The Trinity Doctrine

[Morningstar]

I really don't see why people can't grasp how God is a title.

In the Old Testament we rely on context and other grammatical rules in order to translate elohim as God or gods.

elohim

plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

then when we do the same thing in english people get in an uproar.

[NickHassan]

hmmm

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,08:32)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 07 2007,08:24) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 07 2007,08:09) Hi WJ, FOR US there is ONE GOD. Are you with US? NH Probably not, if I have to believe Yeshua is just a mere man like us in everyway. Paul was one of US But are you saying you are not one of US, WJ?

t8

Paul is not one of you if you teach “Henotheism” or “Polytheism”,

Paul says…

1 Cor 8:4
Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

Is there some misunderstanding in Pauls words when he said…

no God but one.

Paul also said…

Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Last I looked the Apostles were not looking for the Appearring of the Father.

Yet Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews knew the Hebrew scriptures claiming that God alone is our Saviour.

Paul also wrote Phil 2 affirming the Deity of Yeshua.

So do I agree with Paul? You bet, for Paul spoke of Yeshua in the same light as the Father.

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
Since trinity is not a scriptural teaching and thus you will want to discard it
how should you approach these verses?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 07 2007,09:14)

t8 Paul is not one of you if you teach “Henotheism” or “Polytheism”, Paul says… 1 Cor 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. Is there some misunderstanding in Pauls words when he said… no God but one. Paul also said… Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

You let a few verses confuse hundreds of others that teach that the Father is the true God.

The first scripture you quote is straight forward, i.e., no God but one. Not no God but the 3. So I agree there.

The second one can just as easily read as God and Jesus and there are other options too.

Why shoot down hundreds of scriptures to preserve one way of reading this one verse?

What you are doing doesn't make sense and is almost a type of madness.

If the vast majority of scriptures identify the true God as the Father, and a few scriptures can be read in an otherwise fashion, then usually you look at the otherwise views and see if they can also be read to agree with the hundreds of other scriptures.

It is kind of silly to take the few scriptures that can be read otherwise by placing a comma here or whatever, and then nullify hundreds of scriptures in the process. In fact that is just reckless.

But traditions can makes people do strange things.

[NickHassan]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,08:58)

I really don't see why people can't grasp how God is a title. In the Old Testament we rely on context and other grammatical rules in order to translate elohim as God or gods. elohim plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. then when we do the same thing in english people get in an uproar.

Hi MS,
But you would consign the Father, the Almighty God of Jesus to EL while diverting, I AM WHO AM, the descriptive name He gave us for Himself, to His Son.
What gives?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,08:58)

I really don't see why people can't grasp how God is a title. In the Old Testament we rely on context and other grammatical rules in order to translate elohim as God or gods. elohim plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. then when we do the same thing in english people get in an uproar.

I agree with this, but do you also agree that God was in Christ?

That God can be in anyone, and that doesn't make the one whom he is in, God himself?

If God turns up, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the invisible God is inside a vessel.

How else can the eternal spirit appear to men?

Jesus just happens to be the IMAGE of the invisible God.
He is not the God that he is the image of.

[IM4Truth]

t8 Gods Holy Spirit is in every body that has been born again. That is what born again means. Born of the Spirit. So that is how Jesus and the Father has made their abode in us according to John. Can many spirits be in one Holy Spirit. Since there is a spirit in man there are many, right that is how we can be united with all and God is all in all. But that will never makes us God the Almighty God. He will always be greater then anybody else, I believe.

Peace and Love Mrs.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 07 2007,09:38)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,08:58) I really don't see why people can't grasp how God is a title. In the Old Testament we rely on context and other grammatical rules in order to translate elohim as God or gods. elohim plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. then when we do the same thing in english people get in an uproar. Hi MS, But you would consign the Father, the Almighty God of Jesus to EL while diverting, I AM WHO AM, the descriptive name He gave us for Himself, to His Son. What gives?

Because I believe YHWH is a title, a title that has a meaning.

This title does indeed represent the Father, but those in his family (him and his true children) share in this title with him.

I don't say this to usurp the supremacy of the Father, I say this because the scriptures, as I sincerely interpret them, demonstrate this.

The Father wants to share all good things, even of himself, even of his everlasting nature.

He wants us all to unite as “one” with him.

[Morningstar]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,09:48)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,08:58) I really don't see why people can't grasp how God is a title. In the Old Testament we rely on context and other grammatical rules in order to translate elohim as God or gods. elohim plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. then when we do the same thing in english people get in an uproar. I agree with this, but do you also agree that God was in Christ? That God can be in anyone, and that doesn't make the one whom he is in, God himself? If God turns up, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the invisible God is inside a vessel. How else can the eternal spirit appear to men? Jesus just happens to be the IMAGE of the invisible God. He is not the God that he is the image of.

I agree with you t8.

[IM4Truth]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,10:05)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 07 2007,09:38) Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,08:58) I really don't see why people can't grasp how God is a title. In the Old Testament we rely on context and other grammatical rules in order to translate elohim as God or gods. elohim plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. then when we do the same thing in english people get in an uproar. Hi MS, But you would consign the Father, the Almighty God of Jesus to EL while diverting, I AM WHO AM, the descriptive name He gave us for Himself, to His Son. What gives? Because I believe YHWH is a title, a title that has a meaning.   This title does indeed represent the Father, but those in his family (him and his true children) share in this title with him. I don't say this to usurp the supremacy of the Father, I say this because the scriptures, as I sincerely interpret them, demonstrate this. The Father wants to share all good things, even of himself, even of his everlasting nature. He wants us all to unite as “one” with him.

Morningstar Question do you belief that the Father will always be greater then all of us?

Peace and Love Mrs.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (IM4Truth @ Dec. 07 2007,10:02)

t8 Gods Holy Spirit is in every body that has been born again. That is what born again means. Born of the Spirit. So that is how Jesus and the Father has made their abode in us according to John. Can many spirits be in one Holy Spirit. Since there is a spirit in man there are many, right that is how we can be united with all and God is all in all. But that will never makes us God the Almighty God. He will always be greater then anybody else, I believe. Peace and Love Mrs.

I agree.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,09:33)

[/quote] [quote=WorshippingJesus,Dec. 07 2007,09:14]t8 Paul is not one of you if you teach “Henotheism” or “Polytheism”, Paul says… 1 Cor 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. Is there some misunderstanding in Pauls words when he said… no God but one. Paul also said… Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

t8 I put the emphasis back in of the no God but one quote that you removed.

You said…

Quote

You let a few verses confuse hundreds of others that teach that the Father is the true God.

A few? I only mentioned a few, yes. How many does it take. Do you have any that says other wise?

You said…

Quote

The first scripture you quote is straight forward, i.e., no God but one. Not no God but the 3. So I agree there.

Are you talking to MS or a Polytheist or Henotheist?

I believe in One Divine Being. You believe in more than one god.

You said…

Quote

The second one can just as easily read as God and Jesus and there are other options too.

Really? Is the Father gonna appear to all men?

You said…

Quote

Why shoot down hundreds of scriptures to preserve one way of reading this one verse?

One verse? You know there is more.

But it is all I need to refute Henotheism or polytheism.

You said…

Quote

What you are doing doesn't make sense and is almost a type of madness.

I am mad? I am not the one teaching that God made all things through a lessor being than himself when he clearly says other wise.

Madness is to think that God needed a lessor being to create all things through.

You said…

Quote

If the vast majority of scriptures identify the true God as the Father, and a few scriptures can be read in an otherwise fashion, then usually you look at the otherwise views and see if they can also be read to agree with the hundreds of other scriptures.

None of those scriptures indicate that their are other gods either do they?

But it would seem that if the Hebrew scriptures teach only “One” made all things, yet the Apostles have revelation that the One is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, then we would not just throw those Hebrew scriptures away to hold on to our man made doctrine. Or we would have to throw out all the scriptures in the NT that says Yeshua is the one “By whom all things were created”.

So live with the contradictions if you like,

You said…

Quote

It is kind of silly to take the few scriptures that can be read otherwise by placing a comma here or whatever, and then nullify hundreds of scriptures in the process. In fact that is just reckless.

I agree. So what about these scriptures…

Isa 44:24
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; *that stretcheth forth the heavens alone*; that spreadeth abroad the earth *by myself*;

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

Isa 46:9
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and *there is none else*; I am God, and *there is none like me*,

How do these fit in the Henotheistic theology?

You say you have explained them but you havnt once addressed them. You have only alluded away from them.

You say…

Quote

But traditions can makes people do strange things.

I agree.  

[Morningstar]

Quote (IM4Truth @ Dec. 07 2007,10:13)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,10:05) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 07 2007,09:38) Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,08:58) I really don't see why people can't grasp how God is a title. In the Old Testament we rely on context and other grammatical rules in order to translate elohim as God or gods. elohim plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. then when we do the same thing in english people get in an uproar. Hi MS, But you would consign the Father, the Almighty God of Jesus to EL while diverting, I AM WHO AM, the descriptive name He gave us for Himself, to His Son. What gives? Because I believe YHWH is a title, a title that has a meaning.   This title does indeed represent the Father, but those in his family (him and his true children) share in this title with him. I don't say this to usurp the supremacy of the Father, I say this because the scriptures, as I sincerely interpret them, demonstrate this. The Father wants to share all good things, even of himself, even of his everlasting nature. He wants us all to unite as “one” with him. Morningstar Question do you belief that the Father will always be greater then all of us? Peace and Love Mrs.

of course he will

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,09:48)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,08:58) I really don't see why people can't grasp how God is a title. In the Old Testament we rely on context and other grammatical rules in order to translate elohim as God or gods. elohim plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. then when we do the same thing in english people get in an uproar. I agree with this, but do you also agree that God was in Christ? That God can be in anyone, and that doesn't make the one whom he is in, God himself? If God turns up, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the invisible God is inside a vessel. How else can the eternal spirit appear to men? Jesus just happens to be the IMAGE of the invisible God. He is not the God that he is the image of.

t8

You said…

Quote

That God can be in anyone, and that doesn't make the one whom he is in, God himself? If God turns up, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the invisible God is inside a vessel.

Who are you speaking of?

The Father or Yeshua or the Holy Spirit?

[Morningstar]

WJ,

there truly is no other eternal immortal omnipotent source of all than the Father.

But there ARE appointed sons of God who have been given position of authority they are “archons” or rulers, principalities and powers.

These beings are called gods (in the sense of title expressing their Father given authority and power). Granted they are not immortal or omnipotent or omnicient nor eternal etc….

God is a title!!!!

There is only one Father! GOD

There are many sons! GODS

a complete and utter confusion has occured because of words, titles and semantics.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,09:48)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,08:58) I really don't see why people can't grasp how God is a title. In the Old Testament we rely on context and other grammatical rules in order to translate elohim as God or gods. elohim plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. then when we do the same thing in english people get in an uproar. I agree with this, but do you also agree that God was in Christ? That God can be in anyone, and that doesn't make the one whom he is in, God himself? If God turns up, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the invisible God is inside a vessel. How else can the eternal spirit appear to men? Jesus just happens to be the IMAGE of the invisible God. He is not the God that he is the image of.

t8

You said…

Quote

Jesus just happens to be the IMAGE of the invisible God. He is not the God that he is the image of.

Is the Father God of his own Image?

How foolish to think that the Image of God is less than himself.

If his image is a lessor being than himself, then it wouldnt be his image would it?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,10:34)

WJ, there truly is no other eternal immortal omnipotent source of all than the Father. But there ARE appointed sons of God who have been given position of authority they are “archons” or rulers, principalities and powers.   These beings are called gods (in the sense of title expressing their Father given authority and power).  Granted they are not immortal or omnipotent or omnicient nor eternal etc…. God is a title!!!! There is only one Father!  GOD There are many sons!  GODS a complete and utter confusion has occured because of words, titles and semantics.

MS

You have still not answered the question how can Yeshua be…

“Omnipresent” Omniscient” and “Omnipotent” if he is not the True God?

[Morningstar]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 07 2007,10:39)

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,09:48) Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,08:58) I really don't see why people can't grasp how God is a title. In the Old Testament we rely on context and other grammatical rules in order to translate elohim as God or gods. elohim plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:–angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty. then when we do the same thing in english people get in an uproar. I agree with this, but do you also agree that God was in Christ? That God can be in anyone, and that doesn't make the one whom he is in, God himself? If God turns up, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the invisible God is inside a vessel. How else can the eternal spirit appear to men? Jesus just happens to be the IMAGE of the invisible God. He is not the God that he is the image of. t8 You said… Quote Jesus just happens to be the IMAGE of the invisible God. He is not the God that he is the image of. Is the Father God of his own Image? How foolish to think that the Image of God is less than himself. If his image is a lessor being than himself, then it wouldnt be his image would it?

Next time my says I haven't spent enough time with her, I will remind her of your philosophy and that I have been caring her picture in my wallet.

[Morningstar]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 07 2007,10:45)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,10:34) WJ, there truly is no other eternal immortal omnipotent source of all than the Father. But there ARE appointed sons of God who have been given position of authority they are “archons” or rulers, principalities and powers.   These beings are called gods (in the sense of title expressing their Father given authority and power).  Granted they are not immortal or omnipotent or omnicient nor eternal etc…. God is a title!!!! There is only one Father!  GOD There are many sons!  GODS a complete and utter confusion has occured because of words, titles and semantics. MS You have still not answered the question how can Yeshua be… “Omnipresent” Omniscient” and “Omnipotent” if he is not the True God?

I dont think he is any of those things.

Any of those traits that may appear to be manifest is directly the result of the Father moving within him.

He does not do or say anything but what the Father gives him to do or say.

[Author]

Posts