The Trinity Doctrine

[Proclaimer]

Quote (kenrch @ Aug. 14 2006,00:38)

Quote (Oxy @ Aug. 13 2006,05:33) Sorry for that remark Kenrch. It was uncalled for. When He was on earth the Son only did what the Father showed Him. Because Jesus willingly gave up His life for His Father, His Father exalted Him above all. But the Father is always the Father, and Jesus will joyfully give all to His Father. Remember the reason Jesus came was to reconcile us to the Father. Oxy i don't know what all the fuss is about? The Father is greater than the Son. You agree? The Son has all the fulness of the Father but subjects Himself to the Father. You agree? The Holy Spirit is sent through the Son. You agree? All three are of the God Family. You agree?

But all 3 are not the same God.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 13 2006,08:03)

To Oxy. For true believers there is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. If God was your Father, you would believe that Jesus came from God.

Indeed Jesus did come from God. But this happaned at the incarnation.

JOHN 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

IT IS NOT A REFERENCE TO A PRE-INCARNATION BEGETTAL!! You have misinterpreted scripture again t8….

t8, here is a challenge for you, and you should be up to it. Since you strongly affirm that the title “Son of God” to Yahshua means that He is God's progeny and was supernaturally birthed “in the beginning”, you should be able to substantiate this. And I would like you to do this, if you don't mind. Could you please produce explicit scriptural evidence for:

1. A pre-incarnation begettal, or

2. Any allusion to this event, or

3. An affirmation from any NT writer that “Son of God” means pre-incarnate progeny of God.

You are fond of testing the theology of others but have an aversion to anyone testing yours. Let's see what you can come up with….should be interesting.

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18

You quote JOHN 8:42
“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.”

So Jesus
Proceeded forth
and
Came from
and
Was sent by God.

Now 1 Jn 4.9 tells us the only begotten Son was sent into the world so these these facts fit. The Son was a son already when he was sent into the world.

And his
proceeding forth
and
coming from
are two separate events
as scripture does not repeat itself unnecessarily.

“Coming from God” is another way of explaining his passage from heaven and being “sent” adds another layer of information as to why he came.
He was sent into the world.

So what does proceeding forth from God mean to you?

[Proclaimer]

Is 1:18,

Jesus came from God.

The Word was WITH God in the beginning.
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
The apostles beheld his glory.
He was taken up and now sits at the right hand of the majesty on high.
He is called “The Word of God” now.
He was the Word of God in the beginning.

So he pre-existed as the Word of God.
When he partook of the flesh, he was called Yeshua.

I do not know what his name was before he came to earth, but perhaps Hebrew or Aramaic is not the language of Heaven.

In any case he was the Word and is the Word of God.
He is also the son of God and the son of David.

[Is 1:18]

t8,
You have not given me ANY scriptural evidence for your affirmation that the title “Son of God” is a reference to a pre-incarnate birth. If the title “Son of God” is an explicit reference to a pre-incarnation begettal you would think that the biblical evidence for this would be abundant. If it is vital for us, the christian, to understand that the title means that Yahshua was birthed “in the beginning” then you would think:

– The OT would have reported it, or
– Yahshua would have mentioned it, or
– The Gospel writers would have alluded to it, or
– Paul, or one of the other NT writers, would have unequivically spelt it out, or
– Someone would have mentioned it somewhere in the Bible!!

So….where is the evidence? Prove to me, and others, that this belief of yours is scriptural.Please produce explicit scriptural evidence for:

1. A pre-incarnation begettal, or

2. Any allusion to this event, or

3. An affirmation from any NT writer that “Son of God” means pre-incarnate progeny of God.

[Is 1:18]

I'm going to be out of town for a work commitment until later in the week and will not be able to post until the weekend. So you have the best part of a week to produce some explicit evidence that validates your assertion t8, I look forward to reading it.

[Proclaimer]

Is 1:18

Are you saying that Jesus wasn't the son until he was born through Mary?

If this is indeed your stance and if you can show me that the son was not the son before he was born of Mary then by all means show me some scriptures. I am teachable and will adhere to correctly interpretted scripture. I mean what I say.

While I await your list of scriptures that support this view that Jesus only became the son when he came through Mary, I will give you some that appear to not support that view as you have asked.

Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

Q: So who did God make the universe through.
A: The son.

Q: Did the universe exist before Jesus was born of Mary?
A: Yes.

Colossians 1:12-17
12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.
13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Q: For by whom were all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities?
A: The son.

Q: What is the Kingdom of his son? Did it exist before Jesus came as a man?
A: I think so, do you?

Q: Who is before all things?
A: The son.

Rom.8:3
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,

Q: Who did God send into the World?
A: The son.

Q: Was the son called the son the moment he partook of flesh?
A: I don't think it is saying that the son is the son because he partook of the flesh, but that the son came in the likeness of sinful man. So it appears that he was the son, and he partook of flesh. That is how it appears to me at least.

Also, to say that Jesus became the son only at the moment he was born a man is to also say that God wasn't the Father up until about 2000 years ago. So God being a Father for 2000 years kind of stuffs up your argument that the Trinity is made up of the Father, Son, Spirit because in that scenario, 2000 years ago there was no son, so there couldn't have been a Father either. Only God and his Word and then 2000 years ago, God became the Father and the Word became the son.

Anyway, If you can demonstrate via scripture that the son wasn't sent but that the Word became the son when born through Mary, then I am all ears.

My only desire is to know the truth that I may be free to serve God according to his will.

Also, I am not too sure how important such things really are. But I think more importantly that we believe that the Word was WITH God, and the Word was divine and then became flesh, and his name was Yeshua/Jesus. That he died for our sins, was resurrected, and seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High and interceeds for us now.

How important is it to believe that Jesus pre-existed as the son or didn't?

Anyone?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 14 2006,06:19)

t8, You have not given me ANY scriptural evidence for your affirmation that the title “Son of God” is a reference to a pre-incarnate birth. If the title “Son of God” is an explicit reference to a pre-incarnation begettal you would think that the biblical evidence for this would be abundant. If it is vital for us, the christian, to understand that the title means that Yahshua was birthed “in the beginning” then you would think:

Where have I made this affirmation?
I want to see what I wrote, so I know exactly what I am supporting.

Thx

[NickHassan]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 13 2006,11:28)

I'm going to be out of town for a work commitment until later in the week and will not be able to post until the weekend. So you have the best part of a week to produce some explicit evidence that validates your assertion t8, I look forward to reading it.

Hi Is 1.18,
Why do you put time limits on other men to do things for you? Is that appropriate?

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18
Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?

If you say he is God Himself who came in flesh by 'incarnation', and you do not accept he was begotten in the beginning, surely you then deny he is Son of God in any real way at all?

Is that not denying the Master, our Lord, as we were warned against?

[Elidad]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 13 2006,08:39)

Also, to say that Jesus became the son only at the moment he was born a man is to also say that God wasn't the Father up until about 2000 years ago. So God being a Father for 2000 years kind of stuffs up your argument that the Trinity is made up of the Father, Son, Spirit because in that scenario, 2000 years ago there was no son, so there couldn't have been a Father either. Only God and his Word and then 2000 years ago, God became the Father and the Word became the son. Anyway, If you can demonstrate via scripture that the son wasn't sent but that the Word became the son when born through Mary, then I am all ears. My only desire is to know the truth that I may be free to serve God according to his will. Also, I am not too sure how important such things really are. But I think more importantly that we believe that the Word was WITH God, and the Word was divine and then became flesh, and his name was Yeshua/Jesus. That he died for our sins, was resurrected, and seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High and interceeds for us now. How important is it to believe that Jesus pre-existed as the son or didn't? Anyone?

Hi t8, I am trying to follow your thinking and line of reasoning that is taking place in this current discussion, for whilst I see my understandings lining up with yours any many respects, there are some areas where your picture is very hazy.

If I follow you correctly, are you saying that Christ Jesus existed as the son with His Father, before He became manifest as the son to the human race?

In other words, the long promised Messiah (the Christ) actually existed in reality, before He made His appearance on earth? Is there any indication in the Old Testament that the promised Messiah already existed and was just waiting the time when it was appropriate for him to make His appearance?

If this be the case, was there ever a time when the son never existed, because the application of the term 'son' to a person indicates that there must have been a point in time when the Father actually preceded the son?

Shall appreciate clarification of your thoughts, or direction to another page where you have previously expressed them clearly.

Cheers

Elidad

[NickHassan]

Hi t,
While we wait for t8 to get a free moment since this is a public forum;
For my two cents worth have a look at Rom 16.25 f
“25(A)Now to Him who is able to establish you (B)according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of ©the mystery which has been kept secret for (D)long ages past,

26but now is manifested, and by (E)the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to (F)obedience of faith;”

[NickHassan]

and 1 Tim 3.16
“16By common confession, great is (A)the mystery of godliness:
He who was (B)revealed in the flesh,
Was Âvindicated in the Spirit,
(D)Seen by angels,
(E)Proclaimed among the nations,
(F)Believed on in the world,
(G)Taken up in glory”

[NickHassan]

And Coll 1.25-28
“25(BO)Of this church I was made a minister according to the (BP)stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,

26that is, (BQ)the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,

27to whom (BR)God willed to make known what is (BS)the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is (BT)Christ in you, the (BU)hope of glory.

28We proclaim Him, (BV)admonishing every man and teaching every man with all (BW)wisdom, so that we may (BX)present every man (BY)complete in Christ.”

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Being told the trinity is unbiblical and an offense to God is about as palatable and easy to hear, it seems, as being told your parents are not your own and you are adopted. It is that deep in our soul it takes the Spirt to shake loose from it and to set us free.

[camrezaie]

okay i want to bring this up because i know it will make a lot of you trinitarians think… this dawned upon me today as i was just contemplating everything..

John 10:33-36
33″We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?
35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

okay if you dont know what blasphemy means its this:
Blasphemy: The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

jesus denied this blasphemy in these verses and in MANY more if you'll read Matthew… they KILLED jesus, they KILLED him, because they said that he is claiming the attributes and rights of God..

ask your self this question: who is Jesus in terms of the trinity?

your answer is probably, he is god and he is equal with the Father Jehovah, the most high god as we see in Psalm 83:18..

now ask yourself this question: do you really want to make the same mistake the gentiles did which caused them to ultimately kill Jesus Christ? obviously, they were at fault here and they we see that they were “let go” from god's people in the scriptures..

I'm going to assume your answer is no… well those trinitarians out there who answered no, what do you think the trinity is ultimately doing? its putting BLASPHEMY, outright and straight forward BLASPHEMY upon the name of Jesus Christ… i dont think it is any more clear than this… make your decision, who are you going to follow? those who are ultimately the murderers of Jesus or Jesus and his disciples? how can you trinitarians call yourselves Christians when you are making the same ignorant, misguided, halfbaked, and ultimately INCORRECT assumptions about Jesus Christ…

i cant wait to see the defense against this because it truly has to be a miraculous one….

[camrezaie]

i dont know how to edit but i meant to add this at the end of my post:

the assumptions that in the end led to the death of Jesus Christ….

[NickHassan]

Hi cam,
Good call too.
And to blaspheme the words and works of Jesus is to blaspheme the source of that power,
The Spirit of God.

[camrezaie]

really that is what makes me 100% sure that i am doing the right thing… i talked to a baptist professor at some college and he todl me that i was being and i quote “too rational about the scriptures in my interpretation” … WHAT?? rational = thinking with logic.. what kind of thing is that to say… of course its absolute logic… the bible is for the common person and i am using logic and not slandering and twisting every verse imaginable so that it correlates with some doctrine… its just absolutely absurd…

[NickHassan]

Hi ,
The way to theological importance demands rejection of simplicity and commonsense.

[Author]

Posts