Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[HisServant]

My question was, did the holy spirit or did God raise Jesus from the dead or did he raise himself?
as for the other questions I believe I have asked you them before but will again
te:
Originally Posted by Warrior4God
Did Jesus raise himself from the dead? was God dead 3 days?
was Jesus God or was he a man?
can God be tempted?
can God grow in wisdom?
can God get on his knees and pray or is he the God the Son prayed to?
can God be subject to any one or anything.

Because it is affirmed of Christ, that “when all things shall be subdued under him then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all,” 1 Cor. 15:28
could you explain this for me according to your doctrine how Jesus will be subject to God if they are 3 persons and equal

Warrior this has been answered over and over again. The answer is the same. You are confusing His humanity with His divinity. Just spend some time in the book of Colossians.

The answer is God the Father cannot. Jesus is not God the Father. Don't confuse the two. Remember the water example. where people mess up is in not wanting to understand and trying so desperately to tear the analogy apart. But it is simple.

If I take a body of water, then I take some water out of that I now begot another body of water. Yet the body of water just created was not created out of nothing, it always existed, it was a part of the original body of water. It has the same properties. If you took a sample of each they would be the same and yet they are now distinct. If I said you see the body of water, you would have to ask which one the original or the one just created. Why? Because now there are 2. Is one better than the other? No. then what is the difference? The difference is that at one time they were together and now they are distinct and apart. But they both share the same substance since one was taken out of the other. Now if I freeze the body of water that I just begot it becomes ice. Its form is now different from the original. Does that mean the original becomes ice? no. Does it effect the original in any way? no. But are they connected? Yes. How? The Ice came from the original Body of water. Now could you hold the water in your hand? No. Why? it is liquid it is hard to grasp. Could you hold the ice? Yes. why? Because in solid form it is easy to hold. So can I say that the ice came from the water? Yes. Can I say they are of the same substance? Yes. Can I say they are identical? No. Why? well one is liquid and one is solid. So is one better than the other? Well no it depends on what you need and how you use them. right. So depending on what you need you either use the water or ice.

very simple Warrior. The Logos (Jesus) came from God and was God. Now takes on flesh. As a human his purposes and use is different from the Father. He is different. He is not the Father. But none the less He is God. Because He came directly from God. He was not created. He was begotten.

[HisServant]

No twisting the scriptures are plain, no man mey see God's face and live.

(Exodus 33:20) And he added: “You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live.”



(John 6:46) Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father.



(1 John 4:12) At no time has anyone beheld God. If we continue loving one another, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us.

(John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him

Agree no problem with any of these scriptures. No man has seen God the Father except Jesus, the Son of God, God the Son. Scripture is clear on it.

[Warrior4God]

Warrior this has been answered over and over again. The answer is the same. You are confusing His humanity with His divinity. Just spend some time in the book of Colossians.

The answer is God the Father cannot. Jesus is not God the Father. Don't confuse the two. Remember the water example. where people mess up is in not wanting to understand and trying so desperately to tear the analogy apart. But it is simple.

If I take a body of water, then I take some water out of that I now begot another body of water. Yet the body of water just created was not created out of nothing, it always existed, it was a part of the original body of water. It has the same properties. If you took a sample of each they would be the same and yet they are now distinct. If I said you see the body of water, you would have to ask which one the original or the one just created. Why? Because now there are 2. Is one better than the other? No. then what is the difference? The difference is that at one time they were together and now they are distinct and apart. But they both share the same substance since one was taken out of the other. Now if I freeze the body of water that I just begot it becomes ice. Its form is now different from the original. Does that mean the original becomes ice? no. Does it effect the original in any way? no. But are they connected? Yes. How? The Ice came from the original Body of water. Now could you hold the water in your hand? No. Why? it is liquid it is hard to grasp. Could you hold the ice? Yes. why? Because in solid form it is easy to hold. So can I say that the ice came from the water? Yes. Can I say they are of the same substance? Yes. Can I say they are identical? No. Why? well one is liquid and one is solid. So is one better than the other? Well no it depends on what you need and how you use them. right. So depending on what you need you either use the water or ice.

very simple Warrior. The Logos (Jesus) came from God and was God. Now takes on flesh. As a human his purposes and use is different from the Father. He is different. He is not the Father. But none the less He is God. Because He came directly from God. He was not created. He was begotten.

Question

Where is Jesus now and what form of God is he now according to your doctrine and Is he equal with God Almighty has he ever been equal with God Almighty in power and knowledge?

[DispensationalJim]

I have a question for Warrior, etc.:

If -- as you keep quoting -- "no man can see God and live," but you admit that Jesus has seen God and lived, are you saying that Jesus was not a man?

Just wondering...

DJim

[DispensationalJim]

Since some must have missed this, I am reposting it...

WHO RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD?

FIRST, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT JESUS, GOD THE SON, MADE HIMSELF INTO A MAN, PLACING HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY UNDER THE "CARE" OF GOD HIS FATHER!
• 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.

COULD ANYONE BUT GOD MAKE HIMSELF INTO A MAN?

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

JESUS KNEW HE WOULD DIE AND RISE AGAIN, AND TOLD HIS DISCIPLES SO MANY TIMES!
• Matt. 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
• Matt. 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
• Matt. 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
• Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
• Mark 10:34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
• Mark 14:28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.
• Luke 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That **God** hath visited his people.
• Luke 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
• Luke 24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

IF JESUS WAS NOT GOD, HOW COULD HE KNOW THAT HE WOULD DIE AND RISE AGAIN?

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

GOD, THE HOLY SPIRIT, SENT JESUS TO US, AND EVENTUALLY WAS A PART OF HIS RESURRECTION!
• Luke 4:18 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,
• Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
• John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
• John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
• John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
• Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. ... 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. ... 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. ... 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house:
• Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

• Rom. 8:11 But if ***the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead*** dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. ... 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

ALL OF THOSE VERSES SHOW THE HOLY SPIRIT TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL ENTITY WITH ABILITY TO PERFORM VARIOUS FUNCTIONS, TO SPEAK, TO SEND, TO ANOINT, ETC., ETC...

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

JESUS SAID HE WOULD RAISE HIMSELF UP!
• John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days *** I will raise it up ***. ... 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
================================

JESUS IS HIMSELF THE RESURRECTION!
• John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, **I am** the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

• Phil. 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of **his** resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

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

BUT ULTIMATELY IT WAS GOD THE FATHER WHO RAISED GOD THE SON (JESUS) FROM THE DEAD.

• 1Pet. 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

SO WE SEE THE GODHEAD (GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON, AND GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT) INVOLVED IN THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

DispensationalJim

[Warrior4God]

Since some must have missed this, I am reposting it...

WHO RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD?

FIRST, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT JESUS, GOD THE SON, MADE HIMSELF INTO A MAN, PLACING HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY UNDER THE "CARE" OF GOD HIS FATHER!
• 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.

COULD ANYONE BUT GOD MAKE HIMSELF INTO A MAN?

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

JESUS KNEW HE WOULD DIE AND RISE AGAIN, AND TOLD HIS DISCIPLES SO MANY TIMES!
• Matt. 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
• Matt. 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
• Matt. 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
• Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
• Mark 10:34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
• Mark 14:28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.
• Luke 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That **God** hath visited his people.
• Luke 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
• Luke 24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

IF JESUS WAS NOT GOD, HOW COULD HE KNOW THAT HE WOULD DIE AND RISE AGAIN?

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

GOD, THE HOLY SPIRIT, SENT JESUS TO US, AND EVENTUALLY WAS A PART OF HIS RESURRECTION!
• Luke 4:18 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,
• Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
• John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
• John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
• John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
• Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. ... 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. ... 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. ... 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house:
• Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

• Rom. 8:11 But if ***the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead*** dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. ... 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

ALL OF THOSE VERSES SHOW THE HOLY SPIRIT TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL ENTITY WITH ABILITY TO PERFORM VARIOUS FUNCTIONS, TO SPEAK, TO SEND, TO ANOINT, ETC., ETC...

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

JESUS SAID HE WOULD RAISE HIMSELF UP!
• John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days *** I will raise it up ***. ... 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
================================

JESUS IS HIMSELF THE RESURRECTION!
• John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, **I am** the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

• Phil. 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of **his** resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

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

BUT ULTIMATELY IT WAS GOD THE FATHER WHO RAISED GOD THE SON (JESUS) FROM THE DEAD.

• 1Pet. 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

SO WE SEE THE GODHEAD (GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON, AND GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT) INVOLVED IN THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

DispensationalJim

Philippians 2:6-8
(6) Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
(8) Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (NASB)

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


1. These verses in Philippians are very important to Trinitarian doctrine (although they have also caused division among Trinitarians) and they must be dealt with thoroughly. There are several arguments wrapped into these two verses, and we will deal with them point by point. First, many Trinitarians assert that the word “form,” which is the Greek word morphe, refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in verse 6 the NIV has, “being in very nature God.” We do not believe that morphe refers to an “inner essential nature,” and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphe, to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions, to show the differences between them.

Vine’s Lexicon has under “form”: “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual…it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.” Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphe, which they assert refers to an “inner, essential nature,” with schema, (in verse 8, and translated “appearance” above) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphe and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphe refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.
read the rest of this here and you can see how error crept into these verses
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=127

[Warrior4God]

Jim you hold the view that Jesus raised himself?
as well as God raising him?

[HisServant]

Since some must have missed this, I am reposting it...

WHO RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD?

FIRST, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT JESUS, GOD THE SON, MADE HIMSELF INTO A MAN, PLACING HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY UNDER THE "CARE" OF GOD HIS FATHER!
• 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.

COULD ANYONE BUT GOD MAKE HIMSELF INTO A MAN?

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

JESUS KNEW HE WOULD DIE AND RISE AGAIN, AND TOLD HIS DISCIPLES SO MANY TIMES!
• Matt. 20:19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
• Matt. 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
• Matt. 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
• Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
• Mark 10:34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
• Mark 14:28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.
• Luke 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That **God** hath visited his people.
• Luke 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
• Luke 24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

IF JESUS WAS NOT GOD, HOW COULD HE KNOW THAT HE WOULD DIE AND RISE AGAIN?

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

GOD, THE HOLY SPIRIT, SENT JESUS TO US, AND EVENTUALLY WAS A PART OF HIS RESURRECTION!
• Luke 4:18 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,
• Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
• John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
• John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
• John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
• Acts 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. ... 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. ... 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. ... 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house:
• Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

• Rom. 8:11 But if ***the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead*** dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. ... 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

ALL OF THOSE VERSES SHOW THE HOLY SPIRIT TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL ENTITY WITH ABILITY TO PERFORM VARIOUS FUNCTIONS, TO SPEAK, TO SEND, TO ANOINT, ETC., ETC...

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

JESUS SAID HE WOULD RAISE HIMSELF UP!
• John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days *** I will raise it up ***. ... 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
================================

JESUS IS HIMSELF THE RESURRECTION!
• John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, **I am** the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

• Phil. 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of **his** resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

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

BUT ULTIMATELY IT WAS GOD THE FATHER WHO RAISED GOD THE SON (JESUS) FROM THE DEAD.

• 1Pet. 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

SO WE SEE THE GODHEAD (GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON, AND GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT) INVOLVED IN THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

DispensationalJim

Awe shucks you stole my thunder.

Basically I was asking warrior if he believed that the Holy Spirit lives in us. The problem we have is we take our belief and shove it into scripture. Instead we must take what scripture says and build on it. So we learn from many verses that it is the Holy Spirit of God that lives in us. Then we learn that the same Spirit of God that raised Christ from the dead lives in us. So it is the Same Holy Spirit. Thus again showing Father God, Son God, Spirit God. Each having different roles and function but acting in accord. ONE.
What we cannot do is go into a verse and say I am going to believe Jesus is not God and then take that verse with that mind in thought. Instead you must read the verse and then ask what is the verse saying? Is there another one that gives me more info? Then you add to what you are learning and then will see that the Scriptures interpret themselves.

[HisServant]

Jim you hold the view that Jesus raised himself?
as well as God raising him?

Actually DJ doesn't have that view he posted scripture that has those views. How now do you reconcile the two verses is the question?

[Warrior4God]

Actually DJ doesn't have that view he posted scripture that has those views. How now do you reconcile the two verses is the question?

he said he would rise and that God would do that.
I believe the only verse unclear is John 2:19

John 2:19
Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. (NASB)




1. Many verses plainly state that it was the Father who raised Jesus, and the Bible cannot contradict itself.

2. Jesus was speaking to the Jews after he had just turned over their tables and driven their animals out of the Temple. This was the first of the two times when he did this, and this occurrence was at the beginning of his ministry. He did it once again at the end of his ministry, and that event is recorded in other Gospels. The Jews were angry and unbelieving, and Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, so much so that the Gospel of John has to add, “but he was speaking of the temple of his body,” (John 2:21 - NASB) so the reader would not be confused. Since Jesus was standing in the actual Temple when he said, “Destroy this temple,” the natural assumption would be the one his audience made, that he was speaking of the Temple where he was standing at the time.

3. The fact that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms to an unbelieving audience should make us hesitant to build a doctrine on this verse, especially when many other clear verses say that the Father raised Jesus. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:14 states: “By his power, God raised the Lord from the dead.” Jesus was not in a teaching situation when he was speaking. Tempers were flaring and the Jews were against Jesus anyway. It was common for Jesus to speak in ways that unbelievers did not understand. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels will show a number of times when Jesus spoke and the unbelievers who heard him (and sometimes even the disciples) were confused by what he said.

4. We know that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, but what did he mean? He was almost certainly referring to the fact that he was indeed ultimately responsible for his resurrection. How so? Jesus was responsible to keep himself “without spot or blemish” and to fully obey the will of the Father. In that sense he was like any other sacrifice. A sacrifice that was blemished was unacceptable to the Lord (Lev. 22:17-20; Mal. 1:6-8). Since this event in John was at the start of his ministry, he knew he had a long hard road ahead and that obedience would not be easy. If he turned away from God because he did not like what God said to do, or if he were tempted to the point of sin, his sin would have been a “blemish” that would have disqualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Then he could not have paid for the sins of mankind, and there would have been no resurrection. The reader must remember that Jesus did not go into the Temple and turn over the money tables because he “just felt like it.” John 2:17 indicates that he was fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy and the will of God, which he always did. Had he not fulfilled the prophecy spoken in Psalm 69:9, he would not have fulfilled all the law and would have been disqualified from being able to die for the sins of mankind. Thus, his destiny was in his own hands, and he could say, “I will raise it up.”

5. It is common in speech that if a person has a vital part in something, he is spoken of as having done the thing. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. The Gospels say it, and we know that the Jews would not have done it, because coming in contact with Jesus would have made them unclean. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, “you” crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). Everyone understands that the Jews played a vital part in Jesus’ crucifixion, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general’s position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, “David captured the stronghold of Zion.” We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised.

6. Christ knew that by his thoughts and actions he could guarantee his own resurrection by being sinlessly obedient unto death. That made it legally possible for God to keep His promise of resurrecting Christ, who was without sin and therefore did not deserve death, the “wages of sin.”

[HisServant]

Question

Where is Jesus now and what form of God is he now according to your doctrine and Is he equal with God Almighty has he ever been equal with God Almighty in power and knowledge?

First not my doctrine all I have said is scripture. Second Jesus is at the right hand of God making intercession for you and me. Also scripture. He is in the form we shall be, glorified. Also scripture.

As far as equality let scripture answer you. Remember this " Phil 2:6
Who, being in the form of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
KJV
who being in the form of God - He already existed as such as the Logos.

Phil 2:6
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, NIV

Why did He not consider equality with God something to be grasped? :think:

Oh you don't grasp for something that you already are. In other words satans big problem is his pride he tried to be God or above God. Adam and Eve's problem, they fell for the lie that they could become gods. Man's continuing problem he continues to be above or equal to God. Jesus did not have that problem. He was already in that form. In that nature. In other words He was already God (John 1:1) therefore you don't grasp for something that you already are. But what He, Jesus, did do is give up His position, as fully God, to humble Himself on a cross for us. And thus God the Father exalted Him above all things. Scripture interprets scripture.

[Warrior4God]

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (NIV)

If a man is to be saved he MUST believe God raised him ,not that he raised himself

[Warrior4God]

Phil 2:6
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, NIV
read that again
he said being equal with God is something you can NOT grasp

You cant grasp this because you cant be equal with God
your reading this backwards

[HisServant]

he said he would rise and that God would do that.
I believe the only verse unclear is John 2:19

John 2:19
Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. (NASB)




1. Many verses plainly state that it was the Father who raised Jesus, and the Bible cannot contradict itself.

2. Jesus was speaking to the Jews after he had just turned over their tables and driven their animals out of the Temple. This was the first of the two times when he did this, and this occurrence was at the beginning of his ministry. He did it once again at the end of his ministry, and that event is recorded in other Gospels. The Jews were angry and unbelieving, and Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, so much so that the Gospel of John has to add, “but he was speaking of the temple of his body,” (John 2:21 - NASB) so the reader would not be confused. Since Jesus was standing in the actual Temple when he said, “Destroy this temple,” the natural assumption would be the one his audience made, that he was speaking of the Temple where he was standing at the time.

3. The fact that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms to an unbelieving audience should make us hesitant to build a doctrine on this verse, especially when many other clear verses say that the Father raised Jesus. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:14 states: “By his power, God raised the Lord from the dead.” Jesus was not in a teaching situation when he was speaking. Tempers were flaring and the Jews were against Jesus anyway. It was common for Jesus to speak in ways that unbelievers did not understand. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels will show a number of times when Jesus spoke and the unbelievers who heard him (and sometimes even the disciples) were confused by what he said.

4. We know that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, but what did he mean? He was almost certainly referring to the fact that he was indeed ultimately responsible for his resurrection. How so? Jesus was responsible to keep himself “without spot or blemish” and to fully obey the will of the Father. In that sense he was like any other sacrifice. A sacrifice that was blemished was unacceptable to the Lord (Lev. 22:17-20; Mal. 1:6-8). Since this event in John was at the start of his ministry, he knew he had a long hard road ahead and that obedience would not be easy. If he turned away from God because he did not like what God said to do, or if he were tempted to the point of sin, his sin would have been a “blemish” that would have disqualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Then he could not have paid for the sins of mankind, and there would have been no resurrection. The reader must remember that Jesus did not go into the Temple and turn over the money tables because he “just felt like it.” John 2:17 indicates that he was fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy and the will of God, which he always did. Had he not fulfilled the prophecy spoken in Psalm 69:9, he would not have fulfilled all the law and would have been disqualified from being able to die for the sins of mankind. Thus, his destiny was in his own hands, and he could say, “I will raise it up.”

5. It is common in speech that if a person has a vital part in something, he is spoken of as having done the thing. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. The Gospels say it, and we know that the Jews would not have done it, because coming in contact with Jesus would have made them unclean. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, “you” crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). Everyone understands that the Jews played a vital part in Jesus’ crucifixion, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general’s position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, “David captured the stronghold of Zion.” We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised.

6. Christ knew that by his thoughts and actions he could guarantee his own resurrection by being sinlessly obedient unto death. That made it legally possible for God to keep His promise of resurrecting Christ, who was without sin and therefore did not deserve death, the “wages of sin.”

Ok so you did not complete the circle was Jesus wrong in John 2:19? is this an error on His part?

And also scripture says it was the Spirit that raised Him from the dead.
Rom 8:11
1 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. NIV

So now we have a big mess.
Warrior:
Did God raise Him?
Did Jesus raise Himself?
Did the Spirit raise Him?
Each verse makes different claims.

[Warrior4God]

There are many verses that, if read and believed in a simple, straightforward manner, should clearly convince any unbiased person that God and Jesus are two completely different and distinct beings. There are also many logical reasons that should cause us to doubt the doctrine of the Trinity. What follows is a list of some reasons to believe that the Father is the only true God of Scripture and has no equal.

Reasons to doubt that the Trinity exists:

(1) The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible.

(2) There is no clear Trinitarian formula in the Bible.

(3) Trinitarians differ greatly in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western traditions regarding the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Some television evangelists differ greatly from the Reformed Churches in their concept of Christ’s divinity while he was on earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong. Yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position. Surely if the Trinity were a part of Bible doctrine, and especially if one had to believe it to be saved, it would be clearly defined in Scripture. Yet there is no Trinitarian formula in the Bible and Trinitarians themselves cannot agree on a definition. If one is to believe in the Trinity, how is he to know which definition is correct, since none appears in the Bible?

(4) The Trinitarian contention that “the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and together they make one God” is not in Scripture and is illogical. Trinitarians teach that Jesus is both 100 percent man and 100 percent God. We say that God can do the impossible, but He cannot perform that which is inherently contradictory. God is the inventor of logic and mathematics, disciplines He created to allow us to get to know Him and His world. It is the very reason why He said that He is “One God,” and why Jesus said that the witness of two was true and then said that he and His Father both were witnesses. God cannot make a round square, and He cannot make 100 percent +100 percent = 100 percent, without contradicting the laws of mathematics He designed.

[HisServant]

Phil 2:6
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, NIV
read that again
he said being equal with God is something you can NOT grasp

You cant grasp this because you cant be equal with God
your reading this backwards

NOPE. Incorrect. Not proper reading comprehension. Look again.

Who being in the form or nature of God. He was already in the form or nature of God. read first without interpreting what you want it to say. Lets just read the first couple of words and agree to what it says otherwise we are on different sides. Does the verse not say He, Jesus, is in the form or very nature of God? Yes or No.

[HisServant]

There are many verses that, if read and believed in a simple, straightforward manner, should clearly convince any unbiased person that God and Jesus are two completely different and distinct beings. There are also many logical reasons that should cause us to doubt the doctrine of the Trinity. What follows is a list of some reasons to believe that the Father is the only true God of Scripture and has no equal.

Reasons to doubt that the Trinity exists:

(1) The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible.

(2) There is no clear Trinitarian formula in the Bible.

(3) Trinitarians differ greatly in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western traditions regarding the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Some television evangelists differ greatly from the Reformed Churches in their concept of Christ’s divinity while he was on earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong. Yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position. Surely if the Trinity were a part of Bible doctrine, and especially if one had to believe it to be saved, it would be clearly defined in Scripture. Yet there is no Trinitarian formula in the Bible and Trinitarians themselves cannot agree on a definition. If one is to believe in the Trinity, how is he to know which definition is correct, since none appears in the Bible?

(4) The Trinitarian contention that “the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and together they make one God” is not in Scripture and is illogical. Trinitarians teach that Jesus is both 100 percent man and 100 percent God. We say that God can do the impossible, but He cannot perform that which is inherently contradictory. God is the inventor of logic and mathematics, disciplines He created to allow us to get to know Him and His world. It is the very reason why He said that He is “One God,” and why Jesus said that the witness of two was true and then said that he and His Father both were witnesses. God cannot make a round square, and He cannot make 100 percent +100 percent = 100 percent, without contradicting the laws of mathematics He designed.

Don't spin away and avoid the verses we are looking at. I have yet to mention trinity. Lets stay with the few verses we are looking at.
Who raised Jesus? And Romans 11. Lets do a proper Bible study. Lets not add terms yet. Lets not say but yet. Lets look at these verses and see what they say to us.

So one verse says Jesus will raise Himself.
One verse says God rasied Him.
One says the Spirit.
Do we have a contradiction in the Bible?

Next Phil says who being in the form or very nature of God... just those words first, does it say that Jesus is in the nature or form of God? Yes or no.

[Warrior4God]

Verses that show a difference between the nature of God and the nature of Christ

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

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

Numbers 23:19 also specifically says that God is not “a son of man.” In the Gospels, Jesus is often called “a son of man” or “the son of man.” If God became a human being who was called “the son of man” this creates a contradiction. Some occurrences of the phrase "son of man” in the New Testament are Matthew 12:40; 16:27 and 28; Mark 2:10; 8:31; John 5:27. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the “son of man” is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25). Human beings, including Jesus Christ, are called “son of man,” and are thus carefully distinguished from God, who is not a “son of man.”

God was not born, but is eternal. In contrast to the eternal God, Christ was “begotten,” that is, he had a beginning. Matthew 1:18 reads ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ….” The word translated “birth” in the original text was genesis, or “beginning.” Some scribes changed this to gennesis [with a double “n” and the second “e” long] because they were uncomfortable saying Jesus had a “beginning.” Although it is true that a legitimate meaning of genesis is “birth,” that is because the birth of something is understood as its beginning. If Jesus pre-existed his birth, as Trinitarians teach, the use of “beginning” in Matthew is misleading. Scripture teaches that the beginning of Jesus was his conception and birth. Thankfully, even modern Trinitarian scholars recognize that the original reading was genesis, although it is translated as “birth” in almost all translations.

Jesus is called the “Son of God” more than 50 times in the Bible. Not once is he called “God the Son.”

Man (Adam) caused mankind’s problems, and Romans 5:19 says that a man will have to undo those problems: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible clearly teaches that only a man could do it. [For further study read "How can a man atone for the sins of mankind?"]

Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and men. 1 Timothy 2:5 says: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Christ is clearly called a “man,” even after his resurrection. Also, if Christ were himself God, he could not be the mediator “between God and man.”


Verses that show that God is greater than Christ

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. For example, he told Mary Magdalene to go to the brothers and tell them, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” (John 20:17). 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 clear words from Jesus, the orthodox formula of the Trinity says that the Father and the Son are “co-equal.”

It was God who made Jesus “Lord.” Acts 2:36 says: “God has made this Jesus...both Lord and Christ.” “Lord” is not the same as “God.” “Lord” (the Greek word is kurios) is a masculine title of respect and nobility, and it is used many times in the Bible. If Christ were God, then by definition he was already “Lord,” so for the Bible to say he was “made” Lord could not be true. To say that Jesus is God because the Bible calls him “Lord” is very poor scholarship. “Lord” is used in many ways in the Bible, and others beside God and Jesus are called “Lord.”

1) property owners are called Lord (Matt. 20:8, kurios is “owner” — NIV)
2) heads of households were called Lord (Mk 13:35, owner=kurios).
3) slave owners were called Lord (Matt. 10:24, master=kurios).
4) husbands were called Lord (1 Pet. 3:6, master=kurios).
5) a son called his father Lord (Matt. 21:30, sir=kurios).
6) the Roman Emperor was called Lord (Acts 25:26, His Majesty=kurios).
7) Roman authorities were called Lord (Matt. 27:63, sir=kurios).

In the future, the Son will be subject to the Father. 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.” Trinitarian dogma contradicts this by making Jesus eternally equal to the Father.

Jesus recognized that the Father was the only true God. In prayer, he said to God “…that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). For Jesus to have prayed this way surely meant that he did not consider himself to be “the only true God.”

Jesus was “sanctified” by God. John 10:36 says: “Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming’ because I said ‘I am the son of God’”? (NASB). Jesus was sanctified by God, but God does not need to be sanctified.

Philippians 2:6-8 has been mistranslated in many versions, but properly rendered, verse 6 says that Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” Jesus Christ was highly exalted by God because he did not seek equality with God like Lucifer had many years earlier. The statement makes no sense at all if Christ were God, because then Christ would have been praised for not seeking equality with himself.

It was clear that 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 doing” (cp. v. 30 and John 8:28 and 12:49).

There is only one who is “good,” and that is God. In Luke 18:19, Jesus spoke to a man who had called Him “good,” asking him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man on his perception, just as he complimented Peter when Peter said he was “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Instead, Christ gave him a mild rebuke. Christ was not teaching the people that he was God.

1 Corinthians 3:23 makes it clear that God is greater than Christ, just as Christ is greater than we are: “…and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God” (NASB).

If God is greater than Christ, then God is his leader just as Christ is our leader. This is exactly what the Bible teaches: “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3). It is obvious from this verse and 1 Cor. 3:23 (above) that the Trinitarian formula that Christ and God are “co-equal” is not biblical.

[HisServant]

Verses that show a difference between the nature of God and the nature of Christ

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

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

Numbers 23:19 also specifically says that God is not “a son of man.” In the Gospels, Jesus is often called “a son of man” or “the son of man.” If God became a human being who was called “the son of man” this creates a contradiction. Some occurrences of the phrase "son of man” in the New Testament are Matthew 12:40; 16:27 and 28; Mark 2:10; 8:31; John 5:27. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the “son of man” is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25). Human beings, including Jesus Christ, are called “son of man,” and are thus carefully distinguished from God, who is not a “son of man.”

God was not born, but is eternal. In contrast to the eternal God, Christ was “begotten,” that is, he had a beginning. Matthew 1:18 reads ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ….” The word translated “birth” in the original text was genesis, or “beginning.” Some scribes changed this to gennesis [with a double “n” and the second “e” long] because they were uncomfortable saying Jesus had a “beginning.” Although it is true that a legitimate meaning of genesis is “birth,” that is because the birth of something is understood as its beginning. If Jesus pre-existed his birth, as Trinitarians teach, the use of “beginning” in Matthew is misleading. Scripture teaches that the beginning of Jesus was his conception and birth. Thankfully, even modern Trinitarian scholars recognize that the original reading was genesis, although it is translated as “birth” in almost all translations.

Jesus is called the “Son of God” more than 50 times in the Bible. Not once is he called “God the Son.”

Man (Adam) caused mankind’s problems, and Romans 5:19 says that a man will have to undo those problems: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible clearly teaches that only a man could do it. [For further study read "How can a man atone for the sins of mankind?"]

Jesus, the man, is the mediator between God and men. 1 Timothy 2:5 says: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Christ is clearly called a “man,” even after his resurrection. Also, if Christ were himself God, he could not be the mediator “between God and man.”


Verses that show that God is greater than Christ

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. For example, he told Mary Magdalene to go to the brothers and tell them, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” (John 20:17). 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 clear words from Jesus, the orthodox formula of the Trinity says that the Father and the Son are “co-equal.”

It was God who made Jesus “Lord.” Acts 2:36 says: “God has made this Jesus...both Lord and Christ.” “Lord” is not the same as “God.” “Lord” (the Greek word is kurios) is a masculine title of respect and nobility, and it is used many times in the Bible. If Christ were God, then by definition he was already “Lord,” so for the Bible to say he was “made” Lord could not be true. To say that Jesus is God because the Bible calls him “Lord” is very poor scholarship. “Lord” is used in many ways in the Bible, and others beside God and Jesus are called “Lord.”

1) property owners are called Lord (Matt. 20:8, kurios is “owner” — NIV)
2) heads of households were called Lord (Mk 13:35, owner=kurios).
3) slave owners were called Lord (Matt. 10:24, master=kurios).
4) husbands were called Lord (1 Pet. 3:6, master=kurios).
5) a son called his father Lord (Matt. 21:30, sir=kurios).
6) the Roman Emperor was called Lord (Acts 25:26, His Majesty=kurios).
7) Roman authorities were called Lord (Matt. 27:63, sir=kurios).

In the future, the Son will be subject to the Father. 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.” Trinitarian dogma contradicts this by making Jesus eternally equal to the Father.

Jesus recognized that the Father was the only true God. In prayer, he said to God “…that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). For Jesus to have prayed this way surely meant that he did not consider himself to be “the only true God.”

Jesus was “sanctified” by God. John 10:36 says: “Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming’ because I said ‘I am the son of God’”? (NASB). Jesus was sanctified by God, but God does not need to be sanctified.

Philippians 2:6-8 has been mistranslated in many versions, but properly rendered, verse 6 says that Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” Jesus Christ was highly exalted by God because he did not seek equality with God like Lucifer had many years earlier. The statement makes no sense at all if Christ were God, because then Christ would have been praised for not seeking equality with himself.

It was clear that 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 doing” (cp. v. 30 and John 8:28 and 12:49).

There is only one who is “good,” and that is God. In Luke 18:19, Jesus spoke to a man who had called Him “good,” asking him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man on his perception, just as he complimented Peter when Peter said he was “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Instead, Christ gave him a mild rebuke. Christ was not teaching the people that he was God.

1 Corinthians 3:23 makes it clear that God is greater than Christ, just as Christ is greater than we are: “…and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God” (NASB).

If God is greater than Christ, then God is his leader just as Christ is our leader. This is exactly what the Bible teaches: “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3). It is obvious from this verse and 1 Cor. 3:23 (above) that the Trinitarian formula that Christ and God are “co-equal” is not biblical.

Warrior You are acting like a senator. You are creating a fillabuster in order not to answer a question and thus avoid the whole issue. :naughty:

Much like a lawyer who gives you 10,000 pieces of paper to review hoping you will miss the 1 you need to prove a fact.

Can we get back to the scriptures at hand.

Who raised Jesus from the dead? God, Jesus, The Spirit?
Does Phil 2:6, the first couple of words say that Jesus is in the form or very nature of God? Yes or no.

[Warrior4God]

Ok so you did not complete the circle was Jesus wrong in John 2:19? is this an error on His part?

And also scripture says it was the Spirit that raised Him from the dead.
Rom 8:11
1 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. NIV

So now we have a big mess.
Warrior:
Did God raise Him?
Did Jesus raise Himself?
Did the Spirit raise Him?
Each verse makes different claims.

Nope I disagree and aint drinkin that koolaid
God is Spirit
It clearly states that if THE Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you,He who raised Christ from the dead will also give your body life through HIS spirit.(whos spirit?---Gods spirit=holy spirit)
God dwells in me Christ dwells in me the holy spirit dwells in me
God in Christ in you the hope of glory

[Warrior4God]

Hisservant you said
So now we have a big mess.

not me someone does not me.
not as I see it according to scripture IMO

[HisServant]

Nope I disagree and aint drinkin that koolaid
God is Spirit
It clearly states that if THE Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you,He who raised Christ from the dead will also give your body life through HIS spirit.(whos spirit?---Gods spirit=holy spirit)
God dwells in me Christ dwells in me the holy spirit dwells in me
God in Christ in you the hope of glory

So you agree that this verse says the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead? Or is it wrong?

Show me a verse that says God dwells in us?

[HisServant]

Hisservant you said
So now we have a big mess.

not me someone does not me.
not as I see it according to scripture IMO

You're avoding all the issues thats why.
who raised Jesus from the dead? are you going to answer?
Also what does the beginning part of Phil 2:6 say?

[Warrior4God]

Warrior You are acting like a senator. You are creating a fillabuster in order not to answer a question and thus avoid the whole issue. :naughty:

Much like a lawyer who gives you 10,000 pieces of paper to review hoping you will miss the 1 you need to prove a fact.

Can we get back to the scriptures at hand.

Who raised Jesus from the dead? God, Jesus, The Spirit?
Does Phil 2:6, the first couple of words say that Jesus is in the form or very nature of God? Yes or no.

1 unclear verse against 10,000 clear when there is an explanation of the unclear(unclear=contradicting the other 10,000) the contradictory 1 must be looked into ,I have and my Bible does not contradict itself and can not if God is true

[Warrior4God]

So you agree that this verse says the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead? Or is it wrong?

Show me a verse that says God dwells in us?

Are you serious?

[HisServant]

1 unclear verse against 10,000 clear when there is an explanation of the unclear(unclear=contradicting the other 10,000) the contradictory 1 must be looked into ,I have and my Bible does not contradict itself and can not if God is true

You are avoiding the question.
What is so unclear about the verse? Destroy this temple, meaning His body, and I will rasie it in three days? Did He mean it or not? Was He lying? Is He wrong?

[HisServant]

Are you serious?

Yes. All I have are questions you won't answer. I am trying to stay focused on just these verses for now. So I am waiting for an answer.
Who raised Jesus from the Dead?
What does the beginning of Phi 2:6 say?

[Warrior4God]

2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are

[Warrior4God]

Yes. All I have are questions you won't answer. I am trying to stay focused on just these verses for now. So I am waiting for an answer.
Who raised Jesus from the Dead?
What does the beginning of Phi 2:6 say?

gave you an answer read back

what I posted on phil 2:6
God raised Jesus from the dead

[Warrior4God]

You are avoiding the question.
What is so unclear about the verse? Destroy this temple, meaning His body, and I will rasie it in three days? Did He mean it or not? Was He lying? Is He wrong?

Once again you wont read.
I posted response on the scripture
I like this being on defence I mean LOL
Will stay here on defence for a bit but you must be willing to give me the ball in a bit
I like that we can debate and not call names like some do
I respect you very much for that
By the way Im Billy

[HisServant]

Once again you wont read.
I posted response on the scripture
I like this being on defence I mean LOL
Will stay here on defence for a bit but you must be willing to give me the ball in a bit
I like that we can debate and not call names like some do
I respect you very much for that
By the way Im Billy

Thanks I truly believe we can disagree and be civil. Whether or not someone believes in the Trinity I don't think is a matter of salvation.

Now back to the show.
2 points:
1)
You have lost me on several occassions becasuse I dont see direct answers. so lets start fresh. No posting 1,000 verses.

Who raised Jesus?

Roms 8:11 says Sprit. and I Cor. 15:15 says God. and John 2:19 Jesus says He will. All three can't be right or can it?


Point 2: Is He or Is He not in the nature of God, In the form of God, etc? Phil 2:6
who, being in very nature God, NIV

Phil 2:6
6 who, being in the form of God, NKJV

Phil 2:6
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, NASU

Phil 2:6 6 Who, being in the form of God KJV

Phil 2:6 Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], AMP


Please be direct don't answer in circles or posts 1,000 verses.
Yes or No.
It means this or that....

[DRS]

gave you an answer read back

what I posted on phil 2:6
God raised Jesus from the dead

the thing I like about Phillipians also is it says have this mind in you.

I doubt Paul was saying have the mind of God.

[HisServant]

the thing I like about Phillipians also is it says have this mind in you.

I doubt Paul was saying have the mind of God.

That is not the point. The point is it says who being in the nature or in the form of God. Does it mean He is in the nature of form of God. Yes it does. Then it follows you don't have to grasp at something you already are.

[DRS]

That is not the point. The point is it says who being in the nature or in the form of God. Does it mean He is in the nature of form of God. Yes it does. Then it follows you don't have to grasp at something you already are.

God is a spirit living in heaven, what are the angels and where do they live?

[Warrior4God]

What I think your missing is that God is Spirit
He raised Jesus from the dead
You look at Rom 8:11 you will see The Spirit and HIS spirit in that verse
Showing distinctness between them
I go to the verse again Rom. 10:9
To believe God raised him is critical to salvation

[Warrior4God]

That is not the point. The point is it says who being in the nature or in the form of God. Does it mean He is in the nature of form of God. Yes it does. Then it follows you don't have to grasp at something you already are.

If you go back and read the post on Phil 2 i posted it will explain what I think on this verse

[Warrior4God]

I believe the form of God is spirit and God gave Jesus spirit
I do not hold to the Idea that God has a body like I believe LDS think.

[Jewell]

Hello, Jewell!

Haven't heard from you in quite a spell on this forum. Hope everything is well with you.

Reconrick was active on this thread for awhile, but haven't heard from him lately, either. I think you two are from the same "school of thought," aren't you?

Anyway, I hope to hear more from you on here, Jewell.

DispensationalJim


Hey, thanks for the nice comment. Everything is well, God has been good to me.
I've just been busy working. I went back to work full time and have no time to hardly breathe anymore. I like to lurk sometimes just to see what subjects are being discussed, I just don't have the time for full blown discussions anymore. I do miss it though.
God bless

[HisServant]

What I think your missing is that God is Spirit
He raised Jesus from the dead
You look at Rom 8:11 you will see The Spirit and HIS spirit in that verse
Showing distinctness between them
I go to the verse again Rom. 10:9
To believe God raised him is critical to salvation

And what I am asking is not is God Spirit. I am not asking are they the same.
Here is the question there are 3 verses in scripture. Each saying the same thing. But each verse attributes the action to a different person.
Rom 8:11 attributes it to the Spirit.
John 2 Jesus says He will raise Himself up
1 Cor. 15:15 Says God raised Jesus.

Now follow the ball. Which verse is right. Don't blink. Don't go to another planet. Stay with me and focus. Focus on these 3 verses. Which one is correct. Who raised Jesus from the Dead. Father, Jesus Himself or Spirit

[HisServant]

If you go back and read the post on Phil 2 i posted it will explain what I think on this verse

You explained the latter part of the verse. I am asking about the begining.
It says who existed is the form or nature of God. Yes or no.

[DRS]

And what I am asking is not is God Spirit. I am not asking are they the same.
Here is the question there are 3 verses in scripture. Each saying the same thing. But each verse attributes the action to a different person.
Rom 8:11 attributes it to the Spirit.
John 2 Jesus says He will raise Himself up
1 Cor. 15:15 Says God raised Jesus.

Now follow the ball. Which verse is right. Don't blink. Don't go to another planet. Stay with me and focus. Focus on these 3 verses. Which one is correct. Who raised Jesus from the Dead. Father, Jesus Himself or Spirit


romans 8:11 shows that the Spirit is a possesion of God and not a person.

[HisServant]

I believe the form of God is spirit and God gave Jesus spirit
I do not hold to the Idea that God has a body like I believe LDS think.

Didn't ask you if God had a body we are examing a part of scripture to make sure we agree on what it says so we can continue.

Who being in the form or nature of God. Do you see this as saying Jesus existed in God's nature in His form That Jesus was God. And is now God in the Flesh (flash back John 1:1) Lets just stay here Warrior.

Here are a few translations What is this part of the verse saying to us?

Phil 2:6
who, being in very nature God, NIV

Phil 2:6 6 who, being in the form of God, NKJV

Phil 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, NASU

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God KJV

Phil 2:6 Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], AMP

[Warrior4God]

And what I am asking is not is God Spirit. I am not asking are they the same.
Here is the question there are 3 verses in scripture. Each saying the same thing. But each verse attributes the action to a different person.
Rom 8:11 attributes it to the Spirit.
John 2 Jesus says He will raise Himself up
1 Cor. 15:15 Says God raised Jesus.

Now follow the ball. Which verse is right. Don't blink. Don't go to another planet. Stay with me and focus. Focus on these 3 verses. Which one is correct. Who raised Jesus from the Dead. Father, Jesus Himself or Spirit

God is the Spirit in Rom 8:11 notice The Spirit=God
notice we recieve HIS spirit in the same verse
As for Jesus raising the temple .....By him following through with Gods plan he accomplished what was written about him in the OT had he not followed through it would not have been accomplished

cant explain it any more clear except for maybe the post I posted on where he said it in John 2:19

Originally Posted by Warrior4God
he said he would rise and that God would do that.
I believe the only verse unclear is John 2:19

John 2:19
Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. (NASB)




1. Many verses plainly state that it was the Father who raised Jesus, and the Bible cannot contradict itself.

2. Jesus was speaking to the Jews after he had just turned over their tables and driven their animals out of the Temple. This was the first of the two times when he did this, and this occurrence was at the beginning of his ministry. He did it once again at the end of his ministry, and that event is recorded in other Gospels. The Jews were angry and unbelieving, and Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, so much so that the Gospel of John has to add, “but he was speaking of the temple of his body,” (John 2:21 - NASB) so the reader would not be confused. Since Jesus was standing in the actual Temple when he said, “Destroy this temple,” the natural assumption would be the one his audience made, that he was speaking of the Temple where he was standing at the time.

3. The fact that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms to an unbelieving audience should make us hesitant to build a doctrine on this verse, especially when many other clear verses say that the Father raised Jesus. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:14 states: “By his power, God raised the Lord from the dead.” Jesus was not in a teaching situation when he was speaking. Tempers were flaring and the Jews were against Jesus anyway. It was common for Jesus to speak in ways that unbelievers did not understand. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels will show a number of times when Jesus spoke and the unbelievers who heard him (and sometimes even the disciples) were confused by what he said.

4. We know that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, but what did he mean? He was almost certainly referring to the fact that he was indeed ultimately responsible for his resurrection. How so? Jesus was responsible to keep himself “without spot or blemish” and to fully obey the will of the Father. In that sense he was like any other sacrifice. A sacrifice that was blemished was unacceptable to the Lord (Lev. 22:17-20; Mal. 1:6-8). Since this event in John was at the start of his ministry, he knew he had a long hard road ahead and that obedience would not be easy. If he turned away from God because he did not like what God said to do, or if he were tempted to the point of sin, his sin would have been a “blemish” that would have disqualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Then he could not have paid for the sins of mankind, and there would have been no resurrection. The reader must remember that Jesus did not go into the Temple and turn over the money tables because he “just felt like it.” John 2:17 indicates that he was fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy and the will of God, which he always did. Had he not fulfilled the prophecy spoken in Psalm 69:9, he would not have fulfilled all the law and would have been disqualified from being able to die for the sins of mankind. Thus, his destiny was in his own hands, and he could say, “I will raise it up.”

5. It is common in speech that if a person has a vital part in something, he is spoken of as having done the thing. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. The Gospels say it, and we know that the Jews would not have done it, because coming in contact with Jesus would have made them unclean. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, “you” crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). Everyone understands that the Jews played a vital part in Jesus’ crucifixion, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general’s position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, “David captured the stronghold of Zion.” We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised.

6. Christ knew that by his thoughts and actions he could guarantee his own resurrection by being sinlessly obedient unto death. That made it legally possible for God to keep His promise of resurrecting Christ, who was without sin and therefore did not deserve death, the “wages of sin.”

[HisServant]

romans 8:11 shows that the Spirit is a possesion of God and not a person.

We already know you view the Holy Spirit as a thing DRS.
Fortunately the Bible does not.

[DRS]

We already know you view the Holy Spirit as a thing DRS.
Fortunately the Bible does not.

The spirit of him is used is it not?

[Warrior4God]

Philippians 2:6,7
(6) Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.



1. These verses in Philippians are very important to Trinitarian doctrine (although they have also caused division among Trinitarians) and they must be dealt with thoroughly. There are several arguments wrapped into these two verses, and we will deal with them point by point. First, many Trinitarians assert that the word “form,” which is the Greek word morphe, refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in verse 6 the NIV has, “being in very nature God.” We do not believe that morphe refers to an “inner essential nature,” and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphe, to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions, to show the differences between them.

Vine’s Lexicon has under “form”: “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual…it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.” Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphe, which they assert refers to an “inner, essential nature,” with schema, (in verse 8, and translated “appearance” above) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphe and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphe refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.

A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. In Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon, morphe is given a one-word definition, “form.” The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphe, “form, outward appearance, shape.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphe and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphe, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphe refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”

The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphe in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphe should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphe does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.

From secular writings we learn that the Greeks used morphe to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphe), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the Apostles, used morphe to describe the shape of statues (Bauer’s Lexicon).

Other uses of morphe in the Bible support the position that morphe refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphe)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (16:12). This is very clear. Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples. He simply had a different outward appearance.

More evidence for the word morphe referring to the outward appearance can be gleaned from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 250 BC. It was written because of the large number of Greek-speaking Jews in Israel and the surrounding countries (a result of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt in 332 BC and his gaining control over the territory of Israel). By around 250 BC, so many Jews spoke Greek that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was made, which today is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint greatly influenced the Jews during the New Testament times. Some of the quotations from the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament are actually from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text. Furthermore, there were many Greek-speaking Jews in the first-century Church. In fact, the first recorded congregational conflict occurred when Hebrew-speaking Jews showed prejudice against the Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 6:1).

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphe several times, and it always referred to the outward appearance. Job says, “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form (morphe) stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice (Job 4:15 and 16). There is no question here that morphe refers to the outward appearance. Isaiah has the word morphe in reference to man-made idols: “The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphe) of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine” (Isa. 44:13). It would be absurd to assert that morphe referred to “the essential nature” in this verse, as if a wooden carving could have the “essential nature” of man. The verse is clear: the idol has the “outward appearance” of a man. According to Daniel 3:19, after Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image, he became enraged and “the form (morphe) of his countenance” changed. The NASB says, “his facial expression” changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed.

[Warrior4God]

For still more documentation that the Jews used morphe to refer to the outward appearance, we turn to what is known as the “Apocrypha,” books written between the time of Malachi and Matthew. “Apocrypha” literally means “obscure” or “hidden away,” and these books are rightly not accepted by most Protestants as being part of the true canon, but are accepted by Roman Catholics and printed in Catholic Bibles. Our interest in them is due to the fact that they were written near the time of the writing of the New Testament, were known to the Jews at that time and contain the word morphe. In the Apocrypha, morphe is used in the same way that the Septuagint translators use it, i.e., as outward appearance. For example, in “The Wisdom of Solomon” is the following: “Their enemies heard their voices, but did not see their forms” (18:1). A study of morphe in the Apocrypha will show that it always referred to the outer form.

There is still more evidence. Morphe is the root word of some other New Testament words and is also used in compound words. These add further support to the idea that morphe refers to an appearance or outward manifestation. The Bible speaks of evil men who have a “form” (morphosis) of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5). Their inner nature was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Christ was “transformed” (metamorphoomai) before the apostles (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). They did not see Christ get a new nature, rather they saw his outward form profoundly change. Similarly, we Christians are to be “transformed” (metamorphoomai) by renewing our minds to Scripture. We do not get a new nature as we renew our minds, because we are already “partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), but there will be a change in us that we, and others, can tangibly experience. Christians who transform from carnal Christians, with all the visible activities of the flesh that lifestyle entails, to being Christ-like Christians, change in such a way that other people can “see” the difference. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says the same thing when it says that Christians will be “changed” (metamorphoomai) into the image of Christ. That we will be changed into an “image” shows us that the change is something visible on the outside.

We would like to make one more point before we draw a conclusion about “morphe.” If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say it? Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say, “Jesus, being God,” but rather, “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

So what can we conclude about morphe? The Philippian church consisted of Jews and converted Greeks. From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphe referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphe outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphe clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. We assert the actual evidence is clear: the word morphe refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Schema, as Kittel points out, can be synonymous with morphe, but it has more of an emphasis on outward trappings rather than outward appearance, and often points to that which is more transitory in nature, like the clothing we wear or an appearance we have for just a short time. As human beings, we always have the outward form (morphe) of human beings. Yet there is a sense in which our schema, our appearance, is always changing. We start as babies, and grow and develop, then we mature and age. This is so much the case that a person’s outward appearance is one of the most common topics of conversation between people when they meet.

Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphe), of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward “appearance” (morphe) of God also. Also, like the rest of us, his appearance (schema) regularly changed. Thus, in Philippians, 2:8 schema can be synonymous with morphe, or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature. The wording of Philippians 2:6-8 does not present us with a God-man, with whom none of us can identify. Rather, it presents us with a man just like we are, who grew and aged, yet who was so focused on God in every thought and deed that he perfectly represented the Father.

[HisServant]

God is the Spirit in Rom 8:11 notice The Spirit=God
notice we recieve HIS spirit in the same verse
As for Jesus raising the temple .....By him following through with Gods plan he accomplished what was written about him in the OT had he not followed through it would not have been accomplished

cant explain it any more clear except for maybe the post I posted on where he said it in John 2:19

Originally Posted by Warrior4God
he said he would rise and that God would do that.
I believe the only verse unclear is John 2:19

John 2:19
Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. (NASB)




1. Many verses plainly state that it was the Father who raised Jesus, and the Bible cannot contradict itself.

2. Jesus was speaking to the Jews after he had just turned over their tables and driven their animals out of the Temple. This was the first of the two times when he did this, and this occurrence was at the beginning of his ministry. He did it once again at the end of his ministry, and that event is recorded in other Gospels. The Jews were angry and unbelieving, and Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, so much so that the Gospel of John has to add, “but he was speaking of the temple of his body,” (John 2:21 - NASB) so the reader would not be confused. Since Jesus was standing in the actual Temple when he said, “Destroy this temple,” the natural assumption would be the one his audience made, that he was speaking of the Temple where he was standing at the time.

3. The fact that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms to an unbelieving audience should make us hesitant to build a doctrine on this verse, especially when many other clear verses say that the Father raised Jesus. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:14 states: “By his power, God raised the Lord from the dead.” Jesus was not in a teaching situation when he was speaking. Tempers were flaring and the Jews were against Jesus anyway. It was common for Jesus to speak in ways that unbelievers did not understand. Even a cursory reading of the Gospels will show a number of times when Jesus spoke and the unbelievers who heard him (and sometimes even the disciples) were confused by what he said.

4. We know that Jesus was speaking in veiled terms, but what did he mean? He was almost certainly referring to the fact that he was indeed ultimately responsible for his resurrection. How so? Jesus was responsible to keep himself “without spot or blemish” and to fully obey the will of the Father. In that sense he was like any other sacrifice. A sacrifice that was blemished was unacceptable to the Lord (Lev. 22:17-20; Mal. 1:6-8). Since this event in John was at the start of his ministry, he knew he had a long hard road ahead and that obedience would not be easy. If he turned away from God because he did not like what God said to do, or if he were tempted to the point of sin, his sin would have been a “blemish” that would have disqualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Then he could not have paid for the sins of mankind, and there would have been no resurrection. The reader must remember that Jesus did not go into the Temple and turn over the money tables because he “just felt like it.” John 2:17 indicates that he was fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy and the will of God, which he always did. Had he not fulfilled the prophecy spoken in Psalm 69:9, he would not have fulfilled all the law and would have been disqualified from being able to die for the sins of mankind. Thus, his destiny was in his own hands, and he could say, “I will raise it up.”

5. It is common in speech that if a person has a vital part in something, he is spoken of as having done the thing. We know that Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. The Gospels say it, and we know that the Jews would not have done it, because coming in contact with Jesus would have made them unclean. Yet Peter said to the rulers of the Jews, “you” crucified the Lord (Acts 5:30). Everyone understands that the Jews played a vital part in Jesus’ crucifixion, so there really is a sense in which they crucified him, even though they themselves did not do the dirty work. A similar example from the Old Testament is in both 2 Samuel 5 and 1 Chronicles 11. David and his men were attacking the Jebusite city, Jerusalem. The record is very clear that David had sent his men ahead into the city to fight, and even offered a general’s position to the first one into the city. Yet the record says, “David captured the stronghold of Zion.” We know why, of course. David played a vital role in the capture of Jerusalem, and so Scripture says he captured it. This same type of wording that is so common in the Bible and indeed, in all languages, is the wording Jesus used. He would raise his body, i.e., he would play a vital part in it being raised.

6. Christ knew that by his thoughts and actions he could guarantee his own resurrection by being sinlessly obedient unto death. That made it legally possible for God to keep His promise of resurrecting Christ, who was without sin and therefore did not deserve death, the “wages of sin.”

Ok I'll state where I am going since I can't get you to follow along and we can end the discussion.

The scripture is clear in all three instances. Jesus clearly speaking of His death that He would raise Himself. We know that's what He meant. Corith says God. Roms says the same Spirit. meaning the Holy Spirit. In some places we read the Holy Spirit of God. In some places the Holy Spirit from God in some places the Holy Spirit in some places just the Spirit. All mean the same thing it is distinguishing God the Father from God the Holy Spirit. So if as we believe that the Father, Son and Spirit are one and we Claim God created or God raised, or God the Spirit created or God the Spirit raised or Jesus created or Jesus raised. Then there is harmony in the scriptures becaues they are one. When you start to seperate the 3 as many do and say well God raised Him then you have to start spinning other verses because for whatever reason instead of saying hey I never noticed that verse before and my position is wrong. We start to say things like " well God is a Spirit so that's why it says the Spirit of God, it doesn't mean the Holy Spirit the way it says". or we say well Jesus didn't really mean He would raise Himself He obviously meant something else.

As for Phil. It is also clear when you have no agenda but to read exactly what scripture says. Jesus existed as the Logos. So He existed in the form of God or in the very nature of God. Yet since He was and Is God He did not need to grasp it but He emptied Himself and became a servant. In otherwords Warrior, you don't have to grasp at being Warrior4God because you are. It would be silly for you to say I am going to try and be Warrior4God. You already are that person. Jesus already being in the form of God did not try to be equal with God. He did not have too. He's already God. John 1:1. But what He did do was humble himself and became a servant, flesh, and became obedient to death on a cross for us.

Thus again these verses show when just looking at them that the Father and Son are one. Yet they are distinct.

I wanted us to go through this one at a time. Alas you could not because your preconcieved notions don't allow it. You have to stick with Jesus is not God. Or the Holy Spirit is not a Seperate person while reading scripure and thus your perspective gets clouded with notions that are not in the scripture we are reading.

[Warrior4God]

Ok I'll state where I am going since I can't get you to follow along and we can end the discussion.

The scripture is clear in all three instances. Jesus clearly speaking of His death that He would raise Himself. We know that's what He meant. Corith says God. Roms says the same Spirit. meaning the Holy Spirit. In some places we read the Holy Spirit of God. In some places the Holy Spirit from God in some places the Holy Spirit in some places just the Spirit. All mean the same thing it is distinguishing God the Father from God the Holy Spirit. So if as we believe that the Father, Son and Spirit are one and we Claim God created or God raised, or God the Spirit created or God the Spirit raised or Jesus created or Jesus raised. Then there is harmony in the scriptures becaues they are one. When you start to seperate the 3 as many do and say well God raised Him then you have to start spinning other verses because for whatever reason instead of saying hey I never noticed that verse before and my position is wrong. We start to say things like " well God is a Spirit so that's why it says the Spirit of God, it doesn't mean the Holy Spirit the way it says". or we say well Jesus didn't really mean He would raise Himself He obviously meant something else.

As for Phil. It is also clear when you have no agenda but to read exactly what scripture says. Jesus existed as the Logos. So He existed in the form of God or in the very nature of God. Yet since He was and Is God He did not need to grasp it but He emptied Himself and became a servant. In otherwords Warrior, you don't have to grasp at being Warrior4God because you are. It would be silly for you to say I am going to try and be Warrior4God. You already are that person. Jesus already being in the form of God did not try to be equal with God. He did not have too. He's already God. John 1:1. But what He did do was humble himself and became a servant, flesh, and became obedient to death on a cross for us.

Thus again these verses show when just looking at them that the Father and Son are one. Yet they are distinct.

I wanted us to go through this one at a time. Alas you could not because your preconcieved notions don't allow it. You have to stick with Jesus is not God. Or the Holy Spirit is not a Seperate person while reading scripure and thus your perspective gets clouded with notions that are not in the scripture we are reading.

My preconcieved idea was that Jesus was God then as I study and see contradiction with that doctrine
then my only course of action to stand approved before God was to change to what the Word says.
I saw how rediculous it was to hang doctrine on a few unclear verses here and there that contradicted the rest of the Bible.
I was taught all the things you have been for the most part.
I thought my loved ones were in heaven right now.
I thought being baptized was a way to salvation
I thought confessing my sins got me born again.
I thought God was alot of things from what I was taught.
I thought men who spent the whole of their lives in the pulpit were right.
I found I was wrong to follow them and not study myself.
I will base what I know Jesus Christ to be on what he himself said and how the Bible unfolds God and his Son.

[HisServant]

Philippians 2:6,7
(6) Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.



1. These verses in Philippians are very important to Trinitarian doctrine (although they have also caused division among Trinitarians) and they must be dealt with thoroughly. There are several arguments wrapped into these two verses, and we will deal with them point by point. First, many Trinitarians assert that the word “form,” which is the Greek word morphe, refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in verse 6 the NIV has, “being in very nature God.” We do not believe that morphe refers to an “inner essential nature,” and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphe, to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions, to show the differences between them.

Vine’s Lexicon has under “form”: “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual…it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.” Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphe, which they assert refers to an “inner, essential nature,” with schema, (in verse 8, and translated “appearance” above) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphe and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphe refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.

A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. In Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon, morphe is given a one-word definition, “form.” The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphe, “form, outward appearance, shape.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphe and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphe, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphe refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”

The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphe in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphe should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphe does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.

From secular writings we learn that the Greeks used morphe to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphe), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the Apostles, used morphe to describe the shape of statues (Bauer’s Lexicon).

Other uses of morphe in the Bible support the position that morphe refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphe)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (16:12). This is very clear. Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples. He simply had a different outward appearance.

More evidence for the word morphe referring to the outward appearance can be gleaned from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 250 BC. It was written because of the large number of Greek-speaking Jews in Israel and the surrounding countries (a result of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt in 332 BC and his gaining control over the territory of Israel). By around 250 BC, so many Jews spoke Greek that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was made, which today is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint greatly influenced the Jews during the New Testament times. Some of the quotations from the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament are actually from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text. Furthermore, there were many Greek-speaking Jews in the first-century Church. In fact, the first recorded congregational conflict occurred when Hebrew-speaking Jews showed prejudice against the Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 6:1).

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphe several times, and it always referred to the outward appearance. Job says, “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form (morphe) stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice (Job 4:15 and 16). There is no question here that morphe refers to the outward appearance. Isaiah has the word morphe in reference to man-made idols: “The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphe) of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine” (Isa. 44:13). It would be absurd to assert that morphe referred to “the essential nature” in this verse, as if a wooden carving could have the “essential nature” of man. The verse is clear: the idol has the “outward appearance” of a man. According to Daniel 3:19, after Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image, he became enraged and “the form (morphe) of his countenance” changed. The NASB says, “his facial expression” changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed.

Who existed - past tense. referring to prior to His human existence before He had a body. go back to John 1:1. Nice try everything above can be disregarded.

Who existed in the form of God or Who existed in the nature of God - past tense this is how Jesus was as the Logos. Considered it not something to be grasp. He did not hold onto it as though it was a trophy to be won. He knew who He was. But emptied Himself. - Immanuel God with us. Word become Flesh. very easy.

[HisServant]

My preconcieved idea was that Jesus was God then as I study and see contradiction with that doctrine
then my only course of action to stand approved before God was to change to what the Word says.
I saw how rediculous it was to hang doctrine on a few unclear verses here and there that contradicted the rest of the Bible.
I was taught all the things you have been for the most part.
I thought my loved ones were in heaven right now.
I thought being baptized was a way to salvation
I thought confessing my sins got me born again.
I thought God was alot of things from what I was taught.
I thought men who spent the whole of their lives in the pulpit were right.
I found I was wrong to follow them and not study myself.
I will base what I know Jesus Christ to be on what he himself said and how the Bible unfolds God and his Son.

I've yet to see contradictions because of the trinity. Please point them out. I have shown a contradiction if you don't. Who raised Jesus? Jesus said He did in John. 1 Cor 15:15 says God. Roms says the Spirit.

Who created the earth? Gen says God. John says Logos, Phil says Jesus.
etc etc.. Those are contradictions if the 3 are not 1. They are not contradiction of they are.

[Warrior4God]

I've yet to see contradictions because of the trinity. Please point them out. I have shown a contradiction if you don't. Who raised Jesus? Jesus said He did in John. 1 Cor 15:15 says God. Roms says the Spirit.

Who created the earth? Gen says God. John says Logos, Phil says Jesus.
etc etc.. Those are contradictions if the 3 are not 1. They are not contradiction of they are.

I have given you verse upon verse that you always ignore.and I mean totally ignore by quoting another verse which in itself makes no proof of a trinity.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

how would you read these verses or should we overlook them

[Warrior4God]

Numbers 23:19a
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind….

John 8:39 and 40
(39) “…If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did.
(40) As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God….

Acts 2:22
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Acts 17:31
For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

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

[Warrior4God]

Why do I not believe Jesus is God?
Because there are in the New Testament seventeen passages, wherein the Father is styled one or only God, while there is not a single passage in which the Son is so styled.

Because there are 320 passages in which the Father is absolutely, and by way of eminence, called God; while there is not one in which the Son is thus called.

Because there are 105 passages in which the Father is denominated God, with peculiarly high titles and epithets, whereas the Son is not once denominated.

Because there are 90 passages wherein it is declared that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to Him, and that everything ought to be ultimately directed to his honor and glory; while of the Son no such declaration is ever made.

Because of 1,300 passages in the New Testament wherein the word God is mentioned, not one necessarily implies the existence of more than one person in the Godhead, or that this one is any other than the Father.

Because the passages wherein the Son is declared, positively, or by clearest implication, to be subordinate to the Father, deriving his being from Him, receiving from Him his divine power, and acting in all things wholly according to His will, are in number above 300.

Because, in a word, the supremacy of the Father, and the inferiority of the Son, is the simple, unembarrassed, and current doctrine of the Bible; whereas, that of their equality or identity is clothed in mystery, encumbered with difficulties, and dependent, at the best, upon few passages for support.

[Tater]

Why do I not believe Jesus is God?
Because there are in the New Testament seventeen passages, wherein the Father is styled one or only God, while there is not a single passage in which the Son is so styled.

Because there are 320 passages in which the Father is absolutely, and by way of eminence, called God; while there is not one in which the Son is thus called.

Because there are 105 passages in which the Father is denominated God, with peculiarly high titles and epithets, whereas the Son is not once denominated.

Because there are 90 passages wherein it is declared that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to Him, and that everything ought to be ultimately directed to his honor and glory; while of the Son no such declaration is ever made.

Because of 1,300 passages in the New Testament wherein the word God is mentioned, not one necessarily implies the existence of more than one person in the Godhead, or that this one is any other than the Father.

Because the passages wherein the Son is declared, positively, or by clearest implication, to be subordinate to the Father, deriving his being from Him, receiving from Him his divine power, and acting in all things wholly according to His will, are in number above 300.

Because, in a word, the supremacy of the Father, and the inferiority of the Son, is the simple, unembarrassed, and current doctrine of the Bible; whereas, that of their equality or identity is clothed in mystery, encumbered with difficulties, and dependent, at the best, upon few passages for support.

:clap:

[HisServant]

I have given you verse upon verse that you always ignore.and I mean totally ignore by quoting another verse which in itself makes no proof of a trinity.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

how would you read these verses or should we overlook them

This has nothing to do with the Trinity thats first.
Second go back and get the context. Paul is talking about how sinful man is and how God has left them to wallow in the filth of their sin.

Apples and oranges.

[HisServant]

Numbers 23:19a
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind….

John 8:39 and 40
(39) “…If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did.
(40) As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God….

Acts 2:22
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Acts 17:31
For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

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

These verses have nothing to do with the trinity. Jesus is our mediator. No problem there.

[HisServant]

Why do I not believe Jesus is God?
Because there are in the New Testament seventeen passages, wherein the Father is styled one or only God, while there is not a single passage in which the Son is so styled.

Because there are 320 passages in which the Father is absolutely, and by way of eminence, called God; while there is not one in which the Son is thus called.

Because there are 105 passages in which the Father is denominated God, with peculiarly high titles and epithets, whereas the Son is not once denominated.

Because there are 90 passages wherein it is declared that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to Him, and that everything ought to be ultimately directed to his honor and glory; while of the Son no such declaration is ever made.

Because of 1,300 passages in the New Testament wherein the word God is mentioned, not one necessarily implies the existence of more than one person in the Godhead, or that this one is any other than the Father.

Because the passages wherein the Son is declared, positively, or by clearest implication, to be subordinate to the Father, deriving his being from Him, receiving from Him his divine power, and acting in all things wholly according to His will, are in number above 300.

Because, in a word, the supremacy of the Father, and the inferiority of the Son, is the simple, unembarrassed, and current doctrine of the Bible; whereas, that of their equality or identity is clothed in mystery, encumbered with difficulties, and dependent, at the best, upon few passages for support.

Warrior your missing it by a lot. You are arguing apples and oranges. Your going here and there putting things together that don't go together. Your posting long posts that say so much that is crosses different interpretation issues. I tried to stay with just a few verses and you could not even do that. Instead you continued to go around the questions and verses and come up with things that had nothing to do with the verses. There is a difference between honestly looking at something and then looking with a closed mind and refusing to acknowledge someone else may have a point.

You can't even see in Phil 2 that Jesus was being equated to God. You skipped the whole point and went to other things. Almost as if you have talking points you are going to use no matter what. Submitting oneself to another does not make one or the other more or less important. Subordinate doesn't mean lesser. Your boss gives you orders you submitt to him but that does not make him a better human being than you are. You are mixing things up.

So basically we are at a stale mate. You are not going to take one verse at a time and address just those verses and I can't read 1,000 words essay and respond in this type of a forum. Condense it. Post a verse lets look at it. Otherwise we get no where.

Finally God the Father is God Almighty. The Logos, The Son, is Jesus. One is not the other. They are seperate. Yet they are one. Can't explain it anymore than that. According to Phil and Col the Logos took on the form of man for a purpose. He lowered Himself for a purpose. He submitted Himself for a purpose. You either can't, won't or don't see it. And yet when His purpose was fullfilled God restored Him back to the place where He was. Back on the Throne. Back to being God the Son in His Fullness. You don't can't or won't understand it so we can leave it at that. If you are sincere and want to persue it then lets take it slow and a verse at a time.

[DRS]

These verses have nothing to do with the trinity. Jesus is our mediator. No problem there.

If Jesus is the mediator between God and man than he is not God.

[Angryamerican]

I have a question for Warrior, etc.:

If -- as you keep quoting -- "no man can see God and live," but you admit that Jesus has seen God and lived, are you saying that Jesus was not a man?

Just wondering...

DJim

Nice try but Jesus was not a man before he came to the earth.

[Warrior4God]

Warrior your missing it by a lot. You are arguing apples and oranges. Your going here and there putting things together that don't go together. Your posting long posts that say so much that is crosses different interpretation issues. I tried to stay with just a few verses and you could not even do that. Instead you continued to go around the questions and verses and come up with things that had nothing to do with the verses. There is a difference between honestly looking at something and then looking with a closed mind and refusing to acknowledge someone else may have a point.

You can't even see in Phil 2 that Jesus was being equated to God. You skipped the whole point and went to other things. Almost as if you have talking points you are going to use no matter what. Submitting oneself to another does not make one or the other more or less important. Subordinate doesn't mean lesser. Your boss gives you orders you submitt to him but that does not make him a better human being than you are. You are mixing things up.

So basically we are at a stale mate. You are not going to take one verse at a time and address just those verses and I can't read 1,000 words essay and respond in this type of a forum. Condense it. Post a verse lets look at it. Otherwise we get no where.

Finally God the Father is God Almighty. The Logos, The Son, is Jesus. One is not the other. They are seperate. Yet they are one. Can't explain it anymore than that. According to Phil and Col the Logos took on the form of man for a purpose. He lowered Himself for a purpose. He submitted Himself for a purpose. You either can't, won't or don't see it. And yet when His purpose was fullfilled God restored Him back to the place where He was. Back on the Throne. Back to being God the Son in His Fullness. You don't can't or won't understand it so we can leave it at that. If you are sincere and want to persue it then lets take it slow and a verse at a time.
I have adressed the verses you refer to
whether you accept it is your decision.
As for apples and oranges yes they are different as different as God and his Son.they have the same purpose,but still are not 1
Do you not see when all things are subdued that Jesus also will be subject to God his Father.

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Shall we skip this verse too or is this false?

Jesus WILL be subject to God as we will be.
God Almighty or any part of God can not be subject to anyone or anything.
We as well as Jesus will be subject to his Father our Father,that is truth and thats a fact
Can you deny this. or is there some spin you can put on this ?

[Warrior4God]

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Was Jesus a man on earth? Did he ever say he was not a man?
How would you explain these verses?
Jesus died right?
Which shows he was corruptible?
God raised him true enough after 3 days,yet the fact remains he died.
Now spin away

[Angryamerican]

Didn't ask you if God had a body we are examing a part of scripture to make sure we agree on what it says so we can continue.

Who being in the form or nature of God. Do you see this as saying Jesus existed in God's nature in His form That Jesus was God. And is now God in the Flesh (flash back John 1:1) Lets just stay here Warrior.

Here are a few translations What is this part of the verse saying to us?

Phil 2:6
who, being in very nature God, NIV

Phil 2:6 6 who, being in the form of God, NKJV

Phil 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, NASU

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God KJV

Phil 2:6 Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], AMP

It's citical not to get stuck on one verse so you don't get the wrong meaning.

In the form of God now the meaning.

μορφή
morphē
mor-fay'
Perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively nature: - form

Php 2:5 For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus


Php 2:6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
Php 2:7 but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted Him, and has given Him a name which is above every name,
Php 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of heavenly ones, and of earthly ones, and of ones under the earth;
Php 2:11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

[Angryamerican]

We already know you view the Holy Spirit as a thing DRS.
Fortunately the Bible does not.

This seems clear.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of the One who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the One who raised up Christ from the dead shall also make your mortal bodies alive by His Spirit who dwells in you.

[Angryamerican]

My preconcieved idea was that Jesus was God then as I study and see contradiction with that doctrine
then my only course of action to stand approved before God was to change to what the Word says.
I saw how rediculous it was to hang doctrine on a few unclear verses here and there that contradicted the rest of the Bible.
I was taught all the things you have been for the most part.
I thought my loved ones were in heaven right now.
I thought being baptized was a way to salvation
I thought confessing my sins got me born again.
I thought God was alot of things from what I was taught.
I thought men who spent the whole of their lives in the pulpit were right.
I found I was wrong to follow them and not study myself.
I will base what I know Jesus Christ to be on what he himself said and how the Bible unfolds God and his Son.

I was in your boat to. I could never figure out why so many would reject scripture or spin it to fit what they believe. They just cannot take Jesus and God at their word.

[Angryamerican]

I've yet to see contradictions because of the trinity. Please point them out. I have shown a contradiction if you don't. Who raised Jesus? Jesus said He did in John. 1 Cor 15:15 says God. Roms says the Spirit.

Who created the earth? Gen says God. John says Logos, Phil says Jesus.
etc etc.. Those are contradictions if the 3 are not 1. They are not contradiction of they are.

How do you get Christ raised himself from this?

1Co 15:15 And we are also found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified of God that He raised Christ; whom He did not raise if the dead are not raised

[Angryamerican]

Why do I not believe Jesus is God?
Because there are in the New Testament seventeen passages, wherein the Father is styled one or only God, while there is not a single passage in which the Son is so styled.

Because there are 320 passages in which the Father is absolutely, and by way of eminence, called God; while there is not one in which the Son is thus called.

Because there are 105 passages in which the Father is denominated God, with peculiarly high titles and epithets, whereas the Son is not once denominated.

Because there are 90 passages wherein it is declared that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to Him, and that everything ought to be ultimately directed to his honor and glory; while of the Son no such declaration is ever made.

Because of 1,300 passages in the New Testament wherein the word God is mentioned, not one necessarily implies the existence of more than one person in the Godhead, or that this one is any other than the Father.

Because the passages wherein the Son is declared, positively, or by clearest implication, to be subordinate to the Father, deriving his being from Him, receiving from Him his divine power, and acting in all things wholly according to His will, are in number above 300.

Because, in a word, the supremacy of the Father, and the inferiority of the Son, is the simple, unembarrassed, and current doctrine of the Bible; whereas, that of their equality or identity is clothed in mystery, encumbered with difficulties, and dependent, at the best, upon few passages for support.

Wow very good. Only the prideful will ignore this evidence.

[DispensationalJim]

Finally caught up on all these posts. I was 6 pages behind!!!

First, a big congratulations to HisServant and Warrior4God for the many exchanges of views in a "gentlemanly" fashion. Let's try to keep up that "tolerant" yet uncompromising attitude as we discuss our Lord Jesus Christ.

Can I get an "AMEN"?

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

Now, for Warrior:
I got the impression that you do not believe Jesus existed prior to His earthly birth. Do you not accept the verses which show Jesus Christ as THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS? I know they have been posted several times on this thread.

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

And for Angry:
You say Jesus was not a man before He came to the earth. I agree wholeheartedly. But who or what was Jesus in your opinion prior to His "incarnation"? Please supply some verses for support.

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

And for everyone, does this next verse mean what it says, or do some of you have a "better version" than the KJV which makes it say what you would like it to say?
• Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost **SAID**, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

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

Then, some have quoted this verse over and over:
• Ex. 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

And yet, a few other verses say this:
• Gen. 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
• Ex. 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
• Num. 14:14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face,...
• Deut. 5:4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
• Deut. 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

And of course, this famous passage seems to add to the problem:
• Gen. 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? ... 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;... 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

The obvious question:
Didn't Adam and Eve see God face to face and yet live? How do you explain that conundrum?

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

And, finally, why does the LORD God say in Gen. 3:22 - "... the man is become as one of **US**..." there and also in Gen. 1:26 - "And God said, Let **US** make man in **OUR** image, after **OUR** likeness:...."

DispensationalJIm

[Warrior4God]

Finally caught up on all these posts. I was 6 pages behind!!!

First, a big congratulations to HisServant and Warrior4God for the many exchanges of views in a "gentlemanly" fashion. Let's try to keep up that "tolerant" yet uncompromising attitude as we discuss our Lord Jesus Christ.

Can I get an "AMEN"?

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

Now, for Warrior:
I got the impression that you do not believe Jesus existed prior to His earthly birth. Do you not accept the verses which show Jesus Christ as THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS? I know they have been posted several times on this thread.

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

And for Angry:
You say Jesus was not a man before He came to the earth. I agree wholeheartedly. But who or what was Jesus in your opinion prior to His "incarnation"? Please supply some verses for support.

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

And for everyone, does this next verse mean what it says, or do some of you have a "better version" than the KJV which makes it say what you would like it to say?
• Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost **SAID**, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

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

Then, some have quoted this verse over and over:
• Ex. 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

And yet, a few other verses say this:
• Gen. 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
• Ex. 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
• Num. 14:14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face,...
• Deut. 5:4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
• Deut. 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

And of course, this famous passage seems to add to the problem:
• Gen. 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? ... 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;... 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

The obvious question:
Didn't Adam and Eve see God face to face and yet live? How do you explain that conundrum?

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

And, finally, why does the LORD God say in Gen. 3:22 - "... the man is become as one of **US**..." there and also in Gen. 1:26 - "And God said, Let **US** make man in **OUR** image, after **OUR** likeness:...."

DispensationalJIm
I think most of these verses have been discussed about 20 pages back LOL way back at any rate.
We always seem to come full circle.
I will say I have been studying on no man has seen God and found it very enlightening as I have used these verses myself but It appears that God did show himself to men in some form

[Warrior4God]

By the way Jim you may have Hisservant and myself beat in the kindness department.
Although Hisservant is most kind and understanding and is most refreshing to me

[HisServant]

By the way Jim you may have Hisservant and myself beat in the kindness department.
Although Hisservant is most kind and understanding and is most refreshing to me

Like wise my brother in Christ. Thank you for sharpening me with the Word. :)

[HisServant]

Finally caught up on all these posts. I was 6 pages behind!!!

First, a big congratulations to HisServant and Warrior4God for the many exchanges of views in a "gentlemanly" fashion. Let's try to keep up that "tolerant" yet uncompromising attitude as we discuss our Lord Jesus Christ.

Can I get an "AMEN"?



DispensationalJIm

It's abuut time you got back in the game. Warrior was wearing me down. I may have to ask God to touch his side. :))

thanks for the compliments. I have enjoyed our exchange and indeed he has been kind but firm. That's the way I believe it should be. Kudos to Warrior.

[Tucson Jim]

Wow very good. Only the prideful will ignore this evidence.

Very good?

Actually, I think pretty much everyone, "prideful" or not, will have to ignore this "evidence" since it consists of mere generalizations, the opinions of the author, and not a single shred of supporting evidence from the Bible.

The author also seems to have an erroneous understanding of the Trinity, confusing "equality of nature" with "sameness".

Not much evidence here . . .

[HisServant]

Wow very good. Only the prideful will ignore this evidence.

So tell me what is better 4 quarters or a dollar bill?

[Warrior4God]

It's abuut time you got back in the game. Warrior was wearing me down. I may have to ask God to touch his side. :))

thanks for the compliments. I have enjoyed our exchange and indeed he has been kind but firm. That's the way I believe it should be. Kudos to Warrior.

Well as you have seen with the exeption of a few posters,I pretty much stand alone on some issues and it is hard to keep up at times and try and limit my time here because I may be ugly but my wife is pretty and I want to keep her,no on else could put up with me.
Now that lady is the prayer and she keeps me on my toes and has for 25 wonderful years of marriage.
If ya'll get out of line I will put her on here then you will be in trouble.
There are only 3 real warriors in the world the other 2 send her post cards.

[Warrior4God]

Very good?

Actually, I think pretty much everyone, "prideful" or not, will have to ignore this "evidence" since it consists of mere generalizations, the opinions of the author, and not a single shred of supporting evidence from the Bible.

The author also seems to have an erroneous understanding of the Trinity, confusing "equality of nature" with "sameness".

Not much evidence here . . .

HUH?

[Tucson Jim]

HUH?

Did I stutter?

[Warrior4God]

Did I stutter?

I guess so or Im just slow,I did not get what your trying to say

[Angryamerican]

So tell me what is better 4 quarters or a dollar bill?


I prefer paper.

[Angryamerican]

HUH?

Yeah warrior it is called denial.

[Andrew_980]

I prefer paper.Yes but the quarter is more versitile, exact change for payphones and newspapers!

[Warrior4God]

Yeah warrior it is called denial.

Angry you have great insight and conviction to God and his Word dont let this become character assasination or bitter,I know its frustrating at times,but,you have to remember that many grew up in a trinity background as I did to a degree and it is not easy to understand how it could not be.
Especially when those who do not believe the trinity is in my estimation less than 10 percent since most all denominations include it in their doctrine.
We must remember that anyone who opposed it were imprisoned or killed if not sent away somewhere,Which if anyone looks into it will see that history has shown this fact.So its easy to see how its doctrine spread and squashed any person who spoke against the trinity.
Christians through history have not exactly been very good witnesses to the faith,Which makes me understand in a way why the average church lacks power and fruit,and that most jews dont see it as a valid faith.
I mean heck look at the history of christianity and the splits the wars the venom between them.
We are called to be witnesses and WE MUST start within christianity and pray and love,which we can do and still hold to the truth we know and with love share the truth and leave the acceptance of it to the individual to recieve or deny.

I have said to myself before and say again.
How would my Lord Jesus Christ respond in this forum if he were to respond.
That little saying WWJD what would Jesus do.I love that.
My wife always calls me on that when I say something about someone,she says,Honey he or she may be your brother in christ and even if they arent Honey your called to love anyway.
Then she hears silence cuz then Im all mad at myself and she hugs me LOL.
I like her hugs.

[Angryamerican]

Finally caught up on all these posts. I was 6 pages behind!!!

First, a big congratulations to HisServant and Warrior4God for the many exchanges of views in a "gentlemanly" fashion. Let's try to keep up that "tolerant" yet uncompromising attitude as we discuss our Lord Jesus Christ.

Can I get an "AMEN"?

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

Now, for Warrior:
I got the impression that you do not believe Jesus existed prior to His earthly birth. Do you not accept the verses which show Jesus Christ as THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS? I know they have been posted several times on this thread.

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

And for Angry:
You say Jesus was not a man before He came to the earth. I agree wholeheartedly. But who or what was Jesus in your opinion prior to His "incarnation"? Please supply some verses for support.

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

And for everyone, does this next verse mean what it says, or do some of you have a "better version" than the KJV which makes it say what you would like it to say?
• Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost **SAID**, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

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

Then, some have quoted this verse over and over:
• Ex. 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

And yet, a few other verses say this:
• Gen. 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
• Ex. 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
• Num. 14:14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face,...
• Deut. 5:4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
• Deut. 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

And of course, this famous passage seems to add to the problem:
• Gen. 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? ... 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;... 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

The obvious question:
Didn't Adam and Eve see God face to face and yet live? How do you explain that conundrum?

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

And, finally, why does the LORD God say in Gen. 3:22 - "... the man is become as one of **US**..." there and also in Gen. 1:26 - "And God said, Let **US** make man in **OUR** image, after **OUR** likeness:...."

DispensationalJIm

Hello jim,

That is a good question, I feel he was known as the word. Or i do see some similarities of him and michael . They were both said to be the great prince.

Rev 12:7 And there was war in Heaven. Michael and his angels warring against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels warred,

Sorry i am short on time but i will add to what i said later.But there is no doubt to me that he is the actual son of God.

[BarbBryant]

For those who are interested in seriously studying this question, an excellent scriptural article to consider is at:http://http://bible-truths.com/trinity.html

[Mathius]

For those who are interested in seriously studying this question, an excellent scriptural article to consider is at:http://http://bible-truths.com/trinity.html

I'm sorry but that site is not very good academic wise. When I see:

"I and the Father, We are ONE" (John 10:30).

Let me be perfectly clear, logical, and Scriptural on this matter:

One plus one plus one DOES NOT equal one!

One God plus one God plus one God DOES NOT equal one God!

One third of a God plus one third of a God plus one third of a God DOES NOT equal one whole God!

The Holy Spirit of God cannot also be that same God! ANYTHING that is either "from" or "of" something ELSE cannot also "BE" that something else no matter what or who it is!

A "Father" and a "Son" CANNOT ALSO BE THE SAME PERSON!

I usually don't hold that site in right regaurd. Many people like Warrior have done an excelent job explaining why scripturaly the Trinity can't work.

[Angryamerican]

Finally caught up on all these posts. I was 6 pages behind!!!


And, finally, why does the LORD God say in Gen. 3:22 - "... the man is become as one of **US**..." there and also in Gen. 1:26 - "And God said, Let **US** make man in **OUR** image, after **OUR** likeness:...."

DispensationalJIm

I would like to know what you think it means? We didn't sin and become godlike did we ? We were created in the image of God and Jesus that is certain.

Kinda like Jesus is in the image of the invisible God. How can we meet God face to face if God is invisible?

Could that mean that man has only seen God like moses did? ANd when moses saw God wasn't that just an angel of the LORD that appeared in the form of the Almighty?

[Warrior4God]

I'm sorry but that site is not very good academic wise. When I see:



I usually don't hold that site in right regaurd. Many people like Warrior have done an excelent job explaining why scripturaly the Trinity can't work.

Mathius I appreciate your words here,I looked at this site and feel like the guy had alot of venom or bitterness and yet he is doing it all in love.
did you feel the love? I am sceptical,I do appreciate that he sees the truth about certain things scripturally.
I will be the first to say I am in no way very good at puncuation or very good with my english,heck I forget what nouns, adverbs and pronouns are.
I spent the best 3 years of my life in the 3rd grade.not really.
Academically I have no problem with the site.But there is a way to reach people with Love and caring and Christians EVERYWHERE in every denomination need to rise up and speak the truth in love with more compassion than passion.
Would everyone agree with me on that point?
Love as well as believing conotes action
I see Agape Love as(The love of God in the renewed mind to Gods Word in manifestation) that helps me understand how we are to love

[Tucson Jim]

I guess so or Im just slow,I did not get what your trying to say

I was simply pointing out that your post was long on opinion and had zero scriptural backup.

Therefore, I could not understand AngryAmericans excitement over it.

I can say I have 33.3 scriptures that prove Jesus is God but if I don't produce them and explain them, what good is that? That is exactly what I feel you did in that post.

Is that clearer?

[Mathius]

I was simply pointing out that your post was long on opinion and had zero scriptural backup.

Therefore, I could not understand AngryAmericans excitement over it.

I can say I have 33.3 scriptures that prove Jesus is God but if I don't produce them and explain them, what good is that? That is exactly what I feel you did in that post.

Is that clearer?

I think that is the only post inwhich he gave general stats. Look at his other posts on this matter and you will see that he knows what he is talking about and not just taking doctrine on faith.

[Tucson Jim]

I think that is the only post inwhich he gave general stats. Look at his other posts on this matter and you will see that he knows what he is talking about and not just taking doctrine on faith.

I didn't question if he knows what he is talking about - I was simply questioning that one post and, implicitly, asking him to back it up.

I don't think "knowing what you're talking about" gives one carte blanche to generalize and pontificate without backing it up. Do you?

[Angryamerican]

Finally caught up on all these posts. I was 6 pages behind!!!


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

And for Angry:
You say Jesus was not a man before He came to the earth. I agree wholeheartedly. But who or what was Jesus in your opinion prior to His "incarnation"? Please supply some verses for support.

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


DispensationalJIm

This is about Christ. He did exist in heaven no doubt in my mind before he came to the earth.

Joh 8:23 And He said to them, You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Pro 8:22 Jehovah possessed me from the beginning of His way, before His works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was anointed from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth ever was.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no springs heavy with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought forth.
Pro 8:26 before He had made the earth, or the fields or the highest part of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle upon the face of the deep;
Pro 8:28 when He set the clouds above; when He made the strong fountains of the deep;
Pro 8:29 when He gave to the sea its limit that the waters should not pass His command; when He appointed the foundations of the earth;
Pro 8:30 even I was a workman at His side; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him;
Pro 8:31 rejoicing in the world, His earth; and my delight was with the sons of men.

Mic 5:2 And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, you being least among the thousands of Judah, out of you He shall come forth to Me, to become Ruler in Israel, He whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity

This is some scripture pertaining to michael.

Jud 1:9 But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses, he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, Let the Lord rebuke you!

Dan 10:13 But the ruler of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days. But lo, Michael, one of the chief rulers, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia

Dan 10:21 But I will show you that which is written in the Scripture of Truth. And there is none who holds strongly with me in these things, but Michael your ruler.

Dan 12:1 And at that time Michael shall stand up, the great ruler who stands for the sons of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation; until that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Rev 12:7 And there was war in Heaven. Michael and his angels warring against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels warred,

I'm not saying without a doubt that michael is Christ. But he seems to have an important job in heaven. Even the angels are said to belong to him and i thought the angels only belonged to Christ and his father.

But anyhow Jesus was there in heaven before he came to the earth. And we know flesh and bone cannot be in heaven. So he must be a spirit.

[Mathius]

I didn't question if he knows what he is talking about - I was simply questioning that one post and, implicitly, asking him to back it up.

I don't think "knowing what you're talking about" gives one carte blanche to generalize and pontificate without backing it up. Do you?

He has backed up his statements check out post 1607 and 1572 for a couple of good posts. There are some singles spread around this thread and others.

[Angryamerican]

I think that is the only post inwhich he gave general stats. Look at his other posts on this matter and you will see that he knows what he is talking about and not just taking doctrine on faith.

Yeah he produced a lot of evidence through out this thread.

All someone would have to do is read through the thread.

[Angryamerican]

I didn't question if he knows what he is talking about - I was simply questioning that one post and, implicitly, asking him to back it up.

I don't think "knowing what you're talking about" gives one carte blanche to generalize and pontificate without backing it up. Do you?


There is opinion throughout this thread.

[Tucson Jim]

He has backed up his statements check out post 1607 and 1572 for a couple of good posts. There are some singles spread around this thread and others.

I will say again, having "good posts" in the past does not entitle one to make sweeping, unsupported generalizations today.

I doubt anyone (except perhaps Angry American and you) will be convinced by such generalizations unless they are backed up by actual scripture.

Which they weren't.

[Tucson Jim]

Yeah he produced a lot of evidence through out this thread.

All someone would have to do is read through the thread.


Producing evidence for past posts does not support sweeping generalizations made in a current post. :wall:

[Tucson Jim]

There is opinion throughout this thread.

Most people don't express "opinion" that "320 scriptures support x . . .".

The statement implies scriptural support, but none was offered.

Not playing fair IMO.

[Mathius]

I will say again, having "good posts" in the past does not entitle one to make sweeping, unsupported generalizations today.

I doubt anyone (except perhaps Angry American and you) will be convinced by such generalizations unless they are backed up by actual scripture.

Which they weren't.

:doh: So he should have posted all 300 verses instead of making generalized statements? Are you afraid he is over embellishing the stats to make his argument or are you mad because you can only find a handful to make your point? It is not his fault you are too lazy to read the posts before that he made. I was not convinced by his posts. I was already convinced after reading it in the NT.

[Ron Jon]

Nice try but Jesus was not a man before he came to the earth.What was he then? Do you believe Jesus was the same thing as the wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8?

[Tucson Jim]

:doh: So he should have posted all 300 verses instead of making generalized statements?

Absolutely! If you are going to make a claim like that then back it up or don't make it!

Are you afraid he is over embellishing the stats to make his argument or are you mad because you can only find a handful to make your point? It is not his fault you are too lazy to read the posts before that he made.

This isn't about me. It's about making claims you don't back up.

I was not convinced by his posts.

We agree. Neither was I.

I was already convinced after reading it in the NT.

Uh huh. Or perhaps after reading it on anti-trinitarian websites.

So Mathius, are you a lapsed Catholic? I thought you mentioned a Catholic upbringing in previous posts. Just curious as to your background.

[Mathius]

Uh huh. Or perhaps after reading it on anti-trinitarian websites.
No. After reading the NT it isn't that hard to see that the trinity holds no scripturial weight.

So Mathius, are you a lapsed Catholic? I thought you mentioned a Catholic upbringing in previous posts. Just curious as to your background.
I was Catholic but now I am a "floater". I never believed in the trinity because there was never any scripture to back it up.

[Ron Jon]

No. After reading the NT it isn't that hard to see that the trinity holds no scripturial weight.


I was Catholic but now I am a "floater". I never believed in the trinity because there was never any scripture to back it up.1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." Doesn't get any clearer than that.

[HisServant]

I prefer paper.

So does that mean 4 quarters are inferior or subordinate somehow?

[HisServant]

For those who are interested in seriously studying this question, an excellent scriptural article to consider is at:http://http://bible-truths.com/trinity.html

I read it and it is very interesting:
One plus one plus one DOES NOT equal one!

One God plus one God plus one God DOES NOT equal one God!

One third of a God plus one third of a God plus one third of a God DOES NOT equal one whole God!

The Holy Spirit of God cannot also be that same God! ANYTHING that is either "from" or "of" something ELSE cannot also "BE" that something else no matter what or who it is!

A "Father" and a "Son" CANNOT ALSO BE THE SAME PERSON!

All wonderful talking points and at face value seems like the writer is correct. Here's the problem that is not what the Trinity Teaches.
No one claims that is what it teaches. So it does not address the question. Secondly if the position the writer hold is that the word Trinity does not appear in scripture therefore it does not exist, it is weak. There are many terms that are used to describe events but are not themselves found. We don't even find airplane, elevators, microwave etc. So does that mean they don't exist. No. It means they are not mentioned because there was no understanding of them yet. How about instead of reading to prove or disprove something we just read without bias.

[Angryamerican]

What was he then? Do you believe Jesus was the same thing as the wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8?

I believe he was the word the son of God what his name was i have no idea.

I believe that the angels were also called son's of God. So he could have been like the scriptures say the first one created. Yes maybe an angel.

A mighty one at that.

[tulsatech]

So he could have been like the scriptures say the first one created.The Bible never says Jesus, the Son of God, also known as the Word of God, was "the first one created." As a matter of fact, it never even insinuates He was created. Terms such as "Begotten" and "First Born" do not always mean "being created."

[Angryamerican]

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." Doesn't get any clearer than that.

That may be true but have you researched that verse?

That verse never was, it was added ,many translations have removed it

So most scriptures that are used to promote the trinity at best are in dispute with bible scholars.

If you only stopped and looked at the big picture you would see there is very little evidence to support the trinity.

Were all the early Christians wrong because they didn't believe in the trinity?

Just the history of the trinity makes a convincing argument again'st the trinity.

[Angryamerican]

So does that mean 4 quarters are inferior or subordinate somehow?


No

[HisServant]

I believe he was the word the son of God what his name was i have no idea.

I believe that the angels were also called son's of God. So he could have been like the scriptures say the first one created. Yes maybe an angel.

A mighty one at that.

Can't be both the Word of God and an angel. The Word of God is not created. Angels are created. You must decide based on scripture. The problem one will have is if they conclude incorrectly on who Jesus is then it is possible to misunderstand scriptures pertaining to Him. This is true of any doctrine as well. When one does not fully understand and begin to make assumptions that may not be correct then one misinterprets scripture.

For instance one of my pet peeves for years has been going to funerals where pastors say " The Lord giveth the Lord Taketh away......" If one looks at the verse in Job, it was Job speaking. It is not God saying He gives and takes away. It is being misapplied, IMO. But it seems to be the concensus.
Not a good practice to misapply verses to things that it does not address.

[HisServant]

No

But do they have the same value?

[Angryamerican]

I read it and it is very interesting:
One plus one plus one DOES NOT equal one!

One God plus one God plus one God DOES NOT equal one God!

One third of a God plus one third of a God plus one third of a God DOES NOT equal one whole God!

The Holy Spirit of God cannot also be that same God! ANYTHING that is either "from" or "of" something ELSE cannot also "BE" that something else no matter what or who it is!

A "Father" and a "Son" CANNOT ALSO BE THE SAME PERSON!

All wonderful talking points and at face value seems like the writer is correct. Here's the problem that is not what the Trinity Teaches.
No one claims that is what it teaches. So it does not address the question. Secondly if the position the writer hold is that the word Trinity does not appear in scripture therefore it does not exist, it is weak. There are many terms that are used to describe events but are not themselves found. We don't even find airplane, elevators, microwave etc. So does that mean they don't exist. No. It means they are not mentioned because there was no understanding of them yet. How about instead of reading to prove or disprove something we just read without bias.

Nor does three parts equal one nor does it make any sense. And really when two of the three parts say they are not equal.

[Angryamerican]

The Bible never says Jesus, the Son of God, also known as the Word of God, was "the first one created." As a matter of fact, it never even insinuates He was created. Terms such as "Begotten" and "First Born" do not always mean "being created."

I don't think the scriptures share your view.


Rev 3:14 And to the angel of the church of the Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Head of the creation of God, says these things:

Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.

[Angryamerican]

Can't be both the Word of God and an angel. The Word of God is not created. Angels are created. You must decide based on scripture. The problem one will have is if they conclude incorrectly on who Jesus is then it is possible to misunderstand scriptures pertaining to Him. This is true of any doctrine as well. When one does not fully understand and begin to make assumptions that may not be correct then one misinterprets scripture.

For instance one of my pet peeves for years has been going to funerals where pastors say " The Lord giveth the Lord Taketh away......" If one looks at the verse in Job, it was Job speaking. It is not God saying He gives and takes away. It is being misapplied, IMO. But it seems to be the concensus.
Not a good practice to misapply verses to things that it does not address.

Jesus has had a beginning both in heaven and earth that doesn't fit the description of the Almighty.

[HisServant]

I don't think the scriptures share your view.


Rev 3:14 And to the angel of the church of the Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Head of the creation of God, says these things:

Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.

Do you understand what first born and begotten mean when it is used of Jesus?

Rev 3:14 if we read what it says only says He is the head of the creations not that He is a creation. We must be careful not to read bias into scripture.

[Angryamerican]

Do you understand what first born and begotten mean when it is used of Jesus?

Rev 3:14 if we read what it says only says He is the head of the creations not that He is a creation. We must be careful not to read bias into scripture.

Do you understand that the trinity was brought about by the catholic church but even they admit the trinity isn't in the OT.

God never changes i think we can agree on that. So the trinity would also have to be in the OT where is it?


WHILE the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament") reveal?

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."

Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: "The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."—Italics ours.

An examination of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves will bear out these comments. Thus, there is no clear teaching of a Trinity in the first 39 books of the Bible that make up the true canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures.

[Angryamerican]

Do you understand what first born and begotten mean when it is used of Jesus?

Rev 3:14 if we read what it says only says He is the head of the creations not that He is a creation. We must be careful not to read bias into scripture.


Key is creation of God. God has no beginning.

He Jesus is the first born.

[DispensationalJim]

WHO IS FROM EVERLASTING? WHO IS THE LORD?
• Psa. 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. 2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
• Prov. 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
• 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.

• Deut. 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
• Psa. 136:3 O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
• 1Tim. 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
• Rev. 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
• Rev. 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

WOW! It is Jesus Christ!! He is from everlasting and He is the Lord of Lords!!

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

Next:
Ron Jon quoted 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

Then Ron Jon said: "Doesn't get any clearer than that."
-------------------------
AngyAmerican then responded:
That may be true but have you researched that verse?
That verse never was, it was added ,many translations have removed it
So most scriptures that are used to promote the trinity at best are in dispute with bible scholars.
------------------------

DispensationalJim says:
Hey, Angry! Have YOU researched that verse (1John 5:7)????

We are debating the KJV Bible on the "Take the NIV Bible Quiz" thread.

I will be posting what Dean Burgon said in 1883 about that verse. Join us. You will find out that MANY BIBLE EXPERTS say that verse (1John 5:7) was in some very early manuscripts!!

So be careful how you accept what SOME theologians say. You might find you are way off base!!

DispensationalJim

[HisServant]

Nor does three parts equal one nor does it make any sense. And really when two of the three parts say they are not equal.

Never such claim. They have claimed not to be the same. There was never a claim of not being equal.

4 quarters is not the same as 1 dollar. But they are both equal. Different uses different forms. Equal in Value. One not better than the other they each have different purposes.

[HisServant]

Jesus has had a beginning both in heaven and earth that doesn't fit the description of the Almighty.

Please post the verse. Thanks.

[HisServant]

Do you understand that the trinity was brought about by the catholic church but even they admit the trinity isn't in the OT.

God never changes i think we can agree on that. So the trinity would also have to be in the OT where is it?


WHILE the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament") reveal?

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."

Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: "The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."—Italics ours.

An examination of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves will bear out these comments. Thus, there is no clear teaching of a Trinity in the first 39 books of the Bible that make up the true canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures.

You did not answer the question. What does begotten mean? What does first born imply?

[HisServant]

Key is creation of God. God has no beginning.

He Jesus is the first born.

Does not answer the question what does begotten mean?

[Angryamerican]

WHO IS FROM EVERLASTING? WHO IS THE LORD?
• Psa. 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. 2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
• Prov. 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
• 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.

• Deut. 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
• Psa. 136:3 O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
• 1Tim. 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
• Rev. 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
• Rev. 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

WOW! It is Jesus Christ!! He is from everlasting and He is the Lord of Lords!!

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

Next:
Ron Jon quoted 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

Then Ron Jon said: "Doesn't get any clearer than that."
-------------------------
AngyAmerican then responded:
That may be true but have you researched that verse?
That verse never was, it was added ,many translations have removed it
So most scriptures that are used to promote the trinity at best are in dispute with bible scholars.
------------------------

DispensationalJim says:
Hey, Angry! Have YOU researched that verse (1John 5:7)????

We are debating the KJV Bible on the "Take the NIV Bible Quiz" thread.

I will be posting what Dean Burgon said in 1883 about that verse. Join us. You will find out that MANY BIBLE EXPERTS say that verse (1John 5:7) was in some very early manuscripts!!

So be careful how you accept what SOME theologians say. You might find you are way off base!!

DispensationalJim

Yes i have.

Do you agree with the Catholic church about the trinity not existing in the OT?

[Angryamerican]

Please post the verse. Thanks.

I posted it earlier again hehe.

[Angryamerican]

Does not answer the question what does begotten mean?

The word begotten means. It has many meanings.


יצא
yâtsâ'
yaw-tsaw'
A primitive root; to go (causatively bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proximate: - X after, appear, X assuredly, bear out, X begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, come (abroad, out, thereat, without), + be condemned, depart (-ing, -ure), draw forth, in the end, escape, exact, fail, fall (out), fetch forth (out), get away (forth, hence, out), (able to, cause to, let) go abroad (forth, on, out), going out, grow, have forth (out), issue out, lay (lie) out, lead out, pluck out, proceed, pull out, put away, be risen, X scarce, send with commandment, shoot forth, spread, spring out, stand out, X still, X surely, take forth (out), at any time, X to [and fro], utter.

Kinda fits he came from God and he was created from God.

[HisServant]

I posted it earlier again hehe.

I must have missed it. So can you give me the reference and answer what Begotten means when it referrs to Jesus? Thanks.

[Angryamerican]

I must have missed it. So can you give me the reference and answer what Begotten means when it referrs to Jesus? Thanks.


Post # 1678 i put the definition there.

[HisServant]

The word begotten means. It has many meanings.


יצא
yâtsâ'
yaw-tsaw'
A primitive root; to go (causatively bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proximate: - X after, appear, X assuredly, bear out, X begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, come (abroad, out, thereat, without), + be condemned, depart (-ing, -ure), draw forth, in the end, escape, exact, fail, fall (out), fetch forth (out), get away (forth, hence, out), (able to, cause to, let) go abroad (forth, on, out), going out, grow, have forth (out), issue out, lay (lie) out, lead out, pluck out, proceed, pull out, put away, be risen, X scarce, send with commandment, shoot forth, spread, spring out, stand out, X still, X surely, take forth (out), at any time, X to [and fro], utter.

Kinda fits he came from God and he was created from God.

Thanks. There are 2 basic meanings. One is when a woman begets a child. Meaning a child did not exist and now does. The other which is used of Jesus does not mean to create something from something that did not exist. It comes from creating something from something that existed already. For instance if I take a piece of paper and tear off a piece I have just begotten a piece of paper but I did not create it from nothing. Not the same as a women having a child. Not the same as Jesus not existing then God creating Him. Hence why John 1 is always contested by many who don't want to acknowledge who Jesus really is. He is not created. He always existed. He was always with God and Is God. He is the Logos the Word. He existed (past tense) in the form or nature of God. He became flesh and dwelt among us. so when John 3:16 says only begotten Son. True. Does not mean created. When scripture says He emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant, how could He do that if He did not exist.

[Angryamerican]

Thanks. There are 2 basic meanings. One is when a woman begets a child. Meaning a child did not exist and now does. The other which is used of Jesus does not mean to create something from something that did not exist. It comes from creating something from something that existed already. For instance if I take a piece of paper and tear off a piece I have just begotten a piece of paper but I did not create it from nothing. Not the same as a women having a child. Not the same as Jesus not existing then God creating Him. Hence why John 1 is always contested by many who don't want to acknowledge who Jesus really is. He is not created. He always existed. He was always with God and Is God. He is the Logos the Word. He existed (past tense) in the form or nature of God. He became flesh and dwelt among us. so when John 3:16 says only begotten Son. True. Does not mean created. When scripture says He emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant, how could He do that if He did not exist.

I do say he existed before but not as the Almighty. Lets go over this again.

Jesus showed that he was a creature seperate from God and he,Jesus, had a God above him, a God whom he worshiped, a God whom he called Father in prayer, at john 17:3 and john 20:17

How much clearer can 2nd cor 1:3 get since he had a God, His Father, He could not at the same time be that God.


Jesus words at john 8:17,18 are also significant. Here Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is, Almighty God, must be two distinct entities, for how else could there truly be two witnesses?

[DispensationalJim]

Hello again, Angry!
You asked me: "Do you agree with the Catholic church about the trinity not existing in the OT?'

My answer: There are very few teachings of the Catholic Church with which I am in agreement. However, since I am a wholehearted Trinitarian, we do agree on that doctrine. But, as the verses I have posted recently and many I have posted previously show, I do believe the trinity can be seen in the OT. I do concede, though, that the concept would have been difficult to recognize by those who were reading the OT, which would of course have been almost exclusively Jews.

I have also posted many of the over 300 OT prophecies in the past which were fulfilled by Jesus Christ in His first coming, but most of them admittedly do not reflect clearly the doctrine of the trinity either.

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

As regards 1John 5:7, I will post some of the defenders support of the verse later.

DispensationalJim

[DispensationalJim]

About 1John 5:7

From “The King James Version Defended” by Dr. Edward F. Hills (1956;p. 210)

“Evidence for the early existence of the “Johannine Comma” (middle part of 1John 5:7) is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers. For example, it seems to have been quoted at Carthage by Cyprian (c. 250), who writes as follows: “And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is written: “and the Three are One.”...

The first undisputed citations of the “Johannine comma” occur in the writings of two 4th century Spanish Bishops, Priscillian, who in 385 was beheaded by the Emporer Maximus on the charge of sorcery and heresy, and Idacius Clarus, Priscillian’s principal adversay and accuser. In the 5th century, the “Johannine comma” was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Africa from 439 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. And about the same time, it was cited by Cassiordorus (480-570) in Italy. The “comma” is also found in “r,” an old Latin manuscript of the 5th to 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an old Latin text. It was not included in Jerome’s original edition of the Latin Vulgate, but around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the old Latin manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church."

DJim

[Angryamerican]

About 1John 5:7

From “The King James Version Defended” by Dr. Edward F. Hills (1956;p. 210)

“Evidence for the early existence of the “Johannine Comma” (middle part of 1John 5:7) is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers. For example, it seems to have been quoted at Carthage by Cyprian (c. 250), who writes as follows: “And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is written: “and the Three are One.”...

The first undisputed citations of the “Johannine comma” occur in the writings of two 4th century Spanish Bishops, Priscillian, who in 385 was beheaded by the Emporer Maximus on the charge of sorcery and heresy, and Idacius Clarus, Priscillian’s principal adversay and accuser. In the 5th century, the “Johannine comma” was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Africa from 439 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. And about the same time, it was cited by Cassiordorus (480-570) in Italy. The “comma” is also found in “r,” an old Latin manuscript of the 5th to 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an old Latin text. It was not included in Jerome’s original edition of the Latin Vulgate, but around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the old Latin manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church."

DJim

New Catholic Encyclopedia vol 13 p. 575
"The O.T. clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's Power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God; it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly [Isa 48:16; 63:11; 32:15].
Very rarely do the O.T. writers attrebute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity [Isa 63:10; Wis 1:3-7] When such expressions are used, they are mere 'figures of speech' that are explained by the fact that the 'ruah' was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feeling [Gen 41:8]. Neither is there found in the O.T. or in rabinical literature the notion that God'a spirit is an intermediary being between God and the world. This activity is proper to the angels, although to them is ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is ascribed to the Spirit of God.

(In [II Cor 13:14]the Holy Spirit is mentioned with God and Jesus, but this is in connection with communion or fellowship.
In [I Cor] it says that Christians belong to Christ as Christ belongs to God, but evidently no one belongs to the Holy Spirit.
[Eph 5:5] mentions the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Christ, but no Kingdom of the Holy Spirit
In [Col 3:1] Paul wirtes of Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father. But where is the Holy Spirit?Why is He not sitting there too?)

1John 5:7 KJV
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."

(Seems to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity at first glance, but...)

Bullinger's Companion Bible (footnotes) on [1John 5:7]
"The text reads "the Spirit, and the water", and c., omitting all the words from "in heaven' to "in earth" inclusive. The words are not found in any Gr. MS before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text."

Unger's Bible Hand Book [1John 5:7]
"Verse 7 is not in the oldest and best manuscripts and should be omitted."

New Bible Commentary Revised [1John 5:7]
"The words are clearly a gloss and are rightly excluded by RSV even from its margin (p. 1269)"

Peake's Commentary on the Bible p.1038 [1John 5:7]
"The famous interpolation after "three witness" is not printed even in RSV and rightly..No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the N.T. of Erasmus."

The English Bible p.217 (footnote) [1John 5:7]
"the passage is 'not' in any of the early Greek MS of the Vulgate itself and it is probably a gloss that has crept into the text."

Interpreter's Bible [1John 5:7]
"This verse in the KJV is to be rejected...It appears in no ancient Greek MS nor is it cited by any Greek father; of all the versions only the Latin contained it, and even this is in none of the most ancient sources."

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary [1John 5:7]
"The text of this verse should read. 'Because there are three that bear record.' The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the 14th century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the trinity in the first 450 years of the church era."

New Anerican Bible [1John 5:7-8
"So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the tree are of one accord."

Revised Standard Version [1John 5:7-8]
"There are three that testify the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree."

New World Translation [1John 5:7-8]
"For there are three witness bearers the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement."

Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology p.581-582
"The trinity doctrine as we know it today owes more to the controversial needs of the 4th century and to the religious imagery accepted by Christians and non- Christians alike at that time than to any other influence either before or since.
The missionary requirements of the task of the early Christians theologian were dictated, naturally, by the kind of theology then emerging fron the dominant religious vision of the culture within which emerging Christianity then had to grapple.

[Mathius]

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." Doesn't get any clearer than that.

Mine says
1 John 5:6-7
[6]This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. [7]So there are three that testify,

[Mathius]

Can't be both the Word of God and an angel. The Word of God is not created. Angels are created. You must decide based on scripture. The problem one will have is if they conclude incorrectly on who Jesus is then it is possible to misunderstand scriptures pertaining to Him. This is true of any doctrine as well. When one does not fully understand and begin to make assumptions that may not be correct then one misinterprets scripture.

Have you heard of Gabriel?

[Tucson Jim]

No. After reading the NT it isn't that hard to see that the trinity holds no scripturial weight.


I was Catholic but now I am a "floater". I never believed in the trinity because there was never any scripture to back it up.

There was "never any" scripture to back it up?

You never saw one verse that backs up the Trinity?

Amazing. I honestly do not understand how you could possibly read the same Bible I do and come up with a conclusion like that.

I have a few verses for you and a conceptual framework within which to look at this. Let me know what you think.

The following contains a partial listing of scriptural references that support the Trinity doctrine. All quotes are KJV. My comments pertaining to the Scriptures are in italics. All emphases are mine.

1. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Called "God," but There is Only One True God.

It is true that the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. However, the doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in a series of four statements which, in turn, are directly supported by Scripture. These statements are:

A. There is a Person called the "Father" who is also called "God."

B. There is a Person called the "Son" who is also called "God."

C. There is a Person called the "Holy Spirit" who is also called "God."

D. There is one, and only one, true God.

If these four statements can be shown to be true from the Bible, then the doctrine of the Trinity is supported. If any of the statements is not supported by Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity is false.

A. There is a Person called the "Father" who is also called "God."

"...One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all" (Eph. 4:6).

[This point hardly needs to be made, since no one argues that the Father is not God.]

B. There is a Person called the "Son" who is also called "God."

1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 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" (John 1:1,14).

2. "And Thomas answered and said unto him (Jesus), ‘My Lord and my God’ " (John 20:28).

3. "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" (Acts 20:28).

4. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:5-7).

5. "And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (1 John 5:20).

6. [The writer to the Hebrews quoted from the Psalm 45:6,7;] "But unto the Son, He saith; Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above all thy fellows" (Hebrews 1:8,9).

C. There is a Person called the "Holy Spirit" who is also called "God."

1. The Holy Spirit is a person since He has a mind (Rom. 8:27), has love (Rom. 15:30), has a will (1 Cor. 12:11), appoints overseers (Acts 20:28), teaches (John 14:26) and speaks (1 Tim. 4:1). He is even quoted in Acts 13:2 and Acts 10:19-20. Personifications (of wisdom, death, etc.) are never quoted in Scripture as giving commands, which are then received and obeyed.

"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, ‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them’ " (Acts 13:2).

"...the Spirit said unto him, ‘Behold three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them’ " (Acts 10:19-20).

2. "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land? . . . thou hast not lied unto men but unto God’ " (Acts 5:3-4). [You can’t lie to a title, manifestation or attribute. The Holy Spirit is a Person Who is called God.]

3. "...Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:16-17).

D. There is one, and only one, true God.

1. "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD" (Deut. 6:4).

2. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and beside me there is no saviour" (Isaiah 43:10-11).

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

4. ". . . Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isa. 44:8).

5. "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone . . ." (Neh. 9:6).

2. The Persons of the Trinity Possess the Characteristics of God.

A. Eternity

1. The Son is eternal.
a. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1-2).

b. "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" (Micah 5:2).

c. "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me ...I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev 22:12-13; compare with Isaiah 44:6 and Rev. 1:8).

2. The Holy Spirit is eternal.
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrews 9:14). In Rom.16:26 the same word "aionios" is used with "God" and translated "...the everlasting God.…").

B. Omnipresence

1. The Son of God is Omnipresent.
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20).

2. The Holy Spirit is Omnipresent.
"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there" (Psalm 139:7-8).

C. Omniscience

1. The Son of God is omniscient.

"...Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee" (John 21:17).

2. The Holy Spirit is omniscient.

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:11).

D. Omnipotence

1. The Son of God is omnipotent.

a. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).

b. "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" (Col. 1:16). (Creation of the universe demands omnipotence).

2. The Holy Spirit is omnipotent.
"The Spirit of God hath made me..." (Job 33:4).

E. Sinlessness
[Only God is sinless]

1. Jesus is sinless.
a. "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). [Jesus had to be God to be sinless and Holy.]

b. 1 John 2:1: "We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." [Compare with Jesus’ own statement in Matt. 19:17; "And he said unto him, ’Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God . . .’".]

2. The Holy Spirit is sinless.

"And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4). (Again, this point hardly needs to be made - the perfect holiness of the Spirit is everywhere evident in Scripture. He can be sinned against (Acts 5:3-4) but He is utterly without sin Himself. The Bible never even hints at the possibility that He could sin.)

[DispensationalJim]

About 1 John 5:7-8 -- The problem of the "Johannine Comma"

The middle part of 1John 5:7-8 is called the "Johannine Comma." Some claim that the CAPITALIZED words were added to later manuscripts, thus being known as the "comma."
• 1John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 8 AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
--------------------------------

Most of Christendom is totally ignorant of the fact that Wescott and Hort convinced two-thirds of the Revision Committee of 1881 to go along with their new Greek text taken almost exclusively from the Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), supposedly the "oldest and best" Greek manuscripts.

Additionally, most are unaware that there are several Greek manuscripts older than those two and many manuscripts in other languages-- especially in Latin -- which are also older than those two, plus the The famous Peshetta Syriac Bible (many consider the oldest known New Testament text) of which there are some 350 copies in existence today.

1John 5:7-8 is considered unacceptable by many today because it is not in the "B" or "Aleph" manuscripts which Wescott and Hort insisted were the best.

But 1 John 5:7-8 WAS in the Textus Receptus text (often referred to as the "Majority text" or the "Received text") from which the KJV was translated. Thus, the debate comes down to this:

"Which manuscripts are you going to accept as most reliable?"

According to many "experts," the Textus Receptus has over 5,000 extant copies for support, while the Wescott and Hort text has mainly two. Thus, the description of Majority text versus the Minority text,

You have the option to accept Wescott and Hort at their word (as IMO the scholars which AngryAmerican quoted have apparently done) or you can consider the alternative possibility that the KJV is still the most reliable because it came from the "traditional" text which was considered the best for hundreds of years.

Having just read a book by Dean Burgon ("The Revision Revised" - published in 1883) who was alive when Wescott and Hort did their deed, I am convinced that the KJV is still by far the most reliable Bible in the English language.

So I'm sticking with the KJV, and also with 1John 5:7-8!

DispensationalJim

[Tucson Jim]

3. Other Biblical Evidence.

A. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20)

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost..." (in the "name" of . . .) (If the Son and Spirit are not God, but mere creatures, this would be a little like saying "Go and baptize in the name of the Lord God Almighty, Larry and Curly.)

B. The Incarnation (Luke 1:35)

"And the angel answered and said unto her, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ "


C. Jesus' Baptism (Matt. 3:16-17)

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him. And lo a voice from heaven saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ "

D. The Promise of the Spirit (John 14:16)

"And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, [like I am, on the same par with Me], that He may abide with you forever."

E. The Corinthian Blessing (2 Cor. 13:14)
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen."

F. The Praise of the Seraphim (Isaiah 6:3)
Isaiah 6:3 records the seraphim calling, "Holy, holy, holy." Might not each "holy" be directed at One of the Persons present in the Godhead?

G. Peter’s Greeting to Christians (1 Peter 1:2)
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

4. Other Verses to Consider
Psalm 110:1 "The LORD (Yahweh) said unto my Lord (la-Adonai), ‘Sit Thou on My right hand until I make thine enemies Thy footstool.’" These are God’s words. They describe two Persons, not one.

Heb. 1:13 "But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (The form of the question makes it clear God has said this to none of the angels, but to Jesus Christ alone, who is, therefore, not an angel!)

[Mathius]

There was "never any" scripture to back it up?

You never saw one verse that backs up the Trinity?

Amazing. I honestly do not understand how you could possibly read the same Bible I do and come up with a conclusion like that.

I have a few verses for you and a conceptual framework within which to look at this. Let me know what you think.

The following contains a partial listing of scriptural references that support the Trinity doctrine. All quotes are KJV. My comments pertaining to the Scriptures are in italics. All emphases are mine.

Sorry I will respond to your verses after dinner. Just a quick response to the above. Being a post Catholic I don't read the KJV but the New American Bible.

[DispensationalJim]

Wow, Tuscon Jim, that was incredible.

I will definitely add all that to my "Trinity" file.

I'm sorry I posted right in the middle of your presentation.

Keep up the good work, TJim!

DJim

[Warrior4God]

There was "never any" scripture to back it up?

You never saw one verse that backs up the Trinity?

Amazing. I honestly do not understand how you could possibly read the same Bible I do and come up with a conclusion like that.

I have a few verses for you and a conceptual framework within which to look at this. Let me know what you think.

The following contains a partial listing of scriptural references that support the Trinity doctrine. All quotes are KJV. My comments pertaining to the Scriptures are in italics. All emphases are mine.

1. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Called "God," but There is Only One True God.

It is true that the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. However, the doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in a series of four statements which, in turn, are directly supported by Scripture. These statements are:

A. There is a Person called the "Father" who is also called "God."

B. There is a Person called the "Son" who is also called "God."

C. There is a Person called the "Holy Spirit" who is also called "God."

D. There is one, and only one, true God.

If these four statements can be shown to be true from the Bible, then the doctrine of the Trinity is supported. If any of the statements is not supported by Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity is false.

A. There is a Person called the "Father" who is also called "God."

"...One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all" (Eph. 4:6).

[This point hardly needs to be made, since no one argues that the Father is not God.]

B. There is a Person called the "Son" who is also called "God."

1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 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" (John 1:1,14).

2. "And Thomas answered and said unto him (Jesus), ‘My Lord and my God’ " (John 20:28).

3. "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" (Acts 20:28).

4. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:5-7).

5. "And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (1 John 5:20).

6. [The writer to the Hebrews quoted from the Psalm 45:6,7;] "But unto the Son, He saith; Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above all thy fellows" (Hebrews 1:8,9).

C. There is a Person called the "Holy Spirit" who is also called "God."

1. The Holy Spirit is a person since He has a mind (Rom. 8:27), has love (Rom. 15:30), has a will (1 Cor. 12:11), appoints overseers (Acts 20:28), teaches (John 14:26) and speaks (1 Tim. 4:1). He is even quoted in Acts 13:2 and Acts 10:19-20. Personifications (of wisdom, death, etc.) are never quoted in Scripture as giving commands, which are then received and obeyed.

"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, ‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them’ " (Acts 13:2).

"...the Spirit said unto him, ‘Behold three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them’ " (Acts 10:19-20).

2. "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land? . . . thou hast not lied unto men but unto God’ " (Acts 5:3-4). [You can’t lie to a title, manifestation or attribute. The Holy Spirit is a Person Who is called God.]

3. "...Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:16-17).

D. There is one, and only one, true God.

1. "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD" (Deut. 6:4).

2. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and beside me there is no saviour" (Isaiah 43:10-11).

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

4. ". . . Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isa. 44:8).

5. "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone . . ." (Neh. 9:6).

2. The Persons of the Trinity Possess the Characteristics of God.

A. Eternity

1. The Son is eternal.
a. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1-2).

b. "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" (Micah 5:2).

c. "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me ...I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev 22:12-13; compare with Isaiah 44:6 and Rev. 1:8).

2. The Holy Spirit is eternal.
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrews 9:14). In Rom.16:26 the same word "aionios" is used with "God" and translated "...the everlasting God.…").

B. Omnipresence

1. The Son of God is Omnipresent.
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20).

2. The Holy Spirit is Omnipresent.
"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there" (Psalm 139:7-8).

C. Omniscience

1. The Son of God is omniscient.

"...Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee" (John 21:17).

2. The Holy Spirit is omniscient.

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:11).

D. Omnipotence

1. The Son of God is omnipotent.

a. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).

b. "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" (Col. 1:16). (Creation of the universe demands omnipotence).

2. The Holy Spirit is omnipotent.
"The Spirit of God hath made me..." (Job 33:4).

E. Sinlessness
[Only God is sinless]

1. Jesus is sinless.
a. "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). [Jesus had to be God to be sinless and Holy.]

b. 1 John 2:1: "We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." [Compare with Jesus’ own statement in Matt. 19:17; "And he said unto him, ’Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God . . .’".]

2. The Holy Spirit is sinless.

"And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4). (Again, this point hardly needs to be made - the perfect holiness of the Spirit is everywhere evident in Scripture. He can be sinned against (Acts 5:3-4) but He is utterly without sin Himself. The Bible never even hints at the possibility that He could sin.)

I believe you are may be wrong on each count in this post and will try to adress them given time
to start with John 1:1 I have went round and round with Hisservant and have posted on this thread regarding it.

[Warrior4God]

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (KJV)

1. Jesus never referred to himself as “God” in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus “my God”? The Greek language uses the word theos, (“God” or “god”) with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “GOD” (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.

Acts 20:28b
Be shepherds of the Church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (NIV)


1. There are some Greek manuscripts that read “the church of the Lord” instead of “the church of God.” Many Trinitarian scholars believe that “Lord” is the original reading, because there is no mention anywhere in the Bible of God having blood. If the Greek manuscripts that read “Lord” are the original ones, then the “problem” is solved. However, it is the belief of the authors that good textual research shows that “the church of God” is the correct reading.

2. Both the American Bible Society and the Institute For New Testament Research in Germany (which produces the Nestle-Aland Greek text) agree that the manuscript evidence supports the reading tou haimatios tou idiou, literally, the blood of His own (Son), and not idiou haimatios, “his own blood.” God paid for our salvation with the blood of His own Son, Jesus Christ.

3. The text note at the bottom of the very Trinitarian NIV Study Bible gets the meaning of the verse correct: “his own blood. Lit. ‘the blood of his own one,’ a term of endearment (such as ‘his own dear one’) referring to His own Son.”


I have posted in this thread in detail about Phil.2

1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (KJ

1. Many Trinitarians claim that the final sentence in the verse, “This is the true God,” refers to Jesus Christ, since the closest noun to “This” is “Jesus Christ.” However, since God and Jesus are both referred to in the first sentence of the verse, the final sentence can refer to either one of them. The word “this,” which begins the last sentence, is houtos, and a study of it will show that the context, not the closest noun or pronoun, must determine to whom “this” is referring. The Bible provides examples of this, and a good one is in Acts 7:18 and 19 (KJV): “Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. The same (houtos) dealt subtilly with our kindred..., and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.” It is clear from this example that “the same” (houtos) cannot refer to Joseph, even though Joseph is the closest noun. It refers to the other king earlier in the verse, even though that evil king is not the closest noun.

If it were true that pronouns always referred to the closest noun, serious theological problems would result. An example is Acts 4:10 and 11: “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This [houtos] is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner” (KJV). If “This” in the last sentence refers to the closest noun or pronoun, then the man who was healed is actually the stone rejected by the builders that has become the head of the corner, i.e., the Christ. Of course, that is not true

Hebrews 1:8,9.........see the notes on John 20:28 same greek word (theos)

This deals with the post on Jesus being called God,reminder he never said he was God.

Adressing the spirit,God is Spirit and the gift of holy spirit are different
the translators capitalized where they saw fit and takes study and context to see which is which.
given the time over the next few days we can adress this about Holy Spirit and holy spirit
After dinner I will post more

[Warrior4God]

he Son of God is not eternal
Because Christ is stated to be “the first-born of every creature,” Col. 1:15.

Because he is said to be “the beginning of the creation of God,” Rev. 3: 14.

The Son of God was most definitely not omniscient

Because he is said to have “increased in wisdom, and in favor with God and man,” Luke 2:52.

Because he speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49.

Because it is expressly asserted that God gave to Christ the Revelation which was made to the author of the Apocalypse, Rev. 1:1.

Because he implored that, if it were possible, the bitter cup might pass from him, adding, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt,” Matt 26:39.

Because he expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of omniscience. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father only,” Matt.24:36, Mark 13:32.

Because he declares that he is not the author of his own doctrine. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” John 7:16, 17.

Because he represents himself as having been instructed by the Father. “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” John 8:28

Because Christ “Learned obedience by the things he suffered,” and through sufferings was made perfect by God, Heb. 5:8.

[Angryamerican]

There was "never any" scripture to back it up?

You never saw one verse that backs up the Trinity?

Amazing. I honestly do not understand how you could possibly read the same Bible I do and come up with a conclusion like that.

I have a few verses for you and a conceptual framework within which to look at this. Let me know what you think.

The following contains a partial listing of scriptural references that support the Trinity doctrine. All quotes are KJV. My comments pertaining to the Scriptures are in italics. All emphases are mine.

1. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Called "God," but There is Only One True God.

It is true that the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. However, the doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in a series of four statements which, in turn, are directly supported by Scripture. These statements are:

A. There is a Person called the "Father" who is also called "God."

B. There is a Person called the "Son" who is also called "God."

C. There is a Person called the "Holy Spirit" who is also called "God."

D. There is one, and only one, true God.

If these four statements can be shown to be true from the Bible, then the doctrine of the Trinity is supported. If any of the statements is not supported by Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity is false.

A. There is a Person called the "Father" who is also called "God."

"...One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all" (Eph. 4:6).

[This point hardly needs to be made, since no one argues that the Father is not God.]

B. There is a Person called the "Son" who is also called "God."

1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 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" (John 1:1,14).

2. "And Thomas answered and said unto him (Jesus), ‘My Lord and my God’ " (John 20:28).

3. "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" (Acts 20:28).

4. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:5-7).

5. "And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (1 John 5:20).

6. [The writer to the Hebrews quoted from the Psalm 45:6,7;] "But unto the Son, He saith; Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above all thy fellows" (Hebrews 1:8,9).

C. There is a Person called the "Holy Spirit" who is also called "God."

1. The Holy Spirit is a person since He has a mind (Rom. 8:27), has love (Rom. 15:30), has a will (1 Cor. 12:11), appoints overseers (Acts 20:28), teaches (John 14:26) and speaks (1 Tim. 4:1). He is even quoted in Acts 13:2 and Acts 10:19-20. Personifications (of wisdom, death, etc.) are never quoted in Scripture as giving commands, which are then received and obeyed.

"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, ‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them’ " (Acts 13:2).

"...the Spirit said unto him, ‘Behold three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them’ " (Acts 10:19-20).

2. "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land? . . . thou hast not lied unto men but unto God’ " (Acts 5:3-4). [You can’t lie to a title, manifestation or attribute. The Holy Spirit is a Person Who is called God.]

3. "...Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:16-17).

D. There is one, and only one, true God.

1. "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD" (Deut. 6:4).

2. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and beside me there is no saviour" (Isaiah 43:10-11).

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

4. ". . . Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isa. 44:8).

5. "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone . . ." (Neh. 9:6).

2. The Persons of the Trinity Possess the Characteristics of God.

A. Eternity

1. The Son is eternal.
a. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1-2).

b. "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" (Micah 5:2).

c. "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me ...I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev 22:12-13; compare with Isaiah 44:6 and Rev. 1:8).

2. The Holy Spirit is eternal.
"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrews 9:14). In Rom.16:26 the same word "aionios" is used with "God" and translated "...the everlasting God.…").

B. Omnipresence

1. The Son of God is Omnipresent.
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20).

2. The Holy Spirit is Omnipresent.
"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there" (Psalm 139:7-8).

C. Omniscience

1. The Son of God is omniscient.

"...Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee" (John 21:17).

2. The Holy Spirit is omniscient.

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:11).

D. Omnipotence

1. The Son of God is omnipotent.

a. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).

b. "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" (Col. 1:16). (Creation of the universe demands omnipotence).

2. The Holy Spirit is omnipotent.
"The Spirit of God hath made me..." (Job 33:4).

E. Sinlessness
[Only God is sinless]

1. Jesus is sinless.
a. "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). [Jesus had to be God to be sinless and Holy.]

b. 1 John 2:1: "We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." [Compare with Jesus’ own statement in Matt. 19:17; "And he said unto him, ’Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God . . .’".]

2. The Holy Spirit is sinless.

"And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4). (Again, this point hardly needs to be made - the perfect holiness of the Spirit is everywhere evident in Scripture. He can be sinned against (Acts 5:3-4) but He is utterly without sin Himself. The Bible never even hints at the possibility that He could sin.)

I will respond. It usually only takes a little reading to debunk scriptures pertaining to the trinity.

[Mathius]

Good Job W4G, you beat me to it.

[Warrior4God]

Meanings of omnipotence
Between people of different faiths, or indeed even between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

God is able to do anything, i. e. the answer to "can God do x" is always "yes", regardless of what x may be. However this leads to obvious contradictions and is not a view held by philosophically aware theologians. Although it can be argued that to try and rationalize Gods omnipotent power is a vain undertaking, since we cannot ever really understand God's power, and is perhaps better to take it on faith.(see Kierkegaard)
God is able to do anything that is logically possible for God to do[1].
God is able to do anything that God chooses to do[2].
God is able to do anything that is in accord with his own nature (thus for instance if it is a logical consequence of God's nature that what God speaks is truth then God is not able to lie).
Under many philosophical definitions of the term "God" senses 2, 3 and 4 can be shown to be equivalent. However on all understandings of Omniopotence it is generally held that God is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics, since they are not part of his nature, but the principles on which he has created the physical world. However many modern scholars (such as John Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of God's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for God to go against His own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

Jesus fits none of these definitions

Because, as the Saviour of men, he was sent by the Father. “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14

Because the head of Christ is God. “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God,” 1 Cor. 11:3.

Because, in the same sense in which we are said to belong to Christ, Christ is said to belong to God. “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s,” 1 Cor. 3:23.

Because Christ says, “My father is greater than all,” John 10:29. Is not the father, then greater than the son?

Because he affirms, in another connection, and without the least qualification, “My Father is greater than I,” John 14:28

Because he virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17.

Because the Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. “Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17.

Because an Apostle says of God, in distinction from the “Lord Jesus Christ,” that He is the “only Potentate,” and that He “only hath immortality,” 1 Tim. 6:15, 16.

Because it is the express declaration of the same Apostle, that the Father is the one God, and there is none other. “Though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,”


Because the power which Christ possessed was, as him affirmed, given to him. “All power is given unto me,” Matt 28:18

Because he positively denies himself to be the author of his miraculous works, but refers them to the Father, or the holy spirit of God. “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works,” John 14:10. “If I cast out devils by the spirit of God,” Matt. 12:28.

Because he distinctly states, that these works bear witness, not to his own power, but that the Father had sent him, John 5:36

Because he expressly affirms that the works were done, not in his own, but in his Father’s name, John 10:25.

Because he asserts, that “him hath God the Father sealed,” i.e. to God the Father he was indebted for his credentials, John 6:27

Because he refers invariable to the Father as the origin of the authority by which he spoke and acted. “The Father hath given to the Son authority,” John 5:26, 27

Because he acknowledges his dependence on his Heavenly Father for example and direction in all his doings. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” John 5:19. “The Father loveth the Son, and showth him all things that himself doeth” John 5:20

Because he says “I seek not mine own glory; but I honor my Father,” John 8:49, 50.

Because he declares, “If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me,” John 8:54.

Because an Apostle declares, that Christ dwelt all fullness, because it so pleased the Father, Col. 1:19.

Because Christ is uniformly represented in the Scriptures, not as the primary, but the intermediate, cause of all things relating to our salvation. “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,” 1 Cor. 8:6.

Because he declares, “I am not come of myself” into the world, “for I proceeded forth and came from God,” John 8:42; 7:28. Jesus knowing… that he came from God, and went to God,” John 13:3.

Because he affirms that he had not the disposal of the highest places in his own kingdom. “To sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father,” Matt. 20:23.

Because our Saviour, referring his disciples to a future time, when they would understand more accurately concerning him, expressly declares that then they would know him to be entirely dependent upon the Father. “When ye have lifted up the Son of man (i.e. crucified him), then shall ye know that I am he (i.e. the Messiah), and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things," John 8:28.

Because our Saviour always professed to have no will of his own, but to be ever entirely guided and governed by the will of his Heavenly Father. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”

. Because he expressly denies that he is possessed of Divine attribute of independent existence. “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father,” John 6:57

Because he expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of underived existence. “As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,” John 5:26


Because he positively denies that he is possessed of the Divine attribute of omnipotence. “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:30

Because it is related of our Saviour, that “he continued all night in prayer to God,” Luke 6:12. Why should Christ thus pray, if he himself were God?

Because the Scriptures affirm that “Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but He (glorified him) who said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” Heb. 5:5

Because Peter declares that “Christ received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, this is my beloved son,” 2 Peter 1:17


Because he is represented as being the servant, the chosen, the beloved of God, and the recipient of God’s spirit. “Behold, my servant, whom I have chosen, in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my spirit upon him,” Matt. 12:18

Because he himself expressly declares that it was in consequence of his doing what pleased the Father, that the Father was with him and did not leave him alone. “He that sent me is with me; the Father hath not left me alone, for I do always those things that please him,” John 8:29

Because it is declared that God raised him from the dead. “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses,” Acts 2: 32, Rom. 10:9, 10

Because St. Paul affirms, that Christ, even since his ascension, “liveth unto God,” and “liveth by the power of God,” Rom. 6:10. 2 Cor. 12:4

Because it is affirmed of Christ, that “when all things shall be subdued under him then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all,” 1 Cor. 15:28

Because, in the prophecies of the Old Testament that relate to Christ, he is spoken of as a being distinct from and inferior to God, Deut. 18:15, John 1:45.

Because he is spoken of in the Scriptures as the first born among many brethren. Rom. 8:29. Has God brethren?

Because in these two instances, when charged, in the one case, with making himself God, and in the other, with making himself equal with God, he positively denies the charges. In reply to the charge of assuming to be equal with God, he says immediately, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”; and directly after, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:19, 30. In answer to the charge of making himself God, he appeals to the Jews in substance thus: Your own Scriptures call Moses a god, and your magistrates gods; I am surely not inferior to them, yet I did not call myself God, but only the Son of God, John 10:34-36

[Warrior4God]

The beauty of the second Adam ,the Son of man,was that where Adam fell our Lord Jesus did not fall he did no sin and carried those sins to his death and HIS God raised him 3 days later that is why The Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. “Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17.
Now The first and second commandments deal with making anything God but God Almighty and Jesus made very clear he had a God.
Do we follow the Bible or Doctrines of men.
There are many more such verses if you would like me to post them
I Love God I love you all for your stand for God but I have been called as you have to hold forth Gods truth to man and to our brothers and sisters.
The beauty of Gods purpose and plan for us was Through his Son Jesus Christ.
In the beginning was the Word (Gods plan and purpose for mankind) and that Word(Gods purpose, plan and intent to redeem mankind was Gods will)and Gods will and purpose came to us in the person of Jesus Christ,who always obeyed his Father and did the Fathers will,.
Now are we the sons of God and we know when he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is
Our Lord our Brother our redeemer our mediator,our high priest,Our way and the only way to God.

[DRS]

There was "never any" scripture to back it up?

You never saw one verse that backs up the Trinity?

Amazing. I honestly do not understand how you could possibly read the same Bible I do and come up with a conclusion like that.

I have a few verses for you and a conceptual framework within which to look at this. Let me know what you think.

The following contains a partial listing of scriptural references that support the Trinity doctrine. All quotes are KJV. My comments pertaining to the Scriptures are in italics. All emphases are mine.

1. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Called "God," but There is Only One True God.

It is true that the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. However, the doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in a series of four statements which, in turn, are directly supported by Scripture. These statements are:

A. There is a Person called the "Father" who is also called "God."

B. There is a Person called the "Son" who is also called "God."

C. There is a Person called the "Holy Spirit" who is also called "God."

D. There is one, and only one, true God.



Moses is called God, angels are called God and the judges of Israel are called God.

[DRS]

1. The Son of God is omniscient.

"...Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee" (John 21:17).

[U


36*“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father

[DRS]

Oh bt the way Revelation I:8 is not Jesus speaking, if anything Revelation shows Jesus is not God.

1 A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John,

[Poisonshady313]

Moses is called God, angels are called God and the judges of Israel are called God.

Would you mind providing verses where Moses, angels, and judges of Israel are called God?

[DRS]

Would you mind providing verses where Moses, angels, and judges of Israel are called God?

(Exodus 7:1) Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Phar′aoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.



(Psalm 82:6) “I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High

Psalm 8:*5*You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones,
And with glory and splendor you then crowned him

[DispensationalJim]

Dear Warrior:
You keep taking advantage of our dear Lord Jesus Christ because He was willing to MAKE HIMSELF into a man, meaning -- as several of us have said repeatedly -- that Jesus Christ GAVE UP MANY OF HIS CHARACTERISTICS AS GOD (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.) AND BECAME TOTALLY DEPENDANT ON HIS HOLY FATHER while He was here on earth so that He could DIE FOR OUR SINS. He even MADE HIMSELF into a little fetus in Mary's womb FOR US. Would you like to use that against us, too? As you have said, GOD CANNOT DIE, so Jesus willingly became a man who could die, who could be tempted, etc., etc. HE RISKED EVERYTHING FOR US, but you choose to use HIS "weakness" to prove that He was never God. Can you see how pitiful that is?

Therefore, Warrior, EVERY VERSE you use to support your unfortunate view of the LORD JESUS CHRIST as less than God is an insult to Him. HE WAS GOD, THE CREATOR, then He MADE HIMSELF INTO A MAN TO BECOME OUR ONE AND ONLY SAVIOR. How could anyone less than God do that??
======================

Warrior, do you agree that Jesus Christ IS OUR ONE AND ONLY SAVIOR??

Then please notice these verses, where GOD IS THE LORD AND THE SAVIOUR.

• Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD thy God... thy Saviour...
• Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
• Isaiah 45:21 ...there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour: there is none beside me.
• Isaiah 49:26 ...and all flesh shall know that I the LORD) am thy Saviour and thy Redeenrer...
• Isaiah 60:16 ...and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer...

So, we see that the Lord GOD is clearly THE ONE AND ONLY SAVIOR!


But, in the New Testament, "LORD JESUS" is found in the KJV about 120 times. Jesus is referred to as "THE SAVIOUR" 25 times. The Apostle Paul uses the phrase "GOD THE SAVIOUR" 7 times! If you wish, I will be glad to post them all.

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

And then, dear Warrior, you run to other translations and Greek versions with definitions to support a doctrine when you surely know that you can always find a translation or two and a Greek text or two and a definition or two that says things just the way you want them to. So, follow the Wescott and Hort theory of Textual criticism, etc. if you like. I believe that the KJV is by far the superior translation in English for today.

DispensationalJim

[DRS]

Interesting if God does not apply the sacrificial blood of Jesus to your inherited sins then we can not be saved, and since it was God that sent Jesus and made the laws. One can truely say Jehovah is our saviour ultimately.

[Poisonshady313]

(Exodus 7:1) Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Phar′aoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

1. The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker.

lord
–noun
1. a person who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.

calling someone A lord doesn't mean calling that someone THE Lord.

(Psalm 82:6) “I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High."
"You" are the children of Israel... being described as angels. Angels aren't being called God here.

Psalm 8:*5*You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones,
And with glory and splendor you then crowned him

Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty.


none of these beings are called God.

[Tucson Jim]

Wow, Tuscon Jim, that was incredible.

I will definitely add all that to my "Trinity" file.

I'm sorry I posted right in the middle of your presentation.

Keep up the good work, TJim!

DJim

No problem - I ended up making a few formatting changes to the second post so there was a delay.

But I enjoyed your intervening post! As I do all your posts D'Jim, thank you.

[Tucson Jim]

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (KJV)

1. Jesus never referred to himself as “God” in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus “my God”? The Greek language uses the word theos, (“God” or “god”) with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “GOD” (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.

So I guess we have to take your word on that? He said "My Lord and my God", directly refuting your anti-trinitarian views and you rationalize it away?

I don't know how scripture could be any clearer.

If you can't see this, I doubt there is any scriptural evidence you would accept.

Acts 20:28b
Be shepherds of the Church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (NIV)


1. There are some Greek manuscripts that read “the church of the Lord” instead of “the church of God.” Many Trinitarian scholars believe that “Lord” is the original reading, because there is no mention anywhere in the Bible of God having blood. If the Greek manuscripts that read “Lord” are the original ones, then the “problem” is solved. However, it is the belief of the authors that good textual research shows that “the church of God” is the correct reading.

Agreed. The church of God, which He (God) bought with His own blood, the blood of God the Son.

2. Both the American Bible Society and the Institute For New Testament Research in Germany (which produces the Nestle-Aland Greek text) agree that the manuscript evidence supports the reading tou haimatios tou idiou, literally, the blood of His own (Son), and not idiou haimatios, “his own blood.” God paid for our salvation with the blood of His own Son, Jesus Christ.

3. The text note at the bottom of the very Trinitarian NIV Study Bible gets the meaning of the verse correct: “his own blood. Lit. ‘the blood of his own one,’ a term of endearment (such as ‘his own dear one’) referring to His own Son.”

So, to summarize, there is some scholarly disagreement over the proper translation, with 2 of the 3 sources you mention being compatible with the straightforward reading, which is that God bought the church with his own blood, which could only mean the blood of God the Son.


I have posted in this thread in detail about Phil.2

Yes, one of the most powerful scriptures on the deity of Christ. And I agree with DispensationalJim on Phil 2.

1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (KJ

1. Many Trinitarians claim that the final sentence in the verse, “This is the true God,” refers to Jesus Christ, since the closest noun to “This” is “Jesus Christ.” However, since God and Jesus are both referred to in the first sentence of the verse, the final sentence can refer to either one of them. The word “this,” which begins the last sentence, is houtos, and a study of it will show that the context, not the closest noun or pronoun, must determine to whom “this” is referring. The Bible provides examples of this, and a good one is in Acts 7:18 and 19 (KJV): “Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. The same (houtos) dealt subtilly with our kindred..., and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.” It is clear from this example that “the same” (houtos) cannot refer to Joseph, even though Joseph is the closest noun. It refers to the other king earlier in the verse, even though that evil king is not the closest noun.

If it were true that pronouns always referred to the closest noun, serious theological problems would result. An example is Acts 4:10 and 11: “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This [houtos] is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner” (KJV). If “This” in the last sentence refers to the closest noun or pronoun, then the man who was healed is actually the stone rejected by the builders that has become the head of the corner, i.e., the Christ. Of course, that is not true

So your argument is basically that it is possible that "This is the true God" in this sentence refers to the Father and not Jesus.

Then it is equally possible that it refers to Jesus and indeed, the focus of the verse is on Jesus. I looked up some commentaries to see what the commentators had to say on this. Here are a few examples:

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire bible

This is the true God and eternal life;
that is, the Son of God, who is the immediate antecedent to the relative "this"; he is the true God, with his Father and the Spirit, in distinction from all false, fictitious, or nominal deities; and such as are only by office, or in an improper and figurative sense: Christ is truly and really God, as appears from all the perfections of deity, the fulness of the Godhead being in him; from the divine works of creation and providence being ascribed to him; and from the divine worship that is given him; as well as from the names and titles he goes by, and particularly that of Jehovah, which is incommunicable to a creature; and he is called "eternal life", because it is in him; and he is the giver of it to his people; and that itself will chiefly consist in the enjoyment and vision of him, and in conformity to him.


Matthew Henry

you must remember that this true one is the true God and eternal life’’ or rather (as it should seem a more natural construction), "This same Son of God is himself also the true God and eternal life’’ (Jn. 1:1, and here, ch. 1:2), "so that in union with either, much more with both, we are united to the true God and eternal life.’

John Wesly Notes

Verse 20. And we know - By all these infallible proofs. That the Son of God is come - Into the world. And he hath given us a spiritual understanding, that we may know him, the true one -"The faithful and true witness." And we are in the true one -As branches in the vine, even in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God. This Jesus is the only living and true God, together with the father and the Spirit, and the original fountain of eternal life. So the beginning and the end of the epistle agree.

Sorry, but I couldn't find any commentators that agree with your interpretation.



Hebrews 1:8,9.........see the notes on John 20:28 same greek word (theos)

This deals with the post on Jesus being called God,reminder he never said he was God.

Adressing the spirit,God is Spirit and the gift of holy spirit are different
the translators capitalized where they saw fit and takes study and context to see which is which.
given the time over the next few days we can adress this about Holy Spirit and holy spirit
After dinner I will post more OK

[Angryamerican]

So I guess we have to take your word on that? He said "My Lord and my God", directly refuting your anti-trinitarian views and you rationalize it away?

I don't know how scripture could be any clearer.

If you can't see this, I doubt there is any scriptural evidence you would accept.



Agreed. The church of God, which He (God) bought with His own blood, the blood of God the Son.



So, to summarize, there is some scholarly disagreement over the proper translation, with 2 of the 3 sources you mention being compatible with the straightforward reading, which is that God bought the church with his own blood, which could only mean the blood of God the Son.




Yes, one of the most powerful scriptures on the deity of Christ. And I agree with DispensationalJim on Phil 2.



So your argument is basically that it is possible that "This is the true God" in this sentence refers to the Father and not Jesus.

Then it is equally possible that it refers to Jesus and indeed, the focus of the verse is on Jesus. I looked up some commentaries to see what the commentators had to say on this. Here are a few examples:

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire bible

This is the true God and eternal life;
that is, the Son of God, who is the immediate antecedent to the relative "this"; he is the true God, with his Father and the Spirit, in distinction from all false, fictitious, or nominal deities; and such as are only by office, or in an improper and figurative sense: Christ is truly and really God, as appears from all the perfections of deity, the fulness of the Godhead being in him; from the divine works of creation and providence being ascribed to him; and from the divine worship that is given him; as well as from the names and titles he goes by, and particularly that of Jehovah, which is incommunicable to a creature; and he is called "eternal life", because it is in him; and he is the giver of it to his people; and that itself will chiefly consist in the enjoyment and vision of him, and in conformity to him.


Matthew Henry

you must remember that this true one is the true God and eternal life’’ or rather (as it should seem a more natural construction), "This same Son of God is himself also the true God and eternal life’’ (Jn. 1:1, and here, ch. 1:2), "so that in union with either, much more with both, we are united to the true God and eternal life.’

John Wesly Notes

Verse 20. And we know - By all these infallible proofs. That the Son of God is come - Into the world. And he hath given us a spiritual understanding, that we may know him, the true one -"The faithful and true witness." And we are in the true one -As branches in the vine, even in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God. This Jesus is the only living and true God, together with the father and the Spirit, and the original fountain of eternal life. So the beginning and the end of the epistle agree.

Sorry, but I couldn't find any commentators that agree with your interpretation.



OK

Please show me from the bible the Term God the son?

[Tucson Jim]

he Son of God is not eternal
Because Christ is stated to be “the first-born of every creature,” Col. 1:15.

Because he is said to be “the beginning of the creation of God,” Rev. 3: 14.

I see you have chosen to ignore the verses I presented showing He is eternal.

Regarding Col 1:15, this verse does not mean Christ was created at some point in time. Such an interpretation would contradict numerous other scriptures on the Deity of Christ and His eternal nature (see my recent post).

Rather, this verse is better understood to mean that Christ had the rights and privileges of the first born according to biblical custom, the authority in the family for the generation in which one lived. e.g. in Heb 12:16, Esau is described as having sold his birhtright, or first born status. So I believe the best interpretation of the term "first born", when one considers the entire testimony of the Bible, is that Christ has the rights and authority of the firstborn.

NIV translates this verse "firstborn over all creation."

Regarding Rev 3:14, I assume you are trying to assert that the phrase "beginning of the creation of God" somehow means Christ was created by God. It does not. That would contradict the verses on the eternal nature of Christ that I gave you.

Also, the Gr word for beginning, Arche, is used by Jesus when He says He is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the end.(Rev 22:13) The Father also says He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end. In both cases, to be the Alpha or "beginning" means to be the One who was there before anything was created.

The Son of God was most definitely not omniscient

Because he is said to have “increased in wisdom, and in favor with God and man,” Luke 2:52.

Because he speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49.

Because it is expressly asserted that God gave to Christ the Revelation which was made to the author of the Apocalypse, Rev. 1:1.

Because he implored that, if it were possible, the bitter cup might pass from him, adding, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt,” Matt 26:39.

Because he expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of omniscience. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father only,” Matt.24:36, Mark 13:32.

Because he declares that he is not the author of his own doctrine. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” John 7:16, 17.

Because he represents himself as having been instructed by the Father. “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” John 8:28

Because Christ “Learned obedience by the things he suffered,” and through sufferings was made perfect by God, Heb. 5:8.

All of your examples relate to the incarnation of Christ, to His nature as Man, not God. Remember, Christ is fully God and fully man.

[Angryamerican]

Dear Warrior:
You keep taking advantage of our dear Lord Jesus Christ because He was willing to MAKE HIMSELF into a man, meaning -- as several of us have said repeatedly -- that Jesus Christ GAVE UP MANY OF HIS CHARACTERISTICS AS GOD (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.) AND BECAME TOTALLY DEPENDANT ON HIS HOLY FATHER while He was here on earth so that He could DIE FOR OUR SINS. He even MADE HIMSELF into a little fetus in Mary's womb FOR US. Would you like to use that against us, too? As you have said, GOD CANNOT DIE, so Jesus willingly became a man who could die, who could be tempted, etc., etc. HE RISKED EVERYTHING FOR US, but you choose to use HIS "weakness" to prove that He was never God. Can you see how pitiful that is?

Therefore, Warrior, EVERY VERSE you use to support your unfortunate view of the LORD JESUS CHRIST as less than God is an insult to Him. HE WAS GOD, THE CREATOR, then He MADE HIMSELF INTO A MAN TO BECOME OUR ONE AND ONLY SAVIOR. How could anyone less than God do that??
======================

Warrior, do you agree that Jesus Christ IS OUR ONE AND ONLY SAVIOR??

Then please notice these verses, where GOD IS THE LORD AND THE SAVIOUR.

• Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD thy God... thy Saviour...
• Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
• Isaiah 45:21 ...there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour: there is none beside me.
• Isaiah 49:26 ...and all flesh shall know that I the LORD) am thy Saviour and thy Redeenrer...
• Isaiah 60:16 ...and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer...

So, we see that the Lord GOD is clearly THE ONE AND ONLY SAVIOR!


But, in the New Testament, "LORD JESUS" is found in the KJV about 120 times. Jesus is referred to as "THE SAVIOUR" 25 times. The Apostle Paul uses the phrase "GOD THE SAVIOUR" 7 times! If you wish, I will be glad to post them all.

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

And then, dear Warrior, you run to other translations and Greek versions with definitions to support a doctrine when you surely know that you can always find a translation or two and a Greek text or two and a definition or two that says things just the way you want them to. So, follow the Wescott and Hort theory of Textual criticism, etc. if you like. I believe that the KJV is by far the superior translation in English for today.

DispensationalJim

This is unfair, Warrior made a very convincing rebuttle and it was backed with scripture.

When Jesus was alone with the deciples why did he not ever say he was God Almighty? at any time Jesus could have said he was God Almighty and they would have believed because of the miracles.

How come the Trinity didn't appear in Christianity until 325 years after Jesus's death?

Why were so many murdered because of this doctrine?

Why isn't the trinity in the OT? even the Catholic Church say's the trinity is not found in the OT. If it was they wouldn't have said it wasn't.

Why did Jesus reject the jews notion that he was equal to God?

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

And very convincing to me was Jesus after his resurrection appeared to many and no one reconized him. He was back to the form he was before he came to the earth. And he was about to ascend back to heaven and sit next to his Father. But yet no one has seen God at any time. Now we know it wasn't because he was man excuse.

[Tucson Jim]

Meanings of omnipotence
Between people of different faiths, or indeed even between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

God is able to do anything, i. e. the answer to "can God do x" is always "yes", regardless of what x may be. However this leads to obvious contradictions and is not a view held by philosophically aware theologians. Although it can be argued that to try and rationalize Gods omnipotent power is a vain undertaking, since we cannot ever really understand God's power, and is perhaps better to take it on faith.(see Kierkegaard)
God is able to do anything that is logically possible for God to do[1].
God is able to do anything that God chooses to do[2].
God is able to do anything that is in accord with his own nature (thus for instance if it is a logical consequence of God's nature that what God speaks is truth then God is not able to lie).
Under many philosophical definitions of the term "God" senses 2, 3 and 4 can be shown to be equivalent. However on all understandings of Omniopotence it is generally held that God is able to intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics, since they are not part of his nature, but the principles on which he has created the physical world. However many modern scholars (such as John Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of God's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for God to go against His own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

Jesus fits none of these definitions

Because, as the Saviour of men, he was sent by the Father. “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14

Because the head of Christ is God. “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God,” 1 Cor. 11:3.

Because, in the same sense in which we are said to belong to Christ, Christ is said to belong to God. “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s,” 1 Cor. 3:23.

Because Christ says, “My father is greater than all,” John 10:29. Is not the father, then greater than the son?

Because he affirms, in another connection, and without the least qualification, “My Father is greater than I,” John 14:28

Because he virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17.

Because the Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. “Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17.

Because an Apostle says of God, in distinction from the “Lord Jesus Christ,” that He is the “only Potentate,” and that He “only hath immortality,” 1 Tim. 6:15, 16.

Because it is the express declaration of the same Apostle, that the Father is the one God, and there is none other. “Though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,”


Because the power which Christ possessed was, as him affirmed, given to him. “All power is given unto me,” Matt 28:18

Because he positively denies himself to be the author of his miraculous works, but refers them to the Father, or the holy spirit of God. “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works,” John 14:10. “If I cast out devils by the spirit of God,” Matt. 12:28.

Because he distinctly states, that these works bear witness, not to his own power, but that the Father had sent him, John 5:36

Because he expressly affirms that the works were done, not in his own, but in his Father’s name, John 10:25.

Because he asserts, that “him hath God the Father sealed,” i.e. to God the Father he was indebted for his credentials, John 6:27

Because he refers invariable to the Father as the origin of the authority by which he spoke and acted. “The Father hath given to the Son authority,” John 5:26, 27

Because he acknowledges his dependence on his Heavenly Father for example and direction in all his doings. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” John 5:19. “The Father loveth the Son, and showth him all things that himself doeth” John 5:20

Because he says “I seek not mine own glory; but I honor my Father,” John 8:49, 50.

Because he declares, “If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me,” John 8:54.

Because an Apostle declares, that Christ dwelt all fullness, because it so pleased the Father, Col. 1:19.

Because Christ is uniformly represented in the Scriptures, not as the primary, but the intermediate, cause of all things relating to our salvation. “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,” 1 Cor. 8:6.

Because he declares, “I am not come of myself” into the world, “for I proceeded forth and came from God,” John 8:42; 7:28. Jesus knowing… that he came from God, and went to God,” John 13:3.

Because he affirms that he had not the disposal of the highest places in his own kingdom. “To sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father,” Matt. 20:23.

Because our Saviour, referring his disciples to a future time, when they would understand more accurately concerning him, expressly declares that then they would know him to be entirely dependent upon the Father. “When ye have lifted up the Son of man (i.e. crucified him), then shall ye know that I am he (i.e. the Messiah), and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things," John 8:28.

Because our Saviour always professed to have no will of his own, but to be ever entirely guided and governed by the will of his Heavenly Father. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”

. Because he expressly denies that he is possessed of Divine attribute of independent existence. “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father,” John 6:57

Because he expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of underived existence. “As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,” John 5:26


Because he positively denies that he is possessed of the Divine attribute of omnipotence. “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:30

Because it is related of our Saviour, that “he continued all night in prayer to God,” Luke 6:12. Why should Christ thus pray, if he himself were God?

Because the Scriptures affirm that “Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but He (glorified him) who said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” Heb. 5:5


Because it is declared that God raised him from the dead. “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses,” Acts 2: 32, Rom. 10:9, 10

Because St. Paul affirms, that Christ, even since his ascension, “liveth unto God,” and “liveth by the power of God,” Rom. 6:10. 2 Cor. 12:4

Because it is affirmed of Christ, that “when all things shall be subdued under him then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all,” 1 Cor. 15:28

Because, in the prophecies of the Old Testament that relate to Christ, he is spoken of as a being distinct from and inferior to God, Deut. 18:15, John 1:45.

Because he is spoken of in the Scriptures as the first born among many brethren. Rom. 8:29. Has God brethren?

Because in these two instances, when charged, in the one case, with making himself God, and in the other, with making himself equal with God, he positively denies the charges. In reply to the charge of assuming to be equal with God, he says immediately, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do”; and directly after, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:19, 30. In answer to the charge of making himself God, he appeals to the Jews in substance thus: Your own Scriptures call Moses a god, and your magistrates gods; I am surely not inferior to them, yet I did not call myself God, but only the Son of God, John 10:34-36

Wow, a lot of verses here.

But the themes seem to fall into a couple of main categories.

The first is that you assume because Jesus and the Father are not identical, because Jesus submits to the Father, because He voluntarily became man for our sakes and humbled Himself, that He is somehow inferior in nature to the Father. This is muddy thinking my friend.

I can humble myself and submit to my earthly Father, but that does not mean I am less of a person than he is, does it?

The submission of Jesus to the Father and His voluntary humbling of Himself for our sakes demonstrates His love for both the Father and us, not His inferiority in nature to the Father.

God the Son is not the same as God the Father. There are relationships among the Persons of the Trinity, there are differences. The Church has always recognized that and has never believed the differences within the Trinity mean the Son and the Spirit are therefore not God!

The second theme is related to the first, that Christ on earth had limitations and you think this means He is not God. eg "Because he positively denies that he is possessed of the Divine attribute of omnipotence. “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:30"

Again, this merely demonstrates the self-imposed limitations of incarnation, not inferiority of Being.

[DRS]

1. The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker.

lord
–noun
1. a person who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.

calling someone A lord doesn't mean calling that someone THE Lord.

I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High."
"You" are the children of Israel... being described as angels. Angels aren't being called God here.


Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty.


none of these beings are called God.


I guess Elohim is not used in connection, cause when I am looking at the Hebrew that is what I am seeing.

[HisServant]

I do say he existed before but not as the Almighty. Lets go over this again.

Jesus showed that he was a creature seperate from God and he,Jesus, had a God above him, a God whom he worshiped, a God whom he called Father in prayer, at john 17:3 and john 20:17

How much clearer can 2nd cor 1:3 get since he had a God, His Father, He could not at the same time be that God.


Jesus words at john 8:17,18 are also significant. Here Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is, Almighty God, must be two distinct entities, for how else could there truly be two witnesses?

NO. What you are showing in these verses is the human Jesus. Please keep the time frames of each verse within its context. To see the preincarnate Jesus you must go to John1:1, Phil 2:6 and Col 1:15. Please when reading understand that Begotten does not mean created. Please understand that first born does not mean created. That is where the lack of understanding and bias to who Jesus is enters.

Now please also understand the Jesus is Jesus. That God The Father is God the Father. Lets not have this conversation again. For some reason you seem bent on the fact that someone is saying they are the same person. They are not. We agree. Posting verses showing they are 2 different people means nothing we know it. It is a fact. We understand. Yes they are not the same. The doctrine of the Trinity also says the same. They are not the same person or being. There are 3. What it claims is that they are equal in who they are God. 1 God in three persons each with His own distinct role all God together and seperate. One the Father one the Son one the Holy Spirit. Can't make it any planer than that. There are not 3 Gods. They are not the same person. Now we can move on.

The Logos (JOHN 1:1, PHIL 2:6) is equal with God in nature and/or form. He became man, took on flesh, humbled Himself, took on the form of a servant. This does not make Him inferrior. Submitting oneself to another does not make one better than another. You must also get those false ideas out of your mind if you wish to continue.

[HisServant]

Have you heard of Gabriel?

Yup. Another Angel. Another created being. Jesus is not created. Scripture does not teach that.

[HisServant]

This is unfair, Warrior made a very convincing rebuttle and it was backed with scripture.

When Jesus was alone with the deciples why did he not ever say he was God Almighty? at any time Jesus could have said he was God Almighty and they would have believed because of the miracles.

How come the Trinity didn't appear in Christianity until 325 years after Jesus's death?

Why were so many murdered because of this doctrine?

Why isn't the trinity in the OT? even the Catholic Church say's the trinity is not found in the OT. If it was they wouldn't have said it wasn't.

Why did Jesus reject the jews notion that he was equal to God?

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

And very convincing to me was Jesus after his resurrection appeared to many and no one reconized him. He was back to the form he was before he came to the earth. And he was about to ascend back to heaven and sit next to his Father. But yet no one has seen God at any time. Now we know it wasn't because he was man excuse.

Angry the point is not whether you use scripture in as much as you use it properly and interpret it within the context of the verse. You can't take a verse meant for a Jewish person then turn around and say it applies to us. For instance Paul makes mention of circumcision over and over again. You don't take a verse mean for the Church and apply it to non believers. You don't take a verse meant for a non believer and apply it to the Church. This is something I see happening constantly. This is faulty studying and results in false theology. When scripture uses terms find out what they mean before suggesting it means something else. Ie. First born, Begotten, Form etc...

[HisServant]

Moses is called God, angels are called God and the judges of Israel are called God.

Here is where peoples bias in scripture is so evident. Moses is not called God. It's is a comparison. Angels are never called God. Judges are never called God. Absolutely misinterpretation.

[Angryamerican]

If Jesus is the Almighty he is always the Almighty.

When did the Almighty stop being the Almighty?

Why did God have to approve of Jesus?

[Angryamerican]

Yup. Another Angel. Another created being. Jesus is not created. Scripture does not teach that.

Sorry but scripture does not support this view. Jesus did have a beginning.

[HisServant]

Sorry but scripture does not support this view. Jesus did have a beginning.

You have yet to produce one. Produce one that says it not that you misinterpret to say it. quote a verse and lets look at it without posting 1,000 words to confuse us and take us away from the point.

[HisServant]

If Jesus is the Almighty he is always the Almighty.

When did the Almighty stop being the Almighty?

Why did God have to approve of Jesus?

Again please read in context. Jesus is Almighty is not the same as saying He is The Almighty.

The Almighty never stopped being so.

Because He had to show us that Jesus fulfilled all of the requirements of the law in order to fully show us that in Christ and in Him alone is salvation. Thus in 3 days He was raised from the dead because God was satisfied by the death of His Son. Thus the Glory He had with the Father was once more restored once He fulfilled His purpose.

[Angryamerican]

Angry the point is not whether you use scripture in as much as you use it properly and interpret it within the context of the verse. You can't take a verse meant for a Jewish person then turn around and say it applies to us. For instance Paul makes mention of circumcision over and over again. You don't take a verse mean for the Church and apply it to non believers. You don't take a verse meant for a non believer and apply it to the Church. This is something I see happening constantly. This is faulty studying and results in false theology. When scripture uses terms find out what they mean before suggesting it means something else. Ie. First born, Begotten, Form etc...

I think first born is self explanitory the only begotten is to.

When Jesus said the Father was greater was that for the JEWS? Or for all to know?

[HisServant]

I think first born is self explanitory the only begotten is to.

When Jesus said the Father was greater was that for JEWS? Or for all to know?

Again it is not self explanitory. You want to except the incorrect meaning because it suits your belief. Why not study it?

That was for all to realize that He as a human came to do the will of God. And as our example that is what we are to do. Again. What part of God being greater is confusing to you? Being greater does not make Jesus lesser. You are arguing that 4 quarters is greater than a dollar.

[Angryamerican]

Here is where peoples bias in scripture is so evident. Moses is not called God. It's is a comparison. Angels are never called God. Judges are never called God. Absolutely misinterpretation.

So you don't think angels can be considered gods?

I think the powers they have and what they can do with it they could be considered gods just not equal to the Almighty.

They materialize in to humans just as Jesus did after his resurrection to prove who he was to the followers. But they saw him he could not have been God Almighty.

For me to accept your view of God, i would have to reject many things that God and Jesus say in his word. And i will not do that because i am then rejecting the law.

Jesus and God are perfect and cannot lie period.

[Angryamerican]

You have yet to produce one. Produce one that says it not that you misinterpret to say it. quote a verse and lets look at it without posting 1,000 words to confuse us and take us away from the point.

You have yet to produce one just one scripture where Jesus say's he is the Almighty.

I think Jesus knows who he is.

[Angryamerican]

Again it is not self explanitory. You want to except the incorrect meaning because it suits your belief. Why not study it?

That was for all to realize that He as a human came to do the will of God. And as our example that is what we are to do. Again. What part of God being greater is confusing to you? Being greater does not make Jesus lesser. You are arguing that 4 quarters is greater than a dollar.

First can represent beginning God has no beginning.

[HisServant]

The Greek word for '(only) begotten' is 'monogenes'.
'Mono' translates 'single, unique, sole, singular' and speaks of nature, not birth.
'Genes' (genos) translates clan, offspring, house, genus, class, kind, family, progeny, sort, species, direct/collateral descent, tribe, race, stock, kin, and speaks of nature, not source.

In both words, we see that reference is to nature. Jesus was God in nature (homoousios - being of one substance); not to be confused with the idea of 'homoiousious' (being of a similar substance; being like the Father in substance only, but not in nature). If we look again at the example of Abraham and Isaac, we see that Isaac became Abraham's 'only-begotten son' through birth. This means that, at some time, Isaac wasn't 'only-begotten' since he wouldn't have been born. Jesus never became because Jesus had always been - Jesus IS. We have only to read of Jesus identifying Himself with the Godhead in John 8:58 where He speaks of Himself as the "I am"; a direct reference to Exodus 3:14, identifying Himself totally with God in substance and nature. Benjamin Warfield, stated in his work "The Person and Work of Christ" (p56) that, "The adjective 'only-begotten' conveys the ideas, not of derivation and subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality: Jesus is all that God is, and He alone is this."

[Angryamerican]

Here is where peoples bias in scripture is so evident. Moses is not called God. It's is a comparison. Angels are never called God. Judges are never called God. Absolutely misinterpretation.

I would like you to analize this.

Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were good. And they took wives for themselves from all whom they chose.
Gen 6:3 And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, in his erring; he is flesh. Yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days. And also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore to them, they were mighty men who existed of old, men of renown.

Faithful Humans are considered sons of God as well. Now how come angels and humans can be considered sons of God and Jesus cannot be the son of God?

It doesn't make sense for us not to take God and Jesus at their word.

[Angryamerican]

I have to get kids to school will return.

[HisServant]

First can represent beginning God has no beginning.

Can and does are 2 different things. I can represent beginning. It does not represent having a beginning. Saying He is the First of many does not mean Jesus had a beginning. Again you misrepresent. You are reading into it. The term Alpha and Omega means what? First and Last. Does that mean God has a beginning? No. Same with Jesus. Don't read into scripture. Read Scripture.

[Angryamerican]

The Greek word for '(only) begotten' is 'monogenes'.
'Mono' translates 'single, unique, sole, singular' and speaks of nature, not birth.
'Genes' (genos) translates clan, offspring, house, genus, class, kind, family, progeny, sort, species, direct/collateral descent, tribe, race, stock, kin, and speaks of nature, not source.

In both words, we see that reference is to nature. Jesus was God in nature (homoousios - being of one substance); not to be confused with the idea of 'homoiousious' (being of a similar substance; being like the Father in substance only, but not in nature). If we look again at the example of Abraham and Isaac, we see that Isaac became Abraham's 'only-begotten son' through birth. This means that, at some time, Isaac wasn't 'only-begotten' since he wouldn't have been born. Jesus never became because Jesus had always been - Jesus IS. We have only to read of Jesus identifying Himself with the Godhead in John 8:58 where He speaks of Himself as the "I am"; a direct reference to Exodus 3:14, identifying Himself totally with God in substance and nature. Benjamin Warfield, stated in his work "The Person and Work of Christ" (p56) that, "The adjective 'only-begotten' conveys the ideas, not of derivation and subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality: Jesus is all that God is, and He alone is this."

I agree God begets god Father begets son Human begets human animal begets animal.

If you check with our jewish members you will see I AM does not mean what you say it does in the OT.

[Angryamerican]

Can and does are 2 different things. I can represent beginning. It does not represent having a beginning. Saying He is the First of many does not mean Jesus had a beginning. Again you misrepresent. You are reading into it. The term Alpha and Omega means what? First and Last. Does that mean God has a beginning? No. Same with Jesus. Don't read into scripture. Read Scripture.

My understanding agrees with scripture not contradicts scripture.

[Angryamerican]

Can and does are 2 different things. I can represent beginning. It does not represent having a beginning. Saying He is the First of many does not mean Jesus had a beginning. Again you misrepresent. You are reading into it. The term Alpha and Omega means what? First and Last. Does that mean God has a beginning? No. Same with Jesus. Don't read into scripture. Read Scripture.

One other thing you need to consider. How come Jesus is the only begotten or first born?

Nowhere do we find the holy spirit was begotten nor was the Father begotten nor was it mentioned them being the first born.

Why Jesus if he was God?

[HisServant]

My understanding agrees with scripture not contradicts scripture.

Actually not it does not. Which is why you misrepresent what verses are saying. Begotten does not mean created. First born does not mean Created. Phil 2:6, John 1:1 proves it over and over. But when you want to change the words in these passages then your view will be right. But it will be a different scripture and not the one God gave us.

[HisServant]

One other thing you need to consider. How come Jesus is the only begotten or first born?

Nowhere do we find the holy spirit was begotten nor was the Father begotten nor was it mentioned them being the first born.

Why Jesus if he was God?

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Why is it that in oder to get soda out of a machine I need 4 quarters. I want to use a dollar bill. This machine doesn't take dollar bills. I don't like that. whine, whine whine........

You insist on telling God how He is supposed to do things. He said His Word would be done. He sent Jesus the Word of God. He said it was through Jesus He would fulfill His purposes. So that means Jesus had to be the one begotten. It is the Holy Spirits role to be the one who now remains to do the work in us.

[HisServant]

I agree God begets god Father begets son Human begets human animal begets animal.

If you check with our jewish members you will see I AM does not mean what you say it does in the OT.

I Am - endless timeless. The self existant One.

[Angryamerican]

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Why is it that in oder to get soda out of a machine I need 4 quarters. I want to use a dollar bill. This machine doesn't take dollar bills. I don't like that. whine, whine whine........

You insist on telling God how He is supposed to do things. He said His Word would be done. He sent Jesus the Word of God. He said it was through Jesus He would fulfill His purposes. So that means Jesus had to be the one begotten. It is the Holy Spirits role to be the one who now remains to do the work in us.

Well i take God and Jesus at their word. They know we are limited with comprehension compared to them. Is everything literal in the scriptures no but through researching scriptures and words we get to the truth.

I don't believe in a doctrine that only showed up 325 years after the sacrifice of Jesus.

Still waiting for you to show where Jesus claims to be God Almighty?

Still waiting for you to show me who Jesus was in the OT? since he is part of the trinity he should have been made known in the OT as well.

What was his name ?since they are three different entities in one God and they had different jobs.

We see that the holy spirit was mentioned in the OT but no Jesus.

These are tough questions since there is no answer and there is no such doctrine.

Why do so many not see how this doctrine came about and that it caused many followers to be put to death. Now was the Church that brought this doctrine in to existence showing the fruits Jesus said that we would know his people by the fruits they produce?

Why are we readily to accept a doctrine that was ordered by a pagan worshiper ?

You have not proven your case that i turn and twist scripture to make it fit my beliefs or take it out of context or i spin what is being said.

How did i twist this scripture?

Joh 14:28 You have heard how I said to you, I go away and I am coming to you again. If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, I go to the Father, for My Father is greater than I.

[Angryamerican]

Actually not it does not. Which is why you misrepresent what verses are saying. Begotten does not mean created. First born does not mean Created. Phil 2:6, John 1:1 proves it over and over. But when you want to change the words in these passages then your view will be right. But it will be a different scripture and not the one God gave us.

You tell me i misrepresent first born take a look you are wrong.

G4416
πρωτοτόκος
prōtotokos
pro-tot-ok'-os
From G4413 and the alternate of G5088; first born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively): - firstbegotten (=born).

Born is that a beginning?

Take your pick Jesus has a beginning.

Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.

Col 1:15 Who3739 is2076 the image1504 of the3588 invisible517 God,2316 the firstborn4416 of every3956 creature:2937

Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Five different versions of the bible agree that he was the first born of all creatures or creation. He had a beginning he was created. Now spin that.

I think you know what born means.

[HisServant]

Well i take God and Jesus at their word. They know we are limited with comprehension compared to them. Is everything literal in the scriptures no but through researching scriptures and words we get to the truth. .

You say not everything is literal then you turn around a think that saying the Father is greater than I means Jesus is inferior. You say begotten means He's created. You seem to want it both ways. Literal when it supports you not literal when it supports you.


I don't believe in a doctrine that only showed up 325 years after the sacrifice of Jesus. . All this is spin forget about when it showed up. Perhaps the reason it did it because people forget who Jesus was and had to be reminded.


Still waiting for you to show where Jesus claims to be God Almighty?.
Angry you have been shown over and over again. If you refuse to see then it can't be helped. Is it that you don't want to see or don't see or refuse to see?

Still waiting for you to show me who Jesus was in the OT? since he is part of the trinity he should have been made known in the OT as well.

What was his name ?since they are three different entities in one God and they had different jobs.

We see that the holy spirit was mentioned in the OT but no Jesus.

These are tough questions since there is no answer and there is no such doctrine..

How can you see Jesus He did not exist. But the Logos or the Preincarnate Jesus did. He met Joshua and declared Himself to be the Captain of the Lord of Host. I believe any time it says God and someone saw Him that it was the Logos. For no man has seen God and lived. There are many instances of Him appearing to Abraham. You don't see it because you are fixated with not seeing it. Or with wanting to see it your way.

Why do so many not see how this doctrine came about and that it caused many followers to be put to death. Now was the Church that brought this doctrine in to existence showing the fruits Jesus said that we would know his people by the fruits they produce?

Why are we readily to accept a doctrine that was ordered by a pagan worshiper ?

Can't answer what I don't know. You need to ask a pagan. I just look in scripture. I would drop the Holier than thou are attitude. No one is perfect. You can absolutely be right on scripture but wrong in your attitude. One has nothing to do with the other.

You have not proven your case that i turn and twist scripture to make it fit my beliefs or take it out of context or i spin what is being said.

How did i twist this scripture?

Joh 14:28 You have heard how I said to you, I go away and I am coming to you again. If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, I go to the Father, for My Father is greater than I.

Here is a great example. This does not mean lesser. If your wife submitts to you does that make her lesser? If a Son submitts to a Father does that make Him lesser? You fail when you fail to keep things in context and perspective.

Here's another one.

Phil 2:6 Who being (past tense) in very nature God, (or in the form of)

This is clearly showing that before becoming man Jesus the Logos was in very nature and in His very form God. If you can't see at least this much of the verse all bets are off. You just won't accept anything. So take me up on my challenge. What does it say in just these few words. Nothing else stay here. These words.

Phil 2:6 Who being in the very nature God, NIV

Tell me what the scriptures say here about Jesus. Don't spin. stay here.

[Mathius]

Again please read in context. Jesus is Almighty is not the same as saying He is The Almighty.

The Almighty never stopped being so.

Because He had to show us that Jesus fulfilled all of the requirements of the law in order to fully show us that in Christ and in Him alone is salvation. Thus in 3 days He was raised from the dead because God was satisfied by the death of His Son. Thus the Glory He had with the Father was once more restored once He fulfilled His purpose.

Lets go with you favorite verse that "proves" the trinity.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the footnotes from the New American Bible.
[1] In the beginning: also the first words of the Old Testament (Genesis 1:1). Was: this verb is used three times with different meanings in this verse: existence, relationship, and predication. The Word (Greek logos): this term combines God's dynamic, creative word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God's creative activity (Proverbs), and the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy). With God: the Greek preposition here connotes communication with another. Was God: lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.

They define the Word(Jesus) as the tool of God.
"The Word (Greek logos): this term combines God's dynamic, creative word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God's creative activity (Proverbs), and the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy). "

In the beginning (when God spoke he created the Word) was the Word. (Now we have two entities.) The Word was with God. (meaning exactly that) And the Word was God (Was God: lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.)

God is so powerful that his very Word can create the universes. hence John 1:3-14.

Jesus is an instrument of God much like Moses, the prophets, the Holy Spirit, the burning bush, and other items. These instruments rank differently in importance but they still not God. But as Christians we don't worship Moses and the prophets now do we? God used Mary to borne Jesus into this world but we don't worship her. I know you guys are just going to say that I am spinning this but this is how I interpret the scripture and why I don't worship Jesus but only God.

[HisServant]

Lets go with you favorite verse that "proves" the trinity.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the footnotes from the New American Bible.
[1] In the beginning: also the first words of the Old Testament (Genesis 1:1). Was: this verb is used three times with different meanings in this verse: existence, relationship, and predication. The Word (Greek logos): this term combines God's dynamic, creative word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God's creative activity (Proverbs), and the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy). With God: the Greek preposition here connotes communication with another. Was God: lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.

They define the Word(Jesus) as the tool of God.
"The Word (Greek logos): this term combines God's dynamic, creative word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God's creative activity (Proverbs), and the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy). "

In the beginning (when God spoke he created the Word) was the Word. (Now we have two entities.) The Word was with God. (meaning exactly that) And the Word was God (Was God: lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.)

God is so powerful that his very Word can create the universes. hence John 1:3-14.

Jesus is an instrument of God much like Moses, the prophets, the Holy Spirit, the burning bush, and other items. These instruments rank differently in importance but they still not God. But as Christians we don't worship Moses and the prophets now do we? God used Mary to borne Jesus into this world but we don't worship her. I know you guys are just going to say that I am spinning this but this is how I interpret the scripture and why I don't worship Jesus but only God.

Herein lies where we part "In the beginning (when God spoke he created the Word)" this IMO is incorrect. In the beginning was - already existed - the Word. Not created already in existence with God as God, The Word of God. Not a tool but together functioning fully as Diety. As in "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth".

[Angryamerican]

You say not everything is literal then you turn around a think that saying the Father is greater than I means Jesus is inferior. You say begotten means He's created. You seem to want it both ways. Literal when it supports you not literal when it supports you.

All this is spin forget about when it showed up. Perhaps the reason it did it because people forget who Jesus was and had to be reminded.


Angry you have been shown over and over again. If you refuse to see then it can't be helped. Is it that you don't want to see or don't see or refuse to see?



How can you see Jesus He did not exist. But the Logos or the Preincarnate Jesus did. He met Joshua and declared Himself to be the Captain of the Lord of Host. I believe any time it says God and someone saw Him that it was the Logos. For no man has seen God and lived. There are many instances of Him appearing to Abraham. You don't see it because you are fixated with not seeing it. Or with wanting to see it your way.



Can't answer what I don't know. You need to ask a pagan. I just look in scripture. I would drop the Holier than thou are attitude. No one is perfect. You can absolutely be right on scripture but wrong in your attitude. One has nothing to do with the other.



Here is a great example. This does not mean lesser. If your wife submitts to you does that make her lesser? If a Son submitts to a Father does that make Him lesser? You fail when you fail to keep things in context and perspective.

Here's another one.

Phil 2:6 Who being (past tense) in very nature God, (or in the form of)

This is clearly showing that before becoming man Jesus the Logos was in very nature and in His very form God. If you can't see at least this much of the verse all bets are off. You just won't accept anything. So take me up on my challenge. What does it say in just these few words. Nothing else stay here. These words.

Phil 2:6 Who being in the very nature God, NIV

Tell me what the scriptures say here about Jesus. Don't spin. stay here.

Form means.

morphē
mor-fay'
Perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively nature: - form.

Being means, notice coming into existence.

G5225
ὑπάρχω
huparchō
hoop-ar'-kho
From G5259 and G756; to begin under (quietly), that is, come into existence (be present or at hand); expletively, to exist (as copula or subordinate to an adjective, participle, adverb or preposition, or as auxilliary to principal verb): - after behave, live.

God means

G2316
θεός
theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

Equal means

isos
ee'-sos
Probably from G1492 (through the idea of seeming); similar (in amount or kind): - + agree, as much, equal, like.

With God means

G2316
θεός
theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

Analizing that scripture Jesus seems to be similar to God. Which is what i am saying. But let's look at what was being said.

Php 2:1 If there is therefore any encouragement in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tendernesses and mercies,
Php 2:2 then fulfill my joy, that you may be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord and of one mind.
Php 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than themselves.
Php 2:4 Do not let each man look upon his own things, but each man also on the things of others.
Php 2:5 For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
Php 2:7 but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted Him, and has given Him a name which is above every name,

Notice he say's lets be like Christ Explain that? He is talking about unity again that Christ has with the Father.

[Mathius]

If a professor teaches a class, the class learns by the way of the teacher's words. After the thoughts of the teacher are transmitted into words they are no longer the teacher but sound waves. Never mind.

[Poisonshady313]

I guess Elohim is not used in connection, cause when I am looking at the Hebrew that is what I am seeing.
Elohim isn't a name... it's a title.

whether you're refering to King Kong, King David, or the King of the Universe.... the word King is the same. This does not mean that either David or the giant gorilla are being made equal to God... it just describes their position relative to others.

Whether you're referring to funk master flex, the master of ceremonies, a dog's master, a slave's master, a master clock maker, or the master of the universe... it's going to be the same word "master".... this does not make any of those which I listed equal to God just because of that one word.

Similarly.... whether talking about angels, men of great power, or God, the word Elohim doesn't mean God in every instance it is used.

[Angryamerican]

You say not everything is literal then you turn around a think that saying the Father is greater than I means Jesus is inferior. You say begotten means He's created. You seem to want it both ways. Literal when it supports you not literal when it supports you.

All this is spin forget about when it showed up. Perhaps the reason it did it because people forget who Jesus was and had to be reminded.


Angry you have been shown over and over again. If you refuse to see then it can't be helped. Is it that you don't want to see or don't see or refuse to see?



How can you see Jesus He did not exist. But the Logos or the Preincarnate Jesus did. He met Joshua and declared Himself to be the Captain of the Lord of Host. I believe any time it says God and someone saw Him that it was the Logos. For no man has seen God and lived. There are many instances of Him appearing to Abraham. You don't see it because you are fixated with not seeing it. Or with wanting to see it your way.



Can't answer what I don't know. You need to ask a pagan. I just look in scripture. I would drop the Holier than thou are attitude. No one is perfect. You can absolutely be right on scripture but wrong in your attitude. One has nothing to do with the other.



Here is a great example. This does not mean lesser. If your wife submitts to you does that make her lesser? If a Son submitts to a Father does that make Him lesser? You fail when you fail to keep things in context and perspective.

Here's another one.

Phil 2:6 Who being (past tense) in very nature God, (or in the form of)

This is clearly showing that before becoming man Jesus the Logos was in very nature and in His very form God. If you can't see at least this much of the verse all bets are off. You just won't accept anything. So take me up on my challenge. What does it say in just these few words. Nothing else stay here. These words.

Phil 2:6 Who being in the very nature God, NIV

Tell me what the scriptures say here about Jesus. Don't spin. stay here.

Here this seems clear as well. You are confusing God and Jesus as one being when they are actually talking about unity , And being in one mind.

Rom 15:6 so that with one mind and one mouth you may glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Php 1:27 Only let your conduct be as becomes the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you, or else am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, striving together with one mind for the faith of the gospel,

Php 2:2 then fulfill my joy, that you may be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord and of one mind.

Like minded to who?

[DRS]

Elohim isn't a name... it's a title.

whether you're refering to King Kong, King David, or the King of the Universe.... the word King is the same. This does not mean that either David or the giant gorilla are being made equal to God... it just describes their position relative to others.

Whether you're referring to funk master flex, the master of ceremonies, a dog's master, a slave's master, a master clock maker, or the master of the universe... it's going to be the same word "master".... this does not make any of those which I listed equal to God just because of that one word.

Similarly.... whether talking about angels, men of great power, or God, the word Elohim doesn't mean God in every instance it is used.

The translation though is God.

God is not a name, that is G-d is not the same as calling on the name of Jehovah.

God does not always equal El Shad·dai′, which is only ever used in connection with the Almighty God Jehovah.

[Tucson Jim]

Herein lies where we part "In the beginning (when God spoke he created the Word)" this IMO is incorrect. In the beginning was - already existed - the Word. Not created already in existence with God as God, The Word of God. Not a tool but together functioning fully as Diety. As in "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth".

Exactly! Jesus is eternal, just like the Father. Scripture even speaks of God the Father and God the Son in the same terms:

God - From everlasting to everlasting thou art God – Ps. 90:2
Jesus - Whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting – Micah 5:2

God - Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting – Ps 93:2
Jesus - Unto the Son He saith, Thy throne O God, is for ever and ever – Heb 1:8

God - I am the first, and I am the last and besides me there is no God – Isa 44:6
Jesus - I am the first and the last : I am he that liveth and was dead – Rev 1:17-18

[DRS]

Exactly! Jesus is eternal, just like the Father. Scripture even speaks of God the Father and God the Son in the same terms:

God - From everlasting to everlasting thou art God – Ps. 90:2
Jesus - Whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting – Micah 5:2

God - Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting – Ps 93:2
Jesus - Unto the Son He saith, Thy throne O God, is for ever and ever – Heb 1:8

God - I am the first, and I am the last and besides me there is no God – Isa 44:6
Jesus - I am the first and the last : I am he that liveth and was dead – Rev 1:17-18

Except you seem to ignore Proverbs 8:22-30 which describes Jesus being the first creation. Which puts everything into context.

[Angryamerican]

Except you seem to ignore Proverbs 8:22-30 which describes Jesus being the first creation. Which puts everything into context.

Funny how they seem to miss that.


How many times do they have to read He, Jesus, Was the first thing ever created.

But i guess i understand that since if they admit to that then they would have to admit the trinity doesn't exist.

[Tucson Jim]

Except you seem to ignore Proverbs 8:22-30 which describes Jesus being the first creation. Which puts everything into context.

I "ignored" it because it is not relevant.

I know this is one of the standard prooftexts for Arians, but it doesn't hold water.

Grudem's Systematic Theology explains it thus:

(After quoting the verses) "Does this not indicate that this "wisdom" was created?

In fact, it does not. The Hebrew word that commonly means "create" (bara) is not used in verse 22; rather the word is "qanah", which occurs 84 times in the Old testament and almost always means "to get, acquire". The NASB is most clear here" "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his way". (similarly KJV) Note this sense of the word in Gen 39:1, Ex 21:2, Prov 4:4, 7, 23:23, Eccl 2:7, Is 1:3 ("owner") . This is a legitimate sense and, if Wisdom is understood as a real person, would mean only that God the Father began to direct and make use of the powerful creative work of God the Son at the time creation began; the Father summoned the Son to work with him in the activity of creation. The expression "brought forth" in verses 24 and 25 is a different term, but could carry a similar meaning . . ."

This explanation is to be preferred over assuming this means Jesus was created, as it does not contradict other verses showing the eternal nature of Christ.

[Tucson Jim]

Funny how they seem to miss that.


How many times do they have to read He, Jesus, Was the first thing ever created.


And how many times does scripture have to tell you Jesus is God before you get it?

[Poisonshady313]

Hate to burst your bubbles... but Proverbs 8 is about how the Torah preceded everything in creation.


If you read Proverbs 8 from the beginning, it says: Surely wisdom will call out, and understanding will raise her voice.


The subject of Proverbs 8 is most certainly not Jesus. After all... who here will claim that Jesus was a woman?

[Warrior4God]

And how many times does scripture have to tell you Jesus is God before you get it?

Once would work,all the scriptures used to define prove and explain a trinity are misunderstood or mistranslated or taken out of context of the point the writer is trying to show in scripture.

I have shown you proof that Jesus was neither omnicient or omnipotent.
If Jesus was God he would be both,the defining proof of who Jesus is as he knew more than anyone were his own words

He not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3. This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”

Christ says, “My father is greater than all,” John 10:29. Is not the father, then greater than the son?

He virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17.

The Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. “Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17


Jesus positively denies himself to be the author of his miraculous works, but refers them to the Father, or the holy spirit of God. “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works,” John 14:10. “If I cast out devils by the spirit of God,” Matt. 12:28

Jesus distinctly states, that these works bear witness, not to his own power, but that the Father had sent him, John 5:36

Jesus expressly affirms that the works were done, not in his own, but in his Father’s name, John 10:25.

Jesus declares that he is not the author of his own doctrine. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” John 7:16, 17

Jesus represents himself as having been instructed by the Father. “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” John 8:28

Jesus refers invariable to the Father as the origin of the authority by which he spoke and acted. “The Father hath given to the Son authority,” John 5:26, 27

Jesus acknowledges his dependence on his Heavenly Father for example and direction in all his doings. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” John 5:19. “The Father loveth the Son, and showth him all things that himself doeth” John 5:20

Jesus says “I seek not mine own glory; but I honor my Father,” John 8:49, 50


Jesus affirms that he had not the disposal of the highest places in his own kingdom. “To sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father,” Matt. 20:23

Jesus our Saviour, referring his disciples to a future time, when they would understand more accurately concerning him, expressly declares that then they would know him to be entirely dependent upon the Father. “When ye have lifted up the Son of man (i.e. crucified him), then shall ye know that I am he (i.e. the Messiah), and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things," John 8:28


Jesus our Saviour always professed to have no will of his own, but to be ever entirely guided and governed by the will of his Heavenly Father. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” John 6:38

Jesus expressly denies that he is possessed of Divine attribute of independent existence. “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father,” John 6:57

Jesus positively denies that he is possessed of the Divine attribute of omnipotence. “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:30

Jesus expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of omniscience. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father only,” Matt.24:36, Mark 13:32

Jesus speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49

Jesus knew who he was ,I will believe him befor I believe a creed that started 33 years after his death

[Angryamerican]

Once would work,all the scriptures used to define prove and explain a trinity are misunderstood or mistranslated or taken out of context of the point the writer is trying to show in scripture.

I have shown you proof that Jesus was neither omnicient or omnipotent.
If Jesus was God he would be both,the defining proof of who Jesus is as he knew more than anyone were his own words

He not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3. This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”

Christ says, “My father is greater than all,” John 10:29. Is not the father, then greater than the son?

He virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17.

The Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. “Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17


Jesus positively denies himself to be the author of his miraculous works, but refers them to the Father, or the holy spirit of God. “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works,” John 14:10. “If I cast out devils by the spirit of God,” Matt. 12:28

Jesus distinctly states, that these works bear witness, not to his own power, but that the Father had sent him, John 5:36

Jesus expressly affirms that the works were done, not in his own, but in his Father’s name, John 10:25.

Jesus declares that he is not the author of his own doctrine. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” John 7:16, 17

Jesus represents himself as having been instructed by the Father. “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” John 8:28

Jesus refers invariable to the Father as the origin of the authority by which he spoke and acted. “The Father hath given to the Son authority,” John 5:26, 27

Jesus acknowledges his dependence on his Heavenly Father for example and direction in all his doings. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” John 5:19. “The Father loveth the Son, and showth him all things that himself doeth” John 5:20

Jesus says “I seek not mine own glory; but I honor my Father,” John 8:49, 50


Jesus affirms that he had not the disposal of the highest places in his own kingdom. “To sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father,” Matt. 20:23

Jesus our Saviour, referring his disciples to a future time, when they would understand more accurately concerning him, expressly declares that then they would know him to be entirely dependent upon the Father. “When ye have lifted up the Son of man (i.e. crucified him), then shall ye know that I am he (i.e. the Messiah), and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things," John 8:28


Jesus our Saviour always professed to have no will of his own, but to be ever entirely guided and governed by the will of his Heavenly Father. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” John 6:38

Jesus expressly denies that he is possessed of Divine attribute of independent existence. “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father,” John 6:57

Jesus positively denies that he is possessed of the Divine attribute of omnipotence. “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:30

Jesus expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of omniscience. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father only,” Matt.24:36, Mark 13:32

Jesus speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49

Jesus knew who he was ,I will believe him befor I believe a creed that started 33 years after his death

Great job once again warrior. I just wish they would take the time to read what you posted.

But actually the trinity didn't become accepted by the church until 325 ce. And that was by order of a pagan worshiper.

Funny how a pagan would accept the trinity. :))

[HisServant]

Form means.

morphē
mor-fay'
Perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts); shape; figuratively nature: - form.

Being means, notice coming into existence.

G5225
ὑπάρχω
huparchō
hoop-ar'-kho
From G5259 and G756; to begin under (quietly), that is, come into existence (be present or at hand); expletively, to exist (as copula or subordinate to an adjective, participle, adverb or preposition, or as auxilliary to principal verb): - after behave, live.

God means

G2316
θεός
theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

Equal means

isos
ee'-sos
Probably from G1492 (through the idea of seeming); similar (in amount or kind): - + agree, as much, equal, like.

With God means

G2316
θεός
theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

Analizing that scripture Jesus seems to be similar to God. Which is what i am saying. But let's look at what was being said.

Php 2:1 If there is therefore any encouragement in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tendernesses and mercies,
Php 2:2 then fulfill my joy, that you may be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord and of one mind.
Php 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than themselves.
Php 2:4 Do not let each man look upon his own things, but each man also on the things of others.
Php 2:5 For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
Php 2:7 but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted Him, and has given Him a name which is above every name,

Notice he say's lets be like Christ Explain that? He is talking about unity again that Christ has with the Father.

Ok lets stay here and take it from the top. Again your question is wrong because that is not what it says. It doesn't say lets be like Christ. It says in this verse "Let this mind be in you that was in Christ." What was in Christ's mind?

That although He, Jesus, existed (past tense) in the form of God, (whatever God's form is the Logos, preincarnate Jesus, existed in that form) thought it not robbery ( I like the other translation here to be grasped at) to be equal to God but made of Himself no reputation. So what was in His mind? That Being God was not something to be grasped at. You see satan had this problem, Adam and Eve had this problem, Mankind has this problem. Everyone wants to be a god or like God. There pride has them so wound up they are simply not satisfied with how and why God made them. They long for worship which is only due God. But this verse says to us that Jesus did not try to prove His diety. He gave it up willingly to show us how to live for God without our pride desiring to be "a god". Hence all the temptations from satan. Jesus did not fall into the same trap as Adam and Eve. He just stuck to "it is written". And guess what God did when Jesus was fully tested and passed. When He gave His life for us. God being satisfied that the debt of sin was paid in full raised Jesus from the dead and glorified Him to the former glory He once shared with God.

This is how to read a verse without reading into it.

[HisServant]

Once would work,all the scriptures used to define prove and explain a trinity are misunderstood or mistranslated or taken out of context of the point the writer is trying to show in scripture.

I have shown you proof that Jesus was neither omnicient or omnipotent.
If Jesus was God he would be both,the defining proof of who Jesus is as he knew more than anyone were his own words

He not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3. This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”

Christ says, “My father is greater than all,” John 10:29. Is not the father, then greater than the son?

He virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17.

The Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. “Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17


Jesus positively denies himself to be the author of his miraculous works, but refers them to the Father, or the holy spirit of God. “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works,” John 14:10. “If I cast out devils by the spirit of God,” Matt. 12:28

Jesus distinctly states, that these works bear witness, not to his own power, but that the Father had sent him, John 5:36

Jesus expressly affirms that the works were done, not in his own, but in his Father’s name, John 10:25.

Jesus declares that he is not the author of his own doctrine. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” John 7:16, 17

Jesus represents himself as having been instructed by the Father. “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” John 8:28

Jesus refers invariable to the Father as the origin of the authority by which he spoke and acted. “The Father hath given to the Son authority,” John 5:26, 27

Jesus acknowledges his dependence on his Heavenly Father for example and direction in all his doings. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” John 5:19. “The Father loveth the Son, and showth him all things that himself doeth” John 5:20

Jesus says “I seek not mine own glory; but I honor my Father,” John 8:49, 50


Jesus affirms that he had not the disposal of the highest places in his own kingdom. “To sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father,” Matt. 20:23

Jesus our Saviour, referring his disciples to a future time, when they would understand more accurately concerning him, expressly declares that then they would know him to be entirely dependent upon the Father. “When ye have lifted up the Son of man (i.e. crucified him), then shall ye know that I am he (i.e. the Messiah), and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things," John 8:28


Jesus our Saviour always professed to have no will of his own, but to be ever entirely guided and governed by the will of his Heavenly Father. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” John 6:38

Jesus expressly denies that he is possessed of Divine attribute of independent existence. “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father,” John 6:57

Jesus positively denies that he is possessed of the Divine attribute of omnipotence. “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:30

Jesus expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of omniscience. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father only,” Matt.24:36, Mark 13:32

Jesus speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49

Jesus knew who he was ,I will believe him befor I believe a creed that started 33 years after his death

Alas my brother you err yet again. You can't quote a verse made by the human Jesus, the Jesus who limited himself and took on the form of a servant, then say aha he has limits he's not omipotent or omniscient. You continue to argue apples and oranges. Not a good Bible study habit.
Do you apply verses that makes promises to the Church to non believers? If not why not? It's a promise of God is it not?

[HisServant]

If a professor teaches a class, the class learns by the way of the teacher's words. After the thoughts of the teacher are transmitted into words they are no longer the teacher but sound waves. Never mind.

But does that mean the class gets it automatically? Does that mean the class understands? But if we could take the mind of the professor and somehow put it in the students, WOW what knowledge they would posses.

[HisServant]

Hate to burst your bubbles... but Proverbs 8 is about how the Torah preceded everything in creation.


If you read Proverbs 8 from the beginning, it says: Surely wisdom will call out, and understanding will raise her voice.


The subject of Proverbs 8 is most certainly not Jesus. After all... who here will claim that Jesus was a woman?

I have taken this position numerous times without avail. Especially with DRS.
Proverbs 8 clearly says wisdom, then says she. then continues without any breaks.

[Warrior4God]

Alas my brother you err yet again. You can't quote a verse made by the human Jesus, the Jesus who limited himself and took on the form of a servant, then say aha he has limits he's not omipotent or omniscient. You continue to argue apples and oranges. Not a good Bible study habit.
Do you apply verses that makes promises to the Church to non believers? If not why not? It's a promise of God is it not?

We will have to agree to disagree if you think Jesus was God before he came then returned to being God after being human.
I cant buy Jesus being God then poof being human and not omnipotent then poof omnipotent again.
Actually this was the first time I have heard that arguement as Tucson believed he was while on earth.I think.
I cant see how 3 apples are 1 apple or is it 3 apples equal 1 orange.
or am I bananas ,aint this a peach of a debate

[Warrior4God]

Its funny how we debate trinity but nowhere at least only a few places at best has holy spirit came in to the debate.

I understand and and believe why Jesus is not God but the holy spirit is the part of the mystery that I understand but have not studied enough on am getting prepared to do much more study on that so we can debate grapes and plums or something like that.

What I love is study,I like to pray before study then ask God to show me places where the subject studied is and see it all fit in context with the rest of Gods Word.
I am in awe everytime I study as to how perfect Gods Word is.\
I am studying about the difference between what was accomplished in the death of our Lord,and what was accomplished in his ressurection,and what was accomplished in his ascension.
what I am seeing is how complete we are through what God wrought in Christ

[Poisonshady313]

I have taken this position numerous times without avail. Especially with DRS.
Proverbs 8 clearly says wisdom, then says she. then continues without any breaks.

could you point out where? so that i can see how you said it, and what the responses were?

[Tucson Jim]

Once would work,all the scriptures used to define prove and explain a trinity are misunderstood or mistranslated or taken out of context of the point the writer is trying to show in scripture.

Only in your humble opinion. You misunderstand the scriptures and you take them out of context. The Trinity is undeniable.

I have shown you proof that Jesus was neither omnicient or omnipotent.

Actually you have shown neither.

I explained your errors to you but you will not accept counsel.

I showed you scriptures that prove the omniscience and omnipotence of jesus but you refuse to accept them.


If Jesus was God he would be both,

As scripture proves, but you refuse to accept the word of God.

the defining proof of who Jesus is as he knew more than anyone were his own words

Again, this is merely your opinion.

He not only never said that himself was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3. This language our Saviour used in solemn prayer to “his Father and our Father.”

Christ says, “My father is greater than all,” John 10:29. Is not the father, then greater than the son?

He virtually denies that he is God, when he exclaims, “Why callest thou me Good? There is none good but one, that is God,” Matt 19:17.

The Father is called the God of Christ as he is the God of Christians. “Jesus saith unto her, ….Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God,” John 20:17

Already explained this to you. Most Christians, for hundreds of years have understood the incarnation, the fact that God the Son voluntarily humbled Himself for our sakes.

But not you.

You use it against Christ. You make Him to be a mere creature when the Lord Himself died for you.

You seem to belittle Him, to act as if He is merely one of us, merely a creation. You err greatly in my opinion.


Jesus positively denies himself to be the author of his miraculous works, but refers them to the Father, or the holy spirit of God. “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works,” John 14:10. “If I cast out devils by the spirit of God,” Matt. 12:28

Jesus distinctly states, that these works bear witness, not to his own power, but that the Father had sent him, John 5:36

Jesus expressly affirms that the works were done, not in his own, but in his Father’s name, John 10:25.

Jesus declares that he is not the author of his own doctrine. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” John 7:16, 17

Jesus represents himself as having been instructed by the Father. “As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,” John 8:28

Jesus refers invariable to the Father as the origin of the authority by which he spoke and acted. “The Father hath given to the Son authority,” John 5:26, 27

Jesus acknowledges his dependence on his Heavenly Father for example and direction in all his doings. “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” John 5:19. “The Father loveth the Son, and showth him all things that himself doeth” John 5:20

Jesus says “I seek not mine own glory; but I honor my Father,” John 8:49, 50


Jesus affirms that he had not the disposal of the highest places in his own kingdom. “To sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father,” Matt. 20:23

Jesus our Saviour, referring his disciples to a future time, when they would understand more accurately concerning him, expressly declares that then they would know him to be entirely dependent upon the Father. “When ye have lifted up the Son of man (i.e. crucified him), then shall ye know that I am he (i.e. the Messiah), and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things," John 8:28


Jesus our Saviour always professed to have no will of his own, but to be ever entirely guided and governed by the will of his Heavenly Father. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” John 6:38

Jesus expressly denies that he is possessed of Divine attribute of independent existence. “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father,” John 6:57

Jesus positively denies that he is possessed of the Divine attribute of omnipotence. “I can of mine own self do nothing,” John 5:30

Jesus expressly disclaims the possession of the Divine attribute of omniscience. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but my Father only,” Matt.24:36, Mark 13:32

Jesus speaks of himself as one who had received commands from the Father. “The Father, who sent me, he gave me a commandment,” John 12:49

Jesus knew who he was ,I will believe him befor I believe a creed that started 33 years after his death

Incarnation, voluntary humbling, differences within the Trinity - I have already tried to explain all this to you, but you ignore what I say and continue with your cut and paste campaign. Things that children in Sunday school understand seem to be too difficult for you.

Jesus became a man for your sake. And so you say, see, he is merely a creature.

You are wrong and you entirely misunderstand the scriptures in my opinion.

[Tucson Jim]

Hate to burst your bubbles... but Proverbs 8 is about how the Torah preceded everything in creation.


If you read Proverbs 8 from the beginning, it says: Surely wisdom will call out, and understanding will raise her voice.


The subject of Proverbs 8 is most certainly not Jesus. After all... who here will claim that Jesus was a woman?

Please note that Grudem said "If wisdom is understood as a person." I didn't quote that part but he acknowledged this is not at all certain.

[Tucson Jim]

Great job once again warrior. I just wish they would take the time to read what you posted.

Frankly I'm getting a little tired of your condescension. "Take the time to read"?? I read everything in a post before I respond to it. Do you?

But actually the trinity didn't become accepted by the church until 325 ce. And that was by order of a pagan worshiper.

Funny how a pagan would accept the trinity. :))

Ho hum. Just another lame, pointless, tired old argumentum ad hominem.

Know what that is AA? That's a logical fallacy. (Fallacy means its not a valid argument). The fallacy is, you are implying the Trinity is false because a pagan believed it. Nonsense!

For most Christians, doctrines are true or false depending upon whether they are supported by scripture.

And Trinitarianism is.

Arianism isn't.

[Tucson Jim]

what I am seeing is how complete we are through what God wrought in Christ

How complete we are in what God wrought through a mere creature. I do not understand how you can think like that . . .

[Poisonshady313]

Please note that Grudem said "If wisdom is understood as a person." I didn't quote that part but he acknowledged this is not at all certain.

you did quote that part...

the fact still remains that throughout Proverbs 8 and 9, the subject is a woman. even IF wisdom is understood as a person.... this person would have to be female... making your discussion of "the son" way off the mark.

[Poisonshady313]

In fact, it does not. The Hebrew word that commonly means "create" (bara) is not used in verse 22; rather the word is "qanah", which occurs 84 times in the Old testament and almost always means "to get, acquire". The NASB is most clear here" "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his way". (similarly KJV) Note this sense of the word in Gen 39:1, Ex 21:2, Prov 4:4, 7, 23:23, Eccl 2:7, Is 1:3 ("owner") . This is a legitimate sense and, if Wisdom is understood as a real person, would mean only that God the Father began to direct and make use of the powerful creative work of God the Son at the time creation began; the Father summoned the Son to work with him in the activity of creation. The expression "brought forth" in verses 24 and 25 is a different term, but could carry a similar meaning . . ."


emphasis mine.

see?

[Tucson Jim]

emphasis mine.

see?

Yes, sorry, I did quote Grudem on that point.

[Poisonshady313]

the fact still remains that throughout Proverbs 8 and 9, the subject is a woman. even IF wisdom is understood as a person.... this person would have to be female... making your discussion of "the son" way off the mark.

[Tucson Jim]

you did quote that part...

the fact still remains that throughout Proverbs 8 and 9, the subject is a woman. even IF wisdom is understood as a person.... this person would have to be female... making your discussion of "the son" way off the mark.

In fact it is Grudems discussion, and we have firmly established he did say "if" this is a person.

I think your real quarrel is with Warrior, AngryAmerican, Mathius, etc. Grudem is merely trying to respond to criticisms from people of their theological persuasion who are trying to make this mean the Son.

Convince them this is not a person.

Please.

[Poisonshady313]

In fact it is Grudems discussion, and we have firmly established he did say "if" this is a person.

I think your real quarrel is with Warrior, AngryAmerican, Mathius, etc. Grudem is merely trying to respond to criticisms from people of their theological persuasion who are trying to make this mean the Son.

Convince them this is not a person.

Please.


I was actually focusing on the fact that wisdom is spoken of in female terms

As for convincing them this is not a person... that's not so easy to do... I could suggest that one read through Deuteronomy 30... Proverbs 2, 3, and 4... just to compare similar ideas and language regarding the Torah being God's ways, words, wisdom, etc...

I don't know how useful any of that will be if they can't grasp the simple fact that Proverbs 8 describes wisdom in female terms.

How many women were around before Creation? If the answer is none, then it's clear that Proverbs 8 isn't talking about a person... that wisdom is not a person.

[Angryamerican]

Only in your humble opinion. You misunderstand the scriptures and you take them out of context. The Trinity is undeniable.



Actually you have shown neither.

I explained your errors to you but you will not accept counsel.

I showed you scriptures that prove the omniscience and omnipotence of jesus but you refuse to accept them.




As scripture proves, but you refuse to accept the word of God.



Again, this is merely your opinion.



Already explained this to you. Most Christians, for hundreds of years have understood the incarnation, the fact that God the Son voluntarily humbled Himself for our sakes.

But not you.

You use it against Christ. You make Him to be a mere creature when the Lord Himself died for you.

You seem to belittle Him, to act as if He is merely one of us, merely a creation. You err greatly in my opinion.




Incarnation, voluntary humbling, differences within the Trinity - I have already tried to explain all this to you, but you ignore what I say and continue with your cut and paste campaign. Things that children in Sunday school understand seem to be too difficult for you.

Jesus became a man for your sake. And so you say, see, he is merely a creature.

You are wrong and you entirely misunderstand the scriptures in my opinion.

Sorry you couldn't be more wrong about warrior. Prove what he is saying is wrong. But we all know you can't prove scripture wrong. Warrior has showed just about every way possible that Jesus is in subjection to his Father. He has showed that Christ had a beginning. He showed that Jesus was doing the will of his Father not his will. He didn't have to resort to the history of the trinity.

He showed that Christ was a seperate being from his Father. He Showed that Christ couldn't do anything without his Father. He showed that all things have been subjected to him from the father. He showed that his Father was greater. He showed that Christ wasn't all knowing and his Father is.

We have asked for you guy's to show us where Christ said he was God Almighty. We asked you to show us Christ in the OT nope you havn't.

For you to even begin to have a point you would have to prove these things.

If the trinity is for real you should be able to show it in the OT.

[Tucson Jim]

I was actually focusing on the fact that wisdom is spoken of in female terms

As for convincing them this is not a person... that's not so easy to do... I could suggest that one read through Deuteronomy 30... Proverbs 2, 3, and 4... just to compare similar ideas and language regarding the Torah being God's ways, words, wisdom, etc...

I don't know how useful any of that will be if they can't grasp the simple fact that Proverbs 8 describes wisdom in female terms.

How many women were around before Creation? If the answer is none, then it's clear that Proverbs 8 isn't talking about a person... that wisdom is not a person.

Thanks Poisonshady. You have given me food for thought. I will study this more.

[Angryamerican]

Frankly I'm getting a little tired of your condescension. "Take the time to read"?? I read everything in a post before I respond to it. Do you?



Ho hum. Just another lame, pointless, tired old argumentum ad hominem.

Know what that is AA? That's a logical fallacy. (Fallacy means its not a valid argument). The fallacy is, you are implying the Trinity is false because a pagan believed it. Nonsense!

For most Christians, doctrines are true or false depending upon whether they are supported by scripture.

And Trinitarianism is.

Arianism isn't.

Of course i do, Studying the trinity for 25 years you begin to see the truth if you truly want the truth.

See i to use to be force fed the trinity but i never believed it. But i did want the truth so over 25 Years i can say with a clear conscience Jesus is the actual son of God and he is very similar to the Father.

[Angryamerican]

I was actually focusing on the fact that wisdom is spoken of in female terms

As for convincing them this is not a person... that's not so easy to do... I could suggest that one read through Deuteronomy 30... Proverbs 2, 3, and 4... just to compare similar ideas and language regarding the Torah being God's ways, words, wisdom, etc...

I don't know how useful any of that will be if they can't grasp the simple fact that Proverbs 8 describes wisdom in female terms.

How many women were around before Creation? If the answer is none, then it's clear that Proverbs 8 isn't talking about a person... that wisdom is not a person.

Hi poisonshady.

While you are at it show tucsonjim and the people on his side of this issue. That there is no trinity in the OT. That the jews never saw God as a trinity.

That no one rivals God Almighty no one.


Thanks AA

[Harmonious]

Hi poisonshady.

While you are at it show tucsonjim and the people on his side of this issue. That there is no trinity in the OT. That the jews never saw God as a trinity.


Thanks AA
That is difficult. The best we can do is take verses that are quoted out of context, and put them in their proper context.

The fact is that no matter what is said, people who swear that Jesus is in the OT will continue to believe this. But we can try.

[Angryamerican]

Already explained this to you. Most Christians, for hundreds of years have understood the incarnation, the fact that God the Son voluntarily humbled Himself for our sakes.



Key words hundreds of years, For thousands of years we worshiped the Hebrew God alone .

No sign of the trinity then nor now.

[Angryamerican]

That is difficult. The best we can do is take verses that are quoted out of context, and put them in their proper context.

The fact is that no matter what is said, people who swear that Jesus is in the OT will continue to believe this. But we can try.


Thanks Harmonious i really appreciate you and poisonshady.

[Harmonious]

Thanks Harmonious i really appreciate you and poisonshady.

:hug:

[Constantine the Great]

For thousands of years we worshiped the Hebrew God alone .


WHo's "we"?

[Angryamerican]

:hug:

I am curious i know your knowledge of the Nt is limited.

But would you consider by us saying Jesus is the son of GOD is blasphemy?

Or would you consider us saying Jesus is God is blasphemy?


Or both are Blasphemy?

[Harmonious]

I am curious i know your knowledge of the Nt is limited.

But would you consider by us saying Jesus is the son of GOD is blasphemy?

Or would you consider us saying Jesus is God is blasphemy?


Or both are Blasphemy?
Jesus is the son of God in much the same way that I am the daughter of God.

Saying that he was more than that is indeed blasphemy. Saying that "Jesus is God" is blasphemy and idolatry.

[Angryamerican]

WHo's "we"?

How bout anyone who worshiped the Hebrew God since man has been on the earth.

Thats the only God i worship. How bout you?

[Constantine the Great]

How bout anyone who worshiped the Hebrew God since man has been on the earth.
Difficulty answering that question? Who's we?

Thats the only God i worship. How bout you?
Same. Father, Son and Holy Spirit as revealed to us in the New Testament.

[Angryamerican]

Jesus is the son of God in much the same way that I am the daughter of God.

Saying that he was more than that is indeed blasphemy. Saying that "Jesus is God" is blasphemy and idolatry.

May God have mercy on me if i am wrong.

[Angryamerican]

Difficulty answering that question? Who's we?


Same. Father, Son and Holy Spirit as revealed to us in the New Testament.

So you worship Christ not the Almighty?

[Angryamerican]

Difficulty answering that question? Who's we?


Same. Father, Son and Holy Spirit as revealed to us in the New Testament.

We as in my family and many families before my family.

[Constantine the Great]

So you worship Christ not the Almighty?
Christ is the Almighty. Three hypostaseis comprising the fullness of the Godhead. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Constantine the Great]

We as in my family and many families before my family.
You're Jewish?

[Angryamerican]

Christ is the Almighty. Three hypostaseis comprising the fullness of the Godhead. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


As you can see some here worship your way and some here worship my way.

All my worship is directed to the Father through his son Jesus.

[Constantine the Great]

As you can see some here worship your way and some here worship my way.
I understand and respect that. Do you?

[Angryamerican]

You're Jewish?


Not sure never did the family tree. But i do have a great grandfather that was jewish.

[Angryamerican]

I understand and respect that. Do you?

Yes i do i just don't agree with your belief.

[Harmonious]

May God have mercy on me if i am wrong.
Amen.

:pray:

:hug:

[Poisonshady313]

Hi poisonshady.

While you are at it show tucsonjim and the people on his side of this issue. That there is no trinity in the OT. That the jews never saw God as a trinity.

That no one rivals God Almighty no one.


Thanks AA

Is Jesus the G-d of Abraham?

Most Christians say yes. While Christians had not developed this idea in the first century, and in the second century it was still a minority belief, the notion that Jesus was G-d soon cumulated into the fourth century Bianity doctrine of Nicea and the later Trinity doctrine of Constantinople. Today it is held by a majority of Christians in some form or another. But the real question is, what does the Torah say?

God is not a man that he should be deceitful nor a son of man that he should relent. (Numbers 23:19)

This verse states four things. God is not a man, God is not a son of man, God is not deceitful, and God does not relent. For our purposes we need to focus on the first two.

The words translated to son of man are ben adam. They are also adequately rendered mortal man or human being in many translations. While this verse states that God is not a son of man, Jesus uses this title for himself repeatedly in the gospels. Therefore, Jesus is not God according to the Torah.

I will not act on My wrath, will not turn to destroy Ephraim. For I am God, not man, The Holy One in your midst. (Hosea 11:9)

A similar verse; the same applies here as above. This states that God is not a man, while from the gospels we know that Jesus was a man. Therefore, according to Hosea Jesus is not God.

Moreover, the Glory of Israel does not deceive or change His mind, for He is not human that He should change His mind. (1 Samuel 15:29)

Once again we see that God is not a human. However, as noted above, the favorite title for Jesus in the gospels is one that is equivalent to "human being." According to Samuel, Jesus is not God.

He is not a man, like me, that I can answer him, that we can go to law together. No arbiter is between us, to lay his hand on us both. (Job 9:32-33)

Once again, we see the declaration that God is not a man (while Jesus was). This verse is interesting because it also states that there is no mediator between God and man, contrary to Christian claims that Jesus is a mediator. According to Job, Jesus is neither God nor mediator.

Will you still say, “I am a god” before your slayers, when you are proved a man, not a god, at the hands of those who strike you down? (Ezekiel 28:9)

This is an interesting verse. It demonstrates that mortality is one sure sign that someone is not a deity. Jesus' mortality was quite clear - he was struck down. While Christians would claim that he rose again, this verse would debate that God could be struck down at all. It seems that according to Ezekiel, Jesus can't be God.

For your own sake, therefore, be most careful – since you saw no shape when the Lord your God spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. (Hosea 4:15)

This was a warning for Israel. In essence, it states never to worship anything that has an image, because they saw on image on Mt. Sinai. However, Jesus had an image. In addition, the Jews did not see God on Mt. Sinai. Jesus seems to be implicated in this warning by Hosea.

If there appears among you a prophet or a dream-diviner and he gives you a sign or a portent, saying, ‘Let us follow and worship another god ‘ – whom you have not experienced – even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words of that prophet or dream diviner. (Deut. 13:2)

This is an important verse for two reasons. For one, it demonstrates that Jesus is not God because the Israelites did not experience Jesus in the desert with Moses. It also demonstrates that false prophets can do miracles, and thus the miracles of Jesus (including his resurrection) do not prove a thing. The Torah seems to warn about Jesus, or people like him.

For I am the Lord, I change not. Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6)

Jesus, as a human being, was in a constant state of change. Only something incorporeal can avoid change. Jesus' human nature excludes the possibility of Jesus being an unchanging God. And God never changes, according to Malachi. Jesus must not be the God Malachi is speaking of.

There is so much Scriptural evidence against Jesus being God, that entire websites are dedicated to this fact alone. Therefore, I won't present a detailed commentary on New Testament texts and how they relate to Jesus divinity or the lack thereof. I will only present a few that are absolute and exclusive in nature.

Then Jesus was led up by the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. (Matthew 4:1)

God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was.

But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the father. (Mark 3:32)

Jesus was not all-knowing.

The son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do. (John 5:19)
Now he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people an healed them. (Mark 6:5)

Jesus was not all-powerful.

Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. (Matthew 19:17)

Jesus was not all-good.

Is Jesus the G-d of Abraham? (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id13.html)

[Angryamerican]

Is Jesus the G-d of Abraham?

Most Christians say yes. While Christians had not developed this idea in the first century, and in the second century it was still a minority belief, the notion that Jesus was G-d soon cumulated into the fourth century Bianity doctrine of Nicea and the later Trinity doctrine of Constantinople. Today it is held by a majority of Christians in some form or another. But the real question is, what does the Torah say?

God is not a man that he should be deceitful nor a son of man that he should relent. (Numbers 23:19)

This verse states four things. God is not a man, God is not a son of man, God is not deceitful, and God does not relent. For our purposes we need to focus on the first two.

The words translated to son of man are ben adam. They are also adequately rendered mortal man or human being in many translations. While this verse states that God is not a son of man, Jesus uses this title for himself repeatedly in the gospels. Therefore, Jesus is not God according to the Torah.

I will not act on My wrath, will not turn to destroy Ephraim. For I am God, not man, The Holy One in your midst. (Hosea 11:9)

A similar verse; the same applies here as above. This states that God is not a man, while from the gospels we know that Jesus was a man. Therefore, according to Hosea Jesus is not God.

Moreover, the Glory of Israel does not deceive or change His mind, for He is not human that He should change His mind. (1 Samuel 15:29)

Once again we see that God is not a human. However, as noted above, the favorite title for Jesus in the gospels is one that is equivalent to "human being." According to Samuel, Jesus is not God.

He is not a man, like me, that I can answer him, that we can go to law together. No arbiter is between us, to lay his hand on us both. (Job 9:32-33)

Once again, we see the declaration that God is not a man (while Jesus was). This verse is interesting because it also states that there is no mediator between God and man, contrary to Christian claims that Jesus is a mediator. According to Job, Jesus is neither God nor mediator.

Will you still say, “I am a god” before your slayers, when you are proved a man, not a god, at the hands of those who strike you down? (Ezekiel 28:9)

This is an interesting verse. It demonstrates that mortality is one sure sign that someone is not a deity. Jesus' mortality was quite clear - he was struck down. While Christians would claim that he rose again, this verse would debate that God could be struck down at all. It seems that according to Ezekiel, Jesus can't be God.

For your own sake, therefore, be most careful – since you saw no shape when the Lord your God spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. (Hosea 4:15)

This was a warning for Israel. In essence, it states never to worship anything that has an image, because they saw on image on Mt. Sinai. However, Jesus had an image. In addition, the Jews did not see God on Mt. Sinai. Jesus seems to be implicated in this warning by Hosea.

If there appears among you a prophet or a dream-diviner and he gives you a sign or a portent, saying, ‘Let us follow and worship another god ‘ – whom you have not experienced – even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words of that prophet or dream diviner. (Deut. 13:2)

This is an important verse for two reasons. For one, it demonstrates that Jesus is not God because the Israelites did not experience Jesus in the desert with Moses. It also demonstrates that false prophets can do miracles, and thus the miracles of Jesus (including his resurrection) do not prove a thing. The Torah seems to warn about Jesus, or people like him.

For I am the Lord, I change not. Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6)

Jesus, as a human being, was in a constant state of change. Only something incorporeal can avoid change. Jesus' human nature excludes the possibility of Jesus being an unchanging God. And God never changes, according to Malachi. Jesus must not be the God Malachi is speaking of.

There is so much Scriptural evidence against Jesus being God, that entire websites are dedicated to this fact alone. Therefore, I won't present a detailed commentary on New Testament texts and how they relate to Jesus divinity or the lack thereof. I will only present a few that are absolute and exclusive in nature.

Then Jesus was led up by the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. (Matthew 4:1)

God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was.

But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the father. (Mark 3:32)

Jesus was not all-knowing.

The son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do. (John 5:19)
Now he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people an healed them. (Mark 6:5)

Jesus was not all-powerful.

Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. (Matthew 19:17)

Jesus was not all-good.

Is Jesus the G-d of Abraham? (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id13.html)

EXCELLENT poisonshady. You have made it clear that Jesus cannot be God.:clap: :clap: :clap:

[HisServant]

We will have to agree to disagree if you think Jesus was God before he came then returned to being God after being human.
I cant buy Jesus being God then poof being human and not omnipotent then poof omnipotent again.
Actually this was the first time I have heard that arguement as Tucson believed he was while on earth.I think.
I cant see how 3 apples are 1 apple or is it 3 apples equal 1 orange.
or am I bananas ,aint this a peach of a debate

I think at last we have come to the whole crust of the problem have we not. Look at your statements. "I cant buy Jesus being God...."

You don't want to see. Step back and look at the verse without bias.
We have talked just about Philipians 2:6 you have refused to acknowledge that it indeed says what it says and have changed its meaning many times.

who being in the form of God.... look at this part it is talking about a past tense occurance. It speaks of the fact that He, Jesus, was in the form of God in the past. It does not say what form God has but merely whatever God is is what Jesus (The Logos) was. From this it is clear if you bother to read it without bias. This coupled with John 1:1 gives a good picture of the preincarnate Jesus. He is Immanuel God with us. Isa. 7:14 and matt 1:23

[HisServant]

Its funny how we debate trinity but nowhere at least only a few places at best has holy spirit came in to the debate.

I understand and and believe why Jesus is not God but the holy spirit is the part of the mystery that I understand but have not studied enough on am getting prepared to do much more study on that so we can debate grapes and plums or something like that.

What I love is study,I like to pray before study then ask God to show me places where the subject studied is and see it all fit in context with the rest of Gods Word.
I am in awe everytime I study as to how perfect Gods Word is.\
I am studying about the difference between what was accomplished in the death of our Lord,and what was accomplished in his ressurection,and what was accomplished in his ascension.
what I am seeing is how complete we are through what God wrought in Christ

Because first you have to establish principles. If you can't see from John 1 and phil and the other verses that Jesus is God the Son then how can we continue with our study of the Trinity Doctrine? If we don't establish solid biblical study methods then the same false arguments are going to surface when now tying in the Holy Spirit. Some already maintain the He is just a force. They come to this conclusion based on not reading scripture but reading into scripture. When a person does not want to believe in something there is not much another can do. If a person does not want to accept Jesus as Lord do you think showing them a Bible verse is going to change their mind?

[HisServant]

could you point out where? so that i can see how you said it, and what the responses were?

I will research it. It was in another thread it think. He maintains that Jesus is created because of Proverbs 8. I responded by saying that the way I read it from verse 1 it says "wisdom" then says she. Also I stated to him the the whole of proverbs is about wisdom. So does that mean all of Proverbs is about Jesus? Or just the part he wants to use in his argument because it proves his point. I believe there are passages in the OT that refer to Jesus. I know you don't believe in such. But IMO Prov 8 is not one of them.

[Tucson Jim]

Of course i do, Studying the trinity for 25 years you begin to see the truth if you truly want the truth.

See i to use to be force fed the trinity but i never believed it. But i did want the truth so over 25 Years i can say with a clear conscience Jesus is the actual son of God and he is very similar to the Father.

That's odd. I was never "force'fed" the Trinity. I came to the conclusion Jesus Is God by reading the Bible on my own.

[Angryamerican]

I think at last we have come to the whole crust of the problem have we not. Look at your statements. "I cant buy Jesus being God...."

You don't want to see. Step back and look at the verse without bias.
We have talked just about Philipians 2:6 you have refused to acknowledge that it indeed says what it says and have changed its meaning many times.

who being in the form of God.... look at this part it is talking about a past tense occurance. It speaks of the fact that He, Jesus, was in the form of God in the past. It does not say what form God has but merely whatever God is is what Jesus (The Logos) was. From this it is clear if you bother to read it without bias. This coupled with John 1:1 gives a good picture of the preincarnate Jesus. He is Immanuel God with us. Isa. 7:14 and matt 1:23

If the Father is in the son wouldn't he be with us when Christ was on the earth?

I broke that scripture down yesterday and i will now show why you are interpeting that scripture wrong again.

If you understood i and the father are one means in same mind and in unity you would understand he wasn't claiming they were both God. i will show you.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Joh 17:4 I have glorified You upon the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now Father, glorify Me with Yourself with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Joh 17:9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.
Joh 17:10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I am glorified in them.
Joh 17:11 And now I am in the world no longer, but these are in the world, and I come to You, Holy Father. Keep them in Your name, those whom You have given Me, so that they may be one as We are.

Joh 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through Your truth. Your Word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As You have sent Me into the world, even so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And I sanctify Myself for their sakes, so that they also might be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 And I do not pray for these alone, but for those also who shall believe on Me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me.
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,


Clearly Jesus he and the Father are one with the same accord and in mind and in unity.And he wants the same for his followers.

Php 2:2 then fulfill my joy, that you may be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord and of one mind.

You are misunderstanding the one factor.

[Angryamerican]

Because first you have to establish principles. If you can't see from John 1 and phil and the other verses that Jesus is God the Son then how can we continue with our study of the Trinity Doctrine? If we don't establish solid biblical study methods then the same false arguments are going to surface when now tying in the Holy Spirit. Some already maintain the He is just a force. They come to this conclusion based on not reading scripture but reading into scripture. When a person does not want to believe in something there is not much another can do. If a person does not want to accept Jesus as Lord do you think showing them a Bible verse is going to change their mind?

Don't lecture someone about interpeting scripture wrong when you use a phrase to describe Christ that is not present in the scriptures.

God the son.

[HisServant]

could you point out where? so that i can see how you said it, and what the responses were?


There are many more here's just a couple.

DRS

http://hannity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8478609&postcount=148

http://hannity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8482696&postcount=161

http://hannity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8487134&postcount=214



Hisservant : http://hannity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8482739&postcount=164