Matt 1 21 as evidence for the Trinity

Participant

Hi E,
Is Christ a deity?
Or is the trinity ONE deity of three persons?
Should we worship God as the trinity deity?

July 26, 2006 at 6:33 am#22825

Participant

Hi E,
You are right that commonsense is often helpful and is what appeals to the simple but often is lost from the so called wise.
We would love to learn from you evidence of the nature of God from scripture or from commonsense but neither seem to show us a
trinity God but
One God and
One Lord,
His Son,
whom He anointed with His Spirit to rveal Him and do His works.
You said:
“For it was often those who considered themselves to be the “intellectuals” who denied the Trinity, saying that since it did not make sense to them, it could not be true, as if they are the judge as to what God's nature could or could not be! “

July 26, 2006 at 8:09 am#22826

Participant

Hi,
Matt 1.
21″She will bear a Son; and (A)you shall call His name Jesus, for He (B)will save His people from their sins.”

One of the most amazing things about those who follow trinity doctrine is that they have no concept of delegation.

A gentile Centurion spoke of it in Matt 8. 5-10

” 5And (A)when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him,

6and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying (B)paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented.”

7Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”

8But the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.

9″For I also am a man under ©authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it.”

10Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.”

Perhaps it relates also to the relationship between the
Father, the Son, the angels and the servants of God too?

July 26, 2006 at 8:24 am#22827

Participant

Hi E,
You confuse me here.
Your words:

“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.”

Now looking at the verse you quote
1. Jesus said he once had glory
2. Jesus said he had this glory when he was with the Father.
3. He is asking to be together again with the Father.
4. He is asking to be gloriified again.

But you think it means they shared the same glory as One being??
“Together with” means in trinitarianese “One being”?

WITH is a much abused word in trintarianese!!!

July 26, 2006 at 8:29 am#22828

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (seminarian @ July 26 2006,01:04)

E-Maniac,

Yawnnnnn. You've written so many words which have impressed no one,

Not true. I've been highly impressed with the Epistemaniac's acumen in exposing the faultiness in your (underwhelming) arguments. To be honest with you Seminarian, I think Epistemaniac has made you look pretty silly. You just don't seem to recognise it when your arguments have been left in tatters.

Quote

just
to avoid what the Bible actually says…..that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

So the question is: What does it mean that Yahshua is the “Son of God”. Since you charge us with failing to understand the essence of the contradistinction between “God” and “Son of God”, explain to us in detail exactly what it means that Yahshua is the Son of God. Surely if His sonship is solely a function of His pre-incarnation begettal, it would have been heavily emphasised by the NT writers? So where is it written?

BTW, the pharisees didn't view “God” and “Son of God” as being antithetical. They viewed Jesus' application of this title to Himself as a unambiguous claim to equality with God. Why do you think this is? The pharisees, despite their many failings, were not unacquainted with their scriptures, nor the inherent meaning of titles like this. Why do you think they, the religious prefessionals of 1st century Judea, understood “son of” to mean something utterly different to what you understand it to mean.

Quote

You admitted that our Lord Jesus has a God and that God the Father does not. Very good!

I know you thought this was a crushing blow to the validity of the trinity doctrine and would send the trinitarians reeling and running scared. But you didn't really think it through properly Seminarian, did you? Afterall Epistemaniac, Scripture Seeker and myself (the sum total of active trinitarians in these boards) gave you a perfectly reasonable and scriptural explanation. You see Seminarian, when scripture records that Yahshua has a God, His Father, it's not evidence AGAINST His deity, it's evidence FOR his humanity…..

Quote

So they can't be co-equal especially since our Lord is no longer a man and STILL says he has a God
in his exalted state in heaven. Read Revelation 3:12 again if you don't remember.

Have you bothered to try and gain an understanding of Epistemaniac's position on co-equality before launching into another refutation?

No.

Maybe you should.

Quote

so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the GOD AND FATHER
of our Lord Jesus Christ. [Romans 15:6]

Sorry but all your long winded posts can't make this scripture say anything else than
what it does. Logic and truth tells you that if YOU HAVE A GOD, you can't be God, period.

I don't think Epistemaniac's posts are “long winded”, in fact I think he shows remarkable precision and economy with words, under the circumstances.

BTW, given your dogmatic assertions with regard to Yahshua lower position relative to the Father, and the overt inference that – at it's core – it is ontological in nature, then you obviously have exhaustive knowledge of both Yahshua's and the Father's ontology. So this question should not trouble you at all and I should expect a direct answer post haste……

What kind of being was the Logos before He was made flesh?

By my estimation you are good at dishing out questions but altogether reluctant to answer them yourself. Actually, i'm not sure I have see you answer ONE in return (certainly none from me in the last few days). Prove to me that your christology is sound, Seminarian. Here is your opportunity to show Epistemanic, Scripture seeker and myself that your christology has overwhelmingly-more integrity than ours. Prove that to us by allowing us to test it, how else could we possibly objectively evaluate its veracity?, but you'll need to pluck up some courage and answer questions though….

Quote

yet for us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER, from whom all things came and for whom we live and there is but ONE LORD, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
[1 Corn 8:6]

Here again scripture is telling us the distinction between God our Father and His Son. See it says
ONE GOD, Theos and ONE LORD, kurios. Notice also all things came FROM God but THROUGH His Son to us. You can stand on your head and whistle Dixie all day but you can't make this scripture say anything other than what it does, that there is only ONE God the Father and One Lord, Chirst Jesus.

I wonder if you have thought this through Seminarian?…

The obvious inference from you is that the appelatives 'kurios' and 'theos' were used by Paul in 1 Cr 8:6 to identify two beings with disparity in their ontology, and his purpose in applying 'kurios' to Jesus was to explicate to us all that Yahshua was a lower class of being. BUT for your interpretation to hold any weight you first need to prove that this in fact WAS Paul's intented conveyance. And you'll also need to address these questions:

Why is the 'so-called' weaker appelative 'kurios' used by NT writers in exclusive reference to Yahshua's Father?
Why is the 'so-called' stronger appelative 'theos' used by NT writers in exclusive reference to Yahshua?
Why does Thomas proclaim to Yahshua that He is his Lord and God (John 20:28)?

Remember Seminarian, the goal is to harmonise scripture…..if there are non-sequiturs and contradictions in your theology, they should be adressed.

Quote

TO say Jesus is God is to deny his Lordship which the Father gave him.

You need to take this up with John (Joh 1:1), Thomas (Joh 20:28), Paul (Ti 2:13), Peter (2 Pet 1:1) AND the Father of Yahshua (Heb 1:8). Your problem is with them.

Quote

Jesus said he came from God and was sent by Him

If I sent my wife to the shop would that be good evidence against her humanity? No. Neither is the sending of the Logos credible evidence against his deity.

Quote

Pal, nobody sends God anywhere!

Where is this written?

Quote

You wasted all your time writing a book here just to try to cover up the obvious. The trinity is a manmade doctrine found nowhere in scripture, however, Satan has claimed you with this lie so now you are fighting like mad to try to foist it on others. This is another sign that it is of Satan because people who made up and believed in the trinity KILLED anyone who would not accept it. This was happening up until the 1700's. So do you think that is of God? If you do you are even further gone than I thought.

You've inadvertently invalidated your own argument. If guilt is to be attributed by association then, to be consisent, we should disregard all things communicated by men, since it is men that have committed unspeakable acts of evil against other men. Therefore you, being a man, should not be listened to – given your undeniable association with humanity…..nor should we pay attention to anything Yahshua said either, He was a man too. The legitimacy of a doctrine is not predicated on the behavior of some of it's adherents.

Can you see how defective this kind of argument is? (unfortunately, probably not)

Quote

You know, I don't got to Catholic message boards and try to force my beliefs down their throats. I know God
will reveal Himself to those who have a heart after Him.

Not sure how this is pertinent.

Quote

Therefore, why are you here? It is quite evident that Nick, Cubes, T8 and even myself prior to seminary know more of the Bible than you do.

Hmmm I disagree. I think you have a demonstrably shallow understanding of even the basic scriptural concepts, relative to Epistemaniac. But that is only my opinion, you of course have the golden opportunity to prove me wrong by allowing me to test your theology. But you'll need to answer questions Seminarian. Naturally, if you do this i'll obligingly let you can test mine too – that way we can see where the truth lies.

Quote

Your motives are the same as those who plagued the 1st century church, that is to use deception to cause strife and confusion. It's not happening here.

It's most unfair to make a comment like this, and you are in no position to stand as judge of another's motives. It's clear to me that Epistemanic's motive is obviously not to obfuscate scripture. What would he gain by doing this? If you actually knew him, you would know that he has invested a great deal of time studying the biblical data and, after consideration, has drawn his own conclusions. He has also been careful to avoid positions which introduce blatant contradictions whenever possible too, I imagine. Unlike you Seminarian, Epistemaniac has been forthcoming with direct answers when the many questions were posed to him by you and others, he hasn't shirked any, that to me speaks volumes about his character and the soundness of his theology.

Quote

Your wasting your time and only making yourself look all the more foolish for it.

I agree that he is apparently wasting his time WITH YOU at present. But that is not a comment on him. As for foolishness, Epistemanic has systematically dismantled every pseudo-refutation you have thrown him. He has placed himself in a situation where he is in the minority and allowed his theology to be thoroughly interogated by those that outnumbered him. This takes character Seminarian, something you might be lacking in judging by some of the comments you have made to him in this post, and others. BTW, I think foolishness is exemplified in having enormously strong opinions on scripture but demonstrating unwillingness to, or incompetence in, defending them.

I apologise to all for the bad witness of my confrontational approach in this post. It's unfortunate, but the truth is more important than Seminarian's feelings.

July 26, 2006 at 8:37 am#22829

Participant

Hi E,
Did Jesus work in his own power or that of God's Spirit?

Acts 10.38 says
“38”You know of Jesus of Nazareth,

how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power,

and how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil,

for God was with Him.”

But you say:
“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.”

Was
“God the Son” also anointed with
“God the Holy Spirit” by
“God the Father”?

Or was “God the Son” only working by himself and in his own power?Or do you have any other way of explaining this concept?

Acts 10.38 makes much more sense does it not?
And after all it is scriptural truth .

July 26, 2006 at 2:59 pm#22832

Participant

E-Maniac & Is 1:18,

Nick said & quoted E here:

Hi E,

“very well… does Unitarian better suite you?”

No we do not need human labels. Those who hide behind them betray their real master.

VERY TRUE!!!

Labeling, such as calling us “unitarian”, is the oldest ploy in the book.
This is a way of trying to limit someone. However Quakers, the Amish, Sacred Name
Movement groups, Christadelphians and many others also reject the trinity
doctrine because it is unscriptural. Are they “unitarians” too?

The truth be told, we are in fact MONOTHEISTIC just like the Jews
were and our Lord Jesus was as well as all his apostles.

My article on the Development of the Trinity Doctrine, (I've noticed
you haven't made any comments on THAT), shows that it was NEVER
taught, believed or introduced by Christ and his apostles. My Bible
has dire warnings to those who would add to scripture.

Just read Rev. 22:18:

“For I testify to everyone hearing these words of the prophecy of this scroll,
if any one may ADD TO THESE, God shall add to him the plagues that have
been written in this scroll..”

This includes ADDING words and phrases such as trinity, triune, God the Son, Eternal Son
and other nonsense that just aren't there.

Cubes, you are right. Many people are waking up. The Catholic Church had made much
of the Bible inaccessible to the church members. Its a new day now though!

Back to seminary studies. I have to be in class in a few hours and haven't prepared my assignment!

July 26, 2006 at 3:16 pm#22833

Participant

Is 1:18,

Don't worry, my feelings aren't hurt. You just proved my point in your
equally long winded reply. So many words to say basically, nothing.

You provided very little scripture if any to refute the veracity my post. In fact, what
you did was simply try to rationalize and debate without the Bible to back you up. Why am
I not surprised? Satan does the same thing only I think he knows the Bible a bit better
than you do.

There is no way you can read those scriptures as anything else than what
they say and you could not prove they should be interpreted otherwise. Logic
says if you HAVE a GOD, you can not BE GOD. You admitt that Jesus said that
he has a God, right? Even though he is no longer a man he calls the Father his
God and Father right in Revelation, which is in fact the revelation that THE FATHER
gave to him. Read Revelation 1:1

So WHO is promoting the truth here and who is promoting a pack of lies? Nice going!

Read my post on the Historical Development of the Trinity Doctrine and check out my
research against secular documentation and history if you dare. Enlightenment awaits!

Blessings,

Semmy

July 26, 2006 at 5:04 pm#22834

Participant

Is 1:18 & E-Maniac,

I can only recommend that you spend some time in a real library to see what those who
created the trinity doctrine, aka the Roman Catholic Church, did in the history of men.
There is not enough time nor is it our job to educate you on the origins of these false
beliefs and the teachers who promulgated them.

They lie, deceive and prevent people from seeing the truth that the Bible itself teaches.
These are YOUR predecessors and you are following their same path. Read what one
of your “doctrinal fathers” wrote concerning letting the parishoners read
God's Word for themselves:

This is an excerpt from an address given by the Cardinals to Pope Pius III, and is preserved in the National Library of Paris, Folio No. 1068, Vol. 2, pp. 650 651:

“Of all the advice that we can offer your holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all the countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. So long as people will be content with the small amount, your interest will prosper; but as soon as the people want to read more, your interest will fail.
The Bible is a book, which more than any other, has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary to it.”END

So these are the church leaders who subscribe to the trinity doctrine whom you are trusting in?
Oh man, and they even admit their teachings, i.e. the trinity, are different from the Bible. So the solution was not to line themselves up with what the Bible actually says, but to FORBID anyone from reading it. In fact, until 1962 Catholic Mass was done in Latin only which left many in the dark as to what the Bible really said. They were also forbidden to read any Bible not approved by the Catholic Church. Does this sound like a group who is interested in promoting the truth of the Bible to you?

However you both blindly take doctrines and teachings from them. Why is that? Well because
you do as your forefathers did and they did as their father did. That would be Satan who is the Father of the lie.

Really got to go now…..

Semmy

July 26, 2006 at 7:21 pm#22836

Participant

Hi Is 1.18
” theology[2], ontology, ontological, reasonable explanation, christology”
are the words that hold your last post together.

All are the tools of the vain intellectuals who have tried to gain understanding of our God and His Son and His Spirit with their human minds and have failed miserably finishing up with an evolving monstrosity called trinity that insults God, His Son and denies scripture itself. Would you feed it to your children, or would you introduce them to Jesus and the love of the Father in him?

“mmm I disagree. I think you have a demonstrably shallow understanding of even the basic scriptural concepts, relative to Epistemaniac. But that is only my opinion, you of course have the golden opportunity to prove me wrong by allowing me to test your theology. But you'll need to answer questions Seminarian. Naturally, if you do this i'll obligingly let you can test mine too – that way we can see where the truth lies.”

DOES THE TRUTH LIE IN THEOLOGY?

July 26, 2006 at 9:01 pm#22845

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 26 2006,00:03)

Hi E,
Thank you for admitting you do not understand what you teach.
Should we teach what we do not understand?

” I admit I do not fully understand how can be 3 in person and 1 in essence, how there can be only 1 God, yet the Son and Holy Spirit have attributes of deity attributed to them… and while I may not understand how this can be, we take the Bible for what it says, and accept, and not try and say that simply because we cannot fully understand how it can be, we do, in faith, accept it.”

Nick, one of the first things you need to learn, if, that is, you are sincere in your desire to learn, is to not misrepresent people and their beliefs. In this case either you do not understand what you are saying, or you do not understand what I am saying. In either case, the point I am making regarding understanding is this: it is not necessary to FULLY comprehend God's nature in order to know some things really and truly about God's nature, that is, my saying that I do not fully understand God's nature and being is not the same thing as to say that I understand nothing about God and His nature.

The thing even more disturbing about your post is that you seem to think you fully understand an infinite being. Do you fully (totally/exhaustively) understand God Nick?

blessings

July 26, 2006 at 9:29 pm#22846

Participant

Hi E,
One thing I have learned from scripture is that there is for us one God, and He has a Son and salvation is through faith in the Son of God. That is the foundation the bible teaches for knowledge about spiritual matters. Any further knowledge has to be built on this foundation, at least for me.

Now if I was to try and build a trinity understanding of God on this foundation that would not be possible. I would have to start again and say that Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God after all but was God Himself, or still part of God Himself. And God would not even be a Father if he never really had a son.

Such building seems to me to be essentially destructive and not constructive and the Spirit in me rails against such an unbiblical approach. It would mean I could not abide in the Word but would have to go outside of revelation and trust in the theological ideas of men. And as I did that the God that I know and love would become just another distant icon as He used to be for me.

I have been washed and do not want to roll in that mud again.

July 26, 2006 at 9:34 pm#22847

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 26 2006,00:06)

Hi E,
Jesus is God according to you and he is a human being. Does that make God a human being? I thought there are three persons in one being so how can one be a being in himself?

“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!!”

well one of the things you may first have to overcome is this; God is sui generis, ie one of a kind, unique, there is no other being like God. Wouldn't you agree to that?

So once you comprehend this, then any confusion you may be either intentionally or unintentionally trying to create in your questions will lessen, because (hopefully) you will stop trying to think of God as having to be just like other beings in creation….. of thinking of a one to one relationship with God being just like a human being.

you ask “Jesus is God according to you and he is a human being. Does that make God a human being?”

You may also save your self a lot of trouble by simply taking my statement for itself and not try and reword the statements in such a way as to change the meaning. I see you doing that repeatedly and the practice is helpful if you are rewording consistently in ways that are clearly in line with what it is you are trying to understand. However you seem to have adopted the practice of rewording other people’s posts is such a way as to be obviously an intentional attempt to obfuscate.

For instance, in this case I said that Jesus is both God and man, and is likewise sui generis. Thus I am saying that Jesus, being God, is one of a kind, a being like no other, a being who is God as to His essential nature, who took upon Himself the form of a bondservant, be found in appearance as a man, a real human being.

So when I said that Jesus is God and a human being, you can just stop there and say to yourself… “well, I see that epistemaniac believes that Jesus is both God and man, I disagree, but hey, that’s what he believes.”

So God is a human being only in the sense of Jesus' dual nature, ie He is the God-man.

Have a look at this short but helpful description:
http://aomin.org/trinitydef.html

blessings

July 26, 2006 at 9:35 pm#22848

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 26 2006,00:41)

Hi E,
You say
“Lastly, since I brought up Isaiah 6 above, you might be interested to know that this is another passage that proves the Trinity doctrine. For who is it that Isaiah sees in the chamber? Isaiah says it is none other then the great Adonai! For when the multitude asks in John 12:34 who the Son of man is, Jesus says that it is none other than He, the very one who’s glory Isaiah saw in the temple: (John 12:41 NASB) These things Isaiah said, because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.”

Classic.
Trinitarians think Jesus had his own throne with his own Seraphim etc because he is regarded as a deity, despite their protestations against being polytheistic. So trinity God to them does not mean three in one but means they are in fact individual deities?

NIV has added the word “Jesus” in Jn 12 which is anathema.

Careful reading of the verse shows it is the Father just as is shown in Rev 4.

classic, misrepresentation, caricature……

July 26, 2006 at 9:37 pm#22849

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 26 2006,00:57)

Hi E
“quite simply really, for Jesus' being the Son of God in no way contradicts that He is also God the Son….. “
So God the Son is not the God that Jesus is the Son of?
Or is he really a son at all is he has never been begotten of God?

twas brilig in the slivy tove…….

July 26, 2006 at 9:44 pm#22850

Participant

Hi E,
You say
“For instance, in this case I said that Jesus is both God and man, and is likewise sui generis. Thus I am saying that Jesus, being God, is one of a kind, a being like no other, a being who is God as to His essential nature, who took upon Himself the form of a bondservant, be found in appearance as a man, a real human being. “

Scripture says in Phil 2 that Christ Jesus WAS in the form of GOD and emptied himself being found in the likeness of men.

If Jesus is God what did God shed to become like one of us?
Did he shed his powers?
Did he shed his glory?

If he was “God in flesh” and worked in his own powers then are you not saying he emptied himself of nothing at all?

Scripture says God does not change yet you say he can empty Himself?

Can God become less than God, even less than the angels?

If he shed nothing and yet became as we are, surely you are saying we too are as God?

July 26, 2006 at 9:44 pm#22851

Participant

Quote (Cubes @ July 26 2006,01:03)

Hi E,

Glad you are feeling much better today. To simplify things, as relates to your post on page 4 to me, do you mind answering the following questions?

1. Is YHWH able to send, authorize, empower and equip ANYONE to accomplish his purposes/will?
2. Are there such examples in scripture?
3. Did Jesus say that YHWH had sent, authorized, empowered and equipped him to do that will? (Not my will but thine be done?)
4. When such will [salvation] is accomplished by the power of God through his servants, would it be wrong to then say that God's will was done, or more specifically, that Salvation belongs to YHWH only? Will the fact that YHWH used someone else to do so make the statement less true?

1 yes
2 yes
3 yes
4 of course God's will was done, but this does not change the fact that attributes are said to belong to the Son that the Lord says are true exclusively of Himself. So the reasoning is really simple, no obscure philosophy, no over intellectualizing, something is said to belong to YHWH alone, then this same thing is said to belong to the Son. makes most say “huh…. YHWH will not share His glory with another yet Jesus is said to share in the glory of YHWH, that must mean that Jesus is God”. No big deal, really striaght forward.

blessings

July 26, 2006 at 9:58 pm#22852

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 26 2006,09:29)

Quote (seminarian @ July 26 2006,01:04)

E-Maniac,

Yawnnnnn. You've written so many words which have impressed no one,

Quote

just
to avoid what the Bible actually says…..that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Quote

You admitted that our Lord Jesus has a God and that God the Father does not. Very good!

Quote

So they can't be co-equal especially since our Lord is no longer a man and STILL says he has a God
in his exalted state in heaven. Read Revelation 3:12 again if you don't remember.

Have you bothered to try and gain an understanding of Epistemaniac's position on co-equality before launching into another refutation?

No.

Maybe you should.

Quote

so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the GOD AND FATHER
of our Lord Jesus Christ. [Romans 15:6]

Sorry but all your long winded posts can't make this scripture say anything else than
what it does. Logic and truth tells you that if YOU HAVE A GOD, you can't be God, period.

I don't think Epistemaniac's posts are “long winded”, in fact I think he shows remarkable precision and economy with words, under the circumstances.

What kind of being was the Logos before He was made flesh?

Quote

I wonder if you have thought this through Seminarian?…

Why is the 'so-called' weaker appelative 'kurios' used by NT writers in exclusive reference to Yahshua's Father?

Why is the 'so-called' stronger appelative 'theos' used by NT writers in exclusive reference to Yahshua?

Why does Thomas proclaim to Yahshua that He is his Lord and God (John 20:28)?

Remember Seminarian, the goal is to harmonise scripture…..if there are non-sequiturs and contradictions in your theology, they should be adressed.

Quote

TO say Jesus is God is to deny his Lordship which the Father gave him.

You need to take this up with John (Joh 1:1), Thomas (Joh 20:28), Paul (Ti 2:13), Peter (2 Pet 1:1) AND the Father of Yahshua (Heb 1:8). Your problem is with them.

Quote

Jesus said he came from God and was sent by Him

If I sent my wife to the shop would that be good evidence agains
t her humanity? No. Neither is the sending of the Logos credible evidence against his deity.

Quote

Pal, nobody sends God anywhere!

Where is this written?

Quote

Can you see how defective this kind of argument is? (unfortunately, probably not)

Quote

You know, I don't got to Catholic message boards and try to force my beliefs down their throats. I know God
will reveal Himself to those who have a heart after Him.

Not sure how this is pertinent.

Quote

Therefore, why are you here? It is quite evident that Nick, Cubes, T8 and even myself prior to seminary know more of the Bible than you do.

Quote

Your motives are the same as those who plagued the 1st century church, that is to use deception to cause strife and confusion. It's not happening here.

Quote

Your wasting your time and only making yourself look all the more foolish for it.

I apologise to all for the bad witness of my confrontational approach in this post. It's unfortunate, but the truth is more important than Seminarian's feelings.

in particular you said “Why do you think they, the religious prefessionals of 1st century Judea, understood “son of” to mean something utterly different to what you understand it to mean.”

exactly… I think a lot of the enority of Jesus' claims are lost on us in this day and age. Event he title “Son of Man” was itself a claim to deity, eg Dan. 7:13; one commentator says of this passage:
“(vv. 13,14) Daniel's next vision was as encouraging as the first vision was terrifying. The description is that of the inauguration of the Son of Man, the glorified Lord, before the Ancient of Days. In these verses, “the Ancient of Days” is surely a divine designation. The title “Son of Man” was a favorite title of Christ for Himself (Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 16:27, 28; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31). Rather than being “like a lion” (v. 4), “like a bear” (v. 5), “like a leopard” (v. 6), or incomparably horrible (v. 7), the divine King will at the same time be a human King. His deity is indicated by His coming “on the clouds of heaven” (cf. Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; Rev. 1:7), by the worship that He receives (v. 14), and by the eternity of His kingdom (v. 14; cf. Ps. 2:6-9).” (BSB)

July 26, 2006 at 9:58 pm#22853

Participant

Hi,
This is how trinity logic fails.
Because they cannot grasp the concept of God's ownership, associated with God's delegation they can never grasp the working relationship between God and His subjects.

July 26, 2006 at 10:17 pm#22854