The Trinity: Consistent with the Bible?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Except that Luke and Paul said that the church was purchased with God's own blood. (Acts 20.28)

Jesus also said that He has the authority to lay down His life, and take it again. (John 10.17-18)

Obviously these verses don't fit your narrative. Neither are they in conflict with John 17.3.

In a typical trinitarian fashion, you leave out the important stuff. ““Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.””
**John‬ *10:17-18‬ *NKJV‬‬
Jesus authority came from his Father, whom Jesus acknowledges and declares as his God. We too, who are disciples of Jesus should follow his example and acknowledge that Jesus' God is our God, Jesus's Father is our Father.

Paul, in Acts 20, is speaking to the elders from Ephesus. I would think you would want to take in the whole scene - “And when they had come to him, he said to them: “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

“So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.**Acts‬ *20:18-21, 27-28, 32‬ *

Your thinking must be, after going through Paul's important letter to the Ephesians where there is no mention of Jesus being God, nor of a triune God, but quite the contrary, Paul writes of the God of Jesus, and that the Ephesians are to keep the teaching of one God, the Father, that suddenly, as a parting need to give them the whole picture, he tells them that God has blood? Which you imply that he is telling them that Jesus is God? And that Luke, who records this, and up to this point, nor after makes any allusions to this, kind of sticks this in there!?

I agree with awareness' presentation. It is a possession of God in that Jesus was the lamb of God. Jesus was not the God lamb, but the lamb OF God.

This all has been discussed before, you are now starting to recycle old material.

How about we discuss Jesus' words of explanation of Himself in John 10

“Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.””John‬ *10:34-38‬

The Father, who Jesus acknowledges as his God, is in Jesus, which is a far cry from Jesus is God. Yet the scripture quote of gods is quite interesting.

This would have been an excellent opportunity for Jesus to say God is triune, and I'm the second person!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I grew up in it. Named after my uncle, a Franciscan monk. Lived with his cursed name my whole life. Parochial school, altar boy, choir, and the rest.

I am well familiar with all things Catholic. I do not need these kinds of cheap thrills.

I, as well, grew up in the RC, yet I find looking at the roots of their beliefs both entertaining and frightening. They were the prevailing Christian testimony for 1000 years. Their influence crafted the Christian thought, worship, behavior, much of what still prevails today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I like to think that if God wanted us to think of Him as a plural, and make a whole religion out of this plural thing, that God would have had His people clearly preach, teach, write about it.

I seem to remember numerous places in Genesis where Jehovah God Himself said, "Let US make man in our image after OUR likeness ..." and also "Behold the man is become one of US ..." (Gen 1.26, 3.22)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The Father, who Jesus acknowledges as his God, is in Jesus, which is a far cry from Jesus is God. Yet the scripture quote of gods is quite interesting.

This would have been an excellent opportunity for Jesus to say God is triune, and I'm the second person!

The issue for me is not whether the Bible teaches some doctrine of the trinity or triune, but whether Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, God in the flesh.

His name is Emmanuel -- God with us -- and Jesus -- Jehovah our Savior.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I, as well, grew up in the RC, yet I find looking at the roots of their beliefs both entertaining and frightening. They were the prevailing Christian testimony for 1000 years. Their influence crafted the Christian thought, worship, behavior, much of what still prevails today.

I took away only a few truths from my time in the RCC -- both of which were by revelation amidst trials -- that (1) Jesus is God become man who died for my sins, and (2) that the Bible is the trustworthy word of God, and (3) that Jesus created the earth and all things in it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I like to think that if God wanted us to think of Him as a plural, and make a whole religion out of this plural thing, that God would have had His people clearly preach, teach, write about it. I myself, don't want a God that is up to slight of hands, look over here, while I perform magic over there performance.

I think Moses, Paul, and Jesus presented the God I believe in quite clearly - One God, the Father. The other god that is presented by trinitarians- not believable or trustworthy.

Einstein said God doesn't play dice. I like to think He also doesn't play sleight of hand tricks. But I'm not sure of that. There's evidence, particularly with the problem of evil that, God keeps a lot hidden from us.

And I also agree that we don't really know what John meant by the word Logos. But no matter how we define it John says the Logos WAS God.

And if we take it as the very Word of God, we can't get around that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I took away only a few truths from my time in the RCC -- both of which were by revelation amidst trials -- that (1) Jesus is God become man who died for my sins, and (2) that the Bible is the trustworthy word of God, and (3) that Jesus created the earth and all things in it.

Ephesians 3:9 says God created all things through Jesus Christ. Your Jesus seems to be self-sufficient. There doesn't seem to be an need for God the Father in your theology.

Now Boxjobox denies the pre-existence of Jesus. He loves to quote John 17:3 but I haven't seen him quote John 17:5 which says

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

And he denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He hasn't explained what the Spirit is.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Ephesians 3:9 says God created all things through Jesus Christ. Your Jesus seems to be self-sufficient. There doesn't seem to be an need for God the Father in your theology.

Now Boxjobox denies the pre-existence of Jesus. He loves to quote John 17:3 but I haven't seen him quote John 17:5 which says

And he denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He hasn't explained what the Spirit is.

Great verses, and I love them both, and I don't have conflicts with both being absolutely true.

There are untold number of scripture which refute Boxjobox's Adoptionism.

Concerning creation, this verse for me is notable: John 1.3 "All things came into being thru Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being."

How could God create all things thru His Son unless His Son is also eternal?

At this point Boxjobox and I are just talking past each other. He sees definite conflicts with Jesus being God, whereas I do not. He thinks my error is trinitarianism, and I think his is adoptionism.

Any reason to continue the discussion?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great verses, and I love them both, and I don't have conflicts with both being absolutely true.

There are untold number of scripture which refute Boxjobox's Adoptionism.

Concerning creation, this verse for me is notable: John 1.3 "All things came into being thru Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being."

How could God create all things thru His Son unless His Son is also eternal?

At this point Boxjobox and I are just talking past each other. He sees definite conflicts with Jesus being God, whereas I do not. He thinks my error is trinitarianism, and I think his is adoptionism.

Any reason to continue the discussion?

I think there are reasons to continue the discussion. Trinitarianism is not spelled out in the New Testament. It took several hundred years to work it out as a doctrine. Why?

Verse after verse in the NT refers to the one true God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Lordship seems to have been conferred upon Jesus at his ascension to heaven, his exultation. How is that compatible with the notion that he was God already?

If it weren't for the passages affirming Christ's pre-existence, "adoptionism" would seem to be correct. As it says in Acts 13:33 "God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’"

The realization that Jesus was divine in some sense probably came first with the experience of the resurrection. What later became the heresy of "adoptionism" may have been the earliest realization of Jesus' Sonship.

That Jesus is God isn't made explicit until the Gospel of John. And even there it is done indirectly until the penultimate chapter. So the author never says "Jesus is God" like you do. Why not?

Boxjobox is correct that "Jesus is God' is not preached in Acts much less that the Holy Spirit is God. Doesn't Acts make it clear that belief in the Trinity or in the divinity of Christ or the Holy Spirit is not necessary for salvation?

These are things that trinitarians take for granted yet they are not explicitly taught in the Bible if they're taught there at all. Why is that? John 4:24 says God is spirit. Where's the verse that says the Spirit is God?

So yeah, I think we should continue the discussion. I think we all have a lot to learn if we can open our minds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

If it weren't for the passages affirming Christ's pre-existence, "adoptionism" would seem to be correct. As it says in Acts 13:33 "God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’"

Great verse. Here Paul is referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and quotes the second Psalm, (by revelation I believe) indicating God birthed the slain Messiah.

But He was already the "Only Begotten Son of God, in the bosom of the Father" before His birth to the virgin Mary. How can this be?

And then why would Paul later call Him the "Firstborn" instead of the "Only Begotten?" (Rom 8.29)

And to provide further confusion to "Adoptionist Birthers," at His Baptism there was a voice from heaven, "This is My Beloved Son, in You I delight."

So confusing to the natural man, who is "unable to know them." (I Cor 2.14)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Boxjobox is correct that "Jesus is God' is not preached in Acts much less that the Holy Spirit is God. Doesn't Acts make it clear that belief in the Trinity or in the divinity of Christ or the Holy Spirit is not necessary for salvation?

These are things that trinitarians take for granted yet they are not explicitly taught in the Bible if they're taught there at all. Why is that? John 4:24 says God is spirit. Where's the verse that says the Spirit is God?

Benny Hinn wrote a book that implied that the church had been neglecting the worship of the Holy Spirit for 2 millennia, and thus he had made a "great discovery."

I have not seen any scripture which indicates that we should be worshiping the Spirit, but there are numerous verses displaying the worship of both Jesus and the Father.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think there are reasons to continue the discussion. Trinitarianism is not spelled out in the New Testament. It took several hundred years to work it out as a doctrine. Why?

This is similar to those who claim no musical instruments should be used in the church because we don't see any evidence of their use until the 5th or 6th century. Puleeeease!

This is one of the reasons I distinguish between trinitarianism and the truth that Jesus is the eternal Son of God. Trinitarianism carries with it lots of baggage, like the creeds of old, while the Deity of Jesus Christ is entirely scriptural. Boxjobox continually obfuscates this issue.

Many things are not "spelled out" in scripture to our liking, but that does not make them less true. The councils and the creeds were later used to compile diverse scripture together systematically in order to protect the church from heresy, and to provide brief abstracts of the faith. They of course have their downside, but for the most part have been useful to the church. I could say the same about today's apologetics.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great verse. Here Paul is referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and quotes the second Psalm, (by revelation I believe) indicating God birthed the slain Messiah.

But He was already the "Only Begotten Son of God, in the bosom of the Father" before His birth to the virgin Mary. How can this be?

And then why would Paul later call Him the "Firstborn" instead of the "Only Begotten?" (Rom 8.29)

And to provide further confusion to "Adoptionist Birthers," at His Baptism there was a voice from heaven, "This is My Beloved Son, in You I delight."

So confusing to the natural man, who is "unable to know them." (I Cor 2.14)

You're claiming to be a spiritual man.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Benny Hinn wrote a book that implied that the church had been neglecting the worship of the Holy Spirit for 2 millennia, and thus he had made a "great discovery."

I have not seen any scripture which indicates that we should be worshiping the Spirit, but there are numerous verses displaying the worship of both Jesus and the Father.

What I asked is where it says that the Holy Spirit is God. Your response dodges the issue.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is similar to those who claim no musical instruments should be used in the church because we don't see any evidence of their use until the 5th or 6th century. Puleeeease!

This is one of the reasons I distinguish between trinitarianism and the truth that Jesus is the eternal Son of God. Trinitarianism carries with it lots of baggage, like the creeds of old, while the Deity of Jesus Christ is entirely scriptural. Boxjobox continually obfuscates this issue.

Many things are not "spelled out" in scripture to our liking, but that does not make them less true. The councils and the creeds were later used to compile diverse scripture together systematically in order to protect the church from heresy, and to provide brief abstracts of the faith. They of course have their downside, but for the most part have been useful to the church. I could say the same about today's apologetics.

If a fact is necessary for salvation wouldn't it be made perfectly clear? Show me where it is made perfectly clear that Jesus is God outside of the Gospel of John.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Substitute IDEA for the word WORD.

Substitute? Who bestowed upon you the right and authority to go around substituting your man-made notions for the plain and clear words of the Scriptures? This kind of foolishness should be painfully familiar to you Boxjobox...Witness Lee was the substitute master. I think we've all noticed that you are a real stickler on wording and phrases if they seemingly match your Unitarian dogma, but when the plain, clear words point to the divinity of Jesus you want to switch gears into "substituting". Nice work if you can get it!

Chalk it up to none of us have a handle on the logos thing, don't have a background of where John is coming from, and stick to what we do have that Luke researched and presented, and which we have Paul's ministry to handle.

If you'll just put your chalk down for a minute or two and read what wise and spiritual men have been teaching and writing since the first generation of apostles, scholars, apologists and disciples, you would find out that these fellows spent a lot of time and effort to get a pretty firm handle on the Logos, as well as many other scriptural teachings and doctrines. We "don't have a background of where John is coming from?" Of course we do. John's background was an intimate 3+ year relationship under the discipleship and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. His gospel is nothing more and nothing less then his giving the "good news" of what he was taught by Jesus himself. ALL OF IT is the gospel, not just the parts that align with our personal theology. Just who John was writing to is of little consequence, and pales in comparison to the original source of his teachings.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is similar to those who claim no musical instruments should be used in the church because we don't see any evidence of their use until the 5th or 6th century. [I]Puleeeease!

Yes they discount "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox View Post
Substitute IDEA for the word WORD.

Now, now, bro Untohim. Jobox didn't invent the notion of the Logos as an IDEA.

For that we've got to go back to Philo (30 BCE - 50 CE - before and after Jesus), a Jewish writer in Alexandria, Egypt. Philo designated the Logos as the "idea of ideas" and the "archetypal idea." And we can't dismiss this, as Philo was defining the word logos back then, circa 50 years before the gospel we call John was written.

And long before him, Aristotle, c. 400 years before John, thought of the logos as the logic behind an argument. Moreover, even further back, Plato before him allowed his characters to engage in the concept of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues, long before whoever this alleged John did.

John didn't cook up the logos. Not even close.

Originally Posted by Untohim

If you'll just put your chalk down for a minute or two and read what wise and spiritual men have been teaching and writing since the first generation of apostles, scholars, apologists and disciples, you would find out that these fellows spent a lot of time and effort to get a pretty firm handle on the Logos ...

Well that's a huge jump to a conclusion. Methinks you're perchance superimposing, projecting, today's Christian tradition upon the Christian past.

Heraclitus coined the word logos 600 years before the gospel that John's name was eventually attributed too - (of course you're smart enough to know that all the gospels were anonymously written).

So the word logos was in common currency back then, and had been for a long, long, time. And it's meaning, as exemplified by Philo, was still being defined and worked out.

The word logos is used 316 times in the New Testament ; in all kinds of ways ; with many different meanings.

Examples:
The book of Acts uses it almost twice as many times as John. And even in John it's used as "saying(s)" 16 times, of the 36 times that it's used.

Acts 1:1 uses it as "treatise."

Mark, our earliest gospel, uses it sometimes as "question" and "matter."

Other uses in the NT are, account, reason, doctrine, do, speech, utterance, shew, communication, preaching, work, move, exhortation, things, speaker, tidings, intent, rumour (sic), fame abroad, reckoneth, talk, cause, ; and in one of your favorite chapters, 1 Corinthians 15, it's even used as "I," by Paul, our earliest sources, c. 50 years before this gospel we call John.

So tell me again how "these fellows spent a lot of time and effort to get a pretty firm handle on the Logos ..."

Truth be told, we still don't have a handle on it.

Originally Posted by Untohim

We "don't have a background of where John is coming from?" Of course we do. John's background was an intimate 3+ year relationship under the discipleship and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. His gospel is nothing more and nothing less then his giving the "good news" of what he was taught by Jesus himself.
-

Goodness bro Untohim, you aren't talking to Christian newbies. You're talking to Bible believers that know better. You're clearly talking from traditional beliefs ; from the same ones that cooked up the trinity.

Forget Witness Lee. You're standing on a whole lot earlier "substituters" than Witness Lee.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great verse. Here Paul is referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and quotes the second Psalm, (by revelation I believe) indicating God birthed the slain Messiah.

But He was already the "Only Begotten Son of God, in the bosom of the Father" before His birth to the virgin Mary. How can this be?

And then why would Paul later call Him the "Firstborn" instead of the "Only Begotten?" (Rom 8.29)

And to provide further confusion to "Adoptionist Birthers," at His Baptism there was a voice from heaven, "This is My Beloved Son, in You I delight."

So confusing to the natural man, who is "unable to know them." (I Cor 2.14)

So Ohio- was Paul being a natural man when he informed the Corinthians “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. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.”
**I Corinthians‬ *8:4-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

A straightforward teaching about the real state of affairs in heaven and earth. We are to acknowledge one God, the Father. To pretend that Paul teaches trinitarianism is so beyond reason! This verse shows there were issues in understanding the Christian view of the cosmos as opposed to their historical pagan views. And Paul gives a concise teaching so that there is no confusion.
Why do you have a problem accepting that the Christian is to acknowledge only one as God, and that is the Father. This one God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus and our God and Father. Better to follow the example of Jesus and Paul and acknowledge such. That way, you don't get led down the road to strange evolve teachings. This word is a protection for you if you follow it, lest you end up is strange worship.
Consider the word of Jesus to the Samaritan woman. “Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He. ””
**John‬ *4:21-26‬ *NKJV‬‬
Jesus here pointing out about the importance of the true worship- and we know the history of the Samaritans, and points us specifically to God, the Father.

Also, please note the use of egO eimi- your great I Am argument. Jesus is not saying I am God, but I am the Christ, the one both the Jews and Samaritans were waiting for. And there he was, teaching the woman about true worship. In John's gospel, this is the first time Jesus uses egO eimi the context? God the Father is God, and Jesus is the Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Also, please note the use of egO eimi- your great I Am argument. Jesus is not saying I am God, but I am the Christ

In the New Testament Jesus responded to a group of Jews who were questioning Him, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM” (Jn 8:58). Notice what Jesus did not say: He did not say, “Before Abraham was, I was” — that might simply mean that He came into existence before Abraham; rather, He used the Name of God: “I AM.” There was never a time when Jesus came into being, or when He did not exist — therefore He said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” God transcends time… He exists outside of time… He is eternal!

Jesus’ application of the words “I am” to Himself not only denoted His preexistence but associated Him with Yahweh. Jesus used ego eimi (“I am” in Greek) in an absolute, unqualified sense (Jn 4:26; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5-8) to appropriate for Himself the Old Testament name of God (Ex 3:14). Jesus was the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham (Jn 8:56). Incidentally, the Jews understood exactly what Jesus meant — that He was claiming to be Yahweh! It was for this reason they sought to stone Him (Jn 8:59), because to them this was blasphemy!

The fact that Jesus claimed an explicit self-identification with Yahweh (Jn 8:58-59; 13:19-20), caused His opponents to ultimately have Him crucified (Mt 26:63-67; Mk 14:61-65; 15:2-3, 12-13; Lk 22:66-71; Jn 19:1-22). In the New Testament, many of Jesus’ “I am” sayings possess a subjective completion; by examining His “truth claims” we will gain a better understanding of exactly who He is. In short, Jesus made the following ten claims —

1. I am the Christ (Mt 26:63-64; Mk 14:61-62) — Jesus is the Messiah, God’s anointed One.
2. I am the bread of life (Jn 6:35) — Jesus is our spiritual food.
3. I am the light of the world (Jn 8:12) — Jesus gives us spiritual sight.
4. I am the door (Jn 10:9) — Jesus is the way of salvation.
5. I am the good shepherd (Jn 10:11) — Jesus provides us with spiritual guidance.
6. I am the Son of God (Mt 26:63-64; 27:43; Lk 1:32; Jn 10:36; Rom 1:3) — Jesus is God incarnate.
7. I am the resurrection and the life (Jn 11:25) — Jesus is our spiritual life.
8. I am the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6) — Jesus is the way to heaven and source of truth & life.
9. I am the true vine (Jn 15:1) — Jesus is the source of spiritual life.
10. I am the King of the Jews (Jn 19:21) — Jesus is the Eternal King of God’s Eternal Kingdom.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Substitute? Who bestowed upon you the right and authority to go around substituting your man-made notions for the plain and clear words of the Scriptures? This kind of foolishness should be painfully familiar to you Boxjobox...Witness Lee was the substitute master. I think we've all noticed that you are a real stickler on wording and phrases if they seemingly match your Unitarian dogma, but when the plain, clear words point to the divinity of Jesus you want to switch gears into "substituting". Nice work if you can get it!


If you'll just put your chalk down for a minute or two and read what wise and spiritual men have been teaching and writing since the first generation of apostles, scholars, apologists and disciples, you would find out that these fellows spent a lot of time and effort to get a pretty firm handle on the Logos, as well as many other scriptural teachings and doctrines. We "don't have a background of where John is coming from?" Of course we do. John's background was an intimate 3+ year relationship under the discipleship and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. His gospel is nothing more and nothing less then his giving the "good news" of what he was taught by Jesus himself. ALL OF IT is the gospel, not just the parts that align with our personal theology. Just who John was writing to is of little consequence, and pales in comparison to the original source of his teachings.
-

UntoHim someone substituted the Greek word LOGOS as WORD. Logos means a lot more than just WORD, of which Awareness amply explained. Your wise and spiritual studiers were mainly men under the edict of trinitarianism- kind of like scientist paid by global warmers to "study" climate.

All the apostles and others who followed Jesus were there at Pentecost and what was preached? The man Jesus, of whom God was with him, crucified according to the plan, idea of God, resurrected according to the plan, idea of God, and made Lord over all according to the plan, idea of God. So, yeah, think it is a reasonable way of looking at John's prologue to his gospel. It makes more sense then introducing some new gospel that was not preached throughout the book of Acts, nor by Paul , the apostle to the Gentiles. Scripture does not give us a step by step picture of John's life and ministry as it does with Paul, and somewhat with Peter. Peter, of course, was the one who Jesus said received the revelation from God, that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, on which Jesus said he would build his church. Look how Peter preaches the gospel in Acts- no Jesus is God message there!
I know in your circle of trinitarian influence this really isn't looked at or considered, because a different package of beliefs are held, preached and taught, substantiated by wise, spiritual trinitarian scholars who studied it all, but unfortunately not found taught in the scripture, which we all cherish. When the teachings of men overshadow and define scripture, you enter into the realm of Thyatira.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the New Testament Jesus responded to a group of Jews who were questioning Him, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM” (Jn 8:58). Notice what Jesus did not say: He did not say, “Before Abraham was, I was” — that might simply mean that He came into existence before Abraham; rather, He used the Name of God: “I AM.” There was never a time when Jesus came into being, or when He did not exist — therefore He said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” God transcends time… He exists outside of time… He is eternal!
The
Jesus’ application of the words “I am” to Himself not only denoted His preexistence but associated Him with Yahweh. Jesus used ego eimi (“I am” in Greek) in an absolute, unqualified sense (Jn 4:26; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5-8) to appropriate for Himself the Old Testament name of God (Ex 3:14). Jesus was the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham (Jn 8:56). Incidentally, the Jews understood exactly what Jesus meant — that He was claiming to be Yahweh! It was for this reason they sought to stone Him (Jn 8:59), because to them this was blasphemy!

The fact that Jesus claimed an explicit self-identification with Yahweh (Jn 8:58-59; 13:19-20), caused His opponents to ultimately have Him crucified (Mt 26:63-67; Mk 14:61-65; 15:2-3, 12-13; Lk 22:66-71; Jn 19:1-22). In the New Testament, many of Jesus’ “I am” sayings possess a subjective completion; by examining His “truth claims” we will gain a better understanding of exactly who He is. In short, Jesus made the following ten claims —

1. I am the Christ (Mt 26:63-64; Mk 14:61-62) — Jesus is the Messiah, God’s anointed One.
2. I am the bread of life (Jn 6:35) — Jesus is our spiritual food.
3. I am the light of the world (Jn 8:12) — Jesus gives us spiritual sight.
4. I am the door (Jn 10:9) — Jesus is the way of salvation.
5. I am the good shepherd (Jn 10:11) — Jesus provides us with spiritual guidance.
6. I am the Son of God (Mt 26:63-64; 27:43; Lk 1:32; Jn 10:36; Rom 1:3) — Jesus is God incarnate.
7. I am the resurrection and the life (Jn 11:25) — Jesus is our spiritual life.
8. I am the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6) — Jesus is the way to heaven and source of truth & life.
9. I am the true vine (Jn 15:1) — Jesus is the source of spiritual life.
10. I am the King of the Jews (Jn 19:21) — Jesus is the Eternal King of God’s Eternal Kingdom.

Jesus' actual teaching “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
**John‬ *17:3‬ *NKJV‬‬
Jesus seemed to emphasize ONLY and TRUE.

Jesus on the cross in Matt. “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?””
**Matthew‬ *27:46‬ *NKJV‬‬

Jesus on trial Mark. “But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.”
**Mark‬ *14:61-64‬ *NKJV‬‬

Luke ““If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will by no means believe. And if I also ask you, you will by no means answer Me or let Me go. Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God.” Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?” So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.” And they said, “What further testimony do we need? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.””
**Luke‬ *22:67-71‬ *NKJV‬‬

“And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God.”

And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.””
**Luke‬ *23:35, 38-39‬ *NKJV‬‬


John “Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him! ” Pilate said to them, “You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.” The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”

From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.”

But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!”

Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.”
**John‬ *19:6-7, 12, 15, 19‬ *NKJV‬‬


I fail to see your Jesus is God thing.

In your argument about egO eimi, which Jesus didn't speak Greek, but which somehow you link Aramaic to Greek to Hebrew to English, the healed blind man was also testifying that he is Yahweh “Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.” He said, “I am he. ””
**John‬ *9:9‬ *NKJV

If your egO eimi hypothesis is correct, and Jesus was telling people he is Yahweh, this would be so significant in teaching, you would think he would have taught it to the apostles, that the apostles would have preached it and taught it.
Don't see it in Matt, Mk, Lk, and I don't see it in John.

Ohio; one God, the only true God, the God of our Lord Jesus. Get on board with Jesus and Paul.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

If a fact is necessary for salvation wouldn't it be made perfectly clear? Show me where it is made perfectly clear that Jesus is God outside of the Gospel of John.

Whole lot of people saved, church founded based on Jesus being the Christ the son of the Living God. Then, according to the trinitarianists, John came of late, and the whole rules of the game changed!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Whole lot of people saved, church founded based on Jesus being the Christ the son of the Living God.

Right. What do you suppose they thought "Christ" or "son of the Living God" meant?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Then, according to the trinitarianists, John came of late, and the whole rules of the game changed!

When the Gospel of John entered the canon, it was a game changer. According to John 1 the Logos that became flesh was God. There's no getting around it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

When the Gospel of John entered the canon, it was a game changer. According to John 1 the Logos that became flesh was God. There's no getting around it.

More than likely it was a game changer long before the canon, relatively speaking.

But then there was the Philippines poem, c 40 years before John was written.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

More than likely it was a game changer long before the canon, relatively speaking.

Gospels that were excluded from the canon were largely forgotten, the opposite of "game changing."

Originally Posted by awareness

But then there was the Philippines poem, c 40 years before John was written.

The Philippians "poem" is ambiguous by comparison.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. What do you suppose they thought "Christ" or "son of the Living God" meant?



When the Gospel of John entered the canon, it was a game changer. According to John 1 the Logos that became flesh was God. There's no getting around it.

Luke does not record John stepping up and proclaim Jesus is God in his history of Acts. John does not say he wrote his gospel to tell us that Jesus is God, his epistles and Revelation do not proclaim Jesus as God, so why, 250 years later should I believe some council that said "believe it or be damned". And then murdered the ones who resisted their decree and destroyed opposing material. The game changer was really the council at Nicea. That's what molded Christian beliefs.

Compare that to Paul's letter to the Galatians. “Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
**Galatians‬ *1:1-5, 11-12‬ *NKJV‬‬ Does that sound more like what I'm talking about?

“Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” **Galatians‬ *2:1-5‬ *NKJV‬‬
Paul is defending his gospel that he had been preaching for over 14 years.

“But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”
**Galatians‬ *2:6, 9‬ *NKJV‬‬. The something's added nothing to Paul, and there is James, Peter and JOHN!

Paul is defending the gospel which he preaches and even says “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” *Galatians‬ *1:8-9‬ *NKJV‬‬

You would think the big three Peter, James and John would be schooling Paul in the trinity and compel him to preach Jesus as God, but that just isn't the case. Galatians is a compelling writing that refutes other gospel speaking. Paul did not preach trinitarianism. This is not even arguable!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Luke does not record John stepping up and proclaim Jesus is God in his history of Acts. John does not say he wrote his gospel to tell us that Jesus is God, his epistles and Revelation do not proclaim Jesus as God, so why, 250 years later should I believe some council that said "believe it or be damned". And then murdered the ones who resisted their decree and destroyed opposing material. The game changer was really the council at Nicea. That's what molded Christian beliefs.

Compare that to Paul's letter to the Galatians. “Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
**Galatians‬ *1:1-5, 11-12‬ *NKJV‬‬ Does that sound more like what I'm talking about?

“Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” **Galatians‬ *2:1-5‬ *NKJV‬‬
Paul is defending his gospel that he had been preaching for over 14 years.

“But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”
**Galatians‬ *2:6, 9‬ *NKJV‬‬. The something's added nothing to Paul, and there is James, Peter and JOHN!

Paul is defending the gospel which he preaches and even says “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” *Galatians‬ *1:8-9‬ *NKJV‬‬

You would think the big three Peter, James and John would be schooling Paul in the trinity and compel him to preach Jesus as God, but that just isn't the case. Galatians is a compelling writing that refutes other gospel speaking. Paul did not preach trinitarianism. This is not even arguable!

I asked "What do you suppose they [referring to the preachers and their audience in Acts] thought "Christ" or "son of the Living God" meant?" Did you answer the question? No. It's kind of like your having a different conversation with someone else.

If I thought you were doing this intentionally, I might call it a "straw man" argument where one gives the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. That, in effect, is what you're doing albeit perhaps unintentionally.

It seems, that you are a dogmatic antitrinitarian accustomed to arguing with dogmatic trinitatrians. I'm not either of these. I come to the Bible not as one who knows but as one who is learning. I'm trying to approach the scriptures objectively to see what they say not someone using the Bible as a proof text for what I already know.

As I noted before, translating logos as "idea" as you have done is supportable. However, then you are faced with the proposition "In the beginning was the idea. The idea was with God and the idea was God."

As the Idea was with God we see that the Idea and God are two. As the Idea was God, we are faced with the possibility of two Gods!

Now the major theme carried out in the Gospel of John is the relationship between these two --the Father and the Son to show that they are not only two but one and how they are one--the Son perfectly representing the Father in voluntary subjection and obedience.

So, let's try again beginning with the question "What do you suppose the preachers and their audience in Acts thought "Christ" or "son of the Living God" meant? Perhaps the kind of theological exposition John presents hadn't entered their minds yet.

[Ohio]

John did use the LOGOS in his gospel, but that metaphor cannot be abused or misused behind his original writing.

He also said that the Son is the LAMB of God. Shall we then reduce the Lord to a pair of warm wool socks?

I have heard others expound the LOGOS as the message, as the Son is the "message" of the Father, His story, or His explanation.

To explain the LOGOS as some fleeting thought of God in eons past is both disingenuous and contrary to John's Gospel.

[Ohio]

The gospel messages recorded in Acts must be taken in context. When Paul went to Athens, his message greatly differed from what was given to Jews immediately following the crucifixion. We can not use that message to conclude that Paul disavowed the Deity of Christ or that he was against tongue-speaking.

Boxjobox is holed up in a stronghold that condemns all Christians and proves his position. The more he faces evidence to the contrary, the more hardened his fortifications.

Other than forcing me to search the scriptures, unending debate, without the input of new information, has little benefit in my mind. I rejoice that Boxjobox loves God and loves our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To explain the LOGOS as some fleeting thought of God in eons past is both disingenuous and contrary to John's Gospel.

Where do you see anybody here explaining the logos like that? John says the Logos became flesh. That should dispel any such notion. Boxjobox earlier interpreted the logos as God's plan and that the word becoming flesh meant that Jesus fulfilled God's plan. I don't think that does justice to the statement the immediacy of the statement "the word became flesh". But, it's a far cry from claiming that the logos was a fleeting thought.

[awareness]

Bro zeek, okay bro jobox didn't answer your specific question. But I think he did answer a big question.

Paul gets together with James, Peter and John. It's settled that Paul and Barnabas should go to the uncircumcised, and James, Peter, and John, should go after the circumcised.

Then he quotes Paul concerning any other gospel, "if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”

Was the gospel attributed to John a different gospel, written by God knows who, 40 or 50 years after Paul wrote his warning, coming in by stealth, and then eventually accepted 100 or so years later as authoritative, and then a few hundred years later as canon, BY THE TRINITARIAN ORTHODOX?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John did use the LOGOS in his gospel, but that metaphor cannot be abused or misused behind his original writing.

He also said that the Son is the LAMB of God. Shall we then reduce the Lord to a pair of warm wool socks?

I have heard others expound the LOGOS as the message, as the Son is the "message" of the Father, His story, or His explanation.

To explain the LOGOS as some fleeting thought of God in eons past is both disingenuous and contrary to John's Gospel.

Ohio, the main point to me with the logos prologue of John's gospel is that God's thought, idea, plan is not just a fleeting thought, but it is all encompassing. It is the reason for the entire creation. All things were made through, with a view of fulfilling His plan- apart from His plan, nothing was made. In philosophy there is nihilism- still very strong today, that all things are meaningless. John is writing that that is not the case, that the entire creation has a purpose, which is the purpose of God. Jesus, then is not a fluke, a random event, not one of many, but is the center and circumference of all of God's plan. I'm sure that John did not just sit down and compose some avant-garde gospel- there must have been a mindset going on wherever he was at that time that was going off in the wrong direction that he was addressing in a way he felt would reach them- maybe destruction of Jerusalem? Or what was leading up to it? You know, when Jesus was ministering many thought that he was The messiah that would physically get rid of the Romans, establish David's kingdom and free Israel from bondage. Christ came, was crucified (the king of the Jews, the I am the Christ) rose, and was taken up. So here it is 40 years later, and Jerusalem is heading for destruction- where was the fulfillment of God's promise for Israel? There had to be a lot of despair, doubt, misunderstanding etc., of Christ, of God, of what the future would be, of the Gentiles becoming believers, of the decline of Judaism. I think John was writing his gospel to shake up a very self destructive nihilistic element that felt they had been deceived. And John is giving them the business of God! Telling them that Christ is so much bigger than an earthly Davidic Israel.

Try reading through John with that view, and Jesus statements fall in line with this logos notion that God in, with and through everything about Christ. This also matches Paul's desire that God would grant a spirit of wisdom and revelation to the believers in Ephesus to see the glorious work God is doing to head up all things in Christ.

I realize this isn't an average trinitarian view of the gospel of John, where people get puffed up on the Jesus is God thing, but I think it matches the rest of the NT, that shows the glory of the plan of God being carried out. Even today, even among Christians, we may loose heart and wonder if Jesus is really building his church, if God really is doing anything, if the Holy Spirit is leading us. We need the gospel of John today more than ever! Nothing fleeting about the logos- it's what everything is about- the logos was with God and the logos was God. I think if it was just with God, it could be fleeting, but not if it IS God. That's solid. And at the right time, and in the right way, God sent Christ, His plan became real in the person, the flesh of Jesus.

Woah, I wrote all of this without quoting the good book? Now I'll probably be accused of footnote theology!

[Boxjobox]

Another thought about logos being God, and I'm sure to get slammed on this one, so UntoHim better get his big stick ready. In saying this, I'm not trying to mix man's philosophy with scripture, but to show human inquiry into our nature and the nature of God.

French philosopher Descartes wrote his famous line "I think, therefore I am". I'm thinking this would bring us closer to the concept John presents where the idea, the plan of God was more than just with Him, it was Him. John obviously had a goal of reaching a certain element by using logos. I think 2000 years later arguing about Jesus being God because the logos was God, is missing the main point of John's gospel. I'm sure if the main point in the cosmos was that Jesus is God, that God became a man, that God died, that the entire NT would have been written in a different way. There are just too many places where this thought would have been front and center- like Paul's gospel to the Romans. And the writers of the NT would not uniquely talk about God, the Father, the God of Jesus, nor would have Jesus talked in such a way.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro zeek, okay bro jobox didn't answer your specific question. But I think he did answer a big question.

Paul gets together with James, Peter and John. It's settled that Paul and Barnabas should go to the uncircumcised, and James, Peter, and John, should go after the circumcised.

Then he quotes Paul concerning any other gospel, "if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”

Was the gospel attributed to John a different gospel, written by God knows who, 40 or 50 years after Paul wrote his warning, coming in by stealth, and then eventually accepted 100 or so years later as authoritative, and then a few hundred years later as canon, BY THE TRINITARIAN ORTHODOX?

I don't know. Paul wasn't around to render a verdict on the Gospel of John. You and BoxjoBox could write a book. Call it "The Trinitarian Conspiracy". Who knows? It might sell to certain niche market.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know. Paul wasn't around to render a verdict on the Gospel of John.

A verdict? Well it was agreed Paul would go to the uncircumcised, and John to the circumcised. Then why was the gospel of John written in Greek, and not in Hebrew? Is there a verdict on that?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

A verdict? Well it was agreed Paul would go to the uncircumcised, and John to the circumcised. Then why was the gospel of John written in Greek, and not in Hebrew? Is there a verdict on that?

No, there isn't.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Where do you see anybody here explaining the logos like that?

Read it in his post ...

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Another thought about logos being God, and I'm sure to get slammed on this one...

French philosopher Descartes wrote his famous line "I think, therefore I am". I'm thinking this would bring us closer to the concept John presents where the idea, the plan of God was more than just with Him, it was Him. John obviously had a goal of reaching a certain element by using logos.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

A verdict? Well it was agreed Paul would go to the uncircumcised, and John to the circumcised. Then why was the gospel of John written in Greek, and not in Hebrew? Is there a verdict on that?

No book was written in Hebrew. Greek was the common, written language of the day.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read it in his post ...

You said:

"To explain the LOGOS as some fleeting thought of God in eons past is both disingenuous and contrary to John's Gospel."

Boxjobox said:

"French philosopher Descartes wrote his famous line "I think, therefore I am". I'm thinking this would bring us closer to the concept John presents where the idea, the plan of God was more than just with Him, it was Him."

He admitted that the idea, "the plan of God" was more than just with God, it was God. He's getting closer. Now He just needs to admit that John says that the "idea" which was with God and was God became flesh, and he has accepted what John clearly states.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

You said:

"To explain the LOGOS as some fleeting thought of God in eons past is both disingenuous and contrary to John's Gospel."

Boxjobox said:

"French philosopher Descartes wrote his famous line "I think, therefore I am". I'm thinking this would bring us closer to the concept John presents where the idea, the plan of God was more than just with Him, it was Him."

He admitted that the idea, "the plan of God" was more than just with God, it was God. He's getting closer. Now He just needs to admit that John says that the "idea" which was with God and was God became flesh, and he has accepted what John clearly states.

Maybe Jobox dismisses the gospel of John as, "another gospel" Paul warned about.

And just because a bunch of trinitarian orthodox but in the canon doesn't necessarily make it the Word of God.

This is the kind of loony thinking back then:

"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."
--Church father Irenaeus, late 2nd century

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No book was written in Hebrew. Greek was the common, written language of the day.

So John, who was one of "the sons of thunder," who was to go the circumcised, lost out to the Greeks? No wonder we don't hear much about his activities, compared to those of Peter and Paul.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe Jobox dismisses the gospel of John as, "another gospel" Paul warned about.

And just because a bunch of trinitarian orthodox but in the canon doesn't necessarily make it the Word of God.

This is the kind of loony thinking back then:

"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."
--Church father Irenaeus, late 2nd century

I don't know. Boxjobox doesn't think like you. He doesn't seem to have questioned the teaching that the Gospel of John, the epistles of John and the the Book of Revelation were all written by John the disciple of Jesus.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is the kind of loony thinking back then:
"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."
--Church father Irenaeus, late 2nd century

Almost as loony as thinking that a bolt of lightening hit some random molecules floating around in a primordial soup - creating DNA, RNA and eventually every living thing. Some of the geniuses who come up with this loony garbage should be stand up comedians
-

[awareness]

This is the kind of loony thinking back then:
"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."
--Church father Irenaeus, late 2nd century

I know, the looniness never stops. Starts in Genesis one and follows up to today. Look at me. Look at us.

But Irenaeus overshot. Prolly, in this case, much to Jobox's delight. Cuz Irenaeus wrote in trinitarian terms, as in, the indwelling relations of Father, Son, and Spirit, and the cooperative divine work of all three.

So actually, following his logic, there should be only 3 gospels. It would make more and consistent theological sense than, four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe.

Jobox would be delighted cuz, then he could get rid of that pesky John.

But he'd still be stuck with the trinity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

'Life would be tragic, if it wasn't so funny' - Stephen Hawking.

The greatest tragedy of all is facing God on judgment day and not being able to plead the blood of Jesus for your sins.

There's nothing funny about deceiving millions of people that there is no God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The greatest tragedy of all is facing God on judgment day and not being able to plead the blood of Jesus for your sins.

1 John 2:2 - It is he who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world's.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

1 John 2:2 - It is he who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world's.

For God so loved the world that He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

[awareness]

Now that we've condemned Stephen Hawking to the eternal flames -- let's say he was condemned to the tremendous heat of the Big Bang -- let's get back to the trinity.

So far I've claimed that humans are hardwired for the need of a human god. And I've also claimed that our need for a trinity is hardwired.

How about this for evidence :


A tetractys of the letters of the Tetragrammaton adds up to 72 by gematria.

The triangle, equal on all 3 sides ; the trinity of Yahweh ; the Tetragrammaton.

That's just more proof that we're hardwired for trinity's.

Jobox is fighting against, not the Bible, but against human nature.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

I asked "What do you suppose they [referring to the preachers and their audience in Acts] thought "Christ" or "son of the Living God" meant?" Did you answer the question? No. It's kind of like your having a different conversation with someone else.

If I thought you were doing this intentionally, I might call it a "straw man" argument where one gives the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. That, in effect, is what you're doing albeit perhaps unintentionally.

It seems, that you are a dogmatic antitrinitarian accustomed to arguing with dogmatic trinitatrians. I'm not either of these. I come to the Bible not as one who knows but as one who is learning. I'm trying to approach the scriptures objectively to see what they say not someone using the Bible as a proof text for what I already know.

As I noted before, translating logos as "idea" as you have done is supportable. However, then you are faced with the proposition "In the beginning was the idea. The idea was with God and the idea was God."

As the Idea was with God we see that the Idea and God are two. As the Idea was God, we are faced with the possibility of two Gods!

Now the major theme carried out in the Gospel of John is the relationship between these two --the Father and the Son to show that they are not only two but one and how they are one--the Son perfectly representing the Father in voluntary subjection and obedience.

So, let's try again beginning with the question "What do you suppose the preachers and their audience in Acts thought "Christ" or "son of the Living God" meant? Perhaps the kind of theological exposition John presents hadn't entered their minds yet.

I think the first 4 chapters of Acts gives a pretty good picture of what the apostles who hung out with Jesus and saw and heard all that he did, and saw him resurrected, and saw him taken up thought.

Ohio seems to think that John, 30 years later, came up with a more improved gospel, so in his hypothesis, you have the 30 years of what was preached and taught in Acts, and in the epistles, with a running cross referenced accounting between Mt, Mk, Lk, Acts, epistles minus John's stuff, and then along comes "John" with his material that is different. No history of John's change of view from the Acts account. No referenced material in Acts or the other gospels confirm the Jesus dialogues found in John. No clue as to what kind of people John was writing to- what prompted John to write in such a style? (And we all know how important the 2 or 3 witness thing was to the Jews to confirm a matter). But for reasons unknown, John's writings seem to take precedence over all else, and all else is then interpreted through John, and in particular, John 1, which sets up a Jesus is God scenario and through the use of John 1 , a Jesus is God, triune God thing is set up and established as the decree of the church. Then, people look for little clues in the non John material to justify their new gospel message. This whole thing goes on for 1700 years.

Today we live in a unique time- governments are no longer the Holy Roman Empire, information that was reserved for the few elite is now available instantaneously, large diversity in Christian thought, apostasy is rampant, science is at an epic, and Christ has not returned.

I think we Christians made a wrong turn in the 4th century, kept traveling down that wrong road, got lost in the thickets, and are now sitting at the crossroads and need to look carefully at the map and choose the road that will take us back home. I think it is well documented in the scripture that the apostles and early believers were not into a Jesus is God/trinity thing. Most today cleave to the 4th century belief in trinitarianism, which in this unique time needs to be abandoned as a lost road. We need to return to the Pauline gospel and admit that we were lost in the woods for all those years.

I think 1 and 2 Thessalonians gives a good view of what was thought of God and Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For God so loved the world that He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

Oh! a Bible battle!

1Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now that we've condemned Stephen Hawking to the eternal flames -- let's say he was condemned to the tremendous heat of the Big Bang -- let's get back to the trinity.

So far I've claimed that humans are hardwired for the need of a human god. And I've also claimed that our need for a trinity is hardwired.

How about this for evidence :


A tetractys of the letters of the Tetragrammaton adds up to 72 by gematria.

The triangle, equal on all 3 sides ; the trinity of Yahweh ; the Tetragrammaton.

That's just more proof that we're hardwired for trinity's.

Jobox is fighting against, not the Bible, but against human nature.

The history of man in the good book is quite worthy of pondering. Mankind created, naked an not ashamed, and dialogue with God. Snake tells them they can be like God! Cain kills Abel over religious practice. Cain backtalks to God and gains some clemency. Lamech uses the clemency argument to justify to his two wives his killing. Sons of God (what?) mingle with daughters of men. Flood. Noah and family saved. Tower of Babel- men trying to reach heaven!

Paul offered Timothy this one peculial thought---“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.”
**I Timothy‬ *4:9-11‬ *NKJV‬‬

Concerning Señor Hawking- it's always curious to me how an intellectual godless sort is admired among the Godless for their lofty godless profundity. Godlessness is a religion also. Then death comes, and the elephant in the room is Now What For Señor Hawking? Godlessness is short on answers for this terrible inconvenience of death.

I'll offer this plagiarized piece to Hawking



Out of the blue
and into the black
You pay for this,
but they give you that
And once you're gone,
you can't come back
When you're out of the blue
and into the black.

The king is gone
but he's not forgotten
Is this the story
of Johnny Rotten?
It's better to burn out
'cause rust never sleeps
The king is gone
but he's not forgotten.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I think the first 4 chapters of Acts gives a pretty good picture of what the apostles who hung out with Jesus and saw and heard all that he did, and saw him resurrected, and saw him taken up thought.

Ohio seems to think that John, 30 years later, came up with a more improved gospel, so in his hypothesis, you have the 30 years of what was preached and taught in Acts, and in the epistles, with a running cross referenced accounting between Mt, Mk, Lk, Acts, epistles minus John's stuff, and then along comes "John" with his material that is different. No history of John's change of view from the Acts account. No referenced material in Acts or the other gospels confirm the Jesus dialogues found in John. No clue as to what kind of people John was writing to- what prompted John to write in such a style? (And we all know how important the 2 or 3 witness thing was to the Jews to confirm a matter). But for reasons unknown, John's writings seem to take precedence over all else, and all else is then interpreted through John, and in particular, John 1, which sets up a Jesus is God scenario and through the use of John 1 , a Jesus is God, triune God thing is set up and established as the decree of the church. Then, people look for little clues in the non John material to justify their new gospel message. This whole thing goes on for 1700 years.

Today we live in a unique time- governments are no longer the Holy Roman Empire, information that was reserved for the few elite is now available instantaneously, large diversity in Christian thought, apostasy is rampant, science is at an epic, and Christ has not returned.

I think we Christians made a wrong turn in the 4th century, kept traveling down that wrong road, got lost in the thickets, and are now sitting at the crossroads and need to look carefully at the map and choose the road that will take us back home. I think it is well documented in the scripture that the apostles and early believers were not into a Jesus is God/trinity thing. Most today cleave to the 4th century belief in trinitarianism, which in this unique time needs to be abandoned as a lost road. We need to return to the Pauline gospel and admit that we were lost in the woods for all those years.

I think 1 and 2 Thessalonians gives a good view of what was thought of God and Christ.

Sorry, but again you didn't answer the question I asked which was "What do you suppose they [referring to the preachers and their audience in Acts] thought "Christ" or "son of the Living God" meant?" Instead you, again, answered what you think they didn't mean to them which is anything to do with a Trinitarian conception of God.

So, you have once again reinforced my impression you don't know the answer to my question. You apparently have an unexamined understanding of what the words "Christ" and "Son of God" meant to them that you can't explain. If you don't know what the terms meant, how can you judge whether or not the terms themselves entail divinity?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Paul offered Timothy this one peculial thought---“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.”
**I Timothy‬ *4:9-11‬ *NKJV‬‬

You should not have quoted this verse, because I might once again believe that the living God is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe, and that would make me a terrible "trinitarian."

But we all know that the Savior is not God. God is the Father, and Christ is the Savior, and never the two shall meet. So says my Boxy friend.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You should not have quoted this verse, because I might once again believe that the living God is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe, and that would make me a terrible "trinitarian."

But we all know that the Savior is not God. God is the Father, and Christ is the Savior, and never the two shall meet. So says my Boxy friend.

Ohio, your trinitarian cut and tape views are what keep you in the grand dillusion. Paul is writing a letter to Tim, take in the whole letter, rather than a snip with an over exaggerated snap.

Look at the opening statement of Paul to Tim. “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope, To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.**. I Timothy‬ *1:1-2‬

God our savior, God our Father. Lord Jesus Christ our hope, lLord Jesus Christ our Lord. Two entities talked about here God and Jesus. This is not a mingle, mingle hallelujah moment for you. Get into the apostle Paul's thought, don't mix and match ideas. Not that hard- it's really nomenclature 101. God is God, and Christ Jesus is the resurrected ascended, God given head. This is what Paul is constantly conveying.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sorry, but again you didn't answer the question I asked which was "What do you suppose they [referring to the preachers and their audience in Acts] thought "Christ" or "son of the Living God" meant?" Instead you, again, answered what you think they didn't mean to them which is anything to do with a Trinitarian conception of God.

So, you have once again reinforced my impression you don't know the answer to my question. You apparently have an unexamined understanding of what the words "Christ" and "Son of God" meant to them that you can't explain. If you don't know what the terms meant, how can you judge whether or not the terms themselves entail divinity?

Zeek, Zeek, Zeek; what am I going to do with you, Zeek. I thought you would look through the 1st 4 chapters of Acts and see what everyone thought. The best I can tell about what people think is by their words. That IS my answer, what was discussed about Jesus in the 1st 4 chapters seems to me a groundwork of the rest of the book of Acts, which gives us a contemporary view of the time. People obviously had a lot of thoughts about Jesus then, from charlatan, to a prophet, to THE prophet, to a risen John the Bap., to Elija, to a spirit, to a good man, to a deceives, etc. Peter basically says a man anointed by God, God was with him, he was the promised one, scripture pointed out that he would suffer and be resurrected according to God's plan, that God lifted him up to the highest position.
I guess if you are asking me if son of God meant to them that Jesus was the Living God Himself- no that's not what they were saying.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sorry, but again you didn't answer the question I asked which was "What do you suppose they [referring to the preachers and their audience in Acts] thought "Christ" or "son of the Living God" meant?" Instead you, again, answered what you think they didn't mean to them which is anything to do with a Trinitarian conception of God.

So, you have once again reinforced my impression you don't know the answer to my question. You apparently have an unexamined understanding of what the words "Christ" and "Son of God" meant to them that you can't explain. If you don't know what the terms meant, how can you judge whether or not the terms themselves entail divinity?

And what is this divinity thing? Are angels divine? Are the 4 living creatures divine?

The N T tells us to hold on to the concept that there is One, True God, who we call Father. The Father is the God of creation, the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Jesus, and our God. Are you saying there are lesser Gods? Inferior Gods? Are we God's? Scripture doesn't get heavy into that. God, our Father is the one to acknowledge as God. This divine thing leads to other gods.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh! a Bible battle!

1Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Glad to see you picked up on this. You posted it just as I was typing out post 337, and I used it also

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

And what is this divinity thing? Are angels divine? Are the 4 living creatures divine?

The N T tells us to hold on to the concept that there is One, True God, who we call Father. The Father is the God of creation, the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Jesus, and our God. Are you saying there are lesser Gods? Inferior Gods? Are we God's? Scripture doesn't get heavy into that. God, our Father is the one to acknowledge as God. This divine thing leads to other gods.

Wait. Before I answer your question allow me to let it sink in for a moment that once again you have not answered my questions about what does Christ and the Son of God mean.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

And what is this divinity thing? Are angels divine? Are the 4 living creatures divine?

The N T tells us to hold on to the concept that there is One, True God, who we call Father. The Father is the God of creation, the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Jesus, and our God. Are you saying there are lesser Gods? Inferior Gods? Are we God's? Scripture doesn't get heavy into that. God, our Father is the one to acknowledge as God. This divine thing leads to other gods.

I defined the word divinity in posts #382, #397 and #412. According to my definition angels are not divine. The four living creatures seem to be angelic beings. What makes you suppose I'm saying there are lesser gods, inferior gods or that we are gods? Scripture says that the logos is God.

[Evangelical]

Boxjobox , as you deny the Trinity, do you also believe that the Holy Spirit is God? If not, why not?

[JJ]

On a lighter note, I saw this today and it cracked me up. I hope you all enjoy it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCwT

[zeek]

Originally Posted by JJ

On a lighter note, I saw this today and it cracked me up. I hope you all enjoy it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCwT

Donall and Conall are a hoot! Good one, JJ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'll offer this plagiarized piece to Hawking



Out of the blue
and into the black
You pay for this,
but they give you that
And once you're gone,
you can't come back

In the Bible there's lots of odd stories. Revealing that, God's an odd fellow.

We're not God. We don't know. But God may have been inspiring Hawking. Methinks a God that would torture a man in this life with ALS, and then burn him forever, isn't much of a God to me ... lacking in the love that Jesus taught.

I'm going with Jesus, who ate with sinners, the unclean, and outcasts - prostitutes may enter in before all these sanctimonious Bible thumpers.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

In the Bible there's lots of odd stories. Revealing that, God's an odd fellow.

We're not God. We don't know. But God may have been inspiring Hawking. Methinks a God that would torture a man in this life with ALS, and then burn him forever, isn't much of a God to me ... lacking in the love that Jesus taught.

I'm going with Jesus, who ate with sinners, the unclean, and outcasts - prostitutes may enter in before all these sanctimonious Bible thumpers.

Amen

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

In the Bible there's lots of odd stories. Revealing that, God's an odd fellow.

We're not God. We don't know. But God may have been inspiring Hawking. Methinks a God that would torture a man in this life with ALS, and then burn him forever, isn't much of a God to me ... lacking in the love that Jesus taught.

I'm going with Jesus, who ate with sinners, the unclean, and outcasts - prostitutes may enter in before all these sanctimonious Bible thumpers.

Agreed- I'm not into the eternal hell thing. But----Hawking was outspoken about the cosmos and didn't see a need for a God. It's interesting here on this little site, we debate the nature of God and all have personal beliefs and thoughts about God, Christ, the scripture, and God's people. Yet in this world there are a large group of people who do not acknowledge God, and look for support in their beliefs from wise souls such as Señor Hawking. To have a cosmos so expansive as we have seen from recent Hubble pictures, one either has to feel insignificant or very blessed to be alive. Then, as comes to everyone, death makes its appearance, and then there is the ultimate question what is life, what is consciousness, what is a "person"? I, for one, look to the scriptures, and find marvelous answers, yet at the same time, find giant questions.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by JJ

On a lighter note, I saw this today and it cracked me up. I hope you all enjoy it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCwT

This one is so true to the state of things- believe the creed, the creed tells us what to believe. I remember when I was a teenager reading Soul on Ice by Eldridge Clever. He was a kid in Sunday school and they were studying trinity. He said it was like 3 in one oil, and the teacher didn't like the comparison. He turned his back on Christianity partly because of this. Later, he did become a Christian.

Trinity teaching has became the ingrained belief system among Christians, and I would say it is taught as a superior to the scriptures.

They should do a little animation on how many people were tortured and murdered to put this belief system in place!

Can you imagine where the church would be today if instead of propagating this creed, and the beliefs and practices that followed it, that the scripture would have been taught, spoken and lived. Thank God we live in a time where we can discuss scripture in an open way.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Boxjobox , as you deny the Trinity, do you also believe that the Holy Spirit is God? If not, why not?

Evangelical,
1) in the scripture there is no teaching by Jesus or the apostles about God being a trinity.
2) there is teaching by Jesus and Paul that there is one God, the Father
3) I try to follow the scripture.
4) God is God, and the Spirit is the Spirit
5) If the writers of scripture would have presented a triune God, and I did not accept it, then I would be a denier.
6) your argument seems to be that I deny something that doesn't exist!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

I defined the word divinity in posts #382, #397 and #412. According to my definition angels are not divine. The four living creatures seem to be angelic beings. What makes you suppose I'm saying there are lesser gods, inferior gods or that we are gods? Scripture says that the logos is God.

So, if you think Jesus is divine, what does that mean to you? Why use the term divine instead of God?

Also, if you look at your original question, it was not what I think, but it was what do I think the people back in beginning of the church thought about the terms Christ and Son of God. I can only answer by what I read, what they said.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Agreed- I'm not into the eternal hell thing. But----Hawking was outspoken about the cosmos and didn't see a need for a God. It's interesting here on this little site, we debate the nature of God and all have personal beliefs and thoughts about God, Christ, the scripture, and God's people. Yet in this world there are a large group of people who do not acknowledge God, and look for support in their beliefs from wise souls such as Señor Hawking. To have a cosmos so expansive as we have seen from recent Hubble pictures, one either has to feel insignificant or very blessed to be alive. Then, as comes to everyone, death makes its appearance, and then there is the ultimate question what is life, what is consciousness, what is a "person"? I, for one, look to the scriptures, and find marvelous answers, yet at the same time, find giant questions.

Have you ever seen shows by Neil Degrasse Tyson? The guy is thrilled and filled with awe of the cosmos. He's even stated that that is all he needs for inspiration and joy.

Astrophysiology works with sizes that overflow the mind. And it's all confusing, enough already rather to introduce and allow for a noncorporeal unseeable realm that can't be scientifically measured or tested.

We can't bring the trinity into a lab and test it. All we've got is hermeneutics.

Just two weeks before his death Stephen Hawking submitted a research paper, entitled "A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation."

He predicts that our existence will fade into darkness when the stars run out of energy. And that other universes were created at the Big Bang, and we could measure the other universes using a detector on a spaceship.

Wild and crazy stuff. It would have been easier for him to find that sort of stuff in the Bible.

And concerning him going to hell? Hey, I know Christians that expect to see their pets in heaven. So who really knows?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So, if you think Jesus is divine, what does that mean to you? Why use the term divine instead of God?

I use the word divine instead of God because it's an adjective. "Godly" doesn't fit when the subject is God's substance because it has come to have a behavioral connotation.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Also, if you look at your original question, it was not what I think, but it was what do I think the people back in beginning of the church thought about the terms Christ and Son of God. I can only answer by what I read, what they said.

Yes I wanted to know if you understood what the writer or the players he was writing about meant. He might have had written texts of speeches that he was working from. Or he might have invented the speeches himself as historians of that time period often were moved to do. In other words, the speeches of the principle characters may reflect the writer's own viewpoint more or less.

My impression is that many Jews in first century Palestine had some kind of messianic expectation. Some expectations were more fantastical then others. So, some might have simply hoped that the messiah would be a political liberator who would drive out the occupiers and set up a new earthly kingdom.

But, the Book of Daniel opposes that view. It was probably written in opposition to the Maccabees who set up just that kind of earthly kingdom which became corrupt. Daniel depicts a supernatural divine intervention from heaven with a mysterious heavenly figure called "one like the son of man" [7:13] as the change agent. Jesus was identified with that figure by his early followers. Whether he self-identified with "the son of man" is another question.

In many cases Jesus refers to the son of man in the third person suggesting that he might have been waiting for this messiah figure himself. There's a theory that he went to Jerusalem expecting that if he took a stand for God's kingdom, God would send the son of man with the heavenly host to liberate Israel. [See Zechariah 14:4] If so, he was sadly disappointed as history records.

Incidentally, I think of the Gospel of John more as an early theological treatise in narrative form than I do an historical account. As a matter of fact, none of the gospels are merely historical records in my opinion. But, John puts words in the mouth of Jesus that seem to be a reflection of the author's theology rather than quotes from the Jesus we know from the other gospels.

So, this son of man figure--what to think of him? Is he God? Well no. By the time Daniel was written Judaism had evolved in a monotheistic direction. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. "

So, this son of man, is considered to be a "heavenly man" whatever that is. Certainly that isn't what we would call a man in modern parlance. More like an angelic being. Or a space alien. Be that as it may, Jesus is identified with this heavenly man when his followers search the scriptures after he dies.

Now, if you take a look at the shema: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." you can see the beginning of a problem in many of the verses that you like to quote that state that there is one God the father and one Lord Jesus. According to the shema, God and the Lord were the same person. Now, early Christians had split God and the Lord in two!

In the following centuries Christians struggled with that problem. They disagreed and called each other heretics. Out of the controversy was born the theological reflection that eventually led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

If "divine" means the nature of God, then I confess that I don't know what that is. God is a mystery to me. The New Testament presents Jesus as the unique revelation of the character of God. I am able to accept an idealized view of that picture but I must admit there are aspects of it that are quite alien to me.



Yes I wanted to know if you understood what the writer or the players he was writing about meant. He might have had written texts of speeches that he was working from. Or he might have invented the speeches himself as historians of that time period often were moved to do. In other words, the speeches of the principle characters may reflect the writer's own viewpoint more or less.

My impression is that many Jews in first century Palestine had some kind of messianic expectation. Some expectations were more fantastical then others. So, some might have simply hoped that the messiah would be a political liberator who would drive out the occupiers and set up a new earthly kingdom.

But, the Book of Daniel opposes that view. It was probably written in opposition to the Maccabees who set up just that kind of earthly kingdom which became corrupt. Daniel depicts a supernatural divine intervention from heaven with a mysterious heavenly figure called the son of man as the change agent. I think Jesus was identified with that figure. Whether he self-identified with "the son of man" is another question.

In many cases Jesus refers to the son of man in the third person suggesting that he might have been waiting for this messiah figure himself. There's a theory that he went to Jerusalem expecting that if he took a stand for God's kingdom, God would send the son of man with the heavenly host to liberate Israel. [See Zechariah 14:4] If so, he was sadly disappointed as history records.

Incidentally, I think of the Gospel of John more as an early theological treatise in narrative form than I do an historical account. As a matter of fact, none of the gospels are merely historical records in my opinion. But, John puts words in the mouth of Jesus that seem to be a reflection of the author's theology rather than quotes from the Jesus we know from the other gospels.

So, this son of man figure--what to think of him? Is he God? Well no. By the time Daniel was written Judaism had evolved in a monotheistic direction. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. "

So, this son of man, is considered to be a "heavenly man" whatever that is. Certainly that isn't what we would call a man in modern parlance. More like an angelic being. Or a space alien. Be that as it may, Jesus is identified with this heavenly man when his followers search the scriptures after he dies.

Now, if you take a look at the shema: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." you can see the beginning of a problem in many of the verses that you like to quote that state that there is one God the father and one Lord Jesus. According to the shema, God and the Lord were the same person. Now, early Christian had split God and the Lord in two!

In the following centuries Christians struggled with that problem. They disagreed and called each other heretics. Out of the controversy was born the theological reflection that eventually led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Zeek, thanks for this excellent presentation- lots to consider here. There was indeed a lot of controversy about the messiah at the time Jesus was on the scene. And it seems Jesus often played into that by presenting various aspects of the messiah to different groups and sects and forcing them to consider and even bicker among themselves. Mixed among that controversy, Jesus also performed significant miracles which showed God was with him. The Jews couldn't dismiss the miracles and so resorted to saying he was performing by the power of demons or Satan. At some point in his ministry, he asks the disciples who do men say that he was, and refers to himself as the son of man. Then asks who do you disciples say I am? Peter says the Christ, the son of the Living God. And Jesus says this revelation came from the Father, and he would build his church on this. Peter later preached this as the 1st gospel and 3000 believed, and that at the time there were Jews from all over the Roman Empire. That 1st gospel was pretty heavy duty if we consider the event of the baptism of the spirit, the many tongues, the diverse crowd, that it was not long after Jesus had been crucified, Jewish celebration that was going on etc, and Peter gives an in depth account of who Jesus was and what God did, and the state of Jesus after his resurrection and ascension. After this, the church was formed, the gospel spread, Paul came on the scene, apostles were gone, Jerusalem was destroyed, and then we have to rely on historical records to piece together the evolution of the whole thing that resulted in the Christianity we know today.

In my attempt to grasp the whole thing, I rely on Luke and Paul for foundation. I read James, Jude, Peter, and John. But Luke/Paul form my basis of my faith. As Paul says, I'll be judged by his gospel.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Have you ever seen shows by Neil Degrasse Tyson? The guy is thrilled and filled with awe of the cosmos. He's even stated that that is all he needs for inspiration and joy.

Astrophysiology works with sizes that overflow the mind. And it's all confusing, enough already rather to introduce and allow for a noncorporeal unseeable realm that can't be scientifically measured or tested.

We can't bring the trinity into a lab and test it. All we've got is hermeneutics.

Just two weeks before his death Stephen Hawking submitted a research paper, entitled "A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation."

He predicts that our existence will fade into darkness when the stars run out of energy. And that other universes were created at the Big Bang, and we could measure the other universes using a detector on a spaceship.

Wild and crazy stuff. It would have been easier for him to find that sort of stuff in the Bible.

And concerning him going to hell? Hey, I know Christians that expect to see their pets in heaven. So who really knows?

What I did notice yesterday was a news article from Turkey calling for a pan-Islam army to form to attack Israel. They figure a 5 million man army from 57 Islamic countries could eliminate their problem. The drums of war in the world seem to be getting louder. Big universe, but local earth events seem more pressing. Big universe- little Israel. Need for Messiah.

What did a war in heaven between Michael and his angels and Satan and his angels look like? What constituted weapons of war, what did victory and defeat look like, and where exactly is heaven?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

What I did notice yesterday was a news article from Turkey calling for a pan-Islam army to form to attack Israel. They figure a 5 million man army from 57 Islamic countries could eliminate their problem. The drums of war in the world seem to be getting louder. Big universe, but local earth events seem more pressing. Big universe- little Israel. Need for Messiah.

What did a war in heaven between Michael and his angels and Satan and his angels look like? What constituted weapons of war, what did victory and defeat look like, and where exactly is heaven?

Where is heaven? Look up. We're hanging spinning and revolving in it. Michael and Satan could be symbols for the clash of galaxies, and the like ; black holes at war.

And the pan-Islam army of 5 million? Can the Muslims do that without killing each other?

But do I hear the drums of war. Israel and Saudi Arabia want war with Iran, but they need America to do it. And Trump could use it to be great. Why else is he jacking up the military, and developing more precise nukes?

And all this doesn't belong on the trinity thread.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Evangelical,
1) in the scripture there is no teaching by Jesus or the apostles about God being a trinity.
2) there is teaching by Jesus and Paul that there is one God, the Father
3) I try to follow the scripture.
4) God is God, and the Spirit is the Spirit
5) If the writers of scripture would have presented a triune God, and I did not accept it, then I would be a denier.
6) your argument seems to be that I deny something that doesn't exist!

I think my point is that if you believe that God is God and the Spirit is the Spirit, then that is two gods, or a di-unity.

The Jews for example do not believe in a person called the "Holy Spirit" as distinct and separate from "the Father". They only believe in "God". I wondered if you also believe that.

If Jesus is not God as you say, then the Spirit cannot be God either?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think my point is that if you believe that God is God and the Spirit is the Spirit, then that is two gods, or a di-unity.

The Jews for example do not believe in a person called the "Holy Spirit" as distinct and separate from "the Father". They only believe in "God". I wondered if you also believe that.

If Jesus is not God as you say, then the Spirit cannot be God either?

ditheism, tritheism, yet God is all and in all. Sounds like a mystery to me. God works in mysterious ways.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think my point is that if you believe that God is God and the Spirit is the Spirit, then that is two gods, or a di-unity.

The Jews for example do not believe in a person called the "Holy Spirit" as distinct and separate from "the Father". They only believe in "God". I wondered if you also believe that.

If Jesus is not God as you say, then the Spirit cannot be God either?

Here is a couple of quotes from Paul the apostle, who I do my best to imitate his teaching.
“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. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; .."**I Corinthians‬ *8:5-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

“I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” *Ephesians‬ *4:1-6‬ *

Your questioning seems to depart from Paul's statements. Paul is consistent in his work that God, the God and Father of Jesus, is the one we Christians are to acknowledge as God. I'm curious how you got dissuaded from this and into a split personality god. Do you reject Paul and his teachings, or consider them inferior to someone else's?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Where is heaven? Look up. We're hanging spinning and revolving in it. Michael and Satan could be symbols for the clash of galaxies, and the like ; black holes at war.

And the pan-Islam army of 5 million? Can the Muslims do that without killing each other?

But do I hear the drums of war. Israel and Saudi Arabia want war with Iran, but they need America to do it. And Trump could use it to be great. Why else is he jacking up the military, and developing more precise nukes?

And all this doesn't belong on the trinity thread.

On one hand, no, it doesn't belong in the discussion, but on the other hand, we are talking about God, Christ, and the scripture as related to a strange, prevalent teaching about a triune god. God, who was thought of as one by the children of Israel since the time of Moses, had heaven as His dwelling place in their scripture. Israel, on the earth, was promised a certain area of land, yet there was much prophesy about all the things that would happen concerning them and that land, and the nations. Jesus, the promised messiah came to them, was crucified, God raised him from the dead, and he was taken up to heaven. Jesus, according to the scripture, was given the position above all other positions.

What exactly is Jesus' function in this role in heaven and/ or on earth. To determine this, may give insight into the question at hand. For instance, he takes a book/scroll from aaahemmm, God, and opens the seals of the scroll, which creates certain circumstances on earth, and which also affect heaven.

Jesus also is among the 7 churches. 5 of them seem to have problems, some major, one is suffering, and one seems to be up to standard, which one he promises to reward with various things from his God.

But during this war in heaven, which results in ugly things happening on earth, where is Jesus? And Michael seems to be waging some kind of war against Satan- an angelic war. Was there a contingency plan if Michael did not prevail?

So all of this stuff in heaven and on earth, things we read about from the writing of John, doesn't leave me with the idea that all things are glorious in heaven, earth or the church(es). And here we are discussing whether one can find scriptures to convince that Jesus is or isn't God, or that God is one or has a triple personality.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Here is a couple of quotes from Paul the apostle, who I do my best to imitate his teaching.
“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. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; .."**I Corinthians‬ *8:5-7‬ *

Relevance?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” *Ephesians‬ *4:1-6‬ *

You do realize that right there in the last sentence is a statement suggesting the co-equality of the persons of the Trinity... One Spirit, One Lord and One Father, don't you?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Your questioning seems to depart from Paul's statements. Paul is consistent in his work that God, the God and Father of Jesus, is the one we Christians are to acknowledge as God. I'm curious how you got dissuaded from this and into a split personality god. Do you reject Paul and his teachings, or consider them inferior to someone else's?

Well, not to presume to answer for Evangelical, but I would start with a point that I made before...that Paul split the shema. In the so-called Old Testament it was “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! There was one God and one Lord and lo and behold they were the same person. Now, with Paul, there's one Lord--Jesus and one God--the Father. That's two different people there. Something changed. They went from worshiping one person to worshiping two. You don't see a problem there?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

On one hand, no, it doesn't belong in the discussion, but on the other hand, we are talking about God, Christ, and the scripture as related to a strange, prevalent teaching about a triune god. God, who was thought of as one by the children of Israel since the time of Moses, had heaven as His dwelling place in their scripture. Israel, on the earth, was promised a certain area of land, yet there was much prophesy about all the things that would happen concerning them and that land, and the nations. Jesus, the promised messiah came to them, was crucified, God raised him from the dead, and he was taken up to heaven. Jesus, according to the scripture, was given the position above all other positions.

What exactly is Jesus' function in this role in heaven and/ or on earth. To determine this, may give insight into the question at hand. For instance, he takes a book/scroll from aaahemmm, God, and opens the seals of the scroll, which creates certain circumstances on earth, and which also affect heaven.

Jesus also is among the 7 churches. 5 of them seem to have problems, some major, one is suffering, and one seems to be up to standard, which one he promises to reward with various things from his God.

But during this war in heaven, which results in ugly things happening on earth, where is Jesus? And Michael seems to be waging some kind of war against Satan- an angelic war. Was there a contingency plan if Michael did not prevail?

So all of this stuff in heaven and on earth, things we read about from the writing of John, doesn't leave me with the idea that all things are glorious in heaven, earth or the church(es). And here we are discussing whether one can find scriptures to convince that Jesus is or isn't God, or that God is one or has a triple personality.

Can a god that has Multiple Personality Disorder still be God the Most High? Can a god that's not above all and in control of all be God the Most High?

I'm reading "The Forgotten books of Eden. In it is the "First book of Adam and Eve," also called, "The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan."

It goes without saying, these books are non-canonical. However, in The First book of Adam and Eve, God tells Adam that he will have salvation when God takes on flesh :

""But I will. When I shall come down from heaven, and shall become flesh of thy seed, and take upon Me the infirmity from which thou sufferest, then the darkness that came upon thee in this cave shall come upon Me in the grave, when I am in the flesh of thy seed. 5 "And I, who am without years, shall be subject to the reckoning of years, of times, of months, and of days, and I shall be reckoned as one of the sons of men, in order to save thee.""
-- Platt Jr., Rutherford H.. The Forgotten Books of Eden (p. 22). Evinity Publishing Inc. Kindle Edition.

Of course this is not the Bible. But it does represent what Christians came to believe.

One, like jobox, could say, see what happens when you don't stick to the word of God. But then couldn't the same be said of the early Christians, with the OT, especially whoever wrote the gospel we call John.

And by the way, I've seen the book of Revelation spoken of as from the same author of that gospel. But how do we know, if we don't know who wrote it? And how do we know what "John" wrote Revelation? All we know is John of Patmos.

At any rate, these Forgotten Books of Eden reveal what wild imaginations Christians had back in those days.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Here is a couple of quotes from Paul the apostle, who I do my best to imitate his teaching.
“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. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; .."**I Corinthians‬ *8:5-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

“I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” *Ephesians‬ *4:1-6‬ *

Your questioning seems to depart from Paul's statements. Paul is consistent in his work that God, the God and Father of Jesus, is the one we Christians are to acknowledge as God. I'm curious how you got dissuaded from this and into a split personality god. Do you reject Paul and his teachings, or consider them inferior to someone else's?

Very well, all holds true in regards to my questioning regards the Spirit. Suppose you are correct, that Jesus is not God. I would say it is easy to argue, since Jesus was a man. But how do you address the Spirit? Is the Spirit God? Is the Spirit separate from God the Father?

If I am to understand your interpretation of Paul correctly, Ephesians‬ *4:1-6‬ can be interpreted as:

There is one God and Father - the "only true God". There is no other God, no Jesus, no angel, no Spirit.

To follow your line of reasoning, There is one Spirit, who is NOT God.

Remember that the Trinity exists not only to explain how Jesus can be divine and be a man, but also to explain the curious thing called the Spirit which Jesus referred to as a "him" and another person in John 14:16, 26. If the Spirit is God then we have a di-unity at least - the person of the Father and the person of the Spirit. If the Spirit is not God then this brings even more difficulties into the discussion.

[zeek]

This website teaches "Biblical Unitarianism" which seems to be identical to what Boxjobox professes http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Relevance?



You do realize that right there in the last sentence is a statement suggesting the co-equality of the persons of the Trinity... One Spirit, One Lord and One Father, don't you?



Well, not to presume to answer for Evangelical, but I would start with a point that I made before...that Paul split the shema. In the so-called Old Testament it was “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! There was one God and one Lord and lo and behold they were the same person. Now, with Paul, there's one Lord--Jesus and one God--the Father. That's two different people there. Something changed. They went from worshiping one person to worshiping two. You don't see a problem there?

Ephesians 4 is preceded by 1 2 and 3. The thought in 4 is not some stand alone spiritual nut and shell game. Paul's language in 1-3 is concerning the God of Jesus, who raised him from the dead and made Jesus Lord. The Lordship of God is intrinsic in who he is-the creator of all,the master of all, the potter of the clay. We are privileged through Christ, to call this one who is our creator, Father. This is not a small matter, but occupies much of the thought of the NT, and should be our thought as well. It was definitely the thought of Jesus, who had no problem speaking about his God and Father. The Lordship of Christ is not intrinsic, but was bestowed on Jesus the Christ as a reward for his redemptive work. Paul in 1-3 is laboring to explain this work which God has done. Paul wants us to see it, lay hold of it, live it, as an encompassing revelation. Paul points out that we are intricately interwoven with this work which He did in, with, and through Jesus. Paul is not giving us some sort of understanding about Jesus being God, a triune God, God becoming a man fable. If he did, then we would not be having this dialogue, because it would be the teaching!
Seems to me you are too hung up on this one Lord, two Lord thing, like there is some sort of hidden cryptic meaning waiting to be discovered. Ephesians 4, Paul says our oneness acknowledges the work God has done in making Jesus Lord over all, and still clearly places our thinking that there is one God, the Father. The thinking, the language couldn't be more straightforward that we wouldn't want to take the one whom God lifted up to the most lofty position in creation, and make him into God. Paul clearly defines God as the God of Jesus, same as Jesus did.
In looking at some of other's posts, it is quite apparent that trinitarianism has twisted meaning and spiritual thinking so that the meaning and deep profoundness of God's work presented in Ephesians, and the NT is lost and has created a false religion, with false gods, false teachings. The clash and debates on this thread is really truth vs trinitarianism.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

This website teaches "Biblical Unitarianism" which seems to be identical to what Boxjobox professes http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/

Thanks, I'll have to check that out and compare my thinking to theirs. It's always good to know one isn't alone in perception.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Very well, all holds true in regards to my questioning regards the Spirit. Suppose you are correct, that Jesus is not God. I would say it is easy to argue, since Jesus was a man. But how do you address the Spirit? Is the Spirit God? Is the Spirit separate from God the Father?

If I am to understand your interpretation of Paul correctly, Ephesians‬ *4:1-6‬ can be interpreted as:

There is one God and Father - the "only true God". There is no other God, no Jesus, no angel, no Spirit.

To follow your line of reasoning, There is one Spirit, who is NOT God.

Remember that the Trinity exists not only to explain how Jesus can be divine and be a man, but also to explain the curious thing called the Spirit which Jesus referred to as a "him" and another person in John 14:16, 26. If the Spirit is God then we have a di-unity at least - the person of the Father and the person of the Spirit. If the Spirit is not God then this brings even more difficulties into the discussion.

Evangelical, I'm only presenting what I read in the scripture- one God, the Father. I notice you call the Spirit " the curious thing" My, My, My!

Then there is Revelation where there are 7 Spirits BEFORE the throne! You need to upgrade the tri to nineune to include the new and improved god. After all, the explanation needs to cover all the components.

It's hard to remember that the Trinity exists because the scripture does not refer to such a beast. And if you consider the state of Christianity, the trinity is more than an explanation- it is a god, a god who has replaced the one, true God, the Father.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can a god that has Multiple Personality Disorder still be God the Most High? Can a god that's not above all and in control of all be God the Most High?

I'm reading "The Forgotten books of Eden. In it is the "First book of Adam and Eve," also called, "The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan."

It goes without saying, these books are non-canonical. However, in The First book of Adam and Eve, God tells Adam that he will have salvation when God takes on flesh :

""But I will. When I shall come down from heaven, and shall become flesh of thy seed, and take upon Me the infirmity from which thou sufferest, then the darkness that came upon thee in this cave shall come upon Me in the grave, when I am in the flesh of thy seed. 5 "And I, who am without years, shall be subject to the reckoning of years, of times, of months, and of days, and I shall be reckoned as one of the sons of men, in order to save thee.""
-- Platt Jr., Rutherford H.. The Forgotten Books of Eden (p. 22). Evinity Publishing Inc. Kindle Edition.

Of course this is not the Bible. But it does represent what Christians came to believe.

One, like jobox, could say, see what happens when you don't stick to the word of God. But then couldn't the same be said of the early Christians, with the OT, especially whoever wrote the gospel we call John.

And by the way, I've seen the book of Revelation spoken of as from the same author of that gospel. But how do we know, if we don't know who wrote it? And how do we know what "John" wrote Revelation? All we know is John of Patmos.

At any rate, these Forgotten Books of Eden reveal what wild imaginations Christians had back in those days.

Exactly what days were "those days"? What time period was this written, and who wrote it? Does it have an author or is it a compilation of maybe Essene teachings?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Exactly what days were "those days"? What time period was this written, and who wrote it? Does it have an author or is it a compilation of maybe Essene teachings?

I don't follow your question. Are you asking about the gospel of John, Revelation, or The First Book of Adam and Eve.

The gospel of John = End of first century.
Revelation = End of the first century
Adam and Eve = end of 3rd century, tho copies come from 5th & 6th century (I think)

Here's another from Adam and Eve :

In the story Adam was so distraught that God would have to suffer for his transgression in the garden that he threw himself off a cliff and died. Eve followed and died. God has mercy on them and brought them back to life. Then they used their blood as an offering to God.

Then came the Word of God to Adam, and said unto him, "O Adam, as thou hast shed thy blood, so will I shed My own blood when I become flesh of thy seed; and as thou didst die, O Adam, so also will I die. And as thou didst build an altar, so also will I make for thee an altar on the earth; and as thou didst offer thy blood upon it, so also will I offer My blood upon an altar on the earth. 5 "And as thou didst sue for forgiveness through that blood, so also will I make My blood forgiveness of sins, and blot out transgressions in it.
-- Platt Jr., Rutherford H.. The Forgotten Books of Eden (p. 28). Evinity Publishing Inc. Kindle Edition.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Evangelical, I'm only presenting what I read in the scripture- one God, the Father. I notice you call the Spirit " the curious thing" My, My, My!

Then there is Revelation where there are 7 Spirits BEFORE the throne! You need to upgrade the tri to nineune to include the new and improved god. After all, the explanation needs to cover all the components.

It's hard to remember that the Trinity exists because the scripture does not refer to such a beast. And if you consider the state of Christianity, the trinity is more than an explanation- it is a god, a god who has replaced the one, true God, the Father.

Do you think the person of the Spirit also replaces the one true God, the Father? You don't seem able to answer this plainly. Who or what is the Spirit? God or not? Is the Spirit God? Is the Spirit the Father or another distinct being?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you think the person of the Spirit also replaces the one true God, the Father? You don't seem able to answer this plainly. Who or what is the Spirit? God or not? Is the Spirit God? Is the Spirit the Father or another distinct being?

According to an article on the Holy Spirit on the "Biblical Unitarian" website that seems to agree with Boxjobox in most regards :

Since “the only true God” is “the Father,” and since He is “holy” and He is “spirit,” He is also referred to in Scripture as “the Holy Spirit.”

I don't know if Boxjobox has thought of this or if he will agree. Boxjobox?

Of course John 4:24 "God is Spirit" could be interpreted this way. It also would seem consistent with the many One God the Father and one Lord Jesus statements. It does explain verses in John that make the Spirit seem like a third person:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
I
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

That's a problem that the Biblical Unitarians need to explain.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you think the person of the Spirit also replaces the one true God, the Father? You don't seem able to answer this plainly. Who or what is the Spirit? God or not? Is the Spirit God? Is the Spirit the Father or another distinct being?

We've been asking about the Spirit over and over again. Our dear brother jobox doesn't seem to have a reasonable answer. Tho it's a pretty simple question : Is the Holy Ghost God or not? And don't dodge it with the 7 spirits.

The reason this concerns me is not for technical reasons. I have no other choice for communing with God but thru the Spirit. Those 7 crazy spirits, spoken of in the cartoon book of the NT, don't concern me. They're up there, and I'm down here.

Hey. What do I know? The Holy Spirit might be Gods' FedEx for all I know. But to me it's God. Surely it must be ... or considering the Spirit is omnipresent it's got to be God, or another god of some kind ... which strikes me as crazy. Surely there's not REAL gods running around everywhere. That would make the spiritual realm insane ... and would diminish God's power to the point of not being God.

Jobox has got to answer this question. I'll let him slide on the name and gender of the Holy Spirit, but not on the question of if it's God or not.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ephesians 4 is preceded by 1 2 and 3. The thought in 4 is not some stand alone spiritual nut and shell game. Paul's language in 1-3 is concerning the God of Jesus, who raised him from the dead and made Jesus Lord. The Lordship of God is intrinsic in who he is-the creator of all,the master of all, the potter of the clay. We are privileged through Christ, to call this one who is our creator, Father. This is not a small matter, but occupies much of the thought of the NT, and should be our thought as well. It was definitely the thought of Jesus, who had no problem speaking about his God and Father. The Lordship of Christ is not intrinsic, but was bestowed on Jesus the Christ as a reward for his redemptive work.

OK. So it seems that according to these statement that God the Father didn't retain his Lordship but bestowed it on Jesus. Is that your understanding? Otherwise we would have two lords and Paul plainly states there is only one.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Paul in 1-3 is laboring to explain this work which God has done. Paul wants us to see it, lay hold of it, live it, as an encompassing revelation. Paul points out that we are intricately interwoven with this work which He did in, with, and through Jesus. Paul is not giving us some sort of understanding about Jesus being God, a triune God, God becoming a man fable. If he did, then we would not be having this dialogue, because it would be the teaching!

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Seems to me you are too hung up on this one Lord, two Lord thing, like there is some sort of hidden cryptic meaning waiting to be discovered.

I don't know what you mean. The problem of two Lord's is not hidden. Apparently it was thought that God bestowed his lordship on Jesus. But, you still have a religion with two focal points--God the Father and the Lord Jesus. People are going to be inclined to make one or the other supreme. From the standpoint of ultimate power that would be God. But, from the standpoint of familiarity it's would be Jesus because since he seems more human, he seems a bit easier to understand. Psychologically, people are going to be driven to seek oneness. Which will it be, God the Father or Jesus the Son?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ephesians 4, Paul says our oneness acknowledges the work God has done in making Jesus Lord over all, and still clearly places our thinking that there is one God, the Father. The thinking, the language couldn't be more straightforward that we wouldn't want to take the one whom God lifted up to the most lofty position in creation, and make him into God. Paul clearly defines God as the God of Jesus, same as Jesus did.
In looking at some of other's posts, it is quite apparent that trinitarianism has twisted meaning and spiritual thinking so that the meaning and deep profoundness of God's work presented in Ephesians, and the NT is lost and has created a false religion, with false gods, false teachings. The clash and debates on this thread is really truth vs trinitarianism.

You are used to arguing with Trinitarians. You don't seem to understand my POV. The early Christians identified Jesus of Nazareth with the "one like the son of man" in Daniel:

Daniel 7:12-14 King James Version (KJV)
12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Nevertheless, the early Christian's devotion to Jesus became a problem for the most Jews who viewed it as blasphemous. Seems they were "hung up" on the "one Lord two Lord thing" too. I think that's significant. I'm entertaining the idea that difficulties in the New Testament picture led to the evolution of Trinitarianism over the ensuing centuries. But, it's clear that, early on, this Christian view was rejected by most Jews so the evangelists had to turn to the pagans for converts.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

We've been asking about the Spirit over and over again. Our dear brother jobox doesn't seem to have a reasonable answer. Tho it's a pretty simple question : Is the Holy Ghost God or not? And don't dodge it with the 7 spirits.

The reason this concerns me is not for technical reasons. I have no other choice for communing with God but thru the Spirit. Those 7 crazy spirits, spoken of in the cartoon book of the NT, don't concern me. They're up there, and I'm down here.

Hey. What do I know? The Holy Spirit might be Gods' FedEx for all I know. But to me it's God. Surely it must be ... or considering the Spirit is omnipresent it's got to be God, or another god of some kind ... which strikes me as crazy. Surely there's not REAL gods running around everywhere. That would make the spiritual realm insane ... and would diminish God's power to the point of not being God.

Jobox has got to answer this question. I'll let him slide on the name and gender of the Holy Spirit, but not on the question of if it's God or not.

The question on this thread is about a thing called trinity- a conglomerate god, and if this god is consistent with the Bible. The real point of contention is the Jesus is God controversy. I point out that Jesus and Paul clearly say that the one, unique, true God is the Father. Jesus is not preached as being God. The setup is that God had a plan, and that that plan was to head up all creation in Christ. Christ being the promised one that would redeem and lead all back to God. That plan included the blood sacrifice of the Christ for redemption. That Christ is Jesus. Jesus was raised from the dead, ascended to heaven and was given as a reward for his redemptive work the preeminent position over all created things. There is now the old creation and the new creation the church. I think, generally, that the old creation is not subjects of Christ's Lordship, and that is what is being worked out today- Sit on my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. Jesus talked a lot about the appearance of the kingdom of heaven during this age, an how it was a messy thing. There is indeed a lot of gods running around causing a lot of havoc, there are a lot of lords ruling the realm of man, there are a lot of spirits squawking all over the place, and there is a lot of confusion in the realm of the church, which is still in the middle of the old creation. Paul, in Ephesians, is laboring for us to get the big picture, and lay hold of what God did and is doing to head up all things in Christ. In that treatise Paul points out one God, the Father, one Lord, Jesus, one faith, one Spirit, one body, one baptism. In that treatise his petitions are to the God of Jesus, the Father, that God's people in Ephesus would see and participate in this which God has brought about.

It seems so odd that we Christians dismiss this in favor of a different definition of God. If trinitarianism had not been declared the Christian dogma, and forced upon the church for so many generations, there would be an entirely different expression today. Can you imagine if the church would have picked up Paul's treatise in Ephesians as our dogma? In that there is the clear teaching of acknowledging one God, the Father. Trinitarianism is an aberration which has plagued the church. It set Jesus up as God himself, and the real revelation presented in Ephesians is gone.

The Spirit is a side issue in this discussion, as it was in the Nicene creed. A discussion of the Spirit would only sidetrack. The real issue is the setting of Jesus as God. Spirit and breath are the same word, are they not?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to an article on the Holy Spirit on the "Biblical Unitarian" website that seems to agree with Boxjobox in most regards : I don't know if Boxjobox has thought of this or if he will agree. Boxjobox?

Of course John 4:24 "God is Spirit" could be interpreted this way. It also would seem consistent with the many One God the Father and one Lord Jesus statements. It does explain verses in John that make the Spirit seem like a third person:


That's a problem that the Biblical Unitarians need to explain.

I don't identify with sects, so I can't answer for Biblical Unitarians.

But John, John, John. This fellow sure offers a lot of clarity!? It was John who wrote ““But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.”
**John‬ *15:26-27‬ *NKJV‬‬

So you have Acts 2- Spirit comes, Apostles witness, and what do they say about Jesus? Look throughout the book of Acts- no witness that Jesus is God- that should tell us all something!

And John recorded ““I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.”
**John‬ *16:12-15‬ *NKJV‬‬. So Paul tells the Corinthians that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus the Christ. It would be up to you to decide if this was from the Spirit, or if Paul was speaking of his own volition. Seems to me that Paul was trying to correct the exact issue you are talking about.

“He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” ’**Revelation‬ *3:12-13‬ *NKJV‬‬

There is that pesky old Spirit again, witnessing about the God of Jesus.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I don't identify with sects, so I can't answer for Biblical Unitarians.

I think "Biblical Unitarian" is an apt name for your position.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

But John, John, John. This fellow sure offers a lot of clarity!? It was John who wrote ““But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.”
**John‬ *15:26-27‬ *NKJV‬‬

Sounds like a different person than God the father. So if the Spirit isn't God, you've got another supernatural being. Your heaven is full of them.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So you have Acts 2- Spirit comes, Apostles witness, and what do they say about Jesus? Look throughout the book of Acts- no witness that Jesus is God- that should tell us all something!

It could tell you that the authors of Luke/Acts and John had different opinions about Jesus. That's a simple explanation. Got a better one?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

There is that pesky old Spirit again, witnessing about the God of Jesus.

Pesky for you, cuz your theology can't seem to account for him.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK. So it seems that according to these statement that God the Father didn't retain his Lordship but bestowed it on Jesus. Is that your understanding? Otherwise we would have two lords and Paul plainly states there is only one.

I didn't say God gave up His Lordship. It is more about the realm of power and the realm of position I would say. Paul tells the Corinthians emphatically that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.

The trinitarian Jesus is God thing has people praying to Jesus for wealth, healing, blessing, needs etc. Matthew has 3 chapters of Jesus emphasizing the petitioning of God. And teaches the prayer Our Father. Jesus' whole life was one of praying to God, and looking up to heaven.

I don't know what you mean. The problem of two Lord's is not hidden. Apparently it was thought that God bestowed his lordship on Jesus. But, you still have a religion with two focal points--God the Father and the Lord Jesus. People are going to be inclined to make one or the other supreme. From the standpoint of ultimate power that would be God. But, from the standpoint of familiarity it's would be Jesus because since he seems more human, he seems a bit easier to understand. Psychologically, people are going to be driven to seek oneness. Which will it be, God the Father or Jesus the Son?

Correct, there are two focal points in what the NT presents for the believer. Paul's epistles work on this understanding, as does 1 John. The problem is veering off from this and creating another religion.

You are used to arguing with Trinitarians. You don't seem to understand my POV. The early Christians identified Jesus of Nazareth with the "one like the son of man" in Daniel:



Nevertheless, the early Christian's devotion to Jesus became a problem for the most Jews who viewed it as blasphemous. Seems they were "hung up" on the "one Lord two Lord thing" too. I think that's significant. I'm entertaining the idea that difficulties in the New Testament picture led to the evolution of Trinitarianism over the ensuing centuries. But, it's clear that, early on, this Christian view was rejected by most Jews so the evangelists had to turn to the pagans for converts.

I have to say, I don't understand your beliefs- perhaps it would be good to share your view of the cosmos in a brief statement. I know I have, and then it's there for everyone to hack up, question, condemn, and discuss. Give us your present state of beliefs.

The Jews had various views on what the messiah would look like. Many were not in agreement with the preaching that Jesus was that messiah. Others realized that the scriptures were not prophesying about a earthly Davidic type kingdom that the Christ would reign- Lord over. But a heaven to earth one- the ladder that connected the heaven to earth. I don't see that there is this 2 Lord issue, until some started lifting Jesus above the position God gave him and set him up as God. The Jews were then decimated, the evolution of thought and church ruling occurred until one decree was produced which solidified a new world wide religion. Then came the printing press, the scriptures were readily available to many, and today we are at a crucial point.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you think the person of the Spirit also replaces the one true God, the Father? You don't seem able to answer this plainly. Who or what is the Spirit? God or not? Is the Spirit God? Is the Spirit the Father or another distinct being?

I guess I don't work well on trying to define spiritual things. I take what the scripture defines: one God, the Father. Stick with that definition, an you will find yourself putting LSM in the recycle bin.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The question on this thread is about a thing called trinity- a conglomerate god, and if this god is consistent with the Bible. The real point of contention is the Jesus is God controversy. I point out that Jesus and Paul clearly say that the one, unique, true God is the Father. Jesus is not preached as being God. The setup is that God had a plan, and that that plan was to head up all creation in Christ. Christ being the promised one that would redeem and lead all back to God. That plan included the blood sacrifice of the Christ for redemption. That Christ is Jesus. Jesus was raised from the dead, ascended to heaven and was given as a reward for his redemptive work the preeminent position over all created things. There is now the old creation and the new creation the church. I think, generally, that the old creation is not subjects of Christ's Lordship, and that is what is being worked out today- Sit on my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. Jesus talked a lot about the appearance of the kingdom of heaven during this age, an how it was a messy thing. There is indeed a lot of gods running around causing a lot of havoc, there are a lot of lords ruling the realm of man, there are a lot of spirits squawking all over the place, and there is a lot of confusion in the realm of the church, which is still in the middle of the old creation. Paul, in Ephesians, is laboring for us to get the big picture, and lay hold of what God did and is doing to head up all things in Christ. In that treatise Paul points out one God, the Father, one Lord, Jesus, one faith, one Spirit, one body, one baptism. In that treatise his petitions are to the God of Jesus, the Father, that God's people in Ephesus would see and participate in this which God has brought about.

It seems so odd that we Christians dismiss this in favor of a different definition of God. If trinitarianism had not been declared the Christian dogma, and forced upon the church for so many generations, there would be an entirely different expression today. Can you imagine if the church would have picked up Paul's treatise in Ephesians as our dogma? In that there is the clear teaching of acknowledging one God, the Father. Trinitarianism is an aberration which has plagued the church. It set Jesus up as God himself, and the real revelation presented in Ephesians is gone.

The Spirit is a side issue in this discussion, as it was in the Nicene creed. A discussion of the Spirit would only sidetrack. The real issue is the setting of Jesus as God. Spirit and breath are the same word, are they not?

It was a yes or no question. And of course the third person of the trinity is on topic. Just say you don't know ... if that is the case.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think "Biblical Unitarian" is an apt name for your position.



Sounds like a different person than God the father. So if the Spirit isn't God, you've got another supernatural being. Your heaven is full of them.






It could tell you that the authors of Luke/Acts and John had different opinions about Jesus. That's a simple explanation. Got a better one?



Pesky for you, cuz your theology can't seem to account for him.

Would you like to define the person- or persons of the 4 living creatures John presents. Who or what are they. How do they get to be before the throne like the 7 spirits?

And the 24 elders are on thrones- what are they ruling over, who are they? Are they 9 to 5 workers, are they created, or age abiding beings? Are they human, are they made in the image of God?

What about Satan and his angels, what gives them power, what sustains them. How do they influence people on earth? Does Satan live in all men, various men, on men?

Awareness may say I'm deflecting, but I think you can see, some things are not so well defined in the scripture. The Spirit, the Holy Breath, is also not defined in scripture. God is defined One God the Father, the only true God. Jesus and Paul gave us this. Spirit defined? sorry, not there. If you want to start splitting, and cutting and taping parts of verses and then make a decree and say this is your God, count me out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Would you like to define the person- or persons of the 4 living creatures John presents. Who or what are they. How do they get to be before the throne like the 7 spirits?

And the 24 elders are on thrones- what are they ruling over, who are they? Are they 9 to 5 workers, are they created, or age abiding beings? Are they human, are they made in the image of God?

What about Satan and his angels, what gives them power, what sustains them. How do they influence people on earth? Does Satan live in all men, various men, on men?

Awareness may say I'm deflecting, but I think you can see, some things are not so well defined in the scripture. The Spirit, the Holy Breath, is also not defined in scripture. God is defined One God the Father, the only true God. Jesus and Paul gave us this. Spirit defined? sorry, not there. If you want to start splitting, and cutting and taping parts of verses and then make a decree and say this is your God, count me out.

Hell is full of trinitarians.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Awareness may say I'm deflecting, but I think you can see, some things are not so well defined in the scripture. The Spirit, the Holy Breath, is also not defined in scripture. God is defined One God the Father, the only true God. Jesus and Paul gave us this. Spirit defined? sorry, not there. If you want to start splitting, and cutting and taping parts of verses and then make a decree and say this is your God, count me out.

The Spirit is defined here as the Spirit of the Father..
Matt 10:20
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.


How could you miss this?

If the Father is the only true God then the Spirit is the Spirit of the only true God. Therefore the Spirit is clearly God.

This should also already be self evident in the verse which says "God is Spirit".

A good way to expose heretics is to see what they believe about the Spirit. Because anyone can talk about God this and God that. We cannot know the one true God in reality if we don't know the Spirit.

People who dont know God fall into two main beliefs regarding the Spirit. One is that the Spirit is poorly defined or inexplainable and even neglected from their theology. The other is that the Spirit is a mere force or power. Both of these beliefs are denial of a personal Spirit and therefore denial of a personal God with whom we can relate.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I didn't say God gave up His Lordship. It is more about the realm of power and the realm of position I would say. Paul tells the Corinthians emphatically that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.

No, the Bible says over and over that God is the Lord and there's only one Lord.

Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!

The trinitarian Jesus is God thing has people praying to Jesus for wealth, healing, blessing, needs etc. Matthew has 3 chapters of Jesus emphasizing the petitioning of God. And teaches the prayer Our Father. Jesus' whole life was one of praying to God, and looking up to heaven.

Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." Where's the problem? Does the Bible teach not to pray to Jesus? Or, is that an extra-Biblical doctrine? Or maybe a personal preference?

Correct, there are two focal points in what the NT presents for the believer. Paul's epistles work on this understanding, as does 1 John. The problem is veering off from this and creating another religion.

No, the Bible, including Ephesians 4:5 that you like to quote, often teaches the principle of oneness. So, no offense intended, but you're preaching twoness.

Speaking of I John what do you do with 1 John 5:7?

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

That's trinitarian. No?

I have to say, I don't understand your beliefs- perhaps it would be good to share your view of the cosmos in a brief statement. I know I have, and then it's there for everyone to hack up, question, condemn, and discuss. Give us your present state of beliefs.

I think ultimate reality exceeds human understanding. It certainly exceeds mine. So, I can read the Bible and more or less understand what the writers were saying. But, how and to what degree it reflects the way things really are, I don't know. I have opinions like everyone else. I can speak about its teachings with greater or lesser certainty depending on the proposition. There are many historical unknowns. The more I dig into the Bible, the more mysterious it becomes. In that way, it's like reality.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Would you like to define the person- or persons of the 4 living creatures John presents. Who or what are they. How do they get to be before the throne like the 7 spirits?

And the 24 elders are on thrones- what are they ruling over, who are they? Are they 9 to 5 workers, are they created, or age abiding beings? Are they human, are they made in the image of God?

What about Satan and his angels, what gives them power, what sustains them. How do they influence people on earth? Does Satan live in all men, various men, on men?

Awareness may say I'm deflecting, but I think you can see, some things are not so well defined in the scripture. The Spirit, the Holy Breath, is also not defined in scripture. God is defined One God the Father, the only true God. Jesus and Paul gave us this. Spirit defined? sorry, not there. If you want to start splitting, and cutting and taping parts of verses and then make a decree and say this is your God, count me out.

Like Mount Olympus, the Christian heaven is filled with supernatural beings. Not many people take the Greek pantheon literally any more. Maybe it's time to cease interpreting the Book of Revelation literally as well.

The Jesus in Revelation bears little resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels. The Jesus of the Gospel of John is quite different than the Jesus of the synoptic gospels, for that matter.

The New Testament embeds the Jesus of history in Judaic mythology. Hence, we have his pre-existence and identification with the mythic "one like a son of man."

For 20 centuries people in the West have oriented their lives according to this myth. But, this grand narrative has been breaking down for more than two centuries. So, if those supernatural beings sound ludicrous to you , I understand.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Spirit is defined here as the Spirit of the Father..
Matt 10:20
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.


How could you miss this?

If the Father is the only true God then the Spirit is the Spirit of the only true God. Therefore the Spirit is clearly God.

This should also already be self evident in the verse which says "God is Spirit".

A good way to expose heretics is to see what they believe about the Spirit. Because anyone can talk about God this and God that. We cannot know the one true God in reality if we don't know the Spirit.

People who dont know God fall into two main beliefs regarding the Spirit. One is that the Spirit is poorly defined or inexplainable and even neglected from their theology. The other is that the Spirit is a mere force or power. Both of these beliefs are denial of a personal Spirit and therefore denial of a personal God with whom we can relate.

Heretics being those who do not accept trinitarianism. Constantine sided with one group, his son sided with the Arians. The trinitarian history is full of twists and turns, intrigue, wars, murders, power grabs, and strict enforcement by torture, death, destroying of writings, exclusive access to scripture lest common unlearned read an interpret.

Evangelical, I love reading your if-then-therefore statements. True spiritual alchemy! How easily you change "of" to "is". So with this sleight of word, Paul's statement of one God the Father is null and void, and replaced with a triune god.
The early creeds started with I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator...
The rest of the creed changed and evolved over time, where the Spirit was put in last until the Spirit became equal part of the trinity and worshipped. The reason for God the Father to be declared such was because God was clearly defined as such. The rest was an evolved, mutated belief system that created a total different religion with a different God.

I seem to recall one of your posts where you said you pray to Jesus because the Father is too mysterious, or something like that. I think you may want to reexamine your if-then-therefore religion. Stick to what Paul said that to us there is one God, the Father.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

No, the Bible says over and over that God is the Lord and there's only one Lord.





Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." Where's the problem? Does the Bible teach not to pray to Jesus? Or, is that an extra-Biblical doctrine? Or maybe a personal preference?




No, the Bible, including Ephesians 4:5 that you like to quote, often teaches the principle of oneness. So, no offense intended, but you're preaching twoness.

Speaking of I John what do you do with 1 John 5:7?



That's trinitarian. No?



I think ultimate reality exceeds human understanding. It certainly exceeds mine. So, I can read the Bible and more or less understand what the writers were saying. But, how and to what degree it reflects the way things really are, I don't know. I have opinions like everyone else. I can speak about its teachings with greater or lesser certainty depending on the proposition. There are many historical unknowns. The more I dig into the Bible, the more mysterious it becomes. In that way, it's like reality.

The stumbling point seems to be the inability to accept Paul telling the Corinthians that to us there is one God, the Father. There seems to be all kind of delflection from everyone who has been steeped in trinitarianism to just accepting this simple statement. It is so well presented in the background recent converts in a gentile world. It's the old square peg in the round hole dilemma- surely Paul couldn't mean One God, the Father, he had to mean the triune God! From my rovings through Christianity, I see this clear statement of Paul deflected, ignored, or buried. I don't recall ever hearing a Christian message concerning the God of Jesus. Just doesn't happen.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hell is full of trinitarians.

Oh, no, the decree is that the heretics be damned. In fact, the trinitarians aren't against starting the process pre-hell, with the naughty one tied to the stake and the faggots burning his mortal body.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The stumbling point seems to be the inability to accept Paul telling the Corinthians that to us there is one God, the Father. There seems to be all kind of delflection from everyone who has been steeped in trinitarianism to just accepting this simple statement. It is so well presented in the background recent converts in a gentile world. It's the old square peg in the round hole dilemma- surely Paul couldn't mean One God, the Father, he had to mean the triune God! From my rovings through Christianity, I see this clear statement of Paul deflected, ignored, or buried. I don't recall ever hearing a Christian message concerning the God of Jesus. Just doesn't happen.

Trinitarianism has way too much mass and momentum to do anything but nip at its heels. It's to big to fail.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Heretics being those who do not accept trinitarianism. Constantine sided with one group, his son sided with the Arians. The trinitarian history is full of twists and turns, intrigue, wars, murders, power grabs, and strict enforcement by torture, death, destroying of writings, exclusive access to scripture lest common unlearned read an interpret.

Evangelical, I love reading your if-then-therefore statements. True spiritual alchemy! How easily you change "of" to "is". So with this sleight of word, Paul's statement of one God the Father is null and void, and replaced with a triune god.
The early creeds started with I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator...
The rest of the creed changed and evolved over time, where the Spirit was put in last until the Spirit became equal part of the trinity and worshipped. The reason for God the Father to be declared such was because God was clearly defined as such. The rest was an evolved, mutated belief system that created a total different religion with a different God.

I seem to recall one of your posts where you said you pray to Jesus because the Father is too mysterious, or something like that. I think you may want to reexamine your if-then-therefore religion. Stick to what Paul said that to us there is one God, the Father.

The Father is Spirit (John 4:24).

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father.

Because of John 4:24 we can know that the Spirit is the Father.

The Spirit is also Jesus's Father because Jesus is the product of Mary (mother) and the Spirit (father).

To draw a distinction between the Father who is Spirit and the Holy Spirit who is from and of the Father is complicating the matter. Then heaven is filled with two Spirits - a Father Spirit and a Holy Spirit.

Acts 5 is also strong proof that the Spirit is God:

Acts 5

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

So the bible reveals at least:
the Father is God
the Spirit is God

Right there we have two persons at least who are God, and your doctrine falls flat.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Father is Spirit (John 4:24).

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father.

Because of John 4:24 we can know that the Spirit is the Father.

The Spirit is also Jesus's Father because Jesus is the product of Mary (mother) and the Spirit (father).

To draw a distinction between the Father who is Spirit and the Holy Spirit who is from and of the Father is complicating the matter. Then heaven is filled with two Spirits - a Father Spirit and a Holy Spirit.

Acts 5 is also strong proof that the Spirit is God:

Acts 5

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

So the bible reveals at least:
the Father is God
the Spirit is God

Right there we have two persons at least who are God, and your doctrine falls flat.

Your premises seem sound. So given the above, we're clear about God the Father, and God the Spirit. That's good, to me, cuz that means that not only is Spirit my path to the Father, but is The Father coming to me.

That seems enough to me.

But it wasn't enough for the early proto-orthodoxy, and the later orthodoxy.

We're 600 posts deep into this matter. And it's clear just here that the Bible doesn't have indisputable clarity that the 3 major actors are all three God.

Even in John, that says outright that God became flesh, has Jesus saying, the Father is greater than I.

This matter was so confusing, in fact, that it was heavily, and harshly I might add, debated for hundreds of years, and has never been settled, even up to today.

I don't know if 99% of trinitarians give the rest of them a bad name, but, there's no history, that I know of, of non-trinitarians burning trinitarians at the stake. So trinitarian extremists have given trinitarianism a bad name.

Earlier on this thread, I shot out, "Hell is full of trinitarians." Of course it was sarcasm. I hardly think that believing in the trinity will result in going to hell, and neither will not believing in the trinity.

This is not a salvation issue. This has always been about Biblical technicalities. If I understand it correctly, God looks on the heart. The disciples are silent now (Luke 19:40) so the stones are crying out. This means, if in your heart you are praying to, or worshiping, God, it doesn't matter if you pray to, or worship, even the crying-out-stones. What matters is, what's in your heart.

God doesn't expect us to understand all of this anyway. If He did it would all be spelled out in scripture so that there would never ever need to be any creeds whatsoever.

In the end it's all about faith. In the scriptures Abraham is the father of faith. And he had no scripture at all. So we can throw all of this out, even the Bible (and the trinity), and faith will still save us. And I do believe that means faith in God, like Abraham.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Father is Spirit (John 4:24).

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father.

Because of John 4:24 we can know that the Spirit is the Father.

The Spirit is also Jesus's Father because Jesus is the product of Mary (mother) and the Spirit (father).

To draw a distinction between the Father who is Spirit and the Holy Spirit who is from and of the Father is complicating the matter. Then heaven is filled with two Spirits - a Father Spirit and a Holy Spirit.

Acts 5 is also strong proof that the Spirit is God:

Acts 5

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

So the bible reveals at least:
the Father is God
the Spirit is God

Right there we have two persons at least who are God, and your doctrine falls flat.

Jesus said to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and sadducees. He ridiculed them for taking small parts of scripture and developing a religion over their compilations. They discounted the scripture for their own narrative, and taught men to follow their narrative. This is what trinitarianism has done and what you are doing here. You now create a theology where Paul telling the Corinthians that there is one God the Father, and Jesus telling the apostles that there is only one true God, the Father, is nullified, and you replace scripture with a triune god.
The heavens are filled with spirits apparently: angels are spirits, demons are spirits, seraphim? cherubim? 24 elders? 7 spirits before the throne of God, Jesus became a life giving spirit, and God is spirit. The Holy Spirit is not talked about as being the "Father" of Jesus. You keep making up these if-then-therefore statements and present your results as truth, but it is not what is plainly declared by Jesus and Paul that there is one unique true God, whom we are privileged to call Father. All of Paul's epistles start by recognizing God the Father. It is not a small matter in understanding the truth, Jesus, salvation, etc., to recognize and declair and teach and honor the one True God, the Father. God is the God and Father of Jesus, and our God and Father. The function of the unique Holy Spirit is to convey truth to us. In essence, by your leavening of the truth, you slight the work of the very Spirit you are trying to mould into God.

So here we differ on Jesus, the Spirit, and God. What shall we do? What about taking Paul's admonition in Eph. 4? We acknowledge the Spirit, we acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and we acknowledge One God, the Father. Rather than if-then statements, why not accept the word of the apostle for keeping the oneness? Do this, and you can toss out all your Lord Lee/ LSM literature and get back to the truth so the body of Christ can be built. Your teaching is against the gospel and against the teaching of Jesus and the apostle.

Evangelical, what will it be? Your derivative theology of the clear word of Jesus and Paul: one God the Father

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Your premises seem sound. So given the above, we're clear about God the Father, and God the Spirit. That's good, to me, cuz that means that not only is Spirit my path to the Father, but is The Father coming to me.

That seems enough to me.

But it wasn't enough for the early proto-orthodoxy, and the later orthodoxy.

We're 600 posts deep into this matter. And it's clear just here that the Bible doesn't have indisputable clarity that the 3 major actors are all three God.

Even in John, that says outright that God became flesh, has Jesus saying, the Father is greater than I.

This matter was so confusing, in fact, that it was heavily, and harshly I might add, debated for hundreds of years, and has never been settled, even up to today.

I don't know if 99% of trinitarians give the rest of them a bad name, but, there's no history, that I know of, of non-trinitarians burning trinitarians at the stake. So trinitarian extremists have given trinitarianism a bad name.

Earlier on this thread, I shot out, "Hell is full of trinitarians." Of course it was sarcasm. I hardly think that believing in the trinity will result in going to hell, and neither will not believing in the trinity.

This is not a salvation issue. This has always been about Biblical technicalities. If I understand it correctly, God looks on the heart. The disciples are silent now (Luke 19:40) so the stones are crying out. This means, if in your heart you are praying to, or worshiping, God, it doesn't matter if you pray to, or worship, even the crying-out-stones. What matters is, what's in your heart.

God doesn't expect us to understand all of this anyway. If He did it would all be spelled out in scripture so that there would never ever need to be any creeds whatsoever.

In the end it's all about faith. In the scriptures Abraham is the father of faith. And he had no scripture at all. So we can throw all of this out, even the Bible (and the trinity), and faith will still save us. And I do believe that means faith in God, like Abraham.

Oh, oh, I hear another song in my head

When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that's the best
When I lay me down to die
Goin' up to the spirit in the sky
Goin' up to the spirit in the sky
That's where I'm gonna go when I die
When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that's the best
Prepare yourself you know it's a must
Gotta have a friend in Jesus
So you know that when you die
He's gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky
Gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky
That's where you're gonna go when you die
When you die and they lay you to rest
You're gonna go to the place that's the best
Never been a sinner I never sinned
I got…

[Boxjobox]

To consider God, spirit, spirits, the Holy Spirit, how the whole spirit thing operates and the Holy Spirit's operation, might be good to consider Stephen's account in Acts. One may think God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, but Stephen says it was the angel of the Lord, who spoke to Moses. Hebrews also talks about the law being given by the hand of angels.

How God operates, conveys things is not that simple, angels represent God, Jesus represents God, men represent God, the Holy Spirit ( there might be a good reason the term "Holy" is used.), but over all is the Almighty God, the great Creator, whom we are privileged to know, and honor, and call on, and come to- Our Father God.

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” 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." **I Corinthians‬ *15:22-28‬ *NKJV‬‬

[Boxjobox]

My Sunday meeting with the trinitarians:

So this being Palm Sunday, the pastor goes over Mark 11. The Jesus riding on the foal of the donkey turns out was the creator himself. The people shouting Hosannah, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord were actually worshipping Jesus as God.

Ending prayer by one of the pastors "thank you Father, for what we see here...you suffered and died the worst suffering for us on the cross...and we pray in your name, Jesus.

Why does a pastor feel the need to transform Mark 11 into something entirely different? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees.!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Oh, oh, I hear another song in my head

When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that's the best
When I lay me down to die
Goin' up to the spirit in the sky
Goin' up to the spirit in the sky
That's where I'm gonna go when I die
When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that's the best
Prepare yourself you know it's a must
Gotta have a friend in Jesus
So you know that when you die
He's gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky
Gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky
That's where you're gonna go when you die
When you die and they lay you to rest
You're gonna go to the place that's the best
Never been a sinner I never sinned
I got…

Who's your sky daddy?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Jesus said to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and sadducees. He ridiculed them for taking small parts of scripture and developing a religion over their compilations. They discounted the scripture for their own narrative, and taught men to follow their narrative. This is what trinitarianism has done and what you are doing here. You now create a theology where Paul telling the Corinthians that there is one God the Father, and Jesus telling the apostles that there is only one true God, the Father, is nullified, and you replace scripture with a triune god.
The heavens are filled with spirits apparently: angels are spirits, demons are spirits, seraphim? cherubim? 24 elders? 7 spirits before the throne of God, Jesus became a life giving spirit, and God is spirit. The Holy Spirit is not talked about as being the "Father" of Jesus. You keep making up these if-then-therefore statements and present your results as truth, but it is not what is plainly declared by Jesus and Paul that there is one unique true God, whom we are privileged to call Father. All of Paul's epistles start by recognizing God the Father. It is not a small matter in understanding the truth, Jesus, salvation, etc., to recognize and declair and teach and honor the one True God, the Father. God is the God and Father of Jesus, and our God and Father. The function of the unique Holy Spirit is to convey truth to us. In essence, by your leavening of the truth, you slight the work of the very Spirit you are trying to mould into God.

So here we differ on Jesus, the Spirit, and God. What shall we do? What about taking Paul's admonition in Eph. 4? We acknowledge the Spirit, we acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and we acknowledge One God, the Father. Rather than if-then statements, why not accept the word of the apostle for keeping the oneness? Do this, and you can toss out all your Lord Lee/ LSM literature and get back to the truth so the body of Christ can be built. Your teaching is against the gospel and against the teaching of Jesus and the apostle.

Evangelical, what will it be? Your derivative theology of the clear word of Jesus and Paul: one God the Father

Its very easy to show that the Spirit is the Father..
Who conceived Jesus? The Father or the Spirit?

Matt 1.18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.


If the Spirit is not the Father then Jesus had two fathers!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Its very easy to show that the Spirit is the Father.. Who conceived Jesus? The Father or the Spirit?

Matt 1.18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.


If the Spirit is not the Father then Jesus had two fathers!

What happened to Joseph?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What happened to Joseph?

Not his real father biologically.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not his real father biologically.

So you discount the genealogies in Matthew & Luke? Just askin'.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you discount the genealogies in Matthew & Luke? Just askin'.

They follow patrilineal descent, not biological. On this topic, I wish to uncover who Jesus's "real" Father was.
Boxjobox seems to believe that Jesus's Father is God the Father yet doe snot believe that the Spirit is Jesus's Father or that the Spirit is the Father.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They follow patrilineal descent, not biological. On this topic, I wish to uncover who Jesus's "real" Father was.
Boxjobox seems to believe that Jesus's Father is God the Father yet doe snot believe that the Spirit is Jesus's Father or that the Spirit is the Father.

Father of, father of, father of, etc, etc (Matthew), and son of, son of, son of etc, etc, (Luke) sure sound biological to me. Neither say this is a patrilineal genealogy, tho they are descent through the male line, if that's what you mean.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Its very easy to show that the Spirit is the Father..
Who conceived Jesus? The Father or the Spirit?

Matt 1.18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.


If the Spirit is not the Father then Jesus had two fathers!

“Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come— In the volume of the book it is written of Me— To do Your will, O God.’ ””
**Hebrews‬ *10:5-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

I would say you are taking something that is not explained, i.e. a baby in the womb of Mary- apart from the normal human method, and trying to derive a construct of God. I would not be surprised to find out in the end that Jesus was actually derived from David in some supernatural method. I mean if we are going off the deep end here, let's explore all the possibilities! I mean God did promise David his seed would reign. Point being, not enough information to form a heavy duty theology.

Paul, in Eph 4, talks about The Spirit, Jesus, and one God and Father. To keep the oneness, have to recognize all three. Evangelical, you're deflecting from the oneness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I mean if we are going off the deep end here, let's explore all the possibilities! I mean God did promise David his seed would reign. Point being, not enough information to form a heavy duty theology.

God promised it, Jesus fulfilled it, and all Israel and the church believes this.

But for you, it's "going off the deep end," and "not enough information to form a heavy duty theology."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God promised it, Jesus fulfilled it, and all Israel and the church believes this.

But for you, it's "going off the deep end," and "not enough information to form a heavy duty theology."

Paul believed it when he wrote Romans 1:3 "concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh"? The authors of Matthew and Luke supported it when they provided the supposed genealogies of Jesus.

But, they contradicted it when they included stories alleging that Jesus was fathered by the Holy Spirit. These stories have become an embarrassment to professing Christianity.

You guys trip over yourselves trying to explain and justify the stories. The authors of the Gospels of Mark and John apparently didn't believe the "virgin birth" accounts either. Or, at least they didn't think miraculous birth stories were necessary for understanding Jesus and his mission.

That said, since the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus according to the stories, Boxjobox has presented no good argument against Evangelical's argument that the Holy Spirit is God the Father. According to the stories the Holy Spirit is literally Jesus' father!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I mean if we are going off the deep end here, let's explore all the possibilities! I mean God did promise David his seed would reign. Point being, not enough information to form a heavy duty theology.

Then Jesus is not the seed of David. Cuz he's the seed of God the Spirit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then Jesus is not the seed of David. Cuz he's the seed of God the Spirit.

Actually both ...

Rom 1.3, "Concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh."

Luke 1.31-32, "Jesus will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of David His father."

Luke 1.34-35, "But Mary said to the angel, How can this be since I have never known a man? And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God promised it, Jesus fulfilled it, and all Israel and the church believes this.

ALL Israel? ALL the church?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually both ...

Rom 1.3, "Concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh."

Luke 1.31-32, "Jesus will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of David His father."

Luke 1.34-35, "But Mary said to the angel, How can this be since I have never known a man? And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God."

Now we need DNA tests. We need to swab Jesus, Joseph, God, and the Holy Spirit. Then, and only then, can we be certain.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now we need DNA tests. We need to swab Jesus, Joseph, God, and the Holy Spirit. Then, and only then, can we be certain.

If you refuse to believe after reading the scriptures' eye witness accounts, hearing the testimonies from hundreds of Christians you know personally, including your own parents, and your own salvation experience of the Lord, then I doubt if DNA paternity tests would do you any good.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now we need DNA tests. We need to swab Jesus, Joseph, God, and the Holy Spirit. Then, and only then, can we be certain.

Yeah and check all the samples against the DNA on the Shroud of Turin. Right, ZNP?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you refuse to believe after reading the scriptures' eye witness accounts,

Where do you find eyewitness accounts?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

My Sunday meeting with the trinitarians:

So this being Palm Sunday, the pastor goes over Mark 11. The Jesus riding on the foal of the donkey turns out was the creator himself. The people shouting Hosannah, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord were actually worshipping Jesus as God.

Ending prayer by one of the pastors "thank you Father, for what we see here...you suffered and died the worst suffering for us on the cross...and we pray in your name, Jesus.

Why does a pastor feel the need to transform Mark 11 into something entirely different? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees.!

The pastor was apparently reading the Gospel of Mark through the lens of a literal interpretation of the Gospel of John. John 14:9 says Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

Although in the context of John, Jesus explicates how it is that he represents and does not supersede or subordinate God the Father, that nuance is often lost by Trinitarians. The pastor also seems to presume that Mark shares John's christology. There is ample evidence that it doesn't.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God promised it, Jesus fulfilled it, and all Israel and the church believes this.

But for you, it's "going off the deep end," and "not enough information to form a heavy duty theology."

The paradox here is Jesus is to be the seed of David. If Jesus is not the seed of David, then where is the fulfillment of the promise? If it's just in appearance that Jesus is the son of Joseph... the son of David, because Mary was betrothed to Joseph, this seems to lack fulfillment as well. If you are saying the Holy Spirit, whom I would say is the messenger of God, is the father of Jesus, then in Evangelical's if-then logic, the Holy Spirit is actually David!

Deep end- not enough information!

In all this nut and shell game being played about the Spirit being God, everyone seems to want to walk away from the direct speaking of Paul and Jesus that there is one true God, the Father. Rather than do the trinitarian dance, what is keeping you from believing this? Other than your trinitarianism overruling the explicit scripture. This is the leaven of the trinitarians.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

The pastor was apparently reading the Gospel of Mark through the lens of a literal interpretation of the Gospel of John. John 14:9 says Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

Although in the context of John, Jesus explicates how it is that he represents and does not supersede or subordinate God the Father, that nuance is often lost by Trinitarians. The pastor also seems to presume that Mark shares John's christology. There is ample evidence that it doesn't.

So if the pastor goes in front of the congregation, on the lighted stage, with the laity in the dimly light auditorium, and talks about this man Jesus coming in the name of Yahweh, and the people honoring Jesus as the son of David the King, the promised one, and shows how God was with Jesus, how would that look in an indoctrinated trinitarian world?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The paradox here is Jesus is to be the seed of David. If Jesus is not the seed of David, then where is the fulfillment of the promise? If it's just in appearance that Jesus is the son of Joseph... the son of David, because Mary was betrothed to Joseph, this seems to lack fulfillment as well. If you are saying the Holy Spirit, whom I would say is the messenger of God, is the father of Jesus, then in Evangelical's if-then logic, the Holy Spirit is actually David!

Deep end- not enough information!

In all this nut and shell game being played about the Spirit being God, everyone seems to want to walk away from the direct speaking of Paul and Jesus that there is one true God, the Father. Rather than do the trinitarian dance, what is keeping you from believing this? Other than your trinitarianism overruling the explicit scripture. This is the leaven of the trinitarians.

So God the Father sent a messenger to father his son? Maybe Jesus should have been called the "Son of Messenger" not the "Son of God" according to your thinking. "For God so loved the world that he gave the messenger's only begotten son."

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually both ...

Rom 1.3, "Concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh."

Luke 1.31-32, "Jesus will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of David His father."

Luke 1.34-35, "But Mary said to the angel, How can this be since I have never known a man? And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God."

Ohio, you missed a few pertinent quotes there in Romans
“and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers,”
**Romans‬ *1:4, 7-9‬ *NKJV‬‬

Good old Paul- he knew who God is, and prayed to him, and he knew who the Son of God is and preached such.

Of course, this wouldn't interest anybody outside my small circle of friends.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

So God the Father sent a messenger to father his son? Maybe Jesus should have been called the "Son of Messenger" not the "Son of God" according to your thinking. "For God so loved the world that he gave the messenger's only begotten son."

Oh, I keep forgetting Mary is the mother of God....Have you ever noticed, when God makes a move He sends his Holy Spirit? Jesus and Paul talk about the Spirit, yet clearly state one true God, the Father. Are you really implying- how should I put this, a spirit/flesh intercourse?

This is what I mean- making a whole theology on something that we are not given enough information. Drawing if-then- therefore beliefs that the scripture does not speak of, but it does speak of one God the Father, but seems this is not palatable, so in comes the leaven!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Oh, I keep forgetting Mary is the mother of God....Have you ever noticed, when God makes a move He sends his Holy Spirit? Jesus and Paul talk about the Spirit, yet clearly state one true God, the Father. Are you really implying- how should I put this, a spirit/flesh intercourse?

The mother of god comment is a red herring. Neither Matthew or Luke assert that. We're talking about what the texts say, remember? If God sent a messenger to father Jesus, why do the authors claim he was the son of God? Did he become the Son of God upon resurrecting? What then do you make of the birth stories? Why did they bother to include those in the first place? The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke irreconcilably contradict each other. Miraculous birth stories were common in those days. Augustus Caesar had a miraculous birth too and was venerated as a son of god throughout the empire. Matthew and Luke could have just been following the common practice of divinizing the birth of a hero, king or emperor in legend.

This is what I mean- making a whole theology on something that we are not given enough information. Drawing if-then- therefore beliefs that the scripture does not speak of, but it does speak of one God the Father, but seems this is not palatable, so in comes the leaven!

You could easily take your argument a step further and conclude that we don't have enough information about any of it. What's the basis for the proposition that God literally made Jesus Lord of everything in the universe? The questionable adaptation of OT verses to the death and resurrection narrative of Jesus? Do you realize how extraordinary that claim is? Where's the extraordinary evidence that supports it? Like you said, "we are not given enough information".

[awareness]

I went to lunch with my sister and a group of retired teachers. I sat next to a couple of devoted Roman Catholics.

So I turned to John and told him I've been debating the trinity. I told him the word trinity is not in the Bible anywhere. His wife spoke up and said, not in your Bible. I asked, what Bible do you read, and she said, the Catholic Bible. I dropped it.

Basically, the Church proclaims it, and they believe it without question. The leaven wins.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Oh, I keep forgetting Mary is the mother of God....Have you ever noticed, when God makes a move He sends his Holy Spirit? Jesus and Paul talk about the Spirit, yet clearly state one true God, the Father. Are you really implying- how should I put this, a spirit/flesh intercourse?

This is what I mean- making a whole theology on something that we are not given enough information. Drawing if-then- therefore beliefs that the scripture does not speak of, but it does speak of one God the Father, but seems this is not palatable, so in comes the leaven!

So there is God who is Spirit and there is the Holy Spirit. You believe then in two Holy Spirits.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So there is God who is Spirit and there is the Holy Spirit. You believe then in two Holy Spirits.

I'd love to see jobox's answer to this. That the Holy Spirit is God is a big problem to trinity deniers. Cuz then you have two actors of the trinity that are undeniably God.

Of course if you can disprove that Jesus is God then the trinity falls apart.

But then again, who knows? There could be many Holy Spirit's ... and they all could be God. For all we know Satan could be God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'd love to see jobox's answer to this. That the Holy Spirit is God is a big problem to trinity deniers. Cuz then you have two actors of the trinity that are undeniably God.

Of course if you can disprove that Jesus is God then the trinity falls apart.

But then again, who knows? There could be many Holy Spirit's ... and they all could be God. For all we know Satan could be God.

What's wrong with two Spirits?

Once you deny the deity of Jesus Christ, you will die in your sins. (John 8.24)

We already got seven Spirits in Revelation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What's wrong with two Spirits?

Once you deny the deity of Jesus Christ, you will die in your sins. (John 8.24)

We already got seven Spirits in Revelation.

I know. I was thinking of the seven Spirits when I said that. But you can't stop at John 8:24, you must continue to v. 26:

Joh 8:26 I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him."

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So there is God who is Spirit and there is the Holy Spirit. You believe then in two Holy Spirits.

Poor, poor if- then statements, which produce strange results and a strange belief statement. It's easy to see how some cling to Lord Lees's teachings.

God's composit is spirit, angels' composit is spirit, Holy Spirit's composit is spirit, Satan's composit is spirit, demon's composit is spirit, there may be more than this that I am not aware of whose composit is spirit.

I am human, Trump is human, I am not president. Do you kind of get the picture?

Paul and Jesus both declared one, true God, the Father. Just accept their definition, an then read your NT and see that it is written with this definition.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

I went to lunch with my sister and a group of retired teachers. I sat next to a couple of devoted Roman Catholics.

So I turned to John and told him I've been debating the trinity. I told him the word trinity is not in the Bible anywhere. His wife spoke up and said, not in your Bible. I asked, what Bible do you read, and she said, the Catholic Bible. I dropped it.

Basically, the Church proclaims it, and they believe it without question. The leaven wins.

That's because Jesus is God, and Mary is the mother of God, and you don't want to dis Mary, the queen of heaven, or your rosary will not work.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

The mother of god comment is a red herring. Neither Matthew or Luke assert that. We're talking about what the texts say, remember? If God sent a messenger to father Jesus, why do the authors claim he was the son of God? Did he become the Son of God upon resurrecting? What then do you make of the birth stories? Why did they bother to include those in the first place? The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke irreconcilably contradict each other. Miraculous birth stories were common in those days. Augustus Caesar had a miraculous birth too and was venerated as a son of god throughout the empire. Matthew and Luke could have just been following the common practice of divinizing the birth of a hero, king or emperor in legend.



You could easily take your argument a step further and conclude that we don't have enough information about any of it. What's the basis for the proposition that God literally made Jesus Lord of everything in the universe? The questionable adaptation of OT verses to the death and resurrection narrative of Jesus? Do you realize how extraordinary that claim is? Where's the extraordinary evidence that supports it? Like you said, "we are not given enough information".

Paul speaking to the Athenians:

“for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.

because 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.””
**Acts‬ *17:23-24, 26, 28-29, 31‬ *NKJV‬‬

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What's wrong with two Spirits?

Once you deny the deity of Jesus Christ, you will die in your sins. (John 8.24)

We already got seven Spirits in Revelation.

I would reall hate to think that the thousands who believed the low gospel (wasn't that Lord Lee's terminology?) preached throughout the book of Acts, all died in their sins because they never heard of the deity of Christ!

Ohio- read all of John 8 and you should be able to see that Jesus was referring to himself as the sent one, the Christ. Remember, this is the same Jesus who said only true God, the Father..

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Paul speaking to the Athenians:

“for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.

And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.

because 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.””
**Acts‬ *17:23-24, 26, 28-29, 31‬ *NKJV‬‬

The Lord spoke to Moses:

14 Then the Lord spoke to Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai, saying: 15 “Number the children of Levi by their fathers’ houses, by their families; you shall number every male from a month old and above.”

16 So Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord, as he was commanded. 17 These were the sons of Levi by their names: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. 18 And these are the names of the sons of Gershon by their families: Libni and Shimei. 19 And the sons of Kohath by their families: Amram, Izehar, Hebron, and Uzziel. 20 And the sons of Merari by their families: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites by their fathers’ houses.

21 From Gershon came the family of the Libnites and the family of the Shimites; these were the families of the Gershonites. 22 Those who were numbered, according to the number of all the males from a month old and above—of those who were numbered there were seven thousand five hundred. 23 The families of the Gershonites were to camp behind the tabernacle westward. 24 And the leader of the father’s house of the Gershonites was Eliasaph the son of Lael. 25 The duties of the children of Gershon in the tabernacle of meeting included the tabernacle, the tent with its covering, the screen for the door of the tabernacle of meeting, 26 the screen for the door of the court, the hangings of the court which are around the tabernacle and the altar, and their cords, according to all the work relating to them.

27 From Kohath came the family of the Amramites, the family of the Izharites, the family of the Hebronites, and the family of the Uzzielites; these were the families of the Kohathites. 28 According to the number of all the males, from a month old and above, there were eight thousand six[b] hundred keeping charge of the sanctuary. 29 The families of the children of Kohath were to camp on the south side of the tabernacle. 30 And the leader of the fathers’ house of the families of the Kohathites was Elizaphan the son of Uzziel. 31 Their duty included the ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, the utensils of the sanctuary with which they ministered, the screen, and all the work relating to them.

32 And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest was to be chief over the leaders of the Levites, with oversight of those who kept charge of the sanctuary.

33 From Merari came the family of the Mahlites and the family of the Mu****es; these were the families of Merari. 34 And those who were numbered, according to the number of all the males from a month old and above, were six thousand two hundred. 35 The leader of the fathers’ house of the families of Merari was Zuriel the son of Abihail. These were to camp on the north side of the tabernacle. 36 And the appointed duty of the children of Merari included the boards of the tabernacle, its bars, its pillars, its sockets, its utensils, all the work relating to them, 37 and the pillars of the court all around, with their sockets, their pegs, and their cords.

38 Moreover those who were to camp before the tabernacle on the east, before the tabernacle of meeting, were Moses, Aaron, and his sons, keeping charge of the sanctuary, to meet the needs of the children of Israel; but the outsider who came near was to be put to death. 39 All who were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered at the commandment of the Lord, by their families, all the males from a month old and above, were twenty-two thousand. [Numbers 3: 14-39]

[awareness]

So you guys are having a verse salad contest?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Poor, poor if- then statements, which produce strange results and a strange belief statement. It's easy to see how some cling to Lord Lees's teachings.

God's composit is spirit, angels' composit is spirit, Holy Spirit's composit is spirit, Satan's composit is spirit, demon's composit is spirit, there may be more than this that I am not aware of whose composit is spirit.

I am human, Trump is human, I am not president. Do you kind of get the picture?

Paul and Jesus both declared one, true God, the Father. Just accept their definition, an then read your NT and see that it is written with this definition.

So you do believe that God and the Holy Spirit are separate entities it would seem. This means there is a Spirit God and also a Holy Spirit...so you must believe that the Holy Spirit is not the true God. Denial of the Spirit surely has sealed your eternal fate unless you turn to the Lord Spirit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio- read all of John 8 and you should be able to see that Jesus was referring to himself as the sent one, the Christ. Remember, this is the same Jesus who said only true God, the Father..

I just read John 8 again.

It's impossible but to conclude that Jesus is eternal.

Once again, by equating His own words with the words of God, (8.47,52) Jesus tells us that He is God.

[zeek]

Here's a Bible passage for Boxjobox to explain in nontrinitarian terms:

Hebrews Chapter One
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

The Son Exalted Above Angels
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:

“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?

And again:

“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?

6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

7 And of the angels He says:

“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But to the Son He says:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

God addresses the "Son" as "God". Not a problem to explain from a Trinitarian point of view. It's obviously God the Father addressing God the Son. Now it's your turn, Boxjobox. Why does God address the Son as God if the Son is not God?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So you do believe that God and the Holy Spirit are separate entities it would seem. This means there is a Spirit God and also a Holy Spirit...so you must believe that the Holy Spirit is not the true God. Denial of the Spirit surely has sealed your eternal fate unless you turn to the Lord Spirit.

You can't be certain that you are correctly interpreting and applying the teaching about the "blaspheming of the holy spirit." Intellectual humility would have required that you at least admit that you are merely expressing your opinion. It appears that you're condemning Boxjobox to hell just because he defeated your argument. That strikes me as mean-spirited.

I dispute the contention that salvation depends on any particular intellectual assent to a set of facts. I consider that claim absurd. Salvation, it seems to me depends upon receiving the Spirit not any particular set of facts about the Spirit, upon receiving Jesus not any set of facts about Jesus, upon receiving God the Father not any set of facts about God the Father. In other words, it is a matter of spiritual reality not a matter of mere intellectual assent to a set of creedal propositions. The idea that at the judgment seat Jesus is going to be querying people about what they thought about a set of doctrines is ridiculous and repugnant and itself contrary to the spirit of the gospel as I understand it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I just read John 8 again.

It's impossible but to conclude that Jesus is eternal.

Once again, by equating His own words with the words of God, (8.47,52) Jesus tells us that He is God.

I'm not seeing that in those verses.

Joh 8:47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

This one says "is of God," not that "I'm God."

Joh 8:52 The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, 'If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.'

This one doesn't relate at all.

Reread John 8 again ... and make your point again.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not seeing that in those verses.

Joh 8:47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

This one says "is of God," not that "I'm God."

Joh 8:52 The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, 'If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.'

This one doesn't relate at all.

Reread John 8 again ... and make your point again.

Jesus spoke to the opposing Jews and identified His own words as the words of God.

These Jews got the message, and referred to Jesus own words.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus spoke to the opposing Jews and identified His own words as the words of God.

These Jews got the message, and referred to Jesus own words.

When Jesus rose from being dead, and came to the weeping Mary M, he told Mary not cling to him because he had not yet ascended to his Father, of Whom, Jesus told Mary to tell his brethren that he was ascending to his Father and their Father, and his God and their God.

Before Jesus passion, he prayed to God his Father in the presence of his brethren and said eternal life was to know the only true God, his Father and Jesus the one whom the Father sent.

The whole thing about making Jesus God, and making God triune, distorts the truth, presents a false image of God and Christ. You love the words of Jesus up to the point it interferes with triunism, then ignore Jesus' plain speaking. That is not healthy for you or for Christianity because it causes a dogma to replace scripture. I may be wrong, but I doubt up until now, you have ever considered the God of Jesus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus spoke to the opposing Jews and identified His own words as the words of God.

These Jews got the message, and referred to Jesus own words.

I quote your words all the time. Does that make me you?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's a Bible passage for Boxjobox to explain in nontrinitarian terms:




God addresses the "Son" as "God". Not a problem to explain from a Trinitarian point of view. It's obviously God the Father addressing God the Son. Now it's your turn, Boxjobox. Why does God address the Son as God if the Son is not God?

A few thing to consider: the introduction talks about God the one who is over all, who is the principal actor in all that follows. The son is appointed heir- God is not heir, in that all things are God's. Ephesians 1-3 explain this. And later in Hebrews it says how for the joy set before him, Jesus endured the cross. The reward of being placed over all by God motivated Jesus, as well as his obedience to God, his Father. Jesus fully expresses God. Angels are spirits. Jesus sat at the right hand of God. You are my son, today I have begotten you- seems to point to the time of resurrection/ascension.
You left out the second half of the quote: “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”” This speaks of the God of Jesus, the One true God, the one who is above all. The One, who as companions of Jesus get to partake of Jesus' inheritance, and the ones who now can approach God as our Father for His great grace.
*

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So you do believe that God and the Holy Spirit are separate entities it would seem. This means there is a Spirit God and also a Holy Spirit...so you must believe that the Holy Spirit is not the true God. Denial of the Spirit surely has sealed your eternal fate unless you turn to the Lord Spirit.

I would ask you to read the account of Cornelius' salvation in Acts, and look carefully at what Peter tells him and what takes place. You preach a different gospel, and it's not good to live under that curse!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus spoke to the opposing Jews and identified His own words as the words of God.

These Jews got the message, and referred to Jesus own words.

Can you imagine being God's unique spokesman on earth, speaking to the people who are supposed to be God's unique people, who had received from other lesser of God's spokespeople that you were coming and being rejected because you were speaking God's words?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

A few thing to consider: the introduction talks about God the one who is over all, who is the principal actor in all that follows. The son is appointed heir- God is not heir, in that all things are God's. Ephesians 1-3 explain this. And later in Hebrews it says how for the joy set before him, Jesus endured the cross. The reward of being placed over all by God motivated Jesus, as well as his obedience to God, his Father. Jesus fully expresses God. Angels are spirits. Jesus sat at the right hand of God. You are my son, today I have begotten you- seems to point to the time of resurrection/ascension.
You left out the second half of the quote: “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”” This speaks of the God of Jesus, the One true God, the one who is above all. The One, who as companions of Jesus get to partake of Jesus' inheritance, and the ones who now can approach God as our Father for His great grace.
*

I could have quoted the entire book of Hebrews, but then you could have called me for not quoting the rest of the New Testament. You, on the other hand, left out the central point that God the Father calls God the Son "God". I don't see how the author could have made his belief that the Son of God was God much clearer than to have God the Father declare it. That God the Father is the Son of God's God wasn't a problem from the author's point of view like it is from yours.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

When Jesus rose from being dead, and came to the weeping Mary M, he told Mary not cling to him because he had not yet ascended to his Father, of Whom, Jesus told Mary to tell his brethren that he was ascending to his Father and their Father, and his God and their God.

Before Jesus passion, he prayed to God his Father in the presence of his brethren and said eternal life was to know the only true God, his Father and Jesus the one whom the Father sent.

The whole thing about making Jesus God, and making God triune, distorts the truth, presents a false image of God and Christ. You love the words of Jesus up to the point it interferes with triunism, then ignore Jesus' plain speaking. That is not healthy for you or for Christianity because it causes a dogma to replace scripture. I may be wrong, but I doubt up until now, you have ever considered the God of Jesus.

You definitely got this wrong. Faced with hundreds of scripture, you still refuse to believe that God the Son, who became man, is both God and man. My explanations require the gift of faith in order to believe the scripture. Your explanations require endless mental contortions and misrepresentations of scripture.

I realize that real faith is discredited and sometimes mocked on this sub-forum, but I prefer this faith in God's word to all the alternatives proposed by you and others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Can you imagine being God's unique spokesman on earth, speaking to the people who are supposed to be God's unique people, who had received from other lesser of God's spokespeople that you were coming and being rejected because you were speaking God's words?

Yes, I can imagine! That's what happened!

The Jews did reject Jesus, and they crucified Him for being a man and making Himself God. (John 5.18 and 10.33)

Unless Jesus had done this and told them who He really was, He would never have been crucified, and would not have become our Savior.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I would ask you to read the account of Cornelius' salvation in Acts, . . .

Hey hey! Alert bro zeek.

When the angel came to Cornelius Cornelius said, and I quote : "What is it, Lord?"

We have another Lord. Now there's more than two Lords.

[awareness]

What is this and who is it speaking about? :

"The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth, before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world.
When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man.
"And now, O sons, listen to me: blessed are those who keep my ways.
Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it.
Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors.
For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD,"

[awareness]

Now c'mon. Somebody have a go at it. It's important. It ain't April 1.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey hey! Alert bro zeek.

When the angel came to Cornelius Cornelius said, and I quote : "What is it, Lord?"

We have another Lord. Now there's more than two Lords.

I don't see what this adds to the discussion. We have already gone over the passage in I Cor 8 where Paul contrasts many lords with the one true Lord. Assuming Luke shares Paul's christology, Cornelius was addressing one of "many lords" not the one Lord through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

I Cor: 8: 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 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.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You definitely got this wrong. Faced with hundreds of scripture, you still refuse to believe that God the Son, who became man, is both God and man. My explanations require the gift of faith in order to believe the scripture. Your explanations require endless mental contortions and misrepresentations of scripture.

I realize that real faith is discredited and sometimes mocked on this sub-forum, but I prefer this faith in God's word to all the alternatives proposed by you and others.

Ohio, when you introduce terms such as God the Son, and tie that to real faith and scripture, you create a gaping hole in truth. Am I supposed to rely on non- scriptural concepts to gain "faith"? It seems to me, you look at scripture and faith through a millennia of trinitarianism and blame me for not doing the same. Can you really read 1 & 2 Thessalonians and really think Paul preached trinitarianism?

The scripture we have for the NT was written long before the councils that set up the beliefs of the Holy Roman Empire. You are following the religion of the HRE, and saying I lack faith to see it or refuse to accept it. I feel your real stumbling block is that Paul and Jesus both declared that truth is that there is One True God, the Father.
I have pointed this out repeatedly, yet this declaration is snowed over by trinitarianism. Unfortunately, this has left you in a tough situation, in that for the rest of your life, you will now see this in the scripture, and it will be you who will have to go through mental gymnastics to avoid confronting it. It will be like reading "call no man Father" and then confronting the catholic priest!
I would encourage you to pick up Ephesians, slowly read through it, being careful to understand and grasp the nomenclature, and grasp the revelation Paul wants us all to see. And then, try your best to follow the elements of the oneness Paul begs us to keep in Eph 4. All of this will require you to lay aside trinitarianism, but the reward will be a freedom from the HRE religion.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, I can imagine! That's what happened!

The Jews did reject Jesus, and they crucified Him for being a man and making Himself God. (John 5.18 and 10.33)

Unless Jesus had done this and told them who He really was, He would never have been crucified, and would not have become our Savior.

Hmmm- let's see: before he was crucified he talked about the only true God, the Father, on the cross he cried out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", when he resurrected he talked about his God and our God, his Father and our Father, in ascension, and as the head of the church, he talked about his God.

The apostle he called to send to the Gentiles also talked about the one true God, the Father.

When Jesus was crucified the crime listed over his head was " the king of the Jews".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see what this adds to the discussion. We have already gone over the passage in I Cor 8 where Paul contrasts many lords with the one true Lord. Assuming Luke shares Paul's christology, Cornelius was addressing one of "many lords" not the one Lord through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

"Many gods and many lords?" Many gods? Sure there were many lords back then, but many gods too?

Doesn't this diminish Thomas' remark of Jesus at the end of John, "My Lord and my God."

If many lords and many gods were in the air back then, then such a remark wouldn't be that big of a deal ... and not meaning that Jesus was actually God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio, when you introduce terms such as God the Son, and tie that to real faith and scripture, you create a gaping hole in truth. Am I supposed to rely on non- scriptural concepts to gain "faith"? It seems to me, you look at scripture and faith through a millennia of trinitarianism and blame me for not doing the same. Can you really read 1 & 2 Thessalonians and really think Paul preached trinitarianism?

My faith is not based only on Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, but all scripture.

Neither is my faith based on some BogeyMan called trinitarianism, which you have created.

The more I read all the verses you reference, the more I am persuaded that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

Sorry that is too hard for you to believe.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

I could have quoted the entire book of Hebrews, but then you could have called me for not quoting the rest of the New Testament. You, on the other hand, left out the central point that God the Father calls God the Son "God". I don't see how the author could have made his belief that the Son of God was God much clearer than to have God the Father declare it. That God the Father is the Son of God's God wasn't a problem from the author's point of view like it is from yours.

The one true God is the Father- this should be indisputable. The reason I said you left out part of the quote is that the "thy throne oh God" part doesn't stand alone. If you read through Psalm 45, where the whole quote originates, as well as Hebrews, it doesn't seem to me that anyone is trying to usurp the unique God with another, or add to God another God. God almighty does not have a God. Jesus made it clear that God is his God. Early creeds recognized God almighty, the Father, and then over time, modified their edicts as the Jesus is God thing evolved. Today, it is accepted as absolute truth by most that Jesus is God Almighty. You can tell by Hebrews that God almighty is not Jesus even by the opening statement in Heb 1.1.
Jesus and Paul make it clear that the one we acknowledge as God almighty is the Father, that the Father is the one true God. The entire NT holds this concept. It was creeds and teachings of men that warped this truth.

In Jerusalem was king Herod, but the king of the Roman Empire was Caesar. Context means a lot. If you are talking of who rules directly over Judaea it was Herod. If you're talking about who is really Mr. Big, it's Caesar. The Lord thing follows the same way.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

"Many gods and many lords?" Many gods? Sure there were many lords back then, but many gods too?

Doesn't this diminish Thomas' remark of Jesus at the end of John, "My Lord and my God."

If many lords and many gods were in the air back then, then such a remark wouldn't be that big of a deal ... and not meaning that Jesus was actually God.

No. Paul consistent with second temple Judaism does not recognize the other so-called gods as truely God. The shema declares that there is only one true God. Thomas would have been embracing polytheism if he thought Jesus was only one of many true gods. The author of The Gospel of John doesn't imply anything like that. That would have been a very big deal.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My faith is not based only on Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, but all scripture.

Neither is my faith based on some BogeyMan called trinitarianism, which you have created.

The more I read all the verses you reference, the more I am persuaded that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

Sorry that is too hard for you to believe.

“Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” 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.”
**I Corinthians‬ *15:24-28‬ *NKJV‬‬

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My faith is not based only on Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, but all scripture.

Neither is my faith based on some BogeyMan called trinitarianism, which you have created.

The more I read all the verses you reference, the more I am persuaded that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

Sorry that is too hard for you to believe.

God was manifest in Jesus this I wholly believe; Jesus is God manifest in the flesh? Not what was preached back in the day. Hence something occurred to warp the truth, and that was trinitarianism. Not a belief I made up.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. Paul consistent with second temple Judaism does not recognize the other so-called gods as truely God. The shema declares that there is only one true God. Thomas would have been embracing polytheism if he thought Jesus was only one of many true gods. The author of The Gospel of John doesn't imply anything like that. That would have been a very big deal.

“Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.””
**John‬ *10:34-38‬ *NKJV‬‬

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The one true God is the Father- this should be indisputable. The reason I said you left out part of the quote is that the "thy throne oh God" part doesn't stand alone. If you read through Psalm 45, where the whole quote originates, as well as Hebrews, it doesn't seem to me that anyone is trying to usurp the unique God with another, or add to God another God. God almighty does not have a God. Jesus made it clear that God is his God. Early creeds recognized God almighty, the Father, and then over time, modified their edicts as the Jesus is God thing evolved. Today, it is accepted as absolute truth by most that Jesus is God Almighty. You can tell by Hebrews that God almighty is not Jesus even by the opening statement in Heb 1.1.
Jesus and Paul make it clear that the one we acknowledge as God almighty is the Father, that the Father is the one true God. The entire NT holds this concept. It was creeds and teachings of men that warped this truth.

In Jerusalem was king Herod, but the king of the Roman Empire was Caesar. Context means a lot. If you are talking of who rules directly over Judaea it was Herod. If you're talking about who is really Mr. Big, it's Caesar. The Lord thing follows the same way.

You're talking around the issue. Hebrews 1:8 states unequivocally that God addressed the Son as God. It seems you disagree with the author. But we're discussing whether or not the Bible is consistent with the trinity. And the statement that the Son is God clearly is consistent with the doctine of the trinity.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My faith is not based only on Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, but all scripture.

Neither is my faith based on some BogeyMan called trinitarianism, which you have created.

The more I read all the verses you reference, the more I am persuaded that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

Sorry that is too hard for you to believe.

So do you think the faith of the Thessalonians was based on something other than what Paul presented?

Your faith seems to be based on a mismatch of small sections of a few verses that are open for interpretation and don't follow the overall presentation in the NT. Seems like the Thessalonians faith was based on what Paul actually preached and taught. If you read through Thessalonians you would really have to do some major spiritual/mental gymnastics to come up with a Jesus is God/ triune God scenario- don't you think? Yet there they were in the faith

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.””
**John‬ *10:34-38‬ *NKJV‬‬

Are you trying to make a point by posting this? If so, what is it?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're talking around the issue. Hebrews 1:8 States unequivocally that God addressed the Son as God. It seems you disagree with the author. But we're discussing whether or not the Bible is consistent with the trinity. And the statement that the Son is God clearly is consistent with the doctine of the trinity.

Then wouldn't the writer of Hebrews say God spoke in times past through the prophets but then became a man? Why all the cryptic, jigsaw puzzle theology? Why make a statement like
“For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;”
**Hebrews‬ *9:24‬ *NKJV‬‬
“Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.”
**Hebrews‬ *8:1-2‬ *NKJV‬‬
“looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
**Hebrews‬ *12:2‬ *NKJV‬‬

When I read Hebrews, I see the almighty God and Christ. No presentation of a triune God.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Are you trying to make a point by posting this? If so, what is it?

The term God, god, gods was in use back then and had a lot of contextual meaning, even in scripture. The words of God were definitely on Jesus' lips, an the scripture can not be broken.

But Paul and Jesus give direct testimony of whom we should consider the only, one true God- the Father

And that quote from the mouth of Jesus is found in John's writing. As well as the quote about you are gods

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Then wouldn't the writer of Hebrews say God spoke in times past through the prophets but then became a man? Why all the cryptic, jigsaw puzzle theology? Why make a statement like
“For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;”
**Hebrews‬ *9:24‬ *NKJV‬‬
“Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.”
**Hebrews‬ *8:1-2‬ *NKJV‬‬
“looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
**Hebrews‬ *12:2‬ *NKJV‬‬

When I read Hebrews, I see the almighty God and Christ. No presentation of a triune God.

I see nothing in the verses you quoted that is inconsistent with the doctrine that Jesus is both man and God.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. Paul consistent with second temple Judaism does not recognize the other so-called gods as truely God. The shema declares that there is only one true God. Thomas would have been embracing polytheism if he thought Jesus was only one of many true gods. The author of The Gospel of John doesn't imply anything like that. That would have been a very big deal.

You're taking away from Paul being the apostle to the Gentiles and declaring the whole counsel of God, and reducing his statement to a personal bias.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

You're taking away from Paul being the apostle to the Gentiles and declaring the whole counsel of God, and reducing his statement to a personal bias.

You'll have to explain to me how I'm doing that cuz I don't see it.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

I see nothing in the verses you quoted that is inconsistent with the doctrine that Jesus is both man and God.

The doctrine you are stating was not preached and taught by Jesus or the apostles.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The term God, god, gods was in use back then and had a lot of contextual meaning, even in scripture. The words of God were definitely on Jesus' lips, an the scripture can not be broken.

But Paul and Jesus give direct testimony of whom we should consider the only, one true God- the Father

And that quote from the mouth of Jesus is found in John's writing. As well as the quote about you are gods

I accept your first statement. Meaning is always contextual. Jesus's statement there seems odd from a trinitarian standpoint. I don't see immediately how it supports your viewpoint either. Perhaps you can explain further.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” 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.”
**I Corinthians‬ *15:24-28‬ *NKJV‬‬

I missed the part that says Jesus is not God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The doctrine you are stating was not preached and taught by Jesus or the apostles.

...according to your interpretive choices which seems to require the acceptance of some possible meanings and rejection of others and dismissing or devaluing some verses of the Bible.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. Paul consistent with second temple Judaism does not recognize the other so-called gods as truely God. The shema declares that there is only one true God. Thomas would have been embracing polytheism if he thought Jesus was only one of many true gods. The author of The Gospel of John doesn't imply anything like that. That would have been a very big deal.

... "know ye not that ye are gods" ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. Paul consistent with second temple Judaism does not recognize the other so-called gods as truely God.

Can I stop you right there? And I hate to be so dumb. But what means "truly God?"

My assumption is that it means : The One and Only Father God, God Almighty ; a distinct-and-unique-above-all-nothing-else-like-it-entity.

I think that's the point that bro jobox has been driving home over and over again, almost ad nauseam .. ..

Our brother is indeed reaching back, past Jesus even, and the apostles, Paul, and the whole New Testament shebang.

If your premise concerning second temple Judaism, of one True God, holds, then bro Jobox is at least there, and reaching back into Old Testament territory.

These distinctions, I believe, speaks this message :

Old Testament:
Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD (יְהֹוָה - yehôvâh - yeh-ho-vaw') said unto my Lord ('âdôn - aw-done', aw-done'), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

New Testament:
Mat 22:44 The LORD (κύριος kurios - koo'-ree-os") said unto my Lord LORD (κύριος kurios - koo'-ree-os"), Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

... "know ye not that ye are gods" ...

And your point is?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can I stop you right there? And I hate to be so dumb. But what means "truly God?"

My assumption is that it means : The One and Only Father God, God Almighty ; a distinct-and-unique-above-all-nothing-else-like-it-entity.

I think that's the point that bro jobox has been driving home over and over again, almost ad nauseam .. ..

Our brother is indeed reaching back, past Jesus even, and the apostles, Paul, and the whole New Testament shebang.

If your premise concerning second temple Judaism, of one True God, holds, then bro Jobox is at least there, and reaching back into Old Testament territory.

These distinctions, I believe, speaks this message :

Old Testament:
Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD (יְהֹוָה - yehôvâh - yeh-ho-vaw') said unto my Lord ('âdôn - aw-done', aw-done'), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

New Testament:
Mat 22:44 The LORD (κύριος kurios - koo'-ree-os") said unto my Lord LORD (κύριος kurios - koo'-ree-os"), Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

From my reading, to most second temple Jews "truly God" meant YHWH Elohim who is referred to in Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!" I don't think Boxjobox disagrees with that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

And your point is?

The same as Jesus : a dodge ... a dodge explaining why the Jews shouldn't have a problem with Jesus being God, by using their scriptures against them, basically saying, that, we're all gods ; so implying that Jesus is God because we all are gods. (and by the way, the word for God in Greek is the same for god(s) : theos. The upper and lower case of the first letter is up to whoever is translating the text -- that's not in the original Greek text.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The same as Jesus : a dodge ... a dodge explaining why the Jews shouldn't have a problem with Jesus being God, by using their scriptures against them, basically saying, that, we're all gods ; so implying that Jesus is God because we all are gods. (and by the way, the word for God in Greek is the same for god(s) : theos. The upper and lower case of the first letter is up to whoever is translating the text -- that's not in the original Greek text.)

Right, like I said in our private conversation, it seems to me that author has Jesus equivocating about the meaning of the word god in that passage. The passage seems to be consistent with the notion that the critical variable in judging idolatry for most Jews at that time including John and Paul wasn't a doctrinal or definitional distinction about god but the issue of who you worshiped. What I get from reading Hurtado, is that historically most Jews rejected Christianity because of the way Christians worshiped of Jesus which was something unprecedented in the history of Judaism.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can I stop you right there? And I hate to be so dumb. But what means "truly God?"

My assumption is that it means : The One and Only Father God, God Almighty ; a distinct-and-unique-above-all-nothing-else-like-it-entity.

I think that's the point that bro jobox has been driving home over and over again, almost ad nauseam .. ..

Our brother is indeed reaching back, past Jesus even, and the apostles, Paul, and the whole New Testament shebang.

If your premise concerning second temple Judaism, of one True God, holds, then bro Jobox is at least there, and reaching back into Old Testament territory.

These distinctions, I believe, speaks this message :

Old Testament:
Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD (יְהֹוָה - yehôvâh - yeh-ho-vaw') said unto my Lord ('âdôn - aw-done', aw-done'), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

New Testament:
Mat 22:44 The LORD (κύριος kurios - koo'-ree-os") said unto my Lord LORD (κύριος kurios - koo'-ree-os"), Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the God of Jesus. Paul speaks quite freely about the God of Jesus, so do the other contributors in the NT. Paul defines this one as the one God Christians are to acknowledge as God, and we can call him Father. You just don't see Paul going around or writing to acknowledge Jesus as That God.

To go back further, at least is what I heard, Job would predate them all. God is the God of Job as well. Which brings up an interesting point

““Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?”Job‬ *38:4-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

All the sons of God were there at creation- who would these be?

But I digress- the only thing I see in the NT of Jesus maybe being referred to as someone's God is Thomas's statement. This statement is preceded a few verses before of Jesus telling Mary about his ascending to his and our God, And it's followed by John's statement saying he wrote so that we would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. Thomas is not written of directly in Acts, the other apostles do not convey a Jesus is God gospel, the other 3 gospels do not contain this statement from Thomas.

But this sons of God, son of God thing, and John writing so we would believe that Jesus is the son of God. God giving of his only BEGOTTEN son. And right there in the gospel of John, the writing the Jesus is God people use to beat over the heretical head of us who do not see it, John quotes Jesus as saying the only true God, the Father. This seems to be completely ignored by those who run around saying Jesus is God. If one has a hypothesis, such as trinitarianism, and the hypothesis doesn't work with the chief character saying something totally different, it would be time to reject the hypothesis as seriously flawed.

At what point did son of God become God the son?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I missed the part that says Jesus is not God.

Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with 1 Corinthians and all the references Paul makes to God.

The usual verse giving the mind of Paul and what he conveyed to the believers should suffice

“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. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; ....”
**I Corinthians‬ *8:5-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

I kind of assumed that knowledge was with you, but then, you do have a different concept of God than the Apostle.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the God of Jesus. Paul speaks quite freely about the God of Jesus, so do the other contributors in the NT. Paul defines this one as the one God Christians are to acknowledge as God, and we can call him Father. You just don't see Paul going around or writing to acknowledge Jesus as That God.

To go back further, at least is what I heard, Job would predate them all. God is the God of Job as well. Which brings up an interesting point

““Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?”Job‬ *38:4-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

All the sons of God were there at creation- who would these be?

But I digress- the only thing I see in the NT of Jesus maybe being referred to as someone's God is Thomas's statement. This statement is preceded a few verses before of Jesus telling Mary about his ascending to his and our God, And it's followed by John's statement saying he wrote so that we would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. Thomas is not written of directly in Acts, the other apostles do not convey a Jesus is God gospel, the other 3 gospels do not contain this statement from Thomas.

But this sons of God, son of God thing, and John writing so we would believe that Jesus is the son of God. God giving of his only BEGOTTEN son. And right there in the gospel of John, the writing the Jesus is God people use to beat over the heretical head of us who do not see it, John quotes Jesus as saying the only true God, the Father. This seems to be completely ignored by those who run around saying Jesus is God. If one has a hypothesis, such as trinitarianism, and the hypothesis doesn't work with the chief character saying something totally different, it would be time to reject the hypothesis as seriously flawed.

At what point did son of God become God the son?

The author of Hebrews recognizes it in chapter 1 verse 8. Matthew 28:19 makes it clear that three persons: father, son, and spirit were essential to the Christian faith from early on. At the outset it was apparently enough to recognize that the the son was sent into the world by the Father and the spirit was sent into the world by the Son. But all three persons were essential to the Christian. Remove any one of them and you no longer have Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity developed because it was forced to develop in order to retain true to the commitment to the three essential persons of the New Testament faith while retaining the Judaic monotheism that was Christianity's matrix.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

At what point did son of God become God the son?

Hard to pinpoint but it sames well on its way with the gospel we call John.

But by the 6th century it's well embedded :

Athanasian Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this:

That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty.

But are all omniscient?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hard to pinpoint but it sames well on its way with the gospel we call John.

But by the 6th century it's well embedded :

Athanasian Creed
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this:

That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty.

But are all omniscient?

The dear godly men that developed this great religion- didn't they also bring into the vogue the wood pit barbecue? I wonder how often the fire of god came down to light the wood so that those nasty unbelievers would get their just due.

Since one of the 3 became flesh, did all 3 become flesh? Since one of the persons died, did the other persons die as well? Is one on the right hand of the throne of the other two? And one said that of the three that only one of them is the true God, and that one of the three was greater than all. One of the three is fully god and fully man, so one of the three possesses a quality the others don't, oh, I think I'm confounding the persons.

And what exactly is a "person"? How does one define a person in this case? Is God in unity a person, and the 3 in trinity 3 persons, do they share the same personality? Oh no, now I'm dividing the essence! I'm doomed, maybe Ohio is right, I don't have the faith to accept this!

And what about Mary? These same spiritual intellectuals told us marvelous things about her. Did you know Mary was born without original sin?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

And what about Mary? These same spiritual intellectuals told us marvelous things about her. Did you know Mary was born without original sin?

Yes. It's called Immaculate Conception. For Jesus to be sinless, Mary had to be sinless too. And of course her mother, and her mother before her, all the way down to Eve.

So many mysteries. It's not just the trinity that's a mystery, so called, but all the trinitarian reasoning's and claims that's the mystery.

But the mystery I'd like to figure out is : Who is the Comforter, that Jesus said the Father would send?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

The author of Hebrews recognizes it in chapter 1 verse 8. Matthew 28:19 makes it clear that three persons: father, son, and spirit were essential to the Christian faith from early on. At the outset it was apparently enough to recognize that the the son was sent into the world by the Father and the spirit was sent into the world by the Son. But all three persons were essential to the Christian. Remove any one of them and you no longer have Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity developed because it was forced to develop in order to retain true to the commitment to the three essential persons of the New Testament faith while retaining the Judaic monotheism that was Christianity's matrix.

I read through Acts, which covers the basis for what you are calling Christianity's matrix, and I don't see them setting up a Jesus is God view. Seems that the basis set is that God was with Christ, not that Christ is God. It also seems that the basic principle is that God raised this man from the dead and put him in position as Lord, not that there is some kind of intrinsic resumption of previous position, but a new thing in the universe where God enthroned Jesus in such a position for his redemptive work and obedience.

In Hebrews 1, this same view is portrayed, virtually summed up. Jesus becomes better than the angels, although a man, by the working of God. God reigns over all, and is the God of the one on whom the work s bestowed. I see no attempt to raise the status of Jesus to the position equal to that of the Almighty.

The declaration is "sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool". There is that little word "til", which corresponds with Paul saying “Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” 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.”
**I Corinthians‬ *15:24-28‬ *NKJV‬‬

I seriously fail to see any attempt in the NT to create a triune God or to lift Jesus to a position equal to the one Jesus says is his God. There should be, without controversy, in the Christian thought Christ Jesus the Lord, the Holy Spirit, and the Father. These 3 are not working independently, yet we are told that in view of this interworking, we are to recognize one as our God, and that is the Father.

The first Church mentioned in the Revelation message, Ephesus, left their 1st love. Our 1st love should be to God, the Father. And true to church history, in came the strange teachings which created another god. But that is my own Bible/history/study view, which doesn't stand up to centuries of trinitarianism.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes. It's called Immaculate Conception. For Jesus to be sinless, Mary had to be sinless too. And of course her mother, and her mother before her, all the way down to Eve.

So many mysteries. It's not just the trinity that's a mystery, so called, but all the trinitarian reasoning's and claims that's the mystery.

But the mystery I'd like to figure out is : Who is the Comforter, that Jesus said the Father would send?

Are we talking about Babylon the great harlot? And on Easter Sunday, which is also April 1. My, my, my.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes. It's called Immaculate Conception. For Jesus to be sinless, Mary had to be sinless too. And of course her mother, and her mother before her, all the way down to Eve.

So many mysteries. It's not just the trinity that's a mystery, so called, but all the trinitarian reasoning's and claims that's the mystery.

But the mystery I'd like to figure out is : Who is the Comforter, that Jesus said the Father would send?

John said you have an anointing and you don't need anyone to teach you. And if you were born of God, you don't sin. And that this is the last hour, and many antichrists have come. John gave a lot of new ideas, some seem to be ignored, rejected, some were morphed into a great religion. The one thing I got out of John is stick to that which was from the beginning, because there is a whole lot of strange teachings coming.

I notice now in contemporary Christianity the attempt to personify the Holy Spirit. Seems that previous generations neglected to understand his "person" and a lot are cashing in on books about it.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes. It's called Immaculate Conception. For Jesus to be sinless, Mary had to be sinless too. And of course her mother, and her mother before her, all the way down to Eve.

So many mysteries. It's not just the trinity that's a mystery, so called, but all the trinitarian reasoning's and claims that's the mystery.

But the mystery I'd like to figure out is : Who is the Comforter, that Jesus said the Father would send?

I think, if I remember right, Mary also didn't die, but was "assumed" up to heaven. Then there was a coronation where God the Father and Jesus the Son made her Queen of heaven, queen of angels and queen of the saints. Don't know if the third person of the blessed trinity participated in this. But you can now pray to Mary and ask her. Who knows, she may appear to you. You start out Hail Mary full of grace...and proceed in your prayer to Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners. At some point, I think perpetual light will shine on you. These great church fathers like Justin Martyr, really knew their stuff. He was right there at the Council of Ephesus, where they left their first love.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

And what exactly is a "person"?

Are you a person? If so, you know what a person is. If not, you don't. Bots don't understand...yet...as far as I know.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Are you a person? If so, you know what a person is. If not, you don't. Bots don't understand...yet...as far as I know.

How about that Comforter? Doesn't that sound like a different person?

Maybe the trinitarians got it wrong ; there's really four persons of the Godhead ... or should that be Godhead's?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

How about that Comforter? Doesn't that sound like a different person?

Maybe the trinitarians got it wrong ; there's really four persons of the Godhead ... or should that be Godhead's?

What makes you think there could be four persons in the Godhead? John 14:26 says the Comforter is the Holy Spirit.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I read through Acts, which covers the basis for what you are calling Christianity's matrix, and I don't see them setting up a Jesus is God view. Seems that the basis set is that God was with Christ, not that Christ is God. It also seems that the basic principle is that God raised this man from the dead and put him in position as Lord, not that there is some kind of intrinsic resumption of previous position, but a new thing in the universe where God enthroned Jesus in such a position for his redemptive work and obedience.

I think I see what you see. But, I see problems with it that you deny.

In Hebrews 1, this same view is portrayed, virtually summed up. Jesus becomes better than the angels, although a man, by the working of God. God reigns over all, and is the God of the one on whom the work s bestowed. I see no attempt to raise the status of Jesus to the position equal to that of the Almighty.

You repeatedly ignore and fail to explain the plain word in calling the Son "God" in Hebrews 1:8. I would think that would produce cognitive dissonance for you. But, perhaps you are as dogmatic in your antitrinitariansim as many a trinitarian is in their viewpoint.

he declaration is "sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool". There is that little word "til", which corresponds with Paul saying “Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” 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.”
**I Corinthians‬ *15:24-28‬ *NKJV‬‬

So what happens then in your imagination? Ex-Lord Jesus retires to Acapulco?

I seriously fail to see any attempt in the NT to create a triune God or to lift Jesus to a position equal to the one Jesus says is his God. There should be, without controversy, in the Christian thought Christ Jesus the Lord, the Holy Spirit, and the Father. These 3 are not working independently, yet we are told that in view of this interworking, we are to recognize one as our God, and that is the Father.

What do you imagine this Holy Spirit thing is? Chopped liver?

The first Church mentioned in the Revelation message, Ephesus, left their 1st love. Our 1st love should be to God, the Father. And true to church history, in came the strange teachings which created another god. But that is my own Bible/history/study view, which doesn't stand up to centuries of trinitarianism.

Well, of course, if the author had wished to make it clear that God the Father was the first love that was lost, he could have said so. Your picture of the New Testament has God the father in competition with Jesus for the "first love" position. That right there should suggest to you that there might be a wee little problem with your vision.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What makes you think there could be four persons in the Godhead? John 14:26 says the Comforter is the Holy Spirit.

I was asking about another comforter :

Joh 14:16* And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;*

Same Greek word as 14:26.

Maybe it's the spirit of truth :

Joh_15:26* But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

More can be said about this, but it does sound like another person.

I'm only asking because of the three persons of the trinity. If the Spirit has multiple persons, then just how many persons are up there ; that share the same essence, or hypostasis?

And before I forget. I asked if the three persons of the trinity all had omniscience and got no answers? If they are all God then wouldn't all of them have omniscience? Jobox should have picked up on this ... all I'm sayin'.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I was asking about another comforter :

Joh 14:16* And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;*

Same Greek word as 14:26.

Maybe it's the spirit of truth :

Joh_15:26* But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

More can be said about this, but it does sound like another person.

I'm only asking because of the three persons of the trinity. If the Spirit has multiple persons, then just how many persons are up there ; that share the same essence, or hypostasis?

And before I forget. I asked if the three persons of the trinity all had omniscience and got no answers? If they are all God then wouldn't all of them have omniscience? Jobox should have picked up on this ... all I'm sayin'.

Jesus promises another comforter in the context of a passage in which he is talking about himself i.e. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." He is a comforter as long as he is in their presence. Then he tells them he will pray for another comforter, the spirit of truth to be with them when he goes "to the Father". This comforter is one that they already know because "he dwelleth with you" that is, in the person of Jesus. By this reading, Jesus is the first comforter, and the Spirit of Truth that will dwell in them is another comforter.

In verse 18 he says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you", implying that he was a comforter to them as long as he was with them and would come to them in the person of the Spirit as comforter when he went "to the Father." The relationship of Jesus to the Spirit in the passage begs for a trinitarian interpretation. I don't see the need to suppose there is a fourth person.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think I see what you see. But, I see problems with it that you deny.



You repeatedly ignore and fail to explain the plain word in calling the Son "God" in Hebrews 1:8. I would think that would produce cognitive dissonance for you. But, perhaps you are as dogmatic in your antitrinitariansim as many a trinitarian is in their viewpoint.



So what happens then in your imagination? Ex-Lord Jesus retires to Acapulco?



What do you imagine this Holy Spirit thing is? Chopped liver?



Well, of course, if the author had wished to make it clear that God the Father was the first love that was lost, he could have said so. Your picture of the New Testament has God the father in competition with Jesus for the "first love" position. That right there should suggest to you that there might be a wee little problem with your vision.

in the message to the church in Ephesus there is plenty going on in the name of Jesus. No loveless there. Jesus himself told us that the 1st great commandment was to love the Lord our God. (I'm sure you'll get caught up in the Lord thing again). I don't see a competition- there is love for the saints, brotherly love, love for spouse, love for children, love for our savior Jesus, and above all 1st and foremost, our love for God.
What do you think the first love should be?


Paul, in setting the correct stance for the Ephesians in chapter 4, talks about the church, the Spirit, the Lord, the faith, and One God, the Father. Why blame me? I didn't write it, I just accept it and follow it the best I can. It's really Paul, and the scripture vs. trinitarianism. Not me!

Read through the whole letter to the Hebrews and look how God and Christ are presented. It's basically that through the redemptive work of Christ, we can now come to God, and how God rewarded Christ for his obedience.

What will Jesus do? He has the Davidic rule over Israel. I would think he will lead in offering praise to God. What will we all do after we are transformed into the likeness of Christ?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Are you a person? If so, you know what a person is. If not, you don't. Bots don't understand...yet...as far as I know.

So is there a "person" God, or do you say that God is 3 different people as opposed to one person. In other words, when the scripture uses the term God, which is used quite a lot, do you just assume it's all 3 or 1 of the 3, or 2 of the 3? For instance when I read that the head of Christ is God, is that 2 of the 3 ruling over the 1, or is it the 3 splitting duties?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

in the message to the church in Ephesus there is plenty going on in the name of Jesus. No loveless there. Jesus himself told us that the 1st great commandment was to love the Lord our God. (I'm sure you'll get caught up in the Lord thing again). I don't see a competition- there is love for the saints, brotherly love, love for spouse, love for children, love for our savior Jesus, and above all 1st and foremost, our love for God.
What do you think the first love should be?

If one accepts that the Father and Son are one, then which one to love isn't a problem. For you apparently the erring Ephesians transferred their love from God to Jesus. The passage doesn't say that; but, you read it in. You connect this to the first great commandment. Hey, maybe your right. Jesus taught that and Paul didn't. Paul taught "If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed." [I Corinthians 16:22] And he rarely quoted Jesus. So you don't suppose it was Paul who led them astray from their "first love" do you?

Paul, in setting the correct stance for the Ephesians in chapter 4, talks about the church, the Spirit, the Lord, the faith, and One God, the Father. Why blame me? I didn't write it, I just accept it and follow it the best I can. It's really Paul, and the scripture vs. trinitarianism. Not me!

Paul isn't here to query. You like to quote that verse and have done so many times. I thought that was because you had an idea what it means. Maybe I was wrong about that.The verse doesn't tell you to do anything, so how do you follow it as best you can as you claim you do?

Read through the whole letter to the Hebrews and look how God and Christ are presented. It's basically that through the redemptive work of Christ, we can now come to God, and how God rewarded Christ for his obedience.

Read through the whole of verse 8 in chapter 1 and tell me how it is not God calling the Son "God".

What will Jesus do? He has the Davidic rule over Israel. I would think he will lead in offering praise to God. What will we all do after we are transformed into the likeness of Christ?

If Father, Son and Spirit are one it isn't a problem. If you praise one of them you praise all of them. But, from your perspective it seems Jesus can vacation on the French Riviera in private [which he might prefer to standing around being praised all the time] while we shout praises to God forever with our glorified larynges or however you like to think of it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So is there a "person" God, or do you say that God is 3 different people as opposed to one person. In other words, when the scripture uses the term God, which is used quite a lot, do you just assume it's all 3 or 1 of the 3, or 2 of the 3? For instance when I read that the head of Christ is God, is that 2 of the 3 ruling over the 1, or is it the 3 splitting duties?

From what I read, the doctrine of the incarnation involves that, in regard to his human nature, the Son should be less than the Father. Furthermore, the Trinitarian view is that the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father express the essential Trinitarian doctrine that the Father is the supreme source from whom the divine nature and perfections flow to the Son.

So, let me ask you, do you believe that the Christian Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus promises another comforter in the context of a passage in which he is talking about himself i.e. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." He is a comforter as long as he is in their presence. Then he tells them he will pray for another comforter, the spirit of truth to be with them when he goes "to the Father". This comforter is one that they already know because "he dwelleth with you" that is, in the person of Jesus. By this reading, Jesus is the first comforter, and the Spirit of Truth that will dwell in them is another comforter.

In verse 18 he says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you", implying that he was a comforter to them as long as he was with them and would come to them in the person of the Spirit as comforter when he went "to the Father." The relationship of Jesus to the Spirit in the passage begs for a trinitarian interpretation. I don't see the need to suppose there is a fourth person.

Joh_16:7* Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

There we have a "him." Your explanation reduces all the narrative of a comforter as superfluous jibber-jabber.

Why talk about a comforter if it's not distinguished? Who will send "him?" The Father or Jesus? Why speak of "another comforter?" or "the spirit of truth?"

If it's just the Holy Spirit then why call it, or him, a comforter? Why not just say the Father will send the Holy Spirit, or Jesus would sent it?

Sorry, but your explanation sounded like a trinitarian trying to explain away an additional something, another Spirit, that Jesus calls a him. The Holy Spirit didn't need to be sent, it was already very active. Clearly the comforter is something different, not just the Holy Spirit ; not the already active -- clearly already sent and present -- run of the mill ordinary Holy Spirit. The comforter is something different ; something additional.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Joh_16:7* Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

There we have a "him." Your explanation reduces all the narrative of a comforter as superfluous jibber-jabber.

Why talk about a comforter if it's not distinguished? Who will send "him?" The Father or Jesus? Why speak of "another comforter?" or "the spirit of truth?"

If it's just the Holy Spirit then why call it, or him, a comforter? Why not just say the Father will send the Holy Spirit, or Jesus would sent it?

Sorry, but your explanation sounded like a trinitarian trying to explain away an additional something, another Spirit, that Jesus calls a him. The Holy Spirit didn't need to be sent, it was already very active. Clearly the comforter is something different, not just the Holy Spirit ; not the already active -- clearly already sent and present -- run of the mill ordinary Holy Spirit. The comforter is something different ; something additional.

The Holy Spirit may have been active as you say but, in John 7:39 Jesus explains that the Holy Spirit hadn't been given yet because he [Jesus] had not yet been glorified.

In John 14:17 Jesus explains that up until then the Spirit of Truth had dwelled with them but he would be in them. Perhaps, that's the "something different" you're looking for.

Then he says in verse 18 that he will not leave them comfortless, he will come to them, thus supporting my contention that he was the first comforter before the "another".

In John 14:26 Jesus states outright that the comforter or helper [Greek paracletos] is the Holy Spirit. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

The final reference to the paracletos comes in John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the paracletos will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you." This confirms that the Holy Spirit would be given in a new way dependent on Jesus' glorification, that is, indwelling them as the Spirit of Truth as he explained earlier.

These are the only four references to the paracletos or paracleton in the Bible that I'm aware. The text clearly states that the paracletos is the Holy Spirit. So, call it what you will, but I think your proposition that this points to a fourth person in the Godhead is unsupported.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Holy Spirit may have been active as you say but, in John 7:39 Jesus explains that the Holy Spirit hadn't been given yet because he [Jesus] had not yet been glorified.

In John 14:17 Jesus explains that up until then the Spirit of Truth had dwelled with them but he would be in them. Perhaps, that's the "something different" you're looking for.

Then he says in verse 18 that he will not leave them comfortless, he will come to them, thus supporting my contention that he was the first comforter before the "another".

In John 14:26 Jesus states outright that the comforter or helper [Greek paracletos] is the Holy Spirit. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

The final reference to the paracletos comes in John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the paracletos will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you." This confirms that the Holy Spirit would be given in a new way dependent on Jesus' glorification, that is, indwelling them as the Spirit of Truth as he explained earlier.

These are the only four references to the paracletos or paracleton in the Bible that I'm aware. The text clearly states that the paracletos is the Holy Spirit. So, call it what you will, but I think your proposition that this points to a fourth person in the Godhead is unsupported.

Well, it is also used in 1 John 2:1, as "advocate," to the Father, when we sin. Note, it's not called comforter there.

So even with your explanation the comforter is clear as mud. Let's see, after Jesus is glorified he will send "him?" Why didn't he just say, after I am glorified "I" will come to you? and "I" will teach you everything?

Joh_15:26* But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

And in that verse Jesus should have said, "But when I (comforter) is come, whom I (not comforter) will send unto you, from the Father, even the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, I (not he) shall testify of me."

Why throw the comforter in there? Well, unless Jesus is coming as a big fuzzy comforter, like what I've got on my bed, that brings back "all things to your remembrance," in dreams.

I appreciate your attempt to explain away the comforter as being an additional person in the Godhead's. However, it would be more convincing if you just said, "it's double-talk."

And well, the gospel of John does sure seem to have a lot of double-talk in it ... and that would explain why "the comforter" appears as a different being.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well, it is also used in 1 John 2:1, as "advocate," to the Father, when we sin. Note, it's not called comforter there.

So even with your explanation the comforter is clear as mud. Let's see, after Jesus is glorified he will send "him?" Why didn't he just say, after I am glorified "I" will come to you? and "I" will teach you everything?

The Holy Spirit is an agent of the Son much like the Son is an agent of the Father.

Joh_15:26* But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

And in that verse Jesus should have said, "But when I (comforter) is come, whom I (not comforter) will send unto you, from the Father, even the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, I (not he) shall testify of me."

The Son's relationship with the Holy Spirit seems very much in keeping with trinitarian thinking.

Why throw the comforter in there? Well, unless Jesus is coming as a big fuzzy comforter, like what I've got on my bed, that brings back "all things to your remembrance," in dreams.

In deed, why throw a comforter in there unless there's a third person in the Trinity?

I appreciate your attempt to explain away the comforter as being an additional person in the Godhead's. However, it would be more convincing if you just said, "it's double-talk."

More like triple-talk.

And well, the gospel of John does sure seem to have a lot of double-talk in it ... and that would explain why "the comforter" appears as a different being.

So your not a fan of the Gospel of John. Maybe you share a bit of Boxjobox's dislike of Trintarianism. The Gospel of John seems to be very perplexing to the antitrinitarian. That speaks of the success of the Trinitarian formula in capturing essence of Johannine theology.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Holy Spirit may have been active as you say but, in John 7:39 Jesus explains that the Holy Spirit hadn't been given yet because he [Jesus] had not yet been glorified.

In John 14:17 Jesus explains that up until then the Spirit of Truth had dwelled with them but he would be in them. Perhaps, that's the "something different" you're looking for.

Then he says in verse 18 that he will not leave them comfortless, he will come to them, thus supporting my contention that he was the first comforter before the "another".

In John 14:26 Jesus states outright that the comforter or helper [Greek paracletos] is the Holy Spirit. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

The final reference to the paracletos comes in John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the paracletos will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you." This confirms that the Holy Spirit would be given in a new way dependent on Jesus' glorification, that is, indwelling them as the Spirit of Truth as he explained earlier.

These are the only four references to the paracletos or paracleton in the Bible that I'm aware. The text clearly states that the paracletos is the Holy Spirit. So, call it what you will, but I think your proposition that this points to a fourth person in the Godhead is unsupported.

Ok, so let's look at the moving parts in practice:
“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words.

‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’ “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.””**Acts‬ *2:4, 14, 17, 22-24, 29-36‬ *

I left out some verses for continuity and space, but if you look at what happened, and what was said about the Christ, looks to me like the Spirit of truth had no interest in presenting trinitarianism!
As I read it God was with this man Jesus, which was proved by signs and miracles, the man was crucified, God raised this man from the dead and made him both Lord and Christ. This man was Jesus. The promised spirit did not produce in the believers a message of Jesus being God. This is true throughout the book of Acts.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Holy Spirit is an agent of the Son much like the Son is a agent of the Father.




The Son's relationship with the Holy Spirit seems very much in keeping with trinitarian thinking.



In deed, why throw a comforter in there unless there's a third person in the Trinity?



More like triple-talk.



So your not a fan of the Gospel of John. Maybe you share a bit of Boxjobox's dislike of Trintarianism. The Gospel of John seems to be very perplexing to the antitrinitarian. That speaks of the success of the Trinitarian formula in capturing essence of Johannine theology.

The Spirit, the agent- now we're getting somewhere!

Trinitarians cherry pick certain phrases from John, compile a story and impose that on the rest of the NT. But how many spokespeople develop messages concerning Jesus' God and our God, and Jesus' Father and our Father being the one true God? John is actually more problematic for the trinitarian religion.

And, saying antitrinitarian is giving credence to legitimacy of trinitarianism, which is not the religion of the scripture, not from the Spirit of truth.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

From what I read, the doctrine of the incarnation involves that, in regard to his human nature, the Son should be less than the Father. Furthermore, the Trinitarian view is that the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father express the essential Trinitarian doctrine that the Father is the supreme source from whom the divine nature and perfections flow to the Son.

So, let me ask you, do you believe that the Christian Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice?

i don't look for a source outside the good book to set my beliefs and practices. Trinitarianism exclusively does rely on creeds for its religious practices and conforms scripture to its creeds.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

If one accepts that the Father and Son are one, then which one to love isn't a problem. For you apparently the erring Ephesians transferred their love from God to Jesus. The passage doesn't say that; but, you read it in. You connect this to the first great commandment. Hey, maybe your right. Jesus taught that and Paul didn't. Paul taught "If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed." [I Corinthians 16:22] And he rarely quoted Jesus. So you don't suppose it was Paul who led them astray from their "first love" do you?



Paul isn't here to query. You like to quote that verse and have done so many times. I thought that was because you had an idea what it means. Maybe I was wrong about that.The verse doesn't tell you to do anything, so how do you follow it as best you can as you claim you do?



Read through the whole of verse 8 in chapter 1 and tell me how it is not God calling the Son "God".



If Father, Son and Spirit are one it isn't a problem. If you praise one of them you praise all of them. But, from your perspective it seems Jesus can vacation on the French Riviera in private [which he might prefer to standing around being praised all the time] while we shout praises to God forever with our glorified larynges or however you like to think of it.

I would urge you to take some time- may take 30 to 40 min, and skim through the whole NT and see how the writers handled the terms God and Christ. If you get the big picture, which is consistently portrayed, I don't think you would arrive at some of the conclusions you do.

Concerning Eph 4, keeping the oneness of the Spirit includes recognizing one God, the Father. Seems to me like an important element. When you see someone setting up a different scenario than one God, the Father, such as a triune god, or Jesus as God, then you know something is amiss. This keeps it real simple, real plain. Real poker the eye of the trinitarians.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ok, so let's look at the moving parts in practice:
“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words.

‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’ “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.””**Acts‬ *2:4, 14, 17, 22-24, 29-36‬ *

I left out some verses for continuity and space, but if you look at what happened, and what was said about the Christ, looks to me like the Spirit of truth had no interest in presenting trinitarianism!
As I read it God was with this man Jesus, which was proved by signs and miracles, the man was crucified, God raised this man from the dead and made him both Lord and Christ. This man was Jesus. The promised spirit did not produce in the believers a message of Jesus being God. This is true throughout the book of Acts.

Two passages in Acts which you ignore point to the Holy Spirit as God

5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

28:25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26 saying,

‘Go to this people and say:
“Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;
And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”’

The prophecy contained in verses 26-27 above is taken from Isaiah 6, where it is spoken by the Lord of hosts.

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:

“Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”

Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”

9 And He said, “Go, and tell this people:

‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’

10 “Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.”

Thus, we see that according to Acts, Paul identified the Holy Spirit with the Lord of Hosts.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Two passages in Acts which you ignore point to the Holy Spirit as God

5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”



The prophecy contained in verses 26-27 above is taken from Isaiah 6, where it is spoken by the Lord of hosts.


Thus, we see that according to Acts, Paul identified the Holy Spirit with the Lord of Hosts.

Thus we don't see! I think one has to consider that 1) trinitarianism is not scriptural or 2) the scripture is written in a way where we are supposed to derive conclusions about God, Christ, the Spirit, not from what is directly said, but from bits and pieces of info we derive from small sections of verses which are to be compared, contrasted, and added together to make a picture, similar to a jigsaw puzzle.

I'm happy with #1, you seem to lean toward #2.
If we're are to take what Peter preached in Acts 2 and elsewhere, then I certainly would not draw the conclusion that Peter was setting up Jesus as God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Thus we don't see! I think one has to consider that 1) trinitarianism is not scriptural or 2) the scripture is written in a way where we are supposed to derive conclusions about God, Christ, the Spirit, not from what is directly said, but from bits and pieces of info we derive from small sections of verses which are to be compared, contrasted, and added together to make a picture, similar to a jigsaw puzzle.

I'm happy with #1, you seem to lean toward #2.
If we're are to take what Peter preached in Acts 2 and elsewhere, then I certainly would not draw the conclusion that Peter was setting up Jesus as God.

What I see is that you can't explain away the Trinitarian implications of the passages I present. Instead, you retreat to pet verses that seem to support your POV. You ignore passages that don't.

Awareness showed multiple verses where Paul replaced YHWH with Lord Jesus when quoting verses from the Hebrew Bible. That should have given you pause. But, instead of facing the textual facts you redirected our attention with something like "but what about this other thing over here."

You said "i don't look for a source outside the good book to set my beliefs and practices." That kind of thinking may result in a static view of God antithetical to life. Let me suggest an alternative view. Consider a few propositions. Let's call them hypotheses to test against the facts.

1. The Christian Bible is a product of the historic Church.
   
2. So are the creeds including statements about the nature of Christ and the Trinity.
   
3. The Christian conception of God developed or evolved over time.
   
4. The seeds of Trinitarian doctrine are in the Bible.

Take for example the many verses and passages positing Christ's pre-existence. God is repeatedly said to have created everything though Christ by several NT authors. Yet you have dismissed or minimized the significance of such statements cuz they don't square with your idea that Jesus is a mere man. Yet, the notion of the pre-existence of Christ may be one of the "seeds" that grew into the Trinity.

I doubt that Jesus considered himself to be God. I'm not even sure he considered himself to be the messiah. He didn't leave behind any writings. Instead, the New Testament texts are a sample of what Jesus' followers, the early "church", thought about him. What we call the "New Testament" are the thoughts of the early church on who Jesus was. The church's thinking evolved over time and continued to evolve across generations after the NT texts were written.

[awareness]

This came up on Bible v. Science thread. I drag it over because I don't know if Jobox visits that thread, and I want him to pay attention to the last two paragraphs. I'd like to get his take on the "us" statements in Genesis.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps the "original" language was lost, once God confounded speech.

Oh, don't you think that languages were confounded before Babel? The story was written looking back, from around circa 800 BCE, when the languages were clearly confounded, and the story of Babel was just a literary device to explain that reality.

Originally Posted by Ohio

To assume that the original language even existed beyond that point is to assume that God selected certain one(s) to leave alone, and confound everyone else.

Yeah, and all of them would have remembered their native tongue. So the original language had to go, as the story goes. I think. I wasn't there. None of us were. And neither were the author(s) of Genesis. Who knows the real original story? And we know how stories change on down the line. The original story could have been someone telling stories around a campfire, spit-balling something out to explain why all the tribes spoke different tongues. They weren't scientist's back then, even of your favorite pseudo type.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I doubt if everyone spoke a new tongue, rather I would guess that God would allow family structures to maintain a common language.

I don't know. It sure sounds like he wanted to confuse everyone :

Gen 11:7 "Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech."

Originally Posted by Ohio

We also know that language, both spoken and written, changes over time.

"And the tales grow taller on down the line."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Written language is definitely a stabilizing factor, but look at how much English has changed since the KJV/ Shakespearean days.

I know. I've got many translations and one of them is in the original Old English KJV.

I'll quote Gen. 11:7 again, in the original KJV :

Gen 11:7 Goe to, let vs go downe, and there cofound their language, that they may not vnderstand one anothers speech.

BTW, if good ol' Boxjobox is listening, I think he'll get a kick of more proof of the trinity at work with the "let us" in v. 7. And they, us, bring the terrible and awful power of the whole sway of all all three of them at the same time. Babel must have been one whooper of a problem, to require all three at once. I guess it took trinity power to confound the languages, so trinitarian Christians like to think, and superimpose, onto the "us" statements in Genesis.

But I should point out that it was at least three-times-power. It was so powerful, in fact, that it confounded the languages of the Native American Indians. Those tribes spoke different tongues too. And they had nothing to do with building the tower of Babel. Apparently God casts His judgement with a wide non-discriminating brush. If you ask me He's a little too loosey-goosey with it. I expect perfect precision from my God, when it comes to being fair minded toward the innocent. What were those three (or more) gods doing? It's like they nuked everyone. for something just a few on the earth had anything to do with. That's not Godly behavior. Maybe jobox is right. Maybe the trinity is evil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps the "original" language was lost, once God confounded speech. To assume that the original language even existed beyond that point is to assume that God selected certain one(s) to leave alone, and confound everyone else.

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh, don't you think that languages were confounded before Babel? The story was written looking back, from around circa 800 BCE, when the languages were clearly confounded, and the story of Babel was just a literary device to explain that reality.

Why would I think that? I already posted what I think.

The oldest and the best history book known to man tells us that God "confounded their language" at Babel and "scattered them across the earth," (Genesis 10-11) so why would I accept recent theories and speculations?

We also know that the first humans dwelt in Mesopotamia, so why should I accept theories and speculations that man originated in Africa?

We should ask ourselves, has science ever been wrong? Has the Bible ever been wrong?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why would I think that? I already posted what I think.

The oldest and the best history book known to man tells us that God "confounded their language" at Babel and "scattered them across the earth," (Genesis 10-11) so why would I accept recent theories and speculations?

We also know that the first humans dwelt in Mesopotamia, so why should I accept theories and speculations that man originated in Africa?

We should ask ourselves, has science ever been wrong? Has the Bible ever been wrong?

Yes and yes. And Genesis is not the oldest book in the Bible. That honor goes to Psalms.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

What I see is that you can't explain away the Trinitarian implications of the passages I present. Instead, you retreat to pet verses that seem to support your POV. You ignore passages that don't.

Awareness showed multiple verses where Paul replaced YHWH with Lord Jesus when quoting verses from the Hebrew Bible. That should have given you pause. But, instead of facing the textual facts you redirected our attention with something like "but what about this other thing over here."

You said "i don't look for a source outside the good book to set my beliefs and practices." That kind of thinking may result in a static view of God antithetical to life. Let me suggest an alternative view. Consider a few propositions. Let's call them hypotheses to test against the facts.

1. The Christian Bible is a product of the historic Church.
   
2. So are the creeds including statements about the nature of Christ and the Trinity.
   
3. The Christian conception of God developed or evolved over time.
   
4. The seeds of Trinitarian doctrine are in the Bible.

Take for example the many verses and passages positing Christ's pre-existence. God is repeatedly said to have created everything though Christ by several NT authors. Yet you have dismissed or minimized the significance of such statements cuz they don't square with your idea that Jesus is a mere man. Yet, the notion of the pre-existence of Christ may be one of the "seeds" that grew into the Trinity.

I doubt that Jesus considered himself to be God. I'm not even sure he considered himself to be the messiah. He didn't leave behind any writings. Instead, the New Testament texts are a sample of what Jesus' followers, the early "church", thought about him. What we call the "New Testament" are the thoughts of the early church on who Jesus was. The church's thinking evolved over time and continued to evolve across generations after the NT texts were written.

You are suggesting that I rely on something other than the Bible for truth? Been there, done that!
I do continuously post what you consider pet verses that emphatically state one, true God, the Father, because

1- they reflect the thought and teaching of both Jesus and Paul
2- they are not talked about in trinitarian circles
3- they expose the fallacy of evolved trinitarian teaching
4- they center me on what I should consider truth

You should doubt that Jesus considered himself God almighty, because he said that the Father is the one true God.

I think there is a lack of understanding, appreciation, grasp, revelation, etc, that God made Jesus Lord- gave him the highest position next to God Himself. I feel a good grasp of this ( and I don't imply I have it fully due to the modern day Christian thought that Jesus is God, which has warped this fantastic truth) would explain why scriptures seem to equate things of God with Christ. We seem to have almost no appreciation for what God did in raising Christ from the dead and putting him in this position. Paul does, so I would not want to cloud Paul's writings with a phony view of a triune God.

You seem to accept a lot of extra biblical teachings, yet seemed doubtful of everything. I stick to scripture and get bashed for it?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

This came up on Bible v. Science thread. I drag it over because I don't know if Jobox visits that thread, and I want him to pay attention to the last two paragraphs. I'd like to get his take on the "us" statements in Genesis.


Oh, don't you think that languages were confounded before Babel? The story was written looking back, from around circa 800 BCE, when the languages were clearly confounded, and the story of Babel was just a literary device to explain that reality.


Yeah, and all of them would have remembered their native tongue. So the original language had to go, as the story goes. I think. I wasn't there. None of us were. And neither were the author(s) of Genesis. Who knows the real original story? And we know how stories change on down the line. The original story could have been someone telling stories around a campfire, spit-balling something out to explain why all the tribes spoke different tongues. They weren't scientist's back then, even of your favorite pseudo type.


I don't know. It sure sounds like he wanted to confuse everyone :

Gen 11:7 "Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech."


"And the tales grow taller on down the line."


I know. I've got many translations and one of them is in the original Old English KJV.

I'll quote Gen. 11:7 again, in the original KJV :

Gen 11:7 Goe to, let vs go downe, and there cofound their language, that they may not vnderstand one anothers speech.

BTW, if good ol' Boxjobox is listening, I think he'll get a kick of more proof of the trinity at work with the "let us" in v. 7. And they, us, bring the terrible and awful power of the whole sway of all all three of them at the same time. Babel must have been one whooper of a problem, to require all three at once. I guess it took trinity power to confound the languages, so trinitarian Christians like to think, and superimpose, onto the "us" statements in Genesis.

But I should point out that it was at least three-times-power. It was so powerful, in fact, that it confounded the languages of the Native American Indians. Those tribes spoke different tongues too. And they had nothing to do with building the tower of Babel. Apparently God casts His judgement with a wide non-discriminating brush. If you ask me He's a little too loosey-goosey with it. I expect perfect precision from my God, when it comes to being fair minded toward the innocent. What were those three (or more) gods doing? It's like they nuked everyone. for something just a few on the earth had anything to do with. That's not Godly behavior. Maybe jobox is right. Maybe the trinity is evil.

“Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" **Job‬ *38:3-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

Job- an oldie but a goodie- has all the sons of God delighting in creation. The old Let Us statement may have included a lot more than 3 in the US department. Were the 4 living creatures there, 24 elders, myriads of angels? Cherubim and Seriphum? Who are these sons of God? The fallacy of trinitarianism paints weird pictures. In all of Genesis, angels play a major part in things of God. As I think I pointed out before, Stephen says an angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the burning bush. Whole lot of angelic things going on in both the OT and NT. They work quite closely with God. To turn an Us into a triune God is trinitarianism dilly dally.

Who are those Sons of God. Didn't some of them get fresh with the daughters of men?

[zeek]

No

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

You are suggesting that I rely on something other than the Bible for truth? Been there, done that!
I do continuously post what you consider pet verses that emphatically state one, true God, the Father, because

1- they reflect the thought and teaching of both Jesus and Paul
2- they are not talked about in trinitarian circles
3- they expose the fallacy of evolved trinitarian teaching
4- they center me on what I should consider truth

You should doubt that Jesus considered himself God almighty, because he said that the Father is the one true God.

I think there is a lack of understanding, appreciation, grasp, revelation, etc, that God made Jesus Lord- gave him the highest position next to God Himself. I feel a good grasp of this ( and I don't imply I have it fully due to the modern day Christian thought that Jesus is God, which has warped this fantastic truth) would explain why scriptures seem to equate things of God with Christ. We seem to have almost no appreciation for what God did in raising Christ from the dead and putting him in this position. Paul does, so I would not want to cloud Paul's writings with a phony view of a triune God.

You seem to accept a lot of extra biblical teachings, yet seemed doubtful of everything. I stick to scripture and get bashed for it?

Why believe Jesus or Paul? Jesus didn't write anything. How do you know that the words of Jesus have been reliably transmitted? After all the New Testament was compiled and copied by your hated trinitarians. Paul didn't include much of Jesus' teaching in his letters. He didn't teach what Jesus called the "great commandment" for instance. Why believe Paul when his teachings are different than Jesus? In fact the Jesus of the Gospel of John is quite a bit different than Luke's. How can you believe them both? Seems to me you owe a debt of gratitude to the catholic church for your cradle religion and transmitting the scriptures to you. You probably wouldn't be a Christian if you were born in India or the Middle East where Christians are few and far between. Have you hugged a trinitarian today?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" **Job‬ *38:3-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

Job- an oldie but a goodie- has all the sons of God delighting in creation. The old Let Us statement may have included a lot more than 3 in the US department. Were the 4 living creatures there, 24 elders, myriads of angels? Cherubim and Seriphum? Who are these sons of God? The fallacy of trinitarianism paints weird pictures. In all of Genesis, angels play a major part in things of God. As I think I pointed out before, Stephen says an angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the burning bush. Whole lot of angelic things going on in both the OT and NT. They work quite closely with God. To turn an Us into a triune God is trinitarianism dilly dally.

Who are those Sons of God. Didn't some of them get fresh with the daughters of men?

It's kind of funny that you paint a weird picture of 4 living creatures, 24 elders, myriads of angels, Cherubim, Seriphum and sons of God and then claim that trinitarianism paints weird pictures.

So you picture one supreme God, the Father, surrounded by a heaven full of supernatural beings including Jesus and Holy Spirit. Do you consider Jesus to be an angel? Galatians 4:14 says "And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by God the Father

“Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" **Job‬ *38:3-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

Oh Dad, you're such a braggart. And so many sons. What happened to your only begotten? Are they all God too? And no daughters. I guess daughters can't be God. Only sons.

Originally Posted by jobox

Job- an oldie but a goodie- has all the sons of God delighting in creation. The old Let Us statement may have included a lot more than 3 in the US department.

Good point. But according to John Jesus was there, and the Holy Spirit, so the trinity was there too. Prolly leading the singing. I wish we could see them. But alas they are all unseeable, and invisible, to human eyes. Must be hordes of them.

Originally Posted by jobox

Were the 4 living creatures there, 24 elders, myriads of angels? Cherubim and Seriphum? Who are these sons of God?

Golly gee willikers, do I have to love 'em all? My neighbors are already an overload. It's not God I have a problem with. It's His fan club. No wonder. His fan club, up there, is a bunch of guys ...and no daughters. I might like 'em more if there were some girls. I'm no better than the sons of God.

Originally Posted by jobox

The fallacy of trinitarianism paints weird pictures. In all of Genesis, angels play a major part in things of God. As I think I pointed out before, Stephen says an angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the burning bush. Whole lot of angelic things going on in both the OT and NT. They work quite closely with God. To turn an Us into a triune God is trinitarianism dilly dally.

With that bunch of sons up there it's all a dilly dally. I guess just sons keeps daughters, silly girls, from making it even more of a dilly dally.

Originally Posted by jobox

Who are those Sons of God. Didn't some of them get fresh with the daughters of men?

Can't blame the sons of God for being attracted to the daughters of men. What choice did they have? They weren't gay ... that we know of. With just guys up there, they may have had to try women, just once, for all we know. I don't blame them. Do you? If we love all those men doesn't that make us gay?

Why does God seem to like just men? And use a woman, Sophia, the Spirit, as just a servant. Does she do laundry and dishes too, and is barefoot in the kitchen?

Doesn't all this make God a funny guy ... and a women hater?

The "us" is all male ... except for Sophia ... and she's an interloper.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh Dad, you're such a braggart. And so many sons. What happened to your only begotten? Are they all God too? And no daughters. I guess daughters can't be God. Only sons.


Good point. But according to John Jesus was there, and the Holy Spirit, so the trinity was there too. Prolly leading the singing. I wish we could see them. But alas they are all unseeable, and invisible, to human eyes. Must be hordes of them.


Golly gee willikers, do I have to love 'em all? My neighbors are already an overload. It's not God I have a problem with. It's His fan club. No wonder. His fan club, up there, is a bunch of guys ...and no daughters. I might like 'em more if there were some girls. I'm no better than the sons of God.


With that bunch of sons up there it's all a dilly dally. I guess just sons keeps daughters, silly girls, from making it even more of a dilly dally.


Can't blame the sons of God for being attracted to the daughters of men. What choice did they have? They weren't gay ... that we know of. With just guys up there, they may have had to try women, just once, for all we know. I don't blame them. Do you? If we love all those men doesn't that make us gay?

Why does God seem to like just men? And use a woman, Sophia, the Spirit, as just a servant. Does she do laundry and dishes too, and is barefoot in the kitchen?

Doesn't all this make God a funny guy ... and a women hater?

The "us" is all male ... except for Sophia ... and she's an interloper.

Your vision of heaven seems to be as obscene as your vision of human life. Is that your point?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh Dad, you're such a braggart. And so many sons. What happened to your only begotten? Are they all God too? And no daughters. I guess daughters can't be God. Only sons.


Good point. But according to John Jesus was there, and the Holy Spirit, so the trinity was there too. Prolly leading the singing. I wish we could see them. But alas they are all unseeable, and invisible, to human eyes. Must be hordes of them.


Golly gee willikers, do I have to love 'em all? My neighbors are already an overload. It's not God I have a problem with. It's His fan club. No wonder. His fan club, up there, is a bunch of guys ...and no daughters. I might like 'em more if there were some girls. I'm no better than the sons of God.


With that bunch of sons up there it's all a dilly dally. I guess just sons keeps daughters, silly girls, from making it even more of a dilly dally.


Can't blame the sons of God for being attracted to the daughters of men. What choice did they have? They weren't gay ... that we know of. With just guys up there, they may have had to try women, just once, for all we know. I don't blame them. Do you? If we love all those men doesn't that make us gay?

Why does God seem to like just men? And use a woman, Sophia, the Spirit, as just a servant. Does she do laundry and dishes too, and is barefoot in the kitchen?

Doesn't all this make God a funny guy ... and a women hater?

The "us" is all male ... except for Sophia ... and she's an interloper.

This is all quite interesting to consider- the Bible is filled with oddities. Modern Christianity avoids talking about so much that's in there and focuses on a "personal relation" with Jesus. You have the 1st couple naked and not ashamed, a talking serpent in the garden, 2 peculiar trees set the stage, man and woman end up in curse, population grows, sons of God with daughters of men, giants, violence, evil, flood, Noah gets drunk and naked, another curse, Tower of Babel to reach heaven, language changes, nations, Abram, Melchizedek, circumcision? What's up with that?, Egypt, Moses, Moses' father-in-law was a priest? Baalam the seeker talks with God? Annihilation of whole nations, David and a lot of wives, Solomon with a whole lot of mistresses- I'll stop there.
So modern day Christianity that exists in America, and seems to be exported to everywhere else, has honed down God to a trinity of coequal parts, heaven is theoretical, hell is, we'll ask the Pope about that, clergy/laity is flourishing, numbers seem to be dwindling, Bible is close to being banned because it doesn't support homosexuality, people pray for divine intervention, but the medical field is rolling in bucks, the 3 "great" religions clash to the point of war, I could go on, and on.

In the meantime, God spoke to us in His son, but we all argue about what he actually said and meant!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your vision of heaven seems to be as obscene as your vision of human life. Is that your point?

Good point. I don't know. But I think it's good you point it out.

Maybe that's why we need both a new heaven and a new earth.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This is all quite interesting to consider- the Bible is filled with oddities. Modern Christianity avoids talking about so much that's in there and focuses on a "personal relation" with Jesus. You have the 1st couple naked and not ashamed, a talking serpent in the garden, 2 peculiar trees set the stage, man and woman end up in curse, population grows, sons of God with daughters of men, giants, violence, evil, flood, Noah gets drunk and naked, another curse, Tower of Babel to reach heaven, language changes, nations, Abram, Melchizedek, circumcision? What's up with that?, Egypt, Moses, Moses' father-in-law was a priest? Baalam the seeker talks with God? Annihilation of whole nations, David and a lot of wives, Solomon with a whole lot of mistresses- I'll stop there.
So modern day Christianity that exists in America, and seems to be exported to everywhere else, has honed down God to a trinity of coequal parts, heaven is theoretical, hell is, we'll ask the Pope about that, clergy/laity is flourishing, numbers seem to be dwindling, Bible is close to being banned because it doesn't support homosexuality, people pray for divine intervention, but the medical field is rolling in bucks, the 3 "great" religions clash to the point of war, I could go on, and on.

In the meantime, God spoke to us in His son, but we all argue about what he actually said and meant!

It isn't surprising that the Bible seems strange when you consider how long ago it was written. The writers' worldviews were informed by the cultures of their times as ours are informed by modern culture.

Their world is like a foreign land to us.Their cosmologies are prescientific. Their society traditional and was thoroughly patriarchal.

The Hebrew Bible is the product of ancient Israel. The New Testament is the product of the early Christian movement. What the Bible says is the words of those communities which were very different than ours.

They could not have imagined the way we understand things. We try to imagine how they viewed things but I don't see how we can ever achieve more than a rough approximation of their ancient perspectives.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It isn't surprising that the Bible seems strange when you consider how long ago it was written. The writers' worldviews were informed by the cultures of their times as ours are informed by modern culture.

Their world is like a foreign land to us.Their cosmologies are prescientific. Their society traditional and was thoroughly patriarchal.

The Hebrew Bible is the product of ancient Israel. The New Testament is the product of the early Christian movement. What the Bible says is the words of those communities which were very different than ours.

They could not have imagined the way we understand things. We try to imagine how they viewed things but I don't see how we can ever achieve more than a rough approximation of their ancient perspectives.

If only we had a book written by the best author ever.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

If only we had a book written by the best author ever.

We do. It's the creation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

If only we had a book written by the best author ever.

Ahhh ... the book written by Gods' own hand. Without fallen men in the middle.

And Jobox must be happy with that. There's no trinity claims in it. He's the one that get himself in a bind with all the trinitarians ; by sticking to the wrong book. He even brags that he's sticking strictly to that ... where the trinity sticks out like a sore thumb.

Not so in the book written by Gods' own hand.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ahhh ... the book written by Gods' own hand. Without fallen men in the middle.

And Jobox must be happy with that. There's no trinity claims in it. He's the one that get himself in a bind with all the trinitarians ; by sticking to the wrong book. He even brags that he's sticking strictly to that ... where the trinity sticks out like a sore thumb.

Not so in the book written by Gods' own hand.

We have to be very careful, though, viewing God through his creation or we might wind up with a trinitarian view. If God's thinking is reflected or manifest in creation how do we avoid something like a logos principal. If God becomes active within creation how do we avoid something like a spirit? Another alternative of course is to view God as always outside his creation and only reachable indirectly through angels like it was done in the Old Testament. Besides a trinitarian or angelic views what other options are there?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

We have to be very careful, though, viewing God through his creation or we might wind up with a trinitarian view. If God's thinking is reflected or manifest in creation how do we avoid something like a logos principal. If God becomes active within creation how do we avoid something like a spirit? Another alternative of course is to view God as always outside his creation and only reachable indirectly through angels like it was done in the Old Testament. Besides a trinitarian or angelic views what other options are there?

There is, of course, the one God the Father view, which is what Jesus and Paul give us in clear statements. Present Christianity is the results of mainly the Nicene creed of 4th century. That creed did not override God Almighty, the Father, but strayed into definitions of Christ and the Holy Spirit that negated Paul and Jesus's one, true God, the Father statements. That creed was viscously enforced to the detriment of any other thought, and has been so since the 5th century. Today's Christianity, at least in America, seems to have Jesus as the God of choice and relate all things God to Jesus. The terms God and Jesus are melded together. Not so by the apostle Paul, nor by the other contributors of the NT.

But we are now talking in circles- all of this has been covered in so many other posts. This trinity topic could on and on and never be resolved, because it is not spelled out in the NT, which to me is concrete proof of its fallacy. To rely on a collection of writings, which we say are inspired by God, and then to rely on a creed for understanding of God, because the other writings which we say are God- breathed, don't adequately pronounce God, and then to blend the two together, and have the creed trump anything which the "word of God" speaks, is total arrogance, and contradiction. It is man's way of creating and worshiping its own god.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

There is, of course, the one God the Father view, which is what Jesus and Paul give us in clear statements. Present Christianity is the results of mainly the Nicene creed of 4th century. That creed did not override God Almighty, the Father, but strayed into definitions of Christ and the Holy Spirit that negated Paul and Jesus's one, true God, the Father statements. That creed was viscously enforced to the detriment of any other thought, and has been so since the 5th century. Today's Christianity, at least in America, seems to have Jesus as the God of choice and relate all things God to Jesus. The terms God and Jesus are melded together. Not so by the apostle Paul, nor by the other contributors of the NT.

But we are now talking in circles- all of this has been covered in so many other posts. This trinity topic could on and on and never be resolved, because it is not spelled out in the NT, which to me is concrete proof of its fallacy. To rely on a collection of writings, which we say are inspired by God, and then to rely on a creed for understanding of God, because the other writings which we say are God- breathed, don't adequately pronounce God, and then to blend the two together, and have the creed trump anything which the "word of God" speaks, is total arrogance, and contradiction. It is man's way of creating and worshiping its own god.

The church gave us both the New Testament and the Nicene Creed. Why do you accept one and not the other?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ahhh ... the book written by Gods' own hand. Without fallen men in the middle.

And Jobox must be happy with that. There's no trinity claims in it. He's the one that get himself in a bind with all the trinitarians ; by sticking to the wrong book. He even brags that he's sticking strictly to that ... where the trinity sticks out like a sore thumb.

Not so in the book written by Gods' own hand.

Seems like the best thing for Christianity to do is update the NT and add the Nicene creed as one of its books, or at least its preamble. As well, update the writing in the various gospels and epistles to include triune verses. Tampering with a few key verses and slipping in a few trinity, God the Son, God the Spitit, I am a trinity statements would clear up the whole thing. For instance, Paul could tell the Corinthians that to us there is one God, who triune Father Son Spirit. Initially, some may react to "adding to the word of God", but a few hundred years from now, the controversy would be over and the new and improved triune god would be supreme. Lord Lee moved in this direction with his footnote bible, but as long as this stuff is believed and accepted, why not just change the scripture to match the present day (and future) theology. I mean really, why keep a bunch of stuffy, irrelevant outdated old manuscripts. If we're going to sit around and argue that they mean something else- discard them and write an updated NT, declare that as truth, enforce its acceptance and move on.

[UntoHim]

Hey Boxy, I think you're on to something! Yeah! Why let a few pesky verses get in the way of something as important as our personal theology!

While were at it, let's do away with those few pesky verses where Jesus is made out to be some exclusive egomaniac! You know, like the one where he said "I am the way and the truth and the life" Geez...he only said this one time, so it must be that some fundamentalist, exclusive, bible-thumper wacko snuck that into the original manuscripts.

Oh, oh!.... and surely the very next thing Jesus said "no one comes to the Father except through me" has got to go! I mean, would a cool and loving guy like Jesus really say such an exclusive, pig-headed thing? I mean, he only said it once or twice....nah! No way should this be in the Bible!

But wait there's more!.......
-

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey Boxy, I think you're on to something! Yeah! Why let a few pesky verses get in the way of something as important as our personal theology!

While were at it, let's do away with those few pesky verses where Jesus is made out to be some exclusive egomaniac! You know, like the one where he said "I am the way and the truth and the life" Geez...he only said this one time, so it must be that some fundamentalist, exclusive, bible-thumper wacko snuck that into the original manuscripts.

Oh, oh!.... and surely the very next thing Jesus said "no one comes to the Father except through me" has got to go! I mean, would a cool and loving guy like Jesus really say such an exclusive, pig-headed thing? I mean, he only said it once or twice....nah! No way should this be in the Bible!

But wait there's more!.......
-

Yes, UntoHim there is more! “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”John‬ *17:3‬ ‬
You really can't have Jesus making this wacko statement. I mean, come now- the Father the only true God? And his disciples, who became his apostles heard this? Maybe that's why there is no gospel about Jesus being God spoken the book of Acts.

And Paul- “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.**"I Corinthians‬ *8:5-6‬
Ouch! Paul needs to get with the program- or does he know something- same thing as Jesus? Maybe this is why eloquent Paul didn't teach triunism.

UntoHim, take some time to run through the posts on the main side, and ask yourself, "Where is the Father?", why don't people on your side talk about the God of Jesus?, why does no one speak of the true God being the Father. Look at the posts- the Father is virtually gone! Take about 1/2 hour and skim through the epistles and note how often God the Father is mentioned. Wouldn't you think the lofty people on your side would speak in the same proportion as the NT writers, giving glory to the one true God? It should be the mainstay of the Christian. I submit to you that it is lacking because of trinitarianism, of which Lord Lee was a chief proponent.

And why do the trinitarians always run to John for ammunition, but don't quote the resurrected Jesus “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ””*John‬ *20:17‬ *
Shouldn't it be that if we are going to follow Jesus, live Jesus, be the testimony of Jesus, who yes, is the way, the life and the truth, that we would declare what he does, and exalt the God he exalt?

I seriously doubt you'll do it, but try speaking often and loudly about the God of our Lord Jesus on the main side, and see what the reaction is. Might be eye opening to you- as well as scriptural!

[UntoHim]

Pull out your eraser Boxy, here it comes....
John 20:28
αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
My Lord and my God
Why didn't he correct Thomas Boxjobox? Jesus was always correcting his disciples about many things. So why didn't he correct Thomas about the most important thing, HIS DEITY? Why does "your side" seem to never want to talk about this verse? Read it and weep (or better yet...read and worship!)
My Lord and MY GOD!

John 10:32,33
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Once again, Jesus had the perfect opportunity to correct these fellows. "No I am NOT making myself God!" He did no such thing. It is crystal clear. They were going to stone Jesus because he was claiming to be God. "I and My Father ARE ONE". The Jews of the day knew EXACTLY what he meant we he said this. And when they called him on it, JESUS DID NOT CORRECT THEM. AND HE DIDN'T CORRECT THEM BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TELLING THEM.

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί
Before Abraham was born I am
Again, the Jews, the experts in the Scriptures, knew EXACTLY what Jesus was telling them. I AM ETERNAL. He also clearly stated that he shared the Father's glory "before the world began." God clearly stately that "I will NOT share my glory with another". The Jews knew this. They had memorized this. So when Jesus said "with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (John 17:5) it was crystal clear what he was saying about himself.

So my dear brother, every time you quote John 17:3 I will quote John 17:5. The problem is that you only want to believe verse 3, but you don't want to believe verse 5. I am at peace with BOTH, because both are the living and abiding Word of God! Stop selling yourself short Boxy! And most importantly, stop selling God short.
-

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Pull out your eraser Boxy, here it comes....
John 20:28
αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
My Lord and my God
Why didn't he correct Thomas Boxjobox? Jesus was always correcting his disciples about many things. So why didn't he correct Thomas about the most important thing, HIS DEITY? Why does "your side" seem to never want to talk about this verse? Read it and weep (or better yet...read and worship!)
My Lord and MY GOD!

John 10:32,33
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Once again, Jesus had the perfect opportunity to correct these fellows. "No I am NOT making myself God!" He did no such thing. It is crystal clear. They were going to stone Jesus because he was claiming to be God. "I and My Father ARE ONE". The Jews of the day knew EXACTLY what he meant we he said this. And when they called him on it, JESUS DID NOT CORRECT THEM. AND HE DIDN'T CORRECT THEM BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TELLING THEM.

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί
Before Abraham was born I am
Again, the Jews, the experts in the Scriptures, knew EXACTLY what Jesus was telling them. I AM ETERNAL. He also clearly stated that he shared the Father's glory "before the world began." God clearly stately that "I will NOT share my glory with another". The Jews knew this. They had memorized this. So when Jesus said "with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (John 17:5) it was crystal clear what he was saying about himself.

So my dear brother, every time you quote John 17:3 I will quote John 17:5. The problem is that you only want to believe verse 3, but you don't want to believe verse 5. I am at peace with BOTH, because both are the living and abiding Word of God! Stop selling yourself short Boxy! And most importantly, stop selling God short.
-

With all due respect, Mr. UntoHim, you apparently haven't been following this thread very closely, because if you had been you would have seen these arguments presented to Mr. Boxjobox before. He has repeated his counter-arguments so many times that, by now, I could present them. But, I'll leave it up to Jobox to decide if he wants to repeat them. He has already observed that we are going in circles.

Incidentally, when you referred to Boxjobox as a "Unitarian" in an earlier post I initially objected because I found his position unlike that of any of the Unitarians I have encountered over the years. But, of course, they were all Unitarian Universalists. Now we've found an online group who call themselves "Biblical Unitarians" whose doctrines are virtually identical to Boxjobox's. So, you were close if not on the money.

I have found that dialogue like we're having here is very worthwhile. Arguing for a position with someone of opposing view motivates me to dig in and learn. In this case it has inspired me to read the Bible with fresh eyes and to see things there that I passed over insensibly before. The Bible has become a living book for me again like it's supposed to be.

Boxjobox has found truth in the Bible. For that, we should thank God. He unequivocally recognizes God the Father as the one and only God and he recognizes Jesus as Lord. Must he be a Trinitarian to be saved?

He has pointed out indefatigably that in the book of Acts, many people are shown to be saved without anyone preaching ever that Jesus was God. Few here have acknowledged the truth of this observation, but no one has been able to refute it persuasively.

On the other hand, Boxjobox has either passed over or made questionable arguments on a number of passages including the ones you presented above. Further, he declines to define his terms, because such definitions would be "extra-biblical". Thus, for example, despite repeated requests he has refused to define what "Son of God" means. I think you will agree that one has to question the adequacy a Christian theology that cannot positively define "Son of God".

In any case, at this point, instead of an either/or approach to Trinitarian vs. Biblical Unitarian positions, maybe a both/and perspective is closer to the truth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

He has pointed out indefatigably that in the book of Acts, many people are shown to be saved without anyone preaching ever that Jesus was God. Few here have acknowledged the truth of this observation, but no one has been able to refute it persuasively.

This may be true. But what does it prove? That Jesus is not God?

Think about how many get saved and still believe that we evolved from apes?

The gospel of John makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is both the Creator of all things and God Himself.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This may be true. But what does it prove? That Jesus is not God?

Boxjobox takes it as evidence if not conclusive proof that Jesus is not God. If Jesus is God, then it is evidence that a person can be saved without knowledge of that fact. That can't be insignificant.

Think about how many get saved and still believe that we evolved from apes?

Evolved from? How are we not apes still? Not enough hair? Too much language?

The gospel of John makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is both the Creator of all things and God Himself.

Have you ever asked yourself why the Gospel of John approaches the issue of Christ's identity the way it does? First of all it talks about the "Logos". It doesn't say "In the beginning was Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ was with God and Jesus Christ was God." Why not? Do you think it was an accident? Do you think it's unimportant that John says it exactly the way it does? If it isn't an accident and it isn't unimportant, then why do you suppose it's stated that way?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Zeek,

That is well said.

What has impressed me about this in recent years is that God did not expect that people in their time and place to have scientific knowledge as we understand it today. If they thought the earth was flat then a reference to “four corners” was fine. Planets were known as wandering stars in a crystalline heaven cosmological point of view.

He spoke to them in terms they could understand.... as He still does today.

Drake

Thanks Drake. It's not hard for me to sympathize with earlier generations on this score. Especially with the advent of computers, knowledge is growing so fast now that I can see numerous examples in my own life where things I once took for granted as facts have been shown to be otherwise. So I tend to hold whatever I think is true now tentatively since it may be disproved down the line.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Boxjobox takes it as evidence if not conclusive proof that Jesus is not God. If Jesus is God, then it is evidence that a person can be saved without knowledge of that fact. That can't be insignificant.

Evolved from? How are we not apes still? Not enough hair? Too much language?

Have you ever asked yourself why the Gospel of John approaches the issue of Christ's identity the way it does? First of all it talks about the "Logos". It doesn't say "In the beginning was Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ was with God and Jesus Christ was God." Why not? Do you think it was an accident? Do you think it's unimportant that John says it exactly the way it does? If it isn't an accident and it isn't unimportant, then why do you suppose it's stated that way?

Apes were "good," but man was "very good" in Genesis. Perhaps things have changed?

Yes, sure I have.

Jesus is the message, the Logos, of the invisible God, the Father. This Logos is the Son, the eternal One from beginning, who was with God, and is God. He is God's story, His history, His image, His expression, His explanation, His discourse, His word to us. To know the Son, is to know the Father. To see the Son, is to see the Father. To believe the Son, is to believe the Father. The Son and the Father are one.

The Son became flesh, and tabernacled among us. He was born of the Spirit, born of a virgin, born under law, born to serve, born to die. His birth, His life, His death, His resurrection, His enthronement literally fulfilled thousands of scripture. The Law in every regard literally pointed to Him, whether in plain words, or pictures, or types, or figures, or shadows, or prophecy. The Son authored the entire scripture concerning Himself. Hence, the Logos of God!

Abraham believed God and that was righteousness for him. He is the father of faith. How can this be since Abraham did not know that Jesus was God? Neither did Abel, Enosh, Noah, Moses, Joshua, David, and etc. and etc. Ask JoBox how can this be? Did Joseph go to hell because he did not know Jesus is God?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

In any case, at this point, instead of an either/or approach to Trinitarian vs. Biblical Unitarian positions, maybe a both/and perspective is closer to the truth.

When I read Jobox's verse salad it makes sense and I agree with him.

When I read Untohim's verse salad it makes sense and I agree with him.

And I've even offered a verse salad, of Paul using Old Testament verses that refer to Yahweh and applying them to Christ.

So we're eating healthy greens, and living lean. Great.

But seems we're just having a food fight with verse salad. We're not eating a full course meal, a three course meal if you will.

Why? Because when it comes to the trinity, and Jesus being God, there is no full course meal in the Bible. Neither are developed into complete well spelled out doctrine. All we've got is salad, and no protein on these matters.

Jobox's verse salad seems to be the most meaty. He's standing on El Elyon, that stands out clearly in the OT, ο θεος ο ύψιστος in the Septuagint.

Untohim's verse salad is the least meaty. His verse salad is made up of a lot of innuendo and intuitive implications, same as mine, with Paul applying verses from the OT of Yahweh to Christ. We have to extrapolate and interpellate to get at any meat.

So to get more nutrition I'm forced to go with zeeks both/and approach, while admitting that the Bible doesn't offer a three course meal on these matters.

But there might be hope. Bro zeek claims that the Bible has come alive for him. And he's a smart guy. He might be able to sort out this puzzle.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apes were "good," but man was "very good" in Genesis. Perhaps things have changed?

The verses you're alluding exemplify the view that humans are separate from and superior to nature. It's a viewpoint has been used to justify the wanton exploitation and destruction of life, perhaps the world's biggest problem today.

Yes, sure I have.

Jesus is the message, the Logos, of the invisible God, the Father. This Logos is the Son, the eternal One from beginning, who was with God, and is God. He is God's story, His history, His image, His expression, His explanation, His discourse, His word to us. To know the Son, is to know the Father. To see the Son, is to see the Father. To believe the Son, is to believe the Father. The Son and the Father are one.

The Son became flesh, and tabernacled among us. He was born of the Spirit, born of a virgin, born under law, born to serve, born to die. His birth, His life, His death, His resurrection, His enthronement literally fulfilled thousands of scripture. The Law in every regard literally pointed to Him, whether in plain words, or pictures, or types, or figures, or shadows, or prophecy. The Son authored the entire scripture concerning Himself. Hence, the Logos of God!

What did the word "Logos" add to your summary? A metaphor. The Logos was an idea, message, word, story, history, image, expression, explanation, discourse in the mind of God that was fulfilled by Jesus. Why doesn't John refer directly to Jesus instead of using the "Logos" or "Word" metaphor? The metaphor requires interpretation like poetry which is what Boxjobox called it. Can we show that metaphoric pre-existence in John's Prologue is more than a poem?

The logos was God, therefore when the logos becomes flesh, Jesus embodies God. There are truths about God that can only be expressed metaphorically. This may be one of them. So, claiming that it is poetry doesn't give Boxjobox an out from the significance of the passage.

Abraham believed God and that was righteousness for him. He is the father of faith. How can this be since Abraham did not know that Jesus was God? Neither did Abel, Enosh, Noah, Moses, Joshua, David, and etc. and etc. Ask JoBox how can this be? Did Joseph go to hell because he did not know Jesus is God?

I don't understand how these questions pertain to Boxjobox since he doesn't believe that Jesus is God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The verses you're alluding exemplify the view that humans are separate from and superior to nature. It's a viewpoint has been used to justify the wanton exploitation and destruction of life, perhaps the world's biggest problem today.

These kinds of nonsensical views are not worth discussing. So, if I believe God created man in His own image, that "justifies the wanton exploitation and destruction of life." Yeah, you right!

Kind of like believing in Jesus is the reason for 50 Million abortions in the US? Sorry zeek, but reading your post is like watching CNN or the Scifi channel.

Originally Posted by zeek

What did the word "Logos" add to your summary? A metaphor. Why doesn't John refer directly to Jesus instead of using the "Logos" or "Word" metaphor? The metaphor requires interpretation like poetry which is what Boxjobox called it. Can you show that metaphoric pre-existence in John's Prologue is more than a poem? The Logos was an idea, message, word, story, history, image, expression, explanation, discourse in the mind of God that was fulfilled by Jesus. It would be a mistake to take a metaphor literally, right?

The Spirit inspired John's writing to describe the eternal Son as the Word of God. Perhaps you and JoBox don't care for it? You might want to take that up with the Author or the writer.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by zeek

With all due respect, Mr. UntoHim, you apparently haven't been following this thread very closely, because if you had been you would have seen these arguments presented to Mr. Boxjobox before. He has repeated his counter-arguments so many times that, by now, I could present them. But, I'll leave it up to Jobox to decide if he wants to repeat them. He has already observed that we are going in circles.

Incidentally, when you referred to Boxjobox as a "Unitarian" in an earlier post I initially objected because I found his position unlike that of any of the Unitarians I have encountered over the years. But, of course, they were all Unitarian Universalists. Now we've found an online group who call themselves "Biblical Unitarians" whose doctrines are virtually identical to Boxjobox's. So, you were close if not on the money.

I have found that dialogue like we're having here is very worthwhile. Arguing for a position with someone of opposing view motivates me to dig in and learn. In this case it has inspired me to read the Bible with fresh eyes and to see things there that I passed over insensibly before. The Bible has become a living book for me again like it's supposed to be.

Boxjobox has found truth in the Bible. For that, we should thank God. He unequivocally recognizes God the Father as the one and only God and he recognizes Jesus as Lord. Must he be a Trinitarian to be saved?

He has pointed out indefatigably that in the book of Acts, many people are shown to be saved without anyone preaching ever that Jesus was God. Few here have acknowledged the truth of this observation, but no one has been able to refute it persuasively.

On the other hand, Boxjobox has either passed over or made questionable arguments on a number of passages including the ones you presented above. Further, he declines to define his terms, because such definitions would be "extra-biblical". Thus, for example, despite repeated requests he has refused to define what "Son of God" means. I think you will agree that one has to question the adequacy a Christian theology that cannot positively define "Son of God".

In any case, at this point, instead of an either/or approach to Trinitarian vs. Biblical Unitarian positions, maybe a both/and perspective is closer to the truth.

Bible > John > Chapter 10 > Verse 27


◄ John 10:27 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

New Living Translation
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

English Standard Version
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

Berean Study Bible
My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me.



In other words his sheep recognize and know him also.

Zeek asks, "Must he be a trinitarian to be saved?"

Trinity is a feeble word that can mean many things.
He doesn't have to be a Trinity believer or creedle mantra man.

I'M HMHO the real question is...
Does he have a relationship with an unknown God? Or what kind of relationship is this that Boxjoe has that he recognizes the shepherds voice (I think) but doesn't recognize who he is and what he's done? Or doing?

Hasn't it been made clear throughout all scripture?

I guess maybe he can recognize his voice but never know him?

Where's the Beef/I mean relationship?

[awareness]

I couldn't let this one just slide past. Ohio deserves a great deal of credit for this post. He did an exquisite job of expressing his views.

Some comments :

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus is the message, the Logos, of the invisible God, the Father.

Hey, you and Jobox, for once maybe, agree. He says "plan,' and you say "message." Both work, and speak truth, for both y'all. The preamble of the GoJ says "light." That works too, of course.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This Logos is the Son, the eternal One from beginning, who was with God, and is God.

Well technically, it doesn't put it precisely that way. But yes.

And methinks Jobox can't jibe the "eternal thing" with his position. Cuz if Jesus was/is eternal, he's more than just a man, and has to be supernatural. Which means he's God of some sort (maybe 'a' god, as the JWs claim -- that means two Gods, that fails with scripture).

Originally Posted by Ohio

He is God's story, His history, His image, His expression, His explanation, His discourse, His word to us. To know the Son, is to know the Father. To see the Son, is to see the Father. To believe the Son, is to believe the Father. The Son and the Father are one.

Now you sound like Witness Lee.

"and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father"

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Son became flesh, and tabernacled among us.

Again, technically, it says the 'logos' became flesh, not 'son.' But let's not quibble.

Originally Posted by Ohio

He was born of the Spirit, born of a virgin, born under law, born to serve, born to die. His birth, His life, His death, His resurrection, His enthronement literally fulfilled thousands of scripture.

You prolly can't back that up (see below). But okay.

Question? Is Jesus in the bosom of the Father, as the preamble states, or sitting on the throne?

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Law in every regard literally pointed to Him, whether in plain words, or pictures, or types, or figures, or shadows, or prophecy.

I take it you mean the 613 laws?

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Son authored the entire scripture concerning Himself.

So not just the red letters is Jesus' speaking?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Abraham believed God and that was righteousness for him. He is the father of faith. How can this be since Abraham did not know that Jesus was God? Neither did Abel, Enosh, Noah, Moses, Joshua, David, and etc. and etc. Ask JoBox how can this be? Did Joseph go to hell because he did not know Jesus is God?

This is where your post falls down. Who said that salvation depends on believing Jesus was/is God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This Logos is the Son, the eternal One from beginning, who was with God, and is God.

Originally Posted by awareness

Well technically, it doesn't put it precisely that way. But yes.

And methinks Jobox can't jibe the "eternal thing" with his position. Cuz if Jesus was/is eternal, he's more than just a man, and has to be supernatural. Which means he's God of some sort (maybe 'a' god, as the JWs claim -- that means two Gods, that fails with scripture).

John 1.1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

John opens his gospel literally saying, "In beginning." There is no article "the." This beginning was not the beginning of his book. It was not the same beginning as Gen 1.1, the beginning of creation, the beginning of time. This beginning was before time, before creation, pre-time, in eternity past.

So, according to John's gospel, combining vv. 1, 14, and 18, what I wrote is exactly true -- "This Logos is the Son, the eternal One from beginning, who was with God, and is God."

[Boxjobox]

I find this all amusing to a degree- the trinitarians are like the worshippers of Dianna in Ephesus over and over Jesus is God, Jesus is God, John told us Jesus is God. Yet right there in John's gospel, he has Jesus clearly telling the apostles
“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”**John‬ *17:3‬ . When Jesus is raised from the dead and meets Mary ar the tomb he says “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ””
**John‬ *20:17‬ *NKJV‬‬

These are not boxjobox's paraphrase or cut and tape verses, but the words of JESUS!

Exactly what was meant by Thomas, would be up for question- a man that was crucified and died and 3 days later appears walking and talking, yet still bearing wound scars, would to a doubting person, be a fantastic event. My assumption, would be that seeing the one he expected to be the great promised messiah who would save Israel and establish the Kingdom of his father David killed and buried, the one they referred to as lord for 3 years, would be such a let down no matter how often Jesus told them he would be killed and rise again. You just don't see this every day. It may be well to consider John 11, ant the resurrection of Lazarus. I chose a few verses to exemplify the thought there
“Now Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.”

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

And some of them said, “Could not this Man, who opened the eyes of the blind, also have kept this man from dying?”

Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?” Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying. And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.””
**John‬ *11:21-22, 25-27, 37, 40-42‬ *NKJV‬‬

Jesus performed a seriously hefty miracle there, but they were not running around saying Jesus, you are God. In fact they give glory to God. I suspect Thomas was recognizing Jesus as Lord and the God who raised him from the dead! There are a few important things to consider in my evaluation of this 1) John told us why he wrote his gospel, and that was not to declare Jesus as God, but that we might know that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, and in believing, may have life in his name. 2) Jesus told the disciples (and us through John's quoting Jesus) that eternal life is to know the Father, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. 3) Thomas' statement, which would be phenomenally different than everything believed at that time, if in fact he was saying Jesus is the almighty God, should have been declared in all he gospels, and preached and taught in Acts, and the other books of the NT; but it is not, which is a clear indication that what you Jesus is God people rave, doesn't hold water. The NT would be a totally lame collection of writings, if it was supposed to be proclaiming Jesus is God, and that's the best it could do. It would show the ineptness of the players in the NT to convey this monumental discovery. 4) Paul, the apostle, also told us in no uncertain terms- unambiguous words, that to us there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. This is the same teaching overshadows the NT. It matches the revelation that Peter received that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, and on which rock Jesus said he would build his church.

People can, and with good intentions, incessantly declare Jesus is God, Jesus is God- it's just that it doesn't match the declaration of Jesus and Paul, that the one, only, true God is the one we are privileged to call Father.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John 1.1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

John opens his gospel literally saying, "In beginning." There is no article "the." This beginning was not the beginning of his book. It was not the same beginning as Gen 1.1, the beginning of creation, the beginning of time. This beginning was before time, before creation, pre-time, in eternity past.

So, according to John's gospel, combining vv. 1, 14, and 18, what I wrote is exactly true -- "This Logos is the Son, the eternal One from beginning, who was with God, and is God."

Then who is the God of Jesus? Paul tells us that the head of Christ is God. Jesus tells us about his God. Your splicing parts doesn't address the God of Jesus

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Bible > John > Chapter 10 > Verse 27


◄ John 10:27 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

New Living Translation
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

English Standard Version
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

Berean Study Bible
My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me.



In other words his sheep recognize and know him also.

Zeek asks, "Must he be a trinitarian to be saved?"

Trinity is a feeble word that can mean many things.
He doesn't have to be a Trinity believer or creedle mantra man.

I'M HMHO the real question is...
Does he have a relationship with an unknown God? Or what kind of relationship is this that Boxjoe has that he recognizes the shepherds voice (I think) but doesn't recognize who he is and what he's done? Or doing?

Hasn't it been made clear throughout all scripture?

I guess maybe he can recognize his voice but never know him?

Where's the Beef/I mean relationship?

Manna-man, I would greatly encourage you to slowly read through Ephesians- in this great work, Paul tells us about the wonderful work the God of our Lord Jesus did in, with, and through Jesus the Christ. And what that means to us.

John, in the 1st epistle, points out, and as I practice the importance of having fellowship with the Father ( who Jesus tells us is his God and our God) and with His son Jesus Christ.

Manna-man, it's time to drop the Jesus is God, triune God fallacy and do what John recommends us- get back to the beginning, before all these fables came to rule the Christian though!

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

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These kinds of nonsensical views are not worth discussing. So, if I believe God created man in His own image, that "justifies the wanton exploitation and destruction of life." Yeah, you right!

Kind of like believing in Jesus is the reason for 50 Million abortions in the US? Sorry zeek, but reading your post is like watching CNN or the Scifi channel.



The Spirit inspired John's writing to describe the eternal Son as the Word of God. Perhaps you and JoBox don't care for it? You might want to take that up with the Author or the writer.

The Spirit inspired, John recorded, written word, of a couple of quotes Jesus said before and after his passion
“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.John‬ *17:3‬ *NKJV‬‬
“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
**John‬ *17:3‬ *NKJV‬‬

How did that song go?

If from fickle soul you're longing to be free
Amen the word of Gos

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Zeek,

That is well said.

What has impressed me about this in recent years is that God did not expect that people in their time and place to have scientific knowledge as we understand it today. If they thought the earth was flat then a reference to “four corners” was fine. Planets were known as wandering stars in a crystalline heaven cosmological point of view.

He spoke to them in terms they could understand.... as He still does today.

Drake

The problem I have with this thinking is that truth comes from God, and strange thoughts come from man when he rejects God's truth. One would expect God not to toy with strange thoughts of man, but to reveal truth. It would not have been hard for God to explain the cosmos to man-Adam and all were not ignorant beasts. I sort of brought this up with the changing view of heaven: where it is, what goes on up there as presented in scripture, how are we supposed to relate to it. Much rejection of the Bible in our times is due to the cosmology, creation, and a lot of other things presented in the scripture. But this all may be a discussion for a different thread.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Pull out your eraser Boxy, here it comes....
John 20:28
αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
My Lord and my God
Why didn't he correct Thomas Boxjobox? Jesus was always correcting his disciples about many things. So why didn't he correct Thomas about the most important thing, HIS DEITY? Why does "your side" seem to never want to talk about this verse? Read it and weep (or better yet...read and worship!)
My Lord and MY GOD!

John 10:32,33
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Once again, Jesus had the perfect opportunity to correct these fellows. "No I am NOT making myself God!" He did no such thing. It is crystal clear. They were going to stone Jesus because he was claiming to be God. "I and My Father ARE ONE". The Jews of the day knew EXACTLY what he meant we he said this. And when they called him on it, JESUS DID NOT CORRECT THEM. AND HE DIDN'T CORRECT THEM BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TELLING THEM.

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί
Before Abraham was born I am
Again, the Jews, the experts in the Scriptures, knew EXACTLY what Jesus was telling them. I AM ETERNAL. He also clearly stated that he shared the Father's glory "before the world began." God clearly stately that "I will NOT share my glory with another". The Jews knew this. They had memorized this. So when Jesus said "with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (John 17:5) it was crystal clear what he was saying about himself.

So my dear brother, every time you quote John 17:3 I will quote John 17:5. The problem is that you only want to believe verse 3, but you don't want to believe verse 5. I am at peace with BOTH, because both are the living and abiding Word of God! Stop selling yourself short Boxy! And most importantly, stop selling God short.
-

UntoHim- Jesus DID do a lot of explaining of his sayings-here are a few
“Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.

My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.””
**John‬ *10:25, 29-30, 34-36, 38‬ *NKJV‬‬

You are still stuck in the cut and tape world of Lord Lee. Jesus consistently presented himself as the Christ, the son of God. He told us who God is-the one we are privileged to call Father- the one who is greater than all, the one who is his God and our God, his Father and our Father.

Once again, consider the talking on the regular site- where is the glory of the Father manifested? The Father is buried by the trinitarianism. BURIED!

You can change that- start speaking and writing over on the other side about the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Use that reality as much as it is proclaimed in the NT- and see how you are accepted, what the response is. It will totally expose the pathetic "ministry" of Lord Lee, which led us far away from worshipping the Father, the one true God.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The problem I have with this thinking is that truth comes from God, and strange thoughts come from man when he rejects God's truth. One would expect God not to toy with strange thoughts of man, but to reveal truth. It would not have been hard for God to explain the cosmos to man-Adam and all were not ignorant beasts. I sort of brought this up with the changing view of heaven: where it is, what goes on up there as presented in scripture, how are we supposed to relate to it. Much rejection of the Bible in our times is due to the cosmology, creation, and a lot of other things presented in the scripture. But this all may be a discussion for a different thread.

We can take it to another thread.

Awareness, as moderator, and if you agree, please move these few to the appropriate thread including the one with your graphic. Maybe starting with zeeks.

Thanks
Drake

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Manna-man, I would greatly encourage you to slowly read through Ephesians- in this great work, Paul tells us about the wonderful work the God of our Lord Jesus did in, with, and through Jesus the Christ. And what that means to us.

John, in the 1st epistle, points out, and as I practice the importance of having fellowship with the Father ( who Jesus tells us is his God and our God) and with His son Jesus Christ.

Manna-man, it's time to drop the Jesus is God, triune God fallacy and do what John recommends us- get back to the beginning, before all these fables came to rule the Christian though!

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

Galatians 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

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

4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

24 And they glorified God in me.

Boxjoebox,

Grace, Mercy and Peace from He who walks àmong the seven golden lampstands.
I
Thank you for encouraging me to read in ephesians
I likewise encourage you to read Galatians.

I posted chapter 1 above for your convenience and discourage you from preaching another gospel.

This other gospel in this case is the "Trinity" gospel which is a waste of mental time and will wear you out. From such words spring other labels such as modalist and other attacks.

I also encourage you to come to terms with John 1:1. Either it is true or it is not. Which is it? Is the word God or not?

Let us return to and not lose focus of the central theme of the gospel which is Christ/God Crusified for our sins.

It's time to drop/end the creedle inserts into the gospel and lay hold of the truth in all of it's simplicity.

Glory to our Father aka The Servant Son!


Peace.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Exactly what was meant by Thomas, would be up for question- a man that was crucified and died and 3 days later appears walking and talking, yet still bearing wound scars, would to a doubting person, be a fantastic event. My assumption, would be that seeing the one he expected to be the great promised messiah who would save Israel and establish the Kingdom of his father David killed and buried, the one they referred to as lord for 3 years, would be such a let down no matter how often Jesus told them he would be killed and rise again. You just don't see this every day.

I've been considering dropping this into this discussion for some time. It's a footnote from the NET Bible concerning Thomas' remark :

20:28 Thomas replied to him,51 “My Lord and my God!”52

52sn Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“My Lord and my God has truly risen from the dead”), as predicate nominatives (“You are my Lord and my God”), or as vocatives (“My Lord and my God!”)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and the reader has come full circle from 1:1, where the author had introduced him to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in John 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he” (Grk “I am”). By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to his death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both Lord (κύριος [kurios], used by the LXX to translate Yahweh) and God (θεός [qeos], used by the LXX to translate Elohim).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've been considering dropping this into this discussion for some time. It's a footnote from the NET Bible concerning Thomas' remark :

20:28 Thomas replied to him,51 “My Lord and my God!”52

52sn Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“My Lord and my God has truly risen from the dead”), as predicate nominatives (“You are my Lord and my God”), or as vocatives (“My Lord and my God!”)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and the reader has come full circle from 1:1, where the author had introduced him to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in John 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he” (Grk “I am”). By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to his death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both Lord (κύριος [kurios], used by the LXX to translate Yahweh) and God (θεός [qeos], used by the LXX to translate Elohim).

There's a strong empirical wind blowing behind anyone who states that Jesus is not God. Humans are not God is true in my experience and I suppose in yours as well.

Maybe that's why the statements implying that Jesus is God are indirect in the Bible. It's an irrational, embarrassing and blasphemous proposition on its face. No wonder the first thorough-going Trinitarian, Tertullian said “It is certain, because impossible." Better to cloak such an absurdity in riddles. That might explain the irony in the fact that the Gospel of John puts the confession that Jesus is God in the mouth of an infamous doubter.

Yet the church went on to make the claim plainly in the Nicene Creed:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

Am I an agnostic or a mad man because here I am --acutely aware of the utter absurdity of the statement and yet still captivated by the possibility? And here is Boxjobox, captivated by arguing against it.

So, since you've read this far, whoever you are, we have this in common, that we have been grasped by the mystery of God. Maybe everyone who posts here has that in common with us. Greetings to you ...my fellow prisoner of the mystery of God!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John 1.1 says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

John opens his gospel literally saying, "In beginning." There is no article "the." This beginning was not the beginning of his book. It was not the same beginning as Gen 1.1, the beginning of creation, the beginning of time. This beginning was before time, before creation, pre-time, in eternity past.

So, according to John's gospel, combining vv. 1, 14, and 18, what I wrote is exactly true -- "This Logos is the Son, the eternal One from beginning, who was with God, and is God."

I think I mentioned "precisely." But thanks for explaining ; tho not answered by quoting a verse that says precisely, the Son became flesh. Your answer, and apparently conclusion, is a interpolation.

And by the way, the preamble says we all can become sons of God.

And you didn't answer my question. Is Jesus in the bosom of the Father (stated in the preamble) or on the throne (not mentioned in John - but elsewhere)?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thanks Drake. It's not hard for me to sympathize with earlier generations on this score. Especially with the advent of computers, knowledge is growing so fast now that I can see numerous examples in my own life where things I once took for granted as facts have been shown to be otherwise. So I tend to hold whatever I think is true now tentatively since it may be disproved down the line.

Me too.

I was contemplating over the last month the verse that says , “God is light”, and while reading a book on the Special Theory of Relativity describing the speed of light as the place and time where there is no place or time I gained a new appreciation for the revelation in the Bible and how it is always applicable to people regardless of their scientific understanding at the time. I thoroughly believe that science confirms the revelation in the Bible as it (science) progresses. God communicates to man truth in the way that man communicates and understands because the Bible is not primarily a science book but the revelation about God and all things pertaining to Him.

Drake

[Drake]

Boxjobox>"Yet right there in John's gospel, he has Jesus clearly telling the apostles “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”**John‬ *17:3‬ . When Jesus is raised from the dead and meets Mary ar the tomb he says “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ””
**John‬ *20:17‬ *NKJV‬‬

These are not boxjobox's paraphrase or cut and tape verses, but the words of JESUS"

Yes, but it is your interpretation that is short.

When the Lord was being examined by the high priest the priest asked Him: "I charge You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Jesus' reply "You have said it yourself,.....”

Then the high priest went ballistic. "At this, the high priest tore his garments and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy"

Apparently, the high priest knew exactly what Jesus was claiming.

These are not Drake's paraphrase or cut and tape verses, but the words of JESUS!

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

We can take it to another thread.

Awareness, as moderator, and if you agree, please move these few to the appropriate thread including the one with your graphic. Maybe starting with zeeks.

Thanks
Drake

I'm game. I agree. My graphic post should be moved there. What should we call the thread?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm game. I agree. My graphic post should be moved there. What should we call the thread?

Something simple... maybe "Science in the Bible"

or something that sounds like that... include zeeks, my response, yours, BXB, those few to kick it off.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

When the Lord was being examined by the high priest the priest asked Him: "I charge You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Jesus' reply "You have said it yourself,.....”

Then the high priest went ballistic. "At this, the high priest tore his garments and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy"

Apparently, the high priest knew exactly what Jesus was claiming.

These are not Drake's paraphrase or cut and tape verses, but the words of JESUS!

Drake

So simple a caveman could understand!

Or a small child!

But here we have brilliant guys saying, "There's a strong empirical wind blowing behind anyone who states that Jesus is not God. Humans are not God is true in my experience and I suppose in yours as well... Am I an agnostic or a mad man because here I am -- acutely aware of the utter absurdity of the statement and yet still captivated by the possibility?"

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So simple a caveman could understand!

Or a small child!

But here we have brilliant guys saying, "There's a strong empirical wind blowing behind anyone who states that Jesus is not God. Humans are not God is true in my experience and I suppose in yours as well... Am I an agnostic or a mad man because here I am -- acutely aware of the utter absurdity of the statement and yet still captivated by the possibility?"

Obvious even to a duck!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox>"Yet right there in John's gospel, he has Jesus clearly telling the apostles “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”**John‬ *17:3‬ . When Jesus is raised from the dead and meets Mary ar the tomb he says “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ””
**John‬ *20:17‬ *NKJV‬‬

These are not boxjobox's paraphrase or cut and tape verses, but the words of JESUS"

Yes, but it is your interpretation that is short.

When the Lord was being examined by the high priest the priest asked Him: "I charge You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Jesus' reply "You have said it yourself,.....”

Then the high priest went ballistic. "At this, the high priest tore his garments and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy"

Apparently, the high priest knew exactly what Jesus was claiming.

These are not Drake's paraphrase or cut and tape verses, but the words of JESUS!

Drake

Yes, Drake I don't know if you noticed but the high priest charges him " under oath of the Living God". That God is well defined in both the OT and the NT. In the OT it was the God of creation, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc, in the NT it is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, who is the Son of God.
Jesus, before the trial, prayed and spoke to his disciples that the only true God was the Father. Upon his resurrection he told a disciple he was going to ascend to his God and our God, his Father and our Father.

John sums up his gospel saying he wrote it so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. I don't see hat I'm interpreting anything here but just quoting Jesus. Do you have a hard time accepting Jesus declaration that the only true God is the Father?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Galatians 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

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

4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;

22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

24 And they glorified God in me.

Boxjoebox,

Grace, Mercy and Peace from He who walks àmong the seven golden lampstands.
I
Thank you for encouraging me to read in ephesians
I likewise encourage you to read Galatians.

I posted chapter 1 above for your convenience and discourage you from preaching another gospel.

This other gospel in this case is the "Trinity" gospel which is a waste of mental time and will wear you out. From such words spring other labels such as modalist and other attacks.

I also encourage you to come to terms with John 1:1. Either it is true or it is not. Which is it? Is the word God or not?

Let us return to and not lose focus of the central theme of the gospel which is Christ/God Crusified for our sins.

It's time to drop/end the creedle inserts into the gospel and lay hold of the truth in all of it's simplicity.

Glory to our Father aka The Servant Son!


Peace.

Manna-man, you're a dear soul and I love you brother, but one would not read through Galatians and make a statement "Glory to our Father aka The Servant Son!". John writes the central theme of the gospe in this way, and it's used all over the world “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
**John‬ *3:16‬ *NKJV‬‬
The entire perspective of the NT is what God did, is doing, and will do for us, in us and through us through Christ Jesus, the son of God. The reason I asked that you read through Ephesians is so that you might catch the revelation of what the God and Father of our Lord Jesus has given us in Christ.

You are not speaking the truth of the gospel in a statement like "Glory to our Father aka The Servant Son". Rather you are muddling the gospel by disallowing the great and powerful work our God and Father did in raising this man Jesus from the dead, and making him Lord over all.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've been considering dropping this into this discussion for some time. It's a footnote from the NET Bible concerning Thomas' remark :

20:28 Thomas replied to him,51 “My Lord and my God!”52

52sn Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“My Lord and my God has truly risen from the dead”), as predicate nominatives (“You are my Lord and my God”), or as vocatives (“My Lord and my God!”)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and the reader has come full circle from 1:1, where the author had introduced him to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in John 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he” (Grk “I am”). By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to his death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both Lord (κύριος [kurios], used by the LXX to translate Yahweh) and God (θεός [qeos], used by the LXX to translate Elohim).

It's kind of like this Thomas statement was spoken 30 years after the day of Pentecost after the gospel spread, not immediately after Jesus' resurrection. As I have pointed out, Luke, in wanting to set straight those things which are assuredly believed among the believers makes no mention of this, which is mind boggling if the grand revelation was that Jesus was God. Then there is Acts- no such gospel spoken in Acts. Plenty of gospel messages on how God raised Jesus, that Jesus is the Christ the son of God, that God made this man Jesus Lord. But no mention of this Thomas statement until John? Something is amiss! You would have to say there was 30 years of an incomplete gospel, which is really problematic, or that Thomas was not actually declaring that Jesus is God, but acknowledging what God did in raising the crucified man from the dead. Based on the gospel record in Acts, and Paul's gospel, I would have to say Thomas was acknowledging the work God did in raising Jesus. A meaning of Thomas declaring that Jesus is God isn't even followed up in John's summary.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Zeek,

That is well said.

What has impressed me about this in recent years is that God did not expect that people in their time and place to have scientific knowledge as we understand it today. If they thought the earth was flat then a reference to “four corners” was fine. Planets were known as wandering stars in a crystalline heaven cosmological point of view.

He spoke to them in terms they could understand.... as He still does today.

Drake

This seems to be the modus operandi of trinitarianism in explaining why a triune God was not mentioned in the scripture- people just were not ready for it. I think Ohio alluded to this saying John wrote his gospel later to set forth exactly who Jesus really was ( I may be not presenting Ohio's statement exactly, but this is what I got out of one of his previous posts). The problem with this view is that it makes everything that came before John's gospel little and relatively worthless. All things must be measured by a trinitarian interpretation of John's writing. This is why preachers always interject a Jesus is God narrative into all the other NT writings, so that people will not take what is written literally, lest they fall into "heresy" like me. You just can't have Paul saying that to the believers there is one God, the Father, without burying that in a good dose of the Jesus is God mantra.

Lord Lee was an expert at this with his footnote theology.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Something simple... maybe "Science in the Bible"

or something that sounds like that... include zeeks, my response, yours, BXB, those few to kick it off.

Drake

I would say a better title would be "the cosmos of the Bible compared to modern science: how do we reconcile the two"

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Manna-man, you're a dear soul and I love you brother, but one would not read through Galatians and make a statement "Glory to our Father aka The Servant Son!". John writes the central theme of the gospe in this way, and it's used all over the world “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
**John‬ *3:16‬ *NKJV‬‬
The entire perspective of the NT is what God did, is doing, and will do for us, in us and through us through Christ Jesus, the son of God. The reason I asked that you read through Ephesians is so that you might catch the revelation of what the God and Father of our Lord Jesus has given us in Christ.

You are not speaking the truth of the gospel in a statement like "Glory to our Father aka The Servant Son". Rather you are muddling the gospel by disallowing the great and powerful work our God and Father did in raising this man Jesus from the dead, and making him Lord over all.

Boxjoebox,

As it is said often here on alternative views...MAYBE... you're wrong.

Are you aware JESUS stated that He had the power to lay His Life down And take it up again? The concept you are selling is that another God raised Him.

John 10:18 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

You can speculate what the Father is all day long, you can even do the same with the title "God"

Without revelation words are feeble.

Again it comes down to relationship and revelation for without either one who could really know?

You never answered about John 1:1. Is He God or not?

Boxjoebox..... you're not so bad yourself.��
The love feeling is mutual.
Peace.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I would say a better title would be "the cosmos of the Bible compared to modern science: how do we reconcile the two"

Kinda long...

We’ll talk about other science things too.

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Something simple... maybe "Science in the Bible"

or something that sounds like that... include zeeks, my response, yours, BXB, those few to kick it off.

Drake

We already have such a thread entitled "Bible versus Science" with over 700 posts on it. Why not post on that one?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

We already have such a thread entitled "Bible versus Science" with over 700 posts on it. Why not post on that one?

That's fine too.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

It's kind of like this Thomas statement was spoken 30 years after the day of Pentecost after the gospel spread, not immediately after Jesus' resurrection.

John is usually dated to AD 90–110. To assume that Thomas' words are simply historical is naive. What makes you think so?

As I have pointed out, Luke, in wanting to set straight those things which are assuredly believed among the believers makes no mention of this, which is mind boggling if the grand revelation was that Jesus was God. Then there is Acts- no such gospel spoken in Acts. Plenty of gospel messages on how God raised Jesus, that Jesus is the Christ the son of God, that God made this man Jesus Lord. But no mention of this Thomas statement until John? Something is amiss!

Maybe what is amiss are your assumptions. Are you assuming that Luke knew every story that was told about Jesus? Are you assuming that everything in the Gospels is an historical fact? Why?

You would have to say there was 30 years of an incomplete gospel, which is really problematic, or that Thomas was not actually declaring that Jesus is God, but acknowledging what God did in raising the crucified man from the dead.

Are you assuming that the gospel tradition is a fixed static thing rather than a living changing tradition?

Based on the gospel record in Acts, and Paul's gospel, I would have to say Thomas was acknowledging the work God did in raising Jesus. A meaning of Thomas declaring that Jesus is God isn't even followed up in John's summary.

Are you assuming that the points of view of the different New Testament authors must be identical? John was written later and seems to reflect a different tradition than the synoptic gospels. It seems like you don't want to consider that possibility because it conflicts with presuppositions which you are so committed to that you go out of your way to circumvent the plain meaning Thomas' words to Jesus "My Lord and my God."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I would say a better title would be "the cosmos of the Bible compared to modern science: how do we reconcile the two"

That has already been discussed to some degree on this forum a little while ago, but I don't recall a thread devoted to this topic specifically. I was the first person on this forum to raise the matter of the bible's cosmology versus modern science.

In short, the bible proves that the bible contains ancient science, not modern science.

Proof:

Acts 7:22 says that Moses was educated by the Egyptians.
Moses wrote the Old Testament

Therefore the Old Testament contains the "education of the Egyptians".

No where does the Bible say Moses was educated by God in scientific matters.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

That God is well defined in both the OT and the NT. In the OT it was the God of creation, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.....

BXB,

God was well defined in the OT ? Based on what .... and by whom?

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes, I know. I was part of that discussion. Apparently I was the first to raise the matter, and you and Awareness probably learnt a lot from my posts.

There is also what I know about the real Jesus being physically, a five foot tall black man, but not sure if I have shared that here or not, can't remember. Most Christians are not prepared to meet a shoulder-high Jesus.

okay. Any shorter than that and I'm going to start to have a hard time with it,

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

When the Lord was being examined by the high priest the priest asked Him: "I charge You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Jesus' reply "You have said it yourself,.....”

Then the high priest went ballistic. "At this, the high priest tore his garments and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy"

Apparently, the high priest knew exactly what Jesus was claiming.

These are not Drake's paraphrase or cut and tape verses, but the words of JESUS!

Drake

C'mon, what happened happened not in a court of law. It was a kangaroo court. Pilate was judge jury and executioner. Moreover, the high priest had already made up his mind before a word was spoken by anyone. He was determined to shaft Jesus. And ripping his garments was theater, revealing that prejudice.

And:

"Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Jesus' reply "You have said it yourself,.....”

What kind of confession is that? And what was asked was not "tell us if you are God," again precision with the text.

Given in the original Greek there are no capital letters, 'S'on of God doesn't mean anything. To the Jews they were all sons of God. Plus, the preamble of John says we can ALL become sons of God (if we receive Jesus).

But I can read into it. I can see where the high priest's dramatic response can be read into it that, in his mind, at least, he clearly thought that Jesus was claiming to be God. Still, honesty requires admitting that I'm reading his mind. And the mind of the author.

Matthew, so named, doesn't have Jesus claiming that he was God. It was a perfect opportunity for the author to claim -- something of the most preeminent importance -- that, Jesus was God. He didn't. Why not? Was it because the notion that Jesus was God wasn't fully developed by that time? Only God knows.

So as in one account, maybe in this account too, Jesus "held his peace." His answer to the high priest was basically, "Whatever you say." He knew he was getting the shaft, so there was no reason to agree or disagree with the high priest. His fate was sealed before a word was ever spoken, at that kangaroo court, with a hanging judge (that wasn't even a judge).

Perhaps why I'm confused by all this is because I can't determine from what perspective to read into the text. I've been raised that the only way to understand the Bible is thru or by the Holy Spirit. But then again I was also raised in a Jesus-is-God-Trinity environ.

Which is speaking within me? Which is driving my perspective? Add to that that I no longer identify with what I was raised with, and, voilà, thus confused perspectives.

Or .... could 'God' be driving me mad?

Only God knows.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Boxjoebox,

As it is said often here on alternative views...MAYBE... you're wrong.

Are you aware JESUS stated that He had the power to lay His Life down And take it up again? The concept you are selling is that another God raised Him.

John 10:18 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

You can speculate what the Father is all day long, you can even do the same with the title "God"

Without revelation words are feeble.

Again it comes down to relationship and revelation for without either one who could really know?

You never answered about John 1:1. Is He God or not?

Boxjoebox..... you're not so bad yourself.��
The love feeling is mutual.
Peace.

This is exactly why I hoped you would read Ephesians slowly and consider what is really being said there. Paul's prayer is that the saints would have a spirit f revelation in seeing what the God of Jesus planned, purposes and carried out in the death, resurrection and enthronement of this man Jesus, who is the Christ.
In John, Jesus makes it abundantly clear that he received his ability from God, who he makes clear is the Father.

As far as John 1- I have presented this numerous times in this thread. You are a late- comer to this discussion, and I don't feel it is good to go through the same things every time a new comer arrives, so you'll have to do your homework.

I will say that relation is all important- Jesus is the way, life and truth to come to the Father. Read through Ephesians and you will see that Christ died that we could have access to God, who we have the privilege to call Father. It seems to me, that the more people get wrapped up in the Jesus is God fallacy, the further they get away from that relation with the Father. If you are "living Christ" you should be like him. Jesus spent his life in communion with his Heavenly Father and we should do the same. Jesus talked about his Heavenly Father and we should do the same. Jesus prayed to his Heavenly Father, and taught us to do the same. Bro- it's time to get out from under the Lord Lee Bible and get back to the fellowship with the Father and with his son. That processed triune god garbage warped the truth and robbed us of our true function

“and from Jesus Christ, 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.”
**Revelation‬ *1:5-6‬ *NKJV‬‬

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

John is usually dated to AD 90–110. To assume that Thomas' words are simply historical is naive. What makes you think so?



Maybe what is amiss are your assumptions. Are you assuming that Luke knew every story that was told about Jesus? Are you assuming that everything in the Gospels is an historical fact? Why?




Are you assuming that the gospel tradition is a fixed static thing rather than a living changing tradition?




Are you assuming that the points of view of the different New Testament authors must be identical? John was written later and seems to reflect a different tradition than the synoptic gospels. It seems like you don't want to consider that possibility because it conflicts with presuppositions which you are so committed to that you go out of your way to circumvent the plain meaning Thomas' words to Jesus "My Lord and my God."

I'm assuming that if a grand revelation was given to Thomas that Jesus is to be viewed as God, and it seems all the disciples were present, then the book of Acts should be full of this proclamation, the epistles should be full of this teaching, Luke, who examined the veracity of the things of the faith would have recorded it. Romans should have been written explaining this sensational truth. I assume that there would not be a question to take before the council of Nicea because scripture would be filled with the explanation of this.
I'm also assuming that Paul would not have given a clear statement of faith that there is one God, the Father.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

C'mon, what happened happened not in a court of law. It was a kangaroo court. Pilate was judge jury and executioner. Moreover, the high priest had already made up his mind before a word was spoken by anyone. He was determined to shaft Jesus. And ripping his garments was theater, revealing that prejudice.

And:

"Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Jesus' reply "You have said it yourself,.....”

What kind of confession is that? And what was asked was not "tell us if you are God," again precision with the text.

Given in the original Greek there are no capital letters, 'S'on of God doesn't mean anything. To the Jews they were all sons of God. Plus, the preamble of John says we can ALL become sons of God (if we receive Jesus).

But I can read into it. I can see where the high priest's dramatic response can be read into it that, in his mind, at least, he clearly thought that Jesus was claiming to be God. Still, honesty requires admitting that I'm reading his mind. And the mind of the author.

Matthew, so named, doesn't have Jesus claiming that he was God. It was a perfect opportunity for the author to claim -- something of the most preeminent importance -- that, Jesus was God. He didn't. Why not? Was it because the notion that Jesus was God wasn't fully developed by that time? Only God knows.

So as in one account, maybe in this account too, Jesus "held his peace." His answer to the high priest was basically, "Whatever you say." He knew he was getting the shaft, so there was no reason to agree or disagree with the high priest. His fate was sealed before a word was ever spoken, at that kangaroo court, with a hanging judge (that wasn't even a judge).

Perhaps why I'm confused by all this is because I can't determine from what perspective to read into the text. I've been raised that the only way to understand the Bible is thru or by the Holy Spirit. But then again I was also raised in a Jesus-is-God-Trinity environ.

Which is speaking within me? Which is driving my perspective? Add to that that I no longer identify with what I was raised with, and, voilà, thus confused perspectives.

Or .... could 'God' be driving me mad?

Only God knows.

I hear that song again---
That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion

The trinity thing used to drive me bonkers in the LC. The amusing thing to me is that the proponents of trinitarianism who counter me act as if I've never read their select verse parts. I was steeped in that stuff from my youth, and could give better pro trinitarian arguments than they give me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

okay. Any shorter than that and I'm going to start to have a hard time with it,

Did he get that measurement from the shroud of Turin?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did he get that measurement from the shroud of Turin?

I'd prefer that .. I was concerned the next stop was Munchkinville

.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

BXB,

God was well defined in the OT ? Based on what .... and by whom?

Drake

BXB,

Feel free to justify your unfounded assertion.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

John is usually dated to AD 90–110. To assume that Thomas' words are simply historical is naive. What makes you think so?

For most of my life I pictured that the New Testament was set right after the apostles wrote their books right after Jesus left.

Later in life, starting after leaving the blind faith I had in the local church, I learned that that was a false picture.

When you realize that the NT was a evolutionary process the books take on both a dependence and independence. Dependence because Paul's books were first ; the gospel later named Mark, was the first gospel ; and you see evidence that books written after these first ones took from them.

Independence because each author has his intended purpose and audience, speaking from issues of their day, while borrowing from previous 'Christian' authors for HIS purpose.

The last books written, the gospel later named John, and Revelation, reveal the end of the evolution of the New Testament. John is the most independent of the gospels, and Revelation is the most independent book of its type in the NT canon.

And not just the books evolved but so did Jesus. Jesus became God as time went on, in the evolution of the books.

Oddly, some would say, there was no evolution of the trinity in the evolution of the books. That took another 300 years or so, even 600 years, to complete.

Evolution also happened to the church. Get 'em young and you get 'em for life, the RCC says. Well when it comes to the trinity, the RCC got 'em young ; to the point that they got the Protestants also ... all the way down to Witness Lee.

In the end, Christianity has evolved into what we see today. We can't go back. And the trinity has way too much mass and momentum to ever hope undo it.

Kudos to Boxjobox for trying. He does an outstanding job, with unbelievable tenacity.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'm assuming that if a grand revelation was given to Thomas that Jesus is to be viewed as God, and it seems all the disciples were present, then the book of Acts should be full of this proclamation, the epistles should be full of this teaching, Luke, who examined the veracity of the things of the faith would have recorded it. Romans should have been written explaining this sensational truth. I assume that there would not be a question to take before the council of Nicea because scripture would be filled with the explanation of this.
I'm also assuming that Paul would not have given a clear statement of faith that there is one God, the Father.

I'm disappointed that you didn't answer my questions. I wonder, why not. Anyway, the Gospel of John seems to represents a higher Christological view than that of Luke/Acts. Paul is the earliest New Testament writer so if the notion that Jesus is God emerged gradually it wouldn't be surprising if it were absent or less developed in his letters. Besides you're ignoring the passage in Philippians where Paul talks about Jesus in terms of the form of God and equality with God.

The verses you like to quote show Jesus as Lord alongside God the Father. That pairing suggests two separate powers. The desire to unify the two powers may be what motivated the emergence of trinitarian thinking. If so, it would be fitting that it is the Spirit that unifies Father and Son. If the drive toward unity is not the Spirit, what is?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

When you realize that the NT was a evolutionary process the books take on both a dependence and independence. Dependence because Paul's books were first ; the gospel later named Mark, was the first gospel ; and you see evidence that books written after these first ones took from them.

Independence because each author has his intended purpose and audience, speaking from issues of their day, while borrowing from previous 'Christian' authors for HIS purpose.

What you seem to "realize" are purely rehashed speculations. These wildly misleading theories are accepted as TRUTH by some posters who wish to diminish the impact of God's Word on our lives.

The unrivaled church historian Philip Schaff wrote this:

The Canonical Gospels Independent of One Another

There is no direct evidence that any of the three Synoptists saw and used the work of others; nor is the agreement of such a character that it may not be as easily and better explained from antecedent sources. The advocates of the theory of interdependency, or the "borrowing" hypothesis, differ widely among themselves: Some make Matthew, others Mark, others Luke, the source of the other two or at least of one of them; while still others go back from the Synoptists in their present form to a proto-Mark (Urmarkus), or proto-Matthew (Urmatthaeus), or proto-Luke (Urlukas), or other fictional ante-canonical documents; thereby confessing the insufficiency of the borrowing hypothesis pure and simple. (Vol 1, p.598)

I would trust Schaff before Ehrman every day of the week.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

For most of my life I pictured that the New Testament was set right after the apostles wrote their books right after Jesus left.

Later in life, starting after leaving the blind faith I had in the local church, I learned that that was a false picture.

When you realize that the NT was a evolutionary process the books take on both a dependence and independence. Dependence because Paul's books were first ; the gospel later named Mark, was the first gospel ; and you see evidence that books written after these first ones took from them.

Independence because each author has his intended purpose and audience, speaking from issues of their day, while borrowing from previous 'Christian' authors for HIS purpose.

The last books written, the gospel later named John, and Revelation, reveal the end of the evolution of the New Testament. John is the most independent of the gospels, and Revelation is the most independent book of its type in the NT canon.

And not just the books evolved but so did Jesus. Jesus became God as time went on, in the evolution of the books.

Oddly, some would say, there was no evolution of the trinity in the evolution of the books. That took another 300 years or so, even 600 years, to complete.

Evolution also happened to the church. Get 'em young and you get 'em for life, the RCC says. Well when it comes to the trinity, the RCC got 'em young ; to the point that they got the Protestants also ... all the way down to Witness Lee.

In the end, Christianity has evolved into what we see today. We can't go back. And the trinity has way too much mass and momentum to ever hope undo it.

Kudos to Boxjobox for trying. He does an outstanding job, with unbelievable tenacity.

What we seem to have here is a case of dueling dogmas: The Biblical Unitarian dogma versus the Trinitarian dogma. Whereas a historical view would allow us to see how beliefs emerge develop and change. My hypothesis is that you can see this happening right in the New Testament itself. And, of course, it didn't stop there. If God is a living God why would his revelation end 2000 years ago? If God is infinite wouldn't he always be able to show us something new?

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I hear that song again---
That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion

The trinity thing used to drive me bonkers in the LC. The amusing thing to me is that the proponents of trinitarianism who counter me act as if I've never read their select verse parts. I was steeped in that stuff from my youth, and could give better pro trinitarian arguments than they give me.

Boxjoebox.... you're just too young to understand.

Get outside of the boxjoebox!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

What we seem to have here is a case of dueling dogmas: The Biblical Unitarian dogma versus the Trinitarian dogma. Whereas a historical view would allow us to see how beliefs emerge develop and change. My hypothesis is that you can see this happening right in the New Testament itself. And, of course, it didn't stop there. If God is a living God why would his revelation end 2000 years ago? If God is infinite wouldn't he always be able to show us something new?

Unitarian dogma is no more Biblical than Trinitarian.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Unitarian dogma is no more Biblical than Trinitarian.

I didn't mean to imply that it is. I'm following the usage of Biblical Unitarians online who use the word "biblical" with "unitarian" to distinguish it from Unitarian Universalism. I am identifying Boxjobox's stance under that rubric as I see his thought as perfectly aligned with theirs. I hope he doesn't mind or, if he does, will show me how I'm wrong. Until such time as he does, I think the term is an apt one for his position.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't mean to imply that it is. I'm following the usage of Biblical Unitarians online who use the word "biblical" with "unitarian" to distinguish it from Unitarian Universalism. I am identifying Boxjobox's stance under that rubric as I see his thought as perfectly aligned with theirs. I hope he doesn't mind or, if he does, will show me how I'm wrong. Until such time as he does, I think the term is an apt one for his position.

I get the concept of pidgin holing people into categories- I do it myself with a rather large brush of trinitarianism- but people of that camp proudly display that dogmatic flag, and would die for it, and as history shows, kill for it. Can you imagine being proud of a dogma that was put together in coordination with the Emperor of Rome, voted on, turned into an edict, and those who didn't accept it were returned to dust in a not so pleasant way? At the same time, masses were baptized into the church, who had little or no understanding of scripture, and the shepherds of the masses kept the scriptures which would make one wise in true salvation, away from their eyes and ears. Seems to me that the early proponents of trinitarianism were not what we would call "good Christians". And that went on for 1000 years. It was actually during my lifetime that the mother Church somewhat even permitted the Bible to be read by the masses without a frown. So today, we all have bibles, and lots of historical literature, and lots of biblical studies, which gives us all an excellent chance to consider what is truth and what is fiction. I myself don't identify with what you are calling Biblical Unitarians. I consider myself just a Christian who looks at, ponders, compares scripture to arrive at what I feel is as close to the Christian truth. I haven't researched the people you speaking of to know whether I should object to an association.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Unitarian dogma is no more Biblical than Trinitarian.

What exactly is a Unitarian dogma? Was Paul a Unitarian?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Boxjoebox.... you're just too young to understand.

Get outside of the boxjoebox!

From the responses I get from my postings, I would say I'm definitely outside the box.

I would really like to get inside the box of the church in Philadelphia as portrayed in Revelation

““And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”: “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name. Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” ’”
**Revelation‬ *3:7-13‬ *NKJV‬‬

The resurrected, ascended, head of the church rewards them with the things of his God-- now that's what I'm talking about!
But it probably wouldn't interest anybody outside of my small circle of friends.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

From the responses I get from my postings, I would say I'm definitely outside the box.

I would really like to get inside the box of the church in Philadelphia as portrayed in Revelation

““And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”: “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name. Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” ’”
**Revelation‬ *3:7-13‬ *NKJV‬‬

The resurrected, ascended, head of the church rewards them with the things of his God-- now that's what I'm talking about!
But it probably wouldn't interest anybody outside of my small circle of friends.

Boxjoebox,

What do you think is His God?

The Father or MAYBE something else?

Luke 21:36 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”

Who shall abide the day of His coming?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I get the concept of pidgin holing people into categories- I do it myself with a rather large brush of trinitarianism- but people of that camp proudly display that dogmatic flag, and would die for it, and as history shows, kill for it. Can you imagine being proud of a dogma that was put together in coordination with the Emperor of Rome, voted on, turned into an edict, and those who didn't accept it were returned to dust in a not so pleasant way?

Don't know what planet you are on, but today I only see Trinitarians dying for their faith in Jesus, and only the Unitarian muslams doing the killing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't know what planet you are on, but today I only see Trinitarians dying for their faith in Jesus, and only the Unitarian muslams doing the killing.

That's whacked ....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

What exactly is a Unitarian dogma? Was Paul a Unitarian?

Ask zeek and boxjobox. They know everything.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's whacked ....

Sure is. Bombs, throats slit, set on fire, all whacked.

Here is the first article that popped up on a search.

In early November, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that
Christianity is “the most persecuted religion in the world.” Although met with predictable criticism, Rupert Short’s recent research report for Civitas UK confirms Merkel’s claim — we may not want to hear it, but Christianity is in peril, like no other religion. While this is a contest no one wants to win, Short shows that “Christians are targeted more than any other body of believers.” Short is the author of the recently published Christianophobia: A Faith Under Attack. He is concerned that “200 million Christians (10 percent of the global total) are socially disadvantaged, harassed or actively oppressed for their beliefs.”

Christianity is facing elimination in its Biblical homeland. Between a half and two-thirds of Christians in the Middle East have departed or been killed over the past century. Short attributes the intolerance and violence towards Christians to the rising Islamicization of Middle Eastern countries. Some of the oppression is government sanctioned and some government permitted; most is government ignored.

Jesus Himself (Trinitarian) was killed by the Unitarian Jewish leaders of His day just for being Trinitarian.

.

[manna-man]

Boxjoebox,

If Jesus isn't God but merely a servant son doing The Father's/God's will, exactly how will the transfer of powers go back to the Father since all authority has been given to The Son?

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col. 1:15–19).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Boxjoebox,

If Jesus isn't God but merely a servant son doing The Father's/God's will, exactly how will the transfer of powers go back to the Father since all authority has been given to The Son?

Can we all worship the Lord Jesus together as Thomas did, "My Lord and my God."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sure is. Bombs, throats slit, set on fire, all whacked.

Here is the first article that popped up on a search.

Jesus Himself (Trinitarian) was killed by the Unitarian Jewish leaders of His day just for being Trinitarian.

.

Yes, this is true, but it is not solely Muslims, persecution in India is quite serious as well.

Religious persecution regularly occurs in India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan. (Christianity and Freedom: Volume 2, Contemporary Perspectives by Allen D. Hertz, Timothy Samuel Shah)

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can we all worship the Lord Jesus together as Thomas did, "My Lord and my God."

I can and do!
Jesus Is my Lord and my God. There is no other.

[Evangelical]

Don Stewart presents a convincing argument for the Trinity in Genesis:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...tewart_688.cfm

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I get the concept of pidgin holing people into categories- I do it myself with a rather large brush of trinitarianism- but people of that camp proudly display that dogmatic flag, and would die for it, and as history shows, kill for it. Can you imagine being proud of a dogma that was put together in coordination with the Emperor of Rome, voted on, turned into an edict, and those who didn't accept it were returned to dust in a not so pleasant way? At the same time, masses were baptized into the church, who had little or no understanding of scripture, and the shepherds of the masses kept the scriptures which would make one wise in true salvation, away from their eyes and ears. Seems to me that the early proponents of trinitarianism were not what we would call "good Christians". And that went on for 1000 years. It was actually during my lifetime that the mother Church somewhat even permitted the Bible to be read by the masses without a frown. So today, we all have bibles, and lots of historical literature, and lots of biblical studies, which gives us all an excellent chance to consider what is truth and what is fiction. I myself don't identify with what you are calling Biblical Unitarians. I consider myself just a Christian who looks at, ponders, compares scripture to arrive at what I feel is as close to the Christian truth. I haven't researched the people you speaking of to know whether I should object to an association.

Here is a "Statement of Beliefs" from the Biblical Unitarian website for comparison with your beliefs:

Biblical Unitarianism is not to be confused with Unitarian Universalism.

Biblical Unitarians believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the gift of holy spirit.

It is our intention to promote the truth of one God and one Lord with this website.

We are not going to discuss “other Christian topics” on this website, but please check out our website TruthOrTradition.com, which covers a variety of other biblical topics and our expanded Statement of Beliefs.

We believe that the Scriptures are “God-breathed,” perfect in their original writing, without flaw or contradiction, and provide the only sure and steadfast basis for faith. Understanding the Scripture is attainable by applying logic and sound principles of biblical interpretation, in conjunction with the spirit of God in us.

We believe that the Heavenly Father alone is God (John 17:3).

We believe that God (the Father) is:

Supreme – greater than all others
Omniscient – having infinite knowledge or understanding
Omnipresent – present in all places at the same time
Omnipotent – having unlimited power
The Creator of the heavens and earth.

He (the Father) is whom we worship as “God.”

We believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16; Rom. 1:4).

We believe that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied about in the Old Testament Scriptures (Gen. 3:15).

We believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary, a virgin, who was betrothed to Joseph (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:26-33).

We believe that Jesus was directly descended from David through Mary according to the flesh, as promised to David (Rom. 1:2-4).

We believe that God was literally his father, in that God created his (Jesus’) life in Mary (Luke 1:35).

We believe that Jesus is “the Last Adam.” He achieved behavioral perfection by continually choosing to subject his will to God, his father, all the way to his last breath on the Cross (1 Cor. 15:45; Heb. 5:7).

We believe that in his earthly ministry Jesus was granted all authority on earth by God to teach, heal, raise the dead, forgive sins, and act on behalf of his Father, whom he represented (Acts 2:22, John 3:34, Heb. 1:3).

We believe that on the third day after he died, God honored his promise and raised Jesus from the dead and gave him a new body that was and remains incorruptible (Acts 10:39-41; 13:29-31).

We believe that God also highly exalted Jesus, gave him the “seat” at his right hand (made him His right hand man), made him “Lord,” and gave him all authority in heaven and on earth (Phil. 2:9-11; Acts 2:36; Matt. 28:18).

We believe that God has essentially given Jesus functional equality with Himself, and that only with regard to the throne is God greater than Jesus (Gen. 41:40; Matt. 28:18).

We believe that Jesus was designated by God to be the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).

We believe that God is “holy” and that He is “spirit,” and that He is often referred to as the “Holy Spirit” in Scripture. God is the Giver, and the gift He gives via the new birth is “holy spirit,” His divine nature (Isa. 6:3; John 4:24; Acts 2:38).

We believe that when the Last Adam has completed his mission of restoring the Paradise that the First Adam lost by his disobedience, including the creation of a new heaven and earth, Jesus will again be subject to God (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sure is. Bombs, throats slit, set on fire, all whacked.

Here is the first article that popped up on a search.

Jesus Himself (Trinitarian) was killed by the Unitarian Jewish leaders of His day just for being Trinitarian.

.

“I reject the…fantasy that holds Islam to be uniquely violent,” he writes. In fact, he asserts, “much anti-Christian prejudice and violence has nothing to do with militant Islam.” - Quotes from Rupert Shortt

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus Himself (Trinitarian) was killed by the Unitarian Jewish leaders of His day just for being Trinitarian.

Sometimes I think you make statements that can't be verified, or backed up with scripture, just to be cute and just for fun.

And Christianity started out being persecuted. Christianity thrives under persecution.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus Himself (Trinitarian) was killed by the Unitarian Jewish leaders of His day just for being Trinitarian.

Originally Posted by awareness

Sometimes I think you make statements that can't be verified, or backed up with scripture, just to be cute and just for fun.

This absolutely can be verified in John's Gospel. One could easily say that the Jewish people at the time of Christ were the only Unitarians on earth. This theme is repeated throughout the Old Testament. Hundreds of verses are available as proof texts. Then Jesus came along and claimed to be the eternal I AM. Jesus claimed to be Jehovah/Yahweh, the same God who appeared to Moses on the mountain in Sanai. This enraged them. This was was totally contrary to every unitarian sensibility in Jerusalem. Read John 8 for starters.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus claimed to be Jehovah/Yahweh, the same God who appeared to Moses on the mountain in Sanai.

Proof text please? with textual precision.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Proof text please? with textual precision.

I told you. Read John 8 for starters.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I told you. Read John 8 for starters.

I just searched the entire New Testament for Yahweh and Jehovah and found nothing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I just searched the entire New Testament for Yahweh and Jehovah and found nothing.

Find something different to search for.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Find something different to search for.

I rest my case ....

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by awareness

“I reject the…fantasy that holds Islam to be uniquely violent,” he writes. In fact, he asserts, “much anti-Christian prejudice and violence has nothing to do with militant Islam.” - Quotes from Rupert Shortt


Sometimes I think you make statements that can't be verified, or backed up with scripture, just to be cute and just for fun.

And Christianity started out being persecuted. Christianity thrives under persecution.

Awareness,

I'll put it another way even though Ohio is spot on concerning Islam.

Islam is uniquely anti-Christ and violent to all that take a stand for him.

Awareness,

"Christianity thrives under persecution?"

Now who now is trying to be cute?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Boxjoebox,

If Jesus isn't God but merely a servant son doing The Father's/God's will, exactly how will the transfer of powers go back to the Father since all authority has been given to The Son?

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col. 1:15–19).

Manna-man, I'm beseeching you, read Ephesians, it will show you how the God and Father of our Lord Jesus planned and purpose and carried out that plan to head up all things in Christ. It will tell you how God made Jesus Lord over all and head of the church. Setting up Jesus as God robs the one true God of the glory and praise due to him for his marvelous work, wisdom and power in carrying out his plan. The trinitarian thing has you saying, thinking and imagining things that are apart from the revelation that Paul prays to the God of our Lord Jesus that we would see.

Concerning the Lordship of Christ and the transfer of power back to God, (something that is lacking in the writings of John, which speaks volumes itself)
Paul makes it clear. “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” 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.”
**I Corinthians‬ *15:20-28‬ *NKJV‬‬

Manna-man, get into the revelation which Paul prays to the God of our Lord Jesus that we would see.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This absolutely can be verified in John's Gospel. One could easily say that the Jewish people at the time of Christ were the only Unitarians on earth. This theme is repeated throughout the Old Testament. Hundreds of verses are available as proof texts. Then Jesus came along and claimed to be the eternal I AM. Jesus claimed to be Jehovah/Yahweh, the same God who appeared to Moses on the mountain in Sanai. This enraged them. This was was totally contrary to every unitarian sensibility in Jerusalem. Read John 8 for starters.

Your view doesn't match the gospel
““Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. For David says concerning Him: ‘I foresaw the LORD always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’ “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’ “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.””
**Acts‬ *2:22-39‬ *NKJV‬‬

But then trinitarianism is another gospel. Ohio, you are stuck in an I Am loop, so once again, I'll present the clear words of Jesus to his “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” **John‬ *17:3‬ *NKJV‬‬. This matches the gospel, your egO eimi story does not.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don Stewart presents a convincing argument for the Trinity in Genesis:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...tewart_688.cfm

Evangelical, have you ever considered how lame this sounds that you have to have someone set a convincing argument for triunism because the Jesus, the apostles, and writers of the NT did not present this to us? Here is what Paul taught

“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. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge;
**I Corinthians‬ *8:4-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

Dump the trinitarian fallacy and pick up the knowledge Paul is giving. Jesus chose Paul to be our apostle.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can we all worship the Lord Jesus together as Thomas did, "My Lord and my God."

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.”
**Ephesians‬ *1:3-6‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.”
**I Peter‬ *1:3-9‬ *NKJV‬‬

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sure is. Bombs, throats slit, set on fire, all whacked.

Here is the first article that popped up on a search.

Jesus Himself (Trinitarian) was killed by the Unitarian Jewish leaders of His day just for being Trinitarian.

.

The Jesus quotes for this evening
“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
**John‬ *17:3‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ””
**John‬ *20:17‬ *NKJV‬‬

Ohio, this trinitarianism thing is eating you up.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't know what planet you are on, but today I only see Trinitarians dying for their faith in Jesus, and only the Unitarian muslams doing the killing.

The vision of the 1st martyr “But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!””
**Acts‬ *7:55-56‬ *NKJV‬‬
300 years later they see Jesus as God, and obliterate all who don't agree with their dogma.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here is a "Statement of Beliefs" from the Biblical Unitarian website for comparison with your beliefs:

Biblical Unitarianism is not to be confused with Unitarian Universalism.

Biblical Unitarians believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the gift of holy spirit.

It is our intention to promote the truth of one God and one Lord with this website.

We are not going to discuss “other Christian topics” on this website, but please check out our website TruthOrTradition.com, which covers a variety of other biblical topics and our expanded Statement of Beliefs.

We believe that the Scriptures are “God-breathed,” perfect in their original writing, without flaw or contradiction, and provide the only sure and steadfast basis for faith. Understanding the Scripture is attainable by applying logic and sound principles of biblical interpretation, in conjunction with the spirit of God in us.

We believe that the Heavenly Father alone is God (John 17:3).

We believe that God (the Father) is:

Supreme – greater than all others
Omniscient – having infinite knowledge or understanding
Omnipresent – present in all places at the same time
Omnipotent – having unlimited power
The Creator of the heavens and earth.

He (the Father) is whom we worship as “God.”

We believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16; Rom. 1:4).

We believe that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied about in the Old Testament Scriptures (Gen. 3:15).

We believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary, a virgin, who was betrothed to Joseph (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:26-33).

We believe that Jesus was directly descended from David through Mary according to the flesh, as promised to David (Rom. 1:2-4).

We believe that God was literally his father, in that God created his (Jesus’) life in Mary (Luke 1:35).

We believe that Jesus is “the Last Adam.” He achieved behavioral perfection by continually choosing to subject his will to God, his father, all the way to his last breath on the Cross (1 Cor. 15:45; Heb. 5:7).

We believe that in his earthly ministry Jesus was granted all authority on earth by God to teach, heal, raise the dead, forgive sins, and act on behalf of his Father, whom he represented (Acts 2:22, John 3:34, Heb. 1:3).

We believe that on the third day after he died, God honored his promise and raised Jesus from the dead and gave him a new body that was and remains incorruptible (Acts 10:39-41; 13:29-31).

We believe that God also highly exalted Jesus, gave him the “seat” at his right hand (made him His right hand man), made him “Lord,” and gave him all authority in heaven and on earth (Phil. 2:9-11; Acts 2:36; Matt. 28:18).

We believe that God has essentially given Jesus functional equality with Himself, and that only with regard to the throne is God greater than Jesus (Gen. 41:40; Matt. 28:18).

We believe that Jesus was designated by God to be the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).

We believe that God is “holy” and that He is “spirit,” and that He is often referred to as the “Holy Spirit” in Scripture. God is the Giver, and the gift He gives via the new birth is “holy spirit,” His divine nature (Isa. 6:3; John 4:24; Acts 2:38).

We believe that when the Last Adam has completed his mission of restoring the Paradise that the First Adam lost by his disobedience, including the creation of a new heaven and earth, Jesus will again be subject to God (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/

Somewhat similar to my thinking- not sure of the Mary/David thing, don't know about the achieving behavioral perfection, I would have to consider what they meant by that, God being the Holy Spirit or referred to as the Holy Spirit doesn't set well with me; I don't feel the scripture gives a clear view of that.

But basically, I'm happy to know that there are others who are not under the spell of Baalam and Jezebel.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Manna-man, I'm beseeching you, read Ephesians, it will show you how the God and Father of our Lord Jesus planned and purpose and carried out that plan to head up all things in Christ. It will tell you how God made Jesus Lord over all and head of the church. Setting up Jesus as God robs the one true God of the glory and praise due to him for his marvelous work, wisdom and power in carrying out his plan. The trinitarian thing has you saying, thinking and imagining things that are apart from the revelation that Paul prays to the God of our Lord Jesus that we would see.

Concerning the Lordship of Christ and the transfer of power back to God, (something that is lacking in the writings of John, which speaks volumes itself)
Paul makes it clear. “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” 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.”
**I Corinthians‬ *15:20-28‬ *NKJV‬‬

Manna-man, get into the revelation which Paul prays to the God of our Lord Jesus that we would see.

Dear brother Boxjoebox,

Ephesians 3:9
9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Now, who created all things?😇

Ephesians 4:
32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

In Christ and through Christ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Dear brother Boxjoebox,

Ephesians 3:9
9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Now, who created all things?😇

Another great find! They are every where if you just look.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

BXB,

Feel free to justify your unfounded assertion.

Drake

DA NA NA NA NA NA NA ( BOXjobox, that’s the Jeopardy theme)

DA NA NA NA NAAAT DA NANANANA ( its been playing nonstop since Monday)

DA NA NA NA NA NA NA (You do remember the assertion you made don’t you?)

DA NA NA NA NA NA NA (The suspense is killing me, so is this jingle)

....save me.... DA NA NA .... sincerely... NA NA ....your favorite... NAAT NA.... duck....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Awareness,

I'll put it another way even though Ohio is spot on concerning Islam.

Islam is uniquely anti-Christ and violent to all that take a stand for him.

Awareness,

"Christianity thrives under persecution?"

Now who now is trying to be cute?

Poppycock on both ...

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

BXB,

Feel free to justify your unfounded assertion.

Drake

Sorry for the slow response, my wife is having radiation therapy, and a lot of posts slip by me while I'm on the run.

The content of the Psalms do an excellent job describing the character, will, power, dwelling, thoughts, actions, emotions, etc. of God. Through the psalms we can grasp our Creator who is eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Dear brother Boxjoebox,

Ephesians 3:9
9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Now, who created all things?😇

Ephesians 4:
32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

In Christ and through Christ...

I was really hoping you would catch what Paul is conveying to the Ephesians, that the God of our Lord Jesus purposed to head up all things in Christ. His plan was before creation, and he created all things through and for this plan. As Paul says elsewhere, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. But throughout Ephesians, and the rest of the NT, God is God, and Christ is Christ. God bestowed the highest position in the universe to Christ-made him Lord over all of God's creation, yet God is God and Christ is Christ. This fact should be well spoken and held among the believers--“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
**Ephesians‬ *4:4-6‬ *NKJV‬‬

Brother manna-man, et al, can we all honor and strive to keep this oneness? It's what holds together the church- it's what was lacking in Lord Lee's ministry. We need to honor the position God gave to Christ- He made him Lord over all, and we need to honor our Heavenly Father, the one God. Paul could not be clearer. It may be hard to drop the Jesus is God thing because you have been engrossed in it and it is your religion, but for truth's sake, and for fellowship, pick up the vision Paul is giving us. Give God the glory for the great things He has done. It is of God that we are in Christ Jesus.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I was really hoping you would catch what Paul is conveying to the Ephesians, that the God of our Lord Jesus purposed to head up all things in Christ. His plan was before creation, and he created all things through and for this plan. As Paul says elsewhere, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. But throughout Ephesians, and the rest of the NT, God is God, and Christ is Christ. God bestowed the highest position in the universe to Christ-made him Lord over all of God's creation, yet God is God and Christ is Christ. This fact should be well spoken and held among the believers--“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
**Ephesians‬ *4:4-6‬ *NKJV‬‬

Brother manna-man, et al, can we all honor and strive to keep this oneness? It's what holds together the church- it's what was lacking in Lord Lee's ministry. We need to honor the position God gave to Christ- He made him Lord over all, and we need to honor our Heavenly Father, the one God. Paul could not be clearer. It may be hard to drop the Jesus is God thing because you have been engrossed in it and it is your religion, but for truth's sake, and for fellowship, pick up the vision Paul is giving us. Give God the glory for the great things He has done. It is of God that we are in Christ Jesus.

From what you say above I get that when Ephesians says "God who created all things through Jesus Christ" you interpret that to mean that God created everything according to his plan. So it seems that "Jesus Christ" in that context means "plan" to you. If so, let me ask you, if Paul had meant to say "plan" why did he say "Jesus Christ"?

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I was really hoping you would catch what Paul is conveying to the Ephesians, that the God of our Lord Jesus purposed to head up all things in Christ. His plan was before creation, and he created all things through and for this plan. As Paul says elsewhere, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. But throughout Ephesians, and the rest of the NT, God is God, and Christ is Christ. God bestowed the highest position in the universe to Christ-made him Lord over all of God's creation, yet God is God and Christ is Christ. This fact should be well spoken and held among the believers--“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
**Ephesians‬ *4:4-6‬ *NKJV‬‬

Brother manna-man, et al, can we all honor and strive to keep this oneness? It's what holds together the church- it's what was lacking in Lord Lee's ministry. We need to honor the position God gave to Christ- He made him Lord over all, and we need to honor our Heavenly Father, the one God. Paul could not be clearer. It may be hard to drop the Jesus is God thing because you have been engrossed in it and it is your religion, but for truth's sake, and for fellowship, pick up the vision Paul is giving us. Give God the glory for the great things He has done. It is of God that we are in Christ Jesus.

My dear brother Joeboxjoe,

I didn't know your wife was going through that radiation situation. I promise brother to keep you and yours in my prayers!

Joeboxjoe,

My dad who is known by Hosepipe here has a saying,
"People see what they want to see or they see what they see..."
And another
" People are where they are."

Sounds simplistic I know...but really if you think about it, it's truth.

I'm once again reading Ephesians on your behalf only because of my love for the saints.(In this case you.) I've been through this conversation countless times since the very beginning of my twenties.

I had an epiphany at that time when I found my self sharing with some JW'S in my apartment in Wilton Manors Florida. After they had left, I realized...no I was convicted by the Lord that I was a hypocrite. Yeah Hose Jr in his knowledge and zeal really showed those JW'S!������

But again...I was convicted and fell to my knees realizing I never really had that relationship I just preached about!

You know... The kind we witness in a true believer. Their love and joy and peace and lack of fakeness.

The Lord that night answered my prayer which was Lord I want to know you! I want a two way real (not fake) relationship beyond a shadow of a doubt, I want that which I obviously don't have right now.(back then...)

So you see dear brother, I see what I see....and I am where I am because Witness Lee didn't do the revealing. God did.

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He is my Lord and God. Nothing can change that but God himself.

I don't expect you to believe me because you are where you are and see what you see. I may disagree but my love for you or anyone else cannot change for I know that my God has forgiven this wretched soul and taught me to love as He loves.

Also I have found the word Trinity to be some what useful but then again such a divisive word and the Christian Creed's add to the confusion.

I hope and pray that The Lord blesses you today Boxjoebox.

There is peace like a river...........

https://youtu.be/djrY_eFDOwE

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Sorry for the slow response, my wife is having radiation therapy, and a lot of posts slip by me while I'm on the run.

The content of the Psalms do an excellent job describing the character, will, power, dwelling, thoughts, actions, emotions, etc. of God. Through the psalms we can grasp our Creator who is eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God.

BxB,

Take your time. You have more important matters to tend to.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

My dad who is known by Hosepipe here has a saying,
"People see what they want to see or they see what they see..."
And another
" People are where they are."

As I've heard Hosepipe say many times, "people are right where they're suppose to be."

And Hosepipe nails it that, "people see what they want to see." That's crystal clear out here. We've got Jobox seeing what he wants to see, and in contrast, Ohio who sees what he wants to see.

And it amazes me when I see it in them. Am I seeing what I want to see? I'm certainly guilty of it ; specially while in the local church. And also while growing up in Southern Baptist church.

I think we're programmed to see "what we want to see" while growing up. I certainly was by being indoctrinated in the SBC, and even more so in the LC. I clearly was seeing things that weren't there, that I was being motivated (gaslighted) to see.

After getting the boot -- and btw called a serpent. First by Mel Porter (lead elder), and decades later by manna-man, aka Hose Jr. -- right on this forum. I guess I'm the serpent in their paradise. I think that's what they see. I digress.

Originally Posted by MM

I've been through this conversation countless times since the very beginning of my twenties. . . .

. . . . But again...I was convicted and fell to my knees realizing I never really had that relationship I just preached about!

You know... The kind we witness in a true believer. Their love and joy and peace and lack of fakeness.

The Lord that night answered my prayer which was Lord I want to know you! I want a two way real (not fake) relationship beyond a shadow of a doubt, I want that which I obviously don't have right now.(back then...)

So you see dear brother, I see what I see....and I am where I am because Witness Lee didn't do the revealing. God did.

I've known Jr. since he was a kid. And his father for many decades. I took his father in for over a year, when he had a stroke and couldn't provide for himself. Needless to say, I've been plenty Hoseified. Jr. knows what I mean.

Revelations seem to come easy to them. Sr. and Jr.. I don't think Jr. is trying to give us the impression that he had a revelation like Paul had on the road to Damascus. I think it's more like the ones his father has had over the years. And they are MIND BLOWING!!! None out here could stand them, 'cept me. I'm use to them. I shoot holes in 'em ... just for fun. If I told you just some of them, you'd understand.

Originally Posted by MM

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He is my Lord and God. Nothing can change that but God himself.

Not to diminish what had to be a profound subjective experience for Jr., but that certitude is a chip off the ol' Hosepipe block. Hosepipe is that way with all his revelations ; his early ones in the LC, and his antithetical ones that came much later.

Originally Posted by MM

I don't expect you to believe me because you are where you are and see what you see.

Why would any of us have trouble believing you? I think we've all prolly had similar experiences. Yours may have been deeply subjective, but so was ours.

I posit, like Hosepipe, that we see what we want to see. But we once saw as a child, and now see as an adult. In other words, what we see isn't always right.

In fact, if we're honest, what we've seen has prolly been wrong so many times that we shouldn't be all that certain about what we see. That's called growing up. That's when we begin to look beyond or outside what we see ... hopefully ... to see what we don't see.

From what I've seen not everyone comes to realize that. My staunch Southern Baptist mother never did. She died 100% certain that what she saw was 100% right -- and everyone else was wrong. Sorta like Witness Lee ... who died seeing that way. At least Hosepipe hasn't been that way. He came to see pretty much 180% from his early days in Elden Hall. Tho he too will likely die believing that what he sees now is 100% right (and just about everyone else is wrong). It's in the Hose DNA.

But not just them. We're all inclined to see that way. Hopefully we outgrow it.

Take this trinity thingie. As Jobox tells it he once saw in the trinitarian way. In fact he was raised with it. Then he read his Bible, and now he doesn't.

But then again, bro Ohio was raised with it too, and still sees that way. But differently. He now seems to see as Witness Lee saw it, that Jesus was the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Seeing in that way makes no distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit. It's all Jesus thru and thru.

But that's a giant stretch of scripture ... as Jobox pulls the rug out from under over and over again.

Originally Posted by MM

I may disagree but my love for you or anyone else cannot change for I know that my God has forgiven this wretched soul and taught me to love as He loves.

I realized that when you called me a serpent ... like Jesus did to the Pharisees, while loving them.

Originally Posted by MM

Also I have found the word Trinity to be some what useful but then again such a divisive word and the Christian Creed's add to the confusion.

The trinity, and the creeds, resulted in more than just division and confusion. They resulted in extreme non-Christian, or non-Christ-like, bloodletting, and torturous atrocities, against opposers.

All true followers of Christ should reject that. True followers of Jesus judge a tree by its fruits.

Certitude it dangerous. It keeps us from seeing.

[manna-man]

Awareness,

My dad and I are two unique individuals.
Making him out to be a nut job and then attaching me to that assertion is an outright attack on our character and legitimacy. It's a big boys world out there so if you want to dig into me, have at it.

I'd appreciate it if you see fit to attack me. Please leave my dad out of it. He didn't ask for this.

And even if he was cray cray, what kind of friend would post that on a message board and why?

Perhaps it's to give the appearance that you are something you're not.

Sad, really pathetic.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

what kind of friend would post that on a message board and why?

Perhaps it's to give the appearance that you are something you're not.

Sad, really pathetic.

Originally Posted by manna-man

You, My dad and Gemmer (zeek) are poison. Everbody knows it but won't say it. And were the only ones banned. I only banned Ken because There was no trust between you and I and I know what you are capable of because I know your DNA. OTHERWISE I could have handled Kens extreme left wing ideologies

Read all about it on the thread started by manna-man, right here on this message board, entitled :

Re: ETERNAL TORMENT IS FALSE TEACHING WHAT SAY YE'?

And thanks Jr. for not calling me a serpent. You're a real peach.

What goes around comes around ... but I won't ban you.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by awareness

Read all about it on the thread started by manna-man, right here on this message board, entitled :

Re: ETERNAL TORMENT IS FALSE TEACHING WHAT SAY YE'?

And thanks Jr. for not calling me a serpent. You're a real peach.

What goes around comes around ... but I won't ban you.

You should ban me. Because I would certainly ban you.
It wouldn't hurt one bit Lord Awareness.

Moderators shouldn't twist things out of context. You do.
I can't imagine how you are still a moderator.

And yes I did post that in the past and I stand with it even to this day.

But I wasn't calling you a friend I want to make that perfectly clear. I was speaking of your claim of friendship with my dad.

Yeah, we're potential brothers in the Lord. Hopefully one day we could look into each other's face without contempt.

IT'S not me, it's you. The whole of LCD forum testifies of that.(Your own writing.)

And by the way. This is not me. (Normally) But when manna-man is pushed into a corner guess what?
We find out he isn't a snowflake....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've known Jr. since he was a kid. And his father for many decades. I took his father in for over a year, when he had a stroke and couldn't provide for himself. Needless to say, I've been plenty Hoseified. Jr. knows what I mean.

awareness, your post here crosses too many lines.

Take your personal attacks elsewhere.

[UntoHim]

**************************************
Back on Topic!
First, Last and ONLY WARNING!
**************************************

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness, your post here crosses too many lines.

Take your personal attacks elsewhere.

Had to be done .... sorry .... 'nough said.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

**************************************
Back on Topic!
First, Last and ONLY WARNING!
**************************************

Back to Net Bible footnote on John 20:28 "My Lord and my God." (see Post #765)

Originally Posted by NET Bible

Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“My Lord and my God has truly risen from the dead”)

Just a note. Daniel B. Wallace, is Senior New Testament Editor, of the NET Bible. Wallace is a hefty Bible scholar hearkening from Dallas Theological Seminary. He's a trinitarian, but a reasonably fair and balance Bible scholar.

And that's true for the opening of the footnote on "My Lord and my God." Adding what was omitted changes the whole sound of Thomas' statement. Then it becomes a proclamation of wide-eyed amazement.

Like any sound minded person, Thomas doubted that Jesus was risen from the dead. I think all us modern's can relate. But then he saw Jesus, and the scares, and it had to hit him like a ton of bricks.

For this reason I don't think we can legitimately use Thomas' exclamation as proof that Jesus was God.

That's remarked about in the footnote :

Originally Posted by Net Bible

the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, . . .

Then the footnote goes on:

Originally Posted by Net Bible

and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,”

So the scholars of the NET Bible believe Thomas remark means that Jesus was God.

And then conclude:

Originally Posted by Net Bible

. . . and the reader has come full circle from 1:1, where the author had introduced him to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in John 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he” (Grk “I am”). By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to his death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both Lord (κύριος [kurios], used by the LXX to translate Yahweh) and God (θεός [qeos], used by the LXX to translate Elohim).

Is it any surprise that evangelical Bible scholars would conclude that Jesus was God, using just Thomas' wide-eyed surprised remark?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Back to Net Bible footnote on John 20:28 "My Lord and my God." (see Post #765)



Just a note. Daniel B. Wallace, is Senior New Testament Editor, of the NET Bible. Wallace is a hefty Bible scholar hearkening from Dallas Theological Seminary. He's a trinitarian, but a reasonably fair and balance Bible scholar.

And that's true for the opening of the footnote on "My Lord and my God." Adding what was omitted changes the whole sound of Thomas' statement. Then it becomes a proclamation of wide-eyed amazement.

Like any sound minded person, Thomas doubted that Jesus was risen from the dead. I think all us modern's can relate. But then he saw Jesus, and the scares, and it had to hit him like a ton of bricks.

For this reason I don't think we can legitimately use Thomas' statement as proof that Jesus was God.

That's remarked about in the footnote :



Then the footnote goes on:


So the scholars of the NET Bible believe Thomas remark means that Jesus was God.

And then conclude:



Is it any surprise that evangelical Bible scholars would conclude that Jesus was God, using just Thomas' wide-eyed surprised remark?

Does he compare and contrast that with John 17:3? In all my years as a Christian, I don't recall anyone expounding on the importance of John 17:3.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

My dear brother Joeboxjoe,

I didn't know your wife was going through that radiation situation. I promise brother to keep you and yours in my prayers!

Joeboxjoe,

My dad who is known by Hosepipe here has a saying,
"People see what they want to see or they see what they see..."
And another
" People are where they are."

Sounds simplistic I know...but really if you think about it, it's truth.

I'm once again reading Ephesians on your behalf only because of my love for the saints.(In this case you.) I've been through this conversation countless times since the very beginning of my twenties.

I had an epiphany at that time when I found my self sharing with some JW'S in my apartment in Wilton Manors Florida. After they had left, I realized...no I was convicted by the Lord that I was a hypocrite. Yeah Hose Jr in his knowledge and zeal really showed those JW'S!������

But again...I was convicted and fell to my knees realizing I never really had that relationship I just preached about!

You know... The kind we witness in a true believer. Their love and joy and peace and lack of fakeness.

The Lord that night answered my prayer which was Lord I want to know you! I want a two way real (not fake) relationship beyond a shadow of a doubt, I want that which I obviously don't have right now.(back then...)

So you see dear brother, I see what I see....and I am where I am because Witness Lee didn't do the revealing. God did.

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He is my Lord and God. Nothing can change that but God himself.

I don't expect you to believe me because you are where you are and see what you see. I may disagree but my love for you or anyone else cannot change for I know that my God has forgiven this wretched soul and taught me to love as He loves.

Also I have found the word Trinity to be some what useful but then again such a divisive word and the Christian Creed's add to the confusion.

I hope and pray that The Lord blesses you today Boxjoebox.

There is peace like a river...........

https://youtu.be/djrY_eFDOwE

Buckaroo Banzai said "wherever you go, that's where you're at". When we talk of revelations, I think it is imporant to keep the scripture as a benchmark, lest we drift into self or group deception. The reason I encouraged you to read Ephesians was that the great apostle Paul throughout the writing keeps God, our Father as God, and Jesus as the Christ. God is the God of our Lord Jesus. By setting Jesus up as your God, and then pursuing your relation with God through that prism does not equate to the revelation Paul is desirous for the believers to see. He goes to great lengths to show how God, through his power and wisdom raised Jesus from the dead, and set him above all other powers, and made him head of the church. I think it is important to keep what is written in Ephesians ever before us as a guideline through our Christian life. Setting Jesus up as your God just doesn't have a NT basis.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

BxB,

Take your time. You have more important matters to tend to.

Drake

Do you disagree that the Psalms define God?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

From what you say above I get that when Ephesians says "God who created all things through Jesus Christ" you interpret that to mean that God created everything according to his plan. So it seems that "Jesus Christ" in that context means "plan" to you. If so, let me ask you, if Paul had meant to say "plan" why did he say "Jesus Christ"?

I don't see in the scripture that God turned over the keys to the creationmobile to the anointed Jesus, who had not yet been born, and said have at it.
This is what John records from a "Heavenly" view
“Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: “You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.””
**Revelation‬ *4:9-11‬ *NKJV‬‬

So it seems to me that the heavenly beings see that God created all things according to His will, which in reading Ephesians, that will would be to have all creation headed up through the man whom He would have die for our sins, God would raise from the dead, and lift up to His right hand, and give all authority over creation.

I see the whole NT, actually, the whole Bible lines up with this thought.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I don't see in the scripture that God turned over the keys to the creationmobile to the anointed Jesus, who had not yet been born, and said have at it.
This is what John records from a "Heavenly" view
“Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: “You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.””
**Revelation‬ *4:9-11‬ *NKJV‬‬

So it seems to me that the heavenly beings see that God created all things according to His will, which in reading Ephesians, that will would be to have all creation headed up through the man whom He would have die for our sins, God would raise from the dead, and lift up to His right hand, and give all authority over creation.

I see the whole NT, actually, the whole Bible lines up with this thought.

On this point, you depart from the plain words of Ephesians 3:9. If Paul wished to say God's plan or God's will he certainly could have. But, he stated "God who created all things through Jesus Christ". If Paul equivocates on his use of the words "Jesus Christ" the center of all his teachings, how can we understand anything he says?

Colossians elaborates further saying of the Son:

16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."

I think there is a shortcoming in your reading of Ephesians 3:9. Paul recognizes the unique significance of the name/title of "Jesus Christ" in verse after verse. His faith ultimately depends upon the reliability of these words..."Jesus Christ." The notion that he would substitute his Lord's name for a concept like "plan" or "will" is inconsistent with his high regard for the unique identity associated with that name and title and the person to whom they refer.

I can understand that you as a modern man have difficulty believing that a human being existed at the beginning of the universe. But, for me the issue is what the New Testament is saying. Whether we believe it or not is another matter. Your interpretation of what the text means unacceptable to me regardless of whether or not I can believe that a human being actually existed before the universe. Ephesians 3:9 asserts that the man Jesus Christ existed when God created all things and was somehow instrumental in His creative act. By the way, I checked the Biblical Unitarian website and they share your position that the logos in the Gospel of John is the Plan of God that existed from before Jesus' birth.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Do you disagree that the Psalms define God?

BXB,

I think if you want to understand what the OT taught you have to examine the whole... not just pick out a book or a verse. Therefore, I believe the Psalms supply part of the explanation.

Why? Is that where you derive the idea that the OT taught singularity in the Godhead?

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

You should ban me. Because I would certainly ban you.
It wouldn't hurt one bit Lord Awareness.

I would never even think of banning you. I happen to like you, and your dad.

Originally Posted by MM

Moderators shouldn't twist things out of context. You do.
I can't imagine how you are still a moderator.

Neither can I. Untohim made me a moderator without even asking me. And that's crazy cuz I'm the one that needs moderated the most.

Originally Posted by MM

And yes I did post that in the past and I stand with it even to this day.

Of course.

Originally Posted by MM

But I wasn't calling you a friend I want to make that perfectly clear. I was speaking of your claim of friendship with my dad.

Yeah, we're potential brothers in the Lord. Hopefully one day we could look into each other's face without contempt.

I have no contempt toward you brother. I think you're a great guy.

Originally Posted by MM

IT'S not me, it's you. The whole of LCD forum testifies of that.(Your own writing.)

I'm rubber you're glue.

Originally Posted by mm

And by the way. This is not me. (Normally) But when manna-man is pushed into a corner guess what?
We find out he isn't a snowflake....

Like my sister likes to say : "Pin a medal on your butt."

Now let's listen to the ADMINISTRATOR and get back on topic.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Does he compare and contrast that with John 17:3? In all my years as a Christian, I don't recall anyone expounding on the importance of John 17:3.

If you are interested, here's some interesting info on Wallace and John 17:3.

Quote:
"Famed New Testament scholar and manuscript expert, Daniel Wallace, recently appeared in the healing xJWs radio program. He made quite a few arguments regarding the Trinity–especially on John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Rom. 9:5, and 1 John 5:20."
http://lhim.org/blog/2013/01/26/resp...aniel-wallace/

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Do you disagree that the Psalms define God?

I Soooooo see Jesus in the Psalms. Psalms paints a beautiful portrait of every aspect of God our Savior.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I don't see in the scripture that God turned over the keys to the creationmobile to the anointed Jesus, who had not yet been born, and said have at it.
This is what John records from a "Heavenly" view
“Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: “You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.””
**Revelation‬ *4:9-11‬ *NKJV‬‬

So it seems to me that the heavenly beings see that God created all things according to His will, which in reading Ephesians, that will would be to have all creation headed up through the man whom He would have die for our sins, God would raise from the dead, and lift up to His right hand, and give all authority over creation.

I see the whole NT, actually, the whole Bible lines up with this thought.

Awareness reminded me of the fact that many translations do not contain the clause "who created all things by [or through] Jesus Christ."

Here's a sample of some of the translations of the verse listed in Bible Gateway:

KJ21 and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ,
ASV and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things;
AMP and to make plain [to everyone] the plan of the mystery [regarding the uniting of believing Jews and Gentiles into one body] which [until now] was kept hidden through the ages in [the mind of] God who created all things.
AMPC Also to enlighten all men and make plain to them what is the plan [regarding the Gentiles and providing for the salvation of all men] of the mystery kept hidden through the ages and concealed until now in [the mind of] God Who created all things by Christ Jesus.
BRG And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
CSB and to shed light for all about the administration of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things.
CEB God sent me to reveal the secret plan that had been hidden since the beginning of time by God, who created everything.
CJB and of letting everyone see how this secret plan is going to work out. This plan, kept hidden for ages by God, the Creator of everything,
CEV God, who created everything, wanted me to help everyone understand the mysterious plan that had always been hidden in his mind.
DARBY and to enlighten all [with the knowledge of] what is the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the ages in God, who has created all things,

So the possibility exists that the clause was inserted into the text by a theologically motivated Trinitarian or removed by a theologically motivated unitarian!

The Biblical Unitarians say this about the verse:

This verse is not a problem in most translations, because most do not have the phrase, “by Jesus Christ,” at the end of the verse. Apparently this phrase was added to some Greek manuscripts as debates about the Trinity caused some scribes to “augment” their position by adding to the Word of God, or it could have been a marginal note that was accidentally copied into some manuscripts. It is not well supported in the textual tradition. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament notes that the omission of the phrase is “decisively supported” by the texts, as well as by the “early patristic quotations” (i.e., the places where the Church Fathers quoted the verse). http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/ephesians-3-9

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Awareness pointed me to the fact that many translations do not contain the clause "who created all things by [or through] Jesus Christ."

Here's a sample of some of the translations of the verse listed in Bible Gateway:



So the possibility exists that the clause was inserted into the text by a theologically motivated Trinitarian or removed by a theologically motivated unitarian!

Haha ... those sneaky Bible Unitarians ... changing scripture like that.

I can't tell you how many times I've been told by those that believe the Bible is inerrant that, God protected the Bible down thru the ages, to keep it unchanged. But that seems to contradict their belief that God gave man free will.

That doctrine can be proven, by history. The fact that Eph 3:9 has a clause in some translations "through Jesus Christ" and not in others reveals it.

It depends on which manuscript is being used. Seems mans free will changed the scripture record down thru the ages. The translations with through Jesus Christ comes from what is called the Received Text (9th century), that the KJV comes from, but not in earlier manuscripts termed, The Critical Text.

So inerrantists got something wrong, that, God protected the Bible, and something right, that, we have a free will. 50% ain't all bad.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

BXB,

I think if you want to understand what the OT taught you have to examine the whole... not just pick out a book or a verse. Therefore, I believe the Psalms supply part of the explanation.

Why? Is that where you derive the idea that the OT taught singularity in the Godhead?

Drake

Psalms in our Bible would be considered a "book", but I think we are all aware that it is a compilation from a lot of contributors. Drake, you may want to go through the Psalms and make notes of all the aspects of God you find in there and you would be surprised at the, dare I say, 3 dimensional view of our God. Also, of course, a very good portrait of the Christ.

I think there is a major problem in thinking about God, when one overlooks Jesus and Paul telling us that the one, only, true God is the Father. The trinitarian model has people looking behind every scriptural stone for Jesus is God nuggets, and then come up with terms, large explanations, contradictions, and then tie it up in the "triune god is a mystery, so we really can't fully understand it" ribbon. In essence, it creates an alt-bible.

One robs God of the glory and praise due Him by not accepting the wisdom and power he exhibited in raising the Christ, Jesus from the dead and giving him a name above all names.

Paul says it this way:

“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! “For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?” “Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?” For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.”
**Romans‬ *11:33-36‬ *NKJV‬‬

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

I Soooooo see Jesus in the Psalms. Psalms paints a beautiful portrait of every aspect of God our Savior.

“The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.””
**Psalms‬ *110:1‬ *NKJV‬‬

This is what the whole NT is all about, and we are seated with Christ in the heavenlies. Because it is of God that we are in Christ Jesus.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

On this point, you depart from the plain words of Ephesians 3:9. If Paul wished to say God's plan or God's will he certainly could have. But, he stated "God who created all things through Jesus Christ". If Paul equivocates on his use of the words "Jesus Christ" the center of all his teachings, how can we understand anything he says?

Colossians elaborates further saying of the Son:

I think there is a shortcoming in your reading of Ephesians 3:9. Paul recognizes the unique significance of the name/title of "Jesus Christ" in verse after verse. His faith ultimately depends upon the reliability of these words..."Jesus Christ." The notion that he would substitute his Lord's name for a concept like "plan" or "will" is inconsistent with his high regard for the unique identity associated with that name and title and the person to whom they refer. I would say the verse you gave in Colossians is saying the same thing. Gods will is to head up all things in Christ Jesus.

I can understand that you as a modern man have difficulty believing that a human being existed at the beginning of the universe. But, for me the issue is what the New Testament is saying. Whether we believe it or not is another matter. Your interpretation of what the text means unacceptable to me regardless of whether or not I can believe that a human being actually existed before the universe. Ephesians 3:9 asserts that the man Jesus Christ existed when God created all things and was somehow instrumental in His creative act. By the way, I checked the Biblical Unitarian website and they share your position that the logos in the Gospel of John is the Plan of God that existed from before Jesus' birth.

I guess it would be up to others to figure out what it means "through Jesus Christ". Paul gives 2 previous chapters talking about what God did through Jesus Christ for us ( God being the God of Jesus, so that we don't 3/1 the issue).
Paul talks about it all being the will, the purpose, the pleasure of God to give us Jesus the Christ.
Paul's other thought he is trying to convey in Ephesians is that there are not two groups of believers Jews and Gentiles going on simultaneously but that they are one. This too God did through Christ Jesus. There was not a creation for the Gentiles, and one for the Jews, but all creation is for all things to be headed up in Christ Jesus- this was Gods plan, his will, his pleasure, his LOGOS as John put it. We have creation, Israel, Gods plan becoming flesh, the church, the eventual heading up of all things in Christ, then in Christ all subject to God. Woah, a one sentence history of God, creation, Israel, Christ, Christ and the church, and eternity.

If you think I'm wrong about creation through Jesus Christ, that's fine with me; to me it is Paul's way of summing up the 1st two chapters so that the Ephesians could see the importance of all things in Christ, who is the head. I think the verse in Colossians is saying the same thing

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Haha ... those sneaky Bible Unitarians ... changing scripture like that.

I can't tell you how many times I've been told by those that believe the Bible is inerrant that, God protected the Bible down thru the ages, to keep it unchanged. But that seems to contradict their belief that God gave man free will.

That doctrine can be proven, by history. The fact that Eph 3:9 has a clause in some translations "through Jesus Christ" and not in others reveals it.

It depends on which manuscript is being used. Seems mans free will changed the scripture record down thru the ages. The translations with through Jesus Christ comes from what is called the Received Text (9th century), that the KJV comes from, but not in earlier manuscripts termed, The Critical Text.

So inerrantists got something wrong, that, God protected the Bible, and something right, that, we have a free will. 50% ain't all bad.

I hope those nasty unies got what they deserved- two days on the rack and then the public campfire. The trins didn't put up with guffaws. Not like today with the alt-site, this is paradise because a little uni like me can compete with the big boys on scripture. Can you imagine how different things would be today if the trin people took a Christian approach to the unies; maybe gave them some cities to practice according to their consciences or even exercised patience and long suffering? But Noooo- had to murder them, and keep everyone in fear and darkness. Such a history. I'm glad to live in the present times!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I hope those nasty unies got what they deserved- two days on the rack and then the public campfire. The trins didn't put up with guffaws. Not like today with the alt-site, this is paradise because a little uni like me can compete with the big boys on scripture. Can you imagine how different things would be today if the trin people took a Christian approach to the unies; maybe gave them some cities to practice according to their consciences or even exercised patience and long suffering? But Noooo- had to murder them, and keep everyone in fear and darkness. Such a history. I'm glad to live in the present times!

The only ones getting murdered today are the Christians living in Mooslam and Commie countries.

[manna-man]

https://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/niv/Isa.45

Isaiah 45

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Psalms in our Bible would be considered a "book", but I think we are all aware that it is a compilation from a lot of contributors. Drake, you may want to go through the Psalms and make notes of all the aspects of God you find in there and you would be surprised at the, dare I say, 3 dimensional view of our God. Also, of course, a very good portrait of the Christ.

I think there is a major problem in thinking about God, when one overlooks Jesus and Paul telling us that the one, only, true God is the Father. The trinitarian model has people looking behind every scriptural stone for Jesus is God nuggets, and then come up with terms, large explanations, contradictions, and then tie it up in the "triune god is a mystery, so we really can't fully understand it" ribbon. In essence, it creates an alt-bible.

One robs God of the glory and praise due Him by not accepting the wisdom and power he exhibited in raising the Christ, Jesus from the dead and giving him a name above all names.

Paul says it this way:

“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! “For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?” “Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?” For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.”
**Romans‬ *11:33-36‬ *NKJV‬‬

BXB,

Part of your argument suggested that the NT is consistent with the OT. You said:

"Yes, Drake I don't know if you noticed but the high priest charges him " under oath of the Living God". That God is well defined in both the OT and the NT. In the OT it was the God of creation, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc, in the NT it is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, who is the Son of God. "

By this above I take your argument to mean that the OT demonstrates a singularity in the Godhead. Not 3, not 2, but 1 in the Godhead. Therefore, whatever the OT showed us about the Godhead so should the NT. You put forth Psalms as the book that best represents this view.

Is that an accurate and fair representation of your viewpoint?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by manna-man

https://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/niv/Isa.45

Isaiah 45

Another great place where Jesus is Jehovah God, the One unique God.

Compare Isaiah 45.23 and Philippians 2.10

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Another great place where Jesus is Jehovah God, the One unique God.

Compare Isaiah 45.23 and Philippians 2.10

That perchance is another example of seeing what you want to see :

Isa 45:1* Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus,

But I understand. You're pretty new to this thread. Way back now I introduced examples of Paul using verses in the OT, the referred to Yahweh, and relating them to Jesus.

That does throw uncertainty into Boxjobox's schema.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Another great place where Jesus is Jehovah God, the One unique God.

Compare Isaiah 45.23 and Philippians 2.10

Yes indeed. And the following chapters drive the point home.��

And the cement would be Revelation chapter 22:


Revelation 22




1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.””
**Psalms‬ *110:1‬ *NKJV‬‬

This is what the whole NT is all about, and we are seated with Christ in the heavenlies. Because it is of God that we are in Christ Jesus.

Rev 22:3
And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Boxjoebox,

"The throne of God and the Lamb"

A throne is meant for a sovereign individual right?

According to this verse either God transitions into different modes or shares his glory with another...(NOT!) or the Lamb are one in the same. I believe the latter.

Michael Card

God's own fool...

https://youtu.be/8fXFIqHS9Ho


"The Power Of Paradox!"

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by awareness

That perchance is another example of seeing what you want to see :

Isa 45:1* Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus,

But I understand. You're pretty new to this thread. Way back now I introduced examples of Paul using verses in the OT, the referred to Yahweh, and relating them to Jesus.

That does throw uncertainty into Boxjobox's schema.

Isaiah 40 King James Version (KJV)
40 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.

2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins.

3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:

5 And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:

7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.

8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

9 O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!

10 Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

11 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.

12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?

14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?

15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.

16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering.

17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.

18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains.

20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.

21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.

25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

27 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?

28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

29 He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength.

30 Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall:

31 But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

Vs.10. The Lord's Arm.....no small thing. Not to be confused with someone else.

What is the Lord's Arm? Now I'm questioning my own abilities to reason.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Isaiah 40 King James Version (KJV)

Thanks for quoting Isaiah 40. Hint, I think it's safe to just tell us to read it. I think we all have access to a Bible.

But I have to admit I don't know YOUR point in posting it. Please explain.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for quoting Isaiah 40. Hint, I think it's safe to just tell us to read it. I think we all have access to a Bible.

But I have to admit I don't know YOUR point in posting it. Please explain.

Awareness, if you scroll down to the very bottom of the post you will see a comment and this a point. The point may not be Crystal clear.and I meant it to be just so hoping whoever read it could extrapolate what I meant in the broader context of what's been said on this thread.

♥️

[zeek]

It's a well known fact that whoever cuts and pastes the most Bible verses into their post automatically wins the argument.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Way back now I introduced examples of Paul using verses in the OT, the referred to Yahweh, and relating them to Jesus.
That does throw uncertainty into Boxjobox's schema.

Paul explains why it is appropriate to call Jesus by the name of Yahweh in Philippians 2:5-11. Would you be surprised to know that are perfectly nontrintarian interpretations of that passage? Paul implicitly compares Jesus with Adam who was created in the image of God but sought equality with God through disobedience. Jesus is given the divine name because, unlike Adam he was obedient even to the point of death by crucifixion.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a well known fact that whoever cuts and pastes the most Bible verses into their post automatically wins the argument.

Here's another wonderful verse that may help someone here

Zechariah 4:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.

I find it amusing that there are so many replies to this thread and all things aren't cleared up. So much effort and again people still not getting their points across.

Me Thinks something else is going on here...

I could tell you anything but I can't make you understand it. And it would be vanity on my part if I thought I could explain what God is to you.

It is by the unveiling of the Holy Spirit that all is made plain.

But here we are in our puffed up minds babeling to no avail.

I am convinced there are many on this forum more capable than I of getting the point across yet babeling prevails over wisdom.

This is why I copy and paste verses. The verses I paste are clear to me. They are clear to you as well. But some here play ignorant for their own selfish reasons/ambitions.

IMHO, We are no different than father Abraham. God gave him just enough to walk by faith. Funny thing is, us human beings don't like doing that because it requires walking and walking is work.

So excuse me if I am short with my explanations and quick to paste a verse. I know better than to act prideful and I know what knowledge can and will do to people. You all do too because we all are cut from the same cloth/share the same experiences.

A wise person knows when to speak and also knows when to stay silent. To argue/debate something for days and even years is simply vanity.

And yes, I am a foolish man for I walked right into it having participated in such talks before and took the bait Hook line and sinker!

Remember,

It's not by might nor power but by my Spirit saith The Lord.....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's a well known fact that whoever cuts and pastes the most Bible verses into their post automatically wins the argument.

But by cutting and pasting at least some intelligence is injected into the post.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by manna-man

I find it amusing that there are so many replies to this thread and all things aren't cleared up.

But we have cleared it up, it is a mystery.

If you say that Jesus is God, that is modalism, a heresy.

If you say that Jesus and God are two separate divine entities then that is probably tritheism (depends on what you also say about the Spirit) and that is a heresy.

If you say that Jesus and the Father are not one, that is directly contradicted by the word of God -- heresy.

I prefer my analogy of the internet. My laptop is distinct from the telecommunications that connects it to this server which is distinct from this server. Together they form the internet. They are both one and three separate entities. The point is that we do have things that we can look at that are both 3 and 1.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But we have cleared it up, it is a mystery.

If you say that Jesus is God, that is modalism, a heresy.

If you say that Jesus and God are two separate divine entities then that is probably tritheism (depends on what you also say about the Spirit) and that is a heresy.

If you say that Jesus and the Father are not one, that is directly contradicted by the word of God -- heresy.

I prefer my analogy of the internet. My laptop is distinct from the telecommunications that connects it to this server which is distinct from this server. Together they form the internet. They are both one and three separate entities. The point is that we do have things that we can look at that are both 3 and 1.

Revelation 22:13 ►

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

What an extraordinary claim. Is it heresy or modalism?

I see a lot of talking but also disagreement.
And the question never answered or put to rest.
"The trinity: consistent with the Bible?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

I am convinced there are many on this forum more capable than I of getting the point across yet babeling prevails over wisdom.

Speaking of wisdom I've been wanting to share this with bro Boxjobox for days.

I ran across this in Karen Armstrong's book "History of God." It reminds me of Jobox's conception of the logos being God's plan (it's really not Jobox's. That notion has been around since the early days of Christianity. Jobox is perchance just 'Recovering' it).

Anywho. Armstrong is writing of "the greatest genius the early church ever produced," the infamous johnny-come-lately heretic, Origen (c. 184 – c. 253).

She says :

Origen developed a symbolic method of reading the Bible. Thus the virgin birth of Christ in the womb of Mary was not primarily to be understood as a literal event but as the birth of the divine Wisdom in the soul.*

I sometimes wonder if Jobox is an adoptionist. Like the Logos/Plan entered Jesus at his baptism.

But it could have happened as symbolized by the virgin birth, when divine wisdom (Sophia) entered Jesus at his birth.

Of course -- and manna-man will fault me again -- we don't know anything about HOW the Logos became flesh. We just accept it because the anonymous gospel that was eventually named John says it (without knowing anything about the actual author -- the book would be classified a pseudepigrapha if the author had introduced the book as written by John of Zebedee). I digress.

From what I've read, Origen drew this symbolism from Proverbs 8:22-31, where Wisdom (Sophia) is spoken of like the Logos in John.

That's it. That's all I wanted to share with bro Boxjobox.

As manna-man says, Peace.

* Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (p. 122). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Here's another wonderful verse that may help someone here

Zechariah 4:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.

I find it amusing that there are so many replies to this thread and all things aren't cleared up. So much effort and again people still not getting their points across.

Me Thinks something else is going on here...

I could tell you anything but I can't make you understand it. And it would be vanity on my part if I thought I could explain what God is to you.

It is by the unveiling of the Holy Spirit that all is made plain.

But here we are in our puffed up minds babeling to no avail.

I am convinced there are many on this forum more capable than I of getting the point across yet babeling prevails over wisdom.

This is why I copy and paste verses. The verses I paste are clear to me. They are clear to you as well. But some here play ignorant for their own selfish reasons/ambitions.

IMHO, We are no different than father Abraham. God gave him just enough to walk by faith. Funny thing is, us human beings don't like doing that because it requires walking and walking is work.

So excuse me if I am short with my explanations and quick to paste a verse. I know better than to act prideful and I know what knowledge can and will do to people. You all do too because we all are cut from the same cloth/share the same experiences.

A wise person knows when to speak and also knows when to stay silent. To argue/debate something for days and even years is simply vanity.

And yes, I am a foolish man for I walked right into it having participated in such talks before and took the bait Hook line and sinker!

Remember,

It's not by might nor power but by my Spirit saith The Lord.....

Manna-man-I feel for you and others who are steeped in this trinitarianism religion. I would again refer you to read Ephesians as if you had never read it before, and werean Ephesian reading- or having it read in the assembly. It explains how the God of our Lord Jesus raised him from the dead, set him on his right hand, and gave him the name and position above all names. Paul's desire is that we would have a revelation of this great wisdom and power and working God did, and realize what God according to His will and purpose did so that we, Jews and Gentiles could have complete and unfettered access to God.

I see your problem as one where you do not recognize that God made this Jesus Lord, and feel that in the position God placed Christ, that somehow makes Jesus God. The great revelation is to see what the God of Jesus has done.

This is exactly according to the 1st gospel Peter preached- with the 11 other apostles, after the Spirit was poured out- read Acts two! And all the following gospels preached in Acts line up with this. There IS no attempt to portray Jesus as God in those gospels, rather every attempt to show what God has done in making Jesus Lord. The position and extent of the Lordship God bestowed on Jesus, who endured the cross is fantastic. Your trinitarianism blots this out so that the real revelation is not seen or appreciated and God does not get the glory due for His great work and power.

Have you really stopped to think that Revelation says GOD and the Lamb? Trinitarianism has you not seeing GOD and the Lamb. Yet it is the Lamb as the head of the church who says to the Philadelphians “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.”**Revelation‬ *3:12‬ *NKJV‬‬. Can we all say "My God" as the exalted Jesus says? We should, because “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.” **Revelation‬ *3:12‬ *NKJV‬‬ and because Jesus “has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
**Revelation‬ *1:6‬ *NKJV‬‬


Manna-man, take some time to consider the great position and status God has bestowed on our Lord Jesus, the man who died for our sins. This is the man God was so pleased with that in resurrecting Him God said ‘You are My Son, Today I have begot you" and "The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.””
**Psalms‬ *110:1‬ *NKJV‬‬


The whole NT is about God's work in heading everything up in His Christ- Manna-man recognize and acknowledge what God has done- the God of our Lord Jesus.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Speaking of wisdom I've been wanting to share this with bro Boxjobox for days.

I ran across this in Karen Armstrong's book "History of God." It reminds me of Jobox's conception of the logos being God's plan (it's really not Jobox's. That notion has been around since the early days of Christianity. Jobox is perchance just 'Recovering' it).

Anywho. Armstrong is writing of "the greatest genius the early church ever produced," the infamous johnny-come-lately heretic, Origen (c. 184 – c. 253).

She says :

Origen developed a symbolic method of reading the Bible. Thus the virgin birth of Christ in the womb of Mary was not primarily to be understood as a literal event but as the birth of the divine Wisdom in the soul.*

I sometimes wonder if Jobox is an adoptionist. Like the Logos/Plan entered Jesus at his baptism.

But it could have happened as symbolized by the virgin birth, when divine wisdom (Sophia) entered Jesus at his birth.

Of course -- and manna-man will fault me again -- we don't know anything about HOW the Logos became flesh. We just accept it because the anonymous gospel that was eventually named John says it (without knowing anything about the actual author -- the book would be classified a pseudepigrapha if the author had introduced the book as written by John of Zebedee). I digress.

From what I've read, Origen drew this symbolism from Proverbs 8:22-31, where Wisdom (Sophia) is spoken of like the Logos in John.

That's it. That's all I wanted to share with bro Boxjobox.

As manna-man says, Peace.

* Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (p. 122). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Lots of strange writings have come from lots of strange people who dot the Christian history. I stick to Paul/ Luke “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. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge;..."
**I Corinthians‬ *8:4-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But we have cleared it up, it is a mystery.

If you say that Jesus is God, that is modalism, a heresy.

If you say that Jesus and God are two separate divine entities then that is probably tritheism (depends on what you also say about the Spirit) and that is a heresy.

If you say that Jesus and the Father are not one, that is directly contradicted by the word of God -- heresy.

I prefer my analogy of the internet. My laptop is distinct from the telecommunications that connects it to this server which is distinct from this server. Together they form the internet. They are both one and three separate entities. The point is that we do have things that we can look at that are both 3 and 1.

But if John writes that Jesus said “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”**John‬ *17:3‬ *, out com the hoops and hollers dancing all around the beautiful clear word of our head, Jesus.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Another great place where Jesus is Jehovah God, the One unique God.

Compare Isaiah 45.23 and Philippians 2.10

Funny Paul does not teach this but does teach “one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
**Ephesians‬ *4:6‬ *NKJV‬‬

Ohio, Just accept it. When God made Jesus Lord, a lot of things may seem overlapping, but God is God, and Christ is the one on whom God bestowed the name above all names.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

But if John writes that Jesus said “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”**John‬ *17:3‬ *, out com the hoops and hollers dancing all around the beautiful clear word of our head, Jesus.

The only way that I know the internet is through the laptop that was sent to me.

It is true to say that my laptop is one with the internet. It is also true to say that the mission of this laptop, at least in part, is that I would know the internet. The same can be said of the satellite in space that transmits the signals. How is the server at Amazon anymore part of the internet than the wifi tower, the satellite, or my laptop?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

BXB,

Part of your argument suggested that the NT is consistent with the OT. You said:

"Yes, Drake I don't know if you noticed but the high priest charges him " under oath of the Living God". That God is well defined in both the OT and the NT. In the OT it was the God of creation, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc, in the NT it is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, who is the Son of God. "

By this above I take your argument to mean that the OT demonstrates a singularity in the Godhead. Not 3, not 2, but 1 in the Godhead. Therefore, whatever the OT showed us about the Godhead so should the NT. You put forth Psalms as the book that best represents this view.

Is that an accurate and fair representation of your viewpoint?

Drake

No, not accurate of my viewpoint. Let's look at it from the point of Acts: consider the gospel speaking in chapters 2 and 3, and really look over all of chapter 4, the gospel that was spoken and the prayer at the end. Look over Stephen's speaking in chapter 7, considering chapter 6. Check out Paul's message in chapter 13. I think this should give us a mindset of OT coming into the NT. The fallacy of trinitarianism is not grasping that God made Jesus Lord, and leaping to a Jesus is God dogma and then looking back into the OT to prove this misrepresentation. God making Jesus Lord is not insignificant but is the NT message. It sets the stage for all the blessings we enjoy from God through our Lord Jesus.

In modern day Christianity in America, this Jesus is God thing alters the scripture and appreciation of what God has done. ( I say in America, because I don't know how universal it is, but I suspect it is exported everywhere).

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The only way that I know the internet is through the laptop that was sent to me.

It is true to say that my laptop is one with the internet. It is also true to say that the mission of this laptop, at least in part, is that I would know the internet. The same can be said of the satellite in space that transmits the signals. How is the server at Amazon anymore part of the internet than the wifi tower, the satellite, or my laptop?

"The Internet" is a conglomeration of millions of servers, data banks, programs, matrices, etc that include your laptop. I don't think I can relate what you are saying to the conversation. The internet is an interconnection of all sorts of devices each which has its own task via the owners. There is no internet God- and Lord help us if the government becomes that God - that is the current attempt of the communist government of China.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

"The Internet" is a conglomeration of millions of servers, data banks, programs, matrices, etc that include your laptop. I don't think I can relate what you are saying to the conversation. The internet is an interconnection of all sorts of devices each which has its own task via the owners. There is no internet God- and Lord help us if the government becomes that God - that is the current attempt of the communist government of China.

I share your concern.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Manna-man-I feel for you and others who are steeped in this trinitarianism religion. I would again refer you to read Ephesians as if you had never read it before, and werean Ephesian reading- or having it read in the assembly. It explains how the God of our Lord Jesus raised him from the dead, set him on his right hand, and gave him the name and position above all names. Paul's desire is that we would have a revelation of this great wisdom and power and working God did, and realize what God according to His will and purpose did so that we, Jews and Gentiles could have complete and unfettered access to God.

I see your problem as one where you do not recognize that God made this Jesus Lord, and feel that in the position God placed Christ, that somehow makes Jesus God. The great revelation is to see what the God of Jesus has done.

This is exactly according to the 1st gospel Peter preached- with the 11 other apostles, after the Spirit was poured out- read Acts two! And all the following gospels preached in Acts line up with this. There IS no attempt to portray Jesus as God in those gospels, rather every attempt to show what God has done in making Jesus Lord. The position and extent of the Lordship God bestowed on Jesus, who endured the cross is fantastic. Your trinitarianism blots this out so that the real revelation is not seen or appreciated and God does not get the glory due for His great work and power.

Have you really stopped to think that Revelation says GOD and the Lamb? Trinitarianism has you not seeing GOD and the Lamb. Yet it is the Lamb as the head of the church who says to the Philadelphians “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.”**Revelation‬ *3:12‬ *NKJV‬‬. Can we all say "My God" as the exalted Jesus says? We should, because “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.” **Revelation‬ *3:12‬ *NKJV‬‬ and because Jesus “has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
**Revelation‬ *1:6‬ *NKJV‬‬


Manna-man, take some time to consider the great position and status God has bestowed on our Lord Jesus, the man who died for our sins. This is the man God was so pleased with that in resurrecting Him God said ‘You are My Son, Today I have begot you" and "The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.””
**Psalms‬ *110:1‬ *NKJV‬‬


The whole NT is about God's work in heading everything up in His Christ- Manna-man recognize and acknowledge what God has done- the God of our Lord Jesus.

Bjb,

I plead with you not to feel for me but to pray for me if indeed you truly are convicted of how you feel. I would do no less for you.

Even though I disagree with you.

Now, I ask of you to take some time and consider the meaning "Right hand" of God in all of it's meaning and how it can affect what you believe.

Perhaps you already have.

Thanks, Jr.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But we have cleared it up, it is a mystery.

If you say that Jesus is God, that is modalism, a heresy.

If you say that Jesus and God are two separate divine entities then that is probably tritheism (depends on what you also say about the Spirit) and that is a heresy.

If you say that Jesus and the Father are not one, that is directly contradicted by the word of God -- heresy.

I prefer my analogy of the internet. My laptop is distinct from the telecommunications that connects it to this server which is distinct from this server. Together they form the internet. They are both one and three separate entities. The point is that we do have things that we can look at that are both 3 and 1.

ZNP

Not fer nothin but saying Jesus isn't God based on the definition of modalist only means that you have bought into a man made definition and the man made label that is used to ruin men of faith. Can you in fact prove/defend any form of the word modalist via scriptures?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Here's another wonderful verse that may help someone here

Zechariah 4:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.

I find it amusing that there are so many replies to this thread and all things aren't cleared up. So much effort and again people still not getting their points across.

Me Thinks something else is going on here...

I could tell you anything but I can't make you understand it. And it would be vanity on my part if I thought I could explain what God is to you.

It is by the unveiling of the Holy Spirit that all is made plain.

But here we are in our puffed up minds babeling to no avail.

I am convinced there are many on this forum more capable than I of getting the point across yet babeling prevails over wisdom.

This is why I copy and paste verses. The verses I paste are clear to me. They are clear to you as well. But some here play ignorant for their own selfish reasons/ambitions.

IMHO, We are no different than father Abraham. God gave him just enough to walk by faith. Funny thing is, us human beings don't like doing that because it requires walking and walking is work.

So excuse me if I am short with my explanations and quick to paste a verse. I know better than to act prideful and I know what knowledge can and will do to people. You all do too because we all are cut from the same cloth/share the same experiences.

A wise person knows when to speak and also knows when to stay silent. To argue/debate something for days and even years is simply vanity.

And yes, I am a foolish man for I walked right into it having participated in such talks before and took the bait Hook line and sinker!

Remember,

It's not by might nor power but by my Spirit saith The Lord.....

As far as the thread is concerned, I don't get your point . Zechariah 4:6 isn't a problem from either biblical unitarian or a trinitarian points of view.

On the issue of posting long scriptural passages:
A short explanation supported by a verse might be appropriate. If you post a long passage of scripture don't assume that other readers are going to get the same thing out of it that you did unless you explain our position on it. What's most important is the argument you make from the passage.

Finally, on your comment about remaining silent: There may be wiser people who are remaining silent. If you were one of them I might have forgotten that you exist. And, yes there is a time for silence. But, I find that I learn a lot from discussion. There are vainer ways of spending one's times. Have you ever played a video game? Is the objective of your long posts to persuade us to stop talking about a topic that interests us? That strikes me as oddly self-refuting.

[zeek]

Why are people bringing up modalism when no one is arguing for it? Why aren't the Trinitarians countering the arguments that Boxjobox is actually making? Have you given up? Is Trintarianism really just a misreading of the Bible?

BoxjoBox,
John 3:13 says "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." How do you explain that? Looks like Jesus is claiming pre-existence again albeit in the third person.

Actually, how does anybody explain that? This is supposed to be Jesus talking to Nicodemus. So when he says "He who came down from heaven" he must be referring to himself. But, what does he mean by "the Son of Man who is in heaven" when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast?

Did you ever notice how, in John, it's sometimes difficult to tell whether it's Jesus or the narrator speaking? Here, it seems like Jesus has slipped into the narrator's perspective.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by manna-man

ZNP

Not fer nothin but saying Jesus isn't God based on the definition of modalist only means that you have bought into a man made definition and the man made label that is used to ruin men of faith. Can you in fact prove/defend any form of the word modalist via scriptures?

Jesus is God, and God the Father is God, and God the Spirit is God. but if you say that Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Spirit that is modalism. If you use the analogy that a single person can be a husband, father, son, etc. That is modalism.

According to the Bible Jesus and the Father both coexist and coinhere. Jesus is one with the Father is not equivalent to saying Jesus is the Father.

On the other hand you cannot say they are three Gods because the Bible clearly states we have one God, anything else is a heresy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why are people bringing up modalism when no one is arguing for it? Why aren't the Trinitarians countering the arguments that Boxjobox is actually making? Have you given up? Is Trintarianism really just a misreading of the Bible?

Maybe none of those reading this forum are trinitarians?

I believe it is a mystery. Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Spirit is God. These three are distinct and not simply modes of one God. On the other hand God is one, I do not have three Gods, but one God. I don't believe that Jesus is the Father or that Jesus is the Spirit. I do believe Jesus is one with the Father and Spirit.

I don't try to explain it. If someone says this is nonsense, you can't be 3 and also be 1 then I use the example of the internet to prove that you can be both 3 and 1. It may be a poor analogy for the Triune God, but it is a good analogy that it is possible to be both 3 and 1.

Also, I agree with Box that for many Christians they are trinitarians and that position is a heresy. But they balance out that heretical belief by also being modalists. They are simply confused, don't realize they are confused, and haven't studied it enough to realize the whole thing is a mystery. Was Jesus made Lord? Or was He Lord from before the creation of the world? WL tried to explain that by slicing Jesus up into the God Jesus and the Man Jesus. I think that is foolish, it is a mystery. So I simply say that we live by every word from God, most who hear that do not understand the implication.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Maybe none of those reading this forum are trinitarians?

I believe it is a mystery. Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Spirit is God. These three are distinct and not simply modes of one God. On the other hand God is one, I do not have three Gods, but one God. I don't believe that Jesus is the Father or that Jesus is the Spirit. I do believe Jesus is one with the Father and Spirit.

I don't try to explain it. If someone says this is nonsense, you can't be 3 and also be 1 then I use the example of the internet to prove that you can be both 3 and 1. It may be a poor analogy for the Triune God, but it is a good analogy that it is possible to be both 3 and 1.

That all seems like standard trinitarianism to me. The question is whether or not it is consistent with what the Bible says.

Also, I agree with Box that for many Christians they are trinitarians and that position is a heresy. But they balance out that heretical belief by also being modalists. They are simply confused, don't realize they are confused, and haven't studied it enough to realize the whole thing is a mystery. Was Jesus made Lord? Or was He Lord from before the creation of the world? WL tried to explain that by slicing Jesus up into the God Jesus and the Man Jesus. I think that is foolish, it is a mystery. So I simply say that we live by every word from God, most who hear that do not understand the implication.

You lose me in this paragraph. Who are these trinitarian heretics and what is their heresy? I thought that Lee went out of bounds with his mingling teaching which he repeated so many times it seemed like it was more than a mere analogy to him. I'm not sure what you mean about him "slicing Jesus up". Also I thought he confused the issue with his "the Son is the Father " teaching. He got into trouble with some trinitarians over that.

There are several people here who, perhaps influenced by Lee, seem think Jesus is the Almighty God, that is, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That is not classical trinitarianism which entails three persons all with one God essence or substance. You seem to hold the latter position.

2 Corinthians 13:14 is cited as an explicitly Trinitarian Bible verse.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

In fact it has Jesus as Lord not God. Then it lists "God" referring, I think we all agree, to the one Jesus referred to as his father. Lastly, it refers to the Holy Spirit as distinct from God. So, I discover this morning, it isn't saying what Trinitarians think it's saying. It seems I might be becoming a Biblical Unitarian! Or, at least, I'm recognizing that's what Paul was.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Jesus is God, and God the Father is God, and God the Spirit is God. but if you say that Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Spirit that is modalism. If you use the analogy that a single person can be a husband, father, son, etc. That is modalism.

According to the Bible Jesus and the Father both coexist and coinhere. Jesus is one with the Father is not equivalent to saying Jesus is the Father.

On the other hand you cannot say they are three Gods because the Bible clearly states we have one God, anything else is a heresy.

And Paul and Jesus/John state one , only true God, The Father. But this gets in the way, so it is glossed over but the trins.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Maybe none of those reading this forum are trinitarians?

I believe it is a mystery. Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Spirit is God. These three are distinct and not simply modes of one God. On the other hand God is one, I do not have three Gods, but one God. I don't believe that Jesus is the Father or that Jesus is the Spirit. I do believe Jesus is one with the Father and Spirit.

I don't try to explain it. If someone says this is nonsense, you can't be 3 and also be 1 then I use the example of the internet to prove that you can be both 3 and 1. It may be a poor analogy for the Triune God, but it is a good analogy that it is possible to be both 3 and 1.

Also, I agree with Box that for many Christians they are trinitarians and that position is a heresy. But they balance out that heretical belief by also being modalists. They are simply confused, don't realize they are confused, and haven't studied it enough to realize the whole thing is a mystery. Was Jesus made Lord? Or was He Lord from before the creation of the world? WL tried to explain that by slicing Jesus up into the God Jesus and the Man Jesus. I think that is foolish, it is a mystery. So I simply say that we live by every word from God, most who hear that do not understand the implication.

You are questioning if Jesus was made Lord? This is the entire content of the NT message. This is the gospel. Trinitarianism has rewritten the script and is performing a different play. There is good money in the theatre business!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

You are questioning if Jesus was made Lord? This is the entire content of the NT message. This is the gospel. Trinitarianism has rewritten the script and is performing a different play. There is good money in the theatre business!

I am not questioning it, I am merely bringing up one of the debate points on this. Were you unable to read my post?

You have hung your position on verses saying that Jesus was made Lord. Others are hanging their position on other verses that speak of Jesus before the foundation of the world.

My position is that both of these verses are in the Bible, hence it is a mystery.

WL's position was that Jesus was the Eternal God and Father (skating on the thin ice of modalism) but that the Humanity was not brought into the Godhead until his ascension.

Most Christians are ignorant of the conundrum. To me anyone who thinks they can explain this is not Biblical since the Bible says it is a mystery.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why are people bringing up modalism when no one is arguing for it? Why aren't the Trinitarians countering the arguments that Boxjobox is actually making? Have you given up? Is Trintarianism really just a misreading of the Bible?

BoxjoBox,
John 3:13 says "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." How do you explain that? Looks like Jesus is claiming pre-existence again albeit in the third person.

Actually, how does anybody explain that? This is supposed to be Jesus talking to Nicodemus. So when he says "He who came down from heaven" he must be referring to himself. But, what does he mean by "the Son of Man who is in heaven" when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast?

Did you ever notice how, in John, it's sometimes difficult to tell whether it's Jesus or the narrator speaking? Here, it seems like Jesus has slipped into the narrator's perspective.

John 20 is the most bizarre chapter in the whole account. You have Jesus resurrected telling Mary about his God and Father and our God and Father. You have Jesus appearing to the disciple, breathing on them and saying receive the Holy Spirit, and talking about forgiving and retaining sins. This whole account is not spoken of in the other 3 gospels- the closest might be Mark's but it is different. John says Thomas was not with them, Mark says 11. Thomas talks about his Lord and God- not mentioned elsewhere. John sums up his gospel- trinitarians say John wrote telling us Jesus is God, but that is not what John writes he is trying to convey. I can see why the trins keep referring to John's gospel and then refer to their doctrine as a mystery that can't be understood.

John ends his writing “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”**John‬ *21:25‬ *
I wish more would have been written, just not by "John"- too much ambiguity, symbolism. It actually seems to me that most strange teachings and divisions come out of John's writings.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not questioning it, I am merely bringing up one of the debate points on this. Were you unable to read my post?

You have hung your position on verses saying that Jesus was made Lord. Others are hanging their position on other verses that speak of Jesus before the foundation of the world.

My position is that both of these verses are in the Bible, hence it is a mystery.

WL's position was that Jesus was the Eternal God and Father (skating on the thin ice of modalism) but that the Humanity was not brought into the Godhead until his ascension.

Most Christians are ignorant of the conundrum. To me anyone who thinks they can explain this is not Biblical since the Bible says it is a mystery.

The prophesy was "sit on my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool". Paul tells us “Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” 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.”**I Corinthians‬ *15:24-28‬ *

Do you hear this taught and preached among the triunists? I sure don't. Read through 1 & 2 Thessalonians- there is no attempt to set up a triune view. Trinitarianism is a different gospel.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Bjb,

I plead with you not to feel for me but to pray for me if indeed you truly are convicted of how you feel. I would do no less for you.

Even though I disagree with you.

Now, I ask of you to take some time and consider the meaning "Right hand" of God in all of it's meaning and how it can affect what you believe.

Perhaps you already have.

Thanks, Jr.

Mark puts it well “So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.”
**Mark‬ *16:19-20‬ *NKJV‬‬

And Stephen testifies of it to his demise “But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!””
**Acts‬ *7:55-56‬ *NKJV‬‬

And Paul “which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.”
**Ephesians‬ *1:20-23‬ *NKJV‬‬

Peter preached it, David prophesied of it “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.”
**Acts‬ *2:30-33‬ *NKJV‬‬


It's the gospel, bro, it's the revelation, and check it out we are there with Christ, and good times are coming because of it “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.”
**Ephesians‬ *2:4-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The prophesy was "sit on my right hand UNTIL I make your enemies your footstool". Paul tells us “Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” 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.”**I Corinthians‬ *15:24-28‬ *

Do you hear this taught and preached among the triunists? I sure don't. Read through 1 & 2 Thessalonians- there is no attempt to set up a triune view. Trinitarianism is a different gospel.

I think most Christian preachers avoid the confusion that comes with teaching this. When WL dived into this it was the most boring subject there was, on the other hand if you don't dive into it the members have a completely superficial understanding that borders on heretical or is heretical.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

John 20 is the most bizarre chapter in the whole account. You have Jesus resurrected telling Mary about his God and Father and our God and Father. You have Jesus appearing to the disciple, breathing on them and saying receive the Holy Spirit, and talking about forgiving and retaining sins. This whole account is not spoken of in the other 3 gospels- the closest might be Mark's but it is different. John says Thomas was not with them, Mark says 11. Thomas talks about his Lord and God- not mentioned elsewhere. John sums up his gospel- trinitarians say John wrote telling us Jesus is God, but that is not what John writes he is trying to convey. I can see why the trins keep referring to John's gospel and then refer to their doctrine as a mystery that can't be understood.

John ends his writing “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.”**John‬ *21:25‬ *
I wish more would have been written, just not by "John"- too much ambiguity, symbolism. It actually seems to me that most strange teachings and divisions come out of John's writings.

So your response to my question about John 3:13 is to talk about something else? How shall I interpret that? John 3:13 says the Son of Man came down from heaven. If Jesus is the Son of Man, he came from heaven. That suggests that Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. It seems that the verse doesn't fit into your system so you change the subject.

[zeek]

What did Jesus believe about God? The prime directive of the monotheistic faith of the Israelite religion is “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! [Deuteronomy 6:4.]

According to Mark 12:29 Jesus confirms the monotheistic faith of Israel without reservation or qualification when he declares “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." There is nothing in Jesus' prime directive to us about the Trinity.

So, why isn't Jesus' prime directive taught as such instead of the Trinity in the churches? Witness Lee's Recovery Version is full of footnotes. But, there is not a single footnote on Mark 12: 29. Witness Lee passed right over it!

How many other Christian preachers fail to emphasize the commandment that the Lord Jesus considered the most important?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

So your response to my question about John 3:13 is to talk about something else? How shall I interpret that? John 3:13 says the Son of Man came down from heaven. If Jesus is the Son of Man, he came from heaven. That suggests that Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. It seems that the verse doesn't fit into your system so you change the subject.

Your original post on this contained a few questions. I was responding to the overall post, and not just your John 3. Riddles- things that seem to say something, but we are not sure what. A big part of that riddle would be what is heaven? Where is heaven? Heavenly things? I don't have an answer as to exactly what John is trying to convey other than the purpose and plan of God has a lot of moving parts.

But let me ask this, after Jesus was anointed by he Spirit, he went into the desert and was tempted by the Satan. How come Satan does not know Jesus is the son of God?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

What did Jesus believe about God? The prime directive of the monotheistic faith of the Israelite religion is “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! [Deuteronomy 6:4.]

According to Mark 12:29 Jesus confirms the monotheistic faith of Israel without reservation or qualification when he declares “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." There is nothing in Jesus' prime directive to us about the Trinity.

So, why isn't Jesus' prime directive taught as such instead of the Trinity in the churches? Witness Lee's Recovery Version is full of footnotes. But, there is not a single footnote on Mark 12: 29. Witness Lee passed right over it!

How many other Christian preachers fail to emphasize the commandment that the Lord Jesus considered the most important?

Church in Ephesus left their 1st love to love the Lord thy God.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think most Christian preachers avoid the confusion that comes with teaching this. When WL dived into this it was the most boring subject there was, on the other hand if you don't dive into it the members have a completely superficial understanding that borders on heretical or is heretical.

I would submit the confusion comes because they drill into people the Jesus is God mantra and this would be an affront to that. They leave the nomenclature of the scripture and replace it with trinitarianism.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Your original post on this contained a few questions. I was responding to the overall post, and not just your John 3. Riddles- things that seem to say something, but we are not sure what. A big part of that riddle would be what is heaven? Where is heaven? Heavenly things? I don't have an answer as to exactly what John is trying to convey other than the purpose and plan of God has a lot of moving parts.

But let me ask this, after Jesus was anointed by he Spirit, he went into the desert and was tempted by the Satan. How come Satan does not know Jesus is the son of God?

Your question presumes that Satan didn't know Jesus was the Son of God. The gospels don't say that. I guess it's a trick question.

To suppose that Satan didn't know would require a superficial reading of the story in deed. If Satan didn't know Jesus was the Son, why would he bother tempting him to abuse his power?

How is this related to the Trinity question?

[zeek]

The Polish Brethren were Biblical Unitarians much like Boxjobox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Brethren A summary of their beliefs is listed here: http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell...st/bd45bbs.htm

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Your original post on this contained a few questions. I was responding to the overall post, and not just your John 3. Riddles- things that seem to say something, but we are not sure what. A big part of that riddle would be what is heaven? Where is heaven? Heavenly things? I don't have an answer as to exactly what John is trying to convey other than the purpose and plan of God has a lot of moving parts.

John 6:62 New King James Version (NKJV) What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

Heaven is where Jesus came from per John 6:38. Heaven is up, for Jesus descended from it and ascended to it per John 6:62. In John 8:23 Jesus says he is "from above".

The point was that Jesus said that heaven is where he came from "before". What can we take that to mean if not his pre-existence?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Heaven is where Jesus came from per John 6:38. Heaven is up, for Jesus descended from it and ascended to it per John 6:62. In John 8:23 Jesus says he is "from above".

The point was that Jesus said that heaven is where he came from "before". What can we take that to mean if not his pre-existence?

So this is the thing, heaven is "up", I've been up numerous times in a large metal tube with windows, looking down at the clouds for miles, and I didnt see a place where Jesus lives. There are people in the space station, no report of seeing Jesus or anything up there resembling what John writes about "up" there in Revelation. John starts out his gospel with logos, then logos becoming flesh. Jesus talks elsewhere about being in the bosom of the Father. God chose us before the foundation of the world- part of His plan, His purpose, His will, I think His Logos. If we in our thinking and understanding cannot place heaven, as it seems people of previous times could, who equated it with the area above and including the clouds and atmospheric phenomena, it's hard to grasp what is really being discussed. Other gospels do not include this dialogue with Nicodemus, and it seems to me, in the logos approach, that God's thought is as good as reality, in other words, Christ was there, is there and will be there in the plan of God. We were there, are there and will be there also, because God is God, and Logos transcends time. In real time, Jesus was born, relied on God, was crucified, buried, raised from the dead, and ascended to his God and our God and his Father and our Father, and now is at the right hand of throne of the magesty on high. Heaven is still the mystery word.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So this is the thing, heaven is "up", I've been up numerous times in a large metal tube with windows, looking down at the clouds for miles, and I didnt see a place where Jesus lives. There are people in the space station, no report of seeing Jesus or anything up there resembling what John writes about "up" there in Revelation. John starts out his gospel with logos, then logos becoming flesh. Jesus talks elsewhere about being in the bosom of the Father. God chose us before the foundation of the world- part of His plan, His purpose, His will, I think His Logos. If we in our thinking and understanding cannot place heaven, as it seems people of previous times could, who equated it with the area above and including the clouds and atmospheric phenomena, it's hard to grasp what is really being discussed. Other gospels do not include this dialogue with Nicodemus, and it seems to me, in the logos approach, that God's thought is as good as reality, in other words, Christ was there, is there and will be there in the plan of God. We were there, are there and will be there also, because God is God, and Logos transcends time. In real time, Jesus was born, relied on God, was crucified, buried, raised from the dead, and ascended to his God and our God and his Father and our Father, and now is at the right hand of throne of the magesty on high. Heaven is still the mystery word.

Mystery? What? Now you sound like a Trinitarian!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Mystery? What? Now you sound like a Trinitarian!

I think we all should just admit that we're scratching on the surface of mysteries. After all, we are talking about the INEFFABLE God ... right? Or do I not understand what the word ineffable means?

I'm on the edge of my seat, waiting to read the responses.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think we all should just admit that we're scratching on the surface of mysteries. After all, we are talking about the INEFFABLE God ... right? Or do I not understand what the word ineffable means?

I'm on the edge of my seat, waiting to read the responses.

Based on my experience, God doesn't become less mysterious through more study.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Based on my experience, God doesn't become less mysterious through more study.

That sounds sweet. In my experience, the more I study the more God becomes human. And that's before Jesus. I'm talking God the Father.

To either Jobox's delight or dismay, in the Bible God became human before Jesus was born.

Come to think of it, if the Lord Jesus was preexistent, then that might explain why Father God was so human in the Old Testament. Or, on second thought, maybe for some inexplicable reason, humans are obsessed with the need for a human god, and that's how Jesus became God???

Anyway, that's my experience. I'm sorry. You were talking about yours. So are you saying, that God is not ineffable? ("Not ineffable?" ... for some reason that hits my funny bone. Maybe I should rather have asked if to you God is effable?

[manna-man]

The whole point of the so called trinity has become a great delusion and has done a very great job of distracting what the work on/of the cross accomplished...

Perhaps this was by design.....

Stay focused my friends....

(by T. Austin-Sparks, "By My Spirit", Chapter 9 - The New Man (A Parenthesis))

----- The End of the Old Man and the Beginning of the New ------

Well then, I have said what follows the recognition of the main object. The death of Christ was the death of a man, that is, it was the end of one man who could never be that Man that God is after. The Adam, corporate man, had got into such a state that God was not going to dissect and rebuild that man, He was not going to improve or reform Adam. That man had gone beyond the possibility of ever answering to God's original thought and so he must go out, and the Lord Jesus, in His death, died on that side as representative of a whole corporate man to get him out of the way.

To be in Christ, to be a Christian, is not to reform, is not to bring the old man over and put him at the disposal of God, is not to transfer your old man activities to Divine activities, it is not to bring over anything of the Adam creation and to place it there at God's disposal. It is the end altogether, and in Christ all things are new, not out from Adam, not out from ourselves; they are out from God (2 Cor. 5:17-18). Our energies and activities and all our capacities are now Holy Spirit energies and capacities and not ours at all. Our enthusiasm will never really reach God's end. Nothing that we can provide can reach that end. "Oh," you say, "then are we to be without zeal, without enthusiasm?" No! I say, what is the motive power? Is it the Spirit of God or is it our own motive power? If it is our own motive power, the Cross forms a barrier right across the road, placed by God, and He says, "No, you cannot get past this, you end there. From this point it is all of Myself or it is nothing at all; all out from Me or nothing at all!"

Now, that is God's fact. We learn God's fact sometimes over a long series of years, but what is happening is that we are simply being brought back all the time. God has not moved on at all, God has not gone on years. No, we are being brought back and if we did know the real meaning of consecration after years of Christian life, if we did know the meaning of it, the Holy Spirit's interpretation is simply this: "I am only bringing you right back to what obtained at the very beginning where I was concerned, making real the foundation of things."

Well, the death of Christ, so far as God is concerned, was the removing of a man by death, a man that could not and cannot now stand before God as acceptable to be that man that God is seeking, clearing the ground of one man in order to make room for the other Man. New birth is only upon that basis. "Ye must be born again" (John 3:7). Well, that pre-supposes that you are making a beginning all over again as though you had no existence before. You have come into being. That is new birth. It therefore does pre-suppose that there has been an end, and an absolutely new beginning is necessary. "Ye must be born again." If God says, "You must be born again", with all that problem that Nicodemus has about it, the answer is, "You can be born again if God says that you must". Nicodemus says, "How?" The Lord's answer is, in effect, "Do not bother about the how; you must and you can; if I say you must, you can". Most of us here know that it can be; we can be born again.

My point is this, that it is something entirely other that is born. What is it that is born again? What is the real nature of this new birth? Well, in a word it is this: Christ Himself is brought right into the centre of the being. It is a Bethlehem in our hearts, Christ born there, and that makes a being that never was before, a new kind of species. Christ in you - that is the hope of glory, and it is the only hope of glory, but it is the hope of glory if Christ is in you. There was no hope of glory in this other man, this fallen man, Adam, therefore God closed him down in the death of Calvary. Where is the hope of glory? In Christ; all the hope of glory is centred and fixed in Christ and if Christ is in us, there is hope of glory, "Christ in you the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

The whole point of the so called trinity has become a great delusion and has done a very great job of distracting what the work on/of the cross accomplished...

Perhaps this was by design.....

Stay focused my friends....

(by T. Austin-Sparks, "By My Spirit", Chapter 9 - The New Man (A Parenthesis))

----- The End of the Old Man and the Beginning of the New ------

I heard Witness Lee say we're a new species. He may have gotten it from TAS.

I can see why Lee said that TAS was passing gas. He certainly is airy. Methinks he waxes metaphysical in his writing here, that's pretty much highly idealistic wording.

His point could be made with a whole lot less verbiage, just by quoting 2 Corinthians 5:17-18.

I'm not sure what your point is by posting this by TAS. Maybe you could elaborate and tell us how it relates to the subject of this thread.

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by awareness

I heard Witness Lee say we're a new species. He may have gotten from TAS.

I can see why Lee said that TAS was passing gas. He certainly is airy. Methinks he waxes metaphysical in his writing here, that's pretty much highly idealistic wording.

His point could be made with a whole lot less verbiage, just by quoting 2 Corinthians 5:17-18.

I'm not sure what your point is by posting this by TAS. Maybe you could elaborate and tell us how it relates to the subject of this thread.

No. I will never encourage your behavior.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

That sounds sweet. In my experience, the more I study the more God becomes human. And that's before Jesus. I'm talking God the Father.

To either Jobox's delight or dismay, in the Bible God became human before Jesus was born.

Come to think of it, if the Lord Jesus was preexistent, then that might explain why Father God was so human in the Old Testament. Or, on second thought, maybe for some inexplicable reason, humans are obsessed with the need for a human god, and that's how Jesus became God???

Anyway, that's my experience. I'm sorry. You were talking about yours. So are you saying, that God is not ineffable? ("Not ineffable?" ... for some reason that hits my funny bone. Maybe I should rather have asked if to you God is effable?

Sweet? I don't follow you. I don't know where you got the idea I was saying God isn't ineffable from my statement that God remains a mysterious to me. Jesus as the Christ is a mystery to me too.

The debate between the Biblical Unitarians and Trinitarians is unresolved in my mind. Watch this video for a case in point:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDnWdDxfZcQ There are good arguments and problems on both sides of the issue. Is it possible that after 2000 years Christians don't have an adequate explanation for the God they worship? I think it is.

In my judgment, the biggest slip-up was when one of the Trinitarians brought up the word heresy. Given the tragic legacy of the historic church related to labeling people with that word, I don't think ether side should label the other as heretics.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by manna-man

The whole point of the so called trinity has become a great delusion and has done a very great job of distracting what the work on/of the cross accomplished...

Perhaps this was by design.....

Stay focused my friends....

(by T. Austin-Sparks, "By My Spirit", Chapter 9 - The New Man (A Parenthesis))

----- The End of the Old Man and the Beginning of the New ------

Well then, I have said what follows the recognition of the main object. The death of Christ was the death of a man, that is, it was the end of one man who could never be that Man that God is after. The Adam, corporate man, had got into such a state that God was not going to dissect and rebuild that man, He was not going to improve or reform Adam. That man had gone beyond the possibility of ever answering to God's original thought and so he must go out, and the Lord Jesus, in His death, died on that side as representative of a whole corporate man to get him out of the way.

To be in Christ, to be a Christian, is not to reform, is not to bring the old man over and put him at the disposal of God, is not to transfer your old man activities to Divine activities, it is not to bring over anything of the Adam creation and to place it there at God's disposal. It is the end altogether, and in Christ all things are new, not out from Adam, not out from ourselves; they are out from God (2 Cor. 5:17-18). Our energies and activities and all our capacities are now Holy Spirit energies and capacities and not ours at all. Our enthusiasm will never really reach God's end. Nothing that we can provide can reach that end. "Oh," you say, "then are we to be without zeal, without enthusiasm?" No! I say, what is the motive power? Is it the Spirit of God or is it our own motive power? If it is our own motive power, the Cross forms a barrier right across the road, placed by God, and He says, "No, you cannot get past this, you end there. From this point it is all of Myself or it is nothing at all; all out from Me or nothing at all!"

Now, that is God's fact. We learn God's fact sometimes over a long series of years, but what is happening is that we are simply being brought back all the time. God has not moved on at all, God has not gone on years. No, we are being brought back and if we did know the real meaning of consecration after years of Christian life, if we did know the meaning of it, the Holy Spirit's interpretation is simply this: "I am only bringing you right back to what obtained at the very beginning where I was concerned, making real the foundation of things."

Well, the death of Christ, so far as God is concerned, was the removing of a man by death, a man that could not and cannot now stand before God as acceptable to be that man that God is seeking, clearing the ground of one man in order to make room for the other Man. New birth is only upon that basis. "Ye must be born again" (John 3:7). Well, that pre-supposes that you are making a beginning all over again as though you had no existence before. You have come into being. That is new birth. It therefore does pre-suppose that there has been an end, and an absolutely new beginning is necessary. "Ye must be born again." If God says, "You must be born again", with all that problem that Nicodemus has about it, the answer is, "You can be born again if God says that you must". Nicodemus says, "How?" The Lord's answer is, in effect, "Do not bother about the how; you must and you can; if I say you must, you can". Most of us here know that it can be; we can be born again.

My point is this, that it is something entirely other that is born. What is it that is born again? What is the real nature of this new birth? Well, in a word it is this: Christ Himself is brought right into the centre of the being. It is a Bethlehem in our hearts, Christ born there, and that makes a being that never was before, a new kind of species. Christ in you - that is the hope of glory, and it is the only hope of glory, but it is the hope of glory if Christ is in you. There was no hope of glory in this other man, this fallen man, Adam, therefore God closed him down in the death of Calvary. Where is the hope of glory? In Christ; all the hope of glory is centred and fixed in Christ and if Christ is in us, there is hope of glory, "Christ in you the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27).

I don't see the relevance of your argument to discussion of the Trinity and the Bible. Are you saying that the topic under discussion here is a delusion and a distraction?

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see the relevance of your argument to discussion of the Trinity and the Bible. Are you saying that the topic under discussion here is a delusion and a distraction?

I'm only suggesting that the man made word "TRINITY" appears to be a focal point which has become a more powerful force than it deserves IMHO. It appears as though the total sum of the argument here seems to be unraveling the very faith some have here.

Hence the warning..." Be careful my friends."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

I'm only suggesting that the man made word "TRINITY" appears to be a focal point which has become a more powerful force than it deserves IMHO. It appears as though the total sum of the argument here seems to be unraveling the very faith some have here.

Hence the warning..." Be careful my friends."

Faith in what, the trinity, or not?

But the trinity faith -- maybe a cult -- no longer can inflict physical assaults and barbecues upon deniers.

So are you telling us to be careful just for disagreeing? Just tell us precisely what you are concerned about.

Then maybe we, or I -- whoever you are speaking to -- will understand what your maladjustment is.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by manna-man

I'm only suggesting that the man made word "TRINITY" appears to be a focal point which has become a more powerful force than it deserves IMHO. It appears as though the total sum of the argument here seems to be unraveling the very faith some have here.

Hence the warning..." Be careful my friends."

The word "Trinity" represents the understanding that God the Father, Jesus, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are somehow the one God. That's what is at issue here, not the word Trinity itself. No one here is contending that the word Trinity is scriptural. I don't see anybody's faith unraveling here over this issue. I haven't even seen anybody's position change on the issue yet, except my own. The Unitarian position appears to have much more scriptural support than I recognized prior to this discussion. What's your viewpoint on it?

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by awareness

Faith in what, the trinity, or not?

But the trinity faith -- maybe a cult -- no longer can inflict physical assaults and barbecues upon deniers.

So are you telling us to be careful just for disagreeing? Just tell us precisely what you are concerned about.

Then maybe we, or I -- whoever you are speaking to -- will understand what your maladjustment is.

Dream on Awareness....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Dream on Awareness....

If you don't want to have a discussion then why are you here?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

No one here is contending that the word Trinity is scriptural. I don't see anybody's faith unraveling here over this issue. I haven't even seen anybody's position change on the issue yet, except my own.

Maybe you're just not looking deep enough. Jobox has stated his views on the trinity have changed. I think bro Ohio's has changed too. Maybe not because of our discussions here, like maybe yours, but I think maybe everyone's views have changed concerning the trinity.

But the final blow to the concept of the trinity is that it's a concept. God is beyond any and all of our concepts. That Includes the trinity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe you're just not looking deep enough. Jobox has stated his views on the trinity have changed. I think bro Ohio's has changed too. Maybe not because of our discussions here, like maybe yours, but I think maybe everyone's views have changed concerning the trinity.

But the final blow to the concept of the trinity is that it's a concept. God is beyond any and all of our concepts. That Includes the trinity.

Except for the errant Johannine Comma, I have not found anything in scripture that connects the integer "three" with God Himself. So I question anything connected to "three" including persons, hypostasis, etc.

That said, I do believe the scriptures identify the Father, Son, and Spirit as the eternal God, without beginning or end. No description or metaphor in the English language, though perhaps helpful, can adequately explain God.

The absolute best way to know God is to read His word and to live by His Spirit.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe you're just not looking deep enough. Jobox has stated his views on the trinity have changed.

Really? As a result of this discussion? I must have missed it. When and where did he say that?

I think bro Ohio's has changed too. Maybe not because of our discussions here, like maybe yours, but I think maybe everyone's views have changed concerning the trinity.

Oh, but I was referring to the discussion here. I thought I made that clear. I guess not.

But the final blow to the concept of the trinity is that it's a concept. God is beyond any and all of our concepts. That Includes the trinity.

It's a mystery expressed in symbols and metaphorical narratives.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Except for the errant Johannine Comma, I have not found anything in scripture that connects the integer "three" with God Himself. So I question anything connected to "three" including persons, hypostasis, etc.

What about 2 Corinthians 13:14:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Actually this verse illustrates the Trinity more than 1 John 5:7,8. So while my good friend Ohio is more than welcomed to "question anything connected to three including persons", (especially here on Alt Views!) the doctrine of the Trinity - God exiting in one being, yet three distinct persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - all sharing the same essence - has long been established as the orthodox view since at least the 2nd/3rd generation of Christians, and the "church fathers" of the same era.

While the existence of the Trinity was indeed a mystery to the earliest disciples, at least at the initiation of Jesus' earthly ministry, the Gospels show Jesus spending a great deal of time "revealing" the Trinity to his followers, especially his disciples, and it seems most specifically to the apostle John. The apostle Paul is often noted as the father of trinitarian theology, and for good reason. Admittedly, we are only left to assume that Paul picked up his new and mysterious theology from God himself, presumably during those years before he had significant contact with the original apostles. This is probably what Paul was describing to the Galatians: "For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:12)

The Trinity: Consistent with the Bible? Absolutely! And the more I study the Bible, especially the New Testament, the more the consistency and reality of the Trinity shines forth in brilliant light. I'll leave you with a couple of quotes by one of my favorite trinitarian theologians/apologists, James R. White.

"Upon reflection, we discover that the Trinity is the highest revelation God has made of himself to His people. It is the capstone, the summit, the brightest star in the firmament of divine truths"
The Forgotten Trinity
"Christianity is inherently Trinitarian. Remove the loving Father - the fount of salvation, the redeeming Son - sacrifice for sins, the indwelling Spirit - Comforter and Advocate, and you have nothing left but ritual and rule - another less-than-unique religious system."
Loving The Trintiy

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Really? As a result of this discussion? I must have missed it. When and where did he say that?

Oh, but I was referring to the discussion here. I thought I made that clear. I guess not.

Well at least I'm not communicating well. When I stated "Maybe not because of our discussions here, like maybe yours, ... I meant our discussions.

I'll try to do better ... and to read better.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What about 2 Corinthians 13:14:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Actually this verse illustrates the Trinity more than 1 John 5:7,8. So while my good friend Ohio is more than welcomed to "question anything connected to three including persons", (especially here on Alt Views!) the doctrine of the Trinity - God existing in one being, yet three distinct persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - all sharing the same essence - has long been established as the orthodox view since at least the 2nd/3rd generation of Christians, and the "church fathers" of the same era.

I believe the same as you. I just don't insist on the words "three persons." Though I do agree that "person" is probably the best descriptor since the word emphasizes God's desire to have a relationship with us. The Bible never uses "three" in respect to God (though the plural is used), so I think it is not wise to insist on it.

I grew up in the RCC with endless pictures and idols, so perhaps my views are an over reaction to the thought of "3 Gods" -- Father, Son, and the Holy Pigeon.

[awareness]

I have to admit that for some reason I really took to Untohim's post concerning the trinity. I think it was because it had such a heart felt tone to it. Believers do seem to have an inordinate emotional attachment to the notion of the trinity. But is believing in it or not a salvation issue?

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe the same as you. I just don't insist on the words "three persons." Though I do agree that "person" is probably the best descriptor since the word emphasizes God's desire to have a relationship with us. The Bible never uses "three" in respect to God (though the plural is used), so I think it is not wise to insist on it.

Not only does the Bible not use "three" in respect to God, but neither does it use "person" or "persons."

Jobox is right on one point at least : If the trinity was as important to those that produced our founding documents and stories, as it eventually became, why wasn't it spelled out clearly and precisely in all the witnesses? Was it not as important as it eventually became?

Why wasn't "three" used in respect to God, and "persons," and "essence," and the like, that eventually came along in the Christian narrative and tradition?

Originally Posted by Ohio

I grew up in the RCC with endless pictures and idols, so perhaps my views are an over reaction to the thought of "3 Gods" -- Father, Son, and the Holy Pigeon.

I grew up in the Southern Baptist, and didn't have idols and such, but we still had the trinity. Looking back I find that funny. They considered the RCC as the great whore of Babylon, but was okay with her trinity.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What about 2 Corinthians 13:14:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Actually this verse illustrates the Trinity more than 1 John 5:7,8.

2 Cor. 13:14 lists God separately from the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say that Jesus or the Spirit is God. It is a group of three not a tri-unity. So, taken literally, the verse does not imply that Jesus and the Spirit are God.

So while my good friend Ohio is more than welcomed to "question anything connected to three including persons", (especially here on Alt Views!) the doctrine of the Trinity - God exiting in one being, yet three distinct persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - all sharing the same essence - has long been established as the orthodox view since at least the 2nd/3rd generation of Christians, and the "church fathers" of the same era.

While the existence of the Trinity was indeed a mystery to the earliest disciples, at least at the initiation of Jesus' earthly ministry, the Gospels show Jesus spending a great deal of time "revealing" the Trinity to his followers, especially his disciples, and it seems most specifically to the apostle John. The apostle Paul is often noted as the father of trinitarian theology, and for good reason. Admittedly, we are only left to assume that Paul picked up his new and mysterious theology from God himself, presumably during those years before he had significant contact with the original apostles. This is probably what Paul was describing to the Galatians: "For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:12)

The Trinity: Consistent with the Bible? Absolutely! And the more I study the Bible, especially the New Testament, the more the consistency and reality of the Trinity shines forth in brilliant light. I'll leave you with a couple of quotes by one of my favorite trinitarian theologians/apologists, James R. White.

"Upon reflection, we discover that the Trinity is the highest revelation God has made of himself to His people. It is the capstone, the summit, the brightest star in the firmament of divine truths"
The Forgotten Trinity
"Christianity is inherently Trinitarian. Remove the loving Father - the fount of salvation, the redeeming Son - sacrifice for sins, the indwelling Spirit - Comforter and Advocate, and you have nothing left but ritual and rule - another less-than-unique religious system."
Loving The Trintiy

I posted a video of James R. White debating Unitarians below that you may find interesting. [post #917]

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

2 Cor. 13:14 lists God separately from the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say that Jesus or the Spirit is God. It is a group of three not a tri-unity. So, taken literally, the verse does not imply that Jesus and the Spirit are God.

Right. I've been saying that if the trinity was so important then surely Paul, in 2 Cor 13:14, would have taken the opportunity to spell the trinity out. He didn't. It's obvious that his point was, grace, love, and fellowship, not the trinity.

I posted a video of James R. White debating Unitarians below that you may find interesting. [post #917]

I was watching this debate awhile ago. Both sides, the trinitarians and the trinity deniers, make very strong arguments, both using scripture to make their case. To the point that I agree with both of them.

But that means the Bible, if seen with both eyes, and not just one, produces an overload of cognitive dissonance. If the Bible was inspired by God then He must have intended it to do that to us. Why? prolly cuz He's ineffable ... and can't possibly ever explain the Godhead to us, if He tried. There's nothing in this world, the only world we know, and can relate to, that relates to God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Right. I've been saying that if the trinity was so important then surely Paul, in 2 Cor 13:14, would have taken the opportunity to spell the trinity out. He didn't. It's obvious that his point was, grace, love, and fellowship, not the trinity.


I was watching this debate awhile ago. Both sides, the trinitarians and the trinity deniers, make very strong arguments, both using scripture to make their case. To the point that I agree with both of them.

But that means the Bible, if seen with both eyes, and not just one, produces an overload of cognitive dissonance. If the Bible was inspired by God then He must have intended it to do that to us. Why? prolly cuz He's ineffable ... and can't possibly ever explain the Godhead to us, if He tried. There's nothing in this world, the only world we know, and can relate to, that relates to God.

Augustine said "Since it is God we are speaking of, you do not understand it. If you could understand it, it would not be God."

I agree with UntoHim insofar as he is saying that this triple pattern of God the Father, our Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit appears over and over in the canonical NT texts. For example, in 1 Thessalonians , the earliest New Testament document, chapter 1: 3-5 it says"... remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. For we know, brothers and sisters beloved by God, that he has chosen you, because our message of the gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of persons we proved to be among you for your sake."

In chapter 5 Paul says "Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit." The pattern God's oikonomia [Witness Lee didn't originate or own the term and was not the only exegete in recent Christian history to expound on it.] recurs over and over. But, Biblical Unitarians too can acknowledge this scriptural pattern without relinquishing their core position.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Augustine said "Since it is God we are speaking of, you do not understand it. If you could understand it, it would not be God."

I agree with UntoHim insofar as he is saying that this triple pattern of God the Father, our Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit appears over and over in the canonical NT texts. For example, in 1 Thessalonians , the earliest New Testament document, chapter 1: 3-5 it says"... remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. For we know, brothers and sisters beloved by God, that he has chosen you, because our message of the gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of persons we proved to be among you for your sake."

In chapter 5 Paul says "Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit." The pattern God's oikonomia [Witness Lee didn't originate or own the term and was not the only exegete in recent Christian history to expound on it.] recurs over and over. But, Biblical Unitarians too can acknowledge this scriptural pattern without relinquishing their core position.

The New Testament introduces Jesus. Before Jesus there was only two, God and the Spirit. Jesus makes three.

Is it any wonder that they are called a trinity?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Right. I've been saying that if the trinity was so important then surely Paul, in 2 Cor 13:14, would have taken the opportunity to spell the trinity out. He didn't. It's obvious that his point was, grace, love, and fellowship, not the trinity.

I would say both. Paul did provide a wonderful description of the Trinity here.

But you will never be content with what is provided in scripture. You will always demand that more be "spelled out" to justify your position. And no one, not even yourself, knows what your "position" is.

Originally Posted by awareness

If the Bible was inspired by God then He must have intended it to do that to us. Why? prolly cuz He's ineffable ... and can't possibly ever explain the Godhead to us, if He tried. There's nothing in this world, the only world we know, and can relate to, that relates to God.

You are right. There is no way we can possibly understand God. Perhaps eternity will help.

[awareness]

Hey bro Ohio. Thanks for your reply.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would say both. Paul did provide a wonderful description of the Trinity here.

Or three separated entities, at least ; one providing grace, one love, and one fellowship. Why didn't Paul go into three persons, with one essence?

Originally Posted by Ohio

But you will never be content with what is provided in scripture.

Right. For a book that claims to be speaking about the most important matters in the universe it offers very little. The Encyclopedia Britannica is longer, specially the NT.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You will always demand that more be "spelled out" to justify your position. And no one, not even yourself, knows what your "position" is.

This is not about me. But now that you bring me up, right again. I use to have a position, many positions actually. But I've learned better. Now I'm open to God.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are right. There is no way we can possibly understand God. Perhaps eternity will help.

Not as long as there is an "I" in eternity.

[awareness]

It looks like I killed this thread. Maybe I can resuscitate it.

Yesterday I called my JW friend, to talk to him about the trinity. They don't believe in it.

I asked him what they do about John's "with God and was God." He said the proper translation is "with God and a god." I responded with, 'then you believe in two Gods.' He quoted Paul, 'there's many gods and many lords.'

Then I asked what they do about "preexistence." He said that Jesus, before being born a man, and after ascending, was and is Michael the archangel.

I asked for proof text. He's bringing his computer over tomorrow for me to fix, and is supposed to bring the proof text with it.

I already know the answer. I know what proof text he's gonna bring.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

It looks like I killed this thread. Maybe I can resuscitate it.

Yesterday I called my JW friend, to talk to him about the trinity. They don't believe in it.

I asked him what they do about John's "with God and was God." He said the proper translation is "with God and a god." I responded with, 'then you believe in two Gods.' He quoted Paul, 'there's many gods and many lords.'

Then I asked what they do about "preexistence." He said that Jesus, before being born a man, and after ascending, was and is Michael the archangel.

I asked for proof text. He's bringing his computer over tomorrow for me to fix, and is supposed to bring the proof text with it.

I already know the answer. I know what proof text he's gonna bring.

Several NT texts testify against the idea that Jesus is an angel. Only Jesus was begotten of God [Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 and Hebrews 1] and invited to sit at the right hand of God.

Matthew 1:20
20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Hebrews 1:3... who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:

“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?

And again:

“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?

6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Several NT texts testify against the idea that Jesus is an angel. Only Jesus was begotten of God [Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 and Hebrews 1] and invited to sit at the right hand of God.

Plus it would make Satan and Jesus brothers ... like the Mormons claim. They don't believe, like Jobox, in the trinity either.

But proof text that Jesus was/is Michael the archangel is coming. And of course, if so, the archangel is better than the angels.

[zeek]

I just came across this passage in "Saint" Augustine's On Christian Belief on page 159 which is relevant to this discussion:

"The only begotten Son of God, therefore, was not created by the Father, for, as the Evangelist says, all things were made through him [John 1:3]; nor was he begotten in time, because the God of wisdom has his eternal wisdom at his side eternally; nor is he inferior to the Father, that is, in any way less than him, since the Apostle declares, 'Although he was in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped' [Philippians 2:6] This means that those who claim that the Son is the same as the Father find themselves outside the catholic * faith for this Word could not be with God unless he were with God the Father and he who is alone is equal to no one. Those people who assert that the Son is created although different from the rest of creation also cut themselves off from the catholic faith, for, however exalted a created status they may ascribe to him, if he is a creature, the fact remains that he has been fashioned and made."

* i.e., meaning universal not Roman Catholic per se.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I just came across this passage in "Saint" Augustine's On Christian Belief on page 159 which is relevant to this discussion:

"The only begotten Son of God, therefore, was not created by the Father, for, as the Evangelist says, all things were made through him [John 1:3]; nor was he begotten in time, because the God of wisdom has his eternal wisdom at his side eternally; nor is he inferior to the Father, that is, in any way less than him, since the Apostle declares, 'Although he was in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped' [Philippians 2:6] This means that those who claim that the Son is the same as the Father find themselves outside the catholic * faith for this Word could not be with God unless he were with God the Father and he who is alone is equal to no one. Those people who assert that the Son is created although different from the rest of creation also cut themselves off from the catholic faith, for, however exalted a created status they may ascribe to him, if he is a creature, the fact remains that he has been fashioned and made."

* i.e., meaning universal not Roman Catholic per se.

Universal as in more than just HIS opinion. Yet in the end it's just his opinion. And he quotes scripture a couple of times, but then adds non-scripture statements in his narrative, without scripture credit.

Still, Saint Augustine is considered a saint because he established a lot of Christian traditions.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Universal as in more than just HIS opinion. Yet in the end it's just his opinion. And he quotes scripture a couple of times, but then adds non-scripture statements in his narrative, without scripture credit.

Still, Saint Augustine is considered a saint because he established a lot of Christian traditions.

In this context "catholic" seems to imply that the Nicene creed is the original Christian faith. Augustine reasons deductively from from John 1:3 and Philippians 2:6 against the positions that the Son is the same as the Father a view preached by Witness Lee, and the position that the Son is not eternal which is held by the Biblical unitarians.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

In this context "catholic" seems to imply that the Nicene creed is the original Christian faith. Augustine reasons deductively from from John 1:3 and Philippians 2:6 against the positions that the Son is the same as the Father a view preached by Witness Lee, and the position that the Son is not eternal which is held by the Biblical unitarians.

But what does it matter, if the Son is not eternal?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But what does it matter, if the Son is not eternal?

If the Son is not eternal, he's not fully God. The question then becomes whether or not he has the power to save. The Trinitarian would argue that he does not, because only God can save. The Biblical Unitarian would argue that he does have the power to save because God gave it to him when he made him Lord.