The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

Quote (Elisha @ Sep. 16 2004,09:01)

Hi again Is 1:18

Hi Elisha, how are you? Your post is a good one, thanks for taking the time.

Quote

Thanks for your kind words, and your encouragement.

No problem, I think its important to encourage people whenever possible. It costs nothing to edify and encourage and it's very easy to do this, especially to someone who seems nice.

Quote

I have always endeavored to speak the truth in love, and without a partisan spirit.

That's commendable. I respect that a lot.

Quote

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.

Thanks, I do try remove my presuppositions and let the Holy Spirit lead me to the truth. When you say “it took years before the truth became obvious to us” you're assuming that you have progressed in your understanding of scripture and landed at the truth. Im not convinced that it isn't a regression. When I say these things please don't think im questioning your salvation – im not.

Quote

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???

I agree, its human nature to shun a belief that it contrary to that you have been taught. Please believe me when I say I do consider what other have to say to me (as long as it's been delivered with respect) and have been challenged by some of it. I would be lying if I said otherwise. By the same token though I would be surprised if I haven't challenged others here with some of the content of my posts. I say this because inconsistencies I have raised have not, im my opinion, been adequately explained – not even close. Sometimes, the more I look into it the more attractive Nate's 'on the fence' position looks, but I have to put a stake in the ground and at present im reasonably comfortable where I am.

Quote

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.

I addressed this worship issue with T8 and am awaiting a response on it. I don't think it's as clear cut as you say – I believe Jesus was worshipped as only God could be. Read the post and you'll understand what im getting at.

Jesus was called God with a capital 'G' many times in the Old and New Testaments (Hebrews 1:8 for instance, see post to T8).

In terms of creeds, I can tell you with honest sincerity that I put no stock in them at all. Like I said before I really do try to allow the Holy Spirit to lead me to truth without my own prejudices and assumptions getting in the way.

Because I believe Jesus to be God, obviously I do feel I am keeping the first commandment (but I see what you mean). Also, God wants us to love and honour the Son – so I do.

Quote

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

Yes, but what I was looking for was the verse that recorded Jesus' exact words “I am not God”

Quote

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.

OK, I have no problem with these verses what-so-ever, in fact if anything I think they support my position. Here is my interpretation of this passage:

He didn't say “Don't call me good, no one but God is good”, He only asked the man why he was calling Him good and I think He was saying this with one eyebrow raised

By that I mean He was saying in effect 'Im good am I?, thats interesting, since only God is good – you must be calling me God, do you really understand what you are saying here?' -with His inference being: 'where has this man's profound insight come from?'.

(I hope im making myself clear here, because its not easy for me to convey this to you without facial expression and vocal inflection!)

How h
ave I reached this conclusion? Well for a start Jesus WAS good! He was good by any standard of measure, even the Father's perfect one. Hebrews 4:14,15 bears this out very clearly:

14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.

Also, here was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to put this issue to bed, once and for all, by saying “I am NOT God” – He didn't do that.

It makes no sense to me for Jesus to say this if He wasn't God, If He was trying to convey that He wasn't God because He wasn't good, then that would be a lie wouldn't it?

I hope you will thoughtfully consider this, as I do with your points.

I'll finish responding to the rest of the post over the course of the weekend….

Quote

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

Elisha

And to you my friend
Is 1:18

September 17, 2004 at 4:10 am#15780

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,21:18)

I agree, its human nature to shun a belief that it contrary to that you have been taught.

It is interesting to know that early Church writers said that a first century Jew called 'Philo' was a Christian. So I decided to have a look at his first cenury works. There seems to be a lot of cageyness surrounding access to his Greek writings. Their cageyness is also evident when you look at the back of the cover:

'while it would not be correct to say that Philo's works have been 'lost' – scholars have always known and used Philo – they have essentially been 'misplaced' as far as the average student of the Bible is concerned.'

Trinitarian scholars have the Greek text but the average student of the Bible doesn't even know it exists. Furthermore, the translation has not been presented simply. You will need a dictionary!

What is significant is that he believed in a figure called 'the son of God', 'the High Priest', 'God's first born'. Philo refers to him as one who appears as a second god who is below God and also makes it clear that he is God's image and that he is not God Almighty.

God's son is refered to as a second god who is not the true God. This is clearly not incapatible with first century Judaism. So Trinitarians who disagree with this are clearly wrong. Philo said that God's image is not God Almighty himself.

Heb 1:18 has an alternative reading that can be found by refering to earlier manuscripts:

'God is your throne forever: the righteous sceptre is one that rules true; virtue you love as much as you have wickedness. Rightly has God, your God, chosen to anoint you with the oil of gladness, setting you above all your companions'

Firstly, Heb 1:18 comes from the Psalms and is also applied to David. David is not God but occupied the seat of God i.e. he occuppied the seat of authority. Even if we took the Trinitarians preferred reading one would have to understand it in a similar manner, just like the judges who were referred to as gods, but not God Almighty.

Is 1:18,
I am sincerely asking you to adresss the questions I raised.
As I have done so with you. Please do not resort to accusations in future as a means of avoiding addressing them.

September 17, 2004 at 4:53 am#15779

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,21:18)

Please believe me when I say I do consider what other have to say to me (as long as it's been delivered with respect) and have been challenged by some of it. I would be lying if I said otherwise. By the same token though I would be surprised if I haven't challenged others here with some of the content of my posts. I say this because inconsistencies I have raised have not, im my opinion, been adequately explained – not even close.

Christ said 'if you, then who are evil, know how to give your children what is good, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Christ had respect and yet he delivered this.

Is 1:18,

I hope you get my drift.

Quote

How have I reached this conclusion? Well for a start Jesus WAS good! He was good by any standard of measure, even the Father's perfect one. Hebrews 4:14,15 bears this out very clearly:

Is 1:18,

No one can deny that God's obedient holy angels do not sin. They are not bad but good. Yet only one is good. So Christ means that perfect beings draw their goodness from the only one who is good, the Father. Just as Christ said that he draws his life from the Father:

'As I, who am sent by the living Father, myself draw life from the Father' (John 6:57).

'it is the Father, living in me, who is doing the work' (John 14:10)

You said, you were sorry. I would prefer if we draw a line under that. Now, I sincerely ask you to address the questions that I raised in my previous posts. If you don't want me to post you, and you don't want to post me then I would have to take it that your not really sorry.

September 17, 2004 at 5:33 am#15781

Participant

I was saying sorry to T8 actually (for being out of line in his forum). Ummm…..look MOS, are you totally incapable of being nice?, Im beginning to wonder. At first I found your tone really insulting – then annoying – now I find it funny. I mean, who is like this??
Im not going to answer your posts, take a hint, please. Its not because you challenge me any more than the rest but simply because, if im to be honest, I don't want to – id rather communicate with someone who can reason with me and still be respectfull. Understand?
God Bless

September 17, 2004 at 5:36 am#15782

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 17 2004,00:33)

I was saying sorry to T8 actually. Ummm…..look MOS, are you totally incapable of being nice?, Im beginning to wonder. At first I found your tone really insulting – then annoying – now I find it funny. I mean, who is like this??

Im not going to answer your posts, take a hint, please. Its not because you challenge me any more than the rest but simply because, if im to be honest, I don't want to – id rather communicate with someone who can reason with me and still be respectfull. Understand?
God Bless

Is 1:18, That's your choice. No offence taken. I know you only apologized to T8 that is why I questioned your sincerity. You see T8 questioned you accusing me of hatred. You apologized to him regarding this but you say the apology is to T8. It was clear to me that you did not have the humility to direct any apology to me. If you feel that I am excluded from your apology and future postings then you are not truly repentant and your guilt remains. T8 questioned your accusing me of hatred. Go back and look at your response dated Sep. 15 2004,20:14

Is 1:18,
I think you need to take a look at yourself first.Love does not take offence like the way you did. Yet you accused me of hatred. You are deceived.

I take no personal offence it is your salvation that is in danger. After all, I don't depend on your responses.
You obviously have issues concerning my questions, and were offended that I have highlighted your errors and continue to do so. Thus far you have refused to reason through the issue I raised concerning your use of the 'separation' heresy.

I will continue to highlight any errors that you post for the sake of others.

September 17, 2004 at 8:31 am#15783

Participant

MOS, I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot. It would be hard to reach another conclusion. If you have felt wronged by any of my comments then I wholeheartedly apologise. Sincerely, Im sorry. If Elisha is right and you have had a bad experience with unloving trinitarians in the past then im sorry to hear that – but thats not what im about. I freely concede that you could probably demolish me in a scriptural argument, Ive only been studying the Word of God for 2 or 3 years and have 2 young children that demand my time (which if love to give them of course).

I haven't reached my conclusion on Jesus' identity because the church has re-inforced that by their ideology. The Holy Spirit has led me there.

If you want to post antagonisingly every time I try to communicate with others then thats your call but I will simply leave and take with me a very sobered view of your theology and its proponents (with a few exceptions).

God Bless mate.

September 17, 2004 at 8:33 am#15784

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 17 2004,03:31)

MOS, I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot. It would be hard to reach another conclusion.

If you have felt wronged by any of my comments then I wholeheartedly apologise. Sincerely, Im sorry. If Elisha is right and you have had a bad experience with nasty trinitarians in the past then im sorry to hear that – but thats not what im about. I freely concede that you could probably demolish me in an scriptural argument, Ive only been studying the word for 2 or 3 years and have 2 young children that demand my time (which if love to give them of course). I haven't reached my conclusion on Jesus' identity because the church has re-inforced that by their ideology. The Holy Spirit has led me there.

If you want to post antagonisingly every time I try to communicate with others then thats your call but I will simply leave and take with me a very sobering view of your theology and its proponents (with a few exceptions).

God Bless mate.

I thank God that you have responded with this post. There is hope for anyone who is truly seeking God. Yes, I have been persecuted by Trinitarians. Some have done so not realising that I have quoted Christ's own words, and that was sad.

I hope you have a good day!

September 17, 2004 at 8:52 am#15785

Participant

cheers, you too.

September 17, 2004 at 2:19 pm#15786

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,22:26)

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

First of all the foundation of true faith sits on the precept that is that there is one God. Next that one God has a son whom he appointed heir of all things, including salvation.

These 2 precepts are very important, but the Trinity Doctrine stamps all over it and says that both are God and they are equal and we worship them both as the same God.

It brings in confusion and God is not the God of confusion.

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

So the Devil has subtly got many Christians to break the great commandment that we worship God as God only. Jesus was meant to be honoured as the son and the Lamb of God.

We should never underestimate our enemy. I think that Satan was losing the battle in many lives by using his agents to accuse Jesus as a drunkard or the prince of the demons. Jesus just had too much of a following and his miracles and words convinced many that he was of God.

So what is an adverse creature to do. Why not swing the pendulum the other way. If they love Jesus as the Son, then why not go with the flow rather than against it and take it too far and over the edge. After all it is easier to push with the flow than against it.

You see whether Jesus is a drunkard or the Most High God, they are still lies. Yes one lie is more flattering than the other, but a lie is a lie and no good can come from it. All lies come from the Father of Lies. Lies is his native language. They are his words. But it is the words of God that will set us free, not the lies or flatterings of the enemy. Works that are built on the foundation of lies, (no matter how flattering), will not stand.

Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my Church.” What rock? Jesus built his Church on the truth that Peter spoke. “You are the Christ, the son of the Living God”.

It is only this foundation where true faith lies. All other foundations will wash away in time. So what better way to try and decieve Christs followers by not saying that he is a devil, but that he is God himself. Of course don't do it immediately, but over time, he can change the truth of God into a lie. This way he tricks those who have respect for the son of God, but do not love the truth to seek it out each day, or those who are not willing to die for the truth.

Remember that the Devil is the one who deceives the whole world. He is not so stupid to just say to everyone that Jesus doesn't exist or that he is evil. No his most cunning disguise is as an angel of light.

So is there a verse where Jesus denied being God. Well first of all, the reason we do not see this outright is that this wasn't an issue. Apart from a couple of ocassions where certain Jews misunderstood Jesus words and him giving a defence against such a notion by saying that he was the Son of God and that men were also sons and gods.

No, it would be a couple of centuries and a lot of Greek and Egyptian influence that would make it an issue. Back then, the issue was more to do with Jesus being the Messiah, the son of God or a deceiver.

You will notice that Jesus also didn't say that he wasn't the Father or that he wasn't Michael the Archangel because such things were not an issue.

Peter declared that Jesus was the Son and the Messiah and Jesus commended him and built his Church on that truth. Now if Jesus being God was an issue in those days, then this would have been the time to clear it all up. Peter could have just said You are the Most High God, you are Yahweh. But Peter didn't say that. He said you are the son of God and the Messiah. So I believe Jesus and Peter over Athanasius any day.

Infact even Peter gives the truth that Jesus wasn't thought of as God by anyone in his following words:

Matthew 16
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,[1] the Son of the living God.”

Did anyone say that they thought Jesus was God, or did Peter declare that?

NO.

Don't pass over this quickly. The true foundation is Peters declaration. Any other foundation, even one that exalts Jesus to be equal to the Father is still another foundation. Most of the denominations are built on this foundation. It's as if Peter said to Jesus you are the Amighty God and then all these churches started up that were built on that. But we both know that is not what happened with regards to what Peter said.

You see, even the one that says that Jesus is the Father is a false foundation. This is known as Oneness today and is just as wrong as the Trinity Doctrine. So what is wrong with Oneness Is1:18? Does it not also exalt Jesus? What could be wrong with that? Would an enemy really do that? Could Satan tell such a lie to make the son greater than he really is?

Of course he does. If he can get you to believe in a lie, then he has that power over you. Sure he would rather you believe that Jesus is evil and then perhaps that Jesus doesn't exist. Perhaps the lie that says that Jesus is the Almighty is the last lie that he would like you to believe. But it is a darn sight better than you believing in the truth. Because it is only in the truth that God can work and if the truth be in you, then God can work in you and through you and that is the last thing that God's adversity wants.

What is really going on?

Christian City and all her denominations were built by man. But true disciples seek the city made by God. We are aliens in this world. We don't belong here. Our hearts are not in this world. It is the Kingdom of God that we love.

As it is written. “Come out of her my people”. Do not partake in her sins, lest you be judged with her. Babylon is the Mother of all false religion and a number of other things. Call it a coincidence, but Babylonians even worshipped a trinity and also worshipped the Queen of Heaven. Is it starting to sound familiar? Babel even built a tower up to Heaven in their own name. Is it also a coincedence that certain men who have drawn men to themselves also built cathedrals up to heaven and in their own name. Check it out; most demominations started from a charasmatic person and created a church OF THEIR/HIS OWN. Christian history is nothing but that if you ask me.

I am not into christianity, I am into the Kingdom of God. I do not seek the created things of men, but the creator and the things of him. I seek Heaven and the city of Jesus's God and our God.

Revelation 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

September 17, 2004 at 2:27 pm#15787

Participant

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (English-NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

September 18, 2004 at 11:30 pm#15788

Participant

One more thing Is 1:18,

You mentioned once that the Father is LORD, but that doesn't disqualify Jesus from being LORD.

But if this true, then we would have 2 LORDS.

I remind you of the great commandment.

Mark 12:29
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

September 19, 2004 at 1:56 am#15789

Participant

Hi T8,

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, The LORD is one! (Deut 6:4)

The word 'one' here is 'echad' and it can be used to denote compound unity.

It is used this way in Gen 2:24:
“…they shall become one (echad) flesh”

One flesh, yet two persons.

If God wanted to infer absolute singularity and therefore dispel any notion of plurality, then why wasn't the word 'yachid' used?

cheers

September 19, 2004 at 3:25 am#15790

Participant

Quote (messageofsalvation @ Sep. 16 2004,23:10)

Is wrote:

Heb 1:18 has an alternative reading that can be found by refering to earlier manuscripts:

Hi MOS,
Lets try to keep the powder keg dry, huh?

The Greek construction of the verse allows it to be translated two ways:

1. “God is your throne forever and ever….”, and
2. “Thy Throne O god, is forever and ever…”

Most Bibles do not translate it the way #1 does, for two main reasons.

First, it requires understanding of the Hebrew noun for “throne” in construct state. This would be very unusual when a noun has a pronomial suffix, as this one does. The KJV, NIV and NASB all use the verse in its plain, straight forward sense.

Also to say ” God is your throne” makes no sense what-so-ever, especially in the context of the first 7 verses of Hebrews 1.

Yes, Psalm 45 is dealing with a king but it is a relatively common practice for NT writers to take a verse from the OT that seems to deal with one subject and then apply it to another. I think Paul, or whoever did write Hebrews, had some inside knowledge of the OT we don't have – so I trust him on this one.

Take care

September 19, 2004 at 4:37 am#15791

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 19 2004,15:56)

Hi T8,

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, The LORD is one! (Deut 6:4)

The word 'one' here is 'echad' and it can be used to denote compound unity.

It is used this way in Gen 2:24:
“…they shall become one (echad) flesh”

One flesh, yet two persons.

If God wanted to infer absolute singularity and therefore dispel any notion of plurality, then why wasn't the word 'yachid' used?

cheers

So is it true to say “Here O Israel, the Lord thy God is 3 persons”?

September 19, 2004 at 4:45 am#15792

Participant

I'm saying you can't really use it to support your premise. And I think my last point was a legitimate one.

September 19, 2004 at 5:54 am#15793

Participant

I think that most clear thinking persons would think 2 persons who are called LORD, would be 2 LORDS.

That is what most would think, if they were not subjected first to the Trinity Doctrine.

Ask any child for example. 1 LORD + 1 LORD = ?
Yes 1 Man + 1 Woman = 1 Flesh. But that is different because scripture doesn't teach that 1 Man + 1 Man =1 Man, or 1 Man + 1 Woman = 1 Man.

You say that the Father is LORD and the Son is LORD. Yet 1 LORD. It is weird.

1 Father + 1 Son = 1 LORD is better, even though I know scripture doesn't support that.

But 1 LORD + 1 LORD = 1 LORD. Come on.

September 19, 2004 at 8:19 am#15794

Participant

T8,
Im realistic about my own limited understanding of God and I hope I would never try to systematically explain the trinity to anyone. I just don't think you can put God in a box like that and say to someone “look, i've got God pegged – let me show you”. God is knowable, but I suspect that some things of God, T8, are obviously far beyond our feeble comprehension. I can only try and interpret what I read, using the Holy Spirit's guidance, of course. The trinity isn't overt, there are hints of it – but the hints are ubiquitous.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 18 2004,20:56)

If God wanted to infer absolute singularity and therefore dispel any notion of plurality, then why wasn't the word 'yachid' used?

You haven't answered this question.

September 20, 2004 at 5:33 am#15795