The Trinity Doctrine

[NickHassan]

Bye sis,
You sure need a break.
You're getting worn down by the heavies and starting to believe trinity stuff.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 06 2007,19:35)

Bye sis, You sure need a break. You're getting worn down by the heavies and starting to believe trinity stuff.

Not a chance…….

God has revealed himself to me in such a way that I could never deny him!

But a break is always nice.

Take care!

[acertainchap]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 06 2007,19:35)

Bye sis, You sure need a break. You're getting worn down by the heavies and starting to believe trinity stuff.

Yeah.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 06 2007,19:25)

Actually, WJ, you didn't really answer my question. We are told that we cannot know the mind of God, but that we have the mind of Christ (2 minds). God's will is to crush; Jesus' will is that the cup is to pass him by (2 wills). If each person in the Trinity has their own distinct personality, will, and mind………wouldn't they all 3 have their own “spirits” as well?  Or does it look like this: Father – own mind – will – shared spirit Jesus – own mind – will – shared spirit Spirit – own mind – will – ? the spirit that is shared?

not3

You are not going by scripture!

[acertainchap]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 06 2007,14:37)

ps another site ” MEET THE REAL REVEREND BILLY GRAHAM HE IS NOT THE PERSON WHOM YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW! Subtitle:  With evidence garnered from places other than the public Graham Crusades, we find that Graham might be a Freemason, that his fruits are leading the church into the One-World System of Antichrist, and that his doctrines are definitely NOT Biblical. The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!! Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones! Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again. YOU ARE NOW ON THE CUTTING EDGE NEWS BRIEF: “Graham Worries Heaven Might Be Wrong Place For Him”, January 2, 2000, Fox News Interview, reported in The Calvary Contender, Vol. XVII, January 15, 2000. “In a Jan. 2 Fox News interview, Tony Snow asked Billy Graham: 'When you get to Heaven, who's going to speak first, you or God?' Graham replied: 'When I get there, I'm sure that Jesus is going to say that he will welcome me. But I think that he's going to say: 'Well done, our good and faithful servant.' Or he may say: 'You're in the wrong place'.” I was stunned to silence and even to a trembling of my soul when I read Billy Graham actually say that Jesus Christ may say to him, “You are in the wrong place”!! Of all the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our lives, assurance of Salvation is paramount. The Holy Spirit literally fills our hearts with the firm assurance that we are as assured of Heaven as if we are already there. Yet, here is the famous Evangelist, Billy Graham, saying he is not sure of his salvation? The reason he is unsure of his salvation becomes clearly evident in his response to Tony Snow's next question. SNOW: “You really worry that you may be told you're in the wrong place? GRAHAM: Yes, because I have not – I'm not a righteous man. People put me up on a pedestal that I don't belong in my personal life. And they think that I'm better than I am. I'm not the good man that people think I am. Newspapers and magazines and television have made me out to be a saint. I'm not. I'm not a Mother Teresa. And I feel that very much.” CALVARY CONTENDER COMMENT: “The basis of getting to Heaven is muddled in this interview, and is manward instead of Godward. Earlier in the interview, Graham's testimony of salvation made no mention of the Gospel, but was about knowing Christ in his heart, and a big change. When I read this the tears came to my eyes. Here, in his own words, is evidence of that which we have been observing for some time now. He is “not a righteous man” because he has not been washed in Jesus' blood. Recently we considered his definition of “repentance” …the “works” of changing and 'doing better' and 'being a better person'. Trying to do better 'from now on'. He doesn't understand repentance as being a “place” at the foot of Jesus' cross (without works), where he could then receive “the righteousness of God” (Rom1:17,3:5,3:21-22,Phil3:9) which is of faith “in Christ” (2Cor5:21, Jn1:12) It is a “gift”. (Eph2:8) CUTTING EDGE COMMENT A truly Born Again Christian — genuinely saved by God's Grace — will be puzzled by this seemingly contradictory statement as to whether he is going to Heaven or Hell. On the one hand, Graham seems to acknowledge that Jesus is going to accept him and commend him for his service, but then in the very next breath, he expresses doubt that Jesus will accept him. Then, Graham continues by saying that he is not a “righteous” man. In the genuine Christian context, these two statements make no sense whatsoever. But, if you assume that Graham is something other than a genuine Christian, this statement begins to make more sense. In fact, if Graham were to be a Freemason, say, then these two statements make perfect sense. Is Reverend Billy Graham a Freemason? Consider the evidence: IS BILLY GRAHAM A FREEMASON? This terrible lack of assurance of salvation in Graham's heart of hearts is not comprehensible if he is truly a Christian depending upon Jesus' imputed righteousness to get to Heaven; but, if Billy Graham is a Freemason, then this lack of assurance becomes very much more understandable, because Freemasons depend upon a person's own works to get into Heaven. Therefore, Freemasons do NOT have the assurance of the Holy Spirit in their inner soul, like all other pagans. NEWS BRIEF: Reverend Billy Graham listed as a “Famous Mason” in two (2) major Freemason web-sites! On May 29-31, 1997, responding to a tip from one of our subscribers that Graham was a Freemason, I went hunting on the Internet for Masonic sites. Within a matter of minutes, I discovered two web-sites listing Reverend Billy Graham as one of them! He was listed as a “Famous Mason” on the following sites: Genesee Lodge No. 174, Free and Accepted Masons, Chartered January 11, 1866 A.D. — 5866 A.L., Under the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Michigan, 755 South Saginaw Street, Flint, Michigan, Robert (Bob) Orrison, Secretary., page. 3 of 7. Louisiana Masonic Family, Free and Accepted Masons, Famous Masons section, listed under “Other Famous Masons”, This site listed many more men as Famous Masons than did the Genesee Lodge. I literally could not believe my eyes, as I looked at both these sites listing Billy Graham as one of them — not one of us — just as Jerry Huffman of Calvary Contender stated, above. You see, even though Freemasons claim to be “Christian”, their claim has nothing whatever to do with a belief in Jesus Christ, but only in a belief in “God”, the Grand Architect of the Universe. They depend upon “good works' for eternal abode in Heaven. They do not believe only in Christian doctrine, but also upon the doctrines of all the old pagan religions of the past antiquity — especially the Egyptian Mysteries — whom God cursed and brought into Judgment when He led Moses and the Israelites out of Egypt. I saved these two Masonic sites and printed out their pages, because I know that Graham's name could — and probably would — be removed immediately after I broke the story. But, I was shocked by how quickly his name was removed. Within a matter of days, I was alerted that his name no longer appeared on these sites, and sure enough, when I went back to them, I discovered his name missing. The B.G.E.A. also issued a denial of his being a Freemason, and the Louisiana Masonic Family issued a statement saying they were “in error” in placing his name in their section. Now, let us return to our Graham's seemingly contradictory statement, to Tony Snow, above: 1). he hopes Jesus will welcome him into Heaven on the basis of his works for the Lord; but, 2). then Graham acknowledges that his works may not be enough to get him into Heaven, prompting Jesus to tell him that he is “in the wrong place”. This statement is perfectly understandable when you understand Graham is a Freemason; they believe as do all Pagans, that a person's eternal destiny depends upon whether his works of good outweigh the bad in the final Balance Scale of Justice. [Place the picture, “”Judgment Balance Scales”, flowing text to the right of it] This picture is an accurate description of the Pagan belief in Judgment, as Graham expressed, above. A person's good works are placed on one side, while his evil works [sins] are placed on the other side. If the “good works” outweigh the “evil works”, the person goes to Heaven. If the “evil works” of a person's life outweighs the “good works”, then the person will be told by the Master of the Dead Souls, “you don't belong in Heaven”. Isn't this exactly what Graham expressed to Tony Snow during this interview? [Place the picture, “Judgment Egyptian Balance Scales”, flowing text to the right of it, and below it] Now, examine the typical Freemason view of the Judgment Balance Scales, pictured here. This picture is taken from Dr. Cathy Burns' book, Hidden Secrets of the Eastern Star, p. 74. Burns explains the Egyptian meaning of this picture. “This 'Egyptian Witchcraft' scene is actually portrayed in the Masonic Lodge in the 31st degree and the balance scale is one of its symbols. In this Masonic degree the 'candidate is brought into the Court of the Dead to be judged for actions while living and to determine if he deserves to dwell among the gods'. In this picture, the god Horus has the hand of the soul of the deceased, leading him to the balance scale. Horus is the Lucifer in Egyptian Mythology! Can you see that Billy Graham has just described this Pagan concept of the judgment of the dead in his interview with Tony Snow? Graham has the Pagan mindset: he believes Jesus will take him by the hand, leading him to the balance scale! On one side of the scale Graham's “good works” of his life — undoubtedly his work in the Crusades — will be placed, while on the other side of the scale, Graham's “evil works” of his life will be placed. If the scale tips toward the “good works”, Graham believes Jesus will say to him, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant”. But, if the scale tips toward the “evil works”, Graham believes Jesus will say to him, “You don't belong in Heaven; you are in the wrong place”. And, just as any Pagan believes, Graham is convinced he will not know whether he is going to Heaven or Hell until he actually is dead and standing before the Balance Scales of the Dead. This statement by Billy Graham is absolutely the “smoking gun” which we have been dreading, so we can definitively determine whether Graham is Wheat or a Counterfeit Tare, whether he is Freemason or not. Now we know. He is a Counterfeit Tare, and he has just expressed the most basic of Masonic beliefs regarding eternal destiny. Christian truth is so different. Listen: “He that believeth on him is not condemned:” [John 3:18] I really like the full meaning of the original language as captured by the Amplified Commentary: “He who believes in Him [who clings to, trusts in, relies on Him] is not judged [he who trusts in Him never comes up for judgment; for him there is no rejection, no condemnation –he incurs no damnation.” If Graham truly believed the Bible he has so ardently preached all these years, he would know that no true Born Again Christian will ever face the Judgment Bar, where Jesus will hand down condemnatory sentences; rather, we stand before the “Bema” Judgment Seat of Christ, to determine rewards only. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus..” [Romans 8:1] ” I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.” [Isaiah 43:25] No greater assurance of salvation and of eternity in Heaven is possible than by the testimony of “two or three witnesses” – God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit speaking through the Apostle Paul. Graham's own confession of the Masonic-Pagan view of final judgment squarely places him in the camp of the enemy. But, we should not be surprised, for we Fundamentalists have been warning of this state of affairs for almost 50 years, pointing out the evidences of Graham's apostasy [departure from the true faith]. Consider briefly these evidences: GRAHAM'S LONG-TERM APOSTACY The reason Fundamentalist Christians like me had no difficulty whatsoever in believing Graham might be Freemason is that we have been sounding the alarm for years about his apostasy. Whenever anyone doubts Graham might be a counterfeit, I also ask them upon what basis they hold their opinion of him. They always say, 'his public Crusades”. I am the first to admit that the simple Gospel Graham presents during his Crusades offers little to criticize. He seems to really present the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, acting upon Jesus' command to examine fruits [Matthew 7:16-20], we have been mightily troubled by Graham's actions apart from his public crusades. Consider very disturbing facts: As early As 1966 He boasted that he attended the WCC assembly in New Delhi in 1961, and he hoped he would attend the 4th assembly in Uppsala, Sweden in 1968 (which he did). He has attended all but two WCC assemblies ever since. This policy continues. The World Council of Churches is unabashedly devoted to bringing all the world's religions together in what has been called the Ecumenical Movement. New Age writers pronounce that the Ecumenical Movement is the forerunner of the Religion of their New Age Christ [Antichrist] As early as 1964 Billy Graham's Columbus, Ohio, crusades was sponsored by the modernistic Columbus area Council of Churches. This policy continues. As early as 1957 In the New York crusade, Billy Graham had Henry Pitt Van Dusen, President of Union Theological Seminary, take a place of responsibility and authority. U.S. News wrote that Van Dusen's school was “one of the most LIBERAL and LEFT-WING schools in America.” Yet for all this, they wrote that “Dr. Van Dusen is considered by Graham as a GREAT RELIGIOUS LEADER.” Graham has also used noted apostates in his B.G.E.A. work, notably Robert McCraken and Norman Vincent Peale. Peale was a noted Freemason, also. As early as 1963 He had United Methodist Bishop, Gerald B. Kennedy, as his Los Angeles Crusade Chairman. Kennedy wrote in one of his books: “I believe that the testimony of the New Testament, taken as a whole, is AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEITY OF JESUS …” Thus, we see that Graham was affiliating himself with apostate “Christian” Tares as early as 1963. As early as 1957 He sent … 373 of his New York City decision cards to the apostate Marble Collegiate Church. This trend continues, sending decision cards to apostate Protestant churches, Catholic churches, Jewish synagogues, and elsewhere. Graham single-handedly revived modernist, apostate, Liberal Protestant churches, as well as giving the Roman Catholic Church new converts from his Crusades. These types of Protestant churches were going down in flames as so many members left rather than accept the new Liberal direction of their denominations. Without Graham sending them these new converts, Apostate churches would have closed their doors. In 1963, Mr. Graham had spoken at the Roman Catholic Belmont (NC) Abbey College. [Cutting Edge Commentary: Denying, in 1964, that Graham had spoken at any Catholic Church, when he had, in fact, spoken at Belmont Abbey College the year earlier, does not this qualify as an bold faced lie?!] In 1967 He again spoke at this college at the Institute for Ecumenical Dialogue, receiving his honorary Doctor of Humane Letters (D.H.L.) from them and saying that this was “… a time when PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS could meet together and greet each other as BROTHERS & ” Today, Graham is regularly seen complimenting the Pope, whom Graham believes is the greatest religious figure of this century. In NEWS1052, we report that, in 1991, New World Order planners declared that the Pope would be their top religious leader in the religion of The Christ, thus making him the False Prophet. It is very revealing that Graham is closely cooperating with the future False Prophet. As early as 1959, in Christianity Today, it was reported: “Without elaboration, the evangelist [Graham] said his thinking [about Communism] had undergone some CHANGES … and he indicated that his attitude toward EASTERN EUROPE is more open.” Of course, Graham was speaking of Communism because Eastern Europe was under the Communist yoke at the time. In 1982 He visited the Mosc ow Peace Conference and said: “I saw no evidence of religious persecution in Russia.” This was in spite of his visit to the Siberian Pentecostals staying in the American Embassy. In 1973, Graham said Communist Mao Tse-Tung's eight precepts are basically the same as the Ten Commandments. In 1973, he praised the Roman Catholic mass as a 'very beautiful thing', and in1978, he said Muhammed Ali's beliefs in Islam 'are something we all could believe'.” In 1961, Dr. Graham said this of infant baptism: “I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant … I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian through infant baptism.” Apostate Leslie Weatherhead Speaking On Billy Graham's Platform In London “In 1966, Dr. Graham said: 'I remember during our London Crusade of 1954, I preached a sermon … Dr. Leslie Weatherhead sat on the platform that evening and to my surprise commended my sermon.' Dr. Weatherhead was a notorious blasphemer who wrote in his book, The Christian Agnostic, that the Lord Jesus Christ was born an illegitimate child, and that Mary was no virgin, but a temple prostitute.” Note: this is typical New Age Luciferian doctrine. Billy Graham Doesn't Think The Heathen Are Lost “In 1978, McCall's Magazine reported Dr. Graham's 'updated' understanding of the way of salvation. 'I used to think that pagans in far-off countries were lost — were going to hell — if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I NO LONGER BELIEVE THAT … I believe there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God — through nature, for instance — and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying yes to God.” [This information taken from “Billy Graham's 23 years of Theological Change” by Rev. Charles Emert, 1971.] Now we are in the year, 2000, and Graham has finally uttered the one statement that has revealed him to be the counterfeit Christian leader we Fundamentalists have always feared him to be. Truly, we at the End of the Age, for one of the signs of the soon appearance of Antichrist was the apostasy of the true Church. '

I was stunned to silence and even to a trembling of my soul when I read Billy Graham actually say that Jesus Christ may say to him, “You are in the wrong place”!!

I think that he was probably kidding.

As for the rest of this, I don't know what to say.

[IM4Truth]

WJ Do you believe in the triity doctrine? Mrs,4truth

[IM4Truth]

Hi Chap! As far as Billy Graham is concerned, who knows. I do know that there is a New Age Religion, but not a lot of people talk about it. And what about thee Elite? What they want is a World Government. I believe that is why all the Immigrant's are coming from Mexico. If that goes on like that, the middle class will disappear and it will be very easy to control all Mankind. No more FREEDOM OF ANYKIND ESPECIALLY NOT RELIGION. Hopefully I will be resting in my grave by then. Mrs.IM4Truth

[kejonn]

I'm certain I'm bringing up verses that have been covered, but since this thread is SOOOOO long, I don't have time to wade through it! Anyway, how DO you deal with the following “plain as the nose on your face” verse?

1 Corinthians 8:6 – yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

[IM4Truth]

Kejonn Who do you address this to? I don't believe in the trinity! 1Corinth.8;6 goes really nice with Eph. 4:4-6 proving that the trinity doctrine is not according to scripture. Again it was invented by a Man QUINTUS SEPTIMUS FLORENS TERTULLIAN. Mrs.IM4Truth

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (kejonn @ July 07 2007,07:55)

I'm certain I'm bringing up verses that have been covered, but since this thread is SOOOOO long, I don't have time to wade through it! Anyway, how DO you deal with the following “plain as the nose on your face” verse? 1 Corinthians 8:6 – yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

K

Imagine that “We exist through him”! The one by whom all things were created and without him nothing was made that was made.

The One who is the exact representation of his substance, the image of the invisible God who by the word of his power he upholds all things and by him all things consist.

Since the Father dosn't have a NT name, or if someone knows it please tell me! Paul as well as the other writers of the NT scriptures for the sake of not promoting Polytheism or Modalism ascribed the title God to the Father and Lord to Jesus in most cases.

If you are going to use the model that the only “One God” applies only to the Father and the “One Lord” only applies to Jesus, then you have to say The Father is not Lord! If you say that the “One Lord” can also apply to the Father, then you cant say the “One God” can not apply to Jesus.

For both are given equal attributes in the verse.

The Father “from whom are all things and we exist for Him”

Jesus “by whom are all things, and we exist through Him”

Yet we read in another place that “All things were made by him and for him” meaning Jesus!

And yet we see all things are “Through God”

Rom 11:36
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

So 1 Cor 8:6 reads.

yet for us there is but one God,

The Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him;

and

The Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him

This of course is the model scripture for the Henotheist and Arians and Unitarians.

But this verse in no way proves Jesus is not God.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (kejonn @ July 04 2007,17:11)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 03 2007,21:19) I think Zech Ch 14, Isa 9:6, Joh 20:28, Rom 9:5, Ti 2:13, Jud 6, Heb 1:3, Heb 1:8, Heb 1:10-12, Rev 1:17, Rev 2:8, Rev 22:13…might have raised some eyebrows. I'll have to revisit Zech 14, too much to tackle but I will return to it (hopefully).

That’s fine.

Quote

Isaiah 9:6 – This one is tough in the sense that one has to wonder how the monotheistic Jewish people reacted to it at the time. When they heard it passed down, read it, what was their reaction? We don't know but that would provide some awesome insight. You are aware that most Jews regard Isaiah to be a message to them and about them, correct?

Correct.

Question: why is the Jewish opinion of this verse relevant? Is it unbiased? And does Jewish understanding somehow override grammar and context?

Quote

But I think we can see where they may not take issue when we consider what be the way it was originally intended. Isaiah 9:6 is 9:5 in the Jewish Publication Society's translation of the Masoretic Text (same used by KJV). It translates as For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; which is then translated as For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace.

Question: why should this one obscure translation of Isa 9:6 be considered a better rendering than 17 of the 18 English translations of Isaiah 9:6 available on BibleGateway (the overtly non-literal ‘The Message’ version is excluded):

1. NIV
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

2. NASB
6For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

3. AMP
6For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace.

4. NLT
6 For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called:
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

5. KJV
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.

6. ESV
6For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

7. CEV
6A child has been born for us. We have been given a son who will be our ruler. His names will be Wonderful Advisor and Mighty God, Eternal Father and Prince of Peace.

8. NKJV
6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

9. KJ21
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, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

10. ASV
6 For 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, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

11. YLT
6For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

12. DARBY
6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty ùGod, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

13. NLV
6 For to us a Child will be born. To us a Son will be given. And the rule of the nations will be on His shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful, Teacher, Powerful God, Father Who Lives Forever, Prince of Peace.

14. HCSB
6 For a child will be born for us, a son will be given to us, and the government will be on His shoulders. He will be named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

15. NIRV
6 A child will be born to us. A son will be given to us. He will rule over us. And he will be called Wonderful Adviser and Mighty God. He will also be called Father Who Lives Forever and Prince Who Brings Peace.

16. NIVUK
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

17. TNIV
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Have all the teams of translators involved in producing these versions mishandled the Hebrew in Isa 9:6?

Unlikely.

Quite obviously Isa 9:6 is a messianic prophecy. It’s also obvious that Yeshua is ascribed the title Mighty God (Heb: el gibbor) in this verse. In the very next chapter of Isaiah YHWH is given this title. As far as I’m aware it’s the only other time Isaiah used it. That’s significant, don’t you think?

Quote

While that sounds odd to us, such was not the case with Jews in ancient times because we know that their names had meanings. It basically was to be a name that would glorify God. You can find many instances of people or places being named certain things because of an event or purpose. So again, we have a verse which is not solid in its translation.

It is solid. There is barely any variation in the way it is rendered in 17 English translations from BGB, if there was some syntactical ambiguities I dare say there would exist a significant amout of variation. I believe that is very sound validation that it is “solid in its translation”. You have yet to provide any proof that the translators of the “Jewish Publication Society's translation of the Masoretic Text” have handled the Hebrews more competently that the hundreds that were responsible for producing the seventeen English versions I cited above, consequently you are using a
circular argument here.

Quote

John 20:28 – Strange how only a few verses later, John closes out this chapter (yes, I am aware they were not originally separated by chapters) without making note of what Thomas said so that he might reiterate the fact that Jesus is God. Instead, John tells us that we may have life in Jesus' name if we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Are the titles “God” and “Son of God” polar opposites? I don’t see why they should be considered that. Jesus was both “man” and the “Son of man”. Being the son of man does not negate Him being a man, does it? The Jews understood His self-ascription of the title Son of God as a blasphemous claim to being “God” (John 10:33 cf. John 19:7). Since the conclusion (Yeshua is not God) is implied or already assumed in the premise (Son of God and God are antithetical) you are using another circular argument….

Quote

Another problem with this verse is that it is a stronger support for the Oneness doctrine than it is the Trinity. I'm sure those who believe in that doctrine love this verse. Last problem with this verse if we see Trinity: is Thomas saying “My Lord and my God the Father” or “My Lord and my God the Son” or “My Lord and My God the Holy Spirit”? I would guess the 2nd, but he doesn't clarify. Must have been “slain in the spirit” .

You have deftly avoided addressing the statement Thomas made in John 20:28 by introducing a red herring (another logical fallacy, they are already starting to pile up!). Trinitarians have no issue with what Thomas said to Yeshua, as it is completely accordant with their theology. If he said “you, Jesus, are the only person who is my God” I think we might have a dilemma on our hands. But he did not.

What do you think Thomas meant when he addressed Yeshua as “my Lord and my God”? Is Yeshua your Lord and God too? And if not does it concern you that Thomas’ opinion of Yeshua is divergent from your own?

Quote

Romans 9:5 – another weak verse, as it has many different renderings. I guess you can support your belief based on some versions of the Bible or deny based on others. In any case, too much room for error. NASB and KJV say “God blessed” and NIV says “who is God over all” but footnotes with “God be forever praised!”. Weak indeed.

Granted this is not the strongest proof text I cited. There is some grammatical ambiguity with this verse (which is not to say that version such as the NIV, AMP, ESV, NKJV and YLT are injudicious or erroneous) but my claim was that it might “raise some eyebrows”, not that it was cast iron proof of anything. And I have no doubt that it would’ve raise some eyebrows.

Quote

Titus 2:13 – yet another weak verse because it is too open to various readings. Is Jesus Christ our great God and Savior, are they separate and appearing at the same time, or is this verse pointing out that Jesus is the glory of our great God and Savior? Therefore, both sides can make a claim to deny or support. Not definitive enough to base a theology on in any case. We can discuss syntax rules and such out the ying-yang but we still have an unclear verse.

Titus 2:13 is actually very solid verse IMO. The combination of the Granville Sharp (rule VI) construction and the context (who’s appearing are we expecting??) mean that there is only one person in view (Jesus Christ) and He is unmistakably described as “our great God and Savior”. That's the only plausible conclusion. What, in you opinion, is it about the grammar and context of this verse that would lend support to Titus 2:13 speaking of the father? Should we not aim to adopt the most likely interpretation?

“If two nouns of the same case are connected by a “kai” [and] and the article is used with both nouns, they refer to different persons or things. [Sharp's rule VI] If only the first noun has the article, the second noun refers to the same person or thing referred to in the first”[/I] Vaughn and Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 83.

Quote

Jude 6 (I assume?) – what? Did you mean to include this one?

No. I meant Jude 4. My mistake.

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

Jude calls Jesus Christ “our only Master and Lord”. Quite a bold assertion. Don’t you think a statement like this one might have raised the eyebrows of those who understood YHWH to be unipersonal, and were blasphemy-conscious? This is exactly the type of language used by Jews to describe their God, YHWH.

BTW, what do you take “Lord” (kurios) to mean here?

Quote

Hebrews 1:3 – And? Radiance of His Glory and exact representation of His nature do not mean they are equal. It only means they are equal if that is what you are wanting to read from this. Nor does sitting at His right hand. Nature, in this sense, can be defined as  A kind or sort  The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing  The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament None of those say Jesus is equal with the Father.

Hypostasis – From a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), that is, (figuratively) concretely essence, or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): – confidence, confident, person, substance. (Strong’s Concordance).

“… in Heb. 1:3, of Christ as “the very image” of God's “substance;” here the word has the meaning of the real nature of that to which reference is made in contrast to the outward manifestation (see the preceding clause); it speaks of the Divine essence of God existent and expressed in the revelation of His Son. The AV, “person” is an anachronism; the word was not so rendered till the 4th cent. Most of the earlier Eng. versions have “substance;” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)

“…The word in the original – ̔́ hupostasis – whence our word “hypostasis,” means, literally, a “foundation,” or “substructure.” Then it means a well-founded trust, firm expectation, confidence, firmness, boldness; and then “reality, substance, essential nature.” In the New Testament, it is rendered “confident,” or “confidence” II Corinthians 9:4; II Corinthians 11:17; Hebrews 3:14; “substance” Hebrews 11:1; and “person” in the passage before us. It is not used elsewhere. Here it properly refers to the essential nature of God – what distinguishes him from all other beings, and which, if I may so say, “constitutes him God;” and the idea is, that the Redeemer is
the exact resemblance of “that.” This resemblance consists, probably, in the following things – though perhaps the enumeration does not include all – but in these he certainly resembles God, or is his exact image: (Barnes Notes)

It’s patent what “hypostasis” denotes in this verse. It’s an overtly ontological term, one that harmoniously fits within the context of Hebrews chapter 1, which is designed to demonstrate the absolute supremacy of the Son. The writer of Hebrews affirmed that Yeshua’s essence was identical (what else could “exact” mean?) to that of the Father’s, namely divine.

Yeshua is, as to His nature, An exact representation of His Father.

Quote

1:8 – Another verse where the translation is in question. Almost every Bible translates it similarly, but there seems to be a case where the NT was made to match the OT reference in Psalm 45 for sake of clarity. William Tyndale translated Hebrew 1:8 as “But unto the son he saith: God thy seat shall be thy seat endureth for ever, and ever. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre”.

Red herring. Doesn’t this rendering require the understanding that the Hebrew noun for “throne” to be in the construct state? This would be exceptionally unusual when a noun has a pro-nomial suffix. Syntax aside, to test the integrity of the translation all you really have to do is check the 20 BibleGateway versions,  again you will see that there is no obscurity in this verse, other than what you have artificially created. Here they are:

1. NIV
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

2. NASB
But of the Son He says,
“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

3. MSG
But he says to the Son, You're God, and on the throne for good; your rule makes everything right. You love it when things are right;  you hate it when things are wrong.

4. AMP
But as to the Son, He says to Him, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (to the ages of the ages), and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of absolute righteousness (of justice and straightforwardness).

5. NLT
But to his Son he says, “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. Your royal power is expressed in righteousness.

6. KJV
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

7. ESV
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

8. CEV
But God says about his Son, “You are God, and you will rule as King forever! Your royal power brings about justice.

9. NKJV
But to the Son He says:“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

10. KJ21
But unto the Son He saith, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom.

11. ASV
but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

12. YLT
and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign.

13. DARBY
but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

14. NLV
But about His Son, He says, “O God, Your throne will last forever. Whatever You say in Your nation is right and good.

15. HCSB
but about the Son: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice.

16. NIRV
But here is what he says about the Son. “You are God. Your throne will last for ever and ever. Your kingdom will be ruled by what is right.

17. WYC
But to the Son he saith, God, thy throne is into the world of world [into the world of worlds]; a rod of equity is the rod of thy realm;

18. WE
But here is what God says about his Son: `O God, you will sit and rule for ever. You will rule in the right way.

19. NIVUK
But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the sceptre of your kingdom.

20. TNIV
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Does “But unto the son he saith: God thy seat shall be thy seat endureth for ever, and ever. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre” make sense to you? Is this a sounder rendering of the Greek in Hebrews 1:8 than in every single English version on BGW? I surmise that a 100% strike rate from a resource like BibleGateway is substantive in and of itself. The odds that every single translational team universally blundered in their rendering of Hebrews 1:8 is so unlikely as to be absurd. Given the enormity of the scholarly opinion against the translation you offered it’s incumbent on you to show why it should be considered more sound. The burden of proof rests on you.

You wrote: “there seems to be a case where the NT was made to match the OT reference in Psalm 45 for sake of clarity”.

I’m not sure I completely understand your point here. But if your alleging that there was some license taken by the writer of Hebrews in quoting Psalms 45:6, that the NT writer somehow forced a paraphrase, the weight of evidence is again against you.. In the English versions I consulted it appeared the NT faithfully represented Psalms 46:5. Here is the verse from the NASB, for instance:

Psalm 45:6
“Thy Throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom”

….and here is Hebrews 1:8, from the same Bible:

But of the Son He says,
“YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

Where’s the discrepancy?

Quote

Plus, the next verse states “God, Your God” so Jesus has a God, and that is God the Father. Again, a reference out of Psalms, and it would lead one to wonder “are there two Gods here?” Is the first God God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit? Or is it the whole Trinity? Who then is the 2nd God? They both use “God” without clarifying which God. My head hurts. Yet another verse that is too open to speculation.

Yeshua having His Father as His God post resurrection is perfectly in keeping with what the trinity teaches. Yeshua was born under the law (Gal 4:4) and is subject to all of it (including the first two commandments), and therefore takes His Father as His God, unless He transgress that law. Yeshua did not unbecome a man at the resurrection, He remains one for all eternity, therefore as a man it is rightful that His Father remain His God. Also, the notion of two persons rightly called God is again consistent with trinitarian thought (two ontologically-separate Gods is not, though). We would expect to see this type of language used if the doctrine is true, and it’s not exceptionally uncommon to see it (Genesis 19:24, Zechariah 2:8-9 Isaiah 48:12-16, Hosea 1:7, Hosea 5, Hebrews 1:8…). I’m beginning to wonder how well you understand the doctrine you have rejected.

Quote

Hebrews 1:10-12 – More verses that would seem more likely to support the Oneness doctrine than the Trinity. These verses are directed to Jesus who is but 1/3 of the Trinity. Yet the OT references were to Yahweh which you say is the triune God. Yet these verses do not allow for seperation of the 3 persons of the Trinity but point to Jesus as the one responsible. Therefore, Oneness = 1, Trinity = 0.

If you take this verse taken in isolation then you might have found a valid point here. But sound Biblical exegesis is not done in a vacuum. Other NT creation texts, like 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2 for instance, show that Yeshua worked in association with the Father. Hebrews 1:10 does show that Yeshua was the actual executor of the Creation though. Kejonn, it seems to me that you motivation here is simply to obfuscate, using red herrings in order to avoid the impact of the verses. You are constantly equivocating in this post. Instead of just inferring some (usually unfounded) awkwardness into these proof texts, are we going to see you address the content in the verses? Why do you personally think the writer of Hebrews applied Psalms 102:25, a verse that manifestly references YHWH, to Yeshua and claimed that it was an utterance directed to the Son by the Father? Why would he do that, if Yeshua was not YHWH? And also why would he record these sentiments about Yeshua:

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
You really need to draw the distinction between God and the Son of God.
Prov 30
” 4Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? “

[IM4Truth]

To whom it may concern! In the O.T. LORD WAS replaced with the name YHWH. The Hebrews when copying scriptures had such respect for the Fathers Name they didn't dare write it out, and replaced it with the Title the LORD all in Capital Letters to distinguish between other Lords. That is how you can tell if it is God the Son or God the Father YHWH .if you have a problem with that. Mrs. IM4Truth

[GeneBalthrop]

isa 1;18 > isa 44:6 this is what the Lord say's Israel's King and redeemer the lord Almighty, I am the first and I am the last, apart from me there is (NO GOD) and in verse 8 he say's your my witnesses is there (ANY) God besides me, no there is no rock I know NOT ONE.
and verse 24 I am the Lord who made all things, who (ALONE) stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by (MYSELF) and chap 45 verse 21 and there is no God apart from me a righteous God and savior there is (none) but Me. Turn to me and be saved all you ends of the earth for I am God and there is (NO OTHER)and ect.

tell me how you get around these simple and direct scriptures .

how do trinitarians escape these simple truths. obiviously God say's he created everything by His self. if i understand the meanings of the word's , and i think (ALONE) means no one else was their.

the turning of Jesus to Almighty God is antichrist….Gene

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 07 2007,15:57)

isa 1;18 >  isa 44:6 this is what the Lord say's Israel's King and redeemer the lord Almighty, I am the first and I am the last, apart from me there is (NO GOD) and in verse 8 he say's your my witnesses is there (ANY) God besides me, no there is no rock I know NOT ONE. and verse 24 I am the Lord who made all things, who (ALONE) stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by (MYSELF) and chap 45 verse 21 and there is no God apart from me a righteous God and savior there is (none) but Me. Turn to me and be saved all you ends of the earth for I am God and there is (NO OTHER)and ect. tell me how you get around these simple and direct scriptures . how do trinitarians escape these simple truths. obiviously God say's he created everything by His self. if i understand the meanings of the word's , and i think (ALONE) means no one else was their. the turning of Jesus to Almighty God is antichrist….Gene

How is this a contradiction for a trinitarian? We agree that YHWH created alone (i.e. no agency outside of YHWH was used). I think the verses you cited are far more problematic for yourself Gene. You have to contrive some sort of explanation for Yeshua's involvement as attested in John 1:3, Col 1:16, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10. Just asserting that it was YHWH's literal word that was used (who eventually became Jesus) will only get you so far. But you come badly unstuck on Hebrews 1:10 which shows that Yeshua is Creator in the same sense that Psalms 102:25 ascribes to YHWH, or rather the text in Psalms is actually describing an Yeshua in His prehuman form.

I also think that the context of John 1:1-4 does not legitimately allow for an conceptual/abstract (like thought/plan/motivation) interpretation of ho Logos. The grammar is manifestly designed to convey a personal Logos. It's not unusual for Yeshua to be given titles that do not directly describe Him, but rather say something about Him.

for instance:

1. Yeshua is the lamb of God in John 1:29 – does this mean He is literally a baby sheep?

2. Yeshua is our shepherd in 1 Peter 2:25 – does this mean He literally tends sheep in a paddock?

3. Yeshua is the bread of life in John 6:32 – does this mean He is literally a loaf of bread?

4. Yeshua is called a rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4 – does this mean He is literally an inanimate, mineral-based object.

5. Yeshua is called the true vine in John 15:1 – does this mean He is a literal plant?

Given that titles are often ascribed to Him that cannot possibly be taken literally, and the context and grammar in John 1:1-4 does not support your literal (nonpersonal, conceptual) understanding of “ho Logos”, why should it be literally?

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
But he is literally
The Son of God.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 07 2007,17:02)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 07 2007,15:57) isa 1;18 >  isa 44:6 this is what the Lord say's Israel's King and redeemer the lord Almighty, I am the first and I am the last, apart from me there is (NO GOD) and in verse 8 he say's your my witnesses is there (ANY) God besides me, no there is no rock I know NOT ONE. and verse 24 I am the Lord who made all things, who (ALONE) stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by (MYSELF) and chap 45 verse 21 and there is no God apart from me a righteous God and savior there is (none) but Me. Turn to me and be saved all you ends of the earth for I am God and there is (NO OTHER)and ect. tell me how you get around these simple and direct scriptures . how do trinitarians escape these simple truths. obiviously God say's he created everything by His self. if i understand the meanings of the word's , and i think (ALONE) means no one else was their. the turning of Jesus to Almighty God is antichrist….Gene How is this a contradiction for a trinitarian? We agree that YHWH created alone (i.e. no agency outside of YHWH was used). I think the verses you cited are far more problematic for yourself Gene. You have to contrive some sort of explanation for Yeshua's involvement as attested in John 1:3, Col 1:16, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:10. Just asserting that it was YHWH's literal word that was used (who eventually became Jesus) will only get you so far. But you come badly unstuck on Hebrews 1:10 which shows that Yeshua is Creator in the same sense that Psalms 102:25 ascribes to YHWH, or rather the text in Psalms is actually describing an Yeshua in His prehuman form. I also think that the context of John 1:1-4 does not legitimately allow for an conceptual/abstract (like thought/plan/motivation) interpretation of ho Logos. The grammar is manifestly designed to convey a personal Logos. It's not unusual for Yeshua to be given titles that do not directly describe Him, but rather say something about Him. for instance: 1. Yeshua is the lamb of God in John 1:29 – does this mean He is literally a baby sheep? 2. Yeshua is our shepherd in 1 Peter 2:25 – does this mean He literally tends sheep in a paddock? 3. Yeshua is the bread of life in John 6:32 – does this mean He is literally a loaf of bread? 4. Yeshua is called a rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4 – does this mean He is literally an inanimate, mineral-based object. 5. Yeshua is called the true vine in John 15:1 – does this mean He is a literal plant? Given that titles are often ascribed to Him that cannot possibly be taken literally, and the context and grammar in John 1:1-4 does not support your literal (nonpersonal, conceptual) understanding of “ho Logos”, why should it be literally?

Hello Is 1:18!

Excellent points in both post my brother!

[Proclaimer]

On the subject of brothers, Jesus calls us brothers does he not?

If Jesus is God and we are his brother, then are we God too?
Or are we sons just as he is the son and therefore brothers in that sense?

[Is 1:18]

Yeshua is our brother, yes. He is also our Lord and we are to honour Him even as we honour the Father (John 5:23). Incidentally t8, we are also described in scripture as the bride of Christ. By your reasoning we are all female…..

[NickHassan]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 07 2007,22:24)

Yeshua is our brother, yes. He is also our Lord and we are to honour Him even as we honour the Father (John 5:23). Incidentally t8, we are also described in scripture as the bride of Christ. By your reasoning we are all female…..

Hi Is 1.18,
Your reading of AS in Jn 5.23 suggests “the same way”
But

Number 2531
Transliteration:
kathos {kath-oce'}
Word Origin:
from 2596 and 5613
Part of Speech:
verb
Usage in the KJV:
as 138, even as 36, according as 4, when 1, according to 1, how 1, as well as 2532 1

Total: 182
Definition:
according as
just as, even as
in proportion as, in the degree that
since, seeing that, agreeably to the fact that
when

—
AS WELL AS seems far more common use.

Of course the Son and prophets too should be honoured AS WELL AS God since they represent Him.

[Author]

Posts