Trinity question

[]RiSeN[]

We are taught in the Bible that the Heavenly Father is without beginning and without end. Jesus Christ in his own words claims to be God's first, or "chief" creation. According to the Apostle John, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten SON." (John 3:16) If Jesus was "begotten" some other being must have "beget" him. According to Webster's Dictionary, "Beget" means to be the "FATHER OR TO SIRE. To bring into being." This being the case, a higher power must have created Jesus.

In examining the account of creation as written in the book of Genesis, it is clear that the Heavenly Father employed a helper in the creation process. "Let US make man in our image, according to our likeness, let them have dominion over the the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26) It is our contention that Jesus Christ in his pre-human form was this very helper.

"THINGS WERE MADE THROUGH HIM"

The gospel of the Apostle John tells us that "All things were made THROUGH him, (Jesus) and without him nothing was made that was made." (John 1:3) The majority of translations use the word "through," which is wrongly translated in the original King James Bible as "all things were made by him." If all things were made through him, this indicates that he was carrying out orders that had been delegated by a higher authority. Jesus acted as Jehovah's agency and is the one who dealt directly with mankind in the Old Testament.

JESUS IS THE "ARM" OF JEHOVAH"


There are numerous scriptures that speak of Jehovah's Holy "arm." When one examines the context of these verses it becomes clear that this "arm" is Jesus Christ. In speaking of the coming redeemer, "therefore his own arm brought salvation FOR him." (Isaiah 59:16) "The Lord has made bare his Holy arm in the eyes of all nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see his salvation." (Isaiah 52:10) "Behold, the Lord God shall come with a strong hand, and his arm shall rule over them." (Isaiah 40:10) "And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" (John 12:38) and (Isaiah 53:1) Jesus serves as the General of Jehovah. He is the one who carries out the will of his Father.

PROVERBS 8TH CHAPTER SPEAKS OF THE ROLE OF OF THE "LOGOS"

To further comprehend the role of the "Logos," turn your Bible to the book of Proverbs the 8th chapter verses 22-31." Verse 30 says, "I was beside him as a master craftsman; and I was daily his delight." Clearly we see here that Jesus was with the Father, but he was separate from the Heavenly Father.

"THE WORD WAS GOD"

JOHN 1:1

For centuries, a poor translation of John 1:1, as well as a misunderstanding of biblical usage for the word "god," has caused millions to wrongly believe in the trinity. In most Bibles, John 1:1 reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God." This scripture is the cornerstone of Trinitarian creed.

HOW SHOULD JOHN 1:1 BE TRANSLATED?


The first argument in refuting this interpretation is an appeal to common sense. How could the Word be with God and be God at the same time? If the point here was to say that the Word was God, why bother saying that he was with him? Would not the passage more likely read (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in all things God?) The very word structure of this passage provides strong evidence for mistranslation.

In an effort to validate their own bias towards the trinity doctrine, it appears that the translators have ignored an obvious distinction between the Logos and the Heavenly Father in John 1:1. The Greek word that is used for god in the passage is theos. In the two uses of the word "god" there is a difference in its usage. In the first use "the Word was with God" the word is ho theos meaning THE God." In the second usage of this verse it is simply theos. Given this, the proper reading of John 1:1 should be "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word." Verse 2 goes on to say, "He was in the beginning with the (ho theos) God."

According to the Strongs Concordance, the Greek word theos, which is numbered 2316 in the Greek dictionary found towards the back of the publication, means "a deity, especially with word (3588) the supreme Divinity." Now let us examine word 3588. This word is the very "ho" placed before the name of God in the first usage in John 1:1.

Given this obvious distinction between theos and ho theos, by the Apostle John, can there be any doubt that Jesus Christ in his pre-human condition was an all together separate being from the God of the universe?

THE HEBREW WORD "ELOHIM"


Numerous times in the Old Testament the Hebrew word elohim is used for the word God. It is often used when referring to the Heavenly Father, but the meaning of elohim is simply "mighty one" or one in authority. Given this, elohim is applied to angels as in Psalm 8:5 "You have made him (the future Messiah) a little lower than the angels (elohim) and have crowned him with glory and honor."

In other instances in the Old Testament elohim is used when speaking of powerful human beings. For instance in Exodus 7:1 Moses is called elohim "See I have made you as God to Pharaoh." Psalm 82:6-7 refers to the saints as elohim "I said you are gods, and all of you are children of the most high God."

FRAUDULENT BIBLICAL PASSAGES IN 1ST JOHN 5:7-8



Further proof that the doctrine of the trinity is false lies in the book of 1st John. Trinitarians have used the words of 1st John 5:7-8 as a key argument for the trinity. "For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." There is an enormous problem however in using these verses to bolster the trinity doctrine. The passage is not authentic! These words only appear in five later manuscripts and are not found in any of the earlier New Testament texts. These verses are such obvious forgeries that even staunch Trinitarian scholars have been forced to admit as much. Among them are the publishers of the New King James translation and various study bibles.

Let us now take a look at 1st John 5:7-8 in its true context without the spurious passage. "For there are three who bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these things agree as one." Upon seeing how these verses are intended to read, it is clear that in no way do they offer a credible argument for the trinity. Now examine verse nine "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God that he has testified in his SON Jesus Christ." Clearly these passages are talking about two separate beings, the Heavenly Father and his only begotten SON Jesus Christ.

"I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE"

JOHN 10:30

Supporters of the trinity often quote the words of Jesus "I and the Father are one" as proof for Jesus' being God in the flesh. Once again they take the words of Jesus completely out of context. If one examines Jesus' own words later on in the very same gospel of John, he explains this oneness.

On the night of his arrest our Lord prayed in the garden of Gethsemane. He prayed vehemently for the well being of his Apostles. He asks God that "they all may be ONE, as you Father, are in me, and I in you; that they also may be ONE in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And the glory which you gave me I have given them, and that they may be ONE just as we are ONE." (John 17:21-22)

Clearly Jesus was not asking his Father to make his apostles one in the same person. He was requesting that they be one in thought, purpose, and deed. Jesus Christ and Jehovah, his God and our God, are indeed one, but it is a oneness in their mission. This oneness of purpose can be compared to having a President and a Vice President. They are not the same literal persons, but they are one in representing the office of the presidency.

"HE WHO HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE FATHER"


<H3>JOHN 14:9<H3><FONT size=2>This passage is often used by trinity advocates as another proof that Jesus was claiming to be God. If we are to take this passage literally, there appears to be serious contradiction in Jesus' words in other scriptures. How can Jesus say "he who has seen me has seen the Father" and in another place say "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except he who is from God; he has seen the Father." (John 6:46) "And the Father himself who sent me, has testified of me. You have neither heard his voice at anytime, nor seen his form." (John 5:37) Or what about the words of John "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father has declared him." Then again in (1st John 4:12) "No one has seen God at any time." Thankfully, the scriptures do not contradict themselves.

 

[]RiSeN[]

(Continued) "BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS I AM"JOHN 8:58)

One of the more credible arguments made by well meaning Trinitarians is the use of Jesus' words in verse 58 of the 8th chapter of John. In this conversation with the Pharisees, the Lord was rebuking them for not knowing who he really was. He informed them that their father Abraham rejoiced to see his day and he saw it and he was glad. (John 8:57) In doubting him, the Jewish spokesman responded, "you are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Following this in verse 58 Jesus said "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was I AM."

While on the surface one might conclude that Jesus was claiming to be God by declaring "I AM." Consider the words in the previous verses, "If I honor myself my honor is nothing. It is my Father who honors me, of whom you say that he is your God." verse 54.

Jesus was quoting from the book of Exodus when God appeared to Moses at the burning bush. "I AM WHO I AM." (Exodus 3:14) It is our contention that Jesus in his pre-human existence acted as the one carrying out Jehovah's wishes. He was representing Jehovah, as his messenger before mankind. What Jesus told the Pharisees was that he knew God, his Father, personally, and that he was present in Abraham's time acting upon the will of his Father.

DID THOMAS' WORDS "MY LORD AND MY GOD" PROVE THE TRINITY?<H3>Trinitarians use the words of the Apostle Thomas upon seeing Jesus following his resurrection "My Lord and my God." (John (20:28) as proof that Jesus was his own Father. Once again we refer to the Greek word theos and the meaning of this word. While this word has been used in places referring to the Heavenly Father, it can also be applied to those in authority. Jesus in his resurrected condition was the head of the Christian church and was truly Thomas' Lord and ruler.</H3><H2>JESUS NEVER ONCE CLAIMED TO BE GOD

If Jesus Christ was God, his own father, why didn't he come out and say so? Why did he come up with such a confusing doctrine known as the trinity? In all cases Jesus Christ speaks of his Father being his superior. Here are just a few scriptures, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father." (John 6:57) "My doctrine is not mine but his who sent me." (John 7:16) "For the Father judges no one, but committed all judgment to the SON." (John 5:22) "And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as my Father bestowed one upon me." (Luke 22:29) "All authority has been given to me in Heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18) "All things have been delivered to me by my Father" (John 11:27) "In this love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son to be a propitiation for our sins." (1st John 4:10)

"THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I"

<H3>John 14:28

Throughout Jesus' earthly ministry he claimed to be subjected to the will of his Father. When speaking to his apostles the night before he was put to death, he said, "You have heard me say to you, I am going away and coming back to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, I am going to the Father, for my FATHER IS GREATER THAN I." (John 14:28)

"THE SON HIMSELF WILL BE SUBJECTED TO HIM"

1st CORINTHIANS 15:28

The Apostle Paul in speaking of the time when God's plan for mankind is complete, when death is destroyed and Christ's earthly reign comes to an end, has this to say. "Now when all things are made subject to him, (The Father) then the SON HIMSELF WILL BE SUBJECTED TO HIM who put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1st Corinthians 15:28) Now we ask, if Jesus is part of some "godhead" why would he ever be "subjected" to another?

"GOD OUR SAVIOR"

Those advocating the trinity have used the words of the Apostle where he calls God "our savior" (1st Timothy 1:1) as another proof for Christ's deity. While Jesus Christ carried out the role of savior, his Father is ultimately our savior because he designed the plan that rescued the human race. All things are by the Father through the son. "We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the son to be the savior of the world." (1st John 4:14)

OTHER SCRIPTURES DISPROVING THE TRINITY

There are numerous scriptures that disprove the trinity doctrine. Here are more words from Jesus on the subject. "Of that day and hour (when God's kingdom is set up fully) knoweth no man, no not angels, neither the Son, but my Father only." (Mark 13:32) "I send the promise of my Father upon you." (Luke 24:49) "I am come in my Father's name." (John 5:43) "Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:50)

WHAT ABOUT THE THE HOLY SPIRIT?

In addition to proclaiming that Jesus Christ is God, there is a third being of the so-called trinity. The Holy Spirit wrongly translated "Holy Ghost" in the original King James Bible, who is also said to be God. Unfortunately for the Trinitarian there is not one scripture in either the old or New Testament that says that the Holy Spirit is part of the godhead.

When the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit it is referring to the spirit of truth. This spirit is possessed by those who fully understand the plan of God, and that Jesus Christ died as a ransom for the entire world of mankind. Jesus, when being tempted by Satan in the wilderness quoted (Deuteronomy 6:13) "Man shall not live by bread alone, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Clearly there cannot be a better description of the holy sprit than this. This spirit of truth can be best described as "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Another way in which to understand the Holy Spirit is to compare it to the context of school spirit or patriotic spirit. Someone with the Holy Spirit has within them the spirit of God.

THE "COMFORTER" PROMISED BY JESUS

In preparing the apostles for his departure, Jesus promised them that his Father would send a "comforter" that would teach them all things. (John 14:25-26) He goes on to tell them that this comforter would be the Holy Spirit.

It is true that Jesus spoke of this comforter as "he" when explaining to them about this "spirit of truth." (John 16:7-12) He does not however claim that this was another form of God. The "he" is likely an angel, which were used as God's messengers throughout the Bible. This angel carried the message of the "spirit of truth" to the apostles on the day of Pentecost after Jesus ascended into Heaven. Just as when speaking of himself, our Lord taught that this comforter came from the Father.(John 14:25)

JESUS RECIEVED A GREATER EXISTENCE UPON HIS RESSURECTION

"THEREFORE GOD HAS HIGHLY EXALTED HIM AND GIVEN HIM THE NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME PHILIPIANS 2:9

We are taught in scripture that upon his obedience to the Heavenly Father, our Lord received a higher spiritual plane than he possessed in his pre-human existence. The Apostle Paul tells us that the "first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam (Jesus) BECAME A LIFE GIVING SPIRIT." (1st Corinthians 15:45) Jesus upon his obedience to his Heavenly Father was rewarded with a new nature, "the divine nature" as mentioned by the Apostle Peter in (2nd Peter 1:4). Jesus was the first, the HEAD of his symbolic BODY, which are the saints; they also are to receive the reward of immortality, meaning that they cannot die. Over these the "second death has NO power." (Revelation 20:6

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

There is overwhelming scriptural evidence that reveals the trinity as a false doctrine. While we respect sincere students of the Bible who disagree with us, it is offensive to hear those advocating the trinity claiming one must believe in it as a basis for salvation. If this were the case we are confident that the God of the universe would have presented it in a far less confusing way! Some advocates of the trinity claim it to be a great "mystery," one that is impossible to fully comprehend. Now wait a minute, didn't the Apostle Paul instruct followers of Christ to "prove all things?" (1st Thessalonians 5:21)

 

[gort]

The Gregorian quotes:

Example: God lives outside of time? Is he capable of counting "1,2,3?" Then time still exists... and he's 'in' it as much as we are.

'time' or 'motion' is a fundamental element of existance, and cannot be altered... even by God... because it's not a thing to be altered... God could freeze EVERYTHING... our minds/bodies/the entire universe... but HE could still count to 3... therefore time would still be ticking.

Interesting. Why do you conclude that by counting 1,2,3, that time must also exist?

If man has the ability someday to travel near the speed of light, does not, according to theory, time have an effect on that man who is in the vehicle travelling at said speed? Yet the person who is not in said vehicle, there is no effect.

So, if we are in time, why does God "have to be" in our time?

If God is eternal, and is and must be "in time", then logic seems to dictate an origin/starting point for God.

Another point I'd like to make is that we don't have the ability to feed thousands from a boys lunch of fish and bread by multiplying it in a blink of an eye.

Along this line of thought, how can we then say "God is in time"?

<><

 

[2ducklow]

What absolute nonsense.

How is my interpetation of John 1:1 nonsense? You say it is nonsense and then don't demonstrate how it is nonsense.

Jn.1:1 establishes the facts that:

a) 'the Word' existed in the begining;

b) 'the Word' was WITH God (in the begining) [by definition, this statement means that there were at least two Persons in the begining as is blatantly obvious by the use of the word 'with' (unless it meant something completely different in the 17th century?!). [the third Person can be established on the basis of other texts when taken in their proper context)]]

and finally: c) 'the Word' WAS God (in the begining).



These three statements combined categorically and irrefutably prove that God is absolutely not Unitarian in Nature (and in so doing substantially strengthens the case for a Trinitarian God).



All that needs to be done now is to establish the identity of 'the Word' since, whoever it is, is, according to Jn.1:1, the Infinite Divine Creator (Jn.1:3-5, 10-14; Col.1:15-17; 2:9; Heb.1:8-13...the evidence is stacking up against you mate...need I go on)?

This is not a response to what I said. You totally avoided what I said. I said john 20:32 indicates that all that john had written previously was written for the purpose of proving that Jesus is the son of God. Therefore, John 1:1 et. al. either prove that Jesus is the son of god or lay the ground work for that proof. Your previous attempt to disprove my assertion was merely a rewording of what John said to say something he didnt say. you haven't come to terms with Johns assertion that "these things have I written to you that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of god....." you changed this to say that "it merely means that we are to believe in Jesus." Not your exact words but you said something to that effect.

 

[gort]

The Gregorian quotes:

I understand it... I don't accept it. Example: Murder is evil. Everyone agrees with that? But sometimes it isn't. Biggest example is God. He's killed many MANY people... but it wasn't EVIL that he did... he had his reasons, which were obviously just. Also .... I can't quote because I forget where in the bible it is or even who did it... and it's 2:00 AM so I'm not looking it up this late... but... I remember an illustration where there was an army out there or whatnot and they were celebrating something and one of the leaders got a prostitute... and this other dude saw that and went in there and skewered them both with a spear. He murdered them, no question about it... but God was happy about it, and it was a good thing in that situation.

Depending on the situation, even something as evil as murder can be rightous... i.e. Evil and Good are exactly... whatever God wants them to be.

Perhaps you refer to Aaron son who skewered the man and pagan woman he brought into the tabernacle, or to the gate.

Yes, God saw he was zealous for God. And was made Priest after Aaron.

Try to think of the word "Judgements", instead of murder, killings, etc. Sort of a picture of the end times.

Also would like to ask, "If a man today is justly put to death for crimes, by lethal injection, is that evil ?

<><

 

[Simonline]

(Continued) "BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS I AM"JOHN 8:58)

One of the more credible arguments made by well meaning Trinitarians is the use of Jesus' words in verse 58 of the 8th chapter of John. In this conversation with the Pharisees, the Lord was rebuking them for not knowing who he really was. He informed them that their father Abraham rejoiced to see his day and he saw it and he was glad. (John 8:57) In doubting him, the Jewish spokesman responded, "you are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Following this in verse 58 Jesus said "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was I AM."

While on the surface one might conclude that Jesus was claiming to be God by declaring "I AM." Consider the words in the previous verses, "If I honor myself my honor is nothing. It is my Father who honors me, of whom you say that he is your God." verse 54.

Jesus was quoting from the book of Exodus when God appeared to Moses at the burning bush. "I AM WHO I AM." (Exodus 3:14) It is our contention that Jesus in his pre-human existence acted as the one carrying out Jehovah's wishes. He was representing Jehovah, as his messenger before mankind. What Jesus told the Pharisees was that he knew God, his Father, personally, and that he was present in Abraham's time acting upon the will of his Father.

DID THOMAS' WORDS "MY LORD AND MY GOD" PROVE THE TRINITY?<H3>Trinitarians use the words of the Apostle Thomas upon seeing Jesus following his resurrection "My Lord and my God." (John (20:28) as proof that Jesus was his own Father. Once again we refer to the Greek word theos and the meaning of this word. While this word has been used in places referring to the Heavenly Father, it can also be applied to those in authority. Jesus in his resurrected condition was the head of the Christian church and was truly Thomas' Lord and ruler.</H3><H2>JESUS NEVER ONCE CLAIMED TO BE GOD

If Jesus Christ was God, his own father, why didn't he come out and say so? Why did he come up with such a confusing doctrine known as the trinity? In all cases Jesus Christ speaks of his Father being his superior. Here are just a few scriptures, "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father." (John 6:57) "My doctrine is not mine but his who sent me." (John 7:16) "For the Father judges no one, but committed all judgment to the SON." (John 5:22) "And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as my Father bestowed one upon me." (Luke 22:29) "All authority has been given to me in Heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18) "All things have been delivered to me by my Father" (John 11:27) "In this love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son to be a propitiation for our sins." (1st John 4:10)

"THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I"

<H3>John 14:28

Throughout Jesus' earthly ministry he claimed to be subjected to the will of his Father. When speaking to his apostles the night before he was put to death, he said, "You have heard me say to you, I am going away and coming back to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, I am going to the Father, for my FATHER IS GREATER THAN I." (John 14:28)

"THE SON HIMSELF WILL BE SUBJECTED TO HIM"

1st CORINTHIANS 15:28

The Apostle Paul in speaking of the time when God's plan for mankind is complete, when death is destroyed and Christ's earthly reign comes to an end, has this to say. "Now when all things are made subject to him, (The Father) then the SON HIMSELF WILL BE SUBJECTED TO HIM who put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1st Corinthians 15:28) Now we ask, if Jesus is part of some "godhead" why would he ever be "subjected" to another?

"GOD OUR SAVIOR"

Those advocating the trinity have used the words of the Apostle where he calls God "our savior" (1st Timothy 1:1) as another proof for Christ's deity. While Jesus Christ carried out the role of savior, his Father is ultimately our savior because he designed the plan that rescued the human race. All things are by the Father through the son. "We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the son to be the savior of the world." (1st John 4:14)

OTHER SCRIPTURES DISPROVING THE TRINITY

There are numerous scriptures that disprove the trinity doctrine. Here are more words from Jesus on the subject. "Of that day and hour (when God's kingdom is set up fully) knoweth no man, no not angels, neither the Son, but my Father only." (Mark 13:32) "I send the promise of my Father upon you." (Luke 24:49) "I am come in my Father's name." (John 5:43) "Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:50)

WHAT ABOUT THE THE HOLY SPIRIT?

In addition to proclaiming that Jesus Christ is God, there is a third being of the so-called trinity. The Holy Spirit wrongly translated "Holy Ghost" in the original King James Bible, who is also said to be God. Unfortunately for the Trinitarian there is not one scripture in either the old or New Testament that says that the Holy Spirit is part of the godhead.

When the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit it is referring to the spirit of truth. This spirit is possessed by those who fully understand the plan of God, and that Jesus Christ died as a ransom for the entire world of mankind. Jesus, when being tempted by Satan in the wilderness quoted (Deuteronomy 6:13) "Man shall not live by bread alone, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Clearly there cannot be a better description of the holy sprit than this. This spirit of truth can be best described as "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Another way in which to understand the Holy Spirit is to compare it to the context of school spirit or patriotic spirit. Someone with the Holy Spirit has within them the spirit of God.

THE "COMFORTER" PROMISED BY JESUS

In preparing the apostles for his departure, Jesus promised them that his Father would send a "comforter" that would teach them all things. (John 14:25-26) He goes on to tell them that this comforter would be the Holy Spirit.

It is true that Jesus spoke of this comforter as "he" when explaining to them about this "spirit of truth." (John 16:7-12) He does not however claim that this was another form of God. The "he" is likely an angel, which were used as God's messengers throughout the Bible. This angel carried the message of the "spirit of truth" to the apostles on the day of Pentecost after Jesus ascended into Heaven. Just as when speaking of himself, our Lord taught that this comforter came from the Father.(John 14:25)

JESUS RECIEVED A GREATER EXISTENCE UPON HIS RESSURECTION

"THEREFORE GOD HAS HIGHLY EXALTED HIM AND GIVEN HIM THE NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME PHILIPIANS 2:9

We are taught in scripture that upon his obedience to the Heavenly Father, our Lord received a higher spiritual plane than he possessed in his pre-human existence. The Apostle Paul tells us that the "first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam (Jesus) BECAME A LIFE GIVING SPIRIT." (1st Corinthians 15:45) Jesus upon his obedience to his Heavenly Father was rewarded with a new nature, "the divine nature" as mentioned by the Apostle Peter in (2nd Peter 1:4). Jesus was the first, the HEAD of his symbolic BODY, which are the saints; they also are to receive the reward of immortality, meaning that they cannot die. Over these the "second death has NO power." (Revelation 20:6

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

There is overwhelming scriptural evidence that reveals the trinity as a false doctrine. While we respect sincere students of the Bible who disagree with us, it is offensive to hear those advocating the trinity claiming one must believe in it as a basis for salvation. If this were the case we are confident that the God of the universe would have presented it in a far less confusing way! Some advocates of the trinity claim it to be a great "mystery," one that is impossible to fully comprehend. Now wait a minute, didn't the Apostle Paul instruct followers of Christ to "prove all things?" (1st Thessalonians 5:21)

I will respond to this post later when I have time (needless to say I disagree with it). A cursory glance over this post tells me that it's author has no real understanding of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as I will demonstrate in my reponse. What the author of this post is arguing against is not the Biblical understanding of the Trinity but his own defective understanding which he mistakenly believes to be 'the Biblical understanding of the Trinity'...watch this space.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

bah... make up your mind... what is the definition of "being?" If 'god' is not an individual but made of three individuals (Father/son/holy spirit), then each of the three ARE individuals.... they each have seperate minds (as I've given verses for that no one's refuted), and for at least SOME duration, they had seperate bodies/rank (at least while Jesus was on earth, he had his own human body and was lesser than God.) So... if Jesus is an individual with his own personal mind/body/rank/etc. that is not to be confused with his father's.... what do you mean by they're one 'being'?

Like I said, you have absolutely no understanding of the Biblical Trinity whatsoever. Whilst it is true that the Trinitarian God is made up of three separate and distinct Persons [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] it is NOT true that all three Persons are, or have ever been, Incarnate. The Scriptures teach only that the second Person of the Trinity - the eternally begotten Son/Word of God has ever incarnated. The Father and the Holy Spirit have NEVER incarnated and therefore have NEVER had any need of any corporeal 'body' (Jn.4:24). The Judeo-Christian concept of Divinity is strictly monotheistic. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ONLY ONE GOD (Deut.6:4).

Simonline.

 

[2ducklow]

It would be even less confusing if you posted as if you lived in the 21st century and not the 17th century, using archaic and antiquated English text that is guaranteed to cause confusion for those of us living in the 21st century. It's no wonder you're confused if you're learning your theology through the medium of archaic and antiquated English (Gen.11:5-9; Gal.1:7; 5:10; 1Cor.14:33(a))?!



'"But," he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I AM, you will indeed die in your sins."

"Who are you?" they asked

"Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. "I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from Him I tell the world."

The confusion doesn't come from the archaic english but from the name of God (I AM) which is the same in both our translations. Also, you are assuming that Jesus is saying "I am the I AM" precicsely because of the name of God which means 'I am ' in english.

That is a blatant contradiction?! You cannot say in one breath "Not of course that he [the Messiah] is God the Father" and then, in the very next breath, say "So since in vs. 26 Jesus says he is the one he talked about in the begining [i.e. 'the Father'], "he spake of his father" (v.27) cannot refer to v.26 but has to be in reference to v.24 (the 'I AM' verse) and their subsequent question as to who he is "who art thou?". because of his statement about "I AM'" since that is to contradict yourself because you are actually saying that the Messiah is claiming to be 'the Father' each time he makes reference to the tetragrammaton ['I AM - YHWH'] (i.e the ancient heresy of Sabellianism a.k.a. 'Modalism')?!

.
"So since in vs. 26 Jesus says he is the one he talked about in the begining [i.e. 'the Father'],"

You have misquoted me. then asserted that i contradicted myself I never said what you claim I said.
Here is what i said.

"So since in vs. 26 Jesus says he is the one he talked about in the beginning "he spake of his father cannot refer to vs. 26 but has to be in reference to vs. 24 (I AM verse) "

Not fair to put words in my mouth like this but I could have worded it more clearly I meant that jesus is who he has always claimed to be someone sent by God. I meant Jesus was saying that he is who he has always claimed to be from the very beginning either of his ministry or the begginning of this conversation. IN verse 26 Jesus says that he is the one that was sent by him. He doesn't say who him is but we know that 'him' is god the father because of vs. 27 which states that. So my point was that vs. 24 where Jesus said "I AM", prompted the Jews to ask Jesus who he thought he was? vs. 26 has Jesus clarifing that he is not the I AM but rather the one that was sent by the I Am i.e. 'him'. And of course the jews didnt know that Jesusd was speaking of God the Father, they thought he was speaking of himself as do you.
I believe that Jesus meant that he was who he said he was at the beginning of his conversation with them. which is the one who was sent by God. Nowhere in their conversation did jesus asssert that He is the I AM. I

 

[hybrid]

again... until this is answered, I'll repost until someone addresses the issue:

"In one short sentance or paragraph... discribe the relationship between Jesus and his Father... if they are seperate "but one" discribe how they are the same and how they are different. Leave all poetics out... I don't care about the divine oneness of the infinity of the glory of divinity.... I want a simple explanation as though you were teaching it to an adult who has never picked up a bible before."

hi gregorian,

let me try....

1) There is one God.

2) The Father is God

3) The Son is "eternally generated" or "eternally begotten" by the Father. this means that the dna (divine essence or diety) of the father is in the son. simply means the Father is the FAther of the Son.

4) The Son is fully divine. The Son shares the Father's essence or deity without limitation or delimitation. Although the word "God" is reserved for the Father when both the Father and Son are mentioned in the bible (the Son is then called Lord), the Son is called also God and assumed names and titles of God if mentioned alone. in short the son is true god of true god.

5) The Son is his own person . His personality or conciousness is to glorify his father. THe father's personality is to love and take pleasure with his son.. In short, the Father and Son are different Persons.

6) the Spirit, "eternally procedes" from the Father and the Son. He is to testify re Christ. do the will of the father. and active in once persons salvation.

7) On equality. They are not clones, twins or peers. The son is equal to the father because the Father shares his glory to the Son and the Father gave all his power and authority to the Son. All the Father’s has belongs to the Son.

a metaphor though always inadequate might help..

think of the Sun as the Father,
the ray beams or radiance as the Son
and warmth of the visible light as the HS

The sun is the source of radiance and light.
with out the sun there is no radiance or wamrth.
but the sun was never a sun without the radiance and the warmth.
so the sun always existed with the radiance and the warmth
so that they are inseperably one.

using this metaphor as ex,

MODALISM teaches the sun existed and than the radiance and then the warmth in three succesion.

TRITHEISM teaches that there are three suns.

Hope it helps you understand

 

[2ducklow]

The Jews then ask 'Who are you?' to which the Messiah replies 'I am exactly who I have been claiming to be all along (ever since my ministry started) [I'm not going to change my story!]' [i.e. 'I AM' - YHWH].

So here you say Jesus is the I AM.

No, the Messiah did not say that he was the 'I AM' since that would not have been true (and neither did his hearers think that he had said that).

So which is it?first you say Jesus is claiming to be the I AM then you say that he is not the I AM.

Here we clearly see that the Messiah is asserting his claim to Divinity by specifically using the Tetragramaton ['YHWH - I AM'] by means of a subtle play on words (notice the semi-colon in between the two statements of verse 24 thereby clearly showing that there are two statements in verse 24 and not just one?) 'he' is not in the original text but has been added by way of 'explanation' for English readers. In the NIV text the phrase 'the one I claim to be' has been interjected by way of 'explanation'.

Well there explanation is wrong and they should stop putting their explanations in as scritpure. If they want to explain scripture put it in a foot note.

[qluote=simonline]This defective reasoning is based entirely on the false theological presupposition that God (as made in the image of man by '2ducklow') is Unitarian in Nature[/quote]
God is one not unitarian according to scripture. If one means three then how do we know if one also does not mean 270 million or some other number. Both make no sense. All we humans have to understand scripture with is logic or illogic, You are claiming that gods word is illogical to us at times. correct? I might agree that Gods word might appear illogical or contradictory at times. but an explanation that is contradcitory or illogical is not gods word.No verse says the illogical 3 beings are one being. that is an illogical interpetation of scirpture. scirpute is not illogical, only interpetations are. you can't justifably claim that your illogic is what God means. By what authority do you claim that?

But to any sane and reasonable person it is obvious that these statements are either pictorial or symbolic and definitely not literal. There is absolutely nothing in the context of the opening chapter of John (or even the rest of Scripture) to suggest that the first chapter of John should not be understood literally and certainly not symbolically

Not true simon. To any sane and reasonable person it is obvious that what God says (his word) is not God and therefore definitely not literal. The evidence in john 1:1 that God is not literally the word or his words is in greek grammar which you haven't adressed except to merely say my explanation was nonsense. Briefly, and there is a lot to this, it says literally. The word was with The God. and God (no definite article) was The Word. Highly significant in greek unlike english, when the definite article is left off. If in greek John had meant to say the word was god he would have put a def. article before god which would have cleared it up and there would be no doubt. but God is not a direct object it is a predicate nominative grammatically meaning that it behaves much like an adjective. As in my example of 'God is Love' Love is not a direct object it is a predicate nominative. meaning it predicates something about t he subject in this case God. In john 1:1 God predicates something about the word. God is an attribute or quality of the Word. In order for God to literally be the word God would have to be a direct object, but it isn't.

 

[The Gregorian]

This is a "discussion forum" not a game show. This is just another version of the lame Christian Unorthodox Later Theology, "One question/verse that completely, utterly, totally, absolutely, destroys the doctrine of the Trinity, and no Trinitarian can answer it."

No... but any discussion can only be held assuming all parties know exactly what it is that you're discussing. The idea of a "trinity" is not specific at all. Some understandings of the word are very acceptable, even by me (that they are three seperate individuals including God, God's son, and a holy spirit, forming one team). Another version is that there is a single being with one body that three individuals inhabit... Another version is that there's one person that switches form between three people (i.e. the 'jesus is the father manifest in the flesh' theory). Another version is a mix of the two... that they're the same, yet different, seperate, yet one, in the divine glory that is infinity.... which was not meant for our finite minds to understand.... yet Jesus said he came to teach people about his Father (among other things)... so he came to teach us, but we weren't supposed to know?

There are a LOT of versions of the trinity out there, and unfortunately, people like to switch which one they accept based on what point they're trying to make... In order for me to know what theories each person holds... I want them to state it... i.e.:

"What is the trinity/how are the father and son, different 'yet the same,' in what SPECIFIC way are they 'yet the same.'

What are your qualifications in Biblical Greek, if any?

Odds are, same as yours. I do NOT claim to be an expert in greek, but I am an avid linguist, I pick up patterns very well and I do what I can.

our grammatical musings may hold true for English, but John didn’t write in English.

Exactly why every time someone uses the first person singular form of "to be" as translated into english, I don't immediately assume they are claiming to be YHWH (for some reason translated in some cases into "I am")[/quote]

A fact that most anti-Trinitarians with their cut/paste arguments fail to understand, is this happened in the temple, the leaders of this mob were the priests, scribes, and Pharisees. If Jesus was not identifying himself as God, why would the priests desecrate the temple by trying to stone Jesus, there and then, in the temple, in front of witnesses, violating at least twenty-two Jewish laws, including "Thou shalt not murder?"

.... your question is why don't we questionlessly trust the very people who misunderstood Jesus so bad they put him to death as a blasphemer. Answer: because he's not a blasphemer... therefore they were wrong about multiple things.

Also I like your "cut/paste arguments" comment... have you not noticed how many times I've pointed out entire posts where people just plain cut and pasted their argument off a web page they googled? I defy you to point to ONE post of mine where I copied and pasted my arguement from another source, without giving my commentary on it. It does NOT happen (to my knowledge at least).

Only blasphemy of God is a stoning offense. Merely identifying one's self with the first person pronoun is not.

That's why they were stoning him for preforming miracles on the sabbath... also a stoning offense. And when they paraphrased him, they specifically said that it was also because he claimed to be God's SON... if he said "i am" meaning that he was "the I am (YHWH)" then they would have said 'because he was claiming to be God." not "God's SON" Instead... right after he claimed to be God's S-O-N, Not God himself... they went to stone him for claiming to be God's S...O...N.

I am

(ego¯ eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God.

While I am not an expert I do know some basics. The tetragrammeton (YHWH) is the God's name... it has been translated as "I am" in some cases.... While "ego eimi" can also be translated into "I am" it is NOT the tetragrammeton, ergo not God's name, therefore Jesus is not using it in a way to claim to be God. Ego is just the pronoun "I." "Eimi" is that conjugation of the greek infinitive "To be." As in any other language that I have any experience in... that combination of first person singular subject and the infinitive with the meaning of existance, is a very common phrase. "I am" "ich bin" "ego eimi" all mean "I exist" or... if more words follow: "I am existing in the following state: When Jesus said "before abaham I am." Jesus was saying "I exist, (and have existed) before Abraham existed."

Long story short "Ego eimi" is not the tertragrammeton (YHWH)... It's anyone discribing something about himself.

 

[The Gregorian]

In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases.

But "God" and "Lord" are not the same... they are two distinct titles given to two seperate individuals (1 co 8:8). The Father is God... Jesus is Lord... the two titles are not replacable. This is similar to in old fuedal europe when society was broken up into very specific rank. Peasants lived in their master's home... the home was often one building in a lord's keep. The lord of the land (where the term landlord came from) had a very significant rank and a lot of authority, but was still VERY much under the rule of the king (and all other tiers between lord and king such as duke, etc.].

This shows Jesus, as lord, as having very strong authority above all those stationed underneith him (the rest of earth)... however he is still servant to his King (God).

BTW... you made a reference to copy/paste arguments... I noticed this isn't your normal writing style... did you suddenly learn greek and change your grammer patterns, or might you have copied the bulk of this post?

Interesting. Why do you conclude that by counting 1,2,3, that time must also exist?

If man has the ability someday to travel near the speed of light, does not, according to theory, time have an effect on that man who is in the vehicle travelling at said speed? Yet the person who is not in said vehicle, there is no effect.

So, if we are in time, why does God "have to be" in our time?

If God is eternal, and is and must be "in time", then logic seems to dictate an origin/starting point for God.

Another point I'd like to make is that we don't have the ability to feed thousands from a boys lunch of fish and bread by multiplying it in a blink of an eye.

Along this line of thought, how can we then say "God is in time"?

a: because 'time' is simply our ability to move... motion doesn't all happen at once, so we say it happens over a period of time.. just like not all things exist in the same place... therefore all things exist at the same time... but in different places. Simply because we move, doesn't mean we're traveling through a tangible thing called 'time'. Time is nothing more than a way to define why things move... if you can count "1,2,3." since you're thinking multiple different things at different times, time must be flowing... you start thinking one, then stop, then start thinking two... since you are no longer doing what you were before, time must still be going. Any time anything changes... time is going... Even if time WERE to stop, it would never be noticed because nothing would ever change... If someone were to notice... that would indicate they are thinking something new, therefore something has moved... therefore time must still be flowing.

B: The speed of light thing: Special relativity is ****... einstein meant well, I have respect for him, he was a good guy.... but he was just plain wrong about that.

C: God doesn't have to be in 'our' time... There's nothing to dictate that all things experience time at the same rate... different things may perceive time as flowing in a different rate, therefore act/react quicker/slower... but for all purposes time 'itself' isn't being altered... only the perception of time.

Example: Take a towel and try to hit a fly on the wall... it's bloody hard because those little buggers are FAST... they react faster than any human I've ever met... in spite of their TINY li'l brain. It's possible that... for whatever reason... as fast as they seem to be moving to us... we seem to move slower to them... to them they aren't reacting quickly at all... we're just swinging the towel bloody slow, and they can easily escape.... This shows a possible difference in two object's PERCEPTION of time... but throughout the whole thing... time is still flowing... their minds simply act faster, and therefore we seem to be moving slower (like film on a high speed camera.... you walk at a normal pace, and the film shown at different speeds may make you appear to walk very fast or very slow... but TIME hasn't changed... only how fast the frames move.)

btw, that may not be true, I have no evidence to even suggest that a fly senses things at a faster speed than humans.... it's just an illustration to support that time isn't an alterable material, but a definition we use to explain why things move and exist in one place, where it didn't exist before.

Lastly: we can say God is 'in time' Because God can think and move.... any time he moves... no matter what anything else percieves... he still moved..... He was one way, then he was another, therefore time is still flowing.

when I catch up, I'll make a new post for all this time stuff... seems like people are interested in it.

 

[The Gregorian]

Perhaps you refer to Aaron son who skewered the man and pagan woman he brought into the tabernacle, or to the gate.

Try to think of the word "Judgements", instead of murder, killings, etc. Sort of a picture of the end times.

Also would like to ask, "If a man today is justly put to death for crimes, by lethal injection, is that evil ?

A: Don't think so... I remember it being a tent and a prostitute... I dunno it doesn't matter... the aaron example works too... sometimes murder can be justified, and therefore not be 'evil' but the act... by default is 'evil.' so it can change.

B: yea... God gets to define what he calls it... bonus that comes with the job.

C: If God says it's ok, than it is... but I believe it's not our place to judge if someone can live or die. Trust me... there are plenty of people who I wouldn't have lost any sleep over if they were put to death... killing another person has NEVER fixed anything... it's a cheap way to run away from the problem. If a man murders your mother... killing him will not bring her back... it just satisfies your sense of vengance.

I will respond to this post later when I have time (needless to say I disagree with it). A cursory glance over this post tells me that it's author has no real understanding of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, ....

I'd like to correct something: please... STOP ASSUMING YOU'RE THE DEFINING AUTHORITY OF THEISM. Just because this person (along with all the rest of us who you've insulted in this way) has an understanding different from yours does not mean that they have no understanding at all. Multiple people with seperate minds will interpret things differently... Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're not, that's what discussion and learning is for.... but to say that because someone disagrees with "YOU" they don't understand is NOTHING less than arrogent self-love... remember the works of the flesh listed in Galations 5.

I do enjoy your opinions, and the excersize of debting with you... but you have to realize insults like that VERY deeply offend me. Prove him wrong, that's fine, explain your point, that's fine... but "I disagree with you, you must not understand what I've taught you." would cause a very solid object to come in contact with your face, were we in a room together.

Insult my appearance, that's understandable... mock my race/country, I'll just laugh... call my dead mother a harlot, that's forgivable... but NEVER question my faith. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way.

Like I said, you have absolutely no understanding of the Biblical Trinity whatsoever[/quote]

read above sim.

 

[The Gregorian]

Whilst it is true that the Trinitarian God is made up of three separate and distinct Persons [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] it is NOT true that all three Persons are, or have ever been, Incarnate. The Scriptures teach only that the second Person of the Trinity - the eternally begotten Son/Word of God has ever incarnated. The Father and the Holy Spirit have NEVER incarnated and therefore have NEVER had any need of any corporeal 'body' (Jn.4:24). The Judeo-Christian concept of Divinity is strictly monotheistic. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ONLY ONE GOD (Deut.6:4).

Not all beings need a corperal body (angels). Also, who's to say that God doesn't have a physical body? The bible never suggests what God looks like or is made of. Maybe his form is a 'pure energy' humanoid... maybe it's an amorphis blob of ectoplasm... no one knows, and it doesn't really matter what God's made of... he's still God.

1) There is one God.

2) The Father is God

3) The Son is "eternally generated" or "eternally begotten" by the Father. this means that the dna (divine essence or diety) of the father is in the son. simply means the Father is the FAther of the Son.
....

So they're seperate beings of the same race... they're not the same person, but they have the same physical structure/powers, etc. But seperate individuals allow for one to be the dominant 'father' and one to be the submissive 'son.' As long as the son can't replace the Father and the Father doesn't replace the son... that's an acceptable explanation.

I fully agree. That was a clear, lucid, and acceptable explanation of the relationship between the Father and Son....

So... simonline... you have a model... what is your opinion... you can use Hybrid's format. (like to also hear from duck and daneel, etc. to see if they all agree)

"In one short sentance or paragraph... discribe the relationship between Jesus and his Father... if they are seperate "but one" discribe how they are the same and how they are different. Leave all poetics out... I don't care about the divine oneness of the infinity of the glory of divinity.... I want a simple explanation as though you were teaching it to an adult who has never picked up a bible before."

 

[eksesar]

When God said to be making man in "OUR" image (Gen1:26), as already posted--it couldn't be "angels" He spoke to, and the only logical explanation would have to be Jesus who was there. as it later says its in the image of GOD (not God and angels) man is created. Angels where not created in the image of God.

Scripture says many things about the nature of God.
*Scripture says there is one and only one true God, Yahweh.
None other have been created or exist-- only 1 true God, all else are false.
*Scripture shows that there is one God that is plural in nature--
Genesis 1:26 'let US make man in OUR image...In the Image of GOD he created him.'
Genesis3:22-'The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil....'
Dueteronomy 6:4, the Jewish Shema said many times by Jews every where every day, 'Hear oh Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is ONE':

The word for 'ONE' in the hebrew is 'echod' which is not hebrew for the number one, there is a separate word for the number, it's hebrew for one in unity. Like the word 'Church' is one church but indicates plural members. But especially like when the Bible says The two shall become 'ONE' in marraige. Two in ONE union.
*Scripture also calls all three- Father ,Jesus, and Holy Spirit-God and says that all three have all the qualities of God.
I can elaborate on this as neccessary so if Scripture says all those things:
Only 1 God, Plural Nature, Describes only those 3 as God, then you have what Christian believe:

The trinity. The trinity has existed in Christian doctrine in writting since the beggining of Christianity (long before Nicea or the Catholic Church!) so this also lends some backup evidence that the belief is accurate.

the Next questions is :
God and Jesus are one and the same, as some people say, HOW could God be talking to himself and saying to make man in "OUR" image?

God-Yahweh- in christian belief- is a trinity- tri-unity. Not three Gods, not one god with three faces (Doctrines of Watchtower), etc.. but 1 God revealed as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. Each of these three are separate persons just like three people are separate, but the Bible says that they are one in purpose, essence, & being- they are one God.

Since they are all three individual persons that have all existed eternity past and future, as they don't exist in time, they can talk to each other and do tons and tons-- even in the OT ! I dont think the questions is how can they talk to eachother, it is how can they create man in BOTH their images if their images are allegedly opposite- created under-god VS. 'Almighty' Jehovah. Their images would not be the same then or compatible.

next Questions :
God and Jesus are the same "person", and Jesus prayed to GOD...it's got to be explained somehow.

God is three personal, as the scriptures teach. The father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are not alleged by the trinity or scripture to be the same person. See above answers.

The next question is raise
Did Jesus died (and they're, again, both the same), did God die, and commend his soul to himself???

Yes, Jesus being God incarnate, died. It actually makes sense that someone much greater than just a perfect person would be neccessary for the sacrifice that Saves the WHOLE world past, present, and future from ALL sin. Just a perfect man wouldn't be comprable to that. But contrary to JW doctrine the sould does not cease to exist-which is a whole other line of scripture!-- so Jesus didn't cease to exist at death. He commanded his spirit to the Father, not himself. Jesus took on the nature of man to save man from our sins.


Scriptures support both the Diety of Jesus Christ and the Diety and personage of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Simonline]

Not all beings need a corperal body (angels). Also, who's to say that God doesn't have a physical body? The bible never suggests what God looks like or is made of. Maybe his form is a 'pure energy' humanoid... maybe it's an amorphis blob of ectoplasm... no one knows, and it doesn't really matter what God's made of... he's still God.

This tells me that you have not even bothered to read the Scripture references I have cited in support of my arguments (if you've ever bothered to read the Bible at all (except through 'theological presuppositionally tinted spectacles')?!) GOD CANNOT POSSIBLY BE 'MADE' OF ANYTHING (WHO OR WHAT 'MADE' HIM?!) Jn.4:24 says: "GOD IS SPIRIT and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in Truth". The very fact that God expressly forbids man from crafting anything physical in order to try and represent him is testament to the fact that, with the exception of Man himself who is made in the image of God, nothing physical can ever come even remotely close to adequately reflecting God. That is precisely why we have the second commandment (Ex.20:4-6). You really should try some 'joined up' thinking sometime?!

So they're seperate beings of the same race... they're not the same person, but they have the same physical structure/powers, etc. But seperate individuals allow for one to be the dominant 'father' and one to be the submissive 'son.' As long as the son can't replace the Father and the Father doesn't replace the son... that's an acceptable explanation.

I fully agree. That was a clear, lucid, and acceptable explanation of the relationship between the Father and Son....

So... simonline... you have a model... what is your opinion... you can use Hybrid's format. (like to also hear from duck and daneel, etc. to see if they all agree)

No it isn't because although the Father and the Son are separate and distinct Persons they are absolutely NOT separate beings. "Hear O Israel! The Lord our God; the Lord is ONE [Heb. echad - a unit composed of parts (a reference to the Trinitarian Nature of God) as distinct from yichad an indivisible mathematical unit (i.e. 'a Unitarian God')]" (Deut.6:4 - That's the other reference that I cited, that you didn't bother to look up; Cf. Isa.43:10-13) Judeo-Christianity is a strict monotheistic faith. We worship ONE God , not two or three gods!

And, for the record, no other self-respecting Trinitarian (who actually understands the doctrine of the Trinity) will agree either...as I guarantee 'Der Alter' will testify.

"In one short sentance or paragraph... discribe the relationship between Jesus and his Father... if they are seperate "but one" discribe how they are the same and how they are different. Leave all poetics out... I don't care about the divine oneness of the infinity of the glory of divinity.... I want a simple explanation as though you were teaching it to an adult who has never picked up a bible before."

I have spent hours spelling out the Trinitarian Nature of God (both on this thread and others) and you have consistantly refused to accept any of it. God can NEVER be reduced to a thirty second soundbite and to even think for a moment that such could be possible is to completely and utterly misunderstand the profound Nature of God. As the Messiah himself said (to people who were equally as stubborn and obstinate as you are) "Unless you believe that I AM you will die in your trespasses and sins." (Jn.8:24)

Simonline.

 

[Der Alte]

[size=-1]No... but any discussion can only be held assuming all parties know exactly what it is that you're discussing. The idea of a "trinity" is not specific at all. Some understandings of the word are very acceptable[/size], . . .. [irrelevant bloviation omitted] . . .[size=-1]There are a LOT of versions of the trinity out there, and unfortunately, people like to switch which one they accept based on what point they're trying to make... In order for me to know what theories each person holds... I want them to state it... i.e.:

"What is the trinity/how are the father and son, different 'yet the same,' in what SPECIFIC way are they 'yet the same.'[/size]

I posted a few definitions for the Trinity, what exactly did you not understand?

[size=-1]Odds are, same as yours. I do NOT claim to be an expert in greek, but I am an avid linguist, I pick up patterns very well and I do what I can. [/size]

I seriously doubt your qualifications in Biblical Greek are the same as mine. I learned to speak Greek more than 45 years ago, and studied it formally over 2 decades ago. And I have several references close by, TDNT, BAGD, Strong’s, Robertson, Vincent, Thayer, Louw-Nida, R.A. Martins Grammar, you have quoted ZERO Greek resources so your “avid linguist, I pick up patterns very well” means diddly squat.

[size=-1]Exactly why every time someone uses the first person singular form of "to be" as translated into english, I don't immediately assume they are claiming to be YHWH (for some reason translated in some cases into "I am")[/size]

Irrelevant what you think, believe, suppose, assume, etc., about someone speaking English. What did the 1st century Jews understand? I cited Jewish sources showing exactly what they believed and understood. All you are doing is giving me stuff your so-called teachers have spoon fed you.

[size=-1].... your question is why don't we questionlessly trust the very people who misunderstood Jesus so bad they put him to death as a blasphemer. Answer: because he's not a blasphemer... therefore they were wrong about multiple things. [/size]

Let’s see, you did not respond to what I posted, you wrongly impute motives to me, you blow off all Jewish scholarship because of your assumptions and presuppositions? Hey, since the Jews were wrong about Jesus being a blasphemer then they must have been wrong about everything else, so that means we can just make up our own meaning for Hebrews words and create our own explanations about their customs and practices.

[size=-1]Also I like your "cut/paste arguments" comment... have you not noticed how many times I've pointed out entire posts where people just plain cut and pasted their argument off a web page they googled? I defy you to point to ONE post of mine where I copied and pasted my arguement from another source, without giving my commentary on it. It does NOT happen (to my knowledge at least).[/size]

I did not say your posts were cut and paste, I said your anti-Trinitarian argument was. You didn’t invent it, someone spoon fed it to you. Your “Neener, neener, neener, you can’t answer it.” questions are not original it has been argued many, many times before. And they are a pathetic substitute for exegesis of the scripture.

[size=-1]That's why they were stoning him for preforming miracles on the sabbath... also a stoning offense. And when they paraphrased him, they specifically said that it was also because he claimed to be God's SON... if he said "i am" meaning that he was "the I am (YHWH)" then they would have said 'because he was claiming to be God." not "God's SON" Instead... right after he claimed to be God's S-O-N, Not God himself... they went to stone him for claiming to be God's S...O...N.[/size]

Tell me, does making the font size HUGE make a false statement, True? Ignoring my previous posts and repeating the same old assumptions and presuppositions over and over again. Tell me again why they stoned him?

Joh 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.

Joh 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.

Phi 2:6 Who, being (existing) in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:​

[size=-1]While I am not an expert I do know some basics. The tetragrammeton (YHWH) is the God's name... it has been translated as "I am" in some cases.... While "ego eimi" can also be translated into "I am" it is NOT the tetragrammeton, ergo not God's name, therefore Jesus is not using it in a way to claim to be God.[/size] [more irrelevant bloviation omitted] . . .
[size=-1]Long story short "Ego eimi" is not the tertragrammeton (YHWH)... It's anyone discribing something about himself. [/size]

You have demonstrated ZERO knowledge what the 1st century Jews believed, and I am not the least bit interested in the nonsense that you have been spoon fed. I quoted two renowned Greek scholars, Vincent and Robertson, and the Jewish Encyclopedia. When you can bring 47 years of Bible scholarship to the table then I might listen to your “some basics.” I posted Bible language resources, you respond with your own presuppositions and assumptions.

As I proved from Jewish sources the ancient Jews considered “I Am” to be a name of God. You know absolutely nothing about Biblical Hebrew or Greek, you know absolutely nothing about ancient Jewish beliefs, customs, etc. so all this stuff you are spouting about the Tetra and “I Am” adds up to diddly squat.

Had you bothered to even read my post there was one sentence near the bottom, which stated that the Hebrew word “Ani” was also a name of God. The phrase [size=+1] &#1488;&#1504;&#1497; &#1488;&#1504;&#1497; &#1492;&#1493;&#1488;[/size]/Ani Hu” is used nine times in the O.T. exclusively by God. Would you like to know how it was translated in the LXX, by Jewish scholars, 250 years b.c.? [size=+1]&#949;&#947;&#969; &#949;&#953;&#956;&#953;[/size]/ego eimi. But wait our Bible expert who knows diddly about Biblical Hebrew or the beliefs of the ancient Jews tells us the Jews, “were wrong about multiple things, and he knows a few [English] basics, so we can just ignore, what they actually believed. Koolaid anyone?

In the context of John 8:58 when Jesus spoke the words, [size=+1]&#949;&#947;&#969; &#949;&#953;&#956;&#953;[/size], the priests, scribes, and Pharisees clearly understood him to be identifying himself as God, and that is why they were willing to break, about, 22 of their own laws to murder him in the temple, without a trial.

 

[Simonline]

My question is: are you sure the tetragrammeton (YHWH) was used there, not the most basic, and commonly used phrase in any language: "I am." (any time you say you're doing anything, you use this phrase: "I am sitting." does not mean you are God. Honestly I never understood why they would translate YHWH into "I am."

Then allow me to explain. The tetragrammaton [YHWH] is the Hebrew equivalent of the English verb 'to be' (i.e existence without reference to time).

Since God is Eternal (i.e. his existence is without reference to time (God created time therefore, by definition, he existed before time itself)) he could not possibly be 'I WAS' or 'I WILL BE' since both of these statements are predicated upon time ['I WAS' = past; 'I WILL BE' = future].

Since both 'past' and 'future' do not exist for God (because God existed before time itself was created) the only term that could 'adequately' describe God is 'I AM'. This has no time predicate (it does away with the idea of time 'past' or time 'future'). This is why God sees everything (all of history) simultaneoulsly and on that basis is able to tell Man what (for us) will happen in our future....because, for God, it's not future, it's NOW!

No... it was funny. I don't believe the poster of what you were commenting on (someone saying that, while some people were made in the image of divine beings, that he was made in the image of a dog.) was actually insinuating that God recreated a new breed of humanity in his mother's room for him to more closely resemble a dog... he was simply being humble, meek, etc.

He was using his sense of humor which God gave him... and you HAVE to admit God has a great sense of humor... I mean look at monkies (small ones like spider monkies, not the bigger apes).... those little buggers serve no purpose but for our personal amusement... birds do a better job at dispersing seeds and feed carnivors better with their higher meat/weight ratio... Monkies are a complete waste except for our amusement. And even if the species itself wasn't a waste.... look at the characteristics they show... name one other animal that flings poo and makes faces at people... Look at the platipus... that's nothing more than God amusing himself with a completely silly looking thing.

First of all, there is only ONE DIVINE BEING and He is God. Therefore all human beings are made in the image of the ONE DIVINE BEING who is God. Since the truth is that this person as a human being is made in the image of the ONE DIVINE BEING who is God, to say that he is actually made in the image of a 'dog' is to denegrate the image in which he is actually made (i.e. that of the ONE DIVINE BEING who is God). He is effectively taking that which is holy (i.e. the image of the ONE DIVINE BEING) and treating it as profane. That is the height of irreverent blasphemy, a sin for which, in times past, God has struck men down dead where they stood. One of the defining marks of the Western world during the late 20th and early 21st century is that Man (including Man in the Church) has lost all holy fear and reverence for God and replaced it with arrogant contempt. For many, only on Judgment Day wil that holy fear return with a vengence and by that time it will be too late. Then, only the everlasting Lake of Fire will await them.

Through God's creations, he shows a lot of human emotions... such as beauty.... I mean look at some of the species of birds and fish that are completely and wastefully beautiful? Look at some of the landscapes out there in australia and in oregon... beautiful waterfalls and forests and desserts... getting off track here...

Boy, your posts are so revealing about how you think! God shows absolutely no human emotions through his Creation. The emotions are all His own. God is NOT made in the image of Man. Man is made in the image of God (Gen.1:26-27). How can you say that anything is 'wastefully beautiful'?! God, in accordance with his nature, is extravagant but NEVER wasteful.

You are so extravagant Jesus by Phil Streeter

You are so extravagant Jesus - unbelievably extravagant in everything you do. You made a superabundance of things that are considered of little value.

How many cast a second glance at sunrises and sunsets? Yet both go flaunting around the skies like women parading new dresses.

How many of us bother our heads about a field filled with varnished buttercups? We can't eat them. Yet you find buttercups so cheap and fascinating to produce that golden carpets flop around everywhere.

Then there are the huge heaving seas, why make so much water Jesus? We can't drink it.
And all those snowflakes endlessly parachuting to Earth. Why send so many, and why each one a different pattern and shape? Sheer extravagance.

No Jesus. You are by no means economical. Even a picnic on a hill resulted in twelve baskets filled with leftovers.

When Mary of Bethany was extravagant in her worship of you people cried 'Economise!' You said 'This woman's extravagance will be praised and remembered forever.'

Yes, my younger brother, you are begining to glimpse a hue in the rainbow of My character: Creation demonstrates My extravagance and may be considered outlandish preposterous yet it symbolizes my love for you.

Commonsense is finite a companion of timidity and timidity produces economy.

I was not sensible calculating or precise when I loved you from that hillside.

Economy takes no risks. Without venture there can be no adventure.

I tell you My younger brother, that, alongside wealth, economy has been deified. However, I make no allowances for cutting cloth accordingly, nor for hording for rainy days; you must give yourself extravagantly.

The security in the apparent wisdom of economy is opposite to the Nature of My Father who delights in feeding millions of birds with billions of insects; Who cultivates grasses and invents flowers simply for the joy of it.

Quoted from 100 Contemporary Christian Poets Compiled by Gordon Bailey published by Lion Publications [ISBN 0856484997] (c) 1983

I'd still not assume that any time they use the hebrew form of the "to be" infinitive in the first person form, they're claiming to be god. Like I said "I am sitting in a chair." but I did not claim to be God just then... 'I am' is a pretty poor translation for the tetragrammeton (YHWH)

This is nonsense based upon your own ignorance of the Trinitarian Nature of God. There is no other phrase in English that comes closer to interpreting the tetragrammaton [YHWH] than 'I AM' (which is why all the genuine translators use that phrase) for the reasons that I have set out above. Just because the term is always linked to a verb (an action word) when used with reference to finite creatures dos not mean that it has to be used in the same way when used with reference to the Eternal Creator. Again this is revealing more about your thought processes and the fact that you are trying to make God 'conform' to the image of man...thereby proving that in your thought processes you're actually working backwards?! The Bible calls this idolatry.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I posted a few definitions for the Trinity, what exactly did you not understand?



I seriously doubt your qualifications in Biblical Greek are the same as mine. I learned to speak Greek more than 45 years ago, and studied it formally over 2 decades ago. And I have several references close by, TDNT, BAGD, Strong’s, Robertson, Vincent, Thayer, Louw-Nida, R.A. Martins Grammar, you have quoted ZERO Greek resources so your “avid linguist, I pick up patterns very well” means diddly squat.



Irrelevant what you think, believe, suppose, assume, etc., about someone speaking English. What did the 1st century Jews understand? I cited Jewish sources showing exactly what they believed and understood. All you are doing is giving me stuff your so-called teachers have spoon fed you.



Let’s see, you did not respond to what I posted, you wrongly impute motives to me, you blow off all Jewish scholarship because of your assumptions and presuppositions? Hey, since the Jews were wrong about Jesus being a blasphemer then they must have been wrong about everything else, so that means we can just make up our own meaning for Hebrews words and create our own explanations about their customs and practices.



I did not say your posts were cut and paste, I said your anti-Trinitarian argument was. You didn’t invent it, someone spoon fed it to you. Your “Neener, neener, neener, you can’t answer it.” questions are not original it has been argued many, many times before. And they are a pathetic substitute for exegesis of the scripture.





Tell me, does making the font size HUGE make a false statement, True? Ignoring my previous posts and repeating the same old assumptions and presuppositions over and over again. Tell me again why they stoned him?

Joh 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.


Joh 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.

Phi 2:6 Who, being (existing) in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
​

You have demonstrated ZERO knowledge what the 1st century Jews believed, and I am not the least bit interested in the nonsense that you have been spoon fed. I quoted two renowned Greek scholars, Vincent and Robertson, and the Jewish Encyclopedia. When you can bring 47 years of Bible scholarship to the table then I might listen to your “some basics.” I posted Bible language resources, you respond with your own presuppositions and assumptions.

As I proved from Jewish sources the ancient Jews considered “I Am” to be a name of God. You know absolutely nothing about Biblical Hebrew or Greek, you know absolutely nothing about ancient Jewish beliefs, customs, etc. so all this stuff you are spouting about the Tetra and “I Am” adds up to diddly squat.

Had you bothered to even read my post there was one sentence near the bottom, which stated that the Hebrew word “Ani” was also a name of God. The phrase [size=+1]&#1488;&#1504;&#1497; &#1488;&#1504;&#1497; &#1492;&#1493;&#1488;[/size]/Ani Hu” is used nine times in the O.T. exclusively by God. Would you like to know how it was translated in the LXX, by Jewish scholars, 250 years b.c.? [size=+1]&#949;&#947;&#969; &#949;&#953;&#956;&#953;[/size]/ego eimi. But wait our Bible expert who knows diddly about Biblical Hebrew or the beliefs of the ancient Jews tells us the Jews, “were wrong about multiple things, and he knows a few [English] basics, so we can just ignore, what they actually believed. Koolaid anyone?

In the context of John 8:58 when Jesus spoke the words, [size=+1]&#949;&#947;&#969; &#949;&#953;&#956;&#953;[/size], the priests, scribes, and Pharisees clearly understood him to be identifying himself as God, and that is why they were willing to break, about, 22 of their own laws to murder him in the temple, without a trial.

WOW! No sane and reasonable person can argue with that! I am in awe (even though it's what I believe)

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

OK... well, I don't care what any bishop says. Divine... by definition of the english language... is anything of a heavenly nature (God/angels/etc.), anything supernatural, holy, etc. Is, (as per the english language) divine. A dude in Italy cannot redifine the english language.

However... you're using "Divine" meaning the person is a Diety. Example: All Dieties are Divine (as far as supernatural, not necissarily holy, depending on the theology), But not all Divine beings/individuals are Dieties. (angels, while heavenly and beyond human, are not gods.)

This is how I use the terms... feel free to disagree with me...

That's it then, game over! If you're going to redifine the English language according to to your own personal theological preferences then we have no common frame of reference which we can both use in order to communicate. We are effectively speaking entirely different languages?! This debate cannot continue.

According to the Illustrated Oxford Dictionary the word divine is defined as 'of, from or like God' from the Latin 'divus' meaning 'Godlike'. Therefore it is more correct and precise to restrict the use of the terms 'Divine' and 'Deity' to God himself and refer to all other non-coporeal beings as 'heavenly beings' to distinguish them as finite creatures from the One Divine Being Himself who alone is the Eternal Infinite Creator...it saves so much confusion...something on which non-Trinitarians seem to thrive.

The Bible teaches that there are many 'gods' but only One truely Divine Being or Deity (Isa.43:10-13). You obviously know better than God on that score and will no doubt be putting him straight in due course (Dan.4:34-35)?!

Simonline.