- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 6 days ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 14 2005,03:43) Quote (Guest @ June 14 2005,03:12) I want you to define the Gospel as you understand it Nick.
Certainly DVD,
Since the fall of Adam man has had a problem. Only the God of Love could bridge this divide. He sent His only begotten Son from heaven to die for us and restore that relationship.The Son of God came and fully shared our human state as a son of David being conceived and born of the Spirit of God and Mary. He was filled with the Spirit of God, his Father, at his baptism and fully fulfilled the Law and the prophecies about him including his suffering and death.
He was utterly submissive to God and showed the nature and power of his Father on earth healing all who asked and setting free those who were under the power of Satan.
He brought the forgiveness of God to men and passed that task on to his anointed followers to continue that work of establishing the kingdom of God on earth. They carry on this work even now.
Following his death he was resurrected by his Father and given far greater glory and is now at the right hand of God in heaven.
Now forgiveness is preached in his name. He is the only way to God and all who wish can be forgiven and established in him as he is in the Father, now, for eternity. He said you must be born again of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom and nothing has changed since those words were spoken.
He will return to rescue his brothers and set up the 1000yr reign where the earth will be restored to order. Then will come the second resurrection and the Judgement of mankind.
Then the kingdom will be handed back to his God and Father and his people will enjoy the fruit of his labour of love for God and us forever.
Is that enough?
Hi Nick,
Thanks for annotating the Gospel as you see it. Unfortunately yours does not exactly conform to the clearest statement of the Gospel in the New Testament, given by Paul:“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1Cor 15:3,4)
Although I dont necessarily dispute the individual elements of your version, it appears that you have added to the NT Gospel and we are told to be wary of those who do such things (Galatians 1:8,9).
also… one of the things about this forum that I do not care for is that the pages are so short…. so if I do not respond directly to a given point, it may be because by the time I have the time to visit here again my discussion or question directed to me is already buried pages back…..
at any rate… as to your question, here are some things to consider…
“The teaching of Jesus is trinitarian throughout. He spoke of the Father who sent him, of himself as the one who reveals the Father, and the Spirit as the one by whom he and the Father work. The interrelations between Father, Son and Spirit are emphasized throughout (see Jn. 14:7, 9-10). He declared with emphasis: ‘I will pray the Father, and he will give you another counsellor (Advocate), to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth’ (Jn. 14:16-26). There is thus a distinction made between the Persons, and also an identity. The Father who is God sent the Son, and the Son who is God sent the Spirit, who is himself God. This is the basis of the Christian belief in the ‘double procession’ of the Spirit. In his disputation with the Jews, Christ claimed that his Sonship was not simply from David, but from a source that made him David’s Lord, and that he had been so at the very time when David uttered the words (Mt. 22:43). This would indicate both his deity and his pre-existence….. The Son is called the ‘only begotten’ perhaps to suggest uniqueness rather than derivation. Christ always claimed for himself a unique relationship to God as Father, and the Jews who listened to him apparently had no illusions about his claims. Indeed they sought to kill him because he ‘called God his own Father, making himself equal with God’ (Jn. 5:18).
The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.“Quite apart from the formulas in Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14, both of which are explicitly trinitarian, there are a number of indirect references to the three persons which are difficult to explain in any other way. A classic example is Galatians 4:6, which was one of the earliest passages of the NT to have been written. It says: ‘Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying “Abba, Father”.’ The complementarity of the persons could hardly be clearer than this, and the doctrine of the Trinity may rightly be understood as an extended interpretation of this and other similar NT texts, like Ephesians 2:18 and 1 Peter 1:2.
Alexander, T. Desmond and Brian S. Rosner, editors, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press) 2000.“That the Son is the true God is proved by the following, considerations:
(1) Christ existed before he was born of the Virgin.
(a) He was with the Father “before the world was” (John 8:58; 17:5).
(b) “He came into the world ”—“He came down from heaven” (John 3:13; 16:28).
(2) All the names and titles of God are constantly applied to Christ, and to none others except to the Father and the Spirit: as Jehovah (Jer. 23:6); mighty God, everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6); God (John 1:1; Heb. 1:8); God over all (Rom. 9:5); the true God, and eternal life (1 John 5:20); the Alpha and the Omega, the Almighty (Rev. 1:8).
(3) All divine attributes are predicated of him: eternity (John 8:58; 17:5; Rev. 1:8; 22:13); immutability (Heb. 1:10,11; 13:8); omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; John 3:13); omniscience (Matt. 11:27; John 2:24,25; Rev. 2:23); omnipotence (John 5:17; Heb. 1:3).
(4) The Scriptures attribute all divine works to Christ: creation (John 1:3–10; Col. 1:16,17); preservation and providential government (Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:17; Matt. 28:18); the final judgment (John 5:22; Matt. 25:31,32; 2 Cor. 5:10); giving eternal life (John 10:28); sending the Holy Ghost (John 16:7); sanctification (Eph. 5:25–27).
(5) The Scriptures declare that divine worship should be paid to him (Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5,6; 5:11,12; 1 Cor. 1:2; John 5:23). Men are to be baptized into the name of Jesus, as well as into the names of the Father and the Holy Ghost. The grace of Jesus is invoked in the apostolical benediction.
That the Holy Ghost is the true God is proved in a similar manner.
(1) He is called God. What the Spirit says Jehovah says.( Compare Isa. 6:8,9, with Acts 28:25,26; and Jer. 31:33 with Heb. 10:15,16.) To lie to the Holy Ghost is to lie to God (Acts 5:3,4).
(2) Divine perfections are ascribed to him: omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10,11); omnipresence (Ps. 139:7); omnipotence (Luke 1:35; Rom. 8:11).
(3) Divine works are attributed to him: creation (Job 26:13; Ps. 104:30); miracles (1 Cor. 12:9–11); regeneration (John 3:6; Titus 3:5).
(4) Divine worship is to be paid to him. His gracious influences are invoked in the apostolical benediction (2 Cor. 13:14). We are baptized into his name. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is never forgiven (Matt. 12:31,32).
2. These titles, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not the names of the same person in different relations, but of different persons.
Since there is but one indivisible and inalienable spiritual essence, which is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and since they have in common one infinite intelligence, power, will, etc., when we say they are distinct persons we do not mean that one is as separate from the other as one human person is from every other. Their mode of subsistence in the one substance must ever continue to us a profound mystery, as it transcends all analogy. All that is revealed to us is, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, stand so distinguished and related that—
(1) They use mutually the personal pronouns I, thou, he, when speaking to or about each other. Thus Christ continually addresses the Father, and speaks of the Father and of the Holy Ghost: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter” (John 14:16); “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). Thus Christ speaks of the Holy Ghost: “I will send him”; “He shall testify of me”; “Whom the Father will send in my name” (John 14:26; 15:26).
(2) That they mutually love one another, act upon and through one another, and take counsel together. The Father sends the Son (John 17:3), and the Father and Son send the Spirit (Ps. 104:30). The Father giveth commandment to the Son (John 10:18); the Spirit “speaks not of himself”—“he testifies of” and “glorifies” Christ (John 15:26; 16:13–15).
(3) That they are eternally mutually related as Father and Son and Spirit. That is, the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son the Son of the Father, and the Spirit the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.
(4) That they work together in a perfectly harmonious economy of operations upon the creation—the Father creating and sitting supreme in the general administration; the Son becoming incarnate in human nature, and, as the Theanthropos, discharging the functions of mediatorial prophet, priest, and king; the Holy Ghost making his grace omnipresent, and applying it to the souls and bodies of his members: the Father the absolute origin and source of life and law; the Son the revealer; the Holy Ghost the executor.
There are a number of Scripture passages in which all the three persons are set forth as distinct and yet as divine (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Matt. 3:13–17; John 15:26, etc.; 1 John 5:7).
3. These three divine persons are distinguished from one another by certain personal properties, and are revealed in a certain order of subsistence and of operation.
The “attributes” of God are the properties of the divine essence, and therefore common to each of the three persons, who are “the same in substance” and therefore “equal in power and glory.” The “properties” of each divine person, on the other hand, are those peculiar modes of personal subsistence, and that peculiar o
rder of operation, which distinguish each from the others, and determine the relation of each to the others. This is chiefly expressed to us by the personal names by which they are revealed.The peculiar personal property of the first person is expressed by the title Father. As a person he is eternally the Father of his only begotten Son. The peculiar personal property of the second person is expressed by the title Son. As a person he is eternally the only begotten Son of the Father, and hence the express image of his person, and the eternal Word in the beginning with God. The peculiar property of the third person is expressed by the title Spirit. This cannot express his essence, because his essence is also the essence of the Father and the Son. It must express his eternal personal relation to the other divine persons, because he is as a person constantly designated as the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. They are all spoken of in Scripture in a constant order: the Father first, the Son second, the Spirit third. The Father sends and operates through both the Son and the Spirit. The Son sends and operates through the Spirit. Never the reverse in either case. The Son is sent by, acts for, and reveals the Father. The Spirit is sent by, acts for, and reveals both the Father and the Son. The persons are as eternal as the essence, equal in honor, power, and glory. Three persons, they are one God, being identical in essence and divine perfections. “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). “The Father is in me and I in him” (John 10:38). “He that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father” (John 14:9–11).
Hodge, A. A., Commentary on the Westminster Confession, (Escondido, CA: Ephesians Four Group) 1999.DVD,
My pleasure to show anyone what is written. But please spell out the differences between what I have said and what Paul wrote before judging. What have I said that is not true as I would really like to know?Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 14 2005,03:43)
You actually gave me a statement of faith, not the Gospel as described in the NT.These two points are, to varying degrees, consistent with the Bible's account:
1. fully fulfilled the Law and the prophecies about him including his suffering and death.
2. Following his death he was resurrected by his Father
These things you have added to it:
1. Since the fall of Adam man has had a problem. Only the God of Love could bridge this divide. He sent His only begotten Son from heaven to die for us and restore that relationship.
2. The Son of God came and fully shared our human state as a son of David being conceived and born of the Spirit of God and Mary. He was filled with the Spirit of God, his Father, at his baptism.
3. He was utterly submissive to God and showed the nature and power of his Father on earth healing all who asked and setting free those who were under the power of Satan.
4. He brought the forgiveness of God to men and passed that task on to his anointed followers to continue that work of establishing the kingdom of God on earth. They carry on this work even now.
5. given far greater glory and is now at the right hand of God in heaven.
6. Now forgiveness is preached in his name. He is the only way to God and all who wish can be forgiven and established in him as he is in the Father, now, for eternity.
7. He said you must be born again of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom and nothing has changed since those words were spoken.
8. He will return to rescue his brothers and set up the 1000yr reign where the earth will be restored to order. Then will come the second resurrection and the Judgement of mankind.
9. Then the kingdom will be handed back to his God and Father and his people will enjoy the fruit of his labour of love for God and us forever.
So, DVD, you wanted one of the beautiful thumbnail sketches of Paul's quoted word for word from scripture? Stephen and Peter and Paul were not subject to such judgemental human perfectionism but spoke as the Spirit moved. Do you know the Spirit DVD?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 12 2005,19:12) Hi E,
So you say you “know” God is triune. You agree you do not understand this but you explain that by saying nobody can understand God. That is circuitous confusion. If you cannot prove something how can you know it so well as you claim. You cannot have it both ways-say you cannot understand God but know God is triune without clear backup from scripture.Where did you find this information? Is it written in the words of The OT? Is it in the teachings of Jesus Christ or the apostles. Or did you derive it yourself. Do you believe it because everyone does, or you denomination taught you? Or have you had special visions or revelation to make this strange matter so clear to you?
If it is a theory derived by you or others from scripture have you thought through the implications? Do you worship and pray to a trinity? If you do not then you should if you really believe in it. Does your theory enable you to have a family reltionship with God or does God become a little more distant, indistinct and different? If you believe there are three in one why are you so free to separate them and even speak of God [which you define as trinity] as the Father?
Does God mind that you redefine Him in a different way from how He presents Himself to the Jews? If you fear God you will consider this matter too. Condescension towards those who study scripture to find truth because they believe that is where truth is to be found does your cause no good.
I believe you did not understand when you replied that Jesus is not the only begotten Son. Did he have a will of his own?-that is surely a sign of separate nature as is the fact he said he had life in himself.
Your bluster suggests you are trying to hide your lack of proof behind it. We agree that scripture does not mention the word trinity even once. Do you believe scripture is the only truly reliable source of truth about God. If so why is scripture so taciturn to reveal something you and millions of others are convinced is true but not revealed about God ?
Nick, I believe I started to respond to this post once before.. not sure what happened….I believe I did respond to the ideas presented here: “So you say you “know” God is triune. You agree you do not understand this but you explain that by saying nobody can understand God. That is circuitous confusion. If you cannot prove something how can you know it so well as you claim. You cannot have it both ways-say you cannot understand God but know God is triune without clear backup from scripture.”
I did this by trying to point out that I do understand the doctrine of the Trinity and can explain it, as the writer fo the article you pointed me to is able to as well… so lets have none of this nonsense and equivocation about complete, exhaustive, comprehenisive understanding being necessary to either teach or describe a given doctrine… none of us totally understands God or the things of God, but that doesn't stop us from speaking our minds on what we believe the Bible teaches….you said “Where did you find this information? Is it written in the words of The OT? Is it in the teachings of Jesus Christ or the apostles. Or did you derive it yourself. Do you believe it because everyone does, or you denomination taught you? Or have you had special visions or revelation to make this strange matter so clear to you?”
I found this information, that is, if you are referring to the trinity, in the Bible. Yes, it is in the OT, but only hinted at, its much more fully taught via progressive revelation, being explicitly clear in Christ and the apostles… no, I did not derive it myself….do I believe the doctrine of the trinity because everyone does…? well gee Nick, more of your fallacious reasoning… if everyone believed this doctrine you and I would not be having this discussion now would we? think think think before you accuse me of such silliness…. everyone would include you now wouldn't it? and, now I may be going out on a limb here… but I am fairly sure that not only do you not believe the doctrine, but that there are several other people here who don't believe it either…. ture?
do I believe it because my denomination taught it to me?… yeah.. thats it Nick… you found me out… first of all, lets get a few things straight…. I was not raised in a Christian home, at all… none of my family members are particularly religious, though some of my distant relations are Roman Catholic, these are people I hardly know and had no influence upon me at all… I have made a journey in regards to my beliefs that is one all of my own… I stand on no one's coat tails and do not allow anyone to bully me into believing as they do… not even you Arians…. ok?…. so no intimidation by you or anyone else will cause me to believe one way or another… my beliefs are all my own, and arrived at by and through my own studies…. these studies have taken me through various theistic systems, secular, liberal, and I spent time with both the Mormons and the JW's… so initially I had some serious doubts about the divinity of Christ… but I cam to believ ein the divinity of Christ and the Trinity through long heartfelt soul searching study and discussions… so do not assume that I am some idiotic robot swallowing any belief system as it comes along, believing it based on who it is that believes it or who doesn't, I could care less who a person is in the theological world, though this also does not mean that I have no respect for the great men of God who have gone before me… because thinking that no one ever critically examined the teachings of Christianity before I came along would be IDIOTIC… church history does not begin and end with me… and reputations of persons holding this or that belief does not sway me one way the other, got it? So before you go along assuming that everyone who believes the doctrine of the trinity does so simply because they blindly accepted the belief is about as wise and credible as others thinking that you came to your Arian beliefs simply because your denomination… or your favorite group of teachers etc.. taught it, and you, being the mindless follower you are, just came to accept the Arianism because they taught you to… you should be insulted by this, and thus, you should see how insulted I am that you would say such things of me, or suggest them of me, when you know knowing about me…
likewise I do not appreciate the accusation or insinuation that I came to my beliefs via “visions” etc… the fact is, I have never given any indication in any of my posts that I come to the doctrinal conclusions I come based on any thing other than the study of the Scriptures…. So basic Christianity 101 Nick, imagine how you would feel if I asked you how you came by your Arianism: “”Where did you find this information? Is it written in the words of The OT? Is it in the teachings of Jesus Christ or the apostles. Or did you derive it yourself. Do you believe it because everyone does, or you denomination taught you? Or have you had special visions or revelation to make this strange matter so clear to you?” Now extend that same courtesy to me by treating me just as you would be treated.
You said “If it is a theory derived by you or others from scripture have you thought through the implications? Do you worship and pray to a trinity? If you do not then you should if you really believe in it. Does your theory enable you to have a family reltionship with God or does God become a little more distant, indistinct and different? If you believe there are three i
n one why are you so free to separate them and even speak of God [which you define as trinity] as the Father?
Gee Nick, once again I have to wonder what you must think of yourself. I mean…. I could sarcastically say “well no Nick, I haven’t thought through the implications of my beliefs, that’s because I am an idiotic dolt, why don’t you explain the implications to me, I mean, you must be the first one to ever ask yourself about the implications of beliefs, I know I certainly never thought of asking this question, so you had better fill me in really quick because I am lost without your guidance” Or I could respond by saying that for the past 20 years I have studied incessantly, having had the benefits of Univ. level biblical training in hermeneutics, systematic theology, etc… and beyond the training I received at Univ. my intellectual pursuits have done nothing but increased in intensity, such that I am seeking after God as the pearl of great price, that even though I am disabled and have very little income, I place so much importance in this that I have managed to fill my library with literally thousands of books on theology…. Commentaries… systematic theologies…. Apologetics… classic writings of Christians and Puritans… etc etc.. so, in other words, yes Nick, I have thought about the implications of my beliefs. Thanks for asking though.
Do I worship and pray to a Trinity? Well gee Nick, since God is triune, and I do pray, that would have to be a yes. After all, there is only one true God, and that God is triune, so if anyone is praying to a being they call God, but denies the triune nature of this God, well they are praying to a false god. But I bet you never thought of the implications of denying the trinity, now did you Nick?You ask “Does your theory enable you to have a family reltionship with God or does God become a little more distant, indistinct and different?”
Well yes, I have a relationship with God, as I am an adopted son, so in that sense, yep, I am part of one big happy family. Does the trinity make God distant? No. Indistinct? No. Different? Different from what? Arianism? I will say this, I believe my beliefs are different from all false beliefs, oh.. for instance… Arianism… but then again, if I did not feel this way about the verity of my beliefs, I guess I would not be a Trinitarian then, would I? Or maybe you have the imagination it takes to suppose someone like myself could say… “you know what, I think I will believe in the trinity because I don’t really want a familial relationship with God, and though I love God with all my being, and am everlastingly grateful for what He has done for me, saving me from my sins and all that sort of thing, I think I will believe in the trinity because I would prefer to be more distant from God, yeah… that’s it. And along with that, I will especially believe in the trinity because I want to think of God in ways that are confusing, indistinct and… well… different.”Listen Nick, you are going to have to give credit to people besides yourself for thinking through this stuff ok? I mean of course you will find people who believe in the trinity for silly reasons… for instance “my mommy told me to believe in the trinity, so that’s why I believe in the trinity”…. But you know what, you cannot assume that anything is different from persons with beliefs like yourself. Just because you are Arian in your views on the nature of God doesn’t make you default to the intellectually superior position. People could very well believe in Arianism because their mommy told them to, so there is no room on a high horse simply because you are Arian.
You ask “If you believe there are three in one why are you so free to separate them and even speak of God [which you define as trinity] as the Father?”
Ahhhh… because that’s the way the Bible speaks of God, the Bible speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and since the Bible speaks of God in this way, I happen to think it’s a really good idea if I do too. Do you believe differently on this matter?You said “Does God mind that you redefine Him in a different way from how He presents Himself to the Jews? If you fear God you will consider this matter too. Condescension towards those who study scripture to find truth because they believe that is where truth is to be found does your cause no good.”
Does God mind…..? Hmmm… another seemingly very important question that I just never thought to ask before… I am so glad I came to this site…. I am getting all sorts of advice on asking the blindingly clear and obvious. The fact is, Nick, and this may be quite a surprise to you since you seem to think that you (or maybe just you and all other Arians) must be about the only person around who is concerned with things like this, but here is a newsflash for you… I do in fact care about what God thinks, and I would never want to speak of Him in ways that were unbiblical. I do not want to redefine Him in any way. By the way, God has presented Himself to all peoples, so I am not that concerned with the Jews and how they view God, you can be if you want, they just happened to often get things very very wrong. But hey, if that is the sort of thing that concerns you, more power to you.Condescension!?!?! Now here is the pot calling the kettle black!! Nick you are nothing but condescending towards Trinitarians in general, and me in particular… assuming that that I believe what I do because someone told me to believe that way, assuming that I am more interested in following others than in following God, assuming I do not care what God thinks about how He is represented to others, etc etc, I mean, just look at the things I have had to respond to in this very post!!
So when it comes to “Condescension towards those who study scripture to find truth because they believe that is where truth is to be found does your cause no good” is the very modus operandi for both you and t8. You both assume that if one is a Trinitarian, its just fine to belittle and berate. Now don’t get me wrong, I appreciate sarcasm and give more than my share of it, but my sarcasm is not condescending, and nor have I accused either you or t8 of the things you have accused me of in this very post, that you apparently have no interest in honoring God etc. So get a grip Nick, realize what it is you are saying to others before accusing them of the very things you are doing, talk about not doing yourself any favors! Here’s some of your same advice: If you want to fear God, then you will consider this matter too.
You said “I believe you did not understand when you replied that Jesus is not the only begotten Son. Did he have a will of his own?-that is surely a sign of separate nature as is the fact he said he had life in himself.”
I never said Jesus was not the only begotten son Nick. Please show me where I said this exact thing; otherwise I expect the only Christian thing to do in such a case, an apology for misrepresenting me.
Surely Jesus had a will, but please show me, by appealing to how other triune beings have their existence, that just because a being has a will, that it therefore follows that it has to have a separate nature from the other beings in its triune nature. But wait, I forgot, you can’t do that can you? That’s because God is an utterly unique being who, while sharing some attributes with some of His creation, remains the only infinite, omniscient, omnipresent being there is. And besides, how many other triune beings do you know of? Oh well. Ok, here, try this, explain to me exactly how it is that the infinite God of the universe must act in order to really be God. In this way, you can prove to me that you know exactly what God can and cannot do, how He can live and move and have His being… while you are at it you can tell me why it is impossible that God should be one in essence and yet three in person… better even, a verse that specifically says this. Not verses that say God is one God,
but verses that say that because God is one, that He cannot be 3 in person. I am looking for passages that define exactly what it is for God to have His being, to know precisely what it is that God is, because in this way, by knowing fully and exhaustively who God is in His infinite perfections, you will be in a position to tell me what God can or cannot do. I look forward to your reply.You said “Your bluster suggests you are trying to hide your lack of proof behind it. We agree that scripture does not mention the word trinity even once. Do you believe scripture is the only truly reliable source of truth about God. If so why is scripture so taciturn to reveal something you and millions of others are convinced is true but not revealed about God ?”
No my bluster comes from watching Winnie the Pooh’s Blustery day waaay too often… sorry then, I just can’t help myself… Pooh has become a part of who I am.And hey… these pages and pages of verses and commentary just have to constitute my lack of proof! Its just that there is so much non-proof…! I mean, there is so much non proof that you are compelled to respond so much to my non proof that I have to wonder how it is that you can find anything to respond to Lol… Well there is just no pleasing some people.
You ask “Do you believe scripture is the only truly reliable source of truth about God.”
Yep, that’s why I am a Trinitarian.In re to “If so why is scripture so taciturn to reveal something you and millions of others are convinced is true but not revealed about God ?”
Well its time now to return to the land of non sequitur… welcome back… we have missed you so! Lets look at this way Nick, I believe what I do because I believe it is revealed by God. We may disagree about what God has revealed, in our interpretations, but do not insult me, belittle me, speak condescendingly (remember that one?) to me, by insinuating that I deliberately disregard God and His word. I totally believe that you are a good person trying their best to understand God and His ways. Ok? Don’t sell me short by suggesting anything different for me and millions of other people.
And so I do not believe that God or His word is taciturn in the least… no more so then God was taciturn in revealing exactly all the details of the coming and timing of the Son, or, all the details of why He allowed sin and evil into the world, or all the details as to why He chose the Cross to redeem His people, or why He is so taciturn in revealing the exact nature of the end times…. and so it goes with non Trinitarians…. You are so focused on this doctrine, that is not crystal clear, that we do not know as much about it as we might life etc…. that you forget that there are lots more subjects spoken of in the Bible that are not exactly laid out in exact detail.Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 14 2005,06:12) So, DVD, you wanted one of the beautiful thumbnail sketches of Paul's quoted word for word from scripture? Stephen and Peter and Paul were not subject to such judgemental human perfectionism but spoke as the Spirit moved. Do you know the Spirit DVD?
I just wanted the Gospel, as defined in the Bible and I dont judge you for giving me “another Gospel”, scripture does. I apologise if you think i'm just here to hound you, to trap you in errors. I will try to be more graceful in my approach. Though, I am surprised you, a teacher, didnt know what the Gospel is, its a fundimental tenet.Quote (epistemaniac @ June 12 2005,11:40) “Is Jesus then not the only begotten Son of God as scripture claims but still part of that God as trinity?”
Yep! You get an “A” and a gold star Nick!
Hi E,
This is the part you seem to have misunderstood as requested.Quote (Guest @ June 14 2005,07:03) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 14 2005,06:12) So, DVD, you wanted one of the beautiful thumbnail sketches of Paul's quoted word for word from scripture? Stephen and Peter and Paul were not subject to such judgemental human perfectionism but spoke as the Spirit moved. Do you know the Spirit DVD?
I just wanted the Gospel, as defined in the Bible and I dont judge you for giving me “another Gospel”, scripture does. I apologise if you think i'm just here to hound you, to trap you in errors. I will try to be more graceful in my approach. Though, I am surprised you, a teacher, didnt know what the Gospel is, its a fundimental tenet.
Hi DVD,
You have yet to show me error in my post. I asked you which things I wrote were not true and I eagerly await your response. I want to learn DVD.Yes Nick, I have. You did not give me THE GOSPEL, but some kind of statement of belief. This is an important distinction to make because you continually refer to the “Gospel” in your posts, but i seems without knowing what it is! The reality is you didnt need give your definition, Paul has already defined it for us in 1Cor 15. Clear?
In a legalistic sort of way DVD. Hey we are meant to be able to speak off the cuff as Stephen did and not be too stiff about these things. What do you think?
Hi,
It would be good to get past trinity and move into study of the lovely gospel. But it remains a roadblock that some cannot pass. That is because it distorts the understanding of the whole bible.
If we discuss God then those who accept the trinity theory have to try and work out which member of their trinity is being spoken of. The strange thing is though whenever both God and Jesus Christ are mentioned in the same verse it seems immediately plain to them that it is the Father who is being spoken of.
For example
Rom 7,4
” Therefore my brethren, you also were made to die to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God”It fits so beautifully with Jn 15.1f
” I am the true vine and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit He takes away;and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit”So it is plain to all that combining the verses here, God means the Father and Jesus Christ is the vine and we are the branches.
So Jesus is not part of the Father but we are part of him and in him we serve the Father.
It is really simpler than many imagine. God always means the Father.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 14 2005,11:39) Hi,
It would be good to get past trinity and move into study of the lovely gospel. But it remains a roadblock that some cannot pass. That is because it distorts the understanding of the whole bible.
If we discuss God then those who accept the trinity theory have to try and work out which member of their trinity is being spoken of. The strange thing is though whenever both God and Jesus Christ are mentioned in the same verse it seems immediately plain to them that it is the Father who is being spoken of.
For example
Rom 7,4
” Therefore my brethren, you also were made to die to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God”It fits so beautifully with Jn 15.1f
” I am the true vine and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit He takes away;and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit”So it is plain to all that combining the verses here, God means the Father and Jesus Christ is the vine and we are the branches.
So Jesus is not part of the Father but we are part of him and in him we serve the Father.
It is really simpler than many imagine. God always means the Father.
Not so Nick,Exodus 3: 1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD (YHWH) thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me (YHWH).
The scriptures I pointed out earlier prove that not only did the Apostles KNOW that Jesus was YHWH but that the scriptures are of the Holy Ghost, so it is actually God (YHWH) telling us that Jesus is God/YHWH.
For Christ said that He would send us the Comforter and that the Comforter would reveal Christ to us:
John 15:26 – But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Hi FYI,
If you read the last scripture you quoted you will hopefully see that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. That makes sense because it is the Spirit of God. That is because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and not another person.The Spirit teaches and comforts and since it is also the Spirit of Christ reveals Christ to us.
Yeshua is not YHWH. Yeshua is the Son of YHWH-as he claimed to be. I think he knows better than us -don't you?
The God of Israel, the one and only God to be worshipped, led the Israelites out of bondage. No argument there.Quote (Guest @ June 14 2005,02:51) Quote (Cubes @ June 14 2005,01:53) Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, AND I LIVE BY THE FATHER: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. Take it all or leave it.
So True Cubes,The meat that Jesus ate was to do the will of His Father, so it should be with us, to do the will of our Bridegroom / Kinsmen Redeemer / Saviour God
Jesus is now and ever will be the Son of God due to His incarnation, the Word of God made flesh.
That in NO WAY detracts from who He was, who He is, and who He will always be – the scriptures I pointed out earlier are only a few of the many.
The Apostles quoted those OT scriptures of Christ knowing that they spoke of YHWH.
Make no mistake, this is NOT a coincidence, The Word of God is YHWH with the Father.
Hi FYI,Yes we should do the will of Christ, which IS the will of the Father (John 3, Epistle of John). The point though is that Jesus Christ the same, yesterday and forever, lives by the Father as we can only live in Christ. Glad though that you have understanding of how he does it and how we are to do it and we agree. Alright!
I appreciate your references to YHWH and have not responded because I am at the moment working on another project with a friend which has pulled me in a different direction of study. I shall be soon addressing the YHWH posts as God gives me understanding….but we cannot say anything other than scripture has said, which doesn't satisfy trinitarian thought so far. And that is fine as it is not our gospel.
Trinitarians would seem to step over a direct and plain text of scripture and reason it away with all manner of excuses (if it stomps on the trinity concept), and hold out the more obscure passages of scripture which by reason of their obscurity (whether due to prophecy or translation) is not clearly understood.
So what happens is that 1% of obscure scripture is being used to interprete and influence the 99% of clear scripture. The percentages are made up but it is true that the clear passages greatly outweigh what remains obscure and Trinitarianism is running out of room to hide and presenting those who defend it (not the general people who simply follow it out of belief in an attempt to worship God) with a direct confrontation to accept or reject the truth.
An example of an obscure passage would be something like the Daniel prohetic scriptures with regards to the image and end times. Even Zechariah 14. Trinitarians rely on these scriptures. Isaiah 48 is another. Funny thing is that it took the great prophet, John the Baptist, to reveal Jesus to Israel: Behold the Lamb of God.
Many of the things Jesus said were misunderstood till they
had come to pass… even Daniel didn't understand the prophecies entirely …Now in the NT, Jesus was revealed. The bible says that things that angels and prohets longed to look into have been revealed to us. Many of the faithful were very aware of the OT prophecies–like Stephen and Peter and Paul– and I can assure you that they DID NOT consider Christ to be YHWH or the narrative would have gone a lot differently. Rather, all who knew and loved him said he was the Messiah, the Son of God who was to come.
What kept the narrative from going in the way of “You are YHWH, our God who has finally come” I ask? No, we are to abandon the clear and direct declarations that have been revealed, the fact that even he taught us about the Living God and declared himself to be the Messiah and Son of God, and go with the obscure which the ancients to whom it was given, never quite understood themselves, and we are yet to fully comprehend due to their prophetic nature.
What is not comprehensible in the OT is not necessarily about God and who he has revealed himself to be, but about the prohecies that are sealed and time dependent. Also in some few cases, about the wordings though the vast narrative can quickly redirect one onto the right track.
I ran into this verse and some others that didn't make sense to me at all recently. I had been following the narrative and moving right along hearing what God would have me hear… then boom….came these verses (now I must say that I was reading in the KJV translation at the time and haven't had time to compare translations yet):
(KJV)
Isa 45:11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.(NKJV)
12 “Listen to Me, O Jacob,
And Israel, My called:
I am He, I am the First,
I am also the Last.
13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth,
And My right hand has stretched out the heavens;
When I call to them,
They stand up together.14 “All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him;
He shall do His pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm shall be against the Chaldeans.
15 I, even I, have spoken;
Yes, I have called him,
I have brought him, and his way will prosper.16 “Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord God and His Spirit
*Have sent Me.”17 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
The Holy One of Israel:
“I am the Lord your God,
Who teaches you to profit,
Who leads you by the way you should go.Now take 1s 45:11,” Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker…”
Sounds like two people, doesn't it?
1) The LORD, THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.2) And his Maker.
In the past I thought this referred to Father and Son because of the comma after Israel. Who else could it mean in that light? After all, it would make sense in my view of God according to the scriptures but the narrative alerted me to the discrepancy recently and I had to change my mind.
And by the way, this is against all Trinitarian basic thought as the 3 in 1 persons are equal in all regards and “God the Son” has no maker (except perhaps in the earthly sense) but is equally the Most High God, according to your understanding of Phil 2. But truth had to be known regardless of who is presenting it, so I persisted.
I determined that the comma doesn't belong there after Israel. And it is a frightening thing when one is a common person to do this without any background in Hebrew or Greek. I don't take it lightly. But based solely on the narrative, the passage should read:
“Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel and his Maker,”
This renders there to be one person above instead of two, meaning Maker refers to The LORD, the Holy One of Israel… not to HIS maker. In this way, we understand that the LORD is speaking about Israel to Cyrus harmonizing with the rest of the text and reflecting the intent of the narrative as already shown.My understanding would have been completely askewed had I not maintained some established order gained from the plain text beforehand: The LORD is YHWH and the Holy One of Israel (how can YHWH have a maker and how can the Son now be the Holy One of Israel in verse 11 when he hadn't been up until then)?
The Son has a maker…and so could YHWH, if as you propose YHWH is Jesus. That is if we rely on the reading of that obscure text t
o interprete what is made plain elsewhere, and flip flop back and forth with the identities as often happens in Trinitarianism.So too is Isaiah 48. The passage is not clear. One thing is for sure, verse 16 does not refer to a Trinity as some have asserted. YHWH and his spirit count as one, not two. I don't count your spirit as a separate personality from you…
The passage for all we know could be referring to Cyrus or to Christ prophetically, as the sent one, again I haven't gained clear understanding of who is who in it to make it a pillar of my doctrine except to say that YHWH is our redeemer and the maker of the world, following clearer passages of previous narratives elsewhere which confirm it.
Epistemaniac, hope you appreciate the lengthiness of this but to all others, my apologies.
FYI, if I don't respond, I shall in due course.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 14 2005,11:39)
Nick,
According to Jude “The Lord” (Jude used this title to designate Jesus; see v14) saved Israel out of Egypt:Jude
5I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.This, of course, is clearly attributed to YHWH in the OT. Is there a contradiction? No, not if you aknowledge that Jesus is YHWH (as the NT writers did)
The Title “God” is applied to Jesus in Heb 1:8 (and many other places in the NT):
Hebrews 1
8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.So its incorrect to assume that the title “God” is always used to designate the Father and “Lord” Jesus.
Also, I think its unwise to use the Joh 15:1 parable as a proof text to prove the inferiority of Jesus' nature compared to the Father. I dont think Jesus intended to convey this at all, rather their respectives roles with the church.
Quote So Jesus is not part of the Father but we are part of him and in him we serve the Father.
What do you think Jesus meant when he said “I am in the Father and my Father in me”?Hi DVD,
If Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in him then that of itself tells us they are two beings.I am glad you mentioned that of the 3000 references to God in the bible a half dozen apply to the divine being, the Son of God.
I cannot understand how some do not see that all that the Son of God did was done in the name of His Father. He was the willing instrument the Father does His work through.So it is the work of the Father that is done. That does not make the vessel also the glorious contents of that vessel.
Again in Zech 14 when Jesus returns in him the Father, by His Spirit, stands on earth.But God is in heaven.
Its easy to allegorise scripture away when you have no real explanation for it. I hope you took on board some of Epistemaniac's observations of you Nick.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
