- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
To Global,
Reply to Biblical Arguments Part II
Your quotes are in gray
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.Well the Bible records that there are many saviours and kings.
Saviour:
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD , and apart from me there is no savior.Yet is says in Isaiah 19:20
It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them.So we can see from these examples that God is the true saviour, yet the one he sends to do his work is also referred to as saviour which is of course correct. But the one who is sent is representitive of the one who sends and therefore the one who sends is really the one who ordained and actioned the salvation. This is the same with Christ, for even Christ's will was to have the cup removed, but he did the will of his Father rather than his own.
Isaiah 63:8-9
8 He said, “Surely they are my people,
sons who will not be false to me”; and so he became their Savior.
9 In all their distress he too was distressed,
and the angel of his presence saved them.
In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.Even here we can see that God is the saviour, yet he sends an Angel to save.
Now we know that Jesus is our saviour, but his work was comissioned by the one who sent him. The one who sent him is God himself. and in Acts 5:31 we read,
God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.
So here we can see that God exhalted Jesus as saviour rather than Jesus being God because he is a saviour. So if Jesus did the will of his Father which was to save, then God is the true (original) saviour and he sent Jesus to save and in doing so Jesus is also known as saviour, just as God sent Moses as a saviour to God's people.
If the people saw Moses as their redeemer and saviour and did not acknowledge that it was God who was saving them, then it would have been pointless. Same with Jesus. If we do not realise that it is God redeeming the world back to himself through Christ, then wouldn't Jesus just be a man trying to save people in his own strength?
King:
Yes God is the only King, but he sets up kings underneath him and delegates authority to them.
E.g David was the King of Israel, yet David was not God himself.
So to exclude David as King because God is the only King is obviously a misunderstanding of what it means to be the only King. God is the true King and he delegates and sets up others to rule over his people/kingdom. If we understand it this way, we can see that it is God who is King and he has representitives doing his bidding. So yes he is the true King, but the kings that he sets up are not false kings, rather their power and authority comes from the true King.
He is the one who is really ruling. Same with Christ, he does the bidding of his Father and speaks what his Father speaks and does what he sees his father doing. Yet he will rule with a rod of iron.
Revelation 1:6
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.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:Lets change this around a bit.
Trintarians argue that since the Father is called “true God” (John 17:3) and the Son is supposedly “God” (John 1:1; Isa 9:6), this means that Jesus is also the true God, but because there is one God it shows that God is made up of both Father and Son and if we add in the Holy Spirit we now have 3 persons one God. Trinitarians 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.
John 1:9
The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[ 1:9 Or This was the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world].Note that it says that Jesus is the light that gives light to men. It is obvious that he is not the source of light and gives that light to God so that God becomes light. Jesus is the true light for men, because there are false lights given to men from the enemy. Even Satan can pose as an Angel of Light.
John 8:12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”So here we can see again that Jesus is the light of the world, not the source of all light that even makes God light. He is the true light with regards to this world and people, not because he is the source of that light. There is a boundary drawn from these scriptures as to what kind of
light he is. A nice play on words will not stop the true seekers from the truth.E.g. It says in John 9:5
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”Matthew 5:14
“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.So if I wanted to play on these words I could foolishly make out that the Church is Christ or God because we are in the world and we are the light of the world. But of course when we read it in context with a true and seeking heart, we can see that this kind of conclusion is absurd.
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.If I am a servant of the true God and he sends me to do his will, then that doesn't exclude me from being God, but then again no one would assume that I was God either. Or John the Baptist who was sent of God, wasn't God either, yet there is no clarification needed to this fact.
1 Corinthians 15:27-28
28 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.
29 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.How much clearer does one need to be?
Of course you will not see verses in the Bible saying that “Jesus is not God” just as you won't see verses in the bible saying that John the Baptist wasn't a woman.
The Jesus is God/Trinity lie was not around whilst the scriptures were written.
But if Jesus is not God himself, then you sh
ould see verses like 1 Corinthians 15:27 and of course that is what we see.To Global,
Reply to Biblical Arguments Part III
Your quotes are in gray.“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!).
I have met many Christians who believe in the Trinity over the years that explain to me that Jesus appears to be inferior to the Father because he emptied himself of his former power and glory when he became a man. This is how they rationalise those verses that speak clearly of the inferiority of Christ compared with God. However such people have never explained why Jesus still appears in the same submission to his Father and even calls his Father his God in the Book of Revelation even while he is back in heavenly glory. Anyway it appears from what you have said that Jesus is inferior to God regardless of location and you also point out that resurrected man will still be men in Heaven. If so, then you believe that we our souls will be governed by human nature even albeit a perfect human nature. If so, then how does 2 Peter 1:4 fit into your ideas?
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
You then made a comparision in your post about the following scriptures, saying that one is talking about God and the other about Christ and then you conclude that Christ must be that God because of a similar attribute namely the description about the first and the last.
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.Revelation 1:7-8
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.
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.The first thing I would like to say is that in the preceeding Revelation verse we see the following:
6 To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.So the context of these verses is that Jesus Father is also his God. Now if you look at verse 7 you will see that Jesus is referred to as 'he' and in verse 8 the reference is 'I', which is not a logical construction if you are talking about the same person. So if the verses were talking about the same person why does this difference exist? If I use such construction in a sentence it doesn't make sense if I am talking about the same person.
E.g. “He is writing this article. I am Joe Bloggs.”
Now such a construction clearly shows 2 people and it seems like one person is reporting what the other said.
The way I see it and I am open to being wrong in all that I say, is that in this instance Jesus is referred to as 'he' and 'I' is referring to God the Father, because verse 8 says that I am the Lord and the Almighty and also in verse 6 it talks about Jesus's God, his Father.
Now your next verse is interesting because it seems as to be Jesus talking and always refers to 'I' not 'he'. So it looks to me and yourself that it is talking about Jesus with no reference to God at this point.
So I conclude at this stage that Jesus is the first and the last and I also agree that God is the first and last, just as you do.
Now even Trinitarians argue that Jesus proceeds from the Father and there is certainly an acknowledgement that the Son originated from the Father (even if it is an eternal happening as you believe), so either way we both believe the same
thing with that point (apart from the eternal proceeding).If we say that God is first or Jesus is first, then it still makes sense to both of us. But we differ on the fact that first and last makes them both God.
In verse 16 it says
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”I know that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. So there is certainly a first and last attribute to Christ and of course God certainly has this 'first' attrribute. Now it is interesting to note that in the Book of Revelation we see that it speaks of God and in addition to God, it talks about Christ as another person, so my conclusion is that Jesus is not that God, rather he is his Son of that God. Even in verse 9 we read the following:
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
So I agree at this stage that both God and Christ appear to be referenced as the First and Last, but I also say that God and Christ are still spoken of as 2 different identities even if they share the same attributes. After all a son will share attributes of his Father, this is obvious.
E.g. They are both light, divine in nature and they are both the originators of creation. But if we want to be more specific, we can also say that Jesus is the light of this world. God is himself Light. Jesus is divine in nature, but God is the Divine in identity and all things were created through Christ, but all things were created by God.
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 angelWell Revelation 1:1 answers this.
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
According to the order, we have God > Jesus > Angel > John. So it is certain that the angel is Christ's angel, but it is also certain that the angel is also God's angel. In other words, all that is Christ's is God's and to a degree all that is God's is Christ's. (ignoring certain things like the knowledge of when the Son of Man will return to earth).
John 17:6-10
6 “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.
7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you.
8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me.
9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.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 templeSo you admit that the Lord God Almighty is referring to the Father in identity and the Lamb is the other identity. Of course they are one temple, just as Christ is in God and God is in Christ.
But no one ever suggested that we are God because we can be in them too. After all we ourselves are the temple of God.John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.Acts 17:24
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.1 Corinthians 3:16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?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.
There are 2 thrones, the throne of God and another throne for Jesus. But Jesus is seated with his Father on HIS throne and we (Church) are seated with Christ on his throne. So our inheritance and authority is in Christ and Christ's inheritance and authority is in God.
Revelation 3:21
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on MY throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on HIS throne.So if Jesus is God because he sits on the throne of God, then following that reasoning we are Christ because we will sit on Christ's throne. Of course this reasoning is flawed.
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.
If we are true servants of Christ, then it is automatic that we are true servants of God, and if we are true servants of God, then we must also be true servants of Christ. For those who honour God must also honour the Son and vice versa.
This of course stands to reason if the Father has made his Son the lord of all that he has made. The Father has all confidence in his Son and gives him all things. The Son is also the image of the Invisible God, so he represents God to us. Similarly the Pharaoh made Joseph, lord over his Kingdom. Yet Joseph was still subject to the Pharaoh.
Genesis 44:18
Then Judah went up to him and said: “Please, my lord, let your servant speak a word to my lord. Do not be angry with your servant, though you are equal to Pharaoh himself.John 5:23
that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.2 Peter 1:17
For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”Notice that Jesus receives his honour from God. Who is the greatest, the one who gives or the one who recieves. the one who sends or the one who is sent?
To say that Jesus is God because God made him lord over all, doesn't make sense, anymore than the Pharaoh making Joseph lord over his Kingdom, makes Joseph the Pharaoh himself. Rather Joseph rules on his behalf because the Pharaoh trusts Joseph to do so and GAVE him that authority.
Now with regards to the name of God being in our foreheads as mentioned in your post. The name of God is Yahweh (YHWH) and Jesus name is Yahshua and we can see that the name of Christ derives from God's name. Even Christ is named after his God, just as we will.
Ephesians 3:14-15
14 For this reason I kneel before the Father,
15 from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name.So we can see once again that the Father is the Originator the True God. His name is also in his son's name and will be in our (God's children) name too. Again I point out the divine order. God > The Son of God > Sons of God. If the name of our God is in our forehead, then the name of Christ is too. Because we are in Christ and Christ is in God, that we may all be one.
God > Christ > Church
We can see that the Church comes from Christ as we are his body. Christ comes from God and God came from no one. He is the ever existing one, the Originator of all, even his Son.
John 3:34
For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God [ 3:34 Greek he] gives the Spirit without limit.John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.John 10:36
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'?John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.To Global,
Reply to Biblical Arguments Part IV
Your quotes are in gray.
Arians are disconcerted to find that in the whole Bible there is not one verse which specifically states their notion that the Son is a created being.
Well I am not really sure if Arians believe that, but I certainly do not hold the view that Christ is created. Sure I know that he partook of that which was created, namely the flesh. But the Son is the only begotten, because he is the only son to be born directly from God, although we are also born of God too, when we receive the new birth from above. But we were all created through Christ and that makes us created, but Christ was not made through Christ. He came from the Father alone. We must believe that he came from God and was also sent by God.
If we do not believe that Christ came from God, then we deny the true faith.
Arians like to make much play of the word “firstborn”, unfortunately again, firstborn does not mean created, it doesn’t even necessarily mean born first. The Bible frequently uses the word firstborn to signify “priority in importance” or “rank”.
Firstborn is usually the one born first literally speaking, unless that firstborn loses that right to another. E.g. Isaac & Jacob. In addition we know that Christ existed before creation and that he was and still is the Son of God. A Son by definition has an originator, usually a Father and Mother in a natural sense and a Father in the spiritual sense.
In addition to the firstborn scriptures, we also see that Christ is called the 'Wisdom of God' and even the Wisdom scriptures of Proverbs 8:22-30 say that Wisdom was given birth. We then have a 3rd witness with scriptures that talk about our necessary belief that “Jesus came from God”. John 8:42, John 16:27 & John 16:30.
If I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he came from God and that he is the only begotten of God, then I believe the fundamentals of the true faith. If I believe in the Trinity doctrine, then I believe in another doctrine that came from the theology and words of certain men who developed creeds and statements of faith.
These men enforced such creeds with the threat of excommunication and death itself. These distasteful acts show the fruit of that doctrine or at least the fruit of the people who believed and enforced such a doctrine.
A true believer in Christ will turn the other cheek and love others as they love themselves. We may fail those ideals at times, even many times, but we will aim for them. But a consistent persecution of those who do not believe the Trinity and others who disagreed with Roman Catholic doctrine, which resulted in death for many (even the murder of millions) in the name of Christ, is not just bad fruit it is one of the worse sins in recorded history, even worse than Adolf Hitlers works of evil. This sin is not the work of God, it is the enemy's work.
You quote a lot about what Arians believe, but I am not too sure what they
believe. But I haven't seen any evidence that they murdered millions of people, in fact I am not sure that they murdered even one. In the end it is the fruit that I see, for the fruit shows what's in the heart. If their doctrine was wrong, then the fruit of the Trinitarians is wrong. But I am not even sure that their doctrine was wrong, but I am convinced that the fruit and doctrine of Trinitarians as a whole is very bad.Individually I can accept that there are many true believers who are caught up in this system of doctrines, but I would assume that they would change when truth is presented to them and I believe that all believers should be in a process of learning truth, even against the lies and doctrines of men and demons that flood our lives everyday.
And just as being a mediator between God and man does not exclude Jesus from being man, neither does it exclude him from being God. In fact the perfect mediator between the two is one who is both man and God.
Jesus partook of the flesh and he partakes of the divine nature. He is a being that can reconcile the 2, even though they are at odds with one another. If Jesus were God, then he couldn't even look upon sin and therefore he couldn't reconcile man directly. Never mind witnessing it every day of his earthly life and then taking it upon himself. There had to exist a mediator as God cannot tolerate sin and had God come to earth himself, I personally doubt that anyone would have survived.
1 Corinthians 15 shows us this quite clearly.
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.Arians also like to ignore that this very passage also says “all things were created by him”.
Shouldn't it be created through him?
Compare Colossians 1:16 (NIV)
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.with
Colossians 1:16 (NASB)
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him.No time to look up the Greek right now, but if we also look at
Hebrews 1:1-2
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
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.or
James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.Proverbs 8:30
Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,I think this is an instance where we need to see what the scriptures are saying, rather than taking one scripture out on it's own. Scripture interprets scripture and they must agree.
The picture that emerges when we read the scriptures is that God created all things, and he created them through his Son/Logos and for him.
Even Jesus was the first to admit that he only did what he saw his Father doing and spoke what his Father spoke. Therefore God is the Originator of all things. Even the Son himself came from God. If the Son does anything it is because the Father wants him to and the Father shows him.
Father > Son > Man. It is easy to see that Christ is between God and Man. He partook of both natures. See John 1:1 and Hebrews 2:14. We are talking about 2 natures, but in identity Jesus is the Logos, the Son of God.
“Just in case the scriptures I have quoted are not convincing enough for you then I have another 17 scriptures that prove this to be so“
Unfortunately the summary doesn’t say exactly what these scriptures are supposed to “prove”, but they certainly don’t disprove the Trinity e.g
What they all prove is that Jesus is a different identity to God. Thanks for pointing that out, I will update the Trinity writing to make it more clear.
Acts 3:15 (English-NIV)
You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.The implication being that God raises Jesus, so Jesus is not God, however elsewhere Jesus says that he raises himself –
Jn.2.19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I wi
ll raise it again in three days.”Jn 17-18
17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life–only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.So Jesus raised himself from the dead, how did he do it. By the power of his Father. Your last scripture answers your own question. Jesus had the authority to lay his life down and to take it up again. Who gave him the authority? The Father did. The Father is the God that raised Christ from the Dead when Christ decided to lay down his life, then take it up again. In fact Christ had the authority to not even die for us, but he chose his Father's will in his moment of weakness rather than his own which was to have the cup removed if possible. Of course I believe that Christ's will was always to save us, I am not denying that.
Similarly, I could bring salvation to a person by preaching the gospel, but it is really God who saves that person and gives them new birth.
It is all God, he sends messengers and delegates his authority, first to the Son and then to others. Rev 1:1 gives us that pattern.
The summary says –
“The word trinity was introduced centuries after Christ.”
Not true, from the Catholic Encyclopedia –
“The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of “the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (“Ad. Autol.”, II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time.”
180 years is centuries, just as 1.80 apples is plural.
Actually what I meant was the doctrine came to acceptance centuries later.
However the Trinity Doctrine actually existed as far back as Babylon and later in Egypt and even in India, all before the Church. It differs somewhat as you would expect, but essentially it is 3 persons as God formula. It originated in Babylon, or at least became known from that time.
Revelation 17:5
This title was written on her forehead: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.Do you think that it may be possible that so many Christians can be deceived regarding the trinity doctrine?.
No, Jesus founded a church and promised –
Mat.16.18 And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Actually Jesus founded his Church on Peter's declaration that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah. It was this truth that Jesus built his Church on and it is this foundation that the Gates of #### cannot prevail against.
Matthew 16:16-18
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.But just because this truth is preserved, (even Trinity believers believe that Jesus is the Son of God), that doesn't stop false doctrine such as the Trinity from running rampant and bringing confusion.
Matthew 24:5
For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ' and will deceive many.2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.Romans 16:17
17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.Ever since the Trinity doctrine was forced on the believers with threats of death etc, it has always had opposition and remained controversial. This doctrine has been one of the greatest forms of divisions in the Church. We all agree that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah, why cause unnecessary division by making believers believe in a doctrine that was enforced many hundreds of years after the Book of Revelation and at it's best is not taught explicitly in the scriptures and therefore cannot be foundational and at it's worst is false doctrine that leads to deceptions of many kind such as Mary being the Mother of God etc.
In addition to the deceptions mentioned above, need I remind you of the many warnings that Paul gave to the Church about the Great Falling away and coming deceptions that would run rife after he died. And then we have that mysterious verse about Mystery Babylon who God warns that we (believers) should come out of.
But in all this deception, it is interesting to note that the rock/truth that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God has remained even within the denominational system. This is the truth that we should build our lives upon. We would do well to keep away from other doctrines that change the truth of God into a lie. The Church should be united in the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah.
John 16.12 “I have many more things to teach you, but now it would be too much for you to bear. But when the Spirit comes he will lead you into all truth”
Of course we have the Spirit who leads us into all truth. Did the Spirit lead the Christians into enforcing the Trinity doctrine centuries later and then lead them to excommunicate, banish or kill all opposition.
No way would the Spirit of God lead men to do such things. We are even told by Christ to love our enemies, and according to John it is our love that demonstrates that we are the children of God.
The Spirit of God would never lead a man to believe in the Trinity, unless that person deserved it.
2 Thessalonians 2:11
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:Genuine believers who believe in the Trinity doctrine believe it because they do not realise that they are caught up in a system of control that has it's own doctrines and traditions. To such people I pray that God would deliver them out of deception and toward his glorious light of truth before they become entangled and start to preach false doctrine themselves.
Jesus warned us to watch out for deceivers. In Acts 20:29 (English-NIV):
I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.Heretics always see the established Church in these verses, never themselves, how curious.
What is the Church? It isn't the denominations and it certainly isn't the Mother of Denominations. If Heresy is an opinion or a doctrine at variance with religious beliefs, especially Roman Catholic dogma, by a professed believer or baptized Roman Catholic Church member, then heresy is not the same as not being banished from Christ's Church. For one is administered by men and promotes one man as the representitive of Christ and the other is built by Christ and with him being the head and us being his body. One is built by men, the other by Christ. I do not belong to the first and have no desire to ever belong there. So you can call me what you like, it means nothing if your authority is from the Roman Catholic Church.
I have no problem with being a heretic in your definition as I am a heretic with regards to the Religious Babylonian System that pretends to be the Church of Christ, in fact I would do well to be a heretic of this false system. How can I love this prostitute. God forbid such evil. I do have a big problem if I am not part of Christ's Church, for this is the true Church and the body that he uses to bring his gospel of the Kingdom.
So heretics would have more chance of kno
wing the difference and grasping the truth that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christ's Church.Those who set up Churches in their own name or own purpose, do not understand that they are setting up an organisation in opposition to the true Church that was established by Christ and is his body for engaging his will on earth. This Church is not denominational, but is invisible and is made up of all true believers. Her name is “The Body of Christ”. Beware that you do not confuse her for “Babylon the Mother of Harlots.
Denominations are part of the world system and most do not realise that it is a system of division. It divides the sheep into different pens, in order to weaken God's Kingdom on earth by dividing the very body that brings the liberating truth of the gospel. This sytem is also full of Babylonian teachings.
I pray that true believers will understand what this prostitute system is doing to them and their brethren and I encourage all to come out of her, lest they partake of her sins and her judgement.
To Global,
Final reply to Biblical Arguments Part IV
Your quote is in gray, outside quotes are in navy and real dodgy quotes that I do not promote but quote for purposes of quoting what Roman Catholics believe are in purple.
The summary says –
Before the Reformation many obvious and simple truths were hidden from the people, such as being saved by grace rather than works.The Catholic Church has never taught salvation by works, this document contains so many errors and half truths it is beginning to resemble the WatchTower magazine.
Ok, so you read the Watch Tower. Nice pictures, but they also claim to be the correct Church. So their ignorance about what and who the Church is, is similar to the Roman Catholic Church's view. We do not have to say that one is right and one is wrong. What about both being wrong. We must agree at least that both cannot be right.
Taken from http://sorrel.humboldt.edu/~wh1….ne.html
Sale of Indulgences. The sale of indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church to finance the building programs and other budgetary needs of Pope Leo X were the spark that ignited the Reformation in Germany under the leadership of Martin Luther. Luther was an indefatigable worker and a tenacious opponent. When his objections to the Church leadership about the problem of indulgences received no satisfaction, he launched into a protracted debate with them about a variety of issues involving Church doctrine. Luther made effective use of the printing press (newly invented at the time) to publicize his views, and he became a charismatic leader of a new religious movement. Not intending at first to leave the Roman Catholic Church (he was himself a monk), he soon found himself at the head of a new religious organization with its own set of doctrines. Luther was a scholar of the Bible, and he researched his objections to the Church with great diligence. Based in his study of the Bible, he developed over time a set of doctrines that offered an alternative to traditional Roman Catholic ideas about salvation, revelation, and the church. These ideas contained within them (unbeknownst to Luther) the spark that deconstructed Christian doctrine over the next four centuries.
Luther's Doctrinal Objections — Salvation by Faith Alone. Luther was a biblical scholar whose position was heavily influenced by the study of Paul's letters, where he discovered (or so he claimed) doctrines that undercut Papal authority. Central to this revisionist reading of the Bible was his interpretation of Romans, where he asserted that salvation in heaven depended solely upon God's grace and upon the faith of the believer. Connected with this doctrine are a number of others that form the core of Protestant beliefs.
i. Sola Fidei — “Justification by Faith Alone”. This was the main doctrine that Luther thought he had found in Paul's letters, and some others derive from it according to strict logic. Essentially Luther came to believe that all people fell short of the requirements laid upon them by “the law”, and thus they fell under its condemnation. That is, human beings are incapable of living up to the requirements placed on them according to the law of God, since human beings are, of their nature, “sinful and unclean”. As Luther claimed, all things human are fallible and imperfect. Not being able to keep the requirements of the law, all people stand judged by it. Luther reasoned, and he understood the New Testament to say, that there is nothing humans can do to gain salvation on their own, and we therefore depend entirely on God's grace for our welfare in the afterlife. In fact, strictly speaking humans do not even “earn” their salvation through faith. Rather, faith is the response of gratitude for God's generosity towards sinful, unworthy beings.
Taken from http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls….lt;font
The doctrine of justification describes how people are saved. In simple terms, historically Lutherans have stressed that salvation comes from God's grace alone while Catholics have seen an important role for the acts, or works, people perform during their lives.
In addition to this, the Catholic Church believed and believes that it was/is the only true Church and that salvation was not available outside that Church.
Therefore I can only conclude that they held/hold the view that you needed/need to be a Roman Catholic (a work) in order to receive salvation.
I am in no way endorsing the following 2 quotes, but for purposes of what Roman Catholics believe, they are quoted.
Taken from http://friarsminor.org/boston.html
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond, and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church `'only by an unconscious desire”. Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
And
Taken from http://www.catholic-defense.com/no_salvation.htm
If Jesus is God, and He left us the Catholic Church as His instrument of salvation on earth, then we cannot of ourselves create some other means of salvation than the one God gave us. In other words, we can’t say to God: “Thanks for your plan, but I’ll do it my own way.” What Vatican II had to say on the subject was that some have a saving communion with the Church even if they don’t have an intellectual understanding of such. In other words, they are members of the Church, albeit in an imperfect way, but are not within the visible confines of the Church.
Vatican II said that if a person is, through no fault of their own, ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church, such a person may attain salvation although they are in an impoverished situation. A person who knows the Catholic Church is true and refuses to embrace the Catholic faith would be accountable for the refusal of God’s plan of salvation.
These quotes compared to scripture, are as far as the east is from the west.
To Global,
Reply to Biblical Arguments Part V
It is scholars of this caliber who insist that the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.
I think that we have already talked about this one at length after your original post.
Reminder:
My stance was similar to Origen and other scholars including Trinitarian scholars. That stance was that the Logos was god in a qualitive sense i.e divine nature as aposed to Divine in identity or as an adjective rather than a noun, because the article that is used when defining a person is not present, but is present when talking about the other instances of God and the Word. My conclusions may differ with those scholars and writers that I quoted, but our stance on John 1:1 was the same.If the article was present e.g The Word was the God or The God was the Word, then it would exclude the Father as God because it would mean that God was the Word exclusively.
“The Logos was god” is how I and many others see it. But you see it as saying that “The Logos is God” and this is misleading and a mistranslation because you are adding in the article when it is not there.
The article was not present for a reason and that reason has to do with the last word God not talking about God in person or God in identity, rather the nature of God or a God quality. E.g. “He is man” means man in nature and “you are the Man, means man in identity.
In addition we have in John's own words as to his conclusion for his gospel and it was certainly not to teach that Jesus is God or part of a Trinity.
John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. ”For readers wanting a full answer to this interpretation, please visit https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-5.htm
To Global,
Reply to Biblical Arguments Part VI
Just as “man” can refer specifically to male to the exclusion of female, So also God can refer to the Father to the exclusion of the Son. However, just as “man” can include both male and female as a class of being, (Gen 5:2 “He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man”), so too “God” can include both Father and Son as a class of being, as in John 1:1.
Yes I could agree with your above statement. We know that both are man as in mankind and God made man in his image, male and female he made them. And often man is used exclusively as male and woman is exclusively female.
Even this logic shows us that woman came from man and my argument is that Christ came from God. So there are many gods, but there is one true God (originator). Just as there are many men, but there is one true originator of men namely Adam, although Jesus has taken his place in order to redeem his offspring.
This brings me back to 1 Corinthians 8:6
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.
and 1 Corinthians 11:3
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.So the original man is Adam, and Eve is also known as man in (human) nature, not as Adam. Similarly, God is the originator of all, yet Christ is referred to as god in a nature sense. In fact even men and angels are sometimes referred to as gods and we who are saved will also participate in the divine nature. But God the originator is exclusively the Father. He is God in identity.
The paraphrase given in the summary misrepresents Trinitarians as Modalists, i.e is saying that the Father is the same person as the Son.
John 1:1 (English-NIV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.If we change the word 'Word' for Eve and God for 'Adam' we get the following: In the beginning was Eve. And Eve was with Adam, and Eve was Adam. She was in the beginning with Adam.
We can see here that Eve came from Adam but Eve isn't Adam. Likewise we know that Jesus came from God, but does John 1:1 say that Jesus is God??Yes I can see your point. It would be better to say man as it can refer to both a person and a nature. But Adam speaks exclusively of a person. It could perhaps read “and Eve was Adam in nature”, or “and Eve had the nature of Adam”. That nature of course is human nature.
Actually I think I changed that a while back, I better check that though.
So we can see that the Trinitarian position is the only logical and consistent interpretation of John 1.1 which defines the word “God” [theos] in John 1:1-2 with the identical definition throughout (God, as a class of being, not as a name).
But as mentioned before, “the Word was god” has no definite article and if it did it would mean that God was the Word, with no mention of the Father. Remember that the Word was with God, so the Word is 1 and God is another (2). It doesn't say that the Word was with the Father, it says the Word was with God.
If we substitute the word 'Trinity' for the word 'God' we end up with the 3 supposed members of the Trinity and the Word. So your conclusion that Trinity is the only logical and consistent interpretation of John 1.1 has to be wrong.
God in identity is always the Father and John 1:1 is no exception. So the Word was with God, which means that the Word is not that God, rather he is with that God, and the Word was god, is god in a qualitive sense. It is not talking about identity. So the omission of the definite article describes the nature of the Word” rather than his identify.
This is why some translations render it: “And the Word was divine.”
Again, the article is used when defining a person and is not present in the last mention of God/god in John 1:1.
God in idenity is not the same as the nature of God. For many will participate in the divine nature, even the redeemed.
If an impartial and objective person genuinely seeking the truth were asked to choose between the position of the scholars and prestigious Bibles I have listed above, or to accept the position of amateur Arian linguists, or translations such as the New World Translation is there any doubt which one they would choose?
I can see how some have concluded from your quotes that the Word is God because it wouldn't be right to say the Word was a God, particularly when there is no article preceeding the last mention of God/god. 'A' and 'the' are both articles of course, but why don't we read it the way it was written. JWs say 'a' and Trinitarians say 'the', but the scripture says nothing. No article. Just God/god.
Again I print this quote from Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2. Although I may not agree with everything he says, (not sure) I do quote the following as it appears to say the same thing:
“We next notice John's use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, b
ut by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”In addition I quote from G.Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.
We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God'' of Paul, Col. 1:15.
More quotes can be found @ https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-5.htm
I believe that the matter of John 1.1 is now so clearly beyond all doubt that if someone were to continue arguing for any alternative translation we would have to ask if it was possible to convince them by any means at all. There are some people who still insist the Earth is flat, despite the irrefutable evidence to the contrary, and it is simply impossible to convince that sort of person of anything.
Funny thing about this is that the Roman Catholic Church was the main hinderance of such scientific findings. Even Galilieo was persecuted by the Roman Catholics. Galileo promoted the fact that the earth revolved around the sun and based his findings on the tides of the earth.
Here is a quote from Encarta.
In 1624 Galileo began a book he wished to call “Dialogue on the Tides,” in which he discussed the Ptolemaic and Copernican hypotheses in relation to the physics of tides. In 1630 the book was licensed for printing by Roman Catholic censors at Rome, but they altered the title to Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems (trans. 1661). It was published at Florence in 1632. Despite two official licenses, Galileo was summoned to Rome by the Inquisition to stand trial for “grave suspicion of heresy.” This charge was grounded on a report that Galileo had been personally ordered in 1616 not to discuss Copernicanism either orally or in writing. Cardinal Bellarmine had died, but Galileo produced a certificate signed by the cardinal, stating that Galileo had been subjected to no further restriction than applied to any Roman Catholic under the 1616 edict. No signed document contradicting this was ever found, but Galileo was nevertheless compelled in 1633 to abjure and was sentenced to life imprisonment (swiftly commuted to permanent house arrest). The Dialogue was ordered to be burned, and the sentence against him was to be read publicly in every university.
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Terrible terrible terrible. I would never want to be identified as having any association with such an ignorant and abusive organisation that would do such obvious harm and wrong, lest I come under her judgement
Now there was a time men believed that the world was flat and from their perspective it was, and then men believed that the world was round when they could see from a higher perspective. Now there is a theory called 'The Flat Universe Theory', and it states that all is flat when looked at from higher dimensions. A higher perspective again perhaps.
Here is a quote:
The faint microwave glow left over from the big bang has been measured with unprecedented precision, giving astronomers a new insight into the nature of the universe. The geometry of the universe is Euclidean and space is flat. This has now been confirmed from detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background – the radiation left over from the big bang – by an international team of astronomers from Italy, the UK, the US, Canada and France.
The point I am making Global is that you say that your and the common interpretation of John 1:1 is as obvious is the world is round, yet that is your perspective of the earth right now and your perspective of God. Perhaps the earth would look different if we could see into the Spiritual Realm, perhaps the earth is a/the footstool in location.
Anyway, it is written, every man is right in his own eyes. It was also your Church that hindered a lot of scientific ideas and persecuted those who advanced the knowledge of the universe if it didn't agree with their point of view. Is it possible that you are doing the same thing as the organisation you belong to has done for centuries.
Now notice that once the world was flat, then it became round and now it turns out that the whole universe could be flat at least according to readings of the background radiation (the after glow) of the Big Bang. So yes we should change and be at least open minded when certain information is brought to light.
So do you think that it may just be possible, even a little possible that the same thing has happened with the Trinity doctrine. After all it was a conclusion drawn by some over a millennia ago and is being promoted in the light of conflicting knowledge of many scriptures.
Perhaps it is just the same ignorance and arrogance all over again. Perhaps the Trinity doctrine will be seen by the true Church one day, as a silly doctrine similar to the Flat Earth belief as seen today.
Hello to all,
I accidently stumbled upon this discussion while searching about how to truelly fear God in this age of "feel good religous focus". I have read some of the posts for the last few days (the first five pages about and then the last 3 pages about).To my point for posting this though. I have prayed and thought about this discussion since i started reading it. I have a couple of pages of notes and questions that i have made during my reading, but i do not feel that God is leading me to talk about those, but to ask to what purpose does this discussion matter.
Both sides of the debate have some very valid arguments. Yet in the end is it not all meaningless. Am I wrong in thinking that we all believe that Jesus came from heaven and died on the crossand on the third day rose again and that he was the Savior that was prophisied about to come and clense the sins of those who believed in him as their Lord and Savior. We also believe that Jesus has/had/will always have some sort of divinity in corrorlation to and pertaining to God the almighty father. Now lets be truthfull this whole discussion is based on what might be that correlation, YET is this a fruitful discussion that will lead us to fearing the Lord our God and to making disciples of all nations. these are the two major things that has been stated for believers in God to do. And everything else is meaningless, as stated in Ecc. 12:12-14 (NIV) "Of many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: FEAR GOD and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgement, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil."
Therefore the matter of the fact is that we will never undertand what the answer to the trinity question really is until we die and reach heaven, and even then the Lord may not choose to impart all of his infinite wisdom and understanding to us on this matter. As one of my favorite verses states "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired and weary, and his understanding no one can fathom." Isaiah 40:28 (NIV) So the continuation of this discussion is futile. It neither advances the Kingdom of God here on earth, nor does it bring our God any glory for us to bicker about this any longer. This is creating even more dissension and fragmentation of the body of Christ then there already was (im refer to another thread on this site to T8 by a man in a church that felt torn between the agreement he signed with a church and his new found belief in the non-trinity camp), and part of your (t8) big thing is that the dinominations have torn apart the body of Christ apart. and i agree that is is why i feel the need to post this. We do not have to agree on everything and the interpitation of it all.
In the end the big thing is that we should not veiw eachother as trinitarians (and no t8 I do not think that this is some big huge thing related to the tower of Babylon and the worship of the mother of all gods and what not) or non-trinitarians, but that we focus on the advancement of God’s will on earth with an earnest and God fearing heart full of love, compassion, and hope which is brought about by the Spirit of God (how ever the Spirit of God works into the correlation and relationship of God the father, and Jesus the Savior).
Sincerely, Your fellow brother in Christ,
ECOP.S. sorry for any misspellings or wrong grammer, or the what not. I was raised in the American education system, which has some holes in it.
To eco,
Thx for your ideas.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but my point to this debate is that I wrote a page/s on the Trinity and I have been challenged on it and I should as the scriptures say, be ready to have an answer for what I believe, when questioned.
I am being accountable for my teaching by letting myself be questioned and using scripture to show what I believe. This is exactly what Christ did.
Now I can fellowship with those who have different opinions about what is true as long as it is not foundational. E.g if you believe that Jesus had green hair, then I may say to you that I do not think this was the case, but I will still accept you as a brother, if you believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and you are in right standing with God.
The problem is that there exists a system that says that true Christianity preaches the Trinity and is taught as foundational. Yet the Trinity has more to do with politics than truth/scripture. Therefore if I use scripture to prove that it is not part of the true faith, then I would do well to do so, as truth must shine through darkness and all lies must surrender to Christ.
2 Corinthians 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.The Trinity doctrine has caused problems from the time it was instituted as it has been promoted as a requirement and history is full of those who have been slain for going against the system that enforces it.
I think that your conclusion with leaving it alone as what good does such a thing do, in the end leaves us back at the beginning of the problem. If I and others do not use scripture to prove that this doctrine is not true, then this false requirement for salvation will continue and it makes it difficult for God to bless his people when they run after other gods or if they teach lies.
Now when we talk of unity, we are not talking about compromise of truth, for true unity can only be built on truth, as a false foundation will fall. Even Satan's Kingdom will have certain unity. Unity for it's own sake is not of God. Unity in truth is. Light shines in darkness and darkness cannot overcome it.
Now if Jesus came and tried not to disrupt unity among the religious, then he would not have done what he did.
Luke 12:49-52
49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!
51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”What kind of division did Christ bring. Truth on one side and lies on the other. Light on one side and darkness on the other. Good and evil and so on. In other words he came to sort out the Wheat from the Tares.
eco, your idea about Babylon not being a system that enslaves as I believe it is, I then ask you to tell me what Mystery Babylon is. You can only conclude that it is not, if you know what it is, so I await your answer. If you do not have an answer, then at least be open minded about what she is, lest you become judged along with her.
She has the following characterisitics taken from Revelation 17.
1) She is the city on the 7 hills.
2) She is connected to the 7 World Kingdoms including Rome, as it was the current kingdom. Babylon was also a kingdom.
3) She was drunk with the blood of the saints (Martyrs).
4) She sits over peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.
5) We (believers) are told to come out of her, lest we are judged with her.In addition to this information, history shows us that the original Babylon was judged for a number of reasons of which her false gods and graven images stood out as a particular evil before God.
Anyway, I find it quite amazing that my search for truth is always hindered by religious people, just as the Pharasees apposed Christ at every turn. Of course I am not saying that you are one such person, but I do hope that you understand the importance of exposing lies, when truth is the only solid foundation upon which we can truly build. Especially lies dressed up as the truth.
For example, I have lost count at the number of times I have heard Christians say “If you don't believe that Jesus is God, then you are of the antichrist spirit”.
How false such words are. When I ask by what authority they say such words, they cannot give me an answer because their authority is not authoritive at all. They are simply misquoting scripture. Anyway I know why they say it. It is because the religious system that they adhere to teaches this doctrine openly.
It surely is a strange thing that such a lie can survive against what is written in scripture, but it just goes to show that most people do not actually read scripture very often. They rely more on what they are taught by men, rather than seeking out the truth with the divine guidance of God's Spirit.
I finish with the following truths.
1 John 3:8b
……. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.to the dearest of all the t8s i know (of course your the only one i do know, my try at a little humor),
All that i am saying is that you and ramblinrose (sp.?) and Ambassador of Christ have stated your arguments for both for and against the trinity docterine very nicely. And that after spending many nights trying to read through all the arguments and look up scripture and cross references and what not, i have even barely made a dent in all that is posted on this one forum issue. So, i think that each person should make "closing" arguments and then let the discussion stand for its self. There is enough information on both sides for an intelligent person to pray, ponder, and come to a conclussion on. So herray for you and Amb. of Christ for the great amount of reaserch and studying but, now is the time to move on to what ever you 2 are doing to advance the kingdom besides this debate.
My conclusion on this debate: (this has nothing to do with my last post) The very basics of my thought is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all seperate, yet in some way they are connected through the God the Father (weather it be Jesus as some sort of/ or part of God incarnate thus coming from God the father (begotten) but not wholey God the father, or as in the Holy Spirit as God’s spirit in us). Thus they are all part of God the Father or have apart of him (just as a offspring has some of the parental genetic code in them). Now to debate and to go into detail as to the correlation and the exact form of the relationship that is in place is a waste of time and effort do to the facts that we are humans and or brains cannot grasp the type of relationship that they have, and the Bible does not tell us out right what it is. The scriptures tell us just enough for us to know that there is some devine relationship between the three, so that we could set our faith in this relationship.
Now about your referance to how you feel that you must "shine the Light and the truth" about the trinity and denominations. i am all for you spreading the news about how denominations are man made and that we should hold no binds to them, but rather to God, but to say some one else is wrong about what they think about some trivial fact between God and Jesus and that they are condemded to be judged with babylon is just as bad as the trinitarians forcing the idea of the trinity on people. this is something that WE WON"T UNDERSTAND, and it does not effect our salvation through Jesus Christ. I like to compare it to communnion or baptism, 2 things that have been splitting up the body of Christ of centuries, yet has no real dramatic effect on our salvation, so each should fallow what he or she feels the spirit is leading them to as long as it does not distract for or fearing of the the Lord and fallowing his commandments. (now im not saying this is like saying o-people can go out and do every crazy thing they like as long as they believe Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, no this is not the case at all. but on minor points that we don’t fully understand or comprehend, i think we should leave to be answered when we die.) I agree with you (t8) when you say that the trinity should not be used as a bases of salvation, and that it is is kind of sad. But i think the rinity is a easy way for people to put a lable on the unexplainable, such as Yawhey (sp.?) was used by the jews to discribe this all mighty and powerful God, yet the trem Yawhey is just a lable for something that they/we can not understand fully. I also do not wish to have unity with the compromise of truth, but the TRUTH of the matter is there are scriptures that help to discribe the relationship between God and Jesus, yet there is no exact answer, (now i know your are saying yes, but it does give an exact answer, because it says that jesus is the Son and God is the Father, and my reply is that it is like another parable or comparison, because how does God have a son, does that mean he has a wife, or is he mearly an asexual repoductive almighty God thing) because or minds can not comprehend this unearthly relationship.
Some final thoughts. Babylon: i have no clue, and its a prophetic message, so like most prohpisies, only people who have been enlighted by God, could really tell what it means, such as the book of Revelations is the topic of much controversy and discussion, but the may point of Revelations is to point out the glory and splendor of Jesus and to what we as believers are going to inhaerit (sp.?). This will probably be my last post because i feel i too am being drawen nto this vortex of a circular discussion for which there is no end in site, but i will still read what is posted because i have found many great scriptures through out the debate and even though i know that i am advocating a stop to this discussion i feel it will go unheaded. thank you for baering with my spelling errors and poor writing style, i look forward to talking with all of you in haeven some day.
Sincerely, Yours in Christ,
ECOTo ECO.
Again thx for posting and sharing your ideas and conclusions.
My words on Babylon and it’s destruction were just a repeat of scripture, so I don’t have a problem speaking scripture. Although I am the first to admit that Babylon may turn out to be some other entity like a country or whatever. But I do feel that there are many similarites between Roman Catholicism and the gods of Babylon. I mean Babylon had it’s own Trinity and even worshipped the Queen of Heaven. Rome is known to this day as the "City on Seven Hills" and the Mother of Harlots is even robed in purple and holds a golden cup in her hand, a rather fitting description. In addition she sits over many peoples and nations and today there are over 1 billion Roman Catholics which is the biggest denomination and the mother of denominations.
Could just all be a big coincidence of course. But regardless of who Babylon is, I still believe that the denominational system has aspects that date as far back as Babylon the city. My opinion is that the system came into being when men turned to creeds and statements of faith and then setup a system (political & religious) to enforce those beliefs. That system actually originated with Rome and Constantine the Emperor. It is that system which I believe we are to come out of because this system is different to the Body of Christ, which is the true Church (universal/catholic as apposed to Roman Catholic). I find it incredibly hard to believe that Jesus Christ is the Head of this system when I look at her fruit and I believe that God will judge her for sins and for standing in the place of the True Church, the Body of Christ.
Anyway, I can find no such verse that condemns those who do not believe in a Triune God, (I know you don’t condemn me) so I feel that I don’t have to apologise to every Trinitarian I meet, for believing that the Father is the true God and his Son is Jesus Christ who was made Lord over all that God created.
The bit about concluding sounds good to me. I have nearly finished my replies to Global’s earlier Biblical Arguments. I think it came in 8 or more parts and I am up to no 6. So about 2 to go.
I would assume that Global may want to reply to my replies however and in some way that would only be fair for him to do so.
So what does everbody think about the idea of concluding and closing this post off, lest it sort of stretches too far and expands into a sort of nothingness as it becomes too stretched out to see anything. Or perhaps it should continue on and be an on going reference and battleground for truth as more understanding comes to light.
———————-
Edited on the 6 Jan 04
———————-Quote Quote: from t8 on 1:22 am on Dec. 25, 2003 Quote Quote: from global on 6:53 am on Dec. 10, 2003
Hi Clemam,is your question addressed to T8?
T8 believes that Jesus is Divine, but is not the same Divinity as the Father.
He also believes that Jesus did not exist before being begat by God.
I have already pointed out to T8 that –
1) belief in more than one divinity is polytheism. T8 denies he is a polytheist, but has refused to explain why. Therefore we have abandoned that topic in this thread.
2)I have made T8 aware of several scriptures which indicate Jesus is eternal and had no starting point to his existence. So far T8 has been unable to explain this.
Be Well.
Um Global,
1) What part of there is one God in identity and many others who share in the nature of God do you not understand? You have a big problem with understanding the difference between identity and nature as most Trinitarians do. This is where you trip yourself up.
2) Show me 3 verses that prove that Christ has lived as long as the Father and we can examine what those scriptures really mean. I will start with 3 that show that he isn’t as old as his Father.
Hebrews 1:5-6 (English-NIV)
<font color=red>5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"
6 And again, when God brings his <b>firstborn</b> into the world, he says, "Let all God’s angels worship him."</font>Proverbs 8:22-30 (English-NIV)
<font color=red>22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, {[22] Or ; or } {[22] Or ; or } before his deeds of old;
23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, <b>I was given birth</b>, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, </font>Colossians 1:12-16 (English-NIV)
<font color=red>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 <b>He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. </b>
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. </font>You know if it wasn’t such a serious subject it would actually be funny, because the word ‘Son’ by it’s very definition means that there must be a ‘Father’ or originator. If the Father and Son were equal and existed together for all eternity, then you would surely have 2 Fathers or at least 2 Gods. The Father-Son idea would be the wrong model to use in describing the relationship between God and the Word/Logos if they were equal and existed for eternity together.
We must acknowledge that there is one God not 2 or 3, yet the Trinity doctrine is an insult to the simplistic meaning and idea behind the Father and Son concept. Instead many have been brainwashed into not asking or questioning the obvious.
It is usually young children or young Christians who question the Trinity Doctrine while trying to reconcile their understanding of the Father and Son concept.
I have even heard many times from their mouths the following:
How can God take a human body and be the Son of God and then the Son of God prays to God and yet be that God as well. Or how can the Son pray to God and be God as well…
The young are usually innocent and can think clearer because they are not yet immersed in the distortion of false doctrine. To them (and to all who are not brainwashed into that doctrine or under the Babylonian Spirit); they can see how clearly silly it really is. They can see that the Emperor has no clothes on.
A similar situation is found with the Theory of Evolution. Many so-called enlightened people believe that their ancestors were apes. When many first hear of the theory though, their first thought is that the doctrine is very weird and almost silly, but after a while and through constant teaching whilst looking at the acceptance of that doctrine by others, many just accept it. Then later when they are challenged on the doctrine, it is usual that they defend it with all their pride. Of course not all of us are under that particular Spirit, but many are.
I think that the Trinity Doctrine is a deception and curse for those who believe in God, but do not seek after the truth with all their hearts. In the same way, the Theory of Evolution is a deception for those who do not believe in God.
Isaiah 66:4
<font color=red>I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. </font>2 Thessalonians 2:11
<font color=red>And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: </font>Hi T8, Happy New Year. I’ve been away for a while so I’m just catching up on the last few pages of discussion.
It’s nice to see you getting around to answering some of my previous points, but perhaps I should recommend you to refresh your memory about some of our previous discussions before you continue.
Especially regarding the quote you give above attempting to prove that Jesus is not eternal where you bring up the old "firstborn" chestnut.
I have dealt with this previously and have shown that the word firstborn in the Bible does not necessarily mean the first person born but is also a term of honour indicating a special rank held by a particular person.
Hence, Israel, for example is also called God’s firstborn.
The application of that title to Jesus therefore absolutely fails to prove that Jesus is not eternal.
Regarding your challenge to provide 3 scriptures showing he is eternal, I have also done that in one of my previous posts, and this is one of the topics that I am still waiting a reply from you on.
I will therefore give you a chance to review the previous posts before I start answering again so that we can avoid repeating material.
Be well.
To T8.
Very good and constructive posting on the biblical argument T8, even though it tooks me over an hour of constant reading, I really enjoy and delighted by it.
I will reread it a few more time.To Global and t8,
Before you go two goes on the debate over Jesus eternal quality, might also help if you can get a basic idea of what is defined by eternality. It will give a clear ground to build your arguments if at least you agree on the same definitions.To Global,
No instance of any firstborn has eternally existed. Israel, Jacob, who or whatever.
God is eternal and God is not a firstborn. So to say that Jesus is eternal and to say that the word firstborn doesn’t necessarily prove that Jesus wasn’t eternal may be correct, but it also goes the other way. It doesn’t prove that he is eternal and as I said before, all other instances of firstborn have not existed for all eternity. Why should the term firstborn be any different when used to describe Jesus?
I have noticed that when it comes to the Trinity doctrine and fitting Christ into this 3 headed god, suddenly a lot of the rules change.
To dmateo,
Thank you for your enouragement.
My stance on Jesus eternal quality is that all that he has comes from the Father. So Jesus source is God. Jesus came from God. Therefore who is the greater, the source or the one who came from him. The giver or the receiver. The one who sends, or the one who is sent.As far as Christ's eternal existance goes. I am very open to learning something here. The scriptures indicate to me at least that the Father is the ever existing one and the Son was the first to come from God.
In other words the Son who is/was the Logos came from God at some point. He was given birth before creation and was at God's side when God created all things and he delighted in his presence.
I define creation as all that came from God through Christ. This definition disqualifies Christ from being a creature. He was not created he was given birth from no other source but the Father and this is why he is called the only begotten of the Father.
Since Christ is the only begotten of God, it shows that the Father is older, greater and is the true God.
E.g. If I have eternal life, then am I as old as God. Of course not. If I will live forever, then I am heading toward eternity in years, but my existance can always be counted. If God existed forever in the past, then his years cannot be counted.
It is hard for the human mind to grasp this, but the fact that God has always existed is a matter of faith and that his son came from him, is also a matter of faith.
John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.To Global,
Reply to Biblical Arguments Part VII
Your post concentrates on the verses that group 3 persons together and then does the same with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You then quote 58 verses that group God, his Son and his Spirit.
Yes there is merit in why they are grouped, but my point is that just as Peter, James and John being grouped together doesn't make them God or some kind of a man trinity, nor can the verses that describe the Father/God, son and the Spirit as one God.
In fact many of the verses that group the Father, Son and Spirit together actually group God, Son and the Spirit. It just proves that the true God in identity is always the Father.
E.g 19. Romans 8:2-3
2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
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,Nowhere is Christ recognised as God in those 58 scriptures. God is always the Father. To assume that all 3 are 1 God is the imagination of man. It is not taught in scripture and quoting 58 scriptures that groups together the Father, Son and Spirit or God, Son and Spirit doesn't prove the Trinity doctrine. The fact that both Father and God are used in addition to the Spirit and the Son, show that God is the Father.
Similarly Peter James and John are not one man but 3 men. They are 3 people who are grouped together for a reason. That reason is not to prove that they are somehow a man trinity. Again that would be purely imagination and not the teaching of scripture.
Jude 20-21:
“praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. “Who is God in Jude 20-21 for example?
To Global,
Reply to FURTHER HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF BELIEF IN THE TRINITY AMOUNGST THE FIRST CHRISTIANS.
(found just after your Biblical Arguments Part VII)You posted a huge amount of information on other texts where Jesus is supposedly identified as God.
First of all I want to say that the Bible should have ample evidence that Jesus is the Most High God and if it doesn't and other writings do, then you have to ask why they differ.
Anyway as you could imagine, I have no time to read every quote, so I will start from the top and work down part of the way.
The first quote indeed seems to identify Christ as God with the following quote:
God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman?
However such language is never used in the Bible and I certainly doubt the validity of such a writing. In fact a short search on Google produced links to sites that were very sceptical of the 50AD date. Many seem to think it is more like 200 AD.
Some quotes below:
While some King James Only advocates allege that the date of the papyrus fragment is about AD 60, the expert papyrologists do not support this date. Most authorities date the fragment at about AD 200.[8] One exception is Thiede who concluded:
In conclusion, the evidence indicates that the Magdalen Papyrus is not a recent discovery, it is very likely not dated in the first century but in the late second, and it does not support the Byzantine readings against both Aleph and B. Therefore, it is a serious mistake to claim that this manuscript supports the King James Only view.
As it turned out, there was a serious discrepancy between the sensational claims made in The Times and the cautious tone of the academic journal. Carsten Thiede had actually concluded: “… it may be argued that it (the Matthew papyrus) could be redated from the late second to the late first century, some time after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (in A.D. 70).” However, most scholars today feel that there is no persuasive evidence in favor of a first-century dating of these Magdalen fragments.
So yes that text calls Jesus God, but how valid is this text really? Of course the Trinity doctrine would not just appear out of the blue. There would be fragments of it's teaching or essence just as there would be with any widespread false doctrine. All things must have a beginning (except God).
Regardless of the age of this book, it certainly is not older than biblical scripture and if a book written after that time says that Jesus is God and the Biblical books do not, then I know which one I will trust more.
Again I repeat that such language is not found in the Bible. It would be interesting if it were, but it is not. Isn't it just a bit weird that God (referring to Jesus) is not in the Bible, but is found in other later writings?
You then quote from The Letter of Barnabas with the following:
the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,' understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men”
My opinion with this is that it supports what I am saying. Jesus is the Lord and God is another. I agree with this. Notice that God is mentioned as being different to that Lord. I have always said that Jesus is Lord and the Father is God. Even the “Let us make man in our image” quote is exactly what I have said in the Trinity Writings that you are challenging.
The next quote from Hermas:
“The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father's adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient”I also agree with this and again this in no way proves a Trinity. It proves the fact that Jesus is ancient and predates creation. Notice that it doesn't say that Jesus has always existed.
You then quote Ignatius of Antioch and he certainly uses the word God in reference to Jesus. But Ignatius also uses the word 'Christianity and Heretics' and I doubt that his writings are inspired as they differ a lot to say the letters of Paul, Peter and John for example and seem to follow tradition. In fact it appears that Ignatius uses the word God many times, in reference to Jesus. Certainly a huge departure from the pattern and teaching of biblical scripture.
His mention of the term “the Father and of Jesus Christ our God” is certainly very different to the Bible.
Of course there are a few possible explanations for this. It could be that the word translated God has a wide variety of uses and can be associated with the word Lord. Or perhaps someone altered the original text or it could be that Ignatius taught false doctrine and was one of the first to promote this soon to be big doctrine.
Whatever the reason, I still believe that truth is contained within Biblical scripture and scripture is certainly the place where we should find scriptures that teach that Jesus Christ is God, of which we do not.
How does one explain the huge difference with The Father being the True and Most High God of the Bible with Jesus being God in some of these later writings?
A contradiction or mistranslation?
The scriptures that teach that the Father is the only God in identity, are in conflict with some of these latter writings, there is no doubt about that. Then again I suppose that the doctrine had certainly matured by the time of the Nicene Creed although it still had somewhat of a distance to go even then, as the Holy Spirit was added in decades later to complete the Trinity Doctrine as we know it today.
Your next quote comes from Justin Martyr
“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5-6).
150 AD Justin Martyr “Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race”
“God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word … We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 61).
I tend to agree with his view that Jesus came from God and is distinct from God in that his source is in God and that he is not the source himself.
You also mention that the JWs say that Christ is an angel and in the same post you quote the following words from Justin Martyr.
of Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed;
So on one hand you say that Christ is not an Angel and on the other you appear to promote the words of Justin Martyr.
You then say that he refers to Jesus as the “angel of the Lord” after creation in various appearances to man, not before.
I have thought about the phrase 'Angel of the Lord' and I think that we have discussed it in the past. I do not have a conclusion yet as it does appear that Christ is referred to as that Angel from time to time, but it could also be that the
re is an angel that represents Christ in the same way that Christ represents God.Revelation 1:1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
Perhaps that Angel is Michael?Anyway all these writings were wriiten after the letters of Peter, Paul and John etc. These writings should be based on the New Testament scriptures, just as the New Testament scriptures are based on the Old Testament. So if these writings differ or are in conflict with the New Testament writings, then they could well be false teaching or mistranslations.
We know that there are many deceivers who have gone out into the world and will have sway over many.
Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.1 John 5:11
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.So my conclusion with this post of yours is as follows:
There is scripture and there are many other writings written after the scriptures of the Bible. Most of these writings would certainly be based or pretend to be based on the teachings found in the New Testament and I am certainly open to the fact that some of these writings are actually scripture. But when a writing or letter differs greatly to the New Testament teachings and is in conflict with them, I can only conclude that corruption of the text, false teaching or different usage of words such as God have taken place. Of course my conclusion is not a fantastic one, but is very possible as “The Great Falling Away” was predicted in the New Testament and warnings in Revelation about adding and taking away (corruption of text) from the book obviously proves the very real possibility of such a thing happening.
It is often quoted in these quotes that The Word came from God and existed within God. I don't ahve a problem with this myself, but to say that the Word is God because he came from God denies the unique identity of the Son. Likewise we may be born of God, but we are not God either. We are unique and hopefully Godlike.
In the New Testament we find that God in identity is the Father (Yahweh) and he begat a Son who's name is Yahshua and he existed as the Word of God before partaking of humanity. The Word/Son came from God and the Word/Son has the nature of God.
Hi All,
Wanted to chip in into the question on Jesus Eternality.
We know that all thing are created. Can we agree that by saying it was created, it has never existed before, thus the needs for creation ? This is my current base foundation of understanding. I’m open to opinion on this.When we speak of the Son, he was refered to as the firsborn, proceed, the only begotten son etc. It emphasis on the fact that the Son was never created. He was never created and so how did he becomes what he is. Some reference in the bible (John 1:1 for example), refered to Jesus origin as "The Word" (Logos). In this John1:1, described how "The Word" become flesh, and this flesh is what we know with the identity of "Jesus". By saying Jesus as "The Word" of God, John has had made things very clear. If you recall, During creation, the instrument that God use to create the universe is His word. For example Gen1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God said, so what comes out of God is the word "Let there be light". Surely even the first word that God has ever spoken would come after God.
In that regards, God preexisted the Word. So where is Jesus. During creation and old testament, I’m not sure if there has been a reference of Jesus as a unique person. Creation and all God’s act(s) are done through his command (read "His Word"), which essentially means, by John1:1 understanding, through or by Jesus. But the personality of the Word himself (please do correct me if I’m wrong, I have not read with full attention every single word in old testament), can’t be found. The first reference that I know is John1:1.
Now for eternal. Speaking of eternality, we can’t be far from the concept of Time. What is time ? What does the concept based on. If nothing changes in this universe, if everything stop and does not change, what would that be? Some people refer to this as time stop ? Really ?
I couldn’t help to wonder why is this the way it is? Is there really such a thing called time, or are we just creating it, to "MARK" the sequence of happening or some other silly purpose? If there is something in this world that does not change one bit, can we call them eternal ? Infinite, uncontainable by Time ?The fact is the universe is not containable by length, width and height measurement, and I would also say uncontainable by Time.
Or rather, I would say that those things are not substantial to understand the universe and God, because actually they do not exist. The only reason they exist is because we human create them to contain everything within this universe inside our logic. It’s a big difference. A monkey does not necessarily know numbers, but given an option of 1 banana and 2 banana it would try to get 2 banana or 3? Crocodile would prefer Zebra to birds. Aside from the fact that they don’t have to weight it or size it. It’s just there.If you asked me does Jesus pre-exist his birth ? I would say no. He is flesh, the flesh are subject to the universal law, it cannot pre-exist the birth. But if you asked me if the essence of Jesus (which we know as in John 1:1) which is "The Word of God" pre-exist the birth, of course he does. He was in God in the beginning, He was the Word Of God!
Now, so much for the theory. "I’m the alpha and the omega". He didn’t not say "I’m the alpha OR the Omega". He said "AND". the logical operation of "AND" would require both variable to be true to yield true as the result. It meas He is both the Beginning and the End. Now try to cram this into our logic of Time. Can something be the beginning AND also the End ? Can there be something like that ? Computer computation would say "No", or program logic error, or syntax error. In fact in our logic Beginning and End, distance would probalby measured (we love to measure thing), as close to infinity or using some mathematical equation it would become infinite!
Okay. Conclusion. Jesus Christ in essence is ‘The Word of God". He was infact contained inside God since infinite years ago. The moment that God speak, thus He proceed from God. He is not created, for He is the Word. Through this Word God has created all things. In time, "this Word" became flesh. The Flesh that we came to know as Jesus/ Yahua. Who in turn are annointed by God and announced as His Son. Christ, our Lord, our saviour. Jesus was tested and died on the cross as a token of submission to the will of God His Father. In time he was crowned with Glory and given authority over all creation. He knows rule over together with God on His throne eternally. Does this means Jesus is eternal, depends on the understanding of the word. If Eternal is to say he will not end and will always be the same, unchanging in existance through time, yes, He is. No doubt about that.
Does he exist from infinity to infinity ? Logic failed. there is no such thing as infinity. Infinity is an expression that express our limitation. Infinity is something that we can’t measure, something we can’t grasp, because we’re limited being! Since the number is so big, we say it’s infinite. Why because we don’t know what the number is !
But one thing for sure, the sequence of happening is the same. There has to be God, before there is "the Word of God". The word cannot stand on his own. Without God there would be no Word.(Edited by dmateo at 5:19 pm on Jan. 15, 2004)
To dmateo,
I believe that creation is summarized by the following scripture:
John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.I don't see any scripture or teaching that defines all that had a beginning is created although it goes almost without saying that all creation has a beginning. So we are created in the image of God, but we are also Born Again from above. But is that new birth in God's Spirit an act of creation of being made with God's hand or is begotten and birth different?
Jesus was born from God and yet he is not created. Our bodies are created, but is our spirit a created thing or does it come from God directly?
If the spirit within me is from God, then was that part of me created?
John 1:12-13
12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
13 children born not of natural descent nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.Is being born of God, the same as being created by God?
If we look at the scriptures regarding Christ, we can see that he was not created according to John 1:3, yet it appears that the scriptures teach that Christ came from the Father and therefore he (his will) hasn't always existed with God.
The Logos was with God in the beginning, before creation. But Christ definately has a will that is unique/different to the will of the Father, but Jesus chooses to align his will with his Father and his God. Our will and freedom to choose is what defines us as a person rather than a process or object that God has created. Our will is why we are responsible for our own actions. God doesn't judge a car that kills a person because a car doesn't have it's own will. No it is the driver who is responsible because the driver is the one with the will, the one who made the decision.
So I personally think that Christ became, when he had his own will. At what point God gave the Logos a will is the moment that Christ existed as his own person. The fact that the Word was with God in the beginning shows us that the Word existed alongside God. It doesn't say that the Word was in God.
Similarly, if I am born of God by his Spirit, then that doesn't make me God. I am me, because I have a will. Like the famous words “I think therefore I am”.
Was the Logos originally within the mind of God, probably. But at some point he thought for himself and he was with God, not in him.
If we read the Wisdom scriptures of Proverbs 8:22-30, we can see that Wisdom was given birth, before all his works of old.
At what point was Wisdom given birth? Well I doubt that either of us could put a date on it as this probably happened before time itself existed. But as you have pointed out, whatever way we look at it, God is before his own Word. His Word is part of him. But when that Word/Logos thinks and has his own will, then he is a unique work of God. He is not God himself, rather he comes from God.
The question for me is when did the Logos think for himself. When did he become his own person? Was it before creation, or was it when he was born on earth as a man.
I lean hevily toward Jesus being the first of God's works and that he came to be, before all things. I base this belief on a number of scriptures of which John 1:1 stands out. I have written on this subject at the following location. (I give these references repeatedly for the benefits of the readers who haven't read the whole post or are unaware how why this discussion is taking place). So forgive me if I seem to repeat myself to you.
Thx for you ideas and input thus far. It is good to think and search the scriptures daily to see if it is so. I appreciate your searching heart and ideas. It is very healthy to think and to share ideas relating to God. Most of what I have learned comes from other people such as yourself, but the conviction and desire to learn these things comes from God.
To Global,
In this post, you argue the use of 'I am' by Christ is proof that Jesus is Yahweh. Your argument was a reaction to what I wrote in my writing at the following location:
Scriptures used to support the Trinity doctrine
Anyway I would like to start this post with the following famous words.
“I think therefore I am”.
Now if Christ had said these words this would be proof (in your own eyes) that Jesus is Yahweh, but if I said it, it would have a different meaning in your eyes.
What is the difference? It is your predefined belief that changes the meaning.
'I am' simply means 'I exist'. It doesn't make any difference to who says it.
Similarly in scripture, we see the phrase 'I am' (ego eimi) spoken by many people in the New Testament and it is used to identify them. It's that simple.
When Jesus said 'I am', he was identifying himself. If we look that the question that prompted Jesus to give this answer you will see that he was simply identifying himself because he asked them whom they were seeking and they said Jesus of Nazareth. In other words they were seeking Jesus and he said I am that person. They didn't say we are seeking God did they.
John 18
4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”
5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.
6 “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.In addition to Jesus saying 'I am', we also have the angel Gabriel, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus and Peter who all use the phrase 'ego eimi' to identify themselves.
So it is normal to say the words 'I am' (ego eimi) if someone needs to know who you are. I am sure that you mention the term 'I am' quite often (e.g. I am a Catholic) and I am also sure that you or no one equates these words to mean that you are claiming to be Yahweh.
I provided in my writing, the information regarding the Pharasees hearing Jesus say 'I am' on many occassions and yet they were never offended by these words, rather they questioned other things like the coming down from heaven part or being older than Abraham. I will quote that below:
Yashua used the phrase “ego eimi” at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (John 8:58). Jesus said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd, in John.6:35-48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true of verses 51 & 52.
In John 8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Jesus used “ego eimi” with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in John 10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Jesus said to his disciples, “that ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)” in John 13:19 without them batting an eye.Come on Global, if Jesus were saying that he was Yahweh, do you honestly think the people would not be stirred up and rioting over his words. Instead we find that they have problems with the coming down from heaven part or being older than Abraham. In addition we know that the same people that heard Jesus say 'I am' never accused him of blasphemy or got him crucified for claiming to be God. In fact they sought false witness against him because they were desperate to get something to stick to him and in the end they came up with the excuse that Jesus said he would destroy the temple and raise it up in 3 days. Of course he was talking about his body, but why oh why did they not simply try him for saying that he was Yahweh/I am. This would have been a clear cut reason to have him on a blasphemy charge with many witnesses on more than 1 occassion. But they never used that, because he never said that he was the 'I Am' or 'Yahweh' in the first place. Rather he said I am Jesus of Nazareth.
You then argue that Jesus says 'I am' too many times for it not to have connations with Yahweh's words in Exodus 3:13-14.
But if you think about it, the Father revealed to Peter who Jesus was, namely the Messiah and the Son of God. And of course Jesus Christ built his own Church on that truth, the truth of his identity as the Son of God and Christ. So 'I am' would be a more common phrase regarding Christ than anyone else. “I am the bread of life”, I am the truth. etc. These revelations are of utmost importance.
In addition, he never once said “I am God”. So the Trinitarian 'I Am' argument doesn't stand under scrutiny and only highlights the fact that Jesus said I am the Truth, the Son of God, the Way, The Bread of Life, but never “I am God”.
So yes, Jesus says 'I am' a lot, but that is completely understandable given who he is and the revelation of who he is, not being readlily understood by men. And yes we do not see others, like Peter saying 'I am' a lot, because it is not about them. There is no mystery to Peter apart from the fact that he is a man who walked with Christ and was called as an apostle. But he is a man, not some person who came from heaven. So he wouldn't need to go round saying “I am this or that” to every Tom Dick and Harry. No he went round telling people about the Christ instead.
Now if you analyse what I have written in this post you may see that I have used the term 'I am' even when you exclude my quotes about Christ. It is simply a common and natural way to identify oneself and I have used it in this writing without even thinking about it. I spotted myself saying it as I did a search on that term to make sure that all of them had a quote round them. But some occurances didn't require them because I was using that term in a different way.
E.g. I said “I am sure that you mention the term 'I am' quite often”…
Now if I was somehow trying to pass on a secret message by identifying myself as Yahweh, and if we ignore how rediculous that is, doesn't it just seem quite a hard thing to work out. When Jesus asked who they were looking for, and they said Jesus of Nazareth and then he said I am. Isn't that just a natural and common answer that you would get in that situation. And if our Lord were trying to convey a secret embedded message that he were Yahweh to his hearers, then isn't that just a little too cryptic. Then to say that you must believe that he is Yahweh because he says 'I am' just like anyone else says it, would be unreasonable in my opinion.
It would be like you not recognising that I am Yahweh because I have written 'I am' in this post. Remember that these people were not looking for Yahweh to come in the flesh, they knew only the truth about the Messiah who was to come.
The assumption that Jesus is Yahweh because he said “I am the Bread of Life” and other similar words is not only rediculous, but it is very unfair, especially if our life depended on it.
Now the other thing that we must consider about this scenario is the different language of the Old and New Testaments.
In the Old Testament, Yahweh said to Moses in Exodus 3:13-14
13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, `What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?”
14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: `I AM has sent me to you.'”The words “I AM THAT I AM” in Hebrew is “eh-yeh asher ey-yeh” and in Greek, the words that Christ spoke was “ego eimi”.
So what gives anyone the authority to say that Jesus words are the same words that Yahweh spoke to Moses. What Jesus did was to answer a simple question with a simple answer. H
is words were commonly spoken by others in scripture and in that time. They are to this day still spoken and are still a simple means of identifying oneself. E.g. I am amazed how people can say that the words 'I am' are identifying oneself with Yahweh, when the question was are you Jesus? And no I am not Yahweh, because I said 'I am'.Now to explain the words of Yahweh, I have decided to quote another web site.
The answer is brief, but it is far more than just a name. In fact, Moses' question and God's answer have far deeper implications than we 21st century Westerners realize.
Within both Egyptian and Hebrew culture it was believed that a person's name revealed the very essence of one bearing it. It is for that reason that the Bible will sometimes explain a name (such as that of Moses, for example) or it will recount the changing of a name to better reflect a person (such as when Jacob became Israel and Abram became Abraham).
The ancient Egyptians and Hebrews took their belief that a name was to be the exact representation of the person one step further. They believed that to know a person's name was to know that person wholly and utterly, even to the extent of sometimes having power and authority over that person.
For this reason, while the Egyptian Pharoahs had a public name, they carefully kept their real names secret as a way of protecting their power and authority.
It's against this cultural backdrop that Moses asked for God's name. In making such a request, Moses wasn't just asking for a label to distinguish Yahweh from pagan gods. Moses was asking for a description of God's very essence. That's what God gave to him. Eheyeh asher Eheyeh is a Hebrew phrase that has been variously translated as “I am who I am,” “I am He who exists,” “I become what I will become,” or even “He shall cause to be.” It is one of those little phrases that wraps up volumes of rich meaning.
Millennia later Yahweh send his son and on certain ocassion he teaches the people who he is, by saying 'I am the Bread of Life” etc. Of course his language was normal for anyone giving such explanations and the only reason that I can see a person marrying the 2 phrases as the same is pure imagination.
Similar to the Theory of Evolution, the doctrine of the Trinity is based mainly on imagination and they desperately cling to any scripture that could even have the slightest possibility of backing up their thoughts. But in doing so they have gone off track with the meanings of the scriptures that they quote and change the truth of God into a lie.
In your next post, which is an addition to your Part VIII post, you then go on about God came in the flesh, God served, God ascended and then Jesus was restored to the form of God. I suppose next you will say that Mary is the Mother of God.
See all this false thinking leads men away from the truth in scripture and into a completely different picture. I have said it before and I will say it again, “God cannot die”, “God cannot take sin on himself”, “God doesn't have a mother”. Far from it.
In conclusion, had Jesus actually said or taught that he was the “I AM THAT I AM” or actually said that he was Yahweh, then that would be convincing enough for me, but he simply said “I am”. A common usage of words for that time and today.
Finally I leave you with the following scriptures that proves without a doubt that Jesus is not Yahweh.
Psalm 2:7
“I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.Acts 13:33 (NASB)
that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.Hebrews 1:5 (NASB)
For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?
And again,
“I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?Hebrews 5 (NASB)
So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him,
“YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”;Therefore Jesus is the Son of Yahweh, Yahweh is the Father and Yahweh is God. Therefore Jesus is not Yahweh and he is not God. Jesus is the son of Yahweh, otherwise known as the Son OF God.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
