- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 12 2004,12:47) Yes call me Nick as that is my name and I stand behind what I write. “By their fruit you will know them” -Anyone can write fine words but reputation,attitude and actions speak more clearly and if I am to build trust in you then perhaps I and others could know more about you. No I have nothing against you and struggle to see how you seem to feel personally attacked by my posts.Perhaps others can help out here?
Hi Nick,I originally thought that your post and Is 1:18s post were from the same person. When put together it looks as if the quote below was directed at me personally rather than being a general statement as Is 1:18s posts were to me. When I realised this, I went to edit the post, but you replied and seemed to confirm that it was for me anyway, so I just kept my post there.
Quote Our work is to discern truth and rebuke error. It is not to challenge people but false doctrines. Our mutual enemies are deception and deceit, not genuine searchers who are only partially right,as we are. We need to learn to be gentle with each other as we need each other.We should not behave towards one another as the world does,instead choosing language that uplifts if possible while, the sword of the Spirit cuts away the useless chains that bind up the truth and remove the mists of mystery that make the simple things confusing Quote I do find it strange though that someone who gives expert spiritual advice should hide behind a cloak of anonymity. I find your answers well researched and carefully presented and your forum is potentially very useful to God. But if you are the head of a sect or your name is Cardinal Williams then that is relevant to your readers and potentially adds to your credibility would you not agree?Why hide your light under a bushel?. So I probably just got the wrong end of the stick. My fault, sorry.
Hi T8, congrats on getting married.
some edited excerpts from an email recieved from a knowledgable friend, regarding the Trinity. I think he made some salient points:“The Bible teaches that God is Spirit (John 4:24), The Father is fully God, the HS is fully God, Jesus was/is fully God & fully human. When one is operating we are getting the real God, not 1/3 of God.
Substance makes it a challenge for us but if we think of God as spirit, then the laws of substance (being confined to one place at one time for example) cease to apply. At the end of the day we have to accept that the Bible throws up many paradoxes. If we could solve them all we would have worked God out, could put him in a box, and probably have little need of Him.
Scripture does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity but rather bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in a Triune manner. The Father is revealed in Christ, through the Spirit. People like Paul accepted this and hence he never developed a systematic theology pertaining to the Trinity.”
God Bless
PS, Genesis 18, your thoughts?
T8 you said:
“The point I am making and has been debated extensively in the Trinity Discussion, is that the last word “god” is not proceeded with an article and is therefore an adjective or description of nature, rather than an identity.”
Yes in the Trinity discussion I made many posts showing that no orthodox scholars agree with that interpretation in the context of Jn.1.1
That is why I said you reject the opinions of orthodox scholars.
Hey there is no bus going to heaven with orthodoxy written on it.You have to get your own ticket. It makes me sad that no one is preaching the basics of christianity such as Paul spoke of in Heb 6.1-4 and everyone is philosophising and quoting theologians and wasting time. Time is short. Wake up.
Quote (Guest @ July 15 2004,05:55) T8 you said: “The point I am making and has been debated extensively in the Trinity Discussion, is that the last word “god” is not proceeded with an article and is therefore an adjective or description of nature, rather than an identity.”
Yes in the Trinity discussion I made many posts showing that no orthodox scholars agree with that interpretation in the context of Jn.1.1
That is why I said you reject the opinions of orthodox scholars.
Yes I disagree with the certain views from scholars who draw the Trinity doctrine as their conclusion or template in which all scripture is interpretted.It may be possible that many scholars are not even aware of the connatations of the missing article in John 1:1, or simply ignore it's meaning as it only undermines their pre-defined Trinitarian belief. It is within human nature to be bias, so I am not surprised.
But there are other scholars that absolutely understand what it means and most of these scholars existed before the Nicene Creed and before the great falling away. Their views are actually different to most Christians who believe the Trinity doctrine today. Yet very few can see or understand this.
When we debated what scholars have said in teh Trinity discussion, it caused me to research the subject and what many of these scholars believed surprised me to say the least. They certainly taught and understood differently to the Trinitarian thought we find today.
They acknowledged and taught that Jesus the Word/Logos was the first born of all creation and came from God as another person, but like God rather than God himself. (His Image). They believed that all creation came from God the Father through the Word who is the Son. Their beliefs appeared to me to be summed up in the following quote:
“For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Word, coming forth from the Word-Power of the Father, has not divested of the Word-Power Him who begat Him”.
So I created a page based on what I found and that page is located here.
http://heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity-6.htm
It consists mainly of quotes from the following scholars and disciples. Many of them I assume you would know (of) and even hold in high esteem.
- Clement (ca 85 A.D)
- Hermas (ca. 100 A.D)
- Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D)
- Polycarp
- Papias (ca. 110-130 A.D)
- Aristides (ca. 125 A.D)
- Justin Martyr (ca. 150 A.D)
- Tatian (165 A.D)
- Athenagoras (ca. 175 A.D)
- Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 175 A.D)
- Irenaeus (ca. 185 A.D)
- Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200)
- Tertullian (early 200's)
- Hippolytus (ca. 230 A.D)
You will notice that many of these guys are often quoted, even by the denomination you belong to.
Below I have quoted Origens commentary of the gospel of John as I did in the Trinity discussion. This is what I teach and believe.
It came as a great surprise to me that I came to the same conclusion as these men and proves to me that if we search with all our heart we can all find the truth and understand the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
“We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 14 2004,16:33) Scripture does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity but rather bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in a Triune manner. The Father is revealed in Christ, through the Spirit. People like Paul accepted this and hence he never developed a systematic theology pertaining to the Trinity.” God Bless
PS, Genesis 18, your thoughts?
Genesis 18 explanation is coming after this post.In the meantime I posted this earlier to you. Not sure if you read it. But I would like to see you explain how these scriptures show a triune God or at least comply with such thinking.
===
Yes I see where you are coming from. This is why I quote the following to you. I believe that one cannot hold to the Trinity doctrine and these scriptures at the same time. If the Trinity doctrine were correct, it would have to agree with all scripture. I think that you can appreciate what I am saying, as you said yourself, “verifiable evidence is what I find persuasive” and in science we judge a theory by how many times it rings true under different scenarios and situations.1 John 4:12 (English-NIV)
No one has ever seen God; ….1 Timothy 6:15-16 (English-NIV)
15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.John 6:46 (English-NIV)
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.John 17:3 (English-NIV)
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.Ephesians 4:4-6 (English-NIV)
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.Revelation 1:1 (English-NIV)
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.
He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,Revelation 1:6 (English-NIV)
and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (English-NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.How does the Trinity fit in with these scriptures? And believe me these are just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of scriptures that teach that the Father is the true God and Jesus is his son. I leave you with this one which teaches what I teach.
Psalm 2:7
“I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.The Trinity teaches that Jesus is Yahweh, but scripture teaches that Jesus is the son of Yahweh. That is why his name is Yahshua, not Yahweh. Of course being a son he is named after his Father, but Jesus is not called Yahweh as the Trinity doctrine teaches.
To Is 1:18,
I found my writing based on Genesis 18.
See below:
=========First I would like to start with the apparent contradictions with the Old and New Testaments.
New Testament
1 John 4:12 (English-NIV)
No one has ever seen God; ….Or
1 Timothy 1:17 (English-NIV)
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.Or
1 Timothy 6:15 (English-NIV)
15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.Old Testament
Genesis 16
13 She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.”Exodus 3:16
“Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, 'The LORD , the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, appeared to me and said: I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt.Deuteronomy 5:24
And you said, “The LORD our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire. Today we have seen that a man can live even if God speaks with him.Ezekiel 43:2
and I saw the glory of the God of Israel coming from the east. His voice was like the roar of rushing waters, and the land was radiant with his glory.So, how do we reconcile these apparent contradictions between the Old and New Testaments. Well I personally do not think they are contradictions but a difference in detail and revelation.
Take a look at Judges 13:20-22
20 As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground.
21 When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD .
22 “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”Now taken alone, the 'we have seen God' part, seems to indicate that God must be visible, yet we know from the detail here, that they really saw God through a messenger, in this case it was the Angel of the Lord.
When you ask most people with bible knowledge, “who saw God”, probably most would say Moses and the burning bush incident.
Exodus 3
1 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
2 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.
3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight-why the bush does not burn up.”
4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.”
5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”
6 Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God……………
13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?”
14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' ” ………………..Exodus 4:1
Moses answered, “What if they do not believe me or listen to me and say, 'The LORD did not appear to you'?”
13 But Moses said, “O Lord, please send someone else to do it.”
14 Then the LORD's anger burned against Moses and he said, “What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you.
15 You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do.
16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.
17 But take this staff in your hand so you can perform miraculous signs with it.”……………..So did Moses actually see Yahweh, or a representative of Yahweh? Well it is clear that Moses saw an Angel, yet it was the great 'I Am' who was speaking. So it was God, but he was using a messenger as I believe he always does.
Now look at Acts 7:30
“After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai.So in the Old Testament we see obvious examples of Men seeing God and on closer study we actually find that it was a representitive of Yahweh such as the Son of God or an Angel. But I am not sure if the people knew that it was Yahweh's representitive and called him Yahweh because they didn't understand that God is invisible and no man can see him, coupled with the obvious wonderful glory of God that would have been present, or whether they understood that they were seeing and speaking to Yahweh, but through a vessel.
Anyway, in Genesis 19:18 we read
And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord:The above verse is a conversation between Lot and one of the 2 Angels, yet Lot calls the Angel, 'Lord'. However the Hebrew word here is not Yahweh, but 'adown'. Maybe this is irrelevant, but at least it points out that the word Lord in our modern translations doesn't always refer to the Most High God.
In the next verse below, we are shown that the fire from God destroyed Job's servants and sheep. However when we read the story fully, we know that it was actually Satan who was doing this. But God gave Satan permission to do it, so you can rightly say that God did it in the sense that God allowed it.
Job 1:16
While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The fire of God fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”So why are the Old and new Testaments different in detail with regards to God? The Old Testament seems to call the Son of God and Angels, God (even Yahweh, the name of God), when God spoke through them. Yet we do not find this kind of language in the New Testament.
I believe when the invisible God (Spirit) converses with men, He always uses a vessel/servant/messenger. If he did appear to men, they would surely die as no man can look upon God and live (I couldn't find that scripture, can someone help), in the meantime I will quote 1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
So when a messenger from God appears in the Old Testament the person acknowledges that they have seen God and spoken to him and indeed they have. They have seen a visible image of the invisible God and they can quite rightly say that they have seen God, or at least the glory of God.
Now if we look at what Yashua said to his disciples in John 14:8-9
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the
Father'?and in Colossians 1:12-16
He is the image of the invisible God……So I believe that we cannot really see the invisible God, but we can see his express image, who is Yahshua. When we also see a Holy Angel we can also see the invisible God and for that matter, even when we look at his creation/universe we see his glory.
Psalm 19
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.So I think that the Old Testament people who saw God really saw the invisible God through a visible vessel and they conversed with God through the same vessel. Even Jesus said in John 12
49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.So in light of this thought, we can say that we have seen God if we have seen Jesus. But to actually say that Jesus is that God is a different matter entirely.
Now God is light and when we think about physical light we know that it is invisible or white in colour, which is actually all the colours combined. So if we compare not idolize God to physical light and then think about a crystal or prism (a physical created thing), it can reflect that light in all it's glory. Yet the crystal or prism is not that light, but only reflects it and shows it's glory. But without the light, the object itself is quite dull. This is why we shouldn't do things in our own strength. We need only to be transparent before God and shine his light. We are meant to reflect God's light/glory and character and so are angels. But we reflect only in part and together as the Bride of Christ, we will reflect Yahshua in full and we will become a suitable bride for the bridegroom. On the other hand Yahshua the bridegroom, reflects all of God's glory and he is radiance of God's glory according to Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being…
Acts 7:2
To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.So when we see God's glory we see it through something visible and it is the glory that we often call God, but there is always a messenger/mediator or vessel present. This is why Yashua is the mediator between God and Men. Without Yahshua, we couldn't even hope to know God and see his glory in full.
So why the different way of thinking when we compare the Old and New Testaments. Well I think it is quite simple really. Those who lived under the old covenant saw things not as clearly as we who live under the new covenant. They saw and wrote about the truth, but they didn't have the same revelation that we do today to fully understand it.
Today the revelation is a lot greater and according to the prophets of old, they hoped to see the things that we have today.
So it stands to reason that the New Testament would be more specific (as apposed to more accurate) because of the greater degree of revelation and glory.
Now if we removed all references to Angels and Christ in the verses that record when men saw God in the Old Testament, then we could conclude that God certainly did appear visibly to Men, but would that make it correct? On closer inspection of the detail, we see in most cases that it was really a representitive of God that they saw and the glory and light of God surrounding the vessel.
Now if we take the scriptures that only mention that God appeared to a man with no references to an Angel or Christ, such as Genesis 18 (The Three Visitors), then can we say without any doubt that it was certainly the 'Most High' and might I add 'Invisible God' that appeared, or can we just assume from all the other scriptures and patterns that we have looked at that it was most likely a messenger of God that they saw and it must be noted that it was actually 3 men of which 2 were angels, so even the angels were being represented in human bodies. Just because there is no specific detail about a messenger, doesn't mean that the 3rd person wasn't a messenger and I think if we follow all other scripture and the pattern with regards to God appearing to men in the form of a messenger, then we cannot throw everything out based on a few scriptures that seem to contradict, especially if all scripture is in agreement. We must use scripture to interpret scripture and then it acts as a witness to truth. This is important because some scripture can be taken the wrong way, if not weighed up with other scripture given that we can sometimes interpret a scripture in a number of different ways. But the NT is clear, that no one can see God.
Also Deuteronomy 19:15 says
One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.and Matthew 18:16
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.Anyway, I personally think that it was the Son of God in a human body, that appeared on behalf of Yahweh himself. Remember that the Son of God came to earth 2000 years ago as a man and lived among us. His prophetic name translated means 'God with us'. Yet we know that Yashua is not Yahweh, rather Yahweh was with us because He was in Christ/Yashua redeeming the world back to himself.
Now I want to remind you of the Book of Revelation. It is the Revelation of God to man right! But we also know that God gave the revelation to Christ who gave it to the Angel and in turn passed it on to John (Revelation 1:1), yet we read quotes from God's own mouth (so to speak) through out the book. Now in my opinion, the Book of Revelation is certainly very specific and full of revelation even compared to the other biblical books and here we see quite clearly that God spoke to John though a particular order of messengers, which I assume is how he delivered other revelations to the likes of Moses and Elijah for example.
Now lets imagine that Revelation 1:1 wasn't included in the book, we could upon first glance believe that John was talking to God, and of course he was, but if the detail about the messengers were omitted, then people could easily believe that John actually saw and spoke to God/Yahweh. Yet because this book has included such detail, we know that it is God appearing though a messenger. So just because other scriptures may not include such detail, we cannot say without a doubt that someone actually saw the Invisible God especially when weighed up against other encounters with God, where a messenger was present.
If we take a look at The Mount of Transfiguration event, we know that Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus in heavenly glory. And a voice said “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased”. Now lets assume that one day you saw Jesus, Moses and Elijah in heavenly glory and then you heard a voice like thunder speak to you. Lets also assume that you lived under the Old Covenant and lived say in the time of the Prophets. How would you report this incident. Maybe you would say that you saw God/Yahweh and you wouldn't be wrong in saying such a thing. But it would be very hard to be specific with the amount of revelation in those days and further more if you wrote down such an incident, I could imagine that people would use this event to prove the trinity (and they would be wrong), yet all 3 messengers in this imaginary scenario were not Yahweh in the sense that Yahweh has a body, rather vessels that Yahweh uses in order to be seen and understood.
I think that this accurately reflects what has happened with peoples understanding of God. They try to understand Old Testament events, with New Testament revelation
without understanding the fact that people back then did not have the same scriptures and revelation that we have today. I also think that this is one of the main reasons why people believe in the trinity doctrine. They do not think about the differences and levels of revelation between the 2 covenants and this lack of understanding leads some people to imagine an idol made with their own mind in order to make God fit into their understanding of scripture both from the Old and New Testaments.You will find that the most common scriptures that people use to support the trinity doctrine are actually from the Old Testament and they ignore a whole lot of New testament teachings about the identity of the one true God. Yet the Jews who have read the Old Testament for millenia did not even remotely consider God to be a trinity.
When we look at all the scriptures and study them in order to seek the truth, I think that we have to admit that the 2 covenants must be read with the understanding that the new covenant is the greater revelation and we must see the old with the new and the new with the old.
So can God appear in a body. Well yes, because his power knows no limit, but he cannot be fully contained within a body. He is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting. He exists in and outside of creation and is above all dimensions of which we understand only 3 and some think they understand the 4th. So how can the Most High God be seen by men, who are so limited in every way. Well more often than not, he reveals himself through 3 dimensional vessels such as a person or he speaks through vessels such as angels and on at least one occasion a donkey. But if we really think about it, he shows himself in such ways, so our limited minds can converse with him . So if God uses a donkey to talk to me, then have I seen God or is it the vessel that I am looking at?
Perhaps the glory and light that may be present is God as God is light and he is spirit.In conclusion I leave you with John 14:10
Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.I think this verse shows us the true pattern of how Yahweh speaks and reveals himself though visible vessels and in particular his son, who is the visible representation of the invisible God.
As Jesus said in John 14:1
Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.Hi T8,
I can see where you are coming from, but there is a key difference between the verses you cited and Genesis 18. In Gen 18:1 it says “Now the LORD appeared…” it doesnt say the “angel of the LORD” (which I believe is an OT name for Jesus) or anything else that would indicate that it was a vessel/servant/messenger. It simply says “The LORD”, how do you account for this?Hi T8,
Im going to have to address your July 16 2004, 03:23 posting in piecemeal fashion if im going to stay in the good books with my wife:Your first verse:1 John 4:12
Interesting that you don't also quote John 1:18 where the same comment is made but it elaborates to say “;the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” Jesus 'the one and only' or 'the unique and beloved one' has made him known. This ties in with John 14:9 “anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”. So, yes its true that no one has seen God the Father, but Jesus has “explained Him”.
God BlessQuote (Is 1:18 @ July 17 2004,17:58) Hi T8,
I can see where you are coming from, but there is a key difference between the verses you cited and Genesis 18. In Gen 18:1 it says “Now the LORD appeared…” it doesnt say the “angel of the LORD” (which I believe is an OT name for Jesus) or anything else that would indicate that it was a vessel/servant/messenger. It simply says “The LORD”, how do you account for this?
But many other verses also say that the LORD appeared, yet we know that the LORD appeared through an Angel.Abraham
Genesis 26:24
That night the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bless you and will increase the number of your descendants for the sake of my servant Abraham.”David
2 Chronicles 3:1
Then Solomon began to build the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to his father David. It was on the threshing floor of Araunah [ 3:1 Hebrew [ Ornan ] , a variant of [ Araunah ] ] the Jebusite, the place provided by David.Solomon
2 Chronicles 7:12
the LORD appeared to him at night and said: “I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices.Moses
Deuteronomy 31:15
Then the LORD appeared at the Tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the Tent.Deuteronomy 31:15
Then the LORD appeared at the Tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the Tent.We know when we fully read these some of these accounts that the LORD appeared through an Angel. Notice in Deut 31:15 it says that God appeared in a pillar of cloud. So his appearance must always be through something.
If you say that God himself (without a vessel/representitive/ambassador/object) appeared to Moses, then your thinking is still at odds with the following NT scriptures. You could only conclude that there is a contradiction of some kind.
1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen God; ….Or
1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.Or
1 Timothy 6:15
15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.I believe that God always appears through someone or something.
E.g.,
2 Corinthians 5:19
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.Note: God was IN Christ. Not God is Christ or Christ is God. This is the distinction that I highlight to you and I offer you the following:
No one can see God, for he is invisible and nothing can contain him. God is not of this realm for he is Spirit. God can only be understood to the degree that he reveals and his glory is seen primarily through his son but also through his angels, the church and even creation itself. This is why Jesus is often reffered to, in the same sentence as the glory of God.
2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.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,So if God speaks to me, then has God appeared to me. Yes he has. But have I seen God, no I have not. If an angel appears to me and speaks the word of God, then has God appeared to me? Yes. But have I seen God, absolutely no.
No one can see God for he is invisible.
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:So does an image make someone the original. Of course not. The very word itself means a type of reflection of the original. An image is not the source. If an image is the original, then how does that play with the fact that we are made in the image of God.
God the Father is the Originator. Jesus is the only begotten of the Father and we were created by God and through Christ.
Jesus is neither God nor creation. He is the mediator between both. He is unique. The firstborn. The only begotten. He is ancient, before time, yet God was before him. God the Father is our God and the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. God brought forth his son and created all creation through him and for him. Yes Jesus has a God.
Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:God is our Father, but the son will call us brethren. God will never be our brother. He is our Father forever.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 17 2004,18:26) Your first verse:1 John 4:12
Interesting that you don't also quote John 1:18 where the same comment is made but it elaborates to say “;the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” Jesus 'the one and only' or 'the unique and beloved one' has made him known.
John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[1] ,[2] who is at the Father's side, has made him known.Footnotes
1:18 Or the Only Begotten
1:18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) SonYou will find that these kind of verses are controversial. Trinitarians have tampered with some scriptures, but there are enough texts available to pick these up. They are highlighed in some versions such as the NIV. The Trinitarians were not able to add all their corruptions to all the texts, so their work shows up when comparisons with different texts are made.
1 John 5:7 is the most famous of the trinitarian tamperings and there appears to be some evidence as to when and where this addition was added.
However many of the biblical scholars are Trinitarians themselves, so there work is biased and when they have variations to choose from, their bias will lead them more often than not to the one that backs up their pre-defined belief. It is human nature to do so.
It is similar to an English Referee who is refereeing say the final in a World Cup Soccer match between England and Brazil. If a hard call needs to be made, the ref may choose the option that best suits his team. There is a reason why we have nuetral referees. Humans cannot be trusted to make true decision sometimes as selfishness is ingrained in our nature.
It seems obvious to me that the verses that seem to speak of a Trinity always seem to be controversial in one way or another. But it amazes me that most cannot see this and in addition to that, they ignore the vast majority of sciptures that teach that the Father is the only true God. That the Father is the only God in identity. Why many christians ignore those scriptures also amazes me.
Here is John 1:18 compared in multiple versions.
John 1:18 (NIV)
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.John 1:18 (ASB)
18 (1) No one has seen God at any time; (2) the only begotten God who is (3) in the bosom of the Father, (4) He has explained Him.(my note: God was not and never will be begotten or born.But Jesus is begotten and he is god in nature. But not God in identity.)
John 1:18 (Amplified)
(1) No one has seen God at any time; (2) the only begotten God who is (3) in the bosom of the Father, (4) He has explained Him.John 1:18 (KJV)
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.John 1:18 (ESV)
No one has ever seen God; the only God,[1] who is at the Father's side,[2] he has made him known.(my note: this seems to imply that only Jesus is God and he is at the Fathers side).
John 1:18 (NKJV)
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,[1] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.John 1:18 (ASV)
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.John 1:18 (WE)
No one has ever seen God. But his only Son is very near to his Father's heart. He has told us plainly about God.John 1:18 (YLT)
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father — he did declare.John 1:18 (Darby)
No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, *he* hath declared [him].John 1:18 (WYC)
No man saw ever God [No man ever saw God], but the one begotten Son, that is in the bosom of the Father, he hath told out.Hi T8,
I give you a verse that doesn't fit your argument and you tell me that the NT texts have been corrupted by nefarious trinitarians. You then throw me 11 different versions of that verse and highlight some of the disparities. What is your purpose here T8? To try and convince me (and anyone else that happans to read your post) that the word of God is erroneous and can't be trusted? I would expect this from a non-christian, but not from a christian. Either it's the infallible word of God, or it isn't – you cant have it both ways my friend. Are you going to play the 'corrupted verse' or 'questionable version' cards when ever it suits you? If you're going to employ these tactics then it's completely futile for me to engage you on any biblical issue. Disappointed.The point is that we have to be real and admit that there has been some tampering, but those verses are highlighted in some bibles and other options are given in the footnotes.
My point is to point this fact out. I am just being real about it. I am not trying to win an argument using anything at my disposal, rather I am searching for the truth and being real about it.
So what I said about that particular verse you gave me is that it is not consistent in all translations. This doesn't make your preferred version right or wrong on it's own, but it must be weighted up with the other scriptures to form a clear and consistent picture. We can easily draw many ideas from scripture in isolation or 1 translations version of a scripture, but weighing up all the evidence provides the picture and shows up the themes and doctrines.
We must also use scripture to interpret scripture and we need to study the scriptures in order to make sound judgement. We can base our doctrine on 1 version of the bible or 1 text, but it is better to make comparisons as there are differences and that way we will not be at the complete mercy of the translators.
I am only pointing out my suspicion. I am not saying you are wrong or right with your take on that verse, I only pointed out the facts surrounding it. My teaching comes not from this, but the other scriptures I showed you and hundreds of others.
I personally believe that all scripture is in harmony, because truth never contradicts. I am only striving for that harmony. To see the true picture and understand what the scriptures are saying is my desire here.
Hi Is and T8.
The fact is that there are many versions of the bible available and there is some hanky panky going on despite the warnings at the end of Revelation. We do have to be innocent as doves but clever as serpents as He sent as as sheep among wolves.One of the problems is the disagreement about which manuscripts,on which the bible is based, are the most reliable and there are variations.
One school says the version that most manuscripts agree with is best.
Another says whichever manuscripts are the oldest is best and later bibles prefer this attitude.
Thank God for the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible and the help of our fellow christians as too dogmatic an approach too early can cause us to stumble.[Look whos talking!!]
Yes, it warns that in the end days, men will gather around themselves many teachers, to tell them what they want to hear.
Also Jesus talked about those who think they find life in books, and not in action. It is something I have become aware of in my most recent discussions about the bible.
John 5. 39-40
39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.And this life giving apart from the scriptures continue's.
John 15
26″When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.John 16.
5″Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' 6Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt[1] in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
12″I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
16″In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me.”*wonderz why t8 believes that The holy spirit is jesus. John 15:26-27 is so plain, also John 16:7- John 16:15 take what is Jesus' and make it known.
John 14:15-26 too
Anyway, the holy spirit continues Jesus work, revieling truth, and showing the way to life. And this is simple for.
Luke 11:11
11″Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[6] a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”This is because, the Kingdom of GoD is for the poor, Not the wise and learned with theyre stupid amounts of books. GoD mocks such ppl. We are to go directly to GoD for knowledge. It is available to you.
y not ask???
Quote (ringo111 @ July 18 2004,22:34) *wonderz why t8 believes that The holy spirit is jesus. John 15:26-27 is so plain, also John 16:7- John 16:15 take what is Jesus' and make it known.
I never said that this. I am slowly but surely researching information about the Holy Spirit. I have only offered scriptures at this point.I have also noticed that you have said other things that I have supposedly said, which I haven't.
I appologise for miss representing your opinion T8 on the matter of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I got your opinion on Jesus being the holy spirit, and your opinion about Jesus Is the spirit wisdom Mixed up.
For both teachings are deluded. You can see why I would easily confuse the two. Please accept my appologies. LoL, we know what happens if you dont.
What other missquotes??? I know I have appologiezed before for something. Are you refering to that??
Allthough, you have said that i am saying many things, and accused, which is not true, yet, you have not changed your view. But I being fair egknowledge when i am wrong.
But then again, I do thank you for this T8, For keeping the posts for how they are. Without editing or deleting them.
^-^. You have been fair in that reguard. ^-^ yey.Now Why dont you look at the rest of what is written?? and answer Is 1:18??
He is just saying how it is, He is reading changed bibles, and thinks they are correct.
He is accusing you of a simular thing u accused me of.
……… Not that that matters to what is right ^-^ god will tweek it in the end.
Submit to the god —yey – yey — yey
whew.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
