The Trinity Doctrine

[Proclaimer]

Hi BrandonIke,

Welcome. I just wanted to let you know that we are not all Oneness people here. This discussion started as an honest search in the scriptures as to why the trinity appears to be a false doctrine to many of us.

Of course in time many people have come here and argued for the trinity and so far they haven't been able to explain the scriptures that we have quoted. After the 5th pages of the discussion (I think) they took off and since then, many Oneness people have joined in. Currently “global” is defending the Trinity Doctrine, he is a Catholic.

I personally believe that both the Trinity and Oneness doctrines are wrong and I just can't understand why people just can't believe the scriptures and have to resort to some kind of formula or philosophy.

I mean fair enough, if the scriptures said that God is made up of 3 persons, then that would be sufficient to believe in the trinity, or if the scriptures said that the Father our God inhabited a body and that body was called Christ, then that would be sufficient to believe in Oneness. Provided that it was in harmony with the other scriptures. But it simply does not.

Paul specifically states that God is the Father and Jesus is the Messiah, the Son and the Word. He teaches us that the divine order is God – Christ – Man.

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.

John 17:3 (English-NIV)
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

The Father is the only true God and he sent Jesus Christ into the world. This truth is eternal life. Wouldn't it be foolish to reject this truth? Yet Trinitarians reject it.

Ephesians 4:4-6 (English-NIV)
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called  
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

One God. the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

Revelation 3:12 (English-NIV)
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.
Never again will he leave it.
I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

Jesus God is the Father and the Father is also our God.
This was true when Jesus walked the earth and now while Jesus is in Heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (English-NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Jesus is not God. The Father is.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[ 1:14 Or the Only Begotten] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

God didn't become flesh, the Word did. The Word isn't God, the Word came from God.

Can anyone dispute these simple and clear teachings of the Apostles. It is straight and easy to understand. Why do people ignore such simple truths and replace them for the doctrines of man. I know such shameful conduct is prophecied, but I cannot understand why a person would ignore such simple truth and waste their time pushing deception.

What reward or advantage is there to promote false doctrine. I really cannot understand what a person gets out of doing such things.

I invite you to read the trinity writings, as they sparked off this discussion and it will save you asking the same questions. You are welcome to challenge what is written there or in this discussion if you feel that you have something valid.

[Proclaimer]

To Global,

It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one's life, especially if one's duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities of baptism were taken. Constantine favoured Christianity among the many religions of his subjects, but did not make it the official or 'established' religion of the empire.”

Baptism in the scripture shows that it was immediate upon understanding and acceptance of the gospel. Here is a clear example of tradition and scripture in conflict. There is no scriptural record of Christians being baptized at the end of their christian lives. If tradition conflicts with scripture, then scripture should win.

I have already posted in an earlier post evidence that the Trinity is not derived from pagan sources. It only remains to add here that the triads mentioned are not a single god like in Christianity but always three separate gods as a family or one big god and other small gods.

The Hindu trinity for example is made up of BRAHMA the Creator, VISHNU the preserver and SHIVA the destroyer,  the three characteristics of GOD – Generator, Operator and Destroyer. Other trinities differ slightly in structure, but it is all paganism surely. The mind of man cannot stop making God into an image that he is not. How can man even get close to describing something that can only be revealed by God's Spirit. Therefore such interpretations themselves would have to be inspired in order for them to be true. But if such models or interpretations conflict with scripture, then they must be error.

My statement, “Even the fact that Christians worship on Sunday, was the adoption of a Pagan festival, because the Jews worship on the Sabbath”, was put there to demonstrate that Roman Catholism's holidays and festivals superceeded many pagan holidays and festivals. I never intended it to mean  that worshipping on Sunday, Easter or Christmas was forbidden as I am fully aware that we can worship anytime we want. Although this may be a whole debate in itself, I will point to this Catholic Page that admits that the holidays were replaced by pagan ones. Maybe not the best source to prove such things, but time contrains me to dig further with this one.http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Pagan.html

T8 said I think we can both appreciate the fact that the scriptures are the most reliable source of Christian doctrine.

Well not exactly, the first Christians had no Bible as it wasn’t completely written then, and even when it was completely written it wasn’t until the advent of printing many centuries later that ordinary people had access to it. They relied on the leaders of the Church to preach the Gospel to them as they had received it themselves according to Tradition. In fact it was this Tradition itself which conserved and produced the Bible. The Bible is part of Tradition.

Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Anyway I have a more complete explanation here.

https://heavennet.net/answers/answer32.htm

About God appearing as a Man. Click on the following link.

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=1&topic=3&start=130#angelofthelord.

I will continue to defend my writings in other Posts.

Thx

[global]

Hi T8, thanks for pointing me to that, I didn’t know this had been discussed already or I would have gone into more detail.

There is no doubt that these passages talking about angels or the angel of the Lord are very difficult due to the lack of clarity in the original texts, which at times seem to use the terms Lord and angel of the Lord interchangeably, and also that some texts have the Lord and others the angel of the Lord.

For example in Exodus 13.21 it says the Lord went before the Israelites in a cloud, but in 14.19 it calls their guide the angel of God. However by ch. 33 when God is angry with them it seems clear that it was indeed God himself who accompanied them because he says he will not go with them anymore and offers an angel instead.

This situation is further confused by different texts. The Massoretic text aswell as the vulgate both clearly identify God as appearing to Moses in the bush while the Septuagint says it was the angel of the Lord. The Septuagint itself seems to be inconsistent on this point because in Judges 6 it renders the Hebrew “Lord” as “the angel of the Lord”, but in the story of the cloud in Exodus it makes no changes.

That the same person who speaks to Moses should be called both the Lord and the Angel of the Lord is very hard to understand. Many, e.g. Tertullian, have seen in it a prelude of the revelation of the Incarnation.

St Augustine in Sermo vii, de Scripturis, P. G. V held the same view, saying "he is called both the Lord and the angel of the Lord because he was Christ, indeed the prophet (Is., ix, 6, Septuagint Ver.) clearly styles Christ the ‘Angel of great Counsel."

Be Well.

[global]

<a name="part2">Biblical Arguments Part II</a>

Further comments on –

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.
This scripture plainly points out that for us (believers) there is only one God the Father and Jesus is our only Lord.

And –

John 17:3 (English-NIV)
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Jehovah is not only called the Only true God (John 17:3), but the "Only Saviour" (Isa 43:11; 45:21; Hos 13:4; Jude 25) , "Only King" (Zech 14:9). If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being "True God", then Jesus is also excluded from being a Saviour or King. Conversely, Jesus is called the "Only Teacher, (Matt 23:8,10, Mt 10:24 and Jn 13:13), "Only Master" (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1), and "Only Lord" (Jude 4, Eph 4:4, 1 Cor 8:4,6, Mt 6:24). If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being "True God", then the Father is also excluded from being our Teacher, Master or Lord.

Arians argue that since the Father alone is called "true God" (John 17:3) but the Son is never called "anything higher" than mere "God" (John 1:1; Isa 9:6), this means that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father. Arians look for such meaningless anomalies and build an entire theological system upon it. Unfortunately, such logic is absolutely false as can be shown:

Since Jesus is called "the true light" (John 1:9; 8:12) and the Father is never called "anything higher" than mere "God is light" (1 Jn 1:5; Re 22:5) this must prove, (according to Arian Logic) that the Father is a lesser form of light than the Son.

If the exclusive use of the term "TRUE" in John 17:3 is a roadmap for determining rank between the Father and the Son, then applying the same roadmap to John 1:9 would determine that the Father is a lesser rank than Jesus as far as light is concerned. So it is proven that Jesus can be "true God" even though He is never called such.

No verse in the Bible ever outright states that Jesus is not divine or God. John 17:3 does not say that Jesus is not the only true God, and only faulty reasoning can interpret it that way.

Be Well.

[BrandonIke]

you haven’t answered my question. If God said He didn’t give glory to anyone else, then why did He share it with Jesus before creation?

I don’t care if you completely overlook my bible version question, but at least answer the first question please.

[global]

<a name="part3">Biblical Arguments Part III</a>

The Summary says –

“Please stay as we will also be looking at the scriptures that are commonly used to backup the Trinity doctrine too.”

OK, if you insist.

The summary says –

“Anyway, many people explain away the scriptures that show Jesus Christ to be inferior to God, by arguing that these particular scriptures are referring to the fact that Jesus humbled himself as a man, but they reason that these scriptures are not valid when talking about the exalted Jesus who resides in Heaven.”

I don’t know who the “many people” the summary refers to here but Catholic doctrine is quite clear that Jesus retains the fullness of his humanity even when he is in heaven. His humanity is not dependant on his location, just as when we go to heaven we will still be human (no, we don’t grow wings and become angels!).

Thus the verses which refer to him being lesser than the Father in his human incarnation remain valid when he is talked about in the Book of Revelation.

The summary then quotes some verses from Revelation demonstrating the humanity of Christ, but as I have now dealt with this argument there is no reason to reproduce them here.

I said at the beginning I would give my positive proof texts afterwards, but since we are in the Book of Revelation, here would be a good point to mention a few as this book is actually one of the best for demonstrating that Jesus is God.

First a verse from Isaiah –

Isaiah 44:6
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

So God is the first and the last. (or as some versions say, the Alpha and the Omega)

Now Revelation –

Revelation 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

So verse 7 says someone is coming, who is coming? One who was pierced, so it is Jesus.

Verse 8 then calls Jesus the Alpha and the Omega, a title we have seen from Isaiah is a title of God. Can there be two firsts and two lasts? No. So Jesus is God.

Note also that verse 8 calls Jesus “the Almighty”. This is entirely unacceptable to Arians who maintain that Jesus is never called Almighty God, so Arians argue that verse 8 refers to Jehovah. So are two people coming?

No, verse seven says one is coming, the one who was pierced.

To put the matter beyond all doubt let’s look at Rev 22.12 –

Revelation 22:12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Revelation 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Who is speaking here? Arians argue Jehovah, but if you read the whole of chapter 22 only one speaker is identified – Jesus.

First in verse 7 –

Revelation 22:7
Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Then the identity of the one who comes quickly is revealed in verse 20 –

Revelation 22:20
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Also verse 6 says –

Revelation 22:6
And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

But then verse 16 says it is Jesus who sent the angel –

Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

Also –

Revelation 21:22
And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

The Father and the Son are themselves a single temple

Revelation 22:1
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

And although two distinct persons they are sitting on one throne, it says throne not thrones. How this confuses Arians who would logically expect there to be two thrones.

Revelation 22:3
And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Revelation 22:4
And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads.

Revelation 22:5
And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Christians are called, servants who serve the Father and the Son who are referred to as "Him" rather than "them." Yet we also know that the very first statement in the book of Revelation 1:1 is that Christians are servants of Christ.

Interestingly, in Revelation 7:3; 11:18; 19:2,5 the Christians are called servants of the Father. This is very significant, because when we finally get to the end of the book, we see Christians called servants of both the Father and the son USING THE SINGLULAR twice in Rev 22:3 and Rev 22:6. Revelation 22:6.

Both the Father and the Son’s name is to be marked on the foreheads of Christians. (Rev 3:12; 14:1) Yet Revelation 22:4 uses the singular "His name" on the forehead, proving it refers to both although it sounds like it refers to a single individual. Another interesting observation is that Rev 14:1 uses the plural names, yet in Rev 22, where the unity is strongly emphasized, the singular name is used.

I think that is enough on the Book of Revelation. I hope you enjoyed my use of the King James Version for the quotes from this book, I always think the language of the KJV is particularly appropriate for the visions in Revelation.

More soon.

Be Well.

[GJG]

Quote

Quote: from BrandonIke on 3:31 am on Aug. 1, 2003 There was a statement in the first few pages that was never answered with what I read.        For the Trinity, he said that in the old testament God said He gave His glory to no one else for He is a jealous God, but then in the new testament Jesus said "Let us share our glory that we had before creation." or something like that.      So can you Oneness of God people give a refutation to this?  In other words, if God does not give glory to others then why did He give it to Jesus?  If Jesus is a part of God then the second verse rings soundly with the first.

Hi there BrandonIke,

If you can give us the particular scripture, then I’m sure someone will answer it.

[GJG]

Hi all,

I also agree that Jesus is the only begotten son of God.  And the Bible is clear regarding where Jesus stands regarding the Godhead:
 
Here is Jesus being called God:
John 20:28 My Lord and my God. 1John 5:20 This is the true God. Jude 25 To the only wise God. Hebrews 1:8 Thy throne O God.

Jesus possessed the Divine attributes:
Omnipotence-Matt 28:18 All power is given unto me Omnipresence-Matt 18:20 For where two or more are gathered in my name…there am I
Omniscince-John 2:24,25 He knew all men

Jesus possessed the Divine prerogatives:
Recieved worship-Matt 14:33 Then they…came and worshipped Him.
Forgave sin-Mark 2:5 Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
Creator-John 1:3 All things were made by Him.

There are not two different persons in the Godhead for the Bible is resoundingly clear in that there is only one God.  So why the above scripture implying God and Jesus being the one God?  Is there contradiction here?  Certainly not.

The only begotten son refers to the created, perfect flesh of Jesus.  We know that the Holy Ghost (Spirit of God) provided the seed, so that the one Sprit that is God is now the Father of Jesus, the Son of God.

So often God makes mention of how He is unchanging.  Therefore, the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, Spirit that is God simply uses a sinless, pure vessel to dwell within, while still retaining the attributes of omnipresence, omniscience, etc.  

Very much like a sponge in the centre of bucket of water; There is only one body of water filling all the bucket.  The substance within the sponge is the very same substance that is everywhere within the bucket.

This must mean that Jesus has a dual nature, perfect man and God.  This is confirmed in:  

Col 2:9  For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form.
2Cor 5:19  that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself

1 Tim 2:3-6  3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the MAN CHRIST Jesus, NIV

It is interesting that again the Bible makes mention of the one God being the one savior.

Our Lord before He came in the flesh; He eternally existed as "God and Word", notice: He was not only the Word of God (logos) but also the very God, (logos: plan, creative thought).  John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word……the Word was God.  Here our Lord is declared to be both God and the Word.

It is interesting that many non Christians believe in a supreme being that is perhaps made up of pure thought.

Back to the topic:  One must notice that God did not become flesh but rather was manifest in the flesh.  So to say "God incarnate" is not biblical.  God cannot be begotten, nor can He be born of a woman.  But to say "Word incarnate" and God was in that personified Word, reconciling the world to Himself in His glorious and omnipresent Being; this is scriptural teaching.

Jesus was not only that limited human personality as the Son (the Word), but infinitely more, He was the mighty God and the Everlasting Father aswell:

 Isa 9:6  For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
KJV

Here in lies the great mystery of Godliness:

1Tim 3:16  Beyond all question, the mystery of Godliness is great: He appeared in a body……….was taken up in glory.

[global]

CJG, I think think your explanation, if I understand it rightly raises more problems than it solves, as well as being plainly contrary to Scripture.

You say that the Son of God refers only to Jesus fleshly body, but he is said to be divine because he has the spirit of the Father in him, like a sponge in a bucket of water.

However this would be like a form of "possession", with the son (one person) inhabited by the spirit of the Father (another person). The Father is divine, but that would not make the Son divine just because his spirit is in him, anymore than we are divine because the Holy Spirit is in us (as the Bible says).

You fail to reconcile how they can be two different people but both divine.

Also if the Father is in the Son, then the Father also suffers, dies and goes to heaven to sit at his own right hand.

The Church declared as heresy the notion that the Father suffers at the time of the Modalist heresies.

You said that the Spirit of God provides the seed for Jesus, so that the Spirit is now the Father of Jesus.

However Jesus in the scriptures never refers to the Holy Spirit as his Father.

Rather the Spirit is spoken of as being a person distinct from the Father.

Finally you say:

"One must notice that God did not become flesh but rather was manifest in the flesh."

Which is plainly contradicted by scripture –

"the Word was God" Jn 1.1
"the Word became Flesh" Jn 1.14

Be Well.

(Edited by global at 4:43 am on Aug. 2, 2003)

(Edited by global at 4:45 am on Aug. 2, 2003)

[GJG]

To Global,

I think you need to read thet post again.

[GJG]

To t8,

Is Global for real? Or is he just kidding around?

Does anyone else think that I said what Global claims I said?

[GJG]

Quote

Quote: from global on 4:10 am on Aug. 2, 2003 CJG, I think think your explanation, if I understand it rightly raises more problems than it solves, as well as being plainly contrary to Scripture. You say that the Son of God refers only to Jesus fleshly body, but he is said to be divine because he has the spirit of the Father in him, like a sponge in a bucket of water. However this would be like a form of "possession", with the son (one person) inhabited by the spirit of the Father (another person). The Father is divine, but that would not make the Son divine just because his spirit is in him, anymore than we are divine because the Holy Spirit is in us (as the Bible says). You fail to reconcile how they can be two different people but both divine. Also if the Father is in the Son, then the Father also suffers, dies and goes to heaven to sit at his own right hand. The Church declared as heresy the notion that the Father suffers at the time of the Modalist heresies. You said that the Spirit of God provides the seed for Jesus, so that the Spirit is now the Father of Jesus. However Jesus in the scriptures never refers to the Holy Spirit as his Father. Rather the Spirit is spoken of as being a person distinct from the Father. Finally you say: "One must notice that God did not become flesh but rather was manifest in the flesh." Which is plainly contradicted by scripture – "the Word was God" Jn 1.1 "the Word became Flesh" Jn 1.14 Be Well. (Edited by global at 4:43 am on Aug. 2, 2003) (Edited by global at 4:45 am on Aug. 2, 2003)

Sigh……..didn’t I say this would keep happening!

To Global,

It probably throws up problems for you because it seems that you fail to understand how all the evidence I put forward, harmonizes completely from line to line.

1,  Contrary to scripture? – As many differing views have already pointed out; The one Spirit is the same Spirit that is God, which is also the very same Holy Ghost or Spirit of God.  The same Spirit is manifested in the flesh of Jesus.  I put across the way in which the omnipresent, Spirit God, remains unchanging.  IS THIS MORE CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE THAN: THREE PERSONS MAKING UP THE ONE GOD WHO IS NOT EVEN A PERSON?

2,  I did not say that the created flesh of Jesus is Divine.  The scripture plainly says that the Divine Spirit that is God, was clothed in the created flesh of Jesus.  Therefore you are correctly insightful when you say that the Spirit of His Father is in Him, as this is exactly what another scripture says:  

John 10:38  …that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.

3,  You have bracketed the Father to be "another person".  Common sense allows us to understand that the Father of Jesus (God) is only ever described as being ”Spirit" rather than a person:

John 4:24  God is a Spirit..

4,  I did not in any way shape or form say that Spirit filled believers are Divine.  There is only one Divinity, and that is God.  Yet you again show insightfulness, as sciptural evidence speaks of Spirit filled believers, having the same Spirit that was in Christ:

1Cor 2:16  But we have the mind of Christ.    Rom 8:9  Spirit of God dwell in you…Spirit of Christ    John 14:16-18  …I will come to you.   1Pet 1:11  Spirit of Christ which was in them   Gal 4:6  God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts.

5,  The reason I fail to reconcile how they can be two different people and both Divine, is due to the simple fact that I am actually saying the exact opposite.  There are not two different persons or two Divines.  One person is simply the vessel in which the substance of God dwelt, while still retaining His Godly attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.  Thus, God remains the same.

6,  The Divinity within Jesus is not subject to the things of creation, therefore, by definition, the eternal Spirit God, cannot suffer and die.  Also God does not have any body parts being the Invisible Spirit.  The anthropomorphic expression of "right hand of God" refers to Jesus ascending to His rightful place of authority.  Just as the "shelter of His wings" is the biblical way in which God helps us to understand how there is safety within His presence.  Note: This subject requires an indepth study, which I will not get into just now.

7,  I did not say that the Father suffers.

8,  The Bible indeed refers to the Holy Ghost and God the Father being one and the very same substance:  

Eph 4:30  holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed; 1:13  sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.

2 Cor 3:3  Spirit of the living God…on tablets of human hearts.

1 Thess 4:8  but God who gives you His Holy Spirit  

Scriptural evidence shows us that the Holy Ghost is the very same substance that is the Spirit of God.  God is also the Father of Jesus.  This confirms the fact that God the Spirit, is also the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God; The Father of the Son.

9,  The Spirit is never spoken of as a distinct person from the Father when one understands that a "person" is not "Spirit" and the Spirit is the one Spirit that is God.

10,  How is it that I contradict scripture, when I use scripture to fully harmonize my reasoning from beginning to end?  Which cannot be said for the three in one doctrine.

I humbly ask that you again read through the post.  I do not understand how it is that you see different meanings behind the words, when I have written it in a clear and simple upfront manner.

I look forward to your reply.

[global]

Hi CJG,

You said –

1, Contrary to scripture? – As many differing views have already pointed out; The one Spirit is the same Spirit that is God, which is also the very same Holy Ghost or Spirit of God. The same Spirit is manifested in the flesh of Jesus. I put across the way in which the omnipresent, Spirit God, remains unchanging. IS THIS MORE CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE THAN: THREE PERSONS MAKING UP THE ONE GOD WHO IS NOT EVEN A PERSON?

You seem to make clear here that what you believe is indeed a form of modalism i.e the belief in the unity of the Godhead and that Father, Son and Spirit are just modes of expression of the same person, but not different persons.

2, I did not say that the created flesh of Jesus is Divine. The scripture plainly says that the Divine Spirit that is God, was clothed in the created flesh of Jesus. Therefore you are correctly insightful when you say that the Spirit of His Father is in Him, as this is exactly what another scripture says:

Yes that is what I meant, you believe Jesus to be divine only to the degree that he is filled with the spirit of God. This seems to be a form of adoptionism.

As I commented before both modalism and adoptionism have been declared heresies by the Church.

You said –

3, You have bracketed the Father to be "another person". Common sense allows us to understand that the Father of Jesus (God) is only ever described as being ”Spirit" rather than a person:

I don’t understand your logic here, that the Father and Son are persons is implied by the terms themselves. Being a spirit doesn’t exclude one from being a person.

Your belief seems to me to be illogical. If Jesus and the Father are not different persons when the Father spoke from heaven at Jesus baptism was he then just speaking to himself?

When Jesus prays to the Father, is he just praying to himself?

When Jesus died, what happened to the Father? etc. etc.

You said –

4, I did not in any way shape or form say that Spirit filled believers are Divine. There is only one Divinity, and that is God. Yet you again show insightfulness, as sciptural evidence speaks of Spirit filled believers, having the same Spirit that was in Christ:

Nor did I, but I pointed out that being filled with God does not make one God.

You said –

5, The reason I fail to reconcile how they can be two different people and both Divine, is due to the simple fact that I am actually saying the exact opposite. There are not two different persons or two Divines. One person is simply the vessel in which the substance of God dwelt, while still retaining His Godly attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. Thus, God remains the same.

6, The Divinity within Jesus is not subject to the things of creation, therefore, by definition, the eternal Spirit God, cannot suffer and die. Also God does not have any body parts being the Invisible Spirit. The anthropomorphic expression of "right hand of God" refers to Jesus ascending to His rightful place of authority. Just as the "shelter of His wings" is the biblical way in which God helps us to understand how there is safety within His presence. Note: This subject requires an indepth study, which I will not get into just now.

7, I did not say that the Father suffers.

But if the Father is in the body then who suffers? You seem to be denying the full humanity of Christ as well because the suffering was essential for the work of salvation. But you deny there was suffering.

You deny Jesus is a different person from the Father, so who died? And did the Father go up to be at the right hand of himself?

8, The Bible indeed refers to the Holy Ghost and God the Father being one and the very same substance:

Trinitarians believe this also.

You said –

9, The Spirit is never spoken of as a distinct person from the Father when one understands that a "person" is not "Spirit" and the Spirit is the one Spirit that is God.

I’m afraid the Spirit is spoken of frequently as being a distinct person.

10, How is it that I contradict scripture, when I use scripture to fully harmonize my reasoning from beginning to end? Which cannot be said for the three in one doctrine.

You clearly contradict scripture and you have not responded to this point –

“the Word was God”
“the Word became Flesh”

Can you explain how your statement – “God did not become Flesh” does not contradict these two verses?

You said –

I humbly ask that you again read through the post. I do not understand how it is that you see different meanings behind the words, when I have written it in a clear and simple upfront manner.

I look forward to your reply.

I think you have not fully thought through all the logical consequences of your position, when have done so I think you will understand why it has been rejected by the Church.

Be Well.

[GJG]

O my goodnees!………sigh………..and so the circle continues!

Hey Global,

I think you need to stop your feeble attemps at making me out to say things that I didn’t. ……sigh….why do they always do that?

If you continue down that road then you will not be helping anyone here who is open to the different views in this forum.

Whether your church agrees or disagrees with the reasoning I have put forward is beside the point, as  the reasoning is not only sound, but more importantly, scriptural harmony remains, no matter what other points of scripture are looked at.

As many before me have already concluded, the same cannot be said for the doctrine that you attempt to defend.  False accusations were also directed at Jesus when others could not understand His ‘new doctrine’.

You seem to be a well educated person, so I can only assume that your ignorance regarding this matter, is due to this simple fact:  

Because you are unable to use scripture to reprove, or correct me, you unfortunately do the very same thing that was done also to Jesus, by accusing me of saying things that contradict scripture.  Which is clearly not the case.:)  

I look forward to your reply……….or maybe your going to flee like all the other trinitarians before you?

OOPS!  Sorry for that, I ask your forgiveness:)

[GJG]

BTW,

Continuing to spell my username incorrectly only highlights the point!

[GJG]

Person: man, woman, or child. Human being, individual.

My dictionary certainly doesn’t say anything about a Spirit being also being a person!

[GJG]

OK dude,

If there are others out there who also recieve the same meaning behind my wording as you Global, then I will obviously need to reassess my view.:)

[GJG]

Word is "logos", Word is not God.:)

[GJG]

when Jesus prayed, it was His limited, mortal, humanity, communicating with the omnipresent, immortal, Spirit of God His Father. Flesh is not praying to flesh. The eternal Sirit God is communicating with His created image, Jesus.

Please refer to the sponge analogy: The sponge can communicate with the one body of water that is in it, and surrounding it, just as the one body of water can communicate with the sponge.

[GJG]

How can a Bible based doctrine teach that the star of Bethlehem was placed there by Satan?

I got this info from a JW dude who was born into that church.

[Author]

Posts