Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[Tucson Jim]

I have this information in a file on my computer and to be honest some of this information I have been writing and editing .
I have a very good friend that sends me things he has found and things he has written as well.

Some but not all is from Biblical Unitarian .com
This info comes from my file on trinity verses.
When I post from a site I give the site if you will please look at my other posts.
I am not trying to mislead or hide my source and actually would rather give the source so all can see how many ways the Bible has been twisted by man.

Yep, some of the sources you quote are excellent examples of how scripture has been twisted by men! :D

[Warrior4God]

I looked at that website. You might as well just pick up a Watchtower - the beliefs are pretty much identical - and in my opinion, do not square at all with the Bible.

Far from JW doctrine and your opinion is based on your indoctrination into the trinity and can understand how you would not look at anything from a source that doesn't believe the trinity,and write it off without researching the things for yourself,I did the same thing for years even when flaws appeared in the trinity doctrine,I felt I was just not spiritual enough to understand but then realized Gods Word is written for us to not only understand but fit it together with the rest of scripture with each verse and can not contradict and that the simplest of minds can accept.
My point is,that the Bible is not written for theologians to research and teach us stupid people.
Its written for us stupid people to understand and increase in wisdom and knowledge.

I know accepting something you have not been taught all your life is hard but take a honest look at how many point blank clear scriptures there are on Jesus Christ and who he knew he was and not try to dismiss them like the one that Jesus says why call me good? there is none good but God.

You dismiss these clear verses by spinning them and your heart knows its not as you spin it,I refuse to believe you really think this way,its illogical.

Just like the verses that declare point blank Jesus has a God and that he is a man and that God is spirit.
There are too many verses showing the Son is not one part of the Father.

How can the mediator between man and God be God when it says he is a man.
Either he is God or he is the mediator THE MAN Christ Jesus.

[Warrior4God]

I looked at that website. You might as well just pick up a Watchtower - the beliefs are pretty much identical - and in my opinion, do not square at all with the Bible.

I have no church doctrine I adhere to,I rely on Gods Word and do search and look at other writers of commentary and research it,I NEVER accept any info in a book or online as truth.
My only source for truth is Gods Word and doing my very best with all dilligence to rightly divide Gods Word.

If I am wrong, God will surely know my heart was to accept nothing but truth as I know from study and research.
You must remember I grew up with the trinity crammed and pushed on me and that any other doctrine is heresy.
I was not taught the belief I have exept from what God showed me as I searched the scriptures.This I believe God did do,he opened a blinded mans eyes to truth.

[Tucson Jim]

Far from JW doctrine

Not really . . . it is virtually identical in some major respects, such as Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God, soul sleep, no hell, no eternal spirit and probably others. You really ought to let the nice folks in next time they come knocking. You would have a very pleasant, and agreeable, discussion I'm sure.

and your opinion is based on your indoctrination into the trinity and can understand how you would not look at anything from a source that doesn't believe the trinity,and write it off without researching the things for yourself,

So let me get this straight - You hold to your beliefs because you have carefully researched them all by yourself and arrived at your conclusions only after such careful research.

Others, however, such as for example, DJim, Ralittlefield, drmilo and me, were "indoctrinated" into believing the Trinity and now, stupid us, blindly hold to that indoctrination, never having bothered to research it or think for ourselves. Is that right?

Don't you think that's just a teeny bit smug, superior and dismissive?

I think it is obvious to even the casual reader of this thread that all of the trinitarians here have done their research.

As I told you before, I read the Bible through completely after becoming a Christian before I was even a regular church attender. While reading it for myself and praying daily for God's guidance, I came to believe that Jesus was God based solely on the Bible I was reading.

Since that time, I have read many books and magazine articles on the Trinity and many other points of view regarding the nature of God, over a 25+ year period of time. The only view I can square completely with ALL of the Biblical evidence is the Trinity, though I think Oneness accounts for more of the Biblical data than any view besides the Trinity.

Indoctrinated?

Please, give us at least a little credit . . .

I did the same thing for years even when flaws appeared in the trinity doctrine,I felt I was just not spiritual enough to understand but then realized Gods Word is written for us to not only understand but fit it together with the rest of scripture with each verse and can not contradict and that the simplest of minds can accept.
My point is,that the Bible is not written for theologians to research and teach us stupid people.

Do you not believe in spiritual gifts? "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" Eph 4:11 Some people have a spiritual gift of being pastors and teachers, the "theologians" of the New Testament. People need teachers, to help them with the meat of God's word.

And some people REALLY need teachers!

"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." Heb 5:12


Its written for us stupid people to understand and increase in wisdom and knowledge.

I agree that even a young person can understand the basics of the Gospel.

However, Heb 5:12 shows us that some people, perhaps the "stupid" ones, get stuck on the "milk" of the word and have need of someone to teach them the "meat".

Not everything in the Bible is easy to understand, as you seem to think. Germane to our discussion would be this passage:

"just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Per 3: 15b - 16.

Hmmm . . . so it seems those "stupid" people you were just telling us about, you know, the ones who "understand" (the Bible) and "increase in wisdom and understanding" sometimes distort the scriptures! Sounds like maybe such people could use the benefit of a good teacher! I know a few . . . :D

I know accepting something you have not been taught all your life is hard but take a honest look at how many point blank clear scriptures there are on Jesus Christ and who he knew he was and not try to dismiss them like the one that Jesus says why call me good? there is none good but God.

You dismiss these clear verses by spinning them and your heart knows its not as you spin it,I refuse to believe you really think this way,its illogical.

So what are you saying - that I am defending the Trinity but I don't really believe it???

We have been all through the perils of trusting your fallible logic and extremely limited experience over the word of God, Warrior.

Your logic can fail you because your premises can be false, your conclusions drawn improperly.

Your experience is limited to a few decades of life on this planet.

Your knowledge is equally limited by, among other things, the brevity of your experience.

You need to accept what the Bible teaches over your fallible logic and limited experience and knowledge. And it clearly teaches the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but there is only one God.

Just like the verses that declare point blank Jesus has a God and that he is a man and that God is spirit.

Yet you ignore verses that say God has a God, and that God became a man. You need to take into account ALL scripture.

There are too many verses showing the Son is not one part of the Father.

The Trinity does not teach that the Son is "one part of the Father." More evidence for the need of a teacher . . .

How can the mediator between man and God be God when it says he is a man.
Either he is God or he is the mediator THE MAN Christ Jesus.

The mediator is Jesus the man. He has a dual nature. But we have told you this dozens of times.

You simply refuse to accept what the Bible teaches because it does not conform to your "logic".

[Tucson Jim]

I have no church doctrine I adhere to,I rely on Gods Word and do search and look at other writers of commentary and research it,I NEVER accept any info in a book or online as truth.
My only source for truth is Gods Word and doing my very best with all dilligence to rightly divide Gods Word.

In my opinion, you would benefit greatly by attending a Christian church, and being taught by a Godly, Spirit-filled, pastor who knows the word of God.

If I am wrong, God will surely know my heart was to accept nothing but truth as I know from study and research.
You must remember I grew up with the trinity crammed and pushed on me and that any other doctrine is heresy.
I was not taught the belief I have exept from what God showed me as I searched the scriptures.This I believe God did do,he opened a blinded mans eyes to truth.

The bitterness with which you describe how the Trinity was "crammed" down your throat suggests to me that you must have had some kind of bad experience with church as a child or perhaps a young adult.

Your current position on the Trinity almost seems to me like an "I'll show them" attitude.

You now rely on your logic to guide you, in spite of what the Bible says, and in my opinion, that puts you on shaky ground indeed.

If you have bitterness about your early church experience, I would urge to to take it to God and ask His help to get rid of it.

[Warrior4God]

In my opinion, you would benefit greatly by attending a Christian church, and being taught by a Godly, Spirit-filled, pastor who knows the word of God.



The bitterness with which you describe how the Trinity was "crammed" down your throat suggests to me that you must have had some kind of bad experience with church as a child or perhaps a young adult.

Your current position on the Trinity almost seems to me like an "I'll show them" attitude.

You now rely on your logic to guide you, in spite of what the Bible says, and in my opinion, that puts you on shaky ground indeed.

If you have bitterness about your early church experience, I would urge to to take it to God and ask His help to get rid of it.

I already have a church in my home,and do not need a man filled with doctrines of men teaching me.

Not bitter at all with the trinity,my beef is not with churches,just the doctrines that of men.
In my opinion the doctrine your pastor teaches is not Biblical and most churches that I know of are in the same boat and I see no power in them,just buildings filled with people that go through the motions,I don't need that kind of church.
In fact show me one building built in the NT to meet in.
They ALL without exeption were churches in the home.
God gave me spirit to discern truth from error and gave me logic as well Jim.
My foundation is upon the rock Jesus Christ and the words he spoke and that which God revealed to his apostles and prophets.
Our culture has put too much stock in men and not enough in searching the scriptures ourselves and causes error and man made rules and laws to live by.
A man going to seminary gets taught the doctrine it teaches unless you search it yourself for truth and you can not go beyond what your taught.
The Christian church today for the most part is a powerless social club and place mens training and teaching in the place of searching and study of Gods Word.
Not all, but most churches today are in need of the truth of Gods Word to live and shine by teaching that man makes error and only Gods Word is our source for truth.
There is coming, and now is in motion a great falling away from Christianity because of a lack of people going to the scriptures and to God,and not manifesting gift of the holy spirit.
This is prophecied about and I can see why it will be when you take a look at how many people REALLY stand for Gods matchless Word and declare it rather then some doctrine that isn't even mentioned in the Bible.
Very few will stand up and speak up in this country for God and see what is happening.
Darkness creeps further and further as the light is dispelled everyday.
God lives in my life, miracles happen and power is evident and I will keep searching and studying and praying that Gods power will be manifest even more on a daily basis.

Whether you agree or not matters not to me but it appears too many rely too much on pastors and less on Gods Word for truth and you know I am right in that statement if you sit and look honestly at the lack of Love and Power in the church today.

[Fire Watch]

though I think Oneness accounts for more of the Biblical data than any viewYeah!!!!


besides the Trinity.

:eh:wait, what..you had me until that.:D

[Warrior4God]

Not really . . . it is virtually identical in some major respects, such as Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God, soul sleep, no hell, no eternal spirit and probably others. You really ought to let the nice folks in next time they come knocking. You would have a very pleasant, and agreeable, discussion I'm sure.



So let me get this straight - You hold to your beliefs because you have carefully researched them all by yourself and arrived at your conclusions only after such careful research.

Others, however, such as for example, DJim, Ralittlefield, drmilo and me, were "indoctrinated" into believing the Trinity and now, stupid us, blindly hold to that indoctrination, never having bothered to research it or think for ourselves. Is that right?

Don't you think that's just a teeny bit smug, superior and dismissive?

I think it is obvious to even the casual reader of this thread that all of the trinitarians here have done their research.

As I told you before, I read the Bible through completely after becoming a Christian before I was even a regular church attender. While reading it for myself and praying daily for God's guidance, I came to believe that Jesus was God based solely on the Bible I was reading.

Since that time, I have read many books and magazine articles on the Trinity and many other points of view regarding the nature of God, over a 25+ year period of time. The only view I can square completely with ALL of the Biblical evidence is the Trinity, though I think Oneness accounts for more of the Biblical data than any view besides the Trinity.

Indoctrinated?

Please, give us at least a little credit . . .



Do you not believe in spiritual gifts? "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" Eph 4:11 Some people have a spiritual gift of being pastors and teachers, the "theologians" of the New Testament. People need teachers, to help them with the meat of God's word.

And some people REALLY need teachers!

"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." Heb 5:12




I agree that even a young person can understand the basics of the Gospel.

However, Heb 5:12 shows us that some people, perhaps the "stupid" ones, get stuck on the "milk" of the word and have need of someone to teach them the "meat".

Not everything in the Bible is easy to understand, as you seem to think. Germane to our discussion would be this passage:

"just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Per 3: 15b - 16.

Hmmm . . . so it seems those "stupid" people you were just telling us about, you know, the ones who "understand" (the Bible) and "increase in wisdom and understanding" sometimes distort the scriptures! Sounds like maybe such people could use the benefit of a good teacher! I know a few . . . :D



So what are you saying - that I am defending the Trinity but I don't really believe it???

We have been all through the perils of trusting your fallible logic and extremely limited experience over the word of God, Warrior.

Your logic can fail you because your premises can be false, your conclusions drawn improperly.

Your experience is limited to a few decades of life on this planet.

Your knowledge is equally limited by, among other things, the brevity of your experience.

You need to accept what the Bible teaches over your fallible logic and limited experience and knowledge. And it clearly teaches the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but there is only one God.



Yet you ignore verses that say God has a God, and that God became a man. You need to take into account ALL scripture.



The Trinity does not teach that the Son is "one part of the Father." More evidence for the need of a teacher . . .



The mediator is Jesus the man. He has a dual nature. But we have told you this dozens of times.

You simply refuse to accept what the Bible teaches because it does not conform to your "logic".

I am not out to bash what you believe,I believe with much conviction that Jesus is not God and believe it stands out so clear and lines up with all the OT as well, and God is not a man he is Spirit and always will be.

Every verse used to support the trinity is misunderstood in light of the rest of Gods Word.
You always use the dual nature of Christ.We have the same natures Jim.
No place in scripture does it say God became incarnate,I know the verses you use and have studied them and find it different from what you think.
We must realize Jesus was no ordinary man and had pure blood from his father and had a great undertaking in carrying out his task and needed his Fathers help and guidance to accomplish what he did.
Had he been God this task would be a walk in the park no matter what form he was in.


By the way I never said I rely on my own study alone as there are many great men who have researched and many have come up with totally different conclusions and I believe God called us to not take mans word for anything but line it up with Gods Word.
All theologians studied under other men and there beliefs can creep into what they learn from those who taught them.
That is why we have different points of view Jim,You believe your denomination is right,Reconrick believes his is right,Terri believes her denomination is right.
DRS believes his is right.
Why?
because you follow your what?

DOCTRINES
I follow what I believe and base it on the Bible as a whole and set aside other doctrines I was taught and did my best to study many doctrines of churches and see how they line up with the Word and not just follow the doctrines.
If someone thinks the church they attend is right, you will follow what your church teaches.
Well Jim I saw a pattern in the churches I attended and EVERY ONE of them taught their doctrine as the ONLY right one.
Men are so worried about the Doctrine and creeds that they will not change the doctrine or creed even when they see it in Gods Word.
I was even told this by a minister(will refrain from saying the denomination) one time and that he wasn't allowed to teach a certain thing in the church so he didn't, even though he knew the doctrine of the church was in error. WHATEVER,some intergrity huh?
I know my belief is not yours and some things I still am unclear on when it comes to the ressurection and a rapture and things written in revelation but I will continue to search and pray God shows me the answers.

I did find a verse that was helpful in pointing me in the right direction from Johns revelation and it lines up with the last trump.

Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

We all know the mystery was regarding the church and this verse stands out.

[ralittlefield]

I already have a church in my home,and do not need a man filled with doctrines of men teaching me.


Yet many of your posts are cut and pasted from man made websites. Do you not see the disconnect here?

[heavenlyblue]

I am not out to bash what you believe,I believe with much conviction that Jesus is not God and believe it stands out so clear and lines up with all the OT as well, and God is not a man he is Spirit and always will be.

Every verse used to support the trinity is misunderstood in light of the rest of Gods Word.
You always use the dual nature of Christ.We have the same natures Jim.
No place in scripture does it say God became incarnate,I know the verses you use and have studied them and find it different from what you think.
We must realize Jesus was no ordinary man and had pure blood from his father and had a great undertaking in carrying out his task and needed his Fathers help and guidance to accomplish what he did.
Had he been God this task would be a walk in the park no matter what form he was in.


By the way I never said I rely on my own study alone as there are many great men who have researched and many have come up with totally different conclusions and I believe God called us to not take mans word for anything but line it up with Gods Word.
All theologians studied under other men and there beliefs can creep into what they learn from those who taught them.
That is why we have different points of view Jim,You believe your denomination is right,Reconrick believes his is right,Terri believes her denomination is right.
DRS believes his is right.
Why?
because you follow your what?

DOCTRINES
I follow what I believe and base it on the Bible as a whole and set aside other doctrines I was taught and did my best to study many doctrines of churches and see how they line up with the Word and not just follow the doctrines.
If someone thinks the church they attend is right, you will follow what your church teaches.
Well Jim I saw a pattern in the churches I attended and EVERY ONE of them taught their doctrine as the ONLY right one.
Men are so worried about the Doctrine and creeds that they will not change the doctrine or creed even when they see it in Gods Word.
I was even told this by a minister(will refrain from saying the denomination) one time and that he wasn't allowed to teach a certain thing in the church so he didn't, even though he knew the doctrine of the church was in error. WHATEVER,some intergrity huh?
I know my belief is not yours and some things I still am unclear on when it comes to the ressurection and a rapture and things written in revelation but I will continue to search and pray God shows me the answers.

I did find a verse that was helpful in pointing me in the right direction from Johns revelation and it lines up with the last trump.

Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

We all know the mystery was regarding the church and this verse stands out.

Trinity, no trinity. I am not attempting to demean the situation but it's getting nuts. Do we beleive in 3 or not. Was Jesus God and the Holy Spirit together>?

Have to tell you. I just keep praying. It's getting nuts when we dissect it over and over. And I truly beleive it is the devils way of separating us so we cannot get to the real grist of what we should be doing.

[chainsawbob]

Once again, let's keep it simple;John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
# John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:25-27 (in Context) John 14 (Whole Chapter)
# John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
The above verses outline the events that define the Holy Trinity. It's a whole Bible thing not just a few verses.

[DRS]

John 1 the word was toward the God

Who is the God mentioned in the original greek and why the omitted in translation?

[chainsawbob]

John 1 the word was toward the God

Who is the God mentioned in the original greek and why the omitted in translation?

Prove YOUR text, and even so I see the same meaning, There is no time or direction as ,HIS word will not return to HIM null and void.
What about the rest of my examples. Major on the Minor or tackle the beast.

[Tucson Jim]

I already have a church in my home,and do not need a man filled with doctrines of men teaching me.

Such blanket condemnations, such stereotypes! How about a man filled with the Spirit and knowledge of the Bible teaching you? Or do you think you are the only one qualified to teach?

Not bitter at all with the trinity,my beef is not with churches,just the doctrines that of men.
In my opinion the doctrine your pastor teaches is not Biblical and most churches that I know of are in the same boat and I see no power in them,just buildings filled with people that go through the motions,I don't need that kind of church.

More stereotypes. I don't know what churches you have attended but let me suggest that your experience is a bit skewed.

My church is alive, vibrant and spreading the word of God in our city and the world. The church I now attend is a daughter church of the one I previously attended, that grew so large we needed to find another location.

In addition to regular services, we have home fellowship groups which also help greatly to minister to the needs of the congregation.

"Going through the motions"?? Not many at my church fit that description.

In fact show me one building built in the NT to meet in. They ALL without exeption were churches in the home.

Different time, different place. The church was much smaller, no need for large buildings. Your point means nothing.

God gave me spirit to discern truth from error

I'm sure you feel that is true . . .

and gave me logic as well Jim.

I believe your "logic" has gotten you into some trouble Warrior. You have made it, instead of the Bible, your ultimate authority on truth. And that is a grave error IMO.

My foundation is upon the rock Jesus Christ and the words he spoke and that which God revealed to his apostles and prophets.
Our culture has put too much stock in men and not enough in searching the scriptures ourselves and causes error and man made rules and laws to live by.

And I believe you have, perhaps unwittingly, put too much stock in your own logic, not recognizing it's failings and weakness compared to the word of God. This causes you, IMO, to end up with your own set of man-made rules, such as your rule that there cannot be a triune being.

You don't think very highly of the "teachings of men", but seem to put all your trust in your own teachings.

You are a man.

Kind of ironic, don't you think?

A man going to seminary gets taught the doctrine it teaches unless you search it yourself for truth and you can not go beyond what your taught.

And you think no one, except perhaps you, does this?

The Christian church today for the most part is a powerless social club and place mens training and teaching in the place of searching and study of Gods Word.

Not my church.

Not all, but most churches today are in need of the truth of Gods Word to live and shine by teaching that man makes error and only Gods Word is our source for truth.

I agree that "only God's Word is our source for truth." But do you really believe this Warrior? You do not seem to. You set up your own logic as the ultimate arbiter of truth in your life, ignoring and/or rationalizing away scriptures that do not seem logical to you, as evident in your responses in this thread. If you really took only God's word as your source of truth, I do not see how you could deny that Jesus is God.

There is coming, and now is in motion a great falling away from Christianity because of a lack of people going to the scriptures and to God,and not manifesting gift of the holy spirit.

I'll have to take your word for that Warrior. It isn't happening here . . .

This is prophecied about and I can see why it will be when you take a look at how many people REALLY stand for Gods matchless Word and declare it rather then some doctrine that isn't even mentioned in the Bible.

Though it's elements are most certainly in the Bible.

Very few will stand up and speak up in this country for God and see what is happening.
Darkness creeps further and further as the light is dispelled everyday.
God lives in my life, miracles happen and power is evident and I will keep searching and studying and praying that Gods power will be manifest even more on a daily basis.

Whether you agree or not matters not to me but it appears too many rely too much on pastors and less on Gods Word for truth and you know I am right in that statement if you sit and look honestly at the lack of Love and Power in the church today.

There's plenty of love and power in my church today. I think your experience has been atypical and has jaded your view of things.

[Tucson Jim]

Yeah!!!!




:eh:wait, what..you had me until that.:D

:))

[Tucson Jim]

I am not out to bash what you believe,I believe with much conviction that Jesus is not God and believe it stands out so clear and lines up with all the OT as well, and God is not a man he is Spirit and always will be.

Every verse used to support the trinity is misunderstood in light of the rest of Gods Word.

In your opinion perhaps, but not in the opinions of the vast majority of Christians throughout history, who also love God and also study His word.

You always use the dual nature of Christ.We have the same natures Jim.
No place in scripture does it say God became incarnate,I know the verses you use and have studied them and find it different from what you think.

You can believe whatever you want Warrior, but the scripture plainly teaches me that God became flesh.

We must realize Jesus was no ordinary man and had pure blood from his father and had a great undertaking in carrying out his task and needed his Fathers help and guidance to accomplish what he did.
Had he been God this task would be a walk in the park no matter what form he was in.

In your opinion, knowing virtually nothing about what it is like for God to take on the nature of man, as Jesus did. You seem to dismiss the deep things of God, the meat of the Word, as if "anyone should know that". You dismiss the mysteries of God.

The Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.


By the way I never said I rely on my own study alone as there are many great men who have researched and many have come up with totally different conclusions and I believe God called us to not take mans word for anything but line it up with Gods Word.
All theologians studied under other men and there beliefs can creep into what they learn from those who taught them.
That is why we have different points of view Jim,You believe your denomination is right,Reconrick believes his is right,Terri believes her denomination is right.
DRS believes his is right.
Why?
because you follow your what?

DOCTRINES
I follow what I believe and base it on the Bible as a whole and set aside other doctrines I was taught and did my best to study many doctrines of churches and see how they line up with the Word and not just follow the doctrines.
If someone thinks the church they attend is right, you will follow what your church teaches.

In other words, you make up your own doctrines, based on your own (limited) understanding and(limited) experience, and substitute those for doctrines of the church. Can't you see how such an approach can lead to error?


Well Jim I saw a pattern in the churches I attended and EVERY ONE of them taught their doctrine as the ONLY right one.
Men are so worried about the Doctrine and creeds that they will not change the doctrine or creed even when they see it in Gods Word.
I was even told this by a minister(will refrain from saying the denomination) one time and that he wasn't allowed to teach a certain thing in the church so he didn't, even though he knew the doctrine of the church was in error. WHATEVER,some intergrity huh?

Yeah, really. Sounds like you attended some strange (I don't really know what word to use other than strange) churches. I have attended several churches and have never run into the things you are describing, such as teaching a doctrine not believed to be true.

I guess I can see what has turned you away from church. All I can say is, they're not all like that.

I know my belief is not yours and some things I still am unclear on when it comes to the ressurection and a rapture and things written in revelation but I will continue to search and pray God shows me the answers.

I did find a verse that was helpful in pointing me in the right direction from Johns revelation and it lines up with the last trump.

Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

We all know the mystery was regarding the church and this verse stands out.

I still feel like you should be attending a church, but with your beliefs, I do not know where you could go (no offense).

I just think the "lone wolf" thing naturally leads to error.

[Warrior4God]

In your opinion perhaps, but not in the opinions of the vast majority of Christians throughout history, who also love God and also study His word.



You can believe whatever you want Warrior, but the scripture plainly teaches me that God became flesh.



In your opinion, knowing virtually nothing about what it is like for God to take on the nature of man, as Jesus did. You seem to dismiss the deep things of God, the meat of the Word, as if "anyone should know that". You dismiss the mysteries of God.

The Word was God . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.




In other words, you make up your own doctrines, based on your own (limited) understanding and(limited) experience, and substitute those for doctrines of the church. Can't you see how such an approach can lead to error?




Yeah, really. Sounds like you attended some strange (I don't really know what word to use other than strange) churches. I have attended several churches and have never run into the things you are describing, such as teaching a doctrine not believed to be true.

I guess I can see what has turned you away from church. All I can say is, they're not all like that.



I still feel like you should be attending a church, but with your beliefs, I do not know where you could go (no offense).

I just think the "lone wolf" thing naturally leads to error.

I am not a lone Wolf ,I have other believers to fellowship with and many around the country and world.
I fellowship with people who attend church as well Jim,I don't alienate myself from the body,But having said that I also will not attend a church that teaches what I believe to be false on a regular basis,however I do go to church from time to time.

My biggest challenge is what to do with my tithe, but God helps me with how to give.

Its not as easy as you would think when you want your tithe to bless others and not end up in someones pocket that doesn't need it.

[Warrior4God]

Jim you keep talking of the mysteries of God but the only mystery I know of in the nt is the church of the body of Christ and that the gentiles are fellow heirs.
Yet I do understand what you mean ,I just think God thinks it important we know him in every way and it is no mystery.(did that make sense?)

[Fire Watch]

No place in scripture does it say God became incarnate.
You know I have to disagree.

Hbr 10:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=10&verse=19&version=kjv#19) Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Hbr 10:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=10&verse=20&version=kjv#20) By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Hbr 1 1-3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr001.html#14) "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son… the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…" .

Jesus is the "express image of his [God's] person". The English phrase translated "express image" is from the Greek word charakter. Thats the source of the English word "character." This is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament. It means "to impress upon, or stamp." It denotes an engravement from a tool, which impresses an image into that which is being engraved. This impression, then, is a characteristic of the instrument used to do produce it. What is produced corresponds precisely with the instrument.

The Greek word translated "person" is hupostasis. It is from this word that we get the term "hypostatic union," describing the unification of deity and humanity in the man Christ Jesus. Hupostasis, although rendered as "person," is more properly understood as "essence of being, or the substance of a thing." The etymology of this word has to do with "the sediment or foundation under a building." Its that which underlies, makes up, or supports a thing. In this context, we are talking about what underlies, or makes up God...God's essence, or substance.

Hupostasis is translated as "confidence" in II Corinthians 9:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Cr/2Cr009.html#top), 11:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Cr/2Cr011.html#17), and Hebrews 3:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr003.html#14). In these contexts it is either boasting, or faith in God that is in view. The idea in these verses is that there is a foundation and fullness of essence of the boasting, or in the faith. The only other time the word appears in Scripture is in Hebrews 11:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr011.html#top) where faith is said to be the "substance" of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Here the true meaning of the word can be clearly seen. Faith is the essence, substance, underlying support, or foundation of things that are hoped for.

Jesus, therefore, is not just a representation of God, but is the very visible impression of God's invisible substance and essence. He is God's very nature expressed in humanity as the Son of God. Or to say it another way: He is the corresponding engravement of God's essence of being, in human form. This verse IMPLICITLY AND LITERALLY implies that Jesus is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint.

[Fire Watch]

All that being said, no, I do not believe in the trinity.

[Warrior4God]

All that being said, no, I do not believe in the trinity.

The verses you use as you know I believe refer to him not being God but is Gods representative in image on earth as well as heaven.
But Rick I can truly see how one would come to the conclusion you have much more than I could see a trinity.
The one doctrine that baffles me is how people think tongues ceased.
When 2 chapters make VERY clear what tongues is for us.
How does anyone throw these chapters aside when they are written in an epistle written DIRECTLY to us.
Back to Jesus,even in my younger years I definetly would have been more accepting of oneness over the trinity.
In many ways oneness has a point but I see the image of God being different then him being God but I don't think it takes away from the magnitude of the Power that was wrought through Christ Jesus and his being my Lord.

[Warrior4God]

As long as Christians persist in teaching that God is essentially outside the realm of reason, even to the point that He embraces contradiction and absurdity, many will be limited in their ability to grow in real and practical knowledge of Him. Then various competitive sects and denominations will work only to preserve their own traditions and assumptions instead of discovering truth and building on these discoveries as the scientific community is able to do. A parallel expansion of true spiritual knowledge could happen in the Christian Church if the evidence of Scripture were upheld with the same conviction that scientists have about their final authority, the observable facts of nature. In science, if an hypothesis is contradicted by the evidence, it is revised. But in theology, even if an hypothesis is not supported by the whole of Scripture, or if it contradicts particular verses, it may well be accepted anyway.

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
notice There is God and there is a man in this verse.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.



There is no rational way to spin this verse but lets see how it happens.

1Co 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.

THe above verse, when properly understood, is actually strong evidence that Jesus Christ is not God. Polytheism was rampant in Corinth, and Scripture is clear that “there is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4). Then the text continues with the statements that although there may be many gods and lords, for Christians there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. If the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, then this text can only be construed as confusing. Here was the perfect opportunity to say, “for us there is only one God made up of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,” or something similar, but, instead, Scripture tells us that only the Father is God. That should stand as conclusive evidence that Jesus is not God.

The context is the key to understanding what the phrase “all things came through him” means. There is no mention in either the immediate or the remote context about the creation of all things in the beginning. Therefore it would be unusual for this verse to mention God’s original creation of Genesis 1:1, which it is not. Rather, it is speaking of the Church. God provided all things for the Church via Jesus Christ. The whole of 1 Corinthians is taken up with Church issues, and Paul starts 8:6 with “for us,” i.e., for Christians. The very next two verses speak about the fact that, for the Church, there are no laws against eating food sacrificed to idols. Verse 8 says, “But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” This revelation was new for the Church. The Old Testament believers did not have this freedom. They had dozens of food laws. The verse is powerful indeed, and states clearly that Christians have one God who is the ultimate source of all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the way by which God provided all things to the Church.

[Tucson Jim]

I am not a lone Wolf ,I have other believers to fellowship with and many around the country and world.
I fellowship with people who attend church as well Jim,I don't alienate myself from the body,But having said that I also will not attend a church that teaches what I believe to be false on a regular basis,however I do go to church from time to time.

My biggest challenge is what to do with my tithe, but God helps me with how to give.

Its not as easy as you would think when you want your tithe to bless others and not end up in someones pocket that doesn't need it.

By "Lone Wolf" I wasn't referring so much to lack of fellowship but to the lack of an accountability structure, as one has in a regular church environment with pastors and elders. In such an environment, doctrinal errors could perhaps be caught early before they take hold in one's life.

I don't know if your group has any such structure - hence my comment.

[Tucson Jim]

Jim you keep talking of the mysteries of God but the only mystery I know of in the nt is the church of the body of Christ and that the gentiles are fellow heirs.
Yet I do understand what you mean ,I just think God thinks it important we know him in every way and it is no mystery.(did that make sense?)

As I mentioned before, the Bible speaks of a number of mysteries besides the gentiles being fellow heirs.

But the main point I have been trying to make is that God, by His very nature as the only omnipotent, omniscient God is entirely unique. We can only know about Him what he chooses to reveal. Thus, in this life anyway, he will always be a "mystery" to us, in the sense we cannot possibly comprehend Him fully. He says as much to Job.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems to me you think you understand God completely - like He is just one of us. If so, I believe you err greatly.

[Tucson Jim]

You know I have to disagree.

Hbr 10:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=10&verse=19&version=kjv#19) Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Hbr 10:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=10&verse=20&version=kjv#20) By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Hbr 1 1-3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr001.html#14) "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son… the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…" .

Jesus is the "express image of his [God's] person". The English phrase translated "express image" is from the Greek word charakter. Thats the source of the English word "character." This is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament. It means "to impress upon, or stamp." It denotes an engravement from a tool, which impresses an image into that which is being engraved. This impression, then, is a characteristic of the instrument used to do produce it. What is produced corresponds precisely with the instrument.

The Greek word translated "person" is hupostasis. It is from this word that we get the term "hypostatic union," describing the unification of deity and humanity in the man Christ Jesus. Hupostasis, although rendered as "person," is more properly understood as "essence of being, or the substance of a thing." The etymology of this word has to do with "the sediment or foundation under a building." Its that which underlies, makes up, or supports a thing. In this context, we are talking about what underlies, or makes up God...God's essence, or substance.

Hupostasis is translated as "confidence" in II Corinthians 9:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Cr/2Cr009.html#top), 11:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Cr/2Cr011.html#17), and Hebrews 3:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr003.html#14). In these contexts it is either boasting, or faith in God that is in view. The idea in these verses is that there is a foundation and fullness of essence of the boasting, or in the faith. The only other time the word appears in Scripture is in Hebrews 11:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr011.html#top) where faith is said to be the "substance" of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Here the true meaning of the word can be clearly seen. Faith is the essence, substance, underlying support, or foundation of things that are hoped for.

Jesus, therefore, is not just a representation of God, but is the very visible impression of God's invisible substance and essence. He is God's very nature expressed in humanity as the Son of God. Or to say it another way: He is the corresponding engravement of God's essence of being, in human form. This verse IMPLICITLY AND LITERALLY implies that Jesus is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint.

I still think you are the best writer I have ever read.

I am waiting for the book . . .

[Tucson Jim]

As long as Christians persist in teaching that God is essentially outside the realm of reason, even to the point that He embraces contradiction and absurdity, many will be limited in their ability to grow in real and practical knowledge of Him.

And as long as some persist in teaching that the supreme arbiter of truth is logic, to the point where they construct arguments based on premises with factual bases that cannot be known, they will never advance in their knowledge of God, because they are subordinating God's revelation to mans logic.

[drmilo]

The one doctrine that baffles me is how people think tongues ceased.


What does this have to do with the Trinty doctrine? I believe in the trinity; I also very much believe in the gift of tongues.

[drmilo]

But the main point I have been trying to make is that God, by His very nature as the only omnipotent, omniscient God is entirely unique.

To expand upon this:

To say that Jesus has a God thus can't be God, or that God is spirit, thus can't be man is to limit God based upon falible human logic.

If God truly is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then nothing is impossible for God. In fact, Jesus said just those words to his apostles.

Nothing is impossible for God. Think about those words. Another way to say it: With God, all things are possible. What man thinks is impossible requires no effort on God's part to be possible. God is one being but that one being comprises of three persons: Impossible for man, but all things are possible for God.

Man is made in God's image. I believe that man, too, is a triune being consisting of body, soul, and spirit.

But God, being omnipotent, is able to separate those three parts of his one being into persons able to interact with His creation. Man cannot separate those parts of his being. Only through death and the saving grace of Christ can we separate from our body and exist as spirits -- and even then, we are incomplete until the resurection on the last day, when we will be reunited with a transfigured body and exist in the new earth, when heaven and earth are combined into one. When Chirst's kingdom reigns. And evil is destroyed.

Anyway, I've strayed off my point. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Nothing is impossible for God. We humans do not comprehend what that means. By nature we are limited and really do not understand the nature of being limitless. We place limits on things in order to comprehend them. This is where our fallible human logic fails us.

[DRS]

Where do we find these words in the bible?

omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent

[Fire Watch]

So Daniel, it's your position that God is none of those things?

[DRS]

So Daniel, it's your position that God is none of those things?

God resides in heaven, as the bible states.

The idea that God always knows what is going to happen before it happens, means before god created anything He forsaw evil, and the only place evil would have existed at that time would have been inside God.

So do you believe God has evil in Him?

[Fire Watch]

God resides in heaven, as the bible states.
God isnt contained by anything or anyplace. God created heaven. Heaven therefore is finite. The spiritual substance of an infinite being could not be contained by a finite space because an infinite being has infinite presence, and yet heaven is finite in nature. An infinite amount of substance cannot "fit" into a finite amount of space because the finite cannot contain the infinite. These are two opposing categories of existence.

The idea that God always knows what is going to happen before it happens,

Genesis 1:1 is the key to this. "In the beginning...." There was a beginning. Time was something that came into being at the dawn of creation. God did not have a beginning. He is a-temporal, while creation is temporal. God is not bound by the limitations of time, and neither is time part of God's eternal nature. God is transcendent to time, because God is transcendent to the created realm. God is unique in that in addition to being transcendent to time, He also interacts with time when He interacts with His creation. Because God created time, He transcends time, and is not bound to the "present perspective" that humans are bound to. He is both above time and in time.

There is a difference between the notion that the future is predetermined by God with no contingency on man's free choices, and the notion that all of man's free choices are foreknown by God in His timeless omniscience. Only the latter is true. It does not logically follow that God's complete foreknowledge of all human choices means that God dictates those choices. God's timeless knowledge of all human choices does not mean that God makes a timeless determination of future events. Prior knowledge of an action does not make the person with that knowledge the cause of that action. If I had perfect knowledge of history, that would not make me the cause of history. There is a difference between knowing something and causing something.

[Warrior4God]

I still think you are the best writer I have ever read.

I am waiting for the book . . .

I have told Rick that very same thing he is a great writer

[Warrior4God]

What does this have to do with the Trinty doctrine? I believe in the trinity; I also very much believe in the gift of tongues.

My point was that the trinity doctrine makes a good case in some ways but I believe it still contradicts the Bible.
However tongues is not taught in most churches and its point blank adressed to us in Cor.
That was all I was saying
I am thankful that you do believe in tongues.
No 2 denominations agree on doctrine and it leaves us to search and find the truth,
sometimes I think your better off not having been taught by a theologian as almost every theologian has a different viewpoint then the next one.
Not saying we can't learn from them but they are in fact fallible.
Had the Council of Nicea not stopped the eastern Bishops from being there to vote you may have a totally different doctrine.
If you read the history of it you would see how this vote was flawed and that Constantine had a very precise agenda .

[DRS]

God isnt contained by anything or anyplace. God created heaven. Heaven therefore is finite. The spiritual substance of an infinite being could not be contained by a finite space because an infinite being has infinite presence, and yet heaven is finite in nature. An infinite amount of substance cannot "fit" into a finite amount of space because the finite cannot contain the infinite. These are two opposing categories of existence.



Genesis 1:1 is the key to this. "In the beginning...." There was a beginning. Time was something that came into being at the dawn of creation. God did not have a beginning. He is a-temporal, while creation is temporal. God is not bound by the limitations of time, and neither is time part of God's eternal nature. God is transcendent to time, because God is transcendent to the created realm. God is unique in that in addition to being transcendent to time, He also interacts with time when He interacts with His creation. Because God created time, He transcends time, and is not bound to the "present perspective" that humans are bound to. He is both above time and in time.

There is a difference between the notion that the future is predetermined by God with no contingency on man's free choices, and the notion that all of man's free choices are foreknown by God in His timeless omniscience. Only the latter is true. It does not logically follow that God's complete foreknowledge of all human choices means that God dictates those choices. God's timeless knowledge of all human choices does not mean that God makes a timeless determination of future events. Prior knowledge of an action does not make the person with that knowledge the cause of that action. If I had perfect knowledge of history, that would not make me the cause of history. There is a difference between knowing something and causing something.

Yet in the bible we see God in heaven and the angels coming in before Him, there is nothing in the bible that states God transcends time.

I notice you ignore the fact that if God knew all things all the time, it means you have God having evil inside Him before creation.

Do you believe God has evil in Him?

[Fire Watch]

I notice you ignore the fact that if God knew all things all the time, it means you have God having evil inside Him before creation.
I didn't ignore it, I simply chose not to respond to a logical fallacy. I "know" that in 35 minutes it will be 11AM here..does that mean I caused the time to change? Does 11am exist in me? I know that you'll respond to this post. Does your post, thoughts, and words exist "in" me? Did I cause you to write your response?

[DRS]

I didn't ignore it, I simply chose not to respond to a logical fallacy. I "know" that in 35 minutes it will be 11AM here..does that mean I caused the time to change? Does 11am exist in me? I know that you'll respond to this post. Does your post, thoughts, and words exist "in" me? Did I cause you to write your response?

You know I will respond because I responded before, you know the clock will change because the clock has changed before.

But can you say if 100,000 people will respond to your post?

See your knowledge is limited to what you eperience, now if there is nothing and all that is around is what is in your mind and you foresee evil the only way possible is to have evil in you.

[Fire Watch]

there is nothing in the bible that states God transcends time.
So it's your contention then that God didnt exist until time started? What then created time and God? What was the first cause? God created time, Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." "Beginning" indicates the creation of time. God created time when he created matter and space in the beginning. Before that was only God.

Time is part of God's creation, just as lakes, trees, goats, and people are creations. Just as God interacts with the rest of His creation, He interacts with time. Because time is created, it precludes God from having His existence rooted in, and bound by time.

[Fire Watch]

See your knowledge is limited to what you eperience, now if there is nothing and all that is around is what is in your mind and you foresee evil the only way possible is to have evil in you.
Again no. Because God knew what would happen doesnt mean those things that happen are "in him"..they are just nuggets of knowledge.

[DRS]

So it's your contention then that God didnt exist until time started? What then created time and God? What was the first cause? God created time, Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." "Beginning" indicates the creation of time. God created time when he created matter and space in the beginning. Before that was only God.

Time is part of God's creation, just as lakes, trees, goats, and people are creations. Just as God interacts with the rest of His creation, He interacts with time. Because time is created, it precludes God from having His existence rooted in, and bound by time.

God creates laws, with creation came the start of time, Jesus being the beginning of creation can therefore be called the beginning.

[Fire Watch]

Ok, Daniel. This is getting a little labored. I'll let this thread get back on topic now. Have a nice day.

[DRS]

Again no. Because God knew what would happen doesnt mean those things that happen are "in him"..they are just nuggets of knowledge.

one gains knowledge through experience or through information they have in them, like instinct. So which was it that gave God the ability to see evil before anything existed in your view?

[Angryamerican]

God creates laws, with creation came the start of time, Jesus being the beginning of creation can therefore be called the beginning.

Where do we find that Jesus was the first thing ever created?

I'm sure if jesus was the very first thing created there would be evidence in the OT of this.

If jesus is the son of God and had a beginning i'm sure God would have brought that to our attention.

[Angryamerican]

I looked at that website. You might as well just pick up a Watchtower - the beliefs are pretty much identical - and in my opinion, do not square at all with the Bible.


I think that would be better then believing in a doctrine that was man made about God

[drmilo]

Where do we find these words in the bible?

omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent

Let's see, DRS:

Omniscient (all knowing) --

Psalm 139:1-6
1 "O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.


Omnipresent (everywhere) --

Psalm 139:7-13
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.


Omnipotent (all powerful) --

Matthew 19: 25-26

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


The exact words might not appear in the bible, but the concept of those words definitely is there.

Now here's the question: If God isn't Omniscient, how does he know that we sin? If God isn't Omnipotent, how can he forgive those sins? If God isn't Omnipresent, how does he know that everyone sins? How does he hear the prayers of all? How does he attend the needs of all his flock? One at a time? How does he hear us? How does he know our needs before we even ask Him -- as Jesus himself stated?

[DRS]

Where do we find that Jesus was the first thing ever created?

I'm sure if jesus was the very first thing created there would be evidence in the OT of this.

If jesus is the son of God and had a beginning i'm sure God would have brought that to our attention.

You read itself and said you saw it in Proverbs 8

[DRS]

Let's see, DRS:

Omniscient (all knowing) --

Psalm 139:1-6
1 "O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.


Omnipresent (everywhere) --

Psalm 139:7-13
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.


Omnipotent (all powerful) --

Matthew 19: 25-26

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


The exact words might not appear in the bible, but the concept of those words definitely is there.

Now here's the question: If God isn't Omniscient, how does he know that we sin? If God isn't Omnipotent, how can he forgive those sins? If God isn't Omnipresent, how does he know that everyone sins? How does he hear the prayers of all? How does he attend the needs of all his flock? One at a time? How does he hear us? How does he know our needs before we even ask Him -- as Jesus himself stated?

Hey if you want I can go and show the other side from scripture.

God gives man free choice and man can choose to do good or bad.

God warned Cain to keep him from sinning.

. 6*At this Jehovah said to Cain: “Why are you hot with anger and why has your countenance fallen? 7*If you turn to doing good, will there not be an exaltation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?”


Are we not on exhibition to the spirit realm as Paul wrote?

Never stated God an not forgive sin, I am not omnipresent yet I know everyone sins

God does not need to be everywhere to hear all prayers, I do not need to be in the same room with you to discuss this.

Jehovah has a vast heavenly army that helps does He not?

[Angryamerican]

You read itself and said you saw it in Proverbs 8


Well i found a very interesting site. and i am finding things on it that have me scratching my head. Like many of the questions i have asked you, and i am finding that maybe i have been wrong.

Take a look.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html

[DRS]

Well i found a very interesting site. and i am finding things on it that have me scratching my head. Like many of the questions i have asked you, and i am finding that maybe i have been wrong.

Take a look.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html

What has you scratching your head?

[drmilo]

Hey if you want I can go and show the other side from scripture.

So, is scripture contradicting itself? I think not. Because God can be in heaven does not mean he can't be everywhere all at once. And please, tell me in scripture where it says that there are things God can't do. If there are things God can't do, does that mean Christ was lying when he said with God all things are possible?

God gives man free choice and man can choose to do good or bad.

This doesn't mean that God is not omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent. Free will does not negate those aspects of God. I sometimes know when my kids are going to make a mistake. Yet I sit back and let them make it. Why? So that they can learn from their own mistakes. Does my knowing what my children are going to do and what mistakes they are going to make mean that I've taken away their free will to do so?

God warned Cain to keep him from sinning.

. 6*At this Jehovah said to Cain: “Why are you hot with anger and why has your countenance fallen? 7*If you turn to doing good, will there not be an exaltation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?”

How does this negate God's omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence? IMHO, it actually goes a long way to show his omniscience.


Are we not on exhibition to the spirit realm as Paul wrote?

And? How does this negate the omni -science, -presence, -potence of God?

Never stated God an not forgive sin, I am not omnipresent yet I know everyone sins

Really? Or do you know everyone sins because God told you that everyone sins? And God knows our sins without us telling him. He doesn't only know that we sin. But he knows what sins we commit. How we commit them. When we commit them. Our intent when those sins are committed. Whether or not we are truly repentant when we confess them and beg forgiveness. Can you do that?

God does not need to be everywhere to hear all prayers, I do not need to be in the same room with you to discuss this.

But you don't know what I am going to say to you before I say it.

Jehovah has a vast heavenly army that helps does He not?

So, God has a spy network in place, does he? Sort of like a KGB?

Somehow, I don't think so.

[Tucson Jim]

I have told Rick that very same thing he is a great writer

We agree! :D

[Tucson Jim]

I think that would be better then believing in a doctrine that was man made about God

You think what would be better - doctrines that don't square with the Bible??

[Tucson Jim]

Hey if you want I can go and show the other side from scripture.

God gives man free choice and man can choose to do good or bad.

God warned Cain to keep him from sinning.

. 6*At this Jehovah said to Cain: “Why are you hot with anger and why has your countenance fallen? 7*If you turn to doing good, will there not be an exaltation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?”


Are we not on exhibition to the spirit realm as Paul wrote?

Never stated God an not forgive sin, I am not omnipresent yet I know everyone sins

God does not need to be everywhere to hear all prayers, I do not need to be in the same room with you to discuss this.

Jehovah has a vast heavenly army that helps does He not?

This is, in my opinion, one of the strangest conversations I have seen in this thread!

What exactly is your point DRS??

Instead of talking in bits and pieces, leaving us to try and piece together what in the world you are talking about, why don't you just say what you believe about God's "omnis" and what scripture supports those beliefs?

[Angryamerican]

What has you scratching your head?

Some of the prophecies in the OT pertaining to the messiah.

[DRS]

Some of the prophecies in the OT pertaining to the messiah.

Which ones?

[DRS]

This is, in my opinion, one of the strangest conversations I have seen in this thread!

What exactly is your point DRS??

Instead of talking in bits and pieces, leaving us to try and piece together what in the world you are talking about, why don't you just say what you believe about God's "omnis" and what scripture supports those beliefs?

I am have a better idea instead of using greek thought to discuss God just use the bible and words that come from there.

[Warrior4God]

An Appeal to Trinitarian Christians





Historical Background of the Trinity

By Jeff Rath 11-97



The current mainstream teaching in Christianity is that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance trinity, and that Jesus Christ is God. This doctrine is considered by many as the cornerstone of Christianity, but where did this doctrine come from? The historical record is overwhelming that the church of the first three centuries did not worship God as a coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, one-substance three in one mysterious godhead. The early church worshipped one God and believed in a subordinate Son. The trinity originated with Babylon, and was passed on to most of the world's religions. This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Christ. The idea of "God the Son" is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity. Worshipping "God the Son" is idolatry, and idolatry is Biblically condemned; it breaks the first great commandment of God of not having any gods before him (Exodus 20:3). Then three centuries after Christ the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea. The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council of Nicea 325 said that "Jesus Christ is God," the council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is God," the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally depraved," the council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God." If you follow the logic here then first you have Jesus Christ as God, then you have man totally depraved, and then you have Jesus Christ as man and God. If Jesus Christ is both man and God does this mean that God is also totally depraved? Well maybe the doctrine of the coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead is deprived of any historical foundation tying it into the Christianity of the Bible and the Christianity of the first three centuries. However the historical information ties the trinity into various pagan origins.

And yet most Christian churches continue to teach and believe the doctrine that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead, and that Jesus Christ is God, and that the trinity is "the cornerstone of Christianity".
http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm

[Warrior4God]

The Church of the First Three Centuries 1865 Alvan Lamson

" . . . The modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three centuries. . . so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this doctrine an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a coequal trinity. . . but no un-divided three, -- coequal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin."

During the first three centuries, Christians did not believe that Jesus Christ was coequal, and coeternal with God, or that he was God the Son, they believed that Jesus Christ was subordinate to God, and that he had a beginning, that he was born. Those that believed otherwise were the exception.

The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound 1994 Anthony F. Buzzard Charles F. Hunting

"Those Trinitarians who believe that the concept of a Triune God was such an established fact that it was not considered important enough to mention at the time the New Testament was written should be challenged by the remarks of another writer, Harold Brown:"

"It is a simple fact and an undeniable historical fact that several major doctrines that now seem central to the Christian Faith – such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the nature of Christ – were not present in a full and self-defined generally accepted form until the fourth and fifth centuries. If they are essential today – as all of the orthodox creeds and confessions assert – it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth and fifth century. But if they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to formulate them?"

A History of the Christian Church 2nd Ed. 1985 Williston Walker

"AD 200. . Noetus had been expelled from the Smyrnaean church for teaching that Christ was the Father, and that the Father himself was born, and suffered, and died."

Man’s Religions John B. Noss 1968

"The controversy first became heated when Apollinarius, a bishop in Syria . . . asserted that Christ could not have been perfect man united with complete God, for then there would not have been one Son of God, but two sons, one by nature and one by adoption, the first with a divine, the second with a human will. Such a thing seemed inconceivable, religiously abhorrent."

"Nestorius . . . preached a sermon against calling the virgin Mary ‘the mother of God’ declaring she did not bear a deity, she bore a man,"

Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die, but when people deviate from what the Bible teaches you can come up with the bizarre complexities of trinitarian religious mysteries that contradict logic, common sense and God’s Word.

New Bible Dictionary 1982

"The word trinity is not found in the Bible . . ."

". . . it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

". . . it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formation of it can be found in the Bible, . . ."

"Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the trinity, . . ."



The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995

". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."

If the trinity is the cornerstone of Christianity then how did the church of the first three centuries get along so well without it? If the trinity is the cornerstone of Christianity then why is it not mentioned in the Bible?

The Encyclopedia Americana 1956

"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."

The trinity is a deviation from believing in one God; it is a deviation from what the early church taught and it is a deviation from the scripture.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967

"The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century."

Who is Jesus? Anthony Buzzard

"The Old Testament is a strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumption that has long held sway in theology, but is utterly without foundation."

The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1976

"Neither the word trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."

The Shema consists of three sections of scripture Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. It is called the Shema after the Hebrew word hear, the first word in Deut. 6:4. The Shema was to be recited twice daily once upon arising and once when going to bed. So the Old Testament Jews would start and finish their day with 'Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.'

http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm

[Warrior4God]

The Complete Word Study Old Testament 1994

"To the Jew, (Deut. 6:4-9) this is the most important text in the Old Testament. Jesus himself called the injunction in 6:5 'the first and great commandment' Matt.22:36-38. . . Moses is teaching not only the priority of belief in one God, but also a means to preserve that belief. As time went on, the proper understanding of the Shema with its spiritual implications was no longer grasped by the people. This absence of saving knowledge became a factor in their spiritual downfall."

Whenever God's people forget that there is only one God and they follow after other gods this will result in their downfall. This can be seen time and time again in the Old Testament where God's people forsook the Lord and then evil came upon them. God does not send this evil, but He warns us to stay away from the evil of worshipping more than one God.

Dictionary of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie

"The trinity of God is defined by the church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."

Why You Should Believe In The Trinity 1989 Robert M. Bowman Jr.

"The New Testament does not contain a formalized explanation of the trinity that uses such words as trinity, three persons, one substance, and the like."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 1976

"The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence. [said Karl Barth]"

Exploring The Christian Faith 1992

"nowhere in the Bible do we find the doctrine of the trinity clearly formulated"

"People who are using the King James Version might be inclined to point to I John 5:7 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost' But it is now generally recognized that this verse does not belong to the original text of the letter; it is a later insertion."

"The theological formulation took place later, after the days of the apostles."

"the doctrine of the trinity is not found in the Bible"

"The doctrine was to develop along mainly Greek lines"

Take note of the words "explicitly and formally", "formalized explanation", "express declaration", and "clearly formulated". These words are indicative of the fact that all the clear verses on the subjects of God, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit do not even hint at a trinity. There are only a few verses that seem to hint at a trinity, and then only when they are twisted. The difficult or unclear verse must always be interpreted in light of the clear verses. If God is a coeternal, coequal, one substance, three-in-one Godhead, trinity, if that is what God really is, then he would have made himself known as such to the first century apostles; they would have made the trinity part of their beliefs teachings and writings. They would have used words like God the Son, coequal, coeternal, one substance, or trinity, but the scripture is devoid of all of these trinitarian words and phrases because the first century apostles did not believe or teach, or write about God being a trinity, or Jesus Christ being God. But the pagan and Greek and Babylonian religions used those words.

Dictionary Of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie

"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."

The Rise of Christianity W.H.C. Frend 1985

"For him [Clement] the trinity consisted of a hierarchy of three graded beings, and from that concept - derived from Platonism - depended much of the remainder of his theological teaching."

The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound 1994 Anthony F. Buzzard Charles F. Hunting

"Eberhard Griesebach, in an acedemic lecture on "Christianity and humanism" delivered in 1938, observed that in its encounter with Greek philosophy Christianity became theology. That was the fall of Christianity. The Problem thus highlighted stems from the fact that traditional orthodoxy, while it claims to find its origins in scripture, in fact contains elements drawn from a synthesis of Scripture and Neo-Platonism. The mingling of Hebrew and Greek thinking set in motion first in the second century by an influx of Hellenism through the Church Fathers, whose theology was colored by the Platonists Plotinus and Porphyry. The effects of the Greek influence are widely recognized by theologians, though they go largely unnoticed by many believers."

". . . the Trinity is an unintelligible proposition of platonic mysticisms that three are one and one is three" [quote from Thomas Jefferson]

The Greek mythology and pagan religious beliefs were derived from Babylon.


Read on at this site.
You need not believe all they believe to see how Gods Word was corrupted by man and pagan myth.


http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm

[Fire Watch]

During the first three centuries, Christians did not believe that Jesus Christ was God the Son,
Demostrably false.

The Christian leaders following the apostles affirmed their belief in the monotheism of the Old Testament and accepted without question the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ. Heick, I, 46-48.


The most prominent post-apostolic fathers were Hermas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius. Their ministries spanned the time from about 90 to 140 A.D. Irenaeus, a prominent Christian leader who died around 200 A.D., had an intensely Christocentric theology and a firm belief that Jesus was God manifested in flesh. He held that the Logos which became incarnate in Jesus Christ was the mind of God, and was the Father Himself. Kenneth Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1953), p. 143.

[Warrior4God]

Demostrably false.

The Christian leaders following the apostles affirmed their belief in the monotheism of the Old Testament and accepted without question the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ. Heick, I, 46-48.


The most prominent post-apostolic fathers were Hermas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius. Their ministries spanned the time from about 90 to 140 A.D. Irenaeus, a prominent Christian leader who died around 200 A.D., had an intensely Christocentric theology and a firm belief that Jesus was God manifested in flesh. He held that the Logos which became incarnate in Jesus Christ was the mind of God, and was the Father Himself. Kenneth Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1953), p. 143.

These quotes come from many sources, some I may not agree with them all but opened it up for discussion.
I would tend to believe that since the early church converted those who were pagan that in the first century the seeds of Jesus being God may have been planted.
All my opinion though.
I think its interesting that the majority believe it was derived from other religions and belief systems.

I also find it very interesting that the Jews were well aware of the messiah being a man.

I don't think Christians are aware of how many pagan traditions have crept into christianity.

another intersting site here not sure who or what belief these people are
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/booklets/tw-bk.cgi?category=Booklets1&item=1140203084

[Tucson Jim]

I am have a better idea instead of using greek thought to discuss God just use the bible and words that come from there.

Typical cryptic DRS response . . .

[Tucson Jim]

These quotes come from many sources, some I may not agree with them all but opened it up for discussion.
I would tend to believe that since the early church converted those who were pagan that in the first century the seeds of Jesus being God may have been planted.

And exactly how would that make it's way into scripture, which overwhelmingly affirms the deity of Christ in numerous verses throughout scripture? Do you believe the word of God has been massively corrupted?

All my opinion though.
I think its interesting that the majority believe it was derived from other religions and belief systems.

The majority of a very small number of authors you cited.

By contrast, nearly all Christians, Christian denominations and Christian scholars throughout history have believed Jesus is God.

You're looking at the opinions of the fringe Warrior.

I also find it very interesting that the Jews were well aware of the messiah being a man.

Who says Jesus wasn't a man?

I don't think Christians are aware of how many pagan traditions have crept into christianity.

On the other hand, some people get stuck here, becoming absolutely obsessed with the idea - and end up basing their whole theology on this. Some even go out and start new churches based on it! Big mistake IMO.

Some pagan ideas may have crept into Christian practice, but Jesus being God is definitely not one. Scripture affirms His Deity everywhere.

another intersting site here not sure who or what belief these people are
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/booklets/tw-bk.cgi?category=Booklets1&item=1140203084

Could even be pagan beliefs, who knows!

Just as long as it is not a site representing traditional Christianity, it must be OK, right? :rolleyes:

[Warrior4God]

And exactly how would that make it's way into scripture, which overwhelmingly affirms the deity of Christ in numerous verses throughout scripture? Do you believe the word of God has been massively corrupted?



The majority of a very small number of authors you cited.

By contrast, nearly all Christians, Christian denominations and Christian scholars throughout history have believed Jesus is God.

You're looking at the opinions of the fringe Warrior.



Who says Jesus wasn't a man?



On the other hand, some people get stuck here, becoming absolutely obsessed with the idea - and end up basing their whole theology on this. Some even go out and start new churches based on it! Big mistake IMO.

Some pagan ideas may have crept into Christian practice, but Jesus being God is definitely not one. Scripture affirms His Deity everywhere.



Could even be pagan beliefs, who knows!

Just as long as it is not a site representing traditional Christianity, it must be OK, right? :rolleyes:

I will stand on the truth of Gods Word versus tradition.
I am amazed at the pride of men when they see something that is contrary to what they have been taught especially when it comes to the history of the church and how the traditions got started and doctrines were introduced.
Have you ever taken the time to look into the history rather then the result of the history?


The Council of Nicaea
The council was held in the city of Nicaea (today the town of Iznik in North Western Turkey). The attendance of the council was not as ecumenical as modern Christians would like to pretend. Of the at least 1800 bishops in the Christian Church, only about 300 attended. [16]
At Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia expounded the Arian position, while Athanasius defended his own teachings. As with all theological debates, the council reached a deadlock; no formula appeared to be agreeable to both parties in the dispute. It was at this point that Constantine stepped in and sided with Athanasius. He argued that everyone present should sign the formula that Jesus was of the same essence (Homoousios) as the Father.[c]

Constantine's desire to deify Jesus was not in the least surprising. It was a natural carry over from his pagan past when he had his father, Constantius, deified. It is thus natural that he would want to see the founder of his new religion put in the same pedestal as well.

Constantine added that whoever agreed to sign the formula will be invited to his twentieth anniversary celebrations. To this announcement the Emperor added that anyone who refused to sign the formula would face immediate banishment. [17] As a result of this announcement, all but seventeen die-hard Arians signed the homoousion formula. With the signatures, willing or otherwise, of many of Christendoms most important bishops the die was cast for Arianism. Although it was to experience a brief resurgence, Arianism never stood a chance once the Nicene Creed was agreed to by the bishops. One can only speculate how many of the bishops signed due to Constantine's threat. We do know that many of the bishops who agreed to the formula initially due to the emperor's threat withdrew their signatures upon returning to their own cities. [18] Thus Eusebius, one of the signatories to the formula, wrote (on behalf of himself and two other bishops) to Constantine upon return to Nicomedia:

We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy for fear of you. [19]


Whatever may be the reaction of the bishop who signed the formula unwillingly, the emperor was quick to act. He ordered the banishment of Arius and the burning of his writings. The leading Arian bishops were also deposed.

Not sure of the site this came from as its in my notes on church history.
A bit more on constantine


Constantine
Several incidents prior to his ascendency to the throne of the Roman Empire in AD324 had convinced Constantine of the efficacy of the Christian religion. Earlier, he had utilized the cross (a symbol shared by Christianity and Mithraism) as the symbol of his army. He won four successive battles with that and as a result took complete control of Italy by the year 312. [12] He attributed his success to the Christian God and, as a token of his indebtedness, gave the Christian clergy annual allowances, exempted the Christian church from municipal burdens and gave the Christian bishops legal power to enforce their decision in Christian disputes. [13] It was under Constantine that Christianity really took off as a religious force which was to eclipse and eliminate all others.
Constantine's behavior was to be a preview to subsequent behaviors of prominent Christians, once they had gained political power. To become the sole emperor, he strangled Lucius, the emperor of the eastern half of the Roman Empire, after promising to spare his life. When he became emperor, by then definitely a convinced Christian, Constantine put to death his son Crispus, a nephew and his wife Fausta. Through all this, it should be noted that the Christian church, rejoicing in its new found prominence, did not raise a single word of criticism against the emperor's behavior. [14] To top it all up, Constantine was openly accepted by the Christians as the head of the Church on earth. [15] This then, was the man who called a general council in the year 325 to settle the dispute regrading Jesus' divinity.


Notes
a. The reader will note that this teaching simply echoes the teaching of the earlier church fathers such as Origen and Tertullian. Arius was only teaching what he believed to be the orthodox position.
b. Constantine obviously considered himself Christian when he became emperor. He was however not baptized until the year 337 towards the end of his life. This does not constitute any religious hesitation on his part. In fact it was considered bad economy to be baptized too early. For baptism washes away all your previous sins, but not your subsequent ones. So it makes sense to delay baptism for as long as possible. [11]
c. The so-called Nicene creed reads thus:
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten not made, by the Father as his only Son, of the same substance (Homoousios) with the Father, God of God, Light of Light.



References
1. Livingstone, Dictionary of the Christian Church: p34
2. Ibid: p38
3. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p89
4. Ibid: p89
5. Livingstone, Dictionary of the Christian Church: p32
Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings: p88
Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p138
6. Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings: p88
7. Ibid: p179-180
8. Christie-Murray, A History of Heresy: p46
9. Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings: p90-92
10. Ibid: p92-93
11. H.A.L. Fisher, A History of Europe Vols I & II, Fontana, London 1932: p114
Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p85
12. Fisher, A History of Europe: p114
13. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p86
14. Ibid: p85
15. Ibid: p85
Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p137
16. Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p317
Livingstone, Dictionary of the Christian Church: p356
Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p89
17. Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p142
18. Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p317-318
19. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p89
Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p142
20. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p89
21. Livingstone, Dictionary of the Christian Church: p33
22. Ibid: p128
23. Christie-Murray, A History of Heresy: p55
Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence: p142

[drmilo]

In Acts 10:25,26, Cornelius tries to worship Peter. Peter responds: "Stand up I am only a man myself."

In Rev 19:10 and Rev 22:8,9 John attempts to worship an angel. The angel responds: "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you"

In Mt 8:2, Mt 9:18, Mt 14:33, Mt 15:25, Mt 20:20, Mt 28:9, Mt 28:17, Lu 24:52, John 9:38, and including the wise men, Mt 2:2,8,11 various other people worshipped Jesus. Jesus does not object to their worship of him, but accepts it, unlike the responses of Peter and the angel to people trying to offer them worship.

Yet, we know that Jesus knows that only God should be worshipped from Mt 4:9,10 when the Devil attempted to make Jesus worship him. Jesus responded: "Away from me, Satan! For it is written:
'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Was Jesus guilty of accepting worship when he should not have? Would he not make himself implicit in the sin of another by not correcting them when the worshipped him? Or did Jesus accept the worship because he knew he was God?

[Warrior4God]

In Acts 10:25,26, Cornelius tries to worship Peter. Peter responds: "Stand up I am only a man myself."

In Rev 19:10 and Rev 22:8,9 John attempts to worship an angel. The angel responds: "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you"

In Mt 8:2, Mt 9:18, Mt 14:33, Mt 15:25, Mt 20:20, Mt 28:9, Mt 28:17, Lu 24:52, John 9:38, and including the wise men, Mt 2:2,8,11 various other people worshipped Jesus. Jesus does not object to their worship of him, but accepts it, unlike the responses of Peter and the angel to people trying to offer them worship.

Yet, we know that Jesus knows that only God should be worshipped from Mt 4:9,10 when the Devil attempted to make Jesus worship him. Jesus responded: "Away from me, Satan! For it is written:
'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Was Jesus guilty of accepting worship when he should not have? Would he not make himself implicit in the sin of another by not correcting them when the worshipped him? Or did Jesus accept the worship because he knew he was God?

Do a word study on the greek word( proskuneō )along with its root word and you will see that this word is used in the greek differently ,similar to theos

[Angryamerican]

And exactly how would that make it's way into scripture, which overwhelmingly affirms the deity of Christ in numerous verses throughout scripture? Do you believe the word of God has been massively corrupted?



The majority of a very small number of authors you cited.

By contrast, nearly all Christians, Christian denominations and Christian scholars throughout history have believed Jesus is God.

You're looking at the opinions of the fringe Warrior.



Who says Jesus wasn't a man?



On the other hand, some people get stuck here, becoming absolutely obsessed with the idea - and end up basing their whole theology on this. Some even go out and start new churches based on it! Big mistake IMO.

Some pagan ideas may have crept into Christian practice, but Jesus being God is definitely not one. Scripture affirms His Deity everywhere.



Could even be pagan beliefs, who knows!

Just as long as it is not a site representing traditional Christianity, it must be OK, right? :rolleyes:

Jim if the catholics admit to the trinity not being present in the OT, and the trinity didn't become a doctrine until 325 years after Jesus died ,than how do you get the early christians taught that Jesus was God? Or the trinity even existed?

[ralittlefield]

Do a word study on the greek word( proskuneō )along with its root word and you will see that this word is used in the greek differently ,similar to theos


Good advice Warrior. Do that study. You will see that Jesus is worshiped.

[DRS]

In Acts 10:25,26, Cornelius tries to worship Peter. Peter responds: "Stand up I am only a man myself."

In Rev 19:10 and Rev 22:8,9 John attempts to worship an angel. The angel responds: "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you"

In Mt 8:2, Mt 9:18, Mt 14:33, Mt 15:25, Mt 20:20, Mt 28:9, Mt 28:17, Lu 24:52, John 9:38, and including the wise men, Mt 2:2,8,11 various other people worshipped Jesus. Jesus does not object to their worship of him, but accepts it, unlike the responses of Peter and the angel to people trying to offer them worship.

Yet, we know that Jesus knows that only God should be worshipped from Mt 4:9,10 when the Devil attempted to make Jesus worship him. Jesus responded: "Away from me, Satan! For it is written:
'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Was Jesus guilty of accepting worship when he should not have? Would he not make himself implicit in the sin of another by not correcting them when the worshipped him? Or did Jesus accept the worship because he knew he was God?


The word also means to bow down to as one would do to a king.

[Warrior4God]

Good advice Warrior. Do that study. You will see that Jesus is worshiped.

I have and the usage is varied in the greek language.

[Tucson Jim]

I will stand on the truth of Gods Word versus tradition.

That would be an excellent approach for you to take Warrior.

I am amazed at the pride of men when they see something that is contrary to what they have been taught especially when it comes to the history of the church and how the traditions got started and doctrines were introduced.


And I am amazed at those who get fixated on a minor point, to the point that their entire theology revolves around that point. Then they miss the major point of scripture. Amazing - and sad.

It may surprise you to find out that most Christians over the age of 18 have been introduced to the "Pagan practices in the church" discussion by the hordes of Jehovah's Witnesses in virtually every neighborhood in America who speak incessantly about this very topic every single day.

This is nothing new Warrior.

And I certainly don't think anyone on this forum is unfamiliar with the charge.

It's just that the charge has no bearing on the Deity of Christ, since His Deity can be shown from the scriptures, independent of the pagan beliefs of converts to Christianity.

So the argument has no validity regarding the Deity of Christ.

An interesting discussion perhaps, but no bearing at all on the central beliefs of Christianity, in particular on the topic of this thread.

[Tucson Jim]

Jim if the catholics admit to the trinity not being present in the OT, and the trinity didn't become a doctrine until 325 years after Jesus died ,than how do you get the early christians taught that Jesus was God? Or the trinity even existed?

Sounds like you have been reading the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" - but not very carefully. As the Encyclopedia notes, the doctrine is not prominent in the OT, but is definitely present in the NT.

Regarding early Christians teaching it, see Reconrick's post #6560. I would also recommend to you the Book "God in Three Persons" by E. Calvin Beisner, which has a good discussion of the Trinitarian beliefs of early Christians.

[Angryamerican]

Good advice Warrior. Do that study. You will see that Jesus is worshiped.

Why did jesus shy away from being king if he was to be worshiped?

Joh 6:15 Therefore when Jesus perceived that they would come and take Him by force, that they might make Him a king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain alone by Himself.


Satan was in heaven but yet didn't know who Jesus was.

Mat 4:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple
Mat 4:6 and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you,' and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"
Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'

Can you picture satan asking God to worship him? And continue living?

Mat 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
Mat 4:9 And he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me."
Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"

[drmilo]

The word also means to bow down to as one would do to a king.

Matthew 2:11 "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him..."

Just picking one instance of the use of the word. Do you mean to tell me that this sentence is supposed to say: "And when they were come to the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother and fell down, and bowed down to him..."

No. They fell down and worshipped. Apparently, when the writer of Matthew wanted to convey a mere falling to the knees, he used the word for "fell down." The word translated worship is translated that way for a reason. It isn't just a form of respect, as one would do for a king, but there is more to the word. Yes, it describes a falling to the knees, but it also describes it as a falling to the knees in reverence to -- which is to say, stronger than just out of respect, but in devotion to, a way of worshipping.

If Jesus was a mere man, would he not have told these people to get up (whether you are translating the word worship or bow down to) because he is just a man? Just as Peter did. Just as the angel did.

[DRS]

Matthew 2:11 "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him..."

Just picking one instance of the use of the word. Do you mean to tell me that this sentence is supposed to say: "And when they were come to the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother and fell down, and bowed down to him..."

No. They fell down and worshipped. Apparently, when the writer of Matthew wanted to convey a mere falling to the knees, he used the word for "fell down." The word translated worship is translated that way for a reason. It isn't just a form of respect, as one would do for a king, but there is more to the word. Yes, it describes a falling to the knees, but it also describes it as a falling to the knees in reverence to -- which is to say, stronger than just out of respect, but in devotion to, a way of worshipping.

If Jesus was a mere man, would he not have told these people to get up (whether you are translating the word worship or bow down to) because he is just a man? Just as Peter did. Just as the angel did.

They were looking a for a king not a god.

None of these were kings as Jesus was.

[Fire Watch]

The word also means to bow down to as one would do to a king.
The word "proskuneo (http://www.carm.org/jw/nwt_proskuneo.htm)" means "to kiss the hand, bow down before, show obeisance, to worship." The NWT never translates the word into "worship" when it references Jesus. It does, however, render the word as "worship" in regards to the devil, the dragon, the beast, the image, demons, idols, and an angel. Of course, they correctly translate it as "worship" when it deals with God. The NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, etc., all translate the word as "worship" in reference to Jesus.

The word "proskuneo" occurs 55 times in the Watchtower Kingdome Interlinear. Of those 55, 15 are in reference to Jesus with 40 used of others. 27% of the usage is of Jesus and not a single reference is translated as "worship" even though in reference to the devil, demons, idols, etc., they do translate it as worship. If this doesn't demonstrate their bias, then what does?http://www.carm.org/jw/nwt_proskuneo.htm

Words are equivocal; words by themselves can mean different things. But in context they are univocal, they are usually unambiguous. The context helps narrow and refine the focus of a particular meaning so that in many cases the meaning cannot be missed. The context always determines the meaning.

The word actually occurs 59 times in the New Testament (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5379).

The first fact is this: Jesus said to proskuneo no one but the Father. This is in Matthew 4 and Luke 4, parallel accounts of Jesus' temptation in which Satan asks Jesus to bow down. The word used is proskuneo . We also see the angel in Revelation 19:10 and 22:9 saying, " proskuneo no one but the Father."

Second point, there are 22 references citing the Father receiving proskuneo .

Third point, we also see that Jesus received proskuneo (14 references).

Fourth point, 14 additional references indicate improper proskuneo of the devil, demons, idols or the beast of Revelation. In other words, people worshipping the devil, demons, idols, falling down before them, that was not right and it was clear from the context that it wasn't right. And there are three other cases where men or angels are proskuneoed , worshipped. Cornelius fell down in Acts 10:25 and the Apostle John--surprisingly the beloved apostle himself--fell down before the angel of Revelation in 19:10, 22:8 and he was corrected for doing this.

The fifth fact is that we also see men receiving proskuneo. One time the action was forced by God (Rev 3:9). The only other time was in Matthew's Gospel (8:26), "The slave therefore falling down, prostrated himself [ proskuneo ] before him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.'" This was the story Jesus told of the man who owed much and then was forgiven that debt after being threatened with being hauled off and thrown into the debtors' prison.

Here's the simple question: How would one distinguish between bowing low to a man in respect, which is allowed, and true worship, which is forbidden? Or more specific to our conversation, did people worship Jesus or did they merely bow low in respect?

There is a type of proskuneo that cannot be mistaken for mere courtesy. In Acts 10:25 Cornelius fell at Peter's feet and proskuneo ("worshipped") him. In Revelation 19:10 and 22:8 John fell at the angel's feet twice and proskuneo ("worshipped") him. Both Cornelius and John were seriously reprimanded. Why?

The reason they were reprimanded is that proskuneo is generally translated to bow down but--read closely--if a person is already down, the addition of proskuneo must indicate worship. Cornelius didn't fall at Peter's feet and then bow down, he was already down. John didn't fall down at the angel's feet and then bow down, he was already down. They both fell down and worshipped. Ergo the strong words of correction: "Worship God, not me."

Remember the words of the devil in the temptation in Matthew 4:9? "And he said to Him, 'All these things will I give You, if You fall down and worship me.'" No possibility of mistaking that. Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"

There are eight references of worhipful proskuneo to Jesus. Matthew 2:2, 8, 11, "'Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.'....[Herod says,] 'Go and make careful search for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, that I too may come and worship Him.'....And they came into the house and saw the Child with Mary His mother and they fell down and worshiped Him...." Matthew 28:9, "And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

The Magi and the Christ child with the miraculous star overhead, the disciples with the risen Jesus, are not falling down and then bowing down; they're already down. They are falling down and, as the New American Bible accurately translates it, worshipping Jesus Christ.
What of the other cases? Matthew 14:3, Peter gets out of the boat and walks on the water. Peter starts to sink, Jesus reaches out and saves him. And when they got into the boat the wind stopped. And those who were in the boat worshipped Him saying, " You are certainly God's Son!" These people are not just tipping their hats to an esteemed person. In Matthew 28:17 it says, "And when they saw Him, [the risen Jesus Christ whom they knew had been dead and was now alive] they worshipped Him." And then in John 9:38 the man blind from birth is healed. He said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him. Hebrews 1:6, "And when He again brings the first-born into the world He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.'"

These verses show much more than mere respect, much more than deference, much more than courtesy. Jesus is being worshipped. Yes, there are times when the word proskuneo is used of Jesus and other men and it doesn't refer to worship. The context tells us. We looked at the context and especially the use of the phrase "falling down and worshipping."

The context is the most important factor in determining the meaning of a word. The evidence is clear that on some occasions Jesus received the kind of proskuneo , worship, that was to be reserved for God alone.http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5379

[DRS]

If you are going to cut and past at least provide your links.

Again were they looking for a king or God?

[Fire Watch]

If you are going to cut and past at least provide your links.
The links were there, hotlinked into the words. It doesnt show well on this new background. I made them obvious now.

[DRS]

The links were there, hotlinked into the words. It doesnt show well on this new background. I made them obvious now.

so you believe if one is on their knees then proskuneo means worship?

Does a slave worship his master?

[Fire Watch]

Why the change in stance among the JW's DRS?

What is curious is to note that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society used to teach that worshipping Jesus was acceptable:

"The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Yes we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so. While he was not the God, Jehovah, he was a God. The word ‘God’ signifies a ‘mighty one,’ and our Lord was indeed a mighty one. So it is stated in the first two verses of the gospel of John. It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father. . ." (The Watchtower, July 15, 1898, p. 216.)http://www.carm.org/jw/nwt_proskuneo.htm

It seems the Watchtower Organization has changed the Bible to suit its needs.

[DRS]

Why the change in stance among the JW's DRS?

http://www.carm.org/jw/nwt_proskuneo.htm

It seems the Watchtower Organization has changed the Bible to suit its needs.

Funny I see many bible changes in other translations from the original languages to support the idea Jesus is god.

Did the disciples understand everything upon their starting to follow Jesus or was their education gradual?

Quoting carm, tell me what does carm think of oneness folks?

By the way what is the full title of the magazine quoted since watchtower was used by various religous periodicals at that time.

[Fire Watch]

Funny I see many bible changes in other translations from the original languages to support the idea Jesus is god. I dont think so. I doubt you can find a more agenda driven translation than the NWT.


Quoting carm, tell me what does carm think of oneness folks? Oh I know full well what they think of us. I refuse to kowtow to them though. I study my detractors and use their weapons and hatred against them.

[DRS]

Oh i don't know the KJV with added verses and removal of God's name seems pretty clear in it's agenda. The removal of the word the in John 1:1 is completely agenda driven.

Yet you quote them, like they have authority and insight how odd. I study the bible, do not really care what others think of my faith. Jesus did not waste time worrying about what others thought of him.

[Fire Watch]

Oh i don't know the KJV with added verses and removal of God's name seems pretty clear in it's agenda. The removal of the word the in John 1:1 is completely agenda driven.Those are false JW claims, based upon an agenda driven translation of the Bible.

http://www.spiritwatch.org/jwnwt.htm

The first use of the term God (pros ton theon) has the article (ton—the). The second use simply states kai theos ("and God," not "and the God").

Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable.. http://www.letusreason.org/JW38.htm


In order to present the appearance of scholarly backing for their translation of this verse, the Society had to intentionally misquote Dr. Julius R. Mantey and H.E. Dana's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. The late Dr. Mantey had on several occasions issued statements concerning the misquotation of his statements by the Witnesses, even writing a letter to the Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn demanding references and quotes from his book to be removed from their publications. They ignored his request! http://www.letusreason.org/JW38.htm

They have also misquoted Philip B. Harner: Not only does Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature not support the Watchtower's rendering of John 1:1, he emphatically argues against it!

Misquoting John L. McKenzie: Still another scholar quoted out of context by the translators of the New World Translation is John L. McKenzie. By citing McKenzie out of context and by quoting only a portion of his article, he is made to appear to teach that the Word (Jesus) is less than Jehovah because he said "the word was a divine personal being'." He is less than Jehovah. However, as apologist Robert M. Bowman correctly notes, "On the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal thing'; McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:1-18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.; So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower position."(Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105)

Dr. Robert H. Countess (Univ. of Tenn. and author of an excellent critical analysis of the NWT called The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament): "There are 282 places in the New Testament where, according to the NWT translation principle, the NWT should have translated 'a god' but in fact they follow their own rules of 'a god' translation only 6% of the time. To be ninety-four percent unfaithful hardly commends a translation to careful readers!"

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS WHICH STATE THAT "THE WORD WAS GOD"

Douay - "and the Word was God".

Rotherham - "and the Word was God".

King James Version - "the Word was God".

Jerusalem Bible - "and the Word was God".

The New Life Testament - "the Word was God".

The Berkley Version - "and the Word was God".

New Translation (Darby) - "the Word was God".

Modern King James Version - "the Word was God".

Revised Standard Version - "and the Word was God".

American Standard Version - "and the Word was God".

The New International Version - "the Word was God".

Numeric English New Testament - "the Word was God".

The New American Standard Bible - "and the Word was God".

The New Testament in Basic English - "and the Word was God".

Young's Literal Translation of the Bible - "and the Word was God".

The New Testament in Modern Speech (Weymouth) - "and the Word was God".

The New Testament in Modern English (Montgomer) - "and the Word was God".

The New Testament in Modern English (Phillips "that word, was with God, and was God".

The text of the Emphatic Diaglott (published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society)

English Bible - "and what God was, the Word was". "and the Logos was God". Today's English Version - "and he was the same as God". New Translation of the Bible (Moffatt) - "the Logos was divine".

Complete Bible---An American Translation (Smith & Goodspeed) - "the Word was divine".

The NWT has deliberately distorted, changed, added to and taken away key Bible passages that do not agree with what they already believe.

Jehovah's Witnesses in 1969 Kingdom published their interlinear translation of the Greek Scriptures. The Watchtower has literally painted themselves in a corner with its distortion in the New World Translation of John 1:1. In their "New Kingdom Interlinear Translation" of John 1:1, they render the Greek text on the left side of the page more accurately: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God and god was the Word." However across the page in the right column, the "New World Translation" has, "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was A god." So they say the Greek states it this way, but we translate it another way. They subtly attempt to demote Christ to some kind of demigod, with a little g. (mighty and Jehovah the almighty). Isaiah 45:22, "For I am God and there is no other." The existing manuscripts of the New Testament were all written in capital letters (uncials) so there are no distinctions in this lettering and no reason to change to what they have in the NWT.

[DRS]

Those are false JW claims, based upon an agenda driven translation of the Bible.

http://www.spiritwatch.org/jwnwt.htm

No those are facts based on bible manuscripts.

But i am sure you can find a website arguing against that.

[Fire Watch]

I've edited my post to cite my reasons for my statement.

[DRS]

Jehovah's Witnesses in 1969 Kingdom published their interlinear translation of the Greek Scriptures. The Watchtower has literally painted themselves in a corner with its distortion in the New World Translation of John 1:1. In their "New Kingdom Interlinear Translation" of John 1:1, they render the Greek text on the left side of the page more accurately: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God and god was the Word." However across the page in the right column, the "New World Translation" has, "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was A god." So they say the Greek states it this way, but we translate it another way. They subtly attempt to demote Christ to some kind of demigod, with a little g. (mighty and Jehovah the almighty). Isaiah 45:22, "For I am God and there is no other." The existing manuscripts of the New Testament were all written in capital letters (uncials) so there are no distinctions in this lettering and no reason to change to what they have in the NWT.

I always like the fact the overlook the removal of the defininte article and how it affects the verse.

[DispensationalJim]

I must thank you, RECONRICK, for your excellent rebuttals of the JW anti-Jesus doctrines as presented by DRS.

I just wish we had a reasonably educated representative of the JW position who could actually speak or type understandable English. In the past, I and others have begged DRS to edit his posts, but he ignores those requests just as he obviously ignored most of your well crafted posts, since he barely even responded to them.

You get an A+ for your patience with DRS. Please keep up the fine work, RECONRICK.

D-Jim

[chainsawbob]

Hey if you want I can go and show the other side from scripture.

God gives man free choice and man can choose to do good or bad.

God warned Cain to keep him from sinning.

. 6*At this Jehovah said to Cain: “Why are you hot with anger and why has your countenance fallen? 7*If you turn to doing good, will there not be an exaltation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?”


Are we not on exhibition to the spirit realm as Paul wrote?

Never stated God an not forgive sin, I am not omnipresent yet I know everyone sins

God does not need to be everywhere to hear all prayers, I do not need to be in the same room with you to discuss this.

Jehovah has a vast heavenly army that helps does He not?

Did the Almighty create a heavenly army to help him monitor His creation? What is your question here?

[chainsawbob]

Ephesians 3:17-19 (King James Version)
17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.
GOD IS LOVE. Why would the writer use this simple example of spacial relations or geometry, to compare a cubic measurement (although limitless), to Love. Bear in mind that the depth in this scripture is:4 : the degree of intensity <depth of a color>; also : the quality of being profound (as in insight) or full (as of knowledge).

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So we believe in boxes and shipping containers, and not God (cubed), who created Adam (cubed),and not God who sent Jesus (cubed), to redeem us. It is that simple.

[Warrior4God]

Ephesians 3:17-19 (King James Version)
17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.
GOD IS LOVE. Why would the writer use this simple example of spacial relations or geometry, to compare a cubic measurement (although limitless), to Love. Bear in mind that the depth in this scripture is:4 : the degree of intensity <depth of a color>; also : the quality of being profound (as in insight) or full (as of knowledge).

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So we believe in boxes and shipping containers, and not God (cubed), who created Adam (cubed),and not God who sent Jesus (cubed), to redeem us. It is that simple.

I am trying to see your point here?

[Tucson Jim]

I must thank you, RECONRICK, for your excellent rebuttals of the JW anti-Jesus doctrines as presented by DRS.

I just wish we had a reasonably educated representative of the JW position who could actually speak or type understandable English. In the past, I and others have begged DRS to edit his posts, but he ignores those requests just as he obviously ignored most of your well crafted posts, since he barely even responded to them.

Why should Rick be any different than the rest of us? Most of our well-crafted posts are ignored or barely responded to!

You get an A+ for your patience with DRS. Please keep up the fine work, RECONRICK.

D-Jim

Amen! :clap:

[HardHammer]

No those are facts based on bible manuscripts.

But i am sure you can find a website arguing against that.

I believe this website might qualify:

http://www.watchtower.org/

I agree with Rick on this one, hands down!!

[Constantine the Great]

No those are facts based on bible manuscripts.

But i am sure you can find a website arguing against that.

No, they are not facts, hardly so. We've been around this neighborhood many times before DRS.

[DRS]

I believe this website might qualify:

http://www.watchtower.org/

I agree with Rick on this one, hands down!!

And what exactly are you trying to bring out here?

[DRS]

No, they are not facts, hardly so. We've been around this neighborhood many times before DRS.

So now you are saying there was no the before the first instance of God in John 1:1

[DispensationalJim]

DRS wrote: "So now you are saying there was no the before the first instance of God in John 1:1"
=======================

D-Jim responds:
Hey, DRS! Have you forgotten that your very own JW "New World Translation" leaves that particular "the" out?

Here it is, the NWT way:
John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

So, why don't you make them fix YOUR BIBLE instead of complaining to us about it?

And, BTW DRS, I plan on posting a loooong article about John 1:1 shortly. I hope you enjoy it... oh, yeah, I almost forgot. You are not allowed to read any "anti-JW" stuff, are you? At least, that is what several other JWs told me in the past. Well, maybe if you don't read the article, you won't be able to even try to refute it, so then maybe some of the other readers will be convinced that Jesus is God and you won't be able to confuse them!!

D-Jim

[Tucson Jim]

DRS wrote: "So now you are saying there was no the before the first instance of God in John 1:1"
=======================

D-Jim responds:
Hey, DRS! Have you forgotten that your very own JW "New World Translation" leaves that particular "the" out?

Here it is, the NWT way:
John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

So, why don't you make them fix YOUR BIBLE instead of complaining to us about it?

And, BTW DRS, I plan on posting a loooong article about John 1:1 shortly. I hope you enjoy it... oh, yeah, I almost forgot. You are not allowed to read any "anti-JW" stuff, are you? At least, that is what several other JWs told me in the past. Well, maybe if you don't read the article, you won't be able to even try to refute it, so then maybe some of the other readers will be convinced that Jesus is God and you won't be able to confuse them!!

D-Jim

I believe DRS will be quite capable of offering a one line rebuttal without even reading the article!

[Tucson Jim]

I believe this website might qualify:

http://www.watchtower.org/

I agree with Rick on this one, hands down!!

Hey Hardhammer, long time no see! Welcome back!

[HardHammer]

Hey Hardhammer, long time no see! Welcome back!

Thanks Jim, it was wonderful reflecting on how I could be more effective in my Commission. It's great to be back, my plan is more Love less weakness of the flesh. Let the Spirit guide me and cast aside my own pride and ego and let Him do His work in me for ALL.

[HardHammer]

And what exactly are you trying to bring out here?

Uh, the Truth?

[DRS]

DRS wrote: "So now you are saying there was no the before the first instance of God in John 1:1"
=======================

D-Jim responds:
Hey, DRS! Have you forgotten that your very own JW "New World Translation" leaves that particular "the" out?

Here it is, the NWT way:
John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

So, why don't you make them fix YOUR BIBLE instead of complaining to us about it?

And, BTW DRS, I plan on posting a loooong article about John 1:1 shortly. I hope you enjoy it... oh, yeah, I almost forgot. You are not allowed to read any "anti-JW" stuff, are you? At least, that is what several other JWs told me in the past. Well, maybe if you don't read the article, you won't be able to even try to refute it, so then maybe some of the other readers will be convinced that Jesus is God and you won't be able to confuse them!!

D-Jim

The a is put there due to the removal of the definite article before the first occurance of theos.

[DRS]

Uh, the Truth?

Directing people to watchtower.org so they can find the truth, and i though you did not like JWs

[HardHammer]

Directing people to watchtower.org so they can find the truth, and i though you did not like JWs

LOL, your such a funny guy. I welcome all at my door, including JW's, but they don't stay long normally, the Mormons won't even come by any more, but if they did, I would welcome them in also. I love the Word of God and enjoy sharing it, discussing it and giving the Good News to others who have never heard it, including the JW's and the LDS.

I had 2 young men come to my door not long ago, they could not have been more than 16. They asked if I knew Jesus, I said 'Yes, he knocked on my door and I heard His voice' they appeared to be slightly stunned, so I proceeded to go down the list via Bible verses as to where I found salvation in Gods Word. By the time they left they were grateful for our conversation and invited me to come to there church, which I humbly declined and wished them the best of luck in their Evangelical mission.

What many still do not get is, it's His Truth, not ours, we are mearly the messengers chosen by Him to help others understand what must be done to know Him. the moment we start thinking we know than He gave us, it starts to be our truth, not His anymore. Mans wisdom/truth is but foolishness to God.

[Angryamerican]

I must thank you, RECONRICK, for your excellent rebuttals of the JW anti-Jesus doctrines as presented by DRS.

I just wish we had a reasonably educated representative of the JW position who could actually speak or type understandable English. In the past, I and others have begged DRS to edit his posts, but he ignores those requests just as he obviously ignored most of your well crafted posts, since he barely even responded to them.

You get an A+ for your patience with DRS. Please keep up the fine work, RECONRICK.

D-Jim

Anti Jesus how do you figure? Because he doesn't believe Jesus is God does not mean he doesn't believe in Jesus. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Everyone is an idiot or stupid if they don't believe the same as you. Why don't you try practicing what Jesus preached.

I think DRS has proved his point better than yourself so because you can't dispute what he says you resort to personal attacks.

[Angryamerican]

I dont think so. I doubt you can find a more agenda driven translation than the NWT.


Oh I know full well what they think of us. I refuse to kowtow to them though. I study my detractors and use their weapons and hatred against them.

Have you noticed what this thread is about? And i would say you are wrong, I would agree if you said the KJV.

[Angryamerican]

Uh, the Truth?

Ah another member of the god makers club.

[Fire Watch]

Ah another member of the god makers club.
I would check your attitude. You're treading very close to the line of disrespect.

[Angryamerican]

I would check your attitude. You're treading very close to the line of disrespect.

You are very funny. Kinda like your remark about the NWT.

[Tucson Jim]

Thanks Jim, it was wonderful reflecting on how I could be more effective in my Commission. It's great to be back, my plan is more Love less weakness of the flesh. Let the Spirit guide me and cast aside my own pride and ego and let Him do His work in me for ALL.

From your posts so far I think you are on the right track! It's really great to have you back!

[Tucson Jim]

I think DRS has proved his point better than yourself so because you can't dispute what he says you resort to personal attacks.

With all due respect, you must not be paying attention.

With few exceptions, the cryptic one-liners offered by DRS rarely prove a thing. By contrast, the posts by D-Jim are almost always well-thought out, include extensive Bible references and address in meaningful and coherent ways the point(s) being addressed.

I believe your judgment is clouded because DRS agrees with your opinion that Jesus is not God.

[Angryamerican]

With all due respect, you must not be paying attention.

With few exceptions, the cryptic one-liners offered by DRS rarely prove a thing. By contrast, the posts by D-Jim are almost always well-thought out, include extensive Bible references and address in meaningful and coherent ways the point(s) being addressed.

I believe your judgment is clouded because DRS agrees with your opinion that Jesus is not God.

No thats not it, I think Warrior and DRS have done a better job showing from the scriptures why Jesus can't be God nothing personal.

That no man can see God and live thingy, is the best argument about Jesus not being God at anytime.

Also Jesus not knowing the day nor hour thing ,just shows that he is not equal or is not all knowing, It excludes him from being God no matter how it gets spun.

[Fire Watch]

That no man can see God and live thingy, is the best argument about Jesus not being God at anytime.
If that's the best there is, it's a very weak case. The Father is a Spirit and does not have a form. No man can see God at any time. Although we believe Jesus' deity to be that of the Father, we do not believe anybody could see the essence or form of the Father in Christ. They only saw the man Jesus Christ as it pertains to His humanity. His deity was not visible to men, and indeed could not be. Jesus was, however, the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). That is why Jesus could say to Philip, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9; 12:45). What people saw when they looked at Jesus was the only image of the Father (God) they would ever see, but this image is not the same as God's form (this is evident from Philippians 2:6-8 which speaks of God’s willing relinquishment of His form to accommodate a human existence).

Also Jesus not knowing the day nor hour thing ,just shows that he is not equal or is not all knowing, It excludes him from being God no matter how it gets spun.

Jesus’ relationship to the Father is made explicit by Jesus Himself. He commonly spoke of His relationship with the Father saying, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21). It cannot be said that the Son is the same as the Father, or that the Father is the same as the Son. The Son by definition is both divine and human, while the Father is only divine. Although the deity of the Son is of the same essence as that of the Father, the deity of the Son is inextricably joined with the humanity to form an existence distinct from God's existence as a transcendent Spirit. The deity of the Father is in the Son, but the Son's existence is different from the Father's. There is, therefore, a distinction between the Son and the Father, but not a separation. The deity of the Son is none other than that of YHWH Himself, having come down in the form of a servant and in the likeness of men. This is why we find statements like, "He that believes on me, believes not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that sees me sees him that sent me" (John 12:44-45). On another occasion Jesus said, "He that receives me receives him that sent me" (John 13:20).

As man he was limited, as God, he was not.

[DRS]

With all due respect, you must not be paying attention.

With few exceptions, the cryptic one-liners offered by DRS rarely prove a thing. By contrast, the posts by D-Jim are almost always well-thought out, include extensive Bible references and address in meaningful and coherent ways the point(s) being addressed.

I believe your judgment is clouded because DRS agrees with your opinion that Jesus is not God.

I have shown several scriptures and then shoown translations of words to back up my point, and I use the whole bible to gain understanding of words.

I also show exactly what God wanted by providing us with physical examples of what He was going to do. Starting with Abraham, God did not have him kill himself he had him offer up his most beloved son, to demostate what He was going to do.

The copper seperent to show again what he was going to do with Jesus.

Moses and judges calleds god just as Jesus was, but they calling them as such did not take away from the fact that there is only one Almighty God Jehovah.

[DRS]

If that's the best there is, it's a very weak case. The Father is a Spirit and does not have a form. No man can see God at any time. Although we believe Jesus' deity to be that of the Father, we do not believe anybody could see the essence or form of the Father in Christ. They only saw the man Jesus Christ as it pertains to His humanity. His deity was not visible to men, and indeed could not be. Jesus was, however, the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). That is why Jesus could say to Philip, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9; 12:45). What people saw when they looked at Jesus was the only image of the Father (God) they would ever see, but this image is not the same as God's form (this is evident from Philippians 2:6-8 which speaks of God’s willing relinquishment of His form to accommodate a human existence).

With regards to Phillipians how could God grab or seize equality with himself?


Jesus’ relationship to the Father is made explicit by Jesus Himself. He commonly spoke of His relationship with the Father saying, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21). It cannot be said that the Son is the same as the Father, or that the Father is the same as the Son. The Son by definition is both divine and human, while the Father is only divine. Although the deity of the Son is of the same essence as that of the Father, the deity of the Son is inextricably joined with the humanity to form an existence distinct from God's existence as a transcendent Spirit. The deity of the Father is in the Son, but the Son's existence is different from the Father's. There is, therefore, a distinction between the Son and the Father, but not a separation. The deity of the Son is none other than that of YHWH Himself, having come down in the form of a servant and in the likeness of men. This is why we find statements like, "He that believes on me, believes not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that sees me sees him that sent me" (John 12:44-45). On another occasion Jesus said, "He that receives me receives him that sent me" (John 13:20).

As man he was limited, as God, he was not.

John 17:23 using your arguement then Christians are actually all Jesus

23*I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, that the world may have the knowledge that you sent me forth and that you loved them just as you loved me

[Fire Watch]

With regards to Phillipians how could God grab or seize equality with himself?
The literary point of this passage is that even as Christ, who did not need to humble Himself, did humble Himself, and as a result was exalted, likewise the Philippian believers should humble themselves so that they too might be exalted. The point is that has to do with Christ, who was already existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be taken advantage of. Instead of continuing to exist in the form of God, Christ "made himself of no reputation." The Greek word behind this phrase is kenow. This word has two different senses. Used in a metaphorical sense, it means "of no reputation" or "nothing." Used in a metaphysical sense it means "to empty." The NT usage, and Paul’s usage in particular, favors the metaphorical sense, although the metaphysical sense is used in the LXX of things being literally emptied out (like a jar or chest). Though either sense could be used here, the metaphorical sense is probably to be preferred because Paul is using the incarnation of Christ for an example of humiliation. The idea would be that "Christ made Himself nothing."

[Fire Watch]

John 17:23 using your arguement then Christians are actually all Jesus

Poor exegesis DRS..so close yet so far away. When we are born again, we are united to Christ both positionally and spiritually. We are united to His person and His work in such a way that whatever can be said of Christ can also be said of us. Our position before God has been changed because we have changed our allegiance from Adam to Christ. Whereas we were under the umbrella of Adam's disobedience which sheltered us from a relationship with God, we are now under Christ's umbrella of grace, righteousness, and life which secures for us a relationship with God. Our relationship to Adam has been severed because we have placed our faith in Christ. Now that we are positionally unified with Christ, our relationship with God has been changed from one of condemnation to one of righteousness. Because Christ's work and merit is accrued to us by virtue of our being in Christ, God sees us as He sees Christ. He no longer sees us in Adam, or even in our own personal sin, but in Christ's righteousness and life.

[DRS]

The literary point of this passage is that even as Christ, who did not need to humble Himself, did humble Himself, and as a result was exalted, likewise the Philippian believers should humble themselves so that they too might be exalted. The point is that has to do with Christ, who was already existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be taken advantage of. Instead of continuing to exist in the form of God, Christ "made himself of no reputation." The Greek word behind this phrase is kenow. This word has two different senses. Used in a metaphorical sense, it means "of no reputation" or "nothing." Used in a metaphysical sense it means "to empty." The NT usage, and Paul’s usage in particular, favors the metaphorical sense, although the metaphysical sense is used in the LXX of things being literally emptied out (like a jar or chest). Though either sense could be used here, the metaphorical sense is probably to be preferred because Paul is using the incarnation of Christ for an example of humiliation. The idea would be that "Christ made Himself nothing."

Existing in God's form he did not try to grab equality with God is what it says.

God is a spirit, Jesus like all creatures in heaven was a spirit also.

[DRS]

Poor exegesis DRS..so close yet so far away. When we are born again, we are united to Christ both positionally and spiritually. We are united to His person and His work in such a way that whatever can be said of Christ can also be said of us. Our position before God has been changed because we have changed our allegiance from Adam to Christ. Whereas we were under the umbrella of Adam's disobedience which sheltered us from a relationship with God, we are now under Christ's umbrella of grace, righteousness, and life which secures for us a relationship with God. Our relationship to Adam has been severed because we have placed our faith in Christ. Now that we are positionally unified with Christ, our relationship with God has been changed from one of condemnation to one of righteousness. Because Christ's work and merit is accrued to us by virtue of our being in Christ, God sees us as He sees Christ. He no longer sees us in Adam, or even in our own personal sin, but in Christ's righteousness and life.


Using your exedesis, now as you explain in this post the relatiionship Jesus has with God is the same we have.

[Fire Watch]

Using your exedesis, now as you explain in this post the relatiionship Jesus has with God is the same we have.
God is a holy and just God, who cannot tolerate sin (Leviticus 11:45; Deuteronomy 32:4; II Kings 23:26; Isaiah 30:27-31; Lamentations 3:42). Because of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden, mankind is in a place of spiritual separation from God. As a result of Adam, all of mankind is in a state of spiritual death, condemnation, and judgment (Romans 5:12-21). God's righteousness is an alien righteousness imputed to the believer, not imparted. It is an external righteousness, not an internal righteousness. God imputes to us Christ's righteousness. It does not come from an external obedience to a set of laws, but by faith in Christ. Paul declared his desire to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness, which came by the law, but the righteousness which comes from God and is received by faith (Philippians 3:9).

When we are born into Christ we legally become one with Christ in God's sight, partaking of Christ's obedience. All our responsibilities rest upon Him and all of His merit is accrued to us. Just as Adam's sin is charged to us without us having actually committed it in the flesh, so Christ's righteousness is as much ours as had we performed it ourselves. It is as though we were the ones who died on the cross. God sees the believer in Christ's merit, not one's own merit. This is stated beautifully in II Corinthians 5:21 where Paul said, "For he made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Jesus takes our sin upon Himself even though He did not commit the sin, while we take His righteousness upon ourselves even though we did not perform it.

Because Christ's work and merit is accrued to us by virtue of our being in Christ, God sees us as He sees Christ. He no longer sees us in our own personal sin, but in Christ's righteousness.

[nofear2]

Recon I would like to know your interpretation on this verse.

Colossians 1:15
[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation....

It would not seem right to say that this refers to his body for Jesus' body had supposedly been created inside Mary right?
If Paul calls him "born" that means the Jesus cannot be equal to "The Father", for unlike his "Father" Jesus has a beginning (hence the term "born"). It is known after all that "Everything that has a beginning, has an end"

I would like your interpretation on this.

[Fire Watch]

Recon I would like to know your interpretation on this verse.

Colossians 1:15
[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation....

It would not seem right to say that this refers to his body for Jesus' body had supposedly been created inside Mary right?
If Paul calls him "born" that means the Jesus cannot be equal to "The Father", for unlike his "Father" Jesus has a beginning (hence the term "born"). It is known after all that "Everything that has a beginning, has an end"

I would like your interpretation on this.
I do not believe that Jesus, as God had a beginning. The body he inhabited did. I do not believe that Jesus is the second person of a trinity, but simply Yahweh incarnate. I do not believe in a trinity of persons in the Godhead. God is simply God all by himself, one God, one personage.

One of the ways in which Trinitarians (I am NOT a trinitarian, so my views disagree) have argued for the existence of a second, eternal person in the Godhead known as "Son" can be illustrated by the following syllogism:

P1 God is eternally "Father"
P2 One cannot be a Father without having a Son
_________________________________________
C1 God must have an eternal Son

The conclusion of a syllogism is true insofar as the premises of the syllogism are true. If one of the premises are false, however, the conclusion will also be false. I would argue that the conclusion Trinitarians have made concerning the Son is false, because P1 is a false premise, based on bad hermeneutics.To argue that God is eternally "Father" reads NT designations for God back into the OT, which is methodologically improper, and theologically disastrous.

God is not eternally "Father" anymore than He is eternally "Son." God came to be known as "Father" in the incarnation. This is not to say that God is never called "Father," or likened to a father in the OT, but it is to say that "Father" was never God's name. God's name is clearly "YHWH," to which He is referred over 6800 times. God even declared, "I am YHHW..." (Isaiah 45:18). If God has always been "Father," and that is His name, we should expect Him to be called "Father" all throughout the OT, not "YHWH."

God became the Father, however, only by relationship to the man that He truly became. For God to become "Father" did not require any metaphysical change. "Father" simply refers to YHWH's continued manner of existence apart from the incarnation as He has always existed. YHWH comes to be known as "Father" only after the incarnation, not because of a metaphysical change in His being, but because of His paternal relationship to Jesus Christ.

So while it could be said that YHWH became "Father" and "Son" simultaneously, this does not imply that the "becoming" was of the same nature. The incarnational becoming (John 1:14) is a metaphysical becoming, while God's existence as "Father" is a relational becoming.

God did not just come to live in flesh as a man, but the "Word became flesh" (John 1:14). God incorporated human nature into His eternal being. In the incarnation humanity has been permanently incorporated into the Godhead. God is now a man in addition to being God. At the virgin conception God acquired an identity He would retain for the rest of eternity. His human existence is both authentic and permanent. Jesus' humanity is not something that can be discarded or dissolved back into the Godhead, but He will always and forever exist in heaven as a glorified man, albeit God at the same time.

If the incarnation is real, and God truly became a man, we must confess a continuation of Christ's humanity because genuine human beings do not simply cease to exist. Every genuine human being who has ever existed will live for eternity in one of two places: heaven, hell. If Jesus is truly man He cannot just pass out of existence.

[Tucson Jim]

No thats not it, I think Warrior and DRS have done a better job showing from the scriptures why Jesus can't be God nothing personal.


And you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

All I can say is we must be looking at two different threads entirely!:confused:

[Tucson Jim]

If that's the best there is, it's a very weak case. The Father is a Spirit and does not have a form. No man can see God at any time. Although we believe Jesus' deity to be that of the Father, we do not believe anybody could see the essence or form of the Father in Christ. They only saw the man Jesus Christ as it pertains to His humanity. His deity was not visible to men, and indeed could not be. Jesus was, however, the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). That is why Jesus could say to Philip, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9; 12:45). What people saw when they looked at Jesus was the only image of the Father (God) they would ever see, but this image is not the same as God's form (this is evident from Philippians 2:6-8 which speaks of God’s willing relinquishment of His form to accommodate a human existence).



Jesus’ relationship to the Father is made explicit by Jesus Himself. He commonly spoke of His relationship with the Father saying, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21). It cannot be said that the Son is the same as the Father, or that the Father is the same as the Son. The Son by definition is both divine and human, while the Father is only divine. Although the deity of the Son is of the same essence as that of the Father, the deity of the Son is inextricably joined with the humanity to form an existence distinct from God's existence as a transcendent Spirit. The deity of the Father is in the Son, but the Son's existence is different from the Father's. There is, therefore, a distinction between the Son and the Father, but not a separation. The deity of the Son is none other than that of YHWH Himself, having come down in the form of a servant and in the likeness of men. This is why we find statements like, "He that believes on me, believes not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that sees me sees him that sent me" (John 12:44-45). On another occasion Jesus said, "He that receives me receives him that sent me" (John 13:20).

As man he was limited, as God, he was not.

Well-said Reconrick!

[Old Tex]

.......He (Christ) will always and forever exist in heaven as a glorified man, albeit God at the same time.

Interresting conclusion, Rick. Joseph Smith stated something very simular. He went on to say that all men have the potential to become perfect, and therefore to become "gods". He said that God and man are of the same "species" and that "God" is the Father of all of the spirits of men and women who were placed into mortal bodies to live their lives on this planet.

That's probably going a little further than you would go on the subject, but I thought I would mention it.

[Fire Watch]

Interresting conclusion, Rick. Joseph Smith stated something very simular. He went on to say that all men have the potential to become perfect, and therefore to become "gods". He said that God and man are of the same "species" and that "God" is the Father of all of the spirits of men and women who were placed into mortal bodies to live their lives on this planet.

That's probably going a little further than you would go on the subject, but I thought I would mention it.

That goes much further than I would go. Especially in light of scripture after scripture where God unambiguously declares that there is no God besides him, before him, there will be none after him, that he knows not any.

Deu 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me:

Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him

Deu 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me;

Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

If further "revelation" contradicts this, then that "revelation" is wrong.
God and man are not the same "species". God is alone in his deity. Man is a created being. God is not and was not.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

[Angryamerican]

If that's the best there is, it's a very weak case. The Father is a Spirit and does not have a form. No man can see God at any time. Although we believe Jesus' deity to be that of the Father, we do not believe anybody could see the essence or form of the Father in Christ. They only saw the man Jesus Christ as it pertains to His humanity. His deity was not visible to men, and indeed could not be. Jesus was, however, the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). That is why Jesus could say to Philip, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9; 12:45). What people saw when they looked at Jesus was the only image of the Father (God) they would ever see, but this image is not the same as God's form (this is evident from Philippians 2:6-8 which speaks of God’s willing relinquishment of His form to accommodate a human existence).



Jesus’ relationship to the Father is made explicit by Jesus Himself. He commonly spoke of His relationship with the Father saying, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21). It cannot be said that the Son is the same as the Father, or that the Father is the same as the Son. The Son by definition is both divine and human, while the Father is only divine. Although the deity of the Son is of the same essence as that of the Father, the deity of the Son is inextricably joined with the humanity to form an existence distinct from God's existence as a transcendent Spirit. The deity of the Father is in the Son, but the Son's existence is different from the Father's. There is, therefore, a distinction between the Son and the Father, but not a separation. The deity of the Son is none other than that of YHWH Himself, having come down in the form of a servant and in the likeness of men. This is why we find statements like, "He that believes on me, believes not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that sees me sees him that sent me" (John 12:44-45). On another occasion Jesus said, "He that receives me receives him that sent me" (John 13:20).

As man he was limited, as God, he was not.

So you are saying man saw God and never mind what God said?

[Angryamerican]

If that's the best there is, it's a very weak case. The Father is a Spirit and does not have a form. No man can see God at any time. Although we believe Jesus' deity to be that of the Father, we do not believe anybody could see the essence or form of the Father in Christ. They only saw the man Jesus Christ as it pertains to His humanity. His deity was not visible to men, and indeed could not be. Jesus was, however, the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3). That is why Jesus could say to Philip, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9; 12:45). What people saw when they looked at Jesus was the only image of the Father (God) they would ever see, but this image is not the same as God's form (this is evident from Philippians 2:6-8 which speaks of God’s willing relinquishment of His form to accommodate a human existence).



Jesus’ relationship to the Father is made explicit by Jesus Himself. He commonly spoke of His relationship with the Father saying, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21). It cannot be said that the Son is the same as the Father, or that the Father is the same as the Son. The Son by definition is both divine and human, while the Father is only divine. Although the deity of the Son is of the same essence as that of the Father, the deity of the Son is inextricably joined with the humanity to form an existence distinct from God's existence as a transcendent Spirit. The deity of the Father is in the Son, but the Son's existence is different from the Father's. There is, therefore, a distinction between the Son and the Father, but not a separation. The deity of the Son is none other than that of YHWH Himself, having come down in the form of a servant and in the likeness of men. This is why we find statements like, "He that believes on me, believes not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that sees me sees him that sent me" (John 12:44-45). On another occasion Jesus said, "He that receives me receives him that sent me" (John 13:20).

As man he was limited, as God, he was not.

I'm sorry it is real easy to pick out a few scriptures and try and make it fit what you believe.

The problem is context.

[Angryamerican]

With regards to Phillipians how could God grab or seize equality with himself?




John 17:23 using your arguement then Christians are actually all Jesus

23*I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, that the world may have the knowledge that you sent me forth and that you loved them just as you loved me

Great points DRS.

[Angryamerican]

Poor exegesis DRS..so close yet so far away. When we are born again, we are united to Christ both positionally and spiritually. We are united to His person and His work in such a way that whatever can be said of Christ can also be said of us. Our position before God has been changed because we have changed our allegiance from Adam to Christ. Whereas we were under the umbrella of Adam's disobedience which sheltered us from a relationship with God, we are now under Christ's umbrella of grace, righteousness, and life which secures for us a relationship with God. Our relationship to Adam has been severed because we have placed our faith in Christ. Now that we are positionally unified with Christ, our relationship with God has been changed from one of condemnation to one of righteousness. Because Christ's work and merit is accrued to us by virtue of our being in Christ, God sees us as He sees Christ. He no longer sees us in Adam, or even in our own personal sin, but in Christ's righteousness and life.

Not poor at all, do you realize how much explaining you have to do to hold on to your beliefs. Who can explain God but God himself?

[Angryamerican]

I do not believe that Jesus, as God had a beginning. The body he inhabited did. I do not believe that Jesus is the second person of a trinity, but simply Yahweh incarnate. I do not believe in a trinity of persons in the Godhead. God is simply God all by himself, one God, one personage.

One of the ways in which Trinitarians (I am NOT a trinitarian, so my views disagree) have argued for the existence of a second, eternal person in the Godhead known as "Son" can be illustrated by the following syllogism:

P1 God is eternally "Father"
P2 One cannot be a Father without having a Son
_________________________________________
C1 God must have an eternal Son

The conclusion of a syllogism is true insofar as the premises of the syllogism are true. If one of the premises are false, however, the conclusion will also be false. I would argue that the conclusion Trinitarians have made concerning the Son is false, because P1 is a false premise, based on bad hermeneutics.To argue that God is eternally "Father" reads NT designations for God back into the OT, which is methodologically improper, and theologically disastrous.

God is not eternally "Father" anymore than He is eternally "Son." God came to be known as "Father" in the incarnation. This is not to say that God is never called "Father," or likened to a father in the OT, but it is to say that "Father" was never God's name. God's name is clearly "YHWH," to which He is referred over 6800 times. God even declared, "I am YHHW..." (Isaiah 45:18). If God has always been "Father," and that is His name, we should expect Him to be called "Father" all throughout the OT, not "YHWH."

God became the Father, however, only by relationship to the man that He truly became. For God to become "Father" did not require any metaphysical change. "Father" simply refers to YHWH's continued manner of existence apart from the incarnation as He has always existed. YHWH comes to be known as "Father" only after the incarnation, not because of a metaphysical change in His being, but because of His paternal relationship to Jesus Christ.

So while it could be said that YHWH became "Father" and "Son" simultaneously, this does not imply that the "becoming" was of the same nature. The incarnational becoming (John 1:14) is a metaphysical becoming, while God's existence as "Father" is a relational becoming.

God did not just come to live in flesh as a man, but the "Word became flesh" (John 1:14). God incorporated human nature into His eternal being. In the incarnation humanity has been permanently incorporated into the Godhead. God is now a man in addition to being God. At the virgin conception God acquired an identity He would retain for the rest of eternity. His human existence is both authentic and permanent. Jesus' humanity is not something that can be discarded or dissolved back into the Godhead, but He will always and forever exist in heaven as a glorified man, albeit God at the same time.

If the incarnation is real, and God truly became a man, we must confess a continuation of Christ's humanity because genuine human beings do not simply cease to exist. Every genuine human being who has ever existed will live for eternity in one of two places: heaven, hell. If Jesus is truly man He cannot just pass out of existence.

So there was no virgin birth?

[Angryamerican]

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

All I can say is we must be looking at two different threads entirely!:confused:

No same thread but a different time.

[Angryamerican]

Well-said Reconrick!

You do understand that reco does not believe in the trinity right?

[Fire Watch]

So there was no virgin birth?
You inability to grasp what was said in my post you quoted goes far to explain how you miss the very clear scriptural basis for believing Jesus is God.

[Fire Watch]

Who can explain God but God himself?

No one.

Paul described Jesus as "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13; NIV has "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ").

Peter described Him as "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 1:1; NIV and TAB both have "our God and Savior Jesus Christ").

The Book of Colossians strongly emphasizes the deity of Christ. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9; see also 1:19).

"God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (I Timothy 3:16; God was manifest (made visible) in flesh; God was justified (shown to be right) in the Spirit; God was seen of angels; God was believed on in the world; and God was received up into glory. How and when did all of this happen? In Jesus Christ.

Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15; II Corinthians 4:4).

Jesus Himself taught that He was the Father. Once, when Jesus was talking about the Father, the Pharisees asked, "Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (John 8:19). Jesus went on to say, "I said therefore unto you, if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).

Jesus stated in John 12:45, "And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me."

In John 14:7 Jesus told His disciples, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." Upon hearing this statement, Philip requested, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us" (John 14:8). In other words, he asked that Jesus show them the Father and then they would be satisfied. Jesus' answer was, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Not poor at all, do you realize how much explaining you have to do to hold on to your beliefs.

Luuuucyyy you got some 'splainin' to do.

[Angryamerican]

That goes much further than I would go. Especially in light of scripture after scripture where God unambiguously declares that there is no God besides him, before him, there will be none after him, that he knows not any.

Deu 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me:

Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him

Deu 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me;

Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

If further "revelation" contradicts this, then that "revelation" is wrong.
God and man are not the same "species". God is alone in his deity. Man is a created being. God is not and was not.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

That must mean that Jesus isn't a god correct? When did God have a beginning since we know Jesus was actually born through birth and had a beginning.

[Angryamerican]

You inability to grasp what was said in my post you quoted goes far to explain how you miss the very clear scriptural basis for believing Jesus is God.

If you say so.

[Angryamerican]

No one.

Paul described Jesus as "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13; NIV has "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ").

Peter described Him as "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 1:1; NIV and TAB both have "our God and Savior Jesus Christ").

The Book of Colossians strongly emphasizes the deity of Christ. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9; see also 1:19).

"God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (I Timothy 3:16; God was manifest (made visible) in flesh; God was justified (shown to be right) in the Spirit; God was seen of angels; God was believed on in the world; and God was received up into glory. How and when did all of this happen? In Jesus Christ.

Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15; II Corinthians 4:4).

Jesus Himself taught that He was the Father. Once, when Jesus was talking about the Father, the Pharisees asked, "Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (John 8:19). Jesus went on to say, "I said therefore unto you, if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).

Jesus stated in John 12:45, "And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me."

In John 14:7 Jesus told His disciples, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." Upon hearing this statement, Philip requested, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us" (John 14:8). In other words, he asked that Jesus show them the Father and then they would be satisfied. Jesus' answer was, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?



Luuuucyyy you got some 'splainin' to do.

No not really i think God did a pretty good job explaining himself but it's such ones like you that spins what God said.

I think God was pretty clear when he said no man can see God and live .

Tell me who is speaking here?This is also for the trinitarians here. Now do you want to disagree with Jesus it is your choice?

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1Jn 4:12 No man hath beheld God at any time: if we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us:

[DRS]

God is a holy and just God, who cannot tolerate sin (Leviticus 11:45; Deuteronomy 32:4; II Kings 23:26; Isaiah 30:27-31; Lamentations 3:42). Because of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden, mankind is in a place of spiritual separation from God. As a result of Adam, all of mankind is in a state of spiritual death, condemnation, and judgment (Romans 5:12-21). God's righteousness is an alien righteousness imputed to the believer, not imparted. It is an external righteousness, not an internal righteousness. God imputes to us Christ's righteousness. It does not come from an external obedience to a set of laws, but by faith in Christ. Paul declared his desire to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness, which came by the law, but the righteousness which comes from God and is received by faith (Philippians 3:9).

When we are born into Christ we legally become one with Christ in God's sight, partaking of Christ's obedience. All our responsibilities rest upon Him and all of His merit is accrued to us. Just as Adam's sin is charged to us without us having actually committed it in the flesh, so Christ's righteousness is as much ours as had we performed it ourselves. It is as though we were the ones who died on the cross. God sees the believer in Christ's merit, not one's own merit. This is stated beautifully in II Corinthians 5:21 where Paul said, "For he made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Jesus takes our sin upon Himself even though He did not commit the sin, while we take His righteousness upon ourselves even though we did not perform it.

Because Christ's work and merit is accrued to us by virtue of our being in Christ, God sees us as He sees Christ. He no longer sees us in our own personal sin, but in Christ's righteousness.

Jesus stil use the same language to refer to all his followers being in union.

Who is the head of the congregation?

Who is the head of Christ?

Who does Jesus submit himself to when death becomes nothing?

[DispensationalJim]

Here are a couple of "obscure" passages which make the point that Jesus is God:


• Luke 7:14 And he (JESUS) came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.
15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he (JESUS)delivered him to his mother. 16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That **GOD** hath visited his people.17 And this rumour of him (JESUS/GOD) went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about.


• Luke 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him (Jesus) that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things **GOD** hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things **JESUS** had done unto him.

EVEN THE NWT SAYS IT THAT WAY:
Luke 8:39 “Be on your way back home, and keep on relating what things GOD did for you.” Accordingly he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what things JESUS did for him.

How plain can it be??

D-Jim

[Tucson Jim]

You do understand that reco does not believe in the trinity right?

Of course.

But I have also said in the past that I believe Oneness accounts for more of the Biblical data than any other view except Trinity. I think Trinity and Oneness are not that far apart, especially the way Reconrick has explained his views.

For the purposes of this thread, which has primarily focused on the Deity of Christ, Trinity and Oneness both believe Jesus is God.

[Tucson Jim]

You inability to grasp what was said in my post you quoted goes far to explain how you miss the very clear scriptural basis for believing Jesus is God.

An experience we have all shared Rick . . .

[Tucson Jim]

Here are a couple of "obscure" passages which make the point that Jesus is God:


• Luke 7:14 And he (JESUS) came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.
15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he (JESUS)delivered him to his mother. 16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That **GOD** hath visited his people.17 And this rumour of him (JESUS/GOD) went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about.


• Luke 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him (Jesus) that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things **GOD** hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things **JESUS** had done unto him.

EVEN THE NWT SAYS IT THAT WAY:
Luke 8:39 “Be on your way back home, and keep on relating what things GOD did for you.” Accordingly he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what things JESUS did for him.

How plain can it be??

D-Jim

It's as plain as the nose on your face.

But not plain enough for some . . .

[Tucson Jim]

Here are a couple of "obscure" passages which make the point that Jesus is God:


• Luke 7:14 And he (JESUS) came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.
15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he (JESUS)delivered him to his mother. 16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That **GOD** hath visited his people.17 And this rumour of him (JESUS/GOD) went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about.


• Luke 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him (Jesus) that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things **GOD** hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things **JESUS** had done unto him.

EVEN THE NWT SAYS IT THAT WAY:
Luke 8:39 “Be on your way back home, and keep on relating what things GOD did for you.” Accordingly he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what things JESUS did for him.

How plain can it be??

D-Jim

Great verses D-Jim!

[DRS]

It's as plain as the nose on your face.

But not plain enough for some . . .

Yeah the people thought Jesus was a great prophet, just as prophesied.

Now to be consitent I am going to show the NWT for both since you did not use it for Luke 7

14*With that he approached and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still, and he said: “Young man, I say to you, Get up!” 15*And the dead man sat up and started to speak, and he gave him to his mother. 16*Now fear seized them all, and they began to glorify God, saying: “A great prophet has been raised up among us,” and, “God has turned his attention to his people.” 17*And this news concerning him spread out into all Ju·de′a and all the surrounding country.

Now for the second scripture again using the OT we understand what is being said.

Exodus 18:8*And Moses went to relating to his father-in-law all that Jehovah had done to Phar′aoh and Egypt on account of Israel, and all the hardship that had befallen them in the way, and yet Jehovah was delivering them

So Jesus like Moses aknowledged it was not his own power that was doing the miracles but rather it was Jehovah.

See that is the key to understanding, and to know you are on the right path.

The OT and the NT can be used together to back up the point.

[Mikko]

Here are a couple of "obscure" passages which make the point that Jesus is God:


• Luke 7:14 And he (JESUS) came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.
15 And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he (JESUS)delivered him to his mother. 16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That **GOD** hath visited his people.17 And this rumour of him (JESUS/GOD) went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about.


• Luke 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him (Jesus) that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things **GOD** hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things **JESUS** had done unto him.

EVEN THE NWT SAYS IT THAT WAY:
Luke 8:39 “Be on your way back home, and keep on relating what things GOD did for you.” Accordingly he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what things JESUS did for him.

How plain can it be??

D-Jim

I depends entirely on how one reads the verses, doesn't it? Jesus was simply making it clear that he, Jesus, did not do the healing, but rather that it was God working through him and the faith of the one being healed that did it. Those verses only prove Jesus is God if that is the meaning you want to read into them.

So, it's as plain as the nose on your face if you have a really big nose around which you can not see.:angel:

Of course, some are so condescending that they can only attribute disagreement to lack of acuity on the part of the one disagreeing with them.

[Warrior4God]

I depends entirely on how one reads the verses, doesn't it? Jesus was simply making it clear that he, Jesus, did not do the healing, but rather that it was God working through him and the faith of the one being healed that did it. Those verses only prove Jesus is God if that is the meaning you want to read into them.

So, it's as plain as the nose on your face if you have a really big nose around which you can not see.:angel:

Of course, some are so condescending that they can only attribute disagreement to lack of acuity on the part of the one disagreeing with them.
Good point mikko.
You can make a verse say what YOUwant but how about what the verse really says and not read into it what you want it to say.
You can't take a few verses here and there to make a doctrine and have them contradict any others not even 1 verse.
Once again lets go back and see who Jesus said he was.

[ralittlefield]

Good point mikko.
You can make a verse say what YOUwant but how about what the verse really says and not read into it what you want it to say.
You can't take a few verses here and there to make a doctrine and have them contradict any others not even 1 verse.
Once again lets go back and see who Jesus said he was.

Warrior,

Warrior you correctly say that Jesus is the Son of God. What does that mean to you. Do you literally believe that God sired Him?

[Warrior4God]

Warrior,

Warrior you correctly say that Jesus is the Son of God. What does that mean to you. Do you literally believe that God sired Him?

Not sure about the word sired as it does not appear in scripture but I believe Mary concieved via what God created in Mary, so I literally believe Jesus is Gods Son.

[Fire Watch]

You can't take a few verses here and there to make a doctrine and have them contradict any others not even 1 verse.
AMEN!! See! We CAN agree on something!



Once again lets go back and see who Jesus said he was.

I love that method. Let's start here.

In John 14:7 Jesus told His disciples, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." Upon hearing this statement, Philip requested, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us" (John 14:8). Jesus' answer was, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

[Semi-Sweet]

Warrior,

Warrior you correctly say that Jesus is the Son of God. What does that mean to you. Do you literally believe that God sired Him?

Do you think that God sired Himself?

[ralittlefield]

Do you think that God sired Himself?

I believe God is self-existent.

[Warrior4God]

How can Jesus be “God” and have a “God” at the same time?

The God of the Bible is the Almighty, the Creator, the Most High, and no one compares to Him. Jesus Christ cannot be “God” if he says that our heavenly Father is his “God.”

You cannot be the “Most High God” and be in submission to the “Most High God” (1 Cor.15:28) and say that He is your God. This makes no sense.

If words truly have meaning, then one cannot be “God” and have a “God” at the same time.

Check out the verses below that clearly show that our Father is the “God” of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 1:17
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.

Romans 15:6
…so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort…

Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

1 Peter 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

The above verses are very clear. Jesus Christ has a God. Who is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ? Ephesians 1:17 very clearly says that this God is our glorious Father.

Jesus Christ himself called our Father his “God” and Father many different times in Scripture.

John 20:17 (KJV)
…I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

Revelation 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

Revelation 3:21
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.

You can not be God if you have a God and throughout scripture its clear there is one God and that God is the God Jesus worshipped,prayed to and made very abundantly clear that he was subject to.
spin anyway you want but God is one and Jesus served that one true God just as we do.

[ralittlefield]

Not sure about the word sired as it does not appear in scripture but I believe Mary concieved via what God created in Mary, so I literally believe Jesus is Gods Son.

You do not believe that Jesus existed before He was born of Mary?

[Warrior4God]

AMEN!! See! We CAN agree on something!





I love that method. Let's start here.

In John 14:7 Jesus told His disciples, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." Upon hearing this statement, Philip requested, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us" (John 14:8). Jesus' answer was, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
So you believe this verse says that Jesus was the Father?
You must read these verses in the context they were written,The context of chapter 14 deals with God being IN Christ. Then goes on to show that we will do the works he did and greater works even.

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
In context these verses become clear,of what Jesus was saying.

[Warrior4God]

If Jesus is God, then why does he pray to God and call Him “the only true God” in John 17:3?

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

In this verse, Jesus Christ makes a clear distinction between “the only true God” and himself. Jesus called his Father “the only true God,” and that doesn’t leave any room for Jesus to also be “God.”

How does one answer such a question.

[Warrior4God]

You do not believe that Jesus existed before He was born of Mary?

A question that is hard to answer with a yes or no and one that I have doubts about on both sides of a yes or no answer.

[ralittlefield]

A question that is hard to answer with a yes or no and one that I have doubts about on both sides of a yes or no answer.

What is your take on this verse?

John 8

58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

[Fire Watch]

So you believe this verse says that Jesus was the Father?
You must read these verses in the context they were written,The context of chapter 14 deals with God being IN Christ. Then goes on to show that we will do the works he did and greater works even.

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
In context these verses become clear,of what Jesus was saying.

There you go again, trying to explain away scripture. I remember someone yesterday chastising folks for doing that..who was that again? Doesn't matter.

The answer to this goes back to the dual nature of Jesus. In the capacity of being fully man, He was distinct from God. Not just distinct from the Father but from being God at all. This is why we can see references to the God of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Eph. 1:17). This is obviously not the God of God. It is the God of a man. Jesus is called a man over and over (Acts 2:22; 13:38; I Tim 2:5). As a man, there were things He did not know (Mark 13:32), there were things He could not do (Mark 6:5), He could only be in one place at one time (John 16:7), He could be tempted (Heb 4:15), He could thirst (John 19:28), and He could die (John 19:33). So from this point of view He was distinct from God, and could be spoken of that way. But from another point of view He was fully God and could be called such (John 20:28; I Tim 3:16; I John 5:20). When we see a separate reference it is always something like: "God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." What you never see is: "God the Father and God the Son." It is always God and man, Spirit and flesh, God the Father and the Son of God. As I Timothy 2:5 puts it, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

In John 10:30 Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." Does that mean that they are one in unity? Well, I ask if that was all he meant then why did the Jews pick up stones to stone him? (v. 31) In fact, Jesus asks them why (v. 32), and they answered him, "because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (v. 33). They understood this as claiming to be God, not claiming to be in accordance with him. So if "I and the Father are one" means "I am God", then he must be God the Father. I've seen Arians try to draw attention to the neuter gender of the word "one" in this passage (Gk - hen), claiming that this means that they are one in unity. However, this is the same word used in passages such as Eph. 4:4 where it says that there is "one Spirit," and no one would argue that this means only one in unity.

This passage in Revelation 21, clearly indicates that Jesus isGod. Starting at verse 5 it reads: And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new [we are made new by being in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17)]." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true [I]." 6 Then He said to me, "It is done. [compare to John 19:30, "it is finished"] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. [I]I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost [Jesus gives the water of life, John 4:10-14; Rev. 7:17]. 7 He who overcomes [Jesus spoke these words seven times to each of the seven churches in the beginning of this epistle, 2:7,11,17,26;3:5,12,21] will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son" (emphasis added). Everything in this passage points towards Jesus as the speaker, yet at the end of the passage we realize that it is God the Father.

[Fire Watch]

If Jesus is God, then why does he pray to God and call Him “the only true God” in John 17:3?

Theres only one person in the Godhead, YHWH, this uni-personal God that has come to exist in two ways: in the incarnation as man, and in His continued existence as exclusive deity beyond the incarnation. It is the same personal God, but existing in a new way (as man). The distinction between Father and Son, then, is a distinction between God's dual manner of existence. Jesus' deity is the deity of the Father (the same "he"), but in a human mode of existence. In God's human mode of existence He has made Himself known to us as the Son; in God's continued mode of existence beyond the incarnation He has made Himself known as the Father.

Jesus' existence is distinct from the Father's, not in the identity of His deity, but in the personal union of His deity and humanity in one new existence--an existence which is distinct from God's manner of existence beyond the incarnation.

The reason for Jesus' prayers becomes clear when we understand that the incarnation is not a mere indwelling of God in a human shell, but God coming to be a genuine man. God did not pretend to be man, but came to be man. God now exists as a man in addition to His continued existence as God because He incorporated human nature into His one divine person, utilizing the human nature to personally exist as man. As God came to exist as a genuine man, complete with a genuine human consciousness/mind, Jesus had the capacity for, and the need for relationships. Because of the reality and genuineness of His humanity Jesus even had need of a relationship with God. As man Jesus experienced the same limitations all humans experience, occasioning His dependence on God as all men have need of such. Surely Jesus did not pray because He was God, but because He was man. Only humans have need of prayer. If it was not for Christ's genuine human existence He would have had no reason to pray.

The only solution to understanding Jesus' prayers without splitting up His person or diminishing His deity is to acknowledge the kenosis as set forth in Philippians 2:5-11.

(kenosis: The relinquishment of the form of God by Jesus in becoming man and suffering death. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/%20kenosis%20))

The kenosis refers to the willing limitation God placed on the exercise of His divine attributes and prerogatives (such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence) in the incarnation so that He could function in a genuine human existence with all the limitations such an existence entails. While Jesus ws God in the flesh, functionally He lived as any human would. He did not rely on His deity, but limited Himself to the constraints of any man, being anointed by the Spirit for ministry (Luke 4:18; Matthew 12:18; Acts 2:22; 4:27; 10:38). Christ's deity is latent within Him, so that Christ's consciousness is like that of other human beings. Any knowledge Jesus possessed that superceded normal human knowledge came to Him via divine revelation (John 5:30; 8:28, 38, 40; 12:49-50; 17:8). Jesus shared in our limitations and weaknesses, not because God ceased being God in the incarnation, but because God determined to limit the exercise of His deity in His human mode of existence.

[Warrior4God]

What is your take on this verse?

John 8

58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

John 8:58b
Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)




1. Trinitarians and others argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”

2. The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said, literally, “Not I am, Lord” (Matt. 26:22 and 25). No one would say that the disciples were trying to deny that they were God because they were using the phrase “Not I am.” The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God.

3. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Verse 56 is accurately translated in the King James Version, which says: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquerors the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Abraham looked for a city that is still future, yet the Bible says Abraham “saw” it. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham. Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived. We are not the only ones who believe that Jesus’ statement does not make him God:

To say that Jesus is “before” him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4). [24]

4. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God’s “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=100

[Warrior4God]

Warrior,

Warrior you correctly say that Jesus is the Son of God. What does that mean to you. Do you literally believe that God sired Him?

What do you believe the answer is to your question?
anyone else like to answer this?

[ralittlefield]

What do you believe the answer is to your question?
anyone else like to answer this?

I believe it to be a title rather than a statement of origin.

BTW: If it is a statement of origin, the offspring of a man is a man, the offspring of a dog is a dog, the offspring of a cat is a cat.

Is the Son of God not God?

[liquidcleaner]

Jesus said I and the Father are one. And he told his disciples that he must to so that he helper (Holy Spirit of God) could bome.

[chainsawbob]

I am trying to see your point here?

My point is now lost in the fray, but thank you for at least acknowledging my post. I compared the Holy Trinity to a cube, which is understood by almost every thinking being. I used scripture as my base but, believing is seeing.

[Mikko]

Basically, I think there are three possible perspectives one could adopt re the trinity.

[Semi-Sweet]

What do you believe the answer is to your question?
anyone else like to answer this?

In the parallelism of Romans 1;3-4, "Made of the seed of David. . . .declared to be the Son of God with power," with Luke 1:34-35 in the announcement of the angel to Mary that "the power of the Highest" would overshadow her to make her child "the Son of God";

It is obvious that God sired Jesus with his power.

[drmilo]

So you believe this verse says that Jesus was the Father?
You must read these verses in the context they were written,The context of chapter 14 deals with God being IN Christ. Then goes on to show that we will do the works he did and greater works even.

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
In context these verses become clear,of what Jesus was saying.

If Jesus is not God, then how can Jesus be in the Father?

Sure, I can understand how the Father can be in Him -- we all understand indwelling of the Spirit. But ... how can Jesus be in the Father in the same manner as the Father is in Him? Jesus makes no difference between the "hows" of Jesus being in the Father and the Fther being in Him. So how can Jesus, if He is merely a man, be indwelling the Father?

[drmilo]

John 8:58b
Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)




1. Trinitarians and others argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God.

---snipped for space see post 6661



Notice, Warrior, you post these lengthy "explanations" of verses to fit into your philosophy on who Jesus is, yet you accuse Trinitarians of having to "explain" scriptures to fit their ideas.

You went through all these points and lengthy explanations to show "what it means" when the Bible says "before Abraham was, I am" and also, previously, to explain John 1:1-3. We merely point to the scriptures without pages of explanations on how to interpret what is said. When we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" we take the scripture at face value. Who dwelt among us? Jesus. Therefore, Jesus was the Word; therefore, the Word was in the beginning with God and was God. We read, "Before Abraham was, I am" and see that Jesus is claiming to pre-exist Abraham.

You post pages upon pages of how to interpret those scriptures.

Just who is trying to fit scripture to their philosophy?

[Semi-Sweet]

If Jesus is not God, then how can Jesus be in the Father?

Sure, I can understand how the Father can be in Him -- we all understand indwelling of the Spirit. But ... how can Jesus be in the Father in the same manner as the Father is in Him? Jesus makes no difference between the "hows" of Jesus being in the Father and the Fther being in Him. So how can Jesus, if He is merely a man, be indwelling the Father?

The same way that we are in Christ and Christ is in the Father. . . . . perfectly one!

Jesus prayed "that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one. . ." [John 17:21]. He and the Father are one. We are in the Father and the Son. We are one in them. Beginning on Pentecost, all the saved are united in them. Through his grace they become "perfectly one!" That is the unity of the Spirit, "for by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body." There is only one body.

[Tucson Jim]

Theres only one person in the Godhead, YHWH, this uni-personal God that has come to exist in two ways: in the incarnation as man, and in His continued existence as exclusive deity beyond the incarnation. It is the same personal God, but existing in a new way (as man). The distinction between Father and Son, then, is a distinction between God's dual manner of existence. Jesus' deity is the deity of the Father (the same "he"), but in a human mode of existence. In God's human mode of existence He has made Himself known to us as the Son; in God's continued mode of existence beyond the incarnation He has made Himself known as the Father.

Jesus' existence is distinct from the Father's, not in the identity of His deity, but in the personal union of His deity and humanity in one new existence--an existence which is distinct from God's manner of existence beyond the incarnation.

The reason for Jesus' prayers becomes clear when we understand that the incarnation is not a mere indwelling of God in a human shell, but God coming to be a genuine man. God did not pretend to be man, but came to be man. God now exists as a man in addition to His continued existence as God because He incorporated human nature into His one divine person, utilizing the human nature to personally exist as man. As God came to exist as a genuine man, complete with a genuine human consciousness/mind, Jesus had the capacity for, and the need for relationships. Because of the reality and genuineness of His humanity Jesus even had need of a relationship with God. As man Jesus experienced the same limitations all humans experience, occasioning His dependence on God as all men have need of such. Surely Jesus did not pray because He was God, but because He was man. Only humans have need of prayer. If it was not for Christ's genuine human existence He would have had no reason to pray.

The only solution to understanding Jesus' prayers without splitting up His person or diminishing His deity is to acknowledge the kenosis as set forth in Philippians 2:5-11.

(kenosis: The relinquishment of the form of God by Jesus in becoming man and suffering death. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/%20kenosis%20))

The kenosis refers to the willing limitation God placed on the exercise of His divine attributes and prerogatives (such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence) in the incarnation so that He could function in a genuine human existence with all the limitations such an existence entails. While Jesus ws God in the flesh, functionally He lived as any human would. He did not rely on His deity, but limited Himself to the constraints of any man, being anointed by the Spirit for ministry (Luke 4:18; Matthew 12:18; Acts 2:22; 4:27; 10:38). Christ's deity is latent within Him, so that Christ's consciousness is like that of other human beings. Any knowledge Jesus possessed that superceded normal human knowledge came to Him via divine revelation (John 5:30; 8:28, 38, 40; 12:49-50; 17:8). Jesus shared in our limitations and weaknesses, not because God ceased being God in the incarnation, but because God determined to limit the exercise of His deity in His human mode of existence.

Hmmm . . . I don't see any responses to your thorough, well thought out, biblically based posts . . . why it's almost like they are ignoring you . . . that's odd. :whistle:

[Tucson Jim]

Basically, I think there are three possible perspectives one could adopt re the trinity.

But those three perspectives really boil down to one perspective. :think:

[Tucson Jim]

Notice, Warrior, you post these lengthy "explanations" of verses to fit into your philosophy on who Jesus is, yet you accuse Trinitarians of having to "explain" scriptures to fit their ideas.

You went through all these points and lengthy explanations to show "what it means" when the Bible says "before Abraham was, I am" and also, previously, to explain John 1:1-3. We merely point to the scriptures without pages of explanations on how to interpret what is said. When we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" we take the scripture at face value. Who dwelt among us? Jesus. Therefore, Jesus was the Word; therefore, the Word was in the beginning with God and was God. We read, "Before Abraham was, I am" and see that Jesus is claiming to pre-exist Abraham.

You post pages upon pages of how to interpret those scriptures.

Just who is trying to fit scripture to their philosophy?

For MUCH more of the same, pay a visit to some of the websites Warrior cites.

[DRS]

Notice, Warrior, you post these lengthy "explanations" of verses to fit into your philosophy on who Jesus is, yet you accuse Trinitarians of having to "explain" scriptures to fit their ideas.

You went through all these points and lengthy explanations to show "what it means" when the Bible says "before Abraham was, I am" and also, previously, to explain John 1:1-3. We merely point to the scriptures without pages of explanations on how to interpret what is said. When we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" we take the scripture at face value. Who dwelt among us? Jesus. Therefore, Jesus was the Word; therefore, the Word was in the beginning with God and was God. We read, "Before Abraham was, I am" and see that Jesus is claiming to pre-exist Abraham.

You post pages upon pages of how to interpret those scriptures.

Just who is trying to fit scripture to their philosophy?


Yes but trinitarians need a mistranslation of Exodus to prove it.

[drmilo]

Yes but trinitarians need a mistranslation of Exodus to prove it.

You can't compare apples and oranges. Just like you can't compare Hebrew and Greek to prove different translations.

The Septuagint translates Exodus with the same exact greek words used to portray what Jesus said. "Ego eimi." There is no mistranslation of Exodus involved. Jesus used the same words that God used in Exodus.

[DRS]

You can't compare apples and oranges. Just like you can't compare Hebrew and Greek to prove different translations.

The Septuagint translates Exodus with the same exact greek words used to portray what Jesus said. "Ego eimi." There is no mistranslation of Exodus involved. Jesus used the same words that God used in Exodus.

God said I shall be or will be.
Even in the footnotes of the NIV they show this, as they translate it coreectly in verse 12.

Exodus 3:14 Or I will be what I will be

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=3&version=31#fen-NIV-1594b

[drmilo]

God said I shall be or will be.
Even in the footnotes of the NIV they show this, as they translate it coreectly in verse 12.

Exodus 3:14 Or I will be what I will be

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=3&version=31#fen-NIV-1594b

What language was Jesus speaking to the Jews when he said this? I would say he was speaking Hebrew.

In Hebrew, as Harmonious has posted, there is no words for "I am"

So, when God said "I am" in Exodus, the proper translation from the Hebrew would be "I shall be" or "I will be"

But, since Jesus was speaking Hebrew, then he, too, did not say "I am."

We do not have a Hebrew translation of the NT. We have the Greek. The term used to show what Jesus said is "Ego eimi" which is translated as "I am." But if Jesus was speaking Hebrew, then this can't be exactly what Jesus said. Instead, it is the best translation of the Hebrew to the Greek.

In Exodus, the Hebrew translation of what God said to Moses is "I shall be" or "I will be."

The Septuagint (translated by Jewish scholars) uses the Greek "Ego eimi" or "I am." This is the best Greek term to show what God said.

The Greek terms are the same. Both God and Jesus were speaking Hebrew. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that Jesus said what God said. The translation from Hebrew to Greek not being perfect notwithstanding.

Also, the Jews he was speaking to took up stones to try and stone him for saying it, because they thought he was telling them that he was God. They understood him to be saying the same thing that God told Moses. Does the fact that the Jews wanted to stone him make him God? No. But the fact that the Jews understood him to be saying the same words that God told Moses makes what Jesus said to them the same as what God said to Moses.

Your argument over translations falls short, DRS.

[DRS]

Jesus would not have said I will be since he was discussing his prehuman existence he would have stated I existed.

WE
58Jesus answered, `I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.'

This discussion was about Jesus's aage not who he was.

[DRS]

When it comes to John 8 you really should read the whole chapter, Jesus talks about the god of the jews, Jesus talks about his being sent, and not doing things of his own initiative. and believing in the One who sent him.

[ralittlefield]

Notice, Warrior, you post these lengthy "explanations" of verses to fit into your philosophy on who Jesus is, yet you accuse Trinitarians of having to "explain" scriptures to fit their ideas.

You went through all these points and lengthy explanations to show "what it means" when the Bible says "before Abraham was, I am" and also, previously, to explain John 1:1-3. We merely point to the scriptures without pages of explanations on how to interpret what is said. When we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" we take the scripture at face value. Who dwelt among us? Jesus. Therefore, Jesus was the Word; therefore, the Word was in the beginning with God and was God. We read, "Before Abraham was, I am" and see that Jesus is claiming to pre-exist Abraham.

You post pages upon pages of how to interpret those scriptures.

Just who is trying to fit scripture to their philosophy?

Also, who is following the teachings of men?

Warrior, you accuse us of following men, not the Bible. Don't you see that that is exactly what you are doing?

[drmilo]

Jesus would not have said I will be since he was discussing his prehuman existence he would have stated I existed.

WE
58Jesus answered, `I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.'

This discussion was about Jesus's aage not who he was.

And in my post to Warrior before you stated I was using a mistranslation was that "we look at the line 'Before Abraham was, I am' and say Jesus is claiming to pre-exist Abraham."

I used John 1:1-3 to show that Jesus was God.

[DRS]

And in my post to Warrior before you stated I was using a mistranslation was that "we look at the line 'Before Abraham was, I am' and say Jesus is claiming to pre-exist Abraham."

I used John 1:1-3 to show that Jesus was God.

Jesus was not the God of John 1:1

Then verse 18

18*No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

And

(John 6:46) Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father.



(1 John 4:12) At no time has anyone beheld God. If we continue loving one another, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us.

No one has seen God, the bible is plain on that matter, yet people have seen Jesus, how much clearer does it get?

[drmilo]

Jesus was not the God of John 1:1

No. Jesus was the Word. But the Word was with God and the Word was God.


Then verse 18

18*No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

Notice Jesus refers to himself as the only begotten God.

And

(John 6:46) Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father.

If "No man has seen God at any time" and "Not that any man has seen the Father"

And Jesus was just a man, then he could not have seen the Father. Yet....
"except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father." Notice it doesn't say "this man has seen the father." Jesus is telling you that he is not just a man -- that he is God as well as man.

(1 John 4:12) At no time has anyone beheld God. If we continue loving one another, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us.

Clearly John is not including Jesus is this statement, because Jesus has already told us that He has seen the Father.

No one has seen God, the bible is plain on that matter, yet people have seen Jesus, how much clearer does it get?

Because, for the umpteenth time from various posters, Jesus is both fully God and fully man. As a man, he has a God (God the Father) and is volutarily humbled to the limitations of man. The Glory of God is not visible to men when they look at Jesus.

Tell me, Jesus said he was the Son of God. What does that mean? Does that mean he was a man? If so, what does it mean when Jesus says he was the Son of Man?

[DRS]

The word was with the God.

Jesus did not have a dual nature, again another worded that is added by greek thought to get idea, Jesus is called the son of man just as prophets before him were called.

The angels are called sons of God in the OT twice.

Son of man shows fully human and not pseaking of his own origin which Jesus told us.

[DispensationalJim]

DRS typed: "The word was with the God."
------------------------------------
D-JIm says: What translation is that? That is not what your own JW/NWT says!

I checked a couple dozen version, and they all (except the NWT) said:
• John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

===========================

DRS continues: "Jesus did not have a dual nature, again another worded that is added by greek thought to get idea, Jesus is called the son of man just as prophets before him were called."
------------------------------------------------
D-JIm: As Reconrick so elequently stated earlier (to which I saw no response from you, DRS), Jesus was both man and God. Many of us have gone through all the verses for you. Here is my favorite passage in that regard:
• Phil. 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the **FORM OF GOD**, thought it not robbery to be **EQUAL WITH GOD**: 7 But **MADE HIMSELF** of no reputation, and **TOOK UPON HIM** the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion **AS A MAN**, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

This passage makes absolutely no sense if Jesus was NOT God before MAKING HIMSELF INTO A MAN. Otherwise, why would He need to make Himself into a man if He already was a man? If He was merely the "Son of God" and NOT God, how do we know He would have the power and ability to make Himself into a man? And, if He was NOT God, how in the world could He makes Himself into a man?

===========================
DRS says: "The angels are called sons of God in the OT twice."
----------------------------------------------

D-Jim:
Yes, angels were called "sons of God" (small "s") in 5 (that is FIVE) verses in the OT.
But Jesus was called **THE** Son of God (with a CAPITAL "S") about 50 times in the NT.

That makes Jesus totally unique as compared with the angels of the OT.
=========================

DRS then tried to communicate through this statement: "Son of man shows fully human and not pseaking of his own origin which Jesus told us."
--------------------------------------------
D-Jim says: DRS, could you please try typing this again? It is too confusing (for me. at least).

[DRS]

DRS typed: "The word was with the God."
------------------------------------
D-JIm says: What translation is that? That is not what your own JW/NWT says!

I checked a couple dozen version, and they all (except the NWT) said:
• John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

===========================

DRS continues: "Jesus did not have a dual nature, again another worded that is added by greek thought to get idea, Jesus is called the son of man just as prophets before him were called."
------------------------------------------------
D-JIm: As Reconrick so elequently stated earlier (to which I saw no response from you, DRS), Jesus was both man and God. Many of us have gone through all the verses for you. Here is my favorite passage in that regard:
• Phil. 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the **FORM OF GOD**, thought it not robbery to be **EQUAL WITH GOD**: 7 But **MADE HIMSELF** of no reputation, and **TOOK UPON HIM** the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion **AS A MAN**, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

This passage makes absolutely no sense if Jesus was NOT God before MAKING HIMSELF INTO A MAN. Otherwise, why would He need to make Himself into a man if He already was a man? If He was merely the "Son of God" and NOT God, how do we know He would have the power and ability to make Himself into a man? And, if He was NOT God, how in the world could He makes Himself into a man?

===========================
DRS says: "The angels are called sons of God in the OT twice."
----------------------------------------------

D-Jim:
Yes, angels were called "sons of God" (small "s") in 5 (that is FIVE) verses in the OT.
But Jesus was called **THE** Son of God (with a CAPITAL "S") about 50 times in the NT.

That makes Jesus totally unique as compared with the angels of the OT.
=========================

DRS then tried to communicate through this statement: "Son of man shows fully human and not pseaking of his own origin which Jesus told us."
--------------------------------------------
D-Jim says: DRS, could you please try typing this again? It is too confusing (for me. at least).

I tell you what, you learn to use the quote features and i will make sure my posts are easy to understand.

As regards Phillipians if Jesus was God why would it be comsidered stealing seizing or grabbing eqaulity with God.

Grasp or hold on to is a bad translation.

[Warrior4God]

If Jesus is not God, then how can Jesus be in the Father?

Sure, I can understand how the Father can be in Him -- we all understand indwelling of the Spirit. But ... how can Jesus be in the Father in the same manner as the Father is in Him? Jesus makes no difference between the "hows" of Jesus being in the Father and the Fther being in Him. So how can Jesus, if He is merely a man, be indwelling the Father? Lets see the truth of the matter on being in God.
1Jn 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

1Jn 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

1Jn 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

We are to be in Christ as in fellowship and Jesus was in the Father as in fellowship with him.

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Rom 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus

Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.


To any one person who sees the responses that are lengthy as interpreting I see them as showing how the Word interprets itself when mistranslated words and concepts are revealed via the understanding of the whole scope of the Bible.
I would say that it takes seeing the whole scope of the words used that are so easily accepted such as the phrase "I am" therefore indepth study is required.

I believe the real reason this is even brought up is because indepth study and revealing of the verses that are looked at to show a trinity come up so short of truth its sad they are used to support such a concept when the whole of the Bible in context from Genesis to revelation is taken into account.
You can't be the Son and be the God that created him.Its so rediculous out of whack with who Jesus and Paul and Peter and John really show about Jesus Christ.
But you can't rise above what you have been taught.

Unless


You go to the Word and let that Word speak to your heart and not rely on a doctrine or creed that evolved from council to council through time.


1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

[Warrior4God]

Notice, Warrior, you post these lengthy "explanations" of verses to fit into your philosophy on who Jesus is, yet you accuse Trinitarians of having to "explain" scriptures to fit their ideas.

You went through all these points and lengthy explanations to show "what it means" when the Bible says "before Abraham was, I am" and also, previously, to explain John 1:1-3. We merely point to the scriptures without pages of explanations on how to interpret what is said. When we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" we take the scripture at face value. Who dwelt among us? Jesus. Therefore, Jesus was the Word; therefore, the Word was in the beginning with God and was God. We read, "Before Abraham was, I am" and see that Jesus is claiming to pre-exist Abraham.

You post pages upon pages of how to interpret those scriptures.

Just who is trying to fit scripture to their philosophy?

These lengthy explanations reveal the truth of the usage of the words that are misused and mistranslated and I can see how you have a problem with the holes these explanations blow in the doctrine of the trinity.

[Warrior4God]

The same way that we are in Christ and Christ is in the Father. . . . . perfectly one!

Jesus prayed "that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one. . ." [John 17:21]. He and the Father are one. We are in the Father and the Son. We are one in them. Beginning on Pentecost, all the saved are united in them. Through his grace they become "perfectly one!" That is the unity of the Spirit, "for by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body." There is only one body.

I am not sure if you believe the trinity but you have a great knowledge of the Bible.
There alot of posters in this thread that have a lot of knowledge of the Bible like DJim is very knowledgeable,I differ with his view but would guess he is a leader in his church.

[Semi-Sweet]

I am not sure if you believe the trinity but you have a great knowledge of the Bible.
There alot of posters in this thread that have a lot of knowledge of the Bible like DJim is very knowledgeable,I differ with his view but would guess he is a leader in his church.

Warrior, My brain won't wrap around the trinity.

[Semi-Sweet]

I am not sure if you believe the trinity but you have a great knowledge of the Bible.
There alot of posters in this thread that have a lot of knowledge of the Bible like DJim is very knowledgeable,I differ with his view but would guess he is a leader in his church.

I notice that some quote John Chapter one here . . . .

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light which enlightens everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him.

This is the beginning of God's new creation of people created in Christ Jesus. When God speaks his Word, His spirit moves and accomplishes His will.

God spoke his word, His Spirit moved, Mary conceived and she brought forth Jesus. This was the beginning of the New Creation created in Christ Jesus, Jesus being the firstfruits, and we are the ones that followed Him. Jesus was that light that shone in the dark places.
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.

Why would John be taking us all the way back to the beginning of the creation of the world and then skipping 4,000 years and then telling us about John the Baptist and Jesus?

[DispensationalJim]

I tell you what, you learn to use the quote features and i will make sure my posts are easy to understand.

As regards Phillipians if Jesus was God why would it be comsidered stealing seizing or grabbing eqaulity with God.

Grasp or hold on to is a bad translation.

OK, DRS, here is evidence that I know how to use the quote feature. I have explained several times why I do not like to use it. When I copy a page full of posts from a thread to put into a file on my Mac, the "separation" of posters and comments gets "lost" (they all run together) and it takes lots of time to figure out who said what. Thus, I like to type in the name myself and separate comments and posters with dashes or whatever so they remain separated in my file.

Like this...
--------------------------------------------
D-Jim continues:
As to the "bad translation," DRS, I keep saying that my years of study of the manuscript evidence tells me that the KJV is the far superior translation since it comes from the Textus Receptus, the superior set of manuscripts.

The Wescott and Hort Greek lexicon which was used to translate every other English Bible today (possible exception--the New King James) came mostly from the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus Greek manuscripts which THEY (W & H) claimed were older and better than the Textus Receptus and thus (according to THEM) closer to the originals and therefore more accurate.

But, the evidence is not conclusive by any means. I have shared several looong posts about the serious problems with the Vaticanus manuscripts. Every time I have begun quoting the writings of Dean Burgon (The Revision Revised-1883), everyone seems to disappear from the thread. I know it is a boring topic, but since the Vaticanus is the main source of all the attacks against the KJV, then people need to be made aware of those problems.
----------------------------------------------

DRS, I'll drop that subject for now, and I will watch for your next posts to see if you will be more careful about your typing and grammar. I certainly hope so.

I'm sure you are very intelligent, and you obviously know your JW doctrines well. But it makes me sad to see glaring errors in your typing that often have rendered your statements as confusing and sometimes unintelligible.

So, come on... show us the new DRS!

D-Jim

[Tucson Jim]

Warrior, My brain won't wrap around the trinity.

There's nothing wrong with that! Should we expect our tiny brains to be able to comprehend the Nature of the Almighty?

[DispensationalJim]

Thank you, Warrior, for your kind words. I know we disagree often on some enormously important doctrines, but I hope we can continue to discuss our differences with "charity."

When we feel so strongly about our beliefs and opinions, we are bound to let those feelings show from time to time, but I'll try to keep a level head and I'm sure you will, too.

D-Jim

[drmilo]

These lengthy explanations reveal the truth of the usage of the words that are misused and mistranslated and I can see how you have a problem with the holes these explanations blow in the doctrine of the trinity.

They don't blow any holes in the concept of the trinty.

All the lengthy explanations you've posted do is either claim every single bible in the world has been mistranslated or misunderstood. They then construct abstract meanings for simple straight-forward statements in order to fit in with their own philosophy.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Tucson Jim]

They don't blow any holes in the concept of the trinty.

All the lengthy explanations you've posted do is either claim every single bible in the world has been mistranslated or misunderstood. They then construct abstract meanings for simple straight-forward statements in order to fit in with their own philosophy.

At least, that's how I see it.

Me too.

[drmilo]

DRS typed: "The word was with the God."
------------------------------------
D-JIm says: What translation is that? That is not what your own JW/NWT says!



He gets that translation from the literal word for word translation from the greek which is:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word"

Unfortunately, DRS does not seem to understand (or refuses to understand) that you can't do a literal word for word translation from one language to another (in most cases, and definitely when translating to the English language.) He doesn't seem to realize that you have to take into account proper usage of the language you are translating to. He doesn't realize that other languages use definite articles for various reasons (like showing the gender of the noun, for example) when English has a tendency to drop the definite article unless absolutely necessary. Therefore, DRS doesn't see that "the Word was with the God" is not a proper English translation. "The Word was with God" is proper. In English, there is no definite article needed preceeding God in that context. He doesn't understand that "God was the Word" is properly translated to English as "The Word was God" because the subject has the definte article in English while the object doesn't and the subject in English more properly precedes the object.

His NWT translation says "... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." He says you add the "a" before God in the third clause because you dropped the definite article. This is faulty reasoning. You drop the definite article because a definite article is not required before the object of the clause; you do not add an "a" to a completely separate clause because you drop a definite article in a previous clause. The "a" was added only for the JW's to claim that Jesus is "a god" but not "the God."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" is the proper translation -- the subject of the sentence in all three clauses is the Word. (and thus the word "Word" has a definite article in each instance. "God" is the object of the sentence in the second and third clauses, thus a definite article is not needed and the order of subject and object is changed in the third clause to conform with proper English grammar.

[Tucson Jim]

He gets that translation from the literal word for word translation from the greek which is:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word"

Unfortunately, DRS does not seem to understand (or refuses to understand) that you can't do a literal word for word translation from one language to another (in most cases, and definitely when translating to the English language.) He doesn't seem to realize that you have to take into account proper usage of the language you are translating to. He doesn't realize that other languages use definite articles for various reasons (like showing the gender of the noun, for example) when English has a tendency to drop the definite article unless absolutely necessary. Therefore, DRS doesn't see that "the Word was with the God" is not a proper English translation. "The Word was with God" is proper. In English, there is no definite article needed preceeding God in that context. He doesn't understand that "God was the Word" is properly translated to English as "The Word was God" because the subject has the definte article in English while the object doesn't and the subject in English more properly precedes the object.

His NWT translation says "... and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." He says you add the "a" before God in the third clause because you dropped the definite article. This is faulty reasoning. You drop the definite article because a definite article is not required before the object of the clause; you do not add an "a" to a completely separate clause because you drop a definite article in a previous clause. The "a" was added only for the JW's to claim that Jesus is "a god" but not "the God."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" is the proper translation -- the subject of the sentence in all three clauses is the Word. (and thus the word "Word" has a definite article in each instance. "God" is the object of the sentence in the second and third clauses, thus a definite article is not needed and the order of subject and object is changed in the third clause to conform with proper English grammar.


I thought the issue of "a god"was settled a long time ago by Dr. Julius Mantey, whose "Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" was quoted by the Watchtower as "allowing" the "a god" translation. Dr. Mantey was quite upset - I have edited some comments that may not be appropriate in this forum and noted where I did so - here is his letter to the Watchtower:


July 11 , 1974
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
117 Adams St.,Brooklyn,
New York 11201

Dear Sirs,

I have a copy of your letter addressed to Caris in Santa Ana, California, and I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.

(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Inter-linear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1: 1.'' There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1.

A. We had no "rule" to argue in support of the Trinity.

B. Neither did we state that we did have such intention. We were simply delineating the facts inherent in Biblical language.

Your quotation from page 148 ( 3 ) was in a paragraph under the heading: "With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence." , Two examples occur there to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples,'' But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. on pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article theos signifies divine essence. . "theos on ho logos" emphasises Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature.''
0ur interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TEV: "What God was, the Word was": and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God'' , which you quoted in your letter to Caris.

(2) Since Colwell's and Harner's articles in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1: 1 "The Word was a god" . Word order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .

(3) Your quotation of Colwell 's rule is inadequate because it quotes only a part of his findings. You did not quote this strong assertion: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ''qualitative'' noun soley because of the absence of the article. ''

(4) Prof. Harner, Vol. 92.1 (1973) in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature of character of the subject . He found this true in 53 passages in the Gospel of John and 8 in the Gospel of Mark, Both scholars wrote that when indefiniteness was intended, the Gospel writers regularly placed the predicate noun after the verb, and both Colwell and Harner have stated that theos in John l: 1 is not indefinite and should not be translated "a god".
Watchtower writers appear to be the only ones advocating such a translation now. The evidence appears to be 99% against them.

( 5) Your statement in your letter that the sacred text itself should guide one and "not just someone's rule book". We agree with you. But our study proves that Jehovah's Witnesses do the opposite of that whenever the "sacred text" differs with their [EDITED] beliefs. For example, the translation of kolasis as cutting off when punishment is the only meaning cited in the Lexicons for it. The mistranslation of ego eim as "I have been" in John 8:58. The addition of "for all time" in Hebrews 9:27 when nothing in the Greek New Testament supports it.

The attempt to belittle Christ by mistranslating arche tes ktisoos "beginning of the creation" when he is magnified as "the creator of all things" (John 1 :2) , and as "equal with God" (Phil. 2:6) before he humbled himself and lived in a human body here on earth. Your quotation of "The Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28) to prove that Jesus was not equal to God overlooks the fact stated in Phil: 12: 6-8, when Jesus said that he was still in his voluntary state of humiliation. That state ended when he ascended to heaven.

Why the attempt to [EDITED] mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, in the Greek in even your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say)?-- "Today you will be with me, in Paradise". 2 Cor. 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the lord'' These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death , which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection (Ps. 23:6 and Heb. 1: 10 ) .

The above are only a few examples of Watchtower mistranslations [EDITED].

In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context I here with request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also, that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this time on.

Also, that you publicly and immediately apologise in the Watchtower magazine, since my words had no relevance to the absence of the article before theos in John 1: 1. And please write to Caris and state that you misused and misquoted my "rule".

On the page before the Preface in the grammar are these words: "All rights reserved no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher". If you have such permission, please send me a photocopy of it. If you do not heed these requests, you will suffer the consequences.

Regretfully yours ,

Julius R. Mantey

[Semi-Sweet]

It's called jots and tittles. . . . . . . .gotta' make sure you get 'em all right. . . . . .

[DRS]

OK, DRS, here is evidence that I know how to use the quote feature. I have explained several times why I do not like to use it. When I copy a page full of posts from a thread to put into a file on my Mac, the "separation" of posters and comments gets "lost" (they all run together) and it takes lots of time to figure out who said what. Thus, I like to type in the name myself and separate comments and posters with dashes or whatever so they remain separated in my file.

Like this...
--------------------------------------------
D-Jim continues:
As to the "bad translation," DRS, I keep saying that my years of study of the manuscript evidence tells me that the KJV is the far superior translation since it comes from the Textus Receptus, the superior set of manuscripts.

The Wescott and Hort Greek lexicon which was used to translate every other English Bible today (possible exception--the New King James) came mostly from the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus Greek manuscripts which THEY (W & H) claimed were older and better than the Textus Receptus and thus (according to THEM) closer to the originals and therefore more accurate.

But, the evidence is not conclusive by any means. I have shared several looong posts about the serious problems with the Vaticanus manuscripts. Every time I have begun quoting the writings of Dean Burgon (The Revision Revised-1883), everyone seems to disappear from the thread. I know it is a boring topic, but since the Vaticanus is the main source of all the attacks against the KJV, then people need to be made aware of those problems.
----------------------------------------------

DRS, I'll drop that subject for now, and I will watch for your next posts to see if you will be more careful about your typing and grammar. I certainly hope so.

I'm sure you are very intelligent, and you obviously know your JW doctrines well. But it makes me sad to see glaring errors in your typing that often have rendered your statements as confusing and sometimes unintelligible.

So, come on... show us the new DRS!

D-Jim


There are sorts of rebuttals out there.

Truly major differences between the KJV and modern translations of the New Testament are primarily due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus [TR], the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based. According to Bruce Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1992, pages 95-118), the TR primarily resulted from the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Greek scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516. The first edition of Erasmus' text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. (ibid., page 106) That edition was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus "on the spur of the moment" (ibid., page 99).

The Greek New Testament project was seen by its publisher, Johann Froben, as a considerable commercial opportunity. (ibid., pages 98 and 102-103) Accordingly Froben expeditiously negotiated with Erasmus, who had already nobly intended to produce a Greek-Latin parallel text New Testament for the primary purpose of allowing Latin readers to become better acquainted with the original New Testament text, which he wanted to approximate as best as possible. Froben rushed Erasmus' first edition text to market, in his attempt to get it into circulation ahead of the much more methodically prepared Complutensian Polyglot Bible, which was due to be published soon. (In contrast to the five months that Erasmus used to hurriedly put his text together and get it printed and circulated, the Complutensian text required eighteen years of careful preparation before its first edition appeared. Erasmus himself said in a letter in Latin in 1516 that this first edition had been "praecipitatum verius quam editum," -- more precipitated than edited.)


1Jo 5:7,8 - an example of textual corruption. Even up to the fifth and final edition of Erasmus' Greek text in 1535, Erasmus occasionally fell prey to pressure from Roman Catholic church authorities to add to subsequent editions phrases and entire verses that he strongly (and rightly) suspected were not part of the original text. Metzger (Ibid., pages 100-101) and others document how Erasmus was manipulated to include what later was translated into the KJV in 1Jo 5:7-8, the following text: "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." Conservative biblical scholar F.F. Bruce (History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142) explains the sad history of how those words were errantly added to Erasmus' Greek text of 1Jo 5:7-8:

The words ["in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."] omitted in the R.V. [Revised Version, 1881] were no part of the original Greek text, nor yet of the Latin Vulgate in its earliest form. They first appear in the writings of a Spanish Christian leader named Priscillian, who was executed for heresy in A.D. 385. Later they made their way into copies of the Latin text of the Bible. When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity. He replied (rather incautiously) that if he could be shown any Greek manuscript which contained the words, he would include them in his next edition. Unfortunately, a Greek manuscript not more than some twenty years old was produced in which the words appeared: they had been translated into Greek from Latin. Of course, the fact that the only Greek manuscript exhibiting the words belonged to the sixteenth century was in itself an argument against their authenticity, but Erasmus had given his promise, and so in his 1522 edition he included the passage. (To-day one or two other very late Greek manuscripts are known to contain this passages; all others omit it.)

http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm

[Semi-Sweet]

There's nothing wrong with that! Should we expect our tiny brains to be able to comprehend the Nature of the Almighty?

The reason that my brain won't wrap around it; The idea of the trinity is foreign to the scriptures.

[Semi-Sweet]

I tell you what, you learn to use the quote features and i will make sure my posts are easy to understand.

As regards Phillipians if Jesus was God why would it be comsidered stealing seizing or grabbing eqaulity with God.

Grasp or hold on to is a bad translation.

DRS, You are one tough man. . .I don't know how you handle the condescending attitudes of these men. To stay on this thread and post would be self-inflicted punishment for me.

[cmhchic]

Let me make clear I am not a follower of LDS
I would be classified as a non denominational Christian if I was to classify myself

I got the distinct impression you were Unitarian. Is that incorrect?

[Warrior4God]

I notice that some quote John Chapter one here . . . .

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light which enlightens everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him.

This is the beginning of God's new creation of people created in Christ Jesus. When God speaks his Word, His spirit moves and accomplishes His will.

God spoke his word, His Spirit moved, Mary conceived and she brought forth Jesus. This was the beginning of the New Creation created in Christ Jesus, Jesus being the firstfruits, and we are the ones that followed Him. Jesus was that light that shone in the dark places.
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.

Why would John be taking us all the way back to the beginning of the creation of the world and then skipping 4,000 years and then telling us about John the Baptist and Jesus?

Your perception is astounding.

[Warrior4God]

I got the distinct impression you were Unitarian. Is that incorrect?

Well I do have a unitarian point of view in a way.
I am a Christian that believes Jesus is the Son of God and therefore can not be God and be the Son at the same time.

I am not at all a unitarian universalist though.

[Warrior4God]

I got the distinct impression you were Unitarian. Is that incorrect?

By the way welcome to the religion forum:hug:

[DRS]

DRS, You are one tough man. . .I don't know how you handle the condescending attitudes of these men. To stay on this thread and post would be self-inflicted punishment for me.

For me it has been interesting to see the arguements presented and to see also how others who do not belive this doctrine to be scriptually sound also refute it.

People's reaction is always interesting to me, as it shows we do not really change, just about everything I see done or read I can the same behaviour exhibited in the bible.

[Warrior4God]

For me it has been interesting to see the arguements presented and to see also how others who do not belive this doctrine to be scriptually sound also refute it.

People's reaction is always interesting to me, as it shows we do not really change, just about everything I see done or read I can the same behaviour exhibited in the bible.

I find it exciting to show from scripture the real Jesus Christ and I believe without a shadow of doubt that Jesus is not God and can't help but think with the proof through scripture that even the most commited tritarian would have doubts on such a doctrine when EVERY verse used to support it comes up short when you take away the spin and mystery.
Jesus not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3. This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”

There is no mystery about who Jesus is and God did NOT expect us to read between the lines to see who Jesus is.

Jesus is represented as a Priest. “Consider the ….High-Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus,” Heb. 3:1. The office of a priest is to minister to God. Christ, then, as a priest, cannot be God

Christ is Mediator between the “One God,” and “men.” “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Tim. 2:5

Jesus Christ is an Apostle appointed by God. “Consider the Apostle,...Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that appointed him,” Heb. 3:1, 2

Christ is represented as our intercessor with God. “It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us,” Rom. 8:34.

The head of Christ is God. “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God,” 1 Cor. 11:3.

In the same sense in which we are said to belong to Christ, Christ is said to belong to God. “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s,” 1 Cor. 3:23

Because he virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17
It amazes me that well educated people can actually spin this verse in Matt.


The Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. “Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17.

[Tucson Jim]

The reason that my brain won't wrap around it; The idea of the trinity is foreign to the scriptures.

If you have read this thread at all, you should know better than that . . .

[Tucson Jim]

DRS, You are one tough man. . .I don't know how you handle the condescending attitudes of these men. To stay on this thread and post would be self-inflicted punishment for me.

I was right in my previous post - you really haven't been reading this thread - or at least paying attention.

DRS is every bit as human - and at times condescending - as any of us on this thread or the RF for that matter.

So please, spare us all the tears for DRS. We love him, but he is every bit as flawed as everyone else.

[Tucson Jim]

Your perception is astounding.

Yes - astounding indeed . . .

[Warrior4God]

Matthew 16:13-17
(13) When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
(14) They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
(15) “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
(16) Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.”
(17) Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
God revealed to Peter who Jesus is.

[Tucson Jim]

I find it exciting to show from scripture the real Jesus Christ and I believe without a shadow of doubt that Jesus is not God and can't help but think with the proof through scripture that even the most commited tritarian would have doubts on such a doctrine when EVERY verse used to support it comes up short when you take away the spin and mystery.
Jesus not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3. This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”

There is no mystery about who Jesus is and God did NOT expect us to read between the lines to see who Jesus is.

Jesus is represented as a Priest. “Consider the ….High-Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus,” Heb. 3:1. The office of a priest is to minister to God. Christ, then, as a priest, cannot be God

Christ is Mediator between the “One God,” and “men.” “For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Tim. 2:5

Jesus Christ is an Apostle appointed by God. “Consider the Apostle,...Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that appointed him,” Heb. 3:1, 2

Christ is represented as our intercessor with God. “It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us,” Rom. 8:34.

The head of Christ is God. “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God,” 1 Cor. 11:3.

In the same sense in which we are said to belong to Christ, Christ is said to belong to God. “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s,” 1 Cor. 3:23

Because he virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17
It amazes me that well educated people can actually spin this verse in Matt.


The Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. “Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17.

Um . . . I think yer preachin' to the choir there when talking to DRS.

As for the rest of us, every single point you make has been rebutted repeatedly here from God's Word. It is the Bible that refutes your belief.

Jesus is God, as the Bible clearly points out - "the Word was with God and the word was God" - no need to read between the lines at all to see the truth of the Deity of Christ. It is as plain as day, whether you, or your Unitarian compadres, want to believe it or not.

[Tucson Jim]

Matthew 16:13-17
(13) When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
(14) They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
(15) “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
(16) Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.”
(17) Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
God revealed to Peter who Jesus is.

As we have repeatedly told you, no one argues that Jesus is not the Son of God.

[Warrior4God]

As we have repeatedly told you, no one argues that Jesus is not the Son of God.

I know Jim,but either he is God or the Son.
The word used for The Word that became flesh is the word we get our word logic from.
By the way I was studying a very wonderful verse this week.

Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

I believe from my studies on this verse that there is no coresponding word in the greek for "of" in the text and should read

Let the Word Christ dwell in you richly ,
which ties John 1:14 and.........


Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Its beautiful how perfect Gods Word is.
I feel so humble and undeserving sometimes for all God placed in his Word which became flesh.
I have been doing a study on Gods will and Gods Word and how they tie together.

[ralittlefield]

Matthew 16:13-17
(13) When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
(14) They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
(15) “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
(16) Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.”
(17) Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
God revealed to Peter who Jesus is.

How can the son of God not be God?

[Semi-Sweet]

I was right in my previous post - you really haven't been reading this thread - or at least paying attention.

DRS is every bit as human - and at times condescending - as any of us on this thread or the RF for that matter.

So please, spare us all the tears for DRS. We love him, but he is every bit as flawed as everyone else.

One would think the chief aim of the Christian was to proclaim division and practice disfellowship, and the highest moral attainment is reached when one is the most forward exponent of factionalism. There is not one scripture given by God for the purpose of tearing and rending the body of His Son. But even God could not give a revelation that was safe from maltreatment by partisans.

We do not arrive at fellowship because we agree on things, but being in fellowship we seek to arrive at agreement on things. The unity of the Spirit is the oneness produced by the fact that the Spirit dwells in each of us. We are thus linked to each other because we are linked with God. The unity of the Spirit is not based upon perfect understanding of the words of the Spirit. It is God dwelling in those who are striving upward. It is maintained by a love for God and all of His children which transcends any opinion or partisan view.

Yes, we are all flawed. . . . .but because one person is condescending does not give me the freedom to respond in kind. We don't agree but, DRS and Warrior have never been condescending to me. My messages were to Warrior and DRS. It appears that they are outnumbered.

[ralittlefield]

One would think the chief aim of the Christian was to proclaim division and practice disfellowship, and the highest moral attainment is reached when one is the most forward exponent of factionalism. There is not one scripture given by God for the purpose of tearing and rending the body of His Son. But even God could not give a revelation that was safe from maltreatment by partisans.

We do not arrive at fellowship because we agree on things, but being in fellowship we seek to arrive at agreement on things. The unity of the Spirit is the oneness produced by the fact that the Spirit dwells in each of us. We are thus linked to each other because we are linked with God. The unity of the Spirit is not based upon perfect understanding of the words of the Spirit. It is God dwelling in those who are striving upward. It is maintained by a love for God and all of His children which transcends any opinion or partisan view.

Yes, we are all flawed. . . . .but because one person is condescending does not give me the freedom to respond in kind. We don't agree but, DRS and Warrior have never been condescending to me. My messages were to Warrior and DRS. It appears that they are outnumbered.

To seek unity at the expense of truth is not wise.

[Semi-Sweet]

To seek unity at the expense of truth is not wise.

When Paul wrote Romans, he said "Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned." The doctrine they had learned was not to cause divisions and offences. In Chapter 12:5, they had learned they were one body, and members one of another. In 12:10 they had learned to love one another with brotherly affection, and outdo one another in showing honor. In 12:16, they had learned to live in harmony with one another. In 13:13, they had learned to conduct themselves becomingly, and not in quarreling and jealousy. In 14:1, they had learned they should welcome one who was weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. In 14:13, they had learned not to pass judgement on a brother, and never place a stumblingblock or occasion to fall in a brother's way. In 14:19, they had learned to follow after peace and things wherewith one might edify one another. In the face of all this doctrine, or teaching, about love, unity, forbearance, and mercy, if someone still caused division or offence by refusing to receive a brother, or by intolerance for one whose opinion differed, such a person was to be marked and avoided. It was not the holding of an opinion that was contrary to the doctrine, for the doctrine was, "Welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions." The doctrine they had learned was "one believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables." It was not necessary for all to believe alike, or to be agreed upon every point, to be welcomed.!

It was contrary to the doctrine to cause divisions and offences. Brethren were to be welcomed in spite of opinions, not driven out because of them. Who was to be marked and avoided? It was the schismatic who caused division by refusing to accept as brethren those whose opinions differed, for such division was contrary to the doctrine which said to receive them and not sit in judgment upon their opinions.

[Tucson Jim]

One would think the chief aim of the Christian was to proclaim division and practice disfellowship, and the highest moral attainment is reached when one is the most forward exponent of factionalism. There is not one scripture given by God for the purpose of tearing and rending the body of His Son. But even God could not give a revelation that was safe from maltreatment by partisans.

I agree.

We do not arrive at fellowship because we agree on things, but being in fellowship we seek to arrive at agreement on things.

And believe me, we have sought agreement here for a long time, but it appears no agreement can be forged here except to agree to disagree.

The unity of the Spirit is the oneness produced by the fact that the Spirit dwells in each of us. We are thus linked to each other because we are linked with God. The unity of the Spirit is not based upon perfect understanding of the words of the Spirit. It is God dwelling in those who are striving upward. It is maintained by a love for God and all of His children which transcends any opinion or partisan view.

It appears to me you are saying unity is the most important thing, that doctrine should be abandoned or relegated to a position of lesser importance in the name of "love" and "unity". If so, I disagree.

Yes, we are all flawed. . . . .but because one person is condescending does not give me the freedom to respond in kind. We don't agree but, DRS and Warrior have never been condescending to me. My messages were to Warrior and DRS. It appears that they are outnumbered.

Outnumbered perhaps.

This discussion tends to get heated at times. We have all said things in ways we have regretted at times, including DRS and Warrior.

I just thought your sympathy for DRS was a bit unfair to all the others who have remained in this thread, enduring some measure of condescension, in order to tell others the truth of God's word as they see it. Everyone gets picked on sometimes.

All I was trying to say is the fact that you seemed to think DRS was enduring some higher level of abuse than others indicated to me you haven't read much of this thread. Which is OK.

But DRS can hold his own.

[ralittlefield]

When Paul wrote Romans, he said "Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned." The doctrine they had learned was not to cause divisions and offences. In Chapter 12:5, they had learned they were one body, and members one of another. In 12:10 they had learned to love one another with brotherly affection, and outdo one another in showing honor. In 12:16, they had learned to live in harmony with one another. In 13:13, they had learned to conduct themselves becomingly, and not in quarreling and jealousy. In 14:1, they had learned they should welcome one who was weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. In 14:13, they had learned not to pass judgement on a brother, and never place a stumblingblock or occasion to fall in a brother's way. In 14:19, they had learned to follow after peace and things wherewith one might edify one another. In the face of all this doctrine, or teaching, about love, unity, forbearance, and mercy, if someone still caused division or offence by refusing to receive a brother, or by intolerance for one whose opinion differed, such a person was to be marked and avoided. It was not the holding of an opinion that was contrary to the doctrine, for the doctrine was, "Welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions." The doctrine they had learned was "one believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables." It was not necessary for all to believe alike, or to be agreed upon every point, to be welcomed.!

It was contrary to the doctrine to cause divisions and offences. Brethren were to be welcomed in spite of opinions, not driven out because of them. Who was to be marked and avoided? It was the schismatic who caused division by refusing to accept as brethren those whose opinions differed, for such division was contrary to the doctrine which said to receive them and not sit in judgment upon their opinions.

Paul never would allow false doctrine to be taught. There are disputable matters and things that should be overlooked. Some things, though, are harmful, and need to be refuted. A correct understanding of who God is, is of first importance.

Titus 1
9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

[Warrior4God]

How can the son of God not be God?

The same way we as Sons of God being born again of incorruptible can not be God.
Don't you see that we are heirs like Jesus is an heir.
Jesus is not ashamed to call us his “brothers,” because we have the same Father he does. The Bible teaches that we are “brothers” of Jesus and “sons of God.” Scripture never says or even infers that we are “brothers of God.”

Hebrews 2:10 and 11
(10) In 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.
(11) Both 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.

If Jesus is God then the Bible falls to pieces and God lied when he gave revelation to Paul when adressing Timothy,or Paul was wrong in the verse below,as it shows one God and one man Jesus Christ that is our mediator.
There is no possible way to spin this verse and it not contradict Gods Word if you read Jesus being God into it.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Either God lied,Paul lied, or you are mistaken in your view of Jesus.
There are only 3 options that I can see when reading this verse.
How can anyone explain how this verse does not contradict Gods Word if Jesus were God.

[ralittlefield]

The same way we as Sons of God being born again of incorruptible can not be God.
Don't you see that we are heirs like Jesus is an heir.
Jesus is not ashamed to call us his “brothers,” because we have the same Father he does. The Bible teaches that we are “brothers” of Jesus and “sons of God.” Scripture never says or even infers that we are “brothers of God.”

Hebrews 2:10 and 11
(10) In 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.
(11) Both 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.

If Jesus is God then the Bible falls to pieces and God lied when he gave revelation to Paul when adressing Timothy,or Paul was wrong in the verse below,as it shows one God and one man Jesus Christ that is our mediator.
There is no possible way to spin this verse and it not contradict Gods Word if you read Jesus being God into it.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Either God lied,Paul lied, or you are mistaken in your view of Jesus.
There are only 3 options that I can see when reading this verse.
How can anyone explain how this verse does not contradict Gods Word if Jesus were God.

But we are sons by adoption, Christ is the Son of God.

[Warrior4God]

Paul never would allow false doctrine to be taught. There are disputable matters and things that should be overlooked. Some things, though, are harmful, and need to be refuted. A correct understanding of who God is, is of first importance.

Titus 1
9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Thats so true,The trinity is not sound doctrine it makes the Bible contradict itself.
Acts 2:22
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Acts 17:31
For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

God does not need to be strengthened, but Jesus did.

Luke 22:43 and 44
(43) An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.
(44) And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.


John 14:12 (KJV)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

By Jesus being God that means I can do greater works then God which is IMO blasphemy.
I'm not going there.

[ralittlefield]

Thats so true,The trinity is not sound doctrine it makes the Bible contradict itself.
Acts 2:22
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Acts 17:31
For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

God does not need to be strengthened, but Jesus did.

Luke 22:43 and 44
(43) An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.
(44) And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.


John 14:12 (KJV)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

By Jesus being God that means I can do greater works then God which is IMO blasphemy.
I'm not going there.

Read Phil 2 it will explain Christ's humanity to you.

There is ample scripture to prove the deity of Christ. If the doctrine of the Trinity is not true, then the Bible is wrong when it says there is but one God.

[Tucson Jim]

When Paul wrote Romans, he said "Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned." The doctrine they had learned was not to cause divisions and offences. In Chapter 12:5, they had learned they were one body, and members one of another. In 12:10 they had learned to love one another with brotherly affection, and outdo one another in showing honor. In 12:16, they had learned to live in harmony with one another. In 13:13, they had learned to conduct themselves becomingly, and not in quarreling and jealousy. In 14:1, they had learned they should welcome one who was weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. In 14:13, they had learned not to pass judgement on a brother, and never place a stumblingblock or occasion to fall in a brother's way. In 14:19, they had learned to follow after peace and things wherewith one might edify one another. In the face of all this doctrine, or teaching, about love, unity, forbearance, and mercy, if someone still caused division or offence by refusing to receive a brother, or by intolerance for one whose opinion differed, such a person was to be marked and avoided. It was not the holding of an opinion that was contrary to the doctrine, for the doctrine was, "Welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions." The doctrine they had learned was "one believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables." It was not necessary for all to believe alike, or to be agreed upon every point, to be welcomed.!

It was contrary to the doctrine to cause divisions and offences. Brethren were to be welcomed in spite of opinions, not driven out because of them. Who was to be marked and avoided? It was the schismatic who caused division by refusing to accept as brethren those whose opinions differed, for such division was contrary to the doctrine which said to receive them and not sit in judgment upon their opinions.

I think the mistake you are making here is that you are failing to distinguish between disputes and divisions that arise over relatively minor matters, with those which involve doctrines that are important, or even central, to the faith, such as the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

***********************************************
The same Apostle to whom you referred above said this about certain people who were teaching a "different" doctrine: "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! " Gal 1: 6-9

Sounds to me like Paul was acting just like a "schismatic" by your definition of one who "caused division by refusing to accept as brethren those whose opinions differed, for such division was contrary to the doctrine which said to receive them and not sit in judgment upon their opinions."

I don't believe for one second Paul expects the church to tolerate those who teach a "different gospel".

***********************************************
Paul speaks of "false brethren": "But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage."

And how did he treat them? Did he accept them in the name of "unity"? "But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you." Gal 2: 4-5

***********************************************
Did Paul do everything he could to preserve "unity" when Peter was acting in opposition to what he knew was the truth? The Bible says Paul "opposed him to his face" (which sounds more confrontational than this thread!)

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? " Gal 2: 11-14.

***********************************************
So whether a person is an "accursed" false teacher, or a "false brother" or a true brother (even an apostle like Peter) if they are teaching untruths, they must be opposed, their errors corrected.

In a church setting, such correction (of those in serious error) is typically the duty of pastors and elders. In cyberspace, all we can do is to try to present the truth the best way we can.

***********************************************
Truth is important! in 2 Peter 3: 15 -17we are warned: " . . . just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness."

***********************************************
I believe unity is important but it must be based on truth.

[Tucson Jim]

Thats so true,The trinity is not sound doctrine it makes the Bible contradict itself.


No. It doesn't. :naughty:

The trinity only contradicts your understanding of the Bible.

[Christian Voter]

Somtimes I think that having a good disagreement is much more to be sought after than Christian fellowship.
We do not arrive at fellowship because we agree on things, but being in fellowship we seek to arrive at agreement on things. The unity of the Spirit is the oneness produced by the fact that the Spirit dwells in each of us. We are thus linked to each other because we are linked with God. The unity of the Spirit is not based upon perfect understanding of the words of the Spirit. It is God dwelling in those who are striving upward. It is maintained by a love for God and all of His children which transcends any opinion or partisan view.
This is what will change the world: to have Christians united in fellowship and witnessing to the world, not arguing points of doctrine endlessly.
I have a thought. Whether one believes that Jesus is God, or the Son of God, or both, what difference does that make for your soul? Are you saved if you have it right, and condemned if you don't exactly have all the details of Who Jesus is, right? Why make such a contention over this? I can see discussing it respectfully and intelligently, but that is not what is happening.
That is not to say that I don't have my own belief about who Jesus is, and that I believe it very strongly, but I can't see that as a reason to get in a fight with fellow believers.
I have had discussions with a number of Christians, and I don't think that any two people have exactly the same personal picture of what heaven is like, and what the Bible teaches, and who Jesus is. So for one view to be the only one, would mean that everyone would have to accept somebodies gospel and forget their own feelings and wisdom.

[Semi-Sweet]

Paul never would allow false doctrine to be taught. There are disputable matters and things that should be overlooked. Some things, though, are harmful, and need to be refuted. A correct understanding of who God is, is of first importance.

Titus 1
9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Warning us of the gravity of becoming teachers, James assures us, "For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man. . ." [James 3:2] So, if teaching some error makes one a false teacher, all are false teachers.

The term false teacher is used only once in the New Testament writings [2 Peter 2:1]. The expression false teaching is not found even once. False prophets and error are mentioned. The adjective false describes the man rather than his teaching. He is a teacher or prophet with a character defect of evil motivation rather than being a sincere teacher who holds a different conviction on some points.

The teachers whom Peter wrote about were insidious, greedy, licentious, exploiting, divisive, and God-denying [2 Peter 2:1-3]. They were not sincere, humble men.

A factious man, because of his self-seeking ambition, is "perverted and sinful" [Titus 3:10] and Persons departing from the faith would be "giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretension of liars whose consciences are seared" [1 Tim. 4:1]. These were not honest men who differed on some point or issues. "Men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith." these insidious men were not simply persons with different opinions, [2 Tim. 3:19]. They were unscrupulous characters. [Romans 16:17] has been misapplied to justify division over doctrinal issues and quibbles.

Let brotherly-love continue.

[Tucson Jim]

If Jesus is God then the Bible falls to pieces

Or, more accurately, your understanding of the Bible falls to pieces. Jesus is God, the Bible demonstrates that over and over.

There is no possible way to spin this verse and it not contradict Gods Word if you read Jesus being God into it.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

No need for "spin". Jesus is fully God and fully man, as the scriptures teach. The man Jesus is our mediator. But He still has the nature of God also.

Either God lied,Paul lied, or you are mistaken in your view of Jesus.

There is at least one other person who may be mistaken here . . .: whistle:

There are only 3 options that I can see when reading this verse.

I have just explained some other options to you. You ought to consider them . . .

[Tucson Jim]

Somtimes I think that having a good disagreement is much more to be sought after than Christian fellowship.

This is what will change the world: to have Christians united in fellowship and witnessing to the world, not arguing points of doctrine endlessly.
I have a thought. Whether one believes that Jesus is God, or the Son of God, or both, what difference does that make for your soul? Are you saved if you have it right, and condemned if you don't exactly have all the details of Who Jesus is, right? Why make such a contention over this? I can see discussing it respectfully and intelligently, but that is not what is happening.
That is not to say that I don't have my own belief about who Jesus is, and that I believe it very strongly, but I can't see that as a reason to get in a fight with fellow believers.
I have had discussions with a number of Christians, and I don't think that any two people have exactly the same personal picture of what heaven is like, and what the Bible teaches, and who Jesus is. So for one view to be the only one, would mean that everyone would have to accept somebodies gospel and forget their own feelings and wisdom.

I think the person and work of Jesus Christ is more than a "detail".

Hymns or contemporary songs - Now THAT is a detail!

[ralittlefield]

Somtimes I think that having a good disagreement is much more to be sought after than Christian fellowship.

This is what will change the world: to have Christians united in fellowship and witnessing to the world, not arguing points of doctrine endlessly.
I have a thought. Whether one believes that Jesus is God, or the Son of God, or both, what difference does that make for your soul? Are you saved if you have it right, and condemned if you don't exactly have all the details of Who Jesus is, right? Why make such a contention over this? I can see discussing it respectfully and intelligently, but that is not what is happening.
That is not to say that I don't have my own belief about who Jesus is, and that I believe it very strongly, but I can't see that as a reason to get in a fight with fellow believers.
I have had discussions with a number of Christians, and I don't think that any two people have exactly the same personal picture of what heaven is like, and what the Bible teaches, and who Jesus is. So for one view to be the only one, would mean that everyone would have to accept somebodies gospel and forget their own feelings and wisdom.

If one is not concerned about correct doctrine about the nature of God, what should we consider important?

In the "Would you vote for a Mormon" thread you called another poster a liar, now you come here to make peace? What is wrong with this picture?

[Semi-Sweet]

I think the mistake you are making here is that you are failing to distinguish between disputes and divisions that arise over relatively minor matters, with those which involve doctrines that are important, or even central, to the faith, such as the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

***********************************************
The same Apostle to whom you referred above said this about certain people who were teaching a "different" doctrine: "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! " Gal 1: 6-9

Sounds to me like Paul was acting just like a "schismatic" by your definition of one who "caused division by refusing to accept as brethren those whose opinions differed, for such division was contrary to the doctrine which said to receive them and not sit in judgment upon their opinions."
***********************************************
I believe unity is important but it must be based on truth.

It is through the gospel that salvation was brought. Nothing has been added to it since Pentecost. The unchanging gospel had already been preached when Paul wrote to the Galatians [Gal. 1:6-9]. The gospel is "the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ". To be removed to another gospel, would be to preach anything else, or to call anything else the gospel.

[Semi-Sweet]

Tucson Jim

Paul speaks of "false brethren": "But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage."

And how did he treat them? Did he accept them in the name of "unity"? "But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you." Gal 2: 4-5

If those "false brethren" were to come sneaking and spying with handcuffs here at Hannity.com, our capable MODS would make short work of them, I guarantee.

[Christian Voter]

Please answer my question: if Jesus is or isn't God, how does that make you saved and someone else isn't?
I agree that the person and the work of Jesus Christ is much more than a detail, but whether He is God or the Son of God, how does that make a difference? I think it possible that it does make a difference, but if it does, what is it?
And about the other thread, in case you didn't know, Ron Jon has repeatedly used any excuse to tarnish the Church- even a topic about a presidential candidate.

[Tucson Jim]

It is through the gospel that salvation was brought. Nothing has been added to it since Pentecost. The unchanging gospel had already been preached when Paul wrote to the Galatians [Gal. 1:6-9]. The gospel is "the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ". To be removed to another gospel, would be to preach anything else, or to call anything else the gospel.

The "different gospel" referred to by Paul was what some (especially today) might consider the relatively "minor" "difference of opinion" about whether or not one should be circumcised, in addition to believing in Christ, thus adding works of the law to faith as a requirement for salvation. It was this teaching Paul referred to as a "different gospel".

Based on your earlier post, it seems to me you would prefer to allow such "differences of opinion" to remain unchallenged in the name of unity. lest we be labeled a 'schismatic" for not accepting another because of their opinions.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

[Tucson Jim]

If those "false brethren" were to come sneaking and spying with handcuffs here at Hannity.com, our capable MODS would make short work of them, I guarantee.

Although I dearly love our Mods, you clearly have more faith in them than I.

[Tucson Jim]

Please answer my question: if Jesus is or isn't God, how does that make you saved and someone else isn't?

The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. I think it is possible to follow a false gospel if we don't know the true Christ.

I agree that the person and the work of Jesus Christ is much more than a detail, but whether He is God or the Son of God, how does that make a difference? I think it possible that it does make a difference, but if it does, what is it?


If we think Christ is less than He really is, do we really have a Biblical "faith" in Him?

If our trust is in a mere man or an angel, is that a saving faith?

Have we really understood the gospel?

[drmilo]

If Jesus is God then the Bible falls to pieces and God lied when he gave revelation to Paul when adressing Timothy,or Paul was wrong in the verse below,as it shows one God and one man Jesus Christ that is our mediator.
There is no possible way to spin this verse and it not contradict Gods Word if you read Jesus being God into it.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Either God lied,Paul lied, or you are mistaken in your view of Jesus.
There are only 3 options that I can see when reading this verse.
How can anyone explain how this verse does not contradict Gods Word if Jesus were God.

I take offense at the term "spin." And you've used it numerous times. I can easily call your lengthy explanations assigning abstract meanings to clear verses spin, but I do not. It is your interpretation, and while I disagree, I respect your opinions and interpretations. I would not call it "spin" as you repeatedly call our interpretations of scripture spin.

Now, we trinitarians have repeatedly said that we do not deny that Jesus was man. The trinity falls apart, in fact, without the belief that Jesus was a man. But we also believe that Jesus had a dual nature, fully man and fully God. You might say "that's impossible, you can't logically be fully one thing and fully another at the same time" to which I would respond, impossible to man, but nothing is impossible to God (which Jesus himself said.) Thus, as a man, Jesus is the mediator between God and man. In fact, that he has a dual nature of God and man, makes him the perfect mediator. If he was just man, he would have the view of men; just God, he has the view of God. That he is God and Man he now has the persepective of both and becomes the perfect mediator.

[Tucson Jim]

I take offense at the term "spin." And you've used it numerous times. I can easily call your lengthy explanations assigning abstract meanings to clear verses spin, but I do not. It is your interpretation, and while I disagree, I respect your opinions and interpretations. I would not call it "spin" as you repeatedly call our interpretations of scripture spin.

Now, we trinitarians have repeatedly said that we do not deny that Jesus was man. The trinity falls apart, in fact, without the belief that Jesus was a man. But we also believe that Jesus had a dual nature, fully man and fully God. You might say "that's impossible, you can't logically be fully one thing and fully another at the same time" to which I would respond, impossible to man, but nothing is impossible to God (which Jesus himself said.) Thus, as a man, Jesus is the mediator between God and man. In fact, that he has a dual nature of God and man, makes him the perfect mediator. If he was just man, he would have the view of men; just God, he has the view of God. That he is God and Man he now has the persepective of both and becomes the perfect mediator.

Amen Brother!

[ralittlefield]

Please answer my question: if Jesus is or isn't God, how does that make you saved and someone else isn't?
I agree that the person and the work of Jesus Christ is much more than a detail, but whether He is God or the Son of God, how does that make a difference? I think it possible that it does make a difference, but if it does, what is it?
And about the other thread, in case you didn't know, Ron Jon has repeatedly used any excuse to tarnish the Church- even a topic about a presidential candidate.

The discussion has never been about who is saved and who is not. I am perfectly willing to leave that to God. It is about correct doctrine. It is about what the Bible says about who God is.

I believe that a correct understanding God is the foundational to one's faith. Do you not believe that one of the first things we should want to understand is Who we are worshipping? If the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong then the Bible is can not be right in saying both that Jesus is God, and saying also that God knows no other Gods that Himself.

[Fire Watch]

The Book of Revelation contains powerful statements concerning the deity of Jesus. God's purpose in having John to write the book was to reveal or unveil Jesus Christ, not just to reveal future events. ALL of John's writings strongly emphasize the deity of Christ, and the dual nature of Christ. John wrote the Gospel of John so that we would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31). Accepting Jesus as the Son of God means accepting Him as God, because the title "Son of God" simply means God manifested in the flesh. John identified Jesus as God, the Word, and Jehovah (the I am). All of John's writings elevate the deity of Jesus; the Book of Revelation is no exception.

Revelation 1:1 tells us the book is the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Greek for revelation is apokalupsis, from which we get the word apocalypse. It literally means an unveiling or an uncovering. Yeah, the book is a prophecy of things to come, but one of the main reasons for this prophecy is to reveal Christ - to show who He really is.

The Book of Revelation presents Jesus both in His humanity and in His deity. He is the Lamb slain for our sins but He is also the Almighty God on the throne.

There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. John told us this in Revelation 4:2: "And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." This One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Revelation 4:8). When we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we see a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Also..Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death." From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is UNDENIABLE that the One on the throne is Jesus Christ.

Want more?? Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). The One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11).. we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11). We HAVE to conclude that Jesus must be the One on the throne in Revelation 4.

Revelation 22:3-4 speaks of the throne of God and of the Lamb. These verses speak of one throne, one face, and one name. Therefore, God and the Lamb must be one Being who has one face and one name and who sits on one throne. The only person who is both God and the Lamb is Jesus Christ.

Revelation tells us that when we get to heaven we will see Jesus alone on the throne. Jesus is the only visible manifestation of God we will ever see.

[ralittlefield]

Warning us of the gravity of becoming teachers, James assures us, "For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man. . ." [James 3:2] So, if teaching some error makes one a false teacher, all are false teachers.

The term false teacher is used only once in the New Testament writings [2 Peter 2:1]. The expression false teaching is not found even once. False prophets and error are mentioned. The adjective false describes the man rather than his teaching. He is a teacher or prophet with a character defect of evil motivation rather than being a sincere teacher who holds a different conviction on some points.

The teachers whom Peter wrote about were insidious, greedy, licentious, exploiting, divisive, and God-denying [2 Peter 2:1-3]. They were not sincere, humble men.

A factious man, because of his self-seeking ambition, is "perverted and sinful" [Titus 3:10] and Persons departing from the faith would be "giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretension of liars whose consciences are seared" [1 Tim. 4:1]. These were not honest men who differed on some point or issues. "Men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith." these insidious men were not simply persons with different opinions, [2 Tim. 3:19]. They were unscrupulous characters. [Romans 16:17] has been misapplied to justify division over doctrinal issues and quibbles.

Let brotherly-love continue.

It seems that you value doctrine less than some of the posters on this thread. So be it.

Paul admonished Titus twice (Titus 1:9 & 2:1) to teach in accordance with sound doctrine. He also said to refute those who oppose sound doctrine.

It is, IMO, a mistake to ignore that admonition.

What doctrine can be of more importance than the doctrine of who God is?

Is it truly loving to ignore error? I am all for unity, but I will not accept false teaching to achieve it.

It would be nice if all the conversations on this forum were filled with praise and affirmation, but do you really think that is possible?

Keep in mind that no one is forced to participate in any discussion here.

[Warrior4God]

I take offense at the term "spin." And you've used it numerous times. I can easily call your lengthy explanations assigning abstract meanings to clear verses spin, but I do not. It is your interpretation, and while I disagree, I respect your opinions and interpretations. I would not call it "spin" as you repeatedly call our interpretations of scripture spin.

Now, we trinitarians have repeatedly said that we do not deny that Jesus was man. The trinity falls apart, in fact, without the belief that Jesus was a man. But we also believe that Jesus had a dual nature, fully man and fully God. You might say "that's impossible, you can't logically be fully one thing and fully another at the same time" to which I would respond, impossible to man, but nothing is impossible to God (which Jesus himself said.) Thus, as a man, Jesus is the mediator between God and man. In fact, that he has a dual nature of God and man, makes him the perfect mediator. If he was just man, he would have the view of men; just God, he has the view of God. That he is God and Man he now has the persepective of both and becomes the perfect mediator.

Sorry you take offense to using the word spin,If I use another word that I think is more true to what I mean I would be banned.
Your post here is what I mean by spin,You have God and you have Jesus in the same verse and the verse makes to the point very clear they are not the same person.]
read into it what you want but you are not allowing the verse to interpret itself,you are interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean.

[Warrior4God]

This dual nature is not used in scripture just like incarnation or trinity and people hang their beliefs on words that are not scriptural.
You keep saying though the words are not there the Bible still points us to this being scriptural.
I disagree with your concept as much as Jesus did.

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Luk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


You can NOT have a God and be God,thats 2 Gods.
1+1=I would not go there.

[Semi-Sweet]

It seems that you value doctrine less than some of the posters on this thread. So be it.

Paul admonished Titus twice (Titus 1:9 & 2:1) to teach in accordance with sound doctrine. He also said to refute those who oppose sound doctrine.

It is, IMO, a mistake to ignore that admonition.

What doctrine can be of more importance than the doctrine of who God is?

Is it truly loving to ignore error? I am all for unity, but I will not accept false teaching to achieve it.

It would be nice if all the conversations on this forum were filled with praise and affirmation, but do you really think that is possible?

Keep in mind that no one is forced to participate in any discussion here.

Discussions are good, if we keep our honor and respect for each other. That was my whole point, because men will never totally agree with each other. This is not a church, this is a discussion forum, we don't have to agree. As to the false teaching, that is a matter of interpretation. :angel:

[Semi-Sweet]

RECONRICK, This is in response to your post about the Kingdom. . . . .

"The kingdom the prophets foretold was the kingdom of Christ, the Messiah. This kingdom was 'at hand' when John the Baptist was preaching. He called it 'the kingdom of heaven.' 'Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' [Matt. 4:2]. Jesus preached the near approach of this same kingdom. 'The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand' [Mark 1:15]. Jesus called it the 'kingdom of God.' God is the Father.

Whose kingdom is it to be? The kingdom of Christ. Whose kingdom is it to be? The kingdom of God. Are there to be two kingdoms with God reigning over one and Christ reigning over the other? Certainly not. The kingdom of Christ has a throne. Whose throne is it? It is Christ's throne. The kingdom of God has a throne. Whose throne is it? God's throne. If the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of God are one kingdom, why, then, cannot the throne of God and the throne of Christ be one throne? Where then goes the distinction that is made between the throne of the Father, on which Christ now sits, and his own throne which he sits.

One might as well and with as much reason argue that Christ cannot sit on his own throne, because he is to sit on David's throne and how can it be his and David's both? Even David sat on his throne and the Father's throne at the same time. Solomon sat on Jehovah's throne and David's throne at the same time. 'And Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father: and his kingdom was established greatly;' [1 Kings 2:12]. Whose throne? David's. Whose kingdom? Solomon's.

'Then Solomon sat upon the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father, and prospered, and all Israel obeyed him' [1 Chron. 29:33]. Whose throne? Jehovah's. Whose reign? Solomon's.

It should not be too straining on the eyes to see in the light of this, how Christ can sit on the Father's throne, David's throne and his own throne all at the same time. Besides all this, Paul calls the kingdom "the kingdom of Christ and of God" [Eph. 5:5]. Why then, cannot the throne be that of Christ and God, and David's also?

[Fire Watch]

RECONRICK, This is in response to your post about the Kingdom. . . . .

"The kingdom the prophets foretold was the kingdom of Christ, the Messiah. This kingdom was 'at hand' when John the Baptist was preaching. He called it 'the kingdom of heaven.' 'Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' [Matt. 4:2]. Jesus preached the near approach of this same kingdom. 'The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand' [Mark 1:15]. Jesus called it the 'kingdom of God.' God is the Father.

Whose kingdom is it to be? The kingdom of Christ. Whose kingdom is it to be? The kingdom of God. Are there to be two kingdoms with God reigning over one and Christ reigning over the other? Certainly not. The kingdom of Christ has a throne. Whose throne is it? It is Christ's throne. The kingdom of God has a throne. Whose throne is it? God's throne. If the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of God are one kingdom, why, then, cannot the throne of God and the throne of Christ be one throne? Where then goes the distinction that is made between the throne of the Father, on which Christ now sits, and his own throne which he sits.

One might as well and with as much reason argue that Christ cannot sit on his own throne, because he is to sit on David's throne and how can it be his and David's both? Even David sat on his throne and the Father's throne at the same time. Solomon sat on Jehovah's throne and David's throne at the same time. 'And Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father: and his kingdom was established greatly;' [1 Kings 2:12]. Whose throne? David's. Whose kingdom? Solomon's.

'Then Solomon sat upon the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father, and prospered, and all Israel obeyed him' [1 Chron. 29:33]. Whose throne? Jehovah's. Whose reign? Solomon's.

It should not be too straining on the eyes to see in the light of this, how Christ can sit on the Father's throne, David's throne and his own throne all at the same time. Besides all this, Paul calls the kingdom "the kingdom of Christ and of God" [Eph. 5:5]. Why then, cannot the throne be that of Christ and God, and David's also?

That is such an eisigesical mess I dont even know where to start. Talk about spinning something to fit a doctrine!

There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. This One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come". From the CONTEXT of Rev. chapters 1 and 4, there can be no doubt that the One on the throne is Jesus Christ.

Revelation 22:3-4 speaks of the throne of God and of the Lamb. These verses speak of one throne, one face, and one name. Therefore, God and the Lamb must be one Being who has one face and one name and who sits on one throne. The only person who is both God and the Lamb is Jesus Christ.

The Book of Revelation tells us that when we get to heaven we will see Jesus alone on the throne. Jesus is the only visible manifestation of God we will ever see.

[drmilo]

Sorry you take offense to using the word spin,If I use another word that I think is more true to what I mean I would be banned.
Your post here is what I mean by spin,You have God and you have Jesus in the same verse and the verse makes to the point very clear they are not the same person.]
read into it what you want but you are not allowing the verse to interpret itself,you are interpreting it to mean what you want it to mean.

The Trinity does not claim that God and Jesus are the same person. They are separate persons. They are one in being.

[Warrior4God]

That is such an eisigesical mess I dont even know where to start. Talk about spinning something to fit a doctrine!

There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. This One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come". From the CONTEXT of Rev. chapters 1 and 4, there can be no doubt that the One on the throne is Jesus Christ.



The Book of Revelation tells us that when we get to heaven we will see Jesus alone on the throne. Jesus is the only visible manifestation of God we will ever see.

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
I count 2 here sitting and scripture shows that the lamb sits on Gods right hand.

1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Heb 1:3 Who 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;

Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

Eph 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

There are more verses showing that Jesus is on Gods right hand ,You have God and then you have Jesus sitting on Gods right hand,therefore (1)+(1 on the right hand of the other 1) = 2