JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 07 2008,17:55)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,17:21) Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,01:11) Been busy last few days… Hi WJ Some thoughts on some of your comments. Quote Really? Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have? Only one? How about a few? Omnipotence – Jesus does not have omnipotence of himself – he was given it by GOD – after he rose from the grave. If it was an intrinsic part of himself he could not have it then not have it then have it again… Also he said himself that his Father was greater than him (Mt 14:28) Omniscience – Jesus did not know everything that the Father did (Mk 13:32) Now as with the previous point – he cannot have omniscience then lose it then gain it again. Jesus could die – GOD is eternal – therefore cannot die. Jesus could be a man – GOD is not a man. There is no such thing as an eternal son, and the son of God is not a second GOD. If Jesus ever was eternal then he could not die. The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again. Quote There is no unambiguous scripture that says Yeshua had a beginning and especially that he was born or created from an asexual God. There is nothing ambiguous about the title son – it clearly denotes the following Offspring – and therefore the fact that Jesus (as all offspring of a parent do) had a beginning. Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father. “you are MY Son today I have begotten you” – nothing ambiguous about that. What does the word beget mean? Especially when used in context to HIS Son. Asexual GOD? Sex and GOD are not relative at all – He can make children of the rocks – He can speak children even as He spoke the entire creation into existence. Quote YHWH did not bring birth to a lesser god by whom he created all things and then ask us to bow down and worship him calling him our Great God and Savior. A lesser GOD – there is but one GOD – one Source and creator of all. How HE chooses to do the creating is HIS sovereign prerogative. As T8 says Jesus being the image of the invisible GOD does not make him identical The meaning of the word image denotes this fact, an image is not the original it is an image. Blessings you have to remember Philippians which teaches that Jesus willing gave up the attributes of God in order to be made in the likeness of man, and lets face it, one can't very well be made in the likeness of man and be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent!! ;0 The same goes for mortality, however, you are failing to realize that just because Jesus' human body could cease to function, this hardly means that Jesus ceased to exist. Therefore Jesus' eternally is in no way affected by his bodily death since Jesus went right on existing just as He did prior to the incarnation, that is to say, Jesus was eternal before emptying Himself and taking on human nature, and He went right on being eternal after his physical death on the Cross. Of course the Father cannot experience this, being spirit, He has no physical body which could die!!! lol…. So there is in fact “such thing” as an eternal Son, and Jesus is His name! And God could be a man if he wanted to, who are you to tell God what He can or cannot do!?!? Not only could He, He did, in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-man. A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!! John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” Calvin writes “Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both. If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you, (Romans 8:11.) While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the Father. —Calvin's Commentaries So, it is as you say, GOD raised Jesus from the dead, and since Jesus raised Himself from the dead, Jesus is GOD. As far as the “greater than” references go: “JOHN 14:28—Did Jesus think of himself as less than God? MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus said in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses say this verse proves that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father. Because Jehovah is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus cannot be God Almighty (Let God Be True, 1946, 110). According to Christian Science, this verse proves that “Christ is not God, but an impartation of Him,” just as “one ray of light is light, and it is one with light, but it is not the full-orbed sun” (Eddy, 1901, 8). CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Just as an earthly father is equally human with but holds a higher office than his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. There is no contradiction in affirming ontological equality and functional hierarchy. In like manner, we speak of the President of our country as being greater, not by virtue of his character or nature, but by virtue of his position. Jesus cannot ever be said to say that he considered himself anything less than God by nature. Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. (1997). When cultists ask : A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations (184). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               As far as the whole Jesus had a father,  Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us  lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something? blessings, Ken Good post, understanding the preexisting of Jesus, for me is important.  However I do not believe in the trinity.  The one thing that I would like to add is that when all has been accomplished by Jesus,  we too will take on the name God. God will be all in all. 1 Corinth. 15:28 The Family of God. Jesus gives all back to the Father. That too shows that the Father is greater then He is. You are also asking a real stupid question about having sex with Maria. To me that was done in a very spiritual way. Also You need to do a study on Ancient History and see who came up with the trinity doctrine. The Apostle never taught the trinity and you will not find that word in in the Bible. So are you calling Jesus a liar then when He says that  ” My Father is greater then I?” Peace and Love Irene

Hi Tiffany/Irene…. a few more points….

I am glad that you think that in the midst of my stupidity, I made at least one good point, albeit a point you happened to already agree with…. coincidence? I think not.

At any rate, first of all, I have it on some pretty high authority that THERE ARE NO stupid questions. Secondly, the Mormons DO in fact teach that Adam (the same one from the Garden of Eden, who is, according to the so-called Adam-God theory, the God assigned to this world) is the one who had sex with Mary and is thus, the Father of Jesus Christ. Now the point of all this is to say that for those who want to push the analogy further than it is supposed to go, such that just because Jesus is called a “Son” , it “proves” (supposedly, according to some) things it was never meant to prove that Jesus is inferior to the Father simpluy because He is called “the Son of God” are proving more than is warrated by the passage. For instance, if because Jesus is called the Son, some believe that He must therefore have not existed prior to His incarnation, as no (human” sons exist prior to their being born. But then, again tot he point at hand, Jesus just isn't a “Son” in the same way a human son is, thus they try and prove too much. So the reference to God having sex with Mary is a real world theological example of which you just apparently were ignorant of, and that is not your fault necessarily, however in your ignorance, you should be careful in saying that other people's points are stupid when you know not of which you speak.

Speaking of something else that you do not know of which you speak, you say

Quote

You need to do a study on Ancient History and see who came up with the trinity doctrine.

I have studied theology extensively, and since I am disabled, I have more time on my hands than the average person, I therefore study the bible and theology (which includes historical theology) far more than the average person. Further, aside from my extensive individual studies, I have a degree in Biblical Counseling with a Double Minor in Apologetics and Systematic Theology from Grace College and Seminary in Winona Lake, with 1 year accomplished towards my Master's Degree in Biblical Counseling, which, in God's providence, I was unable to finish due to multiple back operations. So, the point is, I know very
well both what I believe and why, and you should not assume that just because I disagree with you and you with me, that I am somehow uninformed or have failed to study my bible. Whenever one assumes anything, trouble and misunderstanding is sure to follow.

As far as the word “Trinity” not appearing in the Bible, so what? The word “Bible” does not appear in the Bible, should we therefore not believe that there is such a thing as a “Bible”? We have nothing in the Bible which tells us that there will eventually be 66 books in the biblical canon, so… what? Should we continue to add books to our bibles? After all the Bible never specifically says which books are to be considered Scripture and which are not. The fact is, everyone uses non-biblical words to describe their beliefs, that is to say just because they are NON-BIBLICAL words it DOES NOT FOLLOW that they are therefore UNBIBLICAL principles. This is such a basic simple point that so many who disagree with the doctrine just can't seem to grasp, I sure hope you do. If you never bring up the very flimsy argument that the Trinity is not true simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, you will have learned more than many have. Some just never seem to get it….. hopefully you will. Disagree with the Trinity for what you take to be biblical grounds in an agreeable way as possible, fine. But please do not try and argue with such shallow and superficial reasoning as the doctrine is untrue simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. As I said, we all use words that do not appear in the Scriptures to describe our beliefs. How do I know this? You see, for those who really want to try and push this line of (fallacious) reasoning do not push it to its logical conclusion; namely that if we would be consistent, that we must use “biblical” words and only biblical words to describe our beliefs, since the word of God is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, and if you want to insist that we use only biblical words to describe our beliefs, then everyone had better learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, because that is what language the Bible was originally written in. Are you willing to do this? I thought not. And that's fine, you shouldn't have to. But nor should people be restricted to stating their theological beliefs by using words that only appear in the English translations of the bible.

The important thing to ask is: is the principle taught in Scripture, even if the word is not? And those who believe in the Trinity believe that the principle is in fact a biblical principle, or else, believe it or not, they/we would not in fact believe it.

blessings,
Ken

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
If I studied the way you have would I be able to have a better understanding of scripture
and be able to claim that things are true even if scripture does not say so?

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
You study theology extensively.
Would it not be better to study scripture?

It is truth.

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
If you are trained in biblical counselling
did they not teach you
to abide in scripture?

[Lightenup]

Hi WJ,
I just wanted to clear something up. If I understand you correctly, you do not believe in all the statements of the trinity doctrine, right? If so, then you would agree that the trinity doctrine is false, right? If it is only partly correct and not completely correct, it has to be false, IMO.
LU

[malcolm ferris]

Hi Ken
Re Phil 2:4-8 it speaks to Jesus as to his relinquishing of position and authority. Once again (probably through fault of my not being clear enough) I have not managed to get across what I was meaning.
I will attempt to clarify. When looking at GOD in whatever context I do not believe we are able to do so and come to any definitive understanding unless we follow the pattern of access prescribed by God Himself. Namely we cannot approach Him apart from coming via Jesus Christ. For how can the finite even begin to comprehend the infinite, the temporal to even scratch the surface of the eternal? How? Through the disclosure given via Jesus Christ.

So GOD does pour Himself into expression through Christ (imo)

This scripture in Philippians outlines a point of transition of state from the Heavenly into the earthly. GOD who until this point was fully manifest in SPIRIT form only through HIS son was now going to move towards full expression in flesh. Once again via HIS son who was now in the form of flesh. For this to happen there had to be a process of transformation of the Son from a Spirit form into a fleshly.
Of necessity for this to happen God had to 'vacate' for want of a better word His residence in this Son.
Then at the time appointed by GOD, HE came down (as symbolically represented in the form of a dove) and indwelt that fleshly tabernacle for the work of redemption. Immediately the ministry of God for the work of salvation began, God now being present to execute it.
Imo.

What also bears noticing in my mind is that this mind that was in Christ Jesus in heaven was not the mind of an omnipotent, autonomous being but that of a servant, of one willing and well pleased to be in subjection and perfect harmony to the will and purpose of God.
And this same attribute of the son – shown before his earthly incarnation is carried through so that we see he was the faithful servant willing to be obedient even unto death in his flesh.
This imo is the mind of the Son – and sets him apart even when in the ‘form’ of God as being distinct from him. Hardly co-equal, co-eternal, co-omnipotent or co-omniscient.
Also it is this mind and attitude that we are encouraged to emulate for this is the mind of a true Son of God. Imo.

Furthermore we see a repeat of this display of subjection from the Son as stated in I Corinthians 15:14-8 It would seem that the Son himself refuses any position of co-equality…

Blessings

[gollamudi]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,11:23)

Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:40) Quote So how many Gods or gods are there for you brother David; one is almighty and other is small 'god' or mighty god. Am I correct ? Golli, I think if we understood what “god” means, this would be easier to understand.  It is a word that means “strong one” or “powerful one.” And while many have certain degrees of power, some more than others, there is only one who is above all, only one who is AL mighty.  Hence, while Jesus is called a god, he is not the God of Jehovah.  Rather, it is the reverse.  Compared to Jesus, Jehovah is mighty and hence, God.  In the days of Israel, the judges were called gods (compared to the other Israelites because of the power they had.)  The angels were called gods, because they obviously have more power or strenght than humans.  And Jesus, of course, if these ones have power and strength, Jesus has a lot more and hence, can obviously be called a God.  But this doesn't make him the Almighty God, “the” God of the Bible. I think we often think of a thats strange…. I thought that JW's (you are a JW… right?) taught that Jesus is “the mighty god” while Jehovah is the “almighty God”….. “He is the “mighty God” as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”  Therefore, they (JW's) say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God.” (CARM) “The WBS (Watchtower Bible Society) does concede here that Isaiah 9:6 is fulfilled in the man Jesus of Nazareth, and that He is the Messiah. However, they then argue that Christ Jesus is Mighty God, but that He is not Jehovah–the Almighty God–because the text of Isaiah doesn’t have “the” in it. The truth remains though, that the Bible itself knows nothing of an Almighty God, and a lesser “Mighty” God.” (Apprising Scriptures; Awakening to the Light of Scripture) “Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (kjv) Jehovah’s Witnesses do not question that this verse speaks prophetically of Jesus Christ, identifying him as the “Mighty God” (nwt). But they believe that the Son is mere “a god”—one of the “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’ ” (1 Cor. 8:5, nwt)—just as Satan, the devil, is called “the god of this system of things” (2 Cor. 4:4, nwt). They see Jesus Christ as a created being, an angel. According to Watchtower theology, he is definitely not Almighty God Jehovah. The Witnesses actually have two gods, a big one and a little one: an “Almighty God,” Jehovah—and a “mighty god,” Jesus Christ. In practice, though, Jehovah gets all the worship, and Jesus is only called “a god” by way of concession. Reed, D. A. (1997, c1986). Jehovah's Witnesses  : Answered verse by verse. blessings, Ken

It is a good post brother Ken,
I believe that there is only One God in this whole universe and Jesus is the visible image of that One God the Father.

Thanks and peace to you
Adam

[NickHassan]

Hi GM,
By visible image do you mean he reveals all of God's nature and abilities?
That is by virtue of God living in him, as Spirit, not his own nature.

[Tiffany]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 08 2008,15:51)

Hi Ken Re Phil 2:4-8 it speaks to Jesus as to his relinquishing of position and authority. Once again (probably through fault of my not being clear enough) I have not managed to get across what I was meaning. I will attempt to clarify. When looking at GOD in whatever context I do not believe we are able to do so and come to any definitive understanding unless we follow the pattern of access prescribed by God Himself. Namely we cannot approach Him apart from coming via Jesus Christ. For how can the finite even begin to comprehend the infinite, the temporal to even scratch the surface of the eternal? How? Through the disclosure given via Jesus Christ. So GOD does pour Himself into expression through Christ (imo) This scripture in Philippians outlines a point of transition of state from the Heavenly into the earthly. GOD who until this point was fully manifest in SPIRIT form only through HIS son was now going to move towards full expression in flesh. Once again via HIS son who was now in the form of flesh. For this to happen there had to be a process of transformation of the Son from a Spirit form into a fleshly. Of necessity for this to happen God had to 'vacate' for want of a better word His residence in this Son. Then at the time appointed by GOD, HE came down (as symbolically represented in the form of a dove) and indwelt that fleshly tabernacle for the work of redemption. Immediately the ministry of God for the work of salvation began, God now being present to execute it. Imo. What also bears noticing in my mind is that this mind that was in Christ Jesus in heaven was not the mind of an omnipotent, autonomous being but that of a servant, of one willing and well pleased to be in subjection and perfect harmony to the will and purpose of God. And this same attribute of the son – shown before his earthly incarnation is carried through so that we see he was the faithful servant willing to be obedient even unto death in his flesh. This imo is the mind of the Son – and sets him apart even when in the ‘form’ of God as being distinct from him. Hardly co-equal, co-eternal, co-omnipotent or co-omniscient. Also it is this mind and attitude that we are encouraged to emulate for this is the mind of a true Son of God. Imo. Furthermore we see a repeat of this display of subjection from the Son as stated in I Corinthians 15:14-8 It would seem that the Son himself refuses any position of co-equality… Blessings

Good post,could not have said any better.
Peace and Love Irene

[Tiffany]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,13:25)

Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 07 2008,17:55) Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,17:21) Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,01:11) Been busy last few days… Hi WJ Some thoughts on some of your comments. Quote Really? Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have? Only one? How about a few? Omnipotence – Jesus does not have omnipotence of himself – he was given it by GOD – after he rose from the grave. If it was an intrinsic part of himself he could not have it then not have it then have it again… Also he said himself that his Father was greater than him (Mt 14:28) Omniscience – Jesus did not know everything that the Father did (Mk 13:32) Now as with the previous point – he cannot have omniscience then lose it then gain it again. Jesus could die – GOD is eternal – therefore cannot die. Jesus could be a man – GOD is not a man. There is no such thing as an eternal son, and the son of God is not a second GOD. If Jesus ever was eternal then he could not die. The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again. Quote There is no unambiguous scripture that says Yeshua had a beginning and especially that he was born or created from an asexual God. There is nothing ambiguous about the title son – it clearly denotes the following Offspring – and therefore the fact that Jesus (as all offspring of a parent do) had a beginning. Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father. “you are MY Son today I have begotten you” – nothing ambiguous about that. What does the word beget mean? Especially when used in context to HIS Son. Asexual GOD? Sex and GOD are not relative at all – He can make children of the rocks – He can speak children even as He spoke the entire creation into existence. Quote YHWH did not bring birth to a lesser god by whom he created all things and then ask us to bow down and worship him calling him our Great God and Savior. A lesser GOD – there is but one GOD – one Source and creator of all. How HE chooses to do the creating is HIS sovereign prerogative. As T8 says Jesus being the image of the invisible GOD does not make him identical The meaning of the word image denotes this fact, an image is not the original it is an image. Blessings you have to remember Philippians which teaches that Jesus willing gave up the attributes of God in order to be made in the likeness of man, and lets face it, one can't very well be made in the likeness of man and be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent!! ;0 The same goes for mortality, however, you are failing to realize that just because Jesus' human body could cease to function, this hardly means that Jesus ceased to exist. Therefore Jesus' eternally is in no way affected by his bodily death since Jesus went right on existing just as He did prior to the incarnation, that is to say, Jesus was eternal before emptying Himself and taking on human nature, and He went right on being eternal after his physical death on the Cross. Of course the Father cannot experience this, being spirit, He has no physical body which could die!!! lol…. So there is in fact “such thing” as an eternal Son, and Jesus is His name! And God could be a man if he wanted to, who are you to tell God what He can or cannot do!?!? Not only could He, He did, in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-man. A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!! John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” Calvin writes “Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both. If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you, (Romans 8:11.) While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the Father. —Calvin's Commentaries So, it is as you say, GOD raised Jesus from the dead, and since Jesus raised Himself from the dead, Jesus is GOD. As far as the “greater than” references go: “JOHN 14:28—Did Jesus think of himself as less than God? MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus said in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses say this verse proves that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father. Because Jehovah is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus cannot be God Almighty (Let God Be True, 1946, 110). According to Christian Science, this verse proves that “Christ is not God, but an impartation of Him,” just as “one ray of light is light, and it is one with light, but it is not the full-orbed sun” (Eddy, 1901, 8). CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Just as an earthly father is equally human with but holds a higher office than his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. There is no contradiction in affirming ontological equality and functional hierarchy. In like manner, we speak of the President of our country as being greater, not by virtue of his character or nature, but by virtue of his position. Jesus cannot ever be said to say that he considered himself anything less than God by nature. Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. (1997). When cult ists ask : A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations (184). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               As far as the whole Jesus had a father,  Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us  lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something? blessings, Ken Good post, understanding the preexisting of Jesus, for me is important.  However I do not believe in the trinity.  The one thing that I would like to add is that when all has been accomplished by Jesus,  we too will take on the name God. God will be all in all. 1 Corinth. 15:28 The Family of God. Jesus gives all back to the Father. That too shows that the Father is greater then He is. You are also asking a real stupid question about having sex with Maria. To me that was done in a very spiritual way. Also You need to do a study on Ancient History and see who came up with the trinity doctrine. The Apostle never taught the trinity and you will not find that word in in the Bible. So are you calling Jesus a liar then when He says that  ” My Father is greater then I?” Peace and Love Irene Hi Tiffany/Irene…. a few more points…. I am glad that you think that in the midst of my stupidity, I made at least one good point, albeit a point you happened to already agree with…. coincidence? I think not. At any rate, first of all, I have it on some pretty high authority that THERE ARE NO stupid questions. Secondly, the Mormons DO in fact teach that Adam (the same one from the Garden of Eden, who is, according to the so-called Adam-God theory, the God assigned to this world) is the one who had sex with Mary and is thus, the Father of Jesus Christ. Now the point of all this is to say that for those who want to push the analogy further than it is supposed to go, such that just because Jesus is called a “Son” , it “proves” (supposedly, according to some) things it was never meant to prove that Jesus is inferior to the Father simpluy because He is called “the Son of God” are proving more than is warrated by the passage. For instance, if because Jesus is called the Son, some believe that He must therefore have not existed prior to His incarnation, as no (human” sons exist prior to their being born. But then, again tot he point at hand, Jesus just isn't a “Son” in the same way a human son is, thus they try and prove too much. So the reference to God having sex with Mary is a real world theological example of which you just apparently were ignorant of, and that is not your fault necessarily, however in your ignorance, you should be careful in saying that other people's points are stupid when you know not of which you speak. Speaking of something else that you do not know of which you speak, you say Quote You need to do a study on Ancient History and see who came up with the trinity doctrine. I have studied theology extensively, and since I am disabled, I have more time on my hands than the average person, I therefore study the bible and theology (which includes historical theology) far more than the average person. Further, aside from my extensive individual studies, I have a degree in Biblical Counseling with a Double Minor in Apologetics and Systematic Theology from Grace Coll ege and Seminary in Winona Lake, with 1 year accomplished towards my Master's Degree in Biblical Counseling, which, in God's providence, I was unable to finish due to multiple back operations. So, the point is, I know very well both what I believe and why, and you should not assume that just because I disagree with you and you with me, that I am somehow uninformed or have failed to study my bible. Whenever one assumes anything, trouble and misunderstanding is sure to follow. As far as the word “Trinity” not appearing in the Bible, so what? The word “Bible” does not appear in the Bible, should we therefore not believe that there is such a thing as a “Bible”? We have nothing in the Bible which tells us that there will eventually be 66 books in the biblical canon, so… what? Should we continue to add books to our bibles? After all the Bible never specifically says which books are to be considered Scripture and which are not. The fact is, everyone uses non-biblical words to describe their beliefs, that is to say just because they are NON-BIBLICAL words it DOES NOT FOLLOW that they are therefore UNBIBLICAL principles. This is such a basic simple point that so many who disagree with the doctrine just can't seem to grasp, I sure hope you do. If you never bring up the very flimsy argument that the Trinity is not true simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, you will have learned more than many have. Some just never seem to get it….. hopefully you will. Disagree with the Trinity for what you take to be biblical grounds in an agreeable way as possible, fine. But please do not try and argue with such shallow and superficial reasoning as the doctrine is untrue simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. As I said, we all use words that do not appear in the Scriptures to describe our beliefs. How do I know this? You see, for those who really want to try and push this line of (fallacious) reasoning do not push it to its logical conclusion; namely that if we would be consistent, that we must use “biblical” words and only biblical words to describe our beliefs, since the word of God is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, and if you want to insist that we use only biblical words to describe our beliefs, then everyone had better learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, because that is what language the Bible was originally written in. Are you willing to do this? I thought not. And that's fine, you shouldn't have to. But nor should people be restricted to stating their theological beliefs by using words that only appear in the English translations of the bible. The important thing to ask is: is the principle taught in Scripture, even if the word is not? And those who believe in the Trinity believe that the principle is in fact a biblical principle, or else, believe it or not, they/we would not in fact believe it. blessings, Ken

I had a lenghty post ready for you, but I changed my mind. All I am going to do, is dust of my shoes. Good bye.

[Not3in1]

Some very good posts here on the TRINITY. It's a shame that those looking for Trinty stuff won't see them……

Maybe move them over to the right thread?

[david]

Quote

The important thing to ask is: is the principle [of the trinity] taught in Scripture, even if the word is not?

Nope.

[david]

While in the ministry, I've only met a few priests, ministers, etc.
Rather than discuss scripture, they often seem to like to state what they believe and then point to the pile of books they've read as confirmation that what they believe is right.
At that point, I feel like suggesting that perhaps he had been reading the wrong books.

[david]

Quote

as soon as you can tell me how Jesus is god, but not the true God, and yet not therefore a false God… perhaps I will read your verses.

–epistlmaniac

In my mind, this is the biggest twisting of logic and one of the largest and most deceptive arguments for the trinity. Let's consider it.

ROMANS 16:27
“to God, wise alone, be the glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.”–NW
“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.”–KJ

Does saying that Jehovah is wise alone mean that no one else is wise? No, it means that comparitively speaking, no one else is wise.

Similarly,
(Mark 10:18) “Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.”

Does this mean no one else is good, or does it mean that Jehovah is the very standard of good?

WE HAVE NO PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING THESE THINGS because we understand what the word “wise” or “good” mean and know that there can be varying degrees.

Now, the problem with the word “God” is that it is so often used with reference to the Almighty, the “true” God, that God that we are supposed to worship, that we have sort of changed the meaning of this word. We believe it means: The one we are supposed to worship.
But it doesn't really mean that. It means “strong one, powerful one.”

And we think of false gods as things that aren't gods at all, but that people worship–idols of wood, etc, having no power, no strength, but that people have wrongly given worship to.

The false gods are not only false because they are “not the true God” but they're false gods, because they have no power at all, none, “eyes they have, but they cannot see, ears they have, but they cannot hear,” etc. Yet, they are called gods, and hence, are really false gods.

But then, we come to angels who were called gods, the human judges of isreal were called gods. Satan is a god (powerful one.)

Are the angles “false gods”? Were the judges of Israel false gods? no, they were powerful ones, comparitively speaking. Angels are powerful compared to humans. The judges in israel had power compared to other humans. Hence, called gods.
This doesn't mean they were “false gods.” It means they had strength and power to a degree.

Someone can say: “now, that's true wealth.” Or, that's true love. Does that mean that any other kind of wealth is “False wealth”? Or does it mean it's wealth to a lesser degree?

IT IS FALSE LOGIC AND JUST WRONG THINKING TO ASSUME THAT BECAUSE THERE IS “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD” THAT EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS CALLED GOD IS EITHER A PART OF THAT GODHEAD OR FALSE.

Compared to Jehovah, the only true God, the only one who is every specifically described as Almighty, everyone else is below him in mightiness.
So to Jesus, the Father was God. To the Father, Jesus is not God. (See the Bible) But to us, he certainly could be described with that word, and is.

We have to take into account what the word 'god' means and how it is used in the entire Bible. If our assumptions are wrong, then our conclusion will be wrong. We have to include into our equation how that word “god” is used biblically.

One concordance gives the meaning of elohim this way: “Elohim, G-d (plural of majesty; plural in form but singular in meaning, with a focus on great power); g-ds (true grammatical plural); and person characterized by greatness of power, mighty one, great one, judge” (Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance).

The word God applies to Jehovah, thousands of times. About 1000 times his is specifically called God. We know he is God. The word “God” essentially means: “Mighty one.” We know Jehovah, as our creator, is mighty, in fact, he is called ALMIGHTY. His son, is mighty as well, obviously. And therefore the title God can be applied to him, even as it is applied to human judges of isreal, and to angels and to Satan himself and to other false “mighty ones.” A piece of wood can be worshipped as an idol, a god, but really, it is not mighty at all, not really a god, it's false.

Reviewing:
1. True can and does mean more than the opposite of false. (We cannot assume that if one thing is true, another thing called by the same is false.)
2. God means 'mighty one/powerful one/strong one.' (We note how it is used with reference to human judges and angels.)

So, if Jehovah is called the only true God, we can conclude that either the angels and human judges are “false gods” or a part of the trinity with Jesus (hence, not really a trinity) or we can understand how “true” is used in this case–as in, “rightly so called” (“true courage”; “a spirit which true men have always admired”; “a true friend”)

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 09 2008,06:01)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,13:25) Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 07 2008,17:55) Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,17:21) Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,01:11) Been busy last few days… Hi WJ Some thoughts on some of your comments. Quote Really? Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have? Only one? How about a few? Omnipotence – Jesus does not have omnipotence of himself – he was given it by GOD – after he rose from the grave. If it was an intrinsic part of himself he could not have it then not have it then have it again… Also he said himself that his Father was greater than him (Mt 14:28) Omniscience – Jesus did not know everything that the Father did (Mk 13:32) Now as with the previous point – he cannot have omniscience then lose it then gain it again. Jesus could die – GOD is eternal – therefore cannot die. Jesus could be a man – GOD is not a man. There is no such thing as an eternal son, and the son of God is not a second GOD. If Jesus ever was eternal then he could not die. The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again. Quote There is no unambiguous scripture that says Yeshua had a beginning and especially that he was born or created from an asexual God. There is nothing ambiguous about the title son – it clearly denotes the following Offspring – and therefore the fact that Jesus (as all offspring of a parent do) had a beginning. Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father. “you are MY Son today I have begotten you” – nothing ambiguous about that. What does the word beget mean? Especially when used in context to HIS Son. Asexual GOD? Sex and GOD are not relative at all – He can make children of the rocks – He can speak children even as He spoke the entire creation into existence. Quote YHWH did not bring birth to a lesser god by whom he created all things and then ask us to bow down and worship him calling him our Great God and Savior. A lesser GOD – there is but one GOD – one Source and creator of all. How HE chooses to do the creating is HIS sovereign prerogative. As T8 says Jesus being the image of the invisible GOD does not make him identical The meaning of the word image denotes this fact, an image is not the original it is an image. Blessings you have to remember Philippians which teaches that Jesus willing gave up the attributes of God in order to be made in the likeness of man, and lets face it, one can't very well be made in the likeness of man and be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent!! ;0 The same goes for mortality, however, you are failing to realize that just because Jesus' human body could cease to function, this hardly means that Jesus ceased to exist. Therefore Jesus' eternally is in no way affected by his bodily death since Jesus went right on existing just as He did prior to the incarnation, that is to say, Jesus was eternal before emptying Himself and taking on human nature, and He went right on being eternal after his physical death on the Cross. Of course the Father cannot experience this, being spirit, He has no physical body which could die!!! lol…. So there is in fact “such thing” as an eternal Son, and Jesus is His name! And God could be a man if he wanted to, who are you to tell God what He can or cannot do!?!? Not only could He, He did, in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-man. A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!! John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” Calvin writes “Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both. If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you, (Romans 8:11.) While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the Father. —Calvin's Commentaries So, it is as you say, GOD raised Jesus from the dead, and since Jesus raised Himself from the dead, Jesus is GOD. As far as the “greater than” references go: “JOHN 14:28—Did Jesus think of himself as less than God? MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus said in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses say this verse proves that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father. Because Jehovah is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus cannot be God Almighty (Let God Be True, 1946, 110). According to Christian Science, this verse proves that “Christ is not God, but an impartation of Him,” just as “one ray of light is light, and it is one with light, but it is not the full-orbed sun” (Eddy, 1901, 8). CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Just as an earthly father is equally human with but holds a higher office than his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. There is no contradiction in affirming ontological equality and functional hierarchy. In like manner, we speak of the President of our country as being great er, not by virtue of his character or nature, but by virtue of his position. Jesus cannot ever be said to say that he considered himself anything less than God by nature. Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. (1997). When cultists ask : A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations (184). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               As far as the whole Jesus had a father,  Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us  lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something? blessings, Ken Good post, understanding the preexisting of Jesus, for me is important.  However I do not believe in the trinity.  The one thing that I would like to add is that when all has been accomplished by Jesus,  we too will take on the name God. God will be all in all. 1 Corinth. 15:28 The Family of God. Jesus gives all back to the Father. That too shows that the Father is greater then He is. You are also asking a real stupid question about having sex with Maria. To me that was done in a very spiritual way. Also You need to do a study on Ancient History and see who came up with the trinity doctrine. The Apostle never taught the trinity and you will not find that word in in the Bible. So are you calling Jesus a liar then when He says that  ” My Father is greater then I?” Peace and Love Irene Hi Tiffany/Irene…. a few more points…. I am glad that you think that in the midst of my stupidity, I made at least one good point, albeit a point you happened to already agree with…. coincidence? I think not. At any rate, first of all, I have it on some pretty high authority that THERE ARE NO stupid questions. Secondly, the Mormons DO in fact teach that Adam (the same one from the Garden of Eden, who is, according to the so-called Adam-God theory, the God assigned to this world) is the one who had sex with Mary and is thus, the Father of Jesus Christ. Now the point of all this is to say that for those who want to push the analogy further than it is supposed to go, such that just because Jesus is called a “Son” , it “proves” (supposedly, according to some) things it was never meant to prove that Jesus is inferior to the Father simpluy because He is called “the Son of God” are proving more than is warrated by the passage. For instance, if because Jesus is called the Son, some believe that He must therefore have not existed prior to His incarnation, as no (human” sons exist prior to their being born. But then, again tot he point at hand, Jesus just isn't a “Son” in the same way a human son is, thus they try and prove too much. So the reference to God having sex with Mary is a real world theological example of which you just apparently were ignorant of, and that is not your fault necessarily, however in your ignorance, you should be careful in saying that other people's points are stupid when you know not of which you speak. Speaking of something else that you do not know of which you speak, you say Quote You need to do a study on Ancient History and see who came up with the trinity doctrine. I have studied theology extensively, and since I am disabled, I have more time on my hands than the average person, I therefore study the bible and theology (which includes h istorical theology) far more than the average person. Further, aside from my extensive individual studies, I have a degree in Biblical Counseling with a Double Minor in Apologetics and Systematic Theology from Grace College and Seminary in Winona Lake, with 1 year accomplished towards my Master's Degree in Biblical Counseling, which, in God's providence, I was unable to finish due to multiple back operations. So, the point is, I know very well both what I believe and why, and you should not assume that just because I disagree with you and you with me, that I am somehow uninformed or have failed to study my bible. Whenever one assumes anything, trouble and misunderstanding is sure to follow. As far as the word “Trinity” not appearing in the Bible, so what? The word “Bible” does not appear in the Bible, should we therefore not believe that there is such a thing as a “Bible”? We have nothing in the Bible which tells us that there will eventually be 66 books in the biblical canon, so… what? Should we continue to add books to our bibles? After all the Bible never specifically says which books are to be considered Scripture and which are not. The fact is, everyone uses non-biblical words to describe their beliefs, that is to say just because they are NON-BIBLICAL words it DOES NOT FOLLOW that they are therefore UNBIBLICAL principles. This is such a basic simple point that so many who disagree with the doctrine just can't seem to grasp, I sure hope you do. If you never bring up the very flimsy argument that the Trinity is not true simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, you will have learned more than many have. Some just never seem to get it….. hopefully you will. Disagree with the Trinity for what you take to be biblical grounds in an agreeable way as possible, fine. But please do not try and argue with such shallow and superficial reasoning as the doctrine is untrue simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. As I said, we all use words that do not appear in the Scriptures to describe our beliefs. How do I know this? You see, for those who really want to try and push this line of (fallacious) reasoning do not push it to its logical conclusion; namely that if we would be consistent, that we must use “biblical” words and only biblical words to describe our beliefs, since the word of God is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, and if you want to insist that we use only biblical words to describe our beliefs, then everyone had better learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, because that is what language the Bible was originally written in. Are you willing to do this? I thought not. And that's fine, you shouldn't have to. But nor should people be restricted to stating their theological beliefs by using words that only appear in the English translations of the bible. The important thing to ask is: is the principle taught in Scripture, even if the word is not? And those who believe in the Trinity believe that the principle is in fact a biblical principle, or else, believe it or not, they/we would not in fact believe it. blessings, Ken I had a lenghty post ready for you, but I changed my mind. All I am going to do, is dust of my shoes. Good bye.

thats what I thought….

blessings,
Ken

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,07:31)

I am Glad that you admit the Father who is Spirit is invisible and Yahshua is the “visible image of God”.

What?

You have got to be kidding.

I have been preaching this since the beginning and repeatedly.

You are either not listening or you just come up with phrases like that to make me look bad to paint yourself in a better light.

Reading that just puts me off reading the rest of your post.

TIP: If you are going to say something, make sure you research your facts.

This probably goes some way to explaining why you appear to not understand what we say. I think you are not even reading what you are replying to in the first place. Or perhaps you have a very bad memory. If that is the case then that is not your fault and that is OK.

[Proclaimer]

To E.

Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,11:17)

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 07 2008,18:42) Hi E. You admitted that God is God the Father and that he is invisible. That is progress. Now read 10 of these verses at random and try and replace the word God with Trinity and watch that doctrine make a complete hash of interpreting the scriptures. https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm In other words the true God mentioned in scripture is the Father. God is the Father and he is invisible. The Word is Yeshua and he is visible and in body form. God is not the Trinity, he is the Father. Also if God was the Trinity, then you can't use the word 'him' when referring to him. The trinity Doctrine requires that God is called THEM, not HIM. Thanks for listening. as soon as you can tell me how Jesus is god, but not the true God, and yet not therefore a false God… perhaps I will read your verses. However, Lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that the verses do not make any sense by substituting words. What does that prove? Nothing. Does that disprove the Trinity? Hardly. Trying to make verses say other than what the original authors intended them to say is altering the Scriptures, and I would rather not follow you in your (apparent) practice of doing so. As far as your stating that I would have to refer to the Trinity as a “them”, I see no reason why I should suppose that I MUST do anything you say. And ESPECIALLY since the doctrine of the Trinity continues to affirm an essential singularity in the essence of the Godhead, after all even those who oppose the Trinity know that those who do affirm it speak of God as 1 God in 3 persons, disagree or not, like it or not, its common knowledge that we refer to God as a singularity as to His deity, and therefore using singular masculine terms to refer to God seems perfectly fine to me, thanks anyway though. You are welcome by the way…. blessings, Ken

Quote

as soon as you can tell me how Jesus is god, but not the true God, and yet not therefore a false God… perhaps I will read your verses.

It is not I who say this but scripture.

Scripture applies theos to the judges of Israel, Jesus even said “ye are theos” so your argument is not with me E, but with scripture and Jesus who said these words. My reply to you is to just get use to the idea it is the reality of scripture. It is you who needs to accomodate this, not for scripture to change. Elohim a word often translated as theos is even applied to the angels.

Quote

However, Lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that the verses do not make any sense by substituting words. What does that prove? Nothing. Does that disprove the Trinity? Hardly. Trying to make verses say other than what the original authors intended them to say is altering the Scriptures, and I would rather not follow you in your (apparent) practice of doing so.

What does that prove? It proves that the God in scripture is not a Trinity, therefore the Trinity is a derived understanding and not taught in scripture. Interestingly enough, if you believe that God the Father is the Most High God, then substituting God with Father doesn't break the verses like the word Trinity does. So at least from a scriptural standpoint, God is the Father as we have been saying all along.

Quote

As far as your stating that I would have to refer to the Trinity as a “them”, I see no reason why I should suppose that I MUST do anything you say. And ESPECIALLY since the doctrine of the Trinity continues to affirm an essential singularity in the essence of the Godhead, after all even those who oppose the Trinity know that those who do affirm it speak of God as 1 God in 3 persons, disagree or not, like it or not, its common knowledge that we refer to God as a singularity as to His deity, and therefore using singular masculine terms to refer to God seems perfectly fine to me, thanks anyway though.

I am not saying you need to, I am pointing out that 3 persons in English is “them”, not “him”. Unless of course you want to speak roolly rooly bad englush. But your grammar teacher at school would mark you down for calling 3 persons “him”.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 08 2008,15:24)

Hi WJ, I just wanted to clear something up.  If I understand you correctly, you do not believe in all the statements of the trinity doctrine, right?  If so, then you would agree that the trinity doctrine is false, right?  If it is only partly correct and not completely correct, it has to be false, IMO. LU

Hi LU

That is a good question?

But your logic is flawed. In fact if you will check Ken's And Pauls writings, (who goes by the name Isa 1:18), against mine you will find that we agree about 99.9 percent of the time on the concept of the Trinity.

Can you show me any others on this sight that have this kind of unity in the faith conerning the nature of the Father, the Son and the Spirit? Is there any better than that?

You have Jesus is an Angel incarnate, he is a mere man like the rest of us, he is a begotten God, God had sex with Mary, God imparted his own semon or DNA, Jesus is a god like other gods, he is a demi-god (part man and part god), he was born from the Fathers womb, and on and on.

How many Henotheist, Unitarians, Arians, or Polytheist accept the Jesus you teach as your Lord and God who is to be bowed down to and worshipped? How many agree with your doctrine?

Whats funny is all those who do not agree concerning which view of Jesus is right, still give each other high fives against a Trinitarian. Even when we speak on other subjects that they agree on they dare give credit where credit is due because they may appear to be associating with a Trinitarian.

How sad.

You may notice that I give credit to anyone including t8 when I believe somewone is speaking truth, no matter what their doctrinal differences are. But Trinitarians are marked as being false no matter what. I wonder why?

David a JW who is against most everything any of you believe gets a free pass on most of what he writes here.

So by your reasoning then your doctrine on the nature of God and the Son is false also, because others do not believe as you do.

The main point of the Trinity is Yeshua is “The True God”, (John 1:1, John 1:18, 1 John 5:20)one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Heb 1:3, Col 1:17) and that this “One True God”, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is our God.

There is One God, Three persons and One Spirit!

No other conclusion can be drawn using all scriptural data.

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

From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.  2 Peter 1:1 NET

…as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13

Exd 20:3
Thou shalt have “no other gods” before me.

Exd 23:13
And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and “make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth”.

Blessings WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (david @ Oct. 09 2008,11:32)

While in the ministry, I've only met a few priests, ministers, etc.   Rather than discuss scripture, they often seem to like to state what they believe and then point to the pile of books they've read as confirmation that what they believe is right. At that point, I feel like suggesting that perhaps he had been reading the wrong books.

Hi David

You mean like the “Watch Tower”?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi David

Quote (david @ Oct. 09 2008,11:52)

IT IS FALSE LOGIC AND JUST WRONG THINKING TO ASSUME THAT BECAUSE THERE IS “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD” THAT EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS CALLED GOD IS EITHER A PART OF THAT GODHEAD OR FALSE.

Ok, but I have asked you and t8 to present your unambiguous scriptural evidence for this statement without any reply.

Here Ill post it again…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,13:14)

Can you tell me where this definition for “theos” comes from? Since t8 believes the same as the JWs here then maybe you can list some scriptures to prove these statements. t8 only list John 10 which can be read as a derogatory statement about evil and wicked kings. Ambiguous. I would like to see how you come to this opinion using scriptures. Thanks! WJ

Please spare me of pages of apologetics and just give me some scriptures.

Thanks WJ

[Author]

Posts