- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Also, no one (including Nick) has adequately dealt with the passage in Isaiah and John. Saying that Jesus was the figure upon the throne in Isa. 6 says not only that He was upon a throne, which alone would not account for much, but it is said that this figure was both Adonai and Yahweh. These 2 terms of deity are used in the first 8 verses and they are rightly applied to no one… NO ONE…. but God. Yet they are said to apply to Jesus in John. You can’t get much clearer than this, Jesus is YHWH.
(Isa 6:1-8 NASB) In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord (adonai) sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. {2} Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. {3} And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD (YHWH) of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.” {4} And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. {5} Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD (YHWH) of hosts.(!!!!!)” {6} Then one of the seraphim flew to me, with a burning coal in his hand which he had taken from the altar with tongs. {7} And he touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is forgiven.” {8} Then I heard the voice of the Lord, (adonai)saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
blessings
Quote (seminarian @ July 26 2006,23:17) Uh oh E-Maniac, Sure sign of a white flag is when you start in with “it is not necessary to fully comprehend
God…” You can't win this debate scripturally so you drop down to this? So predictable.
The pastor of education said the exact same thing when he saw the trinity doesn't line
up with scripture. Hastings noted this as well:“HASTINGS Dictionary of the Bible by Schribners, on page 1015 under the topic: “THE TRINITY–The Christian doctrine of God as existing in three Persons & one Substance is NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC OR BY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS…”
According to Mr. Hastings, one would have to use ILLOGICAL AND UNSCRIPTURAL data in order to prove a trinity.
However, that's not what Jesus taught. He told that Samaratin woman
“You worship what you do not know.” Then he went on to say that
true worshippers would worship THE FATHER in spirit and TRUTH. God expects
us to know the truth about Him and if we don't take the time to do so, we can
not adequately worship Him.Read all of John 13:21-24. Yet you are saying we should worship our Lord as equal to God, is that not true?
Um, I'm going to go with what our Lord Jesus said, not you.Christ came to make the Father manifest to us.
Manifest is not incarnate. Manifest means to make God's purposes clear to us
and like trinity, triune, God the Son, the word incarnate is also NOT in the Bible.Now re-read the rest of this convoluted drivel you wrote to Nick here:
E-Manaic wrote:
“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.”
What are you talking about? You accuse Nick of misrepresenting your beliefs but you are unable to even articulate them yourself!
Jesus said: “You Samaritans, (replace with trinitarians), worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know for salvation is from the Jews. John 13:22
Ask ANY Jewish person today if they are expecting Yahweh to become a man and come down to earth as the Messiah. They will look at you as if you had three heads. They are fiercely monotheistic and Jesus said they know whom they worship. They are fully expecting the Messiah to be a man as foretold by Old Testament scriptures. This “God in human flesh” lie was consistant with the pagan mythology and cultures of the Romans, Greeks and Babylonians who coincidently also worshiped triune or trinities of gods. Hmmmm, how about that!
So Nick has a deep understanding of God not because he subscribes to some air-headed doctrines of men from the 4th century AD, but because God has written this understanding on his heart. Our Lord said his sheep would know his voice. You are simply preaching another Christ which is no Christ at all.
Still waiting for your comments on the history of the development of the trinity doctrine which lines up
with historical FACT as well as writings from the leaders of Roman Catholic Church who came up with the trinity doctrine in the fisrt place. These are the sorts of religious leaders you are following? No, I'm going to follow Christ, not men. Hope you will join us because
you've been woefully deceived. You don't want to face your doctrine's history
because it is covered in innocent blood and written by evil deceivers and liars.
So you base your faith on THAT?Good post Nick! Off to class…..
Semmy
(2 Tim 3:7 NASB) always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.ALso E-Maniac,
Now you've got to stoop to posting someone else's long winded nonsense as a response? Son of God means just what it says and is NOT exclusive to our Lord Jesus. Read Luke 3:38 which lists ADAM as the Son of God. Christ is also referred to as the Last Adam. [1 Corn 15:45] You trinitarians have reversed the meaning and added “God the Son” to scripture. Never once is the Lord Jesus called God the Son in the Bible! Do you understand now or are you still confused?
It's what the scriptures say my friend, not what you are trying to add into them. No matter what,
the fact still stands that Jesus our Lord even in his exalted state in the book of Revelation says he has a God and Father. [Rev. 3:12] No where in scripture, as you have agreed, does it say the Father
has a god. SO you are denying the obvious. The Father and His Son are NOT co-equal parts of some so called trinity. You can't HAVE a GOD and BE GOD!Now wasn't that simple? Still waiting for your comments on the history of the development of the trinity doctrine. Seems you keep wanting to take these little diversions instead, huh?
Tootles,
Semmy
semmy, why do you follow the teachings of man so much? Is Hastings (or any of the contributors to the dictionary)infallible?
E-maniac wrote,
(2 Tim 3:7 NASB) always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Wow, how profound! And this is supposed to be a complete rebuttal to my last post to you?
You've really struck an iceberg now!Try again, and this time try responding to the ISSUES of point with scriptures.
Still waiting on your comments on the history of the Trinity Doctrine and YOUR early church leader's
writings. Cricket, cricket
Semmy
Hi E,
Dan 7.9f
9″I kept looking
Until (A)thrones were set up,
And the Ancient of Days took His seat;
His (B)vesture was like white snow
And the ©hair of His head like pure wool
His (D)throne was ablaze with flames,
Its (E)wheels were a burning fire.
10″A river of (F)fire was flowing
And coming out from before Him;
(G)Thousands upon thousands were attending Him,
And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;
The (H)court sat,
And (I)the books were opened.
11″Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the (J)burning fire.12″As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time.
13″I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a (K)Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14″And to Him was given (L)dominion,
Glory and (M)a kingdom,
(N)That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
(O)His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
(P)And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed'Who is the ancient of days? God
Who is the one LIKE a son of man? Jesus
Is he given anything but the greater being on the throne?
So how are these beings equal?Where is the “person” of the Spirit seen?
Are the Father and the Son, in fact, separate beings rather than part of an equal three in one being in heaven?
E-Maniac,
“HASTINGS Dictionary of the Bible by Schribners, on page 1015 under the topic: “THE TRINITY–The Christian doctrine of God as existing in three Persons & one Substance is NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC OR BY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS…”
According to Mr. Hastings, one would have to use ILLOGICAL AND UNSCRIPTURAL data in order to prove a trinity.
Why do you consider these “the teachings of man” only when they disagree with your theology?
Aren't YOU in fact following the teachings of man, specifically the Roman Catholic Church frauds
who wrote the trinity doctrine in the first place?You are just dancing around the subject. I've asked you to comment now at least 4 times on the
History of the Development of the Trinity doctrine, yet you keep dodging it. Is it too painful to
look at reality? Guess so. Still waiting….Quote (epistemaniac @ July 26 2006,23:31) Also, no one (including Nick) has adequately dealt with the passage in Isaiah and John. Saying that Jesus was the figure upon the throne in Isa. 6 says not only that He was upon a throne, which alone would not account for much, but it is said that this figure was both Adonai and Yahweh. These 2 terms of deity are used in the first 8 verses and they are rightly applied to no one… NO ONE…. but God. Yet they are said to apply to Jesus in John. You can’t get much clearer than this, Jesus is YHWH. (Isa 6:1-8 NASB) In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord (adonai) sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. {2} Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. {3} And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD (YHWH) of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.” {4} And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. {5} Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD (YHWH) of hosts.(!!!!!)” {6} Then one of the seraphim flew to me, with a burning coal in his hand which he had taken from the altar with tongs. {7} And he touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is forgiven.” {8} Then I heard the voice of the Lord, (adonai)saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
blessings
Hi e,
Jn 12.37-43
“37But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “(A)LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?”
39For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
40″(B)HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE ©HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.”
41These things Isaiah said because (D)he saw His glory, and (E)he spoke of Him.
42Nevertheless (F)many even of (G)the rulers believed in Him, but (H)because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be (I)put out of the synagogue;
43(J)for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God”
In Jn 41 John says Isaiah saw HIS glory.
So whose glory?
Have a look at the context.
The previous verse has “HIS, HIS and I” in it so no confusion there-it is God who made those statements and the glory is HIS.If you compare Is.6 with Rev 4 you will see from the marked similarity that it was the glory of God the Father seen in the heavenly temple. No other bible scripture suggests Jesus has his own throne or his own angels praising him.
He is seen at the right hand of God many tiimes. And at the judgement and in Revelation he is seen sitting on God's throne or sharing the throne of God.
Hastings answers one of your exact questions semmy…. after reading this, will you still rely on this source?
“The other objection to which importance attaches is the answer of Jesus to one who addressed Him as 'Good Master'—'Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God' (Mk 1018). It is not obvious why Jesus should have objected to be called ' Good Master,' such a mode of address being, one would suppose, a form of courtesy in which there was no harm; and this suggests the probability that the humour or irony of Jesus may have been at play ; so that it is dangerous to interpret Him too literally. What was it that He wished to turn the inquirer's attention to ? Stier's dilemma ought not to be forgotten : ' Either, There is none good but God; Christ is good; therefore Christ is God: or, There is none good but God; Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good.'”
“Although, however, His sinlessness does not directly prove His Divinity, it is not without a bearing on it of an important kind: it lends weight to all His statements, and especially to His statements about Himself. A sinless being could not make statements which were false, extravagant, or overweening. Now, Jesus made statements about Himself that either were visionary and unbecoming, or proved Him to be greater than the children of men; and if His character supplies strong reason for accepting these as words of truth and soberness, the bearing of this fact on our beliefs about Him cannot be ignored.”
“The kenosis.—It is this derivative nature of the Son's Divinity which helps us to realize that the limitations to which He submitted during His life on earth involved no breach of His Divine identity.”
etc etc… the point being that in Hastings Dict. of Christ and the Gospels, both the Trinity and the deity of the Son are believed to be biblical doctrines, and thus the truth of God's nature.
see http://www.ccel.org/h/hastings/dict2/htm/TOC.htm
blessings
Hi E,
A Deity surely is a being.
But you deny that the Son of God is a being who partook of flesh but say he is only a part of a greater trinity being.
Which is correct?Hi E,
Your quote;
“The other objection to which importance attaches is the answer of Jesus to one who addressed Him as 'Good Master'—'Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God' (Mk 1018). It is not obvious why Jesus should have objected to be called ' Good Master,' such a mode of address being, one would suppose, a form of courtesy in which there was no harm; and this suggests the probability that the humour or irony of Jesus may have been at play ; so that it is dangerous to interpret Him too literally. What was it that He wished to turn the inquirer's attention to ? Stier's dilemma ought not to be forgotten : ' Either, There is none good but God; Christ is good; therefore Christ is God: or, There is none good but God; Christ is not God; therefore Christ is not good.'”I would say that is was far more dangerous to not take seriously the living words of the Son of God. He tells us when he is speaking in parables and when he said that only the Father is good the made no such qualifying statements.
Surely he was using the word GOOD as an absolute rather than as a comparative word. Certainly we should not ignore the meaning that in this area as in all the others the Father is greater than him.
Quote (epistemaniac @ July 27 2006,03:44) 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
Hi E,Thanks for the responses. 3 out of 4. Not bad for starters.
Shall we focus on your response at #4 then?1. Do you mind listing some of the attributes that Jesus shares with the Father for us?
2. When you say they share glory, do you mean to say they have the same glory?
3. When you say Jesus is God, just to be clear, do you mean that he is the Most High God?
4. And As three distinct persons in One, would you say God is a group practice then? Like a law or medical practice? Even there I am sure they have head attorneys and Chief physicians but I am trying to understand you better.
Is it fair to say that in glory, when we hopefully shall behold Father and Son, they shall be treated by all their subjects as equals and the same GOD? Does this represent your view of GOD and if not, please clarify.I hope to focus on the glory aspect when I receive your responses to these priliminary questions.
Good health to you.
Hi E,
Jn 1.18 says this“18(A)No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him”
It also says the Son is the image of God.
He is obviously less than God as an image of the original but you say“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?”
Surely the Son is less than God Himself but is the most mighty being under God
Hi there,
I am new to this site, but unfortunately not new to these concerns on the trinity. It seems to me through my little experience that the same spirit still persists today as it did some 1800 years ago. I havnt got much more to add to that comment at this stage accept in my experience a large ammount of grace must eminate from both sides of the equasion before proper fruit is produced.
Love and peace be upon you in our Lord Jesus christ.
Quote (seminarian @ July 26 2006,23:32) Son of God means just what it says and is NOT exclusive to our Lord Jesus.
Seminarian,
Tell me explicitly what it means that Yahshua is the 'Son of God'?I hope you're not going to continue to avoid this question, it's not a scary one…..
Quote (epistemaniac @ July 26 2006,23:31) Also, no one (including Nick) has adequately dealt with the passage in Isaiah and John. Saying that Jesus was the figure upon the throne in Isa. 6 says not only that He was upon a throne, which alone would not account for much, but it is said that this figure was both Adonai and Yahweh. These 2 terms of deity are used in the first 8 verses and they are rightly applied to no one… NO ONE…. but God. Yet they are said to apply to Jesus in John. You can’t get much clearer than this, Jesus is YHWH. (Isa 6:1-8 NASB) In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord (adonai) sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. {2} Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. {3} And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD (YHWH) of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.” {4} And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. {5} Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD (YHWH) of hosts.(!!!!!)” {6} Then one of the seraphim flew to me, with a burning coal in his hand which he had taken from the altar with tongs. {7} And he touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is forgiven.” {8} Then I heard the voice of the Lord, (adonai)saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
blessings
Yes Epistemaniac you're correct as usual, no one has adequately dealt with it…are we surprised? No.Quote (seminarian @ July 26 2006,16:16) 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
Seminarian,
What is it that you have read in scripture that has led you to the conclusion that Yahshua is no longer a man? Can you clarify this for me please.Thanks
Quote (seminarian @ July 26 2006,18:04) 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.
Seminarian,
Please check your facts before writing your posts, this way you will do your own credibility some good and save us the time and effort of having to continually correct the basic errors you make.– The trinity doctrine was first codified at the first Council of Nicaea in AD 325 (source)
– The Roman Catholic Church, as we know it today, was not formed until the 11th century (source)
So how could a doctrine originate from a source that proceeded it by the fat end of seven hundred years?
It cannot, can it Seminarian? So what you wrote is in fact untrue.
Quote (seminarian @ July 26 2006,23:44) E-Maniac, “HASTINGS Dictionary of the Bible by Schribners, on page 1015 under the topic: “THE TRINITY–The Christian doctrine of God as existing in three Persons & one Substance is NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC OR BY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS…”
According to Mr. Hastings, one would have to use ILLOGICAL AND UNSCRIPTURAL data in order to prove a trinity.
Why do you consider these “the teachings of man” only when they disagree with your theology?
Aren't YOU in fact following the teachings of man, specifically the Roman Catholic Church frauds
who wrote the trinity doctrine in the first place?You are just dancing around the subject. I've asked you to comment now at least 4 times on the
History of the Development of the Trinity doctrine, yet you keep dodging it. Is it too painful to
look at reality? Guess so. Still waiting….
semmy… as far as the “history of the Trinity” goes, I think this history is best found within the pages of Scripture itself… maybe you have heard in your classes of what is known as “progressive revelation”? here is a bit of info for you:“Probably the best example of progressive revelation in the Bible is the doctrine of the trinity. The Old Testament only alluded to this truth, but the New Testament explains it more fully. In Genesis when God said “Let us make man in our image”, He doesn't go on to explain why He would speak as if to Himself in this way, but it is evident that He is speaking with Himself as if there were more than one person there. We know that He wasn't speaking with angels or any pre-existent beings, as some would say, because Genesis goes on to say in 1:27 “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” He went out of His way to tell the reader that man was created specifically in the image of God, and not God and someone else. After all, no being is equal with God, and therefore could not share in God's statement.
So at this point there is somewhat of a question mark about how much one could know about the person of God. Not everything about His person was revealed. The revelation about the person of God continues over time through references to 'the Angel of the Lord'. Many times deity is assigned to this angel. The Psalms begin to make this clear as well. Psalm 45:6 says “Thy throne O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Thy God, has anointed Thee.” Hebrews 1:8 tells us that this was God the Father speaking to God the Son. The complete understanding of the triune God is spelled out in the New Testament. It seems that Jesus had to explain this for years to His disciples. They couldn't seem to grasp it, and I'm not sure they did grasp it until after the resurrection. We have more revelation then they did after the resurrection since the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit tells us in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus “…is the image of the invisible God.” What better way could there be to describe a being that is equal with God than to call one the image of the other. Of course He was speaking of the second person of the trinity, who became a man, Jesus.. No person or angel can be called the image of the invisible God, or as it says in Hebrews 1:3 “the radiance of His glory, and the exact representation of his nature”. God is so far above His creation that only a very small view of God can allow for a lesser created being to be said to be the image of the invisible God.
Colossians 1:16 tells us that Jesus created all things, everywhere, in heaven and earth. Interestingly it also says this… “all things have been created by Him and for Him” You have to jump through a lot of hoops to not see the uniqueness of Jesus here.
Hebrews 1:1 says this… “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”
You see, now we know that God the Father, Yahweh, made the world through Yahweh His Son. They are distinct persons in the Godhead, and yet one, as is the Holy Spirit. Now we have the full revelation about the person of God, but obviously during the OT times they didn't have as much revelation as we do now. It's nice to know that God held them responsible for the revelation that they had, and not what they did not have. I'm sure that there is yet more to know about God that we just can't understand in our current state.” (http://www.endtimes.org/progressive.html)
so… there you are semmy….. this is the answer to your question, you don't have to like it, you don't have to agree to it, but you are answered nonetheless….
blessings
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
