Trinity question

[Brennin]

That is because both of you refuse point blank to honestly objectively and impartially consider and weigh all the evidence contained within the Scriptures and formulate your theology on the basis of that evidence. Instead, you both prefer to tenaciously hang on to your own theological presuppositions whilst ignoring all Biblical evidence to the contrary. This is both deceitful and dishonest (2Tim.2:15).

Nonsense.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]The proof is in the pudding. you won't comment on anything I said. Name one thing I said that I didn't do right. Everything I said makes sense to me. So what I said is the proof that I did it right.[/SIZE]

I don't care diddly what makes sense to you. You opinion about anything means diddly squat to me. You used the same argument about Dr. White. "It doesn't make sense to me." Who cares? It doesn't make sense because you don't read and you do not want to understand anything that contradicts your assumptions and presuppostions.

My proof, your refusal to read and comment on my post Trinity definitions. You want me to read your post and comment, then you first dood. My post is still there. What was that you said, "The proof is in the pudding."

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17459920&postcount=79

[SIZE=-1]You haven't commented on anything I said in my response to what mr. white said, except to say I'm all wrong.[/SIZE]

DR.White, dood. Give the man the respect he has earned. I haven't commented? The bulk of my post remains unresponded to. As I said you took 2-3 sentences out-of-context and said they didn't make sense to you.

OBTW ref. you post, you claimed Dr. White's article did not make sense, what is the definition of "being" and "person," Dr. White's comments that you were blowing off as not making sense? You told me what you think the words mean, which is totally irrelevant.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Moses and the Jews did not mention three hupostases in one ousia, either. Maybe that is because it was a 4th century copout with no basis in Biblical history.[/SIZE]

"Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo." Typical knee jerk Christian Unorthodox Later Theology response. Even if the "three hupostases in one ousia," was wrong it proves absolutely diddly about the plural of majesty.

And OBTW Jesus is referrred to as a hypostases in the N.T. do your homework.

 

[Brennin]

"Neener, neener, neener, you are one too-oo." Typical knee jerk Christian Unorthodox Later Theology response. Even if the "three hupostases in one ousia," was wrong it proves absolutely diddly about the plural of majesty.

And OBTW Jesus is referrred to as a hypostases in the N.T. do your homework.

The singular is hupostasis. In any event, even if you are correct (Colossians, perhaps?) it still does not prove your point. Moreover, Wisdom is referred to as a hupostasis of God in Wisdom of Solomon, so there is nothing special about that.

 

[Der Alte]

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament – John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time ([size=+1]θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε[/size]/theon oudeis eoraken popote). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of [size=+1]οραω[/size]/horaōw. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12). Paul calls God [size=+1]αορατος[/size]/aoratos ( Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). John repeats the idea in John 5:37; John 6:46. And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. The only begotten Son ([size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenhs uios. This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after [size=+1]ως μονογενους παρα πατρος[/size]/os monogenous para patros in verse John 14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read [size=+1]μονογενης θεος[/size]/monogenes theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to [size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenes uios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like John 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called [size=+1]θεος[/size]/theos in verse John 1. The Incarnation is stated in verse John 14, where he is also termed [size=+1]μονογενης[/size]/monogenes. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is "God only begotten,"

Nestle-Aland 26 -Joh 1:18 [size=+1]θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε· μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.[/size]

ASV CEV ISV NIV RSVA Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word [size=+1]was[/size] God.

CEV Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.

ISV Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.

NIV Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.​

[SIZE=-1]In his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman argues persuasively that the variant reading of the Alexandrian tradition is a corruption of the text.[/SIZE]

Well good for him. And that relates to my post exactly how? Care to know how the early church quoted this passage? Nah, I didn't think so.

 

[2ducklow]

Meanwhile, I saw some of the usual suspects giving their knee jerk opinions on John 1:1.

This brief quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, documents that in the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Bible during the Babylonian captivity, ca. 700 b.c., the Aramaic word, “memra” was substituted for YHWH. The complete article has over 100 citations where memra, i.e. the Word, was substituted for [size=+1]יהוה[/size]. Before and during the time of John, Jews believed that The “Memra”, i.e.”The Word”, literally was God and that God literally was the Word. John wasn’t saying anything new. This is the context how John 1:1 should be understood not 21st century philosiphication. (Yeah, its not a word, so what?)

Jewish Encyclopedia-Memra-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural “You have not believed in the Lord,” Targ. Deut. i. 32 has “You have not believed in the word of the Lord”; instead of “ I shall require it [vengeance] from him,” Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has “My word shall require it.” “The Memra,” instead of “the Lord,” is “the consuming fire” (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra “plagued the people” (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). “The Memra smote him” (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not “God,” but “the Memra,” is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. “the Shekinah”; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: “I will order My Memra to be there”). “I will cover thee with My Memra,” instead of “My hand” (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of “My soul,” “My Memra shall reject you” (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). “The voice of the Memra,” instead of “God,” is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, “I stood between the Lord and you” (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, “between the Memra of the Lord and you”; and the “sign between Me and you” becomes a “sign between My Memra and you” (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, “the messenger-angel”]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His “hand,” but His “Memra has laid the foundation of the earth” (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); [Instead of God], in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. “The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel” (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): “My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people” (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). “My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen”; “the Memra will roar to gather the exiled” (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is “the witness” (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and “will rejoice over them to do them good” (l.c. xxxii. 41). “In the Memra the redemption will be found” (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). “The holy Word” was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/v...99&letter=M​

The memra is an aramaic word for the hebrew word for word. Memra was substituted for God in theophanic manifestations of god scriptures in the OT because they did not want to consider God as being a man since the bible says specifically that God is not a man. Just as they substitued Adonai for Jahweh when reading scritpure.

OLD TESTAMENT USAGE OF THE TERM

The word here points directly to Genesis 1, where the act of creation is effected by God speaking (compare Psalms 33:6). The idea of God, who is in his own nature hidden, revealing himself in creation, is the root of the Logos-idea, in contrast with all materialistic or pantheistic conceptions of creation. This idea develops itself in the Old Testament on three lines:

(1) The Word, as embodying the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry. Consequently divine attributes are predicated of it as being the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy (Psalms 3:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalms 119:105). The Word is a healer in Psalms. 107:20; a messenger in Psalms 147:15; the agent of the divine decrees in Isaiah 55:11.

(2) The personified wisdom (Job 28:12 sq.; Proverbs 8, 9.). Here also is the idea of the revelation of that which is hidden. For wisdom is concealed from man: "he knoweth not the price thereof, neither is it found in the land of the living. The depth saith, It is not in me; and the sea saith, It is not with me. It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for the price thereof. It is hid from the eyes of all living, and kept close from the fowls of the air" (Job 28.). Even Death, which unlocks so many secrets, and the underworld, know it only as a rumor (ver. 22). It is only God who knows its way and its place (ver. 23). He made the world, made the winds and the waters, made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder (vv. 25, 26). He who possessed wisdom in the beginning of his way, before His works of old, before the earth with its depths and springs and mountains, with whom was wisdom as one brought up With Him (Proverbs 8:26-31), declared it. "It became, as it were, objective, so that He beheld it" (Job 28:27) and embodied it in His creative work. This personification, therefore, is based on the thought that wisdom is not shut up at rest in God, but is active and manifest in the world. "She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors" (Proverbs 8:2, 3). She builds a palace and prepares a banquet, and issues a general invitation to the simple and to him that wanteth understanding (Proverbs 9:1-6). It is viewed as the one guide to salvation, comprehending all revelations of God, and as an attribute embracing and combining all His other attributes.

(3) The Angel of Jehovah. The messenger of God who serves as His agent in the world of sense, and is sometimes distinguished from Jehovah and sometimes identical with him (Genesis 16:7-13; 32:24-28; Hosea 12:4, 5; Exodus 23:20, 21; Malachi 3:l).





LATER JEWISH USAGE

After the Babylonish captivity the Jewish doctors combined into one view the theophanies, prophetic revelations and manifestations of Jehovah generally, and united them in one single conception, that of a permanent agent of Jehovah in the sensible world, whom they designated by the name Memra (word, λόγο&#962 of Jehovah. The learned Jews introduced the idea into the Targums, or Aramæan paraphrases of the Old Testament, which were publicly read in the synagogues, substituting the name the word of Jehovah for that of Jehovah, each time that God manifested himself. Thus in Genesis 39:91, they paraphrase, "The Memra was with Joseph in prison." In Psalms 110 Jehovah addresses the first verse to the Memra. The Memra is the angel that destroyed the first-born of Egypt, and it was the Memra that led the Israelites in the cloudy pillar.



www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html



According to the Targums, which were at one time accepted as sacred Jewish beliefs, God's word is an entity; actually God himself. The Memra' is to be worshipped, served, obeyed, spoken to, and prayed to, as God. The Jewish apostle John (who's Hebrew name was Johanan), no doubt schooled in the Targums several years before he met Y'shua, opened his gospel with these words:

www.bibleword.org/memra.htm

Theophanies were a problem for the Israelis (which are Jews in this context--the return from captivity). They did not want to make God to seem human. The Sopherim were the scribes who set the text of the Hebrew Bible in order after the return from Babylonian captivity. Because of their exceptional reverence for the inexpressible Name of Yehovah they substituted the name Adonai (LORD) in the place of Yehovah. (That is why the King James Version uses the word LORD in the place of most uses of the name Yehovah (more commonly, Jehovah). That is also why many Jews will write the words LORD and God thus: L__D and G_d.) This same reverence for the NAME of God can be seen as reverence of His PERSON as well.

Since the Jews did not like Theophanies, they also substituted a word for God when He appeared to men. In the Targums, which are the Aramic versions of the Old Testament, the word memra is used in every instance of an appearance of God to men or God speaking to a man. This use of the memra rationalized every appearance of God to man.

www.cliffordaweber.com/memra.htm

 

[Brennin]

Well good for him. And that relates to my post exactly how?

It relates because it counters your claim that you are promoting the correct variant.

Care to know how the early church quoted this passage?

No, I don't.

 

[Simonline]

Jesus said "except ye believe that I AM ye shall die in your sins"
the phrasees asked him because of this statement "who do yout think you are?"
The implication being that they believe Jesus is claiming to be the I AM and that they are asking him to clarify it for them.
Jesus responds by saying that he is sent by him. which is his way of saying I am not him but rather sent by him, i.e. the I AM.
then the bible states that they didn't know that Jesus was speaking of the Father. Meaning that they didn't know that when Jesus said "I AM" he was refering to his father and not himself.
thats how I see that passage.

Taken in isolation, that is a reasonable interpretation, but when taken in conjunction with the rest of Scripture, including John's own personal testimony (Jn.1:1-14 for example), then that cannot be the correct understanding (cf. Rev.1:8: 21:6; 22:13) can it? Such passages cannot simply be sacrificed on the altar of theological presupposition.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Nonsense.

All the evidence of this thread so far proves otherwise.

Simonline.

 

[Der Alte]

"God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of [size=+1]οραω[/size]/horaōw. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12). Paul calls God [size=+1]αορατος[/size]/aoratos ( Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). John repeats the idea in John 5:37; John 6:46. And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here.The only begotten Son ([size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenhs uios. This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after [size=+1]ως μονογενους παρα πατρος[/size]/os monogenous para patros in verse John 14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read [size=+1]μονογενης θεος[/size]/monogenes theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to [size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenes uios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like John 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials.

[SIZE=-1]robertsons word pictures and der alter.
extremely faulty logic for a man as erudite as Robertson.

Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

applying the same logic to this that Robertson applied to john 14:7 we would have to say illogically that the least of all the bretherns is jesus.
You cant see god he is invisible, you can see Jesus because he is flesh and blood, ergo jesus isnt god not ergo jesus is god. lets make sense out of scritpure not nonsense i say. come on robertson wake up.[/SIZE]

Nonsensical rambling that does not relate to my post, and means absolutely nothing. How exactly do you think Robertson's exegesis would relate to John 14:7. Hey, just select any scripture at random and say something a noted Greek scholar wries would be nonsnese if applied to that verse. And while you are at it bad mouth the scholar a little bit, altho you know diddly squat about Biblical Greek. Yeah dood, you are really responding to my posts. Nothing but knee jerk criticism.

 

[Brennin]

All the evidence of this thread so far proves otherwise.

Simonline.

You are welcome to that fantasy, if you find it comforting.

 

[Der Alte]

.... can someone show me something biblical supporting the trinity... that's... not directly disproving the trinity by reading a tiny amount of context? . .

Do NOT presume to lecture me on context when you ignored the bulk of my post pulled out a few things out-of-context then pretended to be replying. If you are going to reply to my posts do it in context. Your response is garbage! Anyone can make the Bible say anything they want by doing what you just did, quoting bits and pieces.

And no I am not going to play your silly litttle game, "I have one question/verse that absolutely, completely, utterly, totally destroys the doctrine of the Trinity and no Trinitarian can s answer it."

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]It relates because it counters your claim that you are promoting the correct variant.[/SIZE]

A vague reference to Ehrman and Alexandrian texts counters diddly squat. That is only one guy, did you notice the sources I cited, including NA27? But thats OK, find one dood that will tell you what you want to hear.

[SIZE=-1]No, I don't.

[/SIZE]

Just as I thought, you are going to quote a 21st century liberal theologian, who OBTW, is not noted in the field of Biblical texts or languages, and ignore the testimony of the entire early church. Yeah, dood, you impress my socks off. Just another anti-Trinitarian throwing the same old knee jerk anti-Trinitarian arguments at me. See what you want to see, hear what you want to hear. Cognitive dissonance.

 

[Brennin]

A vague reference to Ehrman and Alexandrian texts counters diddly squat. That is only one guy, did you notice the sources I cited, including NA27? But thats OK, find one dood that will tell you what you want to hear.

It only takes one scholar to make a compelling argument.

Just as I thought, you are going to quote a 21st century liberal theologian, who OBTW, is not noted in the field of Biblical texts or languages, and ignore the testimony of the entire early church.

Bart Ehrman is an accomplished New Testament scholar.

 

[2ducklow]

Taken in isolation, that is a reasonable interpretation, but when taken in conjunction with the rest of Scripture, including John's own personal testimony (Jn.1:1-14 for example), then that cannot be the correct understanding (cf. Rev.1:8: 21:6; 22:13) can it? Such passages cannot simply be sacrificed on the altar of theological presupposition.

Simonline.

Yes it can if we accept certain portions of john 1:1-14 as nonliteral. All scripture is harmonious and fits together so we all have our own presupositions. you presuppose that scripture teaches a trinity and read that presupposition into many verses such as the ones you mentioned. I presuppose that the bible doesn't teach trinity, for a number of quite logical reasons therefore that presupposition of a trinity is not read into any verse by me unlike you. to make out like a literal interpetation of say john 1:14 is the only interpretation possible isn't true. One could come up with many interpetations of John 1:14. yours isnt the only conceiveable possible interpetation. Either it is literal or it isnt. we have to decide if god was being literal or not. I say he wasn't being literal because a literal interpretation makes no logical sense. I.e. it makes his word a being which with God becomes one being.i.e. 2 beings that are one being. So it has to be nonliteral for that reason. I ascribe an intepretation to God's word that makes sense. Your inteeprtation of gods word here in john 1:14 makes no sense to me for the reason I stated and therefore i cannot accept it. I am not going to intpret God's word nonsensicaly.

 

[hybrid]

Read these verses. I'll keep it to only two verses... the first one just to explain the second one... can someone PLEASE tell me how these verses allow for "the trinity" to exist?

I kept it down to two verses... can someone please explain to me.... why is it... Jesus... repeatedly says "The father is greater than I" yet we assume Jesus is lying and take it to mean the exact opposit, "the father is NOT greater than I." What am I not seeing in this verse that would allow for God not to be greater than his son when his son specifically said that God was greater than him?

Hi gregorian,

there is no contradictory with the verses that says the FAther is greater that Jesus and what the doctrine of trinity teaches. for your convi, i copy paste the nicene creed so you would understand the traditional christian orthodox trinitarian view.

We believe in ONE God, Father Almighty,
Maker of Heaven and Earth,
And of all things visible and invisible.

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ,
Son of God,
Only-Begotten,
Begotten of the Father before all ages.
Light from Light;
True God from True God;
Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father
through whom all things were made;
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven,
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary and became man
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
suffered, and was buried.
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, Lord,
Giver of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son];
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke through the prophets.
In one, holy, catholic*, and apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**.
I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life in the age to come.

AMEN.

The father is greater than Jesus because the FAther is greater than the son. isn't it always been like that?

as to their equality, I have explained it already in my first post to you.
The Unity and the equality of the Godhead is from the Father.

I don't expect you to accept or believe this confession of faith, but neither do i want you to believe that the doctrine of trinity is something that cannot be understood. after all most of the words used in the creed are also in the bible.

 

[hybrid]

Hi gregorian,

so the question now of course is your disagreement with the creed. it's not in the first stanza i'm sure. and i bet its in the second, right.?

yes, the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. the son of god. the cornerstone that was rejected by those who want to ask logic.the stumbling block of those who wouldn't believe the simple revelation of God's word that the son of god can be truly god too.

the proof of the diety of the Lord JesusChrist was sufficiently posted in this thread already so i don't want to add some more. what's the use, you've probably have a canned answer for that.

So let me ask you a question in return...

"Why was it that the son of god must be the one who sufferred and died for our sins?"

 

[2ducklow]

"God no one has ever seen."

And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here.

An illogical conclusion from these two statements of Robertson is that Jesus is God. which is Robertsons posisiton.

A logical conclusion from these two statements is that Jesus is not God because we can see him.

Very intelligent people can be very illogical especially in the realm of religon.

Nonsensical rambling that does not relate to my post

I demonstrated how Robertson was being illogical I just didn't say Robertsons writings were "nonsensical rambling". Once again you accuse me of something and then dont back it up with facts. I stated Robertson was illogical and showed you how.

Hey, just select any scripture at random and say something a noted Greek scholar wries would be nonsnese if applied to that verse. And while you are at it bad mouth the scholar a little bit, altho you know diddly squat about Biblical Greek. Yeah dood, you are really responding to my posts. Nothing but knee jerk criticism.

No comment.

How exactly do you think Robertson's exegesis would relate to John 14:7.

got me I can't see it relating to anything. it is nonsense as I demonstrated. If you cant see God because he is invisible and you can see Jesus it is illoigcal to the extreme to say that Jesus is God because another verse says 'I and my father are one" or "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father' (john 14:7) I see john 14:7 and john 10:30 are saying the same thing essentially. that Jesus is so in tune with His Father that seeing Jesus is like seeing God his father. Jesus loves like his father, heals like his father, speaks like his father, has authority like his father, in fact jesus is a carbon copy of his father because he made the right choices in life and grew in grace and favor with God, and man to the point that he is like god, but is not g od.
Robertsons exegises makes no sense. It's a nonsensical use of an exstensive knowledge of greek to come up with something nonsensical.

 

[2ducklow]

OBTW ref. you post, you claimed Dr. White's article did not make sense, what is the definition of "being" and "person," Dr. White's comments that you were blowing off as not making sense? You told me what you think the words mean, which is totally irrelevant.

According to trinity, God the father is God. Also God the Father is a person of god. So logically god is a person because the same individual who is god is also a person of God.

According to trinity God is 3 persons of god and God is one divine being. therefore since previously trinity has claimed that god is a person of god it would follow that the three persons of god are one person (god being a person.) and since the trinity god is a divine being who is god it follows that all 3 persons of god are likewise being which results in 3 persons being one person, or 3 beings being one being, or 3 gods being one god. any other conclusion is illogical and therefore wrong. that is the basic premise from which Dr. White proceeds and a premise from which no one, including Dr. White can make any logical sense of.

 

[Maxster211]

I think calling someone who might not have your same ideas LIBERAL is a little harsh, though I do agree that he and many other 'christians' have a liberal attitude which gets in the way of beliefs, which AREN'T liberal. The bible is completely conservitive, and so is what it tells us to do.
On the trinity:
Being a Christian doesn't mean you HAVE to belive in the Trinity. I do believe in the Trinity, but I don't think it will effect if I go to heaven or not, and I don't think it would even if I didn't believe in it.
But this is how I see it.
The Holy Spirit is in all Christians, or more persicely, Born Again Belivers. I believe it is also what is keeping Satan at bay from starting the Trib. from an early begining, and as we know, only God has that power, so the Holy Spirit would have to be the Essence of God, so one part in the God-Head* as it is some times called. That would also clear this up: God is everywhere, but his throne is in heaven. If that is true, then the Spirit would be of God, because he is everywhere, keeping Satan at bay. That does not mean that Devils can not reak mayhem. Far from it. God lets Satan become 'Prince and god of this world' (note that I didn't capitalize the 'g' in god). But the battle is won... Already.
This also explains why people would see an 'angel' and worship it, because they would see it was like, or was, God, but in a different form. John did that in his visions in Revelation, and so did others when they saw an 'angel of the Lord'.
For Jesus, he was called the Son of God, so he would be OF God, and was proficised to sit on the throne of the world as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Notice God himself was called King and Lord in the Torah. The Bible says 'In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, the Word was of God, and the Word was God.'
As of God, he is well... God.