YHWH is great, Jesus is worthy Forum Index YHWH is great, Jesus is worthy
Sharing Truth
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 




The Trinity
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    YHWH is great, Jesus is worthy Forum Index -> Theology, Bible Study
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bible Student



Joined: 26 Sep 2008
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:25 am    Post subject: Re: The Trinity Reply with quote

Pogo wrote:
Hello all - There is much condemnation here, of those who have a belief in the Trinty. As I have expressed in other forums, I see that the scriptures teach of God manifesting Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just as we are told below...

Matthew 28:19 KJV
(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


Hmm, and why is it that that particular formula is not found in the Scriptures, namely baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Free Forum






PostPosted:      Post subject: ForumsLand.com

Back to top
Viperlord



Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 99
Location: Somewhere beyond here...

PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:14 pm    Post subject: Re: The Trinity Reply with quote

Bible Student wrote:
Hmm, and why is it that that particular formula is not found in the Scriptures, namely baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?


Doesn't Matthew 28:19 count?

butxifxnot wrote:
Sure it is: it originates from the pagan religious beliefs of Hades, Charon and the rest. I think that a biblical untruth that is pagan in nature is as "untruth" as you come.


And if Jesus used it to teach? I won't quarrel that it's an "untruth," but I do disagree that it's necessarily pagan. Both conclusions, that hell is hot and that humans have a soul, are easily reached by a simple reading of the Bible.

butxifxnot wrote:
By the way, something "going back to being immortal" is a logical impossibility. If something "stops" being immortal, by definition it was never immortal.


Ah, I must be using a different definition. I was treating it from the temporal perspective, that if you can survive forever in your present state, then you are immortal; but if you get off track, and begin to die, then you are not immortal until you get back to the immortal state. That is, an immortal person can only be killed by an action, while a mortal will die if nothing is done to prevent it.

For your more absolute definition, I like the word "eternal."

butxifxnot wrote:
It was an option. We have the ability to choose.


My point is that Freyd's argument was of the same form as mine, and invalid for the same reason.

butxifxnot wrote:
Stop right there:
translations never "seems to" anything. They either are or they are not.


"Seems" is the proper word to denote uncertainty. It is quite common to not know precisely what an ancient word meant, and it's no good to ignore the word for that reason. Even in modern languages, you can't always be certain of how a word is being used - as the "immortal" example above demonstrates.

butxifxnot wrote:
Angels are by very nature divine, too. Jesus, however, was the only divine being to ever LEAVE that nature to actually become a son of a man. There are angels in the Bible who took on the form of man, but Jesus actually lived as one.


I question that angels are by very nature theos. Can you back that up?

butxifxnot wrote:
Also, your argument regarding Satan is flimsy at best. Just because someone is "the god of something" doesn't make it any less "god". Jesus is referred to as "our God" a few times, and Satan is referred to as the God of this world (as opposed to our God).


Can I call Hitomi the queen of this forum? I think so. Calling her the Queen (without qualifying it), however, is vague at best, and false as it is most easily understood.

Qualifying a word can drastically reduce its meaning.

butxifxnot wrote:
"Theos" does not mean God the way modern Christians use it.


"Theos" refers most naturally to the Greek pantheon, I know. However, judging by John 10:33, that isn't how it was understood by the Jews. Apparently claiming to be theos, in what was the conventional sense at that time, was grounds for a stoning. Even if that wasn't what Jesus meant, their reaction shows something about word usage.

Incidentally, how do you interpret John 5:18?

butxifxnot wrote:
This is completely unsubstantiated.


Very well; that was tangential anyway.

butxifxnot wrote:
Viperlord wrote:

I suppose you could say we Trinitarians don't want to let Jesus give up his godhood...


I will say that, indeed. Most trinitarians can't do that because they are taught that those who don't believe it are doomed to hell!


I've brought that point up with a Trinitarian friend, and we've gotten into a debate over the difference between position and nature. As for the threat of hell... the simplest things can be oversimplified. I agree that it was a mistake to use this philosophy as a litmus test for true Christians.

butxifxnot wrote:
You missed my point:
Jesus was APPOINTED by the Father. If He was "by very nature God" the way you interpret it, then He would not need to be appointed any of these things, because they would be naturally His anyway.


Not need, perhaps, but did God really need Paul to do any preaching either? Sometimes it's nice to accept as a gift something that's yours by right. It just reaffirms that you're deserving of it.

butxifxnot wrote:
This Scripture disagrees with your interpretation.


That would be rather difficult, as it's what we're interpreting.

butxifxnot wrote:
Paul calls Satan a god.


That's the "God of this world" verse, right?

butxifxnot wrote:
If you're going to say that the Trinity is true just because Jesus is referred to as "theos", then in order to be completely honest, you have to include Satan in on the deal.


No, and no. I have other reasons, and Satan's title is suitably qualified.

butxifxnot wrote:
You're right.
But just because something can be easily read one way doesn't make it right. Jesus asked "Why do you call me good?" The man didn't call Him "good" meaning "good morally": he called Him "good teacher", with "good" referring to Jesus' teaching.

It can ONLY be correctly read one way.

It's "easy" to interpret the Bible many ways which are false.


It can only be correctly read one way, but how are we to know which interpretation is correct? Only by comparing it with less controversial verses.

butxifxnot wrote:
...


I've deleted all your good reasoning. (What a reaction, eh?) Really, you're probably right. I'll double-check by debating it with my friend, and seeing if I can cover all of his arguments.

All of my objections above are just tangents now, but I'll leave them.

butxifxnot wrote:
I've NEVER heard someone refer to my name as "boring". =P Confusing, weird, funny...never boring. Wink
It's the three words "but if not" with filler between the words. It comes from a historical "miracle" in which a group of people in distress used those three words (from the Bible) to call for rescue.


I see. Not much as miracles go, but it's a neat story. I still say it's boring compared with math, though. :p You had my hopes up. Wink
_________________
Socionics - the Analyst!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
butxifxnot



Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:15 pm    Post subject: Re: The Trinity Reply with quote

Viperlord wrote:
Bible Student wrote:
Hmm, and why is it that that particular formula is not found in the Scriptures, namely baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?


Doesn't Matthew 28:19 count?


I believe he was referring to the practice. Why is it that whenever a disciple baptizes someone in the NT, they baptize only in the name of Jesus and not "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?

Apparently, that verse was added to the original Scriptures.
And if it wasn't...then we have a BUNCH of disobedient apostles!

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
Sure it is: it originates from the pagan religious beliefs of Hades, Charon and the rest. I think that a biblical untruth that is pagan in nature is as "untruth" as you come.


And if Jesus used it to teach? I won't quarrel that it's an "untruth," but I do disagree that it's necessarily pagan. Both conclusions, that hell is hot and that humans have a soul, are easily reached by a simple reading of the Bible.


It's pagan, period. It's greek mythology, and the greek word itself is a pagan religious location under the ground.

Simple reading:
OT: Psalm "BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO SHEOL,
NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY."
NT: Acts 2 "27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES,
NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY."

Sheol means "the grave". Apparently, "hades" is the equivalent greek word.

THAT is the simple Bible reading.
And humans do not "have" a soul. A simple reading of Genesis shows that humans ARE souls.
Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
By the way, something "going back to being immortal" is a logical impossibility. If something "stops" being immortal, by definition it was never immortal.


Ah, I must be using a different definition. I was treating it from the temporal perspective, that if you can survive forever in your present state, then you are immortal; but if you get off track, and begin to die, then you are not immortal until you get back to the immortal state.

Mortal means "having the ability to die". The latin root of "mort" (like spanish: muerte) is the word for death, NOT life.

Immortal means unable to die, not "living indefinitely." If there's a possibility of death, then the being is not immortal: it is mortal.

Quote:
For your more absolute definition, I like the word "eternal."

It's not my definition: it is THE definition of the word.
Yes, eternal is more correct.

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
Stop right there:
translations never "seems to" anything. They either are or they are not.


"Seems" is the proper word to denote uncertainty. It is quite common to not know precisely what an ancient word meant, and it's no good to ignore the word for that reason. Even in modern languages, you can't always be certain of how a word is being used - as the "immortal" example above demonstrates.

I'm just saying: have more confidence in your dictionary. Razz

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
Angels are by very nature divine, too. Jesus, however, was the only divine being to ever LEAVE that nature to actually become a son of a man. There are angels in the Bible who took on the form of man, but Jesus actually lived as one.


I question that angels are by very nature theos. Can you back that up?

From my recollection, Jesus is referred to as "god" one time in the Bible (MAYBE two), Satan is referred to as "god" one time, and angels are called "sons of God" in the Old Testament. And Satan was one of them (found in Job), and Jesus is called that as well. Even though His place is special: He is firstborn.

It's not much, but the Bible doesn't give too much. The little that's there, though, suggests a loose usage of "theos".

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
Also, your argument regarding Satan is flimsy at best. Just because someone is "the god of something" doesn't make it any less "god". Jesus is referred to as "our God" a few times, and Satan is referred to as the God of this world (as opposed to our God).


Can I call Hitomi the queen of this forum? I think so. Calling her the Queen (without qualifying it), however, is vague at best, and false as it is most easily understood.

Qualifying a word can drastically reduce its meaning.

1) What you are ruling over will calibrate the amount of qualification. If Joyful is the queen of the world, then the word means quite a bit.
In all honesty, the fact that this forum isn't a very vast kingdom indicates a HUGE qualification. I'd actually go so far as to say that Joyful is NOT the queen of this forum, because it is not a kingdom.
The fact that Satan is not just a god in NAME, but is actually a god in practice argues against qualification.

2) Divinity is not adequately comparable to kingship.

3) The very fact that you must rely on "theos" to mean something other than "God indeed" attests to what I've been saying all along.

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
"Theos" does not mean God the way modern Christians use it.


"Theos" refers most naturally to the Greek pantheon, I know. However, judging by John 10:33, that isn't how it was understood by the Jews. Apparently claiming to be theos, in what was the conventional sense at that time, was grounds for a stoning. Even if that wasn't what Jesus meant, their reaction shows something about word usage.

They wanted to stone Him for claiming to be the Messiah at all!
You can't really derive how they felt about certain words from how they react, because they were just antagonistic from Him the whole time. Do you recall the Jews thinking that Jesus was a reincarnation?

Quote:

Incidentally, how do you interpret John 5:18?

"...calling Him His Father, making Himself equal with God."
1) The word "isos/equal" means "as much, equal, like." They could have been chaffing at the simple fact that He claimed to be more than a man.
2) Even if this verse is translated correctly, they were wrong. Jesus Himself said "the Father is greater than I," making Himself LESSER than God. The Jews were wrong. It's not like they never got mad for something they believed about Jesus that was wrong.

Quote:

I've brought that point up with a Trinitarian friend, and we've gotten into a debate over the difference between position and nature.

You will. Again, if you were to discuss this with any sort of open-mindedness at most Christian forums, you'd be forced to recant calling yourself a Christian until you "find the truth and repent."
*rolls eyes*

Quote:

As for the threat of hell... the simplest things can be oversimplified. I agree that it was a mistake to use this philosophy as a litmus test for true Christians.

Indeed. And it's a VERY bad practice as well as a VERY bad theology. Heck, there's no theology! It's pure indoctrinatation. It's a (faulty) interpretative tool for the fact that more than one thing is called "god" in the Bible.

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
You missed my point:
Jesus was APPOINTED by the Father. If He was "by very nature God" the way you interpret it, then He would not need to be appointed any of these things, because they would be naturally His anyway.


Not need, perhaps, but did God really need Paul to do any preaching either? Sometimes it's nice to accept as a gift something that's yours by right. It just reaffirms that you're deserving of it.

"By right" is different than "by nature".

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
Paul calls Satan a god.


That's the "God of this world" verse, right?

Yes.
Again, "god" means divinity/overlordship.

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
If you're going to say that the Trinity is true just because Jesus is referred to as "theos", then in order to be completely honest, you have to include Satan in on the deal.


No, and no. I have other reasons, and Satan's title is suitably qualified.

Then what is it you are arguing for? Smile Apparently, you're not a conventional trinitarian.

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
You're right.
But just because something can be easily read one way doesn't make it right. Jesus asked "Why do you call me good?" The man didn't call Him "good" meaning "good morally": he called Him "good teacher", with "good" referring to Jesus' teaching.

It can ONLY be correctly read one way.

It's "easy" to interpret the Bible many ways which are false.


It can only be correctly read one way, but how are we to know which interpretation is correct? Only by comparing it with less controversial verses.

Such as?

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
...


I've deleted all your good reasoning. (What a reaction, eh?) Really, you're probably right. I'll double-check by debating it with my friend, and seeing if I can cover all of his arguments.

All of my objections above are just tangents now, but I'll leave them.

butxifxnot wrote:
I've NEVER heard someone refer to my name as "boring". =P Confusing, weird, funny...never boring. Wink
It's the three words "but if not" with filler between the words. It comes from a historical "miracle" in which a group of people in distress used those three words (from the Bible) to call for rescue.


I see. Not much as miracles go, but it's a neat story. I still say it's boring compared with math, though. :p You had my hopes up. Wink

Well, it was a miracle to the guys who were on their way to die. I forgot to mention that half of the miracle was that the message got through at all: it was a code.
I like math.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Viperlord



Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 99
Location: Somewhere beyond here...

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:46 am    Post subject: Re: The Trinity Reply with quote

butxifxnot wrote:
I believe he was referring to the practice. Why is it that whenever a disciple baptizes someone in the NT, they baptize only in the name of Jesus and not "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?

Apparently, that verse was added to the original Scriptures.
And if it wasn't...then we have a BUNCH of disobedient apostles!


I thought as much. Let's take an example...

After a quick search, I find these verses interesting:
Acts 8:16 - suggests that baptism into Jesus' name is not enough; the holy spirit is lacking
Romans 6:3 - mentions baptism into jesus' name, but doesn't preclude the others
Acts 10:48 - This time the Holy Spirit comes before the water baptism
Acts 11:16 - Baptism by water and the Holy Spirit are contrasted (?)
Acts 19:5 - Water baptism (in the name of Jesus) before the Holy Spirit

Water baptism does seem to consistently be done in Jesus' name. However, ripping a verse out of the Scripture seems a terrible thing to do, and I think the case for Matthew 28:19 is not entirely lost. The Spirit seems to command a baptism of its own, which the apostles do play a part in, and Jesus frequently equates himself with the Father - in the sense that honoring him is the same as honoring the Father. Therefore, I think that the apostles' baptisms could be reasonably called "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Of course, there's no need for the incantation to be repeated every time.

If I were trying to sort a garble of proposed theologies down to something consistent, I'd throw that verse out, but you can't really do that to the Bible.

butxifxnot wrote:
It's pagan, period. It's greek mythology, and the greek word itself is a pagan religious location under the ground.


If it can be obtained without any more reference to pagan teachings than the Bible itself contains, then it is not necessarily pagan, and such an accusation is not well-founded, even though it may sometimes be true.

butxifxnot wrote:
Simple reading:
OT: Psalm "BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO SHEOL,
NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY."
NT: Acts 2 "27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES,
NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY."

Sheol means "the grave". Apparently, "hades" is the equivalent greek word.

THAT is the simple Bible reading.


Wrong verse. Try these ones:
Matthew 5:22
Matthew 18:8,9
Matthew 25:41
Mark 9:48

Jesus does seem to be making reference to Greek mythology, but by doing so... he condones it.

[quote="butxifxnot"]And humans do not "have" a soul. A simple reading of Genesis shows that humans ARE souls.
Quote:


And what about these?
Matthew 11:29
Matthew 16:26

By those verses, the soul seems to be a possession.

Odds are a word in the Old Testament means something different than the same word in the new Testament. Anyway, it's only in the King James version that man is called a "soul"; I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that that "soul" means a different thing than most other instances of "soul," and the NASB translation, "being," is more accurate.

[quote="butxifxnot"]Mortal means "having the ability to die". The latin root of "mort" (like spanish: muerte) is the word for death, NOT life.

Immortal means unable to die, not "living indefinitely." If there's a possibility of death, then the being is not immortal: it is mortal.

It's not my definition: it is THE definition of the word.


What determines meaning? What I meant is what it means. If I run out of words, I steal old ones - and really, I didn't start the practice of limiting "immortal." It's pretty common among writers of fantasy novels.

In this case, having the ability to die now and having the potential to die eventually after many things have changed are two very different things.

butxifxnot wrote:
From my recollection, Jesus is referred to as "god" one time in the Bible (MAYBE two), Satan is referred to as "god" one time, and angels are called "sons of God" in the Old Testament. And Satan was one of them (found in Job), and Jesus is called that as well. Even though His place is special: He is firstborn.

It's not much, but the Bible doesn't give too much. The little that's there, though, suggests a loose usage of "theos".


The use of "god" in the Old Testament has little to do with the meaning of "theos."

Given the terrific number of occurrences of "god" in the Bible, that isn't very specific... Confused

butxifxnot wrote:
1) What you are ruling over will calibrate the amount of qualification. If Joyful is the queen of the world, then the word means quite a bit.


Granted, it's possible to strengthen a word by qualifying it as well.

butxifxnot wrote:
In all honesty, the fact that this forum isn't a very vast kingdom indicates a HUGE qualification. I'd actually go so far as to say that Joyful is NOT the queen of this forum, because it is not a kingdom.
The fact that Satan is not just a god in NAME, but is actually a god in practice argues against qualification.


Size isn't a huge determiner. But by the same token, if I was willing to use "Queen" allegorically, why couldn't Paul have said "God" allegorically - or even ironically? That phrase could simply mean "treated as though he were God by the world."

butxifxnot wrote:
2) Divinity is not adequately comparable to kingship.


Nonsense. They're both titles, what more do you need? The same principles apply, whatever the scale.

butxifxnot wrote:
3) The very fact that you must rely on "theos" to mean something other than "God indeed" attests to what I've been saying all along.


Why do you need to tack on "indeed"?

(Out of time for now)
_________________
Socionics - the Analyst!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
butxifxnot



Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:30 am    Post subject: Re: The Trinity Reply with quote

Viperlord wrote:
butxifxnot wrote:
I believe he was referring to the practice. Why is it that whenever a disciple baptizes someone in the NT, they baptize only in the name of Jesus and not "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?

Apparently, that verse was added to the original Scriptures.
And if it wasn't...then we have a BUNCH of disobedient apostles!


I thought as much. Let's take an example...

After a quick search, I find these verses interesting:
Acts 8:16 - suggests that baptism into Jesus' name is not enough; the holy spirit is lacking

That does not change the fact that Jesus' alleged command was "Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." It was something that they were supposed to be doing.

Quote:

Romans 6:3 - mentions baptism into jesus' name, but doesn't preclude the others

But it doesn't mention it. Jesus' alleged command was to baptize in the name of all three Persons of the Trinity.
And yet only Jesus' name is mentioned when the Apostles baptized.
Quote:

Acts 10:48 - This time the Holy Spirit comes before the water baptism

Which means that the disciples had nothing to do with it.

Quote:

Acts 11:16 - Baptism by water and the Holy Spirit are contrasted (?)

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit could only come when He was taken away.
Jesus is the way to God. John the Baptist did not baptize in the name of Jesus, but baptized as a public declaration of repentance.

Quote:

Acts 19:5 - Water baptism (in the name of Jesus) before the Holy Spirit

Again, the name of the Father and the Spirit are not invoked. Only Jesus.

Quote:

Water baptism does seem to consistently be done in Jesus' name. However, ripping a verse out of the Scripture seems a terrible thing to do,

It's not "the Scripture" as much as it is "the translation".

Quote:
and I think the case for Matthew 28:19 is not entirely lost. The Spirit seems to command a baptism of its own, which the apostles do play a part in, and Jesus frequently equates himself with the Father - in the sense that honoring him is the same as honoring the Father. Therefore, I think that the apostles' baptisms could be reasonably called "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Of course, there's no need for the incantation to be repeated every time.

But it's not used even once. Only Jesus' name is used.

Quote:

If I were trying to sort a garble of proposed theologies down to something consistent, I'd throw that verse out, but you can't really do that to the Bible.

If you look up the Bible Students, they do make a reasonable case for the fact that Matt 28:19 may have been doctored rather than directly translated.

And the Biblical examples add to the case.

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
It's pagan, period. It's greek mythology, and the greek word itself is a pagan religious location under the ground.


If it can be obtained without any more reference to pagan teachings than the Bible itself contains, then it is not necessarily pagan, and such an accusation is not well-founded, even though it may sometimes be true.

Have you taken any literature courses in school, by chance?
In Greek mythology, Hades was the underworld, with 2 (or 3, can't remember) rivers in it. There were various things that happened in Hades, and one of the key ones was punishment for deeds done in life (such as having to push a boulder up a hill for all eternity). Can't remember the god of Hades' name, but there was one...and Charon took "your soul" through the river of death on a boat to get to Hades.

Hades is a place in the ancient Greek religion. How much more Pagan must it be?

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
Simple reading:
OT: Psalm "BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO SHEOL,
NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY."
NT: Acts 2 "27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES,
NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY."

Sheol means "the grave". Apparently, "hades" is the equivalent greek word.

THAT is the simple Bible reading.


Wrong verse. Try these ones:
Matthew 5:22
Matthew 18:8,9
Matthew 25:41
Mark 9:48

Jesus does seem to be making reference to Greek mythology, but by doing so... he condones it.

No He doesn't. Jesus made a reference to a greedy, conniving man planning for the future. Is He condoning that man? No. He's making a finer, completely different point.

Anyway, to follow your lead:
Matthew 5:22: the word for "hell fire" is "geena pur", not Hades.
Matthew 18:8,9: the words are "geena pur", again, not Hades.
Matthew 25:41: the words are "aionos pur", "everlasting fire", not Hades.
Mark 9:48: it talks about "the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched"
What does a worm do? It decomposes dead flesh. Find me a worm that will eat a living person and you'll have a case for eternal torment.
And a fire does not have to be quenched to eventually go out: just wait until the fuel source is exhausted.

Regarding the word "geena"
MacArthur commentary:
"Hell (Gehenna) (1067) (geenna from Hebrew gay = valley + Hinnom = a deep narrow ravine south of Jerusalem once associated with the pagan god Moloch and his disgusting rite of infant sacrifices [cp modern practice of abortion!], 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6; Jer 7:31, 19:5-6, 32:35; Ezekiel 16:20; 23:37 clearly prohibited by God in Lev 18:21, 20:2-5) is literally the valley of Hinnom, the valley where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned and where there were trash fires and perpetually burning rubbish, all a fit symbol of the future home of all unrepentant, unregenerate wicked men and women. It was a foul, forbidding place where the fire, smoke, and stench never ceased. It is thus fitting that gehenna is where sin and unrepentant sinners will one day find it's "resting place".

Note what exactly Hinnom was used for in Jesus' time:
burning refuse, dead animals and trash.
MacArthur goes on to suggest that that is what will happen to unrepentant sinners, but it is misleading: the place was ACTUALLY used only for trash and dead things. Living animals were not to be burned there!
The Valley of Hinnom was not a place to be used for torment: just the destruction of that which is dead and worthless.

And I hope you didn't miss the significance of "Hades" and "sheol" being used interchangeably!

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
And humans do not "have" a soul. A simple reading of Genesis shows that humans ARE souls.


And what about these?
Matthew 11:29
Matthew 16:26

By those verses, the soul seems to be a possession.

Odds are a word in the Old Testament means something different than the same word in the new Testament.

That's right. The word means more things in the New Testament: in some cases, "self" is a perfect translation. In fact, both of those verses have a specifier refering to "your own." Some translations translate those verses to mean "What profit it a man to gain the whole world and lose your very self?" Which is what happens when you die.

Yes, the NT words are weird (psuche means SO many different things, and there are different words that mean even MORE things that are similar, but different). But the OT words are pretty explicit.

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
Mortal means "having the ability to die". The latin root of "mort" (like spanish: muerte) is the word for death, NOT life.

Immortal means unable to die, not "living indefinitely." If there's a possibility of death, then the being is not immortal: it is mortal.

It's not my definition: it is THE definition of the word.


What determines meaning? What I meant is what it means. If I run out of words, I steal old ones - and really, I didn't start the practice of limiting "immortal." It's pretty common among writers of fantasy novels.

In this case, having the ability to die now and having the potential to die eventually after many things have changed are two very different things.

Laughing

Yes, they are different things, but they both amount to mortality (ie the conditions of death). Greek mythology teaches that humans have a part of themselves that never dies: it just goes from one place to another.

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
From my recollection, Jesus is referred to as "god" one time in the Bible (MAYBE two), Satan is referred to as "god" one time, and angels are called "sons of God" in the Old Testament. And Satan was one of them (found in Job), and Jesus is called that as well. Even though His place is special: He is firstborn.

It's not much, but the Bible doesn't give too much. The little that's there, though, suggests a loose usage of "theos".


The use of "god" in the Old Testament has little to do with the meaning of "theos."

Given the terrific number of occurrences of "god" in the Bible, that isn't very specific... Confused

Most of them are direct references to the Father and the Father only. Note how Paul always talks about there being "One God, and one mediator between God and man." Jesus is not included in that reference to what God is.


Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
In all honesty, the fact that this forum isn't a very vast kingdom indicates a HUGE qualification. I'd actually go so far as to say that Joyful is NOT the queen of this forum, because it is not a kingdom.
The fact that Satan is not just a god in NAME, but is actually a god in practice argues against qualification.


Size isn't a huge determiner. But by the same token, if I was willing to use "Queen" allegorically, why couldn't Paul have said "God" allegorically - or even ironically? That phrase could simply mean "treated as though he were God by the world."


It doesn't. "3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
That doesn't seem to be irony: it seems very real.

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
2) Divinity is not adequately comparable to kingship.


Nonsense. They're both titles, what more do you need? The same principles apply, whatever the scale.

*shrug* It's just semantics.

Quote:

butxifxnot wrote:
3) The very fact that you must rely on "theos" to mean something other than "God indeed" attests to what I've been saying all along.


Why do you need to tack on "indeed"?

Because that is what Trinitarians teach. When they ask whether or not you believe in the trinity (to find out if you are REALLY a Christian), they ask things like "Do you believe that Jesus is actually God? Do you believe that Jesus is the Father Himself?"
Because "theos" doesn't mean what we've made "god" mean in the English language. When you say "God" in English, Christendom has made it to mean that either you are talking directly about the Trinity, or that you are talking about the devil who is trying to usurp the place of God.
That is a translation which is not 100% Biblically honest, so I'm making sure every time I talk about issues of "theos", that the appropriate signifier is added to specify what kind of "theos" is being talked about. It CANNOT be lumped together, like Trinitarians insist they must (except the devil, because that doesn't make sense).

I hope you're taking care of yourself. :wave:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding "Alpha and Omega"

http://www.revelation-today.com/Ch1-Alpha.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 ESV[/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
After coming to God through Christ, I had NO such understanding of Christ BEING God. The first three verses of John had no such meaning to me.

But when I began to come in contact with those that 'claimed to BE Christians', one of the first 'things' I encountered were those that INSISTED that I HAD to believe in 'trinity' to BE saved. Some so adament that I thought their collective heads might start spinning and pea soup may be the next thing projected 'at me'.

I still find many that offer this SAME insistance. Yet I have yet to find this teaching in scripture. After much prayer and MUCH study, I still find it to be merely a 'man-made' teaching.

While I can plainly see the possible misconception derived from the first three verses of John, I also believe that the REST of his Gospel plainly places these verses in perspective. For in the SAME chapter it PLAINLY offers that NO MAN HAS EVER SEEN GOD. Awful fishy that in the first three verses he, (from a trinitarian perspective), states that Jesus IS God, but in the SAME chapter, states that NO MAN HAS EVER SEEN GOD. And I have YET to hear a reasonable or even LOGICAL explanation concerning these words.

A couple of questions that are apparent seems to be all that is needed to discern the TRUTH of this doctrine, (whether it IS or whether it ISN'T Biblical). WHO did Christ SAY that He was. Who did GOD say that He was. An answer to these two SHOULD put the issue to rest. But it seems that some desire MORE than what has been offered in truth. That for 'some reason' they need MORE than what has been offered in simplicity. And we were warned that this would come to be.

II Corinthians 11:

3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

I believe these words pretty much WARN us of 'taking away' the 'simplicity' that IS Christ Jesus for the sake of 'another Jesus' that is created by the wisdom of men.

Turning Christ INTO God goes AGAINST the very words of Christ Himself. The opening of almost EVERY epistle of Paul goes something like this:

1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Now, HOW someone can read these words offered by Paul and NOT see that God is the Father of Christ and CHRIST'S God as well as OUR God is unfathonable to me.

Regardless of the words that SEEM to point to something different, (I believe through a lack of complete understanding), THESE words should CLEAR all misconceptions. Either Paul DIDN'T know who God and Christ were, or he was being deliberately deceptive. I don't accept EITHER. I believe that he has SHOWN us without ANY misconception WHO God is and WHO His Son is. Offering an UTTER distinction BETWEEN the two.

Let us look at this AGAIN: Blessed be the GOD and FATHER of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. Any misunderstanding here?

Or how about here: 2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

If this is not a PURE case of DISTINCTION between NOT ONLY FATHER AND SON, but of GOD and CHRIST I don't know how much SIMPLER it could be stated. Note: God our Father AND from the Lord Jesus Christ. TWO distinct individuals. God who IS our Father AND Christ our Lord. Nothing 'tricky' denoted here. Just plain and simple words that are SO SIMPLE even a child could understand them.

So, forgive me Rick if I have a difficult time buying into this 'trinity' for the sake of pleasing MEN. For I have been instructed as to WHO Christ IS and WHO God is and I have NO PROBLEM accepting THEM on THEIR TERMS. Regardless of what 'wise men' have been able to MAKE scripture APPEAR to say, IF one simply takes it as a WHOLE instead of bits and pieces, we are clearly informed as to the identity of Christ and HIs Father; God.

The truth that I offer bears it's OWN witness in that 'trinity' is NEVER offered up in scripture. Even the CONCEPT is so intensely filled with obvious philosophy and 'wisdom of men' that MOST that claim acceptance in it have a difficult time explaining exactly what it is that they ACCEPT.

Christ and The Father ARE God. Yet the distinction is MADE by Christ, by God, and by the apostles. Even against ALL that is offered, some will still insist that they SEE What is not truly offered.

The first three verses of John DO NOT say that Jesus IS GOD. Regardless of the method one uses to MAKE it say this, John purposely uses the word WORD instead of Christ. And in the same chapter he states that NO MAN has EVER seen God. Therefore, the obviousness is that it has a different meaning than "Christ IS God''. If this were the case, why is this NEVER offered IN THE ENTIRETY of scripture. Yet I have already shown you OUTRIGHT STATEMENTS that God and Christ are NOT THE SAME. Words spoken by the APOSTLES themselves STATING that God is OUR God AND the God of Jesus Christ.

I have offered NOTHING other than words taken STRAIGHT from The Word. I have spoken NOTHING that is NOT offered up in scripture. So, how can this be? How can there BE this discrepency? For ONE Of us is correct and the OTHER is incorrect in their understanding. Can't BE both ways. Either Christ IS God or He is NOT God but God's Son. I choose to follow what THEY say rather than men that would tell me different. We have been TOLD that there is but ONE God. And we have been told that Christ is the SON of This God. It's really THAT simple.


He is simply explaining how ridiculous the doctrine of trinity is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

joyful wrote:
And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 ESV[/b]


1 Corinthians 15:20-28 (New International Version)

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[a] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


Hebrews 2:5-13

5It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6But there is a place where someone has testified:
"What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
7You made him a little[a] lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honor

8 and put everything under his feet."
In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. 9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

10In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. 12He says,
"I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises."[c] 13And again,
"I will put my trust in him."[d] And again he says,
[b]"Here am I, and the children God has given me."[
e]


Revelation 20
The Thousand Years
1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.

John 5 is where Jesus plainly states that his powers and authority are gifts from his Father and God.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I might add that I have put together a statement of scriptures which can be found at:

http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=45

Also this:

http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=263

Of course, what the trinitarian does is then use the imaginative assumptions, indeed -- assumptions placed on top of assumptions -- that have become a part of the trinitarian dogma, and then place those assumptions over the scriptures so that, in some cases, they will have the scriptures end up saying almost the opposite of what they actually say.

Christian love,
Ronald
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John 3
36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:20
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

John 10:29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

John 13:16
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

1 John 5:9 (King James Version)
9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.


Acts 4:30 (New International Version)
30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus."


John 20:17
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, "I a returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.""


Last edited by joyful on Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Romans 1
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1
1Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:
3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 1
1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
2Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
4Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

Galatians 1
1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Ephesians 1
1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Philippians 1
1Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
2Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1
1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

1 Thessalonians 1
1Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1
1Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
2Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1
1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Timothy 1
1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
2To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Titus 1
1Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
3But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Philemon 1
1Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
2And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
3Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 1
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

James 1
1James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

1 Peter 1
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

2 Peter 1
1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

2 John 1
1The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
2For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
3Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

Jude 1
1Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
2Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.


here is another Jesus' prayer to His Father:

And this is lasting life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3

Now IF you read what is offered, it becomes apparent that God and Christ are NOT THE SAME. The Father IS GOD HIMSELF and Christ IS Our LORD AND THE SON OF GOD.


Last edited by joyful on Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raysondawn



Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 4
Location: TENNESSEE USA

PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand that the New testament is written in Greek, and as a result the words which appear in pen and ink often have a Greek leaning and not that of the Holy Ghost.
For example, at the seminaries which I attended for some time the words "Theos", "Theology", "Heremenutics", "Exegesis" and "Isogesis" are terms which are thrown around to dazzel the minds. Too often this robs one of the "simplicity of Christ". Simply stated, these terms have their origination in the Pantheon of Olympus or Greek mythology, and not in scripture, the writings, the prophets, gospels, and epsitles.

The word "theos" means "the study of the gods" and Hermes was the messenger god sent through pthyos the guardian at the Oracle of Delphi.

Having said all of this, Perhaps one can now see how the faith of Jesus Christ has systematically hijacked over the centuries and turned from the truth into the lie that doctrines such as "the trinity" have brought the church of God to the present condition that it is in.

The scripture from Genesis to Revelation teaches us that the image and likeness of God is seven primary spirits which emanate from Jesus Christ the Creator.

Those spirits represent the perfection of character and present to us the very image of God.

They are:
Wisdom
Counsel
Understanding
Spirit of the Lord
Fear of the Lord
Might
Knowledge

I will not provide the scriptures because I believe it is the job of disciples to search out the scriptures to see whether the things which they hear are so.

I will give a few of the the books.
Genesis
Proverbs
Isaiah
Ezekiel
Zechariah
Revelation

Type in "seven" or "seven spirits" in a bible search engine to make your seach a little quicker.


Happy Hunting!
_________________
Sanctify them through thy truth...
THY WORD IS TRUTH!

THE KING IS COMMING!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

here is another Jesus' prayer to His Father:

And this is lasting life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3
_________________
YHWH is my God and Jesus is my Lord
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you read all of John 8 it shows Jesus clearly stating that the God of the Jews is his God, so YHWH is the God of Jesus.
_________________
YHWH is my God and Jesus is my Lord
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What most trinitarians do is claim that Yahweh is three persons. According to their claim, sometimes Yahweh refers to their of idea of God the Son, while other times it refers to the Father, as well as their idea of the holy spirit as an alleged person of Yahweh. According this theory, there are three that all Yahweh, but yet there is only one Yahweh, in the same manner that they claim that God is three persons, but yet that there is only God.

Christian love,
Ronald
_________________
YHWH is my God and Jesus is my Lord
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joyful



Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 1263
Location: texas

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So lets start with the ‘terms’ themselves used in the doctrine. We do not find the terms trinity, triune, Jehovah-Jesus, God-man in the bible. We also never see it written as God the Son but rather Son of God, same with the expression God the Holy Spirit is not found but written as the spirit of God or just Holy Spirit. So I have to ask the question if this doctrine is so definitely put forth in scripture how do we not find the terms used to describe it?

While I don’t see the trinity doctrine expressed in any terms throughout the bible I do see the ‘authority’ or ‘sole divinity’ of the ‘Father’ is stated rather clearly. We see only 3 instances of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being mentioned in connection in the bible. If this was the very basis of ‘Christianity’ why is it so obscure? Let’s look at these passages.

First, I should correct this statement and point out that really we only have two passages. 1 John 5:7. This verse has been ‘proven’ to have been added later. This verse is not found in any of the early Greek manuscripts only later in the Latin transcripts. So now we are down to only passages referencing the 3 together in connection.

Matthew 28:19 mentions the three together in baptism. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. While they are all mentioned, they are not expressed as three persons. In fact it doesn’t even say they are persons at all. Does it say that they constitute one God? No. Does it say that each is God? No. Does it say they are equal or to be worshipped? No. As it doesn’t assert any of these it is not teaching the doctrine of the trinity.

II Corinthians 13:14. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. This doesn’t say that each is God, or equal, or that they are all to be worshipped, or that altogether they constitute one. It does however almost deny that these would be true. It does not speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but of Jesus Christ and God and the Holy Spirit. Do you see the difference? Would a Trinitarian express himself in these words and in this order, when intending to express his doctrine?

So, from what I can tell, the doctrine itself is not taught directly. Would it then be taught indirectly and by implication? I have to ask why this would be the case when the doctrine that the Father alone is God above all is taught directly and explicitly? This is easily supported by scripture.

1) John 17:3. This is life eternal, that they might know THEE, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
(2) Mark 13:32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven; NEITHER THE SON; but the Father.
(3) I Timothy 2:5. There is one God and, one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
(4) I Corinthians 8:6. But to us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom are all things and we in Him; and ONE LORD, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him.
(5) Ephesians 4:5-6. ONE LORD, one faith, one baptism, ONE GOD AND FATHER of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I have to ask if it is so explicitly stated throughout the NT the the Father is above all why would we use obscure texts to try and prove the doctrine of the trinity?

Lets go now to what Jesus says about himself. Do any of these statements imply that he is the same as the Almighty God?

"I came not to do mine own will."
"I can of myself do nothing."
"The Son can do nothing of himself."
"The Father that is in me, he doeth the works."
He calls himself, "he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent."
He says, "I am come in my Father's name."
And after his resurrection he says, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."

What about the testimony of the Apostles?

"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by signs and wonders which God did by him."
"Appointed to be a Prince and Saviour."
"at the right hand of God exalted."
"made both Lord and Christ."
Because of his obedience unto death, "God hath highly exalted him and given him a name above every name."
In the end he shall "deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all."

I don’t think they were putting forth that they believed Jesus to be God Almighty here either.
Peter confessed, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God" and Jesus was ok with that. Martha confessed, “I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God" and nothing more was required. Here are some statements from John.

"These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."
"Whoso believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God."
"He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God." (will overcome the world)

I have to ask why does it seem clear that those spreading the Word were teaching that belief that Jesus was the Son of God was sufficient if in fact they believed him to be the Almighty God?

Now in reference to the Holy Spirit it is said to be poured out, shed, given, given without measure, men are baptized in it, filled with it and partake of it. Hardly seems like descriptions describing a ‘person.’ Here are a couple references regarding Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy spirit and with power."
"Jesus received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost."
"God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him."
"He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by the spirit that dwelleth in you."

Doesn’t seem like they are claiming Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be the same ‘person’ are they? It would almost make these statements absurd if they are truly regarding one ‘person.’

Paul who wrote much of the NT doesn’t even mention that in his conversion that his beliefs went from Jesus being a blasphemer to Jesus being God Almighty. His words would indicate the opposite actually.

"I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
"Making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom."

So while the NT contains expressions of gratitude and reverence in regards to Jesus, it is directed to him as the Son of God and all supreme worship is reserved for the Father. Jesus himself worshipped the Father. The language of the Apostles was, "Giving thanks always to God, even the Father, through Jesus Christ." And when honor was bestowed on the Son it was always “to the glory of the Father.”

I also have to ask here if the Apostles believed Jesus Christ to be the God of their fathers, the one true God how could Peter have denied him, Judas betrayed him, and all forsaken him? Could he been accused of blasphemy? "Because thou, being a man, makest thyself God." To this statement even Jesus denied claiming only to be the son of God. How does one claim the trinity doctrine when Jesus himself refuted that, he being a man made himself God?
_________________
YHWH is my God and Jesus is my Lord
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Free Forum






PostPosted:      Post subject: ForumsLand.com

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    YHWH is great, Jesus is worthy Forum Index -> Theology, Bible Study All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Forum hosted by ForumsLand.com - 100% free forum. Powered by phpBB 2.