The Trinity Doctrine

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18
You say
“The Logos who existed in the frorm of God, emptied Himself and took on the form of a bond servant. He was made for a little while lower than the angels (positionally/functionally – not ontologically). So according to my viewpoint the man Yahshua was annointed by His Father. I surmise that the independant usage of his divine attributes, privileges, prerogatives were restored. What He emptied Himself of to become a man were returned.:”

We do not have to surmise or guess anything as scripture reveals what is true.

Acts 10
“38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”

So do you read this as

God the Father anointed Jesus with his previous divine power?

Scripture says God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit, which is God's own spirit so why do you say it was his own previous powers?

If you do read this as you say then you are surely denying the trinity by saying Holy Ghost is not another person but is the previous powers of the Word?

What gives?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 10 2006,02:44)

Did any of the writers ever try to clarify this issue in the scriptures we have? Did they include an explanation in any epistle to the confused and radically monotheistic Jews? Think of the reaction the Jews would have to the concept of the trinity. They would probably need a full epistle just explaining this to them. They never thought that Jesus was claiming to be God himself, Yahweh. The reason is because everyone the apostles taught grasped the following concepts and were not confused until centuries after the apostles were dead. When the Catholic church arose and falsely clarified the issue for the masses. The Truth: Jesus was the word of God. The firstborn over all creation. The one who at God's side assisted in creation and spoke on God's behalf. Jesus was the one who revealed the invisible God to the patriarchs just as he came and did for the whole world as the Messiah. Jesus was God's only unique son who was begotten by his Father to be exactly like the Father so that he could precisely and accurately reveal himself to man. His son Jesus he then sent to be mankinds Messiah and while Jesus was among man he claimed to be none other than the word of God, the Son of God and the Messiah. God gave his son all authority and that is why Jesus is confused with the Father. Because 1) He was begotten to be just like his father in nature, form, image and splendor 2) he was given all authority by the Father when he made his son both Lord and Christ, in order to carry out God's will. He was therefor able to perform all the tasks that only God could perform normally if he had not shared his glory and power with his son. The analogy of Joseph and the Pharaoh is a perfect illustration of this concept. After all enemies are placed underneath the Messiah and Son of God's feet then the Son will give back to his Father all authority and then The Father himself will rule his people. The point is God is holy and perfect and cannot be in the presence of sin. He used his perfect son to carry out the restoration and reconciliation of all things so that the Father can once again be among us and we too can be his sons when Jesus will proclaim us his brothers and then we will share in his inheritence. I hope this helps. In Him, Mercy

Great post Mercy.

Thanks

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Elidad @ Sep. 10 2006,00:39)

Hi Is 1:18. Thanks for your wordy response. Still I think we are getting hung up on pedantics.

Am I being pedantic because I won't accept your manifestly erroneous interpretation of Heb 1:8? Guilty as charged. Seriously Elidad if you honestly believe that an “as God” rendering of “ho theos” has any plausibility you will will need to produce the requisite lexical and contextual evidence. I have seen nothing from you as yet.

Quote

Thus we have have God (Yahweh) making Jesus “as” God.

Incorrect. We do not. We have the Father addressing the Son as “God”, which is contextually in keeping with the rest of Hebrews Ch 1.

Quote

Thus before this, he wasn't “as” God, he was something other than what He was before He was made “as” God.

Please produce the requisite evidence that proves Yahshua was in Scripture called “as God” or “a God”. Hebrews 1:8 certainly does not record this.

Heb 13:8 – Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

Quote

Now let me try to understand what you are trying to defend. This is the way I am reading your output to date:

I thought I explained it reasonably well in my previous post but I will gladly provide clarification if it's needed.

Quote

1: Jesus existed as God (I take that to mean within the trinity) before He took it upon Himself to become a man. Is this right?

Already answered in previous post. Please go back and re-read it.

Quote

2: Upon becoming a man He “emptied” himself of what it was He was before. Can we say, divested Himself of everything that made Him God (part of the Trinity) before, so that he could be “truly” a man in every sense of the term. Is this right?

Already answered in previous post. Please go back and re-read it.

Quote

3.Therefore when He “emptied” Himself, He was no longer God (no longer part of the trinity), He was now man. Is this right?

Already answered in previous post. Please go back and re-read it.

Quote

4. Trinitarian theology informs me that Christ was 100% man and 100% God, in spite of the fact that no other man has ever been 100% God and 100% man.

He he….yes and?!?…No other man was the result of the union of the Holy Spirit and a woman either!! Yahshua broke the mold in a number of respects Elidad….

Quote

Therefore He wasn't made like unto His brethren in all respects (Heb 2:17). Contrary to what Scripture says in this regard, He was actually not fully man, if trinitarian theology is correct. Is this right?

Why? Explain your reasoning here….

Quote

5. When Jesus “emptied” himself, He was no longer God, but now man. Therefore He must have shed or “emptied” His 100% God aspect, so that He could be 100% man. Is this right?

Already answered in previous post. Please go back and re-read it.

Quote

6. Thus if Jesus was Yahweh, before He was man, what was left of Yahweh whilst He stepped into His new role?  Evidently from your theology, Jesus could not be both God and Man, whilst He was a man, because He had “emptied” Himself of  what He was before?

Already answered in previous post. Please go back and re-read it.

Quote

7. Thus Jesus, whilst He was on earth as a man, had to depend on the other two characters who made up the tri-unity, which had now become a bi-unity to carry on the God role and give Jesus His instructions. Is this right?

Already answered in previous post. Please go back and re-read it.

Quote

8. Whilst Jesus, was on earth, as a man, He prayed to the other remaining parties in the trinity, because He was no longer there as part of the God team.

I don't recall scripture recording Yahshua praying to anyone but His Father in Heaven. Why would He pray to the Holy Spirit that was in Him?

Quote

He had left and came to earth, to plead for the souls of men, and pay the price for sin.  Is this right?

What do you mean by “plead for the souls of men”? Other than that ambiguity I agree.

Is this line of questioning leading anywhere I wonder….

Quote

9. Thus in Hebrews 1:8, according to you, we have God (Yahweh) still in heaven, overseeing the affairs of heaven and earth, making or “appointing” Jesus as God whilst He was on earth, because He was no longer God, in the sense that He was before He came to earth.

What have I written that has prompted this statement? Please go back and re-read my last post….

Quote

Now, if this appointing of Jesus to be God didn't apply whilst He was on earth, but only applied after, He ascended back to heaven, as some say, then He wasn't in any sense God, whilst He was on earth. Is this right?

Already answered in previous post. Please go back and re-read it
.

Quote

Is 1:18, the more I hear from those who try to defend the trinitarian concept of God, the more confusing things become.

It seems to me that you have made NO effort to understand anything I wrote in my previous post – little wonder you are confused.

Quote

The interesting thing about listening to trinitarians is that there is not a lot of consistency in their point of view. Like Oxy, for example, says the Holy Spirit is not equal with the Father. If I listen to others describe what they think they believe, they definitely believe in 3 separate Gods, in spite of their denials.

Is your theology absolutely identical to others? People look at the biblical data and arrive at different conclusions regardless of their theological persuasion. This is true of the unitarians, modalists and henotheists that frequent this site. It seems to me that the only ones with unwavering strict theological compatability among a group of believers, they have simply outsourced their doctrines from a denomination….is this preferable to you?

Quote

From my way of thinking, it all seems to fall into the category, of “professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools” Sorry no offence, I am just conveying the readout that I get when I hear and read your line of reasoning and that of others in your camp.

Show me where I have professed myself to be wise, or have made any comment that would convey this sentiment. If you can't find one then I'll ask you to reserve judgement until you can make an informed one.

Do you have any comments to make on these questions I posed?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2006,00:43)

True you didn't say it. It is true that I do not read your posts very closely. Apologies for answering a (short) post that I didn't read closely.

Apology accepted, in future if you could read my posts properly before responding to them I would appreciate it….

Quote

So you are not mainstream then? Evolution is mainstream in science, yet mainstream doesn't mean that it is correct does it?

As I have already mentioned to you (more than once) – general consensus neither validates nor invalidates…..

Quote

You have at times mentioned that the Trinity is mainstream and then said we have departed that or are not mainstream. Yet in science, you are not mainstream.

I did not state that the doctrine was mainstream to give it credence, I objected to you associating it exclusively with the RCC. My point was that the doctrine is held as truth by nearly all denominations. Your attempts to use the 'poison the well' or 'guilt by association' fallacies were out of line….

Quote

So the point is that mainstream is not a good precept by which to justify anything.

I agree.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2006,00:49)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 09 2006,21:04) My position is that the trinity doctrine best accounts for ALL the biblical data we are given on the Father, Son and Spirit. Is 1:18. If that is so, then why does the Trinity doctrine nullify the word of God? I truly think you haven't thought this through very clearly. In other fields of expertise, say medicine, you would be shot down for coming up with a theory that nullified its base of truth. Please explain why the word “Trinity” replaced with the word “God” nullifies the scriptures? Try your doctrine out on these 100 verses: https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm I have been waiting along time for an answer from those who promote the babylonian (trinity) doctrine, but all I have observed in response is these people putting their head in the sand.

I'm sorry but I have to be honest and say this argument, that is used with increasing frequency here, is utterly rediculous. The Greek word 'theos' is used predominantly by NT authors to designate the person of the Father of Yahshua. Sometimes it is used of Yahshua. The Greek word 'kurios' is used predominantly by NT authors to designate the person of the Yahshua. Sometimes it is used of His Father. 'Theos' is not a stronger appelative than 'kurios', actually they are used interchangably throughout the NT. Clearly every NT usage of 'theos' is not a reference to the triune God, to my knowledge no trinitarian has ever asserted this in this forum, so it's a straw man argument.

[Elidad]

Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ Sep. 08 2006,21:37)

Dear Elidad, I agree with t8 that your post was well written. Thank you for sharing it brother, but I don't agree with all of it. The part where you said that t8 and Nick believe that Jesus is God, but not Father God I am not sure is correct. I believe t8 believes this, but Nick I do not. Nick has led me to believe that he does not believe Jesus is God. And I believe this is his stand. This is denying Christ. For to deny the Son is to deny the Father. None, no, not one will be able to come unto the Father, but through the Son. For the Father and the Son are one. The Father begat the Son in the beginning, giving him all the authority of the Godhead, making the Son God of all creation. All things were made by the Son and through the Son by the will of the Father through the untion of the Holy Spirit. I have seen no proof that Nick believes that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God. Yet, he is not God Almighty, he is the Word made God. The Word is the Alpha, the Omega, the beginning, and the end, the first and the last.

Hi Heiscomingintheclouds, Appreciate your comments.

Nick would you please clarify the point that H.I.C.I.T.C. has raised regarding what you believe on the matter in question. I to have wondered exactly where you sit in this regard, because your comments at times are too cryptic for me, and I am never quite sure what you are driving at?

Rejoice always (Philippians 4:4)

Elidad

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 11 2006,02:24)

I'm sorry but I have to be honest and say this argument, that is used with increasing frequency here, is utterly rediculous. The Greek word 'theos' is used predominantly by NT authors to designate the person of the Father of Yahshua. Sometimes it is used of Yahshua. The Greek word 'kurios' is used predominantly by NT authors to designate the person of the Yahshua. Sometimes it is used of His Father. 'Theos' is not a stronger appelative than 'kurios', actually they are used interchangably throughout the NT. Clearly every NT usage of 'theos' is not a reference to the triune God, to my knowledge no trinitarian has ever asserted this in this forum, so it's a straw man argument.

To Is 1:18,

What is rediculous is to say that God is a Trinity even when you cannot read scripture with that understanding. It is even more rediculous to stick to a doctrine that you know nullifies the word of God.

You admit that the word God is not referring to a Trinity and yet you continue to push that doctrine. You mention correctly that the word “theos” is used of Christ, but you neglected to mention that it is also used for others and not always in a negative sense either. I prefer the big picture, not just a select part of it, while ignoring that which doesn't agree.

The fact is that replacing the word “God” with “Trinity”, should stand if God is a Trinity as you teach. To me this teaching is made of straw. It is easily flammable and not able to stand in judgement. This is a clear case of not letting scripture teach you. If you did, you would have said all along that for believers, there is one “theos” the Father. Instead you say that there is one “theos” the father, son and spirit. This is a departure of scripture.

In my opinion, it is too late for you to convince many here that we should come back to Babylon. We have tasted the freedom that truth offers and the peace that you get from its understanding. In fact when you throw away the Trinity, it is amazing how clear scriptures become and how complimentary they are of each other.

You should know that for us there is one God the Father, and that the word “God” is talking of the Father, and in a few cases of Christ, man, and angels and also in a negative sense regarding false gods.

You know it, I know it, and Oxy knew it too, but he left, rather than face the truth.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 11 2006,02:20)

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2006,00:43) True you didn't say it. It is true that I do not read your posts very closely. Apologies for answering a (short) post that I didn't read closely. Apology accepted, in future if you could read my posts properly before responding to them I would appreciate it…. Quote So you are not mainstream then? Evolution is mainstream in science, yet mainstream doesn't mean that it is correct does it? As I have already mentioned to you (more than once) – general consensus neither validates nor invalidates….. Quote You have at times mentioned that the Trinity is mainstream and then said we have departed that or are not mainstream. Yet in science, you are not mainstream. I did not state that the doctrine was mainstream to give it credence, I objected to you associating it exclusively with the RCC. My point was that the doctrine is held as truth by nearly all denominations. Your attempts to use the 'poison the well' or 'guilt by association' fallacies were out of line…. Quote So the point is that mainstream is not a good precept by which to justify anything. I agree.

Is 1:18,

It is good that you can see that mainstream is not always correct and is useless to use as evidence when promoting truth. This was the point I wanted to establish and this has been accomplished even if we had to run a few circles to do so.

Now I will be open and honest too.

I actually do not read your posts carefully if at all, because I honestly think your arguments are of no benefit and they are only repeats of things that I have already challenged when I came out of this doctrine myself. In addition to that, just about every other Trinitarian who comes here teaching this babylonian doctrine says the same thing and they are already answered for me.

I am afraid that the Trinity and its support verses that are twisted to look as if the writer was implying a Trinity are of no challenge to me. I do not say this to be smug or better than thou. I am just being honest and coupled with the value I place on time and my family. I do not want to go around in useless circles in my life. I could easily waste precious time with a myriad of worldly-wise people, but I would rather serve God, than fight the devil. I would rather shine light than expose the darkness. I would rather teach truth than defend against false doctrine. I do realise that exposing false doctrine is teaching truth, but it is only a small part of it

Anyway I read your posts for a while and I got the gist of what you are saying quite a while ago. I do skim over your posts sometimes if they are reasonably short if only to give a scripture or two in defence of the babylonian doctrine you promote.

But yes, I think it is fair enough that if I do reply to something you have written, I should read it carefully and will make an effort to do so in future.

[NickHassan]

Hi Elidad,
You posted a statement from H..in the clouds.

“I have seen no proof that Nick believes that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God. Yet, he is not God Almighty, he is the Word made God. The Word is the Alpha, the Omega, the beginning, and the end, the first and the last.”

There are no scriptures that state Jesus was made God so the point is irrelevant.
I am still awaiting his presentation of such evidence if it exists.

The real point is who is Jesus to us
who are in him.
Paul gave us this answer in 1 Cor 8

” 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. “

Blessings

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2006,08:04)

What is rediculous is to say that God is a Trinity even when you cannot read scripture with that understanding. It is even more rediculous to stick to a doctrine that you know nullifies the word of God. It's also interesting to note that you admit that the majority of the time God is referring to the Father. You mention correctly that the word “theos” is used of Christ, but you neglected to mention that it is also used for others and not always in a negative sense either. I prefer the big picture, not just a select part of it, while ignoring that which doesn't agree. The fact is that replacing the word “God” with “Trinity”, should stand if God is a Trinity as you teach. To me this teaching is made of straw. It is easily flammable and not able to stand in  judgement. It's too late for you to convince many here that we should come back to Babylon. We ahve tasted the freedom that truth offers and the peace that you get from its understanding. You know that for us there is one God the Father, and that the word “God” is talking of the Father, and in a few cases of Christ, man, and angels and also in a negative sense regarding false gods. You know it, I know it, and Oxy knew it too, but he left, rather than face the truth.

So on one hand you affirm that the Greek word “theos” has a broad range of applications in the NT, and on the other you condemn trinitarians because in every instance “theos” is used by NT writters it does not have a patently narrow application??

[Proclaimer]

Not sure what you are going on about here.

But I have taught all along that the word “theos” must be read in context to determine who it is speaking of.

The Most High “theos” is completely different to the “theos” of this age. The point is that when you look at the big picture and the uses of “theos” in scripture, you then have to admit that to say that Christ is YHWH because some verses apply “theos” to him is a weak and rediculous argument to make. Because men and angels are also called “theos” and we know that we are not YHWH, even though we are made in his image.

Is that clear for you now?

We are to believe that there is one God the Father.

It doesn't matter what you say, or how many times you say it, there is one God the Father. Pretending that there is one God the Father, Son, & Spirit, is never going to make it come true.

The truth existed before you and it still exists. God isn't going to change his mind because of your belief is he?

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
You said
“He he….yes and?!?…No other man was the result of the union of the Holy Spirit and a woman either!! Yahshua broke the mold in a number of respects Elidad….”

So you say there are three persons in God

Now you are saying the THIRD PERSON, the Spirit, is the father of Jesus Christ.

Is the Father
not
the father of Jesus Christ?

What gives?

Of course there are not three persons in God and that is the problem.
God is one as any OT student should know.
The Son was indeed  conceived in Mary of the Spirit of the Father who does the work of God on earth.

But since you have made this statement
then as an honest bible servant
you owe it to us to explain if you said
what you meant here.

Thank you.

[Is 1:18]

t8, you wrote:

Quote

If that is so, then why does the Trinity doctrine nullify the word of God? I truly think you haven't thought this through very clearly. In other fields of expertise, say medicine, you would be shot down for coming up with a theory that nullified its base of truth. Please explain why the word “Trinity” replaced with the word “God” nullifies the scriptures? Try your doctrine out on these 100 verses: https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm

So your assertion is that because a substitution of the word “trinity” for “theos” in the 100 verses you cite renders the verses unintelligible, the doctrine itself is nullified? That is the substance of your argument, yes?

Can you see the problem here?

If not let me spell it out for you by using the same argument but with different variables.

Lets assume you affirm that 'Jesus is Lord'. By applying your straw man argument I could challenge that belief by asserting:

When the word “Lord” is replaced with the word “Jesus” these verses are rendered unitelligible, therefore the affirmation is nullified!

Matthew 18:27
“And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.

Luke 10:2
And He was saying to them, ” The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.

Luke 1:32
“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;

Luke 2:26
And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

Of course the validity of my challenge is predicated on the assumption that the word Lord has a narrow application, and always designates Jesus. So t8, is my challenge a legitimate one?

Quote

I truly think you haven't thought this through very clearly.

He he…no t8, I think, I truly think, you haven't thought this through very clearly….at all.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 10 2006,08:43)

Hi Is 1.18, You said “He he….yes and?!?…No other man was the result of the union of the Holy Spirit and a woman either!! Yahshua broke the mold in a number of respects Elidad….” So you say there are three persons in God Now you are saying the THIRD PERSON, the Spirit, is the father of Jesus Christ. Is the Father not the father of Jesus Christ? What gives? Of course there are not three persons in God and that is the problem. God is one as any OT student should know. The Son was indeed  conceived in Mary of the Spirit of the Father who does the work of God on earth. But since you have made this statement then as an honest bible servant you owe it to us to explain if you said what you meant here. Thank you.

Matthew 1:18-20
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
19And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
20But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:31-35
31″And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32″He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
34Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.[/color]

If I say that Jesus was the “result of the union of the Holy Spirit and a woman” I have spoken scripturally.

[Elidad]

Hi Is 1:18. I think your response is avoiding the issue. It was your previous comments that gave rise to the points I raised. I have read back through your thoughts that are suppose to address them, and have come away with the same questions.

So this leaves us with one of two conclusions, either you are not making yourself very clear, or I am just plain stupid, which has to be the bottom line of your last post. I am quite happy to be considered plain stupid, if that's where wrestling with your viewpoints places me.

When some one has to resort to words that the Holy Spirit didn't use within Scripture, to explain what we need to know about issues relevant to salvation, then you have lost me.

A factor in arguments advanced by trinitarians always seems to be the use of terminology that doesn't readily compute with the man on the street, like ontological. Tell me how many Christians really know what this word means? I have just asked two Christians who are immediately available to me, who have been Christians for some considerable time, if they could tell me what ontological means. Guess what, they said they had never heard of the word.

So perhaps, if you like to pitch your understandings at a lower level, I might be able to properly understand them and respond in a more meaningful manner.

You ask me to comment on other points that you have raised, but I see no good reason to do this, if we can't get some basic understandings sorted out about what words used by the Holy Spirit mean, and what we are to understand from them.

Hebrews 1:8-9 states quite clearly to me that Father (Yahweh) said to His Son, “Your throne O God (Yashua) is forever, and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore, God, (the Father-yahweh) Your God (the Father-Yahweh) has annointed You with the oil gladness more than your companions”

This tells us why the Father (Yahweh) has annointed Yashua and given Him a name above every name (Philippians 2:9) rather than Moses or anyone else.

For His absolute obedience, He was highly exhalted. Was Moses absolutely obedient to all things that the Father required and expected? No! That's is why all the questions you raise in respect to Moses, are quite irrelevant.

Christ achieved where Adam and all his prodgeny failed; Moses included. Christ showed us, that what His Father expected of Adam was possible and He, in effect, showed us how to live in total harmony with His Fathers precepts.

If this is not true, then the Father has no basis for judgement of our failures.

Thus Is 1:18, you can continue with your intellectually confounding comments, or we can get back to basics. If you wish to continue to talk over my head, then there is not much else I can say. Do you read me?

Peace be with you.

Elidad

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18
You said
“If I say that Jesus was the “result of the union of the Holy Spirit and a woman” I have spoken scripturally.”

I agree

So in answer to my question;

“So you say there are three persons in God

Now you are saying the THIRD PERSON, the Spirit, is the father of Jesus Christ.

Is the Father
not
the father of Jesus Christ?

What gives?”

So you do not accept that Jesus was a son in the beginning ,
and so when Jesus speaks of his father is he speaking of the Spirit?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Elidad @ Sep. 10 2006,09:49)

Hi Is 1:18. I think your response is avoiding the issue. It was your previous comments that gave rise to the points I raised. I have read back through your thoughts that are suppose to address them, and have come away with the same questions.

Hi Elidad,
I wasn't being evasive, but as I was pressed for time and honestly thought you were asking me to address issues that were clearly explained in my previous post, I was unwilling (at the time) to re-iterate it all. But since you honestly can't see the answers I will give them to you.

Quote

1: Jesus existed as God (I take that to mean within the trinity) before He took it upon Himself to become a man. Is this right?

As I understand it Yahshua was with God, and was God:

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

The Greek word for “with” ( pros) means “to, towards” (i.e. face to face in relationship) when used with the accusative as it is here (Thayer, p.541). The word is generally translated “to” or “toward” (NKJV) or “unto” (KJV; see John 1:29,42,47; 2:3; 3:2,4,20,26). So this phrase cannot be referring to “something said”, or an abstract concept such as a plan/purpose/wisdom/power coming from God. Moreover, the verb “was” (Gr: eimi) in John 1:1b is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word being in the past, or simply put: whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning.

So I assert that the Logos was “pros” theos and “eimi” theos, and that the Logos became flesh – as described in John 14 and Phil 2:7-8.

Speaking of John 1:14, the juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word (John 1:1a) and His incarnation is (vs 14), I think, very provocative. As I previuosly mentioned the Greek word for “was” in John 1:1a is the imperfect verb “eimi” (continuous action, perpetuity), BUT John used the aorist verb “egeneto” to designate the incarnation in v 14 which, in contrast, happened at a fixed point in time). By using this contradistinction in terminology John delineated the eternal logos from the temporal nature of the “things” He created.

So the Greek in John 1:1 tells us that the pre-incarnate Yahshua was both towards God (in relationship), and always was God, and that at a fixed point in time he became flesh. Deity put on humanity.

Understand?

Quote

2: Upon becoming a man He “emptied” himself of what it was He was before. Can we say, divested Himself of everything that made Him God (part of the Trinity) before, so that he could be “truly” a man in every sense of the term. Is this right?

No, that is not my understanding of the kenosis as was unambiguously explained in my post:

“The Logos who existed in the from of God, emptied Himself and took on the form of a bond servant. He was made for a little while lower than the angels (positionally/functionally – not ontologically). So according to my viewpoint the man Yahshua was annointed by His Father. I surmise that the independant usage of his divine attributes, privileges, prerogatives were restored. What He emptied Himself of to become a man were returned.”

Quote

3.Therefore when He “emptied” Himself, He was no longer God (no longer part of the trinity), He was now man. Is this right?

No it's not accurate. Deity divested himself of the independant usage of the divine attributes, privileges, prerogative and put on humanity. The pre-incarnate Logos did not relinquish deity….how in reality could that be possible anyway? You can't extinguish divinity if you have it intrinsically. Paul affirmed in the strongest language possible that Yahshua was walking deity:

Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

“For in Him dwells (katoikei) all the fullness (pleroma) of the Deity (theotes) bodily (somatikos).”

katoikeo – meaning “to permanently settle down in a dwelling.” The verb is in the present tense, showing durative action

pleroma –  indicating that which “is filled up.”

somatikos – meaning “corporeally” or “physically”

theotes –  used as an abstract noun for ‘theos’.

Theotes is the key word in this verse. Joseph H. Thayer, the Unitarian scholar, defines theotes in his lexicon as follows:

“Theotes…(deitas, Tertullian, Augustine) deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col 2:9”

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT words, in exegeting Col 2:9, records this:

”…But in the second passage (Col. 2:9), Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son” (Trench, Syn. ii). Theotes indicates the “Divine” essence of Godhood, the personality of God; theiotes, the attributes of God, His “Divine” nature and properties.

A.T Robertson who is widely recognized as the worlds most authoritative grammarian said in his scholarly book Word Pictures In The New Testament:

“There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very essence of God, from ‘Theos,’ deity) and not to be confused with ‘Theiotes’ in Romans 1:20 (from ‘Theios,’ the quality of God, divinity), here only in N.T. as ‘Theiote’ only in Romans 1:20. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. ‘Theiotes’ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions.”

Yahshua clearly did not relinquish His deity, not in Paul's mind anyway.

Quote

4. Trinitarian theology informs me that Christ was 100% man and 100% God, in spite of the fact that no other man has ever been 100% God and 100% man. Therefore He wasn't made like unto His brethren in all respects (Heb 2:17). Contrary to what Scripture says in this regard, He was actually not fully man, if trinitarian theology is correct. Is this right?

This is a non sequitur Elidad. How can I address an illogically-framed question?

Quote

5. When Jesus “emptied” himself, He was no longer God, but now man. Therefore He must have shed or “emptied” His 100% God aspect, so that He could be 100% man. Is this right?

Deity put on humanity (John 1:1-14, Phil 2:5-8, 1 Cr 8:9).

Quote

6. Thus if Jesus was Yahweh, before He was man, what was left of Yahweh whilst He stepped into His new role?  Evidently from your theology, Jesus could not be both God and Man, whilst He was a man, because He had “emptied” Himself of  what He was before?

he he…evidently from your interpretation of my theology, “Jesus could not be both God and Man”. You say He emptied Himself of his Deity to become a man – I categorically dispute that and offer Col 2:9 as my substantive evidence.

Quote

7. Thus Jesus, whilst He was on earth as a man, had to depend on the other two characters who made up the tri-unity, which had now become a bi-unity to carry on the God role and give Jesus His instructions. Is this right?

Yes – IMHO Yahshua divested Himself of the “independant usage of his divine attributes, privileges, prerogatives” that were intrinsically His before His incarnation. And operated by the Holy Spirit while on Earth and before His death.

Quote

8. Whilst Jesus, was on earth, as a man, He prayed to the other remaining parties in the trinity, because He was no longer there as part of the God team. He had left and came to earth, to plead for the souls of men, and pay the price for sin.  Is this right?

I believe I have answered this question already.

Quote

9. Thus in Hebrews 1:8, according to you, we have God (Yahweh) still in heaven, overseeing the affairs of heaven and earth, making or “appointing” Jesus as God whilst He was on earth, because He was no longer God, in the sense that He was before He came to earth. Now, if this appointing of Jesus to be God didn't apply whilst He was on earth, but only applied after, He ascended back to heaven, as some say, then He wasn't in any sense God, whilst He was on earth. Is this right?

No, incorrect. Yahshua was never appointed “God” if by God you mean divine being. No where in scripture are we told this. The word was (Gr. eimi; imperfect tense verb = continuous action, perpetuity) God. He did not become 'theos' at a fixed point in time, that's unscriptural and patently ludicrous….

Quote

So this leaves us with one of two conclusions, either you are not making yourself very clear, or I am just plain stupid, which has to be the bottom line of your last post. I am quite happy to be considered plain stupid, if that's where wrestling with your viewpoints places me.

I did not intimate that you were stupid. Im sorry if you formed this conclusion from my post.

Quote

When some one has to resort to words that the Holy Spirit didn't use within Scripture, to explain what we need to know about issues relevant to salvation, then you have lost me.

I don't think in reality anyone absolutely restricts themselves to biblical language when discussing soteriology or any other theological topic. Salvation can be explained in both simple or more complex language. I don't need to use “ontological”, but its a good word in that it captures the essense of a concept that would otherwise require more than one word to properly convey….

Quote

A factor in arguments  advanced by trinitarians always seems to be the use of  terminology that doesn't readily compute with the man on the street, like ontological. Tell me how many Christians really know what this word means? I have just asked two Christians who are immediately available to me, who have been Christians for some considerable time, if they could tell me what ontological means. Guess what, they said they had never heard of the word.

he he…try here

I don't think that sophisticated language is exclusively used by trinitarians. Unitarians, like yourself, have been known to use it.

Quote

So perhaps, if you like to pitch your understandings at a lower level, I might be able to properly understand them and respond in a more meaningful manner.

Hopefully I have made myself clearer in this post. I don't try to deliberately use words in an obfuscatory manner, quite the opposite actually. People explain themselves in different ways I suppose

Quote

You ask me to comment on other points that you have raised, but I see no good reason to do this, if we can't get some basic understandings sorted out about what words used by the Holy Spirit mean, and what we are to understand from them.

Well gee Elidad, you were quite insistent that I answer you questions (which I have), so let's be fair about this….

Quote

Hebrews 1:8-9 states quite clearly to me that Father (Yahweh) said to His Son, “Your throne O God (Yashua) is forever, and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore, God, (the Father-yahweh) Your God (the Father-Yahweh) has annointed You with the oil gladness more than your companions” This tells us why the Father (Yahweh) has annointed Yashua and given Him a name above every name (Philippians 2:9) rather than Moses or anyone else.

Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

Quote

For His absolute obedience, He was highly exhalted. Was Moses absolutely obedient to all things that the Father required and expected? No! That's is why all the questions you raise in respect to Moses, are quite irrelevant.

Okay Elidad, let's assume for your sake that Phil 2:9 & 10 are purely a function of Yahshua&
#39;s obedience and i'll take them off the list. That still leaves these eight legitimate questions:

1. Was Moses said to be with God in the beginning (John 1:1)?

2. Was Moses credited for making “all things” (Col 1:16)?

3. Is Moses credited for “upholding all things” (Heb 1:3)?

4. Did Moses claim he could raise himself from the dead, like Yahshua did (John 2:19-21)?

5. Do NT authors apply OT references of YHWH directly to Moses (Heb 1:10)?

6. Was Moses said to have fulfilled prophecies that YHWH made OF HIMSELF (John 19:37)?

7. Will it be that everyone that all who call on the name of Moses be saved (Rom 1:13)?

8. Are titles that are exclusively YHWH's applied to Moses (e.g. Alpha and Omega, Rev 22:13)?

You have no solid basis for refusing to answer these questions, nor for refusing to offer comments on Hebrews 3:1-6.

Quote

Christ achieved where Adam and all his prodgeny failed; Moses included. Christ showed us, that what  His Father expected of Adam was possible and He, in effect, showed us how to live in total harmony with His Fathers precepts.

Amen.

Quote

If this is not true, then the Father has no basis for judgement of our failures.

He looks at us but sees Christ's righteousness, is how I would put it.

Quote

Thus Is 1:18, you can continue with your intellectually confounding comments, or we can get back to basics. If you wish to continue to talk over my head, then there is not much else I can say. Do you read me?

He he, hopefully I have demystified them a little for you. I have answered all your questions Elidad, now will you return the favour?

Blessings

[Elidad]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 10 2006,05:30)

Hi Elidad, You posted a statement from H..in the clouds. “I have seen no proof that Nick believes that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God. Yet, he is not God Almighty, he is the Word made God. The Word is the Alpha, the Omega, the beginning, and the end, the first and the last.” There are no scriptures that state Jesus was made God so the point is irrelevant. I am still awaiting his presentation of such evidence if it exists. The real point is who is Jesus to us who are in him. Paul gave us this answer in 1 Cor 8 ” 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. “ Blessings

Thanks Nick for responding to my query in this regard. But I am still not clear on where you are coming from. Sorry for being so stupid, but you have to make allowance for the intellectually handicapped.

Lets' put it this way, I understand that the Scriptures indicate that Jesus is God in a certain sense, but certainly not Almighty God. He is not Yahweh, He is Yashua, the Son of God.

Can we like Thomas address Jesus as, “My Lord and my God”? (John 20:28)

Did God, the Father (Yahweh) refer to His Son Jesus, as God? (Hebrews 1:8)

If God (the Father-Yahweh) can refer to Moses as God, can we not deduce from this that God (the Father- Yahweh) and ourselves, can refer to Jesus in the same way? (Exodus 7:1 compare with Exodus 4:16)

If the Judges of Israel were looked upon as being God's or as God when spoken of in a singular sense, does it not follow that Christ, the Son of God, can be spoken about and referred to in the same sense? Thus like Thomas we can say, “My Lord and my God”?

Where does your understanding differ in this matter?

May we be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

Regards,

Elidad

[Elidad]

Hi Is 1:18. I have great admiration for your tenacity, perserverance and evident scholarship. I thank you for making considerbale effort to respond to my comments, endeavouring to clarify your point of view. You have covered much ground, too much for me to give a “knee jerk” or “shoot from the hip” reply.

The day is almost spent for me here, as there is need to retire soon, in order to rise early tomorrow to journey across country some 400 kms or more. Thus, there is no way I can hope to do justice to the issues you invite comment on, for a day or so. Please bear with me, and I will try and get back to you later in the week. Keep checking your 'mail' box.

There are so many issues tied up in your understanding, that prayer is necessary to help me make further response. This will form my deliberations, as I journey tomorrow.

Be of good cheer.

Elidad

[Mercy]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 10 2006,11:34)

Quote 1: Jesus existed as God (I take that to mean within the trinity) before He took it upon Himself to become a man. Is this right? As I understand it Yahshua was with God, and was God: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Greek word for “with” ( pros) means “to, towards” (i.e. face to face in relationship) when used with the accusative as it is here (Thayer, p.541). The word is generally translated “to” or “toward” (NKJV) or “unto” (KJV; see John 1:29,42,47; 2:3; 3:2,4,20,26). So this phrase cannot be referring to “something said”, or an abstract concept such as a plan/purpose/wisdom/power coming from God. Moreover, the verb “was” (Gr: eimi) in John 1:1b is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word being in the past, or simply put: whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning.

Is 1:18,

Does in the beginning really mean eternity past? Is it really clear that verse means without a beginning?

Satan was a liar from the beginning but surely not from eternity past.

In the beginning God made the heavens and earth but that wasn't in eternity past either.

Colossians 1:15
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Begotten uniquely by the Father to be exactly like the Father.

and

Given all authority of the Father to be Lord over all Creation.

I feel the disagreements about the semantics of using god or God to describe Jesus has scriptural answers.

1) He was called God.

2) God / god was a title used in the bible to describe idols, angels and men. Both in a false heretical sense and in an approved and holy sense. God gave that title out himself at times. It is easily apparent that the title was used to describe an “office” or “position of authority” whether it was a false office or genuine.

Jesus was given the authority of God by God.

[Author]

Posts