The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

This topic is dedicated to debunking The Trinity Doctrine.
Feel free to join the debate.

May 13, 2002 at 8:52 pm#15450

Participant

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

I dont know where people get this notion. It clearly doesnt say The Word is God.

The scriptures are very clear that Christ is from God, he is subject to God and God knows things that his Son does not.

The scriptures are also clear that Gods children are of Christ and Jesus calls us brothers, yet we are children to our Father.

The scriptures are also very clear that the Woman is of Man, and Man is of woman. of meaning born or from.

——————————————–
1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
——————————————–

This may not be politically correct, but its truth and its the divine order.

——————————————–
1 Corinthians 3:22-23 (English-NIV)
22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas {That is, Peter} or the world or life or death or the present or the future–all are yours,
23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God
——————————————–

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords",
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
——————————————–

Philippians 2:11
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
——————————————–

Is this your confession?
Also who came in the flesh, God or the Word?

May 18, 2002 at 7:05 am#15467

Participant

Let me first thank those who run this site for allowing me the opportunity to make this post. I will be addressing the question of Jesus Christ’s deity. This issue is not new, nor are the arguments surrounding it. However, one side is true, and one side is false. Either Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man, or he was only fully man. Those who believe that scripture is truly God’s word must also believe that there are no contradictions in scripture. Any such contradiction would prove error in God’s word, thus error in God. Such error is impossible; therefore any inerrancy found in scripture must be as a result from human error in interpretation. The fact that scripture is without contradictions will prove to be the biggest factor in proving which belief is true and which is false.

I have studied the deity of Christ from both a Trinitarian perspective as well as a non-Trinitarian perspective and have found that there is overwhelming evidence that scripture very clearly states that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human. There are countless ways in which to approach proving this issue with scripture, however to start off, I will begin with some basics. If needs be, I will continue the scriptural proof in more detail in another post so to keep this one as short as possible. I will begin with three contradictions that arise if Jesus Christ is NOT God.

1) Hebrews 1:10 "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
—According to verse 8, this is talking about the Son of God, not the Father. This verse tells us that Jesus Christ was not only pre-existent to his humanity on earth, but that He existed in the beginning even before creation and that by His hands He created the heavens and the earth. According to Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This verse tells us that the only thing in existence in the beginning was God, and that God created the heavens and the earth. According to Genesis 1:1 we find that God was the only one in the beginning that that He created the heavens and the earth. According to Hebrews 1:10 we find that Jesus Christ was in the beginning and created the heavens and the earth. If Jesus Christ is not God, then these two verses contradict each other. The only way Hebrews 1:10 is true is if Jesus Christ is in fact God.

2) Exodus 34:14, –for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God— According to this verse, God is the only person who is to be worshiped. Jesus Christ is worshiped throughout the New Testament not only by humans (Matthew 2:2, Mark 5:6, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, etc.) but also by the angels (Hebrews 1:6). If Jesus Christ is not God, then there is a major contradiction in scripture. If Christ is not God then all the angels are guilty of idolatry as well as humans. More severely, if Christ is not God, then Jesus Christ himself is guilty of sin. If Christ is not God, then He sinned every time He accepted and encouraged those who worshiped Him. Also, in his confrontation with Satan in the desert, Jesus Christ commands Satan to “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.” (Matthew 4:10). We also know that according to Philippians 2:10 “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;” This means that all will fall subject to, worship, give homage, and praise Jesus Christ, be it voluntary or involuntary. This includes Satan himself. If Jesus Christ is not God, then He is lying in his instruction to Satan. Jesus tells Satan to worship ONLY God, and then later Satan is found worshiping Jesus.

3) Finally, according to Isaiah 43:11 “I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.” The word LORD in this verse is the Hebrew word YAHWEH, which means God. God is our only savior, and only God is able to forgive our sins and give us salvation. However, Jesus Christ not only forgave sins (Matthew 9:6) be He also is our savior (Titus 1:4, 2 Peter 1:11, etc.). If Jesus Christ is not God, then again there is contradiction in scripture. Furthermore, if Jesus Christ is not God, then we have no savior, and thus no salvation.

As established in Hebrews 1:10, the fact that Jesus Christ preexisted to his time on earth proves that He is in fact God. When scripture tells us that Christ “came in the flesh” it establishes that Christ has eternally existed and affirms that He is fully God. That is why 2 John 1:7 is so important: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” Those who do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ is fully God are false and are not from God. In fact, confessing that Jesus is God is how we test if someone is from God or from the adversary: 1 John 4:2-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.”

I hope this helps anyone lost in falseness or confused about the truth. I will continue to pray for those who are lost that God opens their hearts so that they will know the truth of God and worship in that truth and in spirit.

-God Bless

June 1, 2002 at 10:05 am#15485

Participant

Let me help correct this misconception, myself as a Jehovahs Witness has had years of teaching that the trinity is incorrect and this excerpt from our publication "should you believe in the trinity might help to clear this upAT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo’gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.
Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person
Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.
Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text. 1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. 1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel. 1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. 1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz. 1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os’ (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo’gos] was with God [a form of the·os’]"). This first the·os’ is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").
On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os’ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os’ (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?
The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.
The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo’gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os’] cannot be regarded as definite."
So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.
There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."
Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’"

June 3, 2002 at 7:20 am#15503

Participant

Thankyou for your time effort in talking about the trinity doctrine.
I was going to write about the points, that the last 2 writings have made. But I ended writing the following: (I will however endeavour to look at what has been said discuss the points you have made.

I want to pointout that I do not believe the trinity doctrine, but neither am I a Jehovahs Witness and I have never been a Jehovahs Witness. I hold to know man-made creed, nor do I belong to any man-made organisation or institution that makes itself out be church. I am simply a person who was taken out of darkness and shown the light. I am a believer in God, Jesus Christ his Son, and believe that Jesus is the only way to our Father God, as God is too pure to look upon or fellowship with evil. But through his Son we can all be redeemed.

When I first believed in the existance of God and the fact that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, I had a very simple faith. This faith was great enough however to witness miracles on an almost daily basis. But this amazing life nearly came to an end, when I made the classic mistake of listening to the words of Men and believing that I had to accept these words in order to please God. This was of course based on the fear of man. I was told that I had to go to Church every Sunday and I had to believe that God was a trinity. I blindly followed these precepts with little or no proof that such things were so. Eventually I myself even argued with people who questioned such things and I felt that it was my duty to help/correct these people. At that time I became bored with my walk with God, as I seemed to lose touch with God, I felt dead inside again.

While sitting there comtemplating my sitution, the thought crossed my mind that I could give up and return to the world from where I came. But I came to my senses and decided that the problem was me, not God. I reasoned that God created flowers and many beautiful things, and I realised that God is Love and He doesn’t change. It was me that had changed. I tried to trace the exact moment that my faith dwindled and I realised that it was when I started listening to mans laws without checking the scriptures or asking God if it was so. I then decided to break free of the religious order around me and seek the one who shone his light on me in the beginning. Once again I felt the presence of God and I realised that I was free again. I vowed never to make that mistake again.

Since then I have questioned all matters that I believed with regards to my faith. To seek truth is to seek Jesus himself. If we do not seek truth then we are not really seeking Christ, but we are looking for a religion or a form of godliness, in which to feel comfortable.

About 10 years ago I believed that God was challenging some of my beliefs that I had accepted blindly from other Christians and also heard in some sermons. One of those doctrines was the trinity. Deep down in my heart I felt that something didn’t seen right about it, but to tell you the truth I felt scared to question this doctrine. I felt that everyone would think that I had departed the way. I started asking questions about it, and the response was just as I thought. Everyone I asked that believed said that I shouldn’t question such a thing. They showed me some vague scriptures and concluded that God is to big for us to understand. I felt that if I didn’t accept what they told me, I would be in for a serious rebuking. So I kept quiet about it for about 10 years. It seemed strange to me that this was the response, as this is contrary to scripture. Paul commended those that checked out everything he said with scripture. I couldn’t understand the negative reaction with questioning this doctrine. I thought that the trinity doctrine was especially questionable, considering that it was some three hundred years after the last book in the bible was written. That alone should arouse at least some suspicion in those that are careful in guarding their doctrine.

In the last few years after passing through some big trials in my life, I felt the challenge to look at my doctrine closely. I knew that I had to stop running and face up to some of my beliefs, the biggest one being the trinity doctrine and another one was what we think Church is.

I started with scripture. I went to the Bible Gateway site and typed in the word God and read through quickly the scriptures that were listed. This exercise was interesting, because the thing that stood out was that God is one and there is no other. I then typed in Jesus and there wasn’t one scripture that said he was the Most High God. I thought that was rather interesting too, especially considering that the trinity doctrine is suppose to be a pillar of the Christian faith. So for now at least it appeared that the trinity doctrine wasn’t an obvious doctrine, rather it was either not taught at all, or it was hidden somewhat, in either the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic or perhaps hinted at.

So I decided to immerse myself in the scriptures. I even purchased a Strongs Concordance and other materials to help me understand the meanings of each word. My honest intention was to know the truth, I was, and I am ready now to accept the truth even if it proves me wrong, because I realise that pride defends our own opinions and pride doesn’t accept truth when we are wrong. Pride blinds us in ignorance of truth.

Without any bias, I compiled a writing called "Is the trinity doctrine correct". I discovered much to my surprise, a teaching that has largely been ignored by Christians, but was taught over and over in the scriptures by Jesus and Paul. That teaching is this:

The Father is the Most High God, Jesus the Word, the Christ, the Messiah came from God, and we (followers/believers) come from Christ.
God is the Most High God, Jesus is the Image of God and we are the image of Christ.
God exists inside and outside of creation, Jesus sits on the Fathers Throne and we will sit on Jesus throne.
We are at the right hand of Christ, Jesus is at the right hand of God, God is at the right hand of no-one.
The Father is the Gardner, Jesus is the Vine, we are the branches.
The Father is the Most High God, Jesus is the Mediator and we are Mankind.
The Most High God our Father, created all things through Jesus the Word, the result is creation. We are part of that creation, but we are made in the image of God, because we are like Jesus.
The Son speaks on behalf of God, we speak on behalf of Christ.
The Father is the Almighty God. Jesus is the Mighty God and we are gods.
Jesus is the only begotten of the Father (born of the Father), we are born of Christ.
There are many god’s but for us there is but one God the Father.
The word God can refer to the Father, the Son, Man, Satan, Idols and Angels. We must read each scripture in context.
Jesus called his Father his God and our God. He said this on Earth and in Heaven.
Jesus tells us that his Father is greater than himself.
There are things that the Son does not know, but only the Father knows.
The Son is subject to the Father, and only does what his Father does, and speaks what he hears his Father speaking.
God gives all things to the Son, Jesus doesn’t give it to himself. All good things originate in the Father.

I challenge anyone to fit the trinity doctrine with these points. I can also provide you with scriptural reference to all these points, if necessary.

Now I want to point out some things regarding the trinity doctrine.

The word trinity is not mentioned in the scriptures, nor is it taught by anyone including Jesus and Paul.
The trinity doctrine states that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all equal and co-eternal. This is contrary to scripture.
The trinity doctrine became official some three hundred years after the last book in the bible was written.
The trinity doctrine became official upon one man’s decision. That person was not Christ, but Constantine a Roman Emperor. He was trying to solve a conflict that needed a final ruling, lest it weaken the empire through division. He had little or no understanding of the subject at hand.
Those who drew the doctrine did not claim divine inspiration as far as I know.
The Jews appose the trinity doctrine on the basis that there is only one God as stated many times in the Old Testament.
The Egyptians worshipped a trinity.
When Constantine made the trinity doctrine official by order of the Roman Empire, the most influential person promoting the trinity doctrine was Athanasius, who was from Alexandria in Egypt.
The Babylonians worshipped a trinity too. They also worshipped the Mother of God and money.

Is this starting to sound familiar.

Many believe that Christianity destroyed Paganism, but the truth is that Christianity assimilated paganism. Christianity took over many of the Pagan festivals and changed them to Christian ones. In other words a Christian appearance, but a pagan heart. Paganism is idolatory and trinity gods were worshipped in paganism.

The scriptures tell us about a mystery called Babylon. We are told to come out of her in the last days. Babylon comes from Babel. God divided men by language because they said in their hearts "Let us make a name for ourselves". They also built the tower to save themselves incase God flooded the earth again. Babel is the root of self salvation and pride in ones own name. Babylon worshipped the Mother of God, they worshipped money, false god’s and even a trinity. Now tell me the difference between this and many so-called churches today. These churches made a name for themselves even above Christs own name. They tried to build their steeples up to heaven. They need money to function, (buying and selling as apposed to giving and receiving). The biggest one worships the Mother of God and is the chief proponent of the trinity doctrine. So what do you think God did about it. Well he divided men into languages because of Babel, and so he has divided Christianity into many languages, which we commonly call Denominations, which is just a fancy word for division. Divisions are necessary if God wants to lessen mans iniquity, because man is stronger when he is united. God wants to unify the Church, but he doesn’t want to join us to the Harlot.

Now, if we look back into history, we can see that the trinity doctrine was the basis of the first creed, which many denominations hold as a pillar of their creeds today. History shows us clearly that creed followed creed and eventually icons and idols were ruled as acceptable for worship, so long as they represented God. This wisdom has revealed itself as idolatry as time has proven. The trinity doctrine also lead some to believe that if Jesus is the Most High God, then Mary must be the Mother of God. This idolatory exist today in so-called modern and civilised times. The worship of Mary lead to worshipping of Saints, and this conduct helped give rise to Islam, as Christianity was seen by Mohammad as a religion that worships Mary and the Saints. This is written in the Koran.

Christianity (the system) is actually part of Babylon or under her influence. Babylon was originally a city that God destroyed because of idolatory, prostitution, self-glorification, self-sufficiency and pride.

Do you think that God is happy when he is likened to a triangle symbol or formula. Is history repeating itself. The trinity doctrine is the foundation of a system that controls and inhibits most believers in the world. It is possible that the trinity doctrine, maybe one of the biggest deceptions in the world today and many fear to question the doctrine, for they feel that they are in danger of becoming a heretic. A heretic is a person who doesn’t fit in with the theology of the organised church. Today many people fear becoming a heretic, which is the fear of man rather than the fear of God. People were burnt at the stake for heracy in the past, perhaps this fear originates from that time as an influencing factor to why people do not question this doctrine.

Now I know that I may be in the minority when I say that I do not believe in the trinity doctrine. But minority means nothing because all men are wrong. When Luther sparked the reformation, he was definately in the minority. Perhaps the Church is ready for another reformation, perhaps it is more likely to be a revolution or redefinition.

I leave you for now with the following questions:

Did the trinity formula come from the spirit of man or the Spirit of God?
If Jesus came to earth to reveal God, why didn’t he teach the trinity.
Have you really prayed and asked God if the trinty doctrine is His revelation?
Have you really looked at all the scriptures that say who God is and who Jesus really is?
If you have challenged the trinity doctrine, was your mind already made-up before you took this challenge?
If you were morooned on a desert island by yourself, and you had know knowledge of the bible. Would you come to the conclusion that God was a trinity if you read the bible from cover to cover?

I look forward to any feedback and I pray that we all come to know the truth whatever that may be, and to all those who may be involved in this discussion, I hope and pray that we may all be teachable.

June 3, 2002 at 12:41 pm#15521

Participant

I appreciate everyone that responds in this forum for their thoughts as we study this critically important issue of the Trinity. When I posted, I did my best not to talk about doctrines or other cultures, but rather stick to scripture. I can understand that man is fallible, and that man’s creeds do not hold the weight and perfection that scripture holds. However, I’m not concerned with that. Yes, there are many creeds and doctrines written by men teaching the Trinity, but my question is, how does this affect the validity of what it teaches? When I am taught something, I want to see the scripture and study it myself to affirm the validity. This is exactly what I’ve done in regards to the Trinity; I have studied the scripture. Not only have I done that, I have spent much time in prayer and reflection asking God that the truth be revealed to me, whatever it may be. I am not reliant on man’s creeds to prove or believe in the Trinity, I am reliant on scripture and scripture alone. I challenge those who write on this forum to do the same. Instead of responding in this forum with why the Trinity is false because of creeds and other reasons apart from scripture, why not simply stick to God’s Word? Let’s answer questions about scripture with scripture. In no way could we ever benefit or learn the truth about the Trinity if we do not study the scripture. I am asking that we neglect all other matters in regards to the Trinity, and simply stick to the only thing that will ever prove or disprove it, that being scripture. To begin, I also ask that someone comment on the verses I listed in my earlier post, and answer the questions raised by them. Finally, I ask that all comments and answers be backed up with scripture. I will continue to pray for this forum and those who write in. I will pray that God works in all of us so that His truth is revealed and that we may all benefit from receiving that truth as we use it to bring Him glory. I ask that we all pray for the same.

May the Lord bless all of us as we eagerly seek to know His truth,

-God Bless

June 3, 2002 at 6:02 pm#15539

Participant

Yes I agree with you that we must challenge teachings with scripture as we are aware that the scriptures rebuke and correct us when we are wrong. My desire is to search the scriptures as you have said. I also felt it appropriate to start with a little history of why I came to this conclusion, as well as a look back into history. I do not appologise for this as history is also an important teaching tool that should never be ignored. My intention however has always been to study the scriptures very closely. Now I am going to challenge all that you have said, not because I disagree with you, but rather we cannot both agree on something because we think it sounds good, it must be based in scripture. So please do not think that when I question something, that I am of the apposing view. I may or may not be.

Your first point you mention seems like a politicians answer. You said the following:
"Either Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man, or he was only fully man". Where do you get this information from. Why are there only these 2 choices. Please show me a scripture that proves that these are the only options we have in explaining who Jesus is.

The next thing you say is "scripture is truly God’s word". Please show me a scripture to prove this. You also say that all the Bible is scripture. Show me a scripture to prove this.

You then quote Hebrews 1:10
"YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
One of the conclusions you draw from this scripture is the fact that "Jesus existed in the beginning even before creation and that by His hands He created the heavens and the earth".
I agree with you here. The scriptures are very obvious about this fact. Jesus existed before creation, he was, and is the Word of God spoken of in John 1:1. The Word was with God in the beginning. You say that only God was in the beginning, but the Word existed too. Also what do we mean by beginning. Many people feel at liberty to say that beginning means eternity. But I think that this is not true. Beginning in the context of this verse means before creation or the beginning of creation. If we say beginning is eternity (I am not saying that you are saying this, but I’m addressing a popular teaching here), then we would have to conclude that Satan has always existed. See John 8:44. Also Jesus is called the beginning of the creation of God in Revelation 3:14.

You then pointout a contridiction in scripture that should only exist if Jesus were not God. I feel that this is human reasoning. Yes Genesis 1:1 says that God created the Heavens and Earth, and this is true. But God created it through His Word, Jesus Christ. The Word was in the beginning with God, and the scriptures also pointout that God created all things through Christ and for him. This explanation should be sufficient as it is scripture. Why do we have to try and reason a trinity doctrine from this, or use this fact to back up the trinity. The bible doesn’t try to do it, and you said with your own words that we should stick to scripture and remove ourself from cultural pressures and expectations. Even a child can understand that God created all things through his Son. It’s simple. It doesn’t prove the trinity at all. It proves that God created all through his Word. Jesus said himself that he only says what he hears his Father speaking, and does what He sees him doing, (also see Proverbs 30:4).

You pointout that Jesus is worshipped and that only God should be worshipped therefore Jesus must be God or we are in idolatory. I think this is the best point you have brought up so far. I agree with you that Jesus is worshipped it is written clearly in the Book of Revelation 5: 13-14. I believe that the only way to communicate, worship, honour and pay homage to our Father is through his Son. We cannot possibly enter into the Fathers presence with going through the Son. Jesus is truly the mediator between God and Men. When we honour and worship Christ we are worshipping and honouring God the Father, because Jesus is the Image of the invisible God. We worship through Jesus to the Father. The Son is not worshipped by himself, he passes all the glory to his Father. This is also how we were created, by the Father through the Son. It is how we communicate back to God. If it is not in the name of Jesus then it will never reach God. There is only one way. If God has decreed that we do all things in the name of Jesus, it doesn’t prove that Jesus is the Most High God, rather he is the way in which we get to the Most High God. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Jesus is the Life, but that doesn’t mean that he is the Most High God. (See Acts 3:15).

You say that Satan is found worshiping Jesus. Can you give me a scripture?
It is important to note that Satan knew who Jesus was before he came to earth, and he never referred to Jesus as God, rather he questioned whether Jesus was the Son of God. If you are the Son of God… Even the Demons never referred to Jesus as God, eg What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted…

You say that Isaiah 43:11 says "I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior". The word LORD in this verse is the Hebrew word YAHWEH, which means God. God is our only savior, and only God is able to forgive our sins and give us salvation. Yes this is true, but God uses many things to accomplish his will. For example God uses us as the messengers of Salvation doesn’t he. God used Jesus to redeem the world back to himself didn’t he. God can live in us, God was in Christ redeeming the world back to himself. God gave his only begotten Son for us. Jesus even asked for this cup to be removed, but he said God’s will not mine. So it is clearly God that has done all these things. He does them through his Son and we reach back to God through his Son. If I convert a sinner back to God, was it really me or was I just the vessel. Remember that all good things come down from Heaven from the Father of Lights. This also includes his only begotten Son. God does all these things, he delegates and others do his will. You also mention that only God can forgive sins, that is correct. But God gave Jesus the authority to forgive sins (see Matthew 6:15), so if Jesus forgives sins, then it is God’s will and it is God who is forgiving the sins. Jesus also gave his disciples the power to forgive sins too us and yes we are gods, but we are not the Most High God. See (John 20:23).

You say that Christ came in the flesh and I also say that Christ came in the flesh. We do not have a differring opinion here. However you may say that God came in the flesh when the scriptures clearly say that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

You then say that many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Again I agree with this scripture, however you somehow came up with the conclusion that we must acknowledge that Jesus Christ is fully God or we are not from God, but we are anti-christ. You quoted 1 John 4:2-3

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not FROM God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world".

Well can you please explain to me where it says that we must beleive that Jesus is God, otherwise we are anti-christ. This verse, (or any other verse for that matter) clearly doesn’t say this. This is a teaching I have heard before, but the scriptures simply do not say this. Please show me where it says your words, "that we must believe that Jesus is God, otherwise we are anti-christ"?

My confession to you is that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Jesus Christ is the Word. The Word became flesh. The Word existed before creation. There is no other name under the Sun whereby men can be saved. At the name of Jesus ever
y tongue shall confess that he is LORD. There is ONE GOD the Father and ONE LORD Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Word of God, he came from the Father, was born of the Father and was sent by the Father. What more do you want. I confess the scriptures, I believe them in my heart, yet in addition to this you and many other people want me to believe in the trinity doctrine, a doctrine that became official some 300 years after the last book in the bible was written, because of a Roman Emperor’s decision. Please explain why I must believe in a doctrine that was clearly devised by Man. I believe the scriptures not tradition, for tradition nullifies the power of God.

I leave you with 2 verses which shows us clearly the divine order.

John 20:31 (English-NIV)
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Revelation 1:1 (English-NIV)
The revelation of JESUS CHRIST, which GOD gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John…

June 4, 2002 at 6:01 am#15557

Participant

Ok, now that all of your different opionions on the translation (most of which I disagree with, but I digress) are in the field, let's debate the logic, in terms of Biblical Law.

My Thesis: Regardless of an actual text that says it, Jesus Christ must, not might be or can be, but must be fully man and fully God.

My logical proof, from Biblical laws regarding resitution and substitution: Unless Christ was full man, he could not be sacrificed in our place. Don't even think about pointing to the lamb on the altar in the Old Testament, because that, as is pointed more time than any reasonable person ever needs to see (principle being, “I come not to destroy the law, but to filfill it” a transliteration of a verse who's reference escapes me at the moment), is a type and a shadow of what Christ would do. Restitution under Biblical law demands and EXACT AND EQUAL replacement. Unless Christ was fully man, He COULD NOT EVER have died on the cross and have it count for anything.

But, even being a perfect man, being a man alone is not enough. One man may die for another, but not one perfect mand for millions. Therefore, Christ must have also been fully God. This is so, because no man could descend into hell, fight the battle and win, then rise from the dead, and then ascend into heaven. Only one who is equal to God in every respect could do that. And as the Bible states there is only one God. Therefore, Christ cannot be another God, He must be the God.

Oh but wait, there's only one God. Logically, how does that work. Enter the Doctrine of the Trinity. I will admit, that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say trinity, triune, or any of hte other of the plethora of words used to describe it. But the ONLY logical conclusion, unless you're a Mormon and therefore an idolitrous polytheist, is that Christ is one with God. Of course, that only makes TWO Persons (because we all agree that God is not a thing or a force, but a person, because things and forces do not speak in normal language that complies with every rule of grammar). Therefore, we extrapolate that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity.

This is logically so because despite people trying to point out that most references are in the neuter form, Older translations, made by peoepl who knew the languages far better than anyone today knows them (I speak of the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, from which the older translations were derived). In fact, in the 16th and 17th centuries (1500-1600), the average person had a vocabulary far greater than the average person does today. Add to that, that any reasonably educated person (about 8th grade level) had a command of the English language that exceeds what most COLLEGE English Majors have. All that to say this: they knew what they were doing and knew how to do it better than anyone alive today does.

Personally, I wouldn't trust any translation that is newer than the early 1700's. Why? Well, in the 1800's there was this thing called “The Age of Enlightenment.” Loosly translated, people decided that man could become God, and most source texts for translation were altered to reflect doctrinal changes that were neccesary to affect this. First, destroying the doctrine of the Trinity, and along with it the Unity of the Father and the Son. Second, they had to alter the history of Christ. They turned him into a person born as a mere mortal, and yet a perfect man, who by his goodness transcended to become God. Therefore when you deny the doctrine of the Trinity, you tacitly admit that man can become God. Such is the doctrine of the religion of Evolution (evolution is not a science, but that is another debate).

Further, Historical evidence. I assume that you all know about the “Dark Ages” of Medieval Europe. What happened during those years? Well, as most people would have you think, art, literature, history, and technology were all left by the wayside by barbarians. In fact, the “Dark Ages” were a period were literature lost to the Islamic incursions in the Eastern areas was recovered because all the scholars fled north and west. Mathematics and literature were recovered from the ashes and restored as part of standard learning. The “Dark Ages” led to the Rennaissance (pardon if I mispell it, I hardly ever use this particular word). How could barbarians start the Rennaissance? Simple: these “barbarians” were cultured, they could read and they were intelligent.

Also brought north during this period was something called the Recieved Text. This was the Greek Septuigant New Testament and Hebrew transcriptians translated to Greek for the Old Testament. These texts were compiled from various sources and these cources do not contradict one another. Certainly there are minor differences, punctuation may have been slightly different, paragraphing, etc. But in core doctrinal areas the texts used for doctrines such as the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the priesthood of the Believer, and so on, the core doctrines of many churches, the texts did NOT contradict one another at ANY point.

Whereas, modern translations, the NIV, NWT, RSV, and any others you care to name (I define modern as any translation less than 250 years old), are based on the “Majority Texts.” These texts are compiled from two primary sources, which in turn were compiled from fragmented pieces of many suindry documents. One important consideration should be given to these documents: at almost EVERY point related to a core doctrine of the early church (which I define as the church just after the saints, so aprx. AD 100 to AD 500) they contradict one another. Words are different, sentence structire is reversed in some places, whole verses are dropped out, key references using JHVH, or YHWH, parts taht normally translate as “I AM”, words related to or around phrases using 'elohim' (or however it is spelled) are missing or have articles added to them that drastically change their context. The most notable source found in the Majority text is Arius' translation of the Bible. For those who may not know, Arius was an early heretic who denied the Godhood of Christ. He was excommunicated and exiled. His daughter pulled some strings with a later ruler (who publicly denounced God as being false, read as the current government head was an atheist) and got Arius unexiled. Well, on his way through the city, he suddenly had stomahc pains and fell down dead in an open latrine, and his bowels burst (same thing happened to Judas Iscariot after the rope that he hung himself with broke, interesting coincidence, maybe God was saying something there….)

I realize that was long winded, but the short logical end is this: If Christ was not fully man and fully God, then our faith is in vain because Christ died for nothing and we are still dead in our sins and trespasses and bound for hell. Therefore, if you deny the doctrine of the Trinity, you deny the Godhood of Christ and there is no point to debate Christianity, because at this point, Christ is just another false prophet.

(Edited by LodeRunner at 1:03 am on June 4, 2002)

June 4, 2002 at 11:08 am#15576

Participant

I thank you for responding to my post, and again, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion. I will gladly answer all that you asked of me with scripture; however, it will take a few days. As a student, I have classes which take up most of my time. So if I am not quick to respond, don’t worry, I will be very soon. Before I enter a lengthy post that will answer all the questions you raised in response to my first post, I would like to leave one thought:

When the Father works, He does so through Jesus Christ. If you believe Jesus Christ is God or not, one would still have to agree that the Father used Jesus in creation, salvation, etc. Even as we agreed, we even have to have Jesus Christ in order to worship. If you agree that God always uses Jesus Christ when He works, then that shows God to have a critical dependence on the person of Jesus Christ. Why would an almighty God have to have anything other than his own divine abilities to work? If you removed Jesus Christ from the Father, then God is unable to work. This is the conclusion one would have to reach. Saying God doesn’t work without Jesus Christ puts a limitation to God’s power. God has no limitations; no dependencies. Only if Jesus Christ is part of God can this remove the limitations God would have otherwise.

I will submit another post soon with all the scripture I can type, it will just take me a few days. Again, I appologize for not having more time that I do.

Finally, I would like to ask one question just to help me understand what you believe Jesus Christ to be. Do you believe that He is eternal, having always existed, or do you believe that He is not eternal, but was created by the Father? Either way, what scripture backs up your belief?

Thanks so much, and I will post again as soon as possible,

-God Bless

June 4, 2002 at 10:33 pm#15468

Participant

I think you may be drawing inferences from what I said, and if my choice of words led you to understand it like that, I apologize.

My core argument is that the doctrine of the Trinity is integral to any belief that salvation can come by believing on Christ.

Central to the argument is a chain of logic based on Biblical law regardin susbsitution and retitution for crimes. I’m at work right now, so I will post again later, using some material from the Heidelberg Catechism (c. 1520’s) regarding the legal chain of events. The Catechism was written by two men, one a lawyer and the other a theologian. Together they outline the prinipal logic, legality, and theological proof for Christ’s work, and also, as a cogent argument for the legality, they establish the Tinity. There is some very good material, and all (or at least very nearly all of it) is based on texts from the Book of Romans (Paul’s Eistle to the Romans, if you so desire the correct & full name), and each question and answer is accompanied by cross-referenced verses from othe parts of the Old and New Testaments.

Back to the original stateent. I did not mean to infer that if you remove Christ from God, that he loses power, that would have been self-defeating. In fact, the title God is pointless unless he is unlimited in every way. That doesn’t neccesarily mean that He won’t limit Himself for some reason or another.

And I suppose that your return statment is based on your own conception of the Trinity (or lack thereof). In the clearest terms available to me, here is my summation of the trinity:

God the Father, ruler of all, God Almighty, was neither begotten nor Created. He existed before time began.

God the Son is one with the Father, of the same likeness and substance, and yet a seperate person. He was not created, but begotten eternally of the Father. He took on His human body to come to earth as teh saviour.

The Holy Spirit was neither begotten nor created, but proceeding from the Father and the Son eternally.

That is a rapid summation, when I have time, I will post a complete copy of the Athanatian Creed, approximately 2 pages (8.5×11 pages) dedicated to logical statments relating the doctrine of the Trinity. It is in old English, but was written in Latin during the Early Church Age at one of the church councils.

June 4, 2002 at 11:46 pm#15451

Participant

Thank you for your reply. I was actually hoping that t8 would respond to my post. I am somewhat new to using a forum, so if I posted in the wrong place, I appologize. My question still stands for t8 or to anyone who does not believe in the Trinity.

-Thanks

June 5, 2002 at 12:34 am#15433

Participant

Oh Ok. No probs then: I believe the Trinity too.

As to forums, usually, if you’re aiming for one person, just address it like a letter:

"whateverperson’snameis,
yak-yak-yak."

June 5, 2002 at 4:08 am#15415

Participant

Thanks for the post. This post replies to Ambassador of Christ, LodeRunner and JW.

===================

1) To Ambassador of Christ,Yeah I can understand your time constraints. I too am busy as I maintain a number of websites. I understand that this discussion takes time and I have no expectations. Please feel free to think the same about me. If I don’t post for a while it is because I am busy, but I will definitely post eventually.
Here is a response to some of the questions.

As far as creation is concerned the Father works through Jesus Christ his Word, because creation was created from God, through Christ, (See 1 Corinthians 8:6). It is the Fathers gift to his Son. It is not because the Father needs the Son in that way, it’s simply that the Father chooses to work through His Son because God is generous, and he is giving and He loves his Son. It’s the same with Christ. He chooses to work through us, with regards to preaching the gospel etc, but we cannot say that Jesus cannot function properly without us. It’s just about who gets delegated what, and it is all given originally by the Father. The Father is Almighty and nothing is impossible for Him except sin.

Who knows his greatness, no-one can know him, but only the Son can reveal him to us (See John 1:18). As Jesus said “The Father seeks those that will worship Him in Truth and Spirit, (see John 4:23-24). We were created to worship Him forever. It is Jesus who will reveal, teach and demonstrate God’s goodness to us for eternity, (see John 1:18).
You also asked the following: “Do you believe that He is eternal, having always existed, or do you believe that He is not eternal, but was created by the Father? Either way, what scripture backs up your belief”?

Well I can only answer these questions with scripture.

Was Jesus Created? Definitely not, because God created all of creation through his Word, therefore creation came from the Word and Jesus cannot come from the Word because he is the Word. (See John 1:3) Jesus came directly from the Father, he is the only begotten of the Father, begotten means born. This is why Jesus is unique. He is between God and Man (creation). He is the only Mediator and the only way. He is the Son of God. The Firstborn. See (Hebrews 1:6) & (Colossians 1:15)

Has he existed forever? I do not know. All I know is that somewhere in eternity, God became a Father when he begat a Son and through the Son God created all things and God created all things for the Son. If we say Jesus had a beginning, perhaps we limit him to time and creation, I don’t know a lot about eternity (I sometimes wonder if time was made in the image of eternity), I only know some of the scriptures, and they say and that he is is the only born Son of God, to deny this is to deny that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father.

Remember that Jesus is the firstborn of many Sons, he will call us brethren (brothers) but to our Father, we will always be his beloved children.

=================

2) To LodeRunner,
You say that Jesus must be fully man and fully God at the same time, otherwise he couldn’t die for the sins of humanity. I agree with your reasoning that Jesus must have been a Man in order to save Men. The scriptures are clear that he became a Man and it is obvious that he was a Man. He walked, talked and ate like a man. He was also born of a woman. But to say that he was fully God is something else. It really depends on what you mean by God, Jesus said we are gods (theos) and there are many God’s, Jesus is the Mighty God, but there is only One Most High God and that is the Father (see 1 Corinthians 8:5-6).

The scriptures tell us that God became flesh right? I know many say this, but the scriptures simply do not say this, this is a lie. It says that the Word became Flesh. It also says that God was in Christ redeeming the world back to himself. But it doesn’t say anywhere that God became flesh. To say this is a mis-representation of scripture.

God is Spirit and flesh is flesh. God is not a Man that he should lie (See Numbers 23:19). God cannot sin, so how could God take sin upon himself, if God cannot tolerate sin nor fellowship with it, he cannot even look upon it. This is why Christ is the Mediator. There needs to exist a Mediator between God and Man. God cannot fellowship with sin and Man cannot fellowship with a Holy God. The answer is Jesus. He is in the unique position to not only save us, but also to present us to God, holy and blameless (See 1 Corinthians 1:8). This message is really what salvation is all about and I am sure that we all know this. Remember if Jesus is seated at the right hand of God and we (the redeemed) are seated at the right hand of Christ, then who is in between God and Man, it’s Christ. Also this is why God turned away from his Son on the cross, because God cannot look upon sin, Jesus became sin for us. How do you explain your reasoning that God took upon himself the sin of the world. This is impossible. It was the Word, who is Jesus who took the sin of the world upon him.

You say that Jesus must be God, because a mere man isn’t big enough to die for all of humanity. Yes you are right, a man can die for a man, and the blood of animals can cover sin for a moment, but to say that Jesus is God because Man isn’t big enough to die for all men is human reasoning, and it is actually not scriptural. Remember that Jesus is the Word, and creation came from the Word. So the Word is greater than all of creation. He is the source of creation, the beginning of the creation of God, (See Revelation 3:14). So the Word died for us, God never died.

It is God who created us, through his Word. And it is the Word who is redeeming us back to God our Father. This is central to the message of salvation. Jesus died for our sins, God didn’t die. If God died, then I can assure you that there would be nothing left living. It is impossible for God to die. It is impossible for God to look upon sin, never mind take it all on himself. God has nothing to do with sin and God cannot die. The Devil tries to convince us that God is dead because he never existed. But it is also a suttle lie to say that God died for our sins. God cannot die, God will never die, nor can God ever die. He is the God of the living, not the dead. (see Luke 20:38)

I am not too sure about what you say about the scriptures being tainted with prejudice, apart from this fact. The King James Bible actually added in a scripture to try and give some clear evidence that the trinity was taught in the bible. That scripture is (1 John 5:7) and it is not mentioned in any other latter bible (as far as I know) because it was clearly added in as an extra. Actually that scripture was a footnote in the script that the King James was translated from. It was added into the bible by the King James scholars who were pro-trinity of course. They were obviously hard-up for an obvious teaching on the trinity. My reasoning says that they wouldn’t have needed to resort to such a desperate measure if the bible taught the trinity. It is actually the latter bibles such as the NIV and NASB etc that recognise this deception and omit this verse for good reason. But I cannot comment on what you say here, because I do not have such knowledge about these things.

You then mention Arius. It is thought that Arius was poisoned, it proves nothing. You make out that his fate was similar to Judas Iscariot. I could say the same thing about Peter or Paul, they too were killed. Whether he was a Martyr or God took him out is something that God knows. I think you shouldn’t judge a person that lived over a thousand years ago, especially because you know very little about him and your judgement is based on the fragility of recorded history with all the bias of the power of that day. Perhaps Arius was a true seeker of the truth because he taught that Jesus was begotten, and Athanasius taught that Jesus wasn’t begotten but is equal to the Father.

Athanasius to this day is known as the Father of the Catholics. Look at the history of the Catholic Church and all the martyrs it has claimed,. Yes, I rely on history for this understanding, but there is a lot of clear evidence about the sins of the Catholic Church, even to this day. We shouldn’t judge with little evidence. God will also judge you with that same measure. Imagine if Arius was truly a man of God. If so, then you have slandered him. You should only judge that what you know is sure, otherwise you risk a harsher judgement yourself. I say this for your own good. What was Arius’s sin and don’t give me heresy. Heresy is another name for the fear of man. Remember that Luther was supposedly a heretic and I am sure that Jesus was a heretic to the Pharisees.

Anyway, it is a sin to kill those that disagree. I think that is the real sin, Murder. Jesus teachings are heretical to many church organisations even though they would deny it. After you have shown me Arius’s great sin that deserved you comparing him to Judas, then show me proof that he actually did what you say. Also what do you mean by “excommunicated”. Kicked out of Jesus Christ’s Church (the Body of Christ) or a man-made church / denomination. Sorry if I seem harsh about this, but I mean to be firm on such things.

Finally, you say that if we deny that Jesus is God, then we must conclude that Jesus is a false prophet. But you have ignored the obvious. Jesus is the Word. Jesus is Lord. The Father is God. See (1 Corinthians 8:6).

===========================

3) To JW,
You mention that you are a Jehovah’s Witness. That means nothing to me. I don’t judge by labels, but by the fruit that is in your life. Jesus never said to people that he was the Son of God, he let his Father in Heaven reveal that. It is the carnal nature that needs to put labels onto people because they have no spiritual discernment.

The Pharisees called Jesus a “drunkard” and the Pharisees claimed to be “Teachers of the Law”, but it is only by their fruit that you will know them. Jesus helped people even on the Sabbath, but the Pharisees judged Jesus as unlawful for helping people on the Sabbath. What you say and what you do are two different things.

You mention a lot of quotes, maybe from the Watch Tower, but I am not sure who these quotes are from. Are they Jehovah’s Witnesses or people from lots of different backgrounds?

It is interesting what you say about the article in John 1:1. I was aware of this, but I don’t understand the consequences of this yet, because I haven’t looked into it in great detail. I know that the difference is notable. John 1:1 is probably the most popular verse for those that believe in the three persons one God formula. I doubt that anyone would come to the conclusion of a trinity if they read John 1:1, without bias or indoctrination preceding them reading the text. Anyway, I look forward to further input from you, especially about the definite article or lack of one and what this really means.

June 5, 2002 at 5:19 am#15540

Participant

I suppose my wording was not clear. I sometimes forget not to run on assumptions I make when talking with others.

True, God the Father did NOT become flesh. The Word, the only begotten Son, took on the flesh of man via the virgin birth. Have you read the Apostle's Creed (yes, I know a misnomer, but oh well) or the Nicean Creed? They are both on the same theme, just the Nicean creed has more words to reinforce certain things. I hold to those.

And now, for your viewing pleasure, the three core creeds of the early church, and held on to by the Reformed Church in the United States (I am a member of an RCUS church). One quicky note, the word 'catholic' refers to the universal church (ie the world wide body of the Christian Church). The word was hijacked by the Roman Catholic sects and now in modern vernacular we mistakenly apply the label “Catholic” to “Roman Catholic.”

The Athanasian Creed
(early fifth century)

Whoever wills to be in a state of salvation, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [apostolic/universal] faith, which except everyone shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt he will perish eternally.

Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one
almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and
Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and Holy Spirit
not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity.

But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one however not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person. For
as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ.

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And
they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation.

The Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

The Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried. The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified. He spoke through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and to life in the world to come. Amen.

There are different versions of the Nicene Creed floatin around on the net, it took me some time to find the one that matches the historical texts I have.

Those three creeds comprise the summation of my faith. There are a few finer points covered in certain other sources, but those describe the core.

June 5, 2002 at 1:16 pm#15522

Participant

Hi, this post is for t8

I am about to leave for class, so this post will have to be short. When i mentioned that only God has the power to forgive sins, perhaps I was not clear in my meaning. When I say Jesus forgave sins, I say that He forgave sins of people who did not sin against Him. You answered this in saying that God gave Jesus the power to forgive sins, Matthew 6:14-15 NASB ("For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions). However, this passage clearly states that we can forgive other men that sin agasint us. This passage does not give us the authority to forgive the sins of men who do not sin against us. However, this is exactly what Jesus did (Mark 2:2-7). He forgave the sins of men who did not sin against Him, an ability only held by God.

June 6, 2002 at 2:54 am#15504

Participant

I also want to make one more quick post before I write my response to my first. I am going to just list the verses. I feel they speak for themselves. I am asking for t8 to give his thoughts on them. Thanks.

Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images."

John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

(Additional verses on Christ’s glory: Matthew 19:28, Matthew 25:31, Luke 2:32, Hebrews 13:20-21, 2 Peter 2:18, Revelation 5:11-12)

June 6, 2002 at 10:15 pm#15500

Participant

To t8,
Some of (well most or all of really) the writings accessible through your main page are extremely similar (and dead on in many cases) to that of the Jehovah's witnesses. In your attempts to use God's word alon and to think about it logically and reasonably (which is exactly what the Jehovah's Witness that interrupted my yardwork last Saturday tried to do), you commit many logical errors.

Quote

Also what do you mean by “excommunicated”. Kicked out of Jesus Christs Church (the Body of Christ) or the man-made church, or perhaps you have some other meaning. Sorry if I seem harsh about this, but I mean to be firm.

Funny that you speak of judging with little evidence. You judge the King James Version of the Bible based on far less evidence than I have when I speak of Arius. Of course, passages taken from your own website, you reiterate taht we should just use God's word. In doing so you contradict EVERYTHING you have to say. Everytime you comment on the Bible, you add your own perception to it. How do you know that you are right? You can't prove it, because your approach to this “let's just use the Bible” won't let you. Do you know what a creed is? And if you don't how can you be so opposed to them? Everytime you make a judgment statement, you make a creed. Creed is derived from Latin “Credo” which means, “I believe.” Any time you make a judgment, you say “I believe this.” You undermine your own position in doing so (which is fine be me, but you might want to rethink your position on creeds.)

As to historical evidence: I was using histories that base their information on the church records of the era, which fared far better than the civil government records for the simple fact that during this period Rome as a civil power was rotting from the inside. The Church however kept scrupulous records of these things, ESPECIALLY the church council meatings.

You question my use of the word Excommunicate. By definition, excommunicate is to exclude from (very summarized version). In church contexts, we use the word excommunicate to mean that one who is excommunicated is forbidden from the church, and the sacraments (Lord's Supper, and Baptism). if the excommunicated person admits to their wrong and repents (asks forgiveness of the church) then they are recieved with open arms. Of course, excommunication is not undertaken lightly. It is used in extreme cases, where the precepts set forth in Matthew 18 have been used to no avail. First, the offended person confronts (speaks with, not challenges) the other person. Failing a remedy at this stage, witnesses of the event (and extra people to witness the exchange) are brought in. Failing this, the matter is taken to the church court. If at this juncture, the accused refuses to ask forgiveness, excommunication ensues. Of course, the church can make mistakes, after all, we are all merely human. But understand this: They were working much closer to the time and in the langauges that it was written, so they did not have to deal with translators playing with the words.

I did some checking, and I agree, I John 5:7 should be noted (actually in the margin of my KJV Bible, it is noted that it was added, taken from the Greek text reproduced c. AD 1215). But, in my arguments, I wouldn't use that reference anyway, I have plenty of others that are untaouched by translation additions/subtractions. Also, I do know that the translators added some words. If you look in a good KJV Bible, you'll notice some parts of verses in italics. This is because some passages grammatically in ENGLISH wouldn't make sense without the addition, and in fact, the translators of 1611 (the first year the KJV or Authorized Version {AV} was produced) noted that they made additions, and where. Can you say the same of any newer Bible? Many just take for granted certain things, and yet the Old (1611) translators (die hard trinitarians every one of them, given the year and church records) made careful note of their changes to the text, and left original passages intact for comparison with the changes. Enough on that for now.

Quote

The two most famous of these men were Arius and Athanasius, both of Alexandria. Arius held that Christ is the Son of God, and that he was begotten (born) of the Father and therefore giving supremacy to the Father

^^^^
Taken from your own page on why you don't believe the Trinity. Your summation of Arius' beliefs are incorrect. He believed that Christ was purely human and had no part of God, and actively denied the Trinity.

Quote

There were many in the first few centuries of the Christian church who began to teach and preach “Another Gospel”, but few were as damaging to the church as the followers of Arius. They denied the true deity of Christ and said He was merely the first and greatest creature created by God. They also said that sometime after his creation he was made “a god” but never was considered equal with God. Arius was a learned teacher and presbyter of the Alexandrian church in Egypt. He began spreading his doctrine in 319 A.D. As his teachings began to divide the Christian church, this Arian heresy was confronted and condemned as false at the Council of Nicaea, in 325 A.D. Arius of Alexandria was branded a heretic and along with a few followers was excommunicated from the church.

^^^^

Taken from http://www.christianlink.com/proclaim/radio/arius-tx.html

Quote

Let us go back to the Council of Nicea (325 AD). The great controversy that occasioned the convening of the first General or Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church was centered around the true doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. Arius, a presbyter in the church at Alexandria, propounded the theory that our Lord was a created being. He denied the clear teachings of the Bible such as in Psalm 2, Psalm 110, John 1, Hebrews 1, Ephesians 1, Colossians 1, and Revelation 1. Another Alexandrian presbyter, Athanasius (293-373,)defended the Biblical teaching about the Messiah, by stressing both the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ. His position was accepted by the Council, and the Creed that was issued at Nicea, is known as the Nicene Creed. Since that time, it became the standard of Orthodoxy in Christianity. The teachings of Arius became known as Arianism, and his followers were called, Arians. They were considered as heretics. Arianism spread among the Barbarians who later on invaded Rome, Spain, and North Africa.

It must be noted that delegates from of both the Western and Eastern parts of the Universal Church were at Nicea. The Council of Nicea dealt primarily with the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The discussions within the Church relevant to the relationship between the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ, led to further divisions. These occurred within the Byzantine Empire and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Several Ecumenical Councils took place after Nicea, Council of Constantinople (381,) Council of Ephesus (431,) and Council of Chalcedon (451.) At this meeting, Christian Orthodoxy was further defined as to declare that, since his incarnation,
the Lord Jesus Christ possessed two natures, divine and human. That also meant that our Lord had two wills, divine and human, but he remained one Person. Later on, this belief was set forth in a creed known as the Athanasian Creed. This creedal document is recognized only in the West, and is also known by its Latin name, Symbol Quicunque; (its opening words are: “Whosoever will be saved…”

Rather than consolidating the unity of the Church, Chalcedon became the occasion for new divisions. Some church leaders, while strongly adhering to the deity of Jesus Christ, nevertheless defended the thesis that he possessed only a divine nature. They were known as the Monophysites. They were very prominent in Egypt and in Syria. Other church leaders, endeavoring to take full account of the Biblical teachings about Jesus Christ, went to the other extreme. They so described the two natures and wills of the Messiah as to make him almost two persons. They were called the Nestorians, i.e., followers of Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople, who was the champion of this teaching.

The Monophysite and Nestorian Churches were declared heretical by the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

^^^^^^
Taken from http://www.safeplace.net/members/mer/MER_p004.htm

Quote

In John chapter 8, Jesus was in heated debate with the Pharisees. The discussion came to an abrupt end in verse 58, when “Jesus said unto them, `Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.'” This, to the Jews, was the straw that broke the camels back. Why? Because Jesus was referring to the phrase found in the common Greek scriptures of the day, the Septuagint. The verse found, in Exodus 3:14, where God said to Moses, “I AM THAT I AM: … Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” In the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published by the Watchtower, they translate John 8:58, “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have Been.” The scholarly sounding footnote says, that this phrase is, ” after the a'orist infinitive clause … and, hence, properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense.” This sounds very impressive, and Jehovah's Witnesses feel this is great truth coming down from the learned Bible scholars at the Watchtower. The truth of the matter is, there is no such thing as the “perfect indefinite tense” anywhere in the Greek language. When this fact was pointed out to the Watchtower and the world, shortly after this “translation” was published, they decided to go to “plan B”, which was to change the statement in the footnote from reading, the “perfect indefinite tense” to the “perfect tense.” This was done to cover up the lie, wherein the Watchtower invented a tense in the Greek language to avoid the fact that Jesus took the name applied to God in the Old Testament and applied it to Himself. This was the reason that in verse 59 the Jews tried to stone Him. The reason is expanded on in John 10:33 when the Jews said, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” And even “plan B” was wrong, because, EGO EIMI translated “I AM” is simply in the present tense.

^^^^^^^
Taken from http://www.christianlink.com/proclaim/radio/plan-b.html

This last quote was aimed at JW and t8. I thought of not including it, but know how Watchtower cultists like to equivocate over little things like that, I though it best to include a somewhat scathing analysis of the issue in hand.

Well, it is very likely that I will not be able to post again for a couple weeks, I'm going to Europe soon and many things must be tended to before that. If I don't add more to this in the next 4 days, then my next post, including examples of what I'm talking about (regarding your logical errors, t8) sometime around the 30th. Also, I'll include some stuff from the Westminster Catechisms and the Hiedelberg Catechism. Probably more stuff than that.

:::EDIT:::
Please forgive the minor errors, it seems the BB softare isn't reading all of the quote tags I used properly.
:::EDIT:::

(Edited by LodeRunner at 5:17 pm on June 6, 2002)

June 7, 2002 at 9:35 pm#15624

Participant

I have no qualms with the The Apostle's Creed as it is written in your post. In my opinion I think that it is accurate. It doesn't mention the trinity, but acknowledges the Father Son and Holy Spirit and describes who they are. I think that God hasn't been made into an idol yet.

With regard to The Nicene Creed you have quoted, in my opinion, I agree with all of it except for the worship of the Holy Spirit. I have yet to read a scripture that teaches the worship the Holy Spirit. Please show me? As far as I know, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son and seeks no attention for himself, he only seeks to glorify God our Father and his Son. Nowhere in scripture (as far as I know) are we taught, told or shown that we can pray to the Holy Spirit either. Again, the Holy Spirit seeks only to lead us to all truth (Jesus) and to glorify the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit takes no glory for himself, he serves the Father and the Son.

I have some serious issues with the The Athanasian Creed, which wasn't written by Athanasius as I am sure that you are aware, given that you quote that it's from the 5th Century.

========
First of all it states, as written in your post, that we will perish eternally if we do not agree with it. This type of control is just not scriptural, it is the mind of man and fear of man, it clearly shows his reasoning. Show me some scriptures to back up this exceptional claim.
========
Second, I would like you to compare the following statement
“But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal”, with
Mark 10:17-18 (English-NIV)
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good, except God alone.

and John 14:28 (English-NIV),
“You heard me say, `I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

and John 10:29
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Which one shall I believe? The Creed or the scriptures. Or perhaps the scriptures have been altered or need to be put in a context? What are your thoughts here.
========
Thirdly the quote: “the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal”.

I am not to sure about this one. If the Son is begotten as the scriptures teach, can we draw the conclusion that Jesus is infinite and eternal. I mean to be begotten (born) or come from, in my human reasoning means that Jesus had to have come from God, but what was before that. If you could show me a scripture that shows that Jesus is everlasting to everlasting, then I could believe this in faith. I am open to learning something here, (or anything for that matter) if it is scriptural.

Do checkout Proverbs 8:22-30. It speaks of someone who was brought forth as the first of Gods works.
This person was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
This person was given birth before creation.
This person helped in crafting creation.

Who is this person? This person sounds very similar to the Word in John 1:1 if you ask me. If it's not the word, then who is it?

Also read Hebrews 1:5 (English-NIV)
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”
To me this is saying that God became a Father, when he begat his Son.
========
Next we have this statement: “So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty.

First of all I think that we can all agree that the Father is the Almighty and the Most High God. But I need a scripture that says Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also Almighty. I know that the scriptures say that Jesus is the Mighty God in (Isaiah 9:6) and I believe this. But almighty means to be the mightiest of the mighty. This is scriptural because even though Jesus is great, his Father is greater. One scripture each to prove that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Almighty would be helpful.
========
The next statement: “So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord.

Please compare this to 1 Corinthians 8:6 (English-NIV)
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

In my opinion, one came from the spirit of man and the other from the Spirit of God? Which one shall I believe, the Creed or the scripture?
========
Next we have this statement: “For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords”.

This statement is blatantly telling us to be compelled by Christian truth and by the catholic religion. This is clearly wrong. First of all Christian truth is not Christ, it is that which we interpret as truth from the Truth. We should always be lead into truth by the Holy Spirit and aknowledging that Jesus is that Truth. We should always go to the source (Jesus). Not the consequence but the cause. We shouldn't seek mans interpretation, but the Truth himself. This is part of the reason why Jesus will say to some “depart from me for I never knew you”. Some have a form of godliness, they know and say somethings in the bible, but they do not know its author. They are just carnal, lazy religious people with no power from God. Secondly this statement tells us to adhere to the fear of man. It is God and his Son that forbids, not a religion. If we let religion forbid us to do things then we are in danger departing grace, and becoming that person who Paul warns us about “Be aware of those who say do not touch and do not taste”. Such things are not for us to dictate. Also Christianity is a created thing. We should never worship or fear anything created. We should fear God. It has never been about following Christianity. It is about Christ himself. If we worship or serve christianty and/or creation, we have lost the plot.

In my opinion, I can see the cunning of the serpent here. Just as he decieved Eve in the Garden, he uses subtle lies that look like truth. He is leading people from the scriptures and revealed things of God, to the created things, which leads to idol worship. History bears this one out, because creed followed creed and eventually idols, icons, Mary and the saints were worshipped, all permissible by the wisdom of man and his so-called creeds and church. It all happened at a slow enough pace so that deception gradually caught people unaware. What comes from the spirit of man cannot possibly come from the Spirit of God. Mans wisdom is utter foolishness in the eyes of God, I think creeds is Mans's wisdom. We have no excuse for this behaviour, as we have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to guide us. But that is too much hard work for some. They need summaries written by men, so it saves them the trouble of finding it themselves. Summaries are ok as long as you check them with scripture and as long as you do not dictate that this is the faith or the only truth. To answer such things we need scripture.
========
Next we have this statement: “equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood”.

I think the scriptures teach that Jesus is subject to God and always has been. On earth as a man, in Heaven as the Son of God and Lamb of God and also before he came to earth
as the Word. He has always been sub-ordinate to the Father.
See John 14:28, John 5:30, John 20:17, Rev1:1, Hebrews 5:8-10, Proverbs 30:4, Proverbs 8:22-30.
========
Other parts of this creed that I didn't address, may have been due to me agreeing with the statement or I wasn't sure about it and had nothing to say at the time.

Anyway you have most likely figured out that I do not like creeds, but I do appreciate the fact that you posted them. I think, creeds are a subtle tactic of the enemy to lead men away from the scriptures.

When Christ first started his Church it was based on truth, scripture and the words of Christ. The Church was like a fire from God it burned brightly and hot, and consumed much of the Devils works. The Devil saw this fire and tried to blow it out with persecution and death, instead he just spread the fire to other areas of the world. In the end the Devil being the crafty serpent that he is, brought the fire down to a managable level by first of all seperating the fire from the fuel (from truth and scripture to the reasoning of men), and then containing the fire into different sections (organisations and institutions). But he could never put the fire out completely as there were and are always hot spots, that could ignite and did/do ignite from time to time.

The truth that the enemy is trying to seperate from us is contained in the scriptures. If he can get men to summarise the faith and give it a name like the ? creed”, then this will help the devil's cause by allowing for the creation of a comfortable religion, which takes all the hard work out of seeking the truth (Jesus). Now we can now just read this creed and say yeah I believe that now, I am saved, great that was easy, don't need to check it out from the scriptures either, most people are happy when I confess the creed, very convenient. The the first creed would have to be accurate or near accurate for men to follow it, especially considering the amount of truth and revelation in the beginning. Once you have men trusting in a creed it is then possible to slowly introduce appealing philosophies that although may based in scripture, can lead to halmful consequences later on, such as replacing the fear of God with the fear of man, and serving God to serving an organisation. Once people believe a creed that gives authority to an organisation that threatens death to heretics, people will be to scared to question, especially if the churches preach damnation and #### fire every Sunday. Now the net has been cast, and it is time to introduce some idolatory, but you can excuse it by saying that you must be using it to worship God, at this stage you can get men to worship icons, idols, Mary and the Saints a departing from the truth.

It's like a parable I once heard, probably a cliche by now, but it's about cooking a frog. You put a frog into a pot of cold water and he thinks this ain't so bad. Then you to turn up the heat a little and he thinks it's a little uncomfortable, but ok. The heat is turned up gradually and slow enough that the frog doesn't bother jumping out of the pot until he finally boils to death. If the frog was thrown into the hot water immediately, it would know straight away something was wrong and try to escape. I think that the devils schemes are like this. They can be slow enough for people to just get use to each change, and in the end we are lead away from the truth and once it becomes tradition, it is very hard for people to let go. At least today we have the luxury of looking back into history and seeing the consequences of such things, and the results they produced. But some people do not learn from history, and that is a shame, because you can excuse people to a degree who sow things thinking that the works will accomplish God's will (like Abraham when he tried to fulfill the prophecy about his offspring being like the sand in the sea-shore. Abraham in his own wisdom had sex with a servant and the result was Ishmael the Father of the Arabs, who to this day are bitter enemies of the Jews). But when we have the ability to learn from history, but we repeat it's mistakes, then we are more responsible for our actions. Stumbling blocks are inevitiable, but woe to the men that lay them.

Mans creeds were destined to end in idolatry because only the truth can set us free. Creeds are destined to lead to luke warmness because creeds move us away from scripture. They are the mind of man and a subtle weapon in the enemies hands. I do not believe that creeds are inspired by God or that they are scripture, I don't even think that they claim inspiration, (not sure). But it seems strange to me that it's more ok to ignore scripture than a creed. I think men trust in creeds more than scripture, because they trust in their own understanding, rather than revelation. History shows us that at one point, the scriptures weren't even available to people, and they could only hear interpretations by church ministers who read Latin bibles. I am relying on recorded history here. When men tried to convert or print the bible for the common people, they were killed or persecuted, (I would say by the same spirit and organisation that created the creeds in the first place). They were allowed the creeds however, but they taught idolatry, and men began to trust creeds as if it was scripture itself. Eventually something had to give, and there was a reformation. A movement that challenged the creeds and the accepted truth of the day.

I think denominations exist because of creeds, most of them have a creed of some sort as their foundation. I read somewhere that most denominations resulted in a dispute among the previous denomination that it came from, can't verify it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. Denomination is just a fancy word for division, and they will always exist until we give up trusting in the words of men or God pronounces final judgement. It's just the tower of Babel all over again. Making a name for oneself and reaching heaven in our own strength. Divided language is the result of Babel and so it is in chistianity. We have different denominations that compete with each other. There is only one true church, the Body of Christ. Paul warned us that wolves in sheeps clothing would come amongst us and spare us not, after he died. Why; because he was an Apostle, and he guarded the Church from false teachings and the wisdom of man. He knew that this would happen once his Apostolic covering was gone. We would be vunerable. But it is prophecied that there would be a great falling away from the truth, and this has already happened along time ago in my opinion.

If we study Babylon (the city) we will see that they were into idolatory, money, religion, a trinity and worship of the mother of god etc. My message is that God's people must come out of her today, whatever she is (maybe a system?). She is the Mother of all Harlots and she has made the whole world drunk on her wine, and committed adultry with the Kings of the earth. She is also guilty of the blood of the Martyrs. We should pay her back 10 times what she gave us. This harlot rides on the back of the beast with 7 heads and sits on the city of seven hills (Rome?). One of those heads was the Roman Empire.

To come out of her is to come out of idolatory, love and reliance on money, false religion and serving a system, rather than God and his Son. I think that the trinity doctrine either formed the basis of this system, or at least was an entry into that system.

June 7, 2002 at 11:16 pm#15595