Re: The Trinity Thread (To be a merged thread)

[Boxjobox]

Concerning Christianity in general and the LC in particular, as this is a web site to discuss WL, WN and the LC, LSM, FFT, and all else related to this enigma, I find it fascinating that the whole question of trinity, and the person of Jesus Christ comes up quite often, and always seems to result in a standoff. I would say that the main feature of WL/LSM, after establishing a necessity for the LC, is to fill it with a theological viewpoint that what is missing from Christianity is an experiential understanding of what WL called the processed triune god. Unless one accepted this view, it would be very, very difficult to maintain existence in an LC. In fact, I would say that anyone speaking anything but this viewpoint would either be so marginalized to the point of leaving, or would be called divisive and forced out. Among those who left, few seem to hold to the “ processed “ part, and the triune part and the nature of the person of Christ Jesus seems to be unsettled.

Those who feel strongly that Jesus is God, or God in some fashion mainly quote the gospel of John, and with that, only a few select verses. It should be noted that the foundational church did not have the gospel of John, and there is no scriptural track record for the work John may have been doing at the time, other than he was with Peter in the beginning of Acts. Our famous Thomas, who has a one line quote that seems to cinch in the mind of the Jesus is God crowd that this is the NT in it’s fInest moment. Yet, we have no follow up in the book of Acts that anyone who may have been present took this great revelation of Thomas as something that needed to be preached or taught. Even in John’s writings it does not seem to be the end all of our faith.

One has to think that if the early church was going around speaking of Jesus as God, that there would have been such an outcry that Luke in his gospel given to assure us of our faith, and his work of Acts, would have recorded this Jesus is God thing as being taught and defended, and a whole lot of Christians being killed because of it. Indeed, Stephen is stoned to death, an event probably witnessed by Paul, because he said he saw a vision of the Son of man standing on the right hand of God- something that is taught and preached and expanded throughout the NT. So where is Thomas’ great revelation spoken of in the NT. There would have had to be such an upheaval because this would have contradicted the entire Jewish mindset. It would have to have such a strong beginning and a strong defense, yet there is no gospel spoken in Acts to bring this out.

John is certainly an interesting writer- he introduces a gospel that differs considerably from the other three, he has an epistle that still has people scratching their head about sin and the believer, and of course, he writes the Revelation- a book that so many try to interpret and expound, and a book so many Christians avoid for fear of adding or subtracting from it.
It doesn’t seem to me that the early church, as recorded in Acts, was influenced by John. John doesn’t seem to refer to the church in the same manner as Paul in his epistles. But then, in Revelation, all of the sudden he introduces the 7 churches, which correspond to 7 cities. It seems there is a lot of problems in 5 of the churches related to various teachings. But, there is one church that stands out plainly as doing a praiseworthy work, that one in Philadelphia. To this church, Jesus praises for keeping his word. And look, he says he will cause some false ones to come and worship before the feet of the believers there in Philadelphia.
Jesus, in this speaking, says that as a reward he will “make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name. 13He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”

Here is my curiosity; among my brethren who hold Jesus as God, what do you do with this that Jesus is saying? Here is the resurrected Christ speaking of his God and plainly speaking of it to those who keep his word. The strangest thing to me, is that John, who seems to be the kingpin of the Jesus is God persuasion writing about believers being rewarded with the things of his God. It should be noted that in all 7 writings to the 7 churches, Jesus never refers to himself as God, but particularly here to Philadelphia, I can’t help but appreciate Jesus speaking of his God.

So, maybe, some of the Jesus is God brethren would like to share their understanding and appreciation. I seem to recall one posting here about when we appear before Jesus, we will see....is there any consideration in light of these verses that we will see but a resurrected, glorified man, who is Christ our Lord? But specifically, how do you all relate to these rewards Jesus offers to the overcomers; I’m really interested to hear your perspectives.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

One has to think that if the early church was going around speaking of Jesus as God, that there would have been such an outcry that Luke in his gospel given to assure us of our faith, and his work of Acts, would have recorded this Jesus is God thing as being taught and defended, and a whole lot of Christians being killed because of it.

Part of the problem of recreating the conversation between Christians (many who were Jews) and non-Jesus Jews who rejected the resurrected-Christ story is this: the Jewish nation was effaced, practically speaking, a few short decades after Christ's death. So we don't know what was said, and the silence may not be indicative of Christian's lack of preaching.

Second, the Jews were famous for not acknowledging anything they didn't agree with. Josephus, for example, is a famous and widely attested early Jewish witness. But to read the Rabbis, he never existed. Why? He was a traitor to the 'minim'. So he was wiped from the record.

Third, one may in fact see some reaction to the "Jesus as God" assertions in the early rabbinic reports. There is a well-done scholarly work called "Two Powers in Heaven" by Alan Segal which covers this. (and note that there are not "Three Powers in Heaven" as yet - the "Holy Spirit as God" is not yet an issue, apparently).

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

But then, in Revelation, all of the sudden he introduces the 7 churches, which correspond to 7 cities. It seems there is a lot of problems in 5 of the churches related to various teachings. But, there is one church that stands out plainly as doing a praiseworthy work, that one in Philadelphia. To this church, Jesus praises for keeping his word. And look, he says he will cause some false ones to come and worship before the feet of the believers there in Philadelphia..

An interesting point - if the non-Jesus Jews will come to worship at the feet of Jesus' believers, what does that say about Thomas falling down and worshipping at the feet of the resurrected Jesus?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Part of the problem of recreating the conversation between Christians (many who were Jews) and non-Jesus Jews who rejected the resurrected-Christ story is this: the Jewish nation was effaced, practically speaking, a few short decades after Christ's death. So we don't know what was said, and the silence may not be indicative of Christian's lack of preaching.

Second, the Jews were famous for not acknowledging anything they didn't agree with. Josephus, for example, is a famous and widely attested early Jewish witness. But to read the Rabbis, he never existed. Why? He was a traitor to the 'minim'. So he was wiped from the record.

Third, one may in fact see some reaction to the "Jesus as God" assertions in the early rabbinic reports. There is a well-done scholarly work called "Two Powers in Heaven" by Alan Segal which covers this. (and note that there are not "Three Powers in Heaven" as yet - the "Holy Spirit as God" is not yet an issue, apparently).

An interesting point - if the non-Jesus Jews will come to worship at the feet of Jesus' believers, what does that say about Thomas falling down and worshipping at the feet of the resurrected Jesus?

Goodness Aron, Two Powers in Heaven sounds like my kind of book, but it isn't cheap. I'm a fan of Larry Hurtado. He was a friend of Segal, and he's trilled that Two Powers in Heaven is back. He considers Segal's book "the most significant books for the study of Christian origins of the last 40 years." And Hurtado was no slouch. Seems Hurtado, Segal, and Bart Ehrman were close ; three top-notched early Christian scholars.

Now I'm going to have to decide if I'm going to cut loose of the money.

Thanks for bringing it up.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by aron

Part of the problem of recreating the conversation between Christians (many who were Jews) and non-Jesus Jews who rejected the resurrected-Christ story is this: the Jewish nation was effaced, practically speaking, a few short decades after Christ's death. So we don't know what was said, and the silence may not be indicative of Christian's lack of preaching.

Second, the Jews were famous for not acknowledging anything they didn't agree with. Josephus, for example, is a famous and widely attested early Jewish witness. But to read the Rabbis, he never existed. Why? He was a traitor to the 'minim'. So he was wiped from the record.

Third, one may in fact see some reaction to the "Jesus as God" assertions in the early rabbinic reports. There is a well-done scholarly work called "Two Powers in Heaven" by Alan Segal which covers this. (and note that there are not "Three Powers in Heaven" as yet - the "Holy Spirit as God" is not yet an issue, apparently).

An interesting point - if the non-Jesus Jews will come to worship at the feet of Jesus' believers, what does that say about Thomas falling down and worshipping at the feet of the resurrected Jesus?

With the 3 gospels, the issue among the Jews was whether Jesus was the Christ or not. Somewhat late in Jesus’ ministry, Jesus asks his chosen disciples who do men say that I am, then, who do you say that I am. Quite an interesting question to be asking those who were closest to him! Peter gives an answer that Jesus says comes from the Father- that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. All the gospels in Acts present the man, Jesus as the Christ. The Holy Spirit witnesses to this with signs and wonders. No one there is preaching a Jesus is God message.
Myths have a way of growing, and sensationalism sells news. But in Acts, the message of Jesus the Christ is consistent across the various actors and the time element that goes from the ascension through the sending of Paul the prisoner to Rome. The epistles of Paul confirm the gospel preached in Acts. One, for instance, would not read 1,2 Thessalonians and come anywhere near thinking that the message was that Jesus should be viewed, treated as God, and certainly not that God was triune!
My premise is that a recovery of the church would be a recovery of the Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God message, and that the emphasis in the church would be a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ atmosphere. I would think that God would honor this with pouring out of the Holy Spirit. WL did not bring about such an assembly, in fact, his “ministry” drew the Christians further into a larger myth. If the heavenly truth is that the church is built on the revelation given to Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, does anyone really think- expect, the Spirit of God to honor the triune myth? The modern Christianity world that we now live in is mainly a pastoral business model that feeds off the myths. The “Recovery” is one of the biggest scams, in that it created a larger myth that is run by the LSM business model, using the catch of the Local Church as its corral. I’m shocked when I read that parents send their kids off to FTT so that they can be salespeople for LSM.

But, the church does need to be recovered back to the simple gospel that was presented clearly in Acts, and reinforced in the epistles of Paul. The triunists seem obsessed with looking under every scripture segment to uncover the missing link that will validate their myth as being what the original message really is. WL was a master at this.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

With the 3 gospels, the issue among the Jews was whether Jesus was the Christ or not. Somewhat late in Jesus’ ministry, Jesus asks his chosen disciples who do men say that I am, then, who do you say that I am. Quite an interesting question to be asking those who were closest to him! Peter gives an answer that Jesus says comes from the Father- that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. All the gospels in Acts present the man, Jesus as the Christ. The Holy Spirit witnesses to this with signs and wonders. No one there is preaching a Jesus is God message.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Hold on there!

Didn't you just tell us how Peter was given revelation from the Father in the heavens? Let me repeat Peter's word, "Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God"

God the Father Himself was preaching the "Jesus is God message."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Hold on there!

Didn't you just tell us how Peter was given revelation from the Father in the heavens? Let me repeat Peter's word, "Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God"

God the Father Himself was preaching the "Jesus is God message."

Whoa bro Ohio. Weren't you raised in the RCC? And so, when you read, "Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God," you see that it's saying Jesus is God, when it's clearly not ; it says THE SON of the LIVING GOD.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Hold on there!

Didn't you just tell us how Peter was given revelation from the Father in the heavens? Let me repeat Peter's word, "Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God"

God the Father Himself was preaching the "Jesus is God message."

Ohio- the gospel message IS that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. To the Christian believer this IS the profession. It’s the leap you make to Jesus is God. I think you are caught in a loop, and sorry, once again, I have to say that it looks like the basis is the 4th century trinity decree, with probably a few extra scoops of WL as a topping. You say you believed Jesus is God long before the LC- if you trace your belief back, you would not have gotten that from reading scripture but from the 4th century teaching. A person reading Peter’s revelation that Jesus is the son of God would not make an automatic transfer. This is where 1 Cor 8 is imperative to latch hold of. Paul absolutely says that to us there is but ONE GOD THE FATHER. This should not be disputed. Why that is such a hard saying to latch onto is because of 1500 years of the reign of the 4th century decree and the enforced acceptance by the RC.
I have no problem declaring that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, but I would not want to contradict the teaching of Jesus and Paul that there are 2 or 3 or 9 if you make a wired interpretation of Rev1! One God the Father is a must for the Christian.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio- the gospel message IS that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. To the Christian believer this IS the profession. It’s the leap you make to Jesus is God. I think you are caught in a loop, and sorry, once again, I have to say that it looks like the basis is the 4th century trinity decree, with probably a few extra scoops of WL as a topping. You say you believed Jesus is God long before the LC- if you trace your belief back, you would not have gotten that from reading scripture but from the 4th century teaching. A person reading Peter’s revelation that Jesus is the son of God would not make an automatic transfer. This is where 1 Cor 8 is imperative to latch hold of. Paul absolutely says that to us there is but ONE GOD THE FATHER. This should not be disputed. Why that is such a hard saying to latch onto is because of 1500 years of the reign of the 4th century decree and the enforced acceptance by the RC.
I have no problem declaring that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, but I would not want to contradict the teaching of Jesus and Paul that there are 2 or 3 or 9 if you make a wired interpretation of Rev1! One God the Father is a must for the Christian.

In the timeline of the NT books, the earliest books, Mark, in the case of the gospels, and 1 Thessalonians, in regards to Paul, Jesus is not professed to be God.

But circa 50 yrs after 1 Thessalonians, and 30 yrs after Mark, as time went on, 70 years after his death, Jesus becomes God. Why was that?

[UntoHim]

awareness our resident New Testament scholar strikes again! 70 years after his death Jesus became God? I think our resident church historian Boxjobox might have a dispute with you about your timing. Don't you know? Jesus became God when the Catholics declared him to be God in the 4th century!

He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision! (Psalm 2:4)
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision! (Psalm 2:4)
-

Seems that's the only time God laughs. And I complain because the gospel writers don't tell us what made Jesus laugh. Maybe best I didn't get what I wished for.

Thanks bro Untohim for jumping in with your wonderful and delightful sarcasm.

I've missed you. Will you please delete one of my posts, just for old-times sake?

And you didn't answer my question, as to why it took 70 years to start writing that Jesus was God.

By the way everyone. He became even more God as time continued. And by the 4th c. it was cinched.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

awareness our resident New Testament scholar strikes again! 70 years after his death Jesus became God? I think our resident church historian Boxjobox might have a dispute with you about your timing. Don't you know? Jesus became God when the Catholics declared him to be God in the 4th century!

He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision! (Psalm 2:4)
-

Our dear brother, Untohim, doesn’t realize his namesake reveals the secret to this whole debate. Ephesians- Paul prays on blended knees that the people would see- a revelation as it were, what the God of Jesus did- the wisdom, the power, the working, the-dare I say-the economy of God, in raising the crucified Jesus from the dead, and installing him at the right hand making him Lord over all, and giving him as head overall to the church. It is unto Him, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that there should be glory in the church. When one sets up Jesus as God, the revelation, the blessing, the economy of God is substituted for a different scenario, a different narrative, a different gospel, a different “revelation” and thus, God,, the God of our Lord Jesus, the one who raised Christ from the dead and set him at His right hand until his enemies become his footstool, the very God of the namesake UntoHim, is robbed of that glory in the Church, through an evil Balaam teaching that Jezebel took and caused the people of God to fall into the worst idolatry-setting the anointed one up above the one who anointed him! Thus was the condition of the church for 1600 years, and it is thus that UntoHim falls subservient to in not receiving the revelation Paul speaks of, but the false substitute of that 4th century decree that brought about the demise of that entity which should have been and should be giving glory to God, the God of our Lord Jesus. So, alas, the Church which should be filled with Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, will remain stuck in the Oh Lord Jesus mantra, worshipping the one on the right hand of God as God and changing the whole commission of the Church to proclaim a false narrative.
UntoHim- look at church history, look at from whence we have fallen, look at your namesake, look at what should have been recovered, and look how you are stuck in the 4th century tar pit of tri theism, trying to make sense of it all, hey the more the struggles the deeper the tar!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Our dear brother, Untohim, doesn’t realize his namesake reveals the secret to this whole debate. Ephesians- Paul prays on blended knees that the people would see- a revelation as it were, what the God of Jesus did- the wisdom, the power, the working, the-dare I say-the economy of God, in raising the crucified Jesus from the dead, and installing him at the right hand making him Lord over all, and giving him as head overall to the church. It is unto Him, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that there should be glory in the church. When one sets up Jesus as God, the revelation, the blessing, the economy of God is substituted for a different scenario, a different narrative, a different gospel, a different “revelation” and thus, God,, the God of our Lord Jesus, the one who raised Christ from the dead and set him at His right hand until his enemies become his footstool, the very God of the namesake UntoHim, is robbed of that glory in the Church, through an evil Balaam teaching that Jezebel took and caused the people of God to fall into the worst idolatry-setting the anointed one up above the one who anointed him! Thus was the condition of the church for 1600 years, and it is thus that UntoHim falls subservient to in not receiving the revelation Paul speaks of, but the false substitute of that 4th century decree that brought about the demise of that entity which should have been and should be giving glory to God, the God of our Lord Jesus. So, alas, the Church which should be filled with Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, will remain stuck in the Oh Lord Jesus mantra, worshipping the one on the right hand of God as God and changing the whole commission of the Church to proclaim a false narrative.
UntoHim- look at church history, look at from whence we have fallen, look at your namesake, look at what should have been recovered, and look how you are stuck in the 4th century tar pit of tri theism, trying to make sense of it all, hey the more the struggles the deeper the tar!

This is a pretty pathetic critique of Moderator UntoHim. How ironic and disingenuous to equate historic orthodox views of the Trinity on the notion that the church "will remain stuck in the Oh Lord Jesus mantra." No one is more against this practice of vain babbling, taking the Lord's name in vain, than UntoHim.

BJB you are starting to remind me of a misguided Christian we once knew. He also attended the church of one, himself as the only member, and armed himself with a scripture to condemn all others. He was assured that prayer could only be offered to God the Father in a closet (Matt 6.6), and all those churches praying in public must be soundly condemned! You, my friend, appear to have the same judgmental spirit.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a pretty pathetic critique of Moderator UntoHim0. How ironic and disingenuous to equate historic orthodox views of the Trinity on the notion that the church "will remain stuck in the Oh Lord Jesus mantra." No one is more against this practice of vain babbling, taking the Lord's name in vain, than UntoHim.

BJB you are starting to remind me of a misguided Christian we once knew. He also attended the church of one, himself as the only member, and armed himself with a scripture to condemn all others. He was assured that prayer could only be offered to God the Father in a closet (Matt 6.6), and all those churches praying in public must be soundly condemned! You, my friend, appear to have the same judgmental spirit.

I didn’t think it was pathetic critique but rather a good way to bate Untohim to defend his position. Not sure why you feel a need to speak for him. I have great, great respect for Untohim.
Concerning judgement- I think I have been really consistent over the years to present what I feel is the issue with WL/LSM, with the LC and with Christianity as a whole. I trace it back to the difference between the scriptures and the orthodoxy that took hold in the 4th century. I find this an excellent site to discuss this issue in that most Of us have been through the LC/ Recovery wringer and come out, and I think it is important to see and discuss each of our reactions and how we carry on our lives.

You, by your statements on your last post side with orthodoxy. I have presented reams of scripture that would point out that there was no such teaching in the foundational church we see in scripture. To compare my opinions to someone else is your prerogative, but has no bearing on the discussion, other than to deflect an opinion that you do not hold. You seem happy relating to God as a trinity, and take Jesus as your God- I got that- been there and done that myself- With my history, I could probably argue the trinitarian viewpoint as well as any, but I find it false and damaging to the church. I think it’s an error, whose time has come to eradicate.
If you look on the main site, I see very, very little praise to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, but a kind of rah rah Jesus thing going on constantly- it’s not an Oh Lord Jesus mantra we all had in the LC, but it is of the same effect- it puts Jesus in a position over God! It reinforces a Jesus is God theology that does not exist in the NT. It is so ingrained in those of you that follow the modern version of the trinity orthodoxy that I don’t even think you are aware of it- it’s a kind of base-brain response and acknowledgement that I really find off the mark of scripture. It creates a false god. If you look at Jesus and Paul’s speaking, it is a constant acknowledgement and praise to the God and Father of Jesus.

Take a look at what is posted on the main site Trinity thread- people are all over the map and just throw up what they think will stick- having no relation to what is practiced by the foundational church- that is pathetic!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a pretty pathetic critique of Moderator UntoHim. How ironic and disingenuous to equate historic orthodox views of the Trinity on the notion that the church "will remain stuck in the Oh Lord Jesus mantra." No one is more against this practice of vain babbling, taking the Lord's name in vain, than UntoHim.

BJB you are starting to remind me of a misguided Christian we once knew. He also attended the church of one, himself as the only member, and armed himself with a scripture to condemn all others. He was assured that prayer could only be offered to God the Father in a closet (Matt 6.6), and all those churches praying in public must be soundly condemned! You, my friend, appear to have the same judgmental spirit.

Yeah BJB, Untohim called me a New Testament scholar. And he's a Evangelical, not a Catholic.

However, all Christians, including you, stand on what was established in the 4th c. The very books we believe to be the very word of God was canonized by the RCC, in the 4th c., by Eusebius -- a good buddy with Constantine -- and first church historian (and he wasn't inspired while selecting the books, by any of the three ("gods"), neither the Father, Son, nor Holy Spirit ... purposely and deliberately, btw ... because of Montanus and The New Prophecy - 2nd to 3rd century).

The only "canon" before that was the books of Marcion of Sinope, who selected Paul's books, and a modified Luke. He went so far as to deny the God of the OT, as a lower demiurge god, that we had to transcend to get to the real God the Father.

And talking about recovering the early church, Marcion (late 1st c. early 2nd c.) wanted to recover it back to Paul, who wrote the earliest books of our NT, and about half of it.

Now BJB, I don't know back to where that you want to recover the church, but if'n ya want to go back to the infant early church, it was Jewish. Then the Pentecost happened. That was the official birth of Christianity.

Seems to me, if you want to recover the early church you're gonna half to have the same thing happen. And you're gonna half to go back to before any of the NT books were written. The early church was pre-NT.

We have an account of it all in The Acts of the Apostles, written decades after it all happened. And the star in that book is Paul. So Marcion was at least onto to something.

Accept, he didn't go back to before NT books were written ; back when direct connection to God the Father didn't need books as an intermediary.

Can we live without the books of the NT? If so, we've recovered the early church ... way before the gospels were written, especially the gospel we now call John, that was written at the end of the first century, same as btw, Revelation, written around the same time.

Can we do that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I didn’t think it was pathetic critique but rather a good way to bate Untohim to defend his position. Not sure why you feel a need to speak for him. I have great, great respect for Untohim.

This only confirms my comments. UntoHim has stated his positions repeatedly, but you still feel the need to bate (sic) him. By the way, internet "baiting" is also known as trolling.

Someone recently commented that you are the "Unitarian Drake" on this forum, not here to contribute positively, but to constantly disrupt with deviant and discredited opinions.

I just don't get how you would consider your posts to be indicative of one who has "great, great respect for Untohim."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can we live without the books of the NT?

Can we do that?

No! And we neither should nor have to.

The early church had the O.T. and those who were with Jesus, personally discipled by Him. It is their ministry which gave us the N.T. Since they are gone, God has left us with His Spirit and His word. He also has continually given gifts to the body of Christ for perfecting and building up.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This only confirms my comments. UntoHim has stated his positions repeatedly, but you still feel the need to bate (sic) him. By the way, internet "baiting" is also known as trolling.

Someone recently commented that you are the "Unitarian Drake" on this forum, not here to contribute positively, but to constantly disrupt with deviant and discredited opinions.

I just don't get how you would consider your posts to be indicative of one who has "great, great respect for Untohim."

Does respect require agreement?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This only confirms my comments. UntoHim has stated his positions repeatedly, but you still feel the need to bate (sic) him. By the way, internet "baiting" is also known as trolling.

Someone recently commented that you are the "Unitarian Drake" on this forum, not here to contribute positively, but to constantly disrupt with deviant and discredited opinions.

I just don't get how you would consider your posts to be indicative of one who has "great, great respect for Untohim."

Ohio- please look up the definition of BATE—the trinitarian doctrine does not allow for descent, and the followers become quite heated when an opposing view is present- such as Untohim not allowing a good discussion of modalism to include the view that the whole triune thing is not taught in scripture. My attempt with my writing about the meaning of Untohim deriving from Ephesians, an epistle that in no wise could be taken as trinitarian, was an attempt to perhaps nudge Untohim into considering the usage and source and maybe cooling the fervor and opening up for deBATE.

You, Ohio, being a devotee to the orthodox trinity, do not see my points as help, and of course, it would follow that you see my points, which correspond with the teaching of Paul and Jesus that there is One God, the Father, as being a distraction and a disruption. What kind of help do you see yourself offering by deviating from scripture and insisting on the acceptance of a 4th century decree? If you feel that that decree has preeminence over scripture, you should seek the source organization which holds the documents- the Church of Rome. I think, for you, the whole thought of recovery of the church is passè. For me, I look for the hand of God and the Spirit of God to restore that for which Paul labored so intensely and, of course, that for which Christ died. I think a blueprint for the contents of such a church would be found in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, which glorifies the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, offers us a concrete vision of Christ, the head, and succinctly points out that keeping the oneness involves the proclaiming of One God, the Father. You, on the other hand seek some sort of entity that proclaims the Nicene creed as the basis for oneness. Do you see a spiritual problem with your stance? I think not, to your shame. You offer no real hope to those who escaped the LSM cult.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah BJB, Untohim called me a New Testament scholar. And he's a Evangelical, not a Catholic.

However, all Christians, including you, stand on what was established in the 4th c. The very books we believe to be the very word of God was canonized by the RCC, in the 4th c., by Eusebius -- a good buddy with Constantine -- and first church historian (and he wasn't inspired while selecting the books, by any of the three ("gods"), neither the Father, Son, nor Holy Spirit ... purposely and deliberately, btw ... because of Montanus and The New Prophecy - 2nd to 3rd century).

The only "canon" before that was the books of Marcion of Sinope, who selected Paul's books, and a modified Luke. He went so far as to deny the God of the OT, as a lower demiurge god, that we had to transcend to get to the real God the Father.

And talking about recovering the early church, Marcion (late 1st c. early 2nd c.) wanted to recover it back to Paul, who wrote the earliest books of our NT, and about half of it.

Now BJB, I don't know back to where that you want to recover the church, but if'n ya want to go back to the infant early church, it was Jewish. Then the Pentecost happened. That was the official birth of Christianity.

Seems to me, if you want to recover the early church you're gonna half to have the same thing happen. And you're gonna half to go back to before any of the NT books were written. The early church was pre-NT.

We have an account of it all in The Acts of the Apostles, written decades after it all happened. And the star in that book is Paul. So Marcion was at least onto to something.

Accept, he didn't go back to before NT books were written ; back when direct connection to God the Father didn't need books as an intermediary.

Can we live without the books of the NT? If so, we've recovered the early church ... way before the gospels were written, especially the gospel we now call John, that was written at the end of the first century, same as btw, Revelation, written around the same time.

Can we do that?

I would say that the formation of the NT, which yes, was compiled 4th century, was taken from that which was written at the time of the formative years of the church. Luke and Acts and epistles of Paul give a pretty good understanding of the Christian faith, the contents of the formative years. This did not include a Jesus is God message, but one that told of the work and plan of God in raising Christ from the dead.
There obviously had been a few centuries of the formation of the Jesus is God thing and the diverse opinions had to be brought to a cohesive doctrine that would satisfy Constantine, so the vote was taken, and voila the great Roman religion was formed. (Obviously this is an abbreviated account). As we have pointed out before, this put the dissenters to such a decree in, shall we say, hot water! Preaching, liturgy, songs, myths were formed around this decree, which ruled the roost for the next 1000 years. The reformers tried to deal with some of the organizational problems and some of the myths, but couldn’t shake the great decree, which still holds sway today!
My view of recovery of the church would be to hold to what was taught by Paul, dump the trinity thing, which would restore glory to the God and Father of Jesus, Put our thinking of the Christ in the right perspective, set sail, and hope and expect that God would give the wind of the Spirit.
It seems that most that participate in this site are Holden to the trinitarian theology, which keeps them in the 4th century. They would probably do better returning to the Roman Catholic organization; it is the home of their source document, which would save them from wandering incoherently And aimlessly through christiandom. I’m sure there is plenty of holy water there to purify their prodigal souls.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio- please look up the definition of BATE—the trinitarian doctrine does not allow for descent, and the followers become quite heated when an opposing view is present-

Help me out here Boxjobox, I'm confused, I don't understand your comments here.

And you say I am hard to follow.

Definition of bate:

1. to moderate or restrain: to bate one's enthusiasm.
2. to lessen or diminish; abate.
3. to diminish or subside; abate.

Definition of descent:

1. the act, process, or fact of moving from a higher to a lower position.
2. a downward inclination or slope.
3. a passage or stairway leading down.
4. derivation from an ancestor; lineage; extraction.
5. any passing from higher to lower in degree or state; decline.
6. a sudden raid or hostile attack.

Please tell me which of these definitions for these 2 words are you using.

And who is getting "heated?" Perhaps you should define "heated" also. Seems to me semantics is a huge issue here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I would say that the formation of the NT, which yes, was compiled 4th century, was taken from that which was written at the time of the formative years of the church.

This promotes an extremely naive and distorted view of the New Testament canon. Only a handful of books, i.e. the antilegomena, were not officially recognized by the entire church extant until the early 4th century. Close to 90% of the NT scripture, including the gospels and every major teaching, was unanimously received by the early church, long before the time of Constantine. Peter himself (2 Pet 3.15-16), representing the entire mid-1st century church, called all of Paul's letters part of the "scriptures."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No! And we neither should nor have to.

The early church had the O.T. and those who were with Jesus, personally discipled by Him. It is their ministry which gave us the N.T.

Then why didn't they sign their gospels? And if the 4 gospels were written by the disciples, then where's the other 8 that didn't. And Paul wasn't with Jesus, and his writings, if we accept that all the writings attributed to him were by him, takes up half of the NT. So was it Paul that turned the early church away from those discipled by Jesus?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since they are gone, God has left us with His Spirit and His word.

I suppose your catholic eyes can't help but see it that way, since it was not God that left us with "His" word, but the RCC, the selection of the books that wasn't even inspired by God. But it's not just you, all Christians today, just blindly accept what the RCC, and Constantine, left us, and call them, simple-mindedly, the word of God.

Originally Posted by Ohio

He also has continually given gifts to the body of Christ for perfecting and building up.

Looking back into church history, His gifts of perfecting and building up, have dismally failed. I guess then, since God has been perfecting and building up the church for 2000 years, as you say, how was Witness Lee able to pull the wool over our eyes, with his silly recovery, that wasn't needed in the least.

Lee certainty wasn't recovering that Jesus was God, or the trinity. That was firmly established in the 4th c, and according to most out here, firmly establish by Jesus himself (btw folks, the preamble in John was not spoken by Jesus himself. It was concocted by whoever wrote that book, as Jesus had been gone for 65 years.

So I guess your lovely sentiment means that Lee was just continuing to perfect and build up the church, and called it a recovery, that wasn't needed, since we can't recover the early days of the church, cuz we can't go back to those discpled by Jesus, and it's not needed, since in 2000 yrs God has surely completely perfected and built up the church???

According to you, both the recovery movement, and the restoration movement, has never succeeded? Cuz we can't replicate what was going on back then, with the disciples present.

So why try? Attempts are nothing but delusional, in the least, and trickery, and flimflammery, in the most. Don't be fooled. Neither can accomplish recovering or restoring the church back to the days of the disciples.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This promotes an extremely naive and distorted view of the New Testament canon. Only a handful of books, i.e. the antilegomena, were not officially recognized by the entire church extant until the early 4th century. Close to 90% of the NT scripture, including the gospels and every major teaching, was unanimously received by the early church, long before the time of Constantine. Peter himself (2 Pet 3.15-16), representing the entire mid-1st century church, called all of Paul's letters part of the "scriptures."

Ohio- You do get heated, and then start to misstate my writing: I used the word compile for the NT- obviously the writings were around before that time.
And yes, Peter recognized Paul’s writings as scripture- but wouldn't that mean you should give earnest heed to what Paul wrote concerning One God the Father? I don’t see yourself addressing or promoting that sacred decree given by Paul the apostle. You seem to want to run more to debasing me than- a shoot the messenger approach rather than addressing my premise that I derived directly from the scripture that you feel I somehow debase.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Help me out here Boxjobox, I'm confused, I don't understand your comments here.

And you say I am hard to follow.

Definition of bate:

1. to moderate or restrain: to bate one's enthusiasm.
2. to lessen or diminish; abate.
3. to diminish or subside; abate.

Definition of descent:

1. the act, process, or fact of moving from a higher to a lower position.
2. a downward inclination or slope.
3. a passage or stairway leading down.
4. derivation from an ancestor; lineage; extraction.
5. any passing from higher to lower in degree or state; decline.
6. a sudden raid or hostile attack.

Please tell me which of these definitions for these 2 words are you using.

And who is getting "heated?" Perhaps you should define "heated" also. Seems to me semantics is a huge issue here.

Bate is used correctly. Descent was wrongly used- mea maxima culpa! I write my things using an iPad which, if I don’t proofread sometimes selects words unintentionally. Thank you for catching that- should have been dissent. Error duly noted now back to the bashing!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I didn’t think it was pathetic critique but rather a good way to bate Untohim to defend his position.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Definition of bate: to diminish one's enthusiasm

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Bate is used correctly.

Now, that is confusing. Explain to me how you decided that your post was a good way to diminish UntoHim's enthusiasm in order for him to defend his position.

That's the opposite of your original intention according to the context. Please check your iPad dictionary again.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

According to you, both the recovery movement, and the restoration movement, has never succeeded? Cuz we can't replicate what was going on back then, with the disciples present.

So why try? Attempts are nothing but delusional, in the least, and trickery, and flimflammery, in the most. Don't be fooled. Neither can accomplish recovering or restoring the church back to the days of the disciples.

You definitely seem seem have given up trying to live any sort of life prescribed in the Bible.

But then why do you spend so much of your time trying to disprove the Bible and the reality of the Lord?

Isn't it harder to kick against the goads?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You definitely seem seem have given up trying to live any sort of life prescribed in the Bible.

But then why do you spend so much of your time trying to disprove the Bible and the reality of the Lord?

Isn't it harder to kick against the goads?

There's plenty of evidence that the Bible can be taken in many differing ways.

I think it's safe to say, that, for most of my life I looked at it as you presently do : that it's totally divine thru and thru. When I was a teen I even thought that it was a magic book ; that would magically lead me to ever greater blessings, and benefits. It did eventually lead to the LC and Lee ... some blessings ... oh yeah.

They say that Jesus was both human and divine, and so it is with the Bible. For awhile now I've been looking into the human side. I'm sorry if it disturbs you. It's not intended. I'm just sharing what I've learn about its human side with y'all.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now, that is confusing. Explain to me how you decided that your post was a good way to diminish UntoHim's enthusiasm in order for him to defend his position.

That's the opposite of your original intention according to the context. Please check your iPad dictionary again.

I explained my choice of the word BATE a few posts up, but I will try again, lest you forever look to find fault. The name taken Untohim comes fro Ephesians 3. The Him refers to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Ephesians should be a work that would eradicate the whole notion of Jesus is God/ trinity thing. Untohim is quite adamant concerning his love for this orthodox teaching, to the point that he removes anything I would write because I have an opposing view that I am quite strong about. My hope in pointing out the meaning of the name would be that perhaps he would consider that Paul did not hold the 4th century orthodoxy that Untohim holds precious. Bate meaning to moderate, I wish he could come to moderate his position in light of the contents of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians so that we could deBATE the issue.

As I wrote before, I have great admiration and respect for Untohim in that he confronted the situation in the LC head on in a way that was most noble considering the mindset of the LC at that time. I think he expected elders to respond in a like manner, but was met with- well, we all know.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You definitely seem seem have given up trying to live any sort of life prescribed in the Bible.

But then why do you spend so much of your time trying to disprove the Bible and the reality of the Lord?

Isn't it harder to kick against the goads?

I’ve got it Ohio- you care for scripture! How about if you practice what Paul teaches and acknowledge that there is but one God, the Father, and you could go to the main site on trinitarianism and discuss how you have turned from the erroneous 4th century trinitarian decree and have accepted the scripture given to us by Paul. Then, in my stead, as I’m not allowed to post on that site, you could convey this to all. Unless, of course you do not accept the scripture and would rather wallow in a man made god of three persons, at which time, you then may want to apologize to Awareness for his lack of living by a biblical life. This seems to be one of those Oh Lord Jesus moments for you- either follow the admonition of Paul to keep the oneness of the Spirit by professing One God and Father, or live in a false man made narrative. This is kind of like hearing the gospel- it’s up to you to receive it or continue living in a false world.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Noah failed and was not covered and covered by different sons. We all have failed and are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. We will be held accountable for every word too. I have come to this site from time to time over the last 12 years or so since meeting the saints in the LR. I've not engaged here prior but felt to address some points now.

Though you have 10000 guides in Christ you do not have many fathers for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. There is a major difference between the Roman Catholic fathers and the brothers taking the lead in the Lord's recovery as "fathers"...and I think most here know that. Go to a LC meeting and then a mass and it could not be more different.

Watch the fireside chats with Chris Wilde as a part of a panel (on youtube) and tell me are these brothers not shepherding the flock, healing wounds, caring for the church? Or just keep staring at the inside of the trash can...as seems to be the function of this thread.

A year has passed. I never knew Jo or her husband but clearly they did not get the care they needed which was tripartite care, love, listening ears, and words of life. I wept when I found out Greg took his own life and I never knew him. We are greatly saddened by this and regretful that this whole situation happened around a year ago.

Also, I meet in a church where there are saints who are mature and examples of fine Christian character and living...and I can't remember hearing a name besides Christ's in 99% of speaking in meetings I attend. We honor the 7 decades of labor by Witness Lee but good God, we dont pray to him or idolize him. If there is a recovery on the earth would not that recovery stand on the shoulders of all of church history? If it is not with this group where is it? Is it a division of this recovery? How could that be when God is a God of oneness?

I don't know "co-workers" in the recovery but from listening to their messages they don't lead me to anything extra Biblical. When I read Lee's writings (which is a lot of the time his speaking transcribed) there is a whole lot of Christ. You can use the Bible to argue nearly anything, you can use Lee's ministry to argue many things too...but the Lord's recovery today is prevailing as a place of oneness, despite any trash you want to sort through here.

I've been around the churchlife over 10 years now and am confident that though some here on this site have bible truth and knowledge, the prevailing factor here is division. How am I wrong in these observations?

Lord Jesus praise You as the tree of life! Lord Jesus we love You, cause us to turn to You, that in these dark times You will build the church and turn the age. Come dear Lord Jesus, the problems need to be dealt with. Take care of it all, gain Your dispensational instrument, descend with your mighty ones! Hallelujah praise You Lord Jesus! Care for all these in this thread and cause them to love You and care for Your Church, wherever they meet, and even build all the way up to Your coming. Thank You for Your mercy. Praise You Father.

I took this from the main site as a good case study of the LC problem with trinitarianism, and particularly their own brand of it.
Before you read this, spend a few minutes to read 1 Thes. and a couple of chapters in Ephesians then ask yourself why after 10 years would someone write this and think this presents a glorious recovery of the church? The oneness they speak of is a oneness of people who have sold their souls over to WL/LSM. The results of that ministry is meetings where they can’t remember hearing a name besides Christ’s 99% of the time ( no mention of what name they hear the other 1%) . Does this sound like what Paul speaks of in Ephesians? Thessalonians? There is a major gap here, and that gap is what was lost by the 4th century with the Nicene creed, trinity decree. Yes, the LC stands on some shoulders- of feet well planted in that debacle. In reading 1Thes, notice how Paul speaks overwhelmingly of God, the Father. Paul does so, because his mind is that there is one God, the Father, by whom and through whom and for whom are all things. The mindset here is what was taught by WL and now LSM, to focus on the morphed Jesus. The so called recovery, although they have elders instead of priests which is nice, will never be any kind of recovery of the church, only a furtherance of the mayhem caused by the trinitarian falsehood. You would actually hear more speaking and worshipping of God the Father in one Catholic mass then you would in months of LC. They cannot speak like, think like, minister like, build the church like Paul, because they have a whole different focal point, a whole different gospel, and are looking for an unscriptural outcome. The oneness Paul spoke of was that which contained the acknowledgment of one God, the Father. When one follows a ministry that disregards this, one should not expect a scriptural outcome.
The doxology at the end sound like one who is frantic because the threads of their garment are all becoming unraveled in public. Love the Praise you Father thrown on at the end- shouldn’t that have been the theme of the entire post?

[awareness]

From 2 different posts by Boxjobox :

Originally Posted by BJB

Then, in my stead, as I’m not allowed to post on that site, you could convey this to all.

Untohim is quite adamant concerning his love for this orthodox teaching, to the point that he removes anything I would write because I have an opposing view that I am quite strong about.

So this merged thread was Untohim's way of excommunicating bro BJB from the Evangelical section of LCD. I've been there. That's why I left. Welcome to the dungeon bro BJB. Did you learn your lesson? See. Jesus was God, and founded the trinity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

From 2 different posts by Boxjobox :

So this merged thread was Untohim's way of excommunicating bro BJB from the Evangelical section of LCD. I've been there. That's why I left. Welcome to the dungeon bro BJB. Did you learn your lesson? See. Jesus was God, and founded the trinity.

So, this is an evangelical Christian discussion forum? Who knew!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So, this is an evangelical Christian discussion forum? Who knew!

Local Church Discussions to be precise.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. The main part of this forum, as run by Untohim, is the evangelical section of LCD, and is hemmed in to that end, and loosely based upon evangelical premises, dogma, and orthodoxy ... loosely except when violated.

If, on that section, you stray from those premises, Untohim sends your posts, and/or threads, down to AltVs, or just deletes them.

I'm guessing that, this merged thread is a product of that. I guess BJB questioning the trinity, and/or that, Jesus was God, is outside evangelical orthodoxy, so down to tartarus with him, and his heterodoxy.

To then join the likes of me ... demoted from moderator to Sisyphus in Tartarus, continually rolling a large boulder up and down the mountainside of AltV's.

According to Hesiod, a brazen anvil would take nine days and nights to fall from heaven to earth [LCD], and nine days and nights to fall from earth to Tartarus {AltVs] ... where all trinity deniers and Jesus is God deniers are tossed down into.

Welcome all, to Tartarus [AltVs] ... if you dare deny Evangelical Orthodoxy ... the main LCD section ... the Upper Room.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Local Church Discussions to be precise.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. The main part of this forum, as run by Untohim, is the evangelical section of LCD, and is hemmed in to that end, and loosely based upon evangelical premises, dogma, and orthodoxy ... loosely except when violated.

If, on that section, you stray from those premises, Untohim sends your posts, and/or threads, down to AltVs, or just deletes them.

I'm guessing that, this merged thread is a product of that. I guess BJB questioning the trinity, and/or that, Jesus was God, is outside evangelical orthodoxy, so down to tartarus with him, and his heterodoxy.

To then join the likes of me ... demoted from moderator to Sisyphus in Tartarus, continually rolling a large boulder up and down the mountainside of AltV's.

According to Hesiod, a brazen anvil would take nine days and nights to fall from heaven to earth [LCD], and nine days and nights to fall from earth to Tartarus {AltVs] ... where all trinity deniers and Jesus is God deniers are tossed down into.

Welcome all, to Tartarus [AltVs] ... if you dare deny Evangelical Orthodoxy ... the main LCD section ... the Upper Room.

If UntoHim did not limit the forum to evangelical orthodoxy, you might have us all wandering around the universe following some ancient Greek mythological characters. Or worse, you might have them all voting for Joe Biden!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If UntoHim did not limit the forum to evangelical orthodoxy, you might have us all wandering around the universe following some ancient Greek mythological characters. Or worse, you might have them all voting for Joe Biden!

Bahahahahahahahaha ...

Or worse ... claim that the trinity is not in the Bible ... and that Jesus was not God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bahahahahahahahaha ...

Or worse ... claim that the trinity is not in the Bible ... and that Jesus was not God.

But why would anyone spend their time trying to prove that Jesus is not God, knowing that one day we all have to face Him at the judgment seat.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But why would anyone spend their time trying to prove that Jesus is not God, knowing that one day we all have to face Him at the judgment seat.

I wonder why too, Ohio, like you. But I have to admit, I've waste tones of time, energy, and even money, looking into these matters. Was Jesus God? I don't know. Is God a trinity? I don't know. I doubt it, but I know the Bible speaks of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. And that's three.

But let's say that God is a trinity, AND the Son, and we're all convinced of it. Does that change my daily relationship with God? Same with no trinity, and the son just being the son of the Father. Does that change my daily walk with God?

However, there is a problem, if we're doing our darnedest to stick to scripture. Then my daily life with God is disturbed, by infusing my brain with the problem of what the Bible says about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

You'd think that sticking to the Bible would result in oneness. However, it seems, it results in division.

I like my simple daily relationship with God ... where I don't have to think about all the inscrutable questions about God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You'd think that sticking to the Bible would result in oneness. However, it seems, it results in division.

I like my simple daily relationship with God ... where I don't have to think about all the inscrutable questions about God.

Really??? Sticking to the Bible produces the most contention. No two folks ever agree on everything in the Bible.

That's why the Bible mentions the oneness of the Spirit.

And I'm confused. You are one of the chief sources on this forum concerning all the "inscrutable questions about God." I'm constantly amazed by the things you tend to think about. You bring up things I have never even heard of.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But why would anyone spend their time trying to prove that Jesus is not God, knowing that one day we all have to face Him at the judgment seat.

Ohio- you really need to start picking up what is scriptural and what is myth- once again READ ACTS

16.30Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Really??? Sticking to the Bible produces the most contention. No two folks ever agree on everything in the Bible.

That's why the Bible mentions the oneness of the Spirit.

And I'm confused. You are one of the chief sources on this forum concerning all the "inscrutable questions about God." I'm constantly amazed by the things you tend to think about. You bring up things I have never even heard of.

Of course, oneness of the Spirit comes from acknowledging One God and Father. Division definitely comes from manufacturing a 3 person God, because 1) it’s not presented as a scriptural teaching 2) when man defines God he can add or subtract whatever he wishes

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If UntoHim did not limit the forum to evangelical orthodoxy, you might have us all wandering around the universe following some ancient Greek mythological characters. Or worse, you might have them all voting for Joe Biden!

If Untohim stuck to keeping the site related to Née, Lee, and Local Church discussion- shouldn’t be a problem. Imposing a Orthodox Christianity caveat over it means that one has to accept and speak of trinity and Jesus is God thing to participate. This would mean Paul could not chime in! Nor James, Peter, Jude. John would be accepted at first, but then would be kicked off because he wrote that there is only one true God, the Father. And Jesus would end up on this alt site because he would talk about his God, the Father. Do you really think Untohim would want a discussion about the God of Jesus?

If WL started a new Orthodox branch of Christianity, I could see limiting the discussion to orthodoxy, but he claimed to be recovering the true church. In the foundational church as presented in Acts and by Paul, you don’t have a Jesus is God gospel, nor a teaching about a 3 person god. How can we discuss recovery and WLs theological errors without stating the foundational church’s understanding of God and his Christ?

[UntoHim]

My goodness, I guess I've really made it big....I'm being tag teamed by a staunch Unitarian and a stone cold atheist! How cool is that!

So you guys really think that those 4th century Christians just fell off their horse-drawn, bumped their heads and came up with the Trinity? Did one of their horses kick em in the noggin and they suddenly believed Jesus was God? You guys should consider being stand up comedians (as soon as the clubs open)

There is a clear record of the earliest Christians teaching and believing that Jesus was God - that he shared in the divine "substance" with the Father. They also clearly taught and believed in the Trinity, although they used different terminology. Polycarp was a first generation "church Father". He clearly believed and taught that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was God incarnate. He also believed and taught the doctrine of the Trinity. There are many other first generation Christian teachers and scholars who also believed and taught the earliest forms of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Nicene creed did not decide that Jesus was God, or that there are three divine persons that compose the Godhead, rather it confirmed that these were orthodox doctrines that had been passed down from the original apostles. To say that Jesus "became God", or that the Trinity was invented, at the council of Nicaea is patently false.

I hope to have a little more time over the next few days to converse with you fellows about this.
-

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My goodness, I guess I've really made it big....I'm being tag teamed by a staunch Unitarian and a stone cold atheist! How cool is that!

So you guys really think that those 4th century Christians just fell off their horse-drawn, bumped their heads and came up with the Trinity? Did one of their horses kick em in the noggin and they suddenly believed Jesus was God? You guys should consider being stand up comedians (as soon as the clubs open)

There is a clear record of the earliest Christians teaching and believing that Jesus was God - that he shared in the divine "substance" with the Father. They also clearly taught and believed in the Trinity, although they used different terminology. Polycarp was a first generation "church Father". He clearly believed and taught that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was God incarnate. He also believed and taught the doctrine of the Trinity. There are many other first generation Christian teachers and scholars who also believed and taught the earliest forms of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Nicene creed did not decide that Jesus was God, or that there are three divine persons that compose the Godhead, rather it confirmed that these were orthodox doctrines that had been passed down from the original apostles. To say that Jesus "became God", or that the Trinity was invented, at the council of Nicaea is patently false.

I hope to have a little more time over the next few days to converse with you fellows about this.
-

My my, Untohim, how quickly we move away from scripture and the direct teachings of Paul. On your main site, you got one quoting CS Lewis as the divine inspiration, another talking about the elephant’s tail; but bringing out that Paul, in no uncertain terms told the Corinthians that there is but one God, the Father ( you know, a nasty, inconvenient scriptural truth), then there is mayhem in the trinitarian ranks. Of course, I should add that in telling the Corinthians that there is one God, the Father, he also, to their shame, pointed out that everyone does not have that knowledge (something to consider on your side of the fence! I’m doing my best to inform)
Maybe, Untohim your next banner should be right there from 1Cor 8. Declare to all that a Paul said there is one God, the Father; then, it would be easier to come to grips with oneness being maintained by adhering to this as Paul, again in no uncertain terms begs the Ephesians to uphold.
You may want to take a historical note that the more the trinitarian stuff took over, the more evil took place in the church- it’s well worth noting, and goes along splendidly with John’s writings to the 7 churches.
Of course there is a build up to the 4th century edicts and the torture it brought, and the “poor, poor Christianity” that followed. You, dear brother are looking backward from the 21st century after almost two millennia of trinitarianism imposed on the church and justifying it not based on the teachings of scripture. You’re stand actually makes the scripture 2nd rate to the orthodoxy. Look at it from the foundational church portrayed in the scriptures, and Galatians will make perfect sense.

And, how Christian it is for you to visit us lowly in the dungeon- true religion in practice!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio- you really need to start picking up what is scriptural and what is myth- once again READ ACTS

16.30Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

So ... Is Jesus God or not?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio- you really need to start picking up what is scriptural and what is myth- once again READ ACTS

16.30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

BJB, I love those verses in Acts 17 which Paul spoke to the Athenians.

And yes, the eternal, only begotten Son of God is now, and will ever be a MAN! Yes, He is! I have repeatedly acknowledged this. There is no dispute here.

And yes, on this matter, contrary to your teachings, Acts and the Gospel of John exactly coincide: "For the Father does not judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son." (John 5.22)

And yes, Jesus Christ is a man, now resurrected with a spiritual body. But where is that verse that says Jesus stopped being God when both He and the apostles clearly identified Him as a man?

And have you not also read Acts 20.28 where Paul exhorts the elders, "to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased through His own blood."

The glaring problem which you seem to have is that your mind can not comprehend how Jesus can be both God and man. You just need more faith. Yes, the N.T. does emphasize the humanity of the Son of God. But where is that verse that says Jesus is not God?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

If WL started a new Orthodox branch of Christianity, I could see limiting the discussion to orthodoxy, but he claimed to be recovering the true church. In the foundational church as presented in Acts and by Paul, you don’t have a Jesus is God gospel, nor a teaching about a 3 person god. How can we discuss recovery and WLs theological errors without stating the foundational church’s understanding of God and his Christ?

This site is called local church discussions. I doubt Untohim started this site thinking to provide a place for all those in the local church to have discussions ; it's obvious it was started to provide exLCer's to have a place for discussions.

With that in mind, all subjects about anything should be welcomed. ExLCers are a diverse crowd. But not all of them are welcomed. I'm not really welcomed, on the main forum. That's why AltVs was started. And I was made the moderator.

Before that I was booted I think a few times from LCD. I'm not a Baptist, LCer, or evangelical. And Untohim wants everyone that leaves the LC to be a evangelical.

And to be an evangelical means believing in the trinity, and that Jesus was God. And if you don't you don't belong on LCD.

Which is why my exLC friends aren't on LCD. All except bro Ohio ... and well Untohim, who's a different person on the phone.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

BJB, I love those verses in Acts 17 which Paul spoke to the Athenians.

And yes, the eternal, only begotten Son of God is now, and will ever be a MAN! Yes, He is! I have repeatedly acknowledged this. There is no dispute here.

And yes, on this matter, contrary to your teachings, Acts and the Gospel of John exactly coincide: "For the Father does not judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son." (John 5.22)

And yes, Jesus Christ is a man, now resurrected with a spiritual body. But where is that verse that says Jesus stopped being God when both He and the apostles clearly identified Him as a man?

And have you not also read Acts 20.28 where Paul exhorts the elders, "to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased through His own blood."

The glaring problem which you seem to have is that your mind can not comprehend how Jesus can be both God and man. You just need more faith. Yes, the N.T. does emphasize the humanity of the Son of God. But where is that verse that says Jesus is not God?

Ohio, I don’t know, but I suspect, that in your Christian walk you have never given consideration to Paul stating that there is but one God, the Father, and also suspect that you have never owned the admonition of Paul to the Ephesians to maintain the oneness of the Spirit be acknowledging one God and Father. This glaring problem is one I think you should answer publicly- Do you hold to Paul’s teaching that there is one God, the Father? Please give your explanation of such verse. Then we all can have a great discussion. I don’t know, but I suspect, you have already consulted your recovery version to see what WL said, and came up short of an explanation.
But you, yourself, how do you, if you do at all, relate to this what Paul wrote the Corinthians concerning one God, the Father? I contend that this was the mind of Paul throughout all of his writings. This is not a hidden teaching, Nor is it a cut and tape portions of scripture together to create a concept, no it is a direct clear concise teaching of Paul. How, pray tell, do you relate to it. I’ve been straightforward on my thoughts, it’s time you do the same.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And have you not also read Acts 20.28 where Paul exhorts the elders, "to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased through His own blood."

....But where is that verse that says Jesus is not God?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio, I don’t know, but I suspect, that in your Christian walk you have never given consideration to Paul stating that there is but one God, the Father....I’ve been straightforward on my thoughts, it’s time you do the same.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

BJB, I love those verses in Acts 17 which Paul spoke to the Athenians.

And yes, the eternal, only begotten Son of God is now, and will ever be a MAN! Yes, He is! I have repeatedly acknowledged this. There is no dispute here.

And yes, on this matter, contrary to your teachings, Acts and the Gospel of John exactly coincide: "For the Father does not judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son." (John 5.22)

And yes, Jesus Christ is a man, now resurrected with a spiritual body. But where is that verse that says Jesus stopped being God when both He and the apostles clearly identified Him as a man?

And have you not also read Acts 20.28 where Paul exhorts the elders, "to shepherd the church of God, which He purchased through His own blood."

The glaring problem which you seem to have is that your mind can not comprehend how Jesus can be both God and man. You just need more faith. Yes, the N.T. does emphasize the humanity of the Son of God. But where is that verse that says Jesus is not God?

The more I thought about this, your explanation of Acts 17 really illustrates what I wrote Untohim- you are in the 21st century looking back at what Paul spoke to the Athenians and amplifying the words of Paul using the trinitarian thought, and thus changing what Paul actually told them. Is it your thinking that the Athenian listeners would relate to what you are saying? Or that Paul had this whole god-man view, but just didn’t explain it all? I mean, to you , et al, it seems that the gospel is that Jesus is God and God became a man; wouldn’t Paul want to relate this truth in his speaking?
I see no indication that there was your understanding with the listeners, nor with the speaker, Paul. And this is the problem- if what you say is true, then the scriptures left out this BIG explanation that would have been necessary to convey such a gospel. And I have to say once again, that in making such a wild explanation, you treat the scriptures as lacking and the Nicene creed as ruling over the scriptures.

As far as “ with his own blood” - I see no explanation by Paul anywhere that God has a body with blood. Christ did. Paul here was speaking to the Ephesian elders- read through Ephesians and tell me where he ever told them that God has blood or that Jesus is God. No, he told them Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus and that there is one God, the Father. If you want to make a great extrapolation that this phrase means God has blood, as opposed to the blood of Christ, which is definitely spoken of throughout the NT, then, once again, you make the scriptures lack a grand explanation for your point of view. If there is a Jesus is God gospel, Paul did not preach it, and if there is a three person god, Paul must have lacked in this tremendous new teaching. The scripture does not leave us with either- it’s really not good to speak such.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Hi Trapped, please feel free to add some commentary to your hearty laughter.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

As far as “with his own blood” - I see no explanation by Paul anywhere that God has a body with blood. Christ did. Paul here was speaking to the Ephesian elders -- read through Ephesians and tell me where he ever told them that God has blood or that Jesus is God.

Here is part of the record of Paul's work in Ephesus from Acts 19:

8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.10 This took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

A couple things to note. Paul must have ministered literally hundreds or thousands of messages in Ephesus, months in the synagogues and years in a school. I highly doubt that Paul's teachings were limited to the 6 chapters in his epistle to the Ephesians. In the synagogue his chief objective seems to be presenting the kingdom of God.

Paul went first to the Jews. That was his custom. He used the entire O.T. to persuade them that Jesus was their long awaited Messiah. That was his chief message to the Jews. I am quite sure that he used his vast study of the O.T. in these messages. Then to the Gentiles, Paul emphasized that God had raised the Man Jesus, who was crucified in Jerusalem, from the dead. Hundreds of people then saw this Jesus before He ascended to heaven. Then Paul himself saw Jesus.

It is Paul's letters to the Philippians and Colossians where he addresses the deity of Christ. I mentioned some of these verses, but you seem unable to grasp his thoughts.

I find it continually distasteful to see your standard practice of resorting to "W.Lee-ism" when responding to the scripture in my posts. Find me one post where I used Lee's teaching to rebut your errors, or kindly stop it!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is part of the record of Paul's work in Ephesus from Acts 19:
A couple things to note. Paul must have ministered literally hundreds or thousands of messages in Ephesus, months in the synagogues and years in a school. I highly doubt that Paul's teachings were limited to the 6 chapters in his epistle to the Ephesians. In the synagogue his chief objective seems to be presenting the kingdom of God.

Paul went first to the Jews. That was his custom. He used the entire O.T. to persuade them that Jesus was their long awaited Messiah. That was his chief message to the Jews. I am quite sure that he used his vast study of the O.T. in these messages. Then to the Gentiles, Paul emphasized that God had raised the Man Jesus, who was crucified in Jerusalem, from the dead. Hundreds of people then saw this Jesus before He ascended to heaven. Then Paul himself saw Jesus.

It is Paul's letters to the Philippians and Colossians where he addresses the deity of Christ. I mentioned some of these verses, but you seem unable to grasp his thoughts.

I find it continually distasteful to see your standard practice of resorting to "W.Lee-ism" when responding to the scripture in my posts. Find me one post where I used Lee's teaching to rebut your errors, or kindly stop it!

Oh the irony ... let's divide over God. Now ain't that funnier than all get-out?

I blame Paul. He didn't have reporters, scribes maybe, that copied down his sermons. Witness Lee had that. So we have all his sermons written down. As a result we have way more info from Lee than we do from Paul.

So I'm disappointed in Paul. I would like to read all his sermons. Maybe he clarified his position on whether or not Jesus was God, and would also clarify whether or not God is a trinity.

Paul left us twisting in the wind, and fighting over these matters. Witness Lee left us way, way, way ... more more more.

[UntoHim]

To my friend Boxjobox

You keep insisting that we ignore 2,000+ years of church history. No church fathers. No councils. No creeds. No statements of faith. No nothing! We only have to go by the actual words that have been recorded in the biblical canon (accept for that pesky Gospel of John which you would like to disappear-)

Ok, let's go back to early first century in Jerusalem. No New Testament. No Messiah. No Gospel. No apostles. No apostle Paul. No councils. No creeds. No nothing.

And up walks this obscure Jewish Rabbi from some obscure, insignificant northern hamlet called Nazareth.

And he tells a group of Jewish people that "something greater than the temple is here". To the Jews at that time, and in that place, GOD, and ONLY GOD was greater than the temple.

Not satisfied? At that time, and in that place (Jerusalem) who was the only Being in the universe that was "Lord of the Sabbath"? Quickly now, remember no Gospel, No apostles, No apostle Paul. No councils. No creeds. No nothing. Who was the only Being who the Jews would consider to be the Lord of the Sabbath? To the Jews at that time, and in that place, God, and ONLY GOD was the Lord of the Sabbath.

There. Jesus clearly and strongly claimed to be God in Matthew, Mark and Luke. No apostles, no apostle Paul, no councils, no creeds...not even that pesky, misused and misunderstood, mysterious Gospel of John.
-

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is part of the record of Paul's work in Ephesus from Acts 19:
A couple things to note. Paul must have ministered literally hundreds or thousands of messages in Ephesus, months in the synagogues and years in a school. I highly doubt that Paul's teachings were limited to the 6 chapters in his epistle to the Ephesians. In the synagogue his chief objective seems to be presenting the kingdom of God.

Paul went first to the Jews. That was his custom. He used the entire O.T. to persuade them that Jesus was their long awaited Messiah. That was his chief message to the Jews. I am quite sure that he used his vast study of the O.T. in these messages. Then to the Gentiles, Paul emphasized that God had raised the Man Jesus, who was crucified in Jerusalem, from the dead. Hundreds of people then saw this Jesus before He ascended to heaven. Then Paul himself saw Jesus.

It is Paul's letters to the Philippians and Colossians where he addresses the deity of Christ. I mentioned some of these verses, but you seem unable to grasp his thoughts.

I find it continually distasteful to see your standard practice of resorting to "W.Lee-ism" when responding to the scripture in my posts. Find me one post where I used Lee's teaching to rebut your errors, or kindly stop it!

Yikes, I guess I’m that brother that sins 70 x 7, so once again, I must beg your forgiveness and will in the future abstain from associating your posts with Lee-ism, unless it is overtly mentioned. What exactly are my errors you are rebutting? Maybe if you list them I should examine them.

It is not that I view Christ Jesus as just some random guy, or a throw-away model that God used and now we all can discard. No,no, no: Christ Jesus our Lord was the unique, son of God, sent to us specifically as the Christ, who came in the image of God, all the fullness of God dwelt in him bodily, as Peter spoke in his 1st gospel in Acts Jesus a man approved by God, whom God worked through, crucified, God raised from the dead, God exalted to His own right hand, God made this man both Lord and Christ. Colossians and Philippians confirm and strengthen this. Yet we are not called upon to make Jesus God, nor are we told that there are 3 persons in one God. If we would read through Col and Phil, we would see Paul give difference to the God and Father of Jesus and Jesus himself. The name of Jesus is above any man; this Jesus is above all, the firstborn of all creation,
yet Paul does not waiver in showing that the head of Christ is God. Paul portrays the one God and Father, even if showing the exalted position Christ has been GIVEN. And we are called to maintain that same profession- that there is one God, the Father. Why is this so difficult to confess and uphold? Almost 2 millennia of trinitarianism has morphed the truth of the gospel into a 3 people god, and Jesus into the preeminent god of those three! In the foundational church, this was not spoken, taught. In the foundational church God is God, and Christ is Christ.

Ohio, et all, lets hear how you accept and order your Christian lives by Pauls admonition to hold to one God, the Father.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To my friend Boxjobox

You keep insisting that we ignore 2,000+ years of church history. No church fathers. No councils. No creeds. No statements of faith. No nothing! We only have to go by the actual words that have been recorded in the biblical canon (accept for that pesky Gospel of John which you would like to disappear-)

Ok, let's go back to early first century in Jerusalem. No New Testament. No Messiah. No Gospel. No apostles. No apostle Paul. No councils. No creeds. No nothing.

And up walks this obscure Jewish Rabbi from some obscure, insignificant northern hamlet called Nazareth.

And he tells a group of Jewish people that "something greater than the temple is here". To the Jews at that time, and in that place, GOD, and ONLY GOD was greater than the temple.

Not satisfied? At that time, and in that place (Jerusalem) who was the only Being in the universe that was "Lord of the Sabbath"? Quickly now, remember no Gospel, No apostles, No apostle Paul. No councils. No creeds. No nothing. Who was the only Being who the Jews would consider to be the Lord of the Sabbath? To the Jews at that time, and in that place, God, and ONLY GOD was the Lord of the Sabbath.

There. Jesus clearly and strongly claimed to be God in Matthew, Mark and Luke. No apostles, no apostle Paul, no councils, no creeds...not even that pesky, misused and misunderstood, mysterious Gospel of John.
-

And this is why the Jewish leaders plotted to kill Jesus. Not because He was a great man, a brilliant Rabbi, a miracle worker, a productive carpenter, neither an untrained Jew from Nazareth. They plotted to kill Jesus because He told them He was God!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To my friend Boxjobox

You keep insisting that we ignore 2,000+ years of church history. No church fathers. No councils. No creeds. No statements of faith. No nothing! We only have to go by the actual words that have been recorded in the biblical canon (accept for that pesky Gospel of John which you would like to disappear-)

Ok, let's go back to early first century in Jerusalem. No New Testament. No Messiah. No Gospel. No apostles. No apostle Paul. No councils. No creeds. No nothing.

And up walks this obscure Jewish Rabbi from some obscure, insignificant northern hamlet called Nazareth.

And he tells a group of Jewish people that "something greater than the temple is here". To the Jews at that time, and in that place, GOD, and ONLY GOD was greater than the temple.

Not satisfied? At that time, and in that place (Jerusalem) who was the only Being in the universe that was "Lord of the Sabbath"? Quickly now, remember no Gospel, No apostles, No apostle Paul. No councils. No creeds. No nothing. Who was the only Being who the Jews would consider to be the Lord of the Sabbath? To the Jews at that time, and in that place, God, and ONLY GOD was the Lord of the Sabbath.

There. Jesus clearly and strongly claimed to be God in Matthew, Mark and Luke. No apostles, no apostle Paul, no councils, no creeds...not even that pesky, misused and misunderstood, mysterious Gospel of John.
-

I’m not certain you see my argument clearly, Untohim, and therefore Throw me under the bus- I mean in the dungeon. If you look at many of my posts, which seem to bother you in the past that I quote so much scripture, I quote John’s writings quite a bit. In fact, one of my favorite in presenting my case is John 17.3 where John, quoting Jesus praying to the Father refers to the Father as the only true God. You should be surprised that Jesus did not speak there of 3 people god, or equate himself with being the one true God.

Your presentation of Jesus as greater than the temple and Lord of the sabbath making him God, does not follow through in the gospels spoken in Acts, nor in what Paul tells us in 1 cor 15 is the gospel he preached, nor in Galatians. It seems that you are wrong in your assessment of Jesus, unless you want me to believe that the gospel is somehow short of this Jesus is God revelation. Your assessment does not jibe with the revelation Paul wants us to see in Ephesians. The revelation he speaks of there has no presentation of seeing Jesus as God nor of any 3 people God! In fact, Paul begs them to keep oneness by holding to one God, the Father. If I’m supposed to surmise from Jesus talk of him being greater than the temple and therefore God himself, then what about us being the temple of God, as Paul wants us to see in Ephesians.
Untohim, about 2 millennia of trinitarianism has all but wiped out Paul’s admonition and has done nothing but sown myths, confusion, false speaking, and another gospel. Look at your main site on modalism/trinitarianism- is that a clear portrayal of truth? After 2k years, confusion and misunderstanding? And that vs. holding to one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. WL who thought he was”recovering” the church, planted his feet, not in the foundational church spoken by Paul, but in the 4th century creed which- in my humblest view, was the beginning of Babylon the Great Harlot, Jezebel at her finest hour- but that is just my meager thoughts on it. WL stood on the shoulders of the creed and then added his own twists and turns, when a true recovery would have brought us back to proclaiming Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.
Untohim, stick up a banner proclaiming that this fellow Paul said there is but one God, the Father, and then the next day a banner that quotes that Jesus fellow proclaiming the Father as the one True God. I realize both Jesus and Paul would then be ceremonial cast into the dungeon with we unfortunates, and the great trinity could then be exalted with the chief person of the 3 people of God, which in this age of modern Christiandom seems to be Jesus!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh the irony ... let's divide over God. Now ain't that funnier than all get-out?

I blame Paul. He didn't have reporters, scribes maybe, that copied down his sermons. Witness Lee had that. So we have all his sermons written down. As a result we have way more info from Lee than we do from Paul.

So I'm disappointed in Paul. I would like to read all his sermons. Maybe he clarified his position on whether or not Jesus was God, and would also clarify whether or not God is a trinity.

Paul left us twisting in the wind, and fighting over these matters. Witness Lee left us way, way, way ... more more more.

Seems to me that the modus operandi of modern christiandom is to view scripture as a trinity mystery novel, where they go from room to room looking for clues to prove their case. The outcome of the case is predetermined by the great creed, and all clues must support this foregoing conclusion. The reason for this method is because the principals in the novel did not speak plainly of Jesus as God, nor of the 3 people god, and did nothing to explain this- everything was done, as it were, in cryptic secret doubletalk and innuendos, which the wise investigators can pick up and spin together to create a finished case proving the great creed. It seems that in every generation, this creed must always be investigated and proven in the scriptures and investigators make large quantities of cash with great positions and austerity because of there abilities to solve the mystery. Thus, ongoing bible studies, messages, books, arguments, divisions over methods and tools and findings are the content of the modern faith. Most followers go along in somewhat silence and bewilderment and faithfully nod their heads at the investigators and their current investigations. ( if this sounds somewhat like the 2, 3rd chapters of Johns Revelation, it’s probably just coincidence).
They always seem to stumble over clues that would disprove their creed, and those clues are what feed us little people like myself, who when I read one God, the Father in the good book, take it to mean just that.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And this is why the Jewish leaders plotted to kill Jesus. Not because He was a great man, a brilliant Rabbi, a miracle worker, a productive carpenter, neither an untrained Jew from Nazareth. They plotted to kill Jesus because He told them He was God!

They killed Jesus because he was the Christ, the son of the Living God, and it was predetermined in God’s plan, his logos, that this would occur so that the death of this sinless man would atone for our sins, and we would be brought back to our Heavenly Father. Jesus was/is the lamb OF God

[UntoHim]

So Boxy,

To a first century Jew, WHO WAS THE LORD OF THE SABBATH?
Stop your dodging and weaving and shucking and jiving. Why won't you answer this plain and simple question?

To a first century Jew, WHO WAS THE ONLY BEING IN THE UNIVERSE GREATER THAN THE TEMPLE? Stop your dodging and weaving and shucking and jiving. It's kind of embarrassing actually. Why are the Words of Jesus so hard for you to accept? There are many things Jesus said which were not "followed through" in Acts or in any other part of the New Testament. So what?

As for John, you are cherry picking. Again, kind of embarrassing for someone who says he's such a solo scriptura guy!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς[/B] [/B]
The Word was God, Boxy, the Word was God.
"My Lord and my God". -ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
Maybe we can pray-read these clearly written verses in Greek!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Boxy,

To a first century Jew, WHO WAS THE LORD OF THE SABBATH?
Stop your dodging and weaving and shucking and jiving. Why won't you answer this plain and simple question?

To a first century Jew, WHO WAS THE ONLY BEING IN THE UNIVERSE GREATER THAN THE TEMPLE? Stop your dodging and weaving and shucking and jiving. It's kind of embarrassing actually. Why are the Words of Jesus so hard for you to accept? There are many things Jesus said which were not "followed through" in Acts or in any other part of the New Testament. So what?

As for John, you are cherry picking. Again, kind of embarrassing for someone who says he's such a solo scriptura guy!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς[/B] [/B]
The Word was God, Boxy, the Word was God.
"My Lord and my God". -ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
Maybe we can pray-read these clearly written verses in Greek!

Dear Untohim, let’s not come unglued and start making up scenarios and arranging leading questions that don’t really follow the events, or you will convict the wrong guy.
Jesus said the son of man was lord of the sabbath- I’m taking Jesus at his word, not reading into it a bigger thing or trying to add or subtract- this was said in all three accounts- son of man.
In all three accounts also, he said there is one greater than the temple here. You know, if you read through Acts at the gospels spoken, such as to Cornelius and those with him, Peter said about Jesus that God was WITH him. That Jesus was a replacement for the old tabernacle and is greater than the old tabernacle, where the presence of God was in some fashion (however the Jews all understood that heaven was His throne, and you surly know that the resurrected Jesus ascended into heaven to sit at THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD) I don’t see any equivocal understanding that Jesus was somehow seen by any to be God because of this- they sure didn’t preach that, which I’m sure would be extra extra important to be conveyed to unbelievers if this was the case!
But wait, The old John quotes- it is John who had Jesus say that the Father was the only true God- perhaps you would like to put up a banner with this quote of Jesus and then write a footnote explaining how it really is only partially true? As far as Thomas’ great revelation it is not substantiated anywhere else, and not preached- scripture seems to avoid further speaking of Thomas other that that he was included with the 12 on the day of Pentecost when Peter rose to speak the gospel and if you read that gospel it definitely would not put Jesus in the God category. Please note also that John states that the reason he wrote his gospel is that you may know that Jesus Is the Christ, the son of God and that believing, you may have life in his name- life defined by Jesus as knowing the Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. Years of trinity orthodoxy has you making up scriptural thought to justify the falsehood. I believe Jesus is the Christ, the son of God- why do you feel the need to expand the gospel to a Jesus is God, God is 3 people gospel. Remember- unto Him is unto the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Time to get those banners of one God, the Father flying on the main page.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

They killed Jesus because he was the Christ, the son of the Living God, and it was predetermined in God’s plan, his logos, that this would occur so that the death of this sinless man would atone for our sins, and we would be brought back to our Heavenly Father. Jesus was/is the lamb OF God

Everything you said was true about Jesus, but you once again completely dodged the point.

John tells us in 5.18 that "the Jews sought to kill Him, not just because He broke the Sabbath, but called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

Three times in John chapter 8 Jesus told the Jews He was "I AM," the same name Yahweh/Jehovah gave to Moses.

How do you explain that Jesus is not God when He is Yahweh/Jehovah? Are you now saying that God did not appear to Moses?

[Ohio]

BJB, answer me plainly. When was the beginning or origin of Jesus, the Son of God?

[UntoHim]

Ok, thanks for the advise Boxy. I used gorilla glue so I got glued back together really fast.

In first century Jerusalem, if you asked a Jew who the Lord of the Sabbath was, what would be his answer? You never answer a straight question. You shuck, you jive, and try to wiggle out of answering by changing the subject. It's not leading, it is probing, to see if you really know and believe the Words of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who though he was equal with God the Father, emptied himself and took on the likeness of human flesh.

In first century Jerusalem, if you asked a Jew who was the only being in the universe greater than the temple, what would be his answer? You never answer a straight question. You shuck, you jive, and try to wiggle out of answer by changing the subject.

While keeping myself firmly clued in place, I'll ask you one more time. Do you believe the plain words of the Lord Jesus Christ over your Unitarian/Arian teachers? It's not too late you know. You could repent and fall to your knees just like Thomas and proclaim "My Lord and my God!". Do you not believe that Thomas said those words? Are you like Witness Lee who picked and choosed what he was going to accept as God's Word and what he would explain away with the heretical teachings and understandings of men long ago proved to be heretical, false teachers.

May "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you".
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Are you like Witness Lee who picked and choosed what he was going to accept as God's Word and what he would explain away with the heretical teachings and understandings of men long ago proved to be heretical, false teachers.

I like this. Way to go moderator! Give BJB a taste of his own medicine.

I'm so tired of BJB dodging my questions from the scripture and accusing me of being infected with Lee-itis theology. Then BJB tells me to go read Acts again.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Boxy,

To a first century Jew, WHO WAS THE LORD OF THE SABBATH?
Stop your dodging and weaving and shucking and jiving. Why won't you answer this plain and simple question?

To a first century Jew, WHO WAS THE ONLY BEING IN THE UNIVERSE GREATER THAN THE TEMPLE? Stop your dodging and weaving and shucking and jiving. It's kind of embarrassing actually. Why are the Words of Jesus so hard for you to accept? There are many things Jesus said which were not "followed through" in Acts or in any other part of the New Testament. So what?

As for John, you are cherry picking. Again, kind of embarrassing for someone who says he's such a solo scriptura guy!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς[/B] [/B]
The Word was God, Boxy, the Word was God.
"My Lord and my God". -ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
Maybe we can pray-read these clearly written verses in Greek!

Aren't we having fun arguing over God? The reason I'm not convinced either way is because our witnesses don't agree. Of course we have the preamble in the last gospel, written at the end of the century, by only God knows who.

So we not only don't know who wrote it, but why, and to whom. And why he decided to use a word that was in common currency, amongst Jew and Gentile like.

Proof that it was in common currency, is how it was used in the NT, 330 times. Here's Strong's on it :

Originally Posted by Strong's

G3056
λόγος
logos
log'-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.
Total KJV occurrences: 330

Then we have 3 other witnesses, also written anonymously :

Mat_19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mar_10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Luk_18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Each witness had a chance to declare Jesus God, but didn't.

But I have to admit that the Jesus is God group look more cultish than the Jesus is not God group. I think that's because they have the RCC behind them.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, thanks for the advise Boxy. I used gorilla glue so I got glued back together really fast.

In first century Jerusalem, if you asked a Jew who the Lord of the Sabbath was, what would be his answer? You never answer a straight question. You shuck, you jive, and try to wiggle out of answering by changing the subject. It's not leading, it is probing, to see if you really know and believe the Words of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who though he was equal with God the Father, emptied himself and took on the likeness of human flesh.

In first century Jerusalem, if you asked a Jew who was the only being in the universe greater than the temple, what would be his answer? You never answer a straight question. You shuck, you jive, and try to wiggle out of answer by changing the subject.

While keeping myself firmly clued in place, I'll ask you one more time. Do you believe the plain words of the Lord Jesus Christ over your Unitarian/Arian teachers? It's not too late you know. You could repent and fall to your knees just like Thomas and proclaim "My Lord and my God!". Do you not believe that Thomas said those words? Are you like Witness Lee who picked and choosed what he was going to accept as God's Word and what he would explain away with the heretical teachings and understandings of men long ago proved to be heretical, false teachers.

May "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you".
-

Sorry, Untohim, I guess I misinterpreted what you were asking, or maybe why you would ask such a question of what I thought a 1st century Jew who the Lord of the Sabbath was, because , I really don’t know what a 1st century Jew would think, but I’ll answer that I assume it would be Yahweh.
As far as one greater than the temple, I’m not sure what to say a 1st century Jew would think, because the history of the Jews includes the temple of Solomon being destroyed at one time, but I guess the answer you are looking for would be Yahweh. Is that what you wanted to hear? It might be better to establish your premise and point rather than walk me down some sort of questioning.

But why not take some tome to see all that Jesus said in that chapter in Matthew, lest you start stringing together thoughts from other scriptures and making a total different narrative. You should definitely note that Jesus said the son of man is lord of the sabbath. And 15-21 would have great significance along with 29 and 50.
In 21 Jesus quotes that in him ( the anointed one) the gentiles would trust. You know, the temple was supposed to be a house of prayer for all nations to draw to, but at the time of Jesus, it became a den of thieves, and money grabbers.

What you may want to consider yourself, was what would the average Jew think about declaring that Jesusi is God and that their God was 3 people. I would say that your average Jew would have a great problem with that, as well as gentiles, so tell me, Untohim, when was it preached to all these people that Jesus was God? And what was the general reaction to this, in Jerusalem, in the various synagogue. When was this preached, and were is all the teaching that would have had to be present to explain this extremely new change in concept? I don’t see it in my scriptures. I see plenty to explain that Jesus is the Christ, that he died for our sins, that God raised him from the dead, that he was given the highest position in God’s creation, that he is coming again, but I don’t see the great teaching you profess occurring in the NT. You are setting up an impossible scenario to justify. I’m supposed to believe what you are saying based on what gospel? Sorry, it’s based on the Nicene creed, not scripture. You overlay everything with this thought that Jesus is God and God is 3 people, but that would call for a massive explanation that doesn’t exist in the book of acts, nor in the epistles of Paul, or in the epistles of John for that matter, unless you take the “there is 3 in heaven verse that seems to have general understanding that it is not really found in scripture.

And still, sitting in front of you who proclaim a trinity God is the Paul most definitely telling the Corinthians that there is one God, the Father. Here he is talking to both Jews and Gentiles and establishing that which is believed by the Jews and needs to be reinforced to the gentiles. Sorry brother, but your finding bits and pieces to justify something that never occurred- the preaching of a triune god, does not exist in the entire book of Acts, nor in the epistles of Paul. But What does exist is that Paul and Jesus both proclaime one God, the Father. If you have verses where Jesus is proclaiming a 3 person god, bring them out!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, thanks for the advise Boxy. I used gorilla glue so I got glued back together really fast.

In first century Jerusalem, if you asked a Jew who the Lord of the Sabbath was, what would be his answer? You never answer a straight question. You shuck, you jive, and try to wiggle out of answering by changing the subject. It's not leading, it is probing, to see if you really know and believe the Words of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who though he was equal with God the Father, emptied himself and took on the likeness of human flesh.

In first century Jerusalem, if you asked a Jew who was the only being in the universe greater than the temple, what would be his answer? You never answer a straight question. You shuck, you jive, and try to wiggle out of answer by changing the subject.

While keeping myself firmly clued in place, I'll ask you one more time. Do you believe the plain words of the Lord Jesus Christ over your Unitarian/Arian teachers? It's not too late you know. You could repent and fall to your knees just like Thomas and proclaim "My Lord and my God!". Do you not believe that Thomas said those words? Are you like Witness Lee who picked and choosed what he was going to accept as God's Word and what he would explain away with the heretical teachings and understandings of men long ago proved to be heretical, false teachers.

May "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you".
-

Concerning Thomas statement. There is this meeting that takes place only mentioned in the gospel of John where all the apostles are together except Thomas, and Jesus breaths into them. They tell Thomas about seeing Jesus and Thomas doubts- he is doubting that Jesus is alive, that God was able to raise him from the dead, or did actually raise him from the dead. Jeusu appears to Thomas who says my lLord and my God. This is not recorded in the other three gospels or mentioned anywhere else, and there is no gospel preached to give the impression that the disciples came to a new found belief that Jesus is God- look at what was spoken was spoken as the gospel throughout the book of Acts- not a peep. My assumption is that Thomas came to realize that he had doubted God, and God’s ability to raise Christ from the dead and doubted that Jesus was resurrected. And was now acknowledging both. I say this because this is the gospel that was preached in the foundational church, Jesus told Mary that he was ascending to “ my God and your God and my Father and your Father”, which is the viewpoint of speaking in Acts and the epistles and Revelation, so I would say you are taking something and turning it into something it was never met to portray. Jesus told Thomas blessed are those who have not seen and believe. We believe through the gospel, and there is no gospel preached in the foundational church that reflects anything other than What Jesus proclaimed of “ my God and your God and my father and your Father.”

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Everything you said was true about Jesus, but you once again completely dodged the point.

John tells us in 5.18 that "the Jews sought to kill Him, not just because He broke the Sabbath, but called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

Three times in John chapter 8 Jesus told the Jews He was "I AM," the same name Yahweh/Jehovah gave to Moses.

How do you explain that Jesus is not God when He is Yahweh/Jehovah? Are you now saying that God did not appear to Moses?

Ohio, in chapter 9.9 we have a blind man healed by Jesus say I Am, with the translators adding He, I Am He. It is the exact same phrase Jesus uses in chapter 8. I certainly would not draw a conclusion that the now seeing blind man was the great I Am, Yahweh. I think you must know that John was not written in Hebrew, but we observe it in Greek, and more than likely Jesus spoke Aramaic to the people in chapter 8. So to say that saying I am, and not adding the typical implied he, may lead you to think this is some great clue that you picked up, but it seems no one else made the assumption.
Please read through John Chapters 6 to 10, and you will see that the ongoing question is if Jesus is the messiah- Jesus says I Am He. As you read through those chapters look carefully how God is presented and how Jesus refers to God. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

BJB, answer me plainly. When was the beginning or origin of Jesus, the Son of God?

Jesus was born- can’t give you an exact date, but in Bethlehem at the time of Caesars census. I guess you could also say at the time Mary conceived.
Luke 1. 31And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

Wow, that holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

Paul puts this teaching to be understood in Romans 1 1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord.

In Paul’s description - well, you can read it.

Take special care, as you should in all your readings how God is used and how Christ Jesus is used.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I like this. Way to go moderator! Give BJB a taste of his own medicine.

I'm so tired of BJB dodging my questions from the scripture and accusing me of being infected with Lee-itis theology. Then BJB tells me to go read Acts again.

I’m so tired of Ohio not stepping up to answer how he relates to Pauls admonition to keep the oneness by professing One God and Father. When, Ohio will you speak on this?

Untohim, you too should answer to this- are you trying to sow division by not proclaiming one God, the Father?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I’m so tired of Ohio not stepping up to answer how he relates to Pauls admonition to keep the oneness by professing One God and Father. When, Ohio will you speak on this?

Untohim, you too should answer to this- are you trying to sow division by not proclaiming one God, the Father?

More games BJB? I have always professed One God and Father. And when I do, you play this game of linking me with WL and the "trinitarians."

Here is a verse for you BJB: John 8.28 Then Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM."

Jesus calls himself the Son of Man, yet when lifted up on the cross, He proclaims that we would then know He is the "I AM," a clear reference to the name given to Moses from the burning bush.

The veil in the temple was torn from the top to the bottom on the Passover, the earth was shaken, darkness covered the land, tombs were opened and many saints raised from the dead appeared to many in Jerusalem, and only the Centurion at the cross spoke what everyone else knew, that Jesus was "Truly the Son of God."

Just as Jesus had prophesied, when they lifted Him up on the cross, then they all knew that He is "I AM," the same Yahweh / Jehovah who delivered the children of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh on the exact same date of Passover.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Jesus was born- can’t give you an exact date, but in Bethlehem at the time of Caesars census. I guess you could also say at the time Mary conceived.
Luke 1. 31And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

Wow, that holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

Paul puts this teaching to be understood in Romans 1 1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord.

In Paul’s description - well, you can read it.

Take special care, as you should in all your readings how God is used and how Christ Jesus is used.

How can the Son of God be "in the beginning" (John 1.1) and yet originate in Bethlehem ~2,020 years ago?

How can Jesus be born in Bethlehem of Mary and then Paul claims in Acts 13.33 that Jesus was begotten of God via the resurrection?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio, in chapter 9.9 we have a blind man healed by Jesus say I Am, with the translators adding He, I Am He. It is the exact same phrase Jesus uses in chapter 8. I certainly would not draw a conclusion that the now seeing blind man was the great I Am, Yahweh. I think you must know that John was not written in Hebrew, but we observe it in Greek, and more than likely Jesus spoke Aramaic to the people in chapter 8. So to say that saying I am, and not adding the typical implied he, may lead you to think this is some great clue that you picked up, but it seems no one else made the assumption.
Please read through John Chapters 6 to 10, and you will see that the ongoing question is if Jesus is the messiah- Jesus says I Am He. As you read through those chapters look carefully how God is presented and how Jesus refers to God. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

There is no equivalence here. And you know it.

Jesus said unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.

Just in case you missed it, Jesus again says, Before Abraham was, I AM.

How could Jesus be born of Mary, if He is the I AM before Abraham was even born?

Boxjobox, in order to accept your unending heresy, I must constantly remove whole sections of the Bible.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

More games BJB? I have always professed One God and Father. And when I do, you play this game of linking me with WL and the "trinitarians."

Here is a verse for you BJB: John 8.28 Then Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM."

Jesus calls himself the Son of Man, yet when lifted up on the cross, He proclaims that we would then know He is the "I AM," a clear reference to the name given to Moses from the burning bush.

The veil in the temple was torn from the top to the bottom on the Passover, the earth was shaken, darkness covered the land, tombs were opened and many saints raised from the dead appeared to many in Jerusalem, and only the Centurion at the cross spoke what everyone else knew, that Jesus was "Truly the Son of God."

Just as Jesus had prophesied, when they lifted Him up on the cross, then they all knew that He is "I AM," the same Yahweh / Jehovah who delivered the children of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh on the exact same date of Passover.

Ohio, since you profess one God the Father, what is the controversy? Sounds like we are on the same page. Now you should go to the main page, modalism/trinity site and let them know that trinitarianism, and Jesus is God thing does not follow the scripture, but causes division.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio, since you profess one God the Father, what is the controversy? Sounds like we are on the same page. Now you should go to the main page, modalism/trinity site and let them know that trinitarianism, and Jesus is God thing does not follow the scripture, but causes division.

But ... as the scriptures tell me ... I also profess one God the Son.

The controversy and the division is that you deny the Son, and he who denies the Son, has not the Father either. (I John 2.23)

Most of us prefer to have the Father, and that's why we reject this Jehovah Witness heresy.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is no equivalence here. And you know it.

Jesus said unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.

Just in case you missed it, Jesus again says, Before Abraham was, I AM.

How could Jesus be born of Mary, if He is the I AM before Abraham was even born?

Boxjobox, in order to accept your unending heresy, I must constantly remove whole sections of the Bible.

Equivalence in saying the same thing. The Jews asked the healed blind man if he was actually the one that was blind. He answers I am. The conversation between Jesus and the Jews rests on tell us plainly whether you are the Christ, the messiah, the anointed one. Jesus’ answers are according to this: I am, which is really I am he, if you follow the same for the healed blind man. That an Aramaic language put into Greek is somehow equivalent to Jesus saying I am Yahweh is a real stretch, but one used by the trinitarian persuasion to convince. To me, it’s kind of “ this is the best we can come up with” kind of thing, yet, when the apostles and disciples preach the gospel, they somehow don’t seem to include this important discovery? This turns the scripture into a farce. Those who were with Christ, especially Peter and John do not preach such in Acts. Paul, who was called to be an apostle does not preach this. Yet they all have the common thread of preaching that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God.
The church needs to return to the foundation that it was to be built upon, which is the revelation given from the God and Father of Jesus to Peter, when Jesus asked who do men say that I am. Jesus says he will build his church on that revelation. After the 4th century, the facade was then built on a Jesus is God, 3 person god, which was never spoken out by Jesus nor the apostles. It’s time to get a grasp on this, and get back to the foundational gospel that was blessed by God with the witness of the Holy Spirit.

After 2k years of staunch trinitarian thinking, I realize this is not easy to grasp, and sounds like it is upsetting to your belief system. I don’t think you ever read the scriptures and suddenly said wow God is triune! But rather, you were taught it, probably with people using the same snips of scripture and logic type questions like those you ask me and Untohim asks.
But if you look at the overall NT, you do not find that mentioned or taught. What you do find is the overwhelming presentation of God the Father and Jesus the Christ as Lord. That is the content of the NT church. Jesus himself in the favorite book used by the trins, gospel of John, Jesus says that famous line, I am the way, the truth, the life, no one comes to the Father except through me. There is that I am again, and the direction is that we come to the Father, which is the NT practice. Jesus said God is spirit and those who worship HIM must worship in spirit and truth- for THE FATHER seeks such. Jesus told Mary, I go to my Father and your Father, my God and your God. This is how the NT is presented- that through the redemption work of Christ, we would come to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. The NT does not say Set Up Jesus as your God, God is 3 people.

John wrote the Revelation and right off says The revelation of Jesus Christ that GOD gave him. He then introduces Jesus as the one who was slain to make us a kingdom and priest to HIS GOD. Throughout Rev., it is God and the Lamb - very distinctly presented.

John has a peculiar way of writing things: I see no indication in the NT that we should draw the conclusions you are making. Basically, what you are saying is that a certain gospel was spoken throughout Acts and anointed by the Holy Spirit, that was then 50 years later altered by John and now all should be putting Jesus as God and worshipping a 3 in one God. Then all the rest of the NT must be tweaked through a massive teaching campaign to conform to that. I don’t buy that anymore. As I look at church history, the downfall was the 4th century “orthodox” stuff that turned the church into a mockery of the gospel and the NT. I would say an enemy has done this.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But ... as the scriptures tell me ... I also profess one God the Son.

Both Paul and Peter tell us this plainly:

2 Thess 1.12 "So that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ."

2 Peter 1.1 "Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those allotted equally precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But ... as the scriptures tell me ... I also profess one God the Son.

The controversy and the division is that you deny the Son, and he who denies the Son, has not the Father either. (I John 2.23)

Most of us prefer to have the Father, and that's why we reject this Jehovah Witness heresy.

Ohio, there is no God the son in the NT.

I do not deny that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God.

Your rationale here is not correct.

And most important, I have no relation or affinity for “Jehovah Witness- that is a cult, actually very similar in design to the LSM church.

Ohio, Paul taught the Corinthians there is but One God, the Father. Why are you introducing a god the son? Your basic accusation seems to be that I don’t buy into a 4th century trinitarian belief system and therefore am off kilter. Take a good look at what you are saying.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Equivalence in saying the same thing. The Jews asked the healed blind man if he was actually the one that was blind. He answers I am. The conversation between Jesus and the Jews rests on tell us plainly whether you are the Christ, the messiah, the anointed one. Jesus’ answers are according to this: I am, which is really I am he, if you follow the same for the healed blind man.

Boxjobox, you are not even making sense. John 8, following the situation of the woman caught in adultery, never mentions "the Christ, the messiah, the anointed one." You are reading this into the text. And you are reading out the actual words of the text.

Your continued lengthy replies do not change the truth of this Gospel of John. You conveniently like to alter scripture to suit your predisposed ideas, assuming that Jesus is answering some question that is not even asked. Read the context. Context matters.

Where is the verse in the chapter 8 discussion that says, "are you the Christ?" and Jesus answers "I am [he]?"

And how in the world does your crazy teaching explain 8.56-59?

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

The Jewish leaders in the Temple knew full well what Jesus just said. Sorry you missed it. Jesus just made Himself equal with God so they immediately picked up stones to kill Him (as also in v. 5.18).

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both Paul and Peter tell us this plainly:

2 Thess 1.12 "So that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ."

2 Peter 1.1 "Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those allotted equally precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

1Peter 1 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time

Looks like Peter had a great revelation between his gospel preaching in Acts, his 1st epistle and his second- unless of course you realize that someone put the comma in the wrong place , thus altering the meaning. If it is really God, and savior Jesus Christ then it follows his first epistle and Peter’s preaching in Acts and the NT.
2 Pet 1

16For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

2 Thes 1.12 comma issue again. What you are trying to say does not match what Paul writes in both Thes letters and would be total confusion.

1Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,

To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

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

Ohio, where is the massive teaching that would relate to the world that God is 3 people and that we are to make Jesus our God? It is NOt in the NT!
God is God, and Christ is Christ

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

1Peter 1 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time

Looks like Peter had a great revelation between his gospel preaching in Acts, his 1st epistle and his second- unless of course you realize that someone put the comma in the wrong place , thus altering the meaning. If it is really God, and savior Jesus Christ then it follows his first epistle and Peter’s preaching in Acts and the NT.
2 Pet 1

16For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

2 Thes 1.12 comma issue again. What you are trying to say does not match what Paul writes in both Thes letters and would be total confusion.

1Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,

To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

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

Ohio, where is the massive teaching that would relate to the world that God is 3 people and that we are to make Jesus our God? It is NOt in the NT!
God is God, and Christ is Christ

The Greek NT text had no commas. It is you who is creating confusion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio, there is no God the son in the NT.

I do not deny that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God.

Your rationale here is not correct.

And most important, I have no relation or affinity for “Jehovah Witness- that is a cult, actually very similar in design to the LSM church.

Ohio, Paul taught the Corinthians there is but One God, the Father. Why are you introducing a god the son? Your basic accusation seems to be that I don’t buy into a 4th century trinitarian belief system and therefore am off kilter. Take a good look at what you are saying.

Why do you constantly ignore all the scriptures?

Why do you reject the opening of John's Gospel?

And there you go again -- avoiding the Bible, and bringing up the 4th century again. Have you no principles?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Boxjobox, you are not even making sense. John 8, following the situation of the woman caught in adultery, never mentions "the Christ, the messiah, the anointed one." You are reading this into the text. And you are reading out the actual words of the text.

Your continued lengthy replies do not change the truth of this Gospel of John. You conveniently like to alter scripture to suit your predisposed ideas, assuming that Jesus is answering some question that is not even asked. Read the context. Context matters.

Where is the verse in the chapter 8 discussion that says, "are you the Christ?" and Jesus answers "I am [he]?"

And how in the world does your crazy teaching explain 8.56-59?
The Jewish leaders in the Temple knew full well what Jesus just said. Sorry you missed it. Jesus just made Himself equal with God so they immediately picked up stones to kill Him (as also in v. 5.18).

Ohio, as we know there were no chapters in Johns writings, and John strings events. As I asked yesterday, you need to read chaps 6 to 10 to get the whole context, and in this case particularly chapter 7. The entire dialogue that continues on is are you the Christ- tell us plainly. Seems you have the Jews knowing something about Jesus that his own disciples don’t pick up. Read slowly through 6 to 10. You may want to consider 6: 68-69.
This reveals what the disciples thought of Jesus.
Ohio, the gospel was not preached by these Jews that questioned Jesus, but by the disciples of Christ. They do not preach a Jesus is God gospel

Here is part of Peter’s 2nd gospel, probably spoken to the same Jews that questioned Jesus

Acts 3 13The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. 14But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15and killed the [b]Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses. 16And His name, through faith in His name, has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
And 19Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20and that He may send [c]Jesus Christ, who was [d]preached to you before, 21whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since [e]the world began. 22For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’ 24Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also [f]foretold these days. 25You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”

I left out a lot for brevity,so if you doubt the meaning I would encourage yo to read the entire 3rd chapter of Acts, and all of Acts actually.
Do you see the vast difference between what Peter preached as the gospel to the Jews and what you are saying?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why do you constantly ignore all the scriptures?

Why do you reject the opening of John's Gospel?

And there you go again -- avoiding the Bible, and bringing up the 4th century again. Have you no principles?

Ohio, the issue at hand is trinity discussion, for me it is trinity discussion related to WL/LSM, and in the bigger picture the church and church history. I think my principles have been very consistent in saying and demonstrating that the foundational church did not present a 4th century dogma as the truth. This came in and damaged the church tremendously- I have been most consistent and adamant about this.

I have explained my view of John 1 elsewhere. The gospel does not match your understanding of it, nor do the epistles. I understand that that is a foundation in your belief system, and that you relate and project Jesus as your God. I have no doubt that you are sincere and think you are protecting a major truth. When I read Acts and the epistles, I do not see that as even a minor truth, but rather that the church is built upon the gospel that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, who died for our sins, whom God raised from the dead and gave him the highest position in creation. I see no attempt to preach or teach that Jesus is God or that God is 3 people. To say that is our foundation and then to read Paul’s excellent presentation of the gospel to the Romans, would leave Paul’s writing worthless in building the church. Luke gives us a. Great history in Acts, which does not include the kind of gospel you are following. Galatians tells us of Paul’s gospel, 1 Cor 15 tells us what Paul preached.

Trinitarianism changed the whole narrative of the NT.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Greek NT text had no commas. It is you who is creating confusion.

That was my main pit there- if you put in a comma at a certain place, you alter the meaning, it changes meaning depending on where one puts a nonexistent comma.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

That was my main pit there- if you put in a comma at a certain place, you alter the meaning, it changes meaning depending on where one puts a nonexistent comma.

More than that, there's evidence that the orthodoxy messed around with the Greek manuscripts.

John 8:1-11, for example, was an add in in later manuscripts. And I like "let him without sin cast the first stone." But just because I like it doesn't mean that it's an accurate authentic story about Jesus.

We become emotionally attach to these things, to these traditions passed down thru the ages. That, perchance is the case with Jesus is God, and three persons -- walking the earth, at the same time, all of them killed on the cross (silly ... I know ... sorry) -- and it hurts deeply when our heart is attached and entrenched in them, and they're threatened and denied.

That's why arguing with logic and reason is useless in changing minds.

Therefore, we need to argue using henosis, like is found in Ephesians 4:3 & 13. Then we might find a common ground, and whether or not Jesus is God or not, and the same with "him" being 3 persons, produces disunity.

Henosis produces unity, like Ephesians says. And I'm not even a fan of Ephesians - it's disputed that it's written by Paul. But I'm a fan of henosis, and it's the only book that uses henosis (evidence that it might not be by Paul).

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

More than that, there's evidence that the orthodoxy messed around with the Greek manuscripts.

John 8:1-11, for example, was an add in in later manuscripts. And I like "let him without sin cast the first stone." But just because I like it doesn't mean that it's an accurate authentic story about Jesus.

We become emotionally attach to these things, to these traditions passed down thru the ages. That, perchance is the case with Jesus is God, and three persons -- walking the earth, at the same time, all of them killed on the cross (silly ... I know ... sorry) -- and it hurts deeply when our heart is attached and entrenched in them, and they're threatened and denied.

That's why arguing with logic and reason is useless in changing minds.

Therefore, we need to argue using henosis, like is found in Ephesians 4:3 & 13. Then we might find a common ground, and whether or not Jesus is God or not, and the same with "him" being 3 persons, produces disunity.

Henosis produces unity, like Ephesians says. And I'm not even a fan of Ephesians - it's disputed that it's written by Paul. But I'm a fan of henosis, and it's the only book that uses henosis (evidence that it might not be by Paul).

I’m not so sure arguing with logic lacks benefit. From experience, I would say the average person in the trin camp lives in the same type of environment we had in the LC-kind of a blind loyalty to a cause that constantly pumps up it’s agenda, constant indoctrination through songs, messages, peer pressure, danger to the soul if one strays, and demonizing any opposing view, and treating anyone who strays off the kool-aide as poisonous. When some little kid watching the parade shouts “ the emperor has no clothes” it shakes the foundation of belief. At once the defenders rise up with the usual illogical arguments of “what are you saying, kid, the emperor is wearing the finest robes ever made”. But at that point, some people have to stop and examine what is real and what is imaginary. If one spent their whole life in trinityville it’s not easy to even consider the alternative, because their entire perspective of all things God has been based on that narrative. For a little kid like me to shout out that no such belief system was held, spoken, taught in the foundational church in the NT is to expose a naked emperor. It’s easier to hide the head in the sand and say God is such a mystery we can never understand, and hold to the comfort of following the masses who practice trinitarianism than to examine and consider that it “ taint necessarily so”.
Your point about emotionally attached is most true- I think of that song He Walks With Me and He Talks With Me, and a lot of the modern Christian songs have this element of a Jesus love affair. What was that LC song Oh Who’s Like Our Jesus... We Love Thee OUr Jesus, We Love Thee Our God. Songs have a way of group think indoctrination, and who wants to argue with a love song.

[Boxjobox]

So to reiterate my premise: we are supposed to be discussing Née Lee and the LC on this site. WL/LSM refers to what they established as the Lords Recovery, the recovery of the church. I would say that WL did an adequate job of recovering the basic principles of the local church, at least as a starting point that would need further refinement and consideration of practice as time went on. I really don’t see anyone who spoke and brought out so much from the scriptures the many elements of the church and the need to forget the old Christianity ways of meeting, denominationalism, etc, and come together as Christians in the city where one lived and meet as the church. As to how that would look in each city, based on the locality would need ongoing attention.
But, WL went a step- well a lot more than a step!, further and wanted to fill the church content with his own theology, which was a warped presentation of trinitarianism. My premise is that the foundational church had no such theology and in fact would view such as foreign to what was established by Paul. I see no gospels spoken that put Jesus as God nor any teaching that would invite the idea of a 3 people God. Au contraire , both Jesus and Paul speak of one God, the Father, and Paul, in no uncertain terms calls for this to be the profession. All of Paul’s writings follow this thought. So a recovery of the church should have recovered this foundational belief. Instead, WL stuck to his own interpretations of. 4th century trinitarianism, and alas, although an adequate understanding of the foundational “ground” of the local church was established, the content was anything but recovered. Hence, you now have this entrenched entity who claim to be “the church” meeting as the recovery, but in content are far from such— Such an anomaly! It is that anomaly that I think this whole site was set up to discuss. Unfortunately, the dear moderator of the main site does not want a discussion to venture into the notion that a recovery of the church must needs be a discussion of the belief and practices of the scriptural foundational church, but would rather limit the discussion to 4th century ideology. Thus I get removed from the main site and relegated to the alt, because I guess the moderator has abandoned the thought of the need for recovery and has opted for reformation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

That was my main pit there- if you put in a comma at a certain place, you alter the meaning, it changes meaning depending on where one puts a nonexistent comma.

This conversation has no hope of some redeeming value. Unless UntoHim has something good to offer, I'm finished here.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This conversation has no hope of some redeeming value. Unless UntoHim has something good to offer, I'm finished here.

Don't you hope in Theophany? Jesus could come out here to declare that he's God, that the Father is sitting on HIS right hand, and that he's a trinity, sitting on the throne of heaven, all three squeezed tightly together.

I know that sounds silly. But not any more silly than Jesus was God, so the trinity died on the cross.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't you hope in Theophany? Jesus could come out here to declare that he's God, that the Father is sitting on HIS right hand, and that he's a trinity, sitting on the throne of heaven, all three squeezed tightly together.

I know that sounds silly. But not any more silly than Jesus was God, so the trinity died on the cross.

Awareness- you are shortchanging God. According to John’s writing one of the members suddenly became 7 in Revelation, so mixed with the trinitarian philosophy God is actually a nonaune-9 in one, although I’m not sure if each of the expanded 7 are each a person; maybe the trins would have better insight in this important development. The other thing to notice is that I don’t think the Holy Spirit actually gets to occupy a position on the throne- apparently there is either a space issue or a subservient situation going on. Not sure how that plays out in eternity, because the events seem to shift to a God and Lamb orchestra with the Spirit fading off stage. And then again it is God and the Lamb which seems like in language study would be two different people; one called God and the other Lamb, but the trins have a way of blending the two into one. We may be heading to an eternity with a diune situation- stay tuned!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why do you constantly ignore all the scriptures?

Why do you reject the opening of John's Gospel?

And there you go again -- avoiding the Bible, and bringing up the 4th century again. Have you no principles?

I don’t reject the opening of John’s gospel, I reject the interpretation that is made. If John was so interested in us all understanding that Jesus is God, and that God became a man, I think, because this would be such a drastic shift in people’s understanding and relation to God, that he would have in the least summarized his gospel with such a definite statement. Saying the logos was with God and was God, and then saying the logos- the thought of God became flesh are to me, not saying God became flesh, but that God’s thought, plan, became real to man- the thought through which the entire universe was brought into substance, finally had the next step, the all important component to Gods idea, become tangible flesh.
To say God became flesh, would be a contradiction to the nature of God, it is not what the whole NT presents, it is not what is preached, not the gospel. A whole religion/ philosophy has arisen over this one chapter that differs from all else that is presented in the NT. This is why I say a recovery of the church should have been a recovery of the foundational church that we find in the NT. That foundational church was in no way built on a trinitarian doctrine. You know, in revelation there are two women, one are Gods people the other is Babylon the great, the mother of all the harlots. When I look at the foundational church as portrayed in the NT, it is built on the foundation of Jesus being the Christ, the son of the Living God. Christiandom since the 4th century with all its various divisions is built upon trinitarianism, which is not the foundation of the church. To not discuss this is foolish.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

To not discuss this is foolish.

No. It's Roman Catholic, Leeism, and Evangelicalism. Which I suppose is the same thing.

[Boxjobox]

WL used 1Cor to establish a number of practices such as calling on the Lord, prophesying, Lords table. But he did not establish what Paul taught in chapter 8 that there is but one God, the Father.
Here are supporting verses from 1Cor

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord

But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s

And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body [g]and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God,

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all

Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.

But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all

These are but a few, but I think they well represent Paul’s thinking and teaching. He does not speak of a triune God, but specifically references God, God our Father. He does not put Jesus in the place of God. God is God and Christ Jesus is Christ Jesus. To create a trinity, 3 people god, or to substitute Jesus for God is to alter the meaning and teaching Paul presents.

Had WL the same thinking as Paul, his bible teaching would have brought the believers to have such a great appreciation of God, our Father. It would have rightened a jumbled understanding that resulted from 4th century trinitarianism. The church contents and practice would have been prayers, thanksgiving, worship, to God, God our Father. The perspective would have been operational according to that which was taught by Paul and the scripture. The church would have commenced the house of God. The name of our Father would have been “hallowed”. Instead, WL filled the believers with an unscriptural concept of a processed triune god.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

These are but a few, but I think they well represent Paul’s thinking and teaching. He does not speak of a triune God, but specifically references God, God our Father. He does not put Jesus in the place of God. God is God and Christ Jesus is Christ Jesus. To create a trinity, 3 people god, or to substitute Jesus for God is to alter the meaning and teaching Paul presents.

Another verse by Apostle Paul that needs to be removed BJB?

Who are Israelites ... whose are the patriarchs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen. -- Rom 9.5

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Another verse by Apostle Paul that needs to be removed BJB?

Who are Israelites ... whose are the patriarchs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen. -- Rom 9.5

No, Oh-just needs not have the trinity translation

King James Version
1I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

If you think about it, Oh, Paul is saying he could wish he could be separated from Christ for his Jewish roots. That is a wild thing to say concerning Christ. So he is making it understood that Christ came from Paul’s roots and no need to be disassociated from Christ who is not to be dismissed because Christ is God BLESSED for ever.

Hey, Oh, I thought you were out of here because I was unredeemable.

Read through Romans! God is God, and Christ is Christ. Paul is not deviating from his core principal that there is one God, the Father, even if you hold to that and then have another God named Jesus. The church is founded and built up on Jesus being the Christ, the son of the Living God. Not on an off gospel that makes Jesus a second God! Christ is blessed by God forever.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Another verse by Apostle Paul that needs to be removed BJB?

Who are Israelites ... whose are the patriarchs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen. -- Rom 9.5

Oh no! Not a punctuation argument again!

Here's the NET Bible footnote on it :

14tn Or “the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever,” or “the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever!” or “the Messiah who is over all. God be blessed forever!” The translational difficulty here is not text-critical in nature, but is a problem of punctuation. Since the genre of these opening verses of Romans 9 is a lament, it is probably best to take this as an affirmation of Christ’s deity (as the text renders it). Although the other renderings are possible, to see a note of praise to God at the end of this section seems strangely out of place. But for Paul to bring his lament to a crescendo (that is to say, his kinsmen had rejected God come in the flesh), thereby deepening his anguish, is wholly appropriate. This is also supported grammatically and stylistically: The phrase ὁ ὢν (Jo wn, “the one who is”) is most naturally taken as a phrase which modifies something in the preceding context, and Paul’s doxologies are always closely tied to the preceding context. For a detailed examination of this verse, see B. M. Metzger, “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,” Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament, 95-112; and M. J. Harris, Jesus as God, 144-72.

Using, Bart Ehrman's professor as an authority on the matter ... who I suppose motivated Ehrman's book : How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee

https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Bec.../dp/0061778184

[Boxjobox]

So, if we think through this trinitarian stuff with an objective view as is possible, it seem to me that we find this: way back in the 4th century a group got together and decided that the decree to keep the oneness of the faith would be to have a 3 person God, with the 2nd person being fully God AND fully man. It seemed not to bother anyone, and still doesn’t to this day, that Paul the apostle stated that there was but one God, the Father, and stressed that the unity of the faith would be held by acknowledging one God and Father.

It shouldn’t escape our interest that at the time of that great council there were great dissenters and practicers of Paul’s words that did not agree with the 3 god thing. To think there was not a controversy would make the necessity for a decree as foolish. Constantine the Emperor in adopting Christianity as the state religion did not want division, which lead to factions which are not good in holding together an empire. The vote was cast in favor of the trinity doctrine and that doctrine became the edict all must follow. Any dissent was met with foul consequences. This was throughout the empire, for over a millennium- no small chunk of historical time. We should also consider that at the time of leading up to the council hierarchy was strongly developed in the churches. It should also be noted that the average Christian did not possess a collective book of scriptures, which were in the hands of the hierarchy system. This decree that was put on all calling themselves Christians was not some sort of mutually understood theology accepted readily by all. It was a top down decree that was forced on all. This edict was what became the orthodoxy of the church. Christianity, with few exceptions today still holds this as the explanation of God. Paul’s word seems to be marginalized to the point that when it is read today has no impact, no importance; the decree reigns triumphantly.

Along comes WL, who refines the concept of the decree and his version becomes the decree of his recovery. Let’s say this recovery becomes world wide and accepted, and his theology holds the Christians together for the next millennium. Does his concocted god then become God because a vast amount of people believe it to be so? What actually happens to Paul’s pronouncement of there being but one God, the Father.? That important description of God, by the apostle, would once again be thrown by the wayside. It is not great decrees that define God, it is not numbers of believers in a man made theology, it is not persuasive and prevalent teachers and scholars who define God. The believers, the church should and must be built on the foundation of the apostles, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. It is this cornerstone who told us that the Father is the one true God. It is Paul who told us that for us there is but one God, the Father, and that our oneness needs to be maintained by professing one God and Father.

[UntoHim]

Excellent post Boxy! Very cogent and succinct. Maybe your best ever on this thread.

I have another question for you. (It seems on only have time these days for questions and not engaging in long, drawn out arguments...please work with me here!) Once again, it is a sincere question, and it certainly is not meant to be leading or anything like that. I do think it is a question that folks like you would do well to take seriously, so please feel free to take some time and get back to me at your earliest convenience.

Question: What was this glory that the Lord Jesus shared with the Father before the world began?
And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. John 17:5 ESV
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

***The question assumes that the Lord Jesus did in fact exist "before the world began", so if you have to, you can also include your interpretation about this aspect as well, but please keep the main focus on the question at hand. Thanks!***
-

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Excellent post Boxy! Very cogent and succinct. Maybe your best ever on this thread.

I have another question for you. (It seems on only have time these days for questions and not engaging in long, drawn out arguments...please work with me here!) Once again, it is a sincere question, and it certainly is not meant to be leading or anything like that. I do think it is a question that folks like you would do well to take seriously, so please feel free to take some time and get back to me at your earliest convenience.

Question: What was this glory that the Lord Jesus shared with the Father before the world began?
And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. John 17:5 ESV
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

***The question assumes that the Lord Jesus did in fact exist "before the world began", so if you have to, you can also include your interpretation about this aspect as well, but please keep the main focus on the question at hand. Thanks!***
-

Untohim, once again, it is so good of you to do the Christian service and visit those imprisoned. Could you just dip your finger in water to quench the terrible thirst we experience down here in the dungeon? Maybe you could speak to my brethren and warn them not to post things about the need to proclaim one God, the Father, lest they also end up in this place of tormented exile. Of course, if they wouldn’t hear WL, why would heed your warning.

It took longer than I expected for this question to be asked, as it is a way to deflect from the most important concept Jesus is conveying about eternal life, Our Heavenly Father who is the one true God, Jesus the sent one and thank God, Us the believers. Let me just say, that because the scripture does not expand on “and now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.“, I am not qualified to answer, in that I don’t think anyone knows even vaguely what Jesus met. It seems there is a lot we do not know, particularly about eternity and the whole “heavenly” scene and the workings of God. Even the word “glory” is used quite a bit in the NT, and although I have thought of it often and what exactly it means- such as us receiving a glorified body, I have to confess I don’t know. It may be one of those things we won’t know until it happens. It is written that we were chosen before the foundation of the world, that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. I think it would have been great if God would give us more insight into these things, but we do not have such, and must live by faith and the scripture.
This is why I feel it is so important that God’s people do not entangle themselves in a man made version of God, but stick to the scripture. If Paul is telling that there is to us but one God, the Father, I think we best hold to this and not recreate God as a three people entity.
You kind of give the impression that Jesus was Lord prior to his birth, yet what I read, and what Paul wants us to see in Ephesians is the revelation of the working of God to make this man, Jesus, Lord. In other words, seems to me that the gospel is that God raised Jesus from the dead set him at His right hand and made him Lord over his creation at that time. We are to address and confess Jesus as Lord to the GLORY of the Father. Our thinking, our speaking, our living, our testimony is that God made this same crucified Jesus Lord. This Lordship apparently has a duration- sit at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. The Lordship of the Christ was, I think, a reward given to Jesus for redeeming us on the cross. The problem is now; we do not see all things subject to him.
Sorry, Untohim, I can’t really help you to understand “eternity past”, but I’m doing my best to point you to accept what the scripture says should be our stand today, the stand of the church and the churches- that God raised this Jesus from the dead and Stephen saw the heavens open and the son of man standing on the right side of God. This is supposed to be our testimony today. Can you imagine if WL would have “recovered” this and the churches would have been filled with a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ anthem instead of the processed triune god sweep?
Now that would have been GLORIOUS! Can you see it Untohim? Can you accept it and proclaim it? It is trinitarianism that belongs in the BIG dungeon! It has warped the gospel and the scripture.

And besides- wasn’t Jesus the name given to the child born in Bethlehem as the angel instructed? Didn’t that holy child, after he rose from the dead tell Mary I ascend to my God and your God to my Father and your Father. And didn’t he tell the disciples All power in heaven and earth Has been GIVEN to me.
Let’s proclaim the true gospel, Untohim, the one the Holy Spirit can witness to, the one we read of in Acts.

And, I know you only like short snippy replies because I have to jump through hoops to give anything longer than a couple of sentences!

[awareness]

This post comes right after my "," thing, but it seems to be addressed to the crowded audience out here.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So, if we think through this trinitarian stuff with an objective view as is possible, it seem to me that we find this: way back in the 4th century a group got together and decided that the decree to keep the oneness of the faith would be to have a 3 person God, with the 2nd person being fully God AND fully man. It seemed not to bother anyone, and still doesn’t to this day, that Paul the apostle stated that there was but one God, the Father, and stressed that the unity of the faith would be held by acknowledging one God and Father.

It shouldn’t escape our interest that at the time of that great council there were great dissenters and practicers of Paul’s words that did not agree with the 3 god thing. To think there was not a controversy would make the necessity for a decree as foolish. Constantine the Emperor in adopting Christianity as the state religion did not want division, which lead to factions which are not good in holding together an empire. The vote was cast in favor of the trinity doctrine and that doctrine became the edict all must follow. Any dissent was met with foul consequences. This was throughout the empire, for over a millennium- no small chunk of historical time. We should also consider that at the time of leading up to the council hierarchy was strongly developed in the churches. It should also be noted that the average Christian did not possess a collective book of scriptures, which were in the hands of the hierarchy system. This decree that was put on all calling themselves Christians was not some sort of mutually understood theology accepted readily by all. It was a top down decree that was forced on all. This edict was what became the orthodoxy of the church. Christianity, with few exceptions today still holds this as the explanation of God. Paul’s word seems to be marginalized to the point that when it is read today has no impact, no importance; the decree reigns triumphantly.

Along comes WL, who refines the concept of the decree and his version becomes the decree of his recovery. Let’s say this recovery becomes world wide and accepted, and his theology holds the Christians together for the next millennium. Does his concocted god then become God because a vast amount of people believe it to be so? What actually happens to Paul’s pronouncement of there being but one God, the Father.? That important description of God, by the apostle, would once again be thrown by the wayside. It is not great decrees that define God, it is not numbers of believers in a man made theology, it is not persuasive and prevalent teachers and scholars who define God. The believers, the church should and must be built on the foundation of the apostles, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. It is this cornerstone who told us that the Father is the one true God. It is Paul who told us that for us there is but one God, the Father, and that our oneness needs to be maintained by professing one God and Father.

It looks to me like, as time passed, Jesus became bigger and bigger (and by the way, more and more divine, and less and less human). And eventually along came Lee and Jesus became all three of the trinity.

Using Isaiah 9:6 Lee had the audacity to claimed Jesus was the Father. Lee made Jesus the whole shebang ; the whole trinity wrapped up into one.

So Jesus went from 100% God and 100% human to, 100% everything ; a mixture of everything, all, each and every ONE, 100%.

Why I must ask? Is it that we're hardwired to have a top hero in our thinking? Maybe. It does make things simple, so we can get on with the necessities of life.

But as I've stated numerous times :

A hero is not a hero until the mythmakers are done.

And seems, with Lee, they -- he, Lee -- weren't done.

SOOOOOO ...

Let's all chant, over and over : OH! LORD JESUS! and work up a frenzy ; JESUS IS EVERYTHING!

And stop thinking, and go on feeding LSM with all our free energy, time, and money. Cuz the world has to know that, JESUS IS EVERYTHING, ALL BALLED UP INTO ONE!

Here's how I see it in a nutshell :
At the end of the 1st century, some guy really handy with words -- writing in Koine Greek, wrote the gospel that came later, in the 2nd c., to be called John -- got the ball rolling, with his much bigger Jesus, than the other three anonymous gospel writers.

Then in the fourth century, Jesus got even bigger, as the 2nd person in the trinity.

Then in the 20th century Lee came along, and Jesus became everything.

Now there's no other mythmaker needed. All the mythmakers can finally lay their pens down.

And look at us, we're arguing over the old out-dated dogma of the trinity. The trinity is now nothing. Jesus is everything. There's no 3 gods anymore. Jesus is the one and only true Father God. Kick that trinity to the curb. It's no longer needed. Jesus trumps it.

[Boxjobox]

Perhaps the answer to our quest would be found in the book of Wisdom, or maybe in the Apocrypha, or even the book on Enoch. How did we learn that Michael the archangel contended with Satan over the body of Moses?

[awareness]

Why would they do such a thing? They both knew that Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 15, that, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

But then did they? How much the angel and devil knew back then is unknown. But it does seem they didn't know what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15, one thousand years after Moses died.

That must have been just a literary device, to show the importance of Moses -- (Read the Assumption of Moses) -- that even his body was worth the devil and the archangel to fight over it. I guess that makes Moses right up there with Jesus. They didn't even fight over the body of Jesus like that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Excellent post Boxy! Very cogent and succinct. Maybe your best ever on this thread.
. . .
. . .
Question: What was this glory that the Lord Jesus shared with the Father before the world began?
And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. John 17:5 ESV
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Hahaha ... Cute ... in the Greek no less (Received or Critical Text). Surely that's getting even closer to God's actual words ... only getting at the actual breathing gets closer.

That aside, I've been utterly gobsmacked by this question since first reading it. Good one bro Untohim. Touché ... maybe.

First. One reason I'm gobsmacked by your brilliant question is because, I just received a hard bound copy of a book Aron posted about not long ago : Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Library of Early Christology) by Alan Segal.

Just beginning the book, your question strikes as some kind of synchronicity. The prayer, that whoever the author of John was, is putting on the lips of Jesus, reveals that, indeed, before the world existed, there were two powers in heaven. And as the book reveals, the two powers in question are both kind and good powers ; not opposing powers. Same same. Gobsmacked.

And second. Jesus is praying TO THE FATHER! Why is God praying to God? That's an easy one -> One power in heaven is greater than the other power ; there's a Father/Son metaphor at work here, just as "Boxy" claims.

And it begs the question : Just how many types of "glory's" are there?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

It took longer than I expected for this question to be asked, as it is a way to deflect from the most important concept Jesus is conveying about eternal life, Our Heavenly Father who is the one true God, Jesus the sent one and thank God, Us the believers. Let me just say, that because the scripture does not expand on “and now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.“, I am not qualified to answer, in that I don’t think anyone knows even vaguely what Jesus met.

What a cheap cop out in order to keep your heretical beliefs intact. Why not dig a little, "ye search the scriptures", as the Lord instructs us.

Let's talk about Jesus and His glory. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus told them, "ought not Christ to have suffered and enter into His glory?" So Jesus explained in His prayer to the Father, that He would be glorified after He suffered. Mentioned in this conversation was "all the things that had just occurred." -- the trial, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Philippians 2 speaks about Jesus "subsisting in the form of God did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." Here is the glory Jesus had with the Father before the world was. Jesus is plainly portrayed by Apostle Paul in this chapter as the eternal God.

I've talked to JW's before. They all are as stubborn as you. Their Bibles have hundreds of missing and distorted scriptures to suit their false teachings.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What a cheap cop out in order to keep your heretical beliefs intact. Why not dig a little, "ye search the scriptures", as the Lord instructs us.

Let's talk about Jesus and His glory. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus told them, "ought not Christ to have suffered and enter into His glory?" So Jesus explained in His prayer to the Father, that He would be glorified after He suffered. Mentioned in this conversation was "all the things that had just occurred." -- the trial, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Philippians 2 speaks about Jesus "subsisting in the form of God did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." Here is the glory Jesus had with the Father before the world was. Jesus is plainly portrayed by Apostle Paul in this chapter as the eternal God.

I've talked to JW's before. They all are as stubborn as you. Their Bibles have hundreds of missing and distorted scriptures to suit their false teachings.

Sure, let’s not just dig a little, but a little more-look at 10 versions of the Phil.2 quote and you get some pretty diverse and differing translations.
I think I have adequately shown that Paul’s mind is that there is but one God, the Father; something you say you believe because it is scripture, yet it is not your thinking, in that you also have a God Jesus, whom you refer to as God the son, so somewhere there 1 count not one ,but two. If, and you should, read through Phil. carefully , you will discover that Paul refers to God as the Father, but in no way to a second one, God the son. Look how Paul opens this epistle, and how he prays to God, and how he refers to Jesus the Lord and Christ. In fact, in this section of Phil 2 5-11 after talking of Jesus’ suffering and death, says that God highly exalted him and GAVE him a name above every name...
Look at Phil 4.19-20 And my God shall supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. 20Now unto our God and Father be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. The Philippians are not to confuse Jesus with God , but hold to one God, the Father.
Philippians is about the fellowship of the gospel. As I pointed out numerous times, there is not a gospel preached, and Paul tells us the gospel he preaches, which contains reference to Jesus being God. I think they all understood the greatness of Jesus , and how God was with him, and how they could see God in the face of Christ- the form of God. Yet Paul in his speaking did not say Jesus is God. That would be contrary to everything we know he taught.
Another problem arises if you think about it- you want to tell me that John has Jesus proclaiming that he is God-Yahweh in the John gospel. How do you reconcile that with the humble Jesus here in Phil. that did not snatch such an opportunity to make some kind of equality?

Yes, the resurrected Christ was crowned with glory and honor- read through Ephesians to appreciate what the God and Father of Jesus did by, with and through Christ. This is the whole point of the scriptures!

I would only be counted as heretical by those who hold fast to the 4th century decree on tritheism. In the foundational church, I would be a typical believer in the gospel. Ohio, you run by a different gospel and cannot reconcile that gospel with the one preached in Acts, and by Paul.

Since were were chosen before the foundation of the world, does that make us eternal and God? I don’t claim to know about heavenly things-don’t know about angels, 24 elders, 4 living creatures, seraphim and cherubim, principalities, powers, spirits, etc. But I do know that one day, that holy thing was born, was baptized and anointed with the Spirit of God, ministered, and taught, was crucified, that God raised him from the dead, that he is both Lord and Christ and the highest name in creation, and that in him I have forgiveness of sins, and the hope of eternal life, and one day he will return to judge the living and the dead. And that when all things are finally put in subjection to him, then he will be subject to the one who put all under him so that God will be all in all.

Not too shabby, if I do say so myself

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Sure, let’s not just dig a little, but a little more-look at 10 versions of the Phil.2 quote and you get some pretty diverse and differing translations.
I think I have adequately shown that Paul’s mind is that there is but one God, the Father; something you say you believe because it is scripture, yet it is not your thinking, in that you also have a God Jesus, whom you refer to as God the son, so somewhere there 1 count not one ,but two.

And that's your problem Boxjobox!

You can't count, when it comes to the Father and the Son.

You count TWO, but I count ONE. You have wrong thinking. You say that you believe in God, yet you don't believe His word. Yes, I have God the Father and I have God the Son because the Bible clearly says this.

That's why we have the Throne (singular) of God and the Lanb. Not two on one throne, or two on two thrones, but One God on one Throne.

Sorry Box, but when it comes to counting, you have serious shortcomings. We have pointed this out with lots of verses but no matter what the verses say, you have a mental math stronghold, and just can't accept by faith what the Bible says clearly.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, I have God the Father and I have God the Son because the Bible clearly says this.

I'm very curious. Where does the Bible clearly say this? I just searched the whole NT, and nowhere does it say, "God the son," that I can find.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And that's your problem Boxjobox!

You can't count, when it comes to the Father and the Son.

You count TWO, but I count ONE. You have wrong thinking. You say that you believe in God, yet you don't believe His word. Yes, I have God the Father and I have God the Son because the Bible clearly says this.

That's why we have the Throne (singular) of God and the Lanb. Not two on one throne, or two on two thrones, but One God on one Throne.

Sorry Box, but when it comes to counting, you have serious shortcomings. We have pointed this out with lots of verses but no matter what the verses say, you have a mental math stronghold, and just can't accept by faith what the Bible says clearly.

Ohio, you say God and the Lamb. So I count 2. One is God, and another is Lamb. One plus one is 2. Two distinct entities. God raised Christ Jesus from the dead an exalted him to such a lofty position. The God of the Lamb did that. That is a key element of the Christian faith.

There is no mention of God the Son in scripture. This is a man-made term to alter the understanding of scripture and conform it to tritheism.

Who is the “we” you refer to in we have pointed out... Is it you and Josh MCDowell? Who are the we? Is the we all those who follow the 4th century edict?

You can’t say “for me there is but one God, the Father” which is very definitive and then talk about a second God, whom you call God the Son in a comprehensible way and think anyone outside of your “ we” group will take you serious. Use your God given grey cells!

If there WAS/IS such clear teaching of this 2 God thing in the scripture, shouldn’t you just quote this genuine teaching? Why have a council of clever men decide this plain truth. Point out where it is taught- should be all over the NT.

Ohio, why is your theology such a secretive, hidden, jigsaw puzzle, that relies on bits and pieces of unrelated partial scriptural words to be fit together and mixed with the cleverness of men? Paul seems to me, is straight forward in presenting God as God and Christ as Christ. God is the God of Christ Jesus. Please reread Philippians and notice Paul’s nomenclature.
This thing that you feel is the most important discovery, on which you base your theology and relation to the Almighty; You make it sound like God kept it pretty secret that He is a 3 people entity, but some wise people figured it out and made a new clearer presentation that I should follow or be labeled a heretic because I don’t see it and don’t want to be a part of the trinity party. You have a very, very strange view of God and God’s workings according to the scripture I read. I don’t think it is healthy for you spiritually or emotionally to follow the false trinitarian theology, and would urge you to reconsider what is the gospel, and on what the church should be built. Paul ministered both in concise language; he did not minister a trinitarian theology.

[awareness]

By a member of the :we: out here. I think. Untohim isn't really out here :::::::::::::

But as I can add it up, with what little I know, "God the Son" is a tagalong of the trinity doctrine. And I'm pretty sure that all interested parties out here know that the word trinity is not found in the NT ; Nowhere! Nada! Neither is the term, God the Son.

And you'd think of any of the gospels were to mention it it would be John. John doesn't mention the trinity, not specifically anyway.

Digression : Turn to Matthew for that, with its strange "Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

There's one, not more than one, name for 'the all three?' Talk about an opportunity for the use of the word trinity. There it was. And what about the missed opportunity for, "Baptizing in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost? There's evidence that, that verse has been meddled with, in the manuscripts (likely by a trinitarian), so why not just spell out 'the all three Gods?' Now wait. Here's another thing not mentioned in John, or the synoptic's for that matter, maybe "Jesus" is the name of 'the all three Gods?'

Back to John. John, the most flamboyant of the four, doesn't mention "God the Son" nor does he, or she (it's possible, just not probable), mention the trinity. Come on John? Your book is out beyond the stratosphere, with your highfalutin Christology. Why couldn't you have cleared up any future confusion, and introduced the trinity and God the Son?

I have to admit, tho, that it rolls off the tongue : say it, God the Son. But where did it originate? It's not in the NT, so, who said it first? Was it first coined in Nicaea?

Does any one know where the term -- maybe it's an idiom - like, “You hit the nail on the head” -- "God the Son" originated?

If so, please school this idiot.

[awareness]

I was wrong. There is a manuscript of the NT with "God the Son" in it. It's a medieval MS #1985 ... where Galatians 2:20 has "Son of God" changed to "God the Son."

But that strikes as a scribal error.

Here's where God the Son was concertized : The Athanasian Creed, 6th c. (and the trinity too) ... check out point #15.

Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

[awareness]

Just in case you missed it, check out point 28 in the Athanasian Creed :

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

In other words, "must think thus of the trinity according to the 27 preceding points before point 28. And you must thus think of the trinity to be saved."

Here's where BJB is right, that the trinity doctrine is nefarious (I think he said something like 'damaging')

In spelling it all out, the real point of this Athanasian Creed is to control their cult members, of the RCC, by controlling their thinking.

Ring a bell?

So back then, when the RCC was in control of Christianity, in order to be saved you had to believe in the trinity, and that the Son was God. That was also required to be a member of the RCC in good standing.

So I must ask, today, if you don't believe in the trinity, and that the Son is God, does that make you a heretic? even today? Does the Athanasian Creed still hold today?

And are followers of it cult members?

[Boxjobox]

This is exactly why my premise is that a “recovery” of the church is more than just getting believers in a city to call themselves the church in that city. A real recovery of “the church” would have to be a total change in content, speaking, ministry, that brought the believers back to the foundational church as ministered by Paul. W Lee brought a nice workable concept of meeting together as the church in a city, but filled that with his own new improved version of tritheism. You can see why Paul was so adamant in making sure the believers rallied around one God, the Father. When the gospel is that Jesus is the Christ, and that God raised that man from the dead and gave him the position he was given, that concept could be abused, morphed, altered for personal gain and profit, and power. Yes, Lee dropped his recovery right in the 4th century and proceeded to use the same tactics that the grand clergy, the people in the know, of the 4th century used to control the little potatoes. The results were the same- endless repeat of the mantra, mandated conformity, and loss of true spiritual understanding. The decree flows from the top down and the money from the bottom up.

[Boxjobox]

It seems to me that Paul really emphasized the concept of God and Christ to the Corinthians. It was a church that was starting to get secty ( a word I think I just made up) and was in a crossroads city where Greek/Roman gods abounded.
He wrote 15. 20But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

He emphasized that God- the Father, was above all and that Christ, who he speaks of as a man, was given the temporary position whereby we address Jesus as Lord. God will in finality rule over all including that man to whom he gave that lofty position. A far cry from the Athanasian creed. That creed ended up putting clergy reigning over kings and nobles, because they had control over men’s eternal destiny through pronouncements. Condemning a king to roast in hell would quickly bring them to submit to the pope. Unbelievable contortion of scripture!

[awareness]

Chronologically, first came Paul, and then came the gospels. If you were living in those days you'd likely think that Paul didn't finish it. And neither did Matthew, Mark, and Luke, cuz John had to come along at the end of the century ... 65 yrs after Jesus, and 50 yrs after Paul's earliest letter, 1 Thessalonians.

So after Paul Christianity continued to develop. When it started out with Paul Jesus wasn't God, and there was no hint of the trinity. But that didn't stick.

Cuz even after John's Jesus, the Logos, was God in the flesh, the development of Christianity wasn't finished. Another milestone had to be reached at Nicaea ... circa 300 yrs after Jesus, and circa 250 yrs after Paul.

Then circa 1500 yrs after Jesus, and Paul, and Nicaea, came the reformation age. That reformed many of the non-Christ-like abuses of the RCC, but kept much that had been developed at Nicaea, with RCC refinements that followed.

Then, in the early 1700s, with The First Great Awakening, came along Evangelicalism, that incorporated all that happened before, minus the bad stuff.

So is Christianity fully developed now, with Jesus was/is God, and God in three persons, called the trinity? and with the books of the Bible that was canonized by those tri-nitarians ... and Evangelicalism?

[Boxjobox]

Right, so along comes Lee and promotes “recovery” and makes the Nicene creed look elementary. So Lee got out of hand in his LSM and there was a reaction to his business and family practice. The main Née Lee LC site had years of discussion about this, but like the reformation, people just can’t take a serious look at the fundamental problem in both the RC and LC, which was trinitarianism. The use of that discounts the validity of Paul’s ministry, it ruins the normal discussion and insight into God and Christ and the Holy Spirit, which Spirit in my estimation long left Christian institutions, it promotes those “in the know” as being super spiritual, it ruins the gospel, it ruins the church in all function. If I were the devil- the adversary, and wanted to sow tares, trinitarianism would be the choice seed. It gives a feel of super, turbo truth while actually ruining the gospel. Today in the USA there is a pastoral business popping up in every community, with a staged performance and a week day bible study. And tritheism reigns. Luke wrote his gospel and Acts to clarify those things which are assuredly believed among the foundational church and there is no mention of Jesus being God or tritheism? Come now- where are the Bereans? Years of LC discussion and looking at Lee, but where is the same emphasis looking at the inception of the Nicene creed and the movers and shakers in that piece of work?
If you have to have a 4th century edict to tell you about God, it doesn’t speak well for the scripture nor the Holy Spirit.
You mentioned the Athanasian decree in the 6th century and the hammer that held over all- this of course means there were plenty who did not accept the Nicene creed, there was resistance to it from the beginning, but when you have viscous Popes coupled with the Roman armies, we know how that turned out. What happened then makes Lee’s strong arm tactics look like chasing butterflies! It’s time we Christians examine the trinitarian fiasco for what it was and is.
Recovery of the church would be a return to the foundational church Paul ministered. Where was John while Paul was doing the heavy lifting? No bible record of John going from town to town preaching Jesus is God and God is 3 people?

[awareness]

But then there's one witness in their favor : Mathew 28:19 : baptizing in the three names, Father, Son, and Spirit ... or rather "in THE name."

But there has been success in untwisting this Trinity mess. Not all that long ago the trinitarians enjoyed a second witness to support the all three persons in Matthew 28:19.

In the KJV 1 John 5:7-8 says : For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.*

But then it was discovered that those verses were addins into later manuscripts, and were discounted.

And now, 1 John 5:7-8 reads : For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

So the trinitarians lost some footing on that one. All they've had left was/is Matthew 28:19 ; that's an oddity, in the record. In Acts it's, "baptize in the name of Jesus."

There's sound evidence that some scribe added 1 John 5:7-8, and it supports trinitarianism. That's evidence that trinitarians, or some trinitarian copyist, sought to put he's, or their, trinitarian beliefs into John's epistle.

And ... while they're at it, why not tweak Matthew 28:19 a little too?

Does trinitarianism motivate lying - and acting in a non-Christ-likeness, to support it? Truth doesn't need lying to support it.

[UntoHim]

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isaiah 42:8
Septuagint
ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεός τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομα τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ οὐ δώσω οὐδὲ τὰς ἀρετάς μου τοῗς γλυπτοῗς

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
John 17:5 ESV
Textus Receptus
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

The most sacred and precious thing to God is his Name. (here in Isaiah: κύριος ὁ θεός - The Lord God) Closely related to his name, and just as sacred and just as precious, is his glory. God will not share his Name with any other, and God will not share his glory with any other.

Moses received the most sacred and most precious gift from God himself - "I AM WHO I AM", and simply "I AM", Later in Exodus Moses exclaimed "Show me your glory!" Moses, along with the Children of Israel, eventually realized that next to his name, the most sacred and most precious thing God could reveal to them was his glory.

Either Jesus Christ was an insane heretic (which is exactly what much of the Jewish leadership thought of him) or he actually shares the glory of God with the Father. He temporarily laid this glory aside from the time of his incarnation until his resurrection, at which time he "reunited" with the Father and resumed his rightful place - sharing in the glory of God with the Father.
-

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isaiah 42:8
Septuagint
ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεός τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομα τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ οὐ δώσω οὐδὲ τὰς ἀρετάς μου τοῗς γλυπτοῗς

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
John 17:5 ESV
Textus Receptus
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

The most sacred and precious thing to God is his Name. (here in Isaiah: κύριος ὁ θεός - The Lord God) Closely related to his name, and just as sacred and just as precious, is his glory. God will not share his Name with any other, and God will not share his glory with any other.

Moses received the most sacred and most precious gift from God himself - "I AM WHO I AM", and simply "I AM", Later in Exodus Moses exclaimed "Show me your glory!" Moses, along with the Children of Israel, eventually realized that next to his name, the most sacred and most precious thing God could reveal to them was his glory.

Either Jesus Christ was an insane heretic (which is exactly what much of the Jewish leadership thought of him) or he actually shares the glory of God with the Father. He temporarily laid this glory aside from the time of his incarnation until his resurrection, at which time he "reunited" with the Father and resumed his rightful place - sharing in the glory of God with the Father.
-

Untohim, I would submit the following to you for your consideration- the teaching of the apostle Paul
1 Cor 15 20But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

Untohim, it would appear your teaching and conclusions differs considerably from that of Paul.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isaiah 42:8
Septuagint
ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεός τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομα τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ οὐ δώσω οὐδὲ τὰς ἀρετάς μου τοῗς γλυπτοῗς

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
John 17:5 ESV
Textus Receptus
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

The most sacred and precious thing to God is his Name. (here in Isaiah: κύριος ὁ θεός - The Lord God) Closely related to his name, and just as sacred and just as precious, is his glory. God will not share his Name with any other, and God will not share his glory with any other.

Moses received the most sacred and most precious gift from God himself - "I AM WHO I AM", and simply "I AM", Later in Exodus Moses exclaimed "Show me your glory!" Moses, along with the Children of Israel, eventually realized that next to his name, the most sacred and most precious thing God could reveal to them was his glory.

Either Jesus Christ was an insane heretic (which is exactly what much of the Jewish leadership thought of him) or he actually shares the glory of God with the Father. He temporarily laid this glory aside from the time of his incarnation until his resurrection, at which time he "reunited" with the Father and resumed his rightful place - sharing in the glory of God with the Father.
-

Untohim, because you choose trinitarianism over the great revelation Paul gives us in his ministering to the Ephesians, you draw wrong conclusions and set them up as truth; yet the Spirit of God witnesses to truth. Here is what Peter With the backing of the 120 spoke in his 1st public gospel and we know the Holy Spirit witnessed with signs and convicted hearts

Acts 2 29Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. 30Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; 31he foreseeing this'spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.

34For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. 36Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.

God made this crucified Jesus both Lord and Christ. This is what Paul considered the needed revelation in Ephesians and this is what Peter, (you know, the first pope of the trinitarian religion!), spoke as gospel.
Tritheism debases the scripture and sends it’s followers down a false path. It’s time to “recover” the church back to its foundational roots.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Untohim, I would submit the following to you for your consideration- the teaching of the apostle Paul
1 Cor 15 20But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

Untohim, it would appear your teaching and conclusions differs considerably from that of Paul.

Only to you Boxjobox.

When Apostle Paul wrote I Cor 2.14, he had folks like you in mind.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Only to you Boxjobox.

When Apostle Paul wrote I Cor 2.14, he had folks like you in mind.

Bro Ohio is from the Logos camp ... so he should know.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Only to you Boxjobox.

When Apostle Paul wrote I Cor 2.14, he had folks like you in mind.

My footnote on Ohio’s comment: the natural man read’s Paul for what he says and accepts his apostleship and ministry as one who has a good understanding of the things of God. The spiritual man rejects the typical understanding one would derive from reading and finds great hidden meaning by applying tritheism to scripture. Thus the natural man arrives at conclusions from what he reads, but his conclusions are heretical, because they are not filtered through the acceptable trinitarian lens. Spiritual people have their own easy to understand main site on trinitarianism which one can tell when one reads all the posts that there are many spiritual people who have clear understanding of the subject. And those who don’t are damned to the alt site. Ohio, who is spiritual and has complete understanding of Paul’s secret code of interpretation, comes to the alt site because he feels it is his spiritual duty to speak truth to us damned, and as well, wants us to know that we I am damned because I don’t accept the 4th century decree telling us who and what God is. Ohio tries to lift Paul out of such a natural state and prop him up as a follower of tritheism. This helps Ohio feel that he is doing the work of the Lord.

Other consideration: I’m not sure if OH and Untohim are not perhaps the same person, one seems to drop in somewhat rarely but the other seems to be a regular at defending Untohim. And who are the “we” he refers to.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Other consideration: I’m not sure if OH and Untohim are not perhaps the same person, one seems to drop in somewhat rarely but the other seems to be a regular at defending Untohim. And who are the “we” he refers to.

I think I can at least clear this matter up. Oh and Unto are not the same persons. I know. I have their cell #s, and talk to them from time to time.

I also have to reveal, when talking to them on the phone, you would never guess that they are such staunch trinitarians.

[UntoHim]

Boxy,

Why are you discounting the plain words of the Gospel of John (again!). You only seem to want to believe the parts that align with your man-made Unitarian doctrines.

Jesus plainly and clearly stated (on more than one occasion) that he existed before the world began. You don't believe him, do you? Jesus plainly and clearly said he shared in the Father's glory. You don't believe him, do you? These are not my interpretations, but rather the plain and clear words of the God-man Jesus Christ.

I posted the verses. They are clear. God said he will not give his glory to another. Jesus Christ was also clear that he shared in God's glory with the Father before the world began. So which is it Boxy? Did Jesus Christ exist before the world began (like he said he did) and share in the Father's glory (like he said he did) or was he an insane heretic. It can't be both, Boxy. You have to chose. I know your method is just obfuscate and ignore, but I'm not going to let you get away with it. (cause I care for you and want to see you embrace the truth

You can post all the "one true God is only the Father" stuff all you want. Have at it. But you can't ignore the plain words of the Lord Jesus Christ.
-

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Boxy,

Why are you discounting the plain words of the Gospel of John (again!). You only seem to want to believe the parts that align with your man-made Unitarian doctrines.

Jesus plainly and clearly stated (on more than one occasion) that he existed before the world began. You don't believe him, do you? Jesus plainly and clearly said he shared in the Father's glory. You don't believe him, do you? These are not my interpretations, but rather the plain and clear words of the God-man Jesus Christ.

I posted the verses. They are clear. God said he will not give his glory to another. Jesus Christ was also clear that he shared in God's glory with the Father before the world began. So which is it Boxy? Did Jesus Christ exist before the world began (like he said he did) and share in the Father's glory (like he said he did) or was he an insane heretic. It can't be both, Boxy. You have to chose. I know your method is just obfuscate and ignore, but I'm not going to let you get away with it. (cause I care for you and want to see you embrace the truth

You can post all the "one true God is only the Father" stuff all you want. Have at it. But you can't ignore the plain words of the Lord Jesus Christ.
-

Untohim, in the realm of absolutes, one would have to conclude according to your use of verses, additional added interpretations, and the use of term God-man, and your abhorrence to Jesus’ own words that the Father is the only true God, that you have a certain spiritual insanity yourself. Our care for one another, I would think, should be toward eternal life. That eternal life was described by Jesus in John’s account attended by the apostles and maybe others, Jesus describes eternal life as knowing the Father the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus CHRIST whom he sent. This is my point- that Jesus makes an absolute definition of eternal life, which says only true God- the Father. I would have to conclude from your various posts, that you do not accept that definition, but need a further one, that would include at least one other as God, and that seems to be the God-man you are referring to. So, in actuality, in your spiritual psyche you have a duo god, not the only true God of whom Jesus speaks. Is this not spiritual insanity? To take glory and make that key to a larger formulation of God, and who is God, when the person of interest, whom you make into a God-man said the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD. I can only surmise that the God-man you present is therefore a false god, not the true god.
And if Jesus is saying the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD, when in fact he himself is part of a greater duo part God, then we would have Jesus being not insane necessarily, but deceptive in his words- something I do not believe about my Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.

All the apostles apparently heard what John wrote. Yet, if you read through Acts, and also accept Paul as an apostle through the will of God, who was establishing the church, you will find that there was no mention of what you consider an absolute truth, that Jesus is a God-man and that God is more than one God, the Father. That would mean that the foundational church was not built on the truth, but only a quasi truth- a low low gospel as it were. I think it is well established that the writing of “ the gospel of John” was not there during the formation of the foundational church, and we have no scriptural evidence of God’s people running around speaking a gospel of Jesus being God. As I have repeatedly pointed out- which you call “stuff”, but what I call sound scriptural teaching that follows in accordance with all that Paul preached and taught, Paul clearly and in a warning way said that there was but one God, the Father. I accept this as truth; I think you should also, for the sake of your own spiritual sanity. When you start projecting a God-man into the scripture, you alter the scripture, the gospel, the Christian life, the church as the pillar and ground of the truth. Your spiritual stability comes in question, and it makes you sound like there is a touch of insanity. Take for instance our dear brother Ohio, who because it is scripture says he believes there is one God, the Father, but also believes a Jesus is God. Run that through a Boolean algebra algorithm and see what results- not logical!

I have stated before, and don’t mind stating again, that concerning the glory that Jesus is stating, I have no opinion because it is not the gospel that established the foundational church. Your perspective of that does not matchI what is spoken by Paul as the gospel. It does not appear the NT saints hold the opinion you hold, John’s gospel is in fact quite different in content that what is given in other gospels, Acts, and the epistles. You seem to want to make your interpretations of John’s writing overlord the rest of the NT. I step back and say, wait a minute something does not jive here. I mean which is true Luke’s account of Pentecost or John’s account of Jesus breathing into some of the apostles in a secret meeting. Maybe because Paul was not in that secret meeting he lacked something, but the NT does not follow the John account. And like I say, the John account came after the foundational church was laid. So, I choose to accept Paul’s gospel and ministry, which laid the foundation for the church, which foundation you call a man made unitarianism, and am skeptical of some of the things I read in John’s writing, precisely because they do not match the narrative of the rest of the NT, and we have no scriptural record of John laying a foundational church, and if what you conclude from John’s writing is a great tritheistic gospel and belief system and it is not taught in the rest of the NT, then yes, we are dealing with spiritual insanity.
All it would take is a gospel in Acts or statement by Paul that Jesus is God and God is 3 people, and I would be right there in your tritheistic party.
But such a teaching would take mounds of scripture to explain and it would have met sever opposition, and Paul and Jesus would not have told us that the one, only, true God is the Father.
I think your real care is for trinitarianism, that 4th century decree. And I understand your affinity for it. I understand it is the basis for your entire theology. I understand that you can’t accept both it and a decree by the apostle Paul that there is but one God, the Father- I get that, I was there one time myself. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, I went through 12 years of Catholic education, I was a fervent alter boy, I’ve been to numerous denominations and groups, and I spent I spent 13 years feeding on WL/LSM. I know what it is like trying to read the scripture through the 4th century prism. Untohim, the church will never be built on the foundation of trinitarian theology. I think at one time you cared for the things of the church. Now it seems that you have drifted into modern christianity. The church is built on the foundation that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. The gospel is that Jesus is the Christ, that this perfect man died for our sins, that God raised him from the dead and he is seated on the right hand of God as our Lord and Christ. The gospel is not God is 3 people, Jesus is a God-man, Jesus reassumed his intrinsic position as God. You are presenting a false narrative. The seed our Master sowed is to bring forth fruit, trinitarianism is a false seed of tares- look what fruit has come forth since the 4th century. It’s time to “recover” the foundational church, something I fear you have thrust aside for the modern Christianity jingle bells theme. Wake up out of your stupor Untohim and look at what Paul ministered. You are so caught up in trinitarian John interpretations that you have become complacent in Christiandom. Is the modern Christianity really what Paul labored for, is it that thing for which our Master, Jesus will return?
Here is a John quote, in one of the rare places we read John had any interest in the church:

Rev 3.7And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth:

8I know thy works (behold, I have set before thee a door opened, which none can shut), that thou hast a little power, and didst keep my word, and didst not deny my name. 9Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. 10Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. 11I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown. 12He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name. 13He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.

Untohim hear what the Spirit says to the churches- there is no trinitarian message!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

That eternal life was described by Jesus in John’s account attended by the apostles and maybe others, Jesus describes eternal life as knowing the Father the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus CHRIST whom he sent. This is my point- that Jesus makes an absolute definition of eternal life, which says only true God- the Father.

We ought also to read and believe what John says in his epistle . . .

He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. -- I John 5.10-12

Having the Son of God is having the Father, and having the Son of God is having the life, the eternal life.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We ought also to read and believe what John says in his epistle . . .
Having the Son of God is having the Father, and having the Son of God is having the life, the eternal life.

Oh no! Not another comma problem!

Methinks bro Ohio, you'd do better to quote 1 John 5:7, in the KJV :

1Jn 5:7* For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.*

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh no! Not another comma problem!

Methinks bro Ohio, you'd do better to quote 1 John 5:7, in the KJV :

1Jn 5:7* For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.*

awareness, sounds like "3 Persons, but one God," eh?

Did you show that to our friend Boxjobox?

[Boxjobox]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
That eternal life was described by Jesus in John’s account attended by the apostles and maybe others, Jesus describes eternal life as knowing the Father the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus CHRIST whom he sent. This is my point- that Jesus makes an absolute definition of eternal life, which says only true God- the Father.
We ought also to read and believe what John says in his epistle . . .
Quote:
He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. -- I John 5.10-12
Having the Son of God is having the Father, and having the Son of God is having the life, the eternal life.
__________________
Ohio, if you notice how that verse in 1st John is written you can see my point ( or should be able to see it) . The testimony to believe is that God , whom John has Jesus telling us is the Father, the one true God, has given us eternal life in his son. It does not mention 1 or 2 other Gods to add in. God is God, the Father, unique, only true God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. This is throughout the NT. This is how we Christians should relate to God- God wants us to see Him as Father, which is a very human, endearing relation. When one starts putting Jesus, the son of God as a stand-in for the Father, the one true God, everything goes askew. What is the precious relation we would have with a God, how we view and appreciate what is said in scripture, the church, the gospel are all warped by making two or three gods.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness, sounds like "3 Persons, but one God," eh?

Did you show that to our friend Boxjobox?

I think you must have missed a few posts back Awareness posted showing that verse was added by someone later and does not appear in originals

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness, sounds like "3 Persons, but one God," eh?

Did you show that to our friend Boxjobox?

There's more similar verses in the NT :

2Co 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.

1Co 12:4* Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.*
1Co 12:5* And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.*
1Co 12:6* And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.*

Eph 4:4* There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;*
Eph 4:5* One Lord, one faith, one baptism,*
Eph 4:6* One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1Pe 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: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.*

There's prolly more, but I'm too stupid to find them. But you fine trinitarians should be.

[UntoHim]

My friend Boxy,

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, and LCD a lot of bandwidth, by simply telling us that you don't believe the words of the Lord Jesus as recorded for us in the Gospel of John. Saying you "have no opinion" is your way of dodging the issue at hand - that Jesus Christ clearly and boldly proclaimed that he existed before the world began and that he shares in the Glory of the Father.

You also seem to be lacking in any opinion about Jesus declaring that he was greater than the temple, when there was only one thing or being greater than the temple - God Himself. You also seem to be lacking in any opinion about Jesus declaring that he was the Lord of the Sabbath, when all the Jews to whom he was speaking would have clearly understood that the Lord of the Sabbath was the Father, the Lord God, YAHWEH - the initiator/creator of the Sabbath. You also seem to be lacking in any opinion about why the wise men came "TO WORSHIP HIM", when Joseph, Mary and any other Jews would have been taught that only God is to be worshiped.

These things are all recorded for us in the Gospels, and not just in the Gospel of John.

Jesus proclaimed "Believe in God; believe also in me." Unitarians want to erase the second half of this verse. Thankfully there were many wise and godly men and women from the very beginning to stop them from erasing the Words of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is, as the apostle Paul boldly proclaimed in Romans 9:5 "God over all, blessed forever!" (Sorry Boxy, you can't erase this verse either - it's part of the accepted canon of holy Scripture.)
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Romans 9:5 "God over all, blessed forever!" (Sorry Boxy, you can't erase this verse either - it's part of the accepted canon of holy Scripture.)
-

Oh No! Not another comma problem!!!!!!!!! Untohim, you're worse than the JWs, because you surely know better.

[Boxjobox]

Copy error due to time out restriction

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My friend Boxy,

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, and LCD a lot of bandwidth, by simply telling us that you don't believe the words of the Lord Jesus as recorded for us in the Gospel of John. Saying you "have no opinion" is your way of dodging the issue at hand - that Jesus Christ clearly and boldly proclaimed that he existed before the world began and that he shares in the Glory of the Father.

You also seem to be lacking in any opinion about Jesus declaring that he was greater than the temple, when there was only one thing or being greater than the temple - God Himself. You also seem to be lacking in any opinion about Jesus declaring that he was the Lord of the Sabbath, when all the Jews to whom he was speaking would have clearly understood that the Lord of the Sabbath was the Father, the Lord God, YAHWEH - the initiator/creator of the Sabbath. You also seem to be lacking in any opinion about why the wise men came "TO WORSHIP HIM", when Joseph, Mary and any other Jews would have been taught that only God is to be worshiped.

These things are all recorded for us in the Gospels, and not just in the Gospel of John.

Jesus proclaimed "Believe in God; believe also in me." Unitarians want to erase the second half of this verse. Thankfully there were many wise and godly men and women from the very beginning to stop them from erasing the Words of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is, as the apostle Paul boldly proclaimed in Romans 9:5 "God over all, blessed forever!" (Sorry Boxy, you can't erase this verse either - it's part of the accepted canon of holy Scripture.)
-

Untohim, when you just drop in from time to time and don’t follow the conversations, you either compel me to rehash or ignore. In this case, concerning Rom 9.5 I would say review this thread, it’s been addressed already.

Concerning your main premise of Jesus being God: Help me out here- please show me a grand scriptural portrayal of the resurrected ( you know, after he said I ascend to MY GOD and YOUR GOD, and my Father and YOUR Father) Jesus reassuming his God position. Stephen in his excellent testimony said he saw the son of man standing on the right hand of God. The gospels spoken in the NT do not allude to Jesus reassuming his God position, when I read that book that shows so much of heavenly activity, Revelation- the revelation that God gave to Jesus, I see GOD AND the Lamb. It seems to me that the grand revelation in the NT that we are supposed to be paying attention to is where Yahweh said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool. It seems to me this is what is occurring and what we should be paying attention to in the NT. In fact it seems to me this is really the NT. This is reinforced and explained in every aspect throughout the NT. I’m just not seeing that this “ revelation” you seem to possess is addressed; maybe there is a NT book I’ve missed,; please shoe me where I can see Jesus reassuming being God. This is so overwhelming intrinsic in your theology, and perhaps in my sinful blindness I have missed reading of this glorious act of Jesus reasserting his position of God. Please Untohim, enlighten me!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Untohim, when you just drop in from time to time and don’t follow the conversations, you either compel me to rehash or ignore. In this case, concerning Rom 9.5 I would say review this thread, it’s been addressed already.

Yes, I also quoted that verse, and many others, proving that the Apostle Paul also addressed Jesus Christ as God. Then you use your sleight of hand grammatical wizardry, identical to the The Watchtower, to off-hand dismiss half the Bible.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, I also quoted that verse, and many others, proving that the Apostle Paul also addressed Jesus Christ as God. Then you use your sleight of hand grammatical wizardry, identical to the The Watchtower, to off-hand dismiss half the Bible.

All along the watchtower??
From Ye olde King James Version 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Do we see the vast difference between the KJV ( hardly a watchtower cult translation) and Untohim’s presentation? So Paul, if I understand Untohim, all of a sudden says Jesus is God? And this is one of those clues the trins have. Yet old KJV says something quite different. How’s come all the big clues youse guys offer are always controversial, by some random verse association, made up verses, or associations that don’t follow the NT narrative. It’s so repetitious to see the same lame attempts. Why do the trins have such a problem keeping oneness? Oh yeah, they avoid holding to Paul’s admonition to proclaim one God, the Father. Right Paul was- that knowledge is not in everyone!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My friend Boxy,

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing, and LCD a lot of bandwidth, by simply telling us that you don't believe the words of the Lord Jesus as recorded for us in the Gospel of John. Saying you "have no opinion" is your way of dodging the issue at hand - that Jesus Christ clearly and boldly proclaimed that he existed before the world began and that he shares in the Glory of the Father.

You also seem to be lacking in any opinion about Jesus declaring that he was greater than the temple, when there was only one thing or being greater than the temple - God Himself. You also seem to be lacking in any opinion about Jesus declaring that he was the Lord of the Sabbath, when all the Jews to whom he was speaking would have clearly understood that the Lord of the Sabbath was the Father, the Lord God, YAHWEH - the initiator/creator of the Sabbath. You also seem to be lacking in any opinion about why the wise men came "TO WORSHIP HIM", when Joseph, Mary and any other Jews would have been taught that only God is to be worshiped.

These things are all recorded for us in the Gospels, and not just in the Gospel of John.

Jesus proclaimed "Believe in God; believe also in me." Unitarians want to erase the second half of this verse. Thankfully there were many wise and godly men and women from the very beginning to stop them from erasing the Words of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is, as the apostle Paul boldly proclaimed in Romans 9:5 "God over all, blessed forever!" (Sorry Boxy, you can't erase this verse either - it's part of the accepted canon of holy Scripture.)
-

Untohim, now that I have a little more time, whilst I am sweltering in this SoCal heat, I will answer a bit mor fully the volley you throw at me- that’s as long as they don’t pull the plug on my electricity!

If you want a pre- existing son that shared in God’s glory, came to earth and then returned to the same glory, then I guess you would want to consider what glory Jesus entered after resurrection. And that would be on the right hand of God. The scripture does not have him reassuming God status, so one way or another, your attempt to make him into God is another NAY in your column. The revelation Paul gives in Ephesians of what work God did in and through Christ Jesus, the gospel that is spoken the ministry to build the church is all Predicated on God raising Christ Jesus, seating him at His right hand over all creation, making him Lord to the Church. God did this- the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.
I don’t know that I would say there was a preexisting Jesus, as that was the name given to the man child Jesus through the direction of an angel. But if you like to see a preexisting Jesus, you should accept from scripture that the glory he entered into was not him being God, but rather the Christ at the right hand of God.

Concerning the greater than the temple- the temple was the place where Jews went to worship the Living God. The temple was not God. If you want to stick to John quotes- Jesus told the Samaritan woman God is spirit and those who who worship...for the a Father seeks such. We come before God in Christ. It is of God that we are in Christ Jesus. The type of the temple was not a picture of God, but of Christ- if you recall, God was supposed to meet man above the cheribum and the mercy seat. It is through Christ that we have access to the Father, who is aaahheeeem the one true God. That’s two NAYS

Concerning the Lord of the sabbath- Jesus said the son of man is Lord of the sabbath. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. This has nothing to do with Jesus being God, as much as it does to Jesus being our sabbath rest, because in Christ, God completes His work and we rest! Now that’s glory, and that is your third NAY, your out, next batter up. ⚾️

I would hope you would properly register my responses so that you, et al do not keep bringing up the same lame Josh MacDowell apologetics over and over. I know you have a weak argument to defend, but please- let’s care for the church, which is built not of tritheism, but on Jesus being the Christ, the son of the Living God. You are going to have to drop your orthodoxy if you want to enter into the rewards our Master promised to those in Philadelphia!

[Trapped]

BJB,

Let me make my own position clear first: I'm not advocating for a Trinity. I'm not a trinitarian. I'm not saying the Father and the Son are co-equal. I'm not saying the Father and the Son are the same God. I'm not saying they are part of a three-yet-one scenario.

If you respond to my post, don't talk to me about the trinity or claim I have a trinitarian perspective. I don't.

I am totally with you on "the one true God" being the Father. Totally with you on Jesus saying "Your God and my God and your Father and my Father." Totally with you on Jesus constantly pointing to the only God, God the Father.

Don't quote back to me what Paul said in the myriad of verses you keep quoting. I have read them all and I agree. I want to see what you think about a couple other sets of verses.

What do you think about Hebrews 1:6-9?

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.”
8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

In these verses we have God the Father Himself, the only true God, calling the Son "O God". "O God" in verse 8 regarding the Son is the same word in Greek used of the Father "God" in verse 9.

Again, I'm not saying God the Father and the Son of God are the same God. They are not. They are one (united), but they have to be different beings to begin with in order for their being one to mean anything. All I'm saying is that Jesus is more than just a man, and in fact, the Father God calls him "O God" here.

Also, what do you think about Hebrews 6:20 - 7:3?

20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,
2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.”
3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

The Son of God is shown to have no beginning and no end.

Thanks,

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

All along the watchtower??
From Ye olde King James Version 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Do we see the vast difference between the KJV ( hardly a watchtower cult translation) and Untohim’s presentation? So Paul, if I understand Untohim, all of a sudden says Jesus is God? And this is one of those clues the trins have. Yet old KJV says something quite different. How’s come all the big clues youse guys offer are always controversial, by some random verse association, made up verses, or associations that don’t follow the NT narrative. It’s so repetitious to see the same lame attempts. Why do the trins have such a problem keeping oneness? Oh yeah, they avoid holding to Paul’s admonition to proclaim one God, the Father. Right Paul was- that knowledge is not in everyone!

The KJV is hardly anyone's standard of orthodoxy. If you need that version to refute the Deity of Jesus Christ, then you have to live with I John 5:7-8 also.

How scum youse guys zound like Watch Tower solicitors? You'all kan keep the oneness reel good.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Trapped

BJB,

Let me make my own position clear first: I'm not advocating for a Trinity. I'm not a trinitarian. I'm not saying the Father and the Son are co-equal. I'm not saying the Father and the Son are the same God. I'm not saying they are part of a three-yet-one scenario.

If you respond to my post, don't talk to me about the trinity or claim I have a trinitarian perspective. I don't.

I am totally with you on "the one true God" being the Father. Totally with you on Jesus saying "Your God and my God and your Father and my Father." Totally with you on Jesus constantly pointing to the only God, God the Father.

Don't quote back to me what Paul said in the myriad of verses you keep quoting. I have read them all and I agree. I want to see what you think about a couple other sets of verses.

What do you think about Hebrews 1:6-9?

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.”
8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

In these verses we have God the Father Himself, the only true God, calling the Son "O God". "O God" in verse 8 regarding the Son is the same word in Greek used of the Father "God" in verse 9.

Again, I'm not saying God the Father and the Son of God are the same God. They are not. They are one (united), but they have to be different beings to begin with in order for their being one to mean anything. All I'm saying is that Jesus is more than just a man, and in fact, the Father God calls him "O God" here.

Also, what do you think about Hebrews 6:20 - 7:3?

20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him,
2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.”
3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

The Son of God is shown to have no beginning and no end.

Thanks,

Trapped

Hebrews 1.6-9 is quoted in Greek from Psalm 45 which is Hebrew. The book of Hebrews was written for Hebrews, who would have a more thorough understanding of the Psalm than I. The word there Elohim has various uses. I pulled this from a Bible Hub interlinear. I’m certain there will be certain among those who hold that thing you don’t want me to mention, as being false, but I offer it as a springboard that you and others may want to explore.
b. godlike one Exodus 4:16 (J; Moses in relation to Aaron), Exodus 7:1 (P; in relation to Pharaoh), 1 Samuel 28:13 (the shade of Samuel), Psalm 45:7 (the Messianic king, O God, ᵐ5 ᵑ6 Jerome, most scholars ancient and modern, but thy throne is God's = God's throne AE Ki Thea Ew Hup, compare 1 Chronicles 28:5). c. works of God, or things specially belonging to him (see אֵל 5) הר אלהים Psalm 68:16; Ezekiel 28:14,16; אש אלהים Job 1:16; גן (ה)אלהים Ezekiel 28:13; Ezekiel 31:8,9. d. God (see 3 & 4).

If one considers that the quote contains v7 therefore God, thy God...it is easy to see that a good understanding is needed rather than create some sort of duo or tri God out of it. Not at all saying you are doing that.

Hebrews 6/ Melchizedek is he still living over in Lebanon? Just kidding!

Heb 6.20 says Jesus entered the veil for us (after his death, resurrection, and ascension) “ having BECOME a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” . This is in contrast to Aaronic priests who die and need replacement. In resurrection, Christ is always there to intercede for us- not once a year, not to die. Paul says to Timothy there is one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus. Heb 7. “25Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” This is the resurrected Jesus, who in his earthly commission died for our sins as the lamb of God, in resurrection, he is Made after the order of Melchizedek. 7. 14For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests. 15And what we say is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, 16who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life:

The resurrection of Jesus, who died, is something we all need to consider and appreciate. His status now is a man who will never die and is always at the right hand of God interceding for us to our God and Father. As is said in Hebrews 1 5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?
That day of resurrection changed everything. To elevate Jesus to God, and to change God into a 3 people entity thoroughly damages the whole narrative of the NT. God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, who did this great thing- the 1st 4 chapters of Ephesians are a begging of Paul to see and appreciate this glorious working God has done.

Trapped, I’m surprised you are able to participate on the main site with your non- orthodox views Maybe Untohim is slipping!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The KJV is hardly anyone's standard of orthodoxy. If you need that version to refute the Deity of Jesus Christ, then you have to live with I John 5:7-8 also.

How scum youse guys zound like Watch Tower solicitors? You'all kan keep the oneness reel good.

No, Ohio, I used that to show that there are numerous renderings of that verse in various translations.

And why the constant attempt to associate me with the watchtower cult? It seems you have never gotten beyond the trinitarian code to consider what the NT actually says, and only have a few odd interpretations of various verses. The foundational church in the NT would not know what you are talking about- Paul would not write One God the Father unless he meant it.

Your fixation on watchtower, and concern about oneness clash.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

No, Ohio, I used that to show that there are numerous renderings of that verse in various translations.

And why the constant attempt to associate me with the watchtower cult? It seems you have never gotten beyond the trinitarian code to consider what the NT actually says, and only have a few odd interpretations of various verses. The foundational church in the NT would not know what you are talking about- Paul would not write One God the Father unless he meant it.

Your fixation on watchtower, and concern about oneness clash.

It's the golden rule -- treat others the way they treat you -- or something like that.

How many times did I ask you not to associate my views with WL or 4th century church fathers? But you ignored me. You refused to keep our discussions based on the Bible.

So ... Big Box ... why don't you come out of the closet and admit your connection to Watch Tower?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The KJV is hardly anyone's standard of orthodoxy. If you need that version to refute the Deity of Jesus Christ, then you have to live with I John 5:7-8 also.

How scum youse guys zound like Watch Tower solicitors? You'all kan keep the oneness reel good.

Alrightz broz Ohioz. Youz mockz betterzed thanz meeeez. Yez olz RCC trinzitarianzzzzzzz.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's the golden rule -- treat others the way they treat you -- or something like that.

How many times did I ask you not to associate my views with WL or 4th century church fathers? But you ignored me. You refused to keep our discussions based on the Bible.

So ... Big Box ... why don't you come out of the closet and admit your connection to Watch Tower?

Ohio, I have written extensively I have no history with the watchtower cult. This statement has bad connotations and maybe I should not use it, but I swear to God that I have not and never have had any affiliation with watchtower. I argue with them every time they come knocking- have you ever heard one of them tell you about the glorious church? Watchtower is a cult that everyone should avoid..
I don’t think I have put you in any organization since I last apologized, if I have, please let me know so that I can amend my ways.

Perhaps what you should do is state your understanding of God, Christ, and the church. This may allow us to compare and contrast our views, and others will also know where you stand. I have been more than open about my beliefs; I think it’s time for you to do the same. It will save us from taking pot shots at each other. Lay out your scriptural beliefs.

[awareness]

Seeing as how it was bro Untohim that drug (Ky dialect) this thread down from the upper chamber (not The Upper Room), concerning the trinity, but switched it to a Jesus is God thread, I'd like to know, if Jesus actually thought he was God?

Wish we could ask his disciples ... or Mary -- not his mother Mary, she certainly didn't think so -- but the one from Magdala. It is said that Jesus told her more than he did the others. She'd more likely know.

And it's pointless to consult man made sources. In that case, I guess we'll never know. I guess we'll just have to depend upon others to know ; others that couldn't know either.

Those goons in the 4th century certainly couldn't know. They were just guessing, and then pontificated about it. Why would any one trust them for anything. (Oh they had that trustworthy Emperor Constantine behind them ; and his swords.)

It prolly wouldn't help to know what he [Jesus] thought about it. People think all kinds of things about themselves that aren't true. Just consider The Three Christs of Ypsilanti : (another trinity) :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Th...s_of_Ypsilanti

or the book:

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Christs.../dp/1590173848

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's the golden rule -- treat others the way they treat you -- or something like that.

How many times did I ask you not to associate my views with WL or 4th century church fathers? But you ignored me. You refused to keep our discussions based on the Bible.

So ... Big Box ... why don't you come out of the closet and admit your connection to Watch Tower?

Ok Ohio- and Untohim for that matter ; I lifted this from the LSM site, it is their faith statement. As WL used to say “Howbout” you saying if you agree with this oi if not, on what points do you disagree, and is this match orthodoxy?

Holding the Bible as the complete and only divine revelation, we strongly believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate. We hold that Christ is both the complete God and the perfect man. Without abandoning His divinity, He was conceived in the womb of a human virgin, lived a genuine human life on earth, and died a vicarious and all-inclusive death on the cross. After three days He resurrected bodily and has ascended to the heavens. He is now in glory, fully God but still fully man. We look to His imminent return with the kingdom of God, by which He will reign over the earth in the millennium and in eternity. We confess that the third of the Trinity, the Spirit, is equally God. All that the Father has and is, is expressed by the Son; and all that the Son has and is, is realized as the Spirit. We further believe that mankind is in need of God's salvation. Though we were absolutely unable to fulfill the heavy demands of God's righteousness, holiness, and glory, Christ fulfilled all the requirements through His death on the cross. Because of Christ's death, God has forgiven us of our sins, justified us by making Christ our righteousness and reconciled us to Himself. Based on Christ's redemption, God regenerates the redeemed with His Spirit to consummate His salvation, that they may become His children. Now possessing God's life and nature, the believers enjoy a daily salvation in His Body in this age and the eternal salvation in the coming age and in eternity. In eternity we will dwell with God in the New Jerusalem, the consummation of God's salvation of His elect.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Holding the Bible as the complete and only divine revelation, we strongly believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate. We hold that Christ is both the complete God and the perfect man. Without abandoning His divinity, He was conceived in the womb of a human virgin, lived a genuine human life on earth, and died a vicarious and all-inclusive death on the cross. After three days He resurrected bodily and has ascended to the heavens. He is now in glory, fully God but still fully man.

Well I don't know all about that, that Jesus is in heaven, fully God and fully man.

But I do know that Jesus didn't spend his ministry going around saying he was God.

And even 60 years after ascending he didn't go around saying it either. The preamble of John is not red letter speaking. The author of John concocted that.

So it was long after he was gone that his followers began to see Jesus as God. And now, we hang on it as if it is true and factual. We're now basing it on "man-made" books, written long after Jesus, by fallible men, 2000 years ago.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio, I have written extensively I have no history with the watchtower cult. This statement has bad connotations and maybe I should not use it, but I swear to God that I have not and never have had any affiliation with watchtower. I argue with them every time they come knocking- have you ever heard one of them tell you about the glorious church? Watchtower is a cult that everyone should avoid..
I don’t think I have put you in any organization since I last apologized, if I have, please let me know so that I can amend my ways.

Perhaps what you should do is state your understanding of God, Christ, and the church. This may allow us to compare and contrast our views, and others will also know where you stand. I have been more than open about my beliefs; I think it’s time for you to do the same. It will save us from taking pot shots at each other. Lay out your scriptural beliefs.

It does not matter if you have no official affiliation with Watch Tower. You still propagate their lies. Your dogma is the same as theirs. You love the same heresy concerning Jesus Christ. That's why you are a JW, whether you know it or not. You have the same source. You do not have the truths of the Bible, but espouse the same Arian heresies. You twist the scriptures concerning Jesus Christ, like the same unlearned and unstable folks that Peter warns us about in II Peter 3.16.

[UntoHim]

Ohio and all my Alt View friends,

Please refrain from FLAMING and AD HOMINEM postings on the Forum. Flaming should be self explanatory, but you can hit the hotlink if you want the dictionary interpretation. Ad Hominems are when you are "attacking the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Admittedly, I'm quite a bit looser about moderating over here on Alt Views, but I don't see how practicing flaming or throwing out Ad Hominems can possibly further the conversation.
-

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Trapped, I’m surprised you are able to participate on the main site with your non- orthodox views Maybe Untohim is slipping!

As you can see, Trapped came over here to discuss "alternative views" regarding the Trinity, because Trapped knows that's what this sub-forum is for! Trapped is just being respectful and courteous towards me and the other forum members. How dare Trapped do this! Bad Trapped! Trapped is now subject to forty lashes with a wet (yet still al dente) noodle!
-

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It does not matter if you have no official affiliation with Watch Tower. You still propagate their lies. Your dogma is the same as theirs. You love the same heresy concerning Jesus Christ. That's why you are a JW, whether you know it or not. You have the same source. You do not have the truths of the Bible, but espouse the same Arian heresies. You twist the scriptures concerning Jesus Christ, like the same unlearned and unstable folks that Peter warns us about in II Peter 3.16.

Ohio- I don’t mind explaining myself a little, and maybe this will help. I don’t know enough about JW/Watchtower beliefs or practices to defend myself from your untoward attack. I have talked to numerous ones that have come to my door- the church in all its aspects seems not to be of interest to them- they are in their own world/doctrine/practices which Paul never established; hence, in my view, a cult. If anyone would read my posts and conclude that I support JW/ watchtower, endorse that or promote that they are vastly mistaken. In some form of logic, Venn diagrams are used to show relative associations of like and dislikes. 2 circles each containing items that are included in a couple of finite subsets are drawn and then the circles overlap with items that are common to both. So, for instance, evangelicals and their items in one circle JWs in another. Overlapping would be maybe, both study Revelation. Because a JW studies Rev., it does not make them an evangelical, rather it is common item both have although they may differ vastly in other areas. This association of common/like beliefs is used all the time. The RC has a dogmatic stand against abortion and has a march, and other Christians who would not think of stepping into a mass will march with them because of the commonality.
Because JWs do not view a trinity as valid and I do not view a trinity as valid it does not mean that I am a watchtower person. They look at scripture and conclude such, I look at scripture and conclude such- yes, that is a common overlap but does not make me an associate of their overall cult cause anymore than you might be because you both study Revelation.
With that in mind, maybe you would like to share your opinions/ theology concerning God, Christ, trinity or not- what do you believe? Then we can have a great discussion- everyone should express their views. I think I do, I see Awareness does, Trapped began sharing his views, but you seem more like you just want to take pot shots at others, but not stand out there with your views being scrutinized. It kills a good discussion. In the Venn diagram example, how is one supposed to see overlapping similarities and unique views. We are all people who went through LC- that we have in common- we all developed a post LC persona. Put your views out there, not pot shots.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As you can see, Trapped came over here to discuss "alternative views" regarding the Trinity, because Trapped knows that's what this sub-forum is for! Trapped is just being respectful and courteous towards me and the other forum members. How dare Trapped do this! Bad Trapped! Trapped is now subject to forty lashes with a wet (yet still al dente) noodle!
-

Just don’t hit him with one of those gluten free noodles- you will maim him!
Untohim, I have followed this site for numerous years, and have ( much to your chagrin) posted numerous and lengthy posts over the time- thank you for allowing my participation. I have noticed over the years a few things: the trinity/processed god thing comes up from time to time. No one seems to speak the same about it, it runs out of steam and falls off, and then returns later with the same confused replies; it is an interesting cycle, which to me, shows the total weakness of participants in grasping the subject. I think one of the reasons WL got away with his views is that no one understands the whole trinity thing because it was not given by the Holy Spirit and scripture, yet has been around for 1500+ years. So a man, and this has happened over the course of christian history, comes up with a great design explaining all and people all like a cohesive packaged view/ doctrine that they can believe in. But in their own selves, particularly if they are bible readers and not just message followers, really can’t justify or understand the man’s grand design, nor defend it other than repeat the message.
2nd thing I have noticed over the years is a very waning consideration of the Church and the churches and it seems to me that most, including you, have sort of drifted into a modern Christianity is as good as it will get so let’s join in and forget the whole meeting as the church concept. While those who meet in the name of “the church in xxx” have been totally overtaken by LSM productions and exist only as a shell filled with the wrong content.
For myself, I can only say that every day the Church and the churches are on my heart and I plead with God to bring about that which was established in the scripture, that which God can pour out His Spirit to strengthen, witness to, enlighten. During this time of upheaval we have in our society, I hear some wondering if it is the time Christ will return, and I just wonder why Christ would return when Christians have such little care for the Church and the churches.
You know how I feel about trinitarianism being the scourge of the church, and I know we don’t agree- but where is the zeal for the Church and the churches that used to exist among the participants on this site?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As you can see, Trapped came over here to discuss "alternative views" regarding the Trinity, because Trapped knows that's what this sub-forum is for! Trapped is just being respectful and courteous towards me and the other forum members. How dare Trapped do this! Bad Trapped! Trapped is now subject to forty lashes with a wet (yet still al dente) noodle!
-

That noodle looks a lot more like a mallet than I'm comfortable with and one of my eyes sure looks more bulged out than I'd like!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ohio and all my Alt View friends,

Please refrain from FLAMING and AD HOMINEM postings on the Forum. Flaming should be self explanatory, but you can hit the hotlink if you want the dictionary interpretation. Ad Hominems are when you are "attacking the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Admittedly, I'm quite a bit looser about moderating over here on Alt Views, but I don't see how practicing flaming or throwing out Ad Hominems can possibly further the conversation.
-

How is it an Ad Hominem attack on someone's character when I identify Boxjobox's theological teachings with the Jehovah Witness Watch Tower?

I disagree. He has been saying continuously that my views are Lee's trinitarian teachings.

If Boxjobox can continue to discredit me with "guilt by association," and I am disadvantaged from identifying the source of his teachings, then I am finished. Adios. Goodbye. Bon voyage.

[awareness]

Oh bro Ohio, stop it and stop it. You're a valued member of both chambers of LCD. Maybe it's a tone problem. It does sound like you don't like BJB's "heresy," so you are accusing him of being a JW ... like it's a put down.

Not to long ago I asked somewhere if BJB is a JW. He certainly holds the same views on the trinity and Jesus is not God as the JWs. Yet he doesn't, or didn't, seem to know that.

It's entirely possible that they both searched the scriptures and came to the same conclusions, entirely independent of each another.

That's what my JW friend tells me anyway ... and BJB basically argues the same.

But both has to deal with the preamble of John. John has two problems. One, no commas ... so they can be moved around willy-nilly. And two, it's not red letter.

So it's a product of whoever authored John ... and whoever makes a difference. The author of John has to be a Greek educated elite of his day ; thus Logos, and all that, that also has to be his intended audience.

Logos was in common currency in those Hellenized times. The Septuagint is covered up with it. And a devout Jew, coinciding with Jesus and his disciples, Philo of Alexandria (30 BCE-50 CE), wrote about it - in Koine Greek nonetheless. Philo, a Jew, conceived that God is the supreme deity, and the Logos second to it.

Some even conjecture that the unknown author of John nabbed it from Philo. Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, the author used it to claim that Jesus was the Logos in the flesh ... most certainly trying to convert pagans to Jesus. It's a childish conclusion that Jesus said it, and wrote it.

[Boxjobox]

Ohio- just what are your views on trinity, God and Christ? Come on, don’t be shy- put them on out there! Type them out so we can banter them around and compare them to scripture, and to those held by, oh, I don’t know, maybe apostolic Pentecostals. I’ve been straightforward with mine. Here is a start for you, here is the LSM statement of faith- what do you agree with and what do you disagree with:

Holding the Bible as the complete and only divine revelation, we strongly believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate. We hold that Christ is both the complete God and the perfect man. Without abandoning His divinity, He was conceived in the womb of a human virgin, lived a genuine human life on earth, and died a vicarious and all-inclusive death on the cross. After three days He resurrected bodily and has ascended to the heavens. He is now in glory, fully God but still fully man. We look to His imminent return with the kingdom of God, by which He will reign over the earth in the millennium and in eternity. We confess that the third of the Trinity, the Spirit, is equally God. All that the Father has and is, is expressed by the Son; and all that the Son has and is, is realized as the Spirit. We further believe that mankind is in need of God's salvation. Though we were absolutely unable to fulfill the heavy demands of God's righteousness, holiness, and glory, Christ fulfilled all the requirements through His death on the cross. Because of Christ's death, God has forgiven us of our sins, justified us by making Christ our righteousness and reconciled us to Himself. Based on Christ's redemption, God regenerates the redeemed with His Spirit to consummate His salvation, that they may become His children. Now possessing God's life and nature, the believers enjoy a daily salvation in His Body in this age and the eternal salvation in the coming age and in eternity. In eternity we will dwell with God in the New Jerusalem, the consummation of God's salvation of His elect.

Ohio, I don’t mind you comparing my beliefs about Jesus to those of the J Ws if you know what theirs are- I don’t- I don’t have a clue from where they derive their theology other than I think that back in the late 1800s early 1900s when a lot of religious groups were forming there was a guy named Rutherford who kept prophesying Jesus was returning at a certain time- and I think I actually learned this from a LC member. To me, Jehovah is a slant on Jove. God wants us to refer to Him as Father, not Jehovah. You know, Our Father- hallowed be Thy name- Jesus taught us that. There is but one God, the Father- Paul taught us, uhhh I mean me that- apparently that’s not popular thought any more.

[Boxjobox]

This is kind of a simplified church history as I see it. Paul set up a great self sustaining system of believers meeting together under what seems to me to be a very active participation of the Holy Spirit. As strange views and odd teachings began to appear, those holding them lost the Spirit and the simplicity Paul gave. Luke seems to convey a pretty good Linear understanding of this. As you point out, along comes a gospel of John- no background leading up to this, no understanding of who the writing was directed to, different accounts and language than Luke’s, and really, where was John during the time Paul was getting worked over in spreading the gospel? I mean if we had churches raised by John and spoken about and we could look into their functioning and problems like we do with Paul’s there would be a better picture for us to understand where this John writing was coming from. When the “bible” was finally compiled and hierarchy of the church was really developed, someone had to justify the use of the John gospel and try to reconcile it with the Paul line. Also, there was obvious divisions of thought which Constantine was not going to put up with. So the big hats got together and hammered out the creed Nicene. It seems that they ignored Jesus saying the Father was the only true God and Paul saying there was but one God, the Father. I would say, way before the big fish hat counsel, any sign of a participating Holy Spirit was long gone, and the thought of the Spirit was left to scriptural phrases. I still find it amusing in modern Christianity people singing “ Holy Spirit you are welcome here, come and fill the atmosphere”. Does anyone think the Holy Spirit will witness to the whole trinity farce?

[awareness]

Where is the function of all the disciples? Only a few of them are attested to contribute, and that's questionable. The truth is, we don't have any eyewitnesses telling what Jesus said and did.

Paul is sound because he identifies his writings. But he didn't know the human Jesus, and provides only very limited details of what Jesus said and did.

None if the witnesses we have -- gospels, epistles, etc, -- speak of the trinity. If it was as important as trinitarians make it out to be today, why not? Apparently it wasn't important to any of the authors of the NT books.

Why should it be to us? We certainly can't trust Constantine, and his crony bishops ; like Eusebius, who refused to use the inspiration of the Spirit in selecting the books of the NT, out of a harsh rejection of Montanus and The New Prophecy, that claimed to still be receiving new revelations, directly from the Paraclete.

[Boxjobox]

From time to time I do attend various Christian assemblies. I usually check out their on-line site and their belief statement. Generally, they all say something like “We hold the Bible as God’s Word to us” and the next part is usually a trinity description of some sort. How do intelligent people see that the two are contradictory? The Bible does not tell us God is a three people being, so automatically there is a different authoritative script that supersedes the scriptures and becomes the core of the belief system, and then scripture is used to justify that system. If the Holy Spirit is supposed to witness to the truth, and people are following a 4th century fable, then the use of the term “Holy Spirit” becomes another tool to reinforce the fable. I would attend an assembly and hear something like Gods presence is with us, lights go low and soft music plays, and a the pastor makes it a kind of seance. In the LC, the Spirit was the Spirit of Christ who “lives in us” and the way we know it is by repeating the message in some fashion. The Word, the Spirit, Christ, the ministry, were all blended together so that as long as the LSM message was repeated, you had the complete processed triune god. But in reading through the scripture, we see a totally different function of the Holy Spirit, and that was to bear witness to the truth. Weeell, there was no truth to the processed triune god thing, so why would one want to think that God was going to witness to a false presentation. One can’t say I believe the Bible is the word of God, and then create a god that is different than what is spoken of in the scripture and claim truth. Paul didn’t have to contend with a rejection of trinity/ tritheism because it was not what he preached nor taught. Paul stating there is but one God the Father- should be the first item on any “Belief” statement. It sets the order for all else.

[awareness]

I suppose then that I can't claim the Bible to be the very word of Father-God, and then claim to be a Biblical based panentheist ??????

[awareness]

I bring up panentheism because it's just one example of a conception of God that's not in the scriptures.

There are many other conceptions of God out there, that aren't in the scriptures.

And one of them is trinitarianism. If you're going to go for a concept of God that's not in the scriptures, panentheism would be a better choice.

[Boxjobox]

It's kind of humorous, it's kind of scary, it's definitely sad that posting a definite statement by Paul that there is but one God, the Father, would be so controversial in Christian circles. You would think I had blasfemed the Holy Spirit or something. Tritheism definitely has it clutches on the Christian mind, and has warped the gospel, the thinking and speaking concerning scripture, and really every aspect of the church. That's why my original premise was that to recover the church would be to go back to the foundational church basics as taught by Paul in his ministry. I'm sure there are numerous things Paul proposed that would need consideration, but the one foundational principle that should not be compromised would be God- one God the Father. You know-all things out of Him, and through Him and to Him, to whom be the glory forever, Amen, I think it was written.
That the idea of there being but one God the Father should not be a foreign thought to the Christians- it should be a beautiful thing. It sets the rest of the entire Christian narrative!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How is it an Ad Hominem attack on someone's character when I identify Boxjobox's theological teachings with the Jehovah Witness Watch Tower?

I disagree. He has been saying continuously that my views are Lee's trinitarian teachings.

If Boxjobox can continue to discredit me with "guilt by association," and I am disadvantaged from identifying the source of his teachings, then I am finished. Adios. Goodbye. Bon voyage.

I think Ohio had one of those I Robot moments where he can't deny that it is written that there is but one God, the Father, and yet he can't accept it either, so processor malfunctions and melts down because of conflicting programming

I guess I'm thinking of a different Watchtower

There must be some way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine
Plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth

No reason to get excited,the thief, he kindly spoke
There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too

Bob Dylan

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I think Ohio had one of those I Robot moments where he can't deny that it is written that there is but one God, the Father, and yet he can't accept it either, so processor malfunctions and melts down because of conflicting programming

I guess I'm thinking of a different Watchtower

There must be some way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine
Plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth

No reason to get excited,the thief, he kindly spoke
There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too

Bob Dylan

And so . . . I learned something here -- that Dylan wrote the lyrics for a great Hendrix classic. Didn't know that. And that's about it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I think Ohio had one of those I Robot moments where he can't deny that it is written that there is but one God, the Father, and yet he can't accept it either, so processor malfunctions and melts down because of conflicting programming

I guess I'm thinking of a different Watchtower

There must be some way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine
Plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth

No reason to get excited,the thief, he kindly spoke
There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too

Bob Dylan

I really like Dylan. I recently purchased Oh Mercy, from a few years after leaving the LC.

But sometimes the Steelers Wheels will do :

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you ...."

And that makes three. Why is it that 3 is so important that we (the royal we) even make God into 3?

I think it might go back into prehistory, when humans realized that 3 legs, or rocks as legs, were necessary to make a table or stool stand up. So 3 becomes hard-wired in our head, prolly going way back into the stone age. And so, 3 makes God a stand up God, in the hard-wiring in our head.

Does that explain Tertullian coining the word trinity back around the end of the 2nd century? Maybe, maybe not. But it does explain why it stuck, right up til today. The Bible isn't needed. The trinity tells us that God is in 3, and it has an affinity in the hard-wiring in our head, developed going way, way, back ... into the fog of history.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

I really like Dylan. I recently purchased Oh Mercy, from a few years after leaving the LC.

But sometimes the Steelers Wheels will do :

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you ...."

And that makes three. Why is it that 3 is so important that we (the royal we) even make God into 3?

I think it might go back into prehistory, when humans realized that 3 legs, or rocks as legs, were necessary to make a table or stool stand up. So 3 becomes hard-wired in our head, prolly going way back into the stone age. And so, 3 makes God a stand up God, in the hard-wiring in our head.

Does that explain Tertullian coining the word trinity back around the end of the 2nd century? Maybe, maybe not. But it does explain why it stuck, right up til today. The Bible isn't needed. The trinity tells us that God is in 3, and it has an affinity in the hard-wiring in our head, developed going way, way, back ... into the fog of history.

Yes, that blessed day when I finally saw that I ain’t gonna work for Maggie’s brother no more!

I find the epistle of Paul to the Galatians the most intriguing writing of the Bible. Paul presents himself as this young stanch Jew who wanted to put an end to this whole Jesus thing, and ends up meeting the resurrected Christ. He goes not to Jerusalem, but to Arabia for some time. He then after 3 years goes up to Jerusalem to visit- he says Cephas, for 15 days. He says he saw none other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother. This part of the account is interesting in that he seem to account the Lord’s brother James as an apostle. And I must imagine Paul had an interesting 15 days with Peter.
Paul then accounts that after 14 years he goes back to Jerusalem, and Paul’s says he met with James, Cephas, and John, “who were reputed to be pillars”. So here is a mention of John- in Jerusalem, and that’s it. The rest of Galatians seems to deal with the problem of Judaism interfering with the gospel truth, and that interference seems to emanate from Christian Jews from Jerusalem, where Peter, James- the Lord’s brother and John are pillars. This matches what is recorded in Acts 15, where there is a meeting together with Paul and those of Jerusalem to discuss the gentiles in relation to Jewish practices. One would think that in Jerusalem, what with the apostles who were with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, that none of this Judaism problem would ever have festered into such a critical issue. Just what was taught to believers in Jerusalem? In Galatians, Paul even says he rebuked Peter publicly over his Judiastic behavior.
Next intriguing consideration in relation to this is that after so many years, Paul, even after being warned by the Holy Spirit, goes back to Jerusalem, James is there it seems in the lead, and has Paul go to perform a Jewish ritual in the temple. Paul, as we know is accosted by the Jews and ends up in Roman hands. Where were the Jewish Christians to help Paul.
My point being that 1) there seemed to be a lot of unclear direction concerning what the Christian experience should be. 2) Peter and John were present, and Jesus’ brother James. 3) we don’t hear from John; we do not follow him as we do Paul. 4) Paul seems to have to shoulder the direction and produce the clarity for what is the Christian life, and the church.

So, when I read all the gospels in Acts, Galatians, Romans, what Paul tells us is his gospel in 1Cor., I read nothing of Jesus being God, Jesus being 100% God 100% man, nothing about a 3 people triune God. Nope, I read that Jesus is the Christ, the anointed one of God, that God was with him, that his reliance for his ministry was God, that Jesus was crucified, that God raised him from the dead, that this man was given the position of Lord over creation and sits at Gods right hand until his enemies are dealt with.

It’s amazes me how quickly false things came into prominence, and how long they have gone on for. People used to paint their houses with lead based paint and spray asbestos on their ceilings, but eventually everyone had to come to grips that this was wrong, and remove the poison. We live in the 21st century, most of us are great readers- something that was not the case for 1200+ years. The printing press meant literature and thought could flourish. We are no longer living under the terror of religious tyranny. We can all look at what is written and consider: the foundational church did not have a gospel of Jesus being God spoken to them. Did not have a concept given them that God was 3 people. They did have the message that there was but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the man whom God raised from the dead.

You can see by reading of Tertullian and others at the time, that a lot of strange teachings were shortly introduced, and by following church history, you can see the development of these fallacies. Other generations did not have the luxury we have today of taking an honest, thoughtful look at these things.

Untohim and others feel Lee may have misapplied tritheism, but the real issue is it never existed in the foundational church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

You can see by reading of Tertullian and others at the time, that a lot of strange teachings were shortly introduced, and by following church history, you can see the development of these fallacies. Other generations did not have the luxury we have today of taking an honest, thoughtful look at these things.

And you've driven your point home over and over again. And you know what? I don't think you've changed any mind one iota.

And as far as having the luxury of taking an honest thoughtful look goes ... who does that?

Christians around here don't ; most of 'em, anyway. A few years back I attended a Church of Christ for a yr and a half. They were the no musical instruments, no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, kind of Church of Christ. The pastor and I became close friends.

I can't tell you how man times he called me Sunday afternoon, telling me I stirred up trouble by bringing something surprising up that's in the Bible.

I had lunch with the lead Elder, a prominent lawyer in town, and he told me I was speaking over their heads. When I told him I was only talking Bible stuff, he said, they don't read their Bible. That they get their Bible from the preacher.

The preacher accused me of trying to feed meat to milk drinkers. They were adults with grown children ... and still drinking milk.

But still, they accepted 3 things that they accepted blindly without question : 1) The Bible is the Word of God. 2) The Trinity, and 3) Jesus is God.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

And you've driven your point home over and over again. And you know what? I don't think you've changed any mind one iota.

And as far as having the luxury of taking an honest thoughtful look goes ... who does that?

Christians around here don't ; most of 'em, anyway. A few years back I attended a Church of Christ for a yr and a half. They were the no musical instruments, no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, kind of Church of Christ. The pastor and I became close friends.

I can't tell you how man times he called me Sunday afternoon, telling me I stirred up trouble by bringing something surprising up that's in the Bible.

I had lunch with the lead Elder, a prominent lawyer in town, and he told me I was speaking over their heads. When I told him I was only talking Bible stuff, he said, they don't read their Bible. That they get their Bible from the preacher.

The preacher accused me of trying to feed meat to milk drinkers. They were adults with grown children ... and still drinking milk.

But still, they accepted 3 things that they accepted blindly without question : 1) The Bible is the Word of God. 2) The Trinity, and 3) Jesus is God.

I've been through the same thing you speak of a few times. I've noticed in my life I run across people who seem down right heathen, for lack of better term, who when I spent time camping or hiking with are actually quite thoughtful and considerate of God. Then I also spend time with Christians who have large bibles, who actually seem to think less of God in a real way than the heathen. They know terms that they are taught, and that is good enough- God is a packaged three people entity, of which Jesus is the chief. If I start to discuss the whole concept-I soon realize it's not a topic they want to consider.

[Boxjobox]

Paul writes Timothy an instruction letter; Timothy being an assistant to Paul to help with the healthy formation of the church in Ephesus. And Paul tells Timothy

5For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth [d]in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Now in common understanding of speech, one would read and understand that there is one God, whom Paul identifies in the beginning of his letter as God the Father -- Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. And one would also understand that our mediator with God is the man Christ ( the anointed) Jesus. Simple enough, easy words God, man mediator. Who would think different?

Yet along comes the trinitarian code of understanding and we are supposed to understand that Paul spoke in this code and Timothy understood in this code and the Ephesians, to whom Timothy would convey the message spoke in this code, and we who now read this statement by Paul the apostle, found in our Bible which contains 66 separate books all written in this code, need to read it through this code. So the code, and I have to speak generally, because there are variations of this code, would be that if you see the word God, the actual thought/concept should be of a three people entity consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. And Jesus, aka Jesus Christ, being part of that entity called God, who is three people but one God, is, due to incarceration, fully man, but also fully God (who is a three people entity). So in reading this instruction from Paul, an apostle who is in complete understanding of the code, due to his complete understanding of the three people God, and the 1/3 of that entity who is Jesus, who is 100% God and 100% man and 1/3 of the God entity, which now contains this 100% man, which man is God, which before the incarnation was 100% God but not man, but after the incarnation is now 100% God and 100% man; a spiritual Christian reader of Paul's writing would wholly understand that Paul was not really speaking in a common language that the unlearned would understand as there being one God and the man Christ Jesus being the mediator between us and the one God, but that Paul was speaking in a heavenly spiritual language which really means that there is one God who is triune ( 3 people) and that 1/3rd of that triune God, who is fully God and 100% man, of which we are now discussing and just looking at the 100% man part, yet not loosing sight that that Jesus is also 100% God and a 1/3rd part of the God whom he mediates with on our behalf, so that 2/3rds of God is happy with us because 1/3rd of God (who is fully man, because God became a man) quite seperate and distinct, yet one God and one man are very happy with us (which as I had to point out that I speak generally, because WL actually saw in his new light that we, the us for whom the 1/3rd mediated as a 100% man with the other 2/3rds which we really can't separate from the 1/3rd of the first subject, the us are, due to this whole process, are actually becoming God in nature. But that is a subject for further discussion on the main site). I'm so glad we have the simple scriptures and hope everyone understands the true nature of their relationship with the triune God, which became fully known by the 4th century, but Paul, and Timothy and the Ephesians fully understood, but just talked in a codified way so the simpleton godless and heretics would stumble over.

UntoHim, does my grasp of the subject merit me a returned position on the main site? Or do I have to confess my full belief in the 4th century creed and never speak in a common understanding of the things of God, Christ and the Church, and only present scripture that seems to back the creed, and only convey matters after running them through the secret translator code box?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I've been through the same thing you speak of a few times. I've noticed in my life I run across people who seem down right heathen, for lack of better term, who when I spent time camping or hiking with are actually quite thoughtful and considerate of God. Then I also spend time with Christians who have large bibles, who actually seem to think less of God in a real way than the heathen. They know terms that they are taught, and that is good enough- God is a packaged three people entity, of which Jesus is the chief. If I start to discuss the whole concept-I soon realize it's not a topic they want to consider.

Well I think out here you are camping out with the big Bible Christians.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Yet along comes the trinitarian code of understanding and we are supposed to understand that Paul spoke in this code and Timothy understood in this code and the Ephesians, to whom Timothy would convey the message spoke in this code, and we who now read this statement by Paul the apostle, found in our Bible which contains 66 separate books all written in this code, need to read it through this code. So the code, and I have to speak generally, because there are variations of this code, would be that if you see the word God, the actual thought/concept should be of a three people entity consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. And Jesus, aka Jesus Christ, being part of that entity called God, who is three people but one God, is, due to incarceration, fully man, but also fully God (who is a three people entity). So in reading this instruction from Paul, an apostle who is in complete understanding of the code, due to his complete understanding of the three people God, and the 1/3 of that entity who is Jesus, who is 100% God and 100% man and 1/3 of the God entity, which now contains this 100% man, which man is God, which before the incarnation was 100% God but not man, but after the incarnation is now 100% God and 100% man; a spiritual Christian reader of Paul's writing would wholly understand that Paul was not really speaking in a common language that the unlearned would understand as there being one God and the man Christ Jesus being the mediator between us and the one God, but that Paul was speaking in a heavenly spiritual language which really means that there is one God who is triune ( 3 people) and that 1/3rd of that triune God, who is fully God and 100% man, of which we are now discussing and just looking at the 100% man part, yet not loosing sight that that Jesus is also 100% God and a 1/3rd part of the God whom he mediates with on our behalf, so that 2/3rds of God is happy with us because 1/3rd of God (who is fully man, because God became a man) quite seperate and distinct, yet one God and one man are very happy with us (which as I had to point out that I speak generally, because WL actually saw in his new light that we, the us for whom the 1/3rd mediated as a 100% man with the other 2/3rds which we really can't separate from the 1/3rd of the first subject, the us are, due to this whole process, are actually becoming God in nature.

That's crazy talk ... obviously.

Originally Posted by Boxy

UntoHim, does my grasp of the subject merit me a returned position on the main site? Or do I have to confess my full belief in the 4th century creed and never speak in a common understanding of the things of God, Christ and the Church, and only present scripture that seems to back the creed, and only convey matters after running them through the secret translator code box?

Big Bible Untohim will not allow that. He's got to protect all the little ones, that can't think for themselves, and that aren't able to entertain a open and free discussion about what's in the Bible.

Big Bible Untohim is the Witness Lee of the upper chamber of LCD, and therefore has to disallow any question of the trinity, or that Jesus is God, in the Evangelical upper chamber.

We don't allow burnings-at-the-stake these days. We just banish them to AltVs.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

UntoHim, does my grasp of the subject merit me a returned position on the main site? Or do I have to confess my full belief in the 4th century creed and never speak in a common understanding of the things of God, Christ and the Church, and only present scripture that seems to back the creed, and only convey matters after running them through the secret translator code box?

Boxy, none of what you wrote in your nonsensical rant is taught or believed by genuine, orthodox Christians. And of course you know this, but you have to create a straw man (straw god in this case) so you will have something to attack. I guess you learned this from Witness Lee, cause he used the exact kind of straw man arguments against orthodox Christian teachings for the better part of 70 years. If you are going to make an argument against something, you should really know what you're talking about first, instead of just blabbing out some Unitarian propaganda. I think you're better than that my man!

Maybe you misunderstand the main reason that I started LocalChurchDiscussions over 12 years ago. It was set up for a venue for current and former Local Church members to have open dialogue regarding the teachings and practices and history of the LC movement. Yet LCD does not exist for people to trade the heresies of Witness Lee for the heresies of some other heretical offshoot of genuine, historical Christianity. To allow this would be assisting people to go from the frying pan to the fire in my view. I have always been clear and consistent on this matter. There are thousands of websites and forums out there discussing all sorts of things under the sun - Catholicism, Mormonism, Unitarianism, JW, Islam, Hinduism, Atheism, Humanism, you name it, it's out there. Someone had to make a decision on what the scope of this forum would cover. As the sole founder/administrator/moderator the burden and responsibility fell on me. Over the years I have received some valuable input from various forum members, and I have always appreciated this. But at the end of the day, I have always tried to make LCD a safe and sane place for current and forum members to be helped, healed and maybe even a little enlightened by the genuine Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Holy Scriptures - The Big Bible.

Your brother who is trying real hard to be: Unto Him.
-

[Boxjobox]

It is most unfortunate that the teachings of Paul and the teachings of triunism are incongruous to the point Paul’s and Jesus’ sayings are viewed as heretical and cannot be openly discussed.!
Once again, Untohim, I greatly appreciate your starting and administering the site. I for one, have received help from some of the discussions and posts from various ones over the years. Each of us that spent any considerable time in the LC left with a lot of questions concerning God, Christ, the church, and our own personal Christian walk. It is good to hear from others concerning their views, struggles, questions, answers, etc., and compare notes, and I thank you for that.

Obviously, my “ nonsensical rant” was a poke at the whole trinity confusion that exists in every orthodox follower of the trinity thing. But, I put nothing in that that I have not heard expressed numerous times in some fashion by its adherents, in fact, if you look at all the past post on the main site concerning discussions of WL’s teaching, discussions on trinitarianIsm (which you label as orthodox) , I think you will find each of my pokes more than representative of many, many Christians. Probably closer to home than you would want to admit. I don’t think most of you who follow the trinitarian model really have taken a rational view of what you believe, and I doubt most even hold the same beliefs! The arguments and polarization will go on and on because it is not a teaching you can point to scripture as you could, let’s say, the cross of Christ, or Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of God, or the need to live a sanctified life.

I don’t know how you feel about the whole concept of the local church- apart from the WL propaganda. Many seem to be quite adept at making negative comments about the WL/LSM version, but I see few sticking their necks out to give an opinion about the need oR desire for a “recovery” of the church. I, for one, feel that yes, we got totally bamboozled by the WL fiasco, but long for the “recovery” of a healthy, forward looking, local assembly. My position is that a recovery of the church should return to the foundational church as taught and established by Paul- not one that is dependent on the trinitarian creed of Nicene. In such a church assembly, Christians could discuss all aspects of scripture and gain from everyone’s perspective. It would be under the admonition Paul gave the Ephesians to hold to the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace, but sorry bro, but an important aspect of that holding us together would be acknowledging one God, the Father. You seem to want to negate that and think some kind of great help to the Christian testimony is holding to a triune God, which is not a concept ministered to us by the apostles or the Holy Spirit. I think you have a winning argument among the orthodox, but a loosing argument with the Holy Spirit.
So, I do feel that in cutting off a discussion concerning Paul’s teaching On the matter at hand is not a help for those who have escaped the LSM business machine, nor for those in or contemplating letting out of the false recovery. I understand you hold the trinity as a sacred truth, and it is your site under your administration, but within the context of a LC/WL/LSM discussion, which definitely should center around his doctrinal errors, I would submit that a discussion of such should include a very valid inclusion of the point that his errors were just another offshoot of the existing Christian error of trinitarianism. You seem to promote a leave the LC and return to evangelical orthodox Christianity and all will be well view, which is one view, but there are others. I am not promoting leave the LC and find a Unitarian church and all will be well, I’m advocating those in and those who have gotten out of the LC take a strong sober look at what Paul established in practice and teaching and consider what a recovered assembly would look like. That is the discussion it seems to be needed. Whether WL had a nasty son, or Daystar should have been investigated by the IRS is kind of old news. The ongoing problem is that a false narrative of God was set up and practiced and this affects everyone. I would think we are all educated people who can have a worthy discussion about the LC and scripture without anyone loosing their salvation. If anything, it would strengthen people’s faith and reliance on the scripture and the Holy Spirit to consider how right on or how far off WL was concerning God. It is obvious that the trinity creed did not exist in the foundational church- let’s discuss freely what DID exist and then we can determine what a recovered church may look like and where WL was on or off. This IS what would be helpful.
It would get everyone to search the scripture.

For what it’s worth, Untohim, before this Covid thing, on Sundays I actually would gather at a Lutheran assembly. They are at least one step away from the RC. They break bread, have a holy view of communion, have responsive prayer, speak the word, sing spiritual songs, publicly recite the apostles creed ( which I find refreshing), publicly recite the Lords prayer, and we go in peace. I hold my breath and keep my thoughts when they proclaim the trinity, but that’s the price I have to pay. It is the nearest Christian assembly to my home. I do not get too involved lest I speak what I see concerning trinity and the scripture, and also, I don’t feel they will ever move beyond their liturgical form, and I long for the recovered church. And when it’s Trinity Sunday, I refrain attendance. So the view you seem to want to project on me is highly inaccurate- don’t forget what the good book says about bearing false witness!
Untohim, I would hope you would stick around for discussion rather that the usual drive-by shoot and run, pattern you have developed.

Grace and peace to you fromGod our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ! Oops that may be too confrontational!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Your brother who is trying real hard to be: Unto Him.
-

Please note: Unto “Him” is a partial quote from Paul which is a praise Paul is giving to the one God, the Father.

Untohim should change his handle to coincide with his religious beliefs which should probably be better rendered “ UntoTHEM” the three people he purports to be God. Paul says Unto HIM, because Paul’s teaching is that there is but one God, the Father. Untohim does not follow Paul’s teaching on God, and therefore really should not mishandle scripture and the teaching of Paul to try to cover for his erroneous belief. It would be better if Untohim would repent of forsaking the teaching of Paul, and turn back to the scriptural understanding of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.
Unto Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus.

[Boxjobox]

Here is the Statement of Faith from the LSM web site. Compare it to my post of 8-25-20 8:21am where I talk about the trinitarian view of 1 Tim 2.5-6. That is not creating a straw- man argument, but presents an accurate view of the mental gymnastics a devout follower of trinitarianism exercises when reading the passage. How do I know? I was there once myself, heard many others morph the passage to adhere to the 3/1 belief system, lest one would actually take what is written that there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus.
So what is missing from the LSM statement of belief? That there is but one God, the Father as Paul so succinctly declares to the Corinthians. Read my 8-25 post and read this copy of the LSM Statement of Faith and see whether it is not appropriate to discuss this subject openly rather than hide behind Orthodoxy. This is what WL/LSM promotes in their business- it definitely needs to be discussed!

LSM statement of Faith

Holding the Bible as the complete and only divine revelation, we strongly believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate. We hold that Christ is both the complete God and the perfect man. Without abandoning His divinity, He was conceived in the womb of a human virgin, lived a genuine human life on earth, and died a vicarious and all-inclusive death on the cross. After three days He resurrected bodily and has ascended to the heavens. He is now in glory, fully God but still fully man. We look to His imminent return with the kingdom of God, by which He will reign over the earth in the millennium and in eternity. We confess that the third of the Trinity, the Spirit, is equally God. All that the Father has and is, is expressed by the Son; and all that the Son has and is, is realized as the Spirit. We further believe that mankind is in need of God's salvation. Though we were absolutely unable to fulfill the heavy demands of God's righteousness, holiness, and glory, Christ fulfilled all the requirements through His death on the cross. Because of Christ's death, God has forgiven us of our sins, justified us by making Christ our righteousness and reconciled us to Himself. Based on Christ's redemption, God regenerates the redeemed with His Spirit to consummate His salvation, that they may become His children. Now possessing God's life and nature, the believers enjoy a daily salvation in His Body in this age and the eternal salvation in the coming age and in eternity. In eternity we will dwell with God in the New Jerusalem, the consummation of God's salvation of His elect.

[awareness]

Take heart bro BoxjoBox. At least Big Bible Untohim hasn't ad hominemed you with a thread about you, like this one about me :

Re: Harold's powerless, impotent, amoral god.
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ght=harold%27s

[UntoHim]

Good morning Harold. So nice of you to hold a grudge over a post from 5 years ago! My post was not an ad hominem because my argument wasn't against your character, it was against your misrepresentation of the God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Actually our friend Boxjobox is doing the exact same thing, which is why my arguments against him are similar to those I make against the atheist/humanist stuff you have posted over the years.

In any event, you left out the most important part of my post:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My dear friend Harold is looking for God in all the wrong places! But thankfully he has chosen to hang around those who believe, worship and are coming to know the God of the heaven and earth. The God who is capable of creating, loving and most of all forgiving. He breathed his breath of life into what was a bunch of atoms made up from the dust of the ground and "man became a living soul". And more importantly, when this man rejected and rebelled against the Creator God (the story of human history), he provided a way for man to receive his breath of life again. But first things first - man needs to have faith. Yes, he does have one essential requirement for us.

-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good morning Harold. So nice of you to hold a grudge over a post from 5 years ago! My post was not an ad hominem because my argument wasn't against your character, it was against your misrepresentation of the God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Actually our friend Boxjobox is doing the exact same thing, which is why my arguments against him are similar to those I make against the atheist/humanist stuff you have posted over the years.

In any event, you left out the most important part of my post:


-

Why thanks Big Bible Untohim, for clearing all that up. You're so kind hearted towards me .... except :

Now tell me Big Bible man, why the Big Bible doesn't censor out horrible and shameful matters of all kinds, but you, going against all those Big Bible examples, practice censoring on this forum??? Maybe your Bible ain't so big, to you, after all. Maybe you're actually a small Bible man.

[awareness]

Isn't it true that if we get inspiration today, straight out of the mouth of God, that, we can only get it from the Holy Spirit?

I don't know about y'all, but the holy spirit is away more for me to handle as it is, and I think I would be too overwhelmed to even think to ask if there was/is a committee behind She/He/It. I would let the Her [Shekhinah] do all the talking.

And that's why the trinity is just silly ... IMHO.

It's also silly that it would be a censored topic anywhere on LCD, top or bottom. I would think the fact that Lee chimed in on it would make it of keen interest to all, LCer's and exLCer's alike. Sure it might shake up some presuppositions, but still, it should be a important subject to Local Church Discussions.

But then, I'm a uncensored, free speech, kinda guy ; like what was on the old thebereans.net site, in the Watchman Nee/Witness Lee/Local Church cult section -- I do so much miss that site -- ; plus, I don't own this one ... so it doesn't matter what I think ... in regards censorship.

[Boxjobox]

So here is a little tidbit of scripture that gives me confidence that trinitarianism is a false narrative. If one considers the NT, there is no “start-up” presentation of a 3/1 god and Jesus is God narrative, there is no continuance of such narrative, and there is no ending the NT with such. The whole triune god thing is a false narrative that was codified in the 4th century and enforced through the most ungodly means and continued for the last 1600 years through non-scriptural teachings among which WL was one such teacher. Once Jesus is set up as God in the thinking of the masses, it is a little hard to back-pedal that fallacious concept.

But looky here, in that writing of John, full of symbolism, Revelation, you have those who escape “the beast” singing the song of Moses and THE SONG OF THE LAMB singing not to some three people god, but to the Lord God Almighty- singing to the God of Moses and the God of the Lamb. It seems to me that trinitarianism has no real future- has no way, no life no truth. These singing ones get it! And John obviously was not in the Jesus is God/triune god club. That club is a dead end- it has no scriptural foundation, it is an incorrect gospel, it is a building of straw (let Untohim who reads understand) and will not endure to the end.

Rev 15.2And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that come off victorious from the beast, and from his image, and from the number of his name, standing by the sea of glass, having harps of God.

3And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, O Lord God, the Almighty; righteous and true are thy ways, thou King of the ages.

4Who shall not fear, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy; for all the nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy righteous acts have been made manifest.

Put this in your triune pipe and smoke it. It will be sweet in your mouth, but sour in your belly. Take 3 tablespoons of the pink liquid medicine, and then start to bend scriptures to show how trinitarianism does have a foundation, a solid building and an eternal end. That should keep the trins busy for quite a while- it kept WL employed for all those years!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So here is a little tidbit of scripture that gives me confidence that trinitarianism is a false narrative. If one considers the NT, there is no “start-up” presentation of a 3/1 god and Jesus is God narrative, there is no continuance of such narrative, and there is no ending the NT with such. The whole triune god thing is a false narrative that was codified in the 4th century and enforced through the most ungodly means and continued for the last 1600 years through non-scriptural teachings among which WL was one such teacher. Once Jesus is set up as God in the thinking of the masses, it is a little hard to back-pedal that fallacious concept.

But looky here, in that writing of John, full of symbolism, Revelation, you have those who escape “the beast” singing the song of Moses and THE SONG OF THE LAMB singing not to some three people god, but to the Lord God Almighty- singing to the God of Moses and the God of the Lamb. It seems to me that trinitarianism has no real future- has no way, no life no truth. These singing ones get it! And John obviously was not in the Jesus is God/triune god club. That club is a dead end- it has no scriptural foundation, it is an incorrect gospel, it is a building of straw (let Untohim who reads understand) and will not endure to the end.

Rev 15.2And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that come off victorious from the beast, and from his image, and from the number of his name, standing by the sea of glass, having harps of God.

3And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, O Lord God, the Almighty; righteous and true are thy ways, thou King of the ages.

4Who shall not fear, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy; for all the nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy righteous acts have been made manifest.

Put this in your triune pipe and smoke it. It will be sweet in your mouth, but sour in your belly. Take 3 tablespoons of the pink liquid medicine, and then start to bend scriptures to show how trinitarianism does have a foundation, a solid building and an eternal end. That should keep the trins busy for quite a while- it kept WL employed for all those years!

Shouldn’t these people who graduated from earth to heaven be shown singing to the triune god? Looks to me that they are praising the one and only true God, the God of Moses ( who brought the children of Israel firmly into the One God category), who is also the God of our Lord Jesus- the Lamb of God. Seems Moses and Jesus sang the same tune!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Concerning Christianity in general and the LC in particular, as this is a web site to discuss WL, WN and the LC, LSM, FFT, and all else related to this enigma, I find it fascinating that the whole question of trinity, and the person of Jesus Christ comes up quite often, and always seems to result in a standoff. I would say that the main feature of WL/LSM, after establishing a necessity for the LC, is to fill it with a theological viewpoint that what is missing from Christianity is an experiential understanding of what WL called the processed triune god. Unless one accepted this view, it would be very, very difficult to maintain existence in an LC. In fact, I would say that anyone speaking anything but this viewpoint would either be so marginalized to the point of leaving, or would be called divisive and forced out. Among those who left, few seem to hold to the “ processed “ part, and the triune part and the nature of the person of Christ Jesus seems to be unsettled.

Those who feel strongly that Jesus is God, or God in some fashion mainly quote the gospel of John, and with that, only a few select verses. It should be noted that the foundational church did not have the gospel of John, and there is no scriptural track record for the work John may have been doing at the time, other than he was with Peter in the beginning of Acts. Our famous Thomas, who has a one line quote that seems to cinch in the mind of the Jesus is God crowd that this is the NT in it’s fInest moment. Yet, we have no follow up in the book of Acts that anyone who may have been present took this great revelation of Thomas as something that needed to be preached or taught. Even in John’s writings it does not seem to be the end all of our faith.

One has to think that if the early church was going around speaking of Jesus as God, that there would have been such an outcry that Luke in his gospel given to assure us of our faith, and his work of Acts, would have recorded this Jesus is God thing as being taught and defended, and a whole lot of Christians being killed because of it. Indeed, Stephen is stoned to death, an event probably witnessed by Paul, because he said he saw a vision of the Son of man standing on the right hand of God- something that is taught and preached and expanded throughout the NT. So where is Thomas’ great revelation spoken of in the NT. There would have had to be such an upheaval because this would have contradicted the entire Jewish mindset. It would have to have such a strong beginning and a strong defense, yet there is no gospel spoken in Acts to bring this out.

John is certainly an interesting writer- he introduces a gospel that differs considerably from the other three, he has an epistle that still has people scratching their head about sin and the believer, and of course, he writes the Revelation- a book that so many try to interpret and expound, and a book so many Christians avoid for fear of adding or subtracting from it.
It doesn’t seem to me that the early church, as recorded in Acts, was influenced by John. John doesn’t seem to refer to the church in the same manner as Paul in his epistles. But then, in Revelation, all of the sudden he introduces the 7 churches, which correspond to 7 cities. It seems there is a lot of problems in 5 of the churches related to various teachings. But, there is one church that stands out plainly as doing a praiseworthy work, that one in Philadelphia. To this church, Jesus praises for keeping his word. And look, he says he will cause some false ones to come and worship before the feet of the believers there in Philadelphia.
Jesus, in this speaking, says that as a reward he will “make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name. 13He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”

Here is my curiosity; among my brethren who hold Jesus as God, what do you do with this that Jesus is saying? Here is the resurrected Christ speaking of his God and plainly speaking of it to those who keep his word. The strangest thing to me, is that John, who seems to be the kingpin of the Jesus is God persuasion writing about believers being rewarded with the things of his God. It should be noted that in all 7 writings to the 7 churches, Jesus never refers to himself as God, but particularly here to Philadelphia, I can’t help but appreciate Jesus speaking of his God.

So, maybe, some of the Jesus is God brethren would like to share their understanding and appreciation. I seem to recall one posting here about when we appear before Jesus, we will see....is there any consideration in light of these verses that we will see but a resurrected, glorified man, who is Christ our Lord? But specifically, how do you all relate to these rewards Jesus offers to the overcomers; I’m really interested to hear your perspectives.

From the anonymous gospel that was named John in the last half of the 2nd c. :

Joh_14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So here is a little tidbit of scripture that gives me confidence that trinitarianism is a false narrative. If one considers the NT, there is no “start-up” presentation of a 3/1 god and Jesus is God narrative, there is no continuance of such narrative, and there is no ending the NT with such. The whole triune god thing is a false narrative that was codified in the 4th century and enforced through the most ungodly means and continued for the last 1600 years through non-scriptural teachings among which WL was one such teacher. Once Jesus is set up as God in the thinking of the masses, it is a little hard to back-pedal that fallacious concept.

But looky here, in that writing of John, full of symbolism, Revelation, you have those who escape “the beast” singing the song of Moses and THE SONG OF THE LAMB singing not to some three people god, but to the Lord God Almighty- singing to the God of Moses and the God of the Lamb. It seems to me that trinitarianism has no real future- has no way, no life no truth. These singing ones get it! And John obviously was not in the Jesus is God/triune god club. That club is a dead end- it has no scriptural foundation, it is an incorrect gospel, it is a building of straw (let Untohim who reads understand) and will not endure to the end.

Rev 15.2And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that come off victorious from the beast, and from his image, and from the number of his name, standing by the sea of glass, having harps of God.

3And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, O Lord God, the Almighty; righteous and true are thy ways, thou King of the ages.

4Who shall not fear, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy; for all the nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy righteous acts have been made manifest.

Put this in your triune pipe and smoke it. It will be sweet in your mouth, but sour in your belly. Take 3 tablespoons of the pink liquid medicine, and then start to bend scriptures to show how trinitarianism does have a foundation, a solid building and an eternal end. That should keep the trins busy for quite a while- it kept WL employed for all those years!

The prayer goes “ our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. Yet in heaven, we don’t see a triune God talked about. In the gospel, and the foundational church we don’t hear about a triune God, so just what religious world are the trinitarians living in?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The prayer goes “ our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. Yet in heaven, we don’t see a triune God talked about. In the gospel, and the foundational church we don’t hear about a triune God, so just what religious world are the trinitarians living in?

Perhaps they just like 3 Yahweh's. One is just not enough. Nor is 2 Yahweh's, the Father and the Son. They've got to have 3, 3, 3, Yahweh's. God is a buffet. Take 1, 2, or 3 Yahweh's. We don't burn at the stake, so it's your choice now.

To each his or her own. I like it simple, just one Yahweh is too much for me to handle ; 2 or 3 would explode my head. So I'm going with one Yahweh.

Besides, in the 2nd c. Judaism pronounced 2 Yahweh's -- two powers in heaven -- as heresy. And they hadn't even heard of 3 Yahweh's as of yet. Yahweh forbid.

[Boxjobox]

So, I claim no expertise at bible knowledge, and have no great insight with bible prophesy, but I do like to observe and report to - how did Ohio put it- my church of one, what I read and consider. And who am I that I should differ from or question orthodoxy, I mean 1600 years and a whole lot of big bible wise guys, seem to have the policy and procedure down pat, and I probably shouldn’t upset the belief system of any by bringing all of this up. But in my church of one, I read in revelation of this woman sitting on a scarlet beast and has on her forehead a name written
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS
OF THE EARTH.
And I’m thinking- John wrote in the beginning of Revelation that God gave this revelation to Jesus to show his people what was shortly coming down the pipe. And lo and behold, if it didn’t shortly come to pass that the movers and shakers formed a hierarchical guild and began running the show, and shortly after that the big bible fish hat folks joined with Constantine the Great to form a great world religion, after a great council in Nicea to end squabbling, and declared God to be triune and Jesus as the man/god. The fish hats seemed to be riding high on the back of that beast Constantine. They worked together to create a great mystery cabal, which spread throughout the whole earth.
Now those who did not go along with the program suffered greatly at the hands of this great union, and what did John write that would shortly come to pass? Blimey, if old John didn’t note that “I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.“. By Jove, this is an interesting thing to ponder! And today there seems to be so many offshoots from this great mystery harlot everywhere, still talking the old Nicene Creed, just like it was the 4th century!
But who am I to question orthodoxy- it probably wouldn’t interest anybody outside of my small circle of friends. Of course, it does have great interest in my church of one.
The orthodoxy that wasn’t taught to the foundational church, doesn’t appear in the heavens, but certainly is important to the Big Bible people.
Hmmm- much to ponder, young jedi . And pondering am I. It doesn’t seem to end well for the mystery woman nor the beast in the good book account.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So, I claim no expertise at bible knowledge, and have no great insight with bible prophesy, but I do like to observe and report to - how did Ohio put it- my church of one, what I read and consider. And who am I that I should differ from or question orthodoxy, I mean 1600 years and a whole lot of big bible wise guys, seem to have the policy and procedure down pat, and I probably shouldn’t upset the belief system of any by bringing all of this up. But in my church of one, I read in revelation of this woman sitting on a scarlet beast and has on her forehead a name written
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS
OF THE EARTH.
And I’m thinking- John wrote in the beginning of Revelation that God gave this revelation to Jesus to show his people what was shortly coming down the pipe. And lo and behold, if it didn’t shortly come to pass that the movers and shakers formed a hierarchical guild and began running the show, and shortly after that the big bible fish hat folks joined with Constantine the Great to form a great world religion, after a great council in Nicea to end squabbling, and declared God to be triune and Jesus as the man/god. The fish hats seemed to be riding high on the back of that beast Constantine. They worked together to create a great mystery cabal, which spread throughout the whole earth.
Now those who did not go along with the program suffered greatly at the hands of this great union, and what did John write that would shortly come to pass? Blimey, if old John didn’t note that “I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.“. By Jove, this is an interesting thing to ponder! And today there seems to be so many offshoots from this great mystery harlot everywhere, still talking the old Nicene Creed, just like it was the 4th century!
But who am I to question orthodoxy- it probably wouldn’t interest anybody outside of my small circle of friends. Of course, it does have great interest in my church of one.
The orthodoxy that wasn’t taught to the foundational church, doesn’t appear in the heavens, but certainly is important to the Big Bible people.
Hmmm- much to ponder, young jedi . And pondering am I. It doesn’t seem to end well for the mystery woman nor the beast in the good book account.

From three witnesses, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus says :

"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

[Boxjobox]

The NT is set up to show us our relation with God is as a Father and sons and daughters. It is set up as a family affair. The position God takes is as a Father blessing and raising kids. The firstborn is Jesus, whom God bestows all the honor. He is seated at the right hand of God over all of God’s possessions. We as the many children through Christ are seated with him in a family atmosphere. God, our Father is central- everything is out from Him and to Him. We receive through Christ Jesus the blessings of God. This idea of God our Father is more than just a role play view; it is the Christian life. It is all based on the love the Father has for us. Our respect, our praise, out worship, our acknowledgment etc should be primarily to God our Father. The church is the arena where this takes place. Jesus had us remember him through the ritual of breaking bread and sharing wine. This too takes place in the arena of the church.

The trinitarian/Jesus is God fallacy corrupted this because the focus went from what Paul taught of one God, the Father to a trinity- a three people God. The more ancient sects of trinitarianism at least recognize the Father as the almighty God, and somewhat hold the family view of our relationship to God the Father and Christ the son, but in my observations, modern Christianity has pretty much gone off the deep end of the Jesus is God thing and merged God/ Christ/ The Holy Spirit into a smoothie God of a blended indistinguishable mixed flavor. In both cases the admonition of Paul to keep the oneness of the Spirit by holding to one God, the Father has been forsaken for a trinity God.

Along comes WLee and claims to be recovering the church. But his content is a hypersmoothie god that he feels he only has the correct formula to produce. Anyone who is “in the recovery” must adhere to his formula, practice his formula, purchase his formula, and propagate his formula. The problem is obvious- the church was meant to be an arena where. God our Father was given preeminence because out of Him and to Him and through Him are all things. And Christ was to be honored as the obedient son of God through whom we are brought into the family relation in the love of the Father.

After a half a century, we still have the phony “recovery” selling a hypersmoothie god. It seems like when WLee came to the good old USA, he sized up his talents and decided that the best way for making money was to sell his scriptural expertise to the gullible who bought into his formula. LSM became his business operation to sell his formula and the churches became his franchises to propagate that. That formula/business had no room to even consider Paul’s teaching of one God, the Father. If that teaching was followed, there would be no room for the whole WLee smoothie formula and LSM business would fold as a phony operation.

The people in the LC need to wake up and see the phony facade WL/LSM produced. Continuing on in the symbiotic relation between the LC and LSM does not please God, is not the work of God, and will not bring about a “glorious church”. It will only add continual confusion both to the individual and the church. Those in the LC have drunk the WL smoothie god for so long, the real taste of God our Father is no longer even a distant memory, and the church, which should be the arena where God our Father is worshipped has been turned into a sloppy smoothie kitchen business.
Some, such as Aaahhhumtohim, think the answer is to go back to a trinity god, which is a step or two back from the WL fiasco, but does not produce the church that Paul the apostle worked for that professes one God, the Father. It is more than just a doctrinal ideology of having one God, the Father; it is the basis of the whole Christian calling. It is what the church should express, and what brings about the blessing of God our Father. It also puts our Lord Jesus Christ in the proper perspective, and orders our lives according to the scripture- it should be the basis of our fellowship.

[Boxjobox]

The church as defined by Paul is the house of the Living God, the pillar and base of the truth. Triuneism changed both the definition of God and the church. From the 4th century on, the edict was “ these are your gods, oh Christian” and the prayers, the speaking, the singing became a worship of a man made entity. The house of God had a 3 headed statue erected. Paul’s teaching of there is but one God, the Father was gone. Jesus’ teaching that the only true God is the Father was ignored.

Along came WLee, who claimed to have perfect truth concerning the scripture, who claimed to be setting up the “recovery” of the scriptural church. He built a business out of these two claims, and attracted a following of people who would mouth his sayings. But the church was never recovered to the House of the Living God, but rather the church of WL/ LSM sunk to even a worse depravity- worshipping a processed triune god. That image was set up as the true scriptural God, and as from the 4th century practice, was reinforced in the minds and hearts of the people by prayers, by song, by teaching, by footnotes, by speaking, by coercion, by fear.

[Raptor]

1 Pet. 1:11,12. "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who foretold the grace to come to you searched and investigated carefully, trying to determine the time and setting to which the "Spirit of Christ" in them was pointing when He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow."

The Spirit of Christ was speaking to the prophets before His incarnation. Was that Spirit of Christ the Holy Spirit?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Raptor

1 Pet. 1:11,12. "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who foretold the grace to come to you searched and investigated carefully, trying to determine the time and setting to which the "Spirit of Christ" in them was pointing when He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow."

The Spirit of Christ was speaking to the prophets before His incarnation. Was that Spirit of Christ the Holy Spirit?

Hey Raptor. That's an interesting question. It creates pictures in my imagination.

First, it's all above my pay grade. But I think if we combine Gen 1:2 with the preamble in the Gospel of John, I think we'll get pretty close the an answer.

Except, in Hebrew Gel 1:2 says The Spirit of Elohim. Elohim was a term for God thru Genesis up until Exodus 6:3, where God reveals His name : Yahweh/Jehovah.

But a Rose by any other name is still a Rose. And if we connect Gen 1:2 and the preamble of John, and therefore Jesus is the creative source, then Elohim, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, it's all the same.

Does that answer your question? I don't know.

[Boxjobox]

Ooops, the nice moderator will now be upset with me because when I meant to post this on the alt page, I forgot that it was taken from the main page and inadvertently posted it there. I would beg forgiveness for my maxima culpa, and ask that the moderator perform his duty and remove it from the main page, lest I defile the sanctity of thought on the main page. I realize my fault, and that my postings only belong on the alt site.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It has long been my contention that the Bible has "confounded the persons" of the Godhead. The early church attempted to "straighten out" these "inconsistencies" in the Word of God by introducing new phrases like "3 Persons, but one God."

Many Bible "scholars" over the centuries went along with this new terminology in order to deal with heresies like Arius, the unitarian who fathered the JW/Boxjobox movements. Athanasius, the great Arius-slayer, gave us another, perhaps worse, heresy that "man becomes god," fathering other cults like the Mormons.

I guess we are free to pick our poison. I think it's best to stick to the Bible, "inconsistencies" included.

Like this post- try to follow the path Ohio tries to lead us down in this post: 1st is the introduction of persons of the Godhead concept. Godhead alone is a strange term, let alone 3 persons. 2) then there is the inconsistencies in the word of God, which is opening up a very large can of worms 3) a definition of God was established and anyone not accepting that definition was labeled an heretic- so much for the “word of God “ concept. The word of man prevailed! I’m glad at least that Ohio sees that something foreign to the “word of God” 4) JW/ boxjobox become a collaborative movement! Now I have to say, I had no idea I had any association with JW, let alone that I sponsor any kind of movement. 5) He leaves out the God becoming man controversy 6) man becoming god..... Ohio’s conclusion? “I guess we are free to pick our poison, I think it’s best to stick to the Bible, ‘ inconsistencies’ included.

So how is this allowed on the main page, but my positing on a concrete word by the apostle Paul, which is found in the Bible, the word of God, etc., that points out that to the believer there is but one God the Father. It seems everyone on the main page rejects Paul’s concrete definition. It’s not like Paul was talking about a side issue there in 1 Cor 8, no he was definitely explaining to the Corinthians who lived in a polytheistic, idolatrous society that to the believer there is One God, the Father. This is not the word on Arius, nor the word of watchtower nor the word of boxjobox, but the word Paul, the apostle gives in the scripture concerning our understanding of God. Yet, when I defend the scripture and Paul’s clear word, I’m labeled an heretic and a nasty fellow who should not be allowed to posit on the main page. Yet, this fellow, Ohio, can post that we can all choose our poison! Three persons in the godhead indeed!

[Boxjobox]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor View Post
1 Pet. 1:11,12. "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who foretold the grace to come to you searched and investigated carefully, trying to determine the time and setting to which the "Spirit of Christ" in them was pointing when He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow."

The Spirit of Christ was speaking to the prophets before His incarnation.
I can't figure Him out . . . . . . He is God.

But who can know!? As John Locke said, "I cannot understand the mystery of a single flower; neither was it intended that I should!"

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I can't figure Him out . . . . . . He is God.

But who can know!? As John Locke said, "I cannot understand the mystery of a single flower; neither was it intended that I should!"

Peter opens his epistle with this 3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Which should be clear that to Peter there is the God and Father of Jesus. This is the same thing Paul told the Corinthians - one God, the Father, and it is the same thing Jesus taught us about his God and Father, who should be our God and Father. Sons of Glory seems to have a problem accepting this and therefore cannot “figure Him out”. Why is it so easy to accept strange twisting of scripture to arrive at a different conclusion other than there is One God, the Father?

[Boxjobox]

The whole making Jesus God thing- one has to ask, why was proclaiming to everyone that God raised Jesus from the dead and that God set the ascended Jesus at His right hand, and that God in doing so gave Jesus the name above all names and the position above all positions and that God made him Lord, why would this even be the gospel. Why wasn’t the gospel God became a man, God died for our sins, God assumed his position, we now should all proclaim Jesus as God?

I think it’s time for the church to come to grips with the obvious conclusion that the Nicene creed was erroneous, that it changed the gospel, that it took us away from the truth, that the Holy Spirit does not testify to it, and that there is one God the Father, who is over all, eternal, immortal invisible, the only wise God, and that God acted in and through Jesus the Christ, the anointed one to bring about such a salvation for us.

The whole trinity thing is not presented in the scripture; one God, the Father is.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It has long been my contention that the Bible has "confounded the persons" of the Godhead. The early church attempted to "straighten out" these "inconsistencies" in the Word of God by introducing new phrases like "3 Persons, but one God."

Many Bible "scholars" over the centuries went along with this new terminology in order to deal with heresies like Arius, the unitarian who fathered the JW/Boxjobox movements. Athanasius, the great Arius-slayer, gave us another, perhaps worse, heresy that "man becomes god," fathering other cults like the Mormons.

I guess we are free to pick our poison. I think it's best to stick to the Bible, "inconsistencies" included.

To say that the “early church attempted to ‘straighten out’ these ‘inconsistencies’. I don’t think is accurate Early is a relative term: today since 2000 years have past, it may seem ‘early’ but at the time of the Nicene creed, the church went from being a, shall we say grass roots thing to having a Pope head, cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, friars, monasteries edifices, etc, and not to mention a cozy relation with the head of the Roman Empire. No, that was not the early church, that was a gross system of error that had evolved out of the foundational church Paul had laid a few centuries earlier. It was a system of error that God’speople were warned about.
The decrees that came out of that period were corrupted by that whole system of error that adopted the Roman system and mingled the thought of the Roman/ Greek god mythology into its structure. It was not a correction of inconsistencies but a total warping of the truth. It’s just that it’s been 1500 years since it’s inception. Do you think it may be time for Christians to cast off the fallacy?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, and hence the thought that although we can find verses for 3-in-1 AND 1-in-3, both are true. Why? Because He's God, and we can't effectively wrap our widdle minds around His nature.

I feel for SsofG because of the confusion the trinitarian influence has caused them. The modalism site on the main section clearly indicates that no one really understands what the trinity over the centuries profess. Those who agree with certain trinity definitions form sects and exclude and condemn others who do not agree. What a pathetic theology- what a shame and sham. Those who hold to tritheism should admit that they reject the scriptures, reject the true God and reject the Christ of God.

Paul told the believers clearly that there is one God, the Father. Paul was an apostle by the will of God- if one is going to reject Paul’s word, then one should be willing to proclaim that they reject the will of God and the scriptures. A three-one, one-three god is not the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is a false theology, that is an unscriptural teaching and I against the teaching that should be the foundation of the church.

SsofG has on a few posts reverted to what I commonly see said among many who hold a trinitarian theology- when it gets too confusing, out comes the old “he is God, and we are just human and can’t understand” routine. Whereas if SsofG would return to scripture and forsake the 3 people god, it would be apparent from reading that Paul spoke of God as the Father, the one true God, as did Jesus. That should be the foundational belief for reading and understanding scripture and should be the basis for true Christian fellowship.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, and hence the thought that although we can find verses for 3-in-1 AND 1-in-3, both are true. Why? Because He's God, and we can't effectively wrap our widdle minds around His nature.

I feel for SsofG because of the confusion the trinitarian influence has caused them. The modalism site on the main section clearly indicates that no one really understands what the trinity people over the centuries profess. Those who agree with certain trinity definitions form sects and exclude and condemn others who do not agree. What a pathetic theology- what a shame and sham. Those who hold to tritheism should admit that they reject the scriptures, reject the true God and reject the Christ of God.

Paul told the believers clearly that there is one God, the Father. Paul was an apostle by the will of God- if one is going to reject Paul’s word, then one should be willing to proclaim that they reject the will of God and the scriptures. A three-one, one-three god is not the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is a false theology, that is an unscriptural teaching and is against the teaching that should be the foundation of the church.

SsofG has on a few posts reverted to what I commonly see said among many who hold a trinitarian theology- when it gets too confusing, out comes the old “he is God, and we are just human and can’t understand” routine. Whereas if SsofG would return to scripture and forsake the 3 people god, it would be apparent from reading that Paul spoke of God as the Father, the one true God, as did Jesus. That should be the foundational belief for reading and understanding scripture and should be the basis for true Christian fellowship.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I feel for SsofG because of the confusion the trinitarian influence has caused them. The modalism site on the main section clearly indicates that no one really understands what the trinity people over the centuries profess. Those who agree with certain trinity definitions form sects and exclude and condemn others who do not agree. What a pathetic theology- what a shame and sham. Those who hold to tritheism should admit that they reject the scriptures, reject the true God and reject the Christ of God.

Paul told the believers clearly that there is one God, the Father. Paul was an apostle by the will of God- if one is going to reject Paul’s word, then one should be willing to proclaim that they reject the will of God and the scriptures. A three-one, one-three god is not the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is a false theology, that is an unscriptural teaching and is against the teaching that should be the foundation of the church.

SsofG has on a few posts reverted to what I commonly see said among many who hold a trinitarian theology- when it gets too confusing, out comes the old “he is God, and we are just human and can’t understand” routine. Whereas if SsofG would return to scripture and forsake the 3 people god, it would be apparent from reading that Paul spoke of God as the Father, the one true God, as did Jesus. That should be the foundational belief for reading and understanding scripture and should be the basis for true Christian fellowship.

A three person God can be juggled.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

A three person God can be juggled.

I don’t know if that’s true- to juggle, you have to have 3 distinct, unattached objects. It seems there is this constant argument about their attachment to one another. It seems to me more like the three shells and a nut game where with quick hands and a shuffle you are a winner if you can tell which shell the nut is under.

From the LC days, I think the saying was Of Person Three, Of Substance One- am I correct on that? I think that meant a singular person had three distinctions, and what exactly is the substance of God? God gets to be explained by man as a “substance”.? I think in one of the major creeds it’s Jesus is begotten, not made, true God of True God. Here again,seems to be some sort of God substance.

So now, which shell is the nut under?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I feel for SsofG because of the confusion the trinitarian influence has caused them. The modalism site on the main section clearly indicates that no one really understands what the trinity people over the centuries profess. Those who agree with certain trinity definitions form sects and exclude and condemn others who do not agree. What a pathetic theology- what a shame and sham. Those who hold to tritheism should admit that they reject the scriptures, reject the true God and reject the Christ of God.

Paul told the believers clearly that there is one God, the Father. Paul was an apostle by the will of God- if one is going to reject Paul’s word, then one should be willing to proclaim that they reject the will of God and the scriptures. A three-one, one-three god is not the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is a false theology, that is an unscriptural teaching and is against the teaching that should be the foundation of the church.

SsofG has on a few posts reverted to what I commonly see said among many who hold a trinitarian theology- when it gets too confusing, out comes the old “he is God, and we are just human and can’t understand” routine. Whereas if SsofG would return to scripture and forsake the 3 people god, it would be apparent from reading that Paul spoke of God as the Father, the one true God, as did Jesus. That should be the foundational belief for reading and understanding scripture and should be the basis for true Christian fellowship.

I'm glad you think you are all clear on the matter. I do see your point (3-in-1), but also see the other (1-in-3). Or is it visa-versa . . . ?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I don’t know if that’s true- to juggle, you have to have 3 distinct, unattached objects. It seems there is this constant argument about their attachment to one another. It seems to me more like the three shells and a nut game where with quick hands and a shuffle you are a winner if you can tell which shell the nut is under.

From the LC days, I think the saying was Of Person Three, Of Substance One- am I correct on that? I think that meant a singular person had three distinctions, and what exactly is the substance of God? God gets to be explained by man as a “substance”.? I think in one of the major creeds it’s Jesus is begotten, not made, true God of True God. Here again,seems to be some sort of God substance.

So now, which shell is the nut under?

And that's just what I meant. I didn't mean that a three person God could be juggled like balls. It was a double entendre. What I meant is that tritheist's juggle around the trinity doctrine to suit them. And when they can't they resort to, it's a mystery. What's a mystery is them just accepting it without question ; like it's a Bible doctrine.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'm glad you think you are all clear on the matter. I do see your point (3-in-1), but also see the other (1-in-3). Or is it visa-versa . . . ?

It’s not a question of me being “all clear”, rather it is just an acceptance that Paul told the believers that for them there is but one God, the Father. The whole trinity/ triune/3=1/1=3, is not a Christian discussion- it is outside the realm of scripture and faith (although I guess it takes a whole lot of some kind of faith to think that a man- made deity is more appropriate than what God had his apostle Paul tell us about God). If you expect some scriptural understanding to appear concerning a 3/1 1/3 understanding of God, well it just ain’t there. If you expect the Holy Spirit to witness to something that was a man- made theology, that would be foolishness. If we expect the church to be built on a 3/1 1/3 false theology, history proves that’s not happening. If you look for Christian oneness to come together over 3/1 1/3, that’s not what Paul prescribed.

SsofG, if the mystery of 3/1 1/3 is your view of God, you may really want to spend some of your quiet time pondering 1 Cor 8. Paul gives a “all clear” understanding of God in plain English (actually Greek, of course) , and you can set aside the whole modaliism argument .

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's just what I meant. I didn't mean that a three person God could be juggled like balls. It was a double entendre. What I meant is that tritheist's juggle around the trinity doctrine to suit them. And when they can't they resort to, it's a mystery. What's a mystery is them just accepting it without question ; like it's a Bible doctrine.

Yeah, turning Jesus into God did require quite a bit of juggling. If you have 3 objects to juggle, one always has to be in the air while the other 2 are shifted from hand to hand. So you have the God became flesh thing, you have a 100%God/100%man syndrome, and then you have scripture: it makes for a great vaudeville show, and occupies the Sunday crowds. The better the juggler, the better the crowd. Plus “how to” books sell like sour cream and chives on the baked potato.
And, if you moderate a website on Nee Lee and the LC, you can ban people who don’t agree with turning truth into a juggling act. Yet, most of the Lee performance was centered around this very juggling show!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Yeah, turning Jesus into God did require quite a bit of juggling. If you have 3 objects to juggle, one always has to be in the air while the other 2 are shifted from hand to hand. So you have the God became flesh thing, you have a 100%God/100%man syndrome, and then you have scripture: it makes for a great vaudeville show, and occupies the Sunday crowds. The better the juggler, the better the crowd. Plus “how to” books sell like sour cream and chives on the baked potato.
And, if you moderate a website on Nee Lee and the LC, you can ban people who don’t agree with turning truth into a juggling act. Yet, most of the Lee performance was centered around this very juggling show!

Hear, hear, Amen and amen.

[UntoHim]

Hey Boxy, for someone who is "banned" you sure seem to post a lot
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey Boxy, for someone who is "banned" you sure seem to post a lot
-

But isn't AltVs the place for the banned? We welcome them. If they dare.

[UntoHim]

Actually Harold, this is a place for Alternative Views. I know, kind of tricky of me.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Harold, this is a place for Alternative Views. I know, kind of tricky of me.
-

You little devil.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey Boxy, for someone who is "banned" you sure seem to post a lot
-

UntoThem, you are such a dear benevolent soul; bless you my son.

But how to interpret this statement? Is this an invitation to post once again on the main site? Or is it a subtle way of saying GET LOST?

It is encouraging to note you pay attention to the postings of those of us in Tartarusville. Perhaps, one day, in your daily scriptural reading, the veil will be removed and you will see the ridiculousness of promoting the strange fire of trinitarianism as some sort of holy offering.

You know, Moses insisted that the children of Israel follow the pattern given to him, Jesus countered the adversary by quoting that man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Yet, dear UntoThem, you seem insist that there are better words to live by; words formed when some fish hat men threw their golden earrings into the fire and out popped a golden decree tritheism.. strange fire indeed- you seem to love the smell of that incense.

Here is a quote of the day you may want to put on your main site liner:

15“The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’

17“And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. 20But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’
Moses Deuteronomy 18

[Boxjobox]

So, when did God, or His spokesman, Jesus the Christ command his people to speak of God as triune?

As far as I read, God’s spokesman said that the Father is the only true God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So, when did God, or His spokesman, Jesus the Christ command his people to speak of God as triune?

As far as I read, God’s spokesman said that the Father is the only true God.

Our earliest spokesperson for God in the NT, Paul, didn't concoct a trinity such as we have today.

And later spokespersons for God -- whoever wrote the rest of the books, namely the gospels -- we don't know who wrote them for sure -- even didn't concoct the trinity that is popular today either.

The trinity we have today started in the 3rd c., with Tertullian. He planted the seed with the word "trinity," that blossomed in the 1st quarter of the 4th c. into its first solid formation.

Yet the trinity cannot be formed. It's a mystery. They say. Just accept it. ; 3=1 and 1=3. It's easy. Just don't do the math.

The trinity today is popular. Is it in our human nature to need 3? Historically it did seem to become an obsession, if that's proof of anything.

Still, people seem to love the trinity : coming up ... a cute triangle ... Isn't it adorable? Don't ya just love it?

"Trinity Song"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlLLQvY6RjQ

[Boxjobox]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlLLQvY6RjQ[/QUOTE]

You definitely don’t want the kids to get confused when you start talking about God the Father God the Son and God the Spirit. Such a sweet little tune; maybe UntoThem would want to put that on his main site song of the day.

[UntoHim]

Boxy,

I'm starting to get the feeling that "UntoThem" is not exactly a term of endearment. In any event, just so you understand, if mocking and ridiculing are your idea of an "alternative view", then maybe you better think about finding another forum to post your alternative views. Clear enough?

In the meantime, here's something from your opening post:

Concerning Christianity in general and the LC in particular, as this is a web site to discuss WL, WN and the LC, LSM, FFT, and all else related to this enigma, I find it fascinating that the whole question of trinity, and the person of Jesus Christ comes up quite often, and always seems to result in a standoff. I would say that the main feature of WL/LSM, after establishing a necessity for the LC, is to fill it with a theological viewpoint that what is missing from Christianity is an experiential understanding of what WL called the processed triune god. Unless one accepted this view, it would be very, very difficult to maintain existence in an LC.

This post is great. Classic Boxjobox! So instead of mocking and ridiculing, maybe you could take a step back, and build upon what you have posted here. Also, keep me out of the discussions unless you want to address something that I have posted here on this thread. Clear enough?
-

[awareness]

Sounds like banning Trapped even more is on the table ... even on AltVs.

[UntoHim]

Pretty Please?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sounds like banning Trapped even more is on the table ... even on AltVs.

wait wait wait wait.....where on earth does talk about banning me come from? And what does banning me "even more" mean?!

I haven't been on this thread in like 65 posts!

[Boxjobox]

This is strictly a Boxjobox observation and any resemblance to anyone in particular, or any inference of this being a mocking ridiculing of any individual should be altogether dismissed from ones thinking.

Paul the apostle by the will of God wrote a wonderful letter to the saints in Ephesus encouraging and exhorting them to lay hold of the revelation of what God had done and is doing in Christ Jesus and in and with them as well. In that letter, one finds great reference to the God and Father of Jesus. It is worthy to note and deeply consider that Paul does not mention any thing about. 3-1, 1-3 God, does not talk in terms of God the Son , nor of God the Spirit, does not call Jesus God, does not speak of a trinity god, does not talk about God being processed, but clearly talks about God, the Father, Christ the Lord, and the Spirit. In quite clear language he admonished them to keep the oneness on the spirit in the uniting bond of peace by acknowledging one Spirit, one Lord Jesus Christ, and One God and Father.
In that epistle he gives a benediction to God in saying “Now unto Him who is able to do so much more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

The to Him, the Unto Him as some versions say, is unto the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Paul does not show a view that God is some sort of 3 people God. So, if someone has a hybrid theology that includes some items of Paul’s sayings, and mingles them with 4th and 5th century decrees and considers that a bonafide Christian theology, and purports to be a public keeper of truth, it seems to me that the true Christian way would be to point out the deviation so the one practicing that hybrid religion would deeply consider their waywardness from scripture and amend their ways. So if Paul admonishes the believers to keep the oneness by acknowledging one God, the Father, and someone comes along and talked about a 3 people god, it should be apparent that that person does not receive and practice Paul’s word, and if they want to spout out that hybrid theology and have others adhere to it, that person should at least have the decency to proclaim that they do not accept the words of Paul, and in fact reject the words of Paul, and not use a benediction of Paul as their handle. If they are of the mind that God is 3 persons, and want to proclaim their own benediction along the lines of their hybrid religion, then it would behoove them to not say or use Paul’s Unto Him, but rather, in keeping in accordance with their hybrid thinking say Unto Them, as they view God not according to Paul’s teaching of there being one God the Father, but view God as three people.

[Boxjobox]

I thought this oldie but goodie might be enjoyed

https://youtu.be/Cjr0kkStr_s

[Boxjobox]

I posted this on the main site Modalism after reading the insane posts that are there. It’s unfortunate that the administrator of this whole thing which is supposed to talk about Nee, Lee and Local church, has adopted the same style as Lee and LSM and assumed that he only has truth and all who do not agree are debased or ex-communicated. Having discussions with opinions that don’t agree should actually be helpful in fleshing out what is or isn’t truth, but when one insists that they are the only one standing on truth, that tends to produce strange cults and sects.

So here is what I posted on the modalism site

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ohio,
I'm quite certain that the followers of Joseph Smith, John Thomas, Mary Baker Eddy and Charles Taz Russell sincerely believe that their leader was merely opening up new scriptures that had been long imprisoned by orthodox Christianity. But when one compares and contrasts these teachers and the movements they founded with the New Testament teachings as interpreted by orthodox Christians since the dawn of the church - "the faith once delivered to the saints" - they are found to be false teachers, and the movements they founded as aberrational at best, and at worst, heretical cults that entrap their followers in a system of error.

Your statement: "that is 3 separate Persona, with 2 of them in the distant heavens, and this unrecognizable one in me" is perplexing. In 50+ years I have never once heard or read any Christian teacher teach such things, or anything even close. The Holy Spirit as "this unrecognizable one in me"? Where do you come up with this stuff? If I didn't know you better, I would think that you were still under the spell of Witness Lee, and that his teachings regarding the Trinity are to be considered "recovered truth". I am here to tell you that Lee's teachings regarding the nature of the Trinity are not recovered truth. The only thing that they are recovering is the ancient heresy of modalism. Please believe me that I am not saying that Witness Lee's teachings are false just because they come from Lee (admittedly, that they come from him sure doesn't help!), for just about every teacher, scholar or apologist who has taken a serious look at these teachings have called them out as theologically aberrational at best, and many have labeled them as heresy.



While I think this statement is fair and reasonable on it's face, it kind of implies that when one makes a criticism of any particular Christian teacher, teaching or practice one must cover the entire panoply of said teacher's entire life and works for their criticism to be an accurate portrayal. Sorry, but I don't have the time or burden for such an adventure. Some on this forum seem to have the time and burden to post everything - the good, the bad and the ugly. God bless them, and may he have mercy and grace on the rest of us.
-

I can’t help but point out some obvious things in this whole discussion.
1) the Paul that keeps getting quoted from Romans 8 is the same Paul that wrote to the Corinthians in 1Cor 8 that there is but one God, the Father. It seems to me that the inability to accept the concrete teaching Paul gives in Cor. 8, which is also so apparent in Romans 1, and to try to understand and express the workings of God found in Romans 8, leads to fallacious conclusions that are not universally taught in Paul’s writing.
2). The term “spirit” seems to be used in the scripture in a number of ways. To assign a single meaning every time you see the word spirit in Paul’s writing concerning the workings of God as being sone sort of third person of a trinity god doesn’t follow scripture and, again, leads to fallacious conclusions.
3) to try to portray 3rd, 4th, and 5th century teachings as existing since the “dawn of the church” is fallacious in itself. The Paul that is quoted does not present God as a trinity. You error greatly in assuming that your orthodoxy is foundational truth. And your comparing others to your orthodoxy does not bring anyone to scriptural understanding. As I have pointed out before, a true recovery of the church would not plant Christians in the 3rd to 5th century, but rather back to that which was from the beginning, which did not contain a trinity god.
4) If, after 1500 years of having that 3rd to 5th century “orthodoxy” no one understands or agrees what the scripture says in light of that orthodoxy, seems to me that orthodoxy is not really helpful, but in fact harmful to the Christian and to the Church.
5) Paul and Jesus consistently spoke of the God and Father of Jesus as the one true God: This is the true Christian orthodoxy, and should be the foundational prism to understanding all the workings of God. You will continue arguing in a fallacious manner unless this is accepted, for it as the same Paul that gave us Romans 8, who told the Ephesians that the true Christian testimony needs be one God, the Father.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I posted this on the main site Modalism after reading the insane posts that are there.

Wow but that was fast! I just got the notification that you posted to the main site and went there maybe a half hour later and it had been moved here! Can't blame our moderator for being asleep at the wheel after all!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wow but that was fast! I just got the notification that you posted to the main site and went there maybe a half hour later and it had been moved here! Can't blame our moderator for being asleep at the wheel after all!

Oh- it was removed in probably less than 5 minutes. As long as one believes in a trinity, anything goes. But if one speaks against the trinity, they go.

[Boxjobox]

So let’s say it’s judgement day, and Jesus is lining up his rewards, just like he told the churches in Revelation- rewards for the overcomers. And he wants to award what he offered to the church in Philadelphia: 3.12He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name. 13He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.
And there is good old U2H- is U2H going to reject the reward because it’s against his orthodoxy? Is he going to ban Jesus, or rant about Jesus being an heretic. Would U2H feel this is a cheap, phony reward? I’m probably the only one who notices these things, such as Jesus, talking to the churches, does not reveal himself as God. But this reward thing- How will U2H respond on That Day? How he wants to treat me in this age, I and Jesus can easily, and do forgive, but how will he accept from Jesus a reward that he counts as damnable heresy in this age? Perhaps, in a twinkling of an eye, our great and merciful High Priest will be able to change U2H’s mind- change his spirit.

[Boxjobox]

Thought this video as very enlightening concerning trinitarian thought, and the modern view. Francis Chan looks like he is seeing through and troubled with the pastoral free group phenomenon, but doesn’t know what to do.

But Hank Hanegraaff- watch how he is stuck in the 3rd to 5th century and considers those creeds as direct from the Holy Spirit. Notice how, concerning Christian beliefs, he repeats the same old false trinitarian narratives: the ancient church believed, practiced, the dear people that came up with the creeds, all through the scripture Jesus is God, orthodoxy sets us straight, etc. But never does he bring up Paul’s admonition for keeping the oneness by professing One God, the Father.

And then, about half way through, he gives a great praise for the LC/Recovery!

All seem to be stuck under the spell of the 3-5th century decrees. A recovered church should be based on the foundational church given to us by Paul. Going back to the 3-5th century was where all the corruption took roots!

And now Hanegraaff likes the God became a man so man could become God thing. Fasten your seatbelts, I think modern Christianity is about to hit the hyperspace button!

https://youtu.be/PDm251gA6Lw

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Thought this video as very enlightening concerning trinitarian thought, and the modern view. Francis Chan looks like he is seeing through and troubled with the pastoral free group phenomenon, but doesn’t know what to do.

But Hank Hanegraaff- watch how he is stuck in the 3rd to 5th century and considers those creeds as direct from the Holy Spirit. Notice how, concerning Christian beliefs, he repeats the same old false trinitarian narratives: the ancient church believed, practiced, the dear people that came up with the creeds, all through the scripture Jesus is God, orthodoxy sets us straight, etc. But never does he bring up Paul’s admonition for keeping the oneness by professing One God, the Father.

And then, about half way through, he gives a great praise for the LC/Recovery!

All seem to be stuck under the spell of the 3-5th century decrees. A recovered church should be based on the foundational church given to us by Paul. Going back to the 3-5th century was where all the corruption took roots!

And now Hanegraaff likes the God became a man so man could become God thing. Fasten your seatbelts, I think modern Christianity is about to hit the hyperspace button!

https://youtu.be/PDm251gA6Lw

From this video, it looks like the Bible Answerman has changed his answers! He has adopted another gospel. The foundational church never preached that God became a man, let alone that man would become God. This kind of false gospel renders the book of Acts as useless babbling, it means that the revelation Paul spoke of in Ephesians as useless. But it is the road trinitarianism always follows- departing from the scriptural gospel into a mystery religion where people must cling to their priests and high priests for understanding and way to the god they create.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by HankHanegraaff

Excerpt from Hank Hanegraaff's statement about the Local Church:

"I actually started my own journey, with respect to going back and looking at the ancient church, as a result of being president of CRI, and being a leader of an organization that believed that a particular group that known as "the Recovery", was cultic. We had position papers on them. When someone would contact us we'd give them those position papers. I met with the leading ones in that movement of the Holy Spirit, and the very things that we said they denied, they affirmed in that meeting, so I pulled all of the statements we had about that organization out of circulation.

We started a six year primary research project on this group (we didn't know it would take that long) . That took me to many different places in Asia where the group is largest, particularly China. And many other places in Asia - Indonesia, Singapore, Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar. And at the end of that research project we came to the conclusion that we were wrong. Well, we splashed in large letters across our flagship magazine, Christian Research Journal, "We Were Wrong". And we told the story of how we were wrong - how what we said before was wrong. Through that we became not separated brothers, we became united.

So we have differences to this day - significant differences - perhaps on secondary issues. But I have no doubt that these are brothers in the Lord. And that their whole move of the Holy Spirit is a move of recovery. It's called the Recovery! (It's called the Local Churches in some places, but it's called the Recovery.) Why? Because they're seeking to recover the truths that were taught historically in the ancient church, and then to apply them today. And one of the great truths that they have uncovered, as part of the recovery, is deification. And that was the very thing that was foremost in our mind, and in the minds of many cult experts, that made them a cult. They say that "we can become God". They do say that, but they don't ever say that like a Mormon would say. They say that in that we can become a God, but not as God is in the Godhead. Meaning we can partake of the energies of God, we can partake of the essence of God, for God is ennoble in his essence. And so they're recovering truths. Well that started me....They're looking back throughout history at the church and recovering truths that had been lost. Maybe there's some truths that I'm missing as well.

And that really became not only a point of unification (instead of carping from the fringes and saying "that's a cultic group") we met together and it changed our perception, in fact, it was people in that move of the Spirit that I saw in far-flung places around the world that gave me a hunger for life. I knew about the Lord, and I knew doctrinal truth, but I did not experience the life that some of these people, who may have had less intellectual or spiritual or theological acumen that I have, but they had a living, vibrant relationship with the Lord, which I pined after, and that opened the floodgates for me."
-
-

Poster’s note: I’m not allowed to post my thoughts on the main page, so I have to drag other’s posts from that side of discussion and bring them over here to the alt- site to comment.

To a reader of the scripture who would not fall for the fog of the trinitarian error, Hanegraff’s error should be apparent. He seems to have found something he calls “experience the life” in the “recovery”. Lee’s big thing was the “experience of life” emanating from his processed triune god theology. Needless to say, the apostles never taught of a triune god, let alone of a processed one, and neither did Jesus. John records Jesus’ teaching as this Jn 17.3 “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.“ Jesus’ teaching is that eternal life comes from a knowing of the Father- the only true God, and knowing the one that the true God sent, Jesus, the anointed one. The gospel preached in the NT is all about this. The epistles direct the believers to continue in this, and strengthen and build one another up in this faith. As Jesus told his disciples, he would build his church on the very revelation given to Peter, that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God.

For Hanegraaff to think he is come upon new light after 2000 years, is as delusional as those who think W Lee discovered the secret of Christian living and was the minister of the age. The 3-5th century triune god fallacy which rules modern Christianity, as Babylon ruled over the Jews because of their departure from the one True God, brings people to follow every strange teaching that follows it. How many centuries have devout people followed Maryology and felt they were close to God- it still goes on today! Being fervently zealous for spiritual myths does not build the church!

Hanegraaff, in the video, now seems to ascribe to transubstantiation as well. The discussion in the video is about the current condition of the evangelical church and a moaning about all the different teachings and practices amongst the multitude of divisions. Francis Chan doesn’t know what to do, and here is Hanegraaff directing him to trinitarian orthodoxy, which was the source of all the confusion and false teachings to begin with! His talk about the “ancient church” is a gross error, in that the ancient is really the 3-5 century roots that departed from the foundational church given to us by Paul. To a 6th century Christian that did not agree with the false doctrines in the creeds and wanted to follow the truth as delivered by Jesus and the apostles, the “ancient church” would not be so ancient, but would rather be that monster that, joined with the Roman Empire to persecute, torture, murder, and obliterate anyone that did not go along with their new religion. After 1500 years, Hanegraaff regards this monstrosity as the Christian faith we should all return to. Unbelievable!

The church definitely does need to be recovered- back to the foundational roots given to us by Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God. The Paul who told us that there is but one God, the Father. And admonished us to keep the oneness by professing such. It looks like Hanegraaff has fallen down another rabbit hole and wants to take others with him.

[Boxjobox]

Once again, a certain person does not like to have his theology question or compared an so I have to copy what should be posted on the main site- modalism and publish it here

Originally Posted by UntoHim

StG!: Same

Ok, then why is it that you don't apply the very same logic to the various titles of the Holy Spirit given in your post #206? (the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, etc)


StG!: Same as when it says Christ is in us, yet also on the throne. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."

Interesting answer! But there is a logical/theological disconnect in your answer again. My question was addressing the relationship of the Father and the Son, (two individuals) but your answer addresses the omnipresence of Christ (one individual)
Although there is an intrinsic, essential dynamic of oneness within the Godhead (cf: I am in the Father and the Father is in me), this dynamic does not confuse, much less obliterate, the relationship between the Father and the Son. A good illustration would be found in John 8: "Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." (vrs 16-18)


StG!: Agreed. Representation is one aspect, but as you point out there's a deeper, organic aspect too, and this is the real significance - it's this deeper, intrinsic aspect that's key, right? It's like saying my son looks like me. Well of course, but why? Because he shares my DNA.

I disagree that one "aspect" of the Holy Spirit's relationship with the Father and the Son, and indeed with us as believers, has any more significance than the other. For example, the judicial/legal aspect of our "adoption as sons" (Gal 4:5) and "the Spirit of adoption as sons" (Rom 8:15) and "predestined us for adoption to himself as sons" (Eph 1:5) is just as significant as the "organic" aspect in John 14:19 "Because I live, you also will live". and 1 Pet 1:4 "you may become partakers of the divine nature". Witness Lee created a false dichotomy of sorts with his emphasis of the "organic" relationship over the judicial/legal aspect. As a matter of fact, Lee and his followers have implied that his teachings, and his particular emphasis of one aspect over the over other, was "recovered, high peak truth". It should go without saying by now, but I'm here to tell you that Lee's teachings, and Lee's emphases, are neither recovered truth nor high peak. In the end, my dear friend Sons to Glory!, I believe that we will find that the "many sons" will have been "brought to glory" because of, and through, the judicial AND organic aspects. All man-made aspects, emphases, significances, terms, creeds and doctrines will fade away in abject insignificance and utter worthlessness "compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us"(Rom 8:18)
-

Untohim, much quoting fro John, but here is what you may want to consider: Jn 5: 26For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

We are dependent on the work of Christ. Christ Jesus here explains that he is dependent on the Father. The Father is dependent on no one, the Father is God- eternal, immortal, invisible. All things come out of Him, to Him, and through Him. Hence, the picture given to us that we should pick up is that we would relate to God as Father, Father as God. This is how Jesus lived and taught. God, the eternal God, who is above all, the everlasting one, gave life to Jesus- this is why we have the picture which we humans can understand: Father begat son. Son is dependent on Father, Father is independent- Self sufficient, Self existing, out from Whom come all things. We, through Christ are privileged to enter into this relation; we are privileged to be able to call God Father.

Untohim- all your explanations seem to me to be a dissuasion from considering this supreme blessing that God has wrought, which we should marvel at, appreciate, live by. We are not directed by scripture to delve into strange teachings which were not taught, but to hold to the teachings we were taught.

Witness Lee developed his own strange, ie non-scriptural theology, not given to us by Jesus and the apostles, by taking bits and pieces of scripture and cut and pasting and adding his own thoughts and interpretations and calling that truth and insisting that everyone accept it as such and accept him as the minister of truth, and that everyone buy his literature and study it and repeat it and believe it and live by it, and promote it to others who would buy it. It’s time for those in the LCs to chuck LSM into the cult furnace and return to scripture, and teach it and consider it, and believe it, and live by it.

[Boxjobox]

How exactly does a being who always existed have three persons and one is Father and one is Son and one is kind of vague and called Holy Spirit? Why call one Father and one Son?
I am a son, and a father, and now a grandfather, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of the terms father and son. When I read scripture, I have great appreciation of “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” I believe this, and receive this, and hope in this. I can understand this because, as a human, I know what is a father, what is a son, and what it would mean to give a son, an only begotten son in ransom for another. I have seen my newborn son come into the world. I have seen family members die. God gives us the gospel in terms we can appreciate, understand, feel the love that He has for us.
No where in my scripture does God present himself as some sort of triune being. Paul tells us in no incontrovertible terms that there is ONE God, The Father. I understand that, I believe that, I receive that, I speak of that. I see this preached and taught in Acts by those who were with Jesus. And, I see Jesus speaking the same thing. This is the foundational basis of the church.

What I have noticed is how far most of those who adopted a trinitarian theology have departed from the foundation. The Father becomes a strange place holder, Jesus becomes God, the glorious gospel is lost for a super gospel that I do not see preached in the NT.
The other day I was watching, aaahhheeemm, FoxNews, and there were 2 different commercials; one was Franklin Graham sitting on a park bench overlooking Seattle, as if the viewer were sitting there with him, and he was sharing a John 3.16 gospel. The other commercial was, I think his name is Michael Youssef standing in a study with lots of books behind him telling how Jesus is God, and blah blah blah. Two distinctly different gospels! Mr. Graham’s I recognize as that which I would hear in Acts. Mr Youssef’s is the new gospel that seems so prevalent today, that I don’t hear in Acts. I find this terribly troubling, terribly divisive, terribly confusing. Which one would one expect the Holy Spirit to honor? Which one builds the church. I think W Lee would have referred to F Graham’s gospel as the low gospel.

[Boxjobox]

We have this prayer that Jesus taught us, and told us to pray in such a manner:

Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

So, “On earth as it is in heaven” should have us consider what’s what in heaven. Revelation is the most descriptive account we have, and in reading through that account, I fail to see anyone suggesting that God is triune. There is God, Jesus, 7 Spirits talked about, but angels, elders, creatures, multitudes, Jesus, nor God Himself refer to God as a trinity being. Indeed, Revelation starts out “ The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants things which must shortly take place”. God seems well defined in the introduction as the one who was and is and is to come. The 7 Spirits are before His throne, and Jesus is described as “the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” The relation between Jesus and God is well defined, and our part as the redeemed of Jesus is spelled out.

The heaven/earth relation, I would think would should be relayed to the churches. Yet, when I look at the messages to the 7 churches, Jesus never defines himself as God, or makes any reference to a trinity God. Jesus defines himself in a number of ways, including being the faithful and true witness and also as being the beginning of the creation of God. And in those messages, it should be apparent to the reader that God is the God of Jesus. So where does the message, the revelation from heaven convey that which is being portrayed on earth for the last 1500 years that Jesus is God and God is triune?
How do we get from praying as Jesus taught, to our Father in heaven, to a triune god theology on earth? Seems to me that truth should reign over myth. I recognize that 1500 years of trinity indoctrination is hard to shake off, but shouldn’t we return to the fundamental foundation of the church, the truth, the “ on earth as it is in heaven” and not try bend truth to a farcical trinity theology. If we care about God and Jesus, we really should thrust aside the myth and worship the God and Father of Jesus as Jesus taught. That kind of “recovered” church will not come about by 1500 year old decrees nor by the likes of WL/LSM.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

That kind of “recovered” church will not come about by 1500 year old decrees nor by the likes of WL/LSM.

Let's just be realistic about this recovered church concern.

Basically most just don't care at this juncture. The recovery believers think they've recovered it with one church one city. They're happy. Recovery accomplished.

The restoration believers think they've restore the church back to before the RCC damaged it. They're happy. Restoration accomplished.

And the RCC don't care about the recovery, cuz in their mythological system, Pope Peter kicked the church off, and it's followed true since, therefore, nothing was lost, nothing needs recovered, or restored. They're happy. They've been fine since the foundational early church.

And they all seem happy with a 3 headed God, and that Jesus was God.

There's lots of mass and momentum behind them.

Basically BoxJoBox, sorry to say, our only hope in seeing the recovered church reappear is, divine intervention.

[Boxjobox]

Speaking of a three headed God, I was reading 1 Samuel 28 this morning- wow, what a chapter! Saul is scared stiff about the impending war with the Philistines. Goes to a woman in EnDor who has a “ familiar spirit” because God is not talking to Saul either be dream, Urim, or prophet. So it says: 11Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. 12And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice; and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. 13And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what seest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I see a god coming up out of the earth. 14And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a robe. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground, and did obeisance.
Woah Doctor! A whole lot going on here! And the woman said unto Saul, I see a god coming up out of the earth. Wa wa wa what’s this? The word for god here is elohim. So the translations of this are all over the place- a spirit, spirits, a divine being, god, gods, one like god. But the word is elohim, which as we are often told by the triunists is the 3 headed god that created all, and we must all recognize that God is a plural being.

So then we get to the NT and the great apostle Paul tells the Corinthians that there is but one God, the Father. What happened to the 3 headed being?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Speaking of a three headed God, I was reading 1 Samuel 28 this morning- wow, what a chapter! Saul is scared stiff about the impending war with the Philistines. Goes to a woman in EnDor who has a “ familiar spirit” because God is not talking to Saul either be dream, Urim, or prophet. So it says: 11Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. 12And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice; and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. 13And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what seest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I see a god coming up out of the earth. 14And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a robe. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground, and did obeisance.
Woah Doctor! A whole lot going on here! And the woman said unto Saul, I see a god coming up out of the earth. Wa wa wa what’s this? The word for god here is elohim. So the translations of this are all over the place- a spirit, spirits, a divine being, god, gods, one like god. But the word is elohim, which as we are often told by the triunists is the 3 headed god that created all, and we must all recognize that God is a plural being.

So then we get to the NT and the great apostle Paul tells the Corinthians that there is but one God, the Father. What happened to the 3 headed being?

Oh, I think I see new light- Samuel comes up out of the earth; surely this indicates resurrection, and Samuel is seen as Elohim, surely this shows he has been transformed and become god! And Elohim is plural, surely this is none other than the triune god filling Samuel so that in resurrection, Samuel became god! Now we can see, god is quadune! And Saul, the natural man worships him. Oh, new light.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Oh, I think I see new light- Samuel comes up out of the earth; surely this indicates resurrection, and Samuel is seen as Elohim, surely this shows he has been transformed and become god! And Elohim is plural, surely this is none other than the triune god filling Samuel so that in resurrection, Samuel became god! Now we can see, god is quadune! And Saul, the natural man worships him. Oh, new light.

This was my attempt at understanding the Lee mentality, which was ( and I do mean WAS; he is dead now!) sold (and I do mean SOLD) to us as truth. We were taught to repeat it, sing it, pray it, testify it. If one didn’t mold themselves to the Lee teaching, then one was not in good standing in “the church”, which meant one was not right with God, which meant one was fair game for being ostracized. This is really the same thing that happened with the 4th century trinity thing. How exactly did the church that we read about in scripture come about when it was not preached that Jesus is God, and that God is triune?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This was my attempt at understanding the Lee mentality, which was ( and I do mean WAS; he is dead now!) sold (and I do mean SOLD) to us as truth. We were taught to repeat it, sing it, pray it, testify it. If one didn’t mold themselves to the Lee teaching, then one was not in good standing in “the church”, which meant one was not right with God, which meant one was fair game for being ostracized. This is really the same thing that happened with the 4th century trinity thing. How exactly did the church that we read about in scripture come about when it was not preached that Jesus is God, and that God is triune?

I would argue that, the New Testament story that Jesus as the Christ ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God, taken by itself, symbolically represents his deification. So, while the doctrine of the Trinity is not fully worked out in the New Testament, the process that led to the doctrine historically, starts there.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

I would argue that, the New Testament story that Jesus as the Christ ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God, taken by itself, symbolically represents his deification. So, while the doctrine of the Trinity is not fully worked out in the New Testament, the process that led to the doctrine historically, starts there.

So I guess, symbolically this would represent the reverse process?


1 Cor 1520But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So I guess, symbolically this would represent the reverse process?


1 Cor 1520But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

Apparently you quoted that passage thinking that it supports whatever your position is. After he puts everything into subjection to himself, God the Son subjects himself to God the Father that God may be all in all. Is that what you were thinking?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Apparently you quoted that passage thinking that it supports whatever your position is. After he puts everything into subjection to himself, God the Son subjects himself to God the Father that God may be all in all. Is that what you were thinking?

Zeek, your use of symbolism alters the narrative presented in scripture and allows you to “ interpret” passages and come up with alternate scenarios.

The scripture does not give us a “God the Son”’ it does give us the son of God. What that passage gives us is the narrative spoken throughout the NT: God raised Christ from the dead, God exalted Jesus to the highest position in creation (yet that position is not above God), an operation since that time is taking place, which includes the believers in Christ, enemies and rule subdued, the return of Christ to earth, death dealt with, the kingdom established, and then Christ returning the reigns over to the one who gave them to him, which is God.

The prophesy is “sit at my right hand until I put you enemies under your feet”. That is what is taking place today. When that is finally accomplished, then comes the “until” when God becomes all in all. As far as what that looks like, and where we are at on this timetable, I don’t know.

In the scripture, God is God and Christ is Christ. There is not a trinity God presented. The narrative of scripture is One God, the Father.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Zeek, your use of symbolism alters the narrative presented in scripture and allows you to “ interpret” passages and come up with alternate scenarios.

The scripture does not give us a “God the Son”’ it does give us the son of God. What that passage gives us is the narrative spoken throughout the NT: God raised Christ from the dead, God exalted Jesus to the highest position in creation (yet that position is not above God), an operation since that time is taking place, which includes the believers in Christ, enemies and rule subdued, the return of Christ to earth, death dealt with, the kingdom established, and then Christ returning the reigns over to the one who gave them to him, which is God.

The prophesy is “sit at my right hand until I put you enemies under your feet”. That is what is taking place today. When that is finally accomplished, then comes the “until” when God becomes all in all. As far as what that looks like, and where we are at on this timetable, I don’t know.

In the scripture, God is God and Christ is Christ. There is not a trinity God presented. The narrative of scripture is One God, the Father.

True, the trinity is not in the Bible.

And it's also true that Jesus didn't become God until the end of the first century, when the Gospel we call John was produced. So it took 60 to 70 years for Jesus to become God. I guess he was a late bloomer. But he bloomed. It's done.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

True, the trinity is not in the Bible.

And it's also true that Jesus didn't become God until the end of the first century, when the Gospel we call John was produced. So it took 60 to 70 years for Jesus to become God. I guess he was a late bloomer. But he bloomed. It's done.

You know me, I’m just trying to put the dragon back in the cage. 1700 years of playing with the dragon, explaining the dragon, ruling with the dragon, buying and selling dragon paraphernalia, worshipping the dragon, dragon songs, dragon festivals, dragon prayers, dragon indoctrination, persecution of the non-believers- as you say, probably impossible even to consider a total lock-up. But, I calls them as I sees them, and suffer the torture of the damned.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Zeek, your use of symbolism alters the narrative presented in scripture and allows you to “ interpret” passages and come up with alternate scenarios.

The scripture does not give us a “God the Son”’ it does give us the son of God. What that passage gives us is the narrative spoken throughout the NT: God raised Christ from the dead, God exalted Jesus to the highest position in creation (yet that position is not above God), an operation since that time is taking place, which includes the believers in Christ, enemies and rule subdued, the return of Christ to earth, death dealt with, the kingdom established, and then Christ returning the reigns over to the one who gave them to him, which is God.

The prophesy is “sit at my right hand until I put you enemies under your feet”. That is what is taking place today. When that is finally accomplished, then comes the “until” when God becomes all in all. As far as what that looks like, and where we are at on this timetable, I don’t know.

In the scripture, God is God and Christ is Christ. There is not a trinity God presented. The narrative of scripture is One God, the Father.

I notice you say that Christ's position is not above God, thus implicitly conceding that the Bible states that Christ is on the same level as God. And why not? After all this is the same one the Bible says was in the beginning with God, was God, became flesh and dwelled among us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

You know me, I’m just trying to put the dragon back in the cage. 1700 years of playing with the dragon, explaining the dragon, ruling with the dragon, buying and selling dragon paraphernalia, worshipping the dragon, dragon songs, dragon festivals, dragon prayers, dragon indoctrination, persecution of the non-believers- as you say, probably impossible even to consider a total lock-up. But, I calls them as I sees them, and suffer the torture of the damned.

But they don't want the dragon back in the cage. So it's been proven down thru history that no chain is strong enough to hold him, and no cage either.

So what makes you think you can put him back in the cage? Was he in the cage back in the early church?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

But they don't want the dragon back in the cage. So it's been proven down thru history that no chain is strong enough to hold him, and no cage either.

So what makes you think you can put him back in the cage? Was he in the cage back in the early church?

Imagine you are the apostle Paul, and you have this grand commission from God to spread the message of what God has done by, with and through Jesus the Christ, and part of your commission is to organize assemblies in the various cities you go through. So, after leaving, you write letters to some of the assemblies to clarify the message and get people on board. And in the opening of the letters you name the principals for whom you are operating- God and Jesus the Christ. You introduce God as Father, and Jesus as the son of God, the Christ, the promised sent one. In the contents of the letters you speak in terms of the God of, and the God and Father of Jesus.

When Paul’s letters are read today, it’s as if there has to be a secret decoder ring used so that what is read is not what is written, but by using the secret code ring, out pops a Jesus is God message and a God is triune declaration. No one reading Ephesians as written would arrive at a triune god, Jesus is God understanding. No one reading Romans would think Paul is leading us to such a conclusion.

So when did the son of God become God the son, and when did God become triune- what a weird, grotesque entity- one being, three persons? The lamb of God became God the lamb.
And as much as people like to evoke a Holy Spirit to justify this man-made monster, the job of the Holy Spirit is to confirm truth, not to be the household cat that purrs on your lap as you pet it.
No, there was no caged dragon shown in the foundational church. But probably by the end of the 1st century it had a partial position, got bantered around for a couple of centuries, and became the main circus act by the 4th century. Good ole PT Barnum “ there’s a sucker both every minute”, so the three ring circus continues- On with the show!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

I notice you say that Christ's position is not above God, thus implicitly conceding that the Bible states that Christ is on the same level as God. And why not? After all this is the same one the Bible says was in the beginning with God, was God, became flesh and dwelled among us.

Christ was GIVEN the position by God and the authority to operate in that position..... until.

How, and in what manner Christ is using that God given position is up for discussion.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Christ was GIVEN the position by God and the authority to operate in that position..... until.

How, and in what manner Christ is using that God given position is up for discussion.

Apparently what isn't up for discussion is the Word which was in the beginning with God and was God becoming flesh and dwelling among us. The Bible says that same Word which was God is the one who died, was resurrected and ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Apparently what isn't up for discussion is the Word which was in the beginning with God and was God becoming flesh and dwelling among us. The Bible says that same Word which was God is the one who died, was resurrected and ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father.

You use the term “ the Bible says....”. If you consider Matt, Mark, Luke, Paul, James, Jude, this enigmatic writing found in John doesn’t seem to be the headliner topic. It was not at all preached during the entire history found in the book of Acts, nor does Paul say it was the gospel he spoke ( Galatians, 1Cor 15). The church did not form over such a gospel message. I would say the opening of “John” is definitely up for discussion- it was a “ Johnnie come lately” strangely written statement that appears in the beginning of “John”, which came well after the church was founded on the gospel we hear Paul preaching. Very strange that such an important thing was not universally preached! John’s epistles and Revelation don’t clarify that opening, and really, the rest of “John” does not bring us to that conclusion. Yet now, we are supposed to bend all the rest of the NT to proclaim it?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

You use the term “ the Bible says....”. If you consider Matt, Mark, Luke, Paul, James, Jude, this enigmatic writing found in John doesn’t seem to be the headliner topic. It was not at all preached during the entire history found in the book of Acts, nor does Paul say it was the gospel he spoke ( Galatians, 1Cor 15). The church did not form over such a gospel message. I would say the opening of “John” is definitely up for discussion- it was a “ Johnnie come lately” strangely written statement that appears in the beginning of “John”, which came well after the church was founded on the gospel we hear Paul preaching. Very strange that such an important thing was not universally preached! John’s epistles and Revelation don’t clarify that opening, and really, the rest of “John” does not bring us to that conclusion. Yet now, we are supposed to bend all the rest of the NT to proclaim it?

Oh you can easily solve that. Cut the Gospel of John out of the Bible and start your own church. Of course you can't make the argument that it was a post New Testament dragon that was introduced by the Roman Catholics or something like that. It doesn't fit your theology, so you want to dismiss it rather than admit that maybe you're wrong. In as much as the Gospel of John is in the Christian Bible, your theology is not biblical.

It seems to me that your kind of Christianity follows the Protestant tradition of "sola scriptura" wherein the Bible is supposed to be the only authority in the matter of theology. Ironically that's a tradition too--a hermeneutical tradition. If I'm right that that's your position, what does it say about your position that it seems to push one of the canonical gospels to the margin?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Oh you can easily solve that. Cut the Gospel of John out of the Bible and start your own church. Of course you can't make the argument that it was a post New Testament dragon that was introduced by the Roman Catholics or something like that. It doesn't fit your theology, so you want to dismiss it rather than admit that maybe you're wrong. In as much as the Gospel of John is in the Christian Bible, your theology is not biblical.

It seems to me that your kind of Christianity follows the Protestant tradition of "sola scriptura" wherein the Bible is supposed to be the only authority in the matter of theology. Ironically that's a tradition too--a hermeneutical tradition. If I'm right that that's your position, what does it say about your position that it seems to push one of the canonical gospels to the margin?

And you don’t think it strange that the church started out in Acts- you know; gospel preached, people believed the gospel, Spirit witnessed to truth of the gospel, Paul writes such a letter as Ephesians, Romans, and never introduces what the beginning of John seems to allude to? But at the end of John, it doesn’t support that?

It seems Peter picked up on something different if you look at all the great public gospels he spoke. Peter, James and John seemed to be present at most of Jesus’ big moments, yet I don’t see Peter preaching that Jesus is God. A whole lot of people came to receive Jesus as the Christ and savior. “ John’s” gospel came 50 or 60 years after the foundational church was formed. So what kind of christianity do I have?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

And you don’t think it strange that the church started out in Acts- you know; gospel preached, people believed the gospel, Spirit witnessed to truth of the gospel, Paul writes such a letter as Ephesians, Romans, and never introduces what the beginning of John seems to allude to? But at the end of John, it doesn’t support that?

It seems Peter picked up on something different if you look at all the great public gospels he spoke. Peter, James and John seemed to be present at most of Jesus’ big moments, yet I don’t see Peter preaching that Jesus is God. A whole lot of people came to receive Jesus as the Christ and savior. “ John’s” gospel came 50 or 60 years after the foundational church was formed. So what kind of christianity do I have?

Well the fact that the "foundational" church didn't have any of the NT books, solves your problem. As you say, John didn't come until the end of the first century, and even Acts came late too.

So what foundational church are you thinking of, the pre-crucifixion church, like the disciples and other followers of Jesus, or the post resurrection church, that was Jewish? Or do you mean the gentile church?

Please clarify.

If we go back to the foundational church we're gonna have to pitch the NT.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well the fact that the "foundational" church didn't have any of the NT books, solves your problem. As you say, John didn't come until the end of the first century, and even Acts came late too.

So what foundational church are you thinking of, the pre-crucifixion church, like the disciples and other followers of Jesus, or the post resurrection church, that was Jewish? Or do you mean the gentile church?

Please clarify.

If we go back to the foundational church we're gonna have to pitch the NT.

The church that was established mainly through the work of Paul as expressed in the history in Acts and Paul’s letters.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

And you don’t think it strange that the church started out in Acts- you know; gospel preached, people believed the gospel, Spirit witnessed to truth of the gospel, Paul writes such a letter as Ephesians, Romans, and never introduces what the beginning of John seems to allude to? But at the end of John, it doesn’t support that?

It seems Peter picked up on something different if you look at all the great public gospels he spoke. Peter, James and John seemed to be present at most of Jesus’ big moments, yet I don’t see Peter preaching that Jesus is God. A whole lot of people came to receive Jesus as the Christ and savior. “ John’s” gospel came 50 or 60 years after the foundational church was formed. So what kind of christianity do I have?

In the book of Acts Stephen says he saw a vision of the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. He was stoned for that. Why? Because it was seen as being blasphemous. Stephen was making Jesus equal with God. How can someone be equal with God without being God?

How do you know the Gospel of John came 50 or 60 years after the church was formed? And what difference does that make?

You have the kind of Christianity that doesn't recognize the divinity of Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The church that was established mainly through the work of Paul as expressed in the history in Acts and Paul’s letters.

Thanks, but you know that church did not have the gospels or Acts.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks, but you know that church did not have the gospels or Acts.

The church was formed- Acts was a history of that. A history of the gospel spoken, believed, and those believers formed the church. Through Paul’s letters we see the outworkings of this. Acts and Paul’s letters are a benchmark for what we should be. In the template given, there is not a Jesus is God, God is triune narrative. The foundational church is well laid out for us them.

It’s not hard to notice in reading through the Bible that God doesn’t seem to have great success with the group thing, and only marginal achievement with individuals. I would think over time the things of God would build on incremental successes, but it seems rather to be in a constant state of confusion. I guess you would say that my observations- viewed correct or false, are theoretical. Yet I do see a benchmark to compare what was with what is, and should be.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the book of Acts Stephen says he saw a vision of the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. He was stoned for that. Why? Because it was seen as being blasphemous. Stephen was making Jesus equal with God. How can someone be equal with God without being God?

How do you know the Gospel of John came 50 or 60 years after the church was formed? And what difference does that make?

You have the kind of Christianity that doesn't recognize the divinity of Christ.

Concerning Acts/Stephen, I would say you are connecting dots that aren’t there- best Go back and reread that and notice that God is God, and Stephen sees Jesus at the “right hand of”.

John- look it up. But also ask yourself ¿where is the history of John preaching the gospel and raising up churches? And why does Luke- who writes about the history of what was believed not include the things “John” writes? We see John and Peter in the beginning of Acts and they definitely are not preaching Jesus as God! So why conclude that John had some kind of change in theology. Where is the history of the evolution of John’s thinking?

I think my Christianity is an attempt to match what the foundational church believed.

And, what do you mean by “ the divinity of Christ”?

[zeek]

K

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Concerning Acts/Stephen, I would say you are connecting dots that aren’t there- best Go back and reread that and notice that God is God, and Stephen sees Jesus at the “right hand of”.

John- look it up. But also ask yourself ¿where is the history of John preaching the gospel and raising up churches? And why does Luke- who writes about the history of what was believed not include the things “John” writes? We see John and Peter in the beginning of Acts and they definitely are not preaching Jesus as God! So why conclude that John had some kind of change in theology. Where is the history of the evolution of John’s thinking?

I think my Christianity is an attempt to match what the foundational church believed.

And, what do you mean by “ the divinity of Christ”?

I'm aware that historians say that the Gospel of John was written later. I'm asking you why you agree with them. Is it a matter of certainty? Or is it a theory based on historical plausibility which is not the same as statistical probability? If it's the latter, is it worthy of being part of your religion, if indeed you think of yourself as having one?

So in the book of Acts, the son of man is said to be standing at the right hand of God. What do you suppose the significance of that is? I think in the biblical cosmology, the higher up a being is said to be, the more power and authority that being has. So I think in Stephen's vision the son of man by being at the same level as God has the same power and authority. So in traditional language, the son of man is omnipotent. Now omnipotence is one of the defining attributes of God. You've heard the expression the Almighty God or God Almighty haven't you? That would mean the son of man is Almighty. So since you have the son of man next to God in the vision, what do you have? Two Almighties? Something like the cognitive dissonance these questions provoke is, I think, why those folks stoned Stephen to death with the approval of Saul. Oh and, whatever else divinity might mean, omnipotence would certainly imply it. Don't you think?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the book of Acts Stephen says he saw a vision of the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. He was stoned for that. Why? Because it was seen as being blasphemous. Stephen was making Jesus equal with God. How can someone be equal with God without being God?

The same points trouble me zeek, which is why I am reluctant to embrace the "3 Persons" paradigm. As a corollary to your questions here, the Bible does say that God dwells in unapproachable light (I Tim 6.16) and numerous verses say that God cannot be seen, nor ever has been seen. (Exodus 33.20, John 1.18, I John 4.12)

Then how did Stephen see the Son of man standing at the right hand of God? Did Stephen then see God on the throne? Isn't that impossible? How can the Lamb then be in the midst (Rev 7.17) of the throne? And how can the throne be the throne of God and the Lamb?

This is why I embrace a God-paradigm that the Father is the "inner God," and the Son is the "outer God," which is to say, the image of the invisible God. (Col 1.15) Thus the Outer can pray to the Inner, and the Outer lives by the Inner. When you have seen the Outer, you have seen the Inner. The Outer is the Logos, the Message, of the Inner, and became flesh in the body of Jesus Christ. The Inner created all things thru the Outer. The Outer was equal to the Inner, yet the Inner was greater than the Outer, perhaps because of the flesh of Jesus, confirmed by Heb 2.7 where the Outer was also a little inferior than the angels.

Comments?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The same points trouble me zeek, which is why I am reluctant to embrace the "3 Persons" paradigm. As a corollary to your questions here, the Bible does say that God dwells in unapproachable light (I Tim 6.16) and numerous verses say that God cannot be seen, nor ever has been seen. (Exodus 33.20, John 1.18, I John 4.12)

Then how did Stephen see the Son of man standing at the right hand of God? Did Stephen then see God on the throne? Isn't that impossible? How can the Lamb then be in the midst (Rev 7.17) of the throne? And how can the throne be the throne of God and the Lamb?

This is why I embrace a God-paradigm that the Father is the "inner God," and the Son is the "outer God," which is to say, the image of the invisible God. (Col 1.15) Thus the Outer can pray to the Inner, and the Outer lives by the Inner. When you have seen the Outer, you have seen the Inner. The Outer is the Logos, the Message, of the Inner, and became flesh in the body of Jesus Christ. The Inner created all things thru the Outer. The Outer was equal to the Inner, yet the Inner was greater than the Outer, perhaps because of the flesh of Jesus, confirmed by Heb 2.7 where the Outer was also a little inferior than the angels.

Comments?

Well you make some good points. We can't possibly know what Stephen saw. Perhaps one has to be martyred for Christ to receive that vision. Of course we also have "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8) Ultimate Reality is shrouded in paradox.

What I feel relatively certain of is that symbolically Stephen's vision put the Son of man on the same level as God. Which is what he was stoned for. That should give us pause. I think the theological tradition that followed from that kind of vision [Revelation has one throne for God and the Lamb] led to the adoption of the Trinitarian thinking by the church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The same points trouble me zeek, which is why I am reluctant to embrace the "3 Persons" paradigm. As a corollary to your questions here, the Bible does say that God dwells in unapproachable light (I Tim 6.16) and numerous verses say that God cannot be seen, nor ever has been seen. (Exodus 33.20, John 1.18, I John 4.12)

Then how did Stephen see the Son of man standing at the right hand of God? Did Stephen then see God on the throne? Isn't that impossible? How can the Lamb then be in the midst (Rev 7.17) of the throne? And how can the throne be the throne of God and the Lamb?

This is why I embrace a God-paradigm that the Father is the "inner God," and the Son is the "outer God," which is to say, the image of the invisible God. (Col 1.15) Thus the Outer can pray to the Inner, and the Outer lives by the Inner. When you have seen the Outer, you have seen the Inner. The Outer is the Logos, the Message, of the Inner, and became flesh in the body of Jesus Christ. The Inner created all things thru the Outer. The Outer was equal to the Inner, yet the Inner was greater than the Outer, perhaps because of the flesh of Jesus, confirmed by Heb 2.7 where the Outer was also a little inferior than the angels.

Comments?

My only comment is the Jew's concern of when two powers in heaven came into being, which goes against monotheism, and narrowed it down to the Christians or Gnostics, but maybe a little earlier :

Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Library of Early Christology)
https://www.amazon.com/Two-Powers-He.../dp/1602585490

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

K

I'm aware that historians say that the Gospel of John was written later. I'm asking you why you agree with them. Is it a matter of certainty? Or is it a theory based on historical plausibility which is not the same as statistical probability? If it's the latter, is it worthy of being part of your religion, if indeed you think of yourself as having one?

So in the book of Acts, the son of man is said to be standing at the right hand of God. What do you suppose the significance of that is? I think in the biblical cosmology, the higher up a being is said to be, the more power and authority that being has. So I think in Stephen's vision the son of man by being at the same level as God has the same power and authority. So in traditional language, the son of man is omnipotent. Now omnipotence is one of the defining attributes of God. You've heard the expression the Almighty God or God Almighty haven't you? That would mean the son of man is Almighty. So since you have the son of man next to God in the vision, what do you have? Two Almighties? Something like the cognitive dissonance these questions provoke is, I think, why those folks stoned Stephen to death with the approval of Saul. Oh and, whatever else divinity might mean, omnipotence would certainly imply it. Don't you think?

Somehow, you are missing the essence of the gospel, which is that Christ died, God raised him from the dead, God gave Jesus the position above all others, which is to be at the right hand of God. I think you may want to carefully read through Ephesians. There Paul prays that the believers would see this great revelation- as Stephen proclaimed, of the position God gave Jesus the Christ.

I, we, don’t live in a “king” government, with thrones, dominions, lords, etc., but rather in a constitutional republic with elected leaders who ( supposedly) swear to uphold the constitution, and can be elected out of office. I think, at least for me, to grasp hold of the language used to explain what God has done in putting Christ in that position, gets lost in our way of thinking.

It’s probably good to consider what Paul says in 1 Cor 15 as well

But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Somehow, you are missing the essence of the gospel, which is that Christ died, God raised him from the dead, God gave Jesus the position above all others, which is to be at the right hand of God. I think you may want to carefully read through Ephesians. There Paul prays that the believers would see this great revelation- as Stephen proclaimed, of the position God gave Jesus the Christ.

Growing up Catholic, I heard all this same stuff about Marble Mary, "assumed into heaven, enthroned in glory, given the highest name, yada. Never happened. Why? Not just because Mary, though chaste, was a sinner like the rest of us, but because she too was a creature. Creatures are never to be worshiped or prayed to. Only God!

Jesus, however, was on the throne "with God, and was God," as the "eternal Only Begotten God," (John 1.1,18) long before becoming a man, born of the virgin. Just because Jesus as a man, as the slain Lamb of God, was enthroned with glory and honor, given the name above every name, does not mean that was a status He never once held in eternity past.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Growing up Catholic, I heard all this same stuff about Marble Mary, "assumed into heaven, enthroned in glory, given the highest name, yada. Never happened. Why? Not just because Mary, though chaste, was a sinner like the rest of us, but because she too was a creature. Creatures are never to be worshiped or prayed to. Only God!

Jesus, however, was on the throne "with God, and was God," as the "eternal Only Begotten God," (John 1.1,18) long before becoming a man, born of the virgin. Just because Jesus as a man, as the slain Lamb of God, was enthroned with glory and honor, given the name above every name, does not mean that was a status He never once held in eternity past.

I think it's possible that growing up in the RCC warped your imagination. Cuz you just imagined funny stuff.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think it's possible that growing up in the RCC warped your imagination. Cuz you just imagined funny stuff.

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't appreciate your demeaning one-upmanship and your response misses the point of my post entirely.

zeek said it best.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Growing up Catholic, I heard all this same stuff about Marble Mary, "assumed into heaven, enthroned in glory, given the highest name, yada. Never happened. Why? Not just because Mary, though chaste, was a sinner like the rest of us, but because she too was a creature. Creatures are never to be worshiped or prayed to. Only God!

Jesus, however, was on the throne "with God, and was God," as the "eternal Only Begotten God," (John 1.1,18) long before becoming a man, born of the virgin. Just because Jesus as a man, as the slain Lamb of God, was enthroned with glory and honor, given the name above every name, does not mean that was a status He never once held in eternity past.

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood; 6and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father;

14And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

12He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.

21He that overcometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in his throne.

3And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.

Good old “John” sometimes had a problem keepin his story straight, keeping to the script, so that later men had to develop a Theo to match his deviations, and out came the great doctrine of the trinity, so that now, in reading scripture, we put on those glasses with the correct template so that we don’t wander too far off. So now, those who don’t wear the trinitarian glasses and point out the discrepancies are labeled as heretics and dismissed by those who wear the glasses. Such is the state of Christiandom. Now what was it Paul was trying to convey in 1 Cor 15? Oh yes, that the God was above the position He gave Christ our Lord

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

zeek said it best.

I have a gift. I recognize funny stuff.