Transcendence versus immanence

Participant

Hi TT,
So you worship all the prophets as well as God wished they would be respected and honored too?

July 29, 2009 at 11:27 pm#167914

Participant

Lightenup said:

Quote

Keith,
I have no problem with there being a son that is actually born of GOD, the NET translators apparently do because it “appears to express a metaphysical relationship” (at least they admit what it does appear to express), it is just a difference in translating out of a trinity mindset and not because of what the Greek dictates. I see the Son as a real son with a beginning before creation, you don't and on that we may never agree.

If written words say something that goes against a preconceived idea then why is it automatically “misleading”. Just maybe it is saying truth that one hasn't realized yet and appears misleading to them because they think something is true when it is not and it is their foundation that needs to be adjusted.

Again, begotten son of man equates to begotten man and thus begotten Son of God can equate to begotten God.

Kathi

Where in Scripture is the Father called Christ's King? The Father is called His God but never His King. By “God” it is simply meant that there is a covenantal relationship.

thinker

July 29, 2009 at 11:31 pm#167915

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 30 2009,11:27)

Hi TT,
So you worship all the prophets as well as God wished they would be respected and honored too?

Nick,
TC is right. You should bring to the table serious discourse instead of your foolish nonsense. The Bible doesn't say that we are to honor prophets. Jesus said that we are to honor Him EVEN AS we honor the Father. If you don't you are disobedient!

thinker

July 29, 2009 at 11:36 pm#167916

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo3.pdf

Participant

Quote (Cindy @ July 30 2009,11:13)

Quote (thethinker @ July 25 2009,20:29)

Quote (Not3in1 @ July 25 2009,17:50)

“Fully” God, “fully” man.

Words have completely lost their meaning!

Jehovah said “I will become who I am becoming”, Exodus 3:14.

Jehovah had become a fire in the midst of a burning bush when He said this. If He can do this, then He may certainly become something made in His own image. He is immanent!

Anti-trinitarianism major flaw is that it holds that God is so transcendent that He cannot become immanent. God could not become a man so He had to send a man. This implies that God Himself cannot know first hand how we feel.

thinker

thinker God Himself never became a man. And yes Jesus became a man. But He was with the Father before His Birth as a Man.
He is the firstborn of all creation and was a Spirit Being until He was born a man. I know not all believe in the preexisting of Jesus. But that is according to Scripture in
Col 1:15, John 1:14, Rev. 3:14 and I might add that He created all.
Peace and Love Irene

Irene,
Your views are not Christian. When you disowned Catholicism you threw out the baby with the bathwater. The doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation are Christian doctrines. Therefore, anti-trinitarians and Gnostics who deny the incarnation of God are anti-Christian. I have been patient. Bodhitharta says i am going to hell. What nerve coming from a man who denies that jesus was crucified. Gene says I am an idolater and you have said that I am ungodly. So it's no more Mr. Nice Guy here. Your views are anti-Christian.

thinker

July 29, 2009 at 11:37 pm#167917

Lightenup

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2009,19:02)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2009,18:25)

Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,17:33)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2009,09:09)

Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,11:03)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 29 2009,20:41)

Hi TT,
When were you given permission to add to scripture?
I guess when you adopted a false trinity theology as your basis you felt free to do whatever you like?

Nick,
You said that “Lord” does not mean “God.” Did you not say this? So when Jesus said of the Father “My God” He did not mean “My Sovereign.” You said that “Lord” does not mean “God.”

God was Christ's Father and NOT His Lord just as you are your son's father and NOT his sovereign. Jesus has been exalted as King of kings and Lord of lords. Therefore, He has no sovereign over Him.

thinker

Wow Thinker did you just say that God, Jesus' Father was not His (Jesus') sovereign? Did you really mean that?

And that is the main reason I would not be a trinitarian.

Kathi

Kathi,
Anti-trinitatians here say that “Lord” does not mean “God.” So when Jesus said “My God” in reference to His Father He was not necessarily saying that His Father was His Lord. Live with the implications of your separation between the terms “Lord” and “God.”

When Jesus said “My God” in reference to His Father He was referring to His covenantal relationship with His Father. He did not infer that His Father was His Lord. I am not the “lord” of my daughter. She is an adult. Jesus was not God's child. He was God's Son. In Hebrew culture the father was lord over the child but not the son.

thinker

Thinker,

There ya go again with “anti-trinitarians” and making all those who do not agree with the trinity doctrine “anti-trinitarians” and all of them saying this or that. No wonder we do not get any where.

Kathi

Hi Kathi

I do not see what the problem is.

If you and others see the Trinitarian doctrine as being so detrimental to the faith, then that makes you and others “anti” meaning against!

Keith,
Can you see the difference between these two groups:
Group A is “anti-trinitarian doctrine”
Group B is “anti-trinitarian”

Group A is opposed to a doctrine
Group B is opposed to people who follow a doctrine

Does that help?

Also, if a group of people are against a doctrine, no one can automatically declare they all think the same about why they are against it and how they believe as if they all believed alike…that varies a great deal as we see on HN. Thinker has two labels and it is not clear cut like that. IMO

I would rather it be said that there are some who oppose the trinity doctrine that believe thus and so…

rather than:
Those who oppose the trinity doctrine believe thus and so.

It is sort of like saying:
On our left are all the democrats and on our right are anti-democrats and then speaking as if those on the right are unified in their beliefs when they are not. That is misrepresentation IMO.

Kathi

July 29, 2009 at 11:50 pm#167918

Lightenup

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,19:27)

Lightenup said:

Quote

Again, begotten son of man equates to begotten man and thus begotten Son of God can equate to begotten God.

Kathi

Where in Scripture is the Father called Christ's King? The Father is called His God but never His King. By “God” it is simply meant that there is a covenantal relationship.

thinker

Thinker,
Do you think that the Father would be the head of His Kingdom? Jesus says “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.” I think you are arguing over words, IMO. Anyway, I wasn't even mentioning Jesus calling His Father “King” so why are you making an issue of it with me?

I don't get your point about God the Father being Jesus' covenantal God. Are you saying that God the Father is Jesus' God by declaration and arrangement and not because the Father is higher than Him?

Kathi

July 30, 2009 at 12:05 am#167919

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2009,11:50)

Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,19:27)

Lightenup said:

Quote

Again, begotten son of man equates to begotten man and thus begotten Son of God can equate to begotten God.

Kathi

Where in Scripture is the Father called Christ's King? The Father is called His God but never His King. By “God” it is simply meant that there is a covenantal relationship.

thinker

I don't get your point about God the Father being Jesus' covenantal God. Are you saying that God the Father is Jesus' God by declaration and arrangement and not because the Father is higher than Him?

Kathi

Kathi,
There are just as many scriptures that say it is the Son's kingdom. Christ said that he would come in His Father's kingdom. The harmony of the gospels shows that it is also His own kingdom inwhich he comes. Colossians says that we have been translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love. Revelation 22 says that it is the throne of God and OF THE LAMB. It says also that the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and OF HIS CHRIST (Rev. 11:15).

Note that it says “our” Lord and not Christ's Lord. There is not one scintilla of evidence in scripture that the Father is Christ's King. God is a “father” to Christ and not a king. Your are not in accord with scripture and you views are not at all Christian.

You anti-trinitarians say that Christ's name as Lord does not mean that He is God for Lord does not mean God. Now accept the implications of what you say. Therefore, when Christ said “My God” in reference to His Father He did not mean “My Lord.” For “Lord” does not mean “God.”

thinker

July 30, 2009 at 12:06 am#167920

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ July 30 2009,11:31)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 30 2009,11:27)

Hi TT,
So you worship all the prophets as well as God wished they would be respected and honored too?

thinker

hi TT,
Read the parable of the vineyard and you will see Jesus the Son was sent after all the previous servants were wrongly murdered by rebellious men.

This rebellion still continues manifested even as trinity idol worship among believers.

July 30, 2009 at 12:13 am#167921

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2009,19:18)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2009,18:39)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2009,18:14)

Keith,
Jesus is the begotten son of God not the designated son of God.

John 3:18
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
KJV

Son of Man and begotten man are synonymous. Son of God and begotten God are synonymous also, IMO. That is simple and understandable.

Kathi

Hi Kathi

Did I use the word “designate”?

who was “declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, Rom 1:4

Jesus as the Word was never called the Son of God until he came in the flesh!

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's “one and only (monogenes) Son“. John 3:18

The KJV and NASB use begotten which is misleading. Most translate it “one and only”.

The NET translators say…

Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18). Source!

In no way does “begotten Son of God” equate to begotten God!

Again, begotten son of man equates to begotten man and thus begotten Son of God can equate to begotten God.

Kathi

Hi Kathi

You say that they are Trinitarian but how do you know that?

I have seen them come down on certain passages that were not in favour of the Trinitarian.

I think when they see the Greek structure used in John 1:18 they also take in consideration the entire prologue of John which starts with “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

John could have said the Word was the Monogenes Son but he didn't, therefore clear evidence favours the Trinitarian view, especially when you read John writing with the language “Monogenes Son' just 17 verses later.

1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the p
rocess continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). “Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.”” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. “Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text. NET

This is not just bias, but is honest Greek scholarship which takes all things in consideration including the context and makes a solid translation.

Can you give me a good reason why John would have not used “Monogenes Son” or “Monogenes God” in John 1:1c if he meant to imply what you believe?

July 30, 2009 at 12:17 am#167922

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Quote (Cindy @ July 30 2009,03:56)

Gene and thinker! I am so amazed that some just don't want to understand no matter what you put in front of them. God, LORD, Almighty God, Almighty Father, Heavenly Father. All tittles. So Jesus the Word, Jesus the Lord, and Son of God. That is why Jehovah God is called Heavenly Father, and we are His adopted Sons of our Heavenly Father. Why do we call our Fathers, Father? Is it not because you had something to do with that? Jesus came forth from the Father or Jehovah God.
Notice that there is LORD and Lord. The difference is LORD is the Father God and Lord is the Son of God. When you understand all of that, you will not have any problems. Also let us not forget who is greater, the Son or the Father? In Jesus own words He said that ” My Father is greater then I.”
John 14:28
Why would John said that if it was not so. And I believe that is why you have the difference ways of saying Lord and LORD, and Father and Son God. The Son is a begotten Sob of God and we need to realize that there is a difference. Who do we pray to? Is it not God the Father through Jesus Christ our Mediator? When we understand all of that, we also know that there is no trinity.
I used to believe in the trinity and changing is not easy, I do understand that. And I used to pray and I sometimes still do to give me wisdom to understand the truth.
Peace and Love Irene

Irene ………The problem is not they wont believe, the problem is they (CAN”T) GOD has sent them a deluding Spirit,(intellect) ,they are unable to see or understand that there is (ONLY) ONE GOD and thats all there ever was. It's amazing to me how they can not get it, But it does say God would send them a deluding spirit (IN ORDER) for them to believe the (LIE)> Another words The Trinity is so obviously wrong it takes God to send a deluding Spirit (intellect) to them to even believe the LIE. The LIE is Jesus is a GOD. IMO

peace and love to you and Georg………………….gene

July 30, 2009 at 12:31 am#167923

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2009,19:37)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 29 2009,19:02)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2009,18:25)

Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,17:33)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 30 2009,09:09)

Quote (thethinker @ July 29 2009,11:03)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 29 2009,20:41)

Hi TT,
When were you given permission to add to scripture?
I guess when you adopted a false trinity theology as your basis you felt free to do whatever you like?

God was Christ's Father and NOT His Lord just as you are your son's father and NOT his sovereign. Jesus has been exalted as King of kings and Lord of lords. Therefore, He has no sovereign over Him.

thinker

Wow Thinker did you just say that God, Jesus' Father was not His (Jesus') sovereign? Did you really mean that?

And that is the main reason I would not be a trinitarian.

Kathi

thinker

Thinker,

Kathi

Hi Kathi

I do not see what the problem is.

If you and others see the Trinitarian doctrine as being so detrimental to the faith, then that makes you and others “anti” meaning against!

Keith,
Can you see the difference between these two groups:
Group A is “anti-trinitarian doctrine”
Group B is “anti-trinitarian”

Group A is opposed to a doctrine
Group B is opposed to people who follow a doctrine

Does that help?

I would rather it be said that there are some who oppose the trinity doctrine that believe thus and so…

rather than:
Those who oppose the trinity doctrine believe thus and so.

Kathi

Im sorry, you are not seeing the reality of what is going on here.

Its kind of like being a black man in society, you can try to explain how it is but really you have no idea.

Being a Trinitarian on this sight is the desease of all diseases.

My God you have believers like Gene who says that a muslim is closer to God than a Trinitarian. Gene say we are worshipping an idol.

Have you ever noticed that non-trinitarians get a pass by their non-trinitarian brothers when there is a discussion going on between a NT and a T.

I try to challenge any body where I think they are not true to the word.

NH 99% of the time goes after Ts. Even if we are defending a topic that he agrees with, he finds reason to attack us when there is no reason.

Trinitarians are labeled and defined by their doctrine as being false believers by most and so they are called anti-trinitarians!

The war has always been with the Arians and the Trinitarians.

And they are defined as believing Jesus is or is not God! If you do not get that part right then the rest really doesn't matter much because it is all about relationship with God and withoiut Jesus that cannot happen! So the qestion is your Jesus the same Jesus that I serve?

July 30, 2009 at 1:40 am#167924

Lightenup

Participant

Keith,
Maybe you would feel better if you just posted on a message board founded by a trinitarian? I would miss you though. If I posted on a message board that I knew was opposed to my doctrine, then I would expect to feel “ganged up on.” Do you understand that many were in trinitarian churches when they realized that the doctrine wasn't what they felt as Biblical. The doctrine has caused an unfortunate division among Christians IMO.
Kathi

July 30, 2009 at 1:45 am#167925

Participant

Hi WJ,
Perhaps God is picking on you in the hope you will wake up?

July 30, 2009 at 2:22 am#167926

GeneBalthrop

Participant

WJ……….The question is not is your Jesus the same Jesus you say you serve, the question is , Is He a GOD as Trinitarians claim. Or is He a man Just like Us (OUR BROTHER) the first born of (MANY) Bretheren. Is He the (Mederator between GOD and (MAN) the (MAN) Jesus or not? and on and on it Goes, Question Trinitarians can never truly answer because of their Delusion. Even the simple truth they can seen to understand, much less the complex. “HEAR O ISREAL THE LORD OUR GOD IS (ONE) LORD”. Also, “THERE IS (NO) GOD BESIDES ME, I KNOW NOT ANY”. EVEN JESUS ACKNOWLEDGED THESE OBVIOUS AND SIMPLE TRUTHS, But for some reason TRINITARIANS , can't understand the many, many many scriptures that prove there is (ONLY ONE TRUE GOD) as Jesus said. Tell us why that is WJ? Come out of those false teaching while there is time WJ. IMO

peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene

July 30, 2009 at 3:22 am#167927

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2009,21:40)

Kathi

You are totally missing the point!

But of course that happens a lot too!

July 30, 2009 at 3:24 am#167928

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2009,21:40)

Hi Kathi

Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2009,21:40)

Do you understand that many were in trinitarian churches when they realized that the doctrine wasn't what they felt as Biblical.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us“. 1 John 2:18,19

So who is causing the division?

BTW, the majority of Christianity is in unity that The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is God!

Again, who is causing the division?

July 30, 2009 at 3:28 am#167929

Participant

Hi WJ,
Are you speaking of the popular wide road to perdition?

July 30, 2009 at 3:33 am#167930

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 29 2009,23:28)

Hi WJ,
Are you speaking of the popular wide road to perdition?

There are many narrow ways that seems right to a man also!

July 30, 2009 at 3:41 am#167931

Participant

Hi all

Shall I go a little further. Most of the feeding of the hungry, the healing of the sick, the feeding the sheep, the providing of shelters, the preaching of the word of God, providing clothing, the leading men to Christ, the taking care of the destitute, lonely, drug attics, alcaholics, sexually abused children, and on and on is done by Trinitarian works and not by those who have seprerated themselves from his people because they do no agree with the Trinity doctrine.

Just ask everyone on this sight if it was a Trinitarian ministry that lead them to Jesus and you will see what I mean.

Why is it that those who are led to Jesus leave that Jesus to accept another Jesus?

July 30, 2009 at 3:47 am#167932