The Trinity Doctrine (Page 2)

Part 01 – The Trinity Doctrine
Part 02 – Who is the Most High God
Part 03 – Who and what is Jesus?
Part 04 – The true meaning of ‘God’
Part 05 – Supporting the Trinity
Part 06 – Pre-Nicene writings
Part 07 – Development of the Trinity
Part 08 – Why challenge the Trinity
Part 09 – Trinity Doctrine conclusion
Part 10 – An Apostasy
Part 11 – 100 indisputable proof verses
Part 12 – What is your confession?
Part 13 – The Roman Catholic faith
Part 14 – Trinity Doctrine resources

Introduction

The point of this study is to examine one of the most accepted doctrines in Christianity, namely the Trinity Doctrine. This study will test the doctrine with scripture to see if it is really taught in the bible.

Most Christians today believe that God is a Trinity and many agree that the Trinity Doctrine is not only a major doctrine of Christianity, but perhaps even the foundation of Christianity. This study will take an indepth look at verses that appear to contradict this doctrine and scriptures that are used to prove the doctrine. We will also look at some Pre-Nicene writings from the 2nd century to see if they also taught the Trinity before it was made an official doctrine. Then we will take a look at the history of the Trinity Doctrine and list important events that helped develop this doctrine.

This extensive writing will give you and in-depth look at this subject so that you can weigh up for yourself what is true. The aim is to help you in understanding the foundation of true faith in God and for you to be ready to give an answer at anytime as to what you believe.

According to scripture, the purpose of scripture is to guide, teach, and correct us on matters of doctrine and conduct. To be humble and teachable is to be wise and such a person would rejoice when both scripture affirms and corrects us because an affirmation shows that we already possess these truths and corrections gives us the opportunity to possess these truths. Both are good.

I think it is fair to say that that most Christians today who believe in the Trinity Doctrine have never really checked it out to see if what they believe is taught in scripture. Many assume that it must be correct because it is what most churches teach and this is perhaps the doctrine that most churches have in common. In addition to this doctrine’s wide acceptance, many people think it is wrong to question doctrines like this because it shows doubt. In truth however, we are suppose to test all teaching and spirits, so that we do not become deceived.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Searching the scriptures to see if what we believe is true is absolutely encouraged in scripture and as Christians we should also be ready to provide a reason for the things that we believe. In order to know what we believe, it requires more than parroting a doctrine. You need to understand it in order to know whether it is true or not.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

The reality is that many Christians who accept the doctrine of the Trinity, accepted it with little questioning and even to this day they do not understand it. It is often new believers who wonder how Jesus can be the son of God and also be that God that he is the son of. Often the response to such questioning is usually met with a reply along the lines of, ‘God is a mystery and beyond our thinking’. While this is true, scripture does reveal God to us with the intention that we understand these scriptures. Thus if the bible teaches that God is a Trinity, then by that reason, it is suppose to be understandable.

Of those who believe the Trinity Doctrine there appears to be differing ways to describe how God can be three and yet one. Some believe that God is a being that shows himself in 3 different ways like water can be ice, steam, or liquid. Others believe that the Trinity is made up of 3 distinct personalities and these 3 are in unity of substance and love and purpose. This last explanation is probably the most common and it is the accepted version of the Trinity Doctrine.

Diagram of the Trinity Doctrine

Ancient diagram of the Trinity

Before moving on, I think it would be good to give the official explanation of the Trinity Doctrine. The doctrine basically says that there is one God.
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
Hence God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
These three persons make up one God. But rather than each being one-third of God, each person is co-equal and co-eternal and 100% God. The following diagram explains the Trinity Doctrine quite well.

This concludes the introduction to this study. Let’s now take an in-depth look at what scripture says about who and what God is. Click on the ‘Next Page’ button below to navigate your way through this teaching. Oh, and be prepared to be challenged.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God­breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…

This topic contains 3,761 replies, has 87 voices, and was last updated by  GeneBalthrop 5 months, 3 weeks ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #107211
     Is 1:18 
    Member
    • Topics started 14
    • Total replies 3,242

    Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 14 2008,13:57)
    (1) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the God and Father of Jesus with his God and Father.
    http://tinyurl.com/3cvbuc


    Jesus is not the Father. Well yes. Modalists take note.

    Quote
    (2) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the only Most High with his God and Father. — John 10:29.
    http://tinyurl.com/yjnj7v


    Where is the verse that states the Father alone is the Most High God? Where is the verse that states Jesus isn't?

    Quote
    (3) Jesus does not share the attribute of being uncreated, having no beginning, being unbegotten, with his God and Father. — Colossians 1:15.


    The concept of firstborn to the jewish mind relates to inheritance and preeminance/priority of position. Not reproduction. To use Col 1:15 to demonstrate a beginning to Yeshua's life is to misshandle the text.

    Quote
    (4) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the Creator with his God and Father. — Mark 10:16; 13:19


    Incorrect – John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:5, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10.

    Quote
    (5) Jesus does not share the attribute of being only true God who sent Jesus. — John 17:1,3.


    John 17:3 does not explicitly say Yeshua is not true God.

    second post down.

    Quote
    (6) Jesus does not share the attribute of being “God of gods” with his God and Father.
    http://tinyurl.com/2gbjxj


    Where is the verse that says the Father of Yeshua is the God of gods, to the exclusion of Yeshua?

    Quote
    (7) Jesus does not share the attribute of being “God Almighty” with his God and Father.
    http://tinyurl.com/2b8qf5


    Which verse proves this?

    Quote
    In service of Jesus and his God,
    Ronald


    You do a disservice to Yeshua when you misrepresent Him from scripture Ronald.

    #107212
     NickHassan 
    Participant
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 70,446

    Hi Is 1.18,
    You ask

    Where is the verse that states the Father alone is the Most High God? Where is the verse that states Jesus isn't?”

    Lots of things are not recorded in scripture.
    Moses is not said to be not God
    and
    neither is Peter said to be not Paul.
    But it does not need to be said that a son is not his own father.

    #107213
     martian 
    Member
    • Topics started 36
    • Total replies 1,639

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2008,18:04)

    Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 14 2008,13:57)
    (1) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the God and Father of Jesus with his God and Father.
    http://tinyurl.com/3cvbuc


    Jesus is not the Father. Well yes. Modalists take note.

    Quote
    (2) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the only Most High with his God and Father. — John 10:29.
    http://tinyurl.com/yjnj7v


    Where is the verse that states the Father alone is the Most High God? Where is the verse that states Jesus isn't?

    Quote
    (3) Jesus does not share the attribute of being uncreated, having no beginning, being unbegotten, with his God and Father. — Colossians 1:15.


    The concept of firstborn to the jewish mind relates to inheritance and preeminance/priority of position. Not reproduction. To use Col 1:15 to demonstrate a beginning to Yeshua's life is to misshandle the text.

    Quote
    (4) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the Creator with his God and Father. — Mark 10:16; 13:19


    Incorrect – John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:5, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10.

    Quote
    (5) Jesus does not share the attribute of being only true God who sent Jesus. — John 17:1,3.


    John 17:3 does not explicitly say Yeshua is not true God.

    second post down.

    Quote
    (6) Jesus does not share the attribute of being “God of gods” with his God and Father.
    http://tinyurl.com/2gbjxj


    Where is the verse that says the Father of Yeshua is the God of gods, to the exclusion of Yeshua?

    Quote
    (7) Jesus does not share the attribute of being “God Almighty” with his God and Father.
    http://tinyurl.com/2b8qf5


    Which verse proves this?

    Quote
    In service of Jesus and his God,
    Ronald


    You do a disservice to Yeshua when you misrepresent Him from scripture Ronald.


    It is not our desire to use non existant scriptires to prove doctrine. Using amgigous scriptures and non scriptural terms is the realm of the Trinitarian.

    #107214
     acertainchap 
    Member
    • Topics started 56
    • Total replies 1,073

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2008,18:04)
    Where is the verse that states the Father alone is the Most High God? Where is the verse that states Jesus isn't?


    Here is a verse…

    John 20:17

    17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' “

    :)

    #107215
     Son of Light 
    Member
    • Topics started 9
    • Total replies 427

    History tells us what early Christians believed Jesus to be in relationship to the Father. The earliest records only give us three options. No evidence is found for another view until at least 200 years later. Then we begin to see theology at work as other models begin to emerge or existing models begin to evolve.

    Option 1: (Firstborn, proto-trinity model)

    They said he was an emanation, the first spirit born of God. They believed the Father was actually Father/Mother and did not have an actual gender and God begot him in the descent past.

    Option 2: (docetic model)

    They believed he was man. Who was anointed at baptism and the first spirit descended into him and basically possessed him. Two beings in one body. One the human Jesus and the other the christos spirit.

    Option 3: (human model)

    They believed he was man. Some say virgin born and some the son of Joseph. The messiah and a prophet who was completely human but anointed with power from God.

    The 1st option is the option that fits closest to what we see the New Testament to be saying. The Trinity (as believed today) does not fit the historic evidence or the scriptures as nicely as the above option number 1, the proto-trinitarian view.

    This is also the view held within the essene community of the Messiah. Which Jesus was an essene Messiah. The Pharisee expectation was a warrior the essenes expectation was a prophet of peace and healing.

    This view is also the view found in the book of enoch which was an very important essene text and is even quoted directly in Jude vs. 14.

    The evidence is very strong. Research it.

    #107216
     martian 
    Member
    • Topics started 36
    • Total replies 1,639

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2008,18:04)

    Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 14 2008,13:57)
    (1) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the God and Father of Jesus with his God and Father.
    http://tinyurl.com/3cvbuc


    Jesus is not the Father. Well yes. Modalists take note.

    Quote
    (2) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the only Most High with his God and Father. — John 10:29.
    http://tinyurl.com/yjnj7v


    Where is the verse that states the Father alone is the Most High God? Where is the verse that states Jesus isn't?

    Quote
    (3) Jesus does not share the attribute of being uncreated, having no beginning, being unbegotten, with his God and Father. — Colossians 1:15.


    The concept of firstborn to the jewish mind relates to inheritance and preeminance/priority of position. Not reproduction. To use Col 1:15 to demonstrate a beginning to Yeshua's life is to misshandle the text.

    Quote
    (4) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the Creator with his God and Father. — Mark 10:16; 13:19


    Incorrect – John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:5, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10.

    Quote
    (5) Jesus does not share the attribute of being only true God who sent Jesus. — John 17:1,3.


    John 17:3 does not explicitly say Yeshua is not true God.

    second post down.

    Quote
    (6) Jesus does not share the attribute of being “God of gods” with his God and Father.
    http://tinyurl.com/2gbjxj


    Where is the verse that says the Father of Yeshua is the God of gods, to the exclusion of Yeshua?

    Quote
    (7) Jesus does not share the attribute of being “God Almighty” with his God and Father.
    http://tinyurl.com/2b8qf5


    Which verse proves this?

    Quote
    In service of Jesus and his God,
    Ronald


    You do a disservice to Yeshua when you misrepresent Him from scripture Ronald.


    Show me one scripture that says that my dauchound is not God manefested to this world.

    #107217
     ronday888 
    Member
    • Topics started 2
    • Total replies 99

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2008,13:04)
    [/quote]

    Is wrote:

    Jesus is not the Father. Well yes. Modalists take note.

    In the scriptures, Jesus is neither his Father nor is Jesus his God. Jesus does indeed differentiate himself from the only true God who sent him. — John 17:1,3.

    All through the scriptures, Jesus is differentiated from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Yahweh (Jehovah) is the only true God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him; Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12.

    God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus was sent by Yahweh, speaks for Yahweh, represents Yahweh, and was raised and glorified by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus never claimed to be, nor do the scriptures present Jesus as, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom Jesus represents and speaks for. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13,22; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.

    God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is anointed [made christ, the anointed one] by Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus is not Yahweh who thus anoints him. — Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 4:27; 10:38.

    God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is son of the only Most High, Yahweh. Jesus is never spoken of as the “Most High”; he is not the only Most High Yahweh of whom he is the son. — Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 83:18; 92:1; Luke 1:32; John 13:16.

    The fact is, however, that there is not any proof at all in the scriptures of a God existing as three co-equal, co-eternal, co-substantial persons. You will not find one scripture about such a God. The idea has to added to and read into all the scriptures that are given to support such an idea. The conclusion is that the holy spirit reveals that Jesus is not Yahweh who has made Jesus to sit at the right hand of Yahweh. — Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-40; Luke 20:39-47; Acts 2:34; Ephesians 1:20-22; Hebrews 1:3,13; 10:12,13; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22.

    I will post more later, Yahweh willing.

    In service of Jesus and his God,
    Ronald

    #107218
     ronday888 
    Member
    • Topics started 2
    • Total replies 99

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2008,13:04)
    Where is the verse that states the Father alone is the Most High God? Where is the verse that states Jesus isn't?

    The question asked seems to assume that Jesus is the Most High, and then put the onus upon anyone who disagrees with the assumption. The real burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion; the default reasoning is the the son of the Most High is not the Most High of whom he is the son.

    He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High. — Luke 1:32, World English Bible translation.

    The real question should be: Where is the verse that states that the son of the Most High is the Most High of whom he is the son?

    In service of Jesus and his God,
    Ronald

    #107219
     acertainchap 
    Member
    • Topics started 56
    • Total replies 1,073

    Agreed, trinity doctrine is false.

    More proof…

    John 20:31

    31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

    John 11:41-43

    41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

    #107220
     ronday888 
    Member
    • Topics started 2
    • Total replies 99

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2008,13:04)
    The concept of firstborn to the jewish mind relates to inheritance and preeminance/priority of position. Not reproduction. To use Col 1:15 to demonstrate a beginning to Yeshua's life is to misshandle the text.


    I don't know of any scripture in the Bible where the Jewish concept of the word “firstborn” does not mean to be brought forth into existence in some manner. I don't know of any scripture in the Bible where “firstborn”, in speaking of a person, means that the one spoken of was not created.

    Additionally, all through the scriptures the firstborn is a member of the group being referred to. Firstborn means the first one to be brought forth of the group being referred to, or, in a few cases, it is used of one who receives the “right” of the real firstborn who was brought forth of the group being referred to. In either case, it does not mean that the one being referred to is *not* a member of the group being referred to, nor does it ever mean that the one being referred to was never brought forth into existence. If Colossians 1:15, then, is speaking of such a transferrance of the “rights” of the firstborn, one must ask: who is the real firstborn creature from whom Jesus received the rights of firstborn? Jesus is indeed the firstborn creature.

    Actually, it is those who claim that “firstborn” does not mean that the one spoken is a member of the group being spoken of who are misusing the scripture. In effect, they would make the usage of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 something unique, so as to make it harmonize with their dogma which they add to and read into the scriptures.

    The group being referred to in Colossians 1:15 is “creation”. From the context, the creation being spoken of is living creation. Jesus was indeed the firstborn living creature, the first living creature which God brought forth into being.

    Regardless, however, the term “begotten” is never used of the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus, but is used of the son of the Most High, thus there is no reason to believe that the God and Father of Jesus was ever begotten, thus Jesus does not share with his God and Father the attribute of being unbegotten.

    http://godandson.reslight.net/jesus-beginning.html

    In service of Jesus and his God,
    Ronald

    #107221
     ronday888 
    Member
    • Topics started 2
    • Total replies 99

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2008,13:04)

    Quote
    (4) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the Creator with his God and Father. — Mark 10:16; 13:19


    Incorrect – John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:5, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10.


    Actually, if one examines closely all of the verses given, one will see that Jesus is not being called creator, but he is being referred to as the instrument, the agent, of creation relative to what is being spoken of.

    I will first examine John 1:3:

    John 1:3
    All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.
    World English Bible translation.

    More literally, verse three is rendered:

    All [Greek, panta, Strong's #3956] came to be through [Greek, di, Strong's #1223] him, and apart from him not [Greek, oude, Strong's #3956] one came to be.

    The Logos is not being called “the Creator”, but rather the one “through” whom these things were made. In other words, the only true God (John 17:3) used the Logos as an agent in creation. The Logos was with the only true God; the Logos was not the only true God whom he was with.

    Newman and Nida states: “This statement is literally 'all things through him came into being.' The Greek phrase through him indicates that the Word was the agent in creation, but at the same time the context clearly implies that God is the ultimate source of creation.” — A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John, by Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, 1980 edition, page 10.

    The Greek word “panta” (a form of “pas”, Strong's #3956) always looks to context as well as common evidence for what is included. Likewise the negative oude (Strong's #3761), especially when used relative to any form of the Greek word pas (Strong's #3956), also does the same. The word “things” is often supplied by the translator with various usages of “pas”. By comparing scriptural spiritual revealment with scriptural spiritual revealment, we can see the that the “all” being spoken of in John 1:3 is relative to the world of mankind, the world that was made through the Logos, and into which the Logos came. (John 1:10) Rather than adding “things” to the Greek word “panta”, it could also be rendered as “all of this” or “all of these”. — See the KJV in Mark 4:11; Colossians 3:18.

    If one would take a NT Greek Lexicon and look at how the word “pas” (and the related “hapas”, Strong's #537) is used all through the scriptures, it becomes apparent that it is rarely, if ever, used of absolutely everything in the universe (which would include God), nor even of absolutely everything in the created universe (which would not include God). It is most often used of things pertaining to man, in the world of mankind, and often not even all that is the world of mankind.
    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicon….er=3956
    http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicon….ber=537

    A good illustration of the usage of pas and oude is in Hebrews 2:7,8, where these words are used to refer to the things subjected to mankind as described in Psalm 8:6-8. Please note that both pas and oude is used relatively, and neither one is speaking of absolutely everything in the universe, nor even of the created universe. Psalm 8:6-8 outlines all the things that were subjected to man, of which nothing was left that was not subjected to him. Another good example is Romans 3:10,12, where it is evident that Jesus is excluded, since his flesh was specially prepared by God, and he was not made a sinner due to Adam's disobedience. — Romans 5:19; Hebrews 10:5.

    And then we have Paul's example of evident exclusion in 1 Corinthians 15:27.

    Thus seen, John 1:3 should be taken together in consideration of what is being spoken of. John 1:1 speaks of a “beginning”. The beginning of what?

    What was the general thought of the NT writers when they spoke of the beginning of creation, or of the world? We need to examine some scriptures to see, and thereby compare spiritual with spiritual. — 1 Corinthians 2:12,13.

    The first scripture we will examine is Matthew 19:4:

    He answered, “Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, …”

    We can learn from this that Jesus associated “the beginning” with time of the creation of Adam and Eve. This agrees with Exodus 20:11: “in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” This shows that the “beginning” spoken of in Genesis 1:1 is the six days that are described in Genesis 1:3 through Genesis 2:1. Adam and Eve's creation was on the last of the six days of creation in which God created the heavens and the earth. Thus, the “beginning” spoken of in Genesis 1:1 is regarding the six days of creation.

    However, do the six days include the creation of the planet earth, the sun, the moon, the stars and the angels? No. Let us examine why this is so.

    Before getting into the creation of the heavens and the earth — the six days — we read: “the earth was formless and empty.” (Genesis 1:2) It should be apparent here that “earth” is referring to the planet. The planet earth already “was” before the first day of creation, thus before the beginning spoken of in Genesis 1:1.

    So what was the “earth” that is spoken of that created in the “beginning”? Genesis 1:9,10 tells us:

    God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear,” and it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.

    Notice that is was not the planet that was created on the third day, but dry land. This is the “earth” that was created in the beginning spoken of in verse one. “Earth” in the Bible, however, also designates the society of people who are living on the dry land. We read that “The earth also was corrupt before God.” (Genesis 6:11) Does this mean that the physical planet itself was corrupt? No, it is speaking of mankind and his society upon the earth: “the earth was filled with violence.” And:

    And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. — Genesis 6:13.

    Here God says he will destroy all flesh with the earth. Did he mean that the planet earth would be no more? No, but he did destroy the order of things that man had made upon the earth.

    Likewise, Abraham called Jehovah the “Judge of all the earth.” (Genesis 18:25) Did he mean that the planet itself was to be judged by Yahweh? No, he is speaking of mankind upon the planet.

    More scriptures could be cited, but these show the point that the “earth” referred to in Genesis 1:1 is not the planet, but rather the things upon the land.

    What about the heavens — what is included in the statement that in the beginning God created the heavens? Very evidently “heavens” does not include the heavens that is God's throne, and where the angels see the face of God. (Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34; 18:10) As best as we can determine from the Scriptural revealment, the invisible heavens where God throne is has always been. (Psalm 93:2; 103:19; Isaiah 66:1; Acts 7:45) What, then, are the “heavens” that is being referred to?

    The word “heaven”, like the word “earth”, is used in different ways in the
    Bible.

    The Hebrew word *Shamayim*, usually rendered “heavens” in Genesis 1:1, is precisely the same word that used in Genesis 1:8. Often it rendered by translators as singular in Genesis 1:8; however, the it is plural in both instances in the Hebrew — it is exactly the same word used in both instances. (Actually, the singular of *Shamayim* is never used in the Bible. It is always plural.) The “heavens” spoken of as being created in Genesis 1:1, is that expanse, or firmament, that is spoken of in Genesis 1:8, but as it involves the full of the six days, “heavens” also includes all that is in these heavens (as seen from the surface of the planet.) Symbolically, it refers to the spiritual ruling powers that had been set in place by God through Jesus, which heavens — spiritual ruling powers – is to pass away. — Psalm 102:25; Ezekiel 28:12-15; Hebrews 1:8,10.
    http://godandson.reslight.com/heb-1-8.html

    But what we are especially interested in is the “beginning” spoken of in John 1:1. As already seen, Jesus elsewhere refers to this beginning as when Adam and Even were created. It is speaking of the beginning of the world of mankind and not the creation of the spirit world or even of the stars and planet systems. (We should take note that there is a single “day” of creation spoken of in Genesis 2:4, which “day” includes “six days” in which he created the heavens [skies] and the earth [land masses]. — Exodus 20:13; see also Matthew 19:4,5, which refers to the beginning when Adam and Eve were created.) The angels were already in existence in the spirit world at the creation being spoken of. — Job 4:11-17; Mark 10:6.

    In Matthew 24:21, Jesus speaks of the “beginning of the world.”

    For then will be great oppression, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever will be.

    Is he here speaking of the world of the angels? No, he is speaking of the world of mankind. The angels were already in existence when the world of mankind was created. — Job 4:11-17; Mark 10:6.

    Mark 10:6 makes this even clearer:

    But from the beginning of the creation, 'God made them male and female.'

    The beginning of creation here is not the beginning of the creation of the spirit world; the angels — the spirit sons of God — were already in existence at the creation that Jesus spoke of. — Job 38:4-7; see Job 1:6; 2:1.

    Let us notice some usages of the word “creation” (Hebrew, ktisis; Strong's #2937) that show that it usually (although not always) was used in the NT times to refer to human creation, and not angels, sun, moon, stars, etc.

    Mark 16:15 – He said to them, “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.

    The whole “creation” here does not include the angels, nor the sun, the moon, the stars, etc. Nor does it mean that we are go into the world and preach to spirit beings — angels. The “creation” being spoken of is the human creation. The word translated “whole” in the Greek is “pasee”, a variation of the word “pas”. “Panta” in John 1:3 is a variation of this same word. (Strong's # 3956) The usage here further illustrates that “pas” in all its variations does not refer to absolutely everything in the universe. Here it is limited to the human creation, as it is also in John 1:3. It is speaking of the world of mankind into which Jesus came. — John 1:10.

    Romans 1:20 – For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.

    It should be obvious here that the “world” being spoken of is the visible world — the world of mankind here on earth, and not the invisible world of the angels, etc.

    Romans 8:19 – For the creation waits with eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
    Romans 8:20 – For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope

    The angels in heaven, who always see the face of God, were not subjected to this vanity, but, due to Adam's disobedience, the human creation on the earth has been subjected to vanity. — Ecclesiastes 1:2,13-17.

    Now getting back to the “beginning” spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. It should be apparent by a comparison of spriritual revealment with spiritual revealment that this beginning is not speaking of everything in the entire universe, but in John 1:1, it can be seen to be limited especially to the world of mankind (the world that did not recognize him), into which Jesus came, and was the light of the world while he was in it. (John 1:10; 9:5) It is the world of mankind that John speaks of John 1:3 as “panta” — all. TON THEON made the all of the world of mankind, through Jesus, and without him none of this world was made.

    In service of Jesus,
    Ronald

    #107222
     ronday888 
    Member
    • Topics started 2
    • Total replies 99

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2008,13:04)

    Quote
    (4) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the Creator with his God and Father. — Mark 10:16; 13:19


    Incorrect – John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:5, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10.


    1 Corinthians 8:5 – For though there are things that are called “gods,” whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many “gods” and many “lords;”

    Possibly the scripture meant to be referenced is 1 Corinthians 8:6

    yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things [ta panta], and we to him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [Greek, di, Strong's #1223] whom are all things [ta panta], and we through [di, Strong's #1223] him.

    This still shows that the one God, the God and Father of Jesus (2 Corinthians 1:3) is the source, and that Jesus is the agent, not the source.

    The same principles apply here as to my earlier post regarding John 1:3.

    In service of Jesus and his God,
    Ronald

    #107223
     ronday888 
    Member
    • Topics started 2
    • Total replies 99

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 14 2008,13:04)

    Quote
    (4) Jesus does not share the attribute of being the Creator with his God and Father. — Mark 10:16; 13:19


    Incorrect – John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:5, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10.


    The next scripture given is Colossians 1:16.

    Colossians 1:16
    hoti en autw ektisthee ta panta en tois
    BECAUSE IN HIM IT WAS CREATED THE ALL (THINGS) IN THE
    3754 1722 0846_5 2936 3588 3956 1722 3588
    ouranois kai epi tees gees ta horata kai
    HEAVENS AND UPON THE EARTH, THE (THINGS) VISIBLE AND
    3772 2532 1909 3588 1093 3588 3707 2532
    ta aorata eite thronoi eite kurioteetes eite
    THE (THINGS) INVISIBLE, WHETHER THRONES OR LORDSHIPS OR
    3588 0517 1535 2362 1535 2963 1535
    archai eite exousiai ta panta di autou
    GOVERNMENTS OR AUTHORITIES; THE ALL (THINGS) THROUGH HIM
    0746 1535 1849 3588 3956 1223 0846_3
    kai eis auton ektistai
    AND INTO HIM IT HAS BEEN CREATED;
    2532 1519 0846_7 2936
    Westcott & Hort Interlinear
    As obtained from The Bible Study Library DVD
    http://biblestudylibrary.net/

    Colossians 1:16 – For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: — King James Version

    Colossians 1:16 – For by Him all things were created, {both} in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. — New American Standard

    As discussed regarding John 1:3, the word *panta* (as well as all the variations of the Greek *pas* — Strong's Greek #3956) is used in connection with what is spoken of, thus all the things of which we are speaking. It does not necessarily mean absolutely everything that exists, else God himself would have to be included.

    In Colossians 1:15 Paul plainly tells us that Jesus is the first to receive life from Yahweh as the firstborn, thus he was created before the “all” that is being referred to here, and thus would not be included in “all” of verse 16. An example of such an exception is given in 1 Corinthians 15:27.

    See:
    Did Jesus Have a Beginning?
    http://godandson.reslight.addr/jesus-beginning.html

    “There went out to him all the country of Judea, and all those [Strong's 3956] of Jerusalem. They were baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:5) Does this mean that absolutely every person who lived in the country of Judea and in Jerusalem came to John and was baptized by him? Absolutely not.

    “With Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you *all* [Strong's 3956] things which are done here.” — Colossians 4:9.

    I pointed before *ta panta* in Hebrews 2:8, where Paul quotes Psalm 8 regarding mankind: “'You have put all things in subjection under his feet.' For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we don't see all things subjected to him, yet.” What are the “all things” — ta panta: the all — that was subjected to mankind? Psalm 8:7 answers: “All sheep and oxen, Yes, and the animals of the field, The birds of the sky, the fish of the sea, And whatever passes through the paths of the seas.” (See Genesis 1:26,28) It is evident that pas is subject to inclusion or exclusion according the context and evidence.

    Thus it would be understood that the reference is speaking of all the other things being spoken of. In many places qualifiers are added by translators which endeavor the identify what the word Pas is referring to. (See the  KJV in Matthew 1:10; 12:31; 26:31,70; Mark 1:37; 7:14; 13:13; Luke 11:43; John 1:7; 2:24; 3:26; 5:23; 11:48; 12:32; 13:35; 15:2; Acts 1:24; 4:21; 21:28; many more could be cited) Thus some have suggested putting the word “other” as a qualifier of the Greek word panta so that is would read “by means of him all other things were created.” As controversial as this might appear to many, in view of the context, such a qualifier would be appropriate.

    Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus spoken of as the One doing the actions in Colossians 1:1-10, *through* Jesus created all things (spoken of in context); thus it is said that in him all [the] things were created — the things being  spoken of, which of, course, would not include Jesus himself; as he was given life as the firstborn earlier than “the all created” being spoken of.

    Paul continues in verse 16 with the same line of thought as he had begun as shown in Colossians 1:13,14:

    Colossians 1:13
    who [Jesus' God] delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love;
    Colossians 1:14
    in [Greek, en, Strong's #1722] whom we have our redemption through [Strong's #1223] his blood, the forgiveness of our sins;

    In Colossians 1:14, Paul uses the the same Greek instrumental words as used in Colossians 1:16,17, that is, the Greek instrumental word “en”, and the instrumental word “dia”.  He is showing how God has performed works by means of the Son of his love. God is the source of the actions, and Jesus is the agent that is used by Yahweh, which actions show the pre-eminent place that Yahweh has given to his firstborn creature.

    Thus seen, Colossians 1:16,17 do not actually attribute this creation to Jesus, but rather *through* or *in* him. Green's interlinear: “in [Greek *en*, Strong's #1722] him were all things created.” This is similar to the expression “in you” in Romans 9:17: For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER *IN YOU*, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” — NASV Green's Interlinear:

    “For this very thing I raised up you, so as I may show forth in you the power of me.” Also in Galatians 3:8: The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” Green's Interlinear: “that will be blessed in you all the nations.”

    More instances could be cited, but this makes the point. And the point is that the Greek word is used in this way as meaning “by means of” or “through”. If the creation is done “by means of” Jesus, who is the One who would be doing it “by means” of him? God the Father of Jesus (verse 15). Thus God creates these things by means of his firstborn Son, Jesus.

    In the latter part of the verse Paul tells that all these things have been created through [Greek, di, Strong's Greek #1223] Jesus and for him. It is Yahweh who is the Creator and it is Jesus who is used by Yahweh as the executor of the commands of Yahweh in creation. Jesus acknowledges his God as the Creator in Mark 13:19.

    Thus Yahweh alone is the Creator — since he is the One who is the designer; yet as the Most High he creates all these things through Jesus and for Jesus. — Genesis 1:1; 2:4.

    Thus there is nothing in Colossians 1:16,17 that proves that Jesus is Yahweh the Creator, as many assume.

    In service of Jesus and his God,
    Ronald

    #107224
     WorshippingJesus 
    Participant
    • Topics started 50
    • Total replies 12,316

    Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 15 2008,05:45)
    History tells us what early Christians believed Jesus to be in relationship to the Father.  The earliest records only give us three options.  No evidence is found for another view until at least 200 years later.  Then we begin to see theology at work as other models begin to emerge or existing models begin to evolve.

    Option 1: (Firstborn, proto-trinity model)

    They said he was an emanation, the first spirit born of God. They believed the Father was actually Father/Mother and did not have an actual gender and God begot him in the descent past.

    Option 2: (docetic model)

    They believed he was man. Who was anointed at baptism and the first spirit descended into him and basically possessed him.  Two beings in one body.  One the human Jesus and the other the christos spirit.

    Option 3: (human model)

    They believed he was man.  Some say virgin born and some the son of Joseph.  The messiah and a prophet who was completely human but anointed with power from God.

    The 1st option is the option that fits closest to what we see the New Testament to be saying.  The Trinity (as believed today) does not fit the historic evidence or the scriptures as nicely as the above option number 1, the proto-trinitarian view.  

    This is also the view held within the essene community of the Messiah.  Which Jesus was an essene Messiah.  The Pharisee expectation was a warrior the essenes expectation was a prophet of peace and healing.  

    This view is also the view found in the book of enoch which was an very important essene text and is even quoted directly in Jude vs. 14.

    The evidence is very strong.  Research it.


    SOL

    You say…

    Quote

    No evidence is found for another view until at least 200 years later.

    Not True. First we have the scriptures that we read now which is all one really need to show us who Yeshua is.

    Second what about “Ignatious” the disciple of John.

    Or will you also deny those as well as John?

    ???

    #107225
     Son of Light 
    Member
    • Topics started 9
    • Total replies 427

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2008,10:46)

    Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 15 2008,05:45)
    History tells us what early Christians believed Jesus to be in relationship to the Father.  The earliest records only give us three options.  No evidence is found for another view until at least 200 years later.  Then we begin to see theology at work as other models begin to emerge or existing models begin to evolve.

    Option 1: (Firstborn, proto-trinity model)

    They said he was an emanation, the first spirit born of God. They believed the Father was actually Father/Mother and did not have an actual gender and God begot him in the descent past.

    Option 2: (docetic model)

    They believed he was man. Who was anointed at baptism and the first spirit descended into him and basically possessed him.  Two beings in one body.  One the human Jesus and the other the christos spirit.

    Option 3: (human model)

    They believed he was man.  Some say virgin born and some the son of Joseph.  The messiah and a prophet who was completely human but anointed with power from God.

    The 1st option is the option that fits closest to what we see the New Testament to be saying.  The Trinity (as believed today) does not fit the historic evidence or the scriptures as nicely as the above option number 1, the proto-trinitarian view.  

    This is also the view held within the essene community of the Messiah.  Which Jesus was an essene Messiah.  The Pharisee expectation was a warrior the essenes expectation was a prophet of peace and healing.  

    This view is also the view found in the book of enoch which was an very important essene text and is even quoted directly in Jude vs. 14.

    The evidence is very strong.  Research it.


    SOL

    You say…

    Quote

    No evidence is found for another view until at least 200 years later.

    Not True. First we have the scriptures that we read now which is all one really need to show us who Yeshua is.

    Second what about “Ignatious” the disciple of John.

    Or will you also deny those as well as John?

    ???


    The scriptures and Ignatius both have a proto-orthadox view of the trinity.

    The modern co-equal, co-eternal stuff forumlated over the years.

    The trinity for ignatius was an economy explaining the administration of God's work amongst men.

    Not a description of God being a force with multiple personality disorder.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 3,762 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2018 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account