- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
His claims to pre-existence
Jesus claimed the have been pre-existent before his birth–he was around before Abraham (Jn 8.58-59)
Jesus claimed to have been pre-existent in heaven with glory before His incarnation (Jn 3.13; Jn 6.33; Jn 6.38; Jn 6.62; Jn 8.23; Jn 8.42; Jn 10.30-39; Jn 16.28; Jn 17.5)His claims relative to worship, glorification, exaltation, object of religious faith, title of “God”.
Jesus promised to come in 'the glory of the Father' (Mark 8.38)
Jesus held himself out as a legitimate object for religious faith (Mark 9.42; Jn 3.15; Jn 9.35f) even to the same extent as the Father (Jn 14.1)
He NEVER corrects those who accuse him of making himself equal to God (Mr 2.5ff; Jn 5.17ff; Jn 8.58-59; Jn 10:30-39) nor those who called him “GOD” (Jn 20.28).
He claims loyalty greater than ALL human loyalties (Mt 10.37)
Jesus claims that he should be honored co-extensively with the Father! (Jn 5.17f)
He claims the Father is seeking Jesus' glory (Jn 8.50 with 8.54b; Jn 13.31) and that the two are linked (Jn 11.4)
He uses the divine epithet “I AM” (Jn 8.58-59, 24, 28)
He accepts worship without rebuke, and even with commendation (Jn 9.35-38)His claims to authority
Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins (Mark 2.5ff; Lk 7.48f)
Jesus had authority over the Sabbath (Mark 2.28; Mt 12.8)
Jesus claims that the elect are his, and that the angels are his (Mr 13.26f)–either in possession or authority over
He implied that he had the ability/authority to abolish the law (Mt 5.21)
He implied by his “but I say to you…” passages a divine authority (Mt 5)
He had the authority to give authority over evil to others (Lk 10.19)
He claims to have universal authority (Jn 17.2)
He has authority to confer a kingdom–in the SAME MANNER that the Father does (Lk 22.29f)
He claims to have authority to send/give the Holy Spirit of God! (Lk 24.49; Jn 4.10 with 7.37-39; Jn 15.26; Jn 16.7)His claims to IDENTITY/EQUALITY with the Father
Jesus claims that one's response to Jesus is equated to one's response to God (Jn 15.23).
Jesus claims that to see Him is to see the Father! (Jn 14.9)
He claims to be, and is repeatedly called, the potentially blasphemous title “Son of God” (Mr 14.62 et. al. )
He NEVER corrects those who accuse him of making himself equal to God (Mr 2.5ff; Jn 5.17ff; Jn 8.58-59; Jn 10:30-39) nor those who called him “GOD” (Jn 20.28).
He claims to be on a par with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Mt 28.19)
He claims that his coming was the same as God's coming (Lk 19.43ff)
He claims to operate co-extensively with the Spirit (Mk 21.14-15 with Mt 10 and Mr 13)
He claims to operate co-extensively with the Father (Jn 5.17ff; Jn 10.30-39; Jn 15.9)His claims to a UNIQUE relationship to the Father
Jesus considered His Sonship-relation with the Father to be ABSOLUTELY unique (Mr 12.1-11; Jn 20.17)
He claims to be the unique Heir of God (Mr 12.1-11)
He claims to have EXCLUSIVE knowledge of the Father (Mt 11.27; Jn 7.28-29)
He claims to have been the only one to have seen the Father (Jn 6.46; Jn 8.38)
He claims to be absolutely perfect/sinless-he ALWAYS pleases the Father (Jn 8.29; Jn 8.46)His exalted nature and powers
Jesus is often linked to the word 'Lord' (Mr 11.3; Mr 5:19-20)
Jesus claimed to be greater than King David (Mr 12.35-37), than the Temple (Mt 12.6), than the prophet Jonah (Mt 12.41), than King Solomon (Mt 12.42).
He claims that his rank in the universe is superior to the angels (Mr 13.32)
He implies that he is, or will be, omnipresent (Mt 18.20; Mt 28.19)
He claims to have access to knowledge of the future, and events occurring in heaven (Lk 22.31).
He claims to be able to give freedom (Jn 8.36)
He claims to be able to raise himself from the dead! (Jn 10.17ff)Claims of Jesus which make NO SENSE if He were not God
Jesus claims that his words will outlast time itself! (Mr 13.31)
He claims that the eternal destiny of people depend on their response to HIM! (Mt 7.21ff; Mt 25.17ff)
He claims to have been the only one to have seen the Father (Jn 6.46; Jn 8.38 with Ex 33.20)
He claims to be absolutely perfect/sinless-he ALWAYS pleases the Father (Jn 8.29; Jn 8.46)
Jesus makes statements that are completely ludicrous, if he is not God. (Jn 14.28; Jn 15.5; Jn 17.10)How those around Christ responded to Him
God calls him “Son” and declares that He is “pleased” with Jesus (Mt 3.16)
God tells some of the disciples to pay attention to Jesus (Mt 17.5)
Evil spirits knew he was the Son of God (Mt 8.28-29; Mr 3.11ff) and the Holy One of God (Mr 1.23f)
His enemies knew he was claiming to be God (Mt 9.3; Mt 26.63ff; Jn 5.18; Jn 10.33)–and accused him of blasphemy.
Some of the general populace called/considered him God (Lk 7.16; Lk 8.39-40)
John the Baptist recognized Jesus' RADICAL superiority to himself (Mt 3.13; Jn 1.26-30 w/.34)
The disciples and those whose lives He touched WORSHIPPED Him (Mt 14.33; Jn 9.35ff)
He was repeatedly called the Son of God (Mt 14.33; Mt 16.16; Jn 1.26-30 w/.34; Jn 1.49; Jn 11.27)
He was called “God” directly (Jn 20.27f)
Later Rabbinical writings 'remember' some of these exorbitant claims of Jesus.How the Church understood the claims of Jesus and the events of His life/death/resurrection
His pre-existence and His role in creation.He is described as pre-existent in glory with the father (Gal 4.4; I Cor 15.47; 2 Cor 8.9; Rom 8.3; I Tim 1.15; Eph 4.9; Col 1.15-17; 2 Tim 1.9; Heb 1.2; Jn 1.2-3; Jn 1.14; Jn 3.31-32; I Jn 1.2; I Jn 3.8; I Jn 4.2, 9;) and active at the time of Moses (Heb 11.26)
He created ALL things in the universe, including angels (Col 1.15-17; Heb 1.2; Jn 1.2-3; Jn 1.10)The appropriateness of worshipping Him and of the title of “GOD” applied to Him
Citations from the OT in the NT show that Jesus was YHWH (Rom 10.9; Mt 11:10; I Cor 10.26; Rom 10.9-13; Eph 4.8; Heb 1.8ff; Heb 1.10ff)
The earliest materials (e.g. hymns, blessings, prayers, formulas, doxologies) indicate that the early church recognized Jesus as God, equal with the Father (Phil 2:6-11; Col 1.15-20; I Tim 3.16; Mt 28.19; I Thess 3.11; 2 Thess 2.16; I Cor 16.21)
Jesus is often singled out for glorification by the Church (Heb 13.20-21; 2 Peter 3.18; Rev 1.5-6)
Jesus is CONSISTENTLY called “Lord”–a VERY misleading title if He were not God (close to 200 times!)
The angels belong to Him (2 Thess 1.7) and are to worship Him (Heb 1.6)
He is described in words like 'glorious' and 'Lord of Glory' etc. (Js 2.1; I Cor 2.8)
Jesus is called Savior (Titus 1.4; 2.13; 3.6) AS IS the Father (I Tim 1.1; 2.3; 4.10).
He is to be co-extensive with the Father in being praised (Rom 1.25 with Rom 9.5; Phil 1.20; Rev 5.12ff ) and in worship and glory (2 Tim 4.18; 2 Pet 3.18; Heb 1.6; Rev 5.12ff ) and even in being offered a sacrifice! (Rev 14.4)
He explicitly is called “God” (I Tim 3.16–in the best texts–, Acts 20.28; Rom 9.5; Titus 2.13; Jn 20.28; 2 Pet 1.1; Heb 1.8ff; John 1.1; Jn 1.18; I John 5.20 w/1.2; Rev 1.1 with 22.6,16 ) or some derivative thereof (Col 2.9; Phil 2.6-11)
The churches' use of the substitute epithet “The Name” and the nomina sacra demonstrate a firm and early belief in the deity of Jesus.His authority
The angels belong to Him (2 Thess 1.7) and are to worship Him (Heb 1.6)
His is Lord of ALL (Acts 10.36).
The Father put ALL things under His feet (I Cor 15.27)His identify/equality with God the Father (and the Spirit)
Jesus is described at the co-source of grace and peace, with the Father, in the benedictions (2 Cor 13.14; Rom 1.7; 2 Cor 1
.2; 1 Cor 1.3; Eph 1.2; Phil 1.2; Eph 6.23; Gal 1.3 ).
He is sometimes MENTIONED alone in such benedictions (Rom 16.20, I Cor 16.23; Rev 1.4) as is the Father sometimes (2 Cor 1.3-4)
Citations from the OT in the NT show that Jesus was YHWH (Rom 10.9; Mt 11:10; I Cor 10.26; Rom 10.9-13; Eph 4.8; Heb 1.8ff; Heb 1.10ff)
The “Spirit of Christ” is identified with the “Spirit of God” (Gal 4.6; Rom 8.9-11; Phil 1.19; I Pet 1.11) and the “mind of the Lord” with the “mind of Christ” (I Cor 2.16)
He is described co-ordinately with the Father in our obligations to him, and co-extensively with the Father in actions (I Cor 7.17)
Jesus is called Savior (Titus 1.4; 2.13; 3.6) AS IS the Father (I Tim 1.1; 2.3; 4.10).
He is to be co-extensive with the Father in being praised (Rom 1.25 with Rom 9.5; Phil 1.20; Rev 5.12ff ) and in worship and glory (2 Tim 4.18; 2 Pet 3.18; Heb 1.6; Rev 5.12ff ) and even in being offered a sacrifice! (Rev 14.4)
How one responds to Jesus equates to how one responds to the Father–the are identified that strongly (I Jn 2.22-23)
The wholesale identification of the titles, names, roles, actions, commitments of the OT YHWH and the NT Christ was made and lived by the early church.His UNIQUE relationship with the Father
He is repeatedly called God's unique Son (Gal 1.15; Gal 3.20; I Thess 1.9–et. al.–over 40 times)
He is the reason the universe was created (Col 1.15-17)His exalted nature and powers
He created ALL things in the universe, including angels (Col 1.15-17; Heb 1.2; Jn 1.2-3; Jn 1.10)
He sustains the universe (Col 1.15-17; Heb 1.3)
He has super-creaturely characteristics (Eph 3.16ff; Eph 1.10, 22; 4.10; 6.8; Col 2.2ff; Heb 1.10ff; Heb 10.12ff; Jn 3.34; I Jn 2.2)His difference from 'mere humans'.
Jesus is contrasted with mere men (Gal 1.1)
He is described as being sinless (2 Cor 5.21; I Pet 2.22; I Pet 3.18)
There are a number of passages that talk about Christ's “human nature” or “physical body”–implying that there was something “more” about Him (Rom 1.3-4; Rom 8.3; Rom 9.5; I Tim 3.16; Col 1.22; Heb 2.14; Jn 1.14; I Jn 4.2; 2 Jn 7)If we step back from the data at this point, and look at it in its entirety, we cannot but be overwhelmed by the massiveness of it! We might be able to argue away a little here, and a little there, but the sheer bulk of this cannot be moved. One cannot stop an avalanche 'one rock at a time'. We come face to face with the reality that the Son of God shared ALL of the attributes, glory, and status of God the Father, and that this reality was disclosed in the life and words of Jesus Christ.
To FYI,
You quote verses, yet you still assume that Jesus is God. These verses make sense when we see that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah. He is the only BEGOTTEN of God. Why nullify that for a man made philosophy that turns God into a pagan trinity?
The sheer amount of information in scripture does not lead one to believe that Christ is YHWH, but that he is Yeshua, the Christ, the son of God, the image of God, the first born of/over all creation (the prototype image), that he is like God, that he has God's nature, that he is from God, that he was the Word, and that came in the flesh.
It was the Word that became flesh, not God. You preach falsely when you say that God came in the flesh. The antichrist spirit denies that Jesus came in the flesh.
You also appear to deny the following truth?
John 8:42
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.T8,
“Assume” is what you do when you claim to know my thoughts and the thoughts of God.
The truth I and the bulk of Christendom has (the Trinity Doctrine) is by the Holy Spirit – for it is He that declares Christ and the Father.
1 Cor 2: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
Trinitarians don't deny the incarnation or the deity which are scriptually in abundance.
The problem is when anyone tries to understand God in the fleshly mind that they miss God altogether. They always try to fit God into human terms. God is God.
He is that He is.
Modalism————Trinitarians (truth)————Arianism
Christ all deity Christ dual nature Christ no deityThe truth is God – the lack of it takes you to one extreme or the other. The truth balances ALL scripture – either end and you cannot reconcile.
The truth is that ALL scripture must be taken – not throwing out the part you don't like
Quote (Guest @ June 18 2005,01:15) The truth is God – the lack of it takes you to one extreme or the other. The truth balances ALL scripture – either end and you cannot reconcile. The truth is that ALL scripture must be taken – not throwing out the part you don't like
very true…. we have to take into account all the biblical data… one has to accept that the Trinity is nothing more and nothing less than a summary oo the Scriptual teaching on the nature of God…. denying the divinity or the humanity of Christ leads to error… thankfully we have been down this road so many times of the last several thousand years that dealing with the errors of arianism or modalism of whatever particular form or manifestation… is not so great a task… as long as one is aware that the conflict in not new, and one knows where to look for the data regarding the conflict… ie the participants, the issues and the final outcomes of the controversies…Quote (epistemaniac @ June 18 2005,01:23) one has to accept that the Trinity is nothing more and nothing less than a summary oo the Scriptual teaching on the nature of God…. denying the divinity or the humanity of Christ leads to error…
Yes Epistemaniac, I strongly agree with you.Quote (epistemaniac @ June 13 2005,13:13) hey t8.. you said “The point I was making is that nonsense to the reader doesn't make the writing wrong. I used an example of the gospel to prove my point about how one can see something as nonsense and yet it can be the words of life.” Very well then, sorry that I misunderstood, you are exactly right here… I was, in a roundabout way, pointing out that the very same reasoning is true for the doctrine of the Trinity… just because someone doesn't fully understand it, doesn't make it false… and one of the most common criticisms of the doctrine of the Trinity is that because people cannot fully understand it, well it can't be true… this is often accompanied by the mantra “God is not the author of confusion” as if this has anything whatsoever to do with the development of doctrine!! Like I mentioned earlier… if this reasoning was applied across the board we could deny all sorts of doctrines based on our subjective feeling about how complicated a given teaching is…. and wouldn't that be fun!! We could get rid of all sorts of complicated things…
you said “But in actual fact the gospel encompasses the truth that Jesus is the son of God. It doesn't encompass that teaching that says that Jesus is God.”
Could you provide a verse for me that EXPLICITLY says this? I know about 1 Jn. 4:15…. the context of which is one of denying that the Gnostic teaching that says Jesus did not come in the flesh, so really isn't addressing the Arian/Trinitarian controversy at all… but I am looking for a verse that explicitly and exactly says “the gospel encompasses the truth that Jesus is the son of God”…. if you arrived at this conclusion by reasoning… fine… but if you do then I don't want to hear any complaints about Trinitarians arriving at their beliefs by reasoning…. ie the silly JW “argument” that thinks they have disproved the doctrine of the Trinity by pointing out that the word “Trinity” isn't in the Bible… riiigghhhtttt…you said “Well I do like to leave the point open sometimes so that those who are searching may discover it for themselves. But for the sake of defending what is written I will spell it out for you.
“1. God is not the God of confusion.
2. Anyone who teaches a doctrine that they do not understand is teaching nonsense. It is nonsensical to them, so how can they teach it?”ROFLOL!! I KNEW it… and here it is!! lol…. I do thank you for writing this t8, as it does serve to prove my earlier point about some of the typical “arguments” I referred to already…. in this case the obvious point is the equivocation moving from the fact that something might not be fully understood to the totally ridiculous non sequitur that it is thereby automatically nonsensical. Wrong answer. The really sad thing about this t8, is that I am explaining a point to you that you already made yourself earlier. You said
“”The point I was making is that nonsense to the reader doesn't make the writing wrong. I used an example of the gospel to prove my point about how one can see something as nonsense and yet it can be the words of life.”
Now how you can assert this valid point and then go on in the next breath to deny it is beyond me. Its sad really. Why the doctrine of the Trinity is singled out like this is also beyond me. And so the point still stands, “nonsense to the reader doesn't make the writing wrong. I used an example of the gospel to prove my point about how one can see something as nonsense and yet it can be the words of life.” So too for the Trinity.You said “
3. If you teach something that you do not understand, then by reason of your lack of understanding, you could be teaching lies as there is no way that you could know due to your lack of understanding what you are teaching.”Let me ask you a question t8, do you fully, totally and exhaustively understand all there is to know about God? The honest answer is “no”, you don’t. So why don’t you take your own advice then? I mean, every time you teach about God you are in deep waters… of course you may have some superficial understanding of this or that point, though I can’t say you do, it seems, on understanding many types of informal fallacies or on the doctrine of the Trinity, but I am sure there are points of doctrine here and there you have at least a basic understanding of…. But you have in no way plumbed the depth of any doctrine so that you know all there is to know about it… so, given your reasoning, given your certain lack of understanding, you could be teaching lies… so… t8.. why do you bother trying to teach any one anything?
The fact is, you again reveal equivocation by saying that, supposedly, when we do not understand a given teaching, that it somehow means we know nothing whatsoever about it. This is simply not true, nor is it clearheaded thinking. This is simply not true in the case of the Trinity. No one can claim to plumb the depths of the essence of God, no one can know exhaustively how it is that the persons of the godhead interact with one another… but that doesn’t stop us in the slightest from saying that we do know one thing, God is triune in nature… in fact… the article that you initially pointed me to shows, as you put it, an “ancient” pictorial of the relations among the members, so we Do know at least that much, and the fact that you supply this information yourself puts to rest the nonsense you are espousing regarding the idea that the Trinity is unintelligible, its at least intelligible enough for you to offer an explanation as to what it is that Trinitarians say they believe.
Well. Love to talk more, but I am going to have some fun with my 2 youngest boys by watching Lava Girl and Shark boy, and while this conversation is scintillating, it just can’t compare with a movie like that! Lol…
Be back later.. blessings
To epistemaniac,I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine because I do not understand it, but because it doesn't line up with scripture. Rather I choose to just let scripture teach me what I am to believe. God's Spirit of course is the teacher, but the wriiten word is my guide, not a man-made template or creed. So I say the Trinity doctrine is nonsense, not because I do not understand it (I do understand it), but because scripture doesn't teach it. Rather I believe that this doctrine is there for those who have a form of godliness, but do not really seek the truth with all their heart.
I also understand the theory of evolution, but I choose not to teach that either for that too is of man and is the deception for those who do not believe in God.
The gospel as you would know is the good news and the good news is about the Kingdom of God. That good news encompasses the truth that Jesus is the Christ and the son of God. But you asked for an example and I thought immediately of the following:
Acts 8:36-37
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.But according to Gospelnet, this verse is not contained in older manuscripts, so I give you the following:
Mark 1:1
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.However it
turns out that some manuscripts do not have the 'Son of God' part.So I found these ones:
Romans 16:25
Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,Ephesians 3:6
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.2 Thessalonians 2:14
He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.2 Timothy 2:8
Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel,2 Corinthians 11:4
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.and which Jesus is the one we should preach?
Matthew 16:16-17
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.Nowhere are we taught specifically that Jesus is God. However we are taught specifically that Jesus is the Christ and the son of God. This is what I believe and what I teach. Now arriving to conclusions with reasoning is fine. That is not the problem. But what happens when your reasoning doesn't line up with scripture? Then one must assume that such reasoning is not guided by God, but by a man's own nature, or even a demon for they create doctrines for men to follow.
I do not have a problem regarding the word Trinity not being in the bible, I have a problem in that the teaching of the Trinity is not in the bible.
Your point about me missing the point has confounded me somewhat. What I am saying is that we teach that which we know. We know that which is revealed. We can say things with certainty because it is revealed. But teaching the Trinity is not teaching that which is revealed for that doctrine is reasoned by man. So if a man does not understand that reasoning, then he shouldn't teach it. If he understands it then he can teach it. But that still doesn't make him a true teacher. The point was that anything that we reason or conclude must be understood in order to make that conclusion. Things like 'Jesus being the son of God' can be said even with understanding for you are just speaking scripture itself. The Trinity doctrine is not scripture itself, it is a whole reasoning process. That is the difference.
I can teach that Jesus is the son of God without reasoning it through. I can say that God is one. But I cannot say that God is 3 without using some kind of reasoning process. In this case you better have a reason or proof to that which you teach. If you do not understand that God is 3, then you certainly shouldn't teach it should you?
It would be different if a scripture said that God is 3 persons and one substance. He is one yet three. If scripture said that then I could teach that without ever having to fully understand it. But scripture doesn't teach that. So if you teach it you better have proof and you better understand that which you teach, otherwise you are a fool.
But I suppose that if you esteem a movie higher than that of scripture, then why should I be surprised at your words. Joking or not, the truth is what we are to seek everyday. That which is made by man is not what we should seek. But if we do, then why should God reveal anything to us, if we prefer the words and ideas of men.
To me it is clear, believe and trust in God or trust in man. The Trinity doctrine came from man and was enforced by man even to the point of death. The Roman Emperor Constantine enforced it to his subjects. All I can see is man and mans works. I want know part in it and do not want to be judged with her when her great judgement comes to pass.
Quote (Guest @ June 18 2005,20:33) Quote (epistemaniac @ June 18 2005,01:23) one has to accept that the Trinity is nothing more and nothing less than a summary oo the Scriptual teaching on the nature of God…. denying the divinity or the humanity of Christ leads to error…
Yes Epistemaniac, I strongly agree with you.
Some say that Jesus is God 'YHWH' and others say that he is just a man. These are the extremes. The truth is that the Father is God (YHWH) and we are men. Jesus is the Word of God and it was the Word who became flesh. It was not God who became flesh, it was the Word that was WITH God (Jesus) who came in the flesh.If one denies that Jesus (The Word) came in the flesh, then he is of the antichrist spirit.
You see the extremes (errors) are on either side of the truth. Trinitarians teach that Jesus is one of 3 persons who make up one God and Unitarians (perhaps Arians?) teach that Jesus is a man only. They justify their teachings by attacking each other. But how many have wondered if they are both wrong? How deceived is man when our adversary sets up both sides of the argument.
The following was written by Origen in the 200s (before Nicea):
Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos in all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos (gods) beside Him, of whom “the” theos is “the” theos, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became (gods), for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made theos gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is ho theos (“the god”), and those who are formed after Him are (gods), images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the ho logos (“the word”) of ho theos (“the god”) , who was in the beginning, and who by being with “the” theos (“God”) is at all times theos (“god”), not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.
To DVD,
Quote (Guest @ June 13 2005,04:05) t8,
Define the Gospel for me please.
That God sent his son into the world that whoever believes on him will not perish, but have everlasting life.God sent his son into the word to save the world. His son is Yeshua/Jesus and he died for our sins, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of God, interceeding for us.
Jesus died for our sins so that we can be united with God and partake of his kingdom with everlasting life.
This is the good news.
To FYI,
Quote (Guest @ June 18 2005,20:00) T8, “Assume” is what you do when you claim to know my thoughts and the thoughts of God.
The truth I and the bulk of Christendom has (the Trinity Doctrine) is by the Holy Spirit – for it is He that declares Christ and the Father.
1 Cor 2: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
Yes he is the Lord of glory. He is God's glory. But it was God that made him Lord and Christ. It was God that gave him life. It was God that Yeshua came to declare and declares. It was God whom Yeshua prayed to, and it was God who Yeshua listens to and imitates.You MUST believe that Yeshua came from God. There are all kinds of reasons why men do not want to believe it. But why let the Trinity doctrine dictate your belief. Rather the safe way and narrow path is to believe that which scripture teaches, even if at first you do not understand it.
The interchange of Christ-Lord and YHWH-Lord in the Infancy Narratives. The Infancy Narratives in the Gospel of Luke show a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the term “Lord” relative to Jesus and God the Father. It's almost like there is not even any sensitivity to the 'issues' of trinitarian thought—like it was so accepted that attributes of the Father could be predicated of the Son without anybody being 'upset'. Consider these datapoints:
Luke 1.17 is speaking about John the Baptist, and it refers to him as the forerunner of YHWH, “he will go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias…” (Isaiah), and this is seconded in 1.76: “you will go before the Lord to prepare the way for him”. This was applied to Jesus by John himself in John 3.28. There is not the slightest effort to differentiate Jesus from the “Lord” of the OT/Tanaach.
Luke 1.37 has Mary accepting the Annunciation/Incarnation with “I am the Lord's servant” (referring to God the Father, of verse 37), but 1.43 has Elizabeth calling the pregnant Mary “the mother of my Lord”. Lord is here applied once to the Father and once to Jesus—without the slightest differentiation in the text.
Luke 2.11 has the angels announcing to the shepherds that 'was born to you today a Savior, who is Chist the Lord”, and 2.26 the Messiah is referred to as “the Christ of the Lord”. Christ is both “the Lord” and “of the Lord”–the term “Lord” can be used of each WITHOUT needing any clarification!
The issue of “blasphemy.” Jesus was frequently accused of blasphemy (cf. Mark 2.7; Jn 5.19; 10.33; Mt 9.3;) and is said to have been condemned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy in Mark 14.63-64 and Mat 26:65-66 (softened by Luke in 22.71). There is some question as to how 'loose' a definition of 'blasphemy' was operative at the time. If it literally meant 'claiming to be God', then the charge of blasphemy at the trial stands as evidence for Jesus' self-understanding as being God. If it means, on the other hand, something like 'disgracing God', then it is much weaker evidence (at best). What do we have for data here?
There are numerous discussions in the early Jewish literature (e.g. Philo, Rabbinix, Josephus, Qumran, NT) that indicate the range of meanings. The Jewish scholar Vermes points out that the 'tightest' version occurs in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7.5) in which the divine Name (e.g. “YHWH”) must be used for blasphemy to occur (JJ:25-36), and other scholars note that Jesus seems to have ACTUALLY used the “I am” in this sense in a number of situations (Jn 5:24,28,58-59; Mr 14.62?) [NIDNTT:3:343–sv. “revile”]. Merely claiming to be the Messiah would NOT have constituted blasphemy (GAJ:262, JJ:35-36; HFJ:272).
Raymond Brown (DM:516-560) surveys the usage of the “blasphemo- words” and concludes:
From the attested meaning of the blasphemo- words, the only likely historical charge would have been that Jesus arrogantly claimed for himself status or privileges that belonged properly to the God of Israel alone and in that sense implicitly demeaned God. [p. 531]
Although Brown does not believe that Jesus made any explicit claims at the Trial that would have provoked such a response from the High Priest, he does note that there were MANY actions/words of Jesus that would have been so construed. He gives the following list (p. 545f):Jesus spoke with great authority and by his 'Amen' almost demanded acceptance.
Jesus claimed to have the power to forgive sin. It seemed almost as if the association of sinners with Jesus exempted them from standards of holiness imposed by other religious authorities.
Jesus performed extraordinary deeds and healings and related them to his making God's rule/kingdom present to people.
Jesus implied or even stated that people would be judged by God according to how they reacted to his proclamation of the kingdom. Other Jews proclaimed the gracious outreach of God; but in Jesus' proclamation there was a stated element of unique opportunity, which he proclaimed to be unlike any that had ever come before or would come again (parables of the pearl of great price and treasure in the field). Jesus' language of entrance into the kingdom had a tone of eschatological newness that went beyond prophetic calls to repentance.
Jesus took stances on the Law, especially concerning the Sabbath, that would have seemed highly disputable to Sadducees, Pharisees, or Essenes. Although these disputes must be evaluated cautiously, opponents who were neither legalists nor lacking in religious imagination could still have deeply resented Jesus' freedom toward what Moses had commanded and the piety that flowed from it. To a disciple who asked to be allowed to go first and bury his father, Jesus answered “Follow me, and the let the dead bury the dead.” That response might appear to nullify the commandment (word) of God, “Honor your father and your mother,” and the pious imperative to bury the dead (notice how Tobit 4:3 joins these two duties). God had spoken mouth to mouth to Moses, and one should not feel free to override Moses' authority (Num 12.7-8). Even Sanders admits that Jesus “did not consider the Mosaic dispensation to be final or absolutely binding.” Thus not differences of interpretation but authority over the Law may have been the important issue in relation to Jesus.
Jesus, a layman, acted in criticism of Temple customs and indicated that rejection of him imperiled Temple survival.
Jesus never explained his authority in terms that would make him identifiable against an OT background, e.g., as if he were a prophet who had received his power when the word of God came to him. His authority seemed to be part of what he was.
Jesus addressed God with familiarity as “Abba”, an otherwise unattested prayer practice.
At certain times Jesus spoke of himself in relation to God as the son, e.g., in the parables in Mark 11.27; Luke 10.22; and in Mark 13.32, where there is a limitation on the son's knowledge.
Brown concludes: “If in his lifetime Jesus plausibly did or said most of these things, I see little reason to doubt that his opponents would have considered him blasphemous (i.e. arrogantly claiming prerogatives or status more properly associated with God), even as the Gospels report at the trial.”Quote (Cubes @ June 13 2005,15:03) Hello EpisteManiac: As the son, God begat him (Matt 1)
As the word, he was with God and spoken by him at his will to make the worlds (John 1:1, 3, Col 1:16)
As the heir of all things, God appointed him (Hebrews 1:1-6)
As Lord of creation, God exalted him (Eph 1:22, Acts 2:36, Phil 2:9-11, Hebrews 1)
As having eternal life in himself, God gave it him… (John 5:26)
As Messiah, God anointed and sent him… (Luke 4:18)
As the Lamb, God gave him to the world (John 3:16, Hebrews)
As High Priest, God appointed him (Hebrews).But of Jesus' own accord, he laid down his life for us. And not being a rebel, he loves God and does the will of God just as we are called to do and for all his personal way of being, God has given him to sit at his own right hand. We too are called to have this mind of Christ and can sit with him in heavenly places if we do.
Amen Cubes,A very good post.
To FYI,
Quote (Guest @ June 18 2005,22:16) Luke 1.17 is speaking about John the Baptist, and it refers to him as the forerunner of YHWH, “he will go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias…” (Isaiah), and this is seconded in 1.76: “you will go before the Lord to prepare the way for him”. This was applied to Jesus by John himself in John 3.28. There is not the slightest effort to differentiate Jesus from the “Lord” of the OT/Tanaach.
God who is invisible and no man can see delegates his work.
In Yeshua God is expressed to us fully, and in us, and creation, God is expressed in part.God doesn't have a human or angelic body in which he walks around, rather he is in Christ and Christ is in us. But not even all God's creation can contain God. God is Spirit.
E.g., 2 Corinthians 5:19
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.So it was Christ who came in the flesh and it was God who was reconciling. Likewise when YHWH comes to establish his kingdom, he does it through his son, just as he used Yeshua/Logos to create the universe.
Who was it who throws Satan into the bottomless pit? It is Michael and his angels. God delegates. We must know that God is way beyond our way of thinking and is not like a man. He is so beyond us that he has a mediator, namely his son. It is his son whom we can see and who will declare to us God his Father. Only the son has seen God and only the son can declare him.
So God will come to us, but in his son. The vessel is not God just as we are not God if he lives in us. So just as the OT said that Elijah must come before the Lord to make his path straight, so it is that not even Elijah came himself, but a man called John who came in his spirit. So it is that God will come, but through his son.
Hi T8 and ~ Nick,
Thanks for your replies.
I can see that the Word existed from before the foundation of the world, In the Beginning, but as the Word he was not begotten, only as the Son he was. The Word was with God and the Word was [god?] God {the Word not the Son}. It says in John 1:1.
I presume T8 that you translate it this way because of the absence of the article. Is that correct?
One strange thing is you captilise the word WORD then you uses god with a lower case for God. Surely, He would have to be the word of God to be god… just an observation. In both uses of the word God -Strongs numbers them 2316. How can they be translated differently?
My post was not really to find out about Christ's pre-existence as the Word but rather as him being begotten as a Son in eternity past as you both seem to state in your posts. It is never stated in Scriptures that he was begotten as the Word, only that he pre-existed as the word. It was the Word who was God [the WORD] and not that God He was with that came in the flesh.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god. [T8]Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”These Scriptures prove nothing about his Eternal Sonship, but they do prove his existence as the Word and origins were before His being made a Son of God and Son of Man. Begotten of Mary and God through the work of the HS*. Mary was the human vessel, but still the mother of the Son, Jesus Christ the God/Man (In the sense that he was born of God and of mankind). Jesus is called the only begotten Son and as Nick often states the only begotten God, therefore am I right to state that this “being begotten” can only refer to his Humanity and not his Deity as the Word of God who was with God and was God but not that God he was with, for you cannot be begotten as the only begotten once, then be begotten again as the only begotten the second time. So was Christ born again.
Sorry could not resist that one. When it refers to The Father of our Lord Jesus that is exactly what their relationship was, as the begotten Son/Father but not as the Word/God relationship.* Nick you state often that the HS is not a person but God's Spirit. IF that is so, then does God, who is spirit have a spirit that He sends? Two spirits, one remains in heaven, the other comes to earth, both being God for he is Spirit, for how can you separate the two. Is that not just propagating what you have been teaching against. If the HS is not a spirit being/ person proceeding from the Father, then how can [he] teach, counsel, give wisdom and be our helper. How can you sin against a non-person. That seems crazy to me. How can a non-person/being or power source teach me. However, I have noted that in Revelation when the new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven… there does not seem to be a mention of the HS in the temple or having any part to play in the New Jerusalem. So I am open to your understanding
I do not believe the 3 in 1 of the ~Trinity~ theory. That is three Persons being one Person rather I see three Persons who are one in Unity. Just as my family are all individuals but all one under the banner of the family name. We can be referd to as one family – we are the “Smirf Family” I am Alex Smirf and my father is Trojan Smirf – I am not my father, he is not me but we are one family called Smirf – individuals in one family, we can be spoken of as one but when speaking of us personally you would never call my father by my name nor call me by my father's name. However you call call us both Smirf and we would both answer to it. – that said we are never never ever the same in essence or the same being.
Neither do I believe that they are all equal in position – for this is plainly pointed in many scriptures. I do however believe that there are Persons who relate to each other in total divine unity as the language of the Bible show us this. The Father (1 Cor 8:6), The Son of the Father/Word (Heb 1:8 and Isaiah 9:6) and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4) are all called God in Scripture. They are all called Lord too, (Ps 110:1 and 2 Cor 3:17)
I look forward to you replies as always.
T8,
Are you saying that God does not have a Spirit Body and cannot be seen. Who was it that was on the throne that both Stephen and John saw. Who was it that Moses saw? Or in Daniel when the one like the Son of Man was brought before the Ancient of Days. There must have been a bodily form for Daniel, Stephen and John to say such things. We believe it when we hear it of angels, demons etc so why do we suddenly change when they say they saw Son at the right hand of the Father, how can you see Son at the right of God if He cannot be seen – that makes no sense. Some places say, the glory of God and others say the ONE sat on the throne. Acts 7:55-56 Rev 4:2
If God is as you say he is, so big that he cannot possibly be contained how is it that he is referred to as sitting on a throne, Jesus sitting at his right hand etc.
If you build a house, just because you build a house that is bigger than you – is it true that you are bigger than your house. No, you have the power to make it bigger or to tear it down even though it is bigger than yourself. So then why is it that God has to be bigger than the world and heavens He has created?
Questions I have, let me know your thoughts?
Hi Artizan007
Great post, I concur with you on every point, except this one:Quote I do not believe the 3 in 1 of the ~Trinity~ theory. That is three Persons being one Person
This teaching is not consisent with any trinity theory im aware of, perhaps a triadic theory?? As a trinitarian I believe in a triune God, three distinct persons that share the same essence, each called God. But there is nontheless one God.
Grace.Quote perhaps a triadic theory??
sorry, should have written: perhaps a 'modalistic' theory??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
