Home Debates Trinity Debate – John 17:3 Page 44

Trinity Debate – John 17:3

Subject:  John 17:3 disproves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: Mar. 18 2007
Debaters: t8  & Is 1: 18

t8

We are all familiar with the Trinity doctrine and many here do not believe in it but think it is a false doctrine and even perhaps part of the great falling away prophesied in scripture.

As part of a challenge from Is 1:18 (a member here, not the scripture) I will be posting 12 scriptures over the coming weeks (perhaps months) to show how the Trinity doctrine contradicts scripture and therefore proving it to be a false doctrine.

The first scripture I would like to bring out into the light is John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

This scripture clearly talks about the only true God and in addition to that, Jesus Christ who (that true God) has sent.

Trying to fit this scripture into a Trinity template seems impossible in that Jesus Christ is NOT being referred to as the True God in this scripture. So if Jesus is also God (as Trinitarians say) then that leaves us with John 17:3 saying that Jesus is a false God, (if we also say that there are no other gods except false ones), as the ONLY TRUE GOD is reserved for the one who sent him.

Now a possible rebuttal from a Trinitarian could be that Jesus is not the only True God here because it is referring to him as a man as Trinitarians say that Jesus is both God and Man. But if this argument is made by Is 1:18, then he is admitting that Jesus is not always the only True God and therefore the Trinity is not always a Trinity as would be concluded when reading John 17:3. Such a rebuttal is ridiculous if we consider that God changes not and that God is not a man that he should lie.

Secondly, the Trinity doctrine breaks this scripture if we think of God as a Trinity in that it would read as “the only true ‘Trinity’ and Jesus Christ whom the ‘Trinity’ has sent.

We know that such a notion makes no sense so the word ‘God’ must of course be referring to the Father as hundreds of other similar verses do and to further support this, we know that the Father sent his son into this world.

If a Trinitarian argued that the only true God i.e., that The Father, Son, Spirit decided among themselves that the Jesus part of the Trinity would come to earth, then that would be reading way too much into what the scripture actually says and you would end up connecting dots that cannot justifiably be connected. It would be unreasonable to teach this angle because it actually doesn’t say such a thing. Such a rebuttal is pure assumption and quite ridiculous because the text itself is quite simple and clear. i.e., that the ONLY TRUE GOD (one true God) sent another (his son) into the world. It truly is no more complicated than that.

Such a rebuttal also requires that one start with the Trinity doctrine first and then force the scripture to fit it, rather than the scripture teaching us what it is saying. In other words it is similar to the way you get vinegar from a sponge. In order to do that, you must first soak the sponge in vinegar.

I conclude with an important point regarding John 17:3 that is often overlooked. The fact that we can know the one true God and the one he sent is of paramount importance because we are told that this is “eternal life” and therefore it would be reckless to try and change its simple and straight forward meaning.

My final note is to watch that Is 1:18’s rebuttal is focussed around John 17:3. I wouldn’t put it past him to create a diversion and start talking about the possibility or non-possibility of other gods. But the point in hand here is that John 17:3 says that the only true God sent Jesus, so let us see how he opposes this.



Is 1:18

Nice opening post t8. You have raised some interesting points. Thank you, by the way, for agreeing to debate me, I appreciate the opportunity and hope that it can be as amicable as is possible and conducted in good faith. With that in mind let me start by complimenting you. One of the things I do respect about you is that your theology, as much as I disagree with it, is your own, and I know that the material I will be reading over the next few weeks will be of your own making. Okay, enough of this sycophancy…..

:D

My rebuttal will be subdivided into three main sections:

1. The logical dilemma of the reading a Unitaritarian “statement of exclusion” into John 17:3
2. Some contextual issues
3. My interpretation of John 17:3

I’m going to try to keep my posts short and succinct, as I know people rarely read long posts through and sometimes the key messages can get lost in extraneous detail.

Section 1. The logical dilemma of the reading a Unitaritarian “statement of exclusion” into John 17:3

Let me start this section by stating what Yeshua doesn’t say in John 17:3:

He doesn’t say:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, a god, whom You have sent.

or this:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ a lower class of being, whom You have sent.

and He definitely didn’t say this:

This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ , an untrue God.

So, on the face of it, this verse, in and of itself, is NOT a true refutation of the trinity doctrine. Why? Because clearly a contra-distinction in ontology between the Father and Himself was not being drawn by Yeshua. There is not mention of “what” Yeshua is in the verse. He simply describes Himself with his Earthly name, followed by the mention of His being sent. So because there is no mention of a contrast in ontology in the verse, I dispute that it’s an exclusionist statement at all….and let’s not lose sight of this – “eternal” life is “knowing” The Father and the Son. If Yeshua was contrasting His very being with the Father, highlighting the disparity and His own inferiority, wouldn’t His equating of the importance of relationship of believers with the Fatherand Himself in the context of salvation be more than a little presumptuous, audacious, even blasphemous? If His implication was that eternal life is predicated on having a relationship with the One true God and a lesser being, then wasn’t Yeshua, in effect, endorsing a breach of the first commandment?

But let’s imagine, just for a moment, that that is indeed what Yeshua meant to affirm – that the Father is the true God, to the preclusion of Himself. Does this precept fit harmoniously within the framework of scripture? Or even within the framework of your personal Christology t8?

I say no. There is a dilemma invoked by this precept that should not be ignored.

There is no doubt that the word “God” (Gr. theos) is applied to Yeshua in the NT (notably: John 1:1, 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8…). Although obfuscatory tactics are often employed to diminish the impact of these statements.  You yourself might have in the past argued that the writer, in using “theos”, intended to denote something other than “divinity” in many of them, like an allusion to His “authority” for instance. I, of course, disagree with this as the context of the passages make it plain that ontological statements were being made, but for the sake of argument and brevity I’ll take just one example – John 1:1:-

This following quotation comes from your own writings (emphasis mine):

 

Quote
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.This verse mentions God as a person, except for the last word ‘god’ which is talking about the nature of God. i.e., In the beginning was the Divinity and the Word was with the Divinity and the word was divine. The verse says that the Word existed with God as another identity and he had the nature of that God.

From here

So here we have an unequivocal statement by you, t8, asserting that the word “theos” in John 1:1c is in fact a reference to His very nature. The word choices in your statement (“divine” and “nature”) were emphatically ontological ones, in that they spoke of the very essence of His being. What you actually expressed was – the reason He was called “God” by John was a function of His divine nature! But there is only one divine being t8, YHWH. There is no other God, and none even like YHWH….. 

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

So herein lies a quandry….was YHWH telling the truth when He stated “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me“? I say yes. He is in a metaphysical category by Himself, an utterly unique being.

BTW, the semantic argument in which you attempted to delineate “nature” and “identity” is really just smoke and mirrors IMO. These are not in mutually exclusive categories, one cannot meaningfully co-exist without the other in the context of ontology (the nature of ‘beings’). All humans have human nature – and they are human in identity. If they do not have human nature (i.e. are not a human being) then they cannot be considered to be human at all. It is our nature that defines our being and identity. If Yeshua had/has divine nature, as you propose was described in John 1:1, then He was “God” in identity…..or do we have two divine beings existing “in the beginning” but only one of them was divine in identity?  How implausible.

Anyway, here is your dilemma t8.

On one hand you hold up John 17:3 as a proof text, emphatically affirming that it shows that the Father of Yeshua is “the only true God” (The Greek word for “true” (Gr. alethinos) carries the meaning “real” or “genuine.”) – to the exclusion of the Son. But on the other you concede that Yeshua is called “God” in scriptureand acknowledge that the word “theos” was used by John in reference to His very nature. Can you see the dilemma? If not, here it is. You can’t have it both ways t8. If the Son is called “God” in an ontological sense (which is exactly what you expressed in you writing “who is Jesus” and subsequently in MB posts), but there isonly One ”true” God – then Yeshua is, by default, a false god.. Looked at objectively, no other conclusion is acceptable.

To say otherwise is to acknowledge that John 1:1 teaches that two Gods inhabited the timeless environ of “the beginning” (i.e. before the advent of time itself), co-existing eternally (The Logos “was”[Gr. En – imperfect of eimi – denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past] in the beginning) in relationship (The Logos was “with” [pros] God), and that 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches a True and false god in fact created “all things”. Which aside from being overt polytheism is also clearly ludicrous. Did a false god lay the foundation of the Earth? Were the Heavens the work of false god’s hands? (Hebrews 1:10). How about the prospect of honouring a false god “even as” (i.e. in exactly the same way as) we honour the True one (John 5:23) at the judgement? It’s untenable for a monotheistic Christian, who interprets John 17:3 the way you do, to even contemplate these things, and yet these are the tangible implications and outworkings of such a position.

I would also say, in finishing this section, that if we apply the same inductive logic you used with John 17:3 to prove that the Father alone is the One true God, YHWH, to the exclusion of Yeshua, then to be consistent, should we also accept that Yeshua is excluded from being considered a “Saviour” by Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; Hosea 13:4 and Jude 25?  And does Zechariah 14:9 exclude Yeshua from being considered a King? And on the flip side of the coin, since Yeshua is ascribed the titles “Only Master” (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1) and “Only Lord” (Jude 4, Ephesians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4,6), is the Father excluded from being these things to us?

You can’t maintain that the principal exists in this verse, but not others where the word “only” is used in reference to an individual person. That’s inconsistent. If you read unipersonality into the John 17:3 text and apply the same principle of exclusion to other biblical passages, then what results is a whole complex of problematic biblical dilemmas…….

Section 2. Some contextual issues.

Here is the first 10 verses of the Chapter in John, please note the emphasised parts of the text:

John 17:1-10
1Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 
2even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 
3″This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 
4″I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 
5″Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
6″I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 
7″Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 
8for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. 
9″I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 
10and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

I assert that some of the highlighted statements above are utterly incompatible with the notion of a monarchial monotheism statement of exclusion in vs 3, while at least one would be genuinely absurd. 

 

  • In verse 1 Yeshua appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him. How temerarious and brazen would this be if Yeshua be speaking as a lower class of being to the infinite God?
  • In verse 5 we read that Yeshua, alluding to His pre-existent past, again appeals to the Father to “glorify” Him – but adds “with the “glory” (Gr. Doxa – dignity, glory (-ious), honour, praise, worship) which I had with You before the world was”. However, in Isaiah 42:8 YHWH said He would not give his glory to another. Now that is an exclusionist statement. What is a lesser being doing sharing “doxa” with the One true God? This puts you in an interesting paradox t8.
    Quote
    With thine own self (para seautw). “By the side of thyself.” Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship (cf. John 1:1) enjoyed before the Incarnation (John 1:14). This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side (para soi, with thee) “which I had” (h eixon, imperfect active of exw, I used to have, with attraction of case of hn to h because of doch), “before the world was” (pro tou ton kosmon einai), “before the being as to the world” – Robertson’s Word Pictures (NT)
  • In verse 10 we  truly have an absurd proclamation if Yeshua is not the true God. He said “and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine”. Would this not be the very epitome of redundancy if this verse was speaking of a finite being addressing the only SUPREME being, the Creator of everything?!?…..Couldn’t we liken this sentiment that Yeshua makes to say someone from the untouchable caste in India (the poorest of the poor) rocking up to Bill Gates and saying “everything I have is yours”?!?! I think it is the same, yet as an analogy falls infinitely short of the mark in impact. I mean what really can a lesser and finite being offer Him that He doesn;y already have?  I think that if Yeshua is not the true God then He has uttered what is perhaps the most ridiculous statement in history.So, I hope you can see that there are some contextual considerations in the John 17:3 prayer that should be taken into account when interpreting vs 3. Moreover, you should not read any verse in isolation from the rest of scripture. If the suspected meaning of the any verse does violence to the harmony of the all of the rest of biblical data relating to a particular topic, then this verse should be reevaluated – not all the others. That’s sound hermeneutics.

 

Section 3. My interpretation of John 17:3.

I think we both should endeavor to always provide our interpretation of the verses that are submitted to us. Just explaining why the other’s view is wrong isn’t really going to aid in progressing the discussion very far.

My interpretation is this: The overarching context of the seventeenth chapter of John is Yeshua submissively praying as a man to His Father. Yeshua was born a man under the Law (Galatians 4:4), and in that respect, was subject to all of it. His Father was also His God, and had He not been the Law would have been violated by Him, and Yeshua would not have been “without blemish”. So the statement He made in John 17:3 reflected this, and of course He was right – the Father is the only true God. But “eternal” life was predicated on “knowing” the Father and Son.

1 John 1:2-3
2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

So in summary, what we are dealing with here is good evidence for the Father’s divinity and the Son’s humanity. But what we don’t have in John 17:3 is good evidence for the non-deity of the Son. If you argue that it is then would Yeshua calling someone “a true man” disprove His own humanity? No. Yet this is the essence of the argument you are using t8. The verse does not make an ontological contra-distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, as the Son’s “being” is not even mentioned. Furthermore, given that you have previously acknowledged that the reason John ascribed the title “God” to the logos (in John 1:1) was due to His divine nature (in other words He was “God” in an ontological sense) the default position for your Yeshua is false God – if Yeshua made a statement of exclusion in John 17:3. If the Father is the only true God, all others are, by default, false ones. Then all kinds of problematic contradictions arise in scripture:

  • Were the apostles self declared “bond servants” to the One true God, as well as a false one (Acts 16:7, Romans 1:1, Titus, James 1:1)?
  • Did two beings, the True God and a false one, eternally co-exist in intimate fellowship “in the beginning” (John 1:1b)?
  • Did the True God along with a false one bring “all things” into existence (1 Corinthians 8:6)?
  • Is a false god really “in” the only True one (John 10:38; 14:10,11; 17:21)?
  • Should we honour a false God “even as” we honour the Only True God as Judge (John 5:23)?
  • Did the True God give a false one “all authority…..on Heaven and Earth” (Matthew 28:18)?The list goes on….

 

If there is a verse that teaches YHWH’s unipersonity, John 17:3 is not that verse. The false god implication bears no resemblance to the Yeshua described in the  New Testament scriptures. In the NT the Logos existed (Gr. huparcho – continuous state of existence) in the form (Gr. morphe –nature, essential attributes as shown in the form) of God (Phil 2:6) and “was God” (John 1:1c), “He” then became flesh and dwelt among us  (John 1:14), yet in Him the fullness of deity (Gr. theotes – the state of being God) dwelt bodily form…..Yeshua is the exact representation of His Father’s “hypostasis” (essence/substance) – Hebrews 1:3 (cf. 2 Cr 4:4)….not a false God t8, a genuine One.

Thus ends my first rebuttal, I’ll post my first proof text in three days.

Blessings

Discussion

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 861 through 880 (of 945 total)
123…434445464748
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 10, 2007 at 12:16 pm#63691
    kejonn
    Participant

    Hehe, check it out — from http://www.2001translation.com/JOHN.htm

    1 In an ancient time there was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was powerful. 2 He was with God long ago, 3 and through him it all came to be… life came to be

    Also, and from the same page

    Is Jesus God?

    The simple answer is yes… if you understand what the word god means. This idea may be a bit difficult to grasp for those who were raised in a monotheistic society where God refers to just One. However, remember that the Greeks (whose language we are translating) were a polytheistic society (they worshiped many gods), and to them the word theos referred to a large group of individuals who were simply more powerful than men. So, theos just meant powerful one, not Creator (which is what the Hebrew name Jehovah implies – He who causes to be).

    To prove that translating the word Theos as powerful is correct, notice how the Bible speaks of other messengers of God as gods at Psalm 82:6 (which scripture Jesus also quotes at John 10:34-36), where it says, ‘I said You are gods; of the Most High you’re sons!’ For more information, see the linked Note in Psalms, ‘The Gods of Psalm 82.’

    Also, notice that at Exodus 7:1, God told Moses, ‘Look! I’ve made you a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron is your Prophet.’

    So, the terms god and gods just refer to the powerful. And even men can be gods… that is, in the truest sense of the word’s meaning (powerful ones). Thus, a word-for-word literal translation of John 1:1 can read, ‘In ancient time was the Word; and the Word was toward the Powerful One; and powerful was the Word.’

    Then, why did we use the term God, rather than Powerful One at John 1:1 to describe the God? We’ve left the first term (God) in place, because that’s what people call the Divine One today.

    So, is the Logos the God or just god (powerful)? From the context of John 1:1, it appears as though Jesus (the Logos) is theos – powerful – but not The God (gr. ton Theon). For, notice that Jesus described himself as simply God’s son (gr. Uios tou Theou eimi) at John 10:36.

    Also notice that at John 1:1 the words Logos (λογος) and Theon (θεον) are both preceded by the definite article the (ο λογος and τον θεον), except in the case where the Logos is referred to simply as theos (θεος). By employing such wording, John was obviously differentiating Jesus from The God. You can clearly see the differences in the words when you read John 1:1, 2 in Greek: ‘Eν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο λογος. Oυτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον.’

    That the early Christians didn’t view Jesus as the God is supported by the fact that Christians still worshiped at the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem until shortly before it was destroyed in 70-C.E. (see Acts 3:1-3). This is because Christian Jews didn’t consider Christianity to be a new religion with a new god, but rather, that it was the natural outgrowth of the old, and Jesus was the promised ‘Messiah’ or ‘Anointed One of God’ who was to assume ‘the throne of David his father.’

    Gee, WJ, you really need to be careful…

    August 10, 2007 at 12:22 pm#63692
    kejonn
    Participant

    Also, from same page

    The Word or Expression of a Thought?

    The Greek word logos is often rightly translated as word. However, logos implies a greater meaning than that; it means the expression of a thought. So, Jesus is truly the complete expression of God’s thoughts.

    People have often wondered why John used such unusual wording to start this, his literary masterpiece. Yet, it is obvious he was explaining Genesis 1:1-3. For, notice how that scripture reads, ‘In an ancient time (gr. en arche) God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth was unsightly and unfinished, darkness covered its depths, and God’s Breath moved over its waters. Then God spoke (gr. eipen), saying, May there be light, and light came to be.’

    So, you can see that God spoke, and the things came into existence by means of some unnamed person or force.

    Now, follow John’s opening words (at John 1:1-4) and notice how they dovetail with and explain Genesis 1:1-3: ‘In an ancient time there was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was powerful. He was with God long ago, and through him it all came to be… life came to be, and this life was the light of all men.’

    As you can see, the account in Genesis says that God spoke things into existence, and John is explaining what God said (what the ‘Word’ or the ‘Expression of the thought’ was). In other words, God ‘spoke’ and the ‘Word’ (Jesus in his prehuman existence) did the work.

    So, if John 1:1 appears to support the idea of a trinity to some, this is unintentional. John is simply trying to impress on his readers that, although Jesus isn’t mentioned in Genesis 1:1, he was there with God and was himself a powerful god who actually did the work (with God’s power) when God ‘spoke’ the heavens and earth into existence.

    Are we to conclude from John’s writing here that Jesus’ heavenly name is ton Logos (the Word or Expression of a thought)? No! Recognize that John was just employing an inspired play on words to draw attention to the phrasing of Genesis 1:1. Jesus’ prehuman name was likely Michael, which means: Who is Like God (not a question but a statement). And John called him ‘the Word’ to point out Jesus’ most ancient high position as a co-worker with God, who created whatever things God spoke.

    Michael? Is this a JW translation?

    August 10, 2007 at 12:29 pm#63693
    kejonn
    Participant

    Haha, you should spend some time on http://www.2001translation.com. Without a doubt, a very anti-trinitarian site.

    August 11, 2007 at 12:02 am#63714
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2007,00:29)
    Haha, you should spend some time on http://www.2001translation.com. Without a doubt, a very anti-trinitarian site.


    kejonn

    My point in quoting the sight was not to say I agree with everything they say but to show that they dont agree with you.

    HaHa. Imagine that even non-Trinitarians disagree with your interpretation of Isa: 9:6.

     :p

    August 13, 2007 at 5:58 am#63933
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Kejonn

    You say…

    Quote

    Nope. When I do these things I merely show that there IS a potential difference. So it makes things questionable. And yes, he was called God by Thomas and perhaps in a few places (but many of them deny the proper use of good English to get there), but never “Mighty God”. And none of the others either unless you piece together verses to come up with the phrases.

    What? “Proper use of good english to get there”? :D

    You say, “perhaps in a few places they called him God”.

    How many times does it take?

    As far as the mighty God you will be hard pressed to find any translation to render Isa 9:6 any differently, and it is confirmation to who Yeshua is if you don’t put on Arian glasses to see the scriptures clearly show Jesus is the “Alpha and Omega”!

    Since we know Jesus is the “Beginning and the End” the “First and the Last” and the One scriptures clearly teach is coming again.

    Rev 22:
    12 And, behold, *I* come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
    13 *I* am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

    Notice contextually the “*I* Come quickly” and the “*I* am Alpha and Omega”.

    Talk about following good English, and good “Hermeneutics”.
    Who is the First and the Last in Rev 22: 13?

    Rev 1:17
    And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

    Rev 2:8
    And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

    Looks like Yeshua to me. Three times in Revelations Yeshua is called “First and the Last”, Yet you somehow try to explain these scriptures away saying he is not the “Alpha and Omega” when it is obvious Rev 22:12 is the One returning the “First and the Last”.  It just dosnt agree with your theology. So you see kejonn he is called the “Almighty” as well as the “mighty God”. I know you don’t like this, but it is what is written.

    Rev 1:
    7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
    8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

    Look how Rev 1:7 and 8 compares with Rev 22:12 and 13.

    1:7 “he cometh with clouds” —  22:12 “I come quickly”

    1:8 “I am Alpha and Omega” — 22:13 “I am Alpha and Omega”. Take off the Arian glasses. Its clear as the nose on your face.

    Here is some more info on this…
    http://www.tektonics.org/guest/ddwao.html

    You said…

    Quote

    I read the comments on bible.cc. Almost all of it was implication and very apologetic sounding. I used to believe in Apologetics until I started paying attention. Now I see that the majority of Apologetics uses vague speech and heavy implication with strong eisegesis.

    Of course when they don’t agree with you, but you have no problem using them when it seems to be to your advantage. :p

    You said…

    Quote

    Thanks! I looked for awhile to find something else because I was troubled that the verse was so different. The Septuagint isn't usually that different. And “the Father of the Coming Age” makes much more sense that “Everlasting Father” although the Septuagint version makes the Masoretic one clearer.

    Ok I can handle that. Have you considered what age and in the context of Isa 9:6 what that still means…”The Father of the coming age”…
    Isa 9:6

    Of the increase of his government and peace **there shall be no end**, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

    Notice it says “and of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end”! Lets look at this Kingdom that shall never end. Take a look at how that ties in with…

    1 Cor 15:28
    Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
    For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
    The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
    For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
    And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

    Do we have a contradiction? Is there an end to his Kingdom? Not at all.

    Compare the all in all with…

    Col 3:11
    Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

    Eph 1:
    22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
    23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all    .

    And so we see a throne…

    Rev 4:
    2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
    3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

    One of the straws that the unbelievers boast is no man has seen God therefore Jesus cannot be God. (Even though they cant explain how Jesus who is a man has seen God, which is proof that he is more than a mere man).

    Jn 6:46
    Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

    Yet we see above that John saw the one on the throne.

    So who is in the throne? John saw him.

    So since it cant be the Father since no man can see the Father, it must be Yeshua.

    It is Yeshua for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

    Look what John says about the one on the throne…

    Rev 4:
    And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
    And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
    The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
    Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and fo
    r thy pleasure they are and were created.

    For thy pleasure they are and were created!

    All things were made by Yeshua and for him and by him all things consist, and it pleased the Father that in him shall all fulness dwell. Col 1:16-19.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that people are not happy that all fullness is in Yeshua. By him all things are upheld and by him all things consist.

    And so Yeshuas Kingdom and rule will never end.

    You said…

    Quote

    Bias. But it has no support just because he says “this is why he is called wonderful although he is never called such in scripture”.

    Kejonn your bias dosn't change the fact that Isa 9:6 is a known and recognized prophecy of Yeshua. In 33 years I have never heard anyone ever deny this. I have been on this sight for almost a year and seen many come and go mostly non-trinitarians, and this scripture has never been questioned as to its validity as being prophetic of Yeshua. Many have argued the interpretation but not questioned its prophetic nature to Christ.

    You said…

    Quote

    .  And if he is “fully God”, can we ever even hope to be “Christlike” knowing he had every advantage we will never have? Again, people shun Christianity for this because they believe in obtainable goals.


    This is a favorite of the Unitarians. They say…”Jesus cannot be God because he would have had an advantage over us”.
    Hello. This is why he gave us his Spirit, so we could do the works of God. Since when does Jesus have to be like us? The Idea is we are supposed to be changed and fashioned into his image.

    No advantage? Jesus was the perfect man without sin. Can we be perfect without sin. To late. So it looks like he had an advantage didn’t he?  He was born without sin.

    Besides the Spirit sat upon him without measure.

    I am amazed how men are trying to make Jesus into their image, when he would make us into his.

    Can you say…

    Jn 14:30
    Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
    Jesus is the “Monogenes” Unique Son of God There will never be another “Monogenes” Son.

    Does God have to be like us for us to become like him? Did he not create man in his image?

    Jesus said…

    Matt 5:48
    Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect

    So the argument that Jesus had to be like us is a straw, Yeshua early in his ministry was given all things when he was in the flesh.

    Jn 3:35
    The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

    Do you know any man that can say that? So Jesus was not just a mere man like us in every way. Again, this is why we need his Spirit.

    By the way God has not brought forth a lessor being as an image of himself for us to follow and serve and bow down to.

    You cant serve two masters.

    Think about that.

    You said…

    Quote

    Do you know that Martin Luther used the title “divine hero” in his translation? Why is his title any less applicable than what the above commentators try to read into the verse? And James Moffatt supported this title.

    To me its less applicable because I think that the translators of the later versions had more resources than ML.

    Quote
    As regards the text, it was in an unsettled condition. The science of textual criticism was not yet born, and the materials for it were not yet collected from the manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic quotations. Luther had to use the first printed editions. He had no access to manuscripts, the most important of which were not even discovered or made available before the middle of the nineteenth century. Biblical geography and archaeology were in their infancy, and many names and phrases could not be understood at the time.

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html

    You said…

    Quote

    Why was this listed? To show that people have added or taken away from the various manuscripts? Sure, the KJV is full of such examples.

    More doubt. :p Is it me or does it seem that I am constantly defending the scriptures from your attacks?

    You said…

    Quote

    Well, duh. As if I've never seen them. But beyond your biased commentators who are either modalists or they've forgotten there is a Father in heaven, I see no scriptural support. Commentators are not scripture, they are men who read their own meaning into scripture so they will feel good about their own beliefs.

    Biased, Biased, Biased. The last of the lame accusations when a text or scripture dosnt agree with them. :D kejonn and you think you are not reading into the scriptures your own meaning?

    How about all the translations of Isa 9:6?  Where the 100s of translators “biased”? Maybe the commentators read the scriptures and “believe” them without a twist or spin. Maybe they reconcile all of scriptures and base their beliefs on that!

    You said…

    Quote

    Nope, just the way people apply them AND I'm not dumb enough to believe that some corruption, whether intentional or not, has creeped in because of men. If you believe this has not happened you are living under a rock.

    Nope, not under a rock. I am living on “the  Rock”. Scripture is a light unto our path and a lamp unto our feet. The scriptures should be approached with the attitude that it is true and with respect and a trust in them, and not with the attitude to tear it apart and prove that the translators purposely translated with the intent to deceive or inject their own personal bias.

    What is amazing to me is how you and others try to tear apart a text that is unambiguous and most all the translations agree on. Like for instance Isa 9:6.

    Jn 5:39
    Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

    2 Tim 3:15
    And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    Is your faith in God or do you have 2 gods that you have faith in? The Father and Yeshua?

    You said…

    Quote
    To you, yes he is. To me he is someone I can follow and pattern my life after because he didn't have every advantage over me. His whole life showed me what we could be if we would only do the Father's will. You know, the same Father that Yeshua so often honored? The one that the Trinitarians seem to have lost focus of? Again, compare your user name to what Yeshua said:

    You cant honour the Father apart from the Son.
    For he who has the Son has God also.

    Jn 5:23
    That all men should honour the Son, *even as* they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

    Notice the “Even as”? It’s the Greek word kathōs, which means…

    1) according as
    a) just as, even as
    b) in proportion as, in the degree that
    2) since, seeing that, agreeably to the fact that
    3) when, after that

    The word honour is timaō, which means…

    1) to estimate, fix the value
    a) for the value of something belonging to one's self
    2) to honour, to have in honour, to revere, venerate.

    Where should I stop giving value or reverence or honour to Yeshua? The same honour, reverence, value veneration we place on the Father we should be placing on the Son. To that degree I am honouring the Father. To do this to Yeshau if he is not God would be breaking the 1st and second commandments. Yet the Father draws us to Christ and here we see Yeshua drawing men to himself.

    Matt 11:
    28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
    29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

    Our Fellowship is with the Father and the Son. You can not have a relationship with the Father apart from the Son.

    When Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father God, Jesus said…

    Jn 14:7
    If ye had *known me*, ye should have known my Father (God) also: and from henceforth ye know him, (God) and have seen him.

    He is saying if you know me you know God!

    Vrs 8
    Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father (God), and it sufficeth us.
    Philip is saying Lord we hear you talking about the Father/God a lot but show us who he is.

    Vrs 9
    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, (God) Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

    Jesus is saying to Philip if you know me you know the Father/God and if you have seen me you have seen the Father/God. Why are you saying show us the Father/God?
    There is no other way to know the Father apart from Yeshua.

    Little doubt Thomas said to him… “My Lord and my God”!

    BTW. You say that Thomas couldnt have meant that he was God because just before this Jesus revealed himself to Mary saying I go to my Father and your Father and My God and your God, (Again the Father calls Jesus God, Heb 1:8) which John the writer of the Gospel must have known Marys testimony and yet recorded Thomas saying to Yeshua “My Lord and My God”.

    This makes the statement even more amazing. Not only that but John could have used another word instead of “Theos” if John believed that Thomas called Yeshua something else other than God in the same sense that Jesus called the Father God.

    How do you explain John doing this?

    Yet John nor Jesus rebukes or corrects him for this propossed blasphemy, in fact Jesus blesses him.

    Jesus also said…

    Jn 10:1
    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber
    vrs 9
    I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
    Vrs 14
    I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

    The sheep know his (Yeshau’s) voice and follow him. For they “Know” him and are “known” by him. This involves intimacy of relationship. This involves communion. Jesus is our Husband we are his bride. He is our prize. The Gospel of God is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    What did the apostles preach?

    Acts 5:42
    And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

    kejonn. Had you noticed that the title Father is not found in the acts of the Apostles except for Jesus mention of him in Acts 1:4.

    Jesus didnt even give them the Fathers name. Because the Gospel of God is the Gospel of Christ.

    This does not take away from the Father, but in fact Glorifys the Father, for it is the Fathers good pleasure to give the Son all things.

    He said to the desciples in more than one place “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”

    Why because the Word that was with God and was God came in the flesh to do the Fathers will. The Father gave back to him all things and the Glory which he had shared from the foundations of the world.

    Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life, no man can come to the Father (God) but by me. Jn 14:6

    Song of Solomon 2:16
    My beloved [is] mine, and I [am] his: he feedeth among the lilies.

    The Song of Solomon is a beautiful prophetic Song of the Bride Groom and his wife.

    Yeshua is calling his virgins into his chambers.

    The heart beat and the cry of the Lord for his own is found in the folowing words of Paul…

    Phil 3:
    But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
    Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, **that I may win Christ**,

    The focus of every child of God should be Jesus, for he is the prize and it pleases the Father because the Father is One God with the Son. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man and that is because he is God and man.

    John 14:23
    Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and *we will come unto him*, and make our abode with him.

    Jn 14:21
    He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

    You said…

    Quote

    To you, yes he is. To me he is someone I can follow and pattern my life after because he didn't have every advantage over me. His whole life showed me what we could be if we would only do the Father's will. You know, the same Father that Yeshua so often honored? The one that the Trinitarians seem to have lost focus of? Again, compare your user name to what Yeshua said:

    Jhn 4:23   “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
    Jhn 4:24   “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
    Hmmm, note the context. v23 says to worship the Father in spirit and truth. And then he repeats it with the word “God”. Hard to refute the words of Yeshua. Yet you cling to the words of people like Thomas over those of the one you worship. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

    I am glad you brought this up. Check these scriptures out…

    Lk 24:52
    And they worshipped (proskun
    eod) him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

    Jn 4:24
    God is a Spirit: and they that worship (proskuneo) him must worship (proskuneo) him in spirit and in truth.

    Matt 14:33
    Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped (proskuneod) him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

    Matt 28:9
    And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped (Proskuneod) him.

    Notice the word (proskuneo) which was practiced on Jesus is the same Greek word that Yeshua chose to use for the true worship to the Father. Yeshua never rebuked, discouraged, turned away, pointed to the Father anyone that was worshipping him.
    Now here is the kicker. John could have used many other Greek words to describe the worship to Yeshua but didn’t.

    Know where in the NT scriptures is the word “proskuneo” used on anyone except the Father and Yeshua, and if it was it was discouraged by an angel or man or it was false worship.

    Matt 28:9
    And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped (Proskuneod) him.

    Look who is being worshipped here kejonn…

    Rev 5:
    And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
    5:9
    And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
    5:10
    And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
    5:11
    And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
    5:12
    Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
    5:13
    And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
    5:14
    And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

    You said…

    Quote
    Jhn 20:17   Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.' ”

    Words of the one you worship again. Yet you take Thomas' word over his.

    Mar 15:34   At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”

    And your point? The Father calls Jesus God also. Heb 1:8. As far as Thomas, refer to above. For the record the Father is my God also.

    One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    You said…

    Quote

    In the throes of death, and yet Yeshua tells us who his God is. Why is he not yours?

    Why is he not mine you say?  It appears that your God is not my God!  :(

    August 13, 2007 at 6:10 am#63935
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Wow, WJ, I think you win for the longest post ever!  :)

    I get lost in your posts these days.  I guess I get overwhelmed with too many scriptures/words – going in different directions.  But it's been nice to define the arguments as I listen-in on your debates with KJ.

    My older sister is a Trinitarian.  In fact, we used to minister together in the church.  She has been extremely troubled by my denouncing the Trinity although she cannot tell me why.  When I ask her to go to the Word with me and show me why my belief is incorrect, she just says she doesn't want to argue.  This leads me to believe that she really doesn't know what she believes?  Sad, but true.  So many Christians attend church twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday, but cannot explain why they believe in the Trinity.

    In 2005 I kept a running list as I spoke to Christians about the Trinity.  Out of 150 people, 48 were able to give me a half a dozen scriptures to prove their belief in the Trinity.  Sad, huh?  This tells me that the church is doing a poor job preaching and teaching on the subject.  I know that for me, I NEVER heard a sermon on the subject growing up.

    **I should qualify the 48 people above by saying that I spoke to probably that many pastors and church leaders, along with common Christians. However, there were plenty of church leaders who didn't have the answers either. One church counselor said, “We are waiting for more training on the subject [of the Trinity].”**

    August 13, 2007 at 8:53 am#63942
    Is 1:18
    Participant

    Nice post WJ! Hey Kejonn you really need to read this article that WJ linked to:

    http://www.tektonics.org/guest/ddwao.html

    I'm going to be away most of this week for work, catch you guys later on….

    August 13, 2007 at 10:41 am#63944
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 13 2007,03:53)
    Nice post WJ! Hey Kejonn you really need to read this article that WJ linked to:

    http://www.tektonics.org/guest/ddwao.html

    I'm going to be away most of this week for work, catch you guys later on….


    I'll be getting to WJ's post soon (And again, break it into pieces…no wonder he was not on here for days, he had to get this last post ready :laugh:)

    But I'm surprised any serious Trinitarian turns to Tektonics. They have to be the worst Apologetics site of the “popular” ones. I've read several of their “explanations” and they're good for someone with little to no Bible knowledge, but like most Apologetics sites they are heavy on implication and eisegesis.

    I will check it out though.

    August 13, 2007 at 12:49 pm#63953
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2007,00:58)
    Kejonn

    You say…

    Quote

    Nope. When I do these things I merely show that there IS a potential difference. So it makes things questionable. And yes, he was called God by Thomas and perhaps in a few places (but many of them deny the proper use of good English to get there), but never “Mighty God”. And none of the others either unless you piece together verses to come up with the phrases.

    What? “Proper use of good english to get there”? :D

    You say, “perhaps in a few places they called him God”.

    How many times does it take?


    ***sigh*** For a Trinitarian? Once. And how many times must the Holy Spirit be called “God” to be included in the Trinity? Well, apparently never. But to be called “God” does not make him equal in all ways to his Father. That is the one thing I've yet to see anyone prove. And I posted yet another explanation that pointed out that we have lost the meaning of how “theos” was used among the Greek speaking people. The key, and the biggest one, is that he was never called the “true God”. Yes there is your one verse but again (1 John 5:20) but I've tried to point out the pattern of pronoun usage and then listed other verses that are worded similarly but you never addressed the list. Either you missed them or…you couldn't defend against it. No matter, I'm sure somewhere in this post I'll see 1 John 5:20 again :laugh:.

    Nor has Yeshua ever been called “God of gods”, “God Almighty”, “only God” or “one God”. So what do we make of this omission? That if you will go on to say that Yeshua is divine as only YHWH can be, you either accept either polytheism or subordinationism. Thus you don't have one of the 3 main requirements for mainstream Trinitarianism. That's OK I guess, because the triune God in any form fails to be anything but polytheistic anyways because the way the Bible is written. I've shown that with just one verse (Rev 1:1) and I could go on for pages with similar examples. They'd be water off a duck's back though because Trinitarians just have to believe Yeshua is God like his Father lest they lose their whole foundation.

    Believe me, if you've trusted in him for as long as I have, when you quit believing he is part of God with the Father and the Holy Spirit you actually develop a stronger faith. You just end up alienating yourself from the sheeple around you. But 90-95% of Christians have conformed themselves to this world anyway, so that should not bother you.

    I truly think that is why people who start questioning the Trinity (or those who have to still believe in it for whatever reason) hold on so tenaciously. They want to fit in. They fear the results. And all you have to see is the history of how the Trinity developed to see why this is so. It started out with the official “church” killing and otherwise persecuting non-Trinitarians to the point that people could no longer stand. I know this sounds harsh, but I hope I'm there to see these men (the ones who killed and persecuted) cast into the lake of fire someday. I thank God I live in a country where I can believe the truth rather than what other men — ungodly men — have said is the “truth”.

    And I'll tell you, its been rough for me. I live in the Bible Belt, where there is a Baptist Church on every corner. But I realize that following Yeshua wasn't supposed to be an easy life, so now I must find new ways to fellowship. That's fine because the majority of people I used to go to church with were “back pocket” Christians anyway. Yeshua never said we'd be popular.

    Quote
    As far as the mighty God you will be hard pressed to find any translation to render Isa 9:6 any differently, and it is confirmation to who Yeshua is if you don’t put on Arian glasses to see the scriptures clearly show Jesus is the “Alpha and Omega”!


    Again, and I have to emphasize “name shall be called”. Is “God” YHWH's name? Is YHWH His name? We can't be certain with YHWH, but if “elohim” and “theos” is the name of God, then we had a lot of them running around. Seems we have to deal with more than a Trinity, but a much larger number now. But Trinitarians ignore the “name shall be called” part, as everyone has ignored the various times I listed Biblical names that would make those people “God” as well if we went by the meaning of their names. I'll not do that little exercise again because it would once again be ignored and go unaddressed.

    Its funny, but as I'm writing this, I start to remember the various reasons that certain verses don't “work” for the Trinity, and like I just mentioned, they are never addressed. Wonder why?

    But so I don't have to list the names again, here are just a few:

    * Eliah – “God the Lord” – Eliah can be found in 1Ch 8:27 and Ezr 10:26 (KJV).
    * Elias – “God the Lord” – Elias is used in several NT verses (KJV) to speak of Elijah.
    * Elijah – “God the Lord” – I think you can find him.
    * Elihu – “He is my God Himself” – many OT verses (KJV)
    * Elmodam – “The God of measure” – Luke 3:28 (KJV)
    * Elpalet – “The God of deliverance” – 1Ch 14:5 (KJV)
    * Lemual – “God with them; or him” – Proverbs 31 (KJV)
    * Emmor – “an ass”. I just threw him (Acts 7:16, KJV) in 'cause I felt bad for him :laugh:.

    Shall we add these men to the Godhead? If we study names long enough, we won't be able to use some name signified by a numeric name, so I guess we'll just settle for “He's a really big God!” :laugh:.

    Quote
    Since we know Jesus is the “Beginning and the End” the “First and the Last” and the One scriptures clearly teach is coming again.


    Yes, but “First and Last” what? Let's see how the was used in relation to YHWH verses Yeshua. Yeshua:

    Rev 1:17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,
    Rev 1:18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

    Rev 2:8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this:

    Rev 22:13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

    Yes, I went ahead and gave you Rev 22:13 because, to be truthful, either John wrote poorly or the translations are poor. It is hard to figure out if the context says it is God or His Son. No matter, it means little for this matter.

    Now YHWH
    Isa 44:6 “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

    Well, already we see a huge difference. If “the first and the last” is a “title” then the titles are different. But I won't be that picky. But note how Isa 44:6 tells us how “first and last” applies to YHWH: He is the first and last God. And there is no God besides Him. Now Trinitarians will try to fit Yeshua (oh yes, and the Holy Spirit, don't let me forget the often forgotten Spirit) in there too, but they have no biblical proof of this whatsoever so heavy implication is required.

    So now it up to Trinitarians to show us how “first and last” applies to Yeshua. Could it be first and last monogenes Son? Certainly. First and last to die for all of men's sins? Definitely. First and last God? Not according to Isaiah 44:6. Oh well. As Meatloaf sang “2 outta 3 ain't bad”.

    Quote
    Rev 22:
    12 And, behold, *I* come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
    13 *I* am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

    Notice contextually the “*I* Come quickly” and the “*I* am Alpha and Omega”.

    Talk about following good English, and good “Hermeneutics”.
    Who is the First and the Last in Rev 22: 13?

    Rev 1:17
    And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

    Rev 2:8
    And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

    Looks like Yeshua to me. Three times in Revelations Yeshua is called “First and the Last”, Yet you somehow try to explain these scriptures away saying he is not the “Alpha and Omega” when it is obvious Rev 22:12 is the One returning the “First and the Last”. It just dosnt agree with your theology. So you see kejonn he is called the “Almighty” as well as the “mighty God”. I know you don’t like this, but it is what is written.

    Rev 1:
    7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
    8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

    Look how Rev 1:7 and 8 compares with Rev 22:12 and 13.

    1:7 “he cometh with clouds” — 22:12 “I come quickly”

    1:8 “I am Alpha and Omega” — 22:13 “I am Alpha and Omega”. Take off the Arian glasses. Its clear as the nose on your face.

    Here is some more info on this…
    http://www.tektonics.org/guest/ddwao.html


    See above. Since we can't be certain, go ahead and apply these to Yeshua (except Rev 1:8, see below). But tell me, what does “Alpha and Omega” mean? There is the mystery. And can you show me where it is said that only God can be called “Alpha and Omega”. All these verses tell us is they are saying they are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. So what does this prove? Not that Yeshua is God because you can't show me how this applies.

    Oh, and I almost missed it. He is not called Almighty. That is God in Revelation 1:8. You cannot prove otherwise no matter how you try. You may look to verse 1:7 but the verse is closed with “Amen”. Had John not thrown the “Amen” in to show completion, maybe you'd have a case. That and the key word “And” in verse 1:5. I have already explained this one time and never saw a reply.

    Let me do it ONE MORE TIME :laugh:.

    Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne,
    Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood–,

    Let me ask you, is the same person being spoken of in verse 4 and 5? If so, why the phrase “and from Jesus Christ” in verse 5? Two different beings, and the one in verse 4 is “ Him who is and who was and who is to come”. Now look at verse 8 and we find out who this is: the Lord God. So again, it is only God who owns the description of “Almighty”. Oh, and just so you know, the “and” truly is there in verse 5, it is not implied by the translators. The Greek word is “kai”.

    I'll choose this as a splitting point.

    August 13, 2007 at 1:40 pm#63956
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 13 2007,01:10)
    Wow, WJ, I think you win for the longest post ever! :)

    I get lost in your posts these days. I guess I get overwhelmed with too many scriptures/words – going in different directions. But it's been nice to define the arguments as I listen-in on your debates with KJ.

    My older sister is a Trinitarian. In fact, we used to minister together in the church. She has been extremely troubled by my denouncing the Trinity although she cannot tell me why. When I ask her to go to the Word with me and show me why my belief is incorrect, she just says she doesn't want to argue. This leads me to believe that she really doesn't know what she believes? Sad, but true. So many Christians attend church twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday, but cannot explain why they believe in the Trinity.

    In 2005 I kept a running list as I spoke to Christians about the Trinity. Out of 150 people, 48 were able to give me a half a dozen scriptures to prove their belief in the Trinity. Sad, huh? This tells me that the church is doing a poor job preaching and teaching on the subject. I know that for me, I NEVER heard a sermon on the subject growing up.

    **I should qualify the 48 people above by saying that I spoke to probably that many pastors and church leaders, along with common Christians. However, there were plenty of church leaders who didn't have the answers either. One church counselor said, “We are waiting for more training on the subject [of the Trinity].”**


    Yeah, I was starting to miss WJ. I had to go to other boards and debate Trinitarians there. Those folks don't match WJ so it was a hollow feeling.

    And you are right Not3in1, most churches don't talk about it and many don't know truly what it is or why they believe it. Most are sheeple and believe what the pastor tells them. I remember being in a church where the pastor preached a sermon about women not working and 6-7 women quit their jobs the next week. One couple went into bankruptcy soon after and the dad was working 3 jobs. He never got to see his children. Does that honor God?

    August 13, 2007 at 9:20 pm#63968
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2007,00:58)

    You said…

    Quote

    I read the comments on bible.cc. Almost all of it was implication and very apologetic sounding. I used to believe in Apologetics until I started paying attention. Now I see that the majority of Apologetics uses vague speech and heavy implication with strong eisegesis.

    Of course when they don’t agree with you, but you have no problem using them when it seems to be to your advantage. :p


    Sure, why not :laugh:. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    Thanks! I looked for awhile to find something else because I was troubled that the verse was so different. The Septuagint isn't usually that different. And “the Father of the Coming Age” makes much more sense that “Everlasting Father” although the Septuagint version makes the Masoretic one clearer.

    Ok I can handle that. Have you considered what age and in the context of Isa 9:6 what that still means…”The Father of the coming age”…
    Isa 9:6

    Of the increase of his government and peace **there shall be no end**, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

    Notice it says “and of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end”! Lets look at this Kingdom that shall never end. Take a look at how that ties in with…
    1 Cor 15:28
    Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
    For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
    The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
    For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
    And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

    Do we have a contradiction? Is there an end to his Kingdom? Not at all.

    Compare the all in all with…

    Col 3:11
    Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

    Eph 1:
    22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
    23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all    .


    I was trying to find out how “everlasting father” fit and I did find much the same of what you said. But again, it still goes with “name shall be called” because he can't truly be called Father. Yeshua himself told us this, so please do not ignore.

    Mat 23:9 “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

    Since Yeshua said this while on earth, only God the Father can be called Father in the truest sense.

    Quote
    And so we see a throne…

    Rev 4:
    2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
    3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

    One of the straws that the unbelievers boast is no man has seen God therefore Jesus cannot be God. (Even though they cant explain how Jesus who is a man has seen God, which is proof that he is more than a mere man).

    Jn 6:46
    Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

    Yet we see above that John saw the one on the throne.

    So who is in the throne? John saw him.

    So since it cant be the Father since no man can see the Father, it must be Yeshua.

    It is Yeshua for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

    Look what John says about the one on the throne…

    Rev 4:
    And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
    And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
    The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
    Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

    For thy pleasure they are and were created!

    All things were made by Yeshua and for him and by him all things consist, and it pleased the Father that in him shall all fulness dwell. Col 1:16-19.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that people are not happy that all fullness is in Yeshua. By him all things are upheld and by him all things consist.

    And so Yeshuas Kingdom and rule will never end.


    Stop…hammer time! Just kidding. Was John before the throne in the flesh? Nope, this was all a vision sent through angels. So can you truly say visions apply? That will be a hard one to prove. By saying no one has seen the Father, could it not mean no one has seen Him in the flesh? The verse is not specific, but have you ever had a vision? You weren't actually seeing the person with your eyes but a vision in your mind. God can work with your mind to see what He wants you to see, but He is revealing truth in John's case. Plus, let's look at the other descriptions of Yeshua in Revelation to see if they match.

    Rev 1:13 and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash.
    Rev 1:14 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire.
    Rev 1:15 His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters.

    Now, does the description of the one on the throne in Rev match the description of Yeshua? Not in the slightest. No eyes of flame. But again, the biggest indication that this is not is the context. Chapter 4 speaks of the one on the throne, correct? Well, you failed to read on into chapter 5:

    Rev 5:1 I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals.
    Rev 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seals?”
    Rev 5:3 And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the book or to look into it.
    Rev 5:4 Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the book or to look into it;
    Rev 5:5 and one of the elders *said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals.”
    Rev 5:6 And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth.
    Rev 5:7 And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

    Chapter 5 just took your whole explanation of chapter 4 away. The Lamb – Yeshua himself – came and took the book out of the hand of the one who sat on the throne. So it is quite obvious that the one on the throne cannot be Yeshua. And the one on the throne can not be any other than God, so this also shows that a man – in this case John – can indeed see God in a vision. This helps to clear up many OT verses where people where supposed to have seen God who cannot be seen. Not with the eye, but in the mind, or in other cases, as a manifestation.

    August 13, 2007 at 9:31 pm#63970
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Kejonn

    You said…

    Quote

    ***sigh*** For a Trinitarian? Once. And how many times must the Holy Spirit be called “God” to be included in the Trinity?

    Its very convenient for you to change positions when it supports what you are trying to say. You have yourself said the Spirit is the personal Spirit of the Father. Which means he is God. Recently you said you thought the Holy Spirit was the Word in John 1:1. Amazing, kejonn. You have not even come to an understanding of the very first principles of the Oracles of God, or you are trying to reinvent the wheel. This is what the politicians do depending on the audience or the point they are trying to make.

    I will agree with you the Holy Spirit has a mystical nature in scripture, however the Spirit is the Spirit of God and has all the attributes of God and is equal to God.

    2 Cor 3:17
    Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

    The Spirit of God proceeds from both the Father and the Son and is very God.

    Rev 22:1
    And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

    You said…

    Quote

    But to be called “God” does not make him equal in all ways to his Father. That is the one thing I've yet to see anyone prove. And I posted yet another explanation that pointed out that we have lost the meaning of how “theos” was used among the Greek speaking people. The key, and the biggest one, is that he was never called the “true God”. Yes there is your one verse but again (1 John 5:20) but I've tried to point out the pattern of pronoun usage and then listed other verses that are worded similarly but you never addressed the list. Either you missed them or…you couldn't defend against it. No matter, I'm sure somewhere in this post I'll see 1 John 5:20 again

    This is so weak. The Father in scripture is not called “The Good Shephard”, does that mean he is not a “Good Shephard”! The Father is not called “The Spirit of Truth”, does that mean he is not a “Spirit of Truth”?

    You have yet to show me where “Theos” in NT scriptures is applied to a living being other than the Father and the Son in a true sense. All other examples are either false gods or no gods at all.

    Since we know Yeshua is “True” and he is Theos”, it dosnt take a rocket scientist to know Yeshua is “True Theos”. And yes, 1 Jn 5:20 is proof seeing John included Jesus in the verse who is also the “Eternal life” in 1Jn 1:1,2.

    You said…

    Quote

    Nor has Yeshua ever been called “God of gods”, “God Almighty”, “only God” or  “one God”. So what do we make of this omission? That if you will go on to say that Yeshua is divine as only YHWH can be, you either accept either polytheism or subordinationism. Thus you don't have one of the 3 main requirements for mainstream Trinitarianism. That's OK I guess, because the triune God in any form fails to be anything but polytheistic anyways because the way the Bible is written. I've shown that with just one verse (Rev 1:1) and I could go on for pages with similar examples. They'd be water off a duck's back though because Trinitarians just have to believe Yeshua is God like his Father lest they lose their whole foundation.

    You are speaking to a modalist again. But that’s okay, its to be expected since this is the only response left when one cant reconcile the whole of scriptures.
    It is you who believes in gods according to Jn 10. It is you that believes Jesus is a divine being but not the “Divine” which scriptures clearly teach there is one “Divine being”. Partaking of the divine nature dosnt make one divine, no more than Adam being made in the image of God makes him God. If Adam would have been “The Image of God” you might have a point then.

    Heb 1:3
    And He is the radiance of His glory and the **exact representation of His nature (substance)** , and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

    Phil 2:6
    Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

    Jn 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Remember kejonn, all things were made by him and for him, the Hebrew scriptures plainly teach only YHWH created all things by himself, alone, none other. One God, three Persons. All three were present in Genesis and yet “God” created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1.

    Jesus was not a lessor being that God spoke into being and then created all things through this lessor being. Hogwash. Unscriptural. There is only one way to reconcile these truths in scripture and that is the trinity.

    You said…

    Quote

    Believe me, if you've trusted in him for as long as I have, when you quit believing he is part of God with the Father and the Holy Spirit you actually develop a stronger faith. You just end up alienating yourself from the sheeple around you. But 90-95% of Christians have conformed themselves to this world anyway, so that should not bother you.

    Since when does your experience with God become a plumbline for everyone else?

    You think your little circle of influence is a gauge for all of Christianity? Seems a little arrogant to me.

    Then you proceed to judge all, and I assume you mean “Trinitarians” when you say “they have conformed to this world”, and “so that should not bother you”, I am not sure what that means.

    Who are you to make this judgment of mens hearts, and especially of Christianity as a whole? Then you proceed to speak of a separation from them as if you are holier than they are. If you are so spiritually superior then why don’t you stay to help lead your brothers and sister into the truth?

    Heb 10:
    24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
    25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

    If you are leaving because you don’t agree with them, fine, but you sound bitter and your alienating from “The sheep” as you call them, seems to be elitism. If you believe they are not believers and part of the body of Christ or “Sheep” of the Great shepherd, fine, run. But the hand can not say to the foot I have no need of thee. They could also say of you…

    1 Jn 2:19
    They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

    I can personally tell you in 33 years I have “Walked with Jesus”, my faith has been strengthened as I “Learn of him”, Matt 11:29 and my understanding of the triune God has brought me closer to him.

    You said…

    Quote

    I truly think that is why people who start questioning the Trinity (or those who have to still believe in it for whatever reason) hold on so tenaciously. They want to fit in. They fear the results. And all you have to see is the history of how the Trinity developed to see why this is so. It started out with the official “church” killing and otherwise persecuting non-Trinitarians to the point that people could no longer stand. I know this sounds harsh, but I hope I'm there to see these men (the ones who killed and persecuted) cast into the lake of fire someday. I thank God I live in a country where I can believe the truth rather than what other men — ungodly men — have said is the “truth”.

    GAG! So you think Christians don’t leave their Trinitarian belief because they are afraid and may be killed. What a lame argument. The Muslims believe like you do today.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim

    That Jesus was just a prophet or a mere man, yet they are killing innocent people today and even strapping their children with bombs to kill the infidels. So I guess this makes all Christians who believe like they do murderers?

    You say “I know this sounds harsh, but I hope I'm there to see these men (the ones who killed and persecuted) cast into the lake of fire someday.”

    What Spirit are you of kejonn?

    Luke 9:54-56
    And when his disciples James and John saw [this], they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
    But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
    For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]. And they went to another village.

    What ever happened to these words…

    Matt 5:
    44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
    45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

    You said…

    Quote

    And I'll tell you, its been rough for me. I live in the Bible Belt, where there is a Baptist Church on every corner. But I realize that following Yeshua wasn't supposed to be an easy life, so now I must find new ways to fellowship. That's fine because the majority of people I used to go to church with were “back pocket” Christians anyway. Yeshua never said we'd be popular.

    You know kejonn, I thought you were different from most that made themselves separatist and elitist while accusing all others who don’t agree with them as being ungodly, heretics, blind, ignorant.

    The rest is more of the same, but I will address the following.

    You said…

    Quote

    Let me ask you, is the same person being spoken of in verse 4 and 5? If so, why the phrase “and from Jesus Christ” in verse 5? Two different beings, and the one in verse 4 is “ Him who is and who was and who is to come”. Now look at verse 8 and we find out who this is: the Lord God. So again, it is only God who owns the description of “Almighty”. Oh, and just so you know, the “and” truly is there in verse 5, it is not implied by the translators. The Greek word is “kai”.

    You also said…

    Quote

    There is the mystery. And can you show me where it is said that only God can be called “Alpha and Omega”

    There is your answer kejonn. Can you show me where “he who was and is and is to come” only means the Father.

    In fact as I have shown this also applies to the Son…

    So I repeat part of my previous quote…

    And so we see a throne…

    Rev 4:
    2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
    3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

    One of the straws that the unbelievers boast is no man has seen God therefore Jesus cannot be God. (Even though they cant explain how Jesus who is a man has seen God, which is proof that he is more than a mere man).

    Jn 6:46
    Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

    Yet we see above that John saw the one on the throne.

    So who is in the throne? John saw him.

    So since it cant be the Father since no man can see the Father, it must be Yeshua.

    It is Yeshua for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

    Look what John says about the one on the throne…

    Rev 4:
    8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come[/b].
    9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
    10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
    11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

    For thy pleasure they are and were created!

    All things were made by Yeshua and for him and by him all things consist, and it pleased the Father that in him shall all fulness dwell. Col 1:16-19.
    John says the one he saw in verse 8 is the Lord God almighty, and he which was, and is, and is to come.

    So you see that “he which was, and is, and is to come”. Can be applied to Yeshua also. So since you say Rev 22:13 is Yeshua then you should also accept the above.

    Yeshua is the Lord God almighty. Rev 1:8 and Rev 4:8.

    :O

    August 13, 2007 at 9:34 pm#63972
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2007,00:58)

    You said…

    Quote

    Bias. But it has no support just because he says “this is why he is called wonderful although he is never called such in scripture”.

    Kejonn your bias dosn't change the fact that Isa 9:6 is a known and recognized prophecy of Yeshua. In 33 years I have never heard anyone ever deny this. I have been on this sight for almost a year and seen many come and go mostly non-trinitarians, and this scripture has never been questioned as to its validity as being prophetic of Yeshua. Many have argued the interpretation but not questioned its prophetic nature to Christ.


    And I came back and admitted that it is very likely. But as it stands, there is no reference to it being mentioned again in scripture. But none of that takes away “name will be called”. A name does not denote our substance, it is but a name. If I decide to name my child Napolean that will not make him the historical character, will it? Or even Napolean Dynamite for that matter :laugh:.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    . And if he is “fully God”, can we ever even hope to be “Christlike” knowing he had every advantage we will never have? Again, people shun Christianity for this because they believe in obtainable goals.


    This is a favorite of the Unitarians. They say…”Jesus cannot be God because he would have had an advantage over us”.
    Hello. This is why he gave us his Spirit, so we could do the works of God. Since when does Jesus have to be like us? The Idea is we are supposed to be changed and fashioned into his image.


    It is a favorite because it is more realistic. Do you think you will be God someday? Unless you have that thought, than you can never even hope to think you could ever be like him.

    Quote
    No advantage? Jesus was the perfect man without sin. Can we be perfect without sin. To late. So it looks like he had an advantage didn’t he? He was born without sin.


    We are born without sin. But we are also born in a fallen world. We are the ones who make our choices. The final decision to sin is ours alone. Yeshua overcame. Why would the Adversary even bother tempting him if he didn't at least have the capacity to sin? It appears satan knew more about Yeshua than some people today. And I think satan has done a work on many people today by making another being seem to be equal to the God of the OT, YHWH. In some strange way, the Trinity detracts from the focus on the Father and puts it on Yeshua. Yet, if you read about what Yeshua said, he was all about pointing us to his Father.

    If you think that Yeshua was different from us because he couldn't sin, then why would he even need to face temptation? After all, if he couldn't sin, his ability to resist temptation would be a given. Again, we could never hope to be like someone like him. The difference in Yeshua and us is that he overcame perfectly.

    Quote
    Besides the Spirit sat upon him without measure.

    I am amazed how men are trying to make Jesus into their image, when he would make us into his.

    Can you say…


    This is not true. Well, not of all people who deny the Trinity. We want to be able to be like Yeshua. But if we feel he was God in the flesh, we can never hope to be like him. We cannot be God. We must rely on God, not be Him. Did Yeshua not rely on God? Yes!! So how could he – if he is God – rely on God when he was God? Do you not see the fallacy in this thinking? But instead you want to merely believe that he chose to humble himself from being God for awhile. Yes, we know he took on the form of a slave, but a slave is different than other men – it is a status of a man who is completely humble and obedient to his Master.

    Quote
    Jn 14:30
    Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
    Jesus is the “Monogenes” Unique Son of God There will never be another “Monogenes” Son.

    Does God have to be like us for us to become like him? Did he not create man in his image?

    Jesus said…


    Yes, he created us in his image. But be careful in your assertions, lest you start implying that we will be God too. We are still man.

    Quote
    Matt 5:48
    Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect

    So the argument that Jesus had to be like us is a straw, Yeshua early in his ministry was given all things when he was in the flesh.


    Not straw. Only straw when you want him to be God and can not think otherwise.

    Quote
    Jn 3:35
    The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

    Do you know any man that can say that? So Jesus was not just a mere man like us in every way. Again, this is why we need his Spirit.


    But didn't Yeshua also require the Spirit? Every Gospel speaks of the baptism and the Holy Spirit descending upon Yeshua. So if he needed the Spirit, and we also need the Spirit, what does that tell you? If he was “God in the flesh” why would he need the anointing of the Spirit? Why was he not performing miracles before that point? Why could only the prophets of God perform miracles before Yeshua cam along? Think of Moses and Elijah. Were they “God in the flesh”? No, they needed the Power from God, just as Yeshua needed it. The only difference was that Yeshua was the spotless Lamb, the Son of God by birth.

    Quote
    By the way God has not brought forth a lessor being as an image of himself for us to follow and serve and bow down to.

    You cant serve two masters.

    Think about that.


    Think about what? This is a silly statement. We are to honor Father and Son. It has nothing to do with who is lesser or greater. It is God's will. You're “two masters” is a poor example because the “two masters” the Bi
    ble speaks of are opposing ideals. Let me show you so you won't use this poor example in relation to serving God and Yeshua again.
    Mat 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

    I wouldn't believe you would use the Bible out of context that badly. The love of money is the root of all evil! But to honor the Son is to honor the Father who sent him. It has no bearing on Yeshua's “divinity”.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    Do you know that Martin Luther used the title “divine hero” in his translation? Why is his title any less applicable than what the above commentators try to read into the verse? And James Moffatt supported this title.

    To me its less applicable because I think that the translators of the later versions had more resources than ML.


    And potentially more bias? The Trinity is pretty much become mainstream and has been since the translators of the KJV. The Greek and Hebrew words can mean many things, but the translators decided what they did. Can we be certain they were not biased? The only ones who were not biased were the ones who first wrote the scriptures.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    Why was this listed? To show that people have added or taken away from the various manuscripts? Sure, the KJV is full of such examples.

    More doubt. :p Is it me or does it seem that I am constantly defending the scriptures from your attacks?


    Sure, start with these verses:

    1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    Erasamus added this to his manuscript to 1 John 5:7 under pressure of the church.

    How do we know that more errors were not introduced? I believe that the original manuscripts were infallible, but I also believe that man has corrupted the Bible in some places. If you don't think so, I bet you think professional wrestling is real too, right? God is perfect, but man is not!

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    Well, duh. As if I've never seen them. But beyond your biased commentators who are either modalists or they've forgotten there is a Father in heaven, I see no scriptural support. Commentators are not scripture, they are men who read their own meaning into scripture so they will feel good about their own beliefs.

    Biased, Biased, Biased. The last of the lame accusations when a text or scripture dosnt agree with them. :D kejonn and you think you are not reading into the scriptures your own meaning?

    How about all the translations of Isa 9:6? Where the 100s of translators “biased”? Maybe the commentators read the scriptures and “believe” them without a twist or spin. Maybe they reconcile all of scriptures and base their beliefs on that!

    You said…

    Nope, just the way people apply them AND I'm not dumb enough to believe that some corruption, whether intentional or not, has creeped in because of men. If you believe this has not happened you are living under a rock.

    Nope, not under a rock. I am living on “the Rock”. Scripture is a light unto our path and a lamp unto our feet. The scriptures should be approached with the attitude that it is true and with respect and a trust in them, and not with the attitude to tear it apart and prove that the translators purposely translated with the intent to deceive or inject their own personal bias.


    It would be much easier if this has not been shown to be the case. I used to have that attitude, but it was when I was a sheeple who didn't read for myself. Even when I did, I said “surely this is not wrong!”. But that I had to accept the reality that where man is involved, mistakes are made. The Apostles did not write the NT in Microsoft Word and make DVD backups for preservation.

    Explain these two verses to me if you would please:

    Joh 5:31 “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.

    Joh 8:14 Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

    So, which is it? 5:31 says “not true”, 8:14 says “true”. And the word “alone” in v5:31 is not in the original Greek.

    Quote
    What is amazing to me is how you and others try to tear apart a text that is unambiguous and most all the translations agree on. Like for instance Isa 9:6.


    You get too riled up. I never tried to tear it apart, I just showed you that the Greek Septuagint did not agree. You responded with another variant that was closer, but I returned that the verse may or may not have used the Masoretic as well. I know you want to believe that the words we read today are 100% error free but that would only have been possible if God would have kept them Himself.

    You may not like that I say such things but at least I'm being realistic.

    Quote
    Jn 5:39
    Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.


    Get real WJ! The scriptures these guys had were likely from the Septuagint! And even so, it has been almost 2000 years since this statement was made. Do you think we have an error free copy of the same scriptures they studied back in the 1st century?

    Quote
    2 Tim 3:15
    And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    Is your faith in God or do you have 2 gods that you have faith in? The Father and Yeshua?


    As I've told you on several occasions, I know only one true God, the Father. I believe the Father to be the LORD, YHWH, or Jehovah, of the OT. Yeshua is my Savior and Lord. I don't have a
    three person God.

    August 13, 2007 at 11:00 pm#63978
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    WJ;

    Can you do us a favor and show the posters where Christ is worshipped in scripture? I'm very busy at my office these days and don't have the time to cite all the cases of Christ being worshipped.

    Fare the Well.

    Mr. Steve

    August 13, 2007 at 11:29 pm#63981
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 14 2007,09:20)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2007,00:58)

    You said…

    Quote

    I read the comments on bible.cc. Almost all of it was implication and very apologetic sounding. I used to believe in Apologetics until I started paying attention. Now I see that the majority of Apologetics uses vague speech and heavy implication with strong eisegesis.

    Of course when they don’t agree with you, but you have no problem using them when it seems to be to your advantage. :p


    Sure, why not :laugh:. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    Thanks! I looked for awhile to find something else because I was troubled that the verse was so different. The Septuagint isn't usually that different. And “the Father of the Coming Age” makes much more sense that “Everlasting Father” although the Septuagint version makes the Masoretic one clearer.

    Ok I can handle that. Have you considered what age and in the context of Isa 9:6 what that still means…”The Father of the coming age”…
    Isa 9:6

    Of the increase of his government and peace **there shall be no end**, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

    Notice it says “and of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end”! Lets look at this Kingdom that shall never end. Take a look at how that ties in with…
    1 Cor 15:28
    Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
    For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
    The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
    For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
    And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

    Do we have a contradiction? Is there an end to his Kingdom? Not at all.

    Compare the all in all with…

    Col 3:11
    Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

    Eph 1:
    22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
    23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all    .


    I was trying to find out how “everlasting father” fit and I did find much the same of what you said. But again, it still goes with “name shall be called” because he can't truly be called Father. Yeshua himself told us this, so please do not ignore.

    Mat 23:9   “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

    Since Yeshua said this while on earth, only God the Father can be called Father in the truest sense.

    Quote
    And so we see a throne…

    Rev 4:
    2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
    3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

    One of the straws that the unbelievers boast is no man has seen God therefore Jesus cannot be God. (Even though they cant explain how Jesus who is a man has seen God, which is proof that he is more than a mere man).

    Jn 6:46
    Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

    Yet we see above that John saw the one on the throne.

    So who is in the throne? John saw him.

    So since it cant be the Father since no man can see the Father, it must be Yeshua.

    It is Yeshua for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

    Look what John says about the one on the throne…

    Rev 4:
    And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
    And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
    The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
    Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

    For thy pleasure they are and were created!

    All things were made by Yeshua and for him and by him all things consist, and it pleased the Father that in him shall all fulness dwell. Col 1:16-19.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that people are not happy that all fullness is in Yeshua. By him all things are upheld and by him all things consist.

    And so Yeshuas Kingdom and rule will never end.


    Stop…hammer time! Just kidding. Was John before the throne in the flesh? Nope, this was all a vision sent through angels. So can you truly say visions apply? That will be a hard one to prove. By saying no one has seen the Father, could it not mean no one has seen Him in the flesh? The verse is not specific, but have you ever had a vision? You weren't actually seeing the person with your eyes but a vision in your mind. God can work with your mind to see what He wants you to see, but He is revealing truth in John's case. Plus, let's look at the other descriptions of Yeshua in Revelation to see if they match.

    Rev 1:13  and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash.
    Rev 1:14  His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire.
    Rev 1:15  His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters.

    Now, does the description of the one on the throne in Rev match the description of Yeshua? Not in the sl
    ightest. No eyes of flame. But again, the biggest indication that this is not is the context. Chapter 4 speaks of the one on the throne, correct? Well, you failed to read on into chapter 5:

    Rev 5:1  I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals.
    Rev 5:2  And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seals?”
    Rev 5:3  And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the book or to look into it.
    Rev 5:4  Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the book or to look into it;
    Rev 5:5  and one of the elders *said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals.”
    Rev 5:6  And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth.
    Rev 5:7  And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

    Chapter 5 just took your whole explanation of chapter 4 away. The Lamb – Yeshua himself – came and took the book out of the hand of the one who sat on the throne. So it is quite obvious that the one on the throne cannot be Yeshua. And the one on the throne can not be any other than God, so this also shows that a man – in this case John – can indeed see God in a vision. This helps to clear up many OT verses where people where supposed to have seen God who cannot be seen. Not with the eye, but in the mind, or in other cases, as a manifestation.


    kejonn

    Nice try. But if you are going to go forward in the context then lets go backward in the context also…

    Rev 3:
    21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am **set down with my Father in his throne**.
    22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

    Since Jesus is the express image of the “Invisible” God then what John saw was both the Glory of the Father and Yeshua. Col 1:15 and Heb 1:3.

    And again in Ch 5:6 we see now the one who was sitting is now standing in the in the midst of the throne.

    Rev 5:
    Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

    John wasn't just seeing a vision here…

    Rev 1:10
    [10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

    Rev 4:
    1 After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”
    2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.

    Paul said…

    2 Cor 12:2
    I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

    So like Elijah who was carried away into heaven these men also were caught up to heaven.

    The right hand in verse 1 is a metophor of the Fathers power.

    Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father.

    Acts 7:55
    But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

    This is no vision, it says he looked steadfastly into heaven “And saw” the glory of God, not the Father, for no man shall see God and live. The right hand was a metaphor of his Glory and power.

    http://letusreason.org/Onenes10.htm

    Jesus the man God in the flesh now having all authority and power is seated with the Father.

    The glory of the Father/God emanating from him, the image of the invisible God, the exact representation of his nature/substance.

    This same Jesus is the one John saw with the Father in the throne.

    This same Jesus has all the , attributes of the Father.

    Again,

    Rev 1:
    7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
    8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

    Rev 22:
    12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
    13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

    :O

    August 14, 2007 at 12:49 am#63983
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2007,00:58)

    You said…

    Quote

    To you, yes he is. To me he is someone I can follow and pattern my life after because he didn't have every advantage over me. His whole life showed me what we could be if we would only do the Father's will. You know, the same Father that Yeshua so often honored? The one that the Trinitarians seem to have lost focus of? Again, compare your user name to what Yeshua said:

    You cant honour the Father apart from the Son.
    For he who has the Son has God also.

    Jn 5:23
    That all men should honour the Son, *even as* they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

    Notice the “Even as”? It’s the Greek word kathōs, which means…

    1) according as
    a) just as, even as
    b) in proportion as, in the degree that
    2) since, seeing that, agreeably to the fact that
    3) when, after that

    The word honour is timaō, which means…

    1) to estimate, fix the value
    a) for the value of something belonging to one's self
    2) to honour, to have in honour, to revere, venerate.

    Where should I stop giving value or reverence or honor to Yeshua? The same honour, reverence, value veneration we place on the Father we should be placing on the Son. To that degree I am honouring the Father. To do this to Yeshua if he is not God would be breaking the 1st and second commandments. Yet the Father draws us to Christ and here we see Yeshua drawing men to himself.


    I already know to honor father and Son. But who did Yeshua tell us to worship? Why do you not want to address that? Instead you redirect to “honoring”.

    Quote
    Matt 11:
    28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
    29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

    Our Fellowship is with the Father and the Son. You can not have a relationship with the Father apart from the Son.


    Never said we couldn't. But does this prove that Yeshua is God? No, it just proves that the Bible tells us what we need to know and do. You are redirecting.

    Quote
    When Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father God, Jesus said…

    Jn 14:7
    If ye had *known me*, ye should have known my Father (God) also: and from henceforth ye know him, (God) and have seen him.

    He is saying if you know me you know God!


    Well duh. Yeshua was sent to reveal God since God cannot be seen by mortal eyes. Yeshua is the “image of the invisible God”. Again, no proof that he is God.

    Quote
    Vrs 8
    Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father (God), and it sufficeth us.
    Philip is saying Lord we hear you talking about the Father/God a lot but show us who he is.

    Vrs 9
    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, (God) Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

    Jesus is saying to Philip if you know me you know the Father/God and if you have seen me you have seen the Father/God. Why are you saying show us the Father/God?
    There is no other way to know the Father apart from Yeshua.


    Still no proof. Just heavy implication. Yeshua did not say “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father, because I am God”. Too bad he left that last part off.

    Have you ever heard of anyone say that someone was the “spitting image” of another person? Have you ever seen a father and son who look very much alike, and they seem to have the same mannerisms? So in essence, one can see the father in the son. Again, Yeshua is the “image of the invisible God”.

    Quote
    Little doubt Thomas said to him… “My Lord and my God”!


    At least I know your second favorite verse.

    Quote
    BTW. You say that Thomas couldnt have meant that he was God because just before this Jesus revealed himself to Mary saying I go to my Father and your Father and My God and your God, (Again the Father calls Jesus God, Heb 1:8) which John the writer of the Gospel must have known Marys testimony and yet recorded Thomas saying to Yeshua “My Lord and My God”.


    That was weak. He just recorded what Thomas said. Thomas had not heard what Mary had heard though, that is the difference.

    Please try harder.

    Quote
    This makes the statement even more amazing. Not only that but John could have used another word instead of “Theos” if John believed that Thomas called Yeshua something else other than God in the same sense that Jesus called the Father God.


    Well, let's see…Thomas likely spoke Greek, and likely said “theos” so what was John supposed to do? Another weak reply. Is John supposed to change what was said?

    Quote
    How do you explain John doing this?


    Because he recorded what Thomas said? Was he supposed to make up something? Really, I can't figure your reasoning here.

    Quote
    Yet John nor Jesus rebukes or corrects him for this propossed blasphemy, in fact Jesus blesses him.


    When did the “beloved disciple” ever rebuke anyone? Another very weak statement. But you keep ignoring the fact that when he said “theos” that it may not have meant what you think it does. I provided an explanation of “theos” in 1st century Greece, in that it could mean “powerful one” or something similar, but you're too hung up on “God” in the same sense as the Father. Again, why was this not repeated by any other, such as Peter or the “beloved disciple' in the next chapter? Why did John not repeat it in the close of John 20? Why was this even not recorded in the synoptic Gospels? Because it was not likely what you think it is.

    Quote
    Jesus also said…

    Jn 10:1
    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber
    vrs 9
    I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
    Vrs 14
    I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

    The sheep know his (Yeshau’s) voice and follow him. For they “Know” him and are “known” by him. This involves intimacy of relationship. This involves communion. Jesus is our Husband we are his bride. He is our prize. The Gospel of God is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


    Was the word “gospel” mentioned prior to the NT? So, certainly the Gospel of God is all about His Son Yeshua. How does this prove Yeshua is God? You are running out of steam.

    Quote
    What did the apostles preach?

    Acts 5:42
    And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

    kejonn. Had you noticed that the title Father is not found in the acts of the Apostles except for Jesus mention of him in Acts 1:4.

    Jesus didnt even give them the Fathers name. Because the Gospel of God is the Gospel of Christ.

    This does not take away from the Father, but in fact Glorifys the Father, for it is the Fathers good pleasure to give the Son all things.

    He said to the desciples in more than one place “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”

    Why because the Word that was with God and was God came in the flesh to do the Fathers will. The Father gave back to him all things and the Glory which he had shared from the foundations of the world.

    Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life, no man can come to the Father (God) but by me. Jn 14:6


    What does any of this mean beyond what is obvious? Yes, the Apostles preached and taught about Yeshua. Does this make him God? You're really implying now. Soon you'll be pulling some obscure verses from Ruth to try to prove Yeshua is God.

    Oh, and the Father is mentioned in Acts 1:7 too. Gotcha! So let's look at the verses themselves

    Act 1:4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me;
    Act 1:5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
    Act 1:6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”
    Act 1:7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
    Act 1:8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

    Verse 4 says Yeshua commanded them wait for what the Father promised. And he also says “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority”. And then he was lifted away. So Yeshua again spoke of his Father in the few verses we see of him in Acts.

    Quote
    Song of Solomon 2:16
    My beloved [is] mine, and I [am] his: he feedeth among the lilies.

    The Song of Solomon is a beautiful prophetic Song of the Bride Groom and his wife.

    Yeshua is calling his virgins into his chambers.

    The heart beat and the cry of the Lord for his own is found in the folowing words of Paul…

    Phil 3:
    But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
    Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, **that I may win Christ**,

    The focus of every child of God should be Jesus, for he is the prize and it pleases the Father because the Father is One God with the Son. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man and that is because he is God and man.


    I was with ya until the “One God with the Son” part. The verse says they are one, but not one God. That's where you insert the word “God”. But the second is an implication as well. Yeshua is mediator between God and man because is is the Son of God and Son of Man. That's scriptural.

    Quote
    John 14:23
    Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and *we will come unto him*, and make our abode with him.

    Jn 14:21
    He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.


    Nope, doesn't say Yeshua is God.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    To you, yes he is. To me he is someone I can follow and pattern my life after because he didn't have every advantage over me. His whole life showed me what we could be if we would only do the Father's will. You know, the same Father that Yeshua so often honored? The one that the Trinitarians seem to have lost focus of? Again, compare your user name to what Yeshua said:

    Jhn 4:23 “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
    Jhn 4:24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
    Hmmm, note the context. v23 says to worship the Father in spirit and truth. And then he repeats it with the word “God”. Hard to refute the words of Yeshua. Yet you cling to the words of people like Thomas over those of the one you worship. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

    I am glad you brought this up. Check these scriptures out…

    Lk 24:52
    And they worshipped (proskuneod) him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:


    They did. But who did Yeshua say to worship?

    Quote
    Jn 4:24
    God is a Spirit: and they that worship (proskuneo) him must worship (proskuneo) him in spirit and in truth.


    Did the ones in Luke 24:52 worship Yeshua in “spirit and truth”? Maybe so, but the Bible does not say. So this does not prove anything other than God allowed people to worship His Son.

    Quote
    Matt 14:33
    Then they that were in
    the ship came and worshipped (proskuneod) him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.


    See? Even they knew who he was: the Son of God.

    Quote
    Matt 28:9
    And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped (Proskuneod) him.


    Again, no proof that he is God. How does this prove that Yeshua is God?

    Quote
    Notice the word (proskuneo) which was practiced on Jesus is the same Greek word that Yeshua chose to use for the true worship to the Father. Yeshua never rebuked, discouraged, turned away, pointed to the Father anyone that was worshipping him.
    Now here is the kicker. John could have used many other Greek words to describe the worship to Yeshua but didn’t.

    Know where in the NT scriptures is the word “proskuneo” used on anyone except the Father and Yeshua, and if it was it was discouraged by an angel or man or it was false worship.

    Matt 28:9
    And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped (Proskuneod) him.

    Look who is being worshipped here kejonn…

    Rev 5:
    And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
    5:9
    And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
    5:10
    And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
    5:11
    And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
    5:12
    Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
    5:13
    And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
    5:14
    And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.


    Really? Do you realize that the same word was used for worship of idols in Acts 7:43? So if “proskuneo” can be used of Yeshua and God, but also of idols, is it really as special as you'd want me to believe? You really should put a little more research into your word studies. Here's what the outline on blueletter says of “proskuneo”:

    1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
    2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
    3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
    a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
    1) to the Jewish high priests
    2) to God
    3) to Christ
    4) to heavenly beings
    5) to demons

    Satan also offered Yeshua to “proskuneo” him in Mat 4:10 and Luke 4:7. Cornelius worshiped (“proskuneo”) Peter in Acts 10:25. The “Jews who are not Jews” will worship (“proskuneo”) at the feet of thosewho have persevered (Rev 3:9). Rev 9:20 speaks of worshiping (“proskuneo”) demons. The dragon is worshiped )”proskuneo”) in Rev. 13:4. A beast is worshiped (“proskuneo”) ins Rev. 13:12. Those who do not worship (“prokuneo”) the image of the beast will be killed (Rev 13:15). The beast is worshiped (“proskuneo”) again in Rev. 14:11. The beast's image is worshiped (“proskuneo”) again in Rev. 16:2. John tried to worship (“proskuneo”) and angel in Rev 19:10. There are a few more, but I think you see that “proskuneo” is not exclusive to God. Nice try though.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote
    Jhn 20:17 Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.' ”

    Words of the one you worship again. Yet you take Thomas' word over his.

    Mar 15:34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”

    And your point? The Father calls Jesus God also. Heb 1:8. As far as Thomas, refer to above. For the record the Father is my God also.

    One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


    Would that it were that easy. And it can be, if you accept that the Trinity is polytheistic. There is no other solution if you must believe that Yeshua is God.

    If Yeshua says the Father is his God, that is personal. He makes it personal by saying “My God”. That's one God. Then Thomas calls Yeshua “My God”. Another God. So now there are two Gods. 2 1. You can say they are “persons” of God but the language does not allow it. “My God” does not mean “part of my God” or “person of my God” or “one third of my God”. It means one God. If I have two bosses, can they be one boss? If I have two sisters, can they be one sister? If I marry triplets, am I no longer a polygamist?

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    In the throes of death, and yet Yeshua tells us who his God is. Why is he not yours?

    Why is he not mine you say? It appears that your God is not my God! :(.


    No my God is the Father. Your God is 3-in-1. My Lord is Yeshua. The Holy Spirit is neither.

    August 14, 2007 at 1:38 am#63987
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2007,18:29)
    kejonn

    Nice try. But if you are going to go forward in the context then lets go backward in the context also…

    Rev 3:
    21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am **set down with my Father in his throne**.
    22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.


    Are you for real? Wow. C'mon dude, special pleading. Yes, they share a throne, but there is only one person on the throne in Rev 4&5. Rev. 4 opens up describing the scene. The original did not have chapters and verses, so lets remove them so you you can see the context much better.

    After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.” Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne. And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in appearance. Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads. Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; and before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal; and in the center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind. The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face like that of a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle. And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, “HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME.” And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seals?” And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the book or to look into it. Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the book or to look into it; and one of the elders *said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals.” And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

    So the true context is in Rev4 & the first part of chapter 5, not your quote. If you cannot see this, then you are certainly only seeing what you want to see.

    Quote
    Since Jesus is the express image of the “Invisible” God then what John saw was both the Glory of the Father and Yeshua. Col 1:15 and Heb 1:3.


    Then how do you explain “And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing”. Not on the throne, but between the throne and the the elders. Then the Lamb took the book from the One sitting on the throne.

    Quote
    And again in Ch 5:6 we see now the one who was sitting is now standing in the in the midst of the throne.


    really? You see that because you have to and you use implication. There is absolutely NO PROOF of your implication anywhere in Ch. 4 or 5.

    Quote
    Rev 5:
    Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

    John wasn't just seeing a vision here…

    Rev 1:10
    [10] I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
    Are you saying John was “transported” bodily to Heaven? Puleeze. Good luck with proving that one. He was on the Isle of Patmos.

    Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

    So you see that the angel brought all of these visions to John. Show me where he was transported bodily to any place.

    Paul said…

    2 Cor 12:2
    I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

    So like Elijah who was carried away into heaven these men also were caught up to heaven.


    Did Elijah return (and don't say John)? Did Paul not say he didn't know if it was in body or not? So no real proof here.

    Besides, if John did not see God, how can he say this

    Rev 5:7 And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne.

    Who was on the throne this time? Yeshua was taking the book, so who does that leave?

    Quote
    The right hand in verse 1 is a metophor of the Fathers power.


    Proof? Was the book floating in the air?

    Quote
    Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father.

    Acts 7:55
    But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

    This is no vision, it says he looked steadfastly into heaven “And saw” the glory of God, not the Father, for no man shall see God and live. The right hand was a metaphor of his Glory and power.

    OK, so was this also the case with this prophet?

    1Ki 22:19 And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his thr
    one, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left;
    1Ki 22:20 and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another.
    1Ki 22:21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.'
    1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.'
    1Ki 22:23 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.”

    Have you ever seen into Heaven? If so, was it direct sight? Or would it be via dream or vision?

    Quote
    Jesus the man God in the flesh now having all authority and power is seated with the Father.


    “Man God” is a new one. Not scriptural but it sounds like a superhero name.

    Quote
    The glory of the Father/God emanating from him, the image of the invisible God, the exact representation of his nature/substance.


    Appropriate word. “Represent” does not mean “is”. Besides, God is not flesh, He is spirit.

    Quote
    This same Jesus is the one John saw with the Father in the throne.


    Not in Revelation 4&5.

    Quote
    This same Jesus has all the , attributes of the Father.


    Father – spirit, Almighty, invisible, over all
    Son – flesh, better than angels, visible, under the Father

    Quote
    Again,

    Rev 1:
    7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
    8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


    Not Yeshua. I've shown you the context but you seem to ignore it.

    Quote
    Rev 22:
    12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
    13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.


    Already addressed earlier.

    August 14, 2007 at 2:05 am#63989
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Awesome debate, brothers!
    :)

    August 14, 2007 at 3:09 am#63997
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2007,16:31)
    Kejonn

    You said…

    Quote

    ***sigh*** For a Trinitarian? Once. And how many times must the Holy Spirit be called “God” to be included in the Trinity?

    Its very convenient for you to change positions when it supports what you are trying to say. You have yourself said the Spirit is the personal Spirit of the Father. Which means he is God.


    I've never said that. If so, please show me. I've always felt that the Holy Spirit was an extension of the power and life of God. I have never felt it was his personal spirit like we have a personal spirit. God IS spirit, so his personal spirit is Himself. So yes the Holy Spirit can be considered God, but it is not a separate “person” of God. I've never said as much.

    Quote
    Recently you said you thought the Holy Spirit was the Word in John 1:1. Amazing, kejonn. You have not even come to an understanding of the very first principles of the Oracles of God, or you are trying to reinvent the wheel. This is what the politicians do depending on the audience or the point they are trying to make.


    I admit to not knowing all the truth of the Holy Spirit. And my thought process on that is not a belief but a developing possibility. Can you refute the hypothesis? Your words above do nothing to that effect.

    Quote
    I will agree with you the Holy Spirit has a mystical nature in scripture, however the Spirit is the Spirit of God and has all the attributes of God and is equal to God.


    The Holy Spirit has absolutely no will of its own. Show me where. How can it be equal to God when it is an extension of God?

    Quote
    2 Cor 3:17
    Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

    The Spirit of God proceeds from both the Father and the Son and is very God.


    Again we see where translators bias things by capitalizing words. By doing so here, it makes it appear that the verse is speaking of the Holy Spirit. Is there any proof of this? Or is this what Paul was speaking of?

    1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

    In both 1 Cor 15:45 and 2 Cor 3:17, spirit is “pneuma”. Since Paul wrote both, and both times in his letters to the Corinthians. So unless you're willing to help me develop my hypothesis above, we cannot assume the Holy Spirit is the same as the one spoken of in 2 Cor 3:17.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    But to be called “God” does not make him equal in all ways to his Father. That is the one thing I've yet to see anyone prove. And I posted yet another explanation that pointed out that we have lost the meaning of how “theos” was used among the Greek speaking people. The key, and the biggest one, is that he was never called the “true God”. Yes there is your one verse but again (1 John 5:20) but I've tried to point out the pattern of pronoun usage and then listed other verses that are worded similarly but you never addressed the list. Either you missed them or…you couldn't defend against it. No matter, I'm sure somewhere in this post I'll see 1 John 5:20 again

    This is so weak. The Father in scripture is not called “The Good Shephard”, does that mean he is not a “Good Shephard”! The Father is not called “The Spirit of Truth”, does that mean he is not a “Spirit of Truth”?


    I guess not. Is Yeshua called the “Spirit of Truth”? That's why the Trinity fails. It has to imply too much.

    Quote
    You have yet to show me where “Theos” in NT scriptures is applied to a living being other than the Father and the Son in a true sense. All other examples are either false gods or no gods at all.


    “autos einai theos” of Paul in Acts 28:6. So very similar to “logos en theos” in John 1:1. But since we know Paul is not God, it is translated as “a god”. So why is John 1:1 not “a god” then?

    Quote
    Since we know Yeshua is “True” and he is Theos”, it dosnt take a rocket scientist to know Yeshua is “True Theos”. And yes, 1 Jn 5:20 is proof seeing John included Jesus in the verse who is also the “Eternal life” in 1Jn 1:1,2.


    No not a rocket scientist, just a trinitarian. Rocket scientists use logic. Trinitarians use special pleading and implication. Take a word form one verse, combine it with a word from another and WALAH! Theology provided.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    Nor has Yeshua ever been called “God of gods”, “God Almighty”, “only God” or “one God”. So what do we make of this omission? That if you will go on to say that Yeshua is divine as only YHWH can be, you either accept either polytheism or subordinationism. Thus you don't have one of the 3 main requirements for mainstream Trinitarianism. That's OK I guess, because the triune God in any form fails to be anything but polytheistic anyways because the way the Bible is written. I've shown that with just one verse (Rev 1:1) and I could go on for pages with similar examples. They'd be water off a duck's back though because Trinitarians just have to believe Yeshua is God like his Father lest they lose their whole foundation.

    You are speaking to a modalist again. But that’s okay, its to be expected since this is the only response left when one cant reconcile the whole of scriptures.
    It is you who believes in gods according to Jn 10. It is you that believes Jesus is a divine being but not the “Divine” which scriptures clearly teach there is one “Divine being”. Partaking of the divine nature dosnt make one divine, no more than Adam being made in the image of God makes him God. If Adam would have been “The Image of God” you might have a point then.


    OK, show me how t
    o interpret Revelation 1:1 from a Trinitarian view. Show me in a way where you won't end up being a polytheist.

    Quote
    Heb 1:3
    And He is the radiance of His glory and the **exact representation of His nature (substance)** , and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,


    How many times will you use the same verses and yet never address my answer to them? “Representation” does not mean “is”. If this was what you wanted, it should read

    And He shares His glory and nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

    But it doesn't say that. Too bad.

    Quote
    Phil 2:6
    Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,


    Please find some new verses. The horse is getting too many flies. I know I have addressed this verse at least 4-5 times.

    Quote
    Jn 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


    Say this and 20 “Hail Mary's” and you'll be set free!

    Quote
    Remember kejonn, all things were made by him and for him, the Hebrew scriptures plainly teach only YHWH created all things by himself, alone, none other. One God, three Persons. All three were present in Genesis and yet “God” created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1.


    His Word emanates from Him. It was not a separate entity from YHWH, but like the Holy Spirit (if they are not one in the same), the Word is an extension of His power. So, yes, YHWH still did it by Himself.

    Quote
    Jesus was not a lessor being that God spoke into being and then created all things through this lessor being. Hogwash. Unscriptural. There is only one way to reconcile these truths in scripture and that is the trinity.


    In the mind of a Trinitarian, I suppose so. I don't need such scriptural gymnastics.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    Believe me, if you've trusted in him for as long as I have, when you quit believing he is part of God with the Father and the Holy Spirit you actually develop a stronger faith. You just end up alienating yourself from the sheeple around you. But 90-95% of Christians have conformed themselves to this world anyway, so that should not bother you.

    Since when does your experience with God become a plumbline for everyone else?


    It does not. But I have been in many churches in my 20+ years of being a Christian. I have taught SS for years. I have shared time with many others from many other churches. So my personal experience has shown that the Trinity is something hardly ever mentioned.

    Quote
    You think your little circle of influence is a gauge for all of Christianity? Seems a little arrogant to me.


    I would estimate that I have had the pleasure of fellowshipping with hundreds of people in the years. My “circle” is not so small as you would think. It has become very small lately but sometimes you must give up the world to gain God.

    Quote
    Then you proceed to judge all, and I assume you mean “Trinitarians” when you say “they have conformed to this world”, and “so that should not bother you”, I am not sure what that means.


    Most of the people I know would not fit the qualifications of “Trintarian” because they don't even know what it is.

    Quote
    Who are you to make this judgment of mens hearts, and especially of Christianity as a whole? Then you proceed to speak of a separation from them as if you are holier than they are. If you are so spiritually superior then why don’t you stay to help lead your brothers and sister into the truth?


    Sad. I see what you are trying to do, and it makes me sad. You are running out of scriptural defense so now you resort to the very tactics that others have used over the years to “force” beliefs. Guilt won't work with me because I have nothing to feel guilty for.

    Quote
    Heb 10:
    24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
    25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.


    Uh huh. Tell that to my ex-pastor who called me a heretic because I don't believe in the doctrine of men. He did not provoke me to love. He didn't try to understand but used accusing words. Something akin to what you are doing now. No matter. I don't answer to you, I answer to God.

    Quote
    If you are leaving because you don’t agree with them, fine, but you sound bitter and your alienating from “The sheep” as you call them, seems to be elitism. If you believe they are not believers and part of the body of Christ or “Sheep” of the Great shepherd, fine, run. But the hand can not say to the foot I have no need of thee. They could also say of you…


    Again, your ploy here is seen through. I love those people. They are the ones who turned their back on me. I have no hard feelings. If I see one of them, i go out of my way to greet them and tell them I miss fellowshipping with them. But I have to because they try to avoid me. So tell me who is being elitist? When you seek to please God, you lose some things. But those things aren't important anyway.

    Quote
    1 Jn 2:19
    They went out from us, but they w
    ere not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

    I can personally tell you in 33 years I have “Walked with Jesus”, my faith has been strengthened as I “Learn of him”, Matt 11:29 and my understanding of the triune God has brought me closer to him.


    And I won't take that away from you. But for me, my faith had become stronger than ever before now that I know that I can be like my Lord. He overcame, I can too. And I don't have to be God to do so.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    I truly think that is why people who start questioning the Trinity (or those who have to still believe in it for whatever reason) hold on so tenaciously. They want to fit in. They fear the results. And all you have to see is the history of how the Trinity developed to see why this is so. It started out with the official “church” killing and otherwise persecuting non-Trinitarians to the point that people could no longer stand. I know this sounds harsh, but I hope I'm there to see these men (the ones who killed and persecuted) cast into the lake of fire someday. I thank God I live in a country where I can believe the truth rather than what other men — ungodly men — have said is the “truth”.

    GAG! So you think Christians don’t leave their Trinitarian belief because they are afraid and may be killed. What a lame argument. The Muslims believe like you do today.


    WJ, you are becoming blinded. As you must see something in scripture that does not exist, so must you see in my words what makes you keep going. I never said people were still being killed for not believing in the Trinity. But they were at one time. After awhile, the fear sank in. But now you still face hardship because you become an outcast. Fine with me. Do you think the early followers of Christ had it easy? They could have given in and pretended to follow the Jews, but they stood up for their savior. I strive to do the same.

    Quote
    That Jesus was just a prophet or a mere man, yet they are killing innocent people today and even strapping their children with bombs to kill the infidels. So I guess this makes all Christians who believe like they do murderers?


    Dude, you have a serious issue. Where did say that people today are being killed for unitarianism? Now you go and bring Muslims in. Where next, Scientology?

    Quote
    You say “I know this sounds harsh, but I hope I'm there to see these men (the ones who killed and persecuted) cast into the lake of fire someday.”

    What Spirit are you of kejonn?


    The spirit of God. I'd encourage you to go back and read the OT. God had the children of Israel destroy many enemies. These men who killed others for their beliefs will get what they deserve. I suppose you support Hitler too then? He said he was doing what he did for God too.

    Quote
    Luke 9:54-56
    And when his disciples James and John saw [this], they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
    But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
    For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]. And they went to another village.


    The men I speak of are dead already. They made their choices. If they truly accepted the savior, they would not have killed others for not believing as them. Now they await the judgment. Obviously you don't see the difference.

    Quote
    What ever happened to these words…

    Matt 5:
    44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
    45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.


    These men are not my enemies. They are dead. Yeshua speaks of those who are among you now. But they made their own beds. They killed others just because they did not believe in a triune God. Faith through fear is no faith at all.

    Quote
    You said…

    Quote

    And I'll tell you, its been rough for me. I live in the Bible Belt, where there is a Baptist Church on every corner. But I realize that following Yeshua wasn't supposed to be an easy life, so now I must find new ways to fellowship. That's fine because the majority of people I used to go to church with were “back pocket” Christians anyway. Yeshua never said we'd be popular.

    You know kejonn, I thought you were different from most that made themselves separatist and elitist while accusing all others who don’t agree with them as being ungodly, heretics, blind, ignorant.


    I don't accuse them of anything but being “casual” Christians. You want to see more in my words because you think you can use it against me. That will not make me believe in the Trinity. I do not call them ungodly, heretics, blind, or even ignorant. I call them “lax” and “comfortable”. There IS a difference.

    Quote
    The rest is more of the same, but I will address the following.

    You said…

    Quote

    Let me ask you, is the same person being spoken of in verse 4 and 5? If so, why the phrase “and from Jesus Christ” in verse 5? Two different beings, and the one in verse 4 is “ Him who is and who was and who is to come”. Now look at verse 8 and we find out who this is: the Lord God. So again, it is only God who owns the description of “Almighty”. Oh, and just so you know, the “and” truly is there in verse 5, it is not implied by the translators. The Greek word is “kai”.

    You also said…

    Quote

    There is the mystery. And can you show me where it is said that only God can be called “Alpha and Omega”


    There is your answer kejonn. Can you show me where “he who was and is and is to come” only means the Father.

    In fact as I have shown this also applies to the Son…

    So I repeat part of my previous quote…

    And so we see a throne…

    Rev 4:
    2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
    3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald    .

    One of the straws that the unbelievers boast is no man has seen God therefore Jesus cannot be God. (Even though they cant explain how Jesus who is a man has seen God, which is proof that he is more than a mere man).

    Jn 6:46
    Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

    Yet we see above that John saw the one on the throne.

    So who is in the throne? John saw him.

    So since it cant be the Father since no man can see the Father, it must be Yeshua.

    It is Yeshua for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

    Look what John says about the one on the throne…

    Rev 4:
    8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come[/b].
    9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,
    10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
    11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


    I have already disproved all of this previously. You will continue to go against the context and see what you want to see though, so no matter.

    Quote
    For thy pleasure they are and were created!

    All things were made by Yeshua and for him and by him all things consist, and it pleased the Father that in him shall all fulness dwell. Col 1:16-19.
    John says the one he saw in verse 8 is the Lord God almighty, and he which was, and is, and is to come.


    Yep, and I've shown you by context that verse 8 applies to God, not Yeshua. But you continue to ignore.

    Quote
    So you see that “he which was, and is, and is to come”. Can be applied to Yeshua also. So since you say Rev 22:13 is Yeshua then you should also accept the above.


    No, it cannot. Only of God. “Coming quickly” is not “he which was, and is, and is to come”. You have not shown me (or anyone who can see true context) where “he which was, and is, and is to come” is EVER said of Yeshua.

    Quote
    Yeshua is the Lord God almighty. Rev 1:8 and Rev 4:8.


    Then who is the Father?

    August 14, 2007 at 3:12 am#63998
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 14 2007,01:40)
    Yeah, I was starting to miss WJ. I had to go to other boards and debate Trinitarians there. Those folks don't match WJ so it was a hollow feeling.


    There is no greater Trinitarian than WJ.

    But he who believes and teaches the truth is greater than he.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 861 through 880 (of 945 total)
123…434445464748
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
POPULAR TOPICS
ACTIVE TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
 Log in with Facebook
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

 Log in with Facebook
or

Create Account