The Trinity Doctrine

[toteachachild]

music,

thank you for taking the time to answer some of the questions i asked.  i find it frustrating that while the many of us claim to love God and believe that He sent His Son Jesus in the flesh to die for our sins, that we may be raised again to new life there are very few who are truly like-minded in the whole of scripture.  you have definitely given me many things to think about and have helped me to see things i have not seen before, though i do not see all of what you have written agreeing with the scriptures.  i think i will start a new thread soon, as currently my questions have more to do with Jesus than the trinity.

942767,

thank you also for taking the time to answer some of my questions… i am contemplating what you said –  

Quote

In that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost, his body is God's own flesh and blood, and so, it is God's blood that washes away our sins.

 
I'm not sure I have ever heard it put quite that way before.

[music4two]

Quote (toteachachild @ Feb. 24 2007,11:02)

music, thank you for taking the time to answer some of the questions i asked.  i find it frustrating that while the many of us claim to love God and believe that He sent His Son Jesus in the flesh to die for our sins, that we may be raised again to new life there are very few who are truly like-minded in the whole of scripture.  you have definitely given me many things to think about and have helped me to see things i have not seen before, though i do not see all of what you have written agreeing with the scriptures.  i think i will start a new thread soon, as currently my questions have more to do with Jesus than the trinity. 942767, thank you also for taking the time to answer some of my questions… i am contemplating what you said –   Quote In that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost, his body is God's own flesh and blood, and so, it is God's blood that washes away our sins.   I'm not sure I have ever heard it put quite that way before.

Your welcome my friend. I will be happy to entertain questions you have on a new thread. Expecially if you have questions concerning what I have already posted.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Men say God is a trinity.
God never said that.
Choose today whom you will serve.

[david]

Above, I stated this:

Quote

Jesus said: “do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” I had been discussing this scripture with Is 1:18. He stated: Hello David, You might miss the hebraic nuances in a lot of what Yahshua said about Himself in his exchanges with the Jews, but they did not. Also, it's just not feasible to assert that the pharisees (the religious professionals of their day) would compromise their own safety by illegitimately stoning someone. Their laws for executions were quite clear-cut and making a lunatic statement that fell completely outside of their conventional theological boundaries, like claiming to be the supernatural progeny or creation of YHWH, was not a stonable offense as far as i'm aware…..–Isiah 1:18, trinity thread, somewhere before page 540? Is 1:18 is completely absolutely without question wrong on this. In their attempt to do anything to have Jesus killed, they did not follow the laws at all. They broke numerous laws. Isiah 1:18 siad that claiming to be Yahweh “was not a stonable offence as far as I'm aware.” But is claiming to be God's Son a stonable offense? Which scripture says: “Anyone claiming to be God's son shall be stoned”? None that I am aware of. So what is the difference whehter they charged him with being God's son, or being God? The difference is clear: Claiming to be God Almighty is a much greater charge. The other difference is that they did not make that charge. Is it because these powerful ones were frightened of accidentally stoning someone that didn't deserve it? This is insane. And laughable. As far as I can tell, there is only one REASONABLE explanation for this: JESUS NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. HIS DISCIPLES NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. THE PHARISEES NEVER HEARD ANYONE EVER MAKE THAT CLAIM. Nothing else explains this fact. Nothing. Again, I think I have just disproven the trinity. We are here arguing over what people back then believed based on what they said. But here we have a very clear indication of what they believed based on the actions of people who WOULD IN FACT do anything to have Jesus killed, including breaking the law.

I say this again: If the Jewish leaders had any reason, the slightest reason at all to believe that Jesus was in any way implying or directly saying that he himself was GOD ALMIGHTY, they would have charged him with this.
They wanted him dead, and were willing to do anything to accomplish this, including breaking the law.
They were not noble or “professional” as Is 1:18 once said in trying to actually…what, defend? the pharisees? They weren't professional, or honourable in their methods.
They would not have blinked at using whatever means necessary to have Jesus done away with.
And had Jesus in any way made people of that day believe that he was Almighty God, the pharisees would have been all over this, accusing him of being Crazy and blaspheming God to the highest degree. Instead, for some reason, they only apparently charged him with making himself out to be the “Son of” God.

THIS IS REMARKABLY ODD AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE to me at least IF JESUS CLAIMED TO BE GOD ALMIGHTY.

For some reason, when I spoke of this with Is 1:18, he kept saying that the pharisees were above breaking the law to achieve their purposes. I no longer even remember why he said this. But it is wrong.

“The greatest travesty of justice ever committed was the trial and sentencing of Jesus Christ. Prior to his trial the chief priests and older men of the people took counsel together with a view to putting Jesus to death. So the judges were prejudiced and had their minds made up on the verdict before ever the trial took place. (Mt 26:3, 4) They bribed Judas to betray Jesus to them. (Lu 22:2-6) Because of the wrongness of their actions, they did not arrest him in the temple in the daytime, but they waited until they could act under cover of darkness and then sent a crowd armed with clubs and swords to arrest him in an isolated place outside the city.—Lu 22:52, 53.

Jesus was then taken first to the house of Annas, the ex-high priest, who still wielded great authority, his son-in-law Caiaphas being the high priest at the time. (Joh 18:13) There Jesus was questioned and was slapped in the face. (Joh 18:22) Next he was led bound to Caiaphas the high priest. False witnesses were sought by the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin. Many such witnesses came forward but could not agree on their testimony, except two who twisted Jesus’ words recorded at John 2:19. (Mt 26:59-61; Mr 14:56-59) Finally Jesus was put under oath by the high priest and questioned as to whether he was the Christ the Son of God. When Jesus answered in the affirmative and alluded to the prophecy at Daniel 7:13, the high priest ripped his garments and called upon the court to find Jesus guilty of blasphemy. This verdict was rendered, and he was sentenced to death. After this they spit in his face and hit him with their fists, taunting him, contrary to the Law.—Mt 26:57-68; Lu 22:66-71; compare De 25:1, 2 with Joh 7:51 and Ac 23:3.

After this illegal night trial the Sanhedrin met early in the morning to confirm their judgment and for a consultation. (Mr 15:1) Jesus was now led, again bound, to the governor’s palace, to Pilate, since they said: “It is not lawful for us to kill anyone.” (Joh 18:31) Here Jesus was charged with forbidding the paying of taxes to Caesar and with saying that he himself was Christ a king. Blasphemy against the God of the Jews would not have been so serious a charge in the eyes of the Romans, but sedition would. Pilate, after making futile attempts to get Jesus to testify against himself, told the Jews that he found no crime in him. Discovering, however, that Jesus was a Galilean, Pilate was happy to send him to Herod, who had jurisdiction over Galilee. Herod questioned Jesus, hoping to see a sign performed by him, but Jesus refused. Herod then discredited Jesus, making fun of him, and sent him back to Pilate.—Lu 23:1-11.

Pilate now tried to release Jesus in harmony with a custom of that time, but the Jews refused, calling for the release of a seditionist and murderer instead. (Joh 18:38-40) Pilate therefore had Jesus scourged, and the soldiers again mistreated him. After this, Pilate brought Jesus outside and tried to get his release, but the Jews insisted: “Impale him! Impale him!” Finally he issued the order to have Jesus impaled.—Mt 27:15-26; Lu 23:13-25; Joh 19:1-16.

What laws of God did the Jewish priests violate by the way they handled the trial of Jesus Christ?

The following are some of the laws of God that were flagrantly violated by the Jews in the trial of Christ: bribery (De 16:19; 27:25); conspiracy and the perversion of judgment and justice (Ex 23:1, 2, 6, 7; Le 19:15, 35); bearing false witness, in which matter the judges connived (Ex 20:16); letting a murderer (Barabbas) go, thereby bringing bloodguilt upon themselves and upon the land (Nu 35:31-34; De 19:11-13); mob action, or ‘following a crowd to do evil’ (Ex 23:2, 3); in crying out for Jesus to be impaled, they were violating the law that prohibited following the statutes of other nations and that also prescribed no torture but that provided that a criminal be stoned or put to death before being hung on a stake (Le 18:3-5; De 21:22); they accepted as king one not of their own nation, but a pagan (Caesar), and rejected the King whom God had chosen (De 17:14, 15); and finally, they were guilty of murder (Ex 20:13).”–Insight, Vol 2, page 235

[NickHassan]

Hi,
God and His Son and His Finger have been fashioned by men into a single God.
Despite it's obvious folly it remains a very popular view.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
The trinity theory of God cannot be proven directly from the bible.
The trinity theory about God should not be taught as it cannot be proven.
God reveals all we need to know about Himself in the bible.
It remains a theory, one that that risks insulting Almighty God.
Leave it alone and do not play with fire.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
I have pasted m42s post here for future reference
Hi Toteach
I am posting a section of the small book I am writing. Perhaps understanding the source of some of this will help you.

The idea of God being divided into 3 equal but separate persons of God has it's history in many sources. First let us look at the idea of the trinity in ancient history and what well respected historians have said concerning it’s origins.

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

Alexander Hislop, in his TWO BABYLONS, seems to trace the various ideas of the trinity back to a common heritage. Hislop pointed out the antiquity of the theological concept of the Trinity by giving examples of pagan trinities in Siberia, Japan, and India. He noted that the recognition of the Trinity was “universal in all the ancient nations of the world”. He went so far as to say that “the supreme divinity in almost all heathen nations was triune”. While Hislop was attempting to prove that mankind has always believed in a “trinity”, he also unwittingly shows the pagan origins of the idea of a “trinity”

The trinity is noted in connection with the construction of the Tower of Babel. Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliotheca, states that in the topmost completed story of the Tower was placed the images of three gods.

Trinitarians today may argue that the pagan trinities were completely different from the model of the Christian Trinity. But some pagan triads have structures which are surprisingly familiar. For example, the Hindu Trinity:

The conception most closely linked with Vedism and Brahmanism is that of the Hindu Trinity, the Trimurti. ‘The Absolute manifests himself in three persons, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer’.

-Asiatic Mythology

The Egyptian triad of the sun god was “one god expressed in three persons”. He was known as the “noonday sun” (Ra), “the evening sun” (Tum), and “the dawning sun” (Khepera). The sun god reportedly said, “Lo! I am Khepera at dawn, Ra at high noon, and Tum at eventide”. He was one god in three distinct persons.

Clearly it is not correct to say that the structure of pagan trinities do not resemble the Christian Trinity.

Other ancient cultures also had Trinities to describe their Gods. In Phoenicia the trinity of gods were Ulomus, Ulosuros, and Eliun. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon, and Aidoneus. In Rome they were Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. In Babylonia and Assyria they were Anos, lllinos, and Aos. Among Celtic nations they were called Kriosan, Biosena, and Siva, and in Germanic nations they were called Thor, Wodan, and Fricco.

Historian Will Durant: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

One of the sources of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity is Gnosticism and Dualism.

A one-sentence description of Gnosticism is; A religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the God of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical body. Gnostics conjured up the idea that Christ was a spiritual being in a physical shell in order to avoid the concept of him having an “Evil Physical Body of the “Evil physical realm”.

Dualism is a Greek Philosophy that takes gnosticim even farther. It teaches there are two realms, one evil and one holy. Dualists believe that only the transcendental spiritual realm of God like forces is holy. The lower natural earthly realm was considered evil and nothing good could be of that world.

When Christianity spread to the Greek thinking world it was heavily influenced by their philosophies. Many students of Greek philosophy were being saved and as such brought their concepts into the church. As is often the case some so called “scholars”, from this period forward, began to interpret scripture with preconceived ideas of a gnostic or dualistic world. From gnosticim came the concept of Jesus being a separate God from the God of the Old Testament. From Dualism came the concept that Jesus could never be fully of the natural realm or fully human. His humanity needed to be augmented in some way to avoid him being of the evil natural realm.

Dualism was contrary to Hebrew belief and culture. Hebrews thought of all creation as part of the kingdom of God. Because God was infinite they believed that God was an integral part of the physical realm and, in fact, revealed himself thru the natural world. To the Hebrews everything in the natural realm was in the presence of God and He overshadowed everyhing there.

Many early Christian leaders were influenced by Greek thinking.

Clement of Alexandria (150-213 AD), head of one of the early Christian schools, which was heavily influenced by philosophy and gnosticism, admitted that he was opposed by those who still considered philosophy “evil”. He made light of their opposition and said that they were light and “ignorant”. He denounced the “so-called orthodoxy who, like beasts which work from fear, do good works without knowing what they are doing”. But Clement, of course, knew what he was doing. He had a special gnosis (knowledge) that the ignorant “orthodox” did not possess.

Friedrich Ueberweg says that “Gnosticism was the first comprehensive attempt to construct a philosophy of Christianity”. The more flagrant gnostics, such as Cerdo, Cerinthus, Saturninus, and even Marcion, had been expelled from the church. These more flambuoyant gnostics were only the “tip of the iceberg”. There was still a large remnant in the churches, who obviously began developing some philosophical system of Christianity that would compete, so they thought, in the Gentile world.

The apostle Paul was troubled with gnostics, and spoke against those who clung to “falsely-named science” (knowledge or gnosis) (1 Timothy 6.20).
20) Oh Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge (gnosis)
21) which some have professed and gone astray from the faith.
Paul says that gnosis/gnosticism causes a falling away from the faith.

Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89) saw the Trinity doctrine as flagrantly Hellenistic. It had corrupted the Christian message by introducing an alien “layer of metaphysical concepts, derived from the natural philosophy of the Greeks,” and it had nothing to do with early Christianity.

Gnosticism and dualism had a foot in the door in the early church. Many founding fathers fought against it's beliefs and dogmas.
In the third century gnostics and their philosophy would get their greatest boost from the Emperor of Rome himself.

Constantine emperor of Rome had a problem. His kingdom was in turmoil because of strife between different religious factions. He had christians, gnostics, pagans, druids and many more. Constantine solved this problem by merging all these various factions together and forming The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Following the example of his father and earlier 3rd-century emperors, Constant
ine throughout His life was a solar henotheist, believing that the Roman sun god, Sol, was the visible “manifestation” of an invisible “Highest God” {a plural God?} (summus deus), who was the principle behind the universe. Does this sound familiar? This god was thought to be the companion of the Roman emperor.

Constantine's adherence to this faith is evident from his claim of having had a vision of the sun god in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul.

In 325 AD – Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Catholic Church and therefore his empire. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that “the Father and the Son are of the same substance” (homoousios). Let me point out that the substance of God is spirit therefor if Jesus is of the same substance then he was spirit and did not live in the flesh and therefor did not really die or be physically raised from the dead.

Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'.”

The American Academic Encyclopedia states: “Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement.” It is known that many of His former beliefs followed Him into Christianity and that those beliefs strongly influenced the Nicaea council. It is also clear that part of his motives for forming the Holy Roman Catholic Church were to unify his kingdom. It is therefor clear that the council of Nicaea had been called in part to find a way to unify the Roman Empire under a statement of Faith. This council is known for it's Nicaean Creed detailing the doctrine of the Trinity which is the first time God is officially described, in any church document or biblical manuscript, as separated into three, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. It was there at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine the Sun Worshiper only made an official conversion to “Christianity” on his death bed).

One of the early problems encountered by the followers of the Trinity doctrine was that of the nature of Christ. There are very clear scriptures that state that Jesus was a man. This was a problem because this was contrary to the original Trinity Doctrine that Jesus was a co-equal person of God and of the same substance. Jesus as a man also contradicted dualist who could never accept Jesus as fully human of the lower earthly realm. Future councils had the impossible task of defending the Trinity while at the same time dealing with these contradictions. Since no biblical proof could be found, their answer was to contrive the Dual Nature Doctrine, or 100% God and 100% man concept. This doctrine concludes that Jesus is fully man and Fully God at the same time.

There are no such words as Dual Nature or 100% man and 100% God in scripture. In fact the concept is conspicuously absent in any scriptural form whatsoever. Again we must ask ourslves, Where does this concept come from? Simply put these councils were hard pressed to find an answer to the contradictions found in the Trinity. With this in mind they formulated a doctrine with no scriptural proof and just applied it as truth. They went to the scriptures with this doctrine and applied scriptures out of context. By using unclear scriptures they could twist them to seem to validate their doctrine.

Since there are no clear scriptures to define this dual nature of Christ we must look elsewhere to determine it’s origin and history. This doctrine did not happen overnight, but took years to develop. The result was a cocktail of Irithnial and illogical thought leading to meaningless rhetoric. Let’s look at some of the history, by which this doctrine entered the teaching of the church.

Most of the primary tenants of the dual nature doctrine stem from several councils starting in 325 U.S. These councils were formed for the purpose of denouncing what was believed to be false doctrine and for instituting some central statements defining the faith. Unfortunately, as stated before, Christianity had been corrupted by Paganism and Greek philosophy and the councils reflected this influence. The Nicene council stated that Jesus was fully God in response to the Aryans who believed that Jesus was not God.

The Apollianarians Did not believe that Jesus was fully human, therefore the council of Constantinople (381 U.S.) declared he was fully human.

The Nestorianism group denied that Mary could be called the mother of God. They believed that Mary was only the mother of the human part of Jesus. The resulting belief dictated that there exists two Christ's, one divine and one human. In response to this the council of Effuses (431 U.S.) decreed That the two natures of Jesus are one and cannot be separated.

Many of those present at the Council Of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of the Trinity. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries. As the years passed and the power of the Catholic Church increased, no one dared argue against the established doctrines of the Church. Before long a multitude of non – scriptural practices began to emerge resulting in the dark ages and the inquisiition.

If Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then why all the conflicts? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It was not the established teaching, and when some factions, of the church, influenced by Constantine, tried to make it official, the result was major conflict. Constantine stopped the conflict by banishing those who appeased him and used his power to coerce others into adopting the doctrine.

Constantine the Great unified a tottering empire, reorganized the Roman state, and set the stage for the final victory of his version of Christianity at the end of the 4th century. . In one historic moment, under this ruler of non-Judeo-Christian background and with the influence of paganism and gnosticism, the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is formed.

Since the time of Constantine several councils have had the dubious task of defending the Trinity without any clear scripture evidence for support. Unfortunately, the same holds true today. The explanations of the Trinity and the dual nature have become even more confusing and less logical.

Since the Dark Ages the church has continued to come out of the darkness and lies and has sought to find more truth. When Luther began to teach justification by faith rather then by works it took a long time to come out of the traditional works mentality, but many did come out and the protestant faith was born. 700 years of reformation have followed. An unfortunate truth is that many did not come out of the darkness and have missed out on many blessings and further growth in God. In the time since Luther many who were called heritics, by the extablished doctrinal churches, have endeavored to return to the faith of the apostles that was hidden during the Dark Ages.

Oneness denominations though denying the 3 in 1 trinity still cling to the concept of a dual natured Christ. Many still hold reverence for the Holy Trinity and/or the Dual nature. They refuse to even acknowledge it’s corrupt origins. They choose to live in a myth. These historical facts are very easily verified in any honest search of historical records.

[Phoenix]

Hi

Is 9:6
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

As much as I disagree with the Trinity… this verse totally throws me off

Hugs
Phoenix

I posted this here since Im not sure if it was spose to be in the other thread.

[NickHassan]

Hi P,
Jesus was a father as he called his followers his children.

Jn 21
3Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.

4But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.

5Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.

6And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

[Phoenix]

Hi Nick

And the Mighty God bit?

Hugs
Phoenix

[NickHassan]

Hi P,
No one denies the divine origins of the Son of God. God calls even angels and men gods in scripture and the monogenes son is greater than all these created beings.

[Phoenix]

Hi Nick

So what is the argument then? It seems to me there is only a slight little fraction of difference in everyones understanding. I honestly dont think it really really Matters which we believe … does it?

Hugs
Phoenix

[NickHassan]

Hi P,
Trinity must teach that Jesus never really was a son, and yet the son is the basis of our faith and the captain of our salvation. They teach he remains an aspect of God or person in God and have added God's own spirit as a third person. God does not abide such frivolous nonsense.

[Phoenix]

hi nick

what you said is good enough for me lol

Hugs

[Proclaimer]

For the sake of continuity I will add this post which was copied from another thread.

Quote (Phoenix @ Mar. 05 2007,13:44)

Hi Is 9:6 6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. As much as I disagree with the Trinity… this verse totally throws me off Hugs Phoenix

Hi Phoenix.

I give you the following explanation regarding this verse.

Isaiah 9:6
or 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.”'

Here we can see that Jesus is called “Mighty God”. The word in the Hebrew used here is “El” and this word means the following:

1) god, godlike one, mighty one
1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
1b) angels
1c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
1d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
2) mighty things in nature
3) strength, power

“So Jesus is the Mighty El and this can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is the 'Mighty God Like One' which is consistent with the overwhelming amount of scriptures that show us that The Father is God and Jesus his image.

It must be stressed that Isaiah 9:6 doesn't say “Almighty God”. (The term Almighty God indicates that there are Gods of a lesser position). The term “Mighty God” in Hebrew is ´El Gib·bohr´ and the term “Almighty God in Hebrew is ´El Shad·dai´ and applies uniquely to YHWH.

The other part of the scripture that mentions the term 'Everlasting Father' seems like a contradiction as it seems to indicate that Jesus is the Father, which if taken the wrong way can also lead to error similar to that of the Oneness doctrine. The word “Father” that is used here is “Ab” and this word is the same word that is used when describing Abraham as our Father and this scripture is just a reference to say that Jesus is our Everlasting Father, in other words he is greater than Abraham, but it certainly doesn't say 'Heavenly Father'.

It is very important to read scriptures not only in context but also in agreement with other scriptures, especially since it is possible to interpret some scripture in more than one way, because of the wide varying uses and meanings of some words.

[Adam Pastor]

Quote (Phoenix @ Mar. 04 2007,19:02)

Hi Nick And the Mighty God bit? Hugs Phoenix

Greetings Phoenix

Consider also

http://adonimessiah.blogspot.com/2006….ah.html

and

http://adonimessiah.blogspot.com/2006….05.html

[Phoenix]

Hi Adam

Thanks for that

Hugs
Phoenix

[david]

HI Isaiah 1:18
I'm wondering what you think of what I wrote on page 597, the last page. I would really like to continue on that conversation.

[Word of Life]

I have not read all this thread, as it's 598 pages and that would take me some time to go through. So if this question has come up, I apologize in advance.

I am new here and this trinity doctrine which is out in the world today, just gets to me from time to time and then I start to question my own beliefs. I don't believe in the trinity, it's that simple. I have done endless studies on this trinity doctrine and I just don't see it or get it.

I know my God

Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

I am a fairly new born Christian too, nearly two years ago, I accepted Jesus as my Lord and saviour. I spend endless times in my Bible each day. Jesus clearly taught and made a clear distinction between him and the Father several times through the Bible, even stating, that the Father sent him.

Joh 15:21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.

My question is, by going to a building that follows the trinity doctrine, is this classed as idolatry?

[Word of Life]

Quote (942767 @ Feb. 24 2007,10:10)

And the scripture states: “For the wages of sin is death (this means separation from God and also physical death), but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Jesus Christ our Lord”. Since all men have sinned, if there were no provision for a resurrection from the dead, then we would all be dead or separated from God forever because “the wages of sin is death” so that is what we have earned by violating God's Law, the Ten Commandments. Jesus had to be conceived of the Holy Ghost in order for salvation to be a “gift” from God.  Salvation is through faith in what God has done for us and not because any of our goodness.  But Jesus had to be born a man so that he could overcome sin and death so that there could be a resurrection from the dead.  If he had also sinned, then he would be dead also, but because he was raised from the dead, his sacrifice pays the penalty or judgment that was against every man. Now that Jesus overcame sin and death, he is also our example of how we should live our lives in order for we also to over come sin.  He did it with out sin, but we make mistakes along the way as we learn to obey his example.  And because he lives to make intercession for us when we sin, when we fail and then repent, his blood washes away our sin and keeps us in right standing with God. Also, because salvation is not of works, that is we did not earn our salvation through perfect obedience to God's word, it makes for humility because none of us can boast that we earned our salvation, and this is good. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God: not of works LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST”.  (Ephesians 2:8-9) “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.  For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.  For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all one for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.  Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.   And again, I will put my trust in him.  And again, behold I and the children which God hath given me.  For- asmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.  And deliver them through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.  For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.  Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.  For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted”.  (Hebrews 2:9-18) Jesus had to die in order that even the most wicked man on earth could have the opportunity to be saved, and this is good, but also, because he rose again from the dead, it means that every man will be accountable to God for the life that he has lived.  Judgment day is coming for all men. In that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost, his body is God's own flesh and blood, and so, it is God's blood that washes away our sins.   I have already posted my understanding on whether or not Jesus pre-existed before he was born of the virgin Mary. I hope that I have answered at least some of your questions. God Bless

That was a wonderful post, you have explained it so well.   Certainly made me see things differently.  

“In that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost, his body is God's own flesh and blood, and so, it is God's blood that washes away our sins”.  

Thank you so much, I never really saw it in that way.  Not sure how I saw it, but my way way too complicated, to put down into words.  This is so much easier to see and understand.  

[Author]

Posts