Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[Tucson Jim]

Yes

What verses?

[Angryamerican]

The classic mocking of the Trinity, as often practiced by DRS. I would expect better from you AA.

3 Persons, One God. God did not appear to Himself.

The Son appeared bodily to the throne.

But of course, you understand my point - you just want to mock.

No, i am making a point you can't refute,so you are getting defensive.:naughty:

[Angryamerican]

At least I was trying to be positive . . .

Me to, i was saying you are partially right:hug:

[Angryamerican]

You are quibbling over something you cannot prove except by someones opinion that you agree with.

Now the same people that translated your favorite bible, the kjv, also agree with what DRS said.

This is from the mkjv version.

Deu 6:4 Hear, O, Israel. Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.

Zec 14:9 And Jehovah shall be King over all the earth; in that day there shall be one Jehovah, and His name shall be one.

Notice the little L.

Mar 12:9 Therefore what will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers and will give the vineyard to others.

Who was jesus talking about here ?

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;

Why did they use the big L here referring to Jesus ?

1Co 8:6 but there is to us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him.

Notice Jesus words here, There is only one God the Father.

1Co 8:6 but there is to us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him.

There is only one Jehovah like it says other places.
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,


The one Lord is Jehovah.

Deu 6:4 Hear, O, Israel. Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.

Here you go Jim.

[Tucson Jim]

No, i am making a point you can't refute,so you are getting defensive.:naughty:

I answered your point.

Instead of actually responding to my answer, you whip out the old "God talking to Himself" taunt.

What's next, AA, the "God is a schizo" taunt DRS uses?

The truth is, you have no real response to my answer, so you resort to belittling my beliefs.

Go ahead if you must. It just exposes the weakness of your position.

[Tucson Jim]

Here you go Jim.

Hmmmm . . . funny, I still don't see a Hebrews quote there . . .

[Angryamerican]

I answered your point.

Instead of actually responding to my answer, you whip out the old "God talking to Himself" taunt.

What's next, AA, the "God is a schizo" taunt DRS uses?

The truth is, you have no real response to my answer, so you resort to belittling my beliefs.

Go ahead if you must. It just exposes the weakness of your position.

I'm not saying that Jim you are :lol:

But lets not get lost in what we are talking about.

[Tucson Jim]

I'm not saying that Jim you are :lol:

But lets not get lost in what we are talking about.

We got lost when you resorted to mocking my beliefs.

We could get back on track if you have a real response to my answer that the verses are talking about Jesus appearing bodily in heaven.

[Angryamerican]

Hmmmm . . . funny, I still don't see a Hebrews quote there . . .

Oops here is the verse.

1Co 8:6 but there is to us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him.

[Tucson Jim]

Oops here is the verse.

1Co 8:6 but there is to us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him.

Ah . . . 1 Corinthians, not Hebrews. I couldn't remember anything in Hebrews about this . . .

Anyway, so you think because this says there is "but one God the Father" that this verse excludes Jesus from being God?

If so, you must then acknowledge that it equally excludes the Father from being "Lord", since the verse says we have "one Lord Jesus Christ".

[Angryamerican]

Ah . . . 1 Corinthians, not Hebrews. I couldn't remember anything in Hebrews about this . . .

Anyway, so you think because this says there is "but one God the Father" that this verse excludes Jesus from being God?

If so, you must then acknowledge that it equally excludes the Father from being "Lord", since the verse says we have "one Lord Jesus Christ".


You see the problem with the nt in some cases they use the little l and then sometimes they use the biggie L to describe Jesus,But in the ot the biggie L is always used to describe God or Jehovah, Why?

It seems to me, either they are mistakes in translation, or the ones translating had an agenda, to try and prove Jesus was God.

And did you notice in that verse ,there was no mention of the third person of God, according to your belief.And Jesus was not referred to that one God.

[Angryamerican]

Notice the lower case L.

Mat 10:24 A disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Mat 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he is like his master, and the servant like his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household?

Notice how Jesus uses the Biggie L talking about his father.

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank You, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the sophisticated and cunning, and revealed them to babes.

Notice the difference here.

Mat 22:44 "the LORD said to my Lord, Sit on My right until I make Your enemies Your footstool for Your feet?"

[Tucson Jim]

You see the problem with the nt in some cases they use the little l and then sometimes they use the biggie L to describe Jesus,But in the ot the biggie L is always used to describe God or Jehovah, Why?

It seems to me, either they are mistakes in translation, or the ones translating had an agenda, to try and prove Jesus was God.

And did you notice in that verse ,there was no mention of the third person of God, according to your belief.And Jesus was not referred to that one God.

Those are a couple of interesting topics we could discuss, but getting back to this verse, do you see how this cannot be used to exclude the title "God" from Jesus any more than it can be used to exclude the title "Lord" from the Father?

[Tucson Jim]

Notice the lower case L.

Mat 10:24 A disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Mat 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he is like his master, and the servant like his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household?

In these verses, Jesus is simply using "lord" in the generic sense of one being in a higher position than another. He is just teaching them in general terms : "a" servant is not above "his" lord, etc.

I see no problem there, do you?

Notice how Jesus uses the Biggie L talking about his father.

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank You, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the sophisticated and cunning, and revealed them to babes.

That's becasue the Father is THE Lord. Thus it would be capitalized.

Notice the difference here.

Mat 22:44 "the LORD said to my Lord, Sit on My right until I make Your enemies Your footstool for Your feet?"

This is a reference to an OT passage. "The LORD" (all caps) is used in place of the tetragrammaton, the Name of God, YHWH. This is a different issue than the Big "L', little "l" question. In this passage, Jesus is trying to get the Pharisees to think: If the Christ (referring to Himself, of course) is the son of David, how is it that David calls Him "Lord". If the Christ were merely a man, how would this make sense? Of course, they couldn't answer Him.

The answer? It makes sense if the Christ is the Lord.

[ralittlefield]

IF Moses can be made God to Pharoah then why is it so hard to believe Jesus can be made God to the an apostle?

Is the Phil. 2 with the accurate translation talking about how Jesus did not try to seize equality with God since he did not have it

Do you believe that God wanted Pharaoh to worship Moses? No, we both know that He did not. On the other hand, God did say that He would cause all the angels to worship Jesus. (Heb 1:6)

You are right. God did say that He had made Moses like God to Pharaoh, but that is not what happened to Jesus.

It was not said that Jesus was made "like God" to Thomas. Thomas said that Jesus was HIS GOD. How many Gods do you think that Thomas had?

Do you believe Thomas had more than one God?


How does your interpretation of Phil 2 fit the context of that passage.

It is not saying that Jesus is an example of humility because he did not commit robbery. Abstaining from robbery is a sign of honesty, not humility.

That passage is saying that Jesus is an example of humility because he did not hold on to equality with God, rather He became a servant.

The context of that passage would have to be honesty for your interpretation to fit. It is not about honesty, it is about humility.

Do you feel humble when you do not steal something?

[Angryamerican]

In these verses, Jesus is simply using "lord" in the generic sense of one being in a higher position than another. He is just teaching them in general terms : "a" servant is not above "his" lord, etc.

I see no problem there, do you?



That's becasue the Father is THE Lord. Thus it would be capitalized.



This is a reference to an OT passage. "The LORD" (all caps) is used in place of the tetragrammaton, the Name of God, YHWH. This is a different issue than the Big "L', little "l" question. In this passage, Jesus is trying to get the Pharisees to think: If the Christ (referring to Himself, of course) is the son of David, how is it that David calls Him "Lord". If the Christ were merely a man, how would this make sense? Of course, they couldn't answer Him.

The answer? It makes sense if the Christ is the Lord.

How can one person of God be higher then the other ? God is God period ,whether he is a man or in spirit form.

Who was performing the miracles Jesus or God ? you can't at one point claim Jesus was God and devine then claim he was less then the Father.

Who is our God , Jesus or Jehovah ?

[Angryamerican]

Do you believe that God wanted Pharaoh to worship Moses? No, we both know that He did not. On the other hand, God did say that He would cause all the angels to worship Jesus. (Heb 1:6)

You are right. God did say that He had made Moses like God to Pharaoh, but that is not what happened to Jesus.

It was not said that Jesus was made "like God" to Thomas. Thomas said that Jesus was HIS GOD. How many Gods do you think that Thomas had?

Do you believe Thomas had more than one God?


How does your interpretation of Phil 2 fit the context of that passage.

It is not saying that Jesus is an example of humility because he did not commit robbery. Abstaining from robbery is a sign of honesty, not humility.

That passage is saying that Jesus is an example of humility because he did not hold on to equality with God, rather He became a servant.

The context of that passage would have to be honesty for your interpretation to fit. It is not about honesty, it is about humility.

Do you feel humble when you do not steal something?

Is it ok to worship a man over our God ?

[Angryamerican]

Do you believe that God wanted Pharaoh to worship Moses? No, we both know that He did not. On the other hand, God did say that He would cause all the angels to worship Jesus. (Heb 1:6)

You are right. God did say that He had made Moses like God to Pharaoh, but that is not what happened to Jesus.

It was not said that Jesus was made "like God" to Thomas. Thomas said that Jesus was HIS GOD. How many Gods do you think that Thomas had?

Do you believe Thomas had more than one God?


How does your interpretation of Phil 2 fit the context of that passage.

It is not saying that Jesus is an example of humility because he did not commit robbery. Abstaining from robbery is a sign of honesty, not humility.

That passage is saying that Jesus is an example of humility because he did not hold on to equality with God, rather He became a servant.

The context of that passage would have to be honesty for your interpretation to fit. It is not about honesty, it is about humility.

Do you feel humble when you do not steal something?

We agree that God did not want moses to be worshiped by man.

But the two scriptures, you are talking about are useless, if you take them to mean what you are trying to say they mean.

He would cause all the angels to worship Jesus. (Heb 1:6) If Jesus existed before he came to the earth,he came as a man ,and he was God ,then why would God have to cause the angels to worship him because they were already worshiping him?

What is the point of the verse about Jesus having equality with GOD,if Jesus was God what was the point of this verse ?

[Tucson Jim]

How can one person of God be higher then the other ? God is God period ,whether he is a man or in spirit form.

The Persons of the trinity can have different roles. You could view one role as "higher" than another, but that does not mean one Person of the trinity is better than another.

What if the second person of the Trinity chose to assume the role of humbling Himself and becoming like a man to save us? Could He not do that if he chose? Does that make Him "less" than the Father?

Who was performing the miracles Jesus or God ?

Siunce Jesus IS God, I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean, was Jesus or the Father performing the miracles?

In the incarnation, Jesus was performing the miracles through Divine power. Since Jesus and the Father share the nature of God, it seems kind of a moot point to me.

you can't at one point claim Jesus was God and devine then claim he was less then the Father.

I have never said Jesus was "less" than the Father - you have chosen that term. I say he humbled Himself and became a man for our sakes. He chose a lesser position than the exalted state of the Father. I do not, however, believe that makes Him "less" than the Father

Who is our God , Jesus or Jehovah ?

You seem confused. Jesus is Jehovah.

[Tucson Jim]

Is it ok to worship a man over our God ?

"A' man? No. Jesus Christ, God Who became Man? Absolutely! Even the angels worship Him!!

[Angryamerican]

The Persons of the trinity can have different roles. You could view one role as "higher" than another, but that does not mean one Person of the trinity is better than another.

What if the second person of the Trinity chose to assume the role of humbling Himself and becoming like a man to save us? Could He not do that if he chose? Does that make Him "less" than the Father?



Siunce Jesus IS God, I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean, was Jesus or the Father performing the miracles?

In the incarnation, Jesus was performing the miracles through Divine power. Since Jesus and the Father share the nature of God, it seems kind of a moot point to me.



I have never said Jesus was "less" than the Father - you have chosen that term. I say he humbled Himself and became a man for our sakes. He chose a lesser position than the exalted state of the Father. I do not, however, believe that makes Him "less" than the Father



You seem confused. Jesus is Jehovah.

But Jesus claimed to be less then the Father.

[Angryamerican]

"A' man? No. Jesus Christ, God Who became Man? Absolutely! Even the angels worship Him!!

Who caused the angels to worship Christ ? And why did God have to ?

[Tucson Jim]

But Jesus claimed to be less then the Father.

A statement of position, or role, not of essence, as I just explained.

Jesus and the Father are equally God.

[Tucson Jim]

Who caused the angels to worship Christ ? And why did God have to ?

I believe it has everything to do with the Incarnation.

So the angels worship Him - why won't you??

[Angryamerican]

I believe it has everything to do with the Incarnation.

So the angels worship Him - why won't you??

If he was God, why would God have to cause the angels to worship him ?

Didn't the angels already worship God ?

Incarnation ,can you explain what that would have to do with God causing the angels to worship him ?

[Tucson Jim]

If he was God, why would God have to cause the angels to worship him ?

Didn't the angels already worship God ?

Incarnation ,can you explain what that would have to do with God causing the angels to worship him ?

The verse I believe you are referring to says this: "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
"AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

God the Son was brought into the world as a human baby, infinitely humbling Himself. It was a time for Joy and for worship of the Son of God now made man.

Don't forget what God says 2 verses later to remind us of WHO the Son is:

"8But of the Son He says,
"YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. "

My question again: If the angels worship Him, why won't you AA?

[Tucson Jim]

The verse I believe you are referring to says this: "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
"AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

God the Son was brought into the world as a human baby, infinitely humbling Himself. It was a time for Joy and for worship of the Son of God now made man.

Don't forget what God says 2 verses later to remind us of WHO the Son is:

"8But of the Son He says,
"YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. "

My question again: If the angels worship Him, why won't you AA?

Also, if Jesus is not God, why would God say "let all the angels of God worship Him"??

[Angryamerican]

The verse I believe you are referring to says this: "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
"AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

God the Son was brought into the world as a human baby, infinitely humbling Himself. It was a time for Joy and for worship of the Son of God now made man.

Don't forget what God says 2 verses later to remind us of WHO the Son is:

"8But of the Son He says,
"YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. "

My question again: If the angels worship Him, why won't you AA?

Who is the son speaking to ? What is a scepter ?

Jesus is the scepter to Gods kingdom.

Why do i not worship Christ, because i do not believe he is Jehovah.

[Angryamerican]

Also, if Jesus is not God, why would God say "let all the angels of God worship Him"??

Good question, that i do not understand.

[Tucson Jim]

Who is the son speaking to ? What is a scepter ? A sceptre is a king's staff. What does that have to do with the topic?

Jesus is the scepter to Gods kingdom.

No, He is certainly not! It doesn't say that!

Why do i not worship Christ, because i do not believe he is Jehovah.

But the scripture right after the one you were quoting says God calls Jesus God!

[Angryamerican]

A sceptre is a king's staff. What does that have to do with the topic?



No, He is certainly not! It doesn't say that!



But the scripture right after the one you were quoting says God calls Jesus God!

Why are you resisting God?

I do not trust all scripture i read.

If you look back, you are the one that quoted that scripture.

[Tucson Jim]

I edited my post. I don't know why I made that last statement. I do not know you well enough to conclude you are resisting God. Please forgive me for sayijng that.

[Angryamerican]

The verse I believe you are referring to says this: "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
"AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

God the Son was brought into the world as a human baby, infinitely humbling Himself. It was a time for Joy and for worship of the Son of God now made man.

Don't forget what God says 2 verses later to remind us of WHO the Son is:

"8But of the Son He says,
"YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. "

My question again: If the angels worship Him, why won't you AA?

There you go i quoted you.

[Angryamerican]

I edited my post. I don't know why I made that last statement. I do not know you well enough to conclude you are resisting God. Please forgive me for sayijng that.

No problem jim,but for your information i am not resisting worshiping God.

[Tucson Jim]

I do not trust all scripture i read.

If you look back, you are the one that quoted that scripture.

I know, I did quote it. Because it was so close to the scripture you were quoting, and it seemed germane to the topic.

So, if you don't trust all scripture you read, where do you draw the line? How do you tell "this" is scripture and "that" is not?

You seem to believe Heb 1:6 but not Heb 1:8!

[Tucson Jim]

No problem jim,but for your information i am not resisting worshiping God.

I believe you.:hug:

[Angryamerican]

I know, I did quote it. Because it was so close to the scripture you were quoting, and it seemed germane to the topic.

So, if you don't trust all scripture you read, where do you draw the line? How do you tell "this" is scripture and "that" is not?

You seem to believe Heb 1:6 but not Heb 1:8!

No, i think that verse is very relevant, that verse shows that Jesus was the head member of Gods staff and not God.

Besides it was coming, i was planning on asking you about it.

[Angryamerican]

I believe you.:hug:


Back at ya jim. :hug:

[Tucson Jim]

No, i think that verse is very relevant, that verse shows that Jesus was the head member of Gods staff and not God.

Besides it was coming, i was planning on asking you about it.

The head member of His staff? But God calls Jesus "God" and says let all the angels worship Him!

God says He is a jealous God.

I can't imagine Him allowing, much less encouraging, the worship of another "God". Can you?

[Tucson Jim]

Back at ya jim. :hug:

Thanks AA!


It must be freezing up there in Prescott. It's gonna be 22 in Tucson tonight. I covered all my plants. It hardly ever gets that cold here.

[Angryamerican]

The head member of His staff? But God calls Jesus "God" and says let all the angels worship Him!

God says He is a jealous God.

I can't imagine Him allowing, much less encouraging, the worship of another "God". Can you?

Yes i believe Jesus was the angel of the LORD.

Where does God call Jesus God ?

Like i said i have no idea why he would encourage angels to worship him ,other then to show him respect for his sacrifice and now that God promoted him to king.

a godlike being.

[Angryamerican]

Thanks AA!


It must be freezing up there in Prescott. It's gonna be 22 in Tucson tonight. I covered all my plants. It hardly ever gets that cold here.

Yes it is very cold,and has been for the past four days.

The last time i checked the weather, it was expected to be in the single digits tonight.

[Tucson Jim]

Yes i believe Jesus was the angel of the LORD.

Where does God call Jesus God ? ''I just showed you - Heb 1:8.

Like i said i have no idea why he would encourage angels to worship him ,other then to show him respect for his sacrifice and now that God promoted him to king.

a godlike being.

God certainly put the Kibosh on the worship of other "godlike beings" in the OT.

Makes no sense to me unless Jesus is God.

[Tucson Jim]

Yes it is very cold,and has been for the past four days.

The last time i checked the weather, it was expected to be in the single digits tonight.

Ouch! It just started getting cold here yesterday. But not THAT cold!

[Angryamerican]

''I just showed you - Heb 1:8.



God certainly put the Kibosh on the worship of other "godlike beings" in the OT.

Makes no sense to me unless Jesus is God.

Who is Jesus speaking to ?

Who is the scepter of Gods kingdom ?

Heb 1:8 but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Do you direct your worship to the Father or the son ?

[Tucson Jim]

Who is Jesus speaking to ?

In Heb 1: 6, 8? Jesus isn't speaking, the Father is quoted.

Who is the scepter of Gods kingdom ?

Heb 1:8 but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

A sceptre isn't a "who" but a "what".

As I mentioned in my previous response, it is a king's staff or rod. I'm sure you have seen them in movies.

Do you direct your worship to the Father or the son ?

I worship God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[Angryamerican]

In Heb 1: 6, 8? Jesus isn't speaking, the Father is quoted.



A sceptre isn't a "who" but a "what".

As I mentioned in my previous response, it is a king's staff or rod. I'm sure you have seen them in movies.



I worship God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But it says the son saith.

The scepter to me is a member of Gods staff as you first said.

Who do you direct your prayers to if you don't mind me asking ?

[Tucson Jim]

But it says the son saith.

No, it says "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. "

"he saith" refers back to verse 1 - "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
. . ."

It is God who saith.

The scepter to me is a member of Gods staff as you first said.

I'm pretty sure I said it was a staff, not a member of God's staff! A staff is like a walking stick or a rod - remember Psalm 23? Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Wiki says this:

A sceptre or scepter is a symbolic ornamental staff held by a ruling monarch, a prominent item of royal regalia.

A rod or staff has long represented authority. The sceptre of the King of Persia is mentioned in the biblical Book of Esther.

With the advent of Christianity the sceptre was often tipped with a cross instead of with an eagle, but during the Middle Ages the finials on the top of the sceptre varied considerably.

SAnd much more of course.


Who do you direct your prayers to if you don't mind me asking ?

I often direct my prayers to the Father (as in the Lord's prayer) in the name of the Son through the Holy Spirit.

I also pray to Jesus directly as I see in various places in the NT. Jesus told His disciples in John 14:14 that if they ask him anything in His name he will do it (this was in the context of talking about Him going to be with the Father). The last verse of the Bible ends with a prayer to Jesus. Stephen prayed to Jesus when he was being stoned by the crowd. There are various other instances of prayer to jesus in the NT.

[Warrior4God]

Jesus and the Father are equally God.

Post the scripture where Jesus says this and lets examine it.

Back that up please.


I can show you many many scriptures that show your statement to be very much in error and in fact to be just opposite of what you claim without scriptural evidence.

I can show this by Jesus's own words.....can you?

I know I know you will use Phil. for proof but we have discussed that verse many times and believe my view comes out on top.


If Jesus were equal to God he never declared that, but rather declared his God to be supreme.

WDJS should be my new thing.


WDJS=What did Jesus say

[Warrior4God]

I believe it has everything to do with the Incarnation.

So the angels worship Him - why won't you??

The Bible does not cover incarnation.....this ain't some eastern religion.

It says angels not you..............angels are angels,men are men.


don't read into whats written.

Thats why the trinity has so many problems.


"well I think this means this".........................(Its like you are saying........ "what you really meant to say God is what I am thinking ........but I will clarify what you didn't......if thats ok with you God")

[Warrior4God]

I often direct my prayers to the Father (as in the Lord's prayer) in the name of the Son through the Holy Spirit.

I also pray to Jesus directly as I see in various places in the NT. Jesus told His disciples in John 14:14 that if they ask him anything in His name he will do it (this was in the context of talking about Him going to be with the Father). The last verse of the Bible ends with a prayer to Jesus. Stephen prayed to Jesus when he was being stoned by the crowd. There are various other instances of prayer to jesus in the NT.

John 14 does not say that you ask Jesus in his name(there you go reading into things AGAIN.)

I can totally understand Stephens statement and its not a prayer like you think it is because Stephen is of HIS BODY so thats where he belongs.

The last verse in the Bible is not a prayer but a proclamation of what is written and I find the words beautiful.( You can pray till you are blue in the face but will not make him come any faster......thats why its no prayer)


You said "There are various other instances of prayer to jesus in the NT."


OK you said it..........you back it up and we can deal with those verses.

I will wait.

[lawandorder]

Good question, that i do not understand.

All of God's angels, worship Jesus.

[lawandorder]

again, you must know the history of the way words were used then. Capitol letters mean one thing, small letters mean another. There are several mistranslated words and letters in the present bilble translations.

[Angryamerican]

again, you must know the history of the way words were used then. Capitol letters mean one thing, small letters mean another. There are several mistranslated words and letters in the present bilble translations.

I agree very much with this, I think the mistranslations have a very bad effect on me,even to the point of doubting the nt and the Jesus story.

But lately, i find myself believing that Jesus is the actual son of God ,and that he is not God,and he was the messiah.

Just wish God, had the scriptures preserved, to the point that there is no mistranslations.


I guess this is where we need to accept Christ ,as the messiah ,and let God through Jesus set the record straight.

[Angryamerican]

No, it says "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. "

"he saith" refers back to verse 1 - "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
. . ."

It is God who saith.



I'm pretty sure I said it was a staff, not a member of God's staff! A staff is like a walking stick or a rod - remember Psalm 23? Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Wiki says this:

A sceptre or scepter is a symbolic ornamental staff held by a ruling monarch, a prominent item of royal regalia.

A rod or staff has long represented authority. The sceptre of the King of Persia is mentioned in the biblical Book of Esther.

With the advent of Christianity the sceptre was often tipped with a cross instead of with an eagle, but during the Middle Ages the finials on the top of the sceptre varied considerably.

SAnd much more of course.




I often direct my prayers to the Father (as in the Lord's prayer) in the name of the Son through the Holy Spirit.

I also pray to Jesus directly as I see in various places in the NT. Jesus told His disciples in John 14:14 that if they ask him anything in His name he will do it (this was in the context of talking about Him going to be with the Father). The last verse of the Bible ends with a prayer to Jesus. Stephen prayed to Jesus when he was being stoned by the crowd. There are various other instances of prayer to jesus in the NT.

A scepter can also be a person of royalty, which we both believe Jesus is.

I see what you are saying, that it could be God being quoted, but jim i don't know for sure , i see arguments on both sides about who Christ and God are. and i feel that there is far more scripture, to support Jesus being the actual son of God, and not God in the flesh.

I know anything is possible with God, but i just don't buy the theory of the trinity, far to many holes in it.and contradictions to rational thinking, not to mention where the belief started, and by who, it was started by.

There is far to many scriptures, that needs to be explained away ,for one to hold on to the belief of the trinity, in my view.

[Tucson Jim]

Post the scripture where Jesus says this and lets examine it.

Back that up please.

Sorry Warrior, but I do not buy into your personal belief that Jesus has to say it for it to be true.

There are a few books of scripture besides the 4 Gospels you know . . .


I can show you many many scriptures that show your statement to be very much in error and in fact to be just opposite of what you claim without scriptural evidence.

I can show this by Jesus's own words.....can you?

OK, I'm waiting . . .

I know I know you will use Phil. for proof but we have discussed that verse many times and believe my view comes out on top.


If Jesus were equal to God he never declared that, but rather declared his God to be supreme.

Numerous verses elsewhere in the NT declare it - you just choose to ignore the scriptures so you can follow your man-made idea that only the words of jesus count.

I can understand it though. If I were in your position, I might resort to a similar view.

WDJS should be my new thing.


WDJS=What did Jesus say

"New thing"?? Not really - you've been playin' that tune for a long time.

Your Bible must be pretty thin . . . with only 4 Gospels in it . . .:lol:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Your Bible must be pretty thin . . . with only 4 Gospels in it . . .:lol:

I hear some people's bibles only have 66 books. Other's have more.

[Tucson Jim]

The Bible does not cover incarnation.....this ain't some eastern religion.

Actually, yes it is!!!

I hate to break this to you Warrior, but Israel is part of the Middle East!!

Too funny!

But to get back to your point, Yes, in favct, the Bible does "cover" the Incarnation. It's one of the main points of the only 4 books of your Bible! Jesus, who was with God and Who was God, humbled Himself and took the form of human flesh, in order to save us from our sins.

It's a pretty major theme of the NT.

I'm frankly astonished that you could miss it!

It says angels not you..............angels are angels,men are men.

Thanks for that clarification Warrior.

Problem is, people worshiped Jesus when He was on earth, and Revelations says "every created thing" will fall down in worship before Jesus. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that jesus Christ is LORD.

So let's summarize: God said let all the angels worship Him. People worshiped Him when He was on earth and every created thing will worship Him in heaven.

Now tell me again, why won't YOU worship Him?


don't read into whats written.

Thats why the trinity has so many problems.


"well I think this means this".........................(Its like you are saying........ "what you really meant to say God is what I am thinking ........but I will clarify what you didn't......if thats ok with you God")


:))

[Angryamerican]

Sorry Warrior, but I do not buy into your personal belief that Jesus has to say it for it to be true.

There are a few books of scripture besides the 4 Gospels you know . . .




OK, I'm waiting . . .



Numerous verses elsewhere in the NT declare it - you just choose to ignore the scriptures so you can follow your man-made idea that only the words of jesus count.

I can understand it though. If I were in your position, I might resort to a similar view.



"New thing"?? Not really - you've been playin' that tune for a long time.

Your Bible must be pretty thin . . . with only 4 Gospels in it . . .:lol:

Do you agree,that Jesus is the word ?

So it's not so hard to hold on to the view, that the words we read from jesus have more of an effect on us.

Jesus was the one that explained the Father.and when Christ calls his Father his God and says he is our God, that does not support the view of the trinity.

When Jesus says the Father is greater then i,that needs no explaining. He don't give the reason that it's because he was a man.

He has never said he is equal to the Father,fact is he said the opposite.

God said that he was not a man nor a son of man but yet the trinity belief says he was. So on and so on.

[Tucson Jim]

John 14 does not say that you ask Jesus in his name(there you go reading into things AGAIN.)

Actually, it says EXACTLY that!

"If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." John 14:14

And that's one of the 4 books in your Bible - you should know that!!


I can totally understand Stephens statement and its not a prayer like you think it is because Stephen is of HIS BODY so thats where he belongs.

Huh?

Here are the relevant verses from Acts:

When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!"

60Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" Having said this, he fell asleep.

He prayed to jesus in v. 59, THEN he "fell asleep" (that means "died") in v. 60.

Couldn't be any clearer, yet you cannot understand it.

I am amazed. I really am.


The last verse in the Bible is not a prayer but a proclamation of what is written and I find the words beautiful.( You can pray till you are blue in the face but will not make him come any faster......thats why its no prayer)

So a prayer is not a prayer if God answers 'No"??? Unbelievable . . .

You said "There are various other instances of prayer to jesus in the NT."


OK you said it..........you back it up and we can deal with those verses.

I will wait.

Given your responses to obvious instances of prayer in the NT, it would obviously be a waste of time, wouldn't it.

You have your opinions and no Bible verses will ever change them.

Especially if the verses are not in the 4 Gospels.

[Tucson Jim]

A scepter can also be a person of royalty, which we both believe Jesus is.

I have never seen the word "sceptre" used of a person. Can you provide some reference for that? (Not saying it isn't true, just never heard of it)

I see what you are saying, that it could be God being quoted, but jim i don't know for sure , i see arguments on both sides about who Christ and God are. and i feel that there is far more scripture, to support Jesus being the actual son of God, and not God in the flesh.

I know anything is possible with God, but i just don't buy the theory of the trinity, far to many holes in it.and contradictions to rational thinking, not to mention where the belief started, and by who, it was started by.

There is far to many scriptures, that needs to be explained away ,for one to hold on to the belief of the trinity, in my view.

OK. Thanks for listening AA.

[Tucson Jim]

I hear some people's bibles only have 66 books. Other's have more.

Yeah but FOUR?? C'mon!!

[Tucson Jim]

Do you agree,that Jesus is the word ?

So it's not so hard to hold on to the view, that the words we read from jesus have more of an effect on us.

I can see why you would think that because you said earlier that you don't believe all scripture is true.

OK, I can see your view.

Warrior, on the other hand, says he does believe the whole Bible is the word of God, yet he then settles on a requirement, invented by him, that something must be said by Jesus for it to be true. I believe his reason for this is obvious - then he doesn't have to deal with other scriptures in the NT providing support for the deity of Christ.

That's totally inconsistent.

The word of God is the word of God.

Jesus was the one that explained the Father.and when Christ calls his Father his God and says he is our God, that does not support the view of the trinity.

When Jesus says the Father is greater then i,that needs no explaining. He don't give the reason that it's because he was a man.

He has never said he is equal to the Father,fact is he said the opposite.

God said that he was not a man nor a son of man but yet the trinity belief says he was. So on and so on.

His mission was not to glorify Himself, but to glorify the Father. So, you're right, He never called Himself God, though others did, throughout the NT.

I cannot ignore that.

Every verse of scripture is from God, I believe, and should be taken seriously.

[Angryamerican]

Yeah but FOUR?? C'mon!!

The thing is jim,most of the controversy between trinitarians and us, come from books other then the four gosples.

Man has been known to error, take for instance peter denying the Christ ,after seeing what all he saw when he walked with Christ.

Then you see John 1:1 but none of the other gosples said such a thing.

I do believe writers recorded how they saw it,some things the writers all agreed on some things they saw it a little different.

But to make the claim Jesus is God ,when Jesus said things that would make one think differently, i believe it is something we need to be very careful with.

Kinda like me doubting in Christ, i better be careful with that, because i could and i think i was wrong for doing so.

But to claim one is God, that is something we have to be 100% right on ,or it will be blasphemous.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Yeah but FOUR?? C'mon!!

Easier to carry around.

[Warrior4God]

I agree very much with this, I think the mistranslations have a very bad effect on me,even to the point of doubting the nt and the Jesus story.

But lately, i find myself believing that Jesus is the actual son of God ,and that he is not God,and he was the messiah.

Just wish God, had the scriptures preserved, to the point that there is no mistranslations.


I guess this is where we need to accept Christ ,as the messiah ,and let God through Jesus set the record straight.

I understand the frustration of it all but one thing is for sure is that with study the misunderstood and mistranslated verse or verses can be understood ....when and only when we look at what Jesus said and what the OT proclaims about the messiah.


Another for sure thing is that the KJV is certainly riddled with verses that are mistranslated.

There are so many misunderstood verses by men because they don't see the time and culture in which they are written and the language it was translated from has many words that mean different things where we use just the one word.

The word love is a perfect example.

use the wrong greek word in a verse and the Word of God crumbles.

[Warrior4God]

Actually, it says EXACTLY that!

"If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." John 14:14



does not say that Jim.......there is no greek word in the text that corresponds with the word "me" in your above verse.


Joh 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.


even in a verse just before this it clearly says God does the works......

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.


Then it goes on to say the words are not of him but the Father.

2 verses later you say its about Jesus.


not very good to change whats written.

[Warrior4God]

Given your responses to obvious instances of prayer in the NT, it would obviously be a waste of time, wouldn't it.

You have your opinions and no Bible verses will ever change them.

Especially if the verses are not in the 4 Gospels.

You said "There are various other instances of prayer to jesus in the NT."

I at least met your post about those verses with a response and your the one who said something and can't back it up.


I NEVER said I used just 4 books Jim, thats a strawman.

I SAID ALL of scripture MUST fit with what Jesus said so we must examine apparent contradictions because Gods Word has no contradictions,only mistranslation and misunderdtanding.(in a nutshell anyway)

Would you not agree with the last statement.

You used the word instances which means plural(are there so many that you can't name them all?)




I guess you can't show what you say.

classic.

Stick your foot in your mouth?

[Warrior4God]

Sorry Warrior, but I do not buy into your personal belief that Jesus has to say it for it to be true.



OK, I'm waiting . . .



Your problem is that Jesus did say he was not equal to God.

Are you waiting for proof of this?

You may look kinda silly when I post it.


I can at least back up what I say.

[Warrior4God]

I am not trying to be sarcastic or mean.

No way to deal with this Jim but point blank so forgive my point blank answers and questions.

You just can't say something without backing it up.

[Koushi Shinigami]

You may look kinda silly when I post it.


I can at least back up what I say.

:rolleyes: Just do it already.

[Warrior4God]

:rolleyes: Just do it already.

Ok

John 4:24 says God is spirit , yet even after his resurrection Jesus said of himself that he was not a spirit, but flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

Jesus is point blank called a man many times in Scripture: 1 Tim. 2:5; John 8:40; Acts 2:22; 17:31;, Yet contrary to this, the Bible says, “God is not a man…” (Numbers 23:19), and “...For I am God, and not man...” (Hosea 11:9).


Jesus called the Father “my God” both before and after his resurrection (Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Rev. 3:12).
Jesus did not think of himself as God, but instead had a God just as we do. “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” . Thus Jesus’ God is the same God as our God, the Father.



Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). In direct contrast to these words from Jesus, the trinitarian formula of the trinity says that the Father and the Son are “co-equal.”

1 Corinthians 15:28 says: “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him [God] who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” trinitarians contradict this by making Jesus eternally equal to the Father.

In a prayer to God Jesus said "that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”
No equality in that verse




Jesus was sanctified by God, but God does not need to be sanctified.
John 10:36 says" Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? "


Philippians 2:6-8 has been totally turned around in some versions, but properly translated, it says that Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.”


Jesus did not consider himself equal with the Father. In John 5:19, he said, “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father do.


Pretty clear and point blank in 1 Cor. 3:23...........
"And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. "


1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Kinda puts things in perspective.


the disciples were praying to God in Acts and they called King David God’s “servant” (4:25). Later on in that very same prayer they called Jesus “your holy servant” (4:30).


I have about 30 more verses I will post later on......gotta run

[Warrior4God]

God supplied the power for the miracles Jesus did which shows that God is greater than Christ.
Mat 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.



We are told we can do “greater works” than Jesus. This would be crazy IF Christ were God,
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.



Gods Word says that we are “brothers” of Jesus and “sons of God.” The Bible never says or even hints that we are “brothers of God.”
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Gods Word says in a verse just above verse 10 and 11 in Hebrews that Jesus was made lower then angels.
God can't be made lower then what he created.
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:


Gods Word says that Jesus died.
God cannot die.
Romans 1:23 says that God is immortal. Immortal means “not subject to death.”



Men need to be strengthened; NOT GOD
Luk 22:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.


Christ was tempted in every way.....just as we are” ........
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. In contrast Gods Word is just as clear that God cannot be tempted............
Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:



Mark 13:32 says: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
God knows everything but Jesus didn't.



If Christ is the image of God, then he cannot be God, because you cannot be an image of someone and the real person at the same time.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:


If Christ is a “person” in the “Godhead” and co-equal with the Father, then he cannot be an heir, because, as God, he is shares fully of all there is and there is nothing he could “inherit.” He simply would share everything.
Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.



Gotta run be back and show more verses that show Jesus not equal.

[Angryamerican]

Ok

John 4:24 says God is spirit , yet even after his resurrection Jesus said of himself that he was not a spirit, but flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

Jesus is point blank called a man many times in Scripture: 1 Tim. 2:5; John 8:40; Acts 2:22; 17:31;, Yet contrary to this, the Bible says, “God is not a man…” (Numbers 23:19), and “...For I am God, and not man...” (Hosea 11:9).


Jesus called the Father “my God” both before and after his resurrection (Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Rev. 3:12).
Jesus did not think of himself as God, but instead had a God just as we do. “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” . Thus Jesus’ God is the same God as our God, the Father.



Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). In direct contrast to these words from Jesus, the trinitarian formula of the trinity says that the Father and the Son are “co-equal.”

1 Corinthians 15:28 says: “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him [God] who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” trinitarians contradict this by making Jesus eternally equal to the Father.

In a prayer to God Jesus said "that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”
No equality in that verse




Jesus was sanctified by God, but God does not need to be sanctified.
John 10:36 says" Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? "


Philippians 2:6-8 has been totally turned around in some versions, but properly translated, it says that Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.”


Jesus did not consider himself equal with the Father. In John 5:19, he said, “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father do.


Pretty clear and point blank in 1 Cor. 3:23...........
"And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. "


1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Kinda puts things in perspective.


the disciples were praying to God in Acts and they called King David God’s “servant” (4:25). Later on in that very same prayer they called Jesus “your holy servant” (4:30).


I have about 30 more verses I will post later on......gotta run

That is pretty clear warrior :clap:

But the more verses the merrier ;)

After that, i can't believe people can still hold on to the view, that Christ is God ,or equal to God.

[Tucson Jim]

The thing is jim,most of the controversy between trinitarians and us, come from books other then the four gosples.

Man has been known to error, take for instance peter denying the Christ ,after seeing what all he saw when he walked with Christ.

Then you see John 1:1 but none of the other gosples said such a thing.

I do believe writers recorded how they saw it,some things the writers all agreed on some things they saw it a little different.

But to make the claim Jesus is God ,when Jesus said things that would make one think differently, i believe it is something we need to be very careful with.

Kinda like me doubting in Christ, i better be careful with that, because i could and i think i was wrong for doing so.

But to claim one is God, that is something we have to be 100% right on ,or it will be blasphemous.

Thanks for the post AA. Very thoughtful and you raise a legitimate concern - we had better be right about Christ being God or it would be blasphemous.

My view of the Bible is a little different than yours. I believe the Bible is inspired by God and is therefore absolutely correct in the autographa. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
" 2 Tim 3:16.

You make a valid point. For example the Gospels do not exactly agree, primarily because they were written from the point of view of 4 different authors and have the distinctives of those authors. Nonehteless, in essential facts, I believe all scriptures harmonize.

This is obviously not the topic of this thread but it has a bearing on how we look at scripture differently.

As I have tried to relay to everyone throughout this thread, I believe a substantial number of scriptures can be brought to bear on the topic to establish the fundamental bases of trinitarians belief (ie. the Father, Son and Spirit are God but there is only one God) and have presented most of those scriptures several times over.

The weight of those scriptures, and the testimony of the Spirit in my heart, leave no doubt to me that Jesus is God.

If you want I could put all of the scriptures together. But given the response from Warrior and others, it seems a futile effort.

Anyway, I hear your concern about blasphemy, and I share it, but based on scripture, I am not worried about it.

The other side of that coin of course, is that if Jesus IS God, and you think He is a mere man, you are calling God a creature.

I'm not sure if there is a word for that . . . but i wouldn'tr want to do it!

[ralittlefield]

Ok

John 4:24 says God is spirit , yet even after his resurrection Jesus said of himself that he was not a spirit, but flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

Jesus is point blank called a man many times in Scripture: 1 Tim. 2:5; John 8:40; Acts 2:22; 17:31;, Yet contrary to this, the Bible says, “God is not a man…” (Numbers 23:19), and “...For I am God, and not man...” (Hosea 11:9).


Jesus called the Father “my God” both before and after his resurrection (Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Rev. 3:12).
Jesus did not think of himself as God, but instead had a God just as we do. “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” . Thus Jesus’ God is the same God as our God, the Father.



Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). In direct contrast to these words from Jesus, the trinitarian formula of the trinity says that the Father and the Son are “co-equal.”

1 Corinthians 15:28 says: “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him [God] who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” trinitarians contradict this by making Jesus eternally equal to the Father.

In a prayer to God Jesus said "that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”
No equality in that verse




Jesus was sanctified by God, but God does not need to be sanctified.
John 10:36 says" Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? "


Philippians 2:6-8 has been totally turned around in some versions, but properly translated, it says that Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.”

Jesus did not consider himself equal with the Father. In John 5:19, he said, “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father do.


Pretty clear and point blank in 1 Cor. 3:23...........
"And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. "


1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Kinda puts things in perspective.


the disciples were praying to God in Acts and they called King David God’s “servant” (4:25). Later on in that very same prayer they called Jesus “your holy servant” (4:30).


I have about 30 more verses I will post later on......gotta run

emphasis mine.

Yes that is what Phil 2 says! Thank you for posting that.


Using Jesus as a example of humility, in this passage Paul tells us that Christ did not grasp (hold on to) equality with God. Rather, He humbled Himself and became a servant.

DRS (and perhaps others) would have us believe that this verse says that Jesus did not consider stealing equality with God. I have yet to understand how that fits the context of the passage. Lowering yourself from equality with God to being a servant is the epitome of humility. Jesus had equality with God, but did not hold on to it, Paul used this as an example of humility.

For Him to decide not to steal equality with God is not an example of humility. It would be an example of honesty, but not humility.


BTW, how does one steal equality with God?

If Jesus stole anything would that in itself not make Him a sinner and thus less, rather than equal with, God?

[Tucson Jim]

does not say that Jim.......there is no greek word in the text that corresponds with the word "me" in your above verse.


Joh 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

To say "there is no Greek word in the text . . " is an oversimplification. NIV, NASB, ESV and others translate it with "Me'. Notes from those sources indicate the word "me" is present in many manuscripts but not in others.

Given the other examples of prayer to Jesus in the NT, it is perfectly consistent to translate John 14:14 as NASB does.


even in a verse just before this it clearly says God does the works......

It's OK to pray to the Father too.

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.


Then it goes on to say the words are not of him but the Father.

2 verses later you say its about Jesus.


not very good to change whats written.

I didn't change a thing Warrior and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Regardless, you seem to be stuck in a pre-resurrection mentality, citing examples from the time Christ was on earth and living in total dependence on His Father as a man.

Again, you ignore the examples of prayer to Christ after the resurrection and you ignore the fact that all authority has been given to Christ (Matt 28:18).

You also ignore the fact that Jesus is God, and prayer is rightfully addressed to Him as God. But of course not when He was on earth as man - the point where you seem to be stuck.

[Tucson Jim]

You said "There are various other instances of prayer to jesus in the NT."

I at least met your post about those verses with a response and your the one who said something and can't back it up.

Of course I can. But what's the point? You just ignore or re-interpret every scripture.


I NEVER said I used just 4 books Jim, thats a strawman.


I never said you said it - I said that's what you DO. If Jesus didn't say He was God directly, then He can't be God, right Warrior?

But I may have misspoken. It's not really the 4 Gospels you limit yourself to, but rather it is just the WORDS of JESUS in the 4 Gospels, the Red Letters recording jesus' words. If it ain't in the red letters, it ain't true, right?

Gives a whole new meaning to "red Letter Edition" . . .

I SAID ALL of scripture MUST fit with what Jesus said so we must examine apparent contradictions because Gods Word has no contradictions,only mistranslation and misunderdtanding.(in a nutshell anyway)

Would you not agree with the last statement.

I would agree we should examine all apparent contradictions and try to understand the source of the apparent contradiction.

But I would not agree we should set up a criterion whereby the words of Jesus in the Gospels take precedence over other scripture, ESPECIALLY when He is talking about something entirely different. All scripture is inspired by God . . .

You used the word instances which means plural(are there so many that you can't name them all?)




I guess you can't show what you say.

classic.

Stick your foot in your mouth?

And a "Na Na Na" to you too! (can't seem to find a hands-behind-the-ears-protruding-tongue smilie!)

A good Bible student could find examples for himself.

Why don't you go for it Warrior? Show us how much you know about the Bible by providing instances of prayer to Jesus. Which you can then shoot down, of course.

Silence your critics by showing us a little Bible scholarship . . .:dance:

[Tucson Jim]

I am not trying to be sarcastic or mean.

No way to deal with this Jim but point blank so forgive my point blank answers and questions.

You just can't say something without backing it up.

I already backed it up with examples you have ignored or rationalized away. What possible good would come from providing more verses?

[Tucson Jim]

God supplied the power for the miracles Jesus did which shows that God is greater than Christ.
Mat 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.



We are told we can do “greater works” than Jesus. This would be crazy IF Christ were God,
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.



Gods Word says that we are “brothers” of Jesus and “sons of God.” The Bible never says or even hints that we are “brothers of God.”
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Gods Word says in a verse just above verse 10 and 11 in Hebrews that Jesus was made lower then angels.
God can't be made lower then what he created.
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:


Gods Word says that Jesus died.
God cannot die.
Romans 1:23 says that God is immortal. Immortal means “not subject to death.”



Men need to be strengthened; NOT GOD
Luk 22:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.


Christ was tempted in every way.....just as we are” ........
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. In contrast Gods Word is just as clear that God cannot be tempted............
Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:



Mark 13:32 says: “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
God knows everything but Jesus didn't.



If Christ is the image of God, then he cannot be God, because you cannot be an image of someone and the real person at the same time.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:


If Christ is a “person” in the “Godhead” and co-equal with the Father, then he cannot be an heir, because, as God, he is shares fully of all there is and there is nothing he could “inherit.” He simply would share everything.
Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.



Gotta run be back and show more verses that show Jesus not equal.

:rolleyes: Not more of the same old Uni website stuff! C'mon Warrior, Drmilo answered practically every one of these verses already.

99% of these are simply, and completely answered by the Incarnation.

[hben]

Post the scripture where Jesus says this and lets examine it.

Back that up please.


I can show you many many scriptures that show your statement to be very much in error and in fact to be just opposite of what you claim without scriptural evidence.

I can show this by Jesus's own words.....can you?

I know I know you will use Phil. for proof but we have discussed that verse many times and believe my view comes out on top.


If Jesus were equal to God he never declared that, but rather declared his God to be supreme.

WDJS should be my new thing.


WDJS=What did Jesus say

Warrior, maybe these will help you.

Jn:8:58: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one.

Jn: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?

Jn:20:28: And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

[Tucson Jim]

That is pretty clear warrior :clap:

But the more verses the merrier ;)

After that, i can't believe people can still hold on to the view, that Christ is God ,or equal to God.

And I have a hard time believing that you, AA, cannot see that practically all of these verses are refuted by the fact of Jesus' incarnation. We have talked about it a lot. What about it do you not understand?

[Angryamerican]

And I have a hard time believing that you, AA, cannot see that practically all of these verses are refuted by the fact of Jesus' incarnation. We have talked about it a lot. What about it do you not understand?

I see no incarnation, i see God caused mary to give birth to the messiah, just like he caused his angel to hold back the walls of water when freeing his people.


Nothing more and nothing less. Warrior posted things when Jesus was a man, and now at the throne of God. And it clearly showed ,that Jesus was inferior to his Father, while he was a man, and what he is since returning back to heaven.

Look ,why would Jesus say the his Father is his God if he wasn't ?

Why would Jesus say the Father is greater if he wasn't?

Those are not questions, i need to ask myself, those are questions you need to ask yourself, because you believe Jesus is equal to God.

But neither of the other two persons of God, ever say Jesus is God to them, to complete the circle.


I would venture to say, you believe Almighty God, has no God above him. And the biggest problem i have with the trinity is,Jesus words seem to be the biggest problem for the trinity.

[Angryamerican]

Warrior, maybe these will help you.

Jn:8:58: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one.

Jn: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?

Jn:20:28: And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

That is your best answer agains't what warrior posted ? Respectfully:eh:

[DispensationalJim]

I understand the frustration of it all but one thing is for sure is that with study the misunderstood and mistranslated verse or verses can be understood ....when and only when we look at what Jesus said and what the OT proclaims about the messiah.


Another for sure thing is that the KJV is certainly riddled with verses that are mistranslated.

There are so many misunderstood verses by men because they don't see the time and culture in which they are written and the language it was translated from has many words that mean different things where we use just the one word.

The word love is a perfect example.

use the wrong greek word in a verse and the Word of God crumbles.

Please, Warrior...

I have asked you many times to PROVE the "mistranslation" claims you have made against my KJB. As I recall, all you ever do is give some other men's OPINIONS (especially the Unitarian view), which I believe I have shown to be questionable in every case.

So once again, I ask you, Warrior:

Where is the Word of God? Do you have a copy of it? Must we all learn to read Greek? And if so, which Greek texts should we use: the "Wescott and Hort" or the "Textus Receptus" or some other version?

I cannot fathom that God expects us all to "figure out on our own" what God "meant to say." IMO, we have two possible options: either God said what He meant and preserved it for us, or we do not have the Word of God.

I firmly believe God preserved His Word in ONE BOOK and made it available to all.

I further believe that the ONE BOOK mentioned above clearly shows:
* Jesus Christ was in Heaven "in the beginning" and was the creator of ALL things (thus could not be a created being Himself, but was, of course, God)
* He appeared to men in the OT many times
* Then Jesus humbled Himself and MADE HIMSELF into a little baby
* He grew up to be a man so that He could be our one and only Savior when He died on the cross for our sins
* He resurrected and returned to the very Heaven He created to become the perfect mediator between God and man as the "God-man"
* Someday, He will return to this earth as THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

[Tucson Jim]

I see no incarnation, i see God caused mary to give birth to the messiah, just like he caused his angel to hold back the walls of water when freeing his people.


Nothing more and nothing less. Warrior posted things when Jesus was a man, and now at the throne of God. And it clearly showed ,that Jesus was inferior to his Father, while he was a man, and what he is since returning back to heaven.

Look ,why would Jesus say the his Father is his God if he wasn't ?

Why would Jesus say the Father is greater if he wasn't?

Those are not questions, i need to ask myself, those are questions you need to ask yourself, because you believe Jesus is equal to God.

But neither of the other two persons of God, ever say Jesus is God to them, to complete the circle.


I would venture to say, you believe Almighty God, has no God above him. And the biggest problem i have with the trinity is,Jesus words seem to be the biggest problem for the trinity.

The problem is, you do not understand the incarnation.

Since it is a (the?) major theme of the NT, I am not sure how I can help you see it if you haven't after all our discussion.

Have you actually read the Bi ble all the way through, prayerfully, AA? I'm just curious.

[Tucson Jim]

Going out of town until Wednesday. I'll see you all then.

Meanwhile, Warrior, I'll give you a head start on examples of praying to Jesus in the NT. How about Paul's prayer in 2 Cor 12:8-9?

[DispensationalJim]

Warrior, maybe these will help you.

Jn:8:58: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jn:10:30: I and my Father are one.

Jn: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?

Jn:20:28: And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

I strongly disagree with Angryamerican's comments about your post, hben.

I believe those were excellent verses, hben. IMO, the only way AA, Warrior or anyone else can "discount' them is to resort to one of the "corrupted" (IMO) Greek texts (usually the Wescott and Hort) or a different modern English Bible version (which probably was translated from the W & H).

As I expressed before, I believe God has said exactly what He meant and meant exactly what He said, and those words can be found in the good old King James Bible.

I also agree with T-Jim when he said:
"Not more of the same old Uni website stuff! C'mon Warrior, Drmilo answered practically every one of these verses already. 99% of these are simply, and completely answered by the Incarnation."

If needed, we will dig up some of those posts by Drmilo.

==============================

The fact that Jesus Christ MADE HIMSELF into a man (as Phil. 2 and John 1, etc. tell us) shows that He existed prior to His coming to earth and that He had the "power" to transform Himself into a man. Logically, that means He formerly existed as an entity other than a man, which supports hben's verse, "Before Abraham was, I am."

IMO, that makes Jesus God, just as John 1:1, 20:28, etc. say.

==============================

Here is a great passage from the Apostle Paul (who wrote 13 books of the NT):
• Col. 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

And IMO that passage supports this incredible passage:
• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

==============================

And just in case someone wants to bring this verse up as a potential problem for Trinitarians:
• Col.1:15 ... the firstborn of every creature:

Paul explains that 3 verses later:
• Col. 1:18 ... who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead


Thus, as I see it, Jesus Christ is "the beginning, the firstborn" of all those believers who will be resurrected.

============================

Finally, if God the Father is the one and only God and Jesus is not, why does the Bible bother to "designate" God as "The Father". Why not just always say God, period? For instance:
• Jude 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ ... to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ...

Why didn't Jude just say: "Sanctified by God and preserved in Jesus Christ"? Doesn't the addition of "the Father" show that a qualifier was needed to eliminate confusion? I would appreciate some input on this.

[Gem]

I strongly disagree with Angryamerican's comments about your post, hben.

I believe those were excellent verses, hben. IMO, the only way AA, Warrior or anyone else can "discount' them is to resort to one of the "corrupted" (IMO) Greek texts (usually the Wescott and Hort) or a different modern English Bible version (which probably was translated from the W & H).

As I expressed before, I believe God has said exactly what He meant and meant exactly what He said, and those words can be found in the good old King James Bible.

I also agree with T-Jim when he said:
"Not more of the same old Uni website stuff! C'mon Warrior, Drmilo answered practically every one of these verses already. 99% of these are simply, and completely answered by the Incarnation."

If needed, we will dig up some of those posts by Drmilo.

==============================

The fact that Jesus Christ MADE HIMSELF into a man (as Phil. 2 and John 1, etc. tell us) shows that He existed prior to His coming to earth and that He had the "power" to transform Himself into a man. Logically, that means He formerly existed as an entity other than a man, which supports hben's verse, "Before Abraham was, I am."

IMO, that makes Jesus God, just as John 1:1, 20:28, etc. say.

==============================

Here is a great passage from the Apostle Paul (who wrote 13 books of the NT):
• Col. 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

And IMO that passage supports this incredible passage:
• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

==============================

And just in case someone wants to bring this verse up as a potential problem for Trinitarians:
• Col.1:15 ... the firstborn of every creature:

Paul explains that 3 verses later:
• Col. 1:18 ... who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead


Thus, as I see it, Jesus Christ is "the beginning, the firstborn" of all those believers who will be resurrected.

============================

Finally, if God the Father is the one and only God and Jesus is not, why does the Bible bother to "designate" God as "The Father". Why not just always say God, period? For instance:
• Jude 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ ... to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ...

Why didn't Jude just say: "Sanctified by God and preserved in Jesus Christ"? Doesn't the addition of "the Father" show that a qualifier was needed to eliminate confusion? I would appreciate some input on this.


Acts 20: 28-
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with his own blood.

Ok, in this scripture it says which God hath purchased with His own blood. Now , if God is a spirit then He has no blood. and if the Holy ghost is a spirit, he has no blood either. So Jesus is the one that died for us and for the church.

Ephesians 4: 4-5-6.
There is one body and one spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism;
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I believe these scriptures just about covers who Jesus is.


But what I want to know is this.

Why do some of the churches baptize people by useing these words ?

Matthew 28: 19.
Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost.

I have seen a lot of people baptised by the pastors useing these very words but they never, never, say the name when they do it.

This scripture plainly states there is a name to use.
but they never pronounce the name.

Father , Son, Holy Ghost, is not names. they are titles.
And the word name in this verse is singular here in this scripture, not plural. Do you see what I mean ?

Now, John the Baptist in the book of Matthew baptized unto repentance.
He baptized all of the people around there that way.

But in the book of acts those people got rebaptized, even Johns disciples got rebaptized.

Also the Apostal's had a lot of baptismal services in the book of Acts. and they used Jesus name when they baptized .

And that is the only name they used to baptized in.
So would you people say that the Apostal's did not obey what Jesus said for them to do in Matthew 28: 19 ?

I do not think they disobeyed Jesus at all.
All through the scriptures you will find that Jesus is the Father, Son, Holy ghost.

If these people were baptized by the trinity way, then I believe they need to get rebaptized in Jesus name to make it right.

Just asking what you all think about this.

[free2B]

Gem, I am going to try and attempt an answer, and I have probably said this before imo, the Father of us all, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, the One and Only and True God who gave the Law to Moses and the Psalms to the King David and the Holy Land and Moriah and the Promises to the tribes and to the Believes in our God

Gave unto our Lord Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit, to a Man concieived of the Holy Spirit, our Saviour, for this purpose to teach us the Way to the Kingdom and to defeat death the adversary of us all, by the Ressurection of Easter, and to cure diseases and afflictions, and to save us from the wiles of the evil one

[ralittlefield]

Acts 20: 28-
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with his own blood.

Ok, in this scripture it says which God hath purchased with His own blood. Now , if God is a spirit then He has no blood. and if the Holy ghost is a spirit, he has no blood either. So Jesus is the one that died for us and for the church.

Ephesians 4: 4-5-6.
There is one body and one spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism;
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I believe these scriptures just about covers who Jesus is.


But what I want to know is this.

Why do some of the churches baptize people by useing these words ?

Matthew 28: 19.
Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost.

I have seen a lot of people baptised by the pastors useing these very words but they never, never, say the name when they do it.

This scripture plainly states there is a name to use.
but they never pronounce the name.

Father , Son, Holy Ghost, is not names. they are titles.
And the word name in this verse is singular here in this scripture, not plural. Do you see what I mean ?

Now, John the Baptist in the book of Matthew baptized unto repentance.
He baptized all of the people around there that way.

But in the book of acts those people got rebaptized, even Johns disciples got rebaptized.

Also the Apostal's had a lot of baptismal services in the book of Acts. and they used Jesus name when they baptized .

And that is the only name they used to baptized in.
So would you people say that the Apostal's did not obey what Jesus said for them to do in Matthew 28: 19 ?

I do not think they disobeyed Jesus at all.
All through the scriptures you will find that Jesus is the Father, Son, Holy ghost.

If these people were baptized by the trinity way, then I believe they need to get rebaptized in Jesus name to make it right.

Just asking what you all think about this.

"In the name of" is an expression that means in the authority of.

In the name of the law, for example, means in the authority of the law.

When a policeman orders someone to "Stop, in the name of the law" he is not implying that the law is a person with a name. He is referring to the authority of the law.

If you have a bible/bible study program on your computer do a search for the phrase "in the name of" and you will see what I am saying.

You will find many examples of the phrase being used such as "speak in the name of the Lord" or "minister in the name of the Lord".

So, when the bible uses that expression, it is instructing us to be baptised in the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The words spoken at a Baptism are not an essential part of the baptism. The important thing is that the person being baptised is communicating to everyone present that they have put their faith in the Lord.

[Warrior4God]

I already backed it up with examples you have ignored or rationalized away. What possible good would come from providing more verses?

So it appears you say something with no backup.

I have no problem with talking to Jesus because I believe he hears us.

My point is you say something without any proof.

Just show it.

Or can you?

[Warrior4God]

:rolleyes: Not more of the same old Uni website stuff! C'mon Warrior, Drmilo answered practically every one of these verses already.

99% of these are simply, and completely answered by the Incarnation.

classic...........no real response to proof.

[DRS]

emphasis mine.

Yes that is what Phil 2 says! Thank you for posting that.


Using Jesus as a example of humility, in this passage Paul tells us that Christ did not grasp (hold on to) equality with God. Rather, He humbled Himself and became a servant.

DRS (and perhaps others) would have us believe that this verse says that Jesus did not consider stealing equality with God. I have yet to understand how that fits the context of the passage. Lowering yourself from equality with God to being a servant is the epitome of humility. Jesus had equality with God, but did not hold on to it, Paul used this as an example of humility.

For Him to decide not to steal equality with God is not an example of humility. It would be an example of honesty, but not humility.


BTW, how does one steal equality with God?

If Jesus stole anything would that in itself not make Him a sinner and thus less, rather than equal with, God?

It is not held onto it is taking something that does not belong to you

Satan has set himself opposite the Almighty, trying to make elf equal with Him by asking for worship and saying people would rather do what he wants rather than what God wants

Lowering from a higher postion where you do not suffer, would not die are a great prince and instead agreeing to be made lower than the godlike ones and suffer with humans and die

Prefigurement so you can understand, Moses who was a prince in the house of pharoah who would rather suffer as a slave with the Israelites rather than enjoy the riches and ease of the pharoahs house

You really want to understand Jesus study Moses after Paul calls him a Christ also, he prefigured Jesus is so many ways that those who study his life truely understand Jesus

[DRS]

"A' man? No. Jesus Christ, God Who became Man? Absolutely! Even the angels worship Him!!

Do the angels worship him or do they bow to him since he is the king?

[DispensationalJim]

... (snip)...
It seems to me, either they are mistakes in translation, or the ones translating had an agenda, to try and prove Jesus was God. ... (snip)


I kept remembering you saying this, AA, but it took me a while to find it.

If you believe the 1611 King James translators had an agenda, you ought to check out Wescott and Hort, who did the Greek lexicon of 1870 from which practically every English Bible version in existence today was translated.

Here is a web-site for you to read:
http://www.touchet1611.org/WescottHort.html

==========================

Just to show a little bit of that web site, here is the first section:
----------------------------------------------
Who were Westcott and Hort?

The best way to discover the beliefs of the dead is to study their writings. Both Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort wrote extensively. Here are some of their beliefs, as revealed by their own writings:

* Did not believe in the miracles of the Bible -
Westcott in 1847: "1 never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."

* Did not believe in the infallibility of the scriptures. -
Westcott to Hort in 1860: "1 reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelming."
Hort to Lightfoot in 1860: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N. T., I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels."

* Did not believe in the supernatural creation -
Hort to Westcott in 1860: "... Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case, it is a treat to read such a book. " Hort to Ellerton in 1860 "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."

* Did not believe in the efficacy (power) of the atonement -
Hort: "The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfies without every man 's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."

* Westcott and Hort were clearly Anti-protestant
Hort: "I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he know nothing except Protestant theology."

* Believed in the necessity of purgatory -
Hort to Ellerton: "But the idea of purgation, of cleansing as by fire seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements..."

* Believed in the communist system -
Westcott: "I suppose I am a communist by nature." Hort: "I cannot say that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred for democracy in all its forms."
Hort: "I cannot at present see any objection to a limit being placed by the State upon the amount of property which any one person may possess ... I would say that the co-operative principle is a better and a mightier than the competitive principle."

==============================

Please remember that the King James (1611) was translated from the Textus Receptus Greek manuscripts, not the Wescott and Hort Greek texts.

[God is My Rock]

I might be misunderstanding what you are saying here, Rock. Are you saying that "Lord" and "God" are equal terms? If so, we must be closer than I thought, since the Bible is quite clear IMO that Jesus is THE ONE LORD and that God is THE ONE LORD.

• Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
• Zech. 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
• Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
• 1Cor. 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.
• Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

So, Rock, in those verses, who is THE ONE LORD?

Please........

LORD in the OT is God's proper name. so in the above OT verses, substitute Jehovah.

In the NT Lord does not = Jehovah.

It like the word theos, can have various meanings.

[DispensationalJim]

Please........

LORD in the OT is God's proper name. so in the above OT verses, substitute Jehovah.

In the NT Lord does not = Jehovah.

It like the word theos, can have various meanings.

Very sorry to inform you, Rock, but I believe the King James is correct in the manner in which they translated those verses.

Can you PROVE otherwise, or just give the Jehovah Witness view?

Remember, there are many Greek and Hebrew texts from which to translate. Which do you think is God's Word, or do we not now have God's Word?

[God is My Rock]

Thank you! I am happy that I can bring mirth into the life of others on occasion.:)



Yeah? Try that theory out on a nun sometime. Any nun.

My knuckles still have teeny little scars. (OK, maybe the "scars" are more mental . . . :lol:)

But I learned to use the name of the Lord reverently - at least in front of the nuns!

If used in the manner you suggest, it would be a form of cussing, IMO.

Something one probably wouldn't want to do when staring Jesus in the face, I would imagine . . .:eek:
__________________________________________________ _______________________

But look at what the verse actually says that Thomas did - Who was he talking to?

28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

If one were merely expressing surprise by saying My Lord and my God, one would make that statement, obviously, to God, probably looking toward the sky.

BUT HE SAID IT DIRECTLY TO JESUS!!

This is far more than a first century equivalent of OMG (which I still contend is a mild form of cussing) -

This is Thomas' clear statement of the identity of the ONE he was speaking to




Hardly.

The Bible "injects" the meaning of the verses by the clear words spoken and a clear statement of Who the words were spoken to.

And let me also be clear - it was not taking the name of the Lord in vain. It was Thomas expressing his revelation of WHO Jesus was.

It would only be taking the name of the Lord in vain if done in the manner you suggest.

This is one that we are going to diagree upon, always.

There are countless examples in the OT of people using God's name to express awe and amazement, to glory in his power and might.

Never once in the OT is this considered cussing.

You as I suspected, and you yourself confirmed, equate any usage of My God, to an equivalent of an elementary child's flippant expression of "Wow".

Thomas had stated he would not believe unless something he beleived was impossible would happen.

So, for Thomas to be standing in front of the risen Christ, risen by the power of Thomas' God, is not the same thing as 20th century flippancy.

And to interpret that situation as being equal is extremely unfair.

It was wrong of the nuns to teach you that, if they did.

[God is My Rock]

Ah . . . 1 Corinthians, not Hebrews. I couldn't remember anything in Hebrews about this . . .

Anyway, so you think because this says there is "but one God the Father" that this verse excludes Jesus from being God?

If so, you must then acknowledge that it equally excludes the Father from being "Lord", since the verse says we have "one Lord Jesus Christ".

No actually it doesn't.

I do not agree with the way you are interpreting scripture here..... surprise, surprise....:)

My question was never answered, (you responded, but did not answer) how 3 persons can be one being.

Nor did you answer how one being can be 3 persons.

There is one God = The Father (God is supreme over all, this is an understood assumption)

For someone to say "There is a God" and then to even leave room for the thought "But he is not THE Lord" is absurd.

So what is up with Jesus being called the one Lord?

Because Jesus is the only "king","leader", "ruler", "authority" that we are to follow.

[Gem]

"In the name of" is an expression that means in the authority of.

In the name of the law, for example, means in the authority of the law.

When a policeman orders someone to "Stop, in the name of the law" he is not implying that the law is a person with a name. He is referring to the authority of the law.

If you have a bible/bible study program on your computer do a search for the phrase "in the name of" and you will see what I am saying.

You will find many examples of the phrase being used such as "speak in the name of the Lord" or "minister in the name of the Lord".

So, when the bible uses that expression, it is instructing us to be baptised in the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The words spoken at a Baptism are not an essential part of the baptism. The important thing is that the person being baptised is communicating to everyone present that they have put their faith in the Lord.

I understand that . but my question is why didn't these other churches use a name the way Jesus said to do. ?

The Apostals used Jesus's name all through the book of acts when they baptized anyone. Why don't all churches use Jesus's name.

Acts 22:16-Baptism is to wash away our sins,
Col 2: 12- says we are buried with Him in baptism.

How can you be buried with Jesus if you do not repeat the name of Jesus over the baptisem water. ? If they don't use the name of Jesus when they baptize anyone then the people that were baptized by the way of Father, Son, Holy Ghost ,will still have their sins on them. according to my understanding of the scriptures.

[God is My Rock]

I can see why you would think that because you said earlier that you don't believe all scripture is true.

OK, I can see your view.

Warrior, on the other hand, says he does believe the whole Bible is the word of God, yet he then settles on a requirement, invented by him, that something must be said by Jesus for it to be true. I believe his reason for this is obvious - then he doesn't have to deal with other scriptures in the NT providing support for the deity of Christ.

That's totally inconsistent.


And this is why Warrior and I disagree with you (at least I think I can speak for Warrior, if not, sorry)

You appear to do more interpreting than leaving alone.


Warrior and I believe the same about some of the early fathers, and translators.


Jesus words are the foundation, upon which the rest of scripture should be interpreted.

You say, no, you are going to take it for what it says.

But in reality, you are interpreting scripture, according to what others have said.


THIS and only this, is what seperates us.

Jesus is the interpreter Warrior and I interpret the rest of scripture through.

You and trinitarians choose the early church fathers to interpret all of scripture.

There are more than 4 books in Warrior's Bible, so be fair......

[God is My Rock]

The problem is, you do not understand the incarnation.

Since it is a (the?) major theme of the NT, I am not sure how I can help you see it if you haven't after all our discussion.

Have you actually read the Bi ble all the way through, prayerfully, AA? I'm just curious.

Or perhaps you don't???? IMHO?

[Reeder]

Jesus is the interpreter Warrior and I interpret the rest of scripture through.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could expound. Most Christians make the same claim - that the Bible is God's word - and that the scriptures were given through inspired men by God, Himself.


You and trinitarians choose the early church fathers to interpret all of scripture.

There are more than 4 books in Warrior's Bible, so be fair......

While I'm not a trinitarian, I do understand that way of thinking. Amos 3:7 says:


7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.




The Bible has undergone so many centuries of changes and interpretations - who decides which one is right? Who decides "This is what God meant?" Who decides what the gospel "really" is? You say you use Jesus as your interpreter.......and others who disagree with some of what you believe would make the same claim. Who is right? Who has the authority to decide?

[DRS]

Very sorry to inform you, Rock, but I believe the King James is correct in the manner in which they translated those verses.

Can you PROVE otherwise, or just give the Jehovah Witness view?

Remember, there are many Greek and Hebrew texts from which to translate. Which do you think is God's Word, or do we not now have God's Word?

Does not your KJV say that it has substituted Jehovah with LORD in the intro?

You slander others but act the coward when challenged on proving the verses and translations wrong

The older the manuscript the less likely to have errors is what all scholars agree.

Your idolatry seems to know no bounds Jim do you pray to your KJV also maybe you can make it part of your godhead

Don't bother whining, either prove me wrong with fact or accept the statements I've made

[Reeder]

I bit harsh, DRS. Perhaps an edit is due on your end.

[DispensationalJim]

... (snip)...

The older the manuscript the less likely to have errors is what all scholars agree.
(emphasis by D-Jim)

Your idolatry seems to know no bounds Jim do you pray to your KJV also maybe you can make it part of your godhead

Don't bother whining, either prove me wrong with fact or accept the statements I've made

Of course, DRS, there are some "scholars" who have accepted the questionable "line" that the older mansucripts are the "best," but surely you would concede that not ALL Bible scholars believe that.

Shall I name a few "scholars" who are in the "Textus Receptus" camp over against the Wescott and Hort" camp supporting the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus texts?

Dean John William Burgon comes to mind immediately. Here is a web-site about him:
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/whowasdb.htm

He fought against Wescott and Hort's Greek text for years until he died, maintaining that it was greatly corrupted compared with the Textus Receptus.

Would you like to compare lists, DRS?

And thanks, Reeder, for your comment to DRS. :)

[DispensationalJim]

I bit harsh, DRS. Perhaps an edit is due on your end.
Thanks, Reeder.

IMHO, DRS has shown his low regard for details through his unwillingness to edit his poorly written posts, so again IMHO that speaks volumes about how he pays attention to other "details" in his life. :frown:

[ralittlefield]

It is not held onto it is taking something that does not belong to you

Satan has set himself opposite the Almighty, trying to make elf equal with Him by asking for worship and saying people would rather do what he wants rather than what God wants

Lowering from a higher postion where you do not suffer, would not die are a great prince and instead agreeing to be made lower than the godlike ones and suffer with humans and die

Prefigurement so you can understand, Moses who was a prince in the house of pharoah who would rather suffer as a slave with the Israelites rather than enjoy the riches and ease of the pharoahs house

You really want to understand Jesus study Moses after Paul calls him a Christ also, he prefigured Jesus is so many ways that those who study his life truely understand Jesus

You do realize that the context of this passage is humility, right?

Do you really see not stealing as a sign of humility?

[ralittlefield]

I understand that . but my question is why didn't these other churches use a name the way Jesus said to do. ?

The Apostals used Jesus's name all through the book of acts when they baptized anyone. Why don't all churches use Jesus's name.

Acts 22:16-Baptism is to wash away our sins,
Col 2: 12- says we are buried with Him in baptism.

How can you be buried with Jesus if you do not repeat the name of Jesus over the baptisem water. ? If they don't use the name of Jesus when they baptize anyone then the people that were baptized by the way of Father, Son, Holy Ghost ,will still have their sins on them. according to my understanding of the scriptures.

I think that you missed my point.

The instruction to do something "in the name of" is not instruction to say the name. It is instruction to do that act in the authority of the person (or organization).

[God is My Rock]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could expound. Most Christians make the same claim - that the Bible is God's word - and that the scriptures were given through inspired men by God, Himself.



While I'm not a trinitarian, I do understand that way of thinking. Amos 3:7 says:


7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.




The Bible has undergone so many centuries of changes and interpretations - who decides which one is right? Who decides "This is what God meant?" Who decides what the gospel "really" is? You say you use Jesus as your interpreter.......and others who disagree with some of what you believe would make the same claim. Who is right? Who has the authority to decide?

perhaps this is where faith comes in.

But to me, it seems rather simple.

For example

Jesus says that the Father is his God, is greater than he, that his words are not his own, but the Fathers, etc...

also

there are scriptures that call Jesus lord, and god. (or at least they may appear to.)

now, setting aside ALL doctrines, opinions, beliefs, (including my own, JW, uni, etc) and looking at these verses as they are (in english) they appear to be in conflict, or even complete opposites.

So what to do?

Warrior and I, and others, Take Jesus as The Truth. He said that he was the truth, the life, and the way. By believing Jesus, and yet maintaining that the Bible is of God, what to do about these other verses that also are true?

Is there an answer?

Yes, it is called grammar. By acknowledging that people back then had multiple meanings for a single word, just like today, this solves almost all of the "conflicts" right there.

What is the other answer?

The Trinitarian response is that these other verses are to be taken as they read in english.

So what about the words of Jesus? What is their response?

Jesus was not telling the whole truth (at that time)

Jesus' words are not sufficient for the full understanding of his relationship with God.

Jesus' words do not mean literally what they say, they must be either qualified, or expanded upon.


This is what it really comes down to.

Both sides are qualifying or expanding upon scripture verses.

Our side trusts in Jesus' words to be the most clear, and that other verses only need to have the proper grammar rules applied for the Bible to be a self contained revelation.

The Trinatarian side trusts the words of sinful men inspired by God to be the most clear, and that the words of Jesus must be subject to them, also this creates confusion so external doctrines must be created to explain the revelation contained within the Bible.



All of the Bible is inspired of God, that is not the question.

The question is which words are subject to which?

Jesus' words subject to the writings of inspired sinful men? (Even the Bible contains numerous examples of the apostles sinning, and not having perfect understanding)

or

The words of inspired sinful men, subject to the words of the Son of God?


This truly seems like a no brainer to me. IMHO

[Reeder]

perhaps this is where faith comes in.

But to me, it seems rather simple.

For example

Jesus says that the Father is his God, is greater than he, that his words are not his own, but the Fathers, etc...

also

there are scriptures that call Jesus lord, and god. (or at least they may appear to.)

now, setting aside ALL doctrines, opinions, beliefs, (including my own, JW, uni, etc) and looking at these verses as they are (in english) they appear to be in conflict, or even complete opposites.

So what to do?

Warrior and I, and others, Take Jesus as The Truth. He said that he was the truth, the life, and the way. By believing Jesus, and yet maintaining that the Bible is of God, what to do about these other verses that also are true?

Is there an answer?

Yes, it is called grammar. By acknowledging that people back then had multiple meanings for a single word, just like today, this solves almost all of the "conflicts" right there.

What is the other answer?

The Trinitarian response is that these other verses are to be taken as they read in english.

So what about the words of Jesus? What is their response?

Jesus was not telling the whole truth (at that time)

Jesus' words are not sufficient for the full understanding of his relationship with God.

Jesus' words do not mean literally what they say, they must be either qualified, or expanded upon.


This is what it really comes down to.

Both sides are qualifying or expanding upon scripture verses.

Our side trusts in Jesus' words to be the most clear, and that other verses only need to have the proper grammar rules applied for the Bible to be a self contained revelation.

The Trinatarian side trusts the words of sinful men inspired by God to be the most clear, and that the words of Jesus must be subject to them, also this creates confusion so external doctrines must be created to explain the revelation contained within the Bible.



All of the Bible is inspired of God, that is not the question.

The question is which words are subject to which?

Jesus' words subject to the writings of inspired sinful men? (Even the Bible contains numerous examples of the apostles sinning, and not having perfect understanding)

or

The words of inspired sinful men, subject to the words of the Son of God?


This truly seems like a no brainer to me. IMHO

You've presented some options, but not all of the options. Another option would be that the writings contained in the Bible were, at one time, pure, divine, and inspired. Over the course of centuries, however, some of what was once pure was altered, either purposefully to fulfill an agenda, or because of translation errors.

That, of course, is what I believe happened. Which is why I believe in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covanents, PoGP, as well as in the divine revelation received by modern-day Prophets and Apostles. In that case, it is not simply doctrine which was created by sinful men to interpret the scriptures - it is inspired doctrine as given by God to clarify what is contained in the Bible. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall my word be established."

[God is My Rock]

You've presented some options, but not all of the options. Another option would be that the writings contained in the Bible were, at one time, pure, divine, and inspired. Over the course of centuries, however, some of what was once pure was altered, either purposefully to fulfill an agenda, or because of translation errors.

That, of course, is what I believe happened. Which is why I believe in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covanents, PoGP, as well as in the divine revelation received by modern-day Prophets and Apostles. In that case, it is not simply doctrine which was created by sinful men to interpret the scriptures - it is inspired doctrine as given by God to clarify what is contained in the Bible. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall my word be established."

Without trying to offend others on the thread, what agenda?

[God is My Rock]

This thread really is jumpin' again.

I was gone for two days, and had to go through 13 pages to catch up!!!!!

[Reeder]

Without trying to offend others on the thread, what agenda?

Any agenda.

[DispensationalJim]

... (snip) ...
So what about the words of Jesus? What is their (Trinitarian) response?

Jesus was not telling the whole truth (at that time)

Jesus' words are not sufficient for the full understanding of his relationship with God.

Jesus' words do not mean literally what they say, they must be either qualified, or expanded upon.


This is what it really comes down to.

Both sides are qualifying or expanding upon scripture verses.

Our side trusts in Jesus' words to be the most clear, and that other verses only need to have the proper grammar rules applied for the Bible to be a self contained revelation.

The Trinatarian side trusts the words of sinful men inspired by God to be the most clear, and that the words of Jesus must be subject to them, also this creates confusion so external doctrines must be created to explain the revelation contained within the Bible.



All of the Bible is inspired of God, that is not the question.

The question is which words are subject to which?

Jesus' words subject to the writings of inspired sinful men? (Even the Bible contains numerous examples of the apostles sinning, and not having perfect understanding)

or

The words of inspired sinful men, subject to the words of the Son of God?


This truly seems like a no brainer to me. IMHO

Rock, that is one of the most demeaning, insulting, and incorrect generalizations of the Trinitarian view I have ever seen in my 50 years of reading other views of Bible doctrine.

I feel like you and Warrior must be reading the same web-sites which are no longer teaching from Carnegie's famous best seller, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" but are now teaching from the less well known book, "How to Lose Friends and Insult People."

So, once more with feeling:
I believe every word of the King James Bible. I also believe that Paul is my Apostle, and I believe he wrote this to us Gentiles:
• Rom. 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
• Rom. 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
• 2Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

=========================

I believe every word attributed to Jesus in the NT, even these verses:
• Matt. 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
• Matt. 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And I believe Paul verified that information about Jesus when he wrote this:
• Rom. 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

[God is My Rock]

Rock, that is one of the most demeaning, insulting, and incorrect generalizations of the Trinitarian view I have ever seen in my 50 years of reading other views of Bible doctrine.

I feel like you and Warrior must be reading the same web-sites which are no longer teaching from Carnegie's famous best seller, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" but are now teaching from the less well known book, "How to Lose Friends and Insult People."

So, once more with feeling:
I believe every word of the King James Bible. I also believe that Paul is my Apostle, and I believe he wrote this to us Gentiles:
• Rom. 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
• Rom. 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
• 2Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

=========================

I believe every word attributed to Jesus in the NT, even these verses:
• Matt. 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
• Matt. 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And I believe Paul verified that information about Jesus when he wrote this:
• Rom. 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:


Not meant as an insult.

But to give you a chance,

Jesus said that he was going to his God.

There is only one God.

Do you believe these as they are, or will you qualify them?

If you do, whose words will you use?

I will wait and see.

Again, this was not meant as an insult, just plain observation.

Look at the thread, and you will see that whenever Warrior and I quote Jesus, you and others quote someone other than Jesus, to clarify Jesus.

Whenever you quote someone other than Jesus, Warrior and I quote Jesus to clarify the other writer.

This really is this thread in a nutshell.

[Gem]

I think that you missed my point.

The instruction to do something "in the name of" is not instruction to say the name. It is instruction to do that act in the authority of the person (or organization).

Ahhh, ok. thanks.

[DRS]

Of course, DRS, there are some "scholars" who have accepted the questionable "line" that the older mansucripts are the "best," but surely you would concede that not ALL Bible scholars believe that.

Shall I name a few "scholars" who are in the "Textus Receptus" camp over against the Wescott and Hort" camp supporting the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus texts?

Dean John William Burgon comes to mind immediately. Here is a web-site about him:
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/whowasdb.htm

He fought against Wescott and Hort's Greek text for years until he died, maintaining that it was greatly corrupted compared with the Textus Receptus.

Would you like to compare lists, DRS?

And thanks, Reeder, for your comment to DRS. :)

Hey I can find people who argue Jesus is not the messiah either, when one wants to protect something they have no problem spending years ting to discredit knowledge

You want to attck older biblical manuscripts that is your choice, you have the same free will those who attack the NT

You know what no one here is fighting to prevent people from reading the KJV there are many here who are pointing out the errors translation, which you have never ever proven they do not exist

I have to take that not only do you not care if the information you have is true but you would not want others here to gain knowledge either

[DRS]

Here Jim I will give you chance to prove you knowldge and stance, translate this word for me, you can ask a hebrew speaker for help it is from exodus 3:12

אֶהְיֶה

[DispensationalJim]

Not meant as an insult.

But to give you a chance,

Jesus said that he was going to his God.

There is only one God.

Do you believe these as they are, or will you qualify them?

If you do, whose words will you use?

I will wait and see.

Again, this was not meant as an insult, just plain observation.

Look at the thread, and you will see that whenever Warrior and I quote Jesus, you and others quote someone other than Jesus, to clarify Jesus.

Whenever you quote someone other than Jesus, Warrior and I quote Jesus to clarify the other writer.

This really is this thread in a nutshell.

I do believe this verse, and I do not see any need to qualify it:
• John 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.

I also believe this verse and see no need to qualify it:
• John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

But I believe this next group of verses helps explain John 20:17 without any qualification or Greek explanation:
• Mic. 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
• Hab. 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.
• Luke 2:12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. ... 16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
• Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

-------------------------------------------------

And then comes the "ace in the hole" passage:
• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

You, Rock, and Warrior, and DRS, must run to the other Bibles or to the Greek or to some web site to discredit that passage.

============================

You also have to resort to other "scholars" to discredit this next passage:

• 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.

==========================

Those verses all fit together to tell an incredible story, don't they?

I need no commentary, no Greek explanation, no scholar to show me who Jesus is.

My Bible tells me clearly in the above verses that Jesus was God in the beginning. He created everything (including Mary), then made Himself into a little baby in Mary's womb, grew up to be A MAN (since God cannot die) so he could willingly and humbly and LOVINGLY DIE FOR OUR SINS.

How can anyone ask for more proof that God loved us than those verses?

[DispensationalJim]

Here Jim I will give you chance to prove you knowldge and stance, translate this word for me, you can ask a hebrew speaker for help it is from exodus 3:12

אֶהְיֶה

First, DRS, I ask as usual for you to tell me if that "word" is from the Textus Receptus or not.

I cannot read Hebrew, and I do not believe God requires it of any of us today, either.

God said He would preserve His Word, and I happen to believe it. Do you?

• Psa. 12:6 The words of the LORD are PURE WORDS: AS silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

[DispensationalJim]

Hey I can find people who argue Jesus is not the messiah either, when one wants to protect something they have no problem spending years ting to discredit knowledge

You want to attck older biblical manuscripts that is your choice, you have the same free will those who attack the NT

You know what no one here is fighting to prevent people from reading the KJV there are many here who are pointing out the errors translation, which you have never ever proven they do not exist

I have to take that not only do you not care if the information you have is true but you would not want others here to gain knowledge either

Again, DRS, your typing is giving away your lack of concern for accuracy and the importance of details. I am guessing that you have the same attitude toward the need for accuracy in the Scriptures.

But I will try to figure out what you meant to say in the above post which is riddled with typing and grammatical errors as usual.

-------------------------------------------

First, I have no desire to discredit anyone's knowledge, but when they continue to attack God's Word as you do, I will defend the Scriptures and their accuracy.

Second, you have never given one iota of proof that the older manuscripts are better than the "newer" Textus Receptus. You simply keep saying they must be better since they are older, but there are many scholars who insist they are not better (and not that much older, BTW), so until you have some real evidence, IMO, we are at a stand-off.

Third, you claim "many have pointed out errors" in the King James, but as usual, it is just more opinions and no real evidence.

Fourth, my studies of manuscript evidence and much prayerful seeking for the guidance of the Holy Spirit have convinced me that the King James Bible is true. You and others have yet to prove otherwise.

I sincerely desire for everyone to know and accept God's Word and of course also to accept the Savior. That is why I continue to debate here.

[God is My Rock]

I do believe this verse, and I do not see any need to qualify it:
• John 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.

I also believe this verse and see no need to qualify it:
• John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

But I believe this next group of verses helps explain John 20:17 without any qualification or Greek explanation:
• Mic. 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
• Hab. 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.
• Luke 2:12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. ... 16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
• Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

-------------------------------------------------

And then comes the "ace in the hole" passage:
• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

You, Rock, and Warrior, and DRS, must run to the other Bibles or to the Greek or to some web site to discredit that passage.

============================

You also have to resort to other "scholars" to discredit this next passage:

• 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.

==========================

Those verses all fit together to tell an incredible story, don't they?

I need no commentary, no Greek explanation, no scholar to show me who Jesus is.

My Bible tells me clearly in the above verses that Jesus was God in the beginning. He created everything (including Mary), then made Himself into a little baby in Mary's womb, grew up to be A MAN (since God cannot die) so he could willingly and humbly and LOVINGLY DIE FOR OUR SINS.

How can anyone ask for more proof that God loved us than those verses?

Fine, I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate your love for God.

But your post does in fact prove without doubt my point.

The words of Jesus you make subject to interpretation by the words which are not Jesus'.

Your ace in the hole verse does not need any help outside of the english Bible to be put in an entirely different perspective.

I know that you have this thing against websites, but for me, I was broken, did not believe, and I surrendered and said "show me God".

I was the man that said "I believe, help me with my unbelief".

Armed with that and only that, I surrenered to God's word.

Now either one believes that God's word has the power to convey truth, or it doesn't.

I had surrendered to the belief that it did.

As I read, I was troubled. Troubled and yet excited. Excited, because I felt like the TRUTH was being shown to me.

Troubled, because I kenw that I would be rejected.

I cannot be baptized. No one will baptize me because I do not believe in a trinity.

Where am I to find a believer that is not JW that will baptize me?

So dear DJ, my faith and understanding do not come from a website, or some rebel scholar, and it does not come without its own cross to bear.

I do take comfort though that some of these websites, scholars, linguists, have re-assured me, in what God's spirit already pointed out to me.

Just so that we are clear.

My surrender came first.

God's enlightening came next.

Re-assurance from external sources came last.

[God is My Rock]

First, DRS, I ask as usual for you to tell me if that "word" is from the Textus Receptus or not.

I cannot read Hebrew, and I do not believe God requires it of any of us today, either.

God said He would preserve His Word, and I happen to believe it. Do you?

• Psa. 12:6 The words of the LORD are PURE WORDS: AS silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Funny, but while God's word was preserved, One of Jesus' main disgust issues was that the Jew's were following traditions, instead of his words. Also that the religious instution of that day, did not even understand the words that were preserved, that they did know.

[ralittlefield]

perhaps this is where faith comes in.

But to me, it seems rather simple.

For example

Jesus says that the Father is his God, is greater than he, that his words are not his own, but the Fathers, etc...

also

there are scriptures that call Jesus lord, and god. (or at least they may appear to.)

now, setting aside ALL doctrines, opinions, beliefs, (including my own, JW, uni, etc) and looking at these verses as they are (in english) they appear to be in conflict, or even complete opposites.

So what to do?

Warrior and I, and others, Take Jesus as The Truth. He said that he was the truth, the life, and the way. By believing Jesus, and yet maintaining that the Bible is of God, what to do about these other verses that also are true?

Is there an answer?

Yes, it is called grammar. By acknowledging that people back then had multiple meanings for a single word, just like today, this solves almost all of the "conflicts" right there.

What is the other answer?

The Trinitarian response is that these other verses are to be taken as they read in english.

So what about the words of Jesus? What is their response?

Jesus was not telling the whole truth (at that time)

Jesus' words are not sufficient for the full understanding of his relationship with God.

Jesus' words do not mean literally what they say, they must be either qualified, or expanded upon.


This is what it really comes down to.

Both sides are qualifying or expanding upon scripture verses.

Our side trusts in Jesus' words to be the most clear, and that other verses only need to have the proper grammar rules applied for the Bible to be a self contained revelation.

The Trinatarian side trusts the words of sinful men inspired by God to be the most clear, and that the words of Jesus must be subject to them, also this creates confusion so external doctrines must be created to explain the revelation contained within the Bible.



All of the Bible is inspired of God, that is not the question.

The question is which words are subject to which?

Jesus' words subject to the writings of inspired sinful men? (Even the Bible contains numerous examples of the apostles sinning, and not having perfect understanding)

or

The words of inspired sinful men, subject to the words of the Son of God?


This truly seems like a no brainer to me. IMHO

In my opinion, Jesus has said nothing that prevents Him from being God.

He said that He is the Son of God. That, to me, means that He has to be God.

He has said that the Father is His God. Hence, the Trinity, because we know there is only one God.

He has said that the Father is greater than Him, He prayed to the Father, He does not know.... etc. (Have any of you noticed the passage in Phil 2? I think that it has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread.)

[God is My Rock]

In my opinion, Jesus has said nothing that prevents Him from being God.

He said that He is the Son of God. That, to me, means that He has to be God.


Funny, to me that means what it says - That he is the Son of God.


(Have any of you noticed the passage in Phil 2? I think that it has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread.)

Did you even read this post?

You take the words of man and subject the words of Jesus to them.

Fine, I get it.

I take the Words of Jesus, and subject the words of man to them.

Yes, yes , yes, all of the bible is inspired, But just like the instructions to building something, If you do them out of order, you will not get the proper result. That does not mean that any of the instructions were wrong, or less valuable then any of the other parts, it just means that one did not start where one should, and follow the proper order.

Warrior and I firmly believe that Jesus is instruction #1.

Trinitarians believe that (pick your favorite non-Jesus verse) is instruction #1.

[DRS]

First, DRS, I ask as usual for you to tell me if that "word" is from the Textus Receptus or not.

I cannot read Hebrew, and I do not believe God requires it of any of us today, either.

God said He would preserve His Word, and I happen to believe it. Do you?

• Psa. 12:6 The words of the LORD are PURE WORDS: AS silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The words are from the bible Jim,

If you can not read the words then get an interlinear like i have done and study for yourself like I do and then you see that for instance Pslams says this

6*The sayings of Jehovah are pure sayings,
As silver refined in a smelting furnace of earth, clarified seven times.

*7*You yourself, O Jehovah, will guard them;
You will preserve each one from this generation to time indefinite

And the word if preserved we find older manuscripts that clear up mistakes made in copying and translation

[God is My Rock]

Funny, to me that means what it says - That he is the Son of God.



Did you even read this post?

You take the words of man and subject the words of Jesus to them.

Fine, I get it.

I take the Words of Jesus, and subject the words of man to them.

Yes, yes , yes, all of the bible is inspired, But just like the instructions to building something, If you do them out of order, you will not get the proper result. That does not mean that any of the instructions were wrong, or less valuable then any of the other parts, it just means that one did not start where one should, and follow the proper order.

Warrior and I firmly believe that Jesus is instruction #1.

Trinitarians believe that (pick your favorite non-Jesus verse) is instruction #1.

After the flurry of activity the last couple of days, I thought today might be a busy day.......... :shhh: instead it has been as quiet as a mouse!

[ralittlefield]

Funny, to me that means what it says - That he is the Son of God.



Did you even read this post?

You take the words of man and subject the words of Jesus to them.

Fine, I get it.

I take the Words of Jesus, and subject the words of man to them.

Yes, yes , yes, all of the bible is inspired, But just like the instructions to building something, If you do them out of order, you will not get the proper result. That does not mean that any of the instructions were wrong, or less valuable then any of the other parts, it just means that one did not start where one should, and follow the proper order.

Warrior and I firmly believe that Jesus is instruction #1.

Trinitarians believe that (pick your favorite non-Jesus verse) is instruction #1.


Please elaborate on the statement that I have underlined.

What words of man have the words of Jesus been subjected to?

[DispensationalJim]

The words are from the bible Jim,

If you can not read the words then get an interlinear like i have done and study for yourself like I do and then you see that for instance Pslams says this

6*The sayings of Jehovah are pure sayings,
As silver refined in a smelting furnace of earth, clarified seven times.

*7*You yourself, O Jehovah, will guard them;
You will preserve each one from this generation to time indefinite

And the word if preserved we find older manuscripts that clear up mistakes made in copying and translation

Excuse me, DRS, but have you been paying attention?

I just quoted you from the Bible. Obviously, I do not read Hebrew or Greek, so in order for any of us who do not read those languages to "go back to the original language", we must depend on what someone else has translated for us, such as you have with your interlinear version.

Even for those who can read those languages, they still must decide which Greek or Hebrew version to "depend" on.

There are several Bible versions (even in the interlinear Bibles), as I keep pointing out. How would I decide which one to use, DRS? Must I get the same one you have so I can come to the same conclusions you have?

I checked some web sites and saw interlinears using at least three different sets of manuscripts.

And once again, DRS, I have explained several times that I believe the supposedly older manuscripts (mainly the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus Greek texts) have been shown by highly respected "scholars" to be corrupted, compared to the "Textus Receptus" or Majority texts (which consist of over 5,000 sets while the "minority texts" number about 12.

It can be shown that the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus don't agree with each other, while the thousands of Textus Receptus sets agree with each other to an amazing extent while greatly disagreeing with the Vaticanus, etc. from which almost all the new Bibles (including the New World/Jehovah's Witness Bible) were translated.

Now, DRS, you can keep claiming that the "older" manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sanaiticus, etc.) have "cleared up mistakes made in copying and translating" from the Textus Receptus as often as you wish, but until you show me that you have studied the "manuscript evidence" completely, and can admit that there is THE POSSIBILITY that your conclusion is strictly made from other men's OPINIONS, I will continue to remind you of my conclusions from my studies.

[ralittlefield]

My wife just suggested a new life verse for me.

Isaiah 46
4 Even to your old age and gray hairs
I am he, I am he who will sustain you.
I have made you and I will carry you;
I will sustain you and I will rescue you.


I think that she is trying to tell me something! ;)

[ralittlefield]

The words are from the bible Jim,

If you can not read the words then get an interlinear like i have done and study for yourself like I do and then you see that for instance Pslams says this

6*The sayings of Jehovah are pure sayings,
As silver refined in a smelting furnace of earth, clarified seven times.

*7*You yourself, O Jehovah, will guard them;
You will preserve each one from this generation to time indefinite

And the word if preserved we find older manuscripts that clear up mistakes made in copying and translation

DRS,

What is the source of your interlinear? What English translation does it use? How do you know that translation is correct?

[DRS]

Many on here including people who speak hebrew and greek and have shown you and others the mistranslation of words

You have shown the opinions of men in attempt to slander bibles, now I could do as you do and throw mud by casting character disperstions on those involed with the KJV but I choose instead to get the actual hebrew or greek words and get the word translated

the difference between me and you is I do not idolize any one bible translation

Now there are articles on the TR without the name calling that you like to link to

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html

Now if you delight in the word of God then you should have no problem with onlder manuscripts show up, that show God's name and when more knowledgable people point out the errors in translation. Being thankful you have the chance to learn, unless of course you do not want errors pointed out because it may threaten your theology

[DRS]

DRS,

What is the source of your interlinear? What English translation does it use? How do you know that translation is correct?

There are hebrew and greek dictionaries to double check there are people on this form who can translate words also

Then there is also the fact that it is translated correctly in certain places even in the KJV

Take the expresssion asher aeie

[God is My Rock]

Please elaborate on the statement that I have underlined.

What words of man have the words of Jesus been subjected to?

I knew somone would fixate on this, this is why I tried to clarify by


Yes, yes , yes, all of the bible is inspired, But just like the instructions to building something, If you do them out of order, you will not get the proper result. That does not mean that any of the instructions were wrong, or less valuable then any of the other parts, it just means that one did not start where one should, and follow the proper order.


The Bible is inspired by God, but written by man.

Men wrote the words of Jesus.

Men inspired by the Spirit of God wrote portions of the Bible.

Other men have translated, and commented on the Bible.

When two verses in the Bible appear to be in conflict, one the words of Jesus, the other, the words of a creature inspired by God, I give precedence to the words of Jesus. This does not in any way mean that I discount the words of the creature, for they are inspired by God. But it does mean that Jesus' words are the ones that I use to filter the words of the creature.


What am I really saying?

Here is an example.

DJ's ace in the hole verse John 1:1, trinitarians claim, is a verse where they say that John is telling us that Jesus is God.

We are also not to worship anyone but God.

But what do we find true about John?

Rev 19:10

At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."






Okay so John just had a slip right?








Rev 22:8-9

8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"







Looks like John although having a vision of God, and BEING IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD

still had a problem with correctly placing/giving his worship.


And Revelation was written after the Gospel (at least that is what been theorized)

My point is not to tear down John, but to show that man (that is creature) while he may be inspired, and yes even in the presence of God, can still have wrong ideas. The Bible says so.


So I ask you,

Subject the words of Jesus to inspired men?

OR

Subject the words of inspired men to the words of Jesus?

[DispensationalJim]

There are hebrew and greek dictionaries to double check there are people on this form who can translate words also

Then there is also the fact that it is translated correctly in certain places even in the KJV

Take the expresssion asher aeie

DRS, you did not answer ralittlefield's questions, did you?

Please tell us all WHICH INTERLINEAR VERSION you use and some reasonable explanation as to WHY you chose that particular version.

Thank you very much.

[God is My Rock]

My wife just suggested a new life verse for me.

Isaiah 46
4 Even to your old age and gray hairs
I am he, I am he who will sustain you.
I have made you and I will carry you;
I will sustain you and I will rescue you.


I think that she is trying to tell me something! ;)

:)

[DispensationalJim]

Funny, but while God's word was preserved, One of Jesus' main disgust issues was that the Jew's were following traditions, instead of his words. Also that the religious instution of that day, did not even understand the words that were preserved, that they did know.

Funny, we don't believe in following "traditions" at our fellowship.

Do you follow all of the "traditions" Jesus gave? Shall we remind you of a few of Jesus' words that many do not follow today?

How about these words from Jesus?
• Matt. 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

[ralittlefield]

I knew somone would fixate on this, this is why I tried to clarify by


Yes, yes , yes, all of the bible is inspired, But just like the instructions to building something, If you do them out of order, you will not get the proper result. That does not mean that any of the instructions were wrong, or less valuable then any of the other parts, it just means that one did not start where one should, and follow the proper order.


The Bible is inspired by God, but written by man.

Men wrote the words of Jesus.

Men inspired by the Spirit of God wrote portions of the Bible.

Other men have translated, and commented on the Bible.

When two verses in the Bible appear to be in conflict, one the words of Jesus, the other, the words of a creature inspired by God, I give precedence to the words of Jesus. This does not in any way mean that I discount the words of the creature, for they are inspired by God. But it does mean that Jesus' words are the ones that I use to filter the words of the creature.


What am I really saying?

Here is an example.

DJ's ace in the hole verse John 1:1, trinitarians claim, is a verse where they say that John is telling us that Jesus is God.

We are also not to worship anyone but God.

But what do we find true about John?

Rev 19:10

At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Okay so John just had a slip right?


Rev 22:8-9

8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"

Looks like John although having a vision of God, and BEING IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD

still had a problem with correctly placing/giving his worship.


My point is not to tear down John, but to show that man (that is creature) while he may be inspired, and yes even in the presence of God, can still have wrong ideas. The Bible says so.


So I ask you,

Subject the words of Jesus to inspired men?

OR

Subject the words of inspired men to the words of Jesus?

I say that all the words in the Bible have equal value. Inspired men wrote all of it. Even the quotes of Jesus are written by men. If it is possible that they misspoke when talking about Jesus, it is possible that they misspoke when quoting Jesus. I have to take it all or none. I accept all of it.

Your point is that just as John was in awe of the angel, Thomas was in awe of Jesus. Both John and Thomas reacted improperly. Do I understand what you are saying?

The problem is that the angel corrected John. Jesus gave no hint that Thomas was out of line. That, I believe, is a big difference.

[God is My Rock]

I say that all the words in the Bible have equal value. Inspired men wrote all of it. Even the quotes of Jesus are written by men. If it is possible that they misspoke when talking about Jesus, it is possible that they misspoke when quoting Jesus. I have to take it all or none. I accept all of it.

Your point is that just as John was in awe of the angel, Thomas was in awe of Jesus. Both John and Thomas reacted improperly. Do I understand what you are saying?

The problem is that the angel corrected John. Jesus gave no hint that Thomas was out of line. That, I believe, is a big difference.

No not exactly, because I have said that grammar accounts for most of the conflicts.

To disregard that theos can be all sorts of things besides just GOD, and then say well Jesus did not rebuke Thomas, is not reasoning on a level playing field.


GRAMMAR, GRAMMAR, GRAMMAR.


Having said that, my main point above was that when people IGNORE GRAMMAR GRAMMAR GRAMMAR and then place an interpretation onto a verse that it may not suggest, and then give that interpretation equal value, with a verse by Jesus which is very clear, with little to no room for misinterpretation, IMHO is a tragedy.


On top of it all if one is going to stick by this interpretation and say, "It says god so John meant GOD" I say, well even John had problems AFTER he had been in the presence of Jesus, AFTER he had seen the risen Lord, AFTER he had been inspired, AFTER he had been in the presence of GOD in a vision, AFTER HE SUPPOSEDLY KNEW THAT GOD WAS A TRIUNE GOD, with whom to worship.

[DispensationalJim]

Fine, I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate your love for God.

But your post does in fact prove without doubt my point.

The words of Jesus you make subject to interpretation by the words which are not Jesus'.

Your ace in the hole verse does not need any help outside of the english Bible to be put in an entirely different perspective.

I know that you have this thing against websites, but for me, I was broken, did not believe, and I surrendered and said "show me God".

I was the man that said "I believe, help me with my unbelief".

Armed with that and only that, I surrenered to God's word.

Now either one believes that God's word has the power to convey truth, or it doesn't.

I had surrendered to the belief that it did.

As I read, I was troubled. Troubled and yet excited. Excited, because I felt like the TRUTH was being shown to me.

Troubled, because I kenw that I would be rejected.

I cannot be baptized. No one will baptize me because I do not believe in a trinity.

Where am I to find a believer that is not JW that will baptize me?

So dear DJ, my faith and understanding do not come from a website, or some rebel scholar, and it does not come without its own cross to bear.

I do take comfort though that some of these websites, scholars, linguists, have re-assured me, in what God's spirit already pointed out to me.

Just so that we are clear.

My surrender came first.

God's enlightening came next.

Re-assurance from external sources came last.

Sorry, Rock, but I'm still not sure what your point is which I supposedly proved.

Do you believe God picked you out special to show you truth?

Do you have a more direct line to the Holy Spirit than the rest of us?

Can you show me a verse where surrender to God's will must come at a certain time?

========================

Please tell me, Rock, how would you classify this passage from Paul (one of my favorites, BTW)?
• Rom. 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

===========================

Must I now find some words from Jesus to see if Paul's words have any real meaning in my life? Should I just ignore the rest of my NT, give up Paul's concept of "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2Tim. 2:15) and read only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and consider myself a member of the "lost sheep of the house of Israel"?

• Matt. 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

============================

As I asked earlier (without a response), should I then take all of Jesus words literally such as is shown below?

• Matt. 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

[DRS]

DRS, you did not answer ralittlefield's questions, did you?

Please tell us all WHICH INTERLINEAR VERSION you use and some reasonable explanation as to WHY you chose that particular version.

Thank you very much.

Hey post the hebrew and greek that form the basis for the KJV

I posted several times which site I used, look in the thread you can find it

Why not tranlsate what I have posted here, Jim what are you afraid of?

Could it be that this one expression shows poor translation and the same bias slant you like to accuse others of?

[DispensationalJim]

No not exactly, because I have said that grammar accounts for most of the conflicts.

To disregard that theos can be all sorts of things besides just GOD, and then say well Jesus did not rebuke Thomas, is not reasoning on a level playing field.


GRAMMAR, GRAMMAR, GRAMMAR.


Having said that, my main point above was that when people IGNORE GRAMMAR GRAMMAR GRAMMAR and then place an interpretation onto a verse that it may not suggest, and then give that interpretation equal value, with a verse by Jesus which is very clear, with little to no room for misinterpretation, IMHO is a tragedy.


On top of it all if one is going to stick by this interpretation and say, "It says god so John meant GOD" I say, well even John had problems AFTER he had been in the presence of Jesus, AFTER he had seen the risen Lord, AFTER he had been inspired, AFTER he had been in the presence of GOD in a vision, AFTER HE SUPPOSEDLY KNEW THAT GOD WAS A TRIUNE GOD, with whom to worship.

One of my rules has always been:

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

IMO, grammar can be relative. Grammar can mean one thing to one person, and another thing to another. If you want to talk about correct grammar, please speak to DRS. He really needs help in that area. :)

[DRS]

One of my rules has always been:

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!

IMO, grammar can be relative. Grammar can mean one thing to one person, and another thing to another. If you want to talk about correct grammar, please speak to DRS. He really needs help in that area. :)

You seem to ignore context though look at usuage of the word god throughout the bible, when it suits your purpose it means the almighty when speaking of Jesus and when the bible shows there is only one most high and names Him

But others are called god, judges angels and a prophet all that in context helps one to understand it being used on Jesus

[DispensationalJim]

Hey post the hebrew and greek that form the basis for the KJV

I posted several times which site I used, look in the thread you can find it

Why not tranlsate what I have posted here, Jim what are you afraid of?

Could it be that this one expression shows poor translation and the same bias slant you like to accuse others of?

I read your thread about the Textus Receptus, and found it to be quite biased and provided no "source" for its statements.

My only fear on this thread is that some people might actually accept your faulty line of thinking.

I don't happen to have a Greek or Hebrew typewriter, so I would have to copy someone else's typing, as you probably have done. The sites I checked tell me I need to purchase software in order to obtain the Greek and Hebrew, so at this time, that is out of the question for me.

[DispensationalJim]

You seem to ignore context though look at usuage of the word god throughout the bible, when it suits your purpose it means the almighty when speaking of Jesus and when the bible shows there is only one most high and names Him

But others are called god, judges angels and a prophet all that in context helps one to understand it being used on Jesus

You actually typed that correctly, DRS! Others are called "god", but not "God" as Jesus is. The same applies to the word "lord" since "Lord" is always used to apply to Jesus, even in your NWT!

So your point falls short once again.

[God is My Rock]

Sorry, Rock, but I'm still not sure what your point is which I supposedly proved.

Do you believe God picked you out special to show you truth?

Do you have a more direct line to the Holy Spirit than the rest of us?

Can you show me a verse where surrender to God's will must come at a certain time?

========================

Please tell me, Rock, how would you classify this passage from Paul (one of my favorites, BTW)?
• Rom. 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

===========================

Must I now find some words from Jesus to see if Paul's words have any real meaning in my life? Should I just ignore the rest of my NT, give up Paul's concept of "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2Tim. 2:15) and read only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and consider myself a member of the "lost sheep of the house of Israel"?

• Matt. 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

============================

As I asked earlier (without a response), should I then take all of Jesus words literally such as is shown below?

• Matt. 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

You know what? All pride set aside, the one thing that people seem to be afraid of on this site, (for the sake of political correctness) is to not rest in their conviction of the Holy Spirit.

So with all humility I guess if push comes to shove, I would say Yes DJ, Perhaps God has shared some aspect of truth with me, and some others on this board, then he has with others.

This does not mean that I find myself to be superior in any way, just perhaps chosen for some reason beyond my understanding.

I take no pride in the above statement.

Do not read into it any sense of superiority of "faith". for it is not there.

I am belittling no-one.

You put me in a corner in essence saying "do you really believe what you are saying." And the answer to that is YES.



As far as the rest of what you said, The entire Bible is inspired by God.
It all has worth.

That does not mean though, as I illustrated with the "directions/instructions" example, that order does not matter.

Order does matter.

So does illustrative language, so does the idea of metaphors, figures of speech, etc....

As far as the Jesus quote, you know the answer, and this is a very weak strawman.

In answer to your question, Is it the eye that causes you to sin, or the response of your heart to what the eye sees?

Is it your hand that sins, or the response of your heart to what your hand is doing, or what your heart impels your hand to do?

To think that Jesus' literally believed that an eye or hand etc... could be the source of sin is ridiculous.

Having said all of the above, peace and blessings to you, please do not take offense at anything in this post.

Just like I would expect you to say, "yes I believe what I believe".

[DRS]

You post what others write, I have read the argurements you use, which are in fact the arguements of others and have been refuted

That is interesting as the the KJV was partially translated based on the latin, which why all newer bibles have gone back to hebrew and greek manuscripts for accurate translation into english

[DRS]

You actually typed that correctly, DRS! Others are called "god", but not "God" as Jesus is. The same applies to the word "lord" since "Lord" is always used to apply to Jesus, even in your NWT!

So your point falls short once again. :dance:

Actually we tranlsate it as small g or big depending on how you want it, lord does not alway apply to Jesus

Now in your KJV LORD always refers to Jehovah

By the way before dancing like you have something to celeberate is not very smart when you have not posted evidence for your arguement

[DispensationalJim]

Actually we tranlsate it as small g or big depending on how you want it, lord does not alway apply to Jesus

Now in your KJV LORD always refers to Jehovah

By the way before dancing like you have something to celeberate is not very smart when you have not posted evidence for your arguement

Sorry, I hit the wrong happy face. I apologize. I took it off.

To add: I have seen no evidence from your posts, either, DRS.

[DispensationalJim]

You know what? All pride set aside, the one thing that people seem to be afraid of on this site, (for the sake of political correctness) is to not rest in their conviction of the Holy Spirit.

So with all humility I guess if push comes to shove, I would say Yes DJ, Perhaps God has shared some aspect of truth with me, and some others on this board, then he has with others.

This does not mean that I find myself to be superior in any way, just perhaps chosen for some reason beyond my understanding.

I take no pride in the above statement.

Do not read into it any sense of superiority of "faith". for it is not there.

I am belittling no-one.

You put me in a corner in essence saying "do you really believe what you are saying." And the answer to that is YES.



As far as the rest of what you said, The entire Bible is inspired by God.
It all has worth.

That does not mean though, as I illustrated with the "directions/instructions" example, that order does not matter.

Order does matter.

So does illustrative language, so does the idea of metaphors, figures of speech, etc....

As far as the Jesus quote, you know the answer, and this is a very weak strawman.

In answer to your question, Is it the eye that causes you to sin, or the response of your heart to what the eye sees?

Is it your hand that sins, or the response of your heart to what your hand is doing, or what your heart impels your hand to do?

To think that Jesus' literally believed that an eye or hand etc... could be the source of sin is ridiculous.

Having said all of the above, peace and blessings to you, please do not take offense at anything in this post.

Just like I would expect you to say, "yes I believe what I believe".

Thanks for that open and heart-felt response, Rock.

The problem to me, of course, is that there would be no need for these debates if we could all agree that you had more truth than the rest of us.

If I may share honestly, also... I have known a few folks in my long life who felt so strongly that they were directly led of the Holy Spirit that they felt little need to study the Scripture since God had already told them what to do.

I wonder how you, Rock, would respond to someone who said: "God told me to buy this huge piece of land" when you knew that piece of land was incredibly over-priced and/or basically worthless, etc., for instance.

To me, that can be a danger of people "claiming" to be led by God without utilizing the Scriptures to guide them.

I would be interested in your view of that potential problem.

[God is My Rock]

Thanks for that open and heart-felt response, Rock.

The problem to me, of course, is that there would be no need for these debates if we could all agree that you had more truth than the rest of us.

If I may share honestly, also... I have known a few folks in my long life who felt so strongly that they were directly led of the Holy Spirit that they felt little need to study the Scripture since God had already told them what to do.

I wonder how you, Rock, would respond to someone who said: "God told me to buy this huge piece of land" when you knew that piece of land was incredibly over-priced and/or basically worthless, etc., for instance.

To me, that can be a danger of people "claiming" to be led by God without utilizing the Scriptures to guide them.

I would be interested in your view of that potential problem.

To be honest, I would probably have the same sort of reaction as you. (At least I think this is what you are getting at, if not sorry) but I would doubt.

Now going on with your "studying the scriptures" my response probably should be something closer to ....

Matthew 7:2
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Romans 14:4
Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.


Romans 14:10
You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.


1 Corinthians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.




What I feel compelled to acknowledge from the above verses, is kind of the same thing that you are saying, but in reverse.

By not believing that a person is capable of receiving a vision from God, that may appear foolish to others who did not recieve it (think Joseph, and what the Angel told him about Mary's virginity) then haven't we put ourselves in the very position that you are saying that we should be wary of, i.e. thinking we "the judger" are being led by God, in our judgement, when we are not?


Humility seems to be key here.

Humility, openess for God to do something which appears impossible, or perhaps even foolish, and as you said, soaking ourselves in the scriptures.


(I am not throwing common sense out the window here, I am just saying that it should be tempered by humility, and allowing room for God to do something wonderful)

[DRS]

Sorry, I hit the wrong happy face. I apologize. I took it off.

To add: I have seen no evidence from your posts, either, DRS.

The KJV has political roots, not a good base for making spiritual progress

The KJV owes its birth to the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, the meeting of the newly crowned James I of England with the authorities of the Church of England and the Puritan dissidents. James desired to have a unified church in England and was distressed at the polarity he entered. The Geneva Bible was by far the most popular Bible in England in 1604, and while the translation was excellent the notes in it were fiercely Calvinist and anti-monarchical. The Bibles sanctioned by the Anglican authorities left much to be desired, but they at least did not contain seditious notes. One of the Puritans suggested to the King that he should establish one Bible for use throughout the land; James took this idea and from it came the decision to make a new translation (McGrath, 161-162). We can see, therefore, that there was no burning spiritual desire to have a new translation, but only the need for a political compromise between the seditious Geneva Bible and the inadequate Anglican versions.

The texts as the basis of the translations were not the most accurate, even for the early seventeenth century, and the knowledge of the translators of those languages was not always the best. To quote Nicholson:

The Hebrew and particularly the Greek texts they were working from were not the most accurate, even by the standards of their own time. Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor as the head of the church in Geneva, had prepared an edition of the New Testament some forty years earlier based on a more ancient and a less corrupt manuscript. The English scholars were still a little adrift on tenses in Hebrew, while koine, the form of rubbed down and difficult Greek in which the New Testament is written, so unlike the Greek of Plato and Aristotle, still held mysteries for them, which only later translations would correct

http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/OriginOfKJV.htm

[Tucson Jim]

So it appears you say something with no backup.

I have no problem with talking to Jesus because I believe he hears us.

My point is you say something without any proof.

Just show it.

Or can you?

I already did but you rejected it.

Then I asked if you could perhaps show us your Bible knowledge and point to a verse or two that show prayer to Jesus, but apparently that is too hard . . .

Finally, I gave you another verse showing prayer to Jesus, but instead of discussing that verse, your response was to keep taunting.

I'm disappointed Warrior, I really am . . . :naughty:

[Tucson Jim]

classic...........no real response to proof.

No need to respond . . AGAIN . . . to your flooding the thread with Uni material.

Why don't you give us one or two critical verses and tell us what YOU think about them?

Then we could discuss it.

[Tucson Jim]

Do the angels worship him or do they bow to him since he is the king?

They worship Him.

Unless, of course, you also think they are only "bowing" to God the Father . . .

[Tucson Jim]

This is one that we are going to diagree upon, always.

There are countless examples in the OT of people using God's name to express awe and amazement, to glory in his power and might.

Never once in the OT is this considered cussing.

You as I suspected, and you yourself confirmed, equate any usage of My God, to an equivalent of an elementary child's flippant expression of "Wow".

Not exactly . . . my knuckles would have remained intact had I only uttered "Wow".

My Dad being a logger, I am actually somewhat of an expert on cussing. Not that I'm proud of it.

But your response indicates to me you are not very familiar with cussing. Which is good for you, but bad for your argument.

If Thomas used "My Lord and my God" as an exclamation of "surprise", as you assert, it would be the equivalent of the modern-day "Oh my God" - entirely unacceptable in Sunday school and polite company.

The fact that it's a commonplace utterance today is testimony to the degradation of sensibilities we have undergone of late.

Thomas had stated he would not believe unless something he beleived was impossible would happen.

So, for Thomas to be standing in front of the risen Christ, risen by the power of Thomas' God, is not the same thing as 20th century flippancy.

It would be if used in the way you describe.

However, if used as a reverent expression of Thomas' realization of the Identity of his Lord, it would be entirely appropriate and would have been readily accepted by Jesus - as indeed it was.

And to interpret that situation as being equal is extremely unfair.

With all due respect, I believe it is your conjecture about the nature of Thomas' reaction that is unfair.

It was wrong of the nuns to teach you that, if they did.

They did. I was, in fact, expelled for 2 weeks for my inability to control my tongue and was only readmitted after personal assurances from my father that it would not happen again.

Ironic, given that I learned all the colorful language I knew from him!

[Tucson Jim]

No actually it doesn't.

I do not agree with the way you are interpreting scripture here..... surprise, surprise....:)

My question was never answered, (you responded, but did not answer) how 3 persons can be one being.

Nor did you answer how one being can be 3 persons.

As your question was somewhat ambiguous, I answered with a statement of Trinitarian belief about the nature of God.

You simply don't like my answer.

I'm OK with that . . .

There is one God = The Father (God is supreme over all, this is an understood assumption)

Au contrere mon frere - I believe the One God is Father, Son and Spirit.

For someone to say "There is a God" and then to even leave room for the thought "But he is not THE Lord" is absurd.

And yet, that is exactly the implication of the misuse of Corinthians by AA that I was responding to.

I'm glad to see you understand that.

So what is up with Jesus being called the one Lord?

Because Jesus is the only "king","leader", "ruler", "authority" that we are to follow.

Oh, I see - so when it says "one God the Father" it means literally that, but when it says in the same verse "one Lord Jesus Christ", it doesn't really mean that.

Got it . . . :rolleyes:

[Tucson Jim]

And this is why Warrior and I disagree with you (at least I think I can speak for Warrior, if not, sorry)

You appear to do more interpreting than leaving alone.

You do realize how hilarious this sounds coming from someone who just did what you did to 1 Cor 8 in the post I just responded to? :))


Warrior and I believe the same about some of the early fathers, and translators.


Jesus words are the foundation, upon which the rest of scripture should be interpreted.

You say, no, you are going to take it for what it says.

But in reality, you are interpreting scripture, according to what others have said.


THIS and only this, is what seperates us.

Jesus is the interpreter Warrior and I interpret the rest of scripture through.

You and trinitarians choose the early church fathers to interpret all of scripture.

Not at all!

I and other Trinitarians simply believe that ALL of the Bible is inspired by God and profitable for teaching , reproof, correction and training in righteousness.

Warrior, and apparently you, have chosen to assume part of the Bible is more important, or correct, or authoritative, than other parts of the Bible.

I categorically reject that assumption.

There are more than 4 books in Warrior's Bible, so be fair......

Easy, Big fella . . . just poking a little fun.

But remember I later corrected that - it's not even 4 books, since we're only counting the words of Jesus! :razz:

[Tucson Jim]

Or perhaps you don't???? IMHO?

I would be the first to admit that I don't fully comprehend the Incarnation.

I just know that God became man to save us from our sins.

[Tucson Jim]

I bit harsh, DRS. Perhaps an edit is due on your end.

Indeed.

[Tucson Jim]

perhaps this is where faith comes in.

But to me, it seems rather simple.

For example

Jesus says that the Father is his God, is greater than he, that his words are not his own, but the Fathers, etc...

also

there are scriptures that call Jesus lord, and god. (or at least they may appear to.)

now, setting aside ALL doctrines, opinions, beliefs, (including my own, JW, uni, etc) and looking at these verses as they are (in english) they appear to be in conflict, or even complete opposites.

So what to do?

Warrior and I, and others, Take Jesus as The Truth. He said that he was the truth, the life, and the way. By believing Jesus, and yet maintaining that the Bible is of God, what to do about these other verses that also are true?

Is there an answer?

Yes, it is called grammar. By acknowledging that people back then had multiple meanings for a single word, just like today, this solves almost all of the "conflicts" right there.

What is the other answer?

The Trinitarian response is that these other verses are to be taken as they read in english.

So what about the words of Jesus? What is their response?

Jesus was not telling the whole truth (at that time)

Jesus' words are not sufficient for the full understanding of his relationship with God.

Jesus' words do not mean literally what they say, they must be either qualified, or expanded upon.


This is what it really comes down to.

Both sides are qualifying or expanding upon scripture verses.

Our side trusts in Jesus' words to be the most clear, and that other verses only need to have the proper grammar rules applied for the Bible to be a self contained revelation.

The Trinatarian side trusts the words of sinful men inspired by God to be the most clear, and that the words of Jesus must be subject to them, also this creates confusion so external doctrines must be created to explain the revelation contained within the Bible.



All of the Bible is inspired of God, that is not the question.

The question is which words are subject to which?

Jesus' words subject to the writings of inspired sinful men? (Even the Bible contains numerous examples of the apostles sinning, and not having perfect understanding)

or

The words of inspired sinful men, subject to the words of the Son of God?


This truly seems like a no brainer to me. IMHO

With all due respect and in my humble opinion:

I think you have managed to create a giant pseudo-problem where none actually exists.

You pit scripture against scripture, arbitrarily and inappropriately assigning more weight to the words of Jesus (recorded by sinful but inspired men) than to the words of sinful men (also recorded by sinful but inspired men).

Besides the obvious logical and hermeneutical hurdles presented by positing unequal authority in two equally "inspired" scriptures, I believe your approach suffers from at least 2 other fatal flaws:

1. You cite the words of Jesus as being authoritative about a topic he did not even address! (NOT that he didn't tell the whole truth as you stated - you make it sound like he was lying on the witness stand!)

He did not come to earth to teach us about His Divinity, but to humble Himself and show us how WE should live - in total submission to God. To then cite His statements as authoritative opposition to other inspired scripture that is talking about His Divinity is at best misguided I believe.

2. You view Jesus' words as being at odds with scripture that talks about His Divinity by assuming a Unitarian view of God (e.g.Jesus cannot "have" a God if he is God", etc.).

Such arguments merely convince the opposition that you have made no effort whatsoever to even try to understand our beliefs. A Sunday school knowledge of Trinity is all that is required to see how such verses are definitely NOT a problem for Trinitarian belief, yet many in your camp seem to not possess even that, parroting these same verses over and over, as if they prove the point.

You know they don't.

Hence our occasional (sometimes frequent!) exasperation at this approach.

[Tucson Jim]

You've presented some options, but not all of the options. Another option would be that the writings contained in the Bible were, at one time, pure, divine, and inspired. Over the course of centuries, however, some of what was once pure was altered, either purposefully to fulfill an agenda, or because of translation errors.

That, of course, is what I believe happened. Which is why I believe in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covanents, PoGP, as well as in the divine revelation received by modern-day Prophets and Apostles. In that case, it is not simply doctrine which was created by sinful men to interpret the scriptures - it is inspired doctrine as given by God to clarify what is contained in the Bible. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall my word be established."

And yet another option is that the writings contained in the Bible were, and still are, pure, divine, and inspired. Perhaps it is our understanding of some of the verses that is flawed . . .

[Koushi Shinigami]

And yet another option is that the writings contained in the Bible were, and still are, pure, divine, and inspired.
.

With the number of different bibles that have different words for the same passages.... Doubtful.

[Tucson Jim]

Not meant as an insult.

But to give you a chance,

Jesus said that he was going to his God.

There is only one God.

This is what I am talking about. It's not a matter of us "qualifying" the scriptures as much as it is of your assumption of a Unitarian view of God and apparent misunderstanding (or, hopefully not, unwillingness to acknowledge) that it is definitely NOT a problem for Trinitarians that Jesus goes to His God.

Not a problem.

Do you believe these as they are, or will you qualify them?

If you do, whose words will you use?

I will wait and see.

Again, this was not meant as an insult, just plain observation.

Look at the thread, and you will see that whenever Warrior and I quote Jesus, you and others quote someone other than Jesus, to clarify Jesus.

As I just explained to you, this is completely appropriate when Jesus is not talking about His Divinity but the other inspired person is!

Whenever you quote someone other than Jesus, Warrior and I quote Jesus to clarify the other writer.

This really is this thread in a nutshell.

Kind of sad - two ships passing in the night . . .

[Tucson Jim]

With the number of different bibles that have different words for the same passages.... Doubtful.

By all means, feel free to doubt all you want.

[Koushi Shinigami]

By all means, feel free to doubt all you want.

It's a tradition started by one of the 12. I'm in good company.

[Tucson Jim]

I do believe this verse, and I do not see any need to qualify it:
• John 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.

I also believe this verse and see no need to qualify it:
• John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

But I believe this next group of verses helps explain John 20:17 without any qualification or Greek explanation:
• Mic. 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
• Hab. 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.
• Luke 2:12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. ... 16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
• Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

-------------------------------------------------

And then comes the "ace in the hole" passage:
• John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

You, Rock, and Warrior, and DRS, must run to the other Bibles or to the Greek or to some web site to discredit that passage.

============================

You also have to resort to other "scholars" to discredit this next passage:

• 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.

==========================

Those verses all fit together to tell an incredible story, don't they?

I need no commentary, no Greek explanation, no scholar to show me who Jesus is.

My Bible tells me clearly in the above verses that Jesus was God in the beginning. He created everything (including Mary), then made Himself into a little baby in Mary's womb, grew up to be A MAN (since God cannot die) so he could willingly and humbly and LOVINGLY DIE FOR OUR SINS.

How can anyone ask for more proof that God loved us than those verses?

Nice post Jim! :clap:

[Tucson Jim]

Fine, I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate your love for God.

But your post does in fact prove without doubt my point.

The words of Jesus you make subject to interpretation by the words which are not Jesus'.

Your ace in the hole verse does not need any help outside of the english Bible to be put in an entirely different perspective.

I know that you have this thing against websites, but for me, I was broken, did not believe, and I surrendered and said "show me God".

I was the man that said "I believe, help me with my unbelief".

Armed with that and only that, I surrenered to God's word.

Now either one believes that God's word has the power to convey truth, or it doesn't.

I had surrendered to the belief that it did.

As I read, I was troubled. Troubled and yet excited. Excited, because I felt like the TRUTH was being shown to me.

Troubled, because I kenw that I would be rejected.

I cannot be baptized. No one will baptize me because I do not believe in a trinity.

Where am I to find a believer that is not JW that will baptize me?

So dear DJ, my faith and understanding do not come from a website, or some rebel scholar, and it does not come without its own cross to bear.

I do take comfort though that some of these websites, scholars, linguists, have re-assured me, in what God's spirit already pointed out to me.

Just so that we are clear.

My surrender came first.

God's enlightening came next.

Re-assurance from external sources came last.

Interesting.

My surrender also came first, followed by God enlightening me as I studied His word, prayed and lived my life for Him.

Why would He lead us to such divergent understanding of such a central matter to the faith?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Interesting.

My surrender also came first, followed by God enlightening me as I studied His word, prayed and lived my life for Him.

Why would He lead us to such divergent understanding of such a central matter to the faith?


The question of the ages.

[Tucson Jim]

Upon what scripture do you base the insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, if he is not God?

After all, if through one creature, all creation was doomed, then the Son of God should be sufficient for payment.

Upon what scripture do you base the primacy of Christ's words over other scripture, if He indeed is also a creature but not God?

[Tucson Jim]

I knew somone would fixate on this, this is why I tried to clarify by


Yes, yes , yes, all of the bible is inspired, But just like the instructions to building something, If you do them out of order, you will not get the proper result. That does not mean that any of the instructions were wrong, or less valuable then any of the other parts, it just means that one did not start where one should, and follow the proper order.


The Bible is inspired by God, but written by man.

Men wrote the words of Jesus.

Men inspired by the Spirit of God wrote portions of the Bible.

Other men have translated, and commented on the Bible.

When two verses in the Bible appear to be in conflict, one the words of Jesus, the other, the words of a creature inspired by God, I give precedence to the words of Jesus. This does not in any way mean that I discount the words of the creature, for they are inspired by God. But it does mean that Jesus' words are the ones that I use to filter the words of the creature.


What am I really saying?

Here is an example.

DJ's ace in the hole verse John 1:1, trinitarians claim, is a verse where they say that John is telling us that Jesus is God.

We are also not to worship anyone but God.

But what do we find true about John?

Rev 19:10

At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."






Okay so John just had a slip right?








Rev 22:8-9

8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"







Looks like John although having a vision of God, and BEING IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD

still had a problem with correctly placing/giving his worship.


And Revelation was written after the Gospel (at least that is what been theorized)

My point is not to tear down John, but to show that man (that is creature) while he may be inspired, and yes even in the presence of God, can still have wrong ideas. The Bible says so.


So I ask you,

Subject the words of Jesus to inspired men?

OR

Subject the words of inspired men to the words of Jesus?

This is a HUGE problem.

So some scripture is suspect, but other scripture is not, when all scripture is inspired by God and written by man?

Is it possible that you are prone to accept as "correct" those scriptures that agree with your theology and "suspect" those that don't?

[Tucson Jim]

It's a tradition started by one of the 12. I'm in good company.

:)) Indeed you are!! Great company!!

[Tucson Jim]

The question of the ages.

True . . .:think:

[DRS]

Upon what scripture do you base the primacy of Christ's words over other scripture, if He indeed is also a creature but not God?

No where does Jesus say I am Almighty God

Paul made it clear it was through one man sin entered the world it was through another that life is possible

Jesus is called the only begotten god

The beginning of creation and refers to his God several times both while on Earth and in heaven

Now if you and others wish to belittle the anointed one of Jehovah by calling him a mere creature or use creation in a demening way then your treatment of Jesus is no better than the Jews who reject him

Jesus Christ the Messiah, both titles mean one who is anointed, who anointed him?

[Tucson Jim]

No where does Jesus say I am Almighty God

Your point is irrelevant.

Nowhere does Jesus say "you are saved by grace through faith and that not of yourselves; it is a gift from God that no one should boast." It says that elsewhere in scripture.

It is not unbiblical just because Jesus didn't say it.

Unless, of course, you want to join the camp of those who feel Christ's words trump other scripture - even when He isn't discussing the topic of His Divinity.

Paul made it clear it was through one man sin entered the world it was through another that life is possible

Yes, Jesus was a man - no one one this thread says otherwise.

Jesus is called the only begotten god

That alone should make you fall on your knees and worship Him.

The beginning of creation and refers to his God several times both while on Earth and in heaven

The ONE Who is FIRST in all things refers to His God because a) He did not hold onto His Godhood but emptied Himself and took the form of a servant - so it is natural that as a man He referred to His God, b) it is to be expected that a triune God would refer to other Person of the Trinity as His God - that relationship is reciprocal. The Father also referred to Jesus as "God" in Hebrews, c) the Persons of the triune God have different functions but the fact that Jesus is "Savior" does not make Him one bit less "God" than the Father or Holy Spirit.

Now if you and others wish to belittle the anointed one of Jehovah by calling him a mere creature or use creation in a demening way then your treatment of Jesus is no better than the Jews who reject him

On the contrary, I believe those err who choose to view Him as a mere angel who became a man - a creature as an angel and a creature as a man -instead of recognizing Who He really is - The Glorious Lord of the Universe, the Eternal One, Very God of Very God.

But good one DRS - you have managed to disparage Christians and Jewish folks in a single paragraph.

Jesus Christ the Messiah, both titles mean one who is anointed, who anointed him?

You have repeated this mantra dozens of times on this thread and you refuse to hear the answer, but here it is once more anyway - it does not matter one whit to the doctrine of the Trinity that the Father anoints the Son.

Not a bit.

This is NOT a problem for a Triune God.

Re-read my response to your point about Jesus calling the Father His God.

[DRS]

Your point is irrelevant.

Nowhere does Jesus say "you are saved by grace through faith and that not of yourselves; it is a gift from God that no one should boast." It says that elsewhere in scripture.

It is not unbiblical just because Jesus didn't say it.

Unless, of course, you want to join the camp of those who feel Christ's words trump other scripture - even when He isn't discussing the topic of His Divinity.

It is too bad you read and do not see, for all Paul did was sum up points made by Jesus and james





Yes, Jesus was a man - no one one this thread says otherwise.



That alone should make you fall on your knees and worship Him.

The God I worship is without beginning and is not fathered by anyone


The ONE Who is FIRST in all things refers to His God because a) He did not hold onto His Godhood but emptied Himself and took the form of a servant - so it is natural that as a man He referred to His God, b) it is to be expected that a triune God would refer to other Person of the Trinity as His God - that relationship is reciprocal. The Father also referred to Jesus as "God" in Hebrews, c) the Persons of the triune God have different functions but the fact that Jesus is "Savior" does not make Him one bit less "God" than the Father or Holy Spirit.

There he is in heaven referring to his God so you arguement does not work 12*“‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.

My God is the most High God alone and refers to no one as His God He anoints kings and has them sit on His throne

My God is one person as the ripture say Jehovah is one Jehovah

[QUOTE=Tucson Jim;45715791]On the contrary, I believe those err who choose to view Him as a mere angel who became a man - a creature as an angel and a creature as a man -instead of recognizing Who He really is - The Glorious Lord of the Universe, the Eternal One, Very God of Very God.

Seeing as Jehovah made him lower than the godlike ones and since he is not Jehovah explain who he is


But good one DRS - you have managed to disparage Christians and Jewish folks in a single paragraph.

you manage to disparage my God when you e him like the pagan gods of the nations who surrounded the Jews

You have repeated this mantra dozens of times on this thread and you refuse to hear the answer, but here it is once more anyway - it does not matter one whit to the doctrine of the Trinity that the Father anoints the Son.

Not a bit.

This is NOT a problem for a Triune God.

Re-read my response to your point about Jesus calling the Father His God.


For your triune god this may not create a problem but for the Most High God alone who anoints the messiah

When Jesus enter the synagouge he read from Isaiah these words

61 The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening [of the eyes] even to the prisoners; 2*to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah and the day of vengeance on the part of our God; to comfort all the mourning ones;

[Tucson Jim]

It is too bad you read and do not seem for all Paul did was sum up points made by Jesus and james

Please try to type in complete sentences DRS - I "read and do not seem"??

As far as Paul "summing up points" you appear to have missed my point entirely.


The God I worship is without beginning and is not fathered by anyone

Worship whatever you want . . .

The ONE Who is FIRST in all things refers to His God because a) He did not hold onto His Godhood but emptied Himself and took the form of a servant - so it is natural that as a man He referred to His God, b) it is to be expected that a triune God would refer to other Person of the Trinity as His God - that relationship is reciprocal. The Father also referred to Jesus as "God" in Hebrews, c) the Persons of the triune God have different functions but the fact that Jesus is "Savior" does not make Him one bit less "God" than the Father or Holy Spirit.

There he is in heaven referring to his God so you arguement does not work

Sure it does - you just cannot comprehend it, no matter how many times it is explained.

Reminds me of John 12: "38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?"

39For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,

40"HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."



12*“‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.

My God is the most High God alone and refers to no one as His God He anoints kings and has them sit on His throne

My God is one person as the ripture say Jehovah is one Jehovah

Interpret that however you wish.

Just note that none of the above is inconsistent with Trinitarian belief. And frankly, I think it makes you appear ignorant to keep citing this material. (Just trying to help you out . . .)



Seeing as Jehovah made him lower than the godlike ones and since he is not Jehovah explain who he is

The "godlike ones"?? :))




you manage to disparage my God when you e him like the pagan gods of the nations who surrounded the Jews

Nonsense. I am simply presenting my view of God.

You, however, make it personal and disparaging when you say my views "belittle" Jesus.

My view is that Jesus is God.

How, exactly, does that "belittle" Him?

For your triune god this may not create a problem but for the Most High God alone who anoints the messiah

Another non-sentence. :rolleyes:

But for the record, my Triune God IS the Most High God.

When Jesus enter the synagouge he read from Isaiah these words

61 The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening [of the eyes] even to the prisoners; 2*to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah and the day of vengeance on the part of our God; to comfort all the mourning ones;

You quote this without comment as if it's supposed to obviously refute the Trinitarian idea of God.

It doesn't even come close . . .

[DispensationalJim]

It is too bad you read and do not seem for all Paul did was sum up points made by Jesus and james


I think, DRS, you left out a few words again. Maybe your typing can't keep up with your marvelous brain. :)

Surely you jest when you say that "all Paul did was sum up points made by Jesus and James."

As a dispensationalist, one of our main methods of demonstrating the need to "rightly divide the word of truth" is to contrast the DIFFERENCES between what Jesus, Peter, James, and John said compared with what Paul said.

Must I show some examples, or would you rather just forget you said that?


The God I worship is without beginning and is not fathered by anyone


Amen! Jesus is without beginning, as I will show below.


The ONE Who is FIRST in all things refers to His God because a) He did not hold onto His Godhood but emptied Himself and took the form of a servant - so it is natural that as a man He referred to His God, b) it is to be expected that a triune God would refer to other Person of the Trinity as His God - that relationship is reciprocal. The Father also referred to Jesus as "God" in Hebrews, c) the Persons of the triune God have different functions but the fact that Jesus is "Savior" does not make Him one bit less "God" than the Father or Holy Spirit.

There he is in heaven referring to his God so you arguement does not work 12*“‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.

My God is the most High God alone and refers to no one as His God He anoints kings and has them sit on His throne

My God is one person as the ripture say Jehovah is one Jehovah


• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Jesus was fathered by no one, either, unless you want to think of how the Holy Spirit "fathered" Him as a human baby. Long before that, though, Jesus was THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS (John 1:1-3,14; Col. 1:16; Eph. 3:9; etc.), thus He could not possibly have been created or fathered "in the beginning".

Yes, He was BEGOTTEN when Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God His Father VOLUNTARILY MADE HIM INTO A MAN (Phil. 2:7-8, etc.)
• Heb. 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

... He was also THE FIRST BEGOTTEN OF THE DEAD...
• Rev. 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

...and also the FIRSTBORN OF THE DEAD!
• Col. 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

========================

DRS, you once again left off the book and chapter, but I assume you were quoting Rev. 3:12, which, as T-Jim says, simply shows one member of the Triune God referring to another member as God. It is still ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS, just as T-Jim said. (Good job, BTW, T-Jim)






For your triune god this may not create a problem but for the Most High God alone who anoints the messiah

When Jesus enter the synagouge he read from Isaiah these words

61 The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening [of the eyes] even to the prisoners; 2*to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah and the day of vengeance on the part of our God; to comfort all the mourning ones;

OK, DRS, let me first show you how you have missed an extremely important detail -- AGAIN!

Here is what Jesus actually read:
• Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

And here is the passage from Isaiah which you CLAIMED that Jesus read:
• Is. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is UPON ME; BECAUSE THE LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

Do you see a difference, DRS? A dispensationalist would notice this immediately. Jesus did NOT read the last part of Is. 61:2. Can you imagine why????? I'll give you a hint. I believe Jesus was RIGHTLY DIVIDING! :)

[Tucson Jim]

I think, DRS, you left out a few words again. Maybe your typing can't keep up with your marvelous brain. :)

Surely you jest when you say that "all Paul did was sum up points made by Jesus and James."

As a dispensationalist, one of our main methods of demonstrating the need to "rightly divide the word of truth" is to contrast the DIFFERENCES between what Jesus, Peter, James, and John said compared with what Paul said.

Must I show some examples, or would you rather just forget you said that?



Amen! Jesus is without beginning, as I will show below.






• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Jesus was fathered by no one, either, unless you want to think of how the Holy Spirit "fathered" Him as a human baby. Long before that, though, Jesus was THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS (John 1:1-3,14; Col. 1:16; Eph. 3:9; etc.), thus He could not possibly have been created or fathered "in the beginning".

Yes, He was BEGOTTEN when Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God His Father VOLUNTARILY MADE HIM INTO A MAN (Phil. 2:7-8, etc.)
• Heb. 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

... He was also THE FIRST BEGOTTEN OF THE DEAD...
• Rev. 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

...and also the FIRSTBORN OF THE DEAD!
• Col. 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

========================

DRS, you once again left off the book and chapter, but I assume you were quoting Rev. 3:12, which, as T-Jim says, simply shows one member of the Triune God referring to another member as God. It is still ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS, just as T-Jim said. (Good job, BTW, T-Jim)







OK, DRS, let me first show you how you have missed an extremely important detail -- AGAIN!

Here is what Jesus actually read:
• Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

And here is the passage from Isaiah which you CLAIMED that Jesus read:
• Is. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is UPON ME; BECAUSE THE LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

Do you see a difference, DRS? A dispensationalist would notice this immediately. Jesus did NOT read the last part of Is. 61:2. Can you imagine why????? I'll give you a hint. I believe Jesus was RIGHTLY DIVIDING! :)

Well done D-Jim! I always learn something from reading your posts! Your years of immersion in the Word of God really show - we are indeed blessed to have you here!

[God is My Rock]

But your response indicates to me you are not very familiar with cussing. Which is good for you, but bad for your argument.


I have been to college, and while perhaps not a phd, I do have my degree in cussing.


If Thomas used "My Lord and my God" as an exclamation of "surprise", as you assert, it would be the equivalent of the modern-day "Oh my God" - entirely unacceptable in Sunday school and polite company.

The fact that it's a commonplace utterance today is testimony to the degradation of sensibilities we have undergone of late.


Why is it that you cannot hear me, or read me?


For Thomas IN COMPLETE HUMILITY AND WONDER, TO EXPRESS AWE AND JOY AT BEING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CHRIST, RISEN THROUGH THE POWER OF GOD,

is not the same thing as a 20th century "Oh my God"

I am in no way suggesting that a "deer in the headlights" Thomas made a knee jerk expression of dumbfounded surprise.


I AM NOT SAYING THAT!!!!!!


IT IS NOT THERE.


IT HAS NEVER BEEN THERE IN ANY OF MY RESPONSES.

RE-READ WHAT I HAVE STATED.

If the only meaning Thomas' statement of "My God" that you can imagine is a flippant 20th notion, then
(with all due respect) THE LIMITATION IS YOURS. I have tried to spell it out as clearly, and repeatedly as I can.

I feel sorry for you, if someday you find yourself experiencing a level of relationship with God, that so overwhelms you, which so transcends the ability of language to fully encompass it, and you find yourself "cussing"


It would be if used in the way you describe.

However, if used as a reverent expression of Thomas' realization of the Identity of his Lord, it would be entirely appropriate and would have been readily accepted by Jesus - as indeed it was.


Not to be to overly insulting, but do you realize how illogical your above statement sounds?


If God is right in front of you, you can say "My God"

If God is not physically standing right in front of you, and you say "My God" then it is irreverent. :wall: :think:

[Tucson Jim]

I have been to college, and while perhaps not a phd, I do have my degree in cussing.

My condolences. :(



Why is it that you cannot hear me, or read me?


For Thomas IN COMPLETE HUMILITY AND WONDER, TO EXPRESS AWE AND JOY AT BEING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CHRIST, RISEN THROUGH THE POWER OF GOD,

is not the same thing as a 20th century "Oh my God"

I am in no way suggesting that a "deer in the headlights" Thomas made a knee jerk expression of dumbfounded surprise.


I AM NOT SAYING THAT!!!!!!


IT IS NOT THERE.


IT HAS NEVER BEEN THERE IN ANY OF MY RESPONSES.

RE-READ WHAT I HAVE STATED.

I'm sorry if I have caused you frustration. :hug:

I hear you. You think Thomas saying directly TO Jesus "My Lord and my God" was just an expression of awe directed towards God the Father. I understand that. I just think it is far-fetched.

You relaize that you join the ranks of groups such as the JWs in that particular interpretation.

I'm just trying to tell you what I think of your theory about what it means that Thomas said TO Jesus "My Lord and my God".

I feel the logical, forthright intepretation of Thomas saying these words TO Jesus is that he was acknowledging the identity of His Lord.

I also feel that these words, if not uttered TO Jesus as a statement of Thomas' realization of Jesus' identity as God, would usually be considered impolite or even cussing. Partly for that reason, I think the interpretation of this event by you and the JWs is untenable.

We obviously disagree.

But that's no surprise, now is it? :D


If the only meaning Thomas' statement of "My God" that you can imagine is a flippant 20th notion, then
(with all due respect) THE LIMITATION IS YOURS. I have tried to spell it out as clearly, and repeatedly as I can.

I feel sorry for you, if someday you find yourself experiencing a level of relationship with God, that so overwhelms you, which so transcends the ability of language to fully encompass it, and you find yourself "cussing"

I experience intimacy in my relationship with God often, but whatever utterances of joy I have had, I have said to HIM - not to people standing in front of me.



Not to be to overly insulting, but do you realize how illogical your above statement sounds?


If God is right in front of you, you can say "My God"

If God is not physically standing right in front of you, and you say "My God" then it is irreverent. :wall: :think:


Yes, I think it's important to keep the level of insult to "moderate" . . . :angel: Don't get mad - I'm just teasing!!

Your ideas of "logic" nothwithstanding, the scripture is quite clear: Thomas said the words "My Lord and my God directly to Jesus.

[DRS]

The "godlike ones"?? :))








Are you laughing because of your own ignorance of prophecy?

Psalms 8:5 the word is m·aleim which is different the word used for angels mlaki but Paul lets us know it is angels

[DispensationalJim]

Are you laughing because of your own ignorance of prophecy?

Psalms 8:5 the word is m·aleim which is different the word used for angels mlaki but Paul lets us know it is angels

DRS, if you are referring to Hebrews 2:7,9, then IMO it wasn't Paul. I do not believe Paul wrote Hebrews, since he was sent to the Gentiles and since he began every one of his epistles with his own name, "Paul".

[DRS]

Sure it does - you just cannot comprehend it, no matter how many times it is explained.

Reminds me of John 12: "38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?"

39For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,

40"HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."





Interpret that however you wish.

Just note that none of the above is inconsistent with Trinitarian belief. And frankly, I think it makes you appear ignorant to keep citing this material. (Just trying to help you out . . .)



So you can not refute what I said you quote scripture that you do not realy understand?

See there are two examples of your god in the OT including your triune god

First is the prefigurment of what Jehovah was going to do with Jesus

8*Then Jehovah said to Moses: “Make for yourself a fiery snake and place it upon a signal pole. And it must occur that when anyone has been bitten, he then has to look at it and so must keep alive.” 9*Moses at once made a serpent of copper and placed it upon the signal pole; and it did occur that if a serpent had bitten a man and he gazed at the copper serpent, he then kept alive.

And like the unfaithful Jews you too have taken this means of salvation and turned it into an object of worship

3*And he continued to do what was right in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that David his forefather had done. 4*He it was that removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars to pieces and cut down the sacred pole and crushed to pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made; for down to those days the sons of Israel had continually been making sacrificial smoke to it, and it used to be called the copper serpent-idol.


There other example is in the Canaanite god baal there was more than one preson who made up this god but there was only one baal/god

[DRS]

• Heb. 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Jesus was fathered by no one, either, unless you want to think of how the Holy Spirit "fathered" Him as a human baby. Long before that, though, Jesus was THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS (John 1:1-3,14; Col. 1:16; Eph. 3:9; etc.), thus He could not possibly have been created or fathered "in the beginning".

Yes, He was BEGOTTEN when Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God His Father VOLUNTARILY MADE HIM INTO A MAN (Phil. 2:7-8, etc.)
• Heb. 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

... He was also THE FIRST BEGOTTEN OF THE DEAD...
• Rev. 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

...and also the FIRSTBORN OF THE DEAD!
• Col. 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

========================

DRS, you once again left off the book and chapter, but I assume you were quoting Rev. 3:12, which, as T-Jim says, simply shows one member of the Triune God referring to another member as God. It is still ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS, just as T-Jim said. (Good job, BTW, T-Jim)







OK, DRS, let me first show you how you have missed an extremely important detail -- AGAIN!

Here is what Jesus actually read:
• Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

And here is the passage from Isaiah which you CLAIMED that Jesus read:
• Is. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is UPON ME; BECAUSE THE LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

Do you see a difference, DRS? A dispensationalist would notice this immediately. Jesus did NOT read the last part of Is. 61:2. Can you imagine why????? I'll give you a hint. I believe Jesus was RIGHTLY DIVIDING! :)

okay again whay happens is we go back the original hebrew and read exactly what Jesus and Paul would have read from Isaiah and Psalms

61 The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening [of the eyes] even to the prisoners; 2*to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah

So the lord in you bible would actually be Jehovah there

And Paul quotes this Psalm

6*God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever;
The scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness

To which the hebrew literally reads God is throne of you

[DRS]

DRS, if you are referring to Hebrews 2:7,9, then IMO it wasn't Paul. I do not believe Paul wrote Hebrews, since he was sent to the Gentiles and since he began every one of his epistles with his own name, "Paul".

McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states pointedly: “There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of any claimant to the authorship of this epistle except Paul.”

You also believe Jesus is without beginning yet the bible calls him the beginning of creation hence it can be said he was with God in the begining as he was the first creation, the beginning of creation

[God is My Rock]

Oh, I see - so when it says "one God the Father" it means literally that, but when it says in the same verse "one Lord Jesus Christ", it doesn't really mean that.

Got it . . . :rolleyes:

Actually if you would set aside your pride for a second, and at least consider this ......

In this particular verse for "theos" to mean anything but "GOD" when adressing the Father, would be extremely odd, to say the least.

On the other hand, unless one insists upon a trinitarian doctrine, the word "kurios" in 1 Cor 8 is not restricted to the definition of "LORD" (or the proper name of God, which is what LORD meant in the OT), nor even "THE Lord" for this verse to make sense. The concept of Lord works perfectly well, if one, as I said, is not clinging first and foremost to the doctrine of the trinity.

[DispensationalJim]

okay again whay happens is we go back the original hebrew and read exactly what Jesus and Paul would have read from Isaiah and Psalms

61 The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening [of the eyes] even to the prisoners; 2*to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah

So the lord in you bible would actually be Jehovah there

And Paul quotes this Psalm

6*God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever;
The scepter of your kingship is a scepter of uprightness

To which the hebrew literally reads God is throne of you

As I have tried to get you to tell me, DRS, which "original" Hebrew are you using for your viewpoints, the Masoretic text, the Septuagint text, or something else?

Then again, DRS, are you claiming that the book of Luke is incorrect when it quotes Jesus and then says "he closed the book"? How could you come to that conclusion? Does the Wescott and Hort Greek text of Luke 4 have the rest of Isaiah 61:2 shown, or not? I notice you say: "...what Jesus and Paul WOULD have read..." But if Jesus only read what Luke tells us He read and then He closed the book, how dare you to ADD more words to Luke's verses?

[DispensationalJim]

McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states pointedly: “There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of any claimant to the authorship of this epistle except Paul.”

You also believe Jesus is without beginning yet the bible calls him the beginning of creation hence it can be said he was with God in the begining as he was the first creation, the beginning of creation

Well, DRS, as you might suspect, I can quote MANY "scholars" who insist that Paul could not have written the book of Hebrews, so unless you were there watching Paul write it, I think you should admit that you are just giving your opinion and the opinion of others in that regard.

And, DRS, as I have said repeatedly, the Bible is clear that Jesus was THE CREATOR, thus He WAS THE BEGINNING OF CREATION, just as you say. In other words, He BEGAN the creation process.

And again, as I have said a dozen times, since Jesus created EVERYTHING (John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.; etc.) HE COULD NOT BE PART OF THE THINGS HE HIMSELF CREATED, could He?

[God is My Rock]

Warrior, and apparently you, have chosen to assume part of the Bible is more important, or correct, or authoritative, than other parts of the Bible.

I categorically reject that assumption.


That is in a sense correct, but in another, entirely wrong.

But to sum up, (I probably won't be able to get away with this, and not because I do not believe I am right, you just won't let me)

But you believe the same way.

Here is what I mean.

The OT has a book called Leviticus. It has all sorts of commands from God. But I would be willing to wager, that there is some other scripture that you consider, "more authoritive" (your words, not mine, nor words that I personally would have chosen) "more important" (again your words not mine), or "correct" (yes again your word not mine) that causes you to not follow each and every command in Leviticus, AND give it equal weight and authority in you life and how you live it.


Categorically?

You are only fooling yourself with language like that, and even if you do not realize it, you embolden at least myself, with these types of arguments.

[DRS]

Well, DRS, as you might suspect, I can quote MANY "scholars" who insist that Paul could not have written the book of Hebrews, so unless you were there watching Paul write it, I think you should admit that you are just giving your opinion and the opinion of others in that regard.

And, DRS, as I have said repeatedly, the Bible is clear that Jesus was THE CREATOR, thus He WAS THE BEGINNING OF CREATION, just as you say. In other words, He BEGAN the creation process.

And again, as I have said a dozen times, since Jesus created EVERYTHING (John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.; etc.) HE COULD NOT BE PART OF THE THINGS HE HIMSELF CREATED, could He?

how many times do we need to examine the word all?

Are all things made subject to Jesus?

Are all made alive in Jesus or only those with faith?

Verse 10 also ahows what the all is
10*He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.

Who better then a former pharisee who was chosen to bear Jesus's name to the sons of Israel

[ralittlefield]

how many times do we need to examine the word all?

Are all things made subject to Jesus?

Are all made alive in Jesus or only those with faith?

Verse 10 also ahows what the all is
10*He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.

Who better then a former pharisee who was chosen to bear Jesus's name to the sons of Israel

What part of creation would you exclude from this statement?

John 1
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Would you limit Jesus creation to the "world"?

Then you have a problem with this verse:

Col 1
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

[God is My Rock]

With all due respect and in my humble opinion:

I think you have managed to create a giant pseudo-problem where none actually exists.

You pit scripture against scripture, arbitrarily and inappropriately assigning more weight to the words of Jesus (recorded by sinful but inspired men) than to the words of sinful men (also recorded by sinful but inspired men).

Besides the obvious logical and hermeneutical hurdles presented by positing unequal authority in two equally "inspired" scriptures, I believe your approach suffers from at least 2 other fatal flaws:

1. You cite the words of Jesus as being authoritative about a topic he did not even address! (NOT that he didn't tell the whole truth as you stated - you make it sound like he was lying on the witness stand!)

He did not come to earth to teach us about His Divinity, but to humble Himself and show us how WE should live - in total submission to God. To then cite His statements as authoritative opposition to other inspired scripture that is talking about His Divinity is at best misguided I believe.

2. You view Jesus' words as being at odds with scripture that talks about His Divinity by assuming a Unitarian view of God (e.g.Jesus cannot "have" a God if he is God", etc.).

Such arguments merely convince the opposition that you have made no effort whatsoever to even try to understand our beliefs. A Sunday school knowledge of Trinity is all that is required to see how such verses are definitely NOT a problem for Trinitarian belief, yet many in your camp seem to not possess even that, parroting these same verses over and over, as if they prove the point.

You know they don't.

Hence our occasional (sometimes frequent!) exasperation at this approach.

As I have said before, I can appreciate your love for God, but you just like every other Trinitarian poster, responded in exactly the way that this post said you would.....

"Jesus didn't tell us everything (read the trinity) during the incarnation, because that wasn't his purpose." So in other words, he did not tell the whole truth. ( no hiding aspect implied), and/or Jesus' words are not sufficient, and/or Jesus' words need to be clarified. (But most importantly, clarified by verses that can easily have more than one meaning. The verses where there is no doubt as to meaning do not side with a trinitarian doctrine, if they did, then there would never have been this debate in the first place.....going back thousands of years.)

On the other hand, Warrior and myself, and others, find Jesus' words sufficient for what he was trying to say.

So that makes us the ones who do what to scripture?????????

[God is My Rock]

And yet another option is that the writings contained in the Bible were, and still are, pure, divine, and inspired. Perhaps it is our understanding of some of the verses that is flawed . . .

That is what I have been saying all along!!!!!!!!

:razz::razz::razz:

[God is My Rock]

Kind of sad - two ships passing in the night . . .

Truly it is.

[God is My Rock]

Interesting.

My surrender also came first, followed by God enlightening me as I studied His word, prayed and lived my life for Him.

Why would He lead us to such divergent understanding of such a central matter to the faith?

You and I both know the answer to that one, it is just that one of us is reading the scripture more accurately than the other.

You believe it to be you, and I believe it to be me.

[God is My Rock]

Upon what scripture do you base the primacy of Christ's words over other scripture, if He indeed is also a creature but not God?

I all along have maintained that Jesus is the Son of God.

Does this mean that he is a "creature" ? I do not maintain that, I do not necessarily believe that, but yet, I do not entirely rule it out either.

Scripture in my opinion does not specify to ABSOLUTE certaintity.

( On this one, I am open though)

Having said that, I used the word "creature" because the posts that were going on at that time were using them, and without a major digression to explain and come up with a word that I do not even know what it is, I followed along with the language that was being used.


Having said all of that, I will help you with your Bible study a little.

Since you categorically believe in the equal authority of all scripture, here is an easy one for you.

John 4:25-26

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come,

he will tell us all things.


26Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

[God is My Rock]

This is a HUGE problem.

So some scripture is suspect, but other scripture is not, when all scripture is inspired by God and written by man?

Is it possible that you are prone to accept as "correct" those scriptures that agree with your theology and "suspect" those that don't?

I agree 100%

But from my perspective, trinitarians are the ones, doing the things you suggest above, not I.

I know you do not like foreign language, but to throw out the rules of grammar, just because it might mess with a theology, that may not (imo was not) in the words in the first place, is suspect.

[ralittlefield]

I all along have maintained that Jesus is the Son of God.

Does this mean that he is a "creature" ? I do not maintain that, I do not necessarily believe that, but yet, I do not entirely rule it out either.

Scripture in my opinion does not specify to ABSOLUTE certaintity.

( On this one, I am open though)

Having said that, I used the word "creature" because the posts that were going on at that time were using them, and without a major digression to explain and come up with a word that I do not even know what it is, I followed along with the language that was being used.


Having said all of that, I will help you with your Bible study a little.

Since you categorically believe in the equal authority of all scripture, here is an easy one for you.

John 4:25-26

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come,

he will tell us all things.


26Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

What is your point?

Are you saying that Jesus did tell "all things" and that all of them are recorded for us?

That is not supported by scripture.

John 21
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

[God is My Rock]

Yes, I think it's important to keep the level of insult to "moderate" . . . :angel: Don't get mad - I'm just teasing!!

:)


Your ideas of "logic" nothwithstanding, the scripture is quite clear: Thomas said the words "My Lord and my God directly to Jesus.

Actually, Jesus was standing right in front of Thomas, and Thomas said "My Lord", - acknowledging Jesus as his Lord, acknowledging the fullness of truth in what Jesus had taught and spoken about, but most importantly remembering and acknowledging that Jesus told them all repeatedly that every wonder, and word you see and hear, were given to him by God - hence the acceptance by Thomas of ALL of Jesus' message and giving the credit for his awe of his risen Lord to God - "and My God"

[DispensationalJim]

What part of creation would you exclude from this statement?

John 1
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Would you limit Jesus creation to the "world"?

Then you have a problem with this verse:

Col 1
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Thanks, ralittlefield! Excellent response.

[ralittlefield]

:)



Actually, Jesus was standing right in front of Thomas, and Thomas said "My Lord", - acknowledging Jesus as his Lord, acknowledging the fullness of truth in what Jesus had taught and spoken about, but most importantly remembering and acknowledging that Jesus told them all repeatedly that every wonder, and word you see and hear, were given to him by God - hence the acceptance by Thomas of ALL of Jesus' message and giving the credit for his awe of his risen Lord to God - "and My God"

I am sure that you are very sincere in what you have just written, but honestly, I do not see how this passage could be understood this way.


If both "my Lord" and "my God" are not addressed to Jesus, it seems to me Thomas would have had a separation between the phrases to indicate that he was speaking to two different individuals.

[God is My Rock]

As I have tried to get you to tell me, DRS, which "original" Hebrew are you using for your viewpoints, the Masoretic text, the Septuagint text, or something else?


In some respects this is getting to be a bit of a strawman for you.

The different texts, manuscripts, etc... don't all disagree on every verse. Just some. Some more significantly than others.

The question at hand is translation, not necessarily text...... ;)

[God is My Rock]

What is your point?

Are you saying that Jesus did tell "all things" and that all of them are recorded for us?

That is not supported by scripture.

John 21
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Not to be sarcastic, but when you respond like this to scripture, this is part of the reason why you cannot convince on matters of the trinity.

It comes across like a Nicodemus question "How can this be?......scripture doesn't......"

So here we have two verses that on the surface appear to have conflict, and yet both must be true. And for my part, my verse must have a point to what I posted.

Answer?

That what Jesus did teach and say was all sufficient for a right relationship with God.

ALL SUFFICIENT. No trinity needed. (even if true, not necessary)

The mind of man is finite, and by default could not assimilate "ALL" if Jesus were to tell "ALL" things. So where does that leave us, for this word "ALL"? That He did tell them ALL that they needed to reconcile them to God, and to know who God was. For (and consider this really) what good does it do to worship who you do not know?

Jesus even says this to the Samaritan woman.

John 4

22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."


So Jesus had to set people straight about who they were worshiping.


And IMO, he did just that. (not by this verse alone, but by all that he said)

[God is My Rock]

I am sure that you are very sincere in what you have just written, but honestly, I do not see how this passage could be understood this way.


If both "my Lord" and "my God" are not addressed to Jesus, it seems to me Thomas would have had a separation between the phrases to indicate that he was speaking to two different individuals.

On the one hand I can see what you are saying.

On the other, there was no punctuation in greek at that time (or at least that's what I have heard)

So....................

My unsatisfying response is........ that's the breaks of 2,000 year old foreign languages.

[DispensationalJim]

On the one hand I can see what you are saying.

On the other, there was no punctuation in greek at that time (or at least that's what I have heard)

So....................

My unsatisfying response is........ that's the breaks of 2,000 year old foreign languages.

Just to be sure, I just checked every translation I could find quickly on the internet, including the New World Translation (The Jehovah's Witness Bible), and EVERY ONE OF THEM translate that quote from Thomas exactly the same as the King James!!

• "My Lord and my God."

No comma there!

IMO, that should settle that "controversy" beyond a reasonable doubt. :)

[leechstomper]

Being an admitted lightweight on these matters, I see things on face value. First, for as far back as written history, someone of a percieved higher station has always been called "My Lord". (bosses, landowners, rulers, teachers etc.) That doesn't mean that the speaker thinks that he is talking to his God.
Second, when Jesus is dying on the cross (or stake or whatever), he says "My God why have you forsaken me?" What's he doing, talking to himself? Thats kind of hard to swallow from an omnipotent being having himself put to death.

[Tucson Jim]

So you can not refute what I said you quote scripture that you do not realy understand?

Since you typically type in partial sentences, I'm not sure I even undersood what you said! :confused:

I did my best. . .

But don't kid yourself - I understand the scriptures I quote just fine, thank you.

See there are two examples of your god in the OT including your triune god

First is the prefigurment of what Jehovah was going to do with Jesus

8*Then Jehovah said to Moses: “Make for yourself a fiery snake and place it upon a signal pole. And it must occur that when anyone has been bitten, he then has to look at it and so must keep alive.” 9*Moses at once made a serpent of copper and placed it upon the signal pole; and it did occur that if a serpent had bitten a man and he gazed at the copper serpent, he then kept alive.

And like the unfaithful Jews you too have taken this means of salvation and turned it into an object of worship

3*And he continued to do what was right in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that David his forefather had done. 4*He it was that removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars to pieces and cut down the sacred pole and crushed to pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made; for down to those days the sons of Israel had continually been making sacrificial smoke to it, and it used to be called the copper serpent-idol.


There other example is in the Canaanite god baal there was more than one preson who made up this god but there was only one baal/god

You can pretend the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ is like Baal worship all you want.

But you will worship Him one day too, along with every other created thing, whether you like it or not.

[Tucson Jim]

Are you laughing because of your own ignorance of prophecy?

Psalms 8:5 the word is m·aleim which is different the word used for angels mlaki but Paul lets us know it is angels

No, I'm laughing at the phrase "godlike ones". It's so awkward - why not just say "gods"?

[Tucson Jim]

McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states pointedly: “There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of any claimant to the authorship of this epistle except Paul.”

You also believe Jesus is without beginning yet the bible calls him the beginning of creation hence it can be said he was with God in the begining as he was the first creation, the beginning of creation

Not really.

In the beginning there was only God.

[Tucson Jim]

Actually if you would set aside your pride for a second,

I will if you will . . .


and at least consider this ......

In this particular verse for "theos" to mean anything but "GOD" when adressing the Father, would be extremely odd, to say the least.

On the other hand, unless one insists upon a trinitarian doctrine, the word "kurios" in 1 Cor 8 is not restricted to the definition of "LORD" (or the proper name of God, which is what LORD meant in the OT), nor even "THE Lord" for this verse to make sense. The concept of Lord works perfectly well, if one, as I said, is not clinging first and foremost to the doctrine of the trinity.

OK, I considered it . . and found it to miss the point by a mile.

[Although I do give you points for maintaining a "moderately insulting" tone by alluding gently to my "pride" and my (apparently mindless) "clinging" to a doctrine.:clap:]

But I digress . . .

Again, this time with feeling . . . You can't have it both ways!

Paul says there is but one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

If you are going to interpret this to mean only the Father is God, you cannot escape the conclusion that only Jesus is Lord.

Which of course is untrue. Scripturally, we know:

The Father is God, the Son is God.

The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord.

Your assumption is that the use of a title for one Person rules it out its application to another.

As shown above, this is not necessarily true.

[Tucson Jim]

That is in a sense correct, but in another, entirely wrong.

You know I'm right . . .

But to sum up, (I probably won't be able to get away with this, and not because I do not believe I am right, you just won't let me)

But you believe the same way.

Here is what I mean.

The OT has a book called Leviticus. It has all sorts of commands from God. But I would be willing to wager, that there is some other scripture that you consider, "more authoritive" (your words, not mine, nor words that I personally would have chosen) "more important" (again your words not mine), or "correct" (yes again your word not mine) that causes you to not follow each and every command in Leviticus, AND give it equal weight and authority in you life and how you live it.

I give you credit for trying, Rock, but you know there is a fundamental difference between Leviticus and the NT passages pertaining to it, and Christ "versus" the NT passages pertaining to His Divinity:

He wasn't even talking about His Divinity!

Apples and oranges, my friend.


Categorically?

Yes.

You are only fooling yourself with language like that, and even if you do not realize it, you embolden at least myself, with these types of arguments.

I "embolden" you??

You don't exactly strike me as the shy, retiring type Rock!

Anyway, whether it emboldens you or not, I have to speak what I believe.

Carry on . . .

[Tucson Jim]

As I have said before, I can appreciate your love for God, but you just like every other Trinitarian poster, responded in exactly the way that this post said you would.....

"Jesus didn't tell us everything (read the trinity)
during the incarnation, because that wasn't his purpose." So in other words, he did not tell the whole truth. ( no hiding aspect implied) and/or Jesus' words are not sufficient, and/or Jesus' words need to be clarified. (But most importantly, clarified by verses that can easily have more than one meaning. The verses where there is no doubt as to meaning do not side with a trinitarian doctrine, if they did, then there would never have been this debate in the first place.....going back thousands of years.)

I object to the above vigorously!

This is, again, a mischaracterization of the Trinitarian view, with a thinly veiled mocking tone.

When you say: "So in other words, he did not tell the whole truth. ( no hiding aspect implied)" you imply an argument on our part that we are not making.

And excuse me, but a hiding aspect IS implied when you say - "he did not tell the whole truth".

The obvious comparison here is to a court of law, where if one does not tell the whole truth, one is, in effect, lying. Ridiculous! :naughty:

Moreover, there were many things Jesus did not talk about in detail during His ministry, not just His Deity.

A weak, weak argument, my friend. And quite disappointing, as you did not even respond to the points in my post.

Another fundamental flaw in the above is that some people will argue about practically EVERY verse in the Bible, as you can see very day in the RF!

So, no . . . debate would not have been avoided if certain verses were "clearer". It's a matter of sinful human nature, not a matter of biblical text.

On the other hand, Warrior and myself, and others, find Jesus' words sufficient for what he was trying to say.

So do I.

And one thing He didn't talk much about was His Divinity, since His mission required Him to humble Himself.

So that makes us the ones who do what to scripture?????????

That makes you the ones who inappropriately pit scripture against scripture, using Jesus' lack of discussion of His Divinity to trump other scripture that is talking about His Divinity.

IMHO, of course. :angel:

[Tucson Jim]

That is what I have been saying all along!!!!!!!!

:razz::razz::razz:

I'm sorry, there was a typo in my statement you quoted - I meant to put a "y" in front of "our understanding" . . . :razz:

[Tucson Jim]

You and I both know the answer to that one, it is just that one of us is reading the scripture more accurately than the other.

You believe it to be you, and I believe it to be me.

I'm trying to help you! ;)

[Tucson Jim]

I all along have maintained that Jesus is the Son of God.

Does this mean that he is a "creature" ? I do not maintain that, I do not necessarily believe that, but yet, I do not entirely rule it out either.

Scripture in my opinion does not specify to ABSOLUTE certaintity.

( On this one, I am open though)

Having said that, I used the word "creature" because the posts that were going on at that time were using them, and without a major digression to explain and come up with a word that I do not even know what it is, I followed along with the language that was being used.


Having said all of that, I will help you with your Bible study a little.

Since you categorically believe in the equal authority of all scripture, here is an easy one for you.

John 4:25-26

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come,

he will tell us all things.


26Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

Hmmmm . . . . then why do we need the rest of scripture?

:confused: :eh:

[Tucson Jim]

I agree 100%

But from my perspective, trinitarians are the ones, doing the things you suggest above, not I.

Well of course!

I know you do not like foreign language,

Eh?

but to throw out the rules of grammar, just because it might mess with a theology, that may not (imo was not) in the words in the first place, is suspect.

Eh again?

Ya lost me . . .

[Tucson Jim]

:)



Actually, Jesus was standing right in front of Thomas, and Thomas said "My Lord", - acknowledging Jesus as his Lord, acknowledging the fullness of truth in what Jesus had taught and spoken about, but most importantly remembering and acknowledging that Jesus told them all repeatedly that every wonder, and word you see and hear, were given to him by God - hence the acceptance by Thomas of ALL of Jesus' message and giving the credit for his awe of his risen Lord to God - "and My God"

Still makes no sense.

He said directly to Jesus "My Lord and my God."

Couldn't be any simpler, any clearer.

This is what I meant in the other post about no matter how clear a verse is, people will argue about it.

[Tucson Jim]

Not to be sarcastic, but when you respond like this to scripture, this is part of the reason why you cannot convince on matters of the trinity.

It comes across like a Nicodemus question "How can this be?......scripture doesn't......"

So here we have two verses that on the surface appear to have conflict, and yet both must be true. And for my part, my verse must have a point to what I posted.

Answer?

That what Jesus did teach and say was all sufficient for a right relationship with God.

ALL SUFFICIENT. No trinity needed. (even if true, not necessary)

The mind of man is finite, and by default could not assimilate "ALL" if Jesus were to tell "ALL" things. So where does that leave us, for this word "ALL"? That He did tell them ALL that they needed to reconcile them to God, and to know who God was. For (and consider this really) what good does it do to worship who you do not know?

Jesus even says this to the Samaritan woman.

John 4

22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."


So Jesus had to set people straight about who they were worshiping.


And IMO, he did just that. (not by this verse alone, but by all that he said)

Yes, Jesus' purpose was to glorify His Father and humble Himself.

And he is still God.

In fact, maybe even more so . . .

[Tucson Jim]

Just to be sure, I just checked every translation I could find quickly on the internet, including the New World Translation (The Jehovah's Witness Bible), and EVERY ONE OF THEM translate that quote from Thomas exactly the same as the King James!!

• "My Lord and my God."

No comma there!

IMO, that should settle that "controversy" beyond a reasonable doubt. :)

:clap::clap::clap:

[Tucson Jim]

Being an admitted lightweight on these matters, I see things on face value. First, for as far back as written history, someone of a percieved higher station has always been called "My Lord". (bosses, landowners, rulers, teachers etc.) That doesn't mean that the speaker thinks that he is talking to his God.

Of course not. No one is saying that.

Second, when Jesus is dying on the cross (or stake or whatever), he says "My God why have you forsaken me?" What's he doing, talking to himself? Thats kind of hard to swallow from an omnipotent being having himself put to death.

The overwhelming majority of Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant - believe that God is a "Triune" Being. That is, within the nature of the One God are 3 Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The 3 Persons are the One God.

Viewed in this light, Jesus was not "talking to himself" when He prayed to the Father. God the Son was talking to God the Father.

Regarding your comment about "an omnipotent being putting himself to death" the Bible tells us that Jesus, though existing as God, humbled Himself and became a man, in order to die for our sins. Thus, Jesus is both God and man. Jesus the man died on the cross.

[Tucson Jim]

Being an admitted lightweight on these matters, I see things on face value. First, for as far back as written history, someone of a percieved higher station has always been called "My Lord". (bosses, landowners, rulers, teachers etc.) That doesn't mean that the speaker thinks that he is talking to his God.
Second, when Jesus is dying on the cross (or stake or whatever), he says "My God why have you forsaken me?" What's he doing, talking to himself? Thats kind of hard to swallow from an omnipotent being having himself put to death.

And I'm so tired I forgot my manners!

Welcome Leachstomper!!!

I'm glad to see you in the religion forum!

I look forward to many interesting discussions with you!

[Angryamerican]

The problem is, you do not understand the incarnation.

Since it is a (the?) major theme of the NT, I am not sure how I can help you see it if you haven't after all our discussion.

Have you actually read the Bi ble all the way through, prayerfully, AA? I'm just curious.

Yes i have.

[Angryamerican]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could expound. Most Christians make the same claim - that the Bible is God's word - and that the scriptures were given through inspired men by God, Himself.



While I'm not a trinitarian, I do understand that way of thinking. Amos 3:7 says:


7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.




The Bible has undergone so many centuries of changes and interpretations - who decides which one is right? Who decides "This is what God meant?" Who decides what the gospel "really" is? You say you use Jesus as your interpreter.......and others who disagree with some of what you believe would make the same claim. Who is right? Who has the authority to decide?

How bout Jesus ?

He is the one, that makes the argument agains't trinitarians.

[Angryamerican]

Not meant as an insult.

But to give you a chance,

Jesus said that he was going to his God.

There is only one God.

Do you believe these as they are, or will you qualify them?

If you do, whose words will you use?

I will wait and see.

Again, this was not meant as an insult, just plain observation.

Look at the thread, and you will see that whenever Warrior and I quote Jesus, you and others quote someone other than Jesus, to clarify Jesus.

Whenever you quote someone other than Jesus, Warrior and I quote Jesus to clarify the other writer.

This really is this thread in a nutshell.

Very true.

[ralittlefield]

Not to be sarcastic, but when you respond like this to scripture, this is part of the reason why you cannot convince on matters of the trinity.

It comes across like a Nicodemus question "How can this be?......scripture doesn't......"

So here we have two verses that on the surface appear to have conflict, and yet both must be true. And for my part, my verse must have a point to what I posted.

Answer?

That what Jesus did teach and say was all sufficient for a right relationship with God.

ALL SUFFICIENT. No trinity needed. (even if true, not necessary)

The mind of man is finite, and by default could not assimilate "ALL" if Jesus were to tell "ALL" things. So where does that leave us, for this word "ALL"? That He did tell them ALL that they needed to reconcile them to God, and to know who God was. For (and consider this really) what good does it do to worship who you do not know?

Jesus even says this to the Samaritan woman.

John 4

22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."


So Jesus had to set people straight about who they were worshiping.


And IMO, he did just that. (not by this verse alone, but by all that he said)

So, perhaps if I use large fonts and bright colors, I will be more convincing? ;)

Here is the deal from my point of view. The words of Jesus are part of scripture, but not all we need. We do not have all of Jesus words recorded for us. If the recorded words of Jesus were all we needed, God, IMO, would not have inspired anything other than the Gospels. You can not discount the rest of the NT just because it does not support your understanding of the words of Jesus.

Perhaps, if correctly understood, what we have recorded from Jesus is sufficient for a right relationship with God. To help us correctly understand, we were given the rest of the NT.

For instance Jesus said:
John 8
58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

What did Jesus mean by that? Simply that He existed before Abraham? That is significant, but is it all that He meant?

The next verse sheds some light on it:

59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.


Why the violent reaction? I believe it was because they understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. Other passages state this straight out. On other occasions, it is stated that they tried to kill Him because they understood Him to be claiming to be God.


Was Jesus claiming to be God? If we look at other NT passages that attribute God's attributes (creation for instance) to Jesus, we can rightly understand that He was indeed claiming to be God.


Do we need to understand the nature of God to have a right relationship with Him? I will leave that to God, but the truth is always worth seeking. Truth about God, even more so.


Do not minimize the importance of what we believe.


Eph 2
17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.



It seems that ignorance can separate us from the life of God.

[lawandorder]

And did Jesus speak to himself, from heaven, after he was baptised? And when on the cross, did Jesus forsake himself? Did God die? Come on. And yes, I too, understand the NT. I also know that God said He is the only one true God, no others before him. Did God impregnate Mary with Himself, and then she became God's mother, or what would that make her? God said: I am the only true God..............couldn't be more clear.

[ralittlefield]

And did Jesus speak to himself, from heaven, after he was baptised? And when on the cross, did Jesus forsake himself? Did God die? Come on. And yes, I too, understand the NT. I also know that God said He is the only one true God, no others before him. Did God impregnate Mary with Himself, and then she became God's mother, or what would that make her? God said: I am the only true God..............couldn't be more clear.


You seem very confused on what the Trinity is.

Or perhaps you are just being sarcastic?

[ralittlefield]

And did Jesus speak to himself, from heaven, after he was baptised? And when on the cross, did Jesus forsake himself? Did God die? Come on. And yes, I too, understand the NT. I also know that God said He is the only one true God, no others before him. Did God impregnate Mary with Himself, and then she became God's mother, or what would that make her? God said: I am the only true God..............couldn't be more clear.


Whom do you think that God was speaking to when He said let US make man in OUR inage?

[leechstomper]

Of course not. No one is saying that.



The overwhelming majority of Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant - believe that God is a "Triune" Being. That is, within the nature of the One God are 3 Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The 3 Persons are the One God.

Viewed in this light, Jesus was not "talking to himself" when He prayed to the Father. God the Son was talking to God the Father.

Regarding your comment about "an omnipotent being putting himself to death" the Bible tells us that Jesus, though existing as God, humbled Himself and became a man, in order to die for our sins. Thus, Jesus is both God and man. Jesus the man died on the cross.
Thank you for your kind welcome, although you may soon rue your words. It is in my nature to question commonly accepted doctrine. I have a habit of injecting bizarre comments out of left field to stir up discussion in unexpected directions. That sometimes comes across as irreverant. I apologize in advance for that.
Let's start with that overwhelming majority thing. I understand becoming completely immersed in something as fervant as one's individual religious convictions. To that end individuals and scholars spend endless hours studying and cross referencing the Bible and other historical documents in order to bolster their personnal hypotheses. That is all that any of these beliefs are until God reveals the true answers in His own good time. That is the definition of "faith". In these studies, the scholars of the individual denominations come up with doctrines that members of other denominations regard with - well bemusement.
Some can't partake of alcohol while others find that it has nutritional value and is useful within reason. Catholics base their whole religion on one verse about celibacy being holy. Witnesses don't celibrate birthdays because a couple of birthday parties went south in the Bible. Baptists don't dance because - well who knows. I can go on but that isn't the point.
The Bible, I am sure, is filled with metaphysical puzzles that won't be solved until "That Day". I prefer to have a more simplistic reading of it and enjoy it in more of a face value way. That is why, when Christ is reciting the Lord's prayer or in mind-numbing pain on the cross, I believe that he is actually praying to someone that he believes is his father. When Satan tryed to get Jesus To say that he was God's son as Jesus was being tempted, why would Satan bother? Unless Satan himself believed it and thought that he could drive a wedge between Jesus and God. Something that would be impossible if God and Jesus were of "One body and Mind". That would be, well, schizophrenic.
Just saying....

[Warrior4God]

And did Jesus speak to himself, from heaven, after he was baptised? And when on the cross, did Jesus forsake himself? Did God die? Come on. And yes, I too, understand the NT. I also know that God said He is the only one true God, no others before him. Did God impregnate Mary with Himself, and then she became God's mother, or what would that make her? God said: I am the only true God..............couldn't be more clear.

Can I hear an Amen.

[DispensationalJim]

Thank you for your kind welcome, although you may soon rue your words. It is in my nature to question commonly accepted doctrine. I have a habit of injecting bizarre comments out of left field to stir up discussion in unexpected directions. That sometimes comes across as irreverant. I apologize in advance for that.
Let's start with that overwhelming majority thing. I understand becoming completely immersed in something as fervant as one's individual religious convictions. To that end individuals and scholars spend endless hours studying and cross referencing the Bible and other historical documents in order to bolster their personnal hypotheses. That is all that any of these beliefs are until God reveals the true answers in His own good time. That is the definition of "faith". In these studies, the scholars of the individual denominations come up with doctrines that members of other denominations regard with - well bemusement.
Some can't partake of alcohol while others find that it has nutritional value and is useful within reason. Catholics base their whole religion on one verse about celibacy being holy. Witnesses don't celibrate birthdays because a couple of birthday parties went south in the Bible. Baptists don't dance because - well who knows. I can go on but that isn't the point.
The Bible, I am sure, is filled with metaphysical puzzles that won't be solved until "That Day". I prefer to have a more simplistic reading of it and enjoy it in more of a face value way. That is why, when Christ is reciting the Lord's prayer or in mind-numbing pain on the cross, I believe that he is actually praying to someone that he believes is his father. When Satan tryed to get Jesus To say that he was God's son as Jesus was being tempted, why would Satan bother? Unless Satan himself believed it and thought that he could drive a wedge between Jesus and God. Something that would be impossible if God and Jesus were of "One body and Mind". That would be, well, schizophrenic.
Just saying....

I also would welcome your "bizarre comments" and really doubt that T-Jim or any of the rest of the Trintarians on here will "rue" our words.

I wonder how much of this thread you have actually read, leach. Most of the active participants on here have been with us from the inception, and thus we have read, studied, analyzed, and responded to our share of the 16,000 posts so far.

I look forward to your attempt to bring some new ideas to the forum. We will see if they are a new "angle" or just more of the same.

My answer to most of the so-called "difficulties" folks such as you bring up is this verse from my apostle, Paul:
• 2Tim. 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[Warrior4God]

Whom do you think that God was speaking to when He said let US make man in OUR inage?

Read this carefully PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Genesis 1:26
And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (KJV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




1. Elohim and Adonim, Hebrew words for God, occur in the plural. If this literally meant a plurality of persons, it would be translated “Gods.” But the Jews, being truly monotheistic and thoroughly familiar with the idioms of their own language, have never understood the use of the plural to indicate a plurality of persons within the one God. This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a “plural of majesty” or a “plural of emphasis,” and is used for intensification (see note on Gen. 1:1). Many Hebrew scholars identify this use of “us” as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis, and we believe this also.

2. The plural of majesty is clearly attested to in writing from royalty through the ages. Hyndman writes:

The true explanation of this verse is to be found in the practice which has prevailed in all nations with which we are acquainted, of persons speaking of themselves in the plural number. “Given at our palace,” “It is our pleasure,” are common expressions of kings in their proclamations (p. 54).

Morgridge adds:

It is common in all languages with which we are acquainted, and it appears to have always been so, for an individual, especially if he be a person of great dignity and power, in speaking of himself only, to say we, our, us, instead of I, my, me. Thus, the king of France says, “We, Charles the tenth.” The king of Spain says, “We, Ferdinand the seventh.” The Emperor of Russia says “We, Alexander,” or “We, Nicholas” (p. 93).

The plural of majesty can be seen in Ezra 4:18. In Ezra 4:11, the men of the Trans-Euphrates wrote, “To King Artaxerxes, from your servants.” The book of Ezra continues, “The king sent this reply: Greetings. The letter you sent us has been read and translated….” Thus, although the people wrote to the king himself, the king used the word “us.” It is common in such correspondence that the plural is used when someone speaks of his intentions, and the use of the more literal singular is used when the person acts. Morgridge adds more insight when he says:

It is well known that Mohammed was a determined opposer of the doctrine of the Trinity: yet he often represents God as saying we, our, us, when speaking only of Himself. This shows that, in his opinion, the use of such terms was not indicative of a plurality of persons. If no one infers, from their frequent use in the Koran, that Mohammed was a Trinitarian, surely their occurrence in a few places in the Bible ought not to be made a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity (p. 94).

3. Some scholars believe that the reason for the “us” in Genesis 1:26 is that God could have been speaking with the angels when he created man in the beginning. Although that is possible, because there are many Scriptures that clearly attribute the creation of man to God alone, we believe that the plural of emphasis is the preferred explanation.

4. The name of God is not the only word that is pluralized for emphasis (although when the plural does not seem to be good grammar, the translators usually ignore the Hebrew plural and translate it as a singular, so it can be hard to spot in most English versions)

After Cain murdered Abel, God said to Cain, “the voice of your brother’s bloods cries to me from the ground” (Gen. 4:10). The plural emphasizes the horror of the act. In Genesis 19:11, the men of Sodom who wanted to hurt Lot were smitten with “blindness.” The Hebrew is in the plural, “blindnesses,” and indicates that the blindness was total so Lot would be protected. Leviticus tells people not to eat fruit from a tree for three years, and in the fourth year the fruit is “an offering of praise to the Lord” (Lev. 19:24). The Hebrew word for “praise” is plural, emphasizing that there was to be great praise. Psalm 45:15 tells of people who are brought into the presence of the Messiah. It says, “They are led in with joy and gladness.” The Hebrew actually reads “gladnesses,” emphasizing the great gladness of the occasion. In Ezekiel 25, God is speaking of what has happened to Israel and what He will do about it. Concerning the Philistines, He said, “the Philistines acted in vengeance…I will carry out great vengeance on them” (Ezek 25:15 and 17). In the Hebrew text, the second vengeance, the vengeance of God, is in the plural, indicating the complete vengeance that the Lord will inflict. Although many more examples exist in the Hebrew text, these demonstrate that it is not uncommon to use a plural to emphasize something in Scripture.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=57



People if you look at scripture from a strictly english language point of view like you do with the words theos ,kurios ,logos and others you will never properly rightly divide Gods Word or see what is so clear and void of contradiction.

The trinity can not be true if you build upon the foundation which is Jesus Christ and what he spoke............period.

[leechstomper]

If I'm not mistaken, the royal pluralitives that are being referred to in this text are because most emperors believed that they held their thrones at God's will. Therefore the emperors always referred to themselves in plural to signify God and themselves. This gave the impression that whatever the emperor wished, God was backing them up.

[terri910]

The trinity can not be true if you build upon the foundation which is Jesus Christ and what he spoke............period.
I always find this thread interesting until a blanket statement like this is thrown in.

[DRS]

You can pretend the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ is like Baal worship all you want.

But you will worship Him one day too, along with every other created thing, whether you like it or not.

Since Jesus said it is written it is Jehovah alone you must worship it seems highly unlikely anyone will be worshipping the beginning of creation, the high priest, the apostle, the prophet like Moses the last Adam.

[DRS]

Whom do you think that God was speaking to when He said let US make man in OUR inage?

You mean those angels present at creation?

[Angryamerican]

Whom do you think that God was speaking to when He said let US make man in OUR inage?

His son Jesus, and the angels.

[gpd®]

Whom do you think that God was speaking to when He said let US make man in OUR inage?

It is an ancient Hebrew literary tool of emphasizing, not pluralizing.

[Angryamerican]

I have asked this question to, Why would Jesus say this? For my trinitarian friends of course.

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?

Would God forsake God ?

Is this like thomas saying my lord and my god ?

How many times Does Jesus have to say his Father is God, before you believe it ?

Was Jesus talking to himself ?

Do you not know what forsaken means ?

[gpd®]

I have asked this question to, Why would Jesus say this? For my trinitarian friends of course.

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?

Would God forsake God ?

Is this like thomas saying my lord and my god ?

How many times Does Jesus have to say his Father is God, before you believe it ?

Was Jesus talking to himself ?

Do you not know what forsaken means ?

The Divinity of Jesus had to leave Him for a few Earth seconds so that He could take on all the sins of the world. Simple answer no?

Didn't Jesus say, the Father and I are one?

[Angryamerican]

The Divinity of Jesus had to leave Him for a few Earth seconds so that He could take on all the sins of the world. Simple answer no?

Didn't Jesus say, the Father and I are one?

Pop quiz, what does this mean ?

Joh 17:22 And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, that they may be one, even as We are one,

So can we be one ?

[ralittlefield]

You mean those angels present at creation?

That would mean that angels have creative powers, and that God alone is not the Creator. "let us create". It also would mean that we are created in the image of angels. "in our image"

[gpd®]

Pop quiz, what does this mean ?

Joh 17:22 And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, that they may be one, even as We are one,

So can we be one ?

Dude, I'm a Trinitarian, always have been, always will be. Did the Bible school thing, nothing in the Bible that I've read numerous times from cover to cover will ever change my mind. God is one God with 3 personages.

Shalom

[ralittlefield]

The Divinity of Jesus had to leave Him for a few Earth seconds so that He could take on all the sins of the world. Simple answer no?

Didn't Jesus say, the Father and I are one?


You make it sound like the divinity of Jesus was a personality that has a mind of its own.

I believe that God The Father had to forsake Jesus when Jesus took our sin.

I also believe that was worse for Jesus than the suffering he took from those who tortured and crucified Him.

[gpd®]

You make it sound like the divinity of Jesus was a personality that has a mind of its own.

I believe that God The Father had to forsake Jesus when Jesus took our sin.

I also believe that was worse for Jesus than the suffering he took from those who tortured and crucified Him.

The Bible says that sometimes we have to take on the mind of a child or become a fool so that we can become wise.

It works for me to take on the mind of a child or fool to understand things God does. It works for me, I am not asking for anyone to accept my explanations.

We get too technical trying to explain God. It just ends up that we put God in box. We make God after our own thoughts images and we demand others to believe as we believe.

We all know God's ways are His ways and His secrets are His secrets. I can understand why He tells us to be foolish in order to be wise.

[Angryamerican]

That would mean that angels have creative powers, and that God alone is not the Creator. "let us create". It also would mean that we are created in the image of angels. "in our image"

That would explain why, God created all things through Christ.

[ralittlefield]

I have asked this question to, Why would Jesus say this? For my trinitarian friends of course.

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?

Would God forsake God ? Because Jesus, as a man, took our sin, and God can not tolerate sin.


Is this like thomas saying my lord and my god ? I do not think so.


How many times Does Jesus have to say his Father is God, before you believe it ? Once.


Was Jesus talking to himself ? No.


Do you not know what forsaken means ? Yes.