- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 5 days ago by
.
- Posts
Phew…This is one long thread. I have been wanting to post, however only felt that it was fair to read all the posts first.
I would like to congratulate T8 for his Trinity writings and for his honest approach to the subject. I am a member on another christian site and there is a folder on the trinity there, unfortunality i have been banned from posting on the subject of the “Trinity”, the Holy Spirit and Jesus in that folder because i present scriptual proof to the contary.
John 1:1 “In the beginging was the Word and the word was with God and the word was God”.
I enjoyed Global's post on this subject, he admitted that he was not an expert on the subject and thus relied on the common translation by “well respected scholars”. Having studied the text myself i can say that from a simple lingustic translation “the word was God” or “Theos” could rightly be translated God or a god.
This is a face value rendering, using simple grammer there is nothing wrong with the translation. However it is very misleading to strictly define it in this way.
When translating from the original text we use a number of methods. The use of articles or lack of, word order and a sense of the surronding grammer help us to come to a correct decsion.
As has already been mentioned Theos is a term applied not only to God, but also, to men, angels and kings. Ho-theos (literally: The God) is applied to almost exclusively to Yahweh, the almighty, the creator. However it is of note that on 2 occasions HO-THEOS (the God) is applied to others.
2 cor 4-6 refers to SATAN as HO-THEOS (from the context it is rightly reduced to god, rather than God).
The other example is in John 20:24-29 when Thomas said” My Lord and my God (HO-THEOS). This example will be disscused later. We know that theos is not exclusively talking of the almighty, we can also see that scholars use word order and context, EVEN when confronted by the word HO-THEOS which at face value should be THE GOD.Literally the greek text reads like this:
“in the beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word”.
Translators must supply capitals as needed in the language into which he translates the text. It is clearly proper to capitalize “God” in translating the phrase “the god”, since this must identify with the almighty God with whom the word was.While capitilizing the word “god” in the second instance is NOT ALWAYS WRONG, the reason being that theos is redered God in other places, HOWEVER it is MISLEADING, when we consider the context and word order.
We have 3 options as to how we can translate what John said:
“The word was God”
“The word was devine”
“the word was a god”The last is particulary poor and can be discounted, although there are other “gods” it is unlikley he would have had this in mind. So we are left with 2 possible translations, Jesus was God or he was “divine” sharing the same “nature” as God.
John was by using “Ho theos” in the first instance and “theos” in the second indicates that he (Jesus) was not God, he clearly seperates the 2, we have THE GOD and god (theos- Scholars admit the second occurance as more of a descriptive). One like God an image of God. Using God in the second instance is just as wrong as using “a god”.
So while theos is used of the second god, trinitarians and scholars alike rightfully claim that “a god” is wrong and a bit of a simplistic glance at the text when considering word order and context. So if it was meant to mean “a god” it would totally contraidct the biblical teaching of one God that the Jews held.
Using “a god” is a mistake, although it is an easy conclusion to make because of the context and that the text literally says theos, we cant however make this fit correctly with Jewish thinking. Likewise rendering theos as THE GOD (as trinitarians do) when comparing context and word order is an absolute digrace and utterly misleading.
In both cases the final result is based on theology. It is irksome to scholars on both sides that the grammar is ambiguous in a point that is seen by both to be crucial. And we can argue about it until the cows come home but no one will ever be convinced.
So we are left with “the word was devine”. Divine is perfectly acceptable. It's an equative clause….the Logos is everthing that Qeos is…..divine!
Some trinatarians will point out that if John had simply meant divine he would have use the word “theios”. As can be seen it comes from the word “theos”. However it is a very rarely used word, and is only used in conjunction with another word for example “divine power” or “divine nature”, so is void when used on it's own. In addition it does not impart the full and complete reflection Jesus was to His God, which was the whole point John was trying to make.
In addition “theios” was a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks, it does not convey the relansonship between Jesus and God and is used by the greeks of ANY spiritually higher creature, unlike the glorious reflectio Jesus was. The word just does not do justice, hence its absence.
I know Global was pushing the following point:
If Jesus is “divine” he must be God.
That is a typical trinitarian reasoning, divine is anything that comes from God, Jesus came into exsistence by his father, he was begat from him as his “firstborn” son, and so is divine, we can say that angels and any spiritual creature are divine.
To be divine or having the same “nature” as God does NOT make that one God, Jesus was the “image of God”, his perfect refelection sharing his qualities and purpose, which is why he could state that “he that has seen me has seen the father”. Likewise “man” was made in God's image, sharing the same qualities as him, those of forgiveness, love, understanding, and patience. Any thing that comes FROM God must share the same nature as the him, it no way makes him that person.
When we view John 1:1 and other “problem” scriptures in the correct light there is a comfort in knowing that the bible does not contradict itself, any and ALL trinitarian passges can be proven wrong when view them in line with the rest of the Holy word, which always must be done. I have yet to find a trinitarian that can explain without looking foolish any scriptures that disagree with their view.
Just one more note on John 1:1, there is a quite reasonable view that the “Word” in John is not Jesus. If anyone wants to know more i can explain.
I feel sorry for trinitarians in that they are bound to a doctrine that causes them to claim its a “mystery”. That is not my God, mine is someone i can understand and follow as a child.
Because of the confusing state the “trinity” leaves the scriptures, they often have to resort to man made explanations and circular reasoning.
Some clear examples of this are:
Trinitarian: Yahweh is saviour, so therfore Jesus must be God-Yahweh.
This, along with the Alpha and omega statement use human man made reasoning:
If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in scriptures, it should never be hastily concluded that they must be the same person.
To show the foolishness of such reasoning the trinitarians should conclude that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “King of Kings”. We should always consider the context where the same expression occurs.
So do the scriptures conclude that Jesus is God, because of the description “Saviour”?.
The answer is NO.
Yahweh is repeatadly refered to in scripture as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior”.
Titus 1:3,4 speaks of “God our
savior”, and then both “God and Christ Jesus our savior”. So both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship saying: “God, our savior THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord” (trough=by means of). (see also Acts 13:23)At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (Moh-shi'a, rendered “savior” or “Deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel a judge in Isreal, but that certainly did not make Othniel Yahweh, did it?. A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Yahweh alone was the one who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Isreal; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surronding nations. Their was no need for Jesus to be a savior at that time, as he had not made his sacrafice.
Jesus is the savior in respect to the world, by paying the ransom, even though, this is all done by God using Jesus as the “chief agent and savior”. (Acts 5:31)
When jesus was on earth Yahweh was his savior, supporting and strenghtening him to maintain integrity through his strenuous trials.-Heb 5:7; Ps 28:8.
Along with his role as Savior, Yahweh was also the “Repurchaser”(Isa 49:26; 60:16). In the past he redeemed his people Isreal from captivity. In delivering christians from sin bondage, he does the repurchasing through his son Jesus Christ.(1 John 4:14).
Accordingly Jesus can rightly be called “our savior”, even though he perfoms the salvation as an agent of Yahweh. (tit 1:4- 2 Peter1:11).
The name jesus, given to God's son by angelic direction, means “Yahweh is salvation”, for, said the angel: “He will save people from their sins” (Matt 1:21;Luke 1:31). This name points out that Yahweh is the source of salvation, accomplished through Jesus. For this reason we find the father & son spoken together in connection with salvation. -Tit 2:11-13; 3:3-6
Salavation is provided by Yahweh through Jesus Christ for “All sorts of men”(1 Tim 4:10) He saves them from sin and death (Rom 8:2, from babylon the Great (Re 18:2,4) from this world under Satans control (John 17:16; Col 1:13), and from destruction and everlasting death (Re 7:14-17; 21:3,4). A “Great Crowd” is shown attributing salvation to God and to the Lamb.
The ransom sacrafice is the basis for salvation, and as King and everlasting High Priest, Christ Jesus has the authority and power “To save completely those who are approaching God through him” (Heb 7:23-25; Re 19:16) He is “a savior of this body”, the congregation of his annoited followers, and also of all who exercise faith in him-Eph 5:23; 1 Jo 4:14; Jo 3:16,17.
Regards
ElohimQuote (Elohim @ Sep. 05 2004,02:06) Phew…This is one long thread. I have been wanting to post, however only felt that it was fair to read all the posts first.
Congratulations for reading it all.
A good post BTW.
Quote (Elohim @ Sep. 04 2004,07:06) Phew…This is one long thread. I have been wanting to post, however only felt that it was fair to read all the posts first. Thats commendable.
Quote The other example is in John 20:24-29 when Thomas said” My Lord and my God (HO-THEOS). This example will be disscused later. Coundn't find this discussion.
Quote I feel sorry for trinitarians in that they are bound to a doctrine that causes them to claim its a “mystery”. That is not my God, mine is someone i can understand and follow as a child. Are they any less saved than yourself? If they have a relationship with Jesus and believe Him to be God, are they a lesser christian than yourself? Why feel sorry for them?
Its interesting that God is someone you can understand and follow “as a child” because I personally believe understanding of the Bible's essential truths is not the sole domain of the mensa-going, technically-minded. Actually I believe these truths are extractable by almost anyone – including children. What would a 10 year old think that Jesus is after reading:
Jn 20:28, 2 Pet 1:1, Heb 1:8, Ti 2:13, Isa 9:6?
Pretty obvious to me.
By the way, the username you chose is a plural noun – and it's a little blasphemous to use that of yourself, dont you think?
RegardsJohn 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.What would a ten year old think if he heard those following words of Christ? Maybe he would think that the only God sent Jesus Christ? So who is the only God then?
Ephesians 4:4-6
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.Even a 3 year old can count up to 1. A 10 year old could understand that God is the Father.
2 Corinthians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,This is real simple stuff Is 1:18.
Ephesians 1:17
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.You know I could quote over 100 verses that say the same thing. How do you explain it all away in good conscience?
Quote Thats commendable. Thank you
Quote
The other example is in John 20:24-29 when Thomas said” My Lord and my God (HO-THEOS). This example will be disscused later.Coundn't find this discussion.
I dont think that it has been mentioned yet, at least not in great detail. I mentioned it with referance to those that are described as Ho-theos. As i said i am more than willing to discuss this trinitarian favourite.
Quote Are they any less saved than yourself? If they have a relationship with Jesus and believe Him to be God, are they a lesser christian than yourself? Why feel sorry for them? When, please tell me did i say that they were any less saved than me?
Salvation (which means to be preserved, protection) is attained by placing faith in Jesus name, that he is the Son of God and the Christ-Messiah.Jesus demonstrated this with the thief on the Cross:
“And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” -Luke 23:42,43It is interesting that you talk about having a relationship with Jesus. While putting faith in Jesus as our savior provides salvation(his protection) does that equate to having a relantionship with him?
Many Christians put faith in his name, get “Saved” and leave it at that, they then claim to have a relationship with him.
Faith means “conviction of the truth of anything, belief” (strongs)
Relating to God:1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
relating to Christ:
1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God.
Would you ever expect to form a relantionship with someone just because you believed some thing about them? If you are married, no doubt when you met your wife you had to get to know her, to understand her ways and form a close bound between yourselfs. A relationship with Jesus needs to be developed the same way, we can do that by drawing close in prayer and also by studying his word. I am sure you will agree many so called christians do not do that.
Psa 119:66 “Teach me good judgment and knowledge for I have believed thy commandments.” (Thoughtout the book of psalms we see the same theme, it is a beautiful book)
Likewise with those that hold the Trinitarian view, I never said they were not saved.
Having a relantionship with someone means that we will have come to an accurate knowledge of who that person is, you cannot have a proper relantionship with someone when you believe they are something they are not.
An example of this is within a marriage, the husband cheats, the wife finds out and often the feelings are they dont know who the person is they were married to, the relationship was built on lies and the person they thought they loved was not after all that person. The relationship is fake.
John ilustrates those in the first century who thought they had a good relationship with God:
“Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” -John 8:41-44
Without bashing your views on the trinity without scriptual referance can you have a “Proper” relationship with God and Jesus by believing they are something they are not?. Jesus reflected ALL the glory to his father throughout his ministry which provoked him to say:
“It is Yahweh your God your God that you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service”.(Matt 4:10)So in summary i feel sorry for trinitarians NOT because they are any less “saved”(only God knows that) but because they are in bondage that they can neither biblicaly prove or explain. They have a desire to please God but instead do the opposite of what Jesus commanded: Take the Glory away from God.
Quote Its interesting that God is someone you can understand and follow “as a child” because I personally believe understanding of the Bible's essential truths is not the sole domain of the mensa-going, technically-minded. Thats good we agree for the bible says:
“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” (Matthew 11:25 KJV)To be as “babes” we need to strip ourselves of man made philosophey and teachings, approaching God as innocent children.
“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 3:1-2 KJV)
When coming to know God we need to put our pre concieved ideas and knowledge of wise men away, that we are able to accept the message and draw close to Him.
Once we have done so the results are an end to childish babbiling of men:
“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. But shun profane and vain babblings” (2 Timothy 2:15-16 KJV)Quote Actually I believe these truths are extractable by almost anyone – including children. What would a 10 year old think that Jesus is after reading: Jn 20:28, 2 Pet 1:1, Heb 1:8, Ti 2:13, Isa 9:6?
Pretty obvious to me.
He would conclude that Jesus is GOD.
But you and i know that taking scriptures out of context like that is not reaveling the truth, we must ALWAYS search for context, understanding and harmony with the entire word. This is a classic example of how the trinity was developed and how still they pick scriptures to paint their view.
If you want to play this game lets Go:
If a 10 year old was to read these what would they think?.
Gen 32:24-30, Gen 19:8, Jdg 1:19.
They would think that a man can wrestle with God and that in order to beat man God had to “pop” his thigh out, for “it was nearly daylight”
They would think that it is ok for a father to give his vigin daughters to homosexuals, to do with as they wish.
They would think that God “could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”
As you can see by using YOUR example of picking scriptures we come to complety the wrong vi
ew, moreover we look foolish.Quote By the way, the username you chose is a plural noun – and it's a little blasphemous to use that of yourself, dont you think? I have been over this many times with many people, Strictly speaking the word God is a TITLE, God in the OT, not a name of the almighty. Only Yahweh (the father) is ever referred to as almighty God.
The fact that it is a title of descriptive power is seen by it's usage to others.
Man, angels & Satan are all called god (Elohim) or Gods in the bible and are even accompanied by other nouns, giving them a superlative meaning.
In the OT God is taken from the word Elohim, which comes from EL & ELOAH. Elohim is indeed a plural, however only to highlight his excellence and majesty. As Elohim is derived from EL its meaning would be “Strong One” or “foremost one.
Is the bible blaspheming against itself by giving it to others?.
Since it is used of men, angels and even satan, i can NOT be accused of blasphemy by using it.
If i was to call myself by God's personal name, Yahweh, then and only then might you have some basis.
BTW: i choose to use it because i like it, and because even though others are given this title due to their respective postition, when it is used of God it highlights that he is the “Strongest” and Foremost of all”
Regards
ElohimHi, how are you? good I hope.
Quote I dont think that it has been mentioned yet, at least not in great detail. I mentioned it with referance to those that are described as Ho-theos. As i said i am more than willing to discuss this trinitarian favourite. Yes, I would appreciate that, thanks.
Quote When, please tell me did i say that they were any less saved than me? In the context of your whole post your “I feel sorry for trinitarians” comment sounded more contemptous than compassionate. People often use this expression to infer the former. I guess I was trying to establish exactly why is was you felt sorry for them when they are just as saved as yourself and are enjoying their relationship with Jesus.
Quote A relationship with Jesus needs to be developed the same way, we can do that by drawing close in prayer and also by studying his word. I am sure you will agree many so called christians do not do that. I agree whole-heartedly with you on this.
Quote Having a relantionship with someone means that we will have come to an accurate knowledge of who that person is, you cannot have a proper relantionship with someone when you believe they are something they are not. As i've already written to T8, I feel on safer ground if I have over-estimated exactly who Jesus is, than if I have under-estimated Him.
Quote An example of this is within a marriage, the husband cheats, the wife finds out and often the feelings are they dont know who the person is they were married to, the relationship was built on lies and the person they thought they loved was not after all that person. The relationship is fake. I think this is a flawed analogy. If a husband has cheated on his wife he has made a conscious decision to do something he knows is wrong – for his own gratification. You cannot compare this premeditated sin with a mis-interpretation of scripture – especially when there is evidence to support the view that, in hindsight, was wrong.
Quote John ilustrates those in the first century who thought they had a good relationship with God:
“Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” -John 8:41-44
Well I would argue that the pharisees never tried to enter into a true relationship with God. Their religion was all about ceremonial apeasment and seeking the approval of men – religion is not at all relational, it's man's attempt to absolve himself before God. Their repetitious prayers also highlight the fact that theirs was not a genuine relationship. Would you call your father on the phone and recite by rote the same conversation over and over again? This is what the pharisees did when they prayed.
Quote Without bashing your views on the trinity You don't know all my views on the trinity.
Quote without scriptual referance can you have a “Proper” relationship with God and Jesus by believing they are something they are not?. I think I'll let God make this call.
Quote So in summary i feel sorry for trinitarians NOT because they are any less “saved”(only God knows that) but because they are in bondage that they can neither biblicaly prove or explain. They have a desire to please God but instead do the opposite of what Jesus commanded: Take the Glory away from God. How does it take the glory away from God – he isnt devalued in any way. Here's a crude axample that I hope might explain my take on this. If you have a second child, do you love/respect/honour the firstborn any less? If you have got kids you would know the answer is no. In the same way, my total awe of God the father is not in any way diminished because I also happan to believe the Bible teaches that Jesus is also God.
Quote To be as “babes” we need to strip ourselves of man made philosophey and teachings, approaching God as innocent children. I agree here too. I just dont throw the baby out with the bath water.
Quote When coming to know God we need to put our pre concieved ideas and knowledge of wise men away, that we are able to accept the message and draw close to Him. Yes, again I agree. Actually a few months ago a close family member challenged me on the issue of Jesus' diety and it stopped me in my tracks. I had always taken that for grated without examining the biblical evidence. So I did, I tried to remove my presuppositions about Jesus and looked hard at the evidence. Essentially I reached my conclusion that Jesus is God by the following (not an exhaustive list):
1. The Bible says so – Jn 20:28, 2 Pet 1:1, Heb 1:8, Ti 2:13, Isa 9:6
2. The plurality in the OT. Genesis 1:26 says “Let Us make man in Our image.”
3. He facilitated (Lk 19:28-40) and accepted (Mat 9:18, 14:33, 28:9, 28:17) worship. Only God can be worshipped.
4. He forgave sins. Only God can do this – no exceptions.
5. Comparing Ex 3, Josh 5:13-15 and Jn 8:58 convinced me that Jesus was the voice in the burning bush.
6. An exegesis of Zech 14:1-8. Vss 4 (cf. Acts 1:11) and 5 (cf. Dan 7:13, Mat 24:30) are particularly compelling for me.
So far no one has been able to adequately explain how these scriptures fit with
in a unitarian framework. Perhaps you might like a crack. Im not immune to reason.Quote He would conclude that Jesus is GOD. Exactly, the Holy Spirit would not set out to decieve. If Jesus is not God – then why are these verses there at all?
Quote If you want to play this game lets Go: Im not into games, I don't need to win this argument with you. I just want to explain where im coming from and try and find out more about your views – im interested.
Quote If a 10 year old was to read these what would they think?. Gen 32:24-30, Gen 19:8, Jdg 1:19.
They would think that a man can wrestle with God and that in order to beat man God had to “pop” his thigh out, for “it was nearly daylight”
Yes they would, because thats what is written. I take this passage literally.
Quote They would think that it is ok for a father to give his vigin daughters to homosexuals, to do with as they wish. Given that God did not instruct Lot to do this (it was his decision) I don't see how it's relevant. I think a 10 year old would know the difference between what the Bible reports and what God condones.
Quote They would think that God “could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” This verse says that Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, not God. Thats the way I read it.
Quote As you can see by using YOUR example of picking scriptures we come to complety the wrong view, moreover we look foolish. Yes true. Thats why I try not to use verses in isolation or in the wrong context to make a point.
Quote I have been over this many times with many people, Strictly speaking the word God is a TITLE, God in the OT, not a name of the almighty. Only Yahweh (the father) is ever referred to as almighty God. The fact that it is a title of descriptive power is seen by it's usage to others.
Man, angels & Satan are all called god (Elohim) or Gods in the bible and are even accompanied by other nouns, giving them a superlative meaning.
In the OT God is taken from the word Elohim, which comes from EL & ELOAH. Elohim is indeed a plural, however only to highlight his excellence and majesty. As Elohim is derived from EL its meaning would be “Strong One” or “foremost one.
Is the bible blaspheming against itself by giving it to others?.
Yes but it takes on a different light when someone gives it to themself.
Regards
Is 1:18hey is1:18 and elohim,
um… i just want to pick up on one thing is1:18 said – the plurality of god in the old testament… the phrase, “let us make man in our image” doesn't really support any argument… i mean, a trinitarian god would use this phrase, but so would a god sculpting life from the dirt with his son – “let us make it in our image”…
i think this is true of a lot of the scriptures – it is filled with ambiguity. there are many possible translations for each word which will subtly alter the meaning… i think this is why paul says to the romans that we should serve in the newness of spirit and not the oldness of letter… (of course, this is open to interpretation… hehehe)
i'm not a “trinitarian”, neither am i a “non-trinitarian”… i try not to believe in doctrines at all… if we think we have the absolute truth then when truth knocks on our door, we probably won't open up to him…
cheers,
nate.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 07 2004,22:54) 1. The Bible says so – Jn 20:28, 2 Pet 1:1, Heb 1:8, Ti 2:13, Isa 9:6
1. John 20:28
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”First thing to point out is that Lord and God are 2 different words. Compare this scripture with Ephesians 4:4-6
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.Also look at 1 Kings 1:37
“As the LORD has been with my lord the king, so may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord King David!”If we compare these 3 scriptures and others, it becomes obvious that the Father is the true God or the Most High God. But there are many gods and anyone in authority to you can be a god.
Thomas said My God, not the God. So yes Jesus is my God too, but the Father is the God to Jesus.
2 Corinthians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,It's like Elohim said, you can say anything with scripture taken out of context.
2 Peter 1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:Depends where you put the comma. i.e. the righteousness of our God, and Savior Jesus Christ. Is the verse talking about 2 people or one? It can be read either way and even if Jesus is our God in this case, he still has a God who is our God, he is the Father as the scriptures testify. Even the word 'Father' puts the true perspective on who the son is. Also try reading that verse in the KJV for example. I cannot trade your understanding of this verse with hundreds of blatantly obvious scriptures that show that the Father is the one true God, that we shouldn't replace with any other God.
Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.Is this the Father or the Son speaking? I do not know. It appears to me on the offset, that the Son is speaking to the Father. It is also a quote from the OT.
Ps 45:6-7
6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.So it appears that the speaker or the subject is talking about God, rather than God talking about the subject, (son). I could be wrong here, I have tackled this for the first time. But if it is saying that Jesus is the Most High God, then the scriptures contradict. I of course do not see a contradiction at all. I think the scriptures are quite clear that the Father of Jesus Christ is the true and Most High God.
Titus 2:13
while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,Again is this scripture talking about 2 or 1. It could be saying, God and saviour (Jesus). Again try reading this verse in the KJV. Again do we conclude that scripture contradicts by reading it in isolation or do we read in context with other scripture? E.g. Doesn't your point of view contradict the next scripture.
Philippians 1:2
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.If we take this to mean that Jesus is the Almighty as aposed to mighty, then should we also say that he is the Heavenly Father as aposed to the Everlasting Father? If so, then even the creeds have condemned this interpretation as herecy and lives on today as Oneness doctrine.
In other words to argue that Jesus is the Almighty using this verse gives rise to saying that Jesus is also the Father if we want to be fair about it.
I leave you with Pauls understanding on this subject.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.We can see that there are indeed many gods. But scripture is quite clear that there is one true God or source of everything and Jesus is not the source of all as it is obvious that he is not the source of the Father, yet the Father is absolutely the source of the son. Hence the words Father and Son.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 07 2004,22:54) 2. The plurality in the OT. Genesis 1:26 says “Let Us make man in Our image.” 3. He facilitated (Lk 19:28-40) and accepted (Mat 9:18, 14:33, 28:9, 28:17) worship. Only God can be worshipped.
2. I think Nate explained it well in his post.3. Only God can be worhipped? Take a look @ the following:
1 Chronicles 29:20
And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.Isn't this verse similar to Revelation 5: 12-14
12 In a loud voice they sang: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!”
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
14 The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.Jesus was never worshipped as God himself just as King David wasn't, in scripture at least.
Matthew 14:33
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”The word worship can be used in different ways. In 1 Chronicles 29:20 the word 'shachah' is used and means the following: worship, bow down, obeisance, reverence, fall down, crouch, prostrate oneself.
In Matthew 14:33, the word for worshipped is 'proskuneo' and it's meaning is similar. It is used in scripture in the following contexts: showing homage shown to men and beings of superior rank, to the Jewish high priests, to God, to Christ, to heavenly and beings and to demons.
Is 1:18, when you really search the scriptures you find the truth. When you listen to the doctrines of men, you will parrot off all their sayings even if they are at odds with scripture. All of what you said I have heard many times at different denominations I have been too. Its a scary thought, but surely it makes one think about what is really going on and what is really truth.
This world is truly in deception and unfortunately through lack of knowledge many Christians are also under the influence of the Evil One and his lies.
I will cover your next points later as I don't have time right now. Or maybe someone else will give you the answers in the meantime?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 07 2004,22:54) 4. He forgave sins. Only God can do this – no exceptions. 5. Comparing Ex 3, Josh 5:13-15 and Jn 8:58 convinced me that Jesus was the voice in the burning bush.
4.Mark 2:7
“Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”It's quite funny but the whole idea that only God can forgive sins comes from mens understanding in the first place. Of course only God can forgive, but he gives his authority to others does he not? Jesus says that he forgives sins because He being the Son of Man, has that authority. He never said that he forgives sins because he is God. So this is the answer to your question.
Matthew 9:6
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins….” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”Colossians 2:13
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,Again God uses Christ to do his will. Jesus also gave part of that authority to his disciples.
John 20:22-23
And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”So now we can see that even the disciples had this authority. Yet we know that they are not God.
5.
Regarding Ex 3. It was mentioned elsewhere that it was the Angel of the Lord that appeared in the flames of fire from within a bush. The LORD spoke through the Angel of the LORD. It is what this scripture and others say. Remember that God is invisible, so no-one can actually see God. Jesus, John and Timothy taught this and who are we to go against what they have taught?
Joshua 5:13-15
13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”
14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua fell face down to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”
15 The commander of the LORD's army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.It amazes me that you cannot see that this is about a person called the commander of the LORD. How can the commander of the LORD be the LORD himself? When something or someone is of the LORD it simply means that it belongs to the LORD and is not the LORD himself. It seems to me to be rather simple English and used in any other context, it would be used correctly I am sure. But in the vain attempt of trying to prove the man-made Trinity Doctrine, I have noticed that a lot of normal rules suddenly change. This is known as bias. Bias is often without reason. To say it another way, it is unreasonable.
I heard it said once that what is done in the name of religion wouldn't be tolerated in any other field. It's like people throw away all sense of logic once religion is the subject. But if we are in the truth, then we will speak the truth and we will not live a lie. For those who are of the truth will speak the truth. Those who lie are of their Father the Devil.
John 8:58
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”“I am” is a translation from Greek words “ego eimi”. Is the mere utterance of “ego eimi” a blasphemy? Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM? In Luke 1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In John 9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14.
Jesus used the phrase “ego eimi” at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (John 8:58). Jesus said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd, in John.6:35-48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true of verses 51 & 52
In John 8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Jesus used “ego eimi” with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in John 10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Jesus said to his disciples, “that ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)” in John 13:19 without them batting an eye.
In Jn 8:58, Jesus was merely saying that he existed before Abraham and this is easy to pickup if you read the verses before it. Again a scripture in isolation can be used to say many things. In context we see the truth.
It's like looking a jigsaw piece. We can philosophy and guess what it may be, but once it is placed in the picture, it is only then that we see what it really is. A scripture on it's own is like that jigsaw piece. The Bible is like the jigsaw puzzle. We must see each piece in the whole to truly understand what each piece represents. A false doctrine simply takes some of the pieces and forces them together to createa a false picture. Any reasonable person would wonder why all the other pieces were not used and why the pieces don't fit in a seamless way.
So it is that a person doesn't need to resort to isolating scripture if they are teaching the truth because all scripture is in harmony. But false teachings and false beliefs leads one to avoid certain scriptures and to read their preferred scriptures in a particular order or in isolation. This is a common practice among cults.
A truth seeker is a seeker of Jesus. A truth seeker is not scared of any scripture. He/she lets scripture and truth change them and boldy speaks all truth with no thought to it's consequence. Such a person knows full well that if they are wrong but they are open to truth, they will rejoice in the fact that they have learned something new and can now let that truth change them and in so doing, they become perfected. This is their hearts desire.
Hi T8,
You've gone to a lot of trouble to show me why you hold the view that you do, and why you think mine's wrong, thank you.
It's going to take me some time to check everything you wrote out – but I will get back to you after I do that.
God BlessYes I think the Trinity Doctrine is wrong, but I think that you are right to at least check it out and listen to what others have to say.
May God bless you too.
Hello everyone, and God bless you all in the name of Jesus Christ. I send greetings and blessings to you from the state of Rhode Island, USA.
I've been reading this board for about a week now, so I thought it time I chimed in. First, t8, you're doing a great work here, keep it up. To know the truth is to be free from man-made doctrine, but the condition of knowing the truth is stated by the Lord himself. We must continue in His word (doctrine, teaching) if we're to become his disciples, and having gained an understanding, hold fast but be willing to test all doctrines against the light of His words.
Regarding the doctrine of the trinity – in examining the history of the doctrine and its fruit, it runs counter to the simple revelation of the Bible. There is one true God, the Father. He is the source of all creation, including Jesus Christ, who was the Word living in the flesh. He was the reflection of the Father, and can be called “god” in the lower case, just as men were called “gods” in the Old Testament. But no one has seen God, the Father. We have seen the Son, either in person in the days he walked this earth, or through the revelation of the spirit, given to all who call upon the name of the Lord.
Now where I differ somewhat in my understanding of Jesus is that I don't believe he literally existed with God in the beginning, as some of you do. There is another explanation for those verses that imply that the Son pre-existed his birth. The Son of God had a “genesis”. He was born, just as we were, except by divine conception in the womb of Mary. He came into being at that time. How then to explain the verses that imply pre-existence?
We must understand the Bible in the framework of the culture of the Jews, and the language must ne interpreted and understood in that framework. In that regard, I am indebted to Anthony Buzzard, an Englishman who runs a website “Restoration Fellowship”. Anthony has helped some of us here in the States to understand the Jewish mindset regarding many of these seemingly difficult verses. I am posting an excerpt from his article, “Who is Jesus”, and linking the entire article for anyone who is interested. There are other articles on his website that also touch on many things that you may find helpful, including his work on the trinity, the kingdom of God, and prophecy.
I will drop in from time to time for discussion. It's great to know others are seeking as well. Also to my trinitarian brothers who are reading this – most of us “unitarians” were trinitarians at one time. It's not an exagerration to say that we understand the doctrine as well or better than most trinitarians we've spoken to. The reason is that we've been challenged by God to come out of established denominational churches and let His word speak to us as it runs, without man's creeds and formulas ruling our thinking. We only desire to glorify God by obedience to His commandments, as you so. In similar fashion, Jesus told us that if we love him, we'll obey his teaching. Therefore, if we hold to his clear words regarding his person, we will be better off in the long run, for we have his words as our guide.
Our complaint about the doctrine of the trinity is that we believe that the texts which speak most directly and plainly on the subject of who God is are decidedly Unitarian. They contain a form of speech that could not be more explicit and unequivocal. Our contention is that this is not the case with the texts that are quoted in support of the Trinity. Not one of then states the doctrine in so many words. The doctrine is made up by inference and argument from the separate texts. Many of these texts are among the most perplexing and difficult verses in the Bible – passages that have challenged the skills of translators and interpreters for all ages. Where such passages are cited in proof of the Trinity, the value of the citation depends on the correctness of the criticism, i.e., the soundness of the reasoning by which the text is interpreted. So it appears that the doctrine of the Trinity is mainly dependent for its support on processes of reasoning, processes by which the most plain texts are made to bend to the less plain, and the easy are interpreted by the difficult. In light of the Apostle Peter’s warning about the danger of misinterpreting Paul’s words (2 Peter 3: 15-16), we think it’s safer and more prudent not to trust our power of interpreting the difficult verses, but to take the plain texts as our guide, and solve the difficult ones by them.
To put it another way, we believe that Biblical doctrines should be established by the plain straightforward texts that speak directly to the subject in question. When the Bible’s creedal declarations are taken at face value, according to the ordinary rules of language, they present a doctrine about God that can’t be reconciled with the traditional belief systems.
As this was becoming clear to me, I was encouraged to discover that men and women from other churches and denominations were also seeing this, and exchanging information over the Internet and by e-mail correspondence regarding it as well. It would appear that God is calling people out of creeds, and into truth in these last days.
As you will see if you read the entire article linked, there are some 1350 Unitarian texts in the New Testament, besides the thousands in the Old Testament. They occur every time the Father is called God. The constant use of “God” for the Father should tell us that He and Jesus are not “coequally God”. In the Old Testament, references to God with singular personal pronouns occur some 11,000 times, informing us that God is a single individual. The Word “God” in the New Testament means the Father, except (for certain) in two passages where 'God' refers to Jesus in a secondary sense (Heb. 1:8; John 20:28). If Jesus is as much entitled to be called God as His Father, then why do we see this rather extraordinary difference in usage? The word “God” can be used of a man who reflects and represents the true God (see for example Ps. 82:6; Ex. 7:1).
Now…. I've run on in my “enthusiasms”, so I'll stop here as this is a rather long first post.
Again, God bless you all in Christ's name.
Here is the excerpt I promised, and a link at the bottom to the article and Anthony's website. You may also find his comments on Hebrews 1:8 enlightening.
——————————————————————-
Glory Before Abraham – by Anthony Buzzard
Jesus found his own history written in the Hebrew Scriptures (Luke 24:27). The role of the Messiah was clearly outlined there. Nothing in the divine record had suggested that Old Testament monotheism would be radically disturbed by the appearance of the Messiah. A mass of evidence will support the proposition that the apostles never for one moment questioned the absolute oneness of God, or that the appearance of Jesus created any theoretical problem about monotheism. It is therefore destructive of the unity of the Bible to suggest that in one or two texts in John, Jesus overturned his own creedal statement that the Father was “the only true God” (17:3), or that he took himself far outside the category of human being by speaking of a conscious existence from eternity. Certainly his prayer for the glory which he had had before the world began (17:5) can be easily understood as the desire for the glory which had been prepared for him in the Father’s plan. The glory which Jesus intended for the disciples had also been “given” (John 17:22), but they had not yet received it.[ix]
It was typical of Jewish thinking that anything of supreme importance in God’s purpose—Moses, the Law, repentance, the Kingdom of God and the Messiah—had “existed” with God from eternity. In this vein John can speak of the crucifixion having “happened” before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8, KJV). Peter, writing late in th
e first century, still knows of Jesus’ “preexistence” only as an existence in the foreknowledge of God (1 Peter 1:20). His sermons in the early chapters of Acts reflect exactly the same view.But what of the favorite proof text in John 8:58 that Jesus existed before Abraham? Does Jesus after all confuse everything by saying on the one hand that the Father alone is the “only true God” (17:3, 5:44)—and that he himself is not God, but the Son of God (John 10:36)—and on the other hand that he, Jesus, is also an uncreated being? Does he define his status within the recognizable categories of the Old Testament (John 10:36; Ps. 82:6; 2:7) only to pose an insoluble riddle by saying that he had been alive before the birth of Abraham? Is the Trinitarian problem, which has never been satisfactorily resolved, to be raised because of a single text in John? Would it not be wiser to read John 8:58 in the light of Jesus’ later statement in 10:36, and the rest of Scripture?
In the thoroughly Jewish atmosphere which pervades the Gospel of John it is most natural to think that Jesus spoke in terms that were current amongst those trained in the rabbinical tradition. In a Jewish context, asserting “preexistence” does not mean that one is claiming to be an uncreated being! It does, however, imply that one has absolute significance in the divine plan. Jesus is certainly the central reason for creation. But the one God’s creative activity and his plan for salvation were not manifested in a unique created being, the Son, until Jesus’ birth. The person of Jesus originated when God’s self-expression took form in a human being (John 1:14).[x]
It is a well-recognized fact that the conversations between Jesus and the Jews were often at cross purposes. In John 8:57 Jesus had not in fact said, as the Jews seemed to think, that he had seen Abraham, but that Abraham had rejoiced to see Messiah’s day (v. 56). The patriarch was expecting to arise in the resurrection at the last day (John 11:24; Matt. 8:11) and take part in the Messianic Kingdom. Jesus was claiming superiority to Abraham, but in what sense?
As the “Lamb of God” he had been “crucified before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8, KJV; 1 Pet. 1:20)—not, of course, literally, but in God’s plan. In this way also Jesus “was” before Abraham. Thus Abraham could look forward to the coming of the Messiah and his Kingdom. The Messiah and the Kingdom therefore “preexisted” in the sense that they were “seen” by Abraham through the eyes of faith.[xi]
The expression “I am” in John 8:58 positively does not mean “I am God.” It is not, as so often alleged, the divine name of Exodus 3:14, where Yahweh declared: “I am the self-existent One” (ego eimi o ohn). Jesus nowhere claimed that title. The proper translation of ego eimi in John 8:58 is “I am he,” i.e., the promised Christ (cp. the same expression in John 4:26, “I who speak to you am he [the Christ]”).[xii] Before Abraham was born Jesus had been “foreknown” (cp. 1 Pet. 1:20). Jesus here makes the stupendous claim to absolute significance in God’s purpose.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 07 2004,03:54) Yes, again I agree. Actually a few months ago a close family member challenged me on the issue of Jesus' diety and it stopped me in my tracks. I had always taken that for grated without examining the biblical evidence. So I did, I tried to remove my presuppositions about Jesus and looked hard at the evidence. Essentially I reached my conclusion that Jesus is God by the following (not an exhaustive list): 1. The Bible says so – Jn 20:28, 2 Pet 1:1, Heb 1:8, Ti 2:13, Isa 9:6
2. The plurality in the OT. Genesis 1:26 says “Let Us make man in Our image.”
3. He facilitated (Lk 19:28-40) and accepted (Mat 9:18, 14:33, 28:9, 28:17) worship. Only God can be worshipped.
4. He forgave sins. Only God can do this – no exceptions.
5. Comparing Ex 3, Josh 5:13-15 and Jn 8:58 convinced me that Jesus was the voice in the burning bush.
6. An exegesis of Zech 14:1-8. Vss 4 (cf. Acts 1:11) and 5 (cf. Dan 7:13, Mat 24:30) are particularly compelling for me.
So far no one has been able to adequately explain how these scriptures fit within a unitarian framework. Perhaps you might like a crack. Im not immune to reason.
Is 1:18
Is 1:18,
Remember Christ's words:'Take notice of what you are hearing.' and again, 'for the man who has will be given more; from the man who has not, even what he has will be taken away' (Mark 4:24)
Christ said
'Is it not written in your Law: “I said, you are gods” So the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed, and scripture cannot be rejected. (John 10:34) In the first century the Jewish people saw this as a reference to the angels.The first century Jews in the Qumran community refer to it.A child of God can understand that Christ taught that the Bible does refer to other beings in the Bible as god. Christ said
that his own sheep listen to his voice. Those who do not listen to his voice will not be saved.Just because Christ's enemies said 'no one can forgive sins but God' does not mean it is true. The Gospels are a historical record. Christ demonstrates that his enemies were wrong since he taught men to forgive others. Just think about 'the Lord's prayer'.
Does the Bible call 3 persons God as Trinitarians claim? No:
I will prase you, O Lord, with all my heart before the 'gods'. (NIV, Psalm 138:1)
In the presence of the angels I play for you (Jerusalem Bible, Psalm 138:1)Is Christ equal to God as Trinitarians claim? No:
He was made a little less than a god (Ps 8:5 – from the Hebrew text).
He was made a little less than the angels (Heb 2:7 quotes it from the Greek Septuagint)Christ is said to have been made less than the beings that the Bible called gods. However, Trinitarian theology chooses to deliberately ignore this and falsely claiming that Christ
is equal to the only true God.Trinitarian theology falsely says the Bible calls 3 persons God. Trinitarian doctrine is contrary to the Bible teachings the gods in the texts are the angels in the Bible. So we see that although many are called gods in the Bible only the Father is called 'the only true God'. Those who refuse to
pay careful attention forfit what they think they have i.e.
eternal life because they refuse to accept the truth.Christ knew others are called 'gods' in the Bible but makes a distinction not simply saying to his Father 'you are God' but quite emphatically saying to him 'you the only true God'.
'Father eternal life is this: to know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent' (John 17:3)
I have shown that the Bible calls other beings 'god' without being the true God or a false god, but simply a mighty beings. If one believes John 17:3 then one believes that the Father is the only true God and not Christ.
Is 1:18,
Can you explain how your understanding of John 17:3.Israel understood 'Let us make man in our own image' as a reference to the angels. Faithful Israelites were not Trinitarians.
Is 1:18,
You said 'only God is worshipped (Trinitarian teaching)'. You
are wrong. Take a look:'Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship [proskenuo] before thy feet, and to that have loved thee (Revelation 3:9, King James).
Christ clearly is not in agreement with your comment.
Truth = only Father is worshipped as the true God
the word translated as worship is also applied to men
in the Bible and also carries the meaning 'to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence'(Strongs 4352)The Trinity doctrine is deceptive it takes scriptures out of its Biblical context by ignoring the teachings of Christ that I have
just mentioned. It also relies on false generalisations which evade the truth. I have just pointed out some examples of this.Trinitarians need to ask themselves why they reject John 17:3 and provide their understanding of the text in a way that a child could understand. A child of God would believe Christ teaching that the Father is the only true God. Christ shows us several things that distinguishes a true believer from others. For example:
My teaching is not from myself it comes from the one who sent me and if anyone is prepared to do his will, he will know whether or not my teaching from God or whether my doctrine is my own. (John 7:16)
Is 1:18,
I have shown directly that the Bible calls numerous beings gods (the angels) but only one person in the Bible is called 'the only true God'. He is the Father. The Bible does not teach that 3 persons are called the only true God. It teaches that only one person is called 'the only true God'.
This is the truth!
Quote Christ knew others are called 'gods' in the Bible but makes a distinction not simply saying to his Father 'you are God' but quite emphatically saying to him 'you the only true God'.
Didn't John also call Jesus the “true God” in 1 John 5:20?No.
We are in the true God as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God, this is eternal life. Children, be on your guard against false gods. (1 John 5:20,21)
The true God is the one who begat Christ. John is not referring to Jesus as the true God.
John takes great care. He did not say of Jesus 'He is the true God' or 'Jesus is the true God'.'this is the true God' John is distinguishing the true God from false gods.
According to Trinitarian doctrine God is 3 persons. John says the true God begat Christ.
Clearly, Christ did not beget himself. So this reference to the true God who has a son is the Father, and not Christ. 3 persons (Trinity) did not beget the only begotten son so the true God is not the Trinity either.
Is 1:18,
I have covered 1 John 5:21. Can you explain how you understand this text:
'eternal life is this: to know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.' (John 17:3)
Is 1:18
I know I have posted on this before but I just couldn't find it to duplicate it here.
The verse 1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Lets break the verse down.
And we know that the Son of God (Yahshua) has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we night know Him (YHWH) who is true, and we are in Him (YHWH) who is true in (in, is strongs 1722 en and could just as easily be rendered through which would be more appropriate to understand this verse) His Son Jesus Christ (Yahshua the Messiah). This is the true God (we have come to know the one true God by the understanding that Yausha has given us) and eternal life.
New paraphrase of the verse:
And we know that Yashua has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know YHWH who is true, and we are in YHWH who is true, through his Son Yahshua the Messiah. The God that has been preached to us by Yahshua the Messiah is the true God and eternal life.
Shalom
The one I quoted was from the New American Standard but here are others if you prefer:
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. NKJV
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. AV
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. RSV
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
