The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

Quote (messageofsalvation @ Sep. 10 2004,20:14)

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)

Actually, im a little bogged down with other posts that need replying to at the moment, so I can't give you a long discourse here but I will say this:

Here is what the verse doesn't say: 'And this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, And Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent…..Who is not the true God'

“the knowledge of God and a creature could not be eternal life” (Alford 1980:875).

September 11, 2004 at 2:18 am#15738

Participant

Is 1:18,

A very brief explanation could be provided by you for John 17:3. I am waiting and I am prepared to wait. Clearly, John 17:3 does not agree with the Trinity. It is a very important issue that should not be avoided.

September 11, 2004 at 3:45 am#15739

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 09 2004,02:18)

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.

T8,

Well said.

September 11, 2004 at 3:52 am#15740

Participant

T8,

I have found that Trinitarians take Bible verses out of context and avoid what is clearly true.

September 11, 2004 at 9:21 am#15741

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 11 2004,16:06)

Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent

If Jesus were the God that he sent then you would simply say that the True God came to us. But the verse says the true God sent him. You cannot send yourself if you say the ONLY true God AND…..

You can send something from yourself, like “I will send an email”, or you can send another, like “I will send my son”. If you are talking about yourself, you simply say I am coming, I came, I will come, I will visit etc.

Simply put, the one who sends and the one who is sent are different. It is a simple language construction that is used perhaps nearly everyday.

Here is another verse with a similar construction:

Luke 1:19
The angel answered, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.

2 things here. Gabriel says “I am” and is not claiming to be God and he was SENT by God. So it is an obvious conclusion that he is not God either.

John 1:6
There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.

Who would conclude that John is God? Probably no-one.

Now read John 17:3 again:

'eternal life is this: to know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.'

So as you can see, this truth is eternal life. So if one thinks that Jesus is the God that sent him, meaning that the Trinity sent him (including sending himself), then does such a person have eternal life?

It is quite clear that we must know the only true God and Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life. In fact Jesus even said that he will cast people away that did all this stuff in his name, yet they didn't actually know him.

I think we all need to take John 17:3 very carefully. It's consequence proves who has eternal life. How much more important is that?

I don't expect a reply on this Is 1:18, as I know that you have other post to reply to. I can understand that these posts can take time and I pray that you will let God's Spirit inspire you. I know that in God's strength big things become small things. In our own strength, it is impossible to do anything right, but God is bigger than all and his strength certainly eclipses our weakness.

But we must all be ready to give an answer for what and why we believe what we do.

Here is what I believe and teach:

John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

John 10:36
what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

September 11, 2004 at 9:23 am#15742

Participant

Quote (messageofsalvation @ Sep. 11 2004,17:52)

T8,

I have found that Trinitarians take Bible verses out of context and avoid what is clearly true.

I see that too.

May God be with you.

September 11, 2004 at 9:35 am#15743

Participant

Quote (messageofsalvation @ Sep. 10 2004,21:18)

Is 1:18,

OK, a very brief explanation and then I have to get onto T8 and Sammo's replies (probably tomorrow T8 – still working on it, Sammo yours later in the week).

I read Jn 17:3 to mean exactly what it says, there is only one true God and He happans to be a triune God. Eternal life encompases knowing God through the Son, Jesus Christ the incarnate God who has explained Him (Jn 1:18), is one with Him (Jn 10:30) and Who is in the Father (and the Father is in Him).

If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him” (Jn 13:7).

I think Rev 5:13 is provocative, note how the Father and Jesus are also distinct in this passage but both are worshipped as God by “every created thing”
Regards

September 11, 2004 at 9:40 am#15744

Admin

Keymaster

Elisha,

Welcome to this Forum and thank you for your words. It is great to meet others from around the world who know that there is truly 1 God the Father. It is also good that you acknowledge Jesus as his Son. It is by revelation of the Father to believe that Jesus is his son and this is certainly the truth and revelation that Jesus built his Church on.

Anyway, I was wondering if you could post the second part of your post to the following discussion.\

Did Jesus pre-exist before his birth on Earth?

I think there it will get the attention it deserves as this discussion is exactly about Jesus, his identity and nature. It also touches on pre or non-existence before being revealed in flesh.

thx for your time and effort.

September 11, 2004 at 9:47 am#15745

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 11 2004,04:21)

In our own strength, it is impossible to do anything right, but God is bigger than all and his strength certainly eclipses our weakness.

Hmmm…ill retract what I had just written in this post, its been a long day.

September 12, 2004 at 12:03 am#15746

Ramblinrose

Participant

Hi Elisha

Welcome to the board.

When I first started posting to this board I believed that Yahshua pre-existed, but with more study from sites like Anthony Buzzard and many many others, I now no longer believe him to have been a pre-existing being. I now believe he was a 100% human being.

Just thought I would let you know that you aren't the only one on this board with that belief.

Shalom

September 12, 2004 at 12:42 am#15747

Participant

Hi Elisha and Ramblinrose,
Just curious guys, when God said “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…” in Genesis 1:26, who was He talking to?
Cheers

September 12, 2004 at 2:55 am#15748

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 08 2004,01:54)

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.

Hi T8,
Thanks for the post, you make a lot of interesting points, however, (as usual) I don't agree with many of them. I think your above explanation would hold more weight if the Father was always refered to as “the God” and LORD exclusively and Jesus was never referred to as either. The Father is refered to by both “the God” and “my God”. For instance the psalmist of Ps 118 wrote “my God” when referring to the Father twice (vss 27, 28). Jesus likewise in Jn 20:17. Why didn't He say “the God” here?
Also you say that the title LORD is never used of Jesus but that is clearly not true. Here are a few instances when Spirit-inspired writers of the NT, quoting OT passages, specifically applied this title to Jesus:

1. A voice of one calling:
“In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. (Isa 40:3)
cf.
This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:
“A voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. '” (Mat 3:3)

2. 17 The chariots of God are tens of thousands and thousands of thousands; the Lord has come from Sinai into his sanctuary. 18 When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train; you received gifts from men, even from the rebellious-that you, [2] O LORD God, might dwell there. (Ps 68:17,18)
cf.
7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” (Eph 4:7,8)

3. 5 “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.” (Mal 4:5,6)
cf.
And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous–to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Lk 1:17).

4. 22 “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other. 23 By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. (Ps 45:22,23)
cf.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written:
” 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' (Rom 14:10,11, also see Phil 2:10, Jn 5:22,27 and 2 Cor 5:10)

It's obvious to me who these writers thought Jesus was, the LORD. When you throw Zech 14 in there too (if you want me to stop bringing this one up, then you will have to address it properly), then it doesnt seem as clear cut as you would have me believe.

Quote

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.

Yes you're right, it does depend on where you put the comma. But in this verse there isn't one and that's why I used it. If there was a comma

“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God (here) and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:”

then you would have a good point, but the fact is there isn't a comma there and the obvious inference is that the writer meant to convey that Jesus is our God AND Savior.

Quote

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.

T8, why do you ask if it is the Father or the Son speaking when verses 5-7 provide the context for verse 8? The first three words of v8 clearly say “But of the Son He says”. Verse 5 makes it clear that these are words that the Father spoke. Verse 7 and 8 make a distinction between the words He spoke of the angels (v7) and those He spoke of His Son (v8). The writer of Hebrews clearly meant the reader to understand that when the Father said “Thy throne O God (Theos) is for ever and ever…” he was saying it to the Son. The writer has gone out of his way to make it as blatantly clear as he can. Jesus is called God by God. If He is not God, then why does the Father call Him God? Is the Father wrong? Is the writer of Hebrews wrong.
Or, are you wrong?

Quote

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.

I would say that this scripture is talking about one person, Jesus, for the same reasons as used for the 2 Pet 1 verse. If both the father and Jesus were being refered to then why isnt there a comma between the words “God” and “and”. Furthermore, whose appearing are we anticipating? I don't know about you but I can't wait for the second coming of one person, Jesus. This is because the Bible clearly tells us that it is Him who will appear (see Dan 7:13,14, Mat 24:30,31, Rev 19:11-16). Therefore the Father isn't even in view here because of the context of the passage. I don't see a contradiction with Phil 1:2 at all, we have a heavenly Father and we also have a Lord Jesus Christ. No problem.

Quote

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.

Yes OK, but all you have really done here is highlight the problems that this verse presents for you. I have no real problem with it as it supports the OT examples I previously mentioned. Obviously I don't believe that Jesus is The Father God, just that they share the same name and the same Diety. On the issue of whether Jesus is also the Almighty – there are some verses in Revelation which seem to indicate that He is, but I will need to look into that a bit more.

T8, there are several other examples in the NT where Jesus is directly called God or alluded to as such, 3 more examples:

“Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” (Romans 9:5)

“16But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life. 17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (1 Tim 1:16,17)

14to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which God will bring about in his own time–God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen. (1 Tim 6:14-16, cf. Rev 19:16).

My question is this; if Jesus is not God then why are these verses there at all?

Take care

September 12, 2004 at 10:37 am#15749

Participant

Quote

I think Nate explained it well in his post.

Agreed, I'll leave this one for now.

Quote

3. Only God can be worhipped? Take a look @ the following:

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.

OK, lets look at this word 'proskuneo' – because, as you rightly say, it can mean several things. It can mean to pay homage to – an act of courtesy and respect. It can also mean to subserviently and reverently worship. Clearly there is a type of proskuneo that is reserved for God alone and a kind that is allowable for others (unless its a demon). How can we tell the difference? I guess you would have to look at all the usages of this word in the NT and find a commonality for the overtly condemned type. Here are four instances where proskuneo was performed and promptly rebuked:

1. “8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9″All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only”” Mat 4:8-10

2. “24 The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along. The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”” Acts 10:24,25

3. “10 At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” “
Rev 19:10

4. “8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9But he said to me, “Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!” ” Rev 22:8

The common feature is obviously falling (pipto was used in the Mat 4 verse, it means to fall down also) because on each occasion the worshiper fell down before worshipping the worshippee. This act of total subservience is obviously a pointer to the fact that it was more than just a show of courteous respect.

So I guess the issue is, was this type of worship ever given to Jesus and what were the consequences?

On one occasion in Matthew 2:11 the magi bowed (pipto) down and worshipped Him. I guess you could argue that he was a new born and could hardly castigate them for this act of blasphemy, that would be fair I guess. But what about in Jesus' adult life?

Jesus was given proskuneo in Matt 14:33 by those in the boat when Peter walked (temporarily) on water:

32And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

This clearly appears to be much more than a simple act of courtesy or deference. I think AWE might be a more appropriate description of their reaction. Were they rebuked? No.

But in Matthew 28:9 it certainly appear that he was given the 'reserved for God' proskuneo.

8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Its difficult to clasp someones feet without first bowing or falling down. Assuming that he was standing upright I suppose and I doubt that matters anyway, its still much more than just deference. Were they rebuked? No. Similarly, this kind of worship occurs in the passage you cited:

” 12In 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!”
13Then 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!” 14The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped. Rev 5:12-14 (emph. mine).

Again, no rebuke and there are some differences btwn this episode and that of 1 Chron 29 (addressed later). I think the validity of your assertion that Jesus was never worshipped as God is highly questionable in light of these passages.

Quote

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.

The 1 Chron 29:20 passage is a favorite of the JWs, they use a lot to try and prove that Jesus was not worthy of true worship and therefore a created thing. First of all, if this verse means to infer that David was worshipped equally with God, then that would be blasphemy. Also, as ive written previously, there is a difference between what the Bible reports and what God condones. I guess the other issue is what is the best way to translate the Hebrew word “shachah”, lets look at a few translations:

Then David said to the whole assembly, “Praise the LORD your God.” So they all praised the LORD , the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king. (NIV)

Then David said to all the assembly, “Now bless the LORD your God.” And (1) all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and (2) bowed low and did homage to the LORD and to the king. (NASB)

20And David said to all the assembly, Now adore (praise and thank) the Lord your God! And all the assembly blessed the Lord, the God of their fathers, and bowed down and did obeisance to the Lord and to the king [as His earthly representative]. (AMP)

20Then David said to the whole assembly, “Give praise to the LORD your God!” And the entire assem
bly praised the LORD, the God of their ancestors, and they bowed low and knelt before the LORD and the king.(NLT)

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. (KJV)

Then David said to all the people, “Now praise the Lord your God.” And all the people gave praise to the Lord, the God of their fathers. They bowed low to the ground before the Lord and the king. (NLV)

Then David said to all the assembly, “Bless the LORD your God.” And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and paid homage to the LORD and to the king.(ESV)

Then David said to all the assembly, “Now bless the LORD your God.” So all the assembly blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the LORD and the king. (NKJV)

Is it legitimate to translate it as the “pay homage” type or the “fall down” type?, actually i'd say its relatively inconclusive. But the fact still remains that no man can be worshipped as God. Jesus was.
There are some key difference btwn this passage and that of Rev 5:14. In the Revelation occasion God was in view receiving the worship, which clearly was the type reserved only for Him. Jesus and the Father were being worshipped this way yet there was no rebuke, like there were on the 2 other occasions in Revelation when it was given inappropriately. It was full blown, unadulterated worship of God with no distinction btwn that given to the Father and that given the Lamb.

Quote

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 agree with this.

September 12, 2004 at 7:46 pm#15750

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 11 2004,04:35)

I read Jn 17:3 to mean exactly what it says, there is only one true God and He happans to be a triune God.

''eternal life is this: to know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.' (John 17:3)

Is 1:18,

You obviously do not believe John 17:3. It does not says the one God is triune. Can't you see and understand John 17:3 does not say exactly what you wrote. Reason it through.

If you really believe scripture then you will understand and accept this:

the only true God is the one who sent Christ. Christ did not send himself:

'yes I have come from him; not that I came because I chose, no I was sent, and by him. Do you know why you cannot take in what I say? It is because you are unable to understand my language. The devil is your father, and you prefer to do what he wants.' (John 8:42)

Facts: the only true God sent Christ. Christ did not send himself. He is not God Almighty.

September 13, 2004 at 5:22 am#15751

Participant

Hi MOS,
OK firstly, its erroneous to build doctrine on one verse, or to take one or two verses on a subject and use them to interpret all others. This, as you probably know, is called proof texting and it's hard to respect it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider previous posts of the same vein that you have made here. Please also consider previous posts that I have made, if for no other reason than that I won't have to go over old ground again.

Lets look at the context of the comment Jesus made. At the time he prayed this verse He was speaking as a man to His God, He is the “Word made flesh” being both fully God and fully man. Paul tells us He emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness of men (Phil 2:7). Please note that this verse also alludes to the fact that Jesus was also involved in the incarnation, since He “took on the form of a bond-servant”
Jesus was a man born under the law (Gal 4:4) and in that respect, was subject to all of it. It stands to reason that He would be subject to The Father in this regard. But Jesus is the True God too, 1 John 5:20 says so, and yes I disagree with your interpretation of this verse (read the MSB, NIV, NLT, NLV and ESV versions and also consider 1 John 1:1,2).

Also, if we apply your logic and reasoning to other verses then all kinds of problematic inconsistencies arise, e.g:

1. “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Jude 4, emph. mine)

Does this mean that The Father is not our Master?

2. “I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me” (Isa 43:11, emph. mine)

Does this mean that Jesus is not our savior?

3. “Blessed be the LORD God, the God of Israel, Who alone works wonders.” (Psalm 72:8)

Does this mean that Jesus didn't work wonders?

I hope you can see what I mean.

Kind Regards

September 13, 2004 at 1:50 pm#15752

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 13 2004,00:22)

OK firstly, its erroneous to build doctrine on one verse, or to take one or two verses on a subject and use them to interpret all others. This, as you probably know, is called proof texting and it's hard to respect it.This, as you probably know, is called proof texting and it's hard to respect it.I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider previous posts of the same vein that you have made here..

Quote

Also, if we apply your logic and reasoning to other verses then all kinds of problematic inconsistencies.

Is 1:18,

Your post which these quotes comes is filled with error. You have provided your own reasoning.Inconsistencies arise for you because you do not understand the truth that I have written.

The context of the scriptures tells us that for a Christian Christ is the appointed saviour, Lord, High Priest etc. He was 'made' Lord, Christ and Saviour of mankind and High Priest by the only true God.

'God has made this Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2:36).
'God has now raised him up to be leader and saviour' (Acts 3:31)
Each one [High Priest]is called by God, as Aaron was.Nor did Christ give himself the glory of becoming high priest.' (Hebrews 5:5)
This one God who raised up Christ is clearly not the Trinity. Christ did not appoint himself. He is not the one God who appointed him. A similar problem arises for you as with John 17:3.

The Bible quite clearly reveals that God selected saviours for Israel at different points in time:

'In the days of their oppression they cried to you, and from heaven you heard them, greatly loving, you granted them saviours'. ( Nehemiah 9:27)

These are all appointed saviours. Christ too was appointed but not just as saviour of Israel but of mankind. Yet Trinitarian articles falsely claim that 'no savior besides me' is proof that Christ is God Almighty' or point to miracles as false proof text. Being a saviour or working miracles is not proof. Elijah also worked miracles and he certainly was not God. The Bible context makes it quite clear that the Father, the only true God, is the only ultimate saviour using men. Christ is appointed and the Father saves us by working in him. I have highlighted Trinitarians use of deception.

'Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality something to be grasped, but made himself nothing taking on the very nature of a servant being made in human likeness'(Philipians 2:5-7.NIV)

Incidentally, as far as Philipians 2:5-7. The earliest Biblical manuscripts do not agree with you, and say nothing of Christ being equal to God or some how separating. The earliest manuscript state that he has God's nature and became nothing. The NIV translation says nothing of a separation. Later text produced after the decision at the Nicean Council depart from this. Trinitarians obviously did not like the earlier reading. False doctrines divide Christ etc.

Trinitarian Council of Chalcedon Definition (451 AD):

'Christ, son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation'

It sounds like you are contradicting one of the Trinitarian statements to me and showing that there is confusion in the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinitarians seem to resort to separating Christ inorder to try to justify their false teaching. Christ clearly said 'my God, my God why have you forsaken me' at the cross. Trinitarians again divide Christ to decieve people switching between God and man, changing Christ.

'God is not a God of confusion but a God of peace'. Please don't resort to dividing Christ and accept the truth that Christ is not the one true God who sent him. The Bible is quite clear about that.

Quote

At the time he prayed this verse He was speaking as a man to His God, He is the “Word made flesh” being both fully God and fully man .

If you say Christ spoke as man, it does not get away from the fact that he still remained God to you. True God speaking to his true God. This sounds like Trinitarian inconsistency and polytheism. You say Jesus is fully God and fully man. More Trinitarian inconsistency: Christ who Trinitarians claim is one third of the Trinity is not fully three persons (the Trinity God). Don't Trinitarians deny that God is one person? Isn't Christ one person? So that does not make him fully the Trinity God(three persons).Is Christ fully three persons? A God-man can hardly be truly man. Psalm 8:5 clearly says of Christ also 'you have made him little less than a god'. Scripture .Scripture shows that what you are saying is false.

God's word says that false teaching is senseless:
'The whole lot of them are brutish and stupid: the teaching given by these Nothings is void of sense. But Yahweh is the true God. He is the living God, the everlasting King. (Jeremiah 10:10)

Is 1:18,
You still haven't accepted John 17:3.Tell me will you now accept the truth that Christ is not the one true God who sent him?

The Bible teaches that there is one Father in heaven, his only son and his adopted sons. Regarding use of the pronoun 'he' for the holy spirit by many uninformed Trinitarians. The Trinity creates a further son called the person of the holy spirit. Early Greek manuscripts do not refer to the holy spirit as 'he' but 'it'. Later Latin manuscripts abandoned this practise i.e. those produced after the period of Nicene Council. Have you never considered that calling the holy spirit the third person of the Trinity is denying God's only son. If you believe the holy spirit is the third person of the Trinity. Consider this: is 'he' another Father or another son, or both or the pronoun 'he' denotes something different? Can't you see that the doctrine of the Trinity is false and causes these problems and alot more. My belief is Biblical because it is consistent with the Bible unlike the Trinity.

September 14, 2004 at 3:15 am#15753

Participant

messageofsalvation,Sep. wrote:

Quote

The Bible teaches that there is one Father in heaven, his only son and his adopted sons. Regarding use of the pronoun 'he' for the holy spirit by many uninformed Trinitarians. The Trinity creates a further son called the person of the holy spirit. The vast majority of early Greek manuscripts do not refer to the holy spirit as 'he' but 'it'. Later Latin manuscripts ones abandoned this practise i.e. those produced after the period of Nicene Council. Have you never considered that calling the holy spirit the third person of the Trinity is denying God's only son. If you believe the holy spirit is the third person of the Trinity. Consider this: is 'he' another Father or another son, or both or the pronoun 'he' denotes something different? Can't you see that the doctrine of the Trinity is false and causes these problems and alot more. My belief is Biblical because it is consistent with the Bible unlike the Trinity.

For starters observe that John instructs the saints as follows:

'you are anointed with truth, not with a lie and as it has taught you so must you stay in him.' (John 2:27).

Trinitarian translators try to make the holy spirit a person but at times cause confusion something that is not in the original Biblical writings. Jehovah's witnesses and Trinitarians produce biased translations.

This is nothing new because men in the past have been biased and twisted God's word: 'How dare you say: We are wise, and posses the law of Yahweh? But look how it has been falsified by the lying pen of the scribes! The wise shall be shamed, caught out confounded. Look how they have rejected the word of Yahweh! So what use is their wisdom to them? (Jeremiah 8:8,9)

Is 1:18,

When your arguments are false you will be caught out. Your arguments still show that you have rejected the fact that Christ is not the only true God who sent him. Christ did not send himself -the only true God sent him. Your response does not address this. Yet so far you refuse to accept that Christ is not the only true God who sent him. Yet I have shown you that what I said is consistent with the truth. The problem is your understanding here. For whatever form you say he was in he still made it quite clear that that he did not send himself but was sent by the only true God.

The Bible teaches that Christ was in every way like us, though without sin. Man is not Godman but man.

September 14, 2004 at 8:04 am#15754

Participant

Thanks for your posts messageofsalvation,

I agree with your nearly all your words and the rest I am not sure, but it sounds right on first take at least.

Just thought I would add the following to encourage you and others in your faith which is built upon the truth that there is one true God.

Trinitarian doctrine states that God is 3 persons, but one in nature/substance. OK sounds scientific at least.

But the problem with this besides not being taught by any biblical writer, is that it contradicts the following truth.

God is one. He is Spirit.

God is not 3 personalities as you have correctly pointed out. Infact the word 'person' contains the word 'son' (offspring of God) and 'per' (completely). We know that God is not 3 sons or offsprings of himself. God is Spirit, he is the Originator, not an image of himself. Jesus is a person. we are persons/people. Animals are not persons. In other words we are sons and Jesus is the Son. I can appreciate God being defined as a person for lack of a better word though. But you are right, he is one, not three. He is the Most High.

Also if Jesus is God because he has divine nature, then are we God too? After all we will partake of divine nature and our human nature is hopefully crucified now and gone in the next age. That leaves us with divine nature and perfect bodies. Just like Jesus. That is why he calls us brothers, but to call our Father a brother is wrong. He is our Father, the one true God of us and even Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Galatians 6:8
The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[ 6:8 Or his flesh, from the flesh] will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[ 3:2 Or when it is made known] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

The Trinity says that God is one (in nature). Three in personality. But this hypothesis supposes that the Nature/Substance is God as God is surely one. It also says that this nature spawns or is made up of 3 personalities. How strange. The 3 part cannot be God because God is one. So again God is substance according to the Trinity Doctrine.

They are being deceived and they deceive if they teach this deception. They teach that from 1 nature who is God, comes 3 personalities. But this false doctrine says 3 whos, not 1. So according to their theology, nature is greater than personality or mind, (as God is one), or from one nature (God) comes three personalities.

It's funny that they condemn New Age philosophy, yet they seem very New Age do they not?

My natural substance is flesh, that is my natural nature. I have a mind too. But when you talk to me, do you talk to my flesh/natural nature or my mind? Of course you know the answer full well. So Trinitarians are praying to nature or substance itself if they say they are praying to one God. If they pray to 3 personalities as God (as they do), then say hello to polytheism. So either way praying to the Trinity is not praying to the one True God, but an idol made by man and demon. They are praying to 3 not 1. Yet Jesus taught us that we pray to the ONE but in/through his name.

Perhaps the root of the deception is this. Beware that you do not worship Jesus as lower than God as they have said all along, but in that subtle teaching the hidden danger lies. The breaking of the greatest commandment.

Mark 12:28-29
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

According to trinitarian thinking, God the Father (1 person) is fully God. Yet God is 3 personalities. So we can only conclude that the Trinity teaches that the Father is 1/3 of the personalities that make up God. So if they pray to the Trinity then they pray to 3 persons (in the name of one of them). They then cleverly turn around and say, but one substance. Again they are tricked into breaking the great commandment of God. They pray to 3 persons and/or 1 substance.

To conclude I want to say that YAHWEH is not YAHSHUA. the following 2 verses prove that:

Psalm 2:7
“I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, 'You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

Acts 13:33
that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'

In case you do not know already, I want to tell you why they believe and continue to believe this lie. It is because God hands them over to the way they want to go. If they do not seek the truth, then God hands them over to lies and doctrines of demons.

Yes there are many innocent believers that seem to have been given no choice from their fellowship. I was like that once. I believed in the Trinity without question, yet God was with me, even as he is now. But when a person has had the light of scripture shone at them, then they are without excuse.

They choose to follow men rather than God when it all boils down.

September 14, 2004 at 8:30 am#15755