exactly. And no, he didn't say he is the Father but rather, "I am the son of God."

And this relates to Phip 2:6, exactly how? In that encounter, as you have correctly noted, Jesus did not say “I am God.” but “I am the son of God.” How does that prove anything about Paul writing some years later, “Jesus was existing equal to God?”

Again, they quote Yeshua saying, "but said also that God was his Father."
And for them that was making himself equal to God. By that logic, we can all be said to be equal to our parents. But I don't know of any people group on earth who think children are equal to their parents but all people would agree that humans bear humans, sheep give birth to lambs, bees to bees. So I hope you see my point.

Totally irrelevant what modern mankind may/may not think about being equal to their parents. We as a humans are not omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., God is not confined to a 3D, temporal world, with a limited beginning and end, as we are.

This is some of that “speculation and imagination as our groundwork,” you accused me of in another thread. And none of this addresses Phip 2:6-11.

Again, considering these chapters in their entirety, we see that Jesus makes no trinitarian claims but considers God as The only Most High God, with himself as the son. Consistently, we see Jesus present the Father, his kingdom, He Christ and his place in relationship to the Father and in that Kingdom.

Argumentum as silentia, argument from silence, and all that proves is silence, if it is true, and it is not. What happened when Jesus specifically admitted to the Sanhedrin that He was the Son of the Most High, only hours before His death? What would have happened if Jesus, apparently a mere man, had throughout His ministry proclaimed that He was, in fact, the Most High God?

Now back to Phil 2:5-9: ***For illustration, I shall replace the word GOD with FATHER, if that is ok.

Anybody can make any verse say what they want it to say if they change the words to whatever they want. Why can’t you discuss the scripture exactly as written? Suppose I go thru the N.T. and replace "God," or "Father," with love, spirit, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.? Nobody, I hope, denies that God is Love and God is Spirit, could I prove that God is not love by replacing Logos with love in John 1:1, e.g. "In the beginning was love and love was with God, and love was God?" I have a novel idea lets discuss the text exactly as it is written?

2. The equality to me is in this light. He is in the FORM of the Father, not that he is himself the father.

How can anyone or anything be equal to God, unless He is God? There is nothing equal to God, but God, Isaiah 40:18, 25, 46:5. God says, there was no God formed before me, there is no God beside me, there will be no God after me, do I know any other God, no I know not any. Deut 4:35; Isa 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; and 45:5, 21-22. Please look up the word morphe in Greek, and note how Paul uses a form of the word in Rom 12:2.

And you need to learn what the Trinity is and what Trinitarians believe, Jesus is God, but is not the Father.

And if it isn't clear in Phil 2:9 then consider the mirror text of Hebrews 1:9! But as always, the whole chapter and book, please.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (Phil 2:9)

Thou has loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Hebrews 1:9)

I believe that puts things in the right perspective as regards the issue of equality and if you don't agree, then I respect your right to hold on to your disbelief.

Now you are getting into name calling, you are the one perishing in unbelief, following the false doctrines of men. This is clear from the fact that you have to change words in the scriptures to force them to fit your assumptions and presuppositions.

How is Heb 1:9 a mirror text of Phip 2:9? Here is a link to a post where I discussed Heb 1:8-9. Both occurrences of “Theos,” in this verse, have the definite article, thus it reads, “Therefore ‘The God,’ (addressing the Son), ‘The God of you,’ (i.e. The Father) has anointed you. . .”

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14858007&postcount=240

Re: Phip 2:9, Jesus existing equal with God, humbled Himself and took on the morphe, form of a man, a servant, and because He did “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.” If Jesus was actually literally a man, a servant, after humbling Himself, what was He actually literally before, when He was existing equal with God?

If we acknowledge that Thomas' "my lord and my God" referred to Christ and implies preeminence..., (although I still believe that the Apostles did not think Christ to be the Most High God...), then how is that different when Jesus says it to the Father? Now the Father calls the son "God", but not "my God." (Hebrews 1).

Again changing the text to force it to fit your disbelief. What Thomas said was not "preeminence" but "The God of me, and the Lord of me." Whenever a Jew said "The God," he was referring to the creator. No, it was not exclamation, the Greek is in the wrong form; that didn't even exist in Greek, and even if it did a devout Jew, Thomas, would never use any form of God as an exclamation, and last Jesus would never have stood by while one of His disciples blasphemed by supposedly exclaiming, "Oh my God."

Again, replace God with Father
• • •
Try replacing it with the Trinity (a suggestion from another forum), if each member is actually 3 in 1 and see how it works. Try not saying, Trinity but rather, Father, Son & Holy Spirit wherever God is mentioned.

And while we are at it lets prove that God is not love, spirit, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, etc. Or we could discuss the text exactly as written, not changing words to make them fit your disbelief.

 

[Der Alte]

God is One.
Had he been three in one, he would have told us so and not left it for us to figure out. It is not a divine test to see which of us are smart enough to figure it out. Little children are supposed to be able to understand the gospel. Mine does. Her only question is why she cannot see God and Jesus.

And I can show you the same thing with little children in a Trinitarian church. A child is going to believe what mommy tells them, so what is your point?

Had Jesus been the Messiah, He would have told us so and not left it for us to figure out. It is not a divine test to see which of us are smart enough to figure it out. But only a handful of people clearly grasped that during Jesus' lifetime, while the great majority rejected Him.

God is 1 NOT God is 3 in 1. He could have just as easily said God is 3 in 1 -- if it was what he wanted us to know. Since he didn't, you'd better take his word for it. It is a Genesis 3:1 issue, "hath God said..?" Hmm... funny about the 3:1 and 3 in 1 here. Never noticed it before. Better pray on this, F4C and all you who believe in a Trinity God.

"[SIZE=-1]God is 1 NOT God is 3 in 1[/SIZE]." Repeating the same thing over and over again, without proof or evidence does not make it true. Isaiah 48:16-17 YHWH sends YHWH and His Spirit. Sodom and Gomorra, YHWH rains down fire from YHWH in heaven.

To my knowledge, the God-fearing Jews/Remnant always believed God to be One. They knew that there is a spirit of God and that a Messiah is expected. These are not NT concepts.

It would appear that Judaism had a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before Christianity.

[SIZE=-1]Jewish Encyclopedia - Trinity - In the Zohar.

The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as "matronita," "body," "spirit," occur frequently (e.q., "Tazria'," ed. Polna, iii. 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinek, "Die Kabbala," p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 [trans]. of Franck's "La Kabbale," Paris, 1843]). Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" in the second word of the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii. 22 (ib. p. 10), while Johann Kemper, a convert, left in manuscript a work entitled "Matteh Mosheh," which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, "Verzeichniss der Hebräischen und Aramäischen Handschriften zu Upsala," p. 16, Lund, 1900).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&letter=T

Jewish Encyclopedia - Zohar - Influence on Christian Mysticism.

The enthusiasm felt for the Zohar was shared by many Christian scholars, such as Pico de Mirandola, Reuchlin, Ægidius of Viterbo, etc., all of whom believed that the book contained proofs of the truth of Christianity. They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of the Zohar and certain of the Christian dogmas, as for instance the fall and redemption of man, and the dogma of the Trinity, which is expressed in the Zohar in the following terms: "The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' ["'Ayin"]" (Zohar, iii. 288b). This and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity; but the Christian scholars who were deluded by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z[/SIZE]​

We are given examples of the Holy Spirit talking to the saints of God, but I can't think of any scriptures where the saints of God speak to the Holy Spirit. Rather they speak to Father/God Almighty or to Christ. Mostly to the Almighty in prayer whose spirit it is. But please, I'll appreciate information to the contrary if there is one.

[SIZE=-1]Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?[/SIZE]​

Even if there were no scriptures which depict people speaking to the Holy Spirit, that is an argument from silence. and the only thing that proves is silence. Jesus must never have changed His clothes or went to the bathroom because it is never mentioned in scipture.

 

[Cubes]

Hi DA,

To start with, I was wrong to translate the text of Phil 2:5-9, replacing "God" with "Father" as it seems to suggest that I am manipulating. That would be an offense against God and not man if it were true, May God forbid.


Here is the actual rendering of 2 Philippians 5-11. NKJV

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


As I said from the start, I am not into extra-biblical readings on the Bible. Language study is another thing as it has to do with Translation. What I know of my faith is found in the the Holy Bible. I believe it is the word of the LORD. I don't feel that way about the Jewish Encyclopedia, especially when it is not consistent with the views of the Prophets and apostles of God whom Jesus approved of.

I have presented my convictions and defended them scripturally, answered most of the questions that were asked of me in the counter arguments, with the exception of your last two posts, I believe.

It has gotten to that part of the road where we'll probably be going more 'round the rosebush than not so my posts would be infrequent, due to other responsibilities.

As time permits, hopefully in the near future, I'll address the rest of your post. Hopefully next week sometime, if not sooner.

Take care.

 

[Cubes]

Two edited arguments I presented from another forum:

A

I submit the entire Hebrews Epistle at this time which deals with Yehshua as our High Priest who ever liveth to make intercession for us (Hebrews 7:24-25).

Hebrews 5:1,4 For EVERY high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins... And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.
Hebrew 5:5-6 So also Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:

"You are my son, Today I have begotten You."

As He also says in another place: "you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

Hebrews 5:9-11: And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek," of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.


Melchizedek is without genealogy, not born of parents...a king of righteousness and peace. He was not himself the Almighty, but rather a high priest of the Almighty.

Jesus is compared to him. We are also told that he did not appoint himself but was appointed to the role of High Priest by God himself.

His mediation is b/n us in God as has already been stated in this thread somewhere. How then is he that same God that he mediates for? And if so, then Melchizedek should be added to the Trinitarian equation.