- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
hey guys,
Quote
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Oct. 29 2004,13:55)Unfortunately, you did not respond to my challenge as I defined it. I asked for an explanation of the trinity using scripture alone – no interjections!
I think that this is a very fair request. It is not unreasonable in the slightest. If a doctrine is scriptural, then scripture on its on will demonstrate it.
i'm not sure if this is completely true… after all, it isn't scripture which is in question here, but our interpretations of it… especially when we're talking about inference…
personally, i mostly agree with you views on the trinity t8, but i don't think those views are purely scriptural… there is a lot of interpretive reasoning involved…
btw, i'm not sure what a “scriptural doctrine” is anyway… god is spirit, and jesus said that he would send the holy spirit to lead us into all truth… (this is spirit teaching about spirit)… he didn't say that he would send the scriptures to lead us into all truth – this is just infered – as wit would say… (this would be the physical teaching us about the spiritual, or the temporal teaching us about the eternal)…
well, that's just my thoughts… take em or leave em…
cheers,
nate.
Hi T8,
Tricky area this. We do not want to be like the theologians who try to define God according to human standards and measurements and finish up painting themselves into a corner.
If you define God as omniscient and say He,therefore, knows everything does He then know what I will have for breakfast tomorrow? No disrespect to our God but I do not know yet and if God knew wouldn't that take away my free will? Even Jesus had that till his last breath.
Just because we are made in the image of God does not mean we can turn that backwards and God is the same as us, as we are created and God is eternal. We know God is Love but for us that is of our heart just as thoughts are of our mind. But even these aspects of our soul are created. Does God need a heart or mind . Is God is Spirit not enough for it seems that is all we can know??Hi T8,
With the Acts 28.25 quotation of Isaiah 6.9 surely the Isaiah verse was the instruction by the Father to Isaiah, as recorded in WORD, to prophesy and what to SAY. Then Isaiah SPOKE these words as a prophet through the Holy Spirit?He did not primarily write but speak surely, though both these activities were done through the Spirit? Do you see what I mean?
I am not sure.
I would like to have a discussion about the Holy Spirit. Perhaps not an intense one, but I would like to take one small step at a time. I mean to be very careful here, but do not want to give up learning more.
We are told that there is one Spirit and that God is Spirit. So if the Holy Spirit were a seperate person, then would there not be 2 Spirits? But the Father is often spoken of and the Spirit too. Which gives the idea to some that there are 2.
There is a post dedicated to learning about the Holy Spirit and it is here that I would like to discuss scriptures on this subject.
Here is the link if anyone wants to continue with this:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=1;t=68
There has already been quite a bit of useful dialogue here.
oh hey guys,
my references on god being spirit weren't in relation to the trinity argument, but to explain my thoughts on the veracity of a “scriptural doctrine”… if god is spirit, and the holy spirit was sent to lead us into truth, the idea of basing all our understanding on the writings of men, rather then the knowledge of the spirit seems a bit flawed, especially when (as we've seen) people can't agree on what the writings mean…
cheers,
nate.
Hi nate,
The problem lies with the fact that most people do not have the gift of the Holy Spirit. I am not saying that if we all did that we would all agree immediately as even Peter found Paul a bit difficult.However we would at least share the foundation of understanding that God laid. We should ,at least be able to grasp the essence of the Word as the Spirit wrote it through men and hopefully come to share a great deal of unity in understanding.
Arguing with men who are religious but still untranformed by the Spirit in their minds is an exercise of complete futility. They think we are crazy and we can make no sense of what they say.
If any message of this forum was to help us develop that essential unity it is to “seek ye first the kingdom of God and everything else will be added to you”.
To all I say that if the word remains a mystery to you and you struggle to reach agreement with other christians who are in the Spirit then check that the right foundation is laid before you take another breath.
hey nick,
Quote
Arguing with men who are religious but still untranformed by the Spirit in their minds is an exercise of complete futility. They think we are crazy and we can make no sense of what they say.certainly arguing is futile, but presenting a different view isn't… however, i would suggest (and what started this) that trying to limit reasoning to the presentation of scriptures without comment is also futile…
i could quote:
“you are right to say that you have no husband, for you have had five husbands, and the man you are with is not your husband”… without comment this would make no sense, and could be applied to many different arguments without actually really being applicable to any argument… as the saying goes, “a text without a context is a pretext”…
i think, therefore (and i realise that i've already belaboured this too far, so i will remain silent on this point hereafter), that it is not only unreasonable, but unproductive (or counterproductive) to suggest that someone explain their stance using the scriptures without comment…
cheers,
nate.
Sure nate,
You can be too clever and confuse yourself.
Context matters.
I do also believe that scripture is meant to explain itself if we do search further as God throws in backup verses to make meanings plainer. Jesus and Paul said[in 2 cor 13.1] “every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses” If we apply this to scriptural understanding we may not always get it right but we are following the correct procedure.I dislike religious internet sites that say “it is right because I know” without scriptural proofs. We are the guardians of a very precious treasure that opens doors or shuts them in men's faces and our responsibility is great to preserve truth and present it as it is meant.
hmm… i still don't think you understand me… i'm not suggesting that we disregard the scriptures, but that we need to explain our understanding of what the scriptures mean, otherwise we may be reading the same words, but hearing completely different messages…
A lot of the NT says “it is written”:
This is in regards to the OT.
So I think too that it is not a matter of letting scripture speak for itself only, but teaching what is relevant and using scripture to show that the teaching is in agreement with scripture. So just as the Apostles used the OT in their writings, I think that we should use the OT and the NT in ours. This is what the 2nd Century fathers did.
If it were just about quoting scripture, then why bother writing. We could just supply the link to Gospelcom.
I know that God has called me to write about what he has put on my heart. So write I will. I will quote scripture from time to time in order to show that what I am saying is what the Apostles and Prophets also said, or at least that I am not in conflict with them.
All that said, I do think that some major biblical themes will be able to be spelt out using scripture, with little even no interjector. But this is not a necessary thing to do even though it is possible. This can be done simply because it is a major theme that repeats itself in many different ways. Salvation is one theme and Jesus being the Son of God is another. It is mentioned so many times that you could easily groups scriptures together to show the meaning.
But sure as you say Nate, “explain our understanding of what the scriptures mean”. I agree, and God means for us to write (type) with our own hands, and to mine the scriptures for gold.
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.After all, if it is wrong to write with your own hands your understanding of truth intermingled with scripture, then why do the NT writers do that.
In fact I have even quoted the 2nd Century fathers in my writings as I consider some of their writings as scripture.
I don't have a whole lot of time to respond to everything that's been said since my last post, but I do need to clarify what I originally wrote.
My ultimate point is that if a doctrine is not plainly spoken of in scripture, it is extra-biblical. That doesn't mean that it's wrong; it just means that it requires philosophies and reasonings that come from outside the pages of the bible. If that's the case, one needs to be very sure that those outside sources are God-breathed before “salvation-impacting” importance is placed on such doctrines, as has been the case with the Trinity doctrine.
Obviously, if you quote a single sentence of the bible out of context, it will have either no meaning or a false meaning. But, if you start off by saying, “Here's what I believe about God”, and then you list several scriptures that speak to that point plainly, without need for interjection, then it is very likely that your beliefs line up with scripture.
In this discussion, the whole point is to define who God is. My request is limited to that context. I just assumed that everyone understood that.
Hi,
Certainly Paul and the apostles spoke and wrote from their transformed hearts and minds in their letters and used scripture only occasionally. Paul admitted, also, that his physical presence was not as forceful as his writings.I guess it is experience that allows you to be sure that what you teach is in line with the Spirit but it takes time to develop that confidence and you hope it does not become arrogance. Likewise we should not become too stiff and starchy requiring scriptural proof for every matter.
Obviously the early church recognised the work of the Spirit in all the writings of the apostles no matter who they were sent to so they collected them all together as a precious resource for the whole church.
Even in their scripture quotes i sometimes wonder if they made the best choices. Paul's use of Ps 2 in acts 13 seems a little unusual and Peter's quote from Joel only seems to parallel the work of the Spirit but the full expression of that word is endtimes I would have thought?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Nov. 03 2004,12:40) In this discussion, the whole point is to define who God is. My request is limited to that context. I just assumed that everyone understood that.
I understand and agree with both Nate and WhatIsTrue. I do not see a conflict with what you guys are saying.There are times when we teach and we speak using what God has put in our hearts. Other times we can use scripture to do the talking. I like to use both methods for different reasons. Usually I try to balance it out with both.
If someone is sceptical about me, I can use scripture to show that something is so, sometimes with interjector. If I have the trust of someone, then I have more license to speak freely, but I still use scripture to show that what I say lines up.
But false doctrine uses human (even demonic) reasoning as it's basis, with a splash of scripture from here and there to give it a form of credibility. But the truth doesn't need that. It stands on it's own and scripture is self explanatory with many things.
But some truths are hidden as well. The meat of the word is not as easily accessible as the milk. To consume the meat of the word not only requires a ready heart, but a certain level of maturity in the faith.
To teach the meat of the word requires a skill or gift that comes from God.
Hi,
It would be nice to think that the lack of writing on this forum means that the issue has been put to bed as non scriptural and not of the Spirit. Sadly most in the church of the world hold fast to this false doctrine out of ignorance and following men.Yes I think that all the Trinitarians took off when they realised that their doctrine is indeed questionable. They like to argue their beliefs with those who are not able to defend themselves. But that is not true here.
I dare say that this won't be the last. I do expect to hear from some Trinitarian teachers who haven't read part or all of this discussion nor the Trinity writing, who will then have the audacity to post some lame argument about why the trinity is correct either by taking some scriptures out of context or quoting a scripture that is not really scripture because it an addition.
These kind of posts usually take about 4 minutes to write from 2 hours of accumulated life time experience dealing with the subject. Even with such credentials they are sure in their own mind that they are right and write posts that pretty much say are you guys nuts for not believing in the unquestionable trinity doctrine? Then they set about to try and enlighten us with arguments that we have heard 100 times before but do not line up with scripture.
It's kind of funny, but the reality is that is is very sad and proves as a reminder of how pride can blind us.
We should decide to humble ourselves everyday before the Lord and remain teachable too. I pray that we will always remember this.
YHWH, keep us on the path of righteousness and let us fear your holy name.
Quote (JW @ June 01 2002,11:05) let me chelp correct this misconception, myself as a Jehovahs Witness has had years of teaching that the trinity is incorrect and this excerpt from our publication “should you believe in the trinity might help to clear this up AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.
Someone who is “with” another person cannot also be that other person
Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, “The Word was with God.” (Italics ours.) Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God.
Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible?An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the·os']”). This first the·os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God”).
On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they do this?
The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“the”), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.
The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.” As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite.”
So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,” “godlike,” “a god,” but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.
There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a” when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.” In the Koine Greek, there is no “a” before “spirit.” But almost all translations in other languages add an “a” in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,” or “divine.”
Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.” And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'”
Hello There. Peace of Christ. Jehovah's witness are as wrong as protestants and catholics regarding Jesus…The Son is no Michael the Arcangell, The Father said Heb. 1:5 For to which of the Angels, did God ever said…You are my Son, today i have became your Father?…This is for trinitarians,,,the Father says today, meaning the Son was made “ONE DAY''' Gal. 4:4..Now the Name jehovah is a false name, it is a name made by the Massoretics Jews and given to God….Peter galatinus used for bible translation for a pope, and Wlliam Tyndale's was the first one to use it in english in 1500's….The Tetragrammaton YHWH was pronounced Ha-Shem…Not Yahweh or Jehovah…Now i have your bible and i attended their congretation….Read John 17:11 Who says this:
Jesus says: Also I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and i comming to you, Holy Father, watche over them “ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR 'OWN NAME' WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN ME”…The Son is no-one but the Father in flesh 1 Timohty 3:16; 1 Kings 8;27 Solomon says: But will God really dwell on earth?…Of course says Isaiah 35:4 and 43:10-11….I like to challenge the fellow who wrote that awful article about the trinity….if he can contact me i will be blessed and so he……James [email protected]…
The fellow who wrote the article about the trinity “How did the trinity come to be?” didn't inclued Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus a.k. Tertullian a catholic presbiter who coined the name Trinity from the word trias and made the trinity..Justin Martir made the “Eternal Son of God” of the trinity out of the pagan greek god “The LOgos” John used the Hebrew word “DABAR” in John 1:1, 14; and in 1 John 1:1-4; 2:11-13 John says our sins were forgiven on account of Him (Acts 2:38) and we have known “THE FATHER” Not the Son….The Holy Spirit a.k the Father was called the Son on as Human..due to His OMNIPRESENCE….The Son is the visible form of the Invisible God…Col 1:15…….
I do not know how to get in touch with whoever wrote that so false and degrading article for the ONESESS of God…When the flesh was tempted Jesus told satan..YOU SHOULD NOT TEMPT “THE LORD YOUR GOD”?…who was the devil tempting?..the Son?…..The Father in flesh…those were the same words the God of the bible in His invisible nature gave to Moses in Deut 6:4….i hope somebody would love to continue this issue…it would be a blessing for many, and a curse for many….because it is hard to kick against the pricks, and Jesus said this…Because if you do not believe that “I AM HE” you will
die in your sins” John 8:24 that is the unforgiven sin…and I AM HE is the YHWH of the Old testament Deut. 32:39; Isaiah 41-10-11…God bless all the ones who are seeking the truth….it is here…Brother James
Welcome BJ,
If you look at the temptation of Jesus in Mt 4 Satan said “If you are the Son of God..”twice. He knew who he was.
The tempter suggested Jesus turn stones into bread.
Then Satan challenged Jesus to throw himself off the pinnacle of the temple quoting scriptures about protection from danger Jesus said
“On the other hand it is written 'You shall not tempt the lord your God' “
Then Satan tempted Jesus offering all the glory of the world if he worshipped him.So Satan tempted Jesus three times and the last time was after he told him not to tempt God. The simple reason is that it was not Jesus who was being tempted by that suggested action of throwing oneself down, but the Father. If Jesus had thrown himself off the temple he would have been tempting the Father, to prove the truth of scripture and rescue him. Jesus accepted temptation of himself without complaint.
The Father lives and is enthroned in heaven but Jesus was filled with His Spirit and revealed God to the World.
Would Jesus be praying to himself when he prayed?
Was he talking to himself when a voice said”This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”?Was he going back to himself when he said he was going back to the Father?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
