The Trinity Doctrine

[GJG]

Hi there all!

First of all I would like to say well done to all those who put the time and effort into putting together writings that attempt to show how the trinity is a man-made doctrine.

From your writing:

The next verse we will look at is a blatant attempt by man to give the doctrine of the trinity credibility. That verse is 1 John 5:7 (English-KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
All other translations do not have the words " the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." ; Apart from the King James translation. Translators agree that the last part of this verse was added in later and is actually a footnote in the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that the King James Bible was translated from. Now this same verse in the NIV for example simply says the following:
1 John 5:7 (English-NIV)
For there are three that testify:
Why do you think this verse was tampered with ?
The translators added in the footnote into the King James translation to possibly give the Trinity Doctrine more credit as they were pro-trinity. Another possibility may have been to avoid being judged for taking away from scripture, that is if they weren’t sure to add it or not. I think it would be safe to say that this verse would not have needed to be inserted into the Bible by any man if the doctrine were correct, because the bible would teach this doctrine clearly and in many places. But none of the writers in the bible taught this doctrine. Jesus himself never taught this doctrine either. On the contrary he taught us that his Father is his God and our God see John 20:17 (English-NIV)
Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

John 10:29
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
There are other discrepancies found in the King James Bible, such as John 9:35 (English-KJV) All translations say "Son of Man." The the King James says "Son of God". See the NIV translation of this verse.
Of course Jesus is the Son of God, but this translation does change verses to to make the trinity more credible. In other words the translators of the King James bible had a trinity bias and altered many versus to fit this theology. Most Biblical scholars are in agreement when they say that more modern translations such as the NIV Or the NASB are more accurate than the King James because they are translated from older more reliable texts and they rightly acknowledge that certain words and verses have been added into the King James Bible by the translators. Another problem with the King James version is that it uses old English and many words in old English have either changed there meaning or are no longer used. Ironically there are some cults out there that teach that the King James is the only true translation of the bible and they use some of these very scriptures to prove their point. They say for example does your bible have the verse 1John 5:7.
If we try to push a doctrine that is not biblical then the scriptures are there to correct us according to 2 Timothy 3:16 (English-NIV)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Here is my response to the above section of your writing:

The bible speaks to us about walking by faith and not by sight, in that we must believe that He (God) is, and that Gods omnipotence gives Him complete control over ALL of creation.  Space, time, gravity, EVERYTHING.  If we have any doubt whatsoever regarding this fact, then our faith is an absolute waste of time, we would be better off being back in the world, not knowing God at all.  Obviously this is not easy, however, this is what walking by faith is truly all about.

You will have noticed that I have not yet used scriptural evidence – this is why:

I was strangely confused with trying to figure out where you were coming from.  I have no problem with the historical facts whatsoever, rather, the assumption that: man is able to make a blatant attempt to tamper with the Word of God, and that there are discrepancies within the Word of God.  Think about it.  If your reasoning is correct, then building my faith upon a flawed foundation can only lead to failure.  I thought the bible was pure and accurate truth! To make matters worse, in the very beginning of your writing you yourself take a scripture out of the bible and deliberately change the words around, in order to put across your own belief:

If we change the word ‘Word’ for Eve and God for ‘Adam’ we get the following: In the beginning was Eve. And Eve was with Adam, and Eve was Adam. She was in the beginning with Adam.

Is this not a blatant attempt on your part?

Then just when I thought I had it worked out, (that SOME scripture is not of God), you use scripture to remind me of what I believed I thought was true in the first place:

If we try to push a doctrine that is not biblical then the scriptures are there to correct us according to 2 Timothy 3:16 (English-NIV)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

ALL scripture?!  Haven’t you only just finished saying that some scripture is flawed? Why would you make an assumption that God made a mistake regarding the very thing that you also say He authored?  It seems that maybe you are doing the very thing that you warn others not to do.

The KJV is not, and cannot be flawed in any way whatsoever, if it was truly authored by omnipotent God Himself.  Especially, in light of the previous scripture.  

Therefore, it would be unwise for me to bring out any scriptural evidence, until you help me to understand the above writing, as my whole reasoning is based upon simply accepting scripture for what it is, with complete harmony throughout.  I too disagree with the trinity as I also disagree with a few of your points, however, the one thing that both views lack is scriptural harmony.  It is this missing ingredient that I hope to share with both sides.  

The ball is now in your court.

As always: I look forward to your reply!  

 

 

[GJG]

Anyway t8, here are a few facts you may be interested in.:)

The basic problem is that trinitarianism is a non- scriptural doctrine that contradicts a number of biblical teachings and many specific verses of scripture. Also, the most obvious internal contradiction is how there can be three persons of God in any meaningful sense and yet there be only one God.
Here is compiled a number of other contradictions and problems associated with trinitarianism. Note: This list is not exhaustive but it does give an idea of how much the doctrine deviates from the Bible.

1.Did Jesus have two fathers? The father is the father of the son (1John1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived of the Holy Ghost Matt1:18,20; Luke1:35. Which one is the true father? Some Trinitarians claim that the Holy Ghost was merely the father’s agent in conception-a process they compare to artificial insemination!
2.How many spirits are there? God the father is a Spirit John4:24, the Lord Jesus is a Spirit 2Cor3:17 and the Holy Spirit is Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit 1Cor12:13; Eph4:4
3.If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? Matt11:25. Can God pray to God?
4.Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? Matt24:36; Mark13:32.
5.Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? John5:19,30; 6:38.
6.Similarly, what about other verses from scripture indicating the inequality of the Son and the Father? John8:42; 14:28; 1Cor11:3.
7.Did ‘God the Son’ die? The Bible shows that the Son died Rom5:10. If so, can God die? Can part of God die?
8.How can there be an eternal Son when the Son was clearly ‘begotten’, indicating an obvious beginning John3:16; Heb1:5-6.
9.If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother during that time? The Son was made of a woman Gal4:4.
10.Did ‘God the Son’ surrender His omnipresence while on earth? If so, how could He still be God?
11.If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchanging), how can the reign of the Son have a ending? 1Cor15:24-28.
12.Whom do we worship and to whom do we pray? Jesus said to worship the Father John4:21-24, yet Stephen prayed to Jesus Acts7:59-60.
13.Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Obviously the OT does not teach three, but emphasizes the simple fact that there is only one.
14.Are there three Spirits in a Christian’s heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian John14:17,23; Rom8:9; Eph3:14-17. Yet there is only one Spirit 1Cor12:13; Eph4:4.
15.There is only one throne in heaven Rev4:2. Who sits upon it? Jesus does Rev1:8,18; 4:8. Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?
16.If Jesus is seated on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? Mark16:19. Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? Acts7:55. Or is He in the Fathers bosom? John1:18.
17.How is Jesus part of the Godhead, when clearly the Godhead is in Jesus? Col2:9.
18.Given Matt 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using only the name of Jesus, even to the extent of rebaptism?Acts2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; 1Cor1:13.
19.Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father Eph1:20, or Jesus John2:19-21, or the Spirit? Rom8:11.
20.If the Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, then why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? Luke12:10.
21.If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always show the Him being sent from the Father or from Jesus? John14:26; 15:26.
22.If they are co-equal, why does the Holy Ghost not know what the Father knows regarding the return of Christ Mark13:32.
23.If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not?
24.If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father? If not, why not?………………….and so on…………….and so on!

I believe that trinitarinism is not a biblical doctrine and that it plainly contradicts the Bible in many ways. Scripture does not teach a trinity of persons. Trinity doctrine uses terminology not used in scripture. It teaches and emphasizes plurality in the Godhead while the Bible emphasizes the fact that God is one and only one. It detracts from the fullness of Jesus Christ’s Deity. It contradicts many specific verses of scripture. It is not logical. It cannot be explained rationally, not even by those who advocate it.

Look forward to all replies:)

Again: Please forgive me if this has been double posted as my connection is on the fritz again.:(

[Proclaimer]

I was strangely confused with trying to figure out where you were coming from.  I have no problem with the historical facts whatsoever, rather, the assumption that: man is able to make a blatant attempt to tamper with the Word of God, and that there are discrepancies within the Word of God.  Think about it.  If your reasoning is correct, then building my faith upon a flawed foundation can only lead to failure.  I thought the bible was pure and accurate truth!

If you think about it, Gods revelation, scripture and prophecy are pure and inspired by God. But the language of the original writings need to be translated into modern languages in order for todays generation to understand the message. Here in lies the man-made and fallable part. In my writings I was simply pointing out that there are differences in the King James Bible and most other translations. This is an undisputable fact; there are extra verses in the KJV that teach the trinity or slant to the trinity, which are found in no other bible and history shows us that the writers were trinity believers.

So does this make our faith and the foundation of our faith faulty? Of course not, because the foundation for our faith is not and never has been the bible; rather my words are a simple admission of the infallibility and prejudice of Man and has no reflection on the validity of our faith at all.

Our faith's foundation is not the bible, it is based on our belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah who will justify us before God using the sacrifice of himself on the Cross and who was raised from the dead and now sits at the right hand of God interceeding for us. Remember that the letter kills but the Spirit gives life, therefore we must be lead by God's Spirit. Understanding the scriptures is no warranty that we have eternal life.

Now the scriptures should guide us and show us when we err from the true path, but nowhere are we told that God promises a perfect bible, rather we are actually warned in the Book of Revelation that no one should add or take away from the words of that book, lest God adds to them the plagues or takes away the promises written in that book. This is an admission to the possibility of tampering with God's word and is not a statement that proves that God's word will not be tampered with. The warning is there for a reason.

If you say that all bibles are perfect, then you are not only putting your trust in man, but you are also admitting that the New World Translation and all other bibles are perfect, even though they contradict. If you say that the King James bible is the only perfect bible, (as some say) then you are also trusting in man. I believe that my statement about tampering with the Word of God is simply a mixture of common sense and honesty.

To make matters worse, in the very beginning of your writing you yourself take a scripture out of the bible and deliberately change the words around, in order to put across your own belief:

If we change the word 'Word' for Eve and God for 'Adam' we get the following: In the beginning was Eve. And Eve was with Adam, and Eve was Adam. She was in the beginning with Adam.

This is a quote from RamblinRose and I obviously stand behind it, as I included it in the trinity writing. The first thing that you should be aware of is that neither I nor RamblinRose are passing this off as scripture and this impression is not given to the readers at all. Secondly it was used in order to aid in understanding the scripture John 1:1 in a structural sense only. What is the problem with that? It's simply a treaching technique like using a parable or using a synonym.

Haven't you only just finished saying that some scripture is flawed? Why would you make an assumption that God made a mistake regarding the very thing that you also say He authored?  It seems that maybe you are doing the very thing that you warn others not to do.

Again I say that I am not saying and have never said that scripture is flawed, I am saying that translations can be flawed and in light of that obvious fact, I recommend that we study using multiple translations and look at the meanings of some words using the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek meanings, that is if we want to teach the Word of God.

The truth of scripture is not always a spoon feeding exercise as much as it is mining the scripture for the precious truth. In other words we should study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, (2 Timothy 2:15).

The KJV is not, and cannot be flawed in any way whatsoever, if it was truly authored by omnipotent God Himself.  Especially, in light of the previous scripture.

All translations are flawed to a degree and your statement appears to me that you trust in man and his ability to translate correctly and without bias.

If we are serious about our doctrine, then we do have access to the original language and we can look it up for ourselves. No one translation is perfect.  

Ok I will answer your next Post soon, but if you decide to take this subject any further, I suggest that you start up a new discussion as this subject may end up being quite lengthy and may detract from the subject of the trinity, which is the focus of this discussion. Otherwise I could start up the new discussion by copying and pasting what has been said so far on this subject. Just let me know if this option seems good to you.

[GJG]

Thanks for your reply t8,

As before, your suggestion is a sound one. I’ll see if I can start up a different discussion regarding scriptural accuracy.:)

[hugho9]

hey all who are interested in getting to the bottom of this foolish discussion of the trinity should read the book "Knowing Christ in the challenge of Heresey" by Steven Tsolukas. this is one of the best books i have read on the matter and he holds a Masters of Divinity. everything is backed with scripture and cultural facts. he does an exellent job in showing Jesus as God the Son. i guarentee that if you read this you will not be able to dispute it.  i think that if you will to give it a read t8 you will find some interesting things. doesn’t scripture say,"study and show yourself approved" apparently you are very smart and well studied-the least you could do is shoot it down.

[hugho9]

hey just a side question~ T8 what kind of education do you hold in biblical studies and are you fluent in biblical greek and hebrew. i think these are valid questions seeing that we are discussing such a theological question. the Apostle Paul says to know whom it is that teaches you. so i think that knowing your educational background is a valid question

[Proclaimer]

To hugho9

Your quote below:

hey all who are interested in getting to the bottom of this foolish discussion of the trinity…

I couldn't trust anyone who would say such a thing. You obviously do not believe in testing the spirits and testing all things to see whether they are of God.

Your words basically say that it is silly to question the trinity doctrine and this is why you are open to deception.

You then offer to read a book when you haven't even disproven any of the conclusions that have been worked out from this discussion. Why don't you use the arguments in the book to disprove the conclusions that we have laboured to reach. Again you show yourself to be  unreliable in your search for truth.

Then to make matters worse, you then want to judge me based on my education. If education was the proof of reliability with dividing Gods word, then Judas Iscariot would have been the greatest disciple given his academic record.

Finally know whom it is that teaches you. To know someone is to judge by the fruit. A bad tree produces bad fruit and a good one produces good fruit.

Do not rely on your understanding for if you do, you will not understand the things of the Spirit.

[GJG]

I agree with you t8.

I also agree that it seems you are well versed in biblical matters. Yet I must again say that there is an obvious danger when we are changing words in scripture to put across a point. Afterall, was this not how many other false religions came about. By taking truth, then rewriting it to make a new supposed truth?

In order to give the truth to others, one must first have a simple child-like faith in scripture. To believe that it is indeed the pure truth, and then use that truth to teach the truth.

Catch you later.:)

[Proclaimer]

To GJG

I don't believe it would be my fault if I am misquoted with anything I say? It happened to Jesus too. Can I not teach using any teaching technique I like. It is not the technique that makes it right or wrong, it is the message.  God uses stranger ways of getting his point accross doesn't he?

I believe the way RamblinRose used those words was not only very effective, but also shows the depths that people can go to in order to understand or discover Gods truth. Isn't that a lot better than just accepting something blindly and then passing it on blindly, like the blind leading the blind?

RamblinRose was obviously testing the teaching. I still don't have a problem with this myself, but that is my opinion.

Anyway in answer to a previous post.

1.Did Jesus have two fathers?  The father is the father of the son (1John1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived of the Holy Ghost Matt1:18,20; Luke1:35.  Which one is the true father?  Some Trinitarians claim that the Holy Ghost was merely the father’s
agent in conception-a process they compare to artificial insemination!

I think the Holy Spirit is the Fathers Spirit. That is why blashemy against Christ can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit cannot.

2.How many spirits are there?  God the father is a Spirit John4:24, the Lord Jesus is a Spirit 2Cor3:17 and the Holy Spirit is Spirit by definition.  Yet there is one Spirit 1Cor12:13; Eph4:4

God is a Spirit. His spirit is the Holy Spirit as God is Holy. Jesus is the Holy One of God. Jesus has a spirit just like we do.

2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.  
Spirit = Kurios This is talking about God, not Jesus, is it not? It shows us that the Lord is the Spirit.

3.If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? Matt11:25.  Can God pray to God?

I agree that the Son is not co-equal with the Father. The bible teaches us that the Son is subject to him.

4.Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? Matt24:36; Mark13:32.
5.Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? John5:19,30; 6:38.
6.Similarly, what about other verses from scripture indicating the inequality of the Son and the Father? John8:42; 14:28; 1Cor11:3.
7.Did ‘God the Son’ die?  The Bible shows that the Son died Rom5:10.  If so, can God die?  Can part of God die?
8.How can there be an eternal Son when the Son was clearly ‘begotten’, indicating an obvious beginning John3:16; Heb1:5-6.

I agree that Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God, the Word of God, the Messiah.

9.If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother during that time?  The Son was made of a woman Gal4:4.

Jesus was/is the Word of God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word was in the beginning with God and God created creation through him and for him. So he pre-existed and then after that he came to earth clothed in flesh in order to destroy the works of the Devil.

Mary was the mother of Jesus humanity only.

10.Did ‘God the Son’ surrender His omnipresence while on earth?  If so, how could He still be God?
11.If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchanging), how can the reign of the Son have a ending? 1 Cor 15:24-28.

The Son's mission is to conqueor all Gods enemies and redeem us back to God. There will come a time when this work will finish and all including Christ will be subject to God.

12.Whom do we worship and to whom do we pray?  Jesus said to worship the Father John 4:21-24, yet Stephen prayed to Jesus Acts7:59-60.

Acts 7:59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

To honour God we must honour the son. Praying to God through Jesus doesn't hinder us from talking to Jesus does it? How we treat the son is the same as how we treat God because Jesus Christ is the express image of God. To insult Jesus is to insult God and to love Jesus is to love God, because Jesus is like his Father. Same with us, we are the image of Christ and how people treat us is how they treat Christ. Matthew 25:31-46

We also worship Jesus as the Son of God, not God. We pray to God through Jesus. When we talk to Jesus he is obviously passing it to the Father and he is our mediator. The only mediator between God and Man.

13.Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead?  Obviously the OT does not teach three, but emphasizes the simple
fact that there is only one.

Yes there is only one God, the Father.
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

14.Are there three Spirits in a Christian’s heart?  Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian John14:17,23; Rom8:9; Eph3:14-17.  Yet there is only one Spirit 1Cor12:13; Eph4:4.

The Fathers Spirit (Holy Spirit) dwells within us. Jesus works through Gods Spirit just as God works through Jesus. We are united with God and his Son through God's Spirit.

John 17:21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you
have sent me.

15.There is only one throne in heaven Rev 4:2.  Who sits upon it?  Jesus does Rev 1:8,18; 4:8.  Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?

Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Hebrews 8:1
The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,

Revelation 3:21
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.

Acts 7:49
” 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be?

So there are many thrones in Heaven. Jesus has a throne that he will share with some of us and he sits with his Father on his throne. He doesn't displace God from his throne, rather he sits with him,  on his right hand side to be exact. Who really knows what thrones look like anyway. Perhaps smaller thrones are built into the bigger ones and all thrones are part of God's throne.

16.If Jesus is seated on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? Mark16:19.  Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? Acts7:55.  Or is He in the Fathers bosom? John1:18.

As pointed out in Revelation 3:21, Jesus sits with us on his throne and with his Father on his throne.

With the matter of sitting or standing or being in the Fathers bosom? Probably both by the look of it.

17.How is Jesus part of the Godhead, when clearly the Godhead is in Jesus? Col2:9.

Yes truly the Holy Spirit of God is in Christ.

18.Given Matt 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using only the name of Jesus, even to the extent of rebaptism?Acts2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; 1Cor1:13.

Yes they baptised in the name of Jesus. His name is the only name under heaven and earth whereby w
e can be saved. He truly is the only mediator between God and Man.

19.Who raised Jesus from the dead?  Did the Father Eph1:20, or Jesus John2:19-21, or the Spirit? Rom8:11.

Jesus raised his temple from the grave. How? By the power of his Father who is God and who is the Spirit. Jesus does nothing on his own accord, he always does what his Father wants.

Romans 8:11
And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

The Spirit of who? God. God's Spirit.

20.If the Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, then why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not?

Agree, as mentioned before, the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit.

21.If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always show the Him being sent from the Father or from Jesus? John14:26; 15:26.

God's Spirit proceeds from himself and his Spirit is in Christ. This is how the Father and Son are one and this is how The Father and Son want to be one with us, the Church. By being filled with God's Spirit, we become vessels of God's Spirit and his Spirit can flow through us and hence his Spirit can be sent into redeemed vessels, which is the whole reason why Jesus is redeeming us back to God. So God can be in all.

22.If they are co-equal, why does the Holy Ghost not know what the Father knows regarding the return of Christ Mark13:32.

Mark 13
32″No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

This verse doesn't mention the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, then there is no need to mention the Spirit in this verse because it mentions God.  The Spirit of God reveals to us the hidden mysteries of God.

23.If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father?  If not, why not?

The Spirit proceeds from God and through the redemptive work of his Son who is filled with his Spirit, God will eventually be in all and everything will be under his reign.

24.If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father?  If not, why not?………………….and so on…………….and so on!

The Spirit will eventually be in all. If Gods Spirit proceeds from him, does that make his Spirit a Son. A son is a seperate but similar identity to God. I wouldn't say the same about the Spirit.

---

Anyway, I agree with your conclusion, except for one part. That is I do not believe that Jesus is the Father or that Jesus is God. The bible doesn't say Jesus is God, it says that he is the Word, the Christ and the Son of God. I am content with this.

You say that we are close to the truth but then we diverge. Is it because you are seeing through the doctrine that Jesus and the Father are the same person.?

If so, then you are passing all the scriptures through that slant. Is this not the same method of understanding scripture that those who believe in the Trinity use, even though there filter is different to yours.

What happens if you take those filters away and take each scripture the way it was meant to be read. I think you will find that you will conclude that the Father is the only true God and Jesus is the Son of God and pre-existed as the Word of God. God created all things through him and for him.

God is not the Son and the Son is not God, rather he is like his Father. Why can't we just accept that Jesus pre-existed as the Word as the scripture clearly points out. Why do people always have to say that he is God in one way or another?

[hugho9]

not to have this turn into a shouting match but you seem very defensive as far as answering the question concerning your education. you completely ignored what the bible says about knowing who teaches you what, and you use judas as an example. that to me shows there is a flaw in logic. As far as testing the spirits i would say that you fall under those whom paul says" are alway learning and never being able to come to the full knowlege of the truth." who have a form of godliness but deny its power of such people turn away. i don’t say this to attack personal character but the way that you confront in your writing seems to lack the fruits of the spirit.. i don’t think i am some spiritual guru but i have seen demons cast out and deliverence happen. i have seen the sick healed.  i know that jesus is almighty GOD because i worship him and i have seen the demenstration of the holy spirit in my life-which is the evidence enough. if i am worshiping wrongly then why does the fruit and gifts still happen or do you deny those as well. scripture is simple "john 1:1." study and show yourself approved or do you have something to lose such as a hindering doctrine. I say this to promt you to better things of the Lord not to be mean. if you are wrong with this whole quest think how many people are being led astray from your words. i am sorry if i offended you at all-i’m passionate like you on the matter. but please give your readers some credentials.
peace out

[e man]

quote:
the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God himself.
/quote

Yes, but why the different terms? God, Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Father, etc.? Why did the writers not simply stick with one term, such as ‘God’, or ‘the Father’? What did the writer assume that the original intended reader would understand by each of the different terms? God’s spirit proceeds from himself? What does ‘proceed’ here imply? It implies that there is something into which this spirit of the Creator proceeds: the creature. In other words, the naunce of the terms ‘Spirit’, or ‘Spirit of God’, or ‘Holy Spirit’, is in reference to God working within the creation/creature (and each of these terms has a particular naunce-with-the-naunce). If no naunce were ever implied, then we would see only one term used throughout the scriptures.

Now, the use of the term ‘father’ in reference to God was begun by Jesus himself, and each time it is used in the New Testament scriptures it is used with the implication that Jesus’ natural father was God, that Jesus was not a bastard like the Pharisees assumed he was. But, there is also more implied by this term than this. The term ‘father’ is the most natural term used in reference to the highest authority/power, the source of all. Still another implication, especially when used in conjunction with phrases like ‘sent his son’, is that understood by most ancient people: to say that a son of a king is ‘sent’ by his father means that the son is an ambassador of his father’s kingdom, and is also ideally the truest possible embassador. The truth of every term in scripture has layers, like an onion.

The Father is the only true God, and it was understood that this meant the source, the invisible and transcendent Creator. No manifestation of God is that source, for a manifestation is, by definition, a thing sensible to the creature. Like the Invisible Man, God puts on a mask not to hide, but to be seen. This is the quality of mediation between God and the creature.

But, what is this thing in John 1:1 and other verses that declare the pre-existence of the One Who became a man? Were these declarations taken as stand-alone revelations? Or, were these understood in some wider context? That is, did the writer of these declarations expect the original readers to take these declarations as totally new ideas, with a like suddenness as informing a ten-year-old that his dad is not his real dad but that he was adopted? No, the original reader understood something more in this declaration of Christ’s pre-existence than the face-value of the declaration. Otherwise we are saying that God is like a computer programmer and we the computer, so that anything newly imputed is so new to the system that there is no prior context by which it shall be immediately understood. God could then say anything stupid and, if we lack the *integrated* common sense to see its fallacy, we would accept as true and at face value (just like some Trinitarians will insist that God requires that you simply accept what you are taught that God said, because "God’s thoughts are higher than your thoughts" and "lean not on your own understanding", and "Who is like God?").

When God made the angels, did he let them loiter around for a while before manifesting to them? Or, was he manifest to them from the beginning? And, if God was not manifest to the angels at any time, then who did Lucifer think to become higher than? (Compared to the Infinite, a creature is as nothing, and the creature cannot see the Infinite; and any manifestion of God would always allow a higher form, and no matter how high is a creature made, one still higher can be made.)  If God was manifest to the angels from the beginning, then what was this manifestion? Was it not as an angel? And, what was his title?

To express a positive opinion by the phrase ‘God became a man’ is no more irrational than to say ‘ball became red’. While a man may tend to see this first phrase as necessarily expressing an exchange of catagories, so that God is no longer God, the reason for this tendency is in the hidden assumption, on the part of the fallen Adamic mind, that the creature is an essential category of being. It is not. This hidden assumption is made on the same foundation as is made the assumption which lead to Adam’s fall: that Adam had the potential, through his powers of dominion, to ascertain all things. While this latter assumption is false, it is also partly true: Adam does indeed have the potential to ascertain all things, but the most needful things he can ascertain only by a hindsight upon self-destructive sorts of inquiries—just like the first sinful act he committed. To say that God cannot become a man is logically to deny God His power. It is tantamount to Ontologic Deism (which, in turn, is tantamount to denying God’s very power to create in the first place).

The head of Christ is God. 1Cor11:3  Who is Christ? Christ is surely not the invisible God. Christ is an office: the office of mediator between God and man. This applies to the idea that Christ, for his suffering, should be granted all rule and authority until all enemies are put under his feet. While it is an error to say that God needs to pray to God, there is no error in saying that God, as a man, did all things for *our* need. God, as a man, proved all things to all spirits, even raising himself from the dead. The logos. Only the Judgement awaits. Man’s final counterclaim, which is the fullness of Adam’s fall, made against God’s sovereignty, is all that waits to be found foolish. Whether by abiogenesis (evolutionism) or multiple realizability (Artificial Intelligence) Adam would destroy the very stuff upon which his life depends in the effort to prove that he is his own master. Genesis 1:28/Revelation 11:18 (read especially the last phrase of the latter verse).

quote:
God could be known by none other than his Son.
/quote

What does this mean? What *all* does it mean?

quote:
God has determined that Jesus Christ should be the star of this drama. To worship Him is to worship the Father.
/quote

So, God made it all out of nothing, to make this one creature, this pre-angel angel, to be the savior of the world? Was Lucifer then not the highest angel?

quote:
he pre-existed and then after that he came to earth clothed in flesh in order to destroy the works of the Devil.
/quote

There was a wise and powerful king who wished to prove, for all concerned, as to the loyalty of all his subjects to his laws for the poor. So, he disguised himself as a pauper and went through his kingdom living as a pauper. The pauper began his life by asking many questions to all the judges which the king had long ago appointed, and later began teaching and caring for the poor like himself. He quickly became very famous among the poor, and was to them as the king himself.

At some point the pauper charged some of the wicked judges with the intent to condemn him to the dungeon and throw away the key. They denied this, of course, because they had no reason, they thought, to condemn this good pauper to the dungeon—and now they wondered at his sanity for making such a charge.

The more the pauper taught and healed, the more the people of the kingdom asked, "Who is this pauper?" Some of the people realized that the pauper was the king, for no one but the king could say or do the things that the pauper said and did. As the fame of the pauper grew, the wicked judges felt threatened, because the people saw in the pauper something greater than what the people saw in these wicked judges. The pauper even seemed to claim to have perfect authority over the judges, and this made the judges mad. How dare the pauper presume to be equal to the king. Even the king himself had said, long ago, that "The king is not a pauper", and these wicked judges stuck to this truth—or, so they thought they were doing, in order to keep ahead of this pauper in their own minds.

Many of the people who realized that the pauper is the king by embassadorship to the world of paupers wondered when he w
ould take his throne and punish these wicked judges. Others, who did not believe that the pauper is the king, yet expected the pauper soon to assume military power and free the kingdom from oppression, just like other men of old had done. Just like old times. But, the king is no simple man, and will not repeat himself in vain.

These wicked judges came to so hate the pauper’s truth that they began conspiring to condemn him to the dungeon, just as he had said they were guilty of doing. Eventually, they were able to trick up enough support to have the pauper condemned to the dungeon. So, to the dungeon he was condemned, and he stayed down there for a little while. He stayed down in the dungeon just as many days as there are realms of proof, as yet another reminder to those who would become worthy to be made true delegates of the king’s authority. Now, finally, the king has proved the full extent of the wicked pride of the judges and of the selfish willingness of the people to be mislead. The king has now allowed them every last measure of liberty to have a change of heart. Guess who has been wearing the royal key?

Now, look at that one charge made by the pauper against the wicked judges. The pauper had charged them with being guilty of wishing to condemn him to the dungeon. How were they guilty of this at thye time he charged them of it? Or, were they yet essentially innocent of this crime at that time? History is a trial, and over which God presides; that everything God says and does is designed to force fallen men, over time, to fully realize that they are the one’s being tried, and to show them that they have, even from the beginning, been implicitly guilty of every error; that it is man who destroys the truth; that is is man who warps his own understanding (superstition). Is not this the context for all Biblical data?

Some have objected to me and, parroting Orthodox summary statements, say "History is not a trial, it is God’s working out of his plan for his glory." Others have said that man is not on trial because he has already been found guilty (in Eden). But, the first objection shows a shallow understanding and thus poses a false dichotomy, while the second fails to account for the implication of the first: that man is tried for his guilt in even refusing salvation; God has not yet given the ultimate verdict. This is not a simple, one-time trail in which the criminal is found guilty of a crime, sentenced, and immediately punished. The trial goes on because man insists on trying to prove to all concerned (especially to himself) that he can save himself – which is, in effect, a counterclaim against God’s claim of Creator.

The Bible is not a Complete Idiot’s Guide to Truth and History, it *is* history. Contrary to what many Christians have been brainwashed to believe, you cannot much understand what God is about in relation to fallen men without first knowing what God is up against. God knows the ‘Murphy’s law’ of the human mind and heart. This bears on every controversy involving the question of God’s modus operandi: what God would and wouldn’t do, and why, in regard to a given controversial subject; what God has done and said, and why. We are not dealing with the character of God in a context-free setting. Man is corrupt.

In the OT, God warned us not to add to, or subtract from, the Law. But, unlike how the orthodox, anti-Christian Jew would have it, the account of Abraham’s test (and that test spelled out in Hebrews 11:17-19) shows the nature of God’s communication: God requires us to think in terms of relevance, not to be robots carrying out commands with no thought as to their purpose. This applies as well to passages recording God’s words, and God’s doings, which do not constitute commands. God wishes to have sons to whom he can delegate authority, but he will leave off delegating more to those of his children who, in caring for being the best buddy of God *against* their brothers rather than in understanding what their father means by his words and acts, argue for their own superior place with God by making assertions that amount to saying "Daddy *said* so, so I’m right and you’re wrong!"

The truth of any matter is irreducibly complex. For those who have insight of less than all of the basics of a matter, and who are predisposed against some basic the truth of that matter without realizing that it is basic, they will find it rather easy to remain in opposition to that truth. Any subject under the sun. One fool accepts an error because he sees only the truth to which it is alloyed in his mind, and another fool rejects a truth because he sees only the error to which it is alloyed in his mind. There is a certain kind of stupidity conceived in the womb of convention and nourished on the blood-supply of bureaucracy.

The Jews added to, and subtracted from, the Law by insisting that, if God had wanted us to understand more than what he made explicit in the Law, then he would have made it explicit in the Law, or shall make it explicit as on Mt Sinai. But, this insistence is a law which the Law does not spell out, so this insistence is self-condemning. Even the judges understood that there was much implied in the Law which the Law had not spelled out. God does not demand that we be as computers, with he as the computer programmer. The Jews here were being hyper-literal, and they did so for one reason: to think to be buddies to God by "keeping the (letter of) the Law".

While there is indeed a wisdom that can be expressed by the words "lean not on your own understanding", those very words are often twisted by Christians to mean something that is actually an oppression (ask "good"-Christian-preacher-turned-atheist Dan Barker about that), namely that one should avoid seeking to understand anything that God says and does unless he has already taken the initiative, as recorded in the Bible, of telling you what he means by his words and actions. Most of the Bible is a record not of God’s speech and actions, but of the accounts of human lives and nations; no Christian scholar will say that the nature of these accounts can be understood at ‘face value’; he will say that the reader of these acounts must be test them for their fit with whatever premises/contexts that can be brought to bear (which is called ‘abductive inference’, used so well by William Dembsky in arguing for Intelligent Design in biology).  It is entirely possible for a grossly dogmatic "truth-oriented" elder to oppress a child so that the child seeks the narrow path of the simple truth out of a simple, narrow mind, just like the elder does. Just because we are as sheep does not mean that we must be forced to become as much like sheep as our elders can manage to make us. When Jesus said his burden was light, whose burden was he comparing it to? Everyone else’s. The right and the good should not be sacrificed for the supposedly necessary and desirable. Be anxious for nothing. God is a teacher, a good father of wayward children, not an epistemological tyrant.

The common-sense take on the manner in which God communicates to an original audience is that God says things to them in their own way-of-language. That is, God would not force the people to have to wade through some kind of Universal Legalese in order for them to understand what God means for them to understand. God will speak to them about what he means like a father speaks to a small child about, say, how an airplane flies. A good father will not force the child to have to wade through an introductory course on Advanced Aeronautical Engineering in order for the child to be able to understand something about how an airplane flies.

That the original audience does not pass down that understanding perfectly to successive generations is not God’s fault.

Thus, we are at fault not for rejecting a tradition, but for rejecting common sense in favor of a tradition. This is true no matter the subject, even of subjects having nothing to do with theology and the Bible.

Some ask, skeptical of Jesus’ deity, about the passage in which Jesus says that no
one but the Father knows the day or the hour of Jesus’ return.

First, in the Jewish culture, there was the tradition that a groom’s father was the one to decide when his son’s efforts to prepare a place for the honeymoon would be complete. The son was under the guidance of his father in this, and, while there comes a time in this preparation work in which the father tells his son within what span of time the work would be finished, only the father had the right to give the go-ahead to his son to return to the bride’s father’s house to "steal away the bride". The disciples understood the answer Jesus gave in this way, not in the sense that Jesus, as God, did not know the day or hour himself. As the son, he could not answer the question directly without breaking the pattern of prophecy and type. That is what was understood, and it is a call to remember.

Second, history is a trial, and over which God presides. God will never let slip any advantage from his hand in the conflict with his enemies. Were Christ to have answered what day he was to return, and what would be the exactly-detailed signs of that day, then that day would not come, because the Church, as the Bride, would then never be ready. If you knew what day and hour your boss comes back from a business trip, then, if you are like some employees, you will not attend to the business as you should, but will be irresponsible right up until the day your boss is due to return. God is not stupid in this trial, and he is not a foolish Answerer of Questions, as if the disciples need only ask whatever they please and Jesus must answer them exactly as the Western reader thinks they have demanded. Does God always answer your questions in the manner, and to the detail, that you might wish? God is not a spoiler of his children, but is rather a father who seeks to delegate authority to them.

Abraham, in being requested by God to sacrifice Isaac, did not see the request itself as the issue (as if an unthinking robotic compliance is what a good father God really wants from his children). Rather, what Abraham saw as the issue was why. Otherwise, he would not have acted in compliance to such a request. Nor, would God have requested it, for God is not an epistemological despot like most are either by intent or accident, to command to accept ideas, or to do actions, that the one being commanded has to give up some integrity in order to comply. For the dull and, or, twisted mind, Hebrews 11:17-19 spells it out.

Loyalty and truthfulness are two covenant values that must be held in tension against one another. Loyalty binds us together. The truth sets us free. If one value is emphasized over the other, then serious problems develop and both values will become distorted.
If loyalty is overemphasized, then only affirmation will be given and heard as feedback. If truth telling is practiced without love and without loyalty, it does not build but tears down.
If truthfulness is considered a fundamental component of loyalty, then the organization will be built on integrity.
If loyalty is considered a fundamental component of truthfulness, then the organization will have true unity.

Abraham was found the Loyal Friend of the God Who Is True.

(Edited by e man at 2:13 pm on July 27, 2003)

(Edited by e man at 2:15 pm on July 27, 2003)

(Edited by e man at 2:18 pm on July 27, 2003)

[Proclaimer]

To hugho9

Your questions are in gray.

you seem very defensive as far as answering the question concerning your education.

John 8:6-8
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
7 But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

you completely ignored  what the bible says about knowing who teaches you

If you think that a man's education is a way that we know a person, then you could not possibly have true understanding. Do you know Jesus because of his education? Again, I say that you know people by their fruits.

you use judas as an example. that to me shows there is a flaw in logic.

What are you saying here? I do not understand where you are coming from.

As far as testing the spirits i would say that you fall under those whom paul says” are alway learning and never being able to come to the full knowlege of the truth.” who have a form of godliness but deny its power of such people turn away. i don't say this to attack personal character but the way that you confront in your writing seems to lack the fruits of the spirit.

Remember that you will be judged by the measure that you have judged me. What fruit of God's Spirit was revealed when Jesus went to the temple and threw the tables and stalls around the place?

i don't think i am some spiritual guru but i have seen demons cast out and deliverence happen. i have seen the sick healed.  i know that jesus is almighty GOD because i worship him and i have seen the demenstration of the holy spirit in my life-which is the evidence enough. if i am worshiping wrongly then why does the fruit and gifts still happen or do you deny those as well.

I have never said such a thing to you. I do not deny for 1 minute that God is working in your life. I believed the trinity for years and God worked through my life as he does now.

scripture is simple “john 1:1.” study and show yourself approved or do you have something to lose such as a hindering doctrine

Not sure what you mean here. But I can assure you that study I do and listen I do.

I say this to promt you to better things of the Lord not to be mean. if you are wrong with this whole quest think how many people are being led astray from your words. i am sorry if i offended you at all-i'm passionate like you on the matter. but please give your readers some credentials.

What if the trinity doctrine was wrong? Think about how many people would be led astray. You under estimate our enemy. The scriptures say that he deceives the whole world and if possible, even the Elect.

This is why we must test all. How can anyone expect to be free of deception if they are not seeking truth with all their heart and how can you search for truth with all your heart if you do not study the scriptures and seek God at every moment.

If we just accept doctrines blindly for whatever reason and then do not check it out, then that is proof that one is not searching with all their heart. I am afraid to say that many peoples dedication to God and truth is exposed in their lack of zeal in searching the scriptures to see if it really is so. In many cases, it is the blind leading the blind.

Do you think that Luther wasn't attacked for exposing the errors of the Catholic Church. Did he not expose many false doctrines that were accepted as truth by most believers in those times. Was not Luther branded a heretic. Could this not happen again or be true today? Is the Church perfect? Are we not in a process of being perfected? If so, that means that we are not perfect now. So why do you think that our doctrines are beyond question.

Do you really want me to following a doctrine that came hundreds of years after the last book in the bible was written and was implemented by the Roman beast and on that foundation, all the denominations were built.

Why do I have to be part of that foundation. Can you judge me if I have escaped Babylon and I adhere to no man-made creed and try not to worship idols made with mens hands or created in his mind.

Why can't I read the scriptures and let God reveal his truth to me? Why should I accept any creed, especially when they lead men astray into Idol worship as history bears out. Even to this day, many Christians worship Mary and the Saints, which is the result of later creeds. How do you know that the trinity is not another idol made by man?

Do you not know that the Babylonians worshipped a trinity including the Queen of Heaven. The Egyptians also followed the Babylonian religion and worshipped a trinity. This Babylonian system has infiltrated the Church of today and her doctrines are the foundations of this Harlot System. There were never meant to be denominations. We were never meant to build on the foundations of mens creeds.

Are you ready to come out of her? Can you accept that this system has a grip on you and most Christians today? Read the Revelation of John. It is all foretold in the scriptures.

Again I say that you cannot judge me or God or anyone based on my intellectual ability, education or any other physical thing. You are wrong to judge a person by these things. This is why I will not go along with your request. I will not partake in this carnality.

You have the right to judge me by my words only as this is all you can truly know about me, via the Internet. If we met face to face, then you could rightly judge me in other ways. You have the right to question my words and to correct me if necessary. I invite you to do so. But please refrain from worldy judgement.

For what words have I written that you condemn me for? Give me specific examples of where I have erred.

This is not a job interview, where we get wrapped up in ourselves and our abilities. It is not about promotion of one self. To judge me on what I say about myself is not only carnal thinking, but implementing this strategy only opens yourself to deception. Remember that Wolves in Sheeps clothing are amongst us. You cannot judge correctly in the way you are requesting.

By their fruits you shall know them.

[Proclaimer]

To e man

Your questions are in gray.

Yes, but why the different terms?

The scriptures use multiple terms for God, His Son, the Church etc. I suppose there are many terms just as we use many terms to describe things today.

It implies that there is something into which this spirit of the Creator proceeds: the creature. In other words, the naunce of the terms 'Spirit', or 'Spirit of God', or 'Holy Spirit', is in reference to God working within the creation/creature…

The term 'the Holy Spirit' in the Greek doesn't include the word 'the'. It was added to make it readable in our language. So the following  

Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

reads: …. she was found with child of Holy Ghost.

This was pointed out by RamblinRose and I am very open to learning more here. The word 'the' gives us the impression that it is another seperate person. What are your ideas here? God's Spirit, Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, (the) Spirit. Are these terms the same?

The Father is the only true God, and it was understood that this meant the source, the invisible and transcendent Creator. No manifestation of God is that source, for a manifestation is, by definition, a thing sensible to the creature. Like the Invisible Man, God puts on a mask not to hide, but to be seen. This is the quality of mediation between God and the creature.

Yes, perhaps the the Spirit of God is one way he manifests himself. We know that He is also manifest in what he has created and He is manifest in his Son, who is the image of Himself.

1 Kings 8
27 “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

If creation is not big enough to hold God and If God exists in creation and outside creation too. Then perhaps God is manifested in Spirit inside his creation only. We could not even begin to guess how he may exist outside his creation. Just a thought, nothing more.

When God made the angels, did he let them loiter around for a while before manifesting to them? Or, was he manifest to them from the beginning? And, if God was not manifest to the angels at any time, then who did Lucifer think to become higher than? (Compared to the Infinite, a creature is as nothing, and the creature cannot see the Infinite; and any manifestion of God would always allow a higher form, and no matter how high is a creature made, one still higher can be made.)  If God was manifest to the angels from the beginning, then what was this manifestion? Was it not as an angel? And, what was his title?

Sure, I think that the Angels saw the Angel of the Lord or the Son who is the visible manifestation of the invisible God. The glory of God may be visible from the Son and in heaven, in the form of pure light.

To express a positive opinion by the phrase 'God became a man' is no more irrational than to say 'ball became red'. While a man may tend to see this first phrase as necessarily expressing an exchange of catagories, so that God is no longer God, …

God became a man is of course what trinity believers confess, even when the scripture says that the Word became flesh. I don't think I have ever heard them say “The Word became flesh” when they preach their doctrine. Anyway in the context that you have presented, (correct me if I am wrong), you are saying that God created all and he is manifest in the things that he has created, therefore if God was in Christ then we can say that God became flesh.

Well I can appreciate your logic here, but I wonder if it is simply a difference in understanding the word 'became', because I understand it to mean change. E.g If I become 40 years old, then I am no longer 39 years of age. If I become a Roman Catholic, then I have changed my religion or brand of christianity. If I become angry, then my emotional state has changed. Tadpoles become Frogs and some caterpillars become butterflies. So if God became flesh, then he changed from being the omnipresent God into a man.

Of course we know that this is not true, but I do believe that it makes perfect sense when we say the Word became flesh. Because Jesus is not omnipresent. It is obvious when the Word became a man, that the Word was not in Heaven at the same time. He was completely clothed in flesh and not present anywhere else, when he walked the earth as Jesus/Yashua. He then decended and was then raised up to Heaven again to the glory he had before the world was. (John 17:5).

I think it is more accurate to say that God was in flesh, rather than God became flesh. Even the scriptures say this when it says that “God was in Christ redeeming the world back to himself.” It doesn't say God was Christ for example or God became flesh.

We know that all life proceeds from God to his Son then to creation. Jesus said he was the path and the life.

But what about an ant. Ants have life, so can we say that God is an ant. No because God is seperate to the ant, even though God created the ant and sustains that ant and makes it possible for that ant to have life. The ant is really just one way we can perceive the invisible God, but the ant is not God, even though God can exist inside the ant.

Now we know that Christ is the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. So he is the way we will see God and he is the only one who can reveal the fullness of God to us.

I do not have a problem with Jesus being my mediator between myself and his Father. In fact I am very thankful for that.

[Larry Gibbons]

To T8 and eman:

Just a couple comments on your discussion of God’s manifestation.

I think it would be more accurate to say God was manifested BY His creation, etc. Let’s be careful not to fall into the trap of pantheism. Surely, " For in him we live, and move, and have our being" and it may be said His spirit dwells in us, yet He, as Creator, is ever apart from His creation. I’m sure you appreciate this, but it may help to emphasize it.

Regarding God becoming a man, to me this is preposterous. The attributes of God and man are opposite to each other. We read in Mal. 3:6 that God changes not, a truth for which I’m very thankful. God could certainly not be tempted or die. He needed a man for that, yes, a man whose will was to do that of his Father, so that his every word and action mirrored his Father, who he was sent to make known.

T8, how do you conceive of the Word as expressed in John 1:1-4? Was this Christ in a pre-existent form or what? Strong’s dictionary defines logos as a thought, a message, or concept. Certainly it is a common word used in a wide variety of ways, but regarding God is it to much to infer it may cover His broad plan of redemtion which, though centering on Christ, includes all revelation from Genesis to Revelation? It is not until John 1:14 that the word became flesh, that is, that God’s message became embodied in the person of Christ.

[e man]

For the record, I do not believe that God’s own very being is comprised of three persons. What I believe is strenously against the foolish idea of many that the issue is the mere ‘fact that there is a distinction made between three persons each of whom is God’; assuming that that is a fact, that fact cannot rightly be initially assumed the issue. Trinitarians *already* assume that each of the three ‘Divine Persons’ is playing a role, and that the one central role is the role of a man.

re: The word ‘the’ gives us the impression that the Holy Spirit is another separate person.

It doesn’t give me that impression at all. ‘George Bush’ and ‘the President’ are not two separate persons (so long as GB is still the Prez). But, what if we have a king and who is never not the king? The king is also a father if he has a son, so we can say something like ‘May the king grant you a hearing, and may the father of the prince adopt you as his own son’. The two ‘names’ here are distinct for an obvious reason, yet there is only one person being referred to by both names. The difference, though, between God and a hypothetical God-robed-in-flesh is that this God-man is not accurately identified as simply God, but as the ultimate son of God. One cannot get more significant than the idea that God became a man (but not as an exchange of catagories, but logically similar to ‘a ball becomes red’). This gets into the question of manifestation:

Can God manifest directly, or must God create a living creature and then act through this creature? I realize that the language of the NT seems to imply the latter in regard to Christ, but it is not itself a logically absurd idea to say that if (if) God became a man, then this man would act as a man for an example to us, and even, for this reason, refer to his father (God) as other. This idea is not beyond all sense, especially if those Jews assumed that this man may in fact be God-incarnate.

What I want to know from you is if you think that there was any such assumption made then and, regardless, why it is ‘so easily’ assumed now? Is not the entire Bible remiss for not making sure to keep this error from occurring (assuming it is an error)? If you preach the scriptures to the savages who have never heard of the popular God-incarnate idea, will they assume that this Jesus is God, or will they assume that he is only a man? And, if you show them all the scriptures addressing who this Jesus is, including all those passages that would seem, at face value, to imply that Jesus is God, then what will they think? How much of the Jewish culturo-linguistic matters variously claimed by the two main groups of Christians (Jesus is God, Jesus is not God) must these savages be aware of in order to get the right idea (that Jesus is not God)?

I don’t know the answer to this question myself, but what do you think? I will have to think about it some more myself no matter what you answer.

re: God’s Spirit, Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, (the) Spirit. Are these terms the same?

I’m not quite sure about all of them, but I tend to think that the term ‘Spirit’ when combined with some of these is a reference to God-working-in-creation. That is why, for instance, Mary was told that the Holy Spirit, not simply ‘God’ was to be the cause of her conception. While this is not an absolute usage of the term (excepted by such things as ‘God is a spirit, without form’), I think it is the normal usage. Can you tell me that there was no reason for it? Look at Genesis 1. One part says ‘God created’, and another part says ‘the spirit moved upon the face of the waters’. Was this just a meaningless variation, of human-linguistic origin? I can yet see no reason to think it must be, but I’m not sure either way. More thought, more study.

Once more on the idea ‘God became a man’. This is not absurd. There need be no exchange of catagories. The only reason someone would think it must be an exchange of catagories is because he thinks in terms of the creature, not in terms of the creator. A similar problem is in the following.

The initial problem which critics of the ‘God concept’ run into in their reasoning is that of the ‘counter-intuitiveness’ of the more profound arguments over the nature of God’s existence relative to the Creation. Such as, God’s omnipresence. But, this problem is only the result of the framework unwittingly used to make sense of the things to which God is said to relate. This framework is that which Adam uses in his dominion over the earth, and the effect of using it on the question of the ground of being is to reason *as if* oneself is, or is equal to, the ground of being. But, once we realize we are doing this, then we can begin to construct a map, if you will, of the ways in which to reason correctly in this matter. On the question of how it can be that God is omnipresent, the most degraded conlusion using the ‘Adamic mind’ is that of Pantheism. This conclusion results from the full assumption that things like space are of ‘an inviolable nature’ (even though there is no man yet who has defined space to a ‘T’). Deism is one step up, in that, while assuming that things like space are ‘inviolable’, God is yet held to be the Creator and is thus transcendent. There are two kinds of Deism: 1)ontologic Deism, by which I mean the kind of Deism that says that God is incapable of interacting with the Creation since he is ‘essentially transcendent’; 2)accidental Deism, by which I mean the kind of Deism that says that God just might (or else does) have the ability to interact with the Creation, but does not interact with it (at least not in a thoroughly-involved way like the Christian God does) because he is…____ (make up something). Only the Christian God has the symmetrical position, in that the explanation of how, say, God is ‘omnipresent’ is an explanation that imples the correct relationship between God and creatures involved in the problem: man(‘s reasoning), and space: "God is not…limited by space in any way, nor contained in space; but the whole of space, and all within it, is immediately present to God." —- Richard Oxenberg

Not only that, but the Christian God, of all imaginable Gods, acts to make himself the most relevant to us. (see http://pub18.ezboard.com/fhaveth….6.topic )

[global]

I havent read through all 18 pages of this thread so I apologise in advance if these points have already been made, however I want to comment a few things:

1. Jesus did not write a Bible, what he did do is found the Church, and the Church has authority to decide on questions of Faith.

The Church has decided that the doctrine of the Trinity is true, therefore if anybody questions that doctrine or the validity of his Church they are clearly not following Christ. (I speak here of the Catholic Church, but since all major branches of Christianity agree on the Trinity any Protestants reading can feel free to interpret that as "the universal church of all christians").

The fact that after 18 pages of debate on this topic no agreement has been reached reveals the need for an "authority" (guided by the Holy Spirit) to decide these questions for us.

2. I have seen a lot of "amateur" linguistics, translation discussion of ancient Greek etc. in this debate. I feel that this is all a complete waste of time.

I don’t know what the qualifications of people here are but even if someone here is a respected university professor of ancient Greek, his individual opinion cannot possibly compare to the opinions of the vast majority of recognised authorities on this matter which is conclusively and emphatically that Jn. 1.1 does indeed recognise the divinity of Christ.

Lets look at some examples:

New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115 scholars, translates Jn 1.1 as "the Word was God"

King James Version – translation committee of 54 scholars, conclusion same as above.

New King James Version – 119 scholars.

New American Standard Bible – 54 scholars

Contemporary English Version – 100+ scholars

English Standard Version – 100+ scholars

New Jerusalem Bible – 36 scholars

etc. etc.

we can discuss Greek grammar for another 18 pages, but it will never have a fraction of the weight of the accepted opinion that that is the correct and only possible way to translate Jn 1.1.

I feel I should also respond to some factually incorrect statements made by T8,

T8 said :

"Do you think that Luther wasn’t attacked for exposing the errors of the Catholic Church. Did he not expose <b>many</b> false doctrines that were accepted as truth by most believers in those times."

I dont know what doctrines you are referring to here, but the Catholic Church did not change or accept as false any doctrines as a result of Luther. Therefore it is entirely a matter of opinion as to whether these doctrines were false or not. See my comments above on the authority of the Church.

You also stated the much repeated, but false, claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was influenced by pagan religions –

T8 said:

"Do you not know that the Babylonians worshipped a trinity including the Queen of Heaven. The Egyptians also followed the Babylonian religion and worshipped a trinity. This Babylonian system has infiltrated the Church of today and her doctrines are the foundations of this Harlot System"

In fact neither the Babylonians nor the Egyptians had trinities like the Christian trinity and all attempts to prove that the Christian Trinity is derived from paganism have failed. I quote you –

"First, it is important to note that the doctrine of the Trinity does not go back to non-Christian sources [pagan], as has sometimes been supposed in the past. There has been no lack of attempts to find the initial form of the doctrine of the Trinity in Plato, or in Hinduism, or in Parsiism. All such attempts may be regarded today as having floundered." John Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine

"Yet the number three assumes peculiar importance indirectly in connection with the concept of the Trinity. There are threefold formulae listing the Persons in such passages as Matt. 28:19; Jn. 14:26; 15:26; 2 Cor. 13:13; 1 Pet. 1:2 (—> God, art. theos NT 8). There seems to be no precursor of this idea in any significant usage of the numerical concept in the OT, nor may it reasonably be connected with the occurrence of triads of deities in ancient Near Eastern paganism." (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, 1932, God, vol 2, Three, p687, C. J. Hemer)

"the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126, 1979)

Thanks for reading,

Be Well.

[global]

T8 said –

"The term ‘the Holy Spirit’ in the Greek doesn’t include the word ‘the’. It was added to make it readable in our language. So the following  

Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

reads: …. she was found with child of Holy Ghost.

This was pointed out by RamblinRose and I am very open to learning more here. The word ‘the’ gives us the impression that it is another seperate person. What are your ideas here? God’s Spirit, Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, (the) Spirit. Are these terms the same?"

T8 I don’t know if it is true that the article "the" never appears in relation to the Holy Spirit, however the pronoun "he" does appear in reference to him.

Perhaps you will find this explanation of Matthew 28.18 from The Catholic Encyclopedia useful :

"The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible."

Be Well

(Edited by global at 2:02 pm on July 29, 2003)

(Edited by global at 2:33 pm on July 29, 2003)

(Edited by global at 2:34 pm on July 29, 2003)

[global]

T8 said –

"What are your ideas here? God’s Spirit, Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, (the) Spirit. Are these terms the same?"

I was also interested in this question T8, I have found the following, also from the Catholic Encyclopedia –

"In the New Testament the word spirit and, perhaps, even the expression spirit of God signify at times the soul or man himself, inasmuch as he is under the influence of God and aspires to things above; more frequently, especially in St. Paul, they signify God acting in man; but they are used, besides, to designate not only a working of God in general, but a Divine Person, Who i&neither the Father nor the Son, Who is named together with the Father, or the Son, or with Both, without the context allowing them to be identified. A few instances are given here. We read in John, xiv, 16, 17: "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with, you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive"; and in John, xv, 26: "But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me." St. Peter addresses his first epistle, i, 1-2, "to the strangers dispersed . . . elect, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto the sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ". The Spirit of consolation and of truth is also clearly distinguished in John 16:7, 13-15, from the Son, from Whom He receives all He is to teach the Apostles, and from the Father, who has nothing that the Son also does not possess. Both send Him, but He is not separated from Them, for the Father and the Son come with Him when He descends into our souls (John 14:23)."

also

"The Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7). These terms imply a relation of the Spirit to the Son, which can only be a relation of origin. This conclusion is so much the more indisputable as all admit the similar argument to explain why the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Father. Thus St. Augustine argues (In Joan., tr. xcix, 6, 7 in P.L., XXXV, 1888): "You hear the Lord himself declare: ‘It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you’. Likewise you hear the Apostle declare: ‘God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts. Could there then be two spirits, one the spirit of the Father, the other the spirit of the Son? Certainly not. Just as there is only one Father, just as there is only one Lord or one Son, so there is only one Spirit, Who is, consequently, the Spirit of both."

Be Well.

[Proclaimer]

To Global,

Your statement is in Gray.

The fact that after 18 pages of debate on this topic no agreement has been reached reveals the need for an “authority” (guided by the Holy Spirit) to decide these questions for us.

As you agreed to the fact that you haven't read this Discussion in full due to the size of the Discussion, then you could not possibly make this statement above with authority.

On the contrary, many things have been established here. But the discussion moves on with others like yourself, who haven't read the previous conclusions and in order to demonstrate those conclusions to them, it continues.

Currently the discussion is between a few people, all of who do not believe the trinity. We are searching the scriptures with eagerness in order to learn more and listening to each other as iron sharpens iron.

If you want to see a summary of the conclusions, then read the following and disprove or commend what is written there. So far no one had disproven any of it to date and I believe what is written there is sound and honest. Of course I am open to correction as I am more interested in the truth than my own reputation and I am willing to humble myself to accept truth when it is presented to me.

https://heavennet.net/answers/answer08.htm

In this Discussion, there are those who believe in the trinity doctrine and those who do not. So it would obviously appear as if no conclusion were found if you read a few posts and as expected, not everyone believes those conclusions. But the fact remains that no one has disproven it because I believe it is sound.

To summarize the the last 18 pages of this discussion:
The verses that supposedly prove a trinity doctrine have been explained clearly as to why they are not talking about the trinity doctrine at all. But the verses that clearly point to there being one God and Jesus being subject to him, have not been disproven at all. If you read the whole discussion (and I don't blame you for not reading it) you would see that the ball is in the court of the trinity believers. The ball hasn't been hit back yet.

The conclusions that haven't been disproven are found here. If you read this, then you will also have the right to judge what we are talking about.

https://heavennet.net/answers/answer08.htm

BTW, thanks for the explanations of the Spirit. I will read them closely. Just for now I would like to point to the Spirit of Elijah that John the Baptist moved under. Was that really God's Spirit moving in the mantle and office of Elijah, or was it Elijahs actual spirit leading John the Baptist?

Also God's Spirit obviously inhabits Christ and perhaps the Spirit that Christ gives us, is actually God's Spirit within him.

John 5:26
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

[GJG]

now things are getting real interesting!

@t8

‘the reasoning is sound because it has not yet been disproven’

I was just wondering, if we could all find the points where we agree on, and then go on from there……………………do you think that would maybe help us all reach a reasonable conclusion sooner? I thought maybe if we try it that way, rather than disprove one another?

Wot U think?

[Author]

Posts