The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

To Global,

Reply to Biblical Arguments Part IX

Post IX concentrates on the great commission to his Church in which he says in Matthew 28:19

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

In my first line of defence, with regards to this verse teaching a Trinity is that you and Trinitarians in general say that the Trinity has always been taught by the Church and there was never a time that it was not. Of course you would say this, otherwise you would have to admit that it was an addition and therefore not a biblical doctrine nor a foundational one.

In this discussion I have said it was an addition because the Trinity is not taught in scripture. Yet according to history, the original Nicean Creed included only the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit was added in decades later. So this seems clear to me that the theology was never always taught, but that it developed over time and changed over time.

E.g in Encarta it says the following:

A theology of the Holy Spirit developed slowly, largely in response to controversies over the relation of Jesus Christ to God the Father. In 325, the Council of Nicaea condemned as heresy the Arian teaching that the Son was a creature, neither equal to, nor coeternal with, the Father. ………Later pronouncements brought only one important doctrinal change, the 9th-century addition of filioque to the creed of Constantinople. That addition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, has been a source of discord between Eastern and Western Christianity ever since.

So it seems that history at least shows that the doctrine developed and changed and also divided Christians. History shows a different picture to your belief that the Trinity was always taught and believed by the Church. I would say that it may be true as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, (I am not sure), but for the Body of Christ, (the true Church), certainly not.

So how do Catholics justify themselves by adding to scripture, traditions and doctrines not found in scripture. The answer is a false doctrine called “doctrinal development”.

Catholics like Jehovah’s Witnesses, firmly believe in “doctrinal development”. Both groups promote and believe things that are not found in the Bible and both are “salvation by organization” religions whose leaders have exclusive direct channels to God. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a “new light” or “brighter light” theology where God reveals through the Watchtower new things never before understood. But JW’s have shot themselves in the foot so often in the past, their only escape from absolute ridicule is to claim Doctrinal development like the Catholics! The Catholics of course use doctrinal development to explain the Trinity and Mary being the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven and the Blessed Virgin and many other doctrines such as Purgatory, Penance and Child baptism including the sprinkling of water. Doctrinal development is how they justify their doctrines even when it is at odds with scripture.

Anyway what is on trial here is the Trinity doctrine and this doctrine is no different to other unscriptural doctrines that the Catholics promote. This doctrine clearly developed over the centuries and when we compare it to scripture, it doesn't hold up.

Now the so called Baptismal Formula of Matthew 28:19 is not a formula at all. In fact it seems weird that Catholics love formulas and both baptism and God have been formalized.

Just as God is not truly explained by using a 3 in one formula, baptism is also not a formula. When one speaks of 'in the name of' in scripture, it is not speaking of repeating the words, rather it is conveying that it should be done in the authority of.

Acts 4:7-9
7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!
9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed,
10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

So baptism in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit means that we baptize in the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is not teaching a repititious formula, repititious prayer or chant, of which Catholics are fond of.

Of course Matthew 28:19 shows us, as many other scriptures also do, that there is a Father and there is a Son and there is a Spirit. Nor you or I are denying that and this is not on trial here. What is being tried is the doctrine that says that such scriptures teach that they are all one and the same God and that all are equal and have existed for all eternity together. The 3 persons 1 God formula/idol.

For such thinking is not only unscriptural, but such thinking has confused believers into praying to the Holy Spirit and not in the Holy Spirit and into believing that Mary is the Mother of God. Taken to it's extreme, some even believe Mary is also sinless, like her child and since Mary is given such honour they suppose that similar honour is given to certain saints called saints and tricks them into thinking that they are not a saint. Anyway we could speak all day about the bad fruit of the Trinity doctrine and creeds in general, but I will not fully digress as I only wanted to make a point.

If we look at the phrase 'in the name of' we see that it is in use today. E.g. “Stop in the name of the Law” is used by people to invoke the authority of the law. Or someone might say, “in the name of sanity” to invoke the essence of what that word means.

Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

And who's name did Jesus do his works? In the name of his Father of course

John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

John 17:2
“Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

So the Father gave authority to his son. The next scripture shows that we have been given authority in Christ. That is why we should do all, in the name of Jesus, (his authority).

Colossians 3:17
And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

So if we look at scripture, we can see that miracles and baptism were done in the name of Jesus. It was all done in his authority, the authority that he gave his Church.

So it stands to reason, that if we do all in the authority of Jesus, we know that it is also the authority of his Father and his Spirit which he sent to help us.

The so-called baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 doesn't teach the Trinity doctrine, it teaches that we should baptise in the authority the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus did all in his Fathers name and we do all in his name and in so doing, we are doing it in the name of his Father our God, because our Father gave all authority to his Son and Jesus gave his authority to his Church and our God sent his Spirit to his Church to comfort and lead us while Jesus is not present with us in this world in a physical sense.

So once again we see the biblical pattern of Father > Son > Church. This pattern is undeniable and shows authority and sourc
e. In fact it also proves that Jesus is the only way to God, because we do things in the authority of the Father, via his Son and his authority.

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.

Now as far as the Spirit of God is concerned, we can see in John 14:26 the following:
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

So the Father sent his Spirit in the authority or name of his Son.

Now we know that God is a Spirit.

John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

So are there 2 Spirits? God our Father and the Holy Spirit or are they the same.

Well in 2 Corinthians 3:17 it says the following:
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

The next 2 verses seem to say the same thing.

Isaiah 6:8-10
8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord (Anonay) saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
” 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

And

Acts 28:25-27
25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
26 ” 'Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
27 For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'

So unless the translation is dodgy, Paul assumes that God (Adonay) is The Holy Spirit. So the Spirit is the Spirit of God as the Spirit proceeds from God and is God.

This may explain why a word spoken against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the one to come.

I have always said that I am open and teachable and if something is scriptural, then I will believe it. So I ask myself “why is God and the Spirit mentioned together and often, if they are the same. Maybe for the same reason that Man and man's spirit is also mentioned together. But whatever the reason, Paul teaches us that “the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom”. So it must be correct, unless the translation is bad.

So maybe the Spirit is part of God, for surely God exists in creation and outside creation too. So there could be many explanations such as the Spirit is the part of God that exists in creation or the Spirit is a part of God that proceeds from himself to not only exist inside every perfect thing, but also the joining and communion with our spirits.

Romans 8:16
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

So the scripture above speaks of the spirit of man, or man's spirit and even Jesus is spoken of as one having a spirit according to the next 3 scriptures.

Galatians 4:6
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Romans 8:9
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

Philippians 1:19
Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance.

So if we have a spirit and Jesus has a spirit, then maybe God himself has a Spirit. Perhaps we have a spirit because God has a spirit and just as our spirit is part of us, perhaps God's Spirit is part of himself.

I can only speculate at this stage, but I know for sure that the Trinity doctrine is false. The scriptures teach that Jesus is the Son of God and not God himself.

Let's look at this in a way that we might be able to relate to. If I have a spirit (as we all do), then is not that spirit me, or part of me. But if I have a Son is that Son me? No, maybe part of me in a sense. But unlike my spirit, my son is another person who has his own will and even his own spirit. Of course he may be like me, but he is not me.

1 Corinthians 2:11
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

So it appears that just as we have a spirit, Christ also has a spirit and God does too.

So spirit is very much a part of us and Jesus spirit is very much part of him. So is God's Spirit a part of himself too? After all we will be like him in a sense, because we are made in his image.

Certainly it is in spirit that we can all be one. Yet we all retain our identity because just as water mixes with water, spirit can join spirit, yet objects like boats on water or different identities keep their identity.

So as the Church can be one with each other, and with Jesus and God, (in spirit, not identity), yet we retain our unique identity as we are our souls. Jesus is the Logos and God is the Father.

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.

Ecclesiastes 12:7
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

So it appears that all spirits are originally from God and the following scripture confirms it.

Hebrews 12:9
Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!

I now leave you with the following verse.

1 Corinthians 6:17
But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

So we can be one with him in spirit, not identity. This is the same with Jesus Christ. He is one with God in Spirit, but not identity.

So to be one with God, does not make you God anymore than Jesus is God because he is one with the Father.

We are one in spirit.

January 29, 2004 at 2:53 am#15513

dmateo

Participant

to T8,

Interesing question, are we created or are we partly created.
Genesis 2:7
the LORD formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

What do you think of this part? The LORD created the earth and heaven. So the dust of the ground from which man are formed could be said created. After that it's formed, to the shape of a man. But the man is still a form of dust, with no life. So the LORD breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 (Eng-NIV)
18 I also thought, “As for men, God test them so that they may see that they are like the animals.
19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same faits awaits them both; As one dies, do dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.
20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to to dust all return
21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth.

It's interesting that Solomon should put animal and us as equal in creation. I do agree that both Animal and Men are formed out of Dust, for it is said so in Genesis.
Genesis 2:19
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

So in that conclusion, can we agree that our body (form of dust)is created but our spirit (breath of life)came from God (breathed into his nostril) ?

Regarding the Jesus.
According to John1:3, it's clear that he was not created. As many other scripture also agrees on that.
If you look at John1. He was addressed as “the Word” in verse 1. Not as a personality, but rather as an it. Later on on verse 2, than “the Word” was reffered as a personality “He”. Perhaps this is the turning point of all things when “the Word” are given a will of his own.
At this point, still John did not address “the Word” with a name of a person. I would say Jesus is the name of the Word of God when he inhabit the body of man (which is formed from dust).
This would again conforme the creation. Adam was created out of a dust form + breath of life from God.
Jesus is the result of a dust form + The Word (him, which has no name as was addressed so many time in John chapter 1). He (the Word) will inturn be known by all of us as Jesus Christ.
When did the word God his own will, I don't know perhaps during verse 2 of John chapter 1. Since Jesus did mentioned “before Abraham, I am”. Is the word “I” refer to the bodily form of Christ, certainly not, for his bodily form is formed out of dust, essentially provided by Mary. Can we say when he said those words, he refer to his Spirit ? “the Word” as addressed by john1:1 ?

In regards to those above. Could we also say that by bing baptised, we were rebirth, in spirit. Doest that counts as another creation. I do not know. As now it's quite hard to defined creation in this point. Even genesis didn't said anything about specific act of the creation of man.
Gen 1:26-27
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish in the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; Male and female he created them.

Gen 2:7
The LORD God formed them man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

On which point does man is created. I don't know. There is no real distiction that could be told if the act of forming man's body from dust is creation. Or is the whole act of forming the body from dust + breathed breath of life is creation. Or only the latter ? There isn't enough to conclude from Genesis alone.

Hopefully someone can give a more thorough explanation, but probably in another forum as this topic became irrelevant with the forum subject.

January 29, 2004 at 5:38 am#15502

Participant

Hi dmateo,

I enjoyed your post as you ask a lot of good questions and your thoughts on some of the points seem good to me at least.

I decided to start up a new post as this may turn out to be interesting and may gain a lot of posts and hence it's own subject.

Click on the following link to be transported at the speed of your Internet connection.

What is Man

January 30, 2004 at 5:22 pm#15479

Participant

Quote

Quote: from t8 on 12:30 pm on Jan. 15, 2004
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.

Hi T8,

I am glad that you accept that the use of the word firstborn does not prove Jesus is not eternal.

I have never claimed that it does prove he is eternal. As a descriptive title of honour, it no more proves or disproves the eternal existence than any other descriptive word. Therefore to say for example Jesus had black hair, no other being with black hair was ever eternal is a simplistic argument, and doesnt really say anything.

There are no rule changes T8, only logic.

January 30, 2004 at 6:39 pm#15463

Participant

Hi T8,

These replies will be coming slowly as I am bit busy at the moment, but I will endeavour to answer all points as quickly as possible.

REPLY TO YOUR REPLY OF PART II

My original argument:

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.

Your reply:

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.

My reply:

You seem to be making my point for me here T8, by showing scriptures which describe the Father as Lord you show that the title “Only Lord” which is Jesus title doesn’t exclude the Father from being Lord. Do you now accept then that the title “Only true God” applied to the Father doesn’t prove that Jesus cannot also be a “true God”? (remember I am not saying it does prove he is the same God as the Father, I am only trying to disprove your argument that it necessarily proves he cannot).

You said:

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. Etc etc etc.

My reply :

Yes that is all very interesting, but I am not talking about the relationship or hierarchy between the Father and the Son here, all I am trying to prove is that the Father having the title “only true God” does not prove that Jesus cannot also be a true God which was your original argument, do you now accept this?

You said:

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.

My reply:

It was your misunderstanding then, because you tried to exclude Jesus from being a true God because you said the Father had the title “one true God”

Again all I am trying to establish is that the titles which either the Father or Son have do not prove that Jesus cannot be the same God as the Father.

Do you now accept this?

You said:

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:

My reply:

What are you talking about? What anomaly have I built a theological system on? It is you trying to build a system on minor differences in titles.

I especially object to your statement: “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”

That is not what I was arguing, once again I am just trying to disprove your assertion that the Father being called “true God” prevents Jesus from also being “true God”

Do you now accept that this is not the case?

You then begin talking about some different points which are not related to my Biblical Arguments in any way. I will briefly address them, but in future I will not respond to points which are not answers to my Biblical Arguments as I regard them as attempts to distract from the weakness of your answers, you said:

“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.”

My reply:

If Jesus IS the light as scripture plainly says, how can he not also be the source of the light as you claim? Also what do you mean “he gives that light to God so God becomes light”?

This is totally non scriptural theorising, there are no scriptures which say any such thing.

You said:

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

My reply:

What on Earth are you talking about?

Where does it ever say in scriptures that Jesus receives his light via the Father?
It plainly says he IS the light.

You said:

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?

My Reply:

I have already spoken at length about the relationship of voluntary submission of the Son to the Father.

You are aware of this which I have posted before:

Philippians 2:5
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

Philippians 2:6
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:7
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Philippians 2:8
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Philippians 2:9
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

T8, please please lets not repeat the same arguments over and over. If you reply to my points that is sufficient. Thanks.

Be Well.

January 30, 2004 at 10:28 pm#15448

Participant

To Global,

REPLY TO YOUR REPLY OF MY REPLY PART II (above).

Your quotes are in gray.

If John 17:3 excludes Jesus from being “True God”, then Jesus is also excluded from being a Saviour or King.

Jesus is not the true God, he came from the true God. But he is also not a false god as one may draw from this, but he was sent by the True God. Again the Father is the only true God and he delegates his authority.

Likewise God is the true saviour and he delegates his authority to others to do his bidding. So the One True God sent another called Jesus Christ to do his (God's) will and God saved us through Christ.

God willed it. Jesus complied. So Jesus is our saviour because God is the 'one God' who saved us. Jesus saved us in his Fathers (God's) name. Jesus didn't save us in his own name, but under the name of the one who sent him.

So it is not too hard to see that God is God and he is the Saviour. To say that Jesus is not our saviour or even a god is incorrect, just as to say that Jesus is the original God and Saviour.

E.g A son has a Father and if the son has a child then he is also a Father. But he is not the Original Father. Both are Fathers, but one is the original. One is the true Father of which all others came. The other is a Father to the perspective of those who came after him only, but ultimately there is one original Father.

Likewise God is the Saviour and he sends someone to save and he is also known as a saviour, but he is not the original saviour. So God is the true saviour and the true God. This is what it is meant by the word true. It doesn't necessaily imply that the others are false, it just means original.

Jesus was exhalted as a saviour by God himself. Therefore to conclude that Jesus is God (the original saviour) because God exalted him to that position is totally unreasonable.

Acts 5:31
God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

If we take your argument as being the correct one, then we would have to include other saviours such as King David and Moses as being God.

It is clear that your understanding of True God and only Saviour is not reasonable.

The point is that Jesus never did anything of his own will apart from choosing to do the will of his God. So Jesus was an extention of God, not God himself.

It is quite simple to understand, but I think that in order for you to defend the Trinity, your biggest defense is to play on the words and draw conclusions that are not drawn in scripture.

You then quote: 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 here we clearly have 2 identities. The LORD and his saviour. This is my point exactly. Your point is that Jesus is the LORD because he is a saviour is incorrect. Again your conclusion is not what this verse is teaching, nor any other verse for that matter.

I have always said that the Father is The True God and Jesus can also be a god and a true one at that. Jesus is not the True God himself.

It was your misunderstanding then, because you tried to exclude Jesus from being a true God because you said the Father had the title “one true God”

You seem to be confused. The Father is the true God. We are also gods, but we are not necessarily false gods either. So we can be true god, but not the True God. Likewise we can be fathers, but not the Father of all. I have said this all along.

If Jesus IS the light as scripture plainly says, how can he not also be the source of the light as you claim? Also what do you mean “he gives that light to God so God becomes light”?

This is totally non scriptural theorising, there are no scriptures which say any such thing.

Yes that is correct, it is not scriptural. It is what you appear to be saying. If you say that Jesus is the source of all light, then that means that the Father who is God and hence light receives his light from Jesus because you say that he is the source. Of course this is rediculous. All that Jesus has, comes from his Father. Jesus is not the original. He is the Image. He was sent by the Original. So God's light is reflected through his Image and because Jesus is the only way to God, hence he is reflecting/shining the true light. But he is not the source of that light. In turn we are suppose to reflect that light from Christ and we are not Christ. Note that the next scripture says that we are the light.

Matthew 5:14
“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.

Again, we are not the source of that light are we?

What on Earth are you talking about?

Where does it ever say in scriptures that Jesus receives his light via the Father?
It plainly says he IS the light.

We are the light too, the light of this world. Where does it say that we receive our light?

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?

My Reply:

I have already spoken at length about the relationship of voluntary submission of the Son to the Father.

Voluntary submission is one thing, but you never explained why the scripture defines God and Jesus as 2 different identities. This is the point being made all along.

You are aware of this which I have posted before:

Philippians 2:5
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

Philippians 2:6
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Philippians 2:7
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Philippians 2:8
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Philippians 2:9
For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

T8, please please lets not repeat the same arguments over and over. If you reply to my points that is sufficient. Thanks.

So we have the crux of your argument and the reason that we should all believe in a Trinity.

First of all if we assume that Jesus is God in identity, then those scriptures say that Jesus did the following:

He existed as God in identity

He emptied himself of his God identity

He became a man, another identity or a man with no God identity

But then God died, but not the God that he emptied himself of obviously

He was then exalted back to his original identity

Wow, real confusing and it makes no sense to the point of being humorous. Especially when you believe that Jesus was God in human flesh. Now lets look at it from a nature, not identity perspective.

Jesus has the nature of God, the nature of the one identified as the True God, the Father.

He emptied himself of that nature and partook of human nature

He Jesus (identity) humbled himself and died on a cross

God then raised him back to his former glory (and perhaps then some)

God gave him his name and authority, so God is still another identity

This last scenario makes sense and is the crux of the gospel message.

Conclusion: Jesus has the nature of God and he came from that God and that God sent him into this world as a man to save all men. He died and rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God.

Jesus is of God. The Father is that God. The scriptures you quote do not teach a Trinity at all. Rather they teach that the Father is God and the only Most High God in existence and that God has a son, who chose to do his will.

The only way that perhaps I can understand your point of view is to say that God is one nature/substance and this nature and substance spawns 3 personalities. But this assumes that nature is greater than identity and identity is a manifestation of the nature rather than nature being a manifestation of the identity. This idea leans toward a New Age concept of God as being a force of some kind, even if this supposed force manifests 3 consciences and creates many others.

But the scriptures teach that God is an identity and shares his nature with his son and even his sons. In other words, God's nature comes from him, not the other way round.

God is one identity, not 3 identites.

Hear O Global, the LORD thy God is one God.

February 6, 2004 at 6:08 pm#15429

Participant

Hi T8,

You haven’t answered my question.

The point of my original Biblical Argument was not to prove that Jesus is God, it was only to disprove the argument that the differences in titles necessarily proved that Jesus cannot be God.

Do you now accept that that argument was incorrect?

Everything else you have written may or may not be true, but I just want to be clear on this specific question, please can you answer, thankyou.

February 6, 2004 at 6:24 pm#15411

Participant

Hi T8,

You have made the following representation of Trinitarian belief:

·He existed as God in identity
·He emptied himself of his God identity
·He became a man, another identity or a man with no God identity
·But then God died, but not the God that he emptied himself of obviously
·He was then exalted back to his original identity

However this representation is not correct, it should be:

He existed as God in being with the other two persons of the being God.
He emptied himself of his equality with the person of the Father whilst remaining God in being.
He became a man (human being), whilst retaining his God being, he was therefore fully Man and God at the same time.
The person Jesus died.
He rose again in accordance with the scriptures and is exalted at the right hand of the Father.

February 6, 2004 at 7:45 pm#15372

Participant

REPLY TO YOUR REPLY OF PART III

You said:

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

I reply:

We are not talking about what many people you have met believe. We are talking about official Catholic doctrine.

I think I have made it clear that in Catholic doctrine Jesus is not inferior to the Father, but has voluntarily submitted his will to that of the Father’s.

Jesus calls the Father his God in the Book of Revelation because Jesus is fully man even after the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, and all men have the Father as their God.

Whether you agree with this or not, do you now agree that your understanding of Trinitarian belief as you originally wrote it was incorrect?

You said:

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.

I reply:

The difference exists because the writer of the book is St. John. He is speaking in verse 7 and refers to Jesus as “he”.

In verse 8 he is using reported speech to repeat the words of Jesus and so uses “I” . We know it is reported speech because it is followed by the words “saith the Lord”

e.g T8 said

“he” doesn’t believe in the Trinity.
“I” don’t believe in the Trinity says T8.

I do not believe it is the Father who is speaking in verse 8 because in verse 7 John has already identified the person who is coming as Jesus.

The speaker in verse 8 then identifies himself as the one who will come, ergo the speaker in verse 8 is Jesus.

I see no reason to believe that it is the Father speaking here apart from a doctrinal unwillingness to accept the title Almighty being applied to Jesus.

You then speculate about the title “Alpha and Omega” my only reply to this is that logically there is only one First and one Last. Everything else is in between.

You said:

Revelation 22:6
And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
But then verse 16 says it is Jesus who sent the angel

Well 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.

I reply:

Verse 1 of revelation is not so clear. Due to the way the language is used it is not exactly clear who the parties involved are. The book is a revelation to John from God, so when it says “which God gave him”
Is the “him” referring to John or to Jesus?

Furthermore there is no reason to assume that in the first part “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him” the word God does not refer to Jesus.

It could then read as “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him (John)”

Finally, the last line: “. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John”

It is not clear if the “He” of that line is the Father or Jesus, it could be interpreted as either.

If it is the Father, how do we reconcile it with 22:16 where it is identified as Jesus? If it is Jesus how do you reconcile it with 22:6 where it says it is the Lord God?

Your attempt to say that it is the Father who sends the angel indirectly through the Son is of course a possible explanation, but there is no indication in other verses that this is what is meant, rather the impression given is that revelation seems to talk of the Father and the Son indistinctly.

You said:

“So 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.”

I REPLY:

Is there any scriptural support for your statement that Christ is in God and God is in Christ?, I believe not.

You said:

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.

I reply

But why are they referred to as “him” not “they”?

And you didn’t comment on this:

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

You said

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.

I reply

That is a particularly weak argument.

Then according to you ALL names are on our heads since they all derive from Gods name. That is clearly not what is meant by these verses. You also didn’t address some of the other points about the use of the singular or plural I will repost all of them to remind everyone:

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

Be Well.

February 10, 2004 at 4:07 pm#15184

Participant

I wonder why its so hard- Why dont you just read what it says. And stop taking mans teaching. I pray that all will see the truth- Im so faint.

Acts 3:13 the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.

Acts 7:55-56

55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Acts 2

22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[4] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25David said about him:
" ‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
27because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'[5]
29"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,[6] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
" ‘The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
35until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet." ‘[7]
36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call."
40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 3

13The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. 16By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.
17"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ[1] would suffer. 19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you–even Jesus. 21He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.'[2]

February 10, 2004 at 5:58 pm#15202

Participant

K global and T8 im keeping it all together. I felt i may be able to help in this.

"
REPLY TO YOUR REPLY OF PART III

"You said: T8

I reply: Global

We are not talking about what many people you have met believe. We are talking about official Catholic doctrine.

I think I have made it clear that in Catholic doctrine Jesus is not inferior to the Father, but has voluntarily submitted his will to that of the Father’s.

Jesus calls the Father his God in the Book of Revelation because Jesus is fully man even after the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, and all men have the Father as their God.

Whether you agree with this or not, do you now agree that your understanding of Trinitarian belief as you originally wrote it was incorrect? ""

****************************
now for me Ringo111 i say

"You said

"Jesus calls the Father his God in the Book of Revelation because Jesus is fully man even after the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, and all men have the Father as their God. "

I ringo111 reply
Find a scripture that says jesus will turn into GoD.

And i’ll give you this

Acts 3

13The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.

**************************************

"
You said: T8

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.

I reply: global

The difference exists because the writer of the book is St. John. He is speaking in verse 7 and refers to Jesus as “he”.

In verse 8 he is using reported speech to repeat the words of Jesus and so uses “I” . We know it is reported speech because it is followed by the words “saith the Lord”

e.g T8 said

“he” doesn’t believe in the Trinity.
“I” don’t believe in the Trinity says T8.

I do not believe it is the Father who is speaking in verse 8 because in verse 7 John has already identified the person who is coming as Jesus.

The speaker in verse 8 then identifies himself as the one who will come, ergo the speaker in verse 8 is Jesus.

I see no reason to believe that it is the Father speaking here apart from a doctrinal unwillingness to accept the title Almighty being applied to Jesus.

You then speculate about the title “Alpha and Omega” my only reply to this is that logically there is only one First and one Last. Everything else is in between. "

****************
I ringo111 say –

Well, u are doing the same that you are accusing T8 of-
That is assuming because of your doctinal belief-
This just means we need a scripture that has both God stating who he is , seperate to the lamb.

But this will do for now- the ones that i see in Rev at the moment are up to your own beliefs, so I’ll use this scripture.

Acts 4

24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" ‘Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One.[3] ‘[4] 27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people[5] of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus."

*I want to emphasise in [5] holy servant Jesus & in 30 holy servant Jesus.

now to the point about who is talking God or Jesus. look that this following scripture it has dramatic turnarounds whithout introduction- so surely- It must make you rethink your position global.

Revelation 22

6The angel said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place." 7"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book." 8I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 10Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. 11Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."
12"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.

As you see it swaps and changes allot at times, and is up to what you want to believe.

*************************************
"
You said: T8

Well 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.

I reply: Global

Furthermore there is no reason to assume that in the first part “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him” the word God does not refer to Jesus.

It could then read as “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him (John)”

Finally,
the last line: “. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John”

It is not clear if the “He” of that line is the Father or Jesus, it could be interpreted as either.

If it is the Father, how do we reconcile it with 22:16 where it is identified as Jesus? If it is Jesus how do you reconcile it with 22:6 where it says it is the Lord God?

You said: T8

“So 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.”

I REPLY: global

Is there any scriptural support for your statement that Christ is in God and God is in Christ?, I believe not. ""

************************

*I ringo111 say just cause i found it searching thru- a cool jesus quote.

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

BUt a quote directly to say jesus is in the father and we should also be in the father- which obviously doesnt mean that we are any more god than jesus. Or we are god if jesus is- Which we are not, and neither is jesus.

John 14:20
On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

To show the significants of both names A quote from my previous answer.

Acts 4

26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One.

and again

Acts 2:36
"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
***************************************

"
You said: T8 said

I reply – u global

But why are they referred to as “him” not “they”? "

And you didn’t comment on this:

********************************
I ringo111 say, Keeping this following revelation scripture in mind. Makes the gramatical diferences in translations easier to follow.

Revelation 1
6To 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.

Acts 3

13The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.

************************************
"You said T8

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.

I reply – Global-

That is a particularly weak argument.

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

Be Well. "

*******************************
I Ringo111 reply- The main point was that God is the head of jesus- and jesus is the head of us- And again i quote

Acts 3

13The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.

while your going for loose translations- The truth is staring you in the face.

While here is a hint at why both names would be on the foreheads.

Matthew 11:27
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
*******************************

Finally , sorry if I did not answer everything. Its 5am. Keep seeking. ^_^

(Edited by ringo111 at 3:40 am on Feb. 12, 2004)

February 11, 2004 at 12:39 pm#15220

Participant

To ringo111,

Hi and welcome to the Forum.
Thx for helping to answer Global’s posts.
I will add anything that I see fit in the next post.

February 22, 2004 at 7:18 am#15233

Participant

Quote

Quote: from global on 9:08 am on Feb. 7, 2004
Hi T8,

You haven’t answered my question.

The point of my original Biblical Argument was not to prove that Jesus is God, it was only to disprove the argument that the differences in titles necessarily proved that Jesus cannot be God.

Do you now accept that that argument was incorrect?

Everything else you have written may or may not be true, but I just want to be clear on this specific question, please can you answer, thankyou.

If I am a man, then that may not disqualify me as God and if I am an angel, then I may also be God too. But I am not. Nor is the Son of God, God himself.

Lets not be absurd about this. If the scriptures say in John 17:3 (English-NIV)

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Then the Father is the one true God.

No point in saying that maybe I am God even if I am a man by title, or Jesus may be God if he is the Son of God by title.

February 22, 2004 at 7:34 am#15126

Participant

Quote

Quote: from global on 9:24 am on Feb. 7, 2004

So Jesus 1 of the 3 persons that is God in being emptied himself of equality whilst remaining God and became a Man, so he then became this new God Man super entity.

In other words God in flesh, yet some how he submitted himself fully to God including himself of course and whilst in this state of humility toward himself and the other partners that make up God he was contained in a body of no more than 7 feet in height (a generous estimate).

You know global if I said this to the Apostles they would have shaken their heads in disbelief. If I told them 2000 years ago that many Christians were to believe this, then they would probably would wonder if the whole world was drunk.

As it is written:

Jeremiah 51:7
Babylon was a gold cup in the LORD's hand; she made the whole earth drunk. The nations drank her wine; therefore they have now gone mad.

Revelation 18:3
For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries.”

February 22, 2004 at 10:04 am#15140

https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-8.htm

Participant

Hi Global,

REPLY TO YOUR REPLY OF MY REPLY PART III (previous page).

Your quotes are in gray.

========
Quote: from global on 10:45 am on Feb. 7, 2004

I think I have made it clear that in Catholic doctrine Jesus is not inferior to the Father, but has voluntarily submitted his will to that of the Father’s.
========

Well who are you going to believe. Catholic doctrine or Jesus. You can't have both.

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

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

========
Jesus calls the Father his God in the Book of Revelation because Jesus is fully man even after the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, and all men have the Father as their God.
========

So Jesus was once God and now he submits to God. In other words he has been demoted.

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

========
Whether you agree with this or not, do you now agree that your understanding of Trinitarian belief as you originally wrote it was incorrect?
========

My understanding of the trinity is that all are 3 persons are 1 God in substance. God is 1 being, but 3 persons. But I choose not to be drunk on the wine of Babylon. I prefer to be sober minded especially in these last days.

========
You then speculate about the title “Alpha and Omega” my only reply to this is that logically there is only one First and one Last. Everything else is in between.
========

First and Last depends on the context, just as the word “beginning” depends on the context. E.g Satan sinned in the beginning. But he is not from everlasting.

1 Corinthians 15:27 (English-NIV)
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.

Now if the scripture had not included the bit about God not being under Christ, that could lead a stray mind into believing that Jesus is greater than God, after all it says everything. So Global why do you let your mind stray by saying that Jesus is God and equal to God when scripture says otherwise. Shame on your for your heart is not seeking the truth, but you seek the praises of men.

In order to understand scripture, you have other scriptures which show you the correct picture. Out of context you can say anythign you want. Let the scriptures show you, not creeds.

========
Verse 1 of revelation is not so clear. Due to the way the language is used it is not exactly clear who the parties involved are. The book is a revelation to John from God, so when it says “which God gave him”
Is the “him” referring to John or to Jesus?
========

Revelation 1:1
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,

God showed the revelation to his servants. So he is the originator of the revelation. In fact he is the originator of all. We also see that the angel showed it to John. Anyway the point is that God and Jesus are identified as being different at a time that Christ is glorified in heaven.

========
It could then read as “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him (John)”
========

Yes this is possible. You could say that Jesus is the God that gave this Revelation, but I doubt this interpretation and I think that most would see it as God showing it to Jesus and Jesus sending an Angel to John. But if you want to read it as Jesus being that God, then you can read it that way to suit your belief that Jesus is God. I disagree with your opinion on this.

========
Finally, the last line: “. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John”
It is not clear if the “He” of that line is the Father or Jesus, it could be interpreted as either.
Your attempt to say that it is the Father who sends the angel indirectly through the Son is of course a possible explanation, but there is no indication in other verses that this is what is meant, rather the impression given is that revelation seems to talk of the Father and the Son indistinctly.
========

I disagree strongly with this because it is clear that God and Jesus are 2 different people. It is not as if this is the only scripture that says this. The following page quotes 100 scriptures from all books in the New Testament that say the same thing.

Try explaining away 100 scriptures. I am not even convinced by your argument on Revelation 1:1. I see that God and Jesus are different not because of Revelation 1:1 only but from the other verses too. You can perhaps defend 1 verse as saying otherwise. But 100 verses would be very difficult and I don't think that any clear minded person wouldn't agree with you reasoning away of 100 verses that distinguish between God and Jesus.

========
Is there any scriptural support for your statement that Christ is in God and God is in Christ?, I believe not.
========

ring 111 gave you some support for this by quoting a number of verses that shows that the Father is in his Son and the Son is in his Father and we know that we can be in them and they in us. I would like to add the following:

2 Corinthians 5
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Colossians 3:3
For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Colossians 1:27
To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

========
You said:
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.
I reply
But why are they referred to as “him” not “they”?
========

Because God showed him (Jesus) and he (Jesus) showed it to John by his (Jesus) angel. So if we are servants of God, we are servants of him (God) and it is assumed that a servant of God is also a servant of Christ.

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.”

So here in this context we can see 2. God the Father and the Son. We refer to him when referring to any one of them. And given those 2 scriptures we can dra
w the conclusion that a servant of God is a servant of Christ and a servant of Christ is a servant of God.

It's simple really, but I feel that you are making a big deal out of nothing here.

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

I read those scriptures and not one of them said that we are servants of the Father. Of course I believe that we (church) are servants of the Father. The scriptures are talking about God and yes God is a him. Not them. God is never referred to as 'them' as far as I know.

========
You said
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.
I reply
That is a particularly weak argument.
Then according to you ALL names are on our heads since they all derive from Gods name. That is clearly not what is meant by these verses.
========

It may seem like a weak argument, but that is what the scripture says.

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.

Even you say that Jesus is not the Father, so this verse indicates that Jesus name dervives from his Father.

What is God's name? it is YAHWEH, YWHW, JEHOVAH… What is Jesus name. It is Yahshua, Yeshua. Can you see the Yah, Yeh part?

Even Jesus is named after God. Jesus is not Yahweh, he is the son of Yahweh, namely Yahshua.

I still don't see your point you are making however.

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

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

Revelation 22:4
They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

What is the problem here. I can see that there are at least 3 names in our foreheads.

1) name of my God
2) name of the city of my God,
3) I will also write on him my new name. (Jesus).

How does this prove that Jesus and God are one God together. It is still true that the name of Jesus will be in our foreheads, just as the New Jerusalem will be written in our foreheads, just as it is true that God's name will be also. If you refer to any one of these names you use the singular, do you not?

March 11, 2004 at 8:08 pm#15653

messageofsalvation

Participant

In the latter part of the second century a man called Tertullian who claimed to be a Christian tried to bring the Trinitarian god to the people whom he considered Christians. He explains their reaction:

'The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned, ) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God;'

His doctrine later evolved into the Trinity. His Trinity was not the modern day Trinity because it had not yet evolved. Tertullian believed the Son was created. Incidentally, during the second and third century church Fathers hoped to become 'gods'. This clearly state in a lot of early church documents, and in places it is clear Christ is actually called not God but ‘a god’.

God did not bring the Trinity to Israel. He revealed himself as simply the Father and warned the Israelites not to depart from this in these words:

if one of these secretly tries to entice you, saying, 'Come let us serve other gods' whom neither you nor your fathers have known, gods from amony those of the peoples far or near surrounding you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not spare him, nor listen to him, you must show him no pity.. No, you must kill him, your hand is to be the first raised against him in putting him to death…for he has tried to lure you away from Yhwh your God. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10).

The scriptures were originally free from error. I have discovered the earliest manuscripts do not call the Holy Spirit 'he' but 'it'. Later Latin manuscripts departed from this to conform to the new Trinitarian theology that the holy spirit is another person. Trinitarians and others were notorious for tampering with writings. The Latin manuscripts containing the pronoun ‘he’ date during 4th century and later. The original reading of Matthew 28:19 is missing from early manuscripts. What you have today does not pre-date 4th century. Some later manuscripts have even removed the page that contained the original reading. The disciples did not baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The verse in modern Trinitarian translations is not the original reading. Dishonest workmen will not tell you this.

True Christians believe Christ words to his Father: 'Eternal life is this: to know youthe only true God AND Y'shua whom you have sent. Trinitarians do not truely believe this. Instead they false claim that those who believe the Father is the only God will not have eternal life. However, Trinitarians will not have eternal life. The Father gave birth to his son, not the Trinity. The Trinity is a lie, a false god!

The Trinity like Christmas is a lie. Christ was not born on 25th December. Truth and lies do not go together!

March 11, 2004 at 9:10 pm#15654

Participant

Well said messageofsalvation. Its interesting Hearing the testimony about the early church from a trinitarian, I wonder how with a quote such as this that the trinity doctine can still be believed.

*though I believe you to be wrong about the destination of a trinitarian-

This is why

*we are NOT Judged in the end by our beliefs-

*We ARE Judged by what we have done.

*So, say there is a anti-trinitarian- and he persecutes trinitarians- by slander and taking force against them, And others who do not have the same beliefs as them. This one is a child of hell, and not a believer- They do not do what GoD told us through Christ Jesus-

*Say theres a trinitarian- who does what is right- Who turns the other cheek- who prays for his enemies – and forgives everyone who asks for forgivness- Who is kind to the poor and Meditates on GoDs law day and night- This one is a child of light – a child of GoD – who will deny this person eternal life??? GoD will not Deny such a person- as he will judge each of us according to what we have done-

*trinitarians – keep the baptism of water- baptism of the holy spirit- rememberence of Jesus sacrifice- and loving of eachother-

*trinitarian belief – seperates those who are foolish and petty and forget that 'we must repay insult with a blessing- because we were called to a blessing'

Quote

The Trinity like Christmas is a lie. Christ was not born on 25th December. Truth and lies do not go together!

It may be eternal life to know that there is one GoD , and he sent Jesus.
But he did not say you must believe this in this life to enter heaven, He said you must obey his commands- and – his command is to love each other as he has loved.

Yes!!! The trinity Doctrine is false!!!

Yes!!! trinity believers have a false belief which if they do not obey Jesus Commands- pulls them apart from other true believers and is a stumbling block between any sane logical thinking person and GoD, e.g. Muslims, pagan world.

*If you believe GoD for who he says he is is gooD –
But if you hate(take Harm against) your neibour(trinitarian) you will be cast out Just the same as any unbeliever- Actually- it is worse for the one who knows what is right and does not do it. Who has experianced the liberation from Satan's constant mindset over them.

OK, please go look at the scriptures , youll see we The MErciful will obtain Mercy- Being kind to the poor- is the being merciful , also forgiving everyone who asks for forgivness is merciful- You will see that we are Judged according to what we have done

*Trinitarians still believe Jesus is sent from GoD.
(they understand it differently)

*Trinitarians share in the same promise – Whoever believes Jesus is the christ is born of GoD-

*Trinitarians have this extra or worldy, or even demonic view of GoD- As satan is the father of Lies-
Yet this does not disqualify them from the prize.

*Trinitarians- are Brothers and sisters- who at the beggining of the teaching were been beaten into believing such a lie-
When they are baby believers- The older ones, beat them into submission by claiming to have superior knowledge- Who in turn Were beaten into submission the very same way- Or even through Love, because some Trinitarians submit themselves to GoD, and serve others- people just plainly believe them because of their Kindness.

*Therefore We are to encourage everyone to seek the truth for themselves- for they are the only ones accountable for themselves before GoD. No-one should blinly follow anyone-
If your following Jesus you are ment to be able to contimplate all things- because he is the light of the world, meaning- he makes all knowledge known. ^_^

*******************************************
*******************************************

As for your quote- please keep in mind how Jesus said we are to love even our enemies-

Quote

God did not bring the Trinity to Israel. He revealed himself as simply the Father and warned the Israelites not to depart from this in these words:

*We must remember Jesus specifies how we are to even treat our enemies-

Matthew 5

38″You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[7] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43″You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[8] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[9] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

******************************************

Keep seeking ^_^

March 12, 2004 at 9:50 pm#15655

messageofsalvation

Participant

Hi ringo,

I see you saw the account of my experience that I was going to post on this web site i.e. that I was persecuted by Trinitarians and even called a devil by a Trinitarian.

I desire Trinitarians to repent of their idolatry. Unbelief still constitutes disobedience. Whilst I am not advocating stoning Trinitarians the Bible is quite clear that idolators will not receive eternal life.

Paul said to the Corinthians 'the gospel will save you only if you keep believing exactly what I preached to you ' (1 Corintians 15:2).

“The one who hears you hears Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me, and the one who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me. (Luke 10:16)”

Faith and good deeds go together. Simply helping your neighbour whilst remaining in idolatry will not result in eternal life even some Atheists can do that. One cannot love God if one refuses to believe.

Sorry, young Trinitarians are no lambs beaten into submission.

March 13, 2004 at 3:58 pm#15656

Participant

I think such people who treat you in such a way will get be least in the Kingdom-

Just as I have experianced it- From my best friends- who now call me a heretic- who I was theyre best friends as they were led to GoD, But after the weight of the church abandoned our pure bible read idea's and went for mans teaching.

“
Matt 5

17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. “

If they are merciful they will obtain mercy- Just because they are against you in one sence- doesnt make them an enemy of GoD-

Did GoD send you personally? Then why think because they rejected you they will lose out on everything else promised to those who, Accept that GoD sent Jesus- as trinitarians believe- and get baptised- and do some good things-

C'mon look at Benny Hinn- he heals and casts out demons all over the place- devotes his life to spreading that GoD sent Jesus- and making orphanages everywhere- Which by the way- is lending to the lord, so GoD will repay- and he is a trinitarian- I know of Trinitarians who preach Jesus' reserection- and people are healed. They do many good things- and work secretly with anti-trinitarians such as myself-

Remember Jesus said that if satan is Devided against his Kingdom- how can his Kingdom stand- Therefore- These people have GoD working through them.

Satan does not cast out demons or heal people- therefore- these people are working by GoD's will, yet they do not understand who he is- and who his son is. This Does not desqualify them from the prize unless they are not mercifull. But it does however Stop them from reaching Greatest in the Kingdom of heaven cause they disobey the Law.

You are playing into Satans deception to say trinitarians are going to hell for believing the trinity.

Thats what trinitarians say about non-trinitarian believers.

Yes we get called heretics!!! But this does not make them Heretics!!!

If they then because you do not believe them – hate you and speak all kinds of evil against you- Be shure, GoD hears theyre slander- and will hold them to account- But they share in the same promise.

I allready prooved that you must do more than believe there is a GoD and that he sent Jesus- (which trinitarians do believe – in a twisted way)

So why say that they will be rejected because of that belief??

*I think the best way of attack is to be shrewed as Serpents and Innocent as Doves as Jesus instructs his disciples. Choosing carefully who we share with- and slowly advancing the truth back into the mainstream church.

Because- this trinity teaching has been faulsly taught amoungst GoD's people for Long enough- And is entrenched in peoples minds- Satan likes the trinity doctrine as it seperates believers, anyone who rejects a believer Just because he believes in the trinity- is playing into Satans plans!!

*The words of life- the testimony about Jesus came to me through a trinitarian-

*They react so badly because they think you will go to hell if you believe Jesus is not GoD- They are terribly mistaken-
And so are you if you then Reject a Brother who is a trinitarian-

*Trinity believers are not idolitors- Maybe some are- But the majority worship GoD- And only sing praises to the Lamb -Jesus, they just dont really understand who Jesus is- Remember We are to be praised from GoD himself-

One day i'll probs write a more scriptural response- as for now- its time to sleep-

^_^

March 13, 2004 at 4:15 pm#15657