Search Members

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 04 2005,22:58)

liljohn, Just a few questions: If Jesus is Almighty God, then did Almighty God die on a wooden cross? If Jesus is Almighty God, then did Almighty God become sin?  Did the Holy One of heaven cease to be Holy, and become forever tarnished with sin, (as Paul says Jesus was made sin for us)? If Jesus is Almighty God, then why did he say this? Mark 13: “32But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” You have made lots of random comments in here without really outlining the scriptural basis of your actual beliefs.  I would certainly love to hear what it is you believe and the scriptural basis for it.

WhatIsTrue,

Yes, the Bible teaches that God cannot die, and that God himself cannot become sin. Christ became cursed for our sake, and not God. When Christ took on the sins of men he had to die with the sin, as a result he could not be God Almighty who cannot die. For the wages of sin is death. The sin he took on died with him and he was raised to a new life WITH God. This is solid Biblical teaching.

The true God is not the Trinity. The Trinitarian God remains a curse since it retains the sin for God cannot die. For they say Christ is fully God and man undivided.  This also means that Trinitarians are still in their sins.  After all they believe that that Jesus is the God that took sin upon himself. They are committing a grave sin by worshipping the Trinity.They are making a blasphemous claim that God can become sin or united with sin.

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 04 2005,18:49)

Hi liljon, Looking at Is 8.14. We know that the “stumbling stone” is Jesus as shown in Rom 9.33 and 1Peter 2 6f.. Looking at Is 28.16 'Therefore, thus says the Lord God ;see I am laying a stone in Zion, a stone that has been tested, a precious cornerstone as a sure foundation;he who puts faith in it shall not be shaken” So there are two here. Who is the stone ? Jesus. Who is laying the stone? the Father. So going back to Is 8.14 God has concealed that verse 13 applies to Him and verse 14-16 applies to Jesus. Ps 118 confirms that it is the work of God, done in Jesus. That is God's way. I will need more from you why the other verses cause confusion please.

Hi Nick, T8, … and Human,

You see God our Father uses Christ to carry out his will, as a result God and Christ  are both a stumbling stone to the unbeliever i.e. an obstacle. After all, Christ said 'anyone who rejects me rejects the one who sent me'. He who rejects the keystone rejects the one who put it there, and men stumble over both.

liljon, you have ignored the context. Nick you are right that  the Father, God,  has laid  a keystone which is Christ.

Human,

You are quite right regarding the word 'worship'.  The Greek word that is translated as 'worship' has many different applications. Some Trinitarian translators translate the Greek word 'proskenuo' as 'worship' because they believe that Christ is God Almighty. Yet the word 'proskenuo' is applied to others. But very often Trinitarians do not tell people this fact. Instead, they deceive people into thinking that Christ was worshipped as God. There are many other instances where Trinitarian hide the truth. It

Nick,

On the subject of Exodus 20.  The Israelites were to worship no other God 'besides' the Father, the God known to them.

It is true to say that there are Biblical papyri which do not support verses that Trinitarian prefer to include in their Translations. The selection process used by Trinitarian scholars is a bit like 'pick and mix' e.g.  papyus A might say that Christ is God in 2 Peter  but not agree with papyrus B.   Papyrus C on the other hand  might call Christ God in Titus but not in 2 Peter. A new Greek Text is then produced often referred to as 'the original Greek' which has opted to use the reading of 2 Peter found in papyrus A and the reading of Titus that is found in papyrus C and ignore papyrus D altogether. This 'original Greek text' then forms the basis of some modern translations in which you find that it says that Christ is God in Titus and 2 Peter. The resulting 'Greek Text' does not agree with a specific manuscript. The Old Testament manuscripts  were not subjected to such widespread changes.

'The phrase 'the original Greek' used by Trinitarian scholars is misleading since the original Bible manuscripts do not exist. It really refers to the original language in which the New Testament was written.

[messageofsalvation]

liljon

I suggest that you read previous posts because you have stated quite a few things that have already been dealt with in previous posts.  You should really read it first instead of repeating what is old ground.

Now you referred to Exodus 20:

And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:1-3).

But Trinitarians ignore one important obvious fact:

God Almighty, the God whom Israel accepted here in Exodus 20:1-3 was not the Trinity, and these Israelites were told to have no other gods so clearly Trinitarians break God's commandment.

Do you wish to argue with this and ignore the context. It would be foolish and deceitful to claim that Israel accepted the Trinity in Exodus 20:1-3 wouldn't it?

Trinitarians falsely claim that the Bible teaches that God is 3 person but it does not.  The Bible teaches this: although there are many things called gods only one being is God of all including Christ.  He is the Father and no other.

The one true God of Christ and his brothers is not the Trinity but the Father.  God himself has no brothers.

There is only one person who is the only unbegotten God. Christ is not the one unbegotten God. Christ was begotten by this God.

To help your understanding consider this:

Christians bear the name of Christ yet they are not Christ himself. Yet Christ is IN  true Christians. Similarly, the Bible teaches that God is IN Christ, and that Christ bears the name of his God, acting as his agent. It does not teach that he is God Almighty his God.  Regarding Christ it is written:

'He will stand and feed his flock with the power of YHWH with the majesty of the name of his God.' (Micah 5:4)

Christ said this to his enemies:

'As for human approval, this means nothing to me. Besides, I know you too well: you have no love of God in you.  I have come in my Fathers name and your refuse to accept me; if someone else comes in his own name you will accept him. (John 5:41-43)

liljon

There is one God Almighty, the unbegotten God.  Is Christ the one unbegotten God?

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (liljon @ Dec. 29 2004,21:52)

Where? Psalm 8:5 in LXX says Angels not elohim

This makes no difference as the Hebrew texts were translated into the Greek LXX and they are both the Bible. The Jewish scribes understood that angels were sometimes called gods, and therefore translated the word 'elohim' as 'angels'. Therefore, this shows that what I am saying is true.  Here is another example:

'I will praise you, O Lord, with all my heart before the gods (Psalm 138:1, NIV)

'In the presence of the angels I play to you' (Psalm 138:1, Jerusalem Bible)

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (liljon @ Dec. 29 2004,21:41)

God can be in two (or more) places at once and my previous post proves he is god

Hi liljon,

Angels are called gods in the Bible. Would you say that means that angels are God Almighty because of this?

[messageofsalvation]

T8,

I thank God for your kind words. On the subject of your question:

Quote

Can such teachers be of God's Spirit, who deny and teach against the first commandment?

The apostle John's position is quite clear and stated with conviction:

'If anybody does not keep within the teaching of Christ but goes beyond it, he cannot have God with him: only those who keep to what he taught can have the Father and the Son with them. If anyone comes to you bringing a different doctrine, you must not receive him in your house or even give him a greeting.  To greet him would make you a partner in his wicked work. ' (2 John verses 9,10)

I mentioned in some of my previous posts that Trinitarians use the heresy of dividing Christ when dealing with the issue that God cannot die and Christ said  'my God, my God why have you forsaken me.'  I will share with you what God has been showing me.

I have discovered a reading of 1 John 4:2 that is in some early manuscripts and other church Father writings.

Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ came in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separate Jesus Christ is not of God but is of antiChrist.  (1 John 4:2)

Trinitarian translators do not include that above reading in the footnote of Bibles yet it is  found in  some Bible manuscripts and some early church Father writings. One historian has even said that the above reading is the correct one and that the alternative reading was introduced by the heretics.

Given that Trinitarians use the heresy of separating Christ I think this is a serious issue that they would much rather avoid. After all, the Trinity doctrine is clearly shown up as being antichrist by dividing Christ to get round the fact that Christ died for sin and God cannot die. The doctrine of the Trinity is hindering people from being saved.  In the past there were many false doctrines that incoporate the heretical idea of separating Christ.

The apostle John defended the truth but did not greet false teachers who claimed to be Christian when he saw them. Of course, the apostles desired that these false teachers renounced their wicked ways.  

Those who teach men to break the first commandment do not have God in them.They cannot have God in them when they reject him and worship an idol.

Initially the apostle John makes it clear that  a true believer  is one who acknowledges that Christ came to this earth as a man.  However, in his later letter he found it necessary to add another key element that distinguishes a true Christian from a counterfeit one: they must not go beyond the teachings of Christ.  He was obviously having to address a growing problem of false teachers and counterfeit Christians in his day, and any misunderstanding people might have regarding what is acceptable.

The Trinity is not the teachings of Christ.

Love desires that every human being renounce evil and become sons of light but it does not compromise the truth.

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Guest @ Dec. 04 2004,03:53)

This is pure arrogance. You should be ashamed.

The guest who posted the quote above to T8 should first examine their own doctrine and whether or no they object to what is true.

I say to this person: have you never read this:

We demolish sophistries and the  arrogance that tries to resist the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:4)

Given that the doctrine of the Trinity is a false doctrine and not truth it encourages arrogance.  Why? Because people are taught to resist believing what is true. Such actions are arrogance on the part of Trinitarians especially when they continue to use arguments that have been shown to be deceitful. I would dearly love them to see the light of truth rather than run from it.

The Bible makes it quite clear that idolators will not enter the kingdom of God. It certainly does not say that all who worship the Father only as Almighty God are excluded from the kingdom. After all, faithful Israelites were clearly not Trinitarians.  But Trinitarians have been arrogant enough to condemn those who will not believe their deceitful teaching. I have shown in my previous posts that the Trinity is idolatry.

A careful examination of previous postings in this forum will benefit a genuine seeker of truth who will see examples of the spirit of truth pulling down deceitful arguments that Trinitarians have used to seduce people into believing a lie and how they have been shown to be not of God.

So who should really be ashamed  and who is arrogant?

I once knew a Trinitarian who said I was a very strong Christian after they had seen how I lived my life.  Now, when this person realised that I did not believe the Trinity and after I had shown that their Trinitarian arguments were deceitful. They then resorting to  falsely claiming that I was arrogant. Yet before then they said my character was exemplary. Sometimes when Trinitarians are made aware that their arguments are deceitful they resort to this kind of thing. It is arrogance that resists the knowledge of God.

If God sends his son who says 'eternal life is this: to know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent', and men reject this to claim God is

1.  the Father plus the moon
OR
2.  the Father plus a person(s) who does not exist as God Almighty

it is all idolatry and arrogance that resists the truth.

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 26 2004,06:00)

If God the father is spirit and the Holy Spirit is spirit and the Holy Spirit is the Father's spirit then the Holy Spirit must be the Father. If that's true then Spirit of God must speak only what He hears from Himself. He talks to Himself? Don't you find this a little hard to believe? He is also subservient to Jesus. Can you explain this? These verses only make sense in a trinitarian framework.

Honestly, Is 1:18, I prefer to believe the scriptures than follow your pattern of unbelief.

''the spirit of your Father will be speaking in you.' (Matthew 10:20)

But they rebelled, they grieved his holy spirit (Isaiah 63:10)

The spirit of Yahweh led them to rest this is how you guided your people (Isaiah 63:14)

Do not let your compassion go unmoved, for you are our Father. For Abraham does not own us and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, Yahweh, yourself are our Father (Isaiah 63:16).

Is 1:18, the scriptures are quite clear in showing us that the God's holy spirit is the spirit of the Father. Christ is one with his Father: one in spirit. I believe that the only true God is the Father and therefore God's (Father's) holy spirit is clearly the spirit of the Father, and not the third person of the Trinity.

Is 1:18 you wrote:

Quote

Also notice that Jesus used the masculine form of parakletos; he did not consider it necessary to make the word neuter or to use neuter pronouns. In John 16:14, masculine pronouns are used even after the neuter pneuma is mentioned. It would have been easy to switch to neuter pronouns, but John did not..

Are we not reading a translation.  Do you know whether Christ spoke to his disciples in Greek or Hebrew. Yet you say Jesus used the masculine form of parakletos. Jesus called it 'the spirit of truth' in John chapter 16.  Truth in Greek is a feminine form. Using your argument should we now argue that the holy spirit is a female person like a few Trinitarian cults, certainly not.This is such a deceptive argument that your using.Really Is 1:18 some of your arguments are deceptive. Any poor soul that did not know better may be deceived by it. Yet will you stop using such arguments? Do you think God approves of what you are saying here? If you continue to use such arguments after your error has been highlighted then your actions become wilful deception.

I do not wish to abandon God for a man made doctrine (i.e. the doctrine of the Trinity). As I said before to deny that the holy spirit is the spirit of the Father at work in Christ is to deny the Father. Trinitarians do this by falsely claiming that some mysterious third person of the Trinity worked in Christ instead of attributing that work to the Father himself. They dishonour the Father, a dangerous thing to do.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ”. (2 Corinthians 10:3,4)

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 27 2004,08:44)

Why do men ask such questions? Why do men have to label people? It is because they like to judge them easily. But you cannot judge a child Is 1:18, nor anyone who innocently seeks the truth. You can say that we are not perfect, but you cannot judge us by your human standard.

T8,

I know what you mean.  I remember speaking to a Trinitarian Pastor who was keen to ascertain what denomination my beliefs fit.  Back then I use to attend his church.  He did this because I challenged the doctrine of the Trinity, and he could not refute what I was saying. He tried to label me as a JW and I told him I am not one. In the past, I have been to a large number of Trinitarian churches and in almost every case they have taught that non-Trinitarians are non-Christrians. I am no longer a part of such denominations. After all if you are very open about the truth it is difficult to remain in such places.

Trinitarians say the Trinity is Christian doctrine, but around the time of Tertullian it clearly was not considered as Christian doctrine. I call it so-called Christian doctrine. So as to distinguish it from what is true Christian doctrine.

Is 1:18,

Quote

“May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14). “who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood” (1 Peter 1:2). These can really only be explained if the Holy Spirit and God the Father are different persons

If I wrote:May the love of James, the compassion of his heart, and his brother be with you.

Would one assume that 'his heart' is a separate person to James. No.

Would you conclude that a persons heart is a separate person to themselves because their heart is grieved, insulted, vexed, deceived  etc?

'You will listen and listen again, but not understand, see and see again, but not perceive.  For the heart of this nation has grown course…they have shut their eyes for fear they should see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their heart.'

Is the heart of a nation a person  distinct from the nation?No.

'For forty-two months the beast was allowed to mouth its boasts and blasphemies and to dow whatever it wanted; and it mouthed its blasphemies against God, against his name, his heavenly tent and those who lived there.  (Revelation 13:5)

Is God's heavenly tent a person just because it is blasphemed?

Is 1:18,   I hope you get my drift. You wrote this to t8:

Quote

Its always easy to spot someone without any real argument bc they will usually resort to character assassination and avoid the real core issues. This is what you have done. Everyone has been quick to jump on me here but no-one was willing to address the Jn 16 verses specifically

I think you have avoided key issues that I raised.  The disciples and Christ said several things that could be misconstrued as character assassination.  

'if you, then who are evil, know how to give your children what is good, how much more your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!' (Matthew 7:11)

God has not called us to compromise the truth. If we do not judge by human standards then it is not a question of character assination but speaking in accordance with what is right.  If you are honest you will acknowledge that you have avoided real core issues e.g. the fact that you have used the division heresy to defend your belief that the Trinity is not at odds with John 17:3.  Nevertheless I will address  John 16.  

The Greek word for spirit is Pneuma.  This word is neuter.  It is neither feminine or masculine.  The pronoun 'it' is used when refering to the holy spirit throughout the New Testament.  However,  Trinitarian translators  instead of being faithful to truth use the pronoun 'he' instead the word 'it'.  If the aposles felt the holy spirit was a distinct person from the Father they would have used the masculine pronoun 'AUTOS'  but they did not instead they used the neuter pronoun  'AUTO'.  

The Greek word for spirit is accompanied with the pronoun 'it' throughout the New Testament. In John chapter 16 the language is different. You have overlooked the fact that in  John chapter 16 Christ makes it quite clear that he was speaking in metaphors.

Regarding chapter 16 this key point is often overlooked:

'I have been telling you all this in metaphors; but I shall no longer speak to you in metaphors; but tell you about the Father in plain words' (John 16:25)

He refers to the spirit as PARAKLHTOS (often translated as the Comforter).Christ spoke about his Father in metaphorical terms in John chapter 16.  He was not referring to a third member of the Trinity.

The Father's spirit lives in Christ . This is sent down to the saints in the name of Christ:

'but the Advocate, the holy spirit whom the Father will send in my name' (John 14:26).  

We should understand that it is not another person who 'issues from the Father'. Christ is one with God's holy spirit.  The spirit that we receive is one: the union of the Father's spirit and that of  his son.

Is 1:18, Have you never asked yourself questions (talked to yourself either internally or out aloud? So what is so strange if God does the same thing.  Don't some mothers say  'mummy' to  their baby to try to help it speak? So what is so strange when the Father  help us to say what we have difficulty in expressing to him for our benefit?  Does not your heart expresss what it feels? Yet it is not a separate person to you.  God is spirit.  And if Christ expresses this in metaphorical terms what is so hard to believe.  And if Christ is one spirit with his Father what is so strange if through the Father's spirit Christ is able to convey what he has learned to us.  Did Christ always speak literally?

Is 1:18,   God's holy spirit is  the Father spirit at work in Christ. If this  truth is denied then the work of the Father in Christ is denied. To attribute this work to someone other than the Father is to dishonour the Father. If you deny the holy spirit is the Father's spirit at work in Christ, and are attributing it to someone other than  the Father then you deny the work of God in Christ.

Is 1:18,   if you deny the holy spirit is the spirit of the Father at work in Christ. Then you deny Christ.

Please take time to think about all this.Christ is not apposed to the teaching that the God's holy spirit is his Father spirit as shown in my previous post. But you have been. This is something you should have repented over.

For your own salvation, do not simply avoid the fact that  you have used a heresy (dividing Christ) in your attempts to defend your belief that you are not apposing Christ's teaching in John 17:3. Trinitarians use that heresy at various points e.g. when defending their belief that Chri
st is God Almighty despite the fact that he said 'my God, my God why have you forsaken me'.

For Trinitarians to say  Christ (one person) is fully God and claim one person is not God is not the spirit of truth. It is dishonest. But have you addressed this?

I have presented you with the above  points that you still have not dealt with rather than bombard you with a page full of new ones.  Otherwise you may claim I am insulting you and use this as a basis for not dealing with it again.

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Oct. 25 2004,09:07)

If, by the Unitarian understanding, the Holy Spirit is ‘the Father’s spirit’ and God Himself is Spirit (Jn 4:24) then how is it that He will only speak what He hears? Does God, who is spirit, speak to His own Spirit? That’s illogical from every angle. Furthermore, notice how the Spirit is subservient to Jesus (He will bring glory to me) this goes against the whole NT theme of Jesus’ subservience to the Father. Curious.

Is 1:18,

Digest the fact that earliest manuscripts in Greek do not refer to the holy spirit as 'he' but 'it'. Later Latin manuscripts that were produced after the Nicene Council's decision departed this.

When I have told Trinitarians in the past that the holy spirit is the Father's spirit they have told me that it is a heresy without giving me the opportunity to show them that is Biblical. Thereby condemning themselves for refusing to believe the truth. Like you they have said it is  a Unitarian idea. I was even told not to speak about these things.

For every unfounded word men utter they will answer on judgement day since it is by your words you will be acquitted and by your words condemned (Matthew 12:36).

Is 1:18,

You are trying to argue with the Biblical truth that the holy spirit is the Father's spirit..  A true believer will not reject Christ teaching:

''the spirit of your Father will be speaking in you.' (Matthew 10:20)

'By your own admission the teaching that the Holy Spirit is the Father's spirit is Unitarian. Yet it is Christ's teaching. So he obviously did not teach the Trinity, and you like many other Trinitarians I have met reject his teaching.

'Is 1:18,
Open your eyes. You are promoting error instead of Christ's teaching here. Despite the fact that you were informed about your errors you continue to use them. It is sad that you are resisting Christ for the sake of the man made doctrine of the Trinity.

'It is a hard and narrow road that leads to life and few find it'.

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 17 2004,03:31)

MOS, I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot. It would be hard to reach another conclusion.   If you have felt wronged by any of my comments then I wholeheartedly apologise. Sincerely, Im sorry. If Elisha is right and you have had a bad experience with nasty trinitarians in the past then im sorry to hear that – but thats not what im about. I freely concede that you could probably demolish me in an scriptural argument, Ive only been studying the word for 2 or 3 years and have 2 young children that demand my time (which if love to give them of course). I haven't reached my conclusion on Jesus' identity because the church has re-inforced that by their ideology. The Holy Spirit has led me there. If you want to post antagonisingly every time I try to communicate with others then thats your call but I will simply leave and take with me a very sobering view of your theology and its proponents (with a few exceptions). God Bless mate.

I thank God that you have responded with this post. There is hope for anyone who is truly seeking God. Yes, I have been persecuted by Trinitarians. Some have done so not realising that I have quoted Christ's own words, and that was sad.

I hope you have a good day!

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 17 2004,00:33)

I was saying sorry to T8 actually. Ummm…..look MOS, are you totally incapable of being nice?, Im beginning to wonder. At first I found your tone really insulting – then annoying – now I find it funny. I mean, who is like this?? Im not going to answer your posts, take a hint, please. Its not because you challenge me any more than the rest but simply because, if im to be honest, I don't want to – id rather communicate with someone who can reason with me and still be respectfull. Understand? God Bless

Is 1:18, That's your choice. No offence taken.   I know you only apologized to T8 that is why I questioned your sincerity.  You see T8 questioned you accusing me of hatred. You apologized to him regarding this but you say the apology is to T8. It was clear to me that you did not have the humility to direct any apology to me. If you feel that I am excluded from your apology and future postings then you are not truly repentant and your guilt remains. T8 questioned your accusing me of hatred.  Go back and look at your response dated Sep. 15 2004,20:14

Is 1:18,
I think you need to take a look at yourself first.Love does not take offence like the way you did. Yet you accused me of hatred.  You are deceived.

I take no personal offence it is your salvation that is in danger. After all, I don't depend on your responses.
You obviously have issues concerning my questions, and were offended that I have highlighted your errors and continue to do so. Thus far you have refused to reason through the issue I raised concerning your use of the 'separation' heresy.

I will continue to highlight any errors that you post for the sake of others.

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,21:18)

Please believe me when I say I do consider what other have to say to me (as long as it's been delivered with respect) and have been challenged by some of it. I would be lying if I said otherwise. By the same token though I would be surprised if I haven't challenged others here with some of the content of my posts. I say this because inconsistencies I have raised have not, im my opinion, been adequately explained – not even close.

Christ said 'if you, then who are evil, know how to give your children what is good, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Christ had respect and yet he delivered this.  

Is 1:18,

I hope you get my drift.

Quote

How have I reached this conclusion? Well for a start Jesus WAS good! He was good by any standard of measure, even the Father's perfect one. Hebrews 4:14,15 bears this out very clearly: 14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.

Is 1:18,

No one can deny that God's obedient holy angels do not sin. They are not bad but good. Yet only one is good. So Christ means that perfect beings draw their goodness from the only one who is good, the Father. Just as Christ said that he draws his life from the Father:

'As I, who am sent by the living Father, myself draw life from the Father' (John 6:57).

'it is the Father, living in me, who is doing the work' (John 14:10)

You said, you were sorry. I would prefer if we draw a line under that. Now, I sincerely ask you to address the questions that I raised in my previous posts. If you don't want me to post you, and you don't want to post me then I would have to take it that your not really sorry.

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,21:18)

I agree, its human nature to shun a belief that it contrary to that you have been taught.

It is interesting to know that early Church writers said that a first century Jew called 'Philo' was a Christian. So I decided to have a look at his first cenury works. There seems to be a lot of cageyness surrounding access to his Greek writings. Their cageyness is also evident when you look at the back of the cover:

'while it would not be correct to say that Philo's works have been 'lost' – scholars have always known and used Philo – they have essentially been 'misplaced' as far as the average student of the Bible is concerned.'

Trinitarian scholars have the Greek text but the average student of the Bible doesn't even know it exists. Furthermore, the translation has not been presented simply. You will need a dictionary!

What is significant is that he believed in a figure called 'the son of God', 'the High Priest', 'God's first born'. Philo refers to him as one who appears as a second god who is below God and also makes it clear that he is God's image and that he is not God Almighty.

God's son is refered to as a second god who is not the true God. This is clearly not incapatible with first century Judaism. So Trinitarians who disagree with this are clearly wrong. Philo said that God's image is not God Almighty himself.

Heb 1:18 has an alternative reading that can be found by refering to earlier manuscripts:

'God is your throne forever: the righteous sceptre is one that rules true; virtue you love as much as you have wickedness. Rightly has God, your God, chosen to anoint you with the oil of gladness, setting you above all your companions'

Firstly, Heb 1:18 comes from the Psalms and is also applied to David. David is not God but occupied the seat of God i.e. he occuppied the seat of authority. Even if we took the Trinitarians preferred reading one would have to understand it in a similar manner, just like the judges who were referred to as gods, but not God Almighty.

Is 1:18,
I am sincerely asking you to adresss the questions I raised.
As I have done so with you. Please do not resort to accusations in future as a means of avoiding addressing them.

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 16 2004,03:26)

Show me the verse where Jesus says unequivically that He is not God and I would have to agree with you. Where does He say “I am not God”? Like Nate says the NT is ambiguous but I think if you look at the evidence objectively – there is enough to show He is.

The Father 'made him little less than a god' (Psalm 8:5)

However,the Trinity teaches that Father, son and holy spirit are co-equally God.

Christ teaches that

1.  although the sons of God are called gods (John 10:34)
2.  the Father is the only true God (John 17:3)

Christ also told his Father before he came to earth
'you have no equal' as in the text:

'How many plans you have made for us; you have no equal…
You, who wanted no sacrifice or oblation, opened my ear, you asked no holocaust or sacrifice for sin then I said, 'Here I am! I am coming!' (Psalm 40:5,6)

The Book of Hebrews refers to verse 6 of Psalm 40. Some Trinitarian translations cut out Christ declaration to his Father that 'you have no equal'.  However the paragraph is there in the Hebrew Manuscripts. For starters: it can be found in the Jerusalem Bible.

But will Is 1:18 believe the truth?

The weight of Christ's direct statements supports that the Father is the only true God and that the Father is this God who has no equal. The Trinity doctrine itself relies on false assumptions which Trinitarians thinks are hints that support their beliefs.

The Trinity rejects this clear teaching that Christ imparted. The Trinity also uses a 'separation' heresy to explain how Christ could be God when he said 'my God, my God why have you forsaken me'.

The truth does not rely on a heresy!

[messageofsalvation]

Elisha,

You have made some very good points. Sometimes Trinitarians frustration at not being able to refute what is clearly true leads them to have a bitter hatred. That has been my experience at least.

Yet some have previously said that I am a strong committed Christian until they realized that I was refuting the doctrine of the Trinity. However, the scriptures tell us to expect to suffer for Christ. It is comforting to know that Christ understands and has experienced what we.

[messageofsalvation]

Is 1:18,

Please explain it to T8. You were quite happy to post me  until you couldn't provide any answers. I have pointed out errors in the teachings of the Trinity. You don't seem to know how to avoid using a heresy to answer my previous questions.

I am speaking in love.   I desire that you avoid false teaching. It is my duty to use the inspired scriptures to  teach the truth, and correct error.

Your difficulty comes from the fact that I have pointed out your errors. The truth should be accepted with humility.

Your remarks are not an expression of love. Instead, you have resorted to making unsubstantiated accusations which is not the spirit of God. My questions are quite sensible.

[messageofsalvation]

Is 1:18,

There is no contradiction.
The Jews did not attempt to stone Christ each time he said 'I am'. 'The blind man said 'I am' in John 9:9 and no attempt was made to stone him either.

So clearly the Jews attempted to stone Christ for another reason in John 8:59.

Quote

Bwtn John 8:59 and 10:31 there is no mention of stoning at all. John 10:31 is referenced back to John 8:59 when it says “The Jews took up stones again to stone Him” Note that they gave a reason for the stoning the second time: “because you, a mere man, claim to be God”.

You have made an assumption that 10:31 is referenced back to John 8:59.  Note:  Christ sets the record straight with his enemies as to the exact reason why he is accused by quoting his exact words:
'Yet you say to someone whom the Father has consecrated 'You are blaspheming', because he says, 'I am the Son of God'. (John 10:36). That statement is not referenced back to John 8:59 since the statement 'I am the son of God' is not present.

Trinitarians take Biblical verses out of context in order to build false arguments based on false assumptions.

Quote

I think their reaction in ch 8 underscores the fact that He was making a very serious claim by saying “I am” (in that context) in this instance as well. If he was not making that claim then you will have to explain to me what warranted the murderous reaction.

Is 1:18, again you are in error. It is foolish to base your assumption, which you call fact, on how Christ enemies reacted instead of what Christ said himself.

Fact: Christ did not claim to be God. He did not say, 'I am God'. He said 'I am the son of God' so he claimed to be the son of God.

Fact: the Trinitarian claim regarding John 8:58 is an assumption not a statement of fact.

Is 1:18,
You have produced no rebuttal of anything I have said in my recent posts. You have simply objected to it.  I have continued to point out errors in the Trinitarian teaching.

Remember, Godman is not fully man.
Trinitarians reject God is one person. Yet say one person, Christ is fully their Trinity God (3  persons).  The Trinity would have been considered a cult around the beginning of the third century:

'”The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)…They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods…While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation” (of the Three in One).” (Tertullian)

Trinitarians say 'God in three persons'.
Is 1:18 explain how one person is fully the Trinity God (3 persons) given that you reject that God is one person.

Explain how a godman can be truely man without separating the god from the man. Note: separating Christ is heresy.

Explain how Christ could be God when he said, 'my God, my God why have you forsaken me'. Note: separating Christ is heresy.

Is 1:18 you have yet to address this without using separation, a heresy.

[messageofsalvation]

messageofsalvation,Sep. wrote:

Quote

The Bible teaches that there is one Father in heaven, his only son and his adopted sons. Regarding use of the pronoun 'he' for the holy spirit by many uninformed Trinitarians.  The Trinity creates a further son called the person of the holy spirit. The vast majority of early Greek manuscripts do not refer to the holy spirit as 'he' but 'it'.  Later  Latin manuscripts ones abandoned this practise i.e. those produced after the period of Nicene Council. Have you never considered that calling the holy spirit the third person of the Trinity is denying God's only son. If you believe the holy spirit is the third person of the Trinity. Consider this: is 'he' another Father or another son, or both or the pronoun 'he' denotes something different? Can't you see that the doctrine of the Trinity is false and causes these problems and alot more. My belief is Biblical because it is consistent with the Bible unlike the Trinity.

For starters observe that John instructs the saints as follows:

'you are anointed with truth, not with a lie and as it has taught you so must you stay in him.' (John 2:27).

Trinitarian translators try to make the holy spirit a person but at times cause confusion something that is not in the original Biblical writings. Jehovah's witnesses and Trinitarians produce biased translations.

This is nothing new because men in the past have been biased and twisted God's word: 'How dare you say: We are wise, and posses the law of Yahweh? But look how it has been falsified by the lying pen of the scribes! The wise shall be shamed, caught out confounded. Look how they have rejected the word of Yahweh! So what use is their wisdom to them? (Jeremiah 8:8,9)

Is 1:18,

When your arguments are false you will be caught out. Your arguments still show that you have rejected the fact that Christ is not the only true God who sent him. Christ did not send himself -the only true God sent him. Your response does not address this. Yet so far you refuse to accept that Christ is not the only true God who sent him. Yet I have shown you that what I said is consistent with the truth.  The problem is your understanding here. For whatever form you say he was in he still made it quite clear that that he did not send himself but was sent by the only true God.

The Bible teaches that Christ was in every way like us, though without sin. Man is not Godman but man.

[messageofsalvation]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 13 2004,00:22)

OK firstly, its erroneous to build doctrine on one verse, or to take one or two verses on a subject and use them to interpret all others. This, as you probably know, is called proof texting and it's hard to respect it.This, as you probably know, is called proof texting and it's hard to respect it.I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider previous posts of the same vein that you have made here..

Quote

Also, if we apply your logic and reasoning to other verses then all kinds of problematic inconsistencies.

Is 1:18,

Your post which these quotes comes is filled with error. You have provided your own reasoning.Inconsistencies arise for you because you do not understand the truth that I have written.

The context of the scriptures tells us that for a Christian Christ is the appointed saviour, Lord, High Priest etc. He was 'made'  Lord, Christ and Saviour of mankind and High Priest by the only true God.  

'God has made this Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2:36).
'God has now raised him up to be leader and saviour' (Acts 3:31)
Each one [High Priest]is called by God, as Aaron was.Nor did Christ give himself the glory of becoming high priest.' (Hebrews 5:5)
This one God who raised up Christ is clearly not the Trinity. Christ did not appoint himself. He is not the one God who appointed him. A similar problem arises for you as with John 17:3.

The Bible quite clearly reveals that God selected saviours for Israel at different points in time:

'In the days of their oppression they cried to you, and from heaven you heard them, greatly loving, you granted them saviours'.  ( Nehemiah 9:27)

These are all appointed saviours. Christ too was appointed but not just as saviour of Israel but of mankind.  Yet Trinitarian articles falsely claim that 'no savior besides me' is proof that Christ is God Almighty' or point to miracles as false proof text. Being a saviour or working miracles is not proof. Elijah also worked miracles and  he certainly was not God.  The Bible context makes it quite clear that the Father, the only true God, is the only ultimate saviour using men. Christ is appointed and the Father saves us by working in him. I have highlighted Trinitarians use of deception.

'Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality something to be grasped, but made himself nothing taking on the very nature of a servant being made in human likeness'(Philipians 2:5-7.NIV)

Incidentally, as far as Philipians 2:5-7.  The earliest Biblical manuscripts do not agree with you, and say nothing of Christ being equal to God  or some how separating. The earliest manuscript state that he has God's nature and became nothing. The NIV translation says nothing of a separation.  Later text produced after the decision at the Nicean Council depart from this. Trinitarians obviously did not like the earlier reading. False doctrines divide Christ etc.

Trinitarian Council of Chalcedon Definition (451 AD):

'Christ, son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation'

It sounds like you are contradicting one of the Trinitarian statements to me and showing that there is confusion in the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinitarians seem to resort to separating Christ inorder to try to justify their false teaching. Christ clearly said 'my God, my God why have you forsaken me' at the cross. Trinitarians again divide Christ to decieve people switching between God and man, changing Christ.

'God is not a God of confusion but a God of peace'. Please don't resort to dividing Christ and accept the truth that Christ is not the one true God who sent him. The Bible is quite clear about that.

Quote

At the time he prayed this verse He was speaking as a man to His God, He is the “Word made flesh” being both fully God and fully man .

If you say Christ spoke as man, it does not get away from the fact that he still remained God to you. True God speaking to his true God. This sounds like Trinitarian inconsistency and polytheism. You say Jesus is fully God and fully man.  More Trinitarian inconsistency: Christ who Trinitarians claim is one third of the Trinity is not fully three persons (the Trinity God). Don't Trinitarians deny that God is one person? Isn't Christ one person? So that does not make him fully the Trinity God(three persons).Is Christ fully three persons? A God-man can hardly be truly man. Psalm 8:5 clearly says of Christ also 'you have made him little less than a god'. Scripture .Scripture shows that what you are saying is false.

God's word says that false teaching is senseless:
'The whole lot of them are brutish and stupid: the teaching given by these Nothings is void of sense.  But Yahweh is the true God.  He is the living God, the everlasting King. (Jeremiah 10:10)

Is 1:18,
You still haven't accepted John 17:3.Tell me will you now accept the truth that Christ is not the one true God who sent him?

The Bible teaches that there is one Father in heaven, his only son and his adopted sons. Regarding use of the pronoun 'he' for the holy spirit by many uninformed Trinitarians.  The Trinity creates a further son called the person of the holy spirit. Early Greek manuscripts do not refer to the holy spirit as 'he' but 'it'.  Later Latin manuscripts abandoned this practise i.e. those produced after the period of Nicene Council. Have you never considered that calling the holy spirit the third person of the Trinity is denying God's only son. If you believe the holy spirit is the third person of the Trinity. Consider this: is 'he' another Father or another son, or both or the pronoun 'he' denotes something different? Can't you see that the doctrine of the Trinity is false and causes these problems and alot more. My belief is Biblical because it is consistent with the Bible unlike the Trinity.

[Author]

Posts