The Trinity Doctrine

[music4two]

WORSHIPPIUNGJESUS

this is part 2 of my response to your post —

As to your verses from Matthew. You claim that because Jesus told them to Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit, that this is proof of a triune God.
We do not have every word the Apostles were taught by Jesus. We can assume that this most important doctrine of the Godhead would have been made very very clear to them. You would also expect the apostles to obey this most sacred of commandmants and to baptize in the name of The Holy Trinity.. It is curious then that in every place, in Acts, where a name is mentioned under which to be baptized, it is in Jesus name and not in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
Some say this is because Jesus was given a name above all other names. This would indicate that Jesus’ name is higher then that of YHWH? If so it lends weight to Jesus and YHWH being unequal.
Remember you said to use all of scripture.

I had more time to research your scripture from Hebrews

Several things to take into consideration.
1. This is written to Hebrews and by Hebrews. They know scripture well since all children (at least males) were trained in the OT.
2. Have you considered the origin of the verses in Hebrews? Remember you said to consider all of scripture!
This portion of scripture is quoted from Psalm 45. A common practise among Hebrews is to quote a portion of the OT and those listening would understand that the speaker is refering to the entire context of that verse in the OT. This is called a remez (sp)
In order to understand this portion quoted we must look at the context of the verse quoted. As I have aleady pointed out, “Thy thrown, O God, cannot refer to Jesus without causing contradiction with the remainder of that section of verse. It cannot prove Jesus to be a Co-equal God in one place and then say a few verses later that Jesus has a God.
When reading Psalms 45 it is easy to see the subject under discussion is King David. The context is the thrown of David. God established David’s thrown. David is a type of Jesus.
The musicians are singing about David. The “O God” in this verse is an exclamation to praise the fact that David’s thrown is forever and ever. It could have been phraised “Praise God, David your thrown is forever and ever.”
Hebrews 1:8 “But of the Son He says” and then quotes psalm 45. This is a direct comparison of Jesus and David.
Hebrews knew all about David and the promises made to him by God. They knew his thrown was to be forever and that their Messiah was to sit upon it. This calling of the Messiah to sit on David’s thrown is a human calling. Not a divine one!
Hebrews 1 is not talking about Jesus being God. it is talking about David’s thrown being forever and ever. It points to Jesus because He is the Messiah, of the line of David, and the one prophesied to sit on the thrown. Jesus sits on tha thrown even now and will untill all his enemies are made his footstool.

You have postted previously that yu only want to deal with scripture and not with history or concepts of past history. You have also several times said you do not care about what the Catholics or Constantine established in the 3rd century. And yet you say this —-
A Father has a Son. The Father is greater than the Son in rank and possession, but not in nature. For the Son is an individual being with the same substance and essence and nature as the Father. The Son is Human/man and the Father is Human/man. Equal in nature.

Notice the words you use (speaking of Jesus) ” the same substance and essence and nature as the Father”. These are the exact words used in the crucial formula of the Nicean council of 325. (of the same substance) The exact formula and concept engeneered and created by the Roman Emperior Constantine. The same concept constantine forced on the council under threat of death.
For someone not caring about the edicts of the Council of 325, you sure rely heavely on their concepts to ratify your stand. It seems you are again filtering what you say, believe and read about scripture through philosophies created in the Nicean council of 325.

[music4two]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 01 2007,05:51)

Quote I have dealt with your post! — Now, I still have some respect for you and your honesty. I do not expect you to sidestep my previous post any longer, but will actually deal with it. M42 Blessings to you! We are from two different planets. I pray the Lord give us both understanding of his word!

Does this mean you are not going to give answer to my post? Wasn't it you that said you would not run away from debate? I dealt with all your scriptures time and again. i would think you would give me the same curtesy.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

It is curious then that in every place, in Acts, where a name is mentioned under which to be baptized, it is in Jesus name and not in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

m42

The Apostles fully understood the words of Jesus and carried out his command.

The preceeding vs is “ALL power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”.

They understood the Father and The Son and the Holy Spirit were seperate as the vs plainly shows.

Yet they are one and “All the fullness of the Godhead is in Christ, And Jesus is given the name above all names, for only by the name of Jesus can one be saved.

Therefore in baptising in the name of Jesus, The embodiment of the Godhead they were carrying out his command.

Comparing scripture with scripture my friend and not ignoring or throwing out a commandment of our Lord or accusing the apostles of disobeying the Lord.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the name  by which we are baptised into the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

Several things to take into consideration. 1. This is written to Hebrews and by Hebrews. They know scripture well since all children (at least males) were trained in the OT. 2. Have you considered the origin of the verses in Hebrews? Remember you said to consider all of scripture! This portion of scripture is quoted from Psalm 45. A common practise among Hebrews is to quote a portion of the OT and those listening would understand that the speaker is refering to the entire context of that verse in the OT. This is called a remez (sp) In order to understand this portion quoted we must look at the context of the verse quoted. As I have aleady pointed out, “Thy thrown, O God, cannot refer to Jesus without causing contradiction with the remainder of that section of verse. It cannot prove Jesus to be a Co-equal God in one place and then say a few verses later that Jesus has a God. When reading Psalms 45 it is easy to see the subject under discussion is King David. The context is the thrown of David. God established David’s thrown. David is a type of Jesus. The musicians are singing about David. The “O God” in this verse is an exclamation to praise the fact that David’s thrown is forever and ever. It could have been phraised “Praise God, David your thrown is forever and ever.” Hebrews 1:8 “But of the Son He says” and then quotes psalm 45. This is a direct comparison of Jesus and David. Hebrews knew all about David and the promises made to him by God. They knew his thrown was to be forever and that their Messiah was to sit upon it. This calling of the Messiah to sit on David’s thrown is a human calling. Not a divine one! Hebrews 1 is not talking about Jesus being God. it is talking about David’s thrown being forever and ever. It points to Jesus because He is the Messiah, of the line of David, and the one prophesied to sit on the thrown. Jesus sits on tha thrown even now and will untill all his enemies are made his footstool.

m42

Comming at these scriptures with the view point that Jesus was just a man, will never make sence.

Hence the Word was made flesh, God took on human form, Jesus the man was born. God in the flesh. The dual nature of Christ.

Before Abraham was “I AM”.

There is no other way for these scriptures and others to make sence. Explain them away if you like, but the truth stands.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

Does this mean you are not going to give answer to my post? Wasn't it you that said you would not run away from debate? I dealt with all your scriptures time and again. i would think you would give me the same curtesy.

M42

I have not run away from debate. But when one begins to be illogical then I would prefer not wasting my time.

You have not prooved anything to the scriptures that I give. You have simply given me logic.

For instance, You say Logos was used in many ways so it couldnt mean Jesus as God. But you deny that the Apostle says that the Logos was made flesh. The Word was/is God.

Your arguement holds no water. For instance the word we use refering to the Father God. Is “pater”, that same word is also used to refer to human fathers.

In the days of John there was a real problem with gnosticism creeping in the church, no surprise that he would use the word “Logos” to combat the gnsotics of the day.

[music4two]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 01 2007,19:08)

Quote Several things to take into consideration. 1. This is written to Hebrews and by Hebrews. They know scripture well since all children (at least males) were trained in the OT. 2. Have you considered the origin of the verses in Hebrews? Remember you said to consider all of scripture! This portion of scripture is quoted from Psalm 45. A common practise among Hebrews is to quote a portion of the OT and those listening would understand that the speaker is refering to the entire context of that verse in the OT. This is called a remez (sp) In order to understand this portion quoted we must look at the context of the verse quoted. As I have aleady pointed out, “Thy thrown, O God, cannot refer to Jesus without causing contradiction with the remainder of that section of verse. It cannot prove Jesus to be a Co-equal God in one place and then say a few verses later that Jesus has a God. When reading Psalms 45 it is easy to see the subject under discussion is King David. The context is the thrown of David. God established David’s thrown. David is a type of Jesus. The musicians are singing about David. The “O God” in this verse is an exclamation to praise the fact that David’s thrown is forever and ever. It could have been phraised “Praise God, David your thrown is forever and ever.” Hebrews 1:8 “But of the Son He says” and then quotes psalm 45. This is a direct comparison of Jesus and David. Hebrews knew all about David and the promises made to him by God. They knew his thrown was to be forever and that their Messiah was to sit upon it. This calling of the Messiah to sit on David’s thrown is a human calling. Not a divine one! Hebrews 1 is not talking about Jesus being God. it is talking about David’s thrown being forever and ever. It points to Jesus because He is the Messiah, of the line of David, and the one prophesied to sit on the thrown. Jesus sits on tha thrown even now and will untill all his enemies are made his footstool. m42 Comming at these scriptures with the view point that Jesus was just a man, will never make sence. Hence the Word was made flesh, God took on human form, Jesus the man was born. God in the flesh. The dual nature of Christ. Before Abraham was “I AM”. There is no other way for these scriptures and others to make sence. Explain them away if you like, but the truth stands.

SIDESTEP SIDESTEP SIDESTEP

Avoid the questions you cannot answer. Run away!

If the context of Hebrews 1:8 is Jesus and you say it proves He is God then Jesus as a God has a God according to verse 9.
You cannot ignor the context unless you are dishonest.

[music4two]

WJ

I am reposting the portion of my previous post you have refused to deal with. If you are going to promote your teaching, you should be able to defens it.

WJ
The greatest evidence I could give on the meaning of Elohyim would be in the actuall Hebrew understanding of this word. I do not think you would accept my Hebrew scholars. The fact that you do not respect some modern scholars (even if they are wrong) does not mean that all modern scholars are wrong. In fact, the availability of more archeological proof, better education and better scientific process very much adds to the credibility of modern scholarship. On the other hand, scholars which have been indoctrinated by the Catholic Church, Trinitarianism and/or influinced by it’s power can not be trusted either. Since you will not except any scholar I might use there is no point. Since I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar and I suspect you are not, we are at an impass. I suspect that you will not respect any scholar I might produce unless they agree with your doctrine.

As to your other posts. You have proved my point in the use of extra scriptural terms.
you state –
Oh and yes.. Incarnation; the embodiment of a deity or spirit in some earthly form (2) capitalized : the union of divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ

My point is that these terms you use convey a meaning. Supporters of trinitarinism begin from the premiss that Jesus is the union of divinity and humanity and then make up a word to carry that meaning. This word defines a doctrine. In fact a doctrine in question on this very forum. The others you mentioned are simply different names for things other then doctrines. Unfortunately many on this board when debating the Trinity use this term as if it has aquired some inspiration liken unto the scriptures. When debating the existance of the Trinity, they use this term and it’s concepts as if they are assumed true.
An honest researcher begins with a clean slate. You said I am using preconcieved ideas. What is it when a person begins by using made up words that define a doctrinal stand? My question is this. From a logical standpoint of God wishing us to know Him and his son Jesus Christ. (remember you said in a previous post that this was of great importance) Why would God hide so important a doctrine to the point that made up non scriptural words need be used to carry the concept of this doctrine? Why is this concept not spoken of clearly in scripture? You stated in a previous post that belief in the trinity could determine your salvation. With that much on the line don’t you think God would make it clear in scripture. In fact the most clear scriptues you deny what they clearly say or you add a concept to them that is not there.
The King James Version. Translated by trinitarians and for trinitarians. The translation is so trinitarian biased that actual words were added to I John to support the trinity.

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Galatians 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Romans 3:30
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

I could bring in scholars that would give the meaning of “one” as absolutely meaning one (singular) but you would probably doubt their credibility.
These verse are from the KJV. Trinitarians translated these scriptures. Are you going to tell me that the words they translated as “one” don’t mean one, but instead mean some form of three in one?

Are you going to tell me that when Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and My God”, that it proves that Jesus is God? How about when YHWH says the following ? —
Psalm 82:6 (speaking to Israel)
…. Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

I could easily read a dual nature into this verse. They are Gods and children (sons) of God. Did all of these people posses the same quality of dual nature as Christ?

How about the New Testament? Jesus quotes Psm 82 indicating the Pharasees are Gods.
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Does this mean the Pharasees are Gods. How do you determine which verse to take literally and which ones to shove aside. Is it by your peconcieved ideas of doctrine? Do you filter the scripture through your dotrine to ascertain it’s meaning?
Does this mean those Idraelites to whom YHWH spoke or the Pharases to whom Jesus spoke are literally Gods” Are they then preexistant members of the Trinity? Wouldn’t you have to change the term to “Billiony or perhaps Trilliony to include all those implicated by these verses?

Better yet! What about the burning bush that speaks to Moses
4And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

 5And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

 6Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Is the bush literally God or do you deny that it was really YHWH speaking?

I do not mean to be a smart alik, but can you concieve this ilogical way in which some try to prove the Trinity. Using one meaning one place and onother somewhere else to try to force fit scriptural proof of the Trinity.

Trinitarians try to prove that Jesus has a dual nature. 100% man and 100% God and in the same breath claim he is fully human. I do not have a dual nature, do you? This in addition to the absolutely rediculous stand that any one being could have 100% of the characteristics of God and 100% of the characteristics of man, especially when many of these characteristics are opposite one another. Failable – infailable, temptable – non temptable, mortal – immortal, knowing everything – not knowing everything, all powerfull – not all powerfull.

Others try to prove that God the Son somehow gave up all his deity and became a man. Do they deal with scriptures like —

 Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

or

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

How about?

Number 23:19 – God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

These are all very clear scriptures translated by Trinitarian scholars. These verse clearly refute a trinitarian stand. If they had a trinitarian meaning other then the clear text, don’t you think they would have translated them different?

you state –
Do you see what I mean? There are two sides. I have chosen mine.

Does this mean you are unwilling to see proof from the other side? If so then you are right I am wasting my time. At one point you said you were open, yet everytime I offer proof you casually toss it aside, you come up with some excuse to disqualify it’s credibility. First you deny scholars that dissagree with your doctrine. Then you deny historians that dissagree with your historical stand. In fact the only ones you are willing to give credence
to are the ones most influinced by your doctrine. Talk about using those with preconcieved ideas! I bet among those church fathers you would not include Michael Servetus, an educated doctor and theologian who was burned at the stake in 1553 for denouncing the Trinity. He lingered, in flames, for 30 minutes repeating time and again “Jesus, oh thou son of God have mercy on me.” An official standing by the flames repeatedly yelled to Servetus that if he cried out for mercy and used the non scriptural term God the Son instead of the Son of God, he would be cut down and spared. imagine that! Use a non scriptural term that conveys a doctrine and you are saved. Use the actual scriptures and you are murdered. Or do you deny that historical event too.
(A curious side note. Remember saying you did not want me to use the phrase “Son of God” [scriptural term] to prove my point and yet you see no problem with using terms like incarnation or Word/Christ [both non scriptural terms which convey the concept of God the Son])

I will only briefly refer to the issue of function.
When I speak of function I am not refering to the results of an overcoming life. I am refering to the belief that those result are possible.
I assume you are a reasonable man that believes in logic and reason. in our God given ability to deduce that which is reasonable. We do not jump off 40 story building because our reasoning ability tell us we would end up a puddle on the street below.

Let me deal with three types of trinitarianism —
1. Dual nature – If one assumes a dual natue for Christ, then every aspect of his character and every single action he took must be scrutinized to determine which was done by reason of his deity and which was done by reason of his humanity. Only in this way would be be able to determine which of these characteristics and actions we can believe ourselves capable of doing or being. After all we cannot expect ourselves to do the things of a God or be like a God in character. We are only men with a single human nature.

2. YHWH became a man – Specifically the second person of the triune Godhead gave up his deity and became a mortal human being.
The most basic tennant of Judaism and Christianity is the imutable, unchanging nature of our God. Without this immutability our God becomes another one of the flimsy wishy washy gods of the unsaved. I find it inconcievable that anyone who claims Christianity could take a stand that denies this quality for God. How can any reasonable Christain believe that God can change from being God? Can Yahweh Elohyim suddenly stop being Yahweh Elohyim? Does this seem reasonable?

3. That God created an empty human shell in which He himself dwelt. Besides the fact that this clearly makes Jesus non human, it denies his ability to have a fully functional spirit, will and soul. How many hundred scriptures does that contradict?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

Notice the words you use (speaking of Jesus)  ” the same substance and essence and nature as the Father”. These are the exact words used in the crucial formula of the Nicean council of 325. (of the same substance) The exact formula and concept engeneered and created by the Roman Emperior Constantine. The same concept constantine forced on the council under threat of death. For someone not caring about the edicts of the Council of 325, you sure rely heavely on their concepts to ratify your stand. It seems you are again filtering what you say, believe and read about scripture through philosophies created in the Nicean council of 325.

M42

Does this sum up what you believe?

That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.”

This is Arius quote.

[music4two]

WJ SIDESTEP SIDESTEP SIDESTEP

Have you yet defoned pneuma in the Greek? Are you going to ignor it because it does not fit your preconcieved doctrine? How dishonest is that?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

I am reposting the portion of my previous post you have refused to deal with. If you are going to promote your teaching, you should be able to defens it. WJ The greatest evidence I could give on the meaning of Elohyim would be in the actuall Hebrew understanding of this word. I do not think you would accept my Hebrew scholars. The fact that you do not respect some modern scholars (even if they are wrong) does not mean that all modern scholars are wrong. In fact, the availability of more archeological proof, better education and better scientific process very much adds to the credibility of modern scholarship. On the other hand, scholars which have been indoctrinated by the Catholic Church, Trinitarianism and/or influinced by it’s power can not be trusted either. Since you will not except any scholar I might use there is no point. Since I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar and I suspect you are not, we are at an impass. I suspect that you will not respect any scholar I might produce unless they agree with your doctrine. As to your other posts. You have proved my point in the use of extra scriptural terms. you state – Oh and yes.. Incarnation; the embodiment of a deity or spirit in some earthly form (2) capitalized : the union of divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ My point is that these terms you use convey a meaning. Supporters of trinitarinism begin from the premiss that Jesus is the union of divinity and humanity and then make up a word to carry that meaning. This word defines a doctrine. In fact a doctrine in question on this very forum. The others you mentioned are simply different names for things other then doctrines. Unfortunately many on this board when debating the Trinity use this term as if it has aquired some inspiration liken unto the scriptures. When debating the existance of the Trinity, they use this term and it’s concepts as if they are assumed true. An honest researcher begins with a clean slate. You said I am using preconcieved ideas. What is it when a person begins by using made up words that define a doctrinal stand? My question is this. From a logical standpoint of God wishing us to know Him and his son Jesus Christ. (remember you said in a previous post that this was of great importance) Why would God hide so important a doctrine to the point that made up non scriptural words need be used to carry the concept of this doctrine? Why is this concept not spoken of clearly in scripture? You stated in a previous post that belief in the trinity could determine your salvation. With that much on the line don’t you think God would make it clear in scripture. In fact the most clear scriptues you deny what they clearly say or you add a concept to them that is not there. The King James Version. Translated by trinitarians and for trinitarians. The translation is so trinitarian biased that actual words were added to I John to support the trinity. Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. I could bring in scholars that would give the meaning of “one” as absolutely meaning one (singular) but you would probably doubt their credibility. These verse are from the KJV. Trinitarians translated these scriptures. Are you going to tell me that the words they translated as “one” don’t mean one, but instead mean some form of three in one? Are you going to tell me that when Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and My God”, that it proves that Jesus is God? How about when YHWH says the following ? — Psalm 82:6 (speaking to Israel) …. Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. I could easily read a dual nature into this verse. They are Gods and children (sons) of God. Did all of these people posses the same quality of dual nature as Christ? How about the New Testament? Jesus quotes Psm 82 indicating the Pharasees are Gods. John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? Does this mean the Pharasees are Gods. How do you determine which verse to take literally and which ones to shove aside. Is it by your peconcieved ideas of doctrine? Do you filter the scripture through your dotrine to ascertain it’s meaning? Does this mean those Idraelites to whom YHWH spoke or the Pharases to whom Jesus spoke are literally Gods” Are they then preexistant members of the Trinity? Wouldn’t you have to change the term to “Billiony or perhaps Trilliony to include all those implicated by these verses? Better yet! What about the burning bush that speaks to Moses 4And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. Is the bush literally God or do you deny that it was really YHWH speaking? I do not mean to be a smart alik, but can you concieve this ilogical way in which some try to prove the Trinity. Using one meaning one place and onother somewhere else to try to force fit scriptural proof of the Trinity. Trinitarians try to prove that Jesus has a dual nature. 100% man and 100% God and in the same breath claim he is fully human. I do not have a dual nature, do you? This in addition to the absolutely rediculous stand that any one being could have 100% of the characteristics of God and 100% of the characteristics of man, especially when many of these characteristics are opposite one another. Failable – infailable, temptable – non temptable, mortal – immortal, knowing everything – not knowing everything, all powerfull – not all powerfull. Others try to prove that God the Son somehow gave up all his deity and became a man. Do they deal with scriptures like — Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. or Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. How about? Number 23:19 – God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? These are all very clear scriptures translated by Trinitarian scholars. These verse clearly refute a trinitarian stand. If they had a trinitarian meaning other then the clear text, don’t you think they would have translated them different? you state – Do you see what I mean? There are two sides. I have chosen mine. Does this mean you are unwilling to see proof from the other side? If so then you are right I am wasting my time. At one point you said you were open, yet everytime I offer proof you casually toss it aside, you come up with some excuse to disqualify it’s credibility. First you deny scholars that dissagree wi th your doctrine. Then you deny historians that dissagree with your historical stand. In fact the only ones you are willing to give credence to are the ones most influinced by your doctrine. Talk about using those with preconcieved ideas! I bet among those church fathers you would not include Michael Servetus, an educated doctor and theologian who was burned at the stake in 1553 for denouncing the Trinity. He lingered, in flames, for 30 minutes repeating time and again “Jesus, oh thou son of God have mercy on me.” An official standing by the flames repeatedly yelled to Servetus that if he cried out for mercy and used the non scriptural term God the Son instead of the Son of God, he would be cut down and spared. imagine that! Use a non scriptural term that conveys a doctrine and you are saved. Use the actual scriptures and you are murdered. Or do you deny that historical event too. (A curious side note. Remember saying you did not want me to use the phrase “Son of God” [scriptural term] to prove my point and yet you see no problem with using terms like incarnation or Word/Christ [both non scriptural terms which convey the concept of God the Son]) I will only briefly refer to the issue of function. When I speak of function I am not refering to the results of an overcoming life. I am refering to the belief that those result are possible. I assume you are a reasonable man that believes in logic and reason. in our God given ability to deduce that which is reasonable. We do not jump off 40 story building because our reasoning ability tell us we would end up a puddle on the street below. Let me deal with three types of trinitarianism — 1. Dual nature – If one assumes a dual natue for Christ, then every aspect of his character and every single action he took must be scrutinized to determine which was done by reason of his deity and which was done by reason of his humanity. Only in this way would be be able to determine which of these characteristics and actions we can believe ourselves capable of doing or being. After all we cannot expect ourselves to do the things of a God or be like a God in character. We are only men with a single human nature. 2. YHWH became a man – Specifically the second person of the triune Godhead gave up his deity and became a mortal human being. The most basic tennant of Judaism and Christianity is the imutable, unchanging nature of our God. Without this immutability our God becomes another one of the flimsy wishy washy gods of the unsaved. I find it inconcievable that anyone who claims Christianity could take a stand that denies this quality for God. How can any reasonable Christain believe that God can change from being God? Can Yahweh Elohyim suddenly stop being Yahweh Elohyim? Does this seem reasonable? 3. That God created an empty human shell in which He himself dwelt. Besides the fact that this clearly makes Jesus non human, it denies his ability to have a fully functional spirit, will and soul. How many hundred scriptures does that contradict?

M42

I Just defended it there is One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. “ALL the fullness of the Godhead swells in Jesus who was both God and man.

You know the scriptures I have to support these truths.

So why deny them and turn your face?

[music4two]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 01 2007,19:32)

Quote Notice the words you use (speaking of Jesus)  ” the same substance and essence and nature as the Father”. These are the exact words used in the crucial formula of the Nicean council of 325. (of the same substance) The exact formula and concept engeneered and created by the Roman Emperior Constantine. The same concept constantine forced on the council under threat of death. For someone not caring about the edicts of the Council of 325, you sure rely heavely on their concepts to ratify your stand. It seems you are again filtering what you say, believe and read about scripture through philosophies created in the Nicean council of 325. M42 Does this sum up what you believe? That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.” This is Arius quote.

Nope I do not believe that.you keep trying to peg me as an Arian. I am not.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

SIDESTEP SIDESTEP SIDESTEP Avoid the questions you cannot answer. Run away! If the context of Hebrews 1:8 is Jesus and you say it proves He is God then Jesus as a God has a God according to verse 9. You cannot ignor the context unless you are dishonest.

M42

No sidestep. Did God the Father call the Son God or not?

You are the one sidestepping by saying that God could not mean what he says.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

WJ SIDESTEP SIDESTEP SIDESTEP Have you yet defoned pneuma in the Greek? Are you going to ignor it because it does not fit your preconcieved doctrine? How dishonest is that?

M42

Explain this then.

Here are those FORTY PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AGAIN!

1) Helps: Jn 14:16,26, 15:26, 16:7, Rom 8:26, 1 Jn 2:1.
2) Glorifies: Jn 16:13-14.
3) Can be Known: Jn 14:17.
4) Gives Abilities: Acts 2:4, 1 Cor 12:7-11.
5) Referred to as “He”: Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-8,13.
6) Loves: Rom 15:30.
7) Guides: Jn 16:13.
8) Comforts: Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, Acts 9:31.
9) Teaches: Lk 12:12, Jn 14:26.
10) Reminds: Jn 14:26.
11) Bears Witness: Jn 15:26, Acts 5:32, Rom 8:16.
12) Has Impulses: Jn 16:13.
13) Hears: Jn 16:13.
14) Leads: Mt 4:1, Acts 8:39, Rom 8:14.
15) Pleads: Rom 8:26-27.
16) Longs (Yearns): Jas 4:5.
17) Wills: 1 Cor 12:11.
18) Thinks: Acts 15:25,28.
19) Sends: Acts 13:4.
20) Dispatches: Acts 10:20.
21) Impels: Mk 1:12.
22) Speaks: Jn 16:13-15, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 13:2.
23) Forbids: Acts 16:6-7.
24) Appoints: Acts 20:28.
25) Reveals: Lk 2:26, 1 Cor 2:10.
26) Calls to Ministry: Acts 13:2.
27) Can be Grieved: Is 63:10, Eph 4:30.
28) Can be Insulted: Heb 10:29.
29) Can be Lied to: Acts 5:3-4.
30) Can be Blasphemed: Mt 12:31-32.
31) Strives: Gen 6:3.
32) Is Knowledgeable: Is 40:13, Acts 10:19, 1 Cor 2:10-13.
33) Can be Vexed: Is 63:10.
34) Judges: Jn 16:8.
35) Prophesies: Acts 21:11, 28:25, 1 Tim 4:1.
36) Has Fellowship: 2 Cor 13:14.
37) Gives Grace: Heb 10:29.
38) Agrees: 1 Jn 5:7-8.
39) Offers Life: 2 Cor 3:6, Rev 22:17.
40) Is the Creator: Job 33:4.

[music4two]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 01 2007,19:35)

Quote I am reposting the portion of my previous post you have refused to deal with. If you are going to promote your teaching, you should be able to defens it. WJ The greatest evidence I could give on the meaning of Elohyim would be in the actuall Hebrew understanding of this word.  I do not think you would accept my Hebrew scholars. The fact that you do not respect some modern scholars (even if they are wrong) does not mean that all modern scholars are wrong. In fact, the availability of more archeological proof, better education and better scientific process very much adds to the credibility of modern scholarship. On the other hand, scholars which have been indoctrinated by the Catholic Church, Trinitarianism  and/or influinced by it’s power can not be trusted either. Since you will not except any scholar I might use there is no point. Since I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar and I suspect you are not, we are at an impass. I suspect  that you will not respect any scholar I might produce unless they agree with your doctrine. As to your other posts.  You have proved my point in the use of extra scriptural terms. you state – Oh and yes.. Incarnation; the embodiment of a deity or spirit in some earthly form (2) capitalized : the union of divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ My point is that these terms you use convey a meaning. Supporters of trinitarinism begin from the premiss that Jesus is the union of divinity and humanity and then make up a word to carry that meaning.  This word defines a doctrine. In fact a doctrine in question on this very forum. The others you mentioned are simply different names for things other then doctrines. Unfortunately many on this board when debating the Trinity use this term as if it has aquired some inspiration liken unto the scriptures. When debating the existance of the Trinity, they use this term and it’s concepts as if they are assumed true. An honest researcher begins with a clean slate.  You said I am using preconcieved ideas. What is it when a person begins by using made up words that define a doctrinal stand? My question is this. From a logical standpoint of God wishing us to know Him and his son Jesus Christ. (remember you said in a previous post that this was of great importance) Why would God hide so important a doctrine to the point that made up non scriptural words need be used to carry the concept of this doctrine? Why is this concept not spoken of clearly in scripture? You stated in a previous post that belief in the trinity could determine your salvation. With that much on the line don’t you think God would make it clear in scripture. In fact the most clear scriptues you deny what they clearly say or you add a concept to them that is not there. The King James Version. Translated by trinitarians and for trinitarians. The translation is so trinitarian biased  that actual words were added to I John to support the trinity. Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. I could bring in scholars that would give the meaning of “one” as absolutely meaning one (singular) but you would probably doubt their credibility. These verse are from the KJV. Trinitarians translated these scriptures. Are you going to tell me that the words they translated as “one” don’t mean one, but instead mean some form of three in one? Are you going to tell me that when Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and My God”, that it proves that Jesus is God? How about when YHWH says the following ? — Psalm 82:6 (speaking to Israel) …. Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. I could easily read a dual nature into this verse. They are Gods and children (sons) of God. Did all of these people posses the same quality of dual nature as Christ? How about the New Testament? Jesus quotes Psm 82 indicating the Pharasees are Gods. John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? Does this mean the Pharasees are Gods. How do you determine which verse to take literally and which ones to shove aside. Is it by your peconcieved ideas of doctrine? Do you filter the scripture through your dotrine to ascertain it’s meaning? Does this mean those Idraelites to whom YHWH spoke or the Pharases to whom Jesus spoke are literally Gods” Are they then preexistant members of the Trinity? Wouldn’t you have to change the term to “Billiony or perhaps Trilliony to include all those implicated by these verses? Better yet! What about the burning bush that speaks to Moses 4And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. Is the bush literally God or do you deny that it was really YHWH speaking? I do not mean to be a smart alik, but can you concieve  this ilogical way in which some try to prove the Trinity. Using one meaning one place and onother somewhere else to try to force fit scriptural proof of the Trinity. Trinitarians try to prove that Jesus has a dual nature. 100% man and 100% God and in the same breath claim he is fully human. I do not have a dual nature, do you? This in addition to the absolutely rediculous stand that any one being could have 100% of the characteristics of God and 100% of the characteristics of man, especially when many of these characteristics are opposite one another. Failable – infailable, temptable – non temptable, mortal – immortal, knowing everything – not knowing everything, all powerfull – not all powerfull. Others try to prove that God the Son somehow gave up all his deity and became a man. Do they deal with scriptures like — Mal 3:6  For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. or Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. How about? Number 23:19 – God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? These are all very clear scriptures translated by Trinitarian scholars. These verse clearly refute a trinitarian stand. If they had a trinitarian meaning other then the clear text, don’t you think they would have translated them different? you state – Do you see what I mean? There are two sides. I have chosen mine. Does this mean you are unwilling to see proof from the other sid e? If so then you are right I am wasting my time. At one point you said you were open, yet everytime I offer proof you casually toss it aside, you come up with some excuse to disqualify it’s credibility. First you deny scholars that dissagree with your doctrine. Then you deny historians that dissagree with your historical stand. In fact the only ones you are willing to give credence to are the ones most influinced by your doctrine. Talk about using those with preconcieved ideas! I bet among those church fathers you would not include Michael Servetus, an educated doctor and theologian who was burned at the stake in 1553 for denouncing the Trinity. He lingered, in flames, for 30 minutes repeating time and again “Jesus, oh thou son of God have mercy on me.” An official standing by the flames repeatedly yelled to Servetus that if he cried out for mercy and used the non scriptural term God the Son instead of the Son of God, he would be cut down and spared. imagine that! Use a non scriptural term that conveys a doctrine and you are saved. Use the actual scriptures and you are murdered. Or do you deny that historical event too. (A curious side note. Remember saying you did not want me to use the phrase “Son of God” [scriptural term] to prove my point and yet you see no problem with using terms like incarnation or Word/Christ [both non scriptural terms which convey the concept of God the Son]) I will only briefly refer to the issue of function. When I speak of function I am not refering to the results of an overcoming life. I am refering to the belief that those result are possible. I assume you are a reasonable man that believes in logic and reason. in our God given ability to deduce that which is reasonable. We do not jump off 40 story building because our reasoning ability tell us we would end up a puddle on the street below. Let me deal with three types of trinitarianism — 1. Dual nature – If one assumes a dual natue for Christ, then every aspect of his character and every single action he took must be scrutinized to determine which was done by reason of his deity and which was done by reason of his humanity. Only in this way would be be able to determine which of these characteristics and actions we can believe ourselves capable of doing or being. After all we cannot expect ourselves to do the things of a God or be like a God in character. We are only men with a single human nature. 2. YHWH became a man – Specifically the second person of the triune Godhead gave up his deity and became a mortal human being. The most basic tennant of Judaism and Christianity is the imutable, unchanging nature of our God. Without this immutability our God becomes another one of the flimsy wishy washy gods of the unsaved. I find it inconcievable that anyone who claims Christianity could take a stand that denies this quality for God. How can any reasonable Christain believe that God can change from being God? Can Yahweh Elohyim suddenly stop being Yahweh Elohyim? Does this seem reasonable? 3. That God created an empty human shell in which He himself dwelt. Besides the fact that this clearly makes Jesus non human, it denies his ability to have a fully functional spirit, will and soul. How many hundred scriptures does that contradict? M42 I Just defended it there is One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. “ALL the fullness of the Godhead swells in Jesus who was both God and man. You know the scriptures I have to support these truths. So why deny them and turn your face?

The only way to get a triune God out of the verses I quoted is to read it in to them
Just because you say one is three does not make it so. Where does that concept come from?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

The only way to get a triune God out of the verses I quoted is to read it in to them Just because you say one is three does not make it so. Where does that concept come from?

M42

Ask God, maybe Jesus will show you!

[music4two]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 01 2007,19:39)

Quote SIDESTEP SIDESTEP SIDESTEP Avoid the questions you cannot answer. Run away! If the context of Hebrews 1:8 is Jesus and you say it proves He is God then Jesus as a God has a God according to verse 9. You cannot ignor the context unless you are dishonest. M42 No sidestep. Did God the Father call the Son God or not? You are the one sidestepping by saying that God could not mean what he says.

I am saying that the interpretation you have of that verse cannot be right if it is contradicted in the very next verse. And it is contradicted. Remember you said to use the entire scripture.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

am saying that the interpretation you have of that verse cannot be right if it is contradicted in the very next verse. And it is contradicted. Remember you said to use the entire scripture.

M42

Again if you dont see Jesus as both God and man then this scripture will never make sence!

[music4two]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 01 2007,19:41)

Quote WJ SIDESTEP SIDESTEP SIDESTEP Have you yet defoned pneuma in the Greek? Are you going to ignor it because it does not fit your preconcieved doctrine? How dishonest is that? M42 Explain this then. Here are those FORTY PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AGAIN! 1) Helps: Jn 14:16,26, 15:26, 16:7, Rom 8:26, 1 Jn 2:1. 2) Glorifies: Jn 16:13-14. 3) Can be Known: Jn 14:17. 4) Gives Abilities: Acts 2:4, 1 Cor 12:7-11. 5) Referred to as “He”: Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-8,13. 6) Loves: Rom 15:30. 7) Guides: Jn 16:13. 8) Comforts: Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, Acts 9:31. 9) Teaches: Lk 12:12, Jn 14:26. 10) Reminds: Jn 14:26. 11) Bears Witness: Jn 15:26, Acts 5:32, Rom 8:16. 12) Has Impulses: Jn 16:13. 13) Hears: Jn 16:13. 14) Leads: Mt 4:1, Acts 8:39, Rom 8:14. 15) Pleads: Rom 8:26-27. 16) Longs (Yearns): Jas 4:5. 17) Wills: 1 Cor 12:11. 18) Thinks: Acts 15:25,28. 19) Sends: Acts 13:4. 20) Dispatches: Acts 10:20. 21) Impels: Mk 1:12. 22) Speaks: Jn 16:13-15, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 13:2. 23) Forbids: Acts 16:6-7. 24) Appoints: Acts 20:28. 25) Reveals: Lk 2:26, 1 Cor 2:10. 26) Calls to Ministry: Acts 13:2. 27) Can be Grieved: Is 63:10, Eph 4:30. 28) Can be Insulted: Heb 10:29. 29) Can be Lied to: Acts 5:3-4. 30) Can be Blasphemed: Mt 12:31-32. 31) Strives: Gen 6:3. 32) Is Knowledgeable: Is 40:13, Acts 10:19, 1 Cor 2:10-13. 33) Can be Vexed: Is 63:10. 34) Judges: Jn 16:8. 35) Prophesies: Acts 21:11, 28:25, 1 Tim 4:1. 36) Has Fellowship: 2 Cor 13:14. 37) Gives Grace: Heb 10:29. 38) Agrees: 1 Jn 5:7-8. 39) Offers Life: 2 Cor 3:6, Rev 22:17. 40) Is the Creator: Job 33:4.

Sorry no sidesteps allowed. DEFINE THE TERM PNEUMA

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

Sorry no sidesteps allowed.   DEFINE THE TERM PNEUMA

M42

I think the scriptures I give you define the “Pneuma”, Spirit very well.

Here are those FORTY PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AGAIN!

1) Helps: Jn 14:16,26, 15:26, 16:7, Rom 8:26, 1 Jn 2:1.
2) Glorifies: Jn 16:13-14.
3) Can be Known: Jn 14:17.
4) Gives Abilities: Acts 2:4, 1 Cor 12:7-11.
5) Referred to as “He”: Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-8,13.
6) Loves: Rom 15:30.
7) Guides: Jn 16:13.
8) Comforts: Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, Acts 9:31.
9) Teaches: Lk 12:12, Jn 14:26.
10) Reminds: Jn 14:26.
11) Bears Witness: Jn 15:26, Acts 5:32, Rom 8:16.
12) Has Impulses: Jn 16:13.
13) Hears: Jn 16:13.
14) Leads: Mt 4:1, Acts 8:39, Rom 8:14.
15) Pleads: Rom 8:26-27.
16) Longs (Yearns): Jas 4:5.
17) Wills: 1 Cor 12:11.
18) Thinks: Acts 15:25,28.
19) Sends: Acts 13:4.
20) Dispatches: Acts 10:20.
21) Impels: Mk 1:12.
22) Speaks: Jn 16:13-15, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 13:2.
23) Forbids: Acts 16:6-7.
24) Appoints: Acts 20:28.
25) Reveals: Lk 2:26, 1 Cor 2:10.
26) Calls to Ministry: Acts 13:2.
27) Can be Grieved: Is 63:10, Eph 4:30.
28) Can be Insulted: Heb 10:29.
29) Can be Lied to: Acts 5:3-4.
30) Can be Blasphemed: Mt 12:31-32.
31) Strives: Gen 6:3.
32) Is Knowledgeable: Is 40:13, Acts 10:19, 1 Cor 2:10-13.
33) Can be Vexed: Is 63:10.
34) Judges: Jn 16:8.
35) Prophesies: Acts 21:11, 28:25, 1 Tim 4:1.
36) Has Fellowship: 2 Cor 13:14.
37) Gives Grace: Heb 10:29.
38) Agrees: 1 Jn 5:7-8.
39) Offers Life: 2 Cor 3:6, Rev 22:17.
40) Is the Creator: Job 33:4.

M42

Have you examined these scriptures closly?

[music4two]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 01 2007,19:54)

Quote am saying that the interpretation you have of that verse cannot be right if it is contradicted in the very next verse. And it is contradicted. Remember you said to use the entire scripture. M42 Again if you dont see Jesus as both God and man then this scripture will never make sence!

in otherwords if I do not define scripture with a preconcieved idea of a dual nature, I will never come to the same conclusions as you.
well thank God for that!!!

[Author]

Posts