- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Very Very Very well said T8.
One of the biggest things that a oneness believer will try to tell me is that Jesus is God Himself. I have been looking really really hard.
And, I can't find anywhere in the bible in any translation that Jesus Christ is God himself. I'm not going to say that that is not the case, when we get to heaven its likely we are going to be made aware of a great many things. God does work in mysterious ways. However, there is no where in the bible where it flat out states this anywhere. In fact, most of the scripture leads one to believe that Jesus is gods only begotten son. Lets think about something for a moment shall we?
Imagine that you have only one son yourself…and you loved something so much that you gave up your only son that you have so that that other thing you love might be saved. What kind of love that must be? I myself can't even begin to understand how much love that is. We all know full well how much a parent loves their children. And, being as we are created in the likeness and image of God I'm quite sure that the image we reflect of our father (The Creater, God) in this manner is just but a fraction of his love.I've looked at several different angles of trinity and oneness belief. And a lot of the scripture that is used to back up both of them. Both of those doctrines Leave a lot to be desired in several aspects…not to mention they give birth to a HOST of questions that need answering.
One of the biggest questions that needs to be answered for me if you were to believe that Jesus was God himself is:
How come he does not know the day or the hour when the father will tell him to go get his church?As you can see, these doctrines arise lots of questions that can't really be answered with out twisting some scripture and creating a doctrine to explain it all. I say this.
How about instead of trying to figure out the very Mind of God or his ways/nature and the things in his kingdom. Why don't we just surrender to him and serve him, Live for him even. We are not Gods counsel…he is ours. If he wants you to have an understanding of him he will most likely give it to you, if you ask him of it in him in his sons name. Thats what I'm doing. This was the answer that I got over the studying of this whole nonsense:
Romans 11
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
To Isaiah 1:18;
Come now let us reason together, though your doctrine be as scarlott it shall be as wool if you would confine your beliefs to scripture.
Steven
Quote You missed the point t8. If the two terms “Son of man” and “man” are not at all antithetical to the Jewish mind, on what grounds do you assert that “Son of God” and “God” are? “Man” means mankind, all men.
“God” doesn't mean all gods. It is specific.He can be called son of man and still be a man.
But he cannot be the son of a [specific] man, and be that same specific man.There is obviously a difference.
You, Paul, are a man and you are Paul.
I can say you are the son of man and a man.
But I cannot say you are the son of [insert Father's name] and [insert Father's name].To put this another way, you can be the son of “a” man and still be “a” man.
You can be the Son of “a” God (Jehovah) and still be “a” God.But you cannot be the son of a specific man and be that specific man ….nor can you be the son of a specific God and be that specific God.
The things you were comparing were apples and God.
Quote T8, you have left a trail of unanswered questions behind you. It would be good if you could at least answer that last one for me. I have to go, will check in later… A list would be nice.
Quote You are determined to affirm polytheism aren't you t8?…. I think there is and will only ever be One divine being – YHWH. Why not just accept biblical monotheism? 1 CORINTHIANS 15:53
“For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality.”HEBREWS 12:10
“For they for a few days used to discipline us according to what seemed good to them, but he does so for our profit that we may partake of his holiness.”1 PETER 1:4
“to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for YOU,”2 PETER 1:4
“Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.”1 JOHN 3:2
“Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. WE DO KNOW THAT WHENEVER HE IS MADE MANIFEST WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM, because we shall see him just as he is.”If you exist with divine nature, then you would have to be a divine being. “What” they shall be, is “like him, [God]” “sharers in divine nature.”
If many people can have divine nature, certainly God's son can have divine nature, without being God himself. These people aren't God, yet they will have divine nature.
david.
Quote (Cult Buster @ July 17 2007,10:16) t8. Jesus is certainly divine because He is God. We can all be partakes of divine nature, but that does not make us divine like Jesus our God.
Hmmmm. At the end of your sentence you said “Jesus or God”.That makes two. God and Jesus.
Sounds like Cult Buster might be able to bust himself out of the trinity cult if he even listened to himself?
I wonder what happened to Cult Buster?
Hi david.
There is one more rebuttal from me to Isaiah's last debate.
I haven't got around to even reading it yet. I did have a peak at it when he first posted it, so I am aware of the scripture he is using to argue for his Trinity doctrine.I had the answer back them, but I just need some time and space to put down what is in my heart and being that it is the last one, I want to do the best job I can. I should get onto it, it has been quite a while now. I do admit to not giving it priority as my passion for this has somewhat waned.
I believe that the Trinity teachers got a good old fashioned butt whipping with scripture in these debates and in other discussions too, but they may not even see that as their specs are so tainted with the Trinity doctrine that they may not be able to see anything else which is another way of saying that they are blind to understanding that the Father is the one true God and Jesus is the one that the one true God sent.
It is often said that bias people are one eyed, and I guess that anything less than 2 eyes is a form of blindness.
Point 1. My intention in the debate was to invalidate your henotheistic position, not to validate trinitarianism. I've explicitly told you this at least four time previously (last time on pg 6 of the Is 1:18's proof text #1 thread).
Point 2. People will decide for themselves who got a “butt whipping” in this debate. Let the cards fall where they may. I encourage them to look closely at the equivocation on display in the rebuttals. It's telling, I think.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 30 2008,17:23) Point 1. My intention in the debate was to invalidate your henotheistic position, not to validate trinitarianism. I've explicitly told you this at least four time previously (last time on pg 6 of the Is 1:18's proof text #1 thread). Point 2. People will decide for themselves who got a “butt whipping” in this debate. Let the cards fall where they may. I encourage them to look closely at the equivocation on display in the rebuttals. It's telling, I think.
Greetings IS:1:18……You project a commanding presense in your posts,however,I fail to see any substance in your argument….Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 30 2008,17:23) Point 1. My intention in the debate was to invalidate your henotheistic position, not to validate trinitarianism. I've explicitly told you this at least four time previously (last time on pg 6 of the Is 1:18's proof text #1 thread). Point 2. People will decide for themselves who got a “butt whipping” in this debate. Let the cards fall where they may. I encourage them to look closely at the equivocation on display in the rebuttals. It's telling, I think.
1) Are you not confident enough to validate the Trinity? So you turn the whole thing into an attack on me?2) Yes that is right, people will decide who got the butt whipping. BTW, I am a person. Also, using words like “equivocation” doesn't disguise the fact that The trinity Doctrine is completely preposterous.
AN EXCELLENT debate on John 1:1 by t8, and brother Isaiah.
Seriously check this out if you are interested in the LOGOS.
How's everyone going?
It will be 1 year tomorrow since I made the Zechariah 14 post and still no reply from T8. T8, do you intend to respond to this post?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 21 2009,19:59) How's everyone going? It will be 1 year tomorrow since I made the Zechariah 14 post and still no reply from T8. T8, do you intend to respond to this post?
Hey Brother PaulHow are you?
Long time no hear from.
Miss your excellent, enlightening post.
Hope all is well with you and yours…
WJ
Quote How's everyone going? It will be 1 year tomorrow since I made the Zechariah 14 post and still no reply from T8. T8, do you intend to respond to this post?
–Paul.
I think his lack of a response is based on the fact that there is nothing real to respond to, Is 1:18.
I would respond and go through your….umm, arguments, 🙂 if the thread was unlocked.Your basic argument is that Jesus is said to “come” and Jehovah is said to come, and that Jesus is said to have the kingdom, and that Jehovah is said to have the kingdom.
Therefore, these are the same one. Or that's the argument anyway.
While this might be used as one of many other proofs, it is no proof in and of itself. For example, I have used the same argument with Jesus and Michael to show they are the same. One of my arguments was that they are both said to have an army of angels. (Rev 12:7; Mat 16:27; 24:31). Or I also say that In 1 Thess, it's the archangel's voice (Michael's) that is heard and the dead rise, but at John 5:25-29, we are clearly told that it is with Jesus voice that the dead are raised. So, this idea of them both having and doing similar things can be used as proof, but it doesn't seem to be good proof in and of itself–or at least, that's what everyone else says…..you included, I believe.
So, looking at your proof…
It is Jehovah that instituted and set up this kingdom. (Hence, it is his.)
It is Jesus that he set up to rule, and be king in this kingdom. (Hence it is his.)But this of course, doesn't mean they are the same one.
Really, the same goes for them both “coming.” It is true that in the OT Jehovah is often spoke of, the day of his coming.
And in the NT, we often hear of Jesus coming.But, just as with the kingdom, if Jehovah has set up Jesus to be his executioner of these matters, then they could both be said to be coming.
(As you know, often it was said that Jehovah was present, when it was his angel that was present.) But the angel being his representative it was spoken as if Jehovah himself was there. But other scriptures sometimes make clear he was not.)I think this idea could be used as a very off to the side point, but I'm not sure how it got into this debate section.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 22 2009,08:57) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 21 2009,19:59) How's everyone going? It will be 1 year tomorrow since I made the Zechariah 14 post and still no reply from T8. T8, do you intend to respond to this post?
Hey Brother PaulHow are you?
Long time no hear from.
Miss your excellent, enlightening post.
Hope all is well with you and yours…
WJ
Hi WJ,
I'm doing okay, I've had a high workload to deal with these last few months, well since August 2008 really. I'm doing two full time roles for the company who employs me (one is commercial and the other technical) which makes for interesting times. I'm moving into a quieter patch of the calender though and hopefully I'll be able to take some leave and recharge soon. Although I haven't been active here I've often thought about you though WJ, and I'm glad you're still here (and have lost none of you zeal!).Blessings
Quote (david @ Mar. 23 2009,09:04) Quote How's everyone going? It will be 1 year tomorrow since I made the Zechariah 14 post and still no reply from T8. T8, do you intend to respond to this post?
–Paul.
I think his lack of a response is based on the fact that there is nothing real to respond to, Is 1:18.
I would respond and go through your….umm, arguments, 🙂 if the thread was unlocked.Your basic argument is that Jesus is said to “come” and Jehovah is said to come, and that Jesus is said to have the kingdom, and that Jehovah is said to have the kingdom.
Therefore, these are the same one. Or that's the argument anyway.
While this might be used as one of many other proofs, it is no proof in and of itself. For example, I have used the same argument with Jesus and Michael to show they are the same. One of my arguments was that they are both said to have an army of angels. (Rev 12:7; Mat 16:27; 24:31). Or I also say that In 1 Thess, it's the archangel's voice (Michael's) that is heard and the dead rise, but at John 5:25-29, we are clearly told that it is with Jesus voice that the dead are raised. So, this idea of them both having and doing similar things can be used as proof, but it doesn't seem to be good proof in and of itself–or at least, that's what everyone else says…..you included, I believe.
So, looking at your proof…
It is Jehovah that instituted and set up this kingdom. (Hence, it is his.)
It is Jesus that he set up to rule, and be king in this kingdom. (Hence it is his.)But this of course, doesn't mean they are the same one.
Really, the same goes for them both “coming.” It is true that in the OT Jehovah is often spoke of, the day of his coming.
And in the NT, we often hear of Jesus coming.But, just as with the kingdom, if Jehovah has set up Jesus to be his executioner of these matters, then they could both be said to be coming.
(As you know, often it was said that Jehovah was present, when it was his angel that was present.) But the angel being his representative it was spoken as if Jehovah himself was there. But other scriptures sometimes make clear he was not.)I think this idea could be used as a very off to the side point, but I'm not sure how it got into this debate section.
Hello Dvid, How is your life going?
Interesting post. I think you've oversimplified and misrepresented my argument and haven't really addressed any of the specific points I made. But I guess we can get down to the nitty gritty when the thread is finally opened. Until then, according to the passage….Whose feet will stand on the Mount of Olives?
Quote Interesting post. I think you've oversimplified and misrepresented my argument and haven't really addressed any of the specific points I made. Hi Paul. True, it's been a while. And yes, I did simplify it a lot. I find it a frustrating … coincidence… that a lot of explanation is often required for weak points. If your one main argument is this:
Quote Whose feet will stand on the Mount of Olives? then I would say: If you read the rest of that verse:
And his feet will actually stand in that day upon the mountain of the olive trees, which is in front of Jerusalem, on the east; and THE MOUNTAIN of the olive trees MUST BE SPLIT at its middle, FROM THE SUNRISING AND TO THE WEST. There will be a very great valley; and HALF THE MOUNTAIN WILL ACTUALLY BE MOVED TO THE NORTH, and half of it to the south.
When I read this, I certainly don't picture a literal human like foot touching the ground. Often, in the Bible, we hear of God's face, his arm, his finger, etc. But these are figures of speech. In one place, we hear of the “finger of God.” In a parallel account, it is called the spirit of God.
I don't expect to see God's foot touching the ground. Nor do I literally think the the mountain will split apart from the sunrising and to the west.
Jehovah's presence will be known and in a great way.
Looking at the Bible, angels have represented his presence. The ark of the covenant represented his presence. He has used a cloud to represent his presence.
Here's a good example:
“And I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover.” (Ex 25:22)
Was Jehovah physically there, visible? Has he ever been visible? His holy spirit here represents his presence.David.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
