- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
bodhitharta……> you have it right brother, The confusion called Trinity is Just that confusion. IMO
Love and peace to you and yours……………………………….gene
the real confusion seems to lie in your own mind bodhitharta….
Quote If The word is God, wouldn't that mean what ever the word is, is what God is? Yes, but not exhaustively so, as the word of God speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in distinct ways. that is to say, the Word is God, and God is the Word, but the Father is God as we know plainly from other Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a personal being, and yet who is also God.
Quote The scripture doesn't say that the Word is the Son of God it says “was” or “is” God. The Scriptures say that the Word was God, and that Jesus is the Word, therefore in deductive reasoning, it is a sound syllogism to say therefore, Jesus is God. If the premises are true, the conclusion must logically and necessarily be true.
Quote Also with out going off topic( and I will not let this go off topic) The many names of God are attributes such as Lord of Hosts, Almighty, Protector and so forth. but let's admit here that John 1:1 is completely anti-trinity as it only speaks of 2 things as it pertains to the beginning. You are engaging in special pleading, yet another logical fallacy. If using different words to speak of Jesus must therefore necessarily lead us to the conclusion that there are different beings being spoken of, and thus we MUST add a fourth person to the godhead, then by resistless logic, if more than one word is used to identify and speak of God the Father, then we MUST also, by your own reasoning, add more and more persons to the godhead every time a new word or phrase is used to describe God and His attributes.
Quote Is this scripture not including all of God? Why…. no. And that is just where your whole line of reasoning falls apart. We Christians are NOT LIMITED to any one single passage in order to try to understand God's nature. If God thought all we need was John 1:1, then that is all the Scripture we would have. But God, in His great wisdom, gave us the entire corpus of Scripture with which to furnish us with understanding as to who God is and what He requires. Your insistence to try and limit the discussion to just this one passage is just an example of your own unreasonable approach to the whole subject. And not only is it an irrational philosophy of ontology, it is, itself, unbiblical, as we are to make use of the whole counsel of God. Since you seem unaware of the Scriptures, here is proof that what I am saying is true:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”You would do well to heed these words bodhitharta…
you say
Quote That can't be because according to your belief God “Is” 3 in 1
so this scripture would mean that the Word = 3 in 1 so if Jesus is The Word and Jesus is the Son of God that would mean that Jesus is The Father, The son and The Holy Spirit.This tortuered strand of reasoning is so filled with error that there is almost no place to begin in pointing it out. And since that is the case, there seems little hope in getting you to see the irrational nature of the strain of thought. First, God is both 3 and 1…. true, but God is not 3 in the same way that He is one. He is one in nature or essence, but 3 in person. God is the only being who possesses this ontology, as far as I know.
There is nothing irrational or contradictory about thinking of God in this way. If….. IF…. we were saying that God is 1 and only 1 and in that very same way, God is 3 and only 3, THEN we would have a contradiction on our hands. However, the doctrine of the Trinity does not commit this very basic error.
Secondly, the Word equals Jesus, that is what the Word of God says, so I would encourage you not to try and change either the Scriptures or what it is that Trinitarians believe, for in doing so in the latter case you erect straw men which hopefully (and obviously in this particular case) can be quickly dispatched with.
Thirdly, you say
Quote Because the scripture says that the Word is “with” God you can't simply say it is calling Jesus God because the Word i.e. Jesus i.e. The Son is “with” God who according to you is either 1 of the 3 or all three
A more clearer example of irrational thinking could not be asked for. In this case you are engaging in the informal fallacy known as the “False Dilemma”. You are positing an absolute “either/or” where there is none. As I already mentioned, God is not 1 in the same way He is 3, that alone puts to rest this so called objection.you say
Quote This is not about a single verse it is about an obvious flaw in trinity philosophy/theology. If the “philosophy” (its not really a philosophy as much as it is faithfulness to the whole counsel of God) were so blatantly false, so many brilliant logicians would not believe it. But they do, therefore belief in the Trinity is not an “obvious flaw”.
Quote Also if the Word “is” God then God “is” the word, it doesn't say that the word is what God is but that the word is God or what God was but was God. There is no sonship here at all. Have you been taking lessons in logic from Nick? lol…. The qualifier “is” cannot be forced to carry the weight you are insisting it carry. God's “isness” is not fully defined and quantified in this one verse or passage, its as simple as that. We get the sonship of Jesus from other very very obvious passages in the Scriptures. Just as you cannot form your idea of who God is from one passage or verse, you cannot try and force Trinitarians to do what you yourself do not and cannot do, namely insist that the doctrine of the Trinity is fully and exhaustively defined in this one passage of Scripture. If you are able to go elsewhere in the Scriptures to help you understand who God is, then you can hardly fault Trinitarians for doing the same exact thing. Of course you might, and in this sad case, do exactly that, but that is just an example of both irrationality and hypocrisy.
blessings,
kenE……..the Word GOD or ELOHIM is Mechanically translated as (POWERS) So why try to make it a Being When it is an attrubute of the LORD. Have you not read where it says the LORD OUR GOD , is interpited as (He EXISTS) with (POWERS). Check it OUT. GOD is a word that means POWERS and nothing more. HEAR O ISRAEL THE LORD OUR GOD IS (ONE) LORD. IMO
love and peace to you and yours……………………………..gene
Quote (epistemaniac @ April 17 2009,03:38) the real confusion seems to lie in your own mind bodhitharta…. Quote If The word is God, wouldn't that mean what ever the word is, is what God is? Yes, but not exhaustively so, as the word of God speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in distinct ways. that is to say, the Word is God, and God is the Word, but the Father is God as we know plainly from other Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a personal being, and yet who is also God.
Quote The scripture doesn't say that the Word is the Son of God it says “was” or “is” God. The Scriptures say that the Word was God, and that Jesus is the Word, therefore in deductive reasoning, it is a sound syllogism to say therefore, Jesus is God. If the premises are true, the conclusion must logically and necessarily be true.
Quote Also with out going off topic( and I will not let this go off topic) The many names of God are attributes such as Lord of Hosts, Almighty, Protector and so forth. but let's admit here that John 1:1 is completely anti-trinity as it only speaks of 2 things as it pertains to the beginning. You are engaging in special pleading, yet another logical fallacy. If using different words to speak of Jesus must therefore necessarily lead us to the conclusion that there are different beings being spoken of, and thus we MUST add a fourth person to the godhead, then by resistless logic, if more than one word is used to identify and speak of God the Father, then we MUST also, by your own reasoning, add more and more persons to the godhead every time a new word or phrase is used to describe God and His attributes.
Quote Is this scripture not including all of God? Why…. no. And that is just where your whole line of reasoning falls apart. We Christians are NOT LIMITED to any one single passage in order to try to understand God's nature. If God thought all we need was John 1:1, then that is all the Scripture we would have. But God, in His great wisdom, gave us the entire corpus of Scripture with which to furnish us with understanding as to who God is and what He requires. Your insistence to try and limit the discussion to just this one passage is just an example of your own unreasonable approach to the whole subject. And not only is it an irrational philosophy of ontology, it is, itself, unbiblical, as we are to make use of the whole counsel of God. Since you seem unaware of the Scriptures, here is proof that what I am saying is true:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”You would do well to heed these words bodhitharta…
you say
Quote That can't be because according to your belief God “Is” 3 in 1
so this scripture would mean that the Word = 3 in 1 so if Jesus is The Word and Jesus is the Son of God that would mean that Jesus is The Father, The son and The Holy Spirit.This tortuered strand of reasoning is so filled with error that there is almost no place to begin in pointing it out. And since that is the case, there seems little hope in getting you to see the irrational nature of the strain of thought. First, God is both 3 and 1…. true, but God is not 3 in the same way that He is one. He is one in nature or essence, but 3 in person. God is the only being who possesses this ontology, as far as I know.
There is nothing irrational or contradictory about thinking of God in this way. If….. IF…. we were saying that God is 1 and only 1 and in that very same way, God is 3 and only 3, THEN we would have a contradiction on our hands. However, the doctrine of the Trinity does not commit this very basic error.
Secondly, the Word equals Jesus, that is what the Word of God says, so I would encourage you not to try and change either the Scriptures or what it is that Trinitarians believe, for in doing so in the latter case you erect straw men which hopefully (and obviously in this particular case) can be quickly dispatched with.
Thirdly, you say
Quote Because the scripture says that the Word is “with” God you can't simply say it is calling Jesus God because the Word i.e. Jesus i.e. The Son is “with” God who according to you is either 1 of the 3 or all three
A more clearer example of irrational thinking could not be asked for. In this case you are engaging in the informal fallacy known as the “False Dilemma”. You are positing an absolute “either/or” where there is none. As I already mentioned, God is not 1 in the same way He is 3, that alone puts to rest this so called objection.you say
Quote This is not about a single verse it is about an obvious flaw in trinity philosophy/theology. If the “philosophy” (its not really a philosophy as much as it is faithfulness to the whole counsel of God) were so blatantly false, so many brilliant logicians would not believe it. But they do, therefore belief in the Trinity is not an “obvious flaw”.
Quote Also if the Word “is” God then God “is” the word, it doesn't say that the word is what God is but that the word is God or what God was but was God. There is no sonship here at all. Have you been taking lessons in logic from Nick? lol…. The qualifier “is” cannot be forced to carry the weight you are insisting it carry. God's “isness” is not fully defined and quantified in this one verse or passage, its as simple as that. We get the sonship of Jesus from other very very obvious passages in the Scriptures. Just as you cannot form your idea of who God is from one passage or verse, you cannot try and force Trinitarians to do what you yourself do not and cannot do, namely insist that the doctrine of the Trinity is fully and exhaustively defined in this one passage of Scripture. If you are able to go elsewhere in the Scriptures to help you understand who God is, then you can hardly fault Trinitarians for doing the same exact thing. Of course you might, and in this sad case, do exactly that, but that is just an example of both irrationality and hypocrisy.
blessings,
kenQuote the real confusion seems to lie in your own mind bodhitharta…. We shall see.
Quote If The word is God, wouldn't that mean what ever the word is, is what God is? Quote Yes, but not exhaustively so, as the word of God speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in distinct ways. that is to say, the Word is God, and God is the Word, but the Father is God as we know plainly from other Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a personal being, and yet who is also God. You said I was confused and spoke about the word of God being used distinctively, correct?
Well you said that the “word”, is Jesus who is the son of God, right? So no confusion there, right?
So the son of God was with God, right?
Now you said that the God who was with the son of God could be The Father or The Holy Spirit, right? Because of course The Son wasn't with himself.
So no confusion there, right? So which distinction of God was with The Son of God? Was it The Father or The Holy Spirit either way you will only get 2 and not 1 but then after you decide which one was with The son of God which one was The Son of God since the trinity says that the Father is not The Son and the Son is not The Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not The Father… after you decide which distinction is God how can Jesus be any of those distinctions?
Quote The scripture doesn't say that the Word is the Son of God it says “was” or “is” God. Quote The Scriptures say that the Word was God, and that Jesus is the Word, therefore in deductive reasoning, it is a sound syllogism to say therefore, Jesus is God. If the premises are true, the conclusion must logically and necessarily be true. The bible does not say that Jesus is the Word in-fact in revelation it shows that the Word is distinct from Jesus
Revelation 1
1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God(A) gave him(B) to show to his servants[a] the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2(D) who bore witness to the word of God and to(E) the testimony of Jesus Christ, even(F) to all that he saw.
Now this is in the book of revelation the last book in the bible and the first sentence says clearly that God gave Jesus a revelation and this is not Jesus on earth so this is the risen Jesus in Heaven and God gives him a revelation(which is further proof that Jesus is not God because how can God reveal something to himself God would already know, right?) But then it goes on to say that John bore witness to one the word of God and two the testimony of Jesus Christ. now If Jesus is the word of God why does John distictively separate them?
Quote Also with out going off topic( and I will not let this go off topic) The many names of God are attributes such as Lord of Hosts, Almighty, Protector and so forth. but let's admit here that John 1:1 is completely anti-trinity as it only speaks of 2 things as it pertains to the beginning. Quote You are engaging in special pleading, yet another logical fallacy. If using different words to speak of Jesus must therefore necessarily lead us to the conclusion that there are different beings being spoken of, and thus we MUST add a fourth person to the godhead, then by resistless logic, if more than one word is used to identify and speak of God the Father, then we MUST also, by your own reasoning, add more and more persons to the godhead every time a new word or phrase is used to describe God and His attributes. I said if you say that Jesus is the word of God and the 3rd person of a triune God then who is Jesus with The Father or The Holy Spirit or is he with all 3 or is he with the other 2 and after that whenit says and The Word was God does that mean completely God meaning the total 3 in 1?
Quote Is this scripture not including all of God? Quote Why…. no. And that is just where your whole line of reasoning falls apart. We Christians are NOT LIMITED to any one single passage in order to try to understand God's nature. If God thought all we need was John 1:1, then that is all the Scripture we would have. But God, in His great wisdom, gave us the entire corpus of Scripture with which to furnish us with understanding as to who God is and what He requires. Your insistence to try and limit the discussion to just this one passage is just an example of your own unreasonable approach to the whole subject. And not only is it an irrational philosophy of ontology, it is, itself, unbiblical, as we are to make use of the whole counsel of God. Since you seem unaware of the Scriptures, here is proof that what I am saying is true: Yes and in the entire volumous work God never mentions any partners or associates and never says he is 3 or 2 and even condemns any thought of any other than ONE GOD it is the first commandment. He dooesn't even say God is one but the Lord God is one He says the Most High Jesus says that The Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD and you don't believe Jesus although your entire religion rests on understanding what he said about God.
Quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV) 16 [b]All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”Jeremiah 8:7-9 (English Standard Version)
7Even the stork in the heavens
knows her times,
and(A) the turtledove,(B) swallow, and crane[a]
keep the time of their coming,
 but my people know not
the rules[b] of the LORD.8(D) “How can you say, 'We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us'?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie.The scriptures also tell you that some of the scriptures are false.
What does Paul have to say about that?
Romans 3:7
7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory,
(B) why am I still being condemned as a sinner?Philippians 1:18
18What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
Now these verses are two witnessess that paul testifies that he will say or write whatever necessary to bring people to Christ whether it be true or false. God does not Lie
Now guess who wrote 2 Timothy? Paul, who also said:
1 Corinthians 9:21-23 (English Standard Version)
21To(A) those outside the law I became(B) as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22(D) To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.(E) I have become all things to all people, that(F) by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel,(G) that I may share with them in its blessings.Now, with that in mind I can read the books of Paul realizing that it may or may not be true.
But for sure All scriptue is not God Breathed as paul says in several verses
1 Corinthians 7:11
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away
The fact is maybe Paul didn't consider his writings to be scripture as they were letters. In that Case he would be telling the truth. That's why I don'y understand how you could not believe the Direct testimony of Jesus his words are the most reliable, don't you think?
Quote You would do well to heed these words bodhitharta… Am I still confused?
Quote This tortuered strand of reasoning is so filled with error that there is almost no place to begin in pointing it out. And since that is the case, there seems little hope in getting you to see the irrational nature of the strain of thought. First, God is both 3 and 1…. true, but God is not 3 in the same way that He is one. He is one in nature or essence, but 3 in person. God is the only being who possesses this ontology, as far as I know. So God is one in Nature and 3 in person, right?
So God is 3 persons with one nature, right? each person is God, right? So if I did a roll call three different personalities would respond, right? Are they always fully God together even when one of the persons die? When Jesus died you say God died but only one of the persons died so God didn't die 2/3?
Quote There is nothing irrational or contradictory about thinking of God in this way. If….. IF…. we were saying that God is 1 and only 1 and in that very same way, God is 3 and only 3, THEN we would have a contradiction on our hands. However, the doctrine of the Trinity does not commit this very basic error. the contradiction is in saying that God has no unique sovereign identity and that 1/3 of him died which means at the point when God the Son was dead the One Nature of God was torn in two, right? If that is true then God as we know Him didn't exist as God at that time, right?
Quote Secondly, the Word equals Jesus, that is what the Word of God says, so I would encourage you not to try and change either the Scriptures or what it is that Trinitarians believe, for in doing so in the latter case you erect straw men which hopefully (and obviously in this particular case) can be quickly dispatched with. I don't think so
The Trinity is hereby explained to you, now you can believe there is One God and not a triune or you can continue call God 3. Now keep in mind you said that in nature God is 1 and in persons 3. Well that would be calling God 3 God not One God.
Statements about the Trinity Doctrine from various sources!
The illustrated Bible Dictionary: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. It did not find a place formally in the theology of the Church till the 4th Century.”
New Catholic Encyclopedia: “the Trinity is not directly and immediately {the] word of God.”
The encyclopedia of Religion: “Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.”
New Catholic encyclopedia says: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament].”
In his Book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmond Fortman admits: “The Old Testament … tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit … There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead … Even to see in [“Old Testament”] suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the Trinity of persons is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.”
A dictionary of Religious knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”
The Encyclopedia of Religion says: “Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.”
Jesuit Fortman states: “The New Testament writers … give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons … Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.”
The new encyclopedia Britannica observes: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.”
Bernard Lohse says in A short History of Christian Doctrine: “As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity.”
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states: “The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. ‘The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence’ [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth.”]
Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: “To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the Trinity was apparently unknown; … they say nothing about it.” — Origin and Evolution of Religion.
Historian Arthur Weigall notes: “Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word ‘Trinity’ appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord.” — The Paganism in our Christianity –
The New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology tells us: “Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds.”
“The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in one.” — The Paganism in our Christianity —
“At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian … It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings.” Encyclopedia of Religion and ethics.
“The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the fourth Century. … Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” — New Catholic Encyclopedia
Does the expression “Trinity” matter? There's fire-flame-& heat, the three are one. We all wear many caps and are complex and have many differing aspects of self/personality.The mission of Jesus was to halt the Religious debachury that man had created to so called get to God. Jesus said turn from the old and follow me in the New. The Kingdom of God is within you and you are free to worship God in the manner you choose. Peace to all, TK
Quote (Tim Kraft @ April 24 2009,06:51) Does the expression “Trinity” matter? There's fire-flame-& heat, the three are one. We all wear many caps and are complex and have many differing aspects of self/personality.The mission of Jesus was to halt the Religious debachury that man had created to so called get to God. Jesus said turn from the old and follow me in the New. The Kingdom of God is within you and you are free to worship God in the manner you choose. Peace to all, TK
Hello Tim Craft!
Okay! Go ahead then, 'worship God in the manner you choose.' That's fine with me! Texas!Quote (Tim Kraft @ April 24 2009,06:51) Does the expression “Trinity” matter? There's fire-flame-& heat, the three are one. We all wear many caps and are complex and have many differing aspects of self/personality.The mission of Jesus was to halt the Religious debachury that man had created to so called get to God. Jesus said turn from the old and follow me in the New. The Kingdom of God is within you and you are free to worship God in the manner you choose. Peace to all, TK
TKSo far there was not much that I agreed with, with Texas; what he has posted however he is right on.
Does the expression “Trinity” matter? Very much.Ex. 8:10 “… know that there is none like unto the LORD (Jehovah) God.”
Deut. 4:35”…know that the LORD (Jehovah) he is God, there is none else beside him”.
Is. 40:13 “Who has directed the spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?”
v. 25 “ To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? Saith the Holy One “.
Is. 45:18 “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he has established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”
Is. 46:9 “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, there is none like me.”
Mark 12:32“…well, Master, thou has said the truth, for there is one God and there is none other but he.”
1 Cor. 8:4 “… and that there is none other God but one”.
v. 5 “ For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many “.)
v. 6 “ But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”.I think the last verse is very important in understanding there are no three.
Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Did it matter to God how the Israelites worshiped him?
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Georg
Quote (Tim Kraft @ April 23 2009,14:51) Does the expression “Trinity” matter? There's fire-flame-& heat, the three are one. We all wear many caps and are complex and have many differing aspects of self/personality.The mission of Jesus was to halt the Religious debachury that man had created to so called get to God. Jesus said turn from the old and follow me in the New. The Kingdom of God is within you and you are free to worship God in the manner you choose. Peace to all, TK
Hi Tim Kraft,
I was wondering if you would consider listening to this pastor teach a series on “true(ish)” in 4 parts.Thanks,
Kathibodhitarta said:
Quote Also if the Word “is” God then God “is” the word, it doesn't say that the word is what God is but that the word is God or what God was but was God. There is no sonship here at all. Bodhitarta,
You said that if the Word is God then God is the Word. You're right and that is how it is written in the GreekQuote In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word It actually reads that “God was the Word.” I would like to offer you a little Greek grammar here. In the clause below the definite article is used with God in the first instance but not the second instance,
“And the Word was with (the) God and God was the Word.” This means that we may read it this way,
“And the Word was with (the) God, that is, God was the Word.”
thinker
Hi E,
You say
“So God is one in Nature and 3 in person, right?So God is 3 persons with one nature, right? each person is God, right? So if I did a roll call three different personalities would respond, right? Are they always fully God together even when one of the persons die? When Jesus died you say God died but only one of the persons died so God didn't die 2/3?”
But this is foolish theology and not scriptural truth.
But it does point out the obvious problem in prayer if your god is a trinity.
No problem if you follow Jesus who told us to pray to the Father.
True worshipers worship the Father.
The rest is madnessQuote (Nick Hassan @ May 05 2009,07:36) Hi E,
You say
“So God is one in Nature and 3 in person, right?So God is 3 persons with one nature, right? each person is God, right? So if I did a roll call three different personalities would respond, right? Are they always fully God together even when one of the persons die? When Jesus died you say God died but only one of the persons died so God didn't die 2/3?”
But this is foolish theology and not scriptural truth.
But it does point out the obvious problem in prayer if your god is a trinity.
No problem if you follow Jesus who told us to pray to the Father.
True worshipers worship the Father.
The rest is madness
Amen!God is The Head of Christ
Jesus said “The Father is greater than me”Total blessings to Jesus for protecting his own words.
People don't understand that I am fighting on behalf of Jesus because people are slandering him when they try to make him equivalent to Our Father who is God. These people who do that are anti-Christ they don't like calling Jesus “Christ” they are ashamed of him if he is not God, they should repent or at least pray and ask God Almighty to teach them or if they are praying to Jesus ask Jesus to guide them to the Father.
I ask any of them and they never will tell you that The Holy Spirit taught them about the trinity.
Someone said:
Quote True worshipers worship the Father.
The rest is madnessThen the angels are “mad” because they worship the Son. And God also is “mad” because He commands angels to worship the Son,
Quote Again, when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him” (Heb. 1:6)
The explanation that Gene and bodhitarta once gave for this verse is that it refers to the future. Okay, God and angels are not mad now but will be mad in the future. Can't you all see that Jesus EARNED the right to be worshiped? And you can't worship the Father without worshiping Jesus
Quote He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore, God has highly exalted him and has given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should BOW and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9-10) .
Yes we are supposed to worship the Father. But Paul tells us HOW this is done. It is done by worshiping Jesus. So Paul is “mad” too.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,04:17) Someone said: Quote True worshipers worship the Father.
The rest is madnessThen the angels are “mad” because they worship the Son. And God also is “mad” because He commands angels to worship the Son,
Quote Again, when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him” (Heb. 1:6)
The explanation that Gene and bodhitarta once gave for this verse is that it refers to the future. Okay, God and angels are not mad now but will be mad in the future. Can't you all see that Jesus EARNED the right to be worshiped? And you can't worship the Father without worshiping Jesus
Quote He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore, God has highly exalted him and has given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should BOW and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9-10) .
Yes we are supposed to worship the Father. But Paul tells us HOW this is done. It is done by worshiping Jesus. So Paul is “mad” too.
thinker
You are misunderstanding my point.The Father is worshipped as “God”
Jesus is receiving the throne of David and Kings are worshipped as “Kings”
Also remember that those who belong to God will be Co-heirs with Christ so if the angels worship Jesus they will also do the same to those who are heirs with Christ in-fact the scriptures say that we will Judge the angels.
Wasn't king David worshipped didn't everyone Bow to him and all other Kings and call them Lord? Lord does not mean God, I keep repeating this but it does bear repeating.
There is only One God that is truly God and Jesus told us clearly that The Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
Jesus didn't say that The Father and I are the only true God or Me, The Father and The Holy Spirit are the only true God. Our Lord Jesus was clear and without mystery, he says plainly that The Father is The Only True God and True Worshippers worship the Father as The Only True God and they worship him in spirit and truth.
God Bless you always!
bodhitarta wrote:
Quote Jesus didn't say that The Father and I are the only true God or Me, The Father and The Holy Spirit are the only true God. Our Lord Jesus was clear and without mystery, he says plainly that The Father is The Only True God and True Worshippers worship the Father as The Only True God and they worship him in spirit and truth. Bodhitarta,
You are selective in your use of the Scriptures. Jesus aslo said that men were to honor him EVEN AS they honor the Father. When I was 14 I lived with my uncle for a year and one day I came home from school and started bad mouthing to my aunt. I did not know that my uncle had come home from work early that day. He stormed out of the bathroom and picked me up with a clinched fist and pinned me up against the wall. With the other arm drawn back and with a clinched fist he said, “If you don't respect my wife you don't respect me. And if you don't respect me your'e out on the street.”Now I would be self deluded after that to think I can talk back to my aunt and respect my uncle at the same time. You're deluded if you think you can honor the Father if you don't honor His Son equally. Why is it that non-trinitarians white out this statement: “All men should honor the Son EVEN AS they honor the Father.” It says “EVEN AS” and not less than.
I am not aware that King David was “worshipped.” I need for you to show me in the Bible when this occurred. I find it hard to believe that angels rejected worship but King David would accept worship for himself.
You conveniently ignore that the Father after he exalted Jesus said to him,
Quote Your throne O God is forever and ever (Heb. 1:8) Finally, Paul cited Isaiah 45:23 inwhich YHWH said,
Quote That to Me every knee should bow, and every tongue should confess In Philippians 2 Paul applied this to Jesus. Therefore, “Lord” means God. So Paul's interpretation of the Isaiah prophecy is “madness.”
Question: Do you honor the Son “even as” or less than?
thinker
Hi TT,
God expects all of his servants to be honoured as they represent Him.
You have to step off the foundation of any scriptural teaching to accept a strange trinity god.Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,10:44) bodhitarta wrote: Quote Jesus didn't say that The Father and I are the only true God or Me, The Father and The Holy Spirit are the only true God. Our Lord Jesus was clear and without mystery, he says plainly that The Father is The Only True God and True Worshippers worship the Father as The Only True God and they worship him in spirit and truth. Bodhitarta,
You are selective in your use of the Scriptures. Jesus aslo said that men were to honor him EVEN AS they honor the Father. When I was 14 I lived with my uncle for a year and one day I came home from school and started bad mouthing to my aunt. I did not know that my uncle had come home from work early that day. He stormed out of the bathroom and picked me up with a clinched fist and pinned me up against the wall. With the other arm drawn back and with a clinched fist he said, “If you don't respect my wife you don't respect me. And if you don't respect me your'e out on the street.”Now I would be self deluded after that to think I can talk back to my aunt and respect my uncle at the same time. You're deluded if you think you can honor the Father if you don't honor His Son equally. Why is it that non-trinitarians white out this statement: “All men should honor the Son EVEN AS they honor the Father.” It says “EVEN AS” and not less than.
I am not aware that King David was “worshipped.” I need for you to show me in the Bible when this occurred. I find it hard to believe that angels rejected worship but King David would accept worship for himself.
You conveniently ignore that the Father after he exalted Jesus said to him,
Quote Your throne O God is forever and ever (Heb. 1:8) Finally, Paul cited Isaiah 45:23 inwhich YHWH said,
Quote That to Me every knee should bow, and every tongue should confess In Philippians 2 Paul applied this to Jesus. Therefore, “Lord” means God. So Paul's interpretation of the Isaiah prophecy is “madness.”
Question: Do you honor the Son “even as” or less than?
thinker
Nicetry, but Jesus is inheriting the throne of David and guess who is giving it to him?I just wrote a post explaining this to someone who emails me privately I will now post that same response it really will (God willing) help you.
Tom: I don't understand your objection to God inheriting the throne of Israel. What's wrong with God being the King of his own people?
Bodhitharta:The Father is God over everything seen and unseen. Jesus is inheriting the throne of David but keep in mind that God did not want the Israelites to even have a King because they were rejecting Him by even asking for one in the first place. So, Jesus inheriting the throne of David is God fulfilling His promise to have someone on the throne of David forever.
1 Kings 2:44-46 (King James Version)
45And king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever.
Bodhitharta:In fact God's covenant with David was so powerful and everlasting that God said
Jeremiah 33:20-22 (New King James Version)
20 “Thus says the LORD: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, 21 then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.’”Bodhitharta:So there you have it
Luke 1:31-33 (New King James Version)
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”Bodhitharta:Note: Jesus is receiving the throne of David not just from God but it says The “LORD GOD” This is the Same LORD GOD who sits on HIS OWN THRONE in heaven.
Bodhitharta: Just so you understand this one other thing:
Tom said:I don't deny at all that the Father expressed himself through the Son. However, John 1:1 says more than that. The verse says the Word IS God, not simply “is of” God.
Bodhitharta:Yes, The expression is God! the Words of God are His expression and when God is expressed through someone they are representing God. You say that the verse says “the Word IS God” but you shy away when the verse says “Ye Are Gods” you easily shift the direct implication to something with less meaning but there is no need to do that because Jesus teaches us this;
John 10:35
If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),Bodhitharta:Now what is so critical about Jesus saying this statement in this book of John is it is the same book that says “the word is God” you will not find either of these statements (John 1:1 or John 10:35) in the other Gospels.
God Bless you Always!
bodhitartha said:
Quote Nicetry, but Jesus is inheriting the throne of David and guess who is giving it to him? Bodhitartha,
Your “truth” is selective and one sided brother. I have a small business and I employ two people. I give them a paycheck. Am I giving them something they did not EARN?God gave Jesus ONLY that which he EARNED. Is this fact too much for you to bear? My guess is that you have a very thin Bible because you have cut out all that you don't like.
Quote He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. THEREFORE, God also highly exalted him and has given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father I asked you if you honor Jesus “even as” you honor the Father. You did not answer. Instead you duplicate a dialog you had with Tom with whom our discourse has nothing to do. So I ask you again: Do you honor the Son EVEN AS or less than…?
And please answer this question also: Did God give Jesus the throne unconditionally or was it contingent upon his obedience? Did Jesus EARN the throne or not?
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
