The Trinity Doctrine

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Guest @ Sep. 14 2004,12:01)

I’m going to borrow liberally from my friend Professor Buzzard's work  again, because he addressed this issue head on in his book, The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound”.

And people accuse me of falling for the doctrines of men…..

[Is 1:18]

Quote (messageofsalvation @ Sep. 13 2004,08:50)

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.

Why do people do this?? I really does my head in when people, who claim to be christian, resort to attacking the authenticity of a Biblical verse (that doesn't fit their theology), to win an argument. I think its an exceptionally dangerous tactic for one very important reason: Its bad witness.

This is a public forum, anyone can drop by and read these these posts. Imagine if a hardened evolutionist and athiest who has just been evangelised comes here to seek truth and then discovers that even the christians don't trust their own source of truth either. He/she will likely conclude that their lecturers and fellow athiests were right all along – the integrity of the Bibles for sale in the christian book stores are questionable and therefore can't be trusted. Or what if a former Mormon comes here for fellowship and teaching only to discover that the same lies told to them by Joseph Smith et al were possibly true.

Does the end justify the means? No
Does it edify fellow believers? No
Does it glorify God? No

[Anonymous]

hey is1:18,

i think you have a point, from an evangestic perspective… but mos is right… the bible today is rather misleading in many areas, as compared with the earlier manuscripts…

for instance:

matt 5 in our bibles has the phrase…

Quote

you have heard the old rule says you should not kill, and that anyone who kills will be judged for it. but i say that anyone who is angry with his brother without a good reason will be judged for it.

this passage in the earlier manuscripts says

Quote

you have heard the old rule says you should not kill, and that anyone who kills will be judged for it. but I say that anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged for it.

so the words “without good reason” have been added… well – i don't know anyone who hasn't felt like their reason for being angry isn't a good one…

again, in matt 5

Quote

you have also heard that the old rule says that if you put your wife away from you, you must say so in writing first. but I say that anyone who puts his wife away, apart from the sin of adultery, is encouraging her toward adultery; and anyone who marries her is guilty of adultery.

but the early manuscripts say

Quote

you have also heard that the old rule says that if you put your wife away from you, you must say so in writing first. but I say that anyone who puts his wife away, is encouraging her toward adultery; and anyone who marries her is guilty of adultery.

so the words “apart from the sin of adultery”, have been added… what jesus was saying was that you should divorce your wife for any reason…

but perhaps you should check it out… and decide for yourself whether it changes anything… but i don't think we should hide the truth, i think we should seek it out…

cheers,

nate.

[Is 1:18]

Hi Nate,
If I had happaned upon this place 2 or 3 yrs ago and read these seemingly knowledgable christians essentially calling into question the validity of 95% of Bible versions, it would have damaged my faith. I can tell you with certainty that it would have re-inforced the secular, evolutionary post-modernism I had absorbed. Heres an example I hope conveys my feeling on this issue. About 10 yrs ago I read 'Life on Earth' immediately before reading the Bible (for the first time in my adult life, I think). I started in Genesis 1 and put it down after about 3 verses (and it stayed down for a long time) because it contradicted everything I was taught at school/University and importantly everything that the venerated naturalist David Attenbourgh had written in the book. Now my question is this: while Life on Earth was informative, was it conducive or deletarious to my salvation? If I had been hit by a bus in the intervening time I would now likely be in Hell. Similarly, questioning the authenticity of Bible verses, while its informative, it doesn't increase the chance of a non-believer being saved, edify believers or honour God. It does the opposite.
I place a very high value on evangelism.

[Proclaimer]

What is important is searching truth will all our hearts. With this attitude, the Spirit of Truth can lead us. If we try to preserve an image for the sake of evangelism, then we may argue for the enemy rather than against him, for all that is done in God's name is not of God. Men are imperfect and even the Book of Revelation warns us not to add or take away from the words in that book. Why warn if it cannot happen.

Anyway I am of the belief that God makes all things possible and we usually find that he has preserved the answer somewhere if we bother to seek it out. As it is written:

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

Even if the enemy conceals the truth, it is the glory of kings to seek it out. We are to let light shine on a hill and not conceal it.

If we sacrifice truth to create the allusion that Christianity is perfect or near it, then we have to think up some pretty good excuses. How do we explain the deaths of approximately 50 million by the Catholic Church. Do we have to pretend that the crusades were of God and that every version of the bible is infallible. Are we to teach that the creeds are beyond question. Heavens no. The Church exists in the world, but is not of it. We do not have to pretend that everything is rosy. We are the light of the world. We are the salt of the earth. What happens if salt looses its saltiness?

The reality is of course that many things done in the name of God or Christianity is really of the Evil One.

I think that anyone can see when people really yearn and seek truth. I think this witnesses much deeper than trying to preserve an image that doesn't exist.

The main reason I didn't give the gospel a chance when I was an unbeliever was because of the history that Christianity left behind. I was at least aware that bad fruit doesn't come from a good tree.

But I now believe that God will open the door to all who knock and if we seek with all our hearts we will find. The truth is there and we have enough proof to work with too.

[Is 1:18]

OK, maybe im being a little emotive here at the expense of good reason. Im not saying we should leave our brains at the door when we log in. But I do get very grumpy when the intregrity of the Holy Bible is cast into doubt in order to win a point in an argument. I mean do a quick cost benefit analysis and ask yourself if its worth it to go there – especially considering literally anyone could read it.
I am unashamably passionate about my Bible and I happan to know Jesus was quite fond of people who were passionate in their faith even if they screwed up. Look at Peter – he only took his foot out of his mouth long enough to put the other one in, and Jesus LOVED him. On the other hand, the pharisees did everything by the book, they were the archetypal pragmatists and Jesus had his problems with them (to put it mildly). I say let passion over-ride pragmatism sometimes.

[Is 1:18]

Hi T8, I hope you are well.

Quote

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.

You know what T8, you're absolutely right. OK, now pick yourself up off the floor because I haven't finished. I can honestly say that I can't refute any of this. If Jesus is not God then he had been given authority. If He is God then he would be able to do it anyway. Until further information comes to hand or I have an epiphany and realise you're wrong then I will concede this point. See, im not immune to good reason – but it has to be good.

Quote

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.

There is an obvious contradiction in your argument here. You say that it wasn't a blasphemy to say “I am” and yet the Jews did attempt to kill him.

Question: Is claiming pre-existence a stonable offense? I don't think there is a biblical precedent for that and I challenge you to show me the verse to prove is was.

Capital punishment was reserved only for very serious sins and they knew that. If they had killed Jesus for claiming pre-existence then they would have broken their own mosiac law. The pharisees, of all people, would be aware of the ramifications of doing that.

There are, I believe, two instances in the NT where Jesus was nearly stoned the other one was John 10:30-33

30 I and the Father are one.” 31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Bwtn John 8:59 and 10:31 there is no mention of stoning at all. John 10:31 is referenced back to John 8:59 when it says “The Jews took up stones again to stone Him” Note that they gave a reason for the stoning the second time: “because you, a mere man, claim to be God”. I think their reaction in ch 8 underscores the fact that He was making a very serious claim in this instance as well. If he was not making that claim then you will have to explain to me what warranted the murderous reaction.

Quote

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.

Yes thats all true T8. I agree with you on every point.

Quote

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, the denial of Jesus' diety is the quintessential common element among all the cults – even you can't argue that fact.

I haven't finish this post yet – im very tired from work but wanted to get something posted to let you know I intend to answer it all. Still waiting on your rebuttle of my last point in my original post though.

Take care and God Bless my friend.

[Anonymous]

Is 1:18 – you noted that my original reply to your question on Genesis 1:26 used another man's work, but incorrectly concluded that I was following a doctrine of men. Even the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip, “how can I understand, unless some man guide me?” As long as the man or woman is using the spirit of God to understand, then we can learn from them. It's also obvious that as we grow in faith, we don't necessarily need any man to teach us, since the spirit of God will lead us into all things that pertain to faith and godliness. Therefore, here is my own reply, using God’s word, to your question regarding Genesis 1:26. I borrowed quite extensively from the prophet Isaiah, whose words were given to him by the spirit, which I know you'll approve of.  

God bless,

Elisha

——————————————————————-

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: Isaiah 42:5

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Genesis 6:7

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.  Isaiah 45:12

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. Isaiah 45:18

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.  Isaiah 45:6

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.  Isaiah 45:21

And finally, the words of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, the founder of our faith, and the one who said that if we love him, we will obey his words (doctrine, teaching):

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female….” Matthew 19:4

 “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.” Matthew 22: 37-38

[messageofsalvation]

Is 1:18,

There is no contradiction.
The Jews did not attempt to stone Christ each time he said 'I am'. 'The blind man said 'I am' in John 9:9 and no attempt was made to stone him either.

So clearly the Jews attempted to stone Christ for another reason in John 8:59.

Quote

Bwtn John 8:59 and 10:31 there is no mention of stoning at all. John 10:31 is referenced back to John 8:59 when it says “The Jews took up stones again to stone Him” Note that they gave a reason for the stoning the second time: “because you, a mere man, claim to be God”.

You have made an assumption that 10:31 is referenced back to John 8:59.  Note:  Christ sets the record straight with his enemies as to the exact reason why he is accused by quoting his exact words:
'Yet you say to someone whom the Father has consecrated 'You are blaspheming', because he says, 'I am the Son of God'. (John 10:36). That statement is not referenced back to John 8:59 since the statement 'I am the son of God' is not present.

Trinitarians take Biblical verses out of context in order to build false arguments based on false assumptions.

Quote

I think their reaction in ch 8 underscores the fact that He was making a very serious claim by saying “I am” (in that context) in this instance as well. If he was not making that claim then you will have to explain to me what warranted the murderous reaction.

Is 1:18, again you are in error. It is foolish to base your assumption, which you call fact, on how Christ enemies reacted instead of what Christ said himself.

Fact: Christ did not claim to be God. He did not say, 'I am God'. He said 'I am the son of God' so he claimed to be the son of God.

Fact: the Trinitarian claim regarding John 8:58 is an assumption not a statement of fact.

Is 1:18,
You have produced no rebuttal of anything I have said in my recent posts. You have simply objected to it.  I have continued to point out errors in the Trinitarian teaching.

Remember, Godman is not fully man.
Trinitarians reject God is one person. Yet say one person, Christ is fully their Trinity God (3  persons).  The Trinity would have been considered a cult around the beginning of the third century:

'”The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)…They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods…While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation” (of the Three in One).” (Tertullian)

Trinitarians say 'God in three persons'.
Is 1:18 explain how one person is fully the Trinity God (3 persons) given that you reject that God is one person.

Explain how a godman can be truely man without separating the god from the man. Note: separating Christ is heresy.

Explain how Christ could be God when he said, 'my God, my God why have you forsaken me'. Note: separating Christ is heresy.

Is 1:18 you have yet to address this without using separation, a heresy.

[Is 1:18]

MOS,
Its difficult to want to dialogue with someone whose posts have an undercurrent of contempt, bordering on hatred, in them. Please stop posting me – I really can't be bothered with that.

[messageofsalvation]

Is 1:18,

Please explain it to T8. You were quite happy to post me  until you couldn't provide any answers. I have pointed out errors in the teachings of the Trinity. You don't seem to know how to avoid using a heresy to answer my previous questions.

I am speaking in love.   I desire that you avoid false teaching. It is my duty to use the inspired scriptures to  teach the truth, and correct error.

Your difficulty comes from the fact that I have pointed out your errors. The truth should be accepted with humility.

Your remarks are not an expression of love. Instead, you have resorted to making unsubstantiated accusations which is not the spirit of God. My questions are quite sensible.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 15 2004,21:15)

OK, maybe im being a little emotive here at the expense of good reason. Im not saying we should leave our brains at the door when we log in. But I do get very grumpy when the intregrity of the Holy Bible is cast into doubt in order to win a point in an argument. I mean do a quick cost benefit analysis and ask yourself if its worth it to go there – especially considering literally anyone could read it. I am unashamably passionate about my Bible and I happan to know Jesus was quite fond of people who were passionate in their faith even if they screwed up. Look at Peter – he only took his foot out of his mouth long enough to put the other one in, and Jesus LOVED him. On the other hand, the pharisees did everything by the book, they were the archetypal pragmatists and Jesus had his problems with them (to put it mildly). I say let passion override reason sometimes.

I do agree that we shouldn't say that the bible is bad and then use it to teach from.

But we know that some translations are better than others and we need to make comparisons when searching out truth. So to say that this verse is translated badly or that it was added in, may turn out to be true. It is also a fact that our faith is not about a book or following the Law zealously, but a living relationship with the living God. As it is written:

2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

It is also a fact that some later manuscripts have added in verses and they usually teach or hint at the Trinity or they at least try to hint at Jesus being God. It is an obvious thing not just to me, but scholars as well. These controversial verses are often noted at the bottom of the bible page they are written in.

But we can at least take heart in the fact that many manuscripts were copied over the centuries in isolation to each other. This makes it very hard/impossible for anyone to introduce a lie and to have it contaminate all manuscripts. We also have the Dead Sea Scrolls, perhaps the greatest archaeological find of its time. These scrolls are very old and should by reason of that, have little or no contamination.

So when we study the meat of the word, we should not rely soley on 1 translation and it is a good idea to have a concordance and other tools.

As it is written:

2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,08:49)

MOS, Its difficult to want to dialogue with someone whose posts have an undercurrent of contempt, bordering on hatred, in them. Please stop posting me – I really can't be bothered with that.

bordering on hatred?

You can love and still be angry. Even Jesus got annoyed or angry at those who were hard of heart. He even said once, “How long do I have to bear with you?”.

Jesus often got frustrated at those who didn't understand his words or who mis-quoted him. God gets angry too and even frustrated at times, so I guess that it is OK so long as it is of faith.

Anything that is not of faith is sin.

My take at least.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (messageofsalvation @ Sep. 15 2004,13:54)

I am speaking in love.

Really?, if thats the truth then its very well disguised. The problem I have with your posts does not lie in what you present, but it's how you present it. Basically it's a function of friendliness, you haven't said one nice word and they appear to me to come with a double serving of surly contempt. Thats how I read them anyway. Read them for yourself and ask yourself if you would respond positively. Actually the only two people who have extended any more than a modicum of friendliness to me in the months ive been here are Nate and Sammo (Bless you guys). Consequently I read every word they write and thoughtfully consider it – weighing it against my Holy Spirit-fuelled, yet limited, understanding of scripture. I barely read yours at all (the tone is all too obvious) and it all comes down to how its delivered. You're right in suggesting that im not always tactful in my dealings with T8 – forgive me T8, I try not to be so blunt and confrontational but ive inherited a lack of discretion and subtlety (Dad, you know its true :-)).
MOS, if you want to know how to communicate biblically “with love” then check out Nate's posts – he does it well.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 15 2004,14:04)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,08:49) MOS, Its difficult to want to dialogue with someone whose posts have an undercurrent of contempt, bordering on hatred, in them. Please stop posting me – I really can't be bothered with that. bordering on hatred?

Yeah your right, it was an over reaction sourced from tiredness – Why won't my kids sleep in!!!! Sorry.

[Elisha]

Is. 1:18

I think sometimes we all get a little impatient when it comes right down to it. I give you credit for sticking around to post and talk to others who differ in their beliefs. Many of us have experienced hatred and persecution from trinitarians who thought they were doing God a service. Perhaps MOS has as well. I can't speak for him, but at times I've gotten angry at what I perceive to be a double standard and persecution for speaking the truth. It's tough to be a witness for God in an evil world, tougher still when the persecution comes from those who say they are your brothers or sisters until they find out you differ on this one doctrine.  Many of us have been told we're not welcome anymore in churches we attended and told we're of the anti-christ. We see scriptures like John 17:3 and other clear simple statements by the Lord blatantly ignored and we wonder why others can't see what Satan is doing. He is blindly people to Jesus own words, and yet didn't Jesus say that if we call him Lord, we should obey his words? Doesn't it concern you that the foundational doctrine of the christian church contradicts the plain words of scripture and holds the words of Jesus to be of less importance? I've been told I'm not really a Christian and couldn't be a member of a church and vote or hold office as a deacon or elder unless I confessed Jesus as God with a capital G. Does this mean Jesus wouldn't be welcome in that church as well? The head of the Church not welcome as a member in a church that named itself for him??? This is not to question your sincerity, but many of us have pondered and asked ourselves the significance of these questions. However, I've yet to find a trinitarian that will ask themself the same questions and ponder the consequence of being wrong, and yet the scripture says clearly that those who run ahead and don't hold to the teaching of Christ have neither the Father or the Son. Doesn't that trouble you in the least? Or do you believe that so many couldn't possibly be wrong?

In Christ,

Elisha

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Elisha @ Sep. 15 2004,21:45)

Is. 1:18 I think sometimes we all get a little impatient when it comes right down to it. I give you credit for sticking around to post and talk to others who differ in their beliefs. Many of us have experienced hatred and persecution from trinitarians who thought they were doing God a service.

Hi Elisha,
How are you? Good I hope. Thanks for the post, I don't mind responding to posts like this. Personally I have never persecuted anyone who holds a different doctrine to myself. I will question it vigorously but I try to never get personal or denigrate. I can also say that I don't hate a single person on this earth. The only thing I do hate (but not enough) is sin.
I don't come here to be affirmed nor do I come here for fellowship (actually, to be honest I think this is the coldest christian atmospere Ive experienced in my life). I do come here because it satisfies me on an intellectual level and to learn. Its also a unique opportunity for me to challenge and be challenged by other christians whose beliefs differ radically from my own. Im happy being the point of difference here on the issue of Jesus' identity.

Quote

Many of us have been told we're not welcome anymore in churches we attended and told we're of the anti-christ.

Thats too bad – I dont think my church would do that.

Quote

We see scriptures like John 17:3 and other clear simple statements by the Lord blatantly ignored and we wonder why others can't see what Satan is doing.

Why is it to Satans' advantage that people believe Jesus is God?

Quote

Doesn't it concern you that the foundational doctrine of the christian church contradicts the plain words of scripture and holds the words of Jesus to be of less importance?

Show me the verse where Jesus says unequivically that He is not God and I would have to agree with you. Where does He say “I am not God”? Like Nate says the NT is ambiguous but I think if you look at the evidence objectively – there is enough to show He is.

Quote

Doesn't that trouble you in the least? Or do you believe that so many couldn't possibly be wrong?

No, the weight of numbers on my side doesn't enter the equation for me at all – because I know that many are called and few are chosen. If one day I decide you all are right and I stop believing that Jesus is God then I know for certain that there will be a number of verses in the Bible that would trouble me terribly when I read them. Most of these I have written in my various posts to T8 – but there are also others.

Quote

In Christ,

Take care

Quote

Elisha

Is 1:18

[messageofsalvation]

Elisha,

You have made some very good points. Sometimes Trinitarians frustration at not being able to refute what is clearly true leads them to have a bitter hatred. That has been my experience at least.

Yet some have previously said that I am a strong committed Christian until they realized that I was refuting the doctrine of the Trinity. However, the scriptures tell us to expect to suffer for Christ. It is comforting to know that Christ understands and has experienced what we.

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,03:26)

Show me the verse where Jesus says unequivically that He is not God and I would have to agree with you. Where does He say “I am not God”? Like Nate says the NT is ambiguous but I think if you look at the evidence objectively – there is enough to show He is.

The Father 'made him little less than a god' (Psalm 8:5)

However,the Trinity teaches that Father, son and holy spirit are co-equally God.

Christ teaches that

1.  although the sons of God are called gods (John 10:34)
2.  the Father is the only true God (John 17:3)

Christ also told his Father before he came to earth
'you have no equal' as in the text:

'How many plans you have made for us; you have no equal…
You, who wanted no sacrifice or oblation, opened my ear, you asked no holocaust or sacrifice for sin then I said, 'Here I am! I am coming!' (Psalm 40:5,6)

The Book of Hebrews refers to verse 6 of Psalm 40. Some Trinitarian translations cut out Christ declaration to his Father that 'you have no equal'.  However the paragraph is there in the Hebrew Manuscripts. For starters: it can be found in the Jerusalem Bible.

But will Is 1:18 believe the truth?

The weight of Christ's direct statements supports that the Father is the only true God and that the Father is this God who has no equal. The Trinity doctrine itself relies on false assumptions which Trinitarians thinks are hints that support their beliefs.

The Trinity rejects this clear teaching that Christ imparted. The Trinity also uses a 'separation' heresy to explain how Christ could be God when he said 'my God, my God why have you forsaken me'.

The truth does not rely on a heresy!

[Elisha]

Hi again Is 1:18

Thanks for your kind words, and your encouragement. I have always endeavored to speak the truth in love, and without a partisan spirit. I sense other brothers and sisters on this Board feel the same way, although we don’t always agree. I believe you are searching with a sincere heart, and no one here expects you to just read, and believe. There is a process. For many of us, it took years before the truth became obvious to us, for others, it may have come more quickly. The more time we spend “investing” in a doctrine or belief, and in particular if we’ve ever preached or taught on it, the harder it is to accept or even consider an opposing viewpoint. Nevertheless, God expects nothing less from us, that we would contend for the faith that once delivered to the saints, as Jesus’ own half-brother Jude exhorted us all. If it was necessary to contend 1900 years ago, how much more now???

Now I’d like to address two points you raised –

First, why is it to Satan’s advantage that we believe Jesus is God?

The answer is that we take worship which belongs to the Father alone, and direct it to a created being. Yes, it is true that Jesus was worshipped, but not as God, with a capital G. He was worshipped as the Messiah, the King of Israel. So Satan draws worship away from Yahweh and directs it to the Son, or to the Trinity itself. This breaks the 1st and great commandment, which Jesus himself affirmed to a scribe. If Jesus were God, why didn’t he use that opportunity to introduce that new concept or idea to the people? Instead, he strictly adhered to Old Testament monotheism. He also said many times that if we loved him, we would obey his teaching (doctrine, words). Therefore, the test, if you will, of our love, is when false doctrines draw us away from the commandments of God or Jesus Christ, and we are tempted to please men, and conform to creeds, so as to “get along and fit in”. It is impossible to fit Jesus creed with the doctrine of the Trinity. We must choose between them. Now many times God makes allowance for our imperfect understanding, because is He didn’t, nothing would get done, since we are all works in progress, and to a degree, we all see thru a glass darkly. Nevertheless, when we have the words of Jesus, we are obligated to obey them. God winked at Paul’s disobedience because he did certain things ignorantly in unbelief. Yet there comes a time when God expects us to grow up in all things, and having received the truth, we must choose to obey at that point. God is the judge of those things, not men.

Secondly, you asked “when did Jesus say unequivocally that he is not God?”

I answer with these verses –

Matthew 19: 17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mark 10:18
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Luke 18: 18-19  
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?   And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

The same words of Jesus, the same record, are preserved in all three Synoptic gospels.  So does John set aside Jesus own words, and introduce a Jesus who was fully man, but also fully God?

What was the purpose of John’s Gospel?  

John wrote his Gospel, as he tells us, with one primary purpose: to convince his readers that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God” (20:31). We should listen to John and allow his own words to resonate with our spirit. According to John, Jesus distinguished himself from the Father who is “the only true God” (see John17:3; also 5:44 and 6:27). Therefore if we could find in John’s Gospel a proof that Jesus is “coequal” with God, in the Trinitarian sense, we would be discovering something which John did not intend and, in view of his Jewish heritage, he would not have understood. Alternatively, did John introduce a new portrait of the Messiah which contradicted not only the Synoptic Gospels and the Old Testament, but  John’s (and Jesus’) own insistence that only the Father is truly God? (John 5:44; 17:3).

Please consider that when the apostles and early Christians sought to substantiate Jesus’ claim to Messiahship they often quoted Deuteronomy 18:18:

“I will raise up a Prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put my words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.”

Both Peter (Acts 3:22) and Stephen (Acts 7:37) used this scripture to show that Jesus was “that promised prophet” (John 6:14), whose origin would be in an Israelite family and whose function would be similar to that of Moses. In Jesus, God had raised up the Messiah, the long-promised divine spokesman, the Savior of Israel and the world. In Peter’s words, “God raised up his servant and sent him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways” (Acts 3:26).

Now in Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s accounts we are told that Jesus confirmed and adhered to the absolute monotheism of the Old Testament (Mark 12:28-34). So did he therefore, (according to John), muddy the waters by claiming after all that to be God? Again, look at the recorded words of Jesus. Was Jesus a Trinitarian? The answer is in John 10:34-36 where Jesus compared himself to human agents of God in the Old Testament. Jesus gave this account of himself in explanation of what it means to be “one with the Father” (10:30). The Son perfectly represented the Father, as his divinely appointed agent. It is a oneness of function. That is exactly the Old Testament ideal of sonship. It had been imperfectly realized in all the rulers of Israel, but it would finally find fulfillment in the Messiah, God’s chosen King.

The argument in John 10:29-38 went like this: Jesus began by claiming that he and the Father were “one.” It was a oneness of fellowship and function which on another occasion he desired also for his disciples’ to have with him and the Father (John 17:11, 22). The Jews misunderstood him to be claiming equality with God. This gave Jesus an opportunity to explain himself. What he was actually claiming, so he says, was to be “Son of God” (v. 36), a recognized synonym for Messiah. His claim to sonship was not unreasonable, Jesus argued, in view of the well-known fact that even imperfect representatives of God had been addressed by Him in the Old Testament as “gods” (Ps. 82:6). He was not establishing any claim to eternal Sonship, instead he compared his office and function to that of the judges.

There’s nothing in Jesus’ account of himself which contradicts Old Testament monotheism or requires us to rewrite the text in Deuteronomy 6:4. Jesus understanding and testimony about his own person is strictly within the limits laid down by God’s revelation in Scripture. All scripture….including the 70% of our Bibles that is the Old Testament. If it were otherwise, Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah would have been without basis, and the Scriptures would have been broken. He had to fulfill the portrait of the Messiah given in the Old Testament, and no one ever interpreted that portrait as Trinitarians do. The portrait is of a man approved of God, divinely appointed to sit on David’s throne, and given power and authority to work miracles and forgive sins. All of these things were given to Jesus by the only true God, his Father.

Until we speak again, peace, and blessings to you Is 1:18 –

Elisha

[Author]

Posts