Trinity (Part 1)

This topic contains 9,997 replies, has 158 voices, and was last updated by  Admin 10 years, 1 month ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #15380
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 896
    • Total replies 18,482

    To Global,

    No instance of any firstborn has eternally existed. Israel, Jacob, who or whatever.

    God is eternal and God is not a firstborn. So to say that Jesus is eternal and to say that the word firstborn doesn’t necessarily prove that Jesus wasn’t eternal may be correct, but it also goes the other way. It doesn’t prove that he is eternal and as I said before, all other instances of firstborn have not existed for all eternity. Why should the term firstborn be any different when used to describe Jesus?

    I have noticed that when it comes to the Trinity doctrine and fitting Christ into this 3 headed god, suddenly a lot of the rules change.

    #15412
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 896
    • Total replies 18,482

    To dmateo,

    Thank you for your enouragement.
    My stance on Jesus eternal quality is that all that he has comes from the Father. So Jesus source is God. Jesus came from God. Therefore who is the greater, the source or the one who came from him. The giver or the receiver. The one who sends, or the one who is sent.

    As far as Christ's eternal existance goes. I am very open to learning something here. The scriptures indicate to me at least that the Father is the ever existing one and the Son was the first to come from God.

    In other words the Son who is/was the Logos came from God at some point. He was given birth before creation and was at God's side when God created all things and he delighted in his presence.

    I define creation as all that came from God through Christ. This definition disqualifies Christ from being a creature. He was not created he was given birth from no other source but the Father and this is why he is called the only begotten of the Father.

    Since Christ is the only begotten of God, it shows that the Father is older, greater and is the true God.

    E.g. If I have eternal life, then am I as old as God. Of course not. If I will live forever, then I am heading toward eternity in years, but my existance can always be counted. If God existed forever in the past, then his years cannot be counted.

    It is hard for the human mind to grasp this, but the fact that God has always existed is a matter of faith and that his son came from him, is also a matter of faith.

    John 8:42
    Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

    #15310
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 896
    • Total replies 18,482

    To Global,

    Reply to Biblical Arguments Part VII

    Your post concentrates on the verses that group 3 persons together and then does the same with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You then quote 58 verses that group God, his Son and his Spirit.

    Yes there is merit in why they are grouped, but my point is that just as Peter, James and John being grouped together doesn't make them God or some kind of a man trinity, nor can the verses that describe the Father/God, son and the Spirit as one God.

    In fact many of the verses that group the Father, Son and Spirit together actually group God, Son and the Spirit. It just proves that the true God in identity is always the Father.

    E.g 19. Romans 8:2-3
    2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
    3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering And so he condemned sin in sinful man,

    Nowhere is Christ recognised as God in those 58 scriptures. God is always the Father. To assume that all 3 are 1 God is the imagination of man. It is not taught in scripture and quoting 58 scriptures that groups together the Father, Son and Spirit or God, Son and Spirit doesn't prove the Trinity doctrine. The fact that both Father and God are used in addition to the Spirit and the Son, show that God is the Father.

    Similarly Peter James and John are not one man but 3 men. They are 3 people who are grouped together for a reason. That reason is not to prove that they are somehow a man trinity. Again that would be purely imagination and not the teaching of scripture.

    Jude 20-21:
    “praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. “

    Who is God in Jude 20-21 for example?

    #15340
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 896
    • Total replies 18,482

    To Global,

    Reply to FURTHER HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF BELIEF IN THE TRINITY AMOUNGST THE FIRST CHRISTIANS.
    (found just after your Biblical Arguments Part VII)

    You posted a huge amount of information on other texts where Jesus is supposedly identified as God.

    First of all I want to say that the Bible should have ample evidence that Jesus is the Most High God and if it doesn't and other writings do, then you have to ask why they differ.

    Anyway as you could imagine, I have no time to read every quote, so I will start from the top and work down part of the way.

    The first quote indeed seems to identify Christ as God with the following quote:

    God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman?

    However such language is never used in the Bible and I certainly doubt the validity of such a writing. In fact a short search on Google produced links to sites that were very sceptical of the 50AD date. Many seem to think it is more like 200 AD.

    Some quotes below:

    While some King James Only advocates allege that the date of the papyrus fragment is about AD 60, the expert papyrologists do not support this date. Most authorities date the fragment at about AD 200.[8] One exception is Thiede who concluded:

    In conclusion, the evidence indicates that the Magdalen Papyrus is not a recent discovery, it is very likely not dated in the first century but in the late second, and it does not support the Byzantine readings against both Aleph and B. Therefore, it is a serious mistake to claim that this manuscript supports the King James Only view.

    As it turned out, there was a serious discrepancy between the sensational claims made in The Times and the cautious tone of the academic journal. Carsten Thiede had actually concluded: “… it may be argued that it (the Matthew papyrus) could be redated from the late second to the late first century, some time after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (in A.D. 70).” However, most scholars today feel that there is no persuasive evidence in favor of a first-century dating of these Magdalen fragments.

    So yes that text calls Jesus God, but how valid is this text really? Of course the Trinity doctrine would not just appear out of the blue. There would be fragments of it's teaching or essence just as there would be with any widespread false doctrine. All things must have a beginning (except God).

    Regardless of the age of this book, it certainly is not older than biblical scripture and if a book written after that time says that Jesus is God and the Biblical books do not, then I know which one I will trust more.

    Again I repeat that such language is not found in the Bible. It would be interesting if it were, but it is not. Isn't it just a bit weird that God (referring to Jesus) is not in the Bible, but is found in other later writings?

    You then quote from The Letter of Barnabas with the following:

    the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,' understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men”

    My opinion with this is that it supports what I am saying. Jesus is the Lord and God is another. I agree with this. Notice that God is mentioned as being different to that Lord. I have always said that Jesus is Lord and the Father is God. Even the “Let us make man in our image” quote is exactly what I have said in the Trinity Writings that you are challenging.

    The next quote from Hermas:
    “The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father's adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient”

    I also agree with this and again this in no way proves a Trinity. It proves the fact that Jesus is ancient and predates creation. Notice that it doesn't say that Jesus has always existed.

    You then quote Ignatius of Antioch and he certainly uses the word God in reference to Jesus. But Ignatius also uses the word 'Christianity and Heretics' and I doubt that his writings are inspired as they differ a lot to say the letters of Paul, Peter and John for example and seem to follow tradition. In fact it appears that Ignatius uses the word God many times, in reference to Jesus. Certainly a huge departure from the pattern and teaching of biblical scripture.  

    His mention of the term “the Father and of Jesus Christ our God” is certainly very different to the Bible.

    Of course there are a few possible explanations for this. It could be that the word translated God has a wide variety of uses and can be associated with the word Lord. Or perhaps someone altered the original text or it could be that Ignatius taught false doctrine and was one of the first to promote this soon to be big doctrine.

    Whatever the reason, I still believe that truth is contained within Biblical scripture and scripture is certainly the place where we should find scriptures that teach that Jesus Christ is God, of which we do not.

    How does one explain the huge difference with The Father being the True and Most High God of the Bible with Jesus being God in some of these later writings?

    A contradiction or mistranslation?

    The scriptures that teach that the Father is the only God in identity, are in conflict with some of these latter writings, there is no doubt about that. Then again I suppose that the doctrine had certainly matured by the time of the Nicene Creed although it still had somewhat of a distance to go even then, as the Holy Spirit was added in decades later to complete the Trinity Doctrine as we know it today.

    Your next quote comes from Justin Martyr

    “We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5-6).

    150 AD Justin Martyr “Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race”

    “God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word … We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 61).

    I tend to agree with his view that Jesus came from God and is distinct from God in that his source is in God and that he is not the source himself.

    You also mention that the JWs say that Christ is an angel and in the same post you quote the following words from Justin Martyr.

    of Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed;

    So on one hand you say that Christ is not an Angel and on the other you appear to promote the words of Justin Martyr.

    You then say that he refers to Jesus as the “angel of the Lord” after creation in various appearances to man, not before.

    I have thought about the phrase 'Angel of the Lord' and I think that we have discussed it in the past. I do not have a conclusion yet as it does appear that Christ is referred to as that Angel from time to time, but it could also be that the
    re is an angel that represents Christ in the same way that Christ represents God.

    Revelation 1:1
    The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
    Perhaps that Angel is Michael?

    Anyway all these writings were wriiten after the letters of Peter, Paul and John etc. These writings should be based on the New Testament scriptures, just as the New Testament scriptures are based on the Old Testament. So if these writings differ or are in conflict with the New Testament writings, then they could well be false teaching or mistranslations.

    We know that there are many deceivers who have gone out into the world and will have sway over many.

    Galatians 1:9
    As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

    John 17:3
    And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

    1 John 5:11
    And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

    So my conclusion with this post of yours is as follows:

    There is scripture and there are many other writings written after the scriptures of the Bible. Most of these writings would certainly be based or pretend to be based on the teachings found in the New Testament and I am certainly open to the fact that some of these writings are actually scripture. But when a writing or letter differs greatly to the New Testament teachings and is in conflict with them, I can only conclude that corruption of the text, false teaching or different usage of words such as God have taken place. Of course my conclusion is not a fantastic one, but is very possible as “The Great Falling Away” was predicted in the New Testament and warnings in Revelation about adding and taking away (corruption of text) from the book obviously proves the very real possibility of such a thing happening.

    It is often quoted in these quotes that The Word came from God and existed within God. I don't ahve a problem with this myself, but to say that the Word is God because he came from God denies the unique identity of the Son. Likewise we may be born of God, but we are not God either. We are unique and hopefully Godlike.

    In the New Testament we find that God in identity is the Father (Yahweh) and he begat a Son who's name is Yahshua and he existed as the Word of God before partaking of humanity. The Word/Son came from God and the Word/Son has the nature of God.

    #15156
     dmateo 
    Member
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 11

    Hi All,

    Wanted to chip in into the question on Jesus Eternality.
    We know that all thing are created. Can we agree that by saying it was created, it has never existed before, thus the needs for creation ? This is my current base foundation of understanding. I’m open to opinion on this.

    When we speak of the Son, he was refered to as the firsborn, proceed, the only begotten son etc. It emphasis on the fact that the Son was never created. He was never created and so how did he becomes what he is.  Some reference in the bible (John 1:1 for example), refered to Jesus origin as "The Word" (Logos). In this John1:1, described how "The Word" become flesh, and this flesh is what we know with the identity of "Jesus". By saying Jesus as "The Word" of God, John has had made things very clear. If you recall, During creation, the instrument that God use to create the universe is His word.  For example Gen1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God said, so what comes out of God is the word "Let there be light". Surely even the first word that God has ever spoken would come after God.

    In that regards, God preexisted the Word. So where is Jesus. During creation and old testament, I’m not sure if there has been a reference of Jesus as a unique person. Creation and all God’s act(s) are done through his command (read "His Word"), which essentially means, by John1:1 understanding, through or by Jesus. But the personality of the Word himself (please do correct me if I’m wrong, I have not read with full attention every single word in old testament),  can’t be found.  The first reference that I know is John1:1.

    Now for eternal. Speaking of eternality, we can’t be far from the concept of Time. What is time ? What does the concept based on. If nothing changes in this universe, if everything stop and does not change, what would that be? Some people refer to this as time stop ? Really ?
    I couldn’t help to wonder why is this the way it is? Is there really such a thing called time, or are we just creating it, to "MARK" the sequence of happening or some other silly purpose? If there is something in this world that does not change one bit, can we call them eternal ? Infinite, uncontainable by Time ?

    The fact is the universe is not containable by length, width and height measurement, and I would also say uncontainable by Time.
    Or rather, I would say that those things are not substantial to understand the universe and God, because actually they do not exist. The only reason they exist is because we human create them to contain everything within this universe inside our logic. It’s a big difference. A monkey does not necessarily know numbers, but given an option of 1 banana and 2 banana it would try to get 2 banana or 3? Crocodile would prefer Zebra to birds. Aside from the fact that they don’t have to weight it or size it. It’s just there.

    If you asked me does Jesus pre-exist his birth ? I would say no. He is flesh, the flesh are subject to the universal law, it cannot pre-exist the birth. But if you asked me if the essence of Jesus (which we know as in John 1:1) which is "The Word of God" pre-exist the birth, of course he does. He was in God in the beginning, He was the Word Of God!

    Now, so much for the theory. "I’m the alpha and the omega". He didn’t not say "I’m the alpha OR the Omega". He said "AND". the logical operation of "AND" would require both variable to be true to yield true as the result. It meas He is both the Beginning and the End. Now try to cram this into our logic of Time. Can something be the beginning AND also the End ? Can there be something like that ? Computer computation would say "No", or program logic error, or syntax error. In fact in our logic Beginning and End, distance would probalby measured (we love to measure thing), as close to infinity or using some mathematical equation it would become infinite!

    Okay. Conclusion. Jesus Christ in essence is ‘The Word of God". He was infact contained inside God since infinite years ago. The moment that God speak, thus He proceed from God. He is not created, for He is the Word. Through this Word God has created all things. In time, "this Word" became flesh. The Flesh that we came to know as Jesus/ Yahua. Who in turn are annointed by God and announced as His Son. Christ, our Lord, our saviour. Jesus was tested and died on the cross as a token of submission to the will of God His Father. In time he was crowned with Glory and given authority over all creation. He knows rule over together with God on His throne eternally. Does this means Jesus is eternal, depends on the understanding of the word. If Eternal is to say he will not end and will always be the same, unchanging in existance through time, yes, He is. No doubt about that.

    Does he exist from infinity to infinity ? Logic failed. there is no such thing as infinity. Infinity is an expression that express our limitation. Infinity is something that we can’t measure, something we can’t grasp, because we’re limited being! Since the number is so big, we say it’s infinite. Why because we don’t know what the number is !
    But one thing for sure, the sequence of happening is the same. There has to be God, before there is "the Word of God". The word cannot stand on his own. Without God there would be no Word.

    (Edited by dmateo at 5:19 pm on Jan. 15, 2004)

    #15169
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 896
    • Total replies 18,482

    To dmateo,

    I believe that creation is summarized by the following scripture:

    John 1:3
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    I don't see any scripture or teaching that defines all that had a beginning is created although it goes almost without saying that all creation has a beginning. So we are created in the image of God, but we are also Born Again from above. But is that new birth in God's Spirit an act of creation of being made with God's hand or is begotten and birth different?

    Jesus was born from God and yet he is not created. Our bodies are created, but is our spirit a created thing or does it come from God directly?

    If the spirit within me is from God, then was that part of me created?

    John 1:12-13
    12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
    13 children born not of natural descent nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

    Is being born of God, the same as being created by God?

    If we look at the scriptures regarding Christ, we can see that he was not created according to John 1:3, yet it appears that the scriptures teach that Christ came from the Father and therefore he (his will) hasn't always existed with God.

    The Logos was with God in the beginning, before creation. But Christ definately has a will that is unique/different to the will of the Father, but Jesus chooses to align his will with his Father and his God. Our will and freedom to choose is what defines us as a person rather than a process or object that God has created. Our will is why we are responsible for our own actions. God doesn't judge a car that kills a person because a car doesn't have it's own will. No it is the driver who is responsible because the driver is the one with the will, the one who made the decision.

    So I personally think that Christ became, when he had his own will. At what point God gave the Logos a will is the moment that Christ existed as his own person. The fact that the Word was with God in the beginning shows us that the Word existed alongside God. It doesn't say that the Word was in God.

    Similarly, if I am born of God by his Spirit, then that doesn't make me God. I am me, because I have a will. Like the famous words “I think therefore I am”.

    Was the Logos originally within the mind of God, probably. But at some point he thought for himself and he was with God, not in him.

    If we read the Wisdom scriptures of Proverbs 8:22-30, we can see that Wisdom was given birth, before all his works of old.

    At what point was Wisdom given birth? Well I doubt that either of us could put a date on it as this probably happened before time itself existed. But as you have pointed out, whatever way we look at it, God is before his own Word. His Word is part of him. But when that Word/Logos thinks and has his own will, then he is a unique work of God. He is not God himself, rather he comes from God.

    The question for me is when did the Logos think for himself. When did he become his own person? Was it before creation, or was it when he was born on earth as a man.

    I lean hevily toward Jesus being the first of God's works and that he came to be, before all things. I base this belief on a number of scriptures of which John 1:1 stands out. I have written on this subject at the following location. (I give these references repeatedly for the benefits of the readers who haven't read the whole post or are unaware how why this discussion is taking place). So forgive me if I seem to repeat myself to you.

    Why is sin enjoyable

    Thx for you ideas and input thus far. It is good to think and search the scriptures daily to see if it is so. I appreciate your searching heart and ideas. It is very healthy to think and to share ideas relating to God. Most of what I have learned comes from other people such as yourself, but the conviction and desire to learn these things comes from God.

    #15554
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 896
    • Total replies 18,482

    To Global,

    In this post, you argue the use of 'I am' by Christ is proof that Jesus is Yahweh. Your argument was a reaction to what I wrote in my writing at the following location:

    Scriptures used to support the Trinity doctrine

    Anyway I would like to start this post with the following famous words.

    “I think therefore I am”.

    Now if Christ had said these words this would be proof (in your own eyes) that Jesus is Yahweh, but if I said it, it would have a different meaning in your eyes.

    What is the difference? It is your predefined belief that changes the meaning.

    'I am' simply means 'I exist'. It doesn't make any difference to who says it.

    Similarly in scripture, we see the phrase 'I am' (ego eimi) spoken by many people in the New Testament and it is used to identify them. It's that simple.

    When Jesus said 'I am', he was identifying himself. If we look that the question that prompted Jesus to give this answer you will see that he was simply identifying himself because he asked them whom they were seeking and they said Jesus of Nazareth. In other words they were seeking Jesus and he said I am that person. They didn't say we are seeking God did they.

    John 18
    4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”
    5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.
    6 “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

    In addition to Jesus saying 'I am', we also have the angel Gabriel,  the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus and Peter who all use the phrase 'ego eimi' to identify themselves.

    So it is normal to say the words 'I am' (ego eimi) if someone needs to know who you are. I am sure that you mention the term 'I am' quite often (e.g. I am a Catholic) and I am also sure that you or no one equates these words to mean that you are claiming to be Yahweh.

    I provided in my writing, the information regarding the Pharasees hearing Jesus say 'I am' on many occassions and yet they were never offended by these words, rather they questioned other things like the coming down from heaven part or being older than Abraham. I will quote that below:

    Yashua used the phrase “ego eimi” at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (John 8:58). Jesus said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd, in John.6:35-48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true of verses 51 & 52.
    In John 8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Jesus used “ego eimi” with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in John 10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Jesus said to his disciples, “that ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)” in John 13:19 without them batting an eye.

    Come on Global, if Jesus were saying that he was Yahweh, do you honestly think the people would not be stirred up and rioting over his words. Instead we find that they have problems with the coming down from heaven part or being older than Abraham. In addition we know that the same people that heard Jesus say 'I am' never accused him of blasphemy or got him crucified for claiming to be God. In fact they sought false witness against him because they were desperate to get something to stick to him and in the end they came up with the excuse that Jesus said he would destroy the temple and raise it up in 3 days. Of course he was talking about his body, but why oh why did they not simply try him for saying that he was Yahweh/I am. This would have been a clear cut reason to have him on a blasphemy charge with many witnesses on more than 1 occassion. But they never used that, because he never said that he was the 'I Am' or 'Yahweh' in the first place. Rather he said I am Jesus of Nazareth.

    You then argue that Jesus says 'I am' too many times for it not to have connations with Yahweh's words in Exodus 3:13-14.

    But if you think about it, the Father revealed to Peter who Jesus was, namely the Messiah and the Son of God. And of course Jesus Christ built his own Church on that truth, the truth of his identity as the Son of God and Christ. So 'I am' would be a more common phrase regarding Christ than anyone else. “I am the bread of life”, I am the truth. etc. These revelations are of utmost importance.

    In addition, he never once said “I am God”. So the Trinitarian 'I Am' argument doesn't stand under scrutiny and only highlights the fact that Jesus said I am the Truth, the Son of God, the Way, The Bread of Life, but never “I am God”.

    So yes, Jesus says 'I am' a lot, but that is completely understandable given who he is and the revelation of who he is, not being readlily understood by men. And yes we do not see others, like Peter saying 'I am' a lot, because it is not about them. There is no mystery to Peter apart from the fact that he is a man who walked with Christ and was called as an apostle. But he is a man, not some person who came from heaven. So he wouldn't need to go round saying “I am this or that” to every Tom Dick and Harry. No he went round telling people about the Christ instead.

    Now if you analyse what I have written in this post you may see that I have used the term 'I am' even when you exclude my quotes about Christ. It is simply a common and natural way to identify oneself and I have used it in this writing without even thinking about it. I spotted myself saying it as I did a search on that term to make sure that all of them had a quote round them. But some occurances didn't require them because I was using that term in a different way.

    E.g. I said “I am sure that you mention the term 'I am' quite often”…

    Now if I was somehow trying to pass on a secret message by identifying myself as Yahweh, and if we ignore how rediculous that is, doesn't it just seem quite a hard thing to work out. When Jesus asked who they were looking for, and they said Jesus of Nazareth and then he said I am. Isn't that just a natural and common answer that you would get in that situation. And if our Lord were trying to convey a secret embedded message that he were Yahweh to his hearers, then isn't that just a little too cryptic. Then to say that you must believe that he is Yahweh because he says 'I am' just like anyone else says it, would be unreasonable in my opinion.

    It would be like you not recognising that I am Yahweh because I have written 'I am' in this post. Remember that these people were not looking for Yahweh to come in the flesh, they knew only the truth about the Messiah who was to come.

    The assumption that Jesus is Yahweh because he said “I am the Bread of Life” and other similar words is not only rediculous, but it is very unfair, especially if our life depended on it.

    Now the other thing that we must consider about this scenario is the different language of the Old and New Testaments.

    In the Old Testament, Yahweh said to Moses in Exodus 3:13-14
    13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, `What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?”
    14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: `I AM has sent me to you.'”

    The words “I AM THAT I AM” in Hebrew is  “eh-yeh asher ey-yeh” and in Greek, the words that Christ spoke was “ego eimi”.

    So what gives anyone the authority to say that Jesus words are the same words that Yahweh spoke to Moses. What Jesus did was to answer a simple question with a simple answer. H
    is words were commonly spoken by others in scripture and in that time. They are to this day still spoken and are still a simple means of identifying oneself. E.g. I am amazed how people can say that the words 'I am' are identifying oneself with Yahweh, when the question was are you Jesus? And no I am not Yahweh, because I said 'I am'.

    Now to explain the words of Yahweh, I have decided to quote another web site.

    The answer is brief, but it is far more than just a name. In fact, Moses' question and God's answer have far deeper implications than we 21st century Westerners realize.

    Within both Egyptian and Hebrew culture it was believed that a person's name revealed the very essence of one bearing it. It is for that reason that the Bible will sometimes explain a name (such as that of Moses, for example) or it will recount the changing of a name to better reflect a person (such as when Jacob became Israel and Abram became Abraham).

    The ancient Egyptians and Hebrews took their belief that a name was to be the exact representation of the person one step further. They believed that to know a person's name was to know that person wholly and utterly, even to the extent of sometimes having power and authority over that person.

    For this reason, while the Egyptian Pharoahs had a public name, they carefully kept their real names secret as a way of protecting their power and authority.

    It's against this cultural backdrop that Moses asked for God's name. In making such a request, Moses wasn't just asking for a label to distinguish Yahweh from pagan gods. Moses was asking for a description of God's very essence. That's what God gave to him. Eheyeh asher Eheyeh is a Hebrew phrase that has been variously translated as “I am who I am,” “I am He who exists,” “I become what I will become,” or even “He shall cause to be.” It is one of those little phrases that wraps up volumes of rich meaning.

    Millennia later Yahweh send his son and on certain ocassion he teaches the people who he is, by saying 'I am the Bread of Life” etc. Of course his language was normal for anyone giving such explanations and the only reason that I can see a person marrying the 2 phrases as the same is pure imagination.

    Similar to the Theory of Evolution, the doctrine of the Trinity is based mainly on imagination and they desperately cling to any scripture that could even have the slightest possibility of backing up their thoughts. But in doing so they have gone off track with the meanings of the scriptures that they quote and change the truth of God into a lie.

    In your next post, which is an addition to your Part VIII post, you then go on about God came in the flesh, God served, God ascended and then Jesus was restored to the form of God. I suppose next you will say that Mary is the Mother of God.

    See all this false thinking leads men away from the truth in scripture and into a completely different picture. I have said it before and I will say it again, “God cannot die”, “God cannot take sin on himself”, “God doesn't have a mother”. Far from it.

    In conclusion, had Jesus actually said or taught that he was the “I AM THAT I AM” or actually said that he was Yahweh, then that would be convincing enough for me, but he simply said “I am”. A common usage of words for that time and today.

    Finally I leave you with the following scriptures that proves without a doubt that Jesus is not Yahweh.

    Psalm 2:7
    “I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

    Acts 13:33 (NASB)
    that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.

    Hebrews 1:5 (NASB)
    For to which of the angels did He ever say,
    “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?
    And again,
    “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM  AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?

    Hebrews 5 (NASB)
    So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him,
    “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”;

    Therefore Jesus is the Son of Yahweh, Yahweh is the Father and Yahweh is God. Therefore Jesus is not Yahweh and he is not God. Jesus is the son of Yahweh, otherwise known as the Son OF God.

    #15532
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 896
    • Total replies 18,482

    To Global,

    Reply to Biblical Arguments Part IX

    Post IX concentrates on the great commission to his Church in which he says in Matthew 28:19

    “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

    In my first line of defence, with regards to this verse teaching a Trinity is that you and Trinitarians in general say that the Trinity has always been taught by the Church and there was never a time that it was not. Of course you would say this, otherwise you would have to admit that it was an addition and therefore not a biblical doctrine nor a foundational one.

    In this discussion I have said it was an addition because the Trinity is not taught in scripture. Yet according to history, the original Nicean Creed included only the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit was added in decades later. So this seems clear to me that the theology was never always taught, but that it developed over time and changed over time.

    E.g in Encarta it says the following:

    A theology of the Holy Spirit developed slowly, largely in response to controversies over the relation of Jesus Christ to God the Father. In 325, the Council of Nicaea condemned as heresy the Arian teaching that the Son was a creature, neither equal to, nor coeternal with, the Father. ………Later pronouncements brought only one important doctrinal change, the 9th-century addition of filioque to the creed of Constantinople. That addition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, has been a source of discord between Eastern and Western Christianity ever since.

    Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    So it seems that history at least shows that the doctrine developed and changed and also divided Christians. History shows a different picture to your belief that the Trinity was always taught and believed by the Church. I would say that it may be true as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, (I am not sure), but for the Body of Christ, (the true Church), certainly not.

    So how do Catholics justify themselves by adding to scripture, traditions and doctrines not found in scripture. The answer is a false doctrine called “doctrinal development”.

    Catholics like Jehovah’s Witnesses, firmly believe in “doctrinal development”. Both groups promote and believe things that are not found in the Bible and both are “salvation by organization” religions whose leaders have exclusive direct channels to God. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a “new light” or “brighter light” theology where God reveals through the Watchtower new things never before understood.  But JW’s have shot themselves in the foot so often in the past, their only escape from absolute ridicule is to claim Doctrinal development like the Catholics! The Catholics of course use doctrinal development to explain the Trinity and Mary being the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven and the Blessed Virgin and many other doctrines such as Purgatory, Penance and Child baptism including the sprinkling of water. Doctrinal development is how they justify their doctrines even when it is at odds with scripture.

    Anyway what is on trial here is the Trinity doctrine and this doctrine is no different to other unscriptural doctrines that the Catholics promote. This doctrine clearly developed over the centuries and when we compare it to scripture, it doesn't hold up.

    Now the so called Baptismal Formula of Matthew 28:19 is not a formula at all. In fact it seems weird that Catholics love formulas and both baptism and God have been formalized.

    Just as God is not truly explained by using a 3 in one formula, baptism is also not a formula. When one speaks of 'in the name of' in scripture, it is not speaking of repeating the words, rather it is conveying that it should be done in the authority of.

    Acts 4:7-9
    7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”
    8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!
    9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed,
    10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

    So baptism in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit means that we baptize in the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is not teaching a repititious formula, repititious prayer or chant, of which Catholics are fond of.

    Of course Matthew 28:19 shows us, as many other scriptures also do, that there is a Father and there is a Son and there is a Spirit. Nor you or I are denying that and this is not on trial here. What is being tried is the doctrine that says that such scriptures teach that they are all one and the same God and that all are equal and have existed for all eternity together. The 3 persons 1 God formula/idol.

    For such thinking is not only unscriptural, but such thinking has confused believers into praying to the Holy Spirit and not in the Holy Spirit and into believing that Mary is the Mother of God. Taken to it's extreme, some even believe Mary is also sinless, like her child and since Mary is given such honour they suppose that similar honour is given to certain saints called saints and tricks them into thinking that they are not a saint. Anyway we could speak all day about the bad fruit of the Trinity doctrine and creeds in general, but I will not fully digress as I only wanted to make a point.

    If we look at the phrase 'in the name of' we see that it is in use today. E.g. “Stop in the name of the Law” is used by people to invoke the authority of the law. Or someone might say, “in the name of sanity” to invoke the essence of what that word means.

    Matthew 28:18
    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

    And who's name did Jesus do his works? In the name of his Father of course

    John 17:11
    I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

    John 17:2
    “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

    So the Father gave authority to his son.  The next scripture shows that we have been given authority in Christ. That is why we should do all, in the name of Jesus, (his authority).

    Colossians 3:17
    And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

    So if we look at scripture, we can see that miracles and baptism were done in the name of Jesus. It was all done in his authority, the authority that he gave his Church.

    So it stands to reason, that if we do all in the authority of Jesus, we know that it is also the authority of his Father and his Spirit which he sent to help us.

    The so-called baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 doesn't teach the Trinity doctrine, it teaches that we should baptise in the authority the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus did all in his Fathers name and we do all in his name and in so doing, we are doing it in the name of his Father our God, because our Father gave all authority to his Son and Jesus gave his authority to his Church and our God sent his Spirit to his Church to comfort and lead us while Jesus is not present with us in this world in a physical sense.

    So once again we see the biblical pattern of Father > Son > Church. This pattern is undeniable and shows authority and sourc
    e. In fact it also proves that Jesus is the only way to God, because we do things in the authority of the Father, via his Son and his authority.

    1 Corinthians 11:3
    Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

    Now as far as the Spirit of God is concerned, we can see in John 14:26 the following:
    But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

    So the Father sent his Spirit in the authority or name of his Son.

    Now we know that God is a Spirit.

    John 4:24
    God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

    So are there 2 Spirits? God our Father and the Holy Spirit or are they the same.

    Well in 2 Corinthians 3:17 it says the following:
    Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

    The next 2 verses seem to say the same thing.

    Isaiah 6:8-10
    8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord (Anonay) saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
    9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
    ” 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
    be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
    10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
    make their ears dull
    and close their eyes.  
    Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
    hear with their ears,
    understand with their hearts,
    and turn and be healed.”

    And

    Acts 28:25-27
    25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
    26 ” 'Go to this people and say,
    “You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
    you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
    27 For this people's heart has become calloused;
    they hardly hear with their ears,
    and they have closed their eyes.
    Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
    hear with their ears,
    understand with their hearts
    and turn, and I would heal them.'

    So unless the translation is dodgy, Paul assumes that God (Adonay) is The Holy Spirit. So the Spirit is the Spirit of God as the Spirit proceeds from God and is God.

    This may explain why a word spoken against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the one to come.

    I have always said that I am open and teachable and if something is scriptural, then I will believe it. So I ask myself “why is God and the Spirit mentioned together and often, if they are the same. Maybe for the same reason that Man and man's spirit is also mentioned together. But whatever the reason, Paul teaches us that “the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom”. So it must be correct, unless the translation is bad.

    So maybe the Spirit is part of God, for surely God exists in creation and outside creation too. So there could be many explanations such as the Spirit is the part of God that exists in creation or the Spirit is a part of God that proceeds from himself to not only exist inside every perfect thing, but also the joining and communion with our spirits.

    Romans 8:16
    The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

    So the scripture above speaks of the spirit of man, or man's spirit and even Jesus is spoken of as one having a spirit according to the next 3 scriptures.

    Galatians 4:6
    And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

    Romans 8:9
    You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

    Philippians 1:19
    Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance.

    So if we have a spirit and Jesus has a spirit, then maybe God himself has a Spirit. Perhaps we have a spirit because God has a spirit and just as our spirit is part of us, perhaps God's Spirit is part of himself.

    I can only speculate at this stage, but I know for sure that the Trinity doctrine is false. The scriptures teach that Jesus is the Son of God and not God himself.

    Let's look at this in a way that we might be able to relate to. If I have a spirit (as we all do), then is not that spirit me, or part of me. But if I have a Son is that Son me? No, maybe part of me in a sense. But unlike my spirit, my son is another person who has his own will and even his own spirit. Of course he may be like me, but he is not me.

    1 Corinthians 2:11
    The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

    So it appears that just as we have a spirit, Christ also has a spirit and God does too.

    So spirit is very much a part of us and Jesus spirit is very much part of him. So is God's Spirit a part of himself too? After all we will be like him in a sense, because we are made in his image.

    Certainly it is in spirit that we can all be one. Yet we all retain our identity because just as water mixes with water, spirit can join spirit, yet objects like boats on water or different identities keep their identity.

    So as the Church can be one with each other, and with Jesus and God, (in spirit, not identity), yet we retain our unique identity as we are our souls. Jesus is the Logos and God is the Father.

    John 17:21
    that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

    Ecclesiastes 12:7
    Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

    So it appears that all spirits are originally from God and the following scripture confirms it.

    Hebrews 12:9
    Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!

    I now leave you with the following verse.

    1 Corinthians 6:17
    But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

    So we can be one with him in spirit, not identity. This is the same with Jesus Christ. He is one with God in Spirit, but not identity.

    So to be one with God, does not make you God anymore than Jesus is God because he is one with the Father.

    We are one in spirit.

    #15513
     dmateo 
    Member
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 11

    to T8,

    Interesing question, are we created or are we partly created.
    Genesis 2:7
    the LORD formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    What do you think of this part? The LORD created the earth and heaven. So the dust of the ground from which man are formed could be said created. After that it's formed, to the shape of a man. But the man is still a form of dust, with no life. So the LORD breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

    Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 (Eng-NIV)
    18 I also thought, “As for men, God test them so that they may see that they are like the animals.
    19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same faits awaits them both; As one dies, do dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.
    20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to to dust all return
    21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth.

    It's interesting that Solomon should put animal and us as equal in creation. I do agree that both Animal and Men are formed out of Dust, for it is said so in Genesis.
    Genesis 2:19
    Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

    So in that conclusion, can we agree that our body (form of dust)is created but our spirit (breath of life)came from God (breathed into his nostril) ?

    Regarding the Jesus.
    According to John1:3, it's clear that he was not created. As many other scripture also agrees on that.
    If you look at John1. He was addressed as “the Word” in verse 1. Not as a personality, but rather as an it. Later on on verse 2, than “the Word” was reffered as a personality “He”.  Perhaps this is the turning point of all things when “the Word” are given a will of his own.
    At this point, still John did not address “the Word” with a name of a person. I would say Jesus is the name of the Word of God when he inhabit the body of man (which is formed from dust).
    This would again conforme the creation. Adam was created out of a dust form + breath of life from God.
    Jesus is the result of  a dust form + The Word (him, which has no name as was addressed so many time in John chapter 1). He (the Word) will inturn be known by all of us as Jesus Christ.
    When did the word God his own will, I don't know perhaps during verse 2 of John chapter 1. Since Jesus did mentioned “before Abraham, I am”. Is the word “I” refer to the bodily form of Christ, certainly not, for his bodily form is formed out of dust, essentially provided by Mary. Can we say when he said those words, he refer to his Spirit ? “the Word” as addressed by john1:1 ?

    In regards to those above. Could we also say that by bing baptised, we were rebirth, in spirit. Doest that counts as another creation. I do not know. As now it's quite hard to defined creation in this point. Even genesis didn't said anything about specific act of the creation of man.
    Gen 1:26-27
    26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish in the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; Male and female he created them.

    Gen 2:7
    The LORD God formed them man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    On which point does man is created. I don't know. There is no real distiction that could be told if the act of forming man's body from dust is creation. Or is the whole act of forming the body from dust + breathed  breath of life is creation. Or only the latter ? There isn't enough to conclude from Genesis alone.

    Hopefully someone can give a more thorough explanation, but probably in another forum as this topic became irrelevant with the forum subject.

    #15502
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 896
    • Total replies 18,482

    Hi dmateo,

    I enjoyed your post as you ask a lot of good questions and your thoughts on some of the points seem good to me at least.

    I decided to start up a new post as this may turn out to be interesting and may gain a lot of posts and hence it's own subject.

    Click on the following link to be transported at the speed of your Internet connection.

    What is Man

    #15479
     global 
    Member
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 86

    Quote
    Quote: from t8 on 12:30 pm on Jan. 15, 2004
    To Global,

    No instance of any firstborn has eternally existed. Israel, Jacob, who or whatever.

    God is eternal and God is not a firstborn. So to say that Jesus is eternal and to say that the word firstborn doesn’t necessarily prove that Jesus wasn’t eternal may be correct, but it also goes the other way. It doesn’t prove that he is eternal and as I said before, all other instances of firstborn have not existed for all eternity. Why should the term firstborn be any different when used to describe Jesus?

    I have noticed that when it comes to the Trinity doctrine and fitting Christ into this 3 headed god, suddenly a lot of the rules change.

    Hi T8,

    I am glad that you accept that the use of the word firstborn does not prove Jesus is not eternal.

    I have never claimed that it does prove he is eternal. As a descriptive title of honour, it no more proves or disproves the eternal existence than any other descriptive word. Therefore to say for example Jesus had black hair, no other being with black hair was ever eternal is a simplistic argument, and doesnt really say anything.

    There are no rule changes T8, only logic.

    #15463
     global 
    Member
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 86

    Hi T8,

    These replies will be coming slowly as I am bit busy at the moment, but I will endeavour to answer all points as quickly as possible.

    REPLY TO YOUR REPLY OF PART II

    My original argument:

    Jehovah is not only called the Only true God (John 17:3), but the "Only Saviour" (Isa 43:11; 45:21; Hos 13:4; Jude 25) , "Only King" (Zech 14:9). If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being "True God", then Jesus is also excluded from being a Saviour or King.
    Conversely, Jesus is called the "Only Teacher, (Matt 23:8,10, Mt 10:24 and Jn 13:13), "Only Master" (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1), and "Only Lord" (Jude 4, Eph 4:4, 1 Cor 8:4,6, Mt 6:24). If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being "True God", then the Father is also excluded from being our Teacher, Master or Lord.

    Your reply:

    Well the Bible records that there are many saviours and kings.

    Saviour:

    Isaiah 43:11
    I, even I, am the LORD , and apart from me there is no savior.

    Yet is says in Isaiah 19:20
    It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them.

    My reply:

    You seem to be making my point for me here T8, by showing scriptures which describe the Father as Lord you show that the title “Only Lord” which is Jesus title doesn’t exclude the Father from being Lord. Do you now accept then that the title “Only true God” applied to the Father doesn’t prove that Jesus cannot also be a “true God”? (remember I am not saying it does prove he is the same God as the Father, I am only trying to disprove your argument that it necessarily proves he cannot).

    You said:

    So we can see from these examples that God is the true saviour, yet the one he sends to do his work is also referred to as saviour which is of course correct. But the one who is sent is representitive of the one who sends and therefore the one who sends is really the one who ordained and actioned the salvation. This is the same with Christ, for even Christ’s will was to have the cup removed, but he did the will of his Father rather than his own. Etc etc etc.

    My reply :

    Yes that is all very interesting, but I am not talking about the relationship or hierarchy between the Father and the Son here, all I am trying to prove is that the Father having the title “only true God” does not prove that Jesus cannot also be a true God which was your original argument, do you now accept this?

    You said:

    Yes God is the only King, but he sets up kings underneath him and delegates authority to them.

    E.g David was the King of Israel, yet David was not God himself.

    So to exclude David as King because God is the only King is obviously a misunderstanding of what it means to be the only King. God is the true King and he delegates and sets up others to rule over his people/kingdom. If we understand it this way, we can see that it is God who is King and he has representitives doing his bidding. So yes he is the true King, but the kings that he sets up are not false kings, rather their power and authority comes from the true King.

    My reply:

    It was your misunderstanding then, because you tried to exclude Jesus from being a true God because you said the Father had the title “one true God”

    Again all I am trying to establish is that the titles which either the Father or Son have do not prove that Jesus cannot be the same God as the Father.

    Do you now accept this?

    You said:

    Lets change this around a bit.
    Trintarians argue that since the Father is called "true God" (John 17:3) and the Son is supposedly "God" (John 1:1; Isa 9:6), this means that Jesus is also the true God, but because there is one God it shows that God is made up of both Father and Son and if we add in the Holy Spirit we now have 3 persons one God. Trinitarians look for such meaningless anomalies and build an entire theological
    system upon it. Unfortunately, such logic is absolutely false as can be shown:

    My reply:

    What are you talking about? What anomaly have I built a theological system on? It is you trying to build a system on minor differences in titles.

    I especially object to your statement: “Trintarians argue that since the Father is called "true God" (John 17:3) and the Son is supposedly "God" (John 1:1; Isa 9:6), this means that Jesus is also the true God”

    That is not what I was arguing, once again I am just trying to disprove your assertion that the Father being called “true God” prevents Jesus from also being “true God”

    Do you now accept that this is not the case?

    You then begin talking about some different points which are not related to my Biblical Arguments in any way. I will briefly address them, but in future I will not respond to points which are not answers to my Biblical Arguments as I regard them as attempts to distract from the weakness of your answers, you said:

    “Note that it says that Jesus is the light that gives light to men. It is obvious that he is not the source of light and gives that light to God so that God becomes light.”

    My reply:

    If Jesus IS the light as scripture plainly says, how can he not also be the source of the light as you claim? Also what do you mean “he gives that light to God so God becomes light”?

    This is totally non scriptural theorising, there are no scriptures which say any such thing.

    You said:

    John 8:12
    When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

    So here we can see again that Jesus is the light of the world, not the source of all light that even makes God light. He is the true light with regards to this world and people, not because he is the source of that light. There is a boundary drawn from these scriptures as to what kind of
    light he is. A nice play on words will not stop the true seekers from the truth

    My reply:

    What on Earth are you talking about?

    Where does it ever say in scriptures that Jesus receives his light via the Father?
    It plainly says he IS the light.

    You said:

    1 Corinthians 15:27-28
    28 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
    29 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

    How much clearer does one need to be?

    My Reply:

    I have already spoken at length about the relationship of voluntary submission of the Son to the Father.

    You are aware of this which I have posted before:

    Philippians 2:5
    Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

    Philippians 2:6
    who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

    Philippians 2:7
    but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

    Philippians 2:8
    Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

    Philippians 2:9
    For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

    T8, please please lets not repeat the same arguments over and over. If you reply to my points that is sufficient. Thanks.

    Be Well.

    #15448
     t8 
    Participant
    • Topics started 896
    • Total replies 18,482

    To Global,

    REPLY TO YOUR REPLY OF MY REPLY PART II (above).

    Your quotes are in gray.

    If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being “True God”, then Jesus is also excluded from being a Saviour or King.

    Jesus is not the true God, he came from the true God. But he is also not a false god as one may draw from this, but he was sent by the True God. Again the Father is the only true God and he delegates his authority.

    Likewise God is the true saviour and he delegates his authority to others to do his bidding. So the One True God sent another called Jesus Christ to do his (God's) will and God saved us through Christ.

    God willed it. Jesus complied. So Jesus is our saviour because God is the 'one God' who saved us. Jesus saved us in his Fathers (God's) name. Jesus didn't save us in his own name, but under the name of the one who sent him.

    So it is not too hard to see that God is God and he is the Saviour. To say that Jesus is not our saviour or even a god is incorrect, just as to say that Jesus is the original God and Saviour.

    E.g A son has a Father and if the son has a child then he is also a Father. But he is not the Original Father. Both are Fathers, but one is the original. One is the true Father of which all others came. The other is a Father to the perspective of those who came after him only, but ultimately there is one original Father.

    Likewise God is the Saviour and he sends someone to save and he is also known as a saviour, but he is not the original saviour. So God is the true saviour and the true God. This is what it is meant by the word true. It doesn't necessaily imply that the others are false, it just means original.

    Jesus was exhalted as a saviour by God himself. Therefore to conclude that Jesus is God (the original saviour) because God exalted him to that position is totally unreasonable.

    Acts 5:31
    God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

    If we take your argument as being the correct one, then we would have to include other saviours such as King David and Moses as being God.

    It is clear that your understanding of True God and only Saviour is not reasonable.

    The point is that Jesus never did anything of his own will apart from choosing to do the will of his God. So Jesus was an extention of God, not God himself.

    It is quite simple to understand, but I think that in order for you to defend the Trinity, your biggest defense is to play on the words and draw conclusions that are not drawn in scripture.

    You then quote: Isaiah 19:20
    It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them.

    So here we clearly have 2 identities. The LORD and his saviour. This is my point exactly. Your point is that Jesus is the LORD because he is a saviour is incorrect. Again your conclusion is not what this verse is teaching, nor any other verse for that matter.

    Yes that is all very interesting, but I am not talking about the relationship or hierarchy between the Father and the Son here, all I am trying to prove is that the Father having the title “only true God” does not prove that Jesus cannot also be a true God which was your original argument, do you now accept this?

    I have always said that the Father is The True God and Jesus can also be a god and a true one at that. Jesus is not the True God himself.

    It was your misunderstanding then, because you tried to exclude Jesus from being a true God because you said the Father had the title “one true God”

    You seem to be confused. The Father is the true God. We are also gods, but we are not necessarily false gods either. So we can be true god, but not the True God. Likewise we can be fathers, but not the Father of all. I have said this all along.

    If Jesus IS the light as scripture plainly says, how can he not also be the source of the light as you claim? Also what do you mean “he gives that light to God so God becomes light”?

    This is totally non scriptural theorising, there are no scriptures which say any such thing.

    Yes that is correct, it is not scriptural. It is what you appear to be saying. If you say that Jesus is the source of all light, then that means that the Father who is God and hence light receives his light from Jesus because you say that he is the source. Of course this is rediculous. All that Jesus has, comes from his Father. Jesus is not the original. He is the Image. He was sent by the Original. So God's light is reflected through his Image and because Jesus is the only way to God, hence he is reflecting/shining the true light. But he is not the source of that light. In turn we are suppose to reflect that light from Christ and we are not Christ. Note that the next scripture says that we are the light.

    Matthew 5:14
    “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.

    Again, we are not the source of that light are we?

    What on Earth are you talking about?

    Where does it ever say in scriptures that Jesus receives his light via the Father?
    It plainly says he IS the light.

    We are the light too, the light of this world. Where does it say that we receive our light?

    1 Corinthians 15:27-28
    28 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
    29 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

    How much clearer does one need to be?

    My Reply:

    I have already spoken at length about the relationship of voluntary submission of the Son to the Father.

    Voluntary submission is one thing, but you never explained why the scripture defines God and Jesus as 2 different identities. This is the point being made all along.

    You are aware of this which I have posted before:

    Philippians 2:5
    Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

    Philippians 2:6
    who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

    Philippians 2:7
    but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

    Philippians 2:8
    Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

    Philippians 2:9
    For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

    T8, please please lets not repeat the same arguments over and over. If you reply to my points that is sufficient. Thanks.

    So we have the crux of your argument and the reason that we should all believe in a Trinity.

    First of all if we assume that Jesus is God in identity, then those scriptures say that Jesus did the following:

    • He existed as God in identity
    • He emptied himself of his God identity
    • He became a man, another identity or a man with no God identity
    • But then God died, but not the God that he emptied himself of obviously
    • He was then exalted back to his original identity

    Wow, real confusing and it makes no sense to the point of being humorous. Especially when you believe that Jesus was God in human flesh. Now lets look at it from a nature, not identity perspective.

    • Jesus has the nature of God, the nature of the one identified as the True God, the Father.
    • He emptied himself of that nature and partook of human nature
    • He Jesus (identity) humbled himself and died on a cross
    • God then raised him back to his former glory (and perhaps then some)
    • God gave him his name and authority, so God is still another identity

    This last scenario makes sense and is the crux of the gospel message.

    Conclusion: Jesus has the nature of God and he came from that God and that God sent him into this world as a man to save all men. He died and rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God.

    Jesus is of God. The Father is that God. The scriptures you quote do not teach a Trinity at all. Rather they teach that the Father is God and the only Most High God in existence and that God has a son, who chose to do his will.

    The only way that perhaps I can understand your point of view is to say that God is one nature/substance and this nature and substance spawns 3 personalities. But this assumes that nature is greater than identity and identity is a manifestation of the nature rather than nature being a manifestation of the identity. This idea leans toward a New Age concept of God as being a force of some kind, even if this supposed force manifests 3 consciences and creates many others.

    But the scriptures teach that God is an identity and shares his nature with his son and even his sons. In other words, God's nature comes from him, not the other way round.

    God is one identity, not 3 identites.

    Hear O Global, the LORD thy God is one God.

    #15429
     global 
    Member
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 86

    Hi T8,

    You haven’t answered my question.

    The point of my original Biblical Argument was not to prove that Jesus is God, it was only to disprove the argument that the differences in titles necessarily proved that Jesus cannot be God.

    Do you now accept that that argument was incorrect?

    Everything else you have written may or may not be true, but I just want to be clear on this specific question, please can you answer, thankyou.

    #15411
     global 
    Member
    • Topics started 0
    • Total replies 86

    Hi T8,

    You have made the following representation of Trinitarian belief:

    ·He existed as God in identity
    ·He emptied himself of his God identity
    ·He became a man, another identity or a man with no God identity
    ·But then God died, but not the God that he emptied himself of obviously
    ·He was then exalted back to his original identity

    However this representation is not correct, it should be:

    He existed as God in being with the other two persons of the being God.
    He emptied himself of his equality with the person of the Father whilst remaining God in being.
    He became a man (human being), whilst retaining his God being, he was therefore fully Man and God at the same time.
    The person Jesus died.
    He rose again in accordance with the scriptures and is exalted at the right hand of the Father.

Viewing 15 posts - 511 through 525 (of 9,998 total)

The topic ‘Trinity (Part 1)’ is closed to new replies.

© 1999 - 2018 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account