Matt 1 21 as evidence for the Trinity

Participant

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 22 2006,20:26)

Does our Lord Jesus have a God? As to touching His human nature, yes

Does God the Father have a God?
No

So Jesus is not the Most High God then?

July 22, 2006 at 10:47 am#22613

Participant

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 22 2006,21:51)

well of course Mary did not give birth to God!! He is eternal, just as the Son and Spirit are… at any rate, here is Matt 1:1, and honestly, I can't see any evidence for either position in it:

But have a look at the confusion that the Trinity doctrine brings.

It has allowed such lies as these:

Google Search

July 22, 2006 at 11:08 am#22614

Participant

Quote (seminarian @ July 22 2006,22:43)

See when you tell one lie, you have to keep making up more to support the first one. That's how
I knew what E-maniac was going to write even before HE did. You know if someone wants to keep
being deceived, Satan is all too happy to oblige.

Yes it is interesting to me that most, nearly all rebuttals that I have read in these forums from Trinitarians, are not surprising.

When you believe that The Trinity doctrine is not true, some think that is a sign of ignorance. But to those who seriously seek God on these matters, these rebuttals are even considered by ourselves before being uttered by Trinitarians. After all when you test the spirits and the teachings, you look at the rebuttals too.

In the whole time I have been posting here, I have seen very few trinitarian arguments that hadn't already been considered by myself, or that truly made me think, or challenged me to any degree. The only good that I can see from them is that such posts make us look at the scriptures more closely which has only strengthened the case that we have one God the Father.

I guess when one is in the majority to some degree they feel that attacking a minority is going to be easy. But what they fail to consider is that it is much easier defending the truth than making lies look true.

That is why you can quote a scripture like “for us there is one God, the Father” and it watch it roll off them like water on a ducks back.

July 22, 2006 at 5:31 pm#22630

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 22 2006,05:27)

The LORD is the only saviour. He sent his son and his son even asked for that cup to be removed if there was another way. But the son said “Not MY will but YOUR will”.

Even here we see that Jesus received our punishment because he did what his Father wanted, not necessarily what he wanted to do.

So the LORD saved us through his son. The son is the only mediator between man and God.

If God is the only saviour and he is invisible and no one has seen him, then how do you expect God to die on a cross.

Matt 1 21 as evidence for the Trinity is just a play on words and a huge stretch of the imagination to say that it is pointing to 3 persons that have lived together for eternity.

There are other legitimate saviours such as Moses and David who were sent by God. But in all cases they were sent by God, so it is God who is bringing salvation if his vessels are doing his will.

….

Good Post, t8.

July 22, 2006 at 6:29 pm#22632

Participant

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 22 2006,07:51)

Quote (Cubes @ July 21 2006,21:09)

Also, in direct refutation then to your OP, I cite Matt 1:1 to say no human can conceive and give birth to God. Matt begins by associating the Christ with human birth [by the power of God].

We have to agree that it is preposterous and needless for the God of all to become an offspring of his own creation. The universe and all in it was created through Christ, but that's how the creator chose to bring about his creation.

well of course Mary did not give birth to God!! He is eternal, just as the Son and Spirit are… at any rate, here is Matt 1:1, and honestly, I can't see any evidence for either position in it:

(Mat 1:1 NASB) The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

or were you thinking of Luke 1:1ff?

blessings

Hi E,

Hope you're feeling much better today.

Well, there you have several angles right here in these pages posted by Semmy, t8, Kenrch and myself to test your doctrine and it is found wanting in the balance.

You are correct that salvation belongs to YHWH alone.
The scriptures also show that YHWH is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That it is YHWH who sent his son to be the savior of the world.

The faulty wiring in your doctrine is to assume, therefore that makes Jesus YHWH, and/or equal onto YHWH. In that doing, you ended up with two YHWH when the bible clearly teaches ONE YHWH! But realizing the error in that, rather than admit the error, you then try and convince yourself that the two are the same and interchangeable, and you throw in the HS for good measure.

Semmy's line of questioning reveals to you the error in that assumption, so I hope you acknowledge and let the scriptures guide you to the truthful answers found therein.

Matt 1:1 states the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the Son of Abraham, revealing a Christ who though was begotten by the holy spirit of God without the will of men, is nontheless related to men.

All I am saying is, men are creation/creatures. GOD aka YHWH, the Father, has at no time by no one been shown in the scriptures (EXCEPT BY TRINITARIANS) to be a creature, but rather and always, the CREATOR!

I acknowledge that the Word was with GOD in the beginning, that the Word is A God (Heb 1:8-9), that all things were created through the Word, that the Word was MADE flesh and dwelt among us… (John 1:14).

What is evident is that the CREATOR (i.e. The GOD and Father of Jesus Christ) who created all things through his Word/Son, also sent his Word/Son and MADE him flesh to come dwell among men. [The same Creator raised his Word/Son from the dead].

Point being that the word/son became a creature. And God at no time has been a creature but is always and eternally the Creator of all.

This now, also debunks your eternal Son theory.

July 22, 2006 at 8:57 pm#22636

NickHassan

Participant

Hi cubes,.
Here is what Matthew wrote about Jesus. He recognised the Servant promised and sent by God to be Messiah and saviour.

Matt 12.15f

“15But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and (A)He healed them all,

16and (B)warned them not to tell who He was.

17This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
18″©BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN;
(D)MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED;
(E)I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM,
(F)AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.
19″(G)HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT;
NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS.
20″(H)A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF,
AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT,
UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY.
21″(I)AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE.”

So God did not send Himself
or part of Himself
but His only begotten Son
and He anointed him with The Spirit,
His own Spirit of power..

July 22, 2006 at 9:20 pm#22638

seminarian

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 22 2006,12:08)

Quote (seminarian @ July 22 2006,22:43)

Yes it is interesting to me that most, nearly all rebuttals that I have read in these forums from Trinitarians, are not surprising.

That is why you can quote a scripture like “for us there is one God, the Father” and it watch it roll off them like water on a ducks back.

Yes T8,

They are so predictable aren't they? Well, we are given insight by God's holy spirit so that we are not blind to Satan's schemes and lies.

I really like your analogy of a leaky pot with holes trying to hold the truth inside. You know, I've been wrong in understanding Biblical things many times but you know, it was GREAT when I finally saw the truth! It set me free from error and darkness. However we must realize that BECAUSE some men love the darkness, they will prefer to stay in that debased state, trusting lies rather than seeking the truth.

There is not much you can do when that happens except pray for them. E-Maniac came back with the exact same dual nature of Christ nonsense as the pastor of education from my church did and I posted the guy's answer right here on this board! Unbelieveable.

Bless ya' much,

Semmy

July 22, 2006 at 9:38 pm#22640

seminarian

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 22 2006,21:57)

Hi cubes,.
Here is what Matthew wrote about Jesus. He recognised the Servant promised and sent by God to be Messiah and saviour.
Matt 12.15f

“15But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and (A)He healed them all,

16and (B)warned them not to tell who He was.

So God did not send Himself
or part of Himself
but His only begotten Son
and He anointed him with The Spirit,
His own Spirit of power..

Hey Nick & Cubes,

Exceptional posts! Nick in your scripture from Isaiah, God calls the Lord Jesus, “My Servant”. Exactly. Our Lord is the one who was sent and not the send-er. That is part of the “otherness” of Almighty God the Father.

Now here's where you stepped up to the plate Cubes:

“What is evident is that the CREATOR (i.e. The GOD and Father of Jesus Christ) who created all things through his Word/Son, also sent his Word/Son and MADE him flesh to come dwell among men. [The same Creator raised his Word/Son from the dead].

Point being that the word/son became a creature. And God at no time has been a creature but is always and eternally the Creator of all.

This now, also debunks your eternal Son theory.”

Exactly!!! Great tie in on that last sentence too. The Bible can not contradict itself. If it says God is not a man in the book of Hosea and then affirms that God the Father changeth not, it means just that. Just as T8 said, you quote these key scriptures to trinitarians and it just rolls off like water off a duck's back! Its so true. Its like they're in a trance or something. I mean this is not rocket science is it?

As T8 says, if nothing else, these discussions keep us in the Word so that we are sure of what the Bible actually says. Also we are then ready to expose those who contradict and swerve as to the truth as Paul said to do.

“He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by SOUND DOCTRINE and refute those who oppose it.” Titus 1:9

You guys are doing a great job of following this scripture.

Semmy

July 22, 2006 at 10:52 pm#22643

Participant

Hi guys:

Blessed is he who comes in the name of YHWH!
Is all we can say at this point, along with the fervent prayer to God that our brethren be loosed from this powerful deception from the evil one, in Jesus name.

Amen.

July 23, 2006 at 12:15 am#22647

Participant

Quote (seminarian @ July 23 2006,17:38)

Now here's where you stepped up to the plate Cubes:

Point being that the word/son became a creature. And God at no time has been a creature but is always and eternally the Creator of all.

This now, also debunks your eternal Son theory.”

I agree that this is a good point.

Cubes you not only stepped up to the plate, you hit a home run.

July 23, 2006 at 12:25 am#22648

Participant

Ha ha! Thanks, guys. And to think we're just having a nice outing at the ball game!

Never have so few put so many to flight by the word of God. It's useless to build on sand.

July 23, 2006 at 12:57 am#22650

seminarian

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 22 2006,11:47)

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 22 2006,21:51)

well of course Mary did not give birth to God!! He is eternal, just as the Son and Spirit are… at any rate, here is Matt 1:1, and honestly, I can't see any evidence for either position in it:

But have a look at the confusion that the Trinity doctrine brings.

It has allowed such lies as these:

Google Search

T8,

I took a look at that Google link you put here. You are right. What a load of confusion! Then there was some loud mouthed Pope declaring Mary's holy maternity or something as yet ANOTHER extra-Biblical doctrine. Oh boy.

That's why the Bible says God is not the author of confusion.
Galations 1:7 also confirms why this is NO Gospel at all and is therefore throwing people into such confusion:

“…and are turning to a different Gospel-7 which is really no Gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” [Galations 1:7]

Paul goes on to say, ” But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other that the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”

Now is that a serious enough warning for everybody? To emphasize this he REPEATS the same thing in verse 9. I don't know about E-Maniac or the pastor of education or anyone else, but as for me, I'm going to obey what the Bible itself says. I could care less about what some self appointed Popes in the 3rd and 4th centuries came up with especially since Christ and his apostles did not teach any of these doctrines.

Well, I have pastoral calls tomorrow morning. You know as you said, where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am also, holds true in my ministry. I am just as blessed serving in my own ministry and God has revealed to me that He will increase my joy in His service even more.

I also am being spared of hearing, (again), that God became a man and died on the cross for us, or the pastor praying to Jesus and calling him “Father God”, and that we should tithe or give 10% of our income to his church. If I didn't feel so sorry for many of the members there, I wouldn't bother but God has called me to love these people and has blessed me for being obedient. It's tough though. I'm nearly completely out the door now, Praise God. Once I am ordained, I think that's going to be it completely unless God has other plans.

Pray for me as I'm praying for you guys here.

Semmy

July 25, 2006 at 5:31 pm#22767

Participant

Quote (kenrch @ July 22 2006,03:12)

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Mat 1:20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Was Joseph's semen the holy spirit?
Before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
The only begotten of God.

excellent post!! this is yet another proof of the deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit… good post!!

blessings

July 25, 2006 at 5:36 pm#22768

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 22 2006,00:27)

The LORD is the only saviour. He sent his son and his son even asked for that cup to be removed if there was another way. But the son said “Not MY will but YOUR will”.

Even here we see that Jesus received our punishment because he did what his Father wanted, not necessarily what he wanted to do.

So the LORD saved us through his son. The son is the only mediator between man and God.

If God is the only saviour and he is invisible and no one has seen him, then how do you expect God to die on a cross.

Matt 1 21 as evidence for the Trinity is just a play on words and a huge stretch of the imagination to say that it is pointing to 3 persons that have lived together for eternity.

There are other legitimate saviours such as Moses and David who were sent by God. But in all cases they were sent by God, so it is God who is bringing salvation if his vessels are doing his will.

Likewise God is the only one that is good. So are we to conclude that all else is bad?

Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

Yet it is also written:

Proverbs 12:2
A good man obtains favor from the LORD, but the LORD condemns a crafty man.

So epistemaniac. Can you answer this?

Are you good? Remember that only God is good.
Am I also to assume that some Men are God as they can be good, while respecting Jesus words that only God is good?

Now I am the one playing with words if only to show you your own reasoning.

ahhhh… so the sinless Jesus wasn't good then…. riiigghhhtttt

so much for the atonement

so much for your salvation

for you will die in your sins if there wasn't a “good” (perfect) sinless sacrifice to propitiate and expiate our sins such that we, unworthy sinners, may stand in the presence of God knowing that it was not we ourselves who could save ourselves but that we must be saved by our own works and not Christ's perfect sinless life, His dearth on the cross, His ascension and eternal intercession for His perfect Bride, for a salvation by works (which is a perverted gospel) is what your conclusion regarding Christ's goodness would HAVE to lead to if Christ Jesus the Messiah was not only “good”, but perfect….

blessings

July 25, 2006 at 6:23 pm#22769

Participant

Quote (seminarian @ July 22 2006,03:17)

E-Maniac,

You did NOT answer my questions using any scriptures whatsoever, only your own opinion.
Razzzz! Oh, so sorry but you also used a qualifier in your answer which has no scriptural
basis. Here are your answers again:

E-maniac answers:

Does our Lord Jesus have a God? As to touching His human nature, yes

Does God the Father have a God?
No

As to touching his human nature? Where is THAT in the Bible? You are saying that Jesus only
had a God in his “human nature” or as a man. That is the extra-Biblical doctrine of the Dual Nature of Christ. Nowhere in scripture does it say Christ has two natures so that automatically disqualifies your answer. That was a predictable move!

Let me show you something. Even in his GLORIFIED and EXALTED state now in Heaven, the
Lord Jesus tells us he has a God and Father. Try reading Revelation 3:12

“Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.”

Read the whole verse. Our Lord Jesus says he has a God, THREE times
in this verse alone. Sorry but he's not a man now and he's still saying he has a God!

Also read what Peter wrote which was long after Christ had risen and ascended to Heaven:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…[1 Peter 1:3]
How do you explain that? See you can't without using another false
doctrine not found in the Bible such as the dual nature of Christ. Doesn't
work here either.

Would you like to try again using the Bible this time?

Bless ya!

Semmy

lol… well, saying that I did not answer your questions is simply an outright lie…. and you know what the Bible says about liars? Check out places like Rev. 21:8 if you are wondering…..

I DID answer your questions, whether or not you liked the answer or agree with the answer is irrelevant. I am under no epistemic obligation to make any single person ever believe that the Trinity or any part of divine revelation is true for that matter, all I have to do is present at least in part, the sorts of things that convinced me of the truth of the doctrine. What you do with your own private beliefs after reading about my beliefs is in some ways, immaterial and irrelevant.

Earlier you had stated “E-Maniac, Numbers 23:19 clearly says that “God is NOT a man.”
As support for your position. However, this is very sloppy and shallow exegesis, for any text without a context is simply a proof text that ends up being nonsense. And in this case the “proof text” is all the more seriously wrong because not only was the context surrounding verse omitted, the context on the one single verse itself was perverted.
(Num 23:19 NASB) “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”
There are passages that speak to the relationship of the Son to the Father and the Holy Spirit and what their nature is like, however, this particular verse is pointing out God’s moral attributes, God is perfectly good, and He will not lie. The broader context is the story of Balaam who was supposed to be busy cursing the Israelites he is unable to, and in the very next verse we see Balaam saying (Num 23:20 NASB) “Behold, I have received a command to bless; When He has blessed, then I cannot revoke it.”

You also said “Likewise Hosea 11:9 quotes God as saying, “For I am GOD and NOT a man.”
All the same criticisms apply here but perhaps in all your schooling you have not yet come to the subject of anthropomorphisms? You see, in this very context, if we took the passage to be telling us about God’s ontological nature we see Hosea say (Hosea 11:4 NASB) I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love, And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws; And I bent down and fed them.”
So if this passage were speaking to us in a literal way, I guess God must have become a literal man in order to use the “cords”, and therefore you must be a Mormon and believe that God the Father had a literal body. Sadly, once again, you are misusing the Scriptures. Simply put, this passage is once again an assurance of God’s moral nature, not His ontological nature. And just as before, the “proof text” you use is all the more deceitful in that you did not even quote the entire verse which clearly tells us what Hosea’s purpose is in writing this:
(Hosea 11:9 NASB) I will not execute My fierce anger; I will not destroy Ephraim again. For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, And I will not come in wrath.”
God, unlike a mere impetuous man, will not exercise His wrath against Israel as the verse plainly states….. this time anyway…. because in other cases, Israel does indeed feel the brunt of Yahweh’s wrath which is yet another way to discount your “interpretation”, for the Bible clearly says that God DOES come upon them in His wrath!

But, turning to your more recent post, you said in typical predictable flourish of empty rhetoric:
“As to touching his human nature? Where is THAT in the Bible? You are saying that Jesus only had a God in his “human nature” or as a man. That is the extra-Biblical doctrine of the Dual Nature of Christ. Nowhere in scripture does it say Christ has two natures so that automatically disqualifies your answer. That was a predictable move!”

Well, we have already gone over this type of reasoning seminarian, I really hope your profs do not need to repeat themselves endlessly, they will get no other work done or be able to spend time with the other students! Look, the word ”Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, the phrase “dual nature of Christ” does not explicitly appear in the Bible, and…..? So what? This is elementary seminarian. The question is, is the principle of the Trinity drawn from comparing Scripture with Scripture as to what it is teaching, not the individual words that are being used, you need to rise above your literal concrete thinking and deal in abstractions as the Bible teaches principles with it’s overall message. If you are going to go on and on about not adding to Scripture, or such and such exact words do not appear in the Bible, then, as a matter of fact, your entire position is undermined, for nowhere, at no time, does the Scripture ever even use the word “God”, for the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek manuscripts never use that particular word, or any and all other English words you use to try and convey biblical truths and principles to, in effect, you are “adding” to Scriptures, and the translators of the Scriptures have “added” to the Scriptures because to try and pass the exact wording and phraseology of the 3 biblical languages directly into English makes the Scriptures nearly unintelligible to us. The fact is, all sorts of rearrangements and additional words have to be used in order to convey the Scriptural message to us in our own language in order to be able to understand what the Scriptures writers were trying to say to us. So, do you “get it” now? Do you understand the pathetic weakness of the “that word or phrase does not appear in the Bible therefore it is false” so-called “
argument” fall to pieces immediately upon their very utterance?

Well that is all for now, lets see if you can come to grasp this elementary principle, for if you don’t, there is no use discussing any issue with you, you are caught in “concrete” thinking, the sort of thing we see our 5 and 6 year olds go through as they try to come to terms with concepts instead or literalness as they learn language.

blessings

July 25, 2006 at 6:35 pm#22770

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 22 2006,12:08)

Quote (seminarian @ July 22 2006,22:43)

Yes it is interesting to me that most, nearly all rebuttals that I have read in these forums from Trinitarians, are not surprising.

That is why you can quote a scripture like “for us there is one God, the Father” and it watch it roll off them like water on a ducks back.

Yes it is interesting to me that most, nearly all rebuttals that I have read in these forums from non-Trinitarians, are not surprising.

When you don't believe that The Trinity doctrine is true, some think that is a sign of ignorance. But to those who seriously seek God on these matters, these rebuttals are even considered by ourselves before being uttered by non-Trinitarians. After all when you test the spirits and the teachings, you look at the rebuttals too, and there, find the Arian view untenable.

In the whole time I have been posting here, I have seen very few non-trinitarian arguments that hadn't already been considered by myself, or that truly made me think, or challenged me to any degree. The only good that I can see from them is that such posts make us look at the scriptures more closely which has only strengthened the case that we have one God the Father.

I guess when one is in the minority to some degree they feel that proving the majority wrong is going to be easy. But what they fail to consider is that it is much easier defending the truth than making lies look true.

For that reason all I can see are holes all over their doctrine and when they try to hold truth inside, it leaks like a pot with holes in it. Then there they frantically try to cover up the holes and in that process they completely miss what the scripture are really saying, that Jesus was a man, but the Bible also speaks of Him as having attributes that belong only to God, and thewrefore, the Arians have to selectively quote Scripture, sometimes resorting to only posting parts(!!!) of verses in order to try and prove their view is true!! It's sad really.

That is why you can quote a scripture like “for us there is one God, the Father” and it watch it roll off them like water on a ducks back, because non-trinitarians fail to see, over and over, that saying things like “Jesus had a God, therefore He is not God” is so manifestly false as considered within the Trinitarian worldview, which easily handles claims like this by pointing out that Jesus was a man as well as being God, and in so far as He was a man, we can speak of Him from a purely human perspective, that He calls Yahweh “God”, that He was indeed thirsty, hungry, tired, etc etc etc.. please please please people, get this into your heads!! Proving that Jesus was a human being, which is all we have to do in these “Jesus had a God” types of responses, is not a problem, and never discounts the Trinitarian view. Get it? We believe that Jesus really was indeed a real human being!!

blessings

July 25, 2006 at 6:42 pm#22772

NickHassan

Participant

Hi E,
Could you be wrong about God being a trinity?

July 25, 2006 at 7:52 pm#22774

Participant

Quote (Cubes @ July 22 2006,19:29)

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 22 2006,07:51)

Quote (Cubes @ July 21 2006,21:09)

Also, in direct refutation then to your OP, I cite Matt 1:1 to say no human can conceive and give birth to God. Matt begins by associating the Christ with human birth [by the power of God].

well of course Mary did not give birth to God!! He is eternal, just as the Son and Spirit are… at any rate, here is Matt 1:1, and honestly, I can't see any evidence for either position in it:

(Mat 1:1 NASB) The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

or were you thinking of Luke 1:1ff?

blessings

Hi E,

Hope you're feeling much better today.

Well, there you have several angles right here in these pages posted by Semmy, t8, Kenrch and myself to test your doctrine and it is found wanting in the balance.

Semmy's line of questioning reveals to you the error in that assumption, so I hope you acknowledge and let the scriptures guide you to the truthful answers found therein.

Point being that the word/son became a creature. And God at no time has been a creature but is always and eternally the Creator of all.

This now, also debunks your eternal Son theory.

Hey there cubes! Yep, better today, there are serious ebbs and tides and I can never tell when I will be restricted to days in bed, or, at least, not feeling well enough to wade through this many posts, trying to answer everyone’s objections. Thankfully when I am not able to, I can rest in the fact that I have shared the truth to a group of Arians that often seem to mean well, but have sadly missed the mark when it come to knowing and teaching the full counsel of God in these matters, and that I am confident that in so far as I accurately represent the word of God, it will not return void, either convicting one to come to the truth, or if it is rejected, I know that even the hardening that comes from people repeatedly rejecting the truth is also God’s will, for though He would that all would repent and come to the truth, He knows at the same time, not all will.

You said “Well, there you have several angles right here in these pages posted by Semmy, t8, Kenrch and myself to test your doctrine and it is found wanting in the balance.”
Hmmm… well perspective is everything isn’t it? I find the opposite to be true.

You said “You are correct that salvation belongs to YHWH alone.”
Great then!! It is settled, since the Bible clearly and unequivocally states that Yahweh and Yahweh only is the Savior, that if the Son claims the ability to forgive sins, to be the savior to His people, He must therefore have to be God in some way as well, otherwise, Jesus is guilty of blasphemy! This is exactly what we see in Mark 1:7, the teachers of the day recognized Jesus’ momentous claims, and knew that He was doing something only God had the right to do. You see, if someone commit’s a sin against you or I, we have the ability (and indeed, the responsibility) to forgive them. But only God has the right to proclaim the forgiveness of sins committed against Him. So when Jesus does exactly this, says that people’s sins against God are forgiven, He is doing what only God can do. Otherwise, if Jesus is not in some way God as well as man, He is not only not a savior, but He is unspeakably evil for telling people that their sins were forgiven when in fact, Jesus had no authority or right to ever forgive those sins at all, so these people went to their graves thinking they had been forgiven when in reality, they had died in the9ir sins and are subject to eternal judgment.

You said “The scriptures also show that YHWH is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
See the above for responses showing that Trinitarians readily admit that Jesus was human, and therefore spoke in human terms, YHWH was His God etc etc.

You said “The faulty wiring in your doctrine is to assume, therefore that makes Jesus YHWH, and/or equal onto YHWH. In that doing, you ended up with two YHWH when the bible clearly teaches ONE YHWH! But realizing the error in that, rather than admit the error, you then try and convince yourself that the two are the same and interchangeable, and you throw in the HS for good measure.”

Actually, if you fail to adopt the Trinitarian view, it is then that you have to admit that there are 2 gods, for Jesus does things only God had the power or authority to do, and if He did in fact do some of the miraculous things He did, He was either in some way one with the Father, or another God. There is only one savior, there is only one God, and the Trinity doctrine is the only way to reconcile these disparate issues.

As a bit of an aside, one time I was witnessing to a JW (a woman in her 50’s or so) and I asked her if there was only one true God, well, she, and all Arians are all very readily admit this! I asked her to turn to John 1:1 in her (perverted) New World Translation and in their effort to do all sorts of mental and exegetical gymnastics to get around the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus has to be God, they render the verse “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god”. Well, since she admitted that there was only one true God, and her very own bible says that Jesus was “a god”, if Jesus was not in some way one with the Father, then manifestly, Jesus has to be a false g
od. This caused her tremendous trouble, she said she would have to go to the elders and they would explain this to me, they never called me back. The point here is that even if an Arian does not adopt the JW’s translation, their beliefs lead to this contradiction of 2 gods, or they fall into some type of modalism, tritheism, or some other sort of heresy.

As far as the accusation that we “throw the Holy Spirit in for good measure”, well this is just the sort of straw man caricatures I have come to expect here. Whether you agree with the Trinitarian view or not, there is no need for such talk, which is really nothing more then a lie, for you will not find a Trinitarian anywhere who (if they have looked into these issues at all) would not say that the Holy Spirit was just thrown in to the equation because we felt some compulsion or obsession to have a “trinity” instead of a “biunity”. We believe the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity for reasons we take to be biblical, and due to all the sorts of reasons that we normally associate with personhood, we see that the HS must be more then an impersonal aspect or manifestation of God’s power. We just do not see people blaspheming electricity (unless maybe they have been shocked) or gravity) unless perhaps they are falling from a great height), and I do not see people lying to the rays of the sun, or take some impersonal “power” into themselves if they are true Christians.

You said “Semmy's line of questioning reveals to you the error in that assumption, so I hope you acknowledge and let the scriptures guide you to the truthful answers found therein. “
All I have seen is that Semmy fails to quote Scriptures in context or that he has yet moved from concrete to abstract reasoning.

You said “Matt 1:1 states the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the Son of Abraham, revealing a Christ who though was begotten by the holy spirit of God without the will of men, is nontheless related to men. “

Actually, the Trinity is bolstered by looking at genealogies, so I am glad you pointed this out. We see the apostle Paul discriminate between Jesus’ 2 natures when he opens the book of Romans: (Rom 1:1-4 NASB) Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, {2} which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, {3} concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, {4} who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,”

So yes, truly, Jesus is “related” to man, but really, this is in itself false and sounds like a form of Gnosticism, because Jesus is said to be more than simply “related” to men, but was in fact, in every way, a man. John points this out in the beginning of 1 John when he reassures his readers that he had personally touched him and knew he was a real person. The writer of Hebrews tell us He was tempted in every way as we are, but, unlike what some people say here, He was perfectly good and had not sinned.

As a matter of fact, saying that only God is good, and yet we are told that Jesus was perfectly good and without sin, is yet another proof of His divinity.

You said “All I am saying is, men are creation/creatures. GOD aka YHWH, the Father, has at no time by no one been shown in the scriptures (EXCEPT BY TRINITARIANS) to be a creature, but rather and always, the CREATOR!”

Once again, as to His human nature, Jesus was a man, there is no disputing this from Trinitarians, and we never say that the Father was a man, so please, I beg of all of you, stop misrepresenting the Trinitarians!!

That being said, in the sense that Jesus was born of Mary, and the man Jesus of Nazareth came to live in time and space at a certain time in history, when He did not exist in time and space before (though He had to have eternally been in the mind of God) is quite true. However, Jesus was more than Jesus of Nazareth, a backwards town where it was nothing good come from. Much more. Jesus claimed to have glory, the same glory has God the Father as, before He was ever BORN, so in order for this to be true He HAD to have existed prior to His incarnation.

This is proven here: (John 17:5 NASB) “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.”

This teaches us 2 things, and they are from the mouth of Jesus Himself, so again, either Jesus was right or wrong about this, if He was right, He has to be more than a mere man who came into existence only through His birth, if He was wrong then why trust Him to be a savior? Why trust Him in anything? Apparently He was deluded. Instead, Jesus claims to have existed before the world was ever made. This alone proves that He existed in some way prior to the incarnation.

Secondly, we see that Jesus says that He shared the glory of the Father. But wait a minute!!…. YHWH says unequivocally that He will never share His glory with another. (Isa 42:8 NIV) “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.”
Yet Jesus says that He shares YHWH’s glory, so we are faced with several options, the Jesus was wrong scenarios, or that the Bible contradicts itself, or, in some way Jesus and God are one in such a way that we can say that what is true of one is true of the other, and that this is in the case of attributes that no mere mortal human being has. The Trinity reconciles this teaching and, in comparing Scripture with Scripture, is the best view that makes sense of the full counsel of God.

There is further problems with your view in that Jesus is a creature or created being. John teaches us that no matter how far back you go, in the beginning, Jesus was always there with the Father. Genesis 1 and John 1 both teach us this same fact, the fact that the 2 texts are so similar to one another has not been lost to the attention of most if not all commentators. And the Trinity doctrine makes sense of both the John 1:1 passage and the Genesis 1:26. For if we ask `Who is the “we” of Genesis 1:26? We see that Paul tells us that it was God who created all things ((Eph 3:8-9 NIV) Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, {9} and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.) ….. and yet he can also say, without contradiction, that it was actually Jesus who created all things, and that nothing exists except that He wills us, which can only be attributed to God.
(Col 1:13-17 NIV) For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, {14} in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. {15} He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. {16} For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. {17} He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

So much for your “`atta boy” party. And so much for “debunking” the eternal Son theory. IN fact all of you have in various ways, done nothing but contribute to the strength of the position in that you cannot deal fully with ALL the Bible has to say about God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You might as well join Marcion and only accept the parts of the Bible that agree with your preconceived notions, for the whole counsel of God totally destroys the Arian position.

blessings

July 25, 2006 at 7:54 pm#22775

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 25 2006,19:42)

Hi E,
Could you be wrong about God being a trinity?

absolutely …

could you?

blessings

July 25, 2006 at 7:59 pm#22776