The Son not forsaken (as much as we might think)

[Evangelical]

In Christianity, particularly the evangelical flavor, there is a popular idea that "God turned his back on Jesus", "God cannot look on sin", or that God forsook Christ on the cross in a big way.

Firstly, I think any thinking person would tell that "God cannot look on sin" is wrong. God is not some Victorian era prude who is shocked by the sight of a bare ankle. God sees and knows all. "God cannot look favorably on sin" is perhaps a better saying.

While the Father must have forsaken Jesus on the cross in some sense , there are verses that indicate the Father did not forsake Christ completely:

John 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

Ps 22:24
For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

Hebrews 13:5 “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you

This is a puzzle. How could God fully and completely forsake His Son on the cross? The cross was the single most pleasing act Christ could have done for the Father. How could the divine nature and the human nature ever be separated?

Witness Lee is the only teacher I know who resolves this paradox adequately, or at least differentiates between the economical and essential aspects in a clear way. Firstly, the anointing Spirit left Jesus economically, as Christ was judged on mankind's behalf, but Christ still had the Spirit essentially. Christ still had the divine nature on the cross and in this sense the Father never forsook Him.

I guess another way to put this would be - that the anointing Spirit and power of God who came upon Christ in the form of a dove at His baptism left Him on the cross, but God's divine nature did not leave the God-man. The God-man did not become a man on the cross, and then become a God-man again after the resurrection. The resurrection was when the anointing Spirit and power of God came upon Christ again in order to raise Him from the dead.

[Boxjobox]

Your thought is typical Leeism: Take a thought, mix it with a few snippets of verses, use the phrase "this indicates", mix in a good dose of processed triune god jargon, come up with new light. Let's see, the next phase would be to wow people with this new light, sell messages or maybe even a book, and put it in a footnote so people can prayread it.

Problem is, the apostles did not give us the term god-man; and so what you are doing is creating your own god, religion and scripture.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Your thought is typical Leeism: Take a thought, mix it with a few snippets of verses, use the phrase "this indicates", mix in a good dose of processed triune god jargon, come up with new light. Let's see, the next phase would be to wow people with this new light, sell messages or maybe even a book, and put it in a footnote so people can prayread it.

Problem is, the apostles did not give us the term god-man; and so what you are doing is creating your own god, religion and scripture.

The term God-man is benign and pre-dates Lee. It is a way to refer to Christ as both God and man.

See here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-man_(Christianity)

Origen was the first to use the term.

The term is used in Protestant documents such as the Westminster Larger Catechism, where it says that "Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in that as God-man he is advanced to the highest favour with God the Father," (Q&A 54).

I've shown that the term is found in early Christianity and Protestantism.

I suggest that if the term were more widely adopted there would be fewer arguments. It would make clear that Jesus is both God and man, thus silencing those who only accept His humanity.

[Drake]

-2

Boxjobox>”Problem is, the apostles did not give us the term god-man....”

Neither does it give us the term “Trinity” but most christians use that term and it is accepted.

Drake

[Boxjobox]

Evangelical, You probably should review the life and teachings of Origen. Church history is replete with great teachers who wowed men into following their teachings. One only has to look at Pergamos and Thyatira to see the Lord's perspective on such.

It would be good to think the process through: We believe that the scriptures are "God breathed", that they are through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that they reveal God, His Christ, and the church. Then something strange happens- someone feels that they don't adequately do the job, that there is something missing, that they need to augment the scripture, that there is a more excellent way of presenting the "truth", that they can be improved upon, that there is further light! What is really being said is that God's word is short sighted, inadequate, incomplete, not comprehensible, but that I, the great teacher have the insight and knowledge that others do not, and I am going to set the record straight.
This is what WL portrayed. It started out as bible teaching and evolved into "this is the truth, this the way, I have the light, all others are short. His words, his writings became equal to the scripture, then, of course, the logical next step was apostleship. Eventually, the scripture became a reference book for his writings. His writings were aggrandize above the teachings of the apostles.

To say that the term God-man is benign is ludicrous. It's one of the kingpins of WL's teachings. Then you end your post with "I suggest that if the term were more widely adopted there would be fewer arguments. It would make clear that Jesus is both God and man, thus silencing those who only accept His humanity". The problem is that it is not the term given to us by the Holy Spirit!! Here, what you are implying is that God's word does not accurately reflect the person of Christ, that the writers of the scripture came up short, that what the Holy Spirit failed to reveal, man can now do.

Ah, if only everyone would adopt that term, we would all be in oneness. Yet Paul says “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 NK
Paul did not include a god-man teaching. So who to follow? Paul, or in the case of the LC, WL? Evangelical, you scare me! Do you really think an unscriptural term should trump Paul? WL created a different religion, a different church, and a different God. If one does not adhere to his teachings, then they are anathema. We have seen this before in church history, it was called the Roman Catholic Church.

The recovery of the church will only happen as Christians return to the scriptures. The LC is not going to reform- it is the church of WL.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

-2

Boxjobox>”Problem is, the apostles did not give us the term god-man....”

Neither does it give us the term “Trinity” but most christians use that term and it is accepted.

Drake

Drake, look at Evangelical's original post. They do not include the direct quote from Jesus where on the cross he crystal out " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me". Nor do they show Jesus telling Mary " I ascend to my God and your God, and my Father and your Father". Paul had no problem referring to the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, why does Evangelical feel the need to present some sort of religious psychobabble? They lost the scripture and the speaking of the scripture for a man's teaching.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Christianity, particularly the evangelical flavor, there is a popular idea that "God turned his back on Jesus", "God cannot look on sin", or that God forsook Christ on the cross in a big way.

Firstly, I think any thinking person would tell that "God cannot look on sin" is wrong. God is not some Victorian era prude who is shocked by the sight of a bare ankle. God sees and knows all. "God cannot look favorably on sin" is perhaps a better saying.

While the Father must have forsaken Jesus on the cross in some sense , there are verses that indicate the Father did not forsake Christ completely:

John 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

Ps 22:24
For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

Hebrews 13:5 “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you

This is a puzzle. How could God fully and completely forsake His Son on the cross? The cross was the single most pleasing act Christ could have done for the Father. How could the divine nature and the human nature ever be separated?

Witness Lee is the only teacher I know who resolves this paradox adequately, or at least differentiates between the economical and essential aspects in a clear way. Firstly, the anointing Spirit left Jesus economically, as Christ was judged on mankind's behalf, but Christ still had the Spirit essentially. Christ still had the divine nature on the cross and in this sense the Father never forsook Him.

I guess another way to put this would be - that the anointing Spirit and power of God who came upon Christ in the form of a dove at His baptism left Him on the cross, but God's divine nature did not leave the God-man. The God-man did not become a man on the cross, and then become a God-man again after the resurrection. The resurrection was when the anointing Spirit and power of God came upon Christ again in order to raise Him from the dead.

I'm not allowed to answer this, on the evangelical side. I will offer the two gospel witnesses :

Mat_27:46* And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mar_15:34* And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?


And John 8:29 is weak because of chronology.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Evangelical, You probably should review the life and teachings of Origen. Church history is replete with great teachers who wowed men into following their teachings. One only has to look at Pergamos and Thyatira to see the Lord's perspective on such.

It would be good to think the process through: We believe that the scriptures are "God breathed", that they are through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that they reveal God, His Christ, and the church. Then something strange happens- someone feels that they don't adequately do the job, that there is something missing, that they need to augment the scripture, that there is a more excellent way of presenting the "truth", that they can be improved upon, that there is further light! What is really being said is that God's word is short sighted, inadequate, incomplete, not comprehensible, but that I, the great teacher have the insight and knowledge that others do not, and I am going to set the record straight.
This is what WL portrayed. It started out as bible teaching and evolved into "this is the truth, this the way, I have the light, all others are short. His words, his writings became equal to the scripture, then, of course, the logical next step was apostleship. Eventually, the scripture became a reference book for his writings. His writings were aggrandize above the teachings of the apostles.

To say that the term God-man is benign is ludicrous. It's one of the kingpins of WL's teachings. Then you end your post with "I suggest that if the term were more widely adopted there would be fewer arguments. It would make clear that Jesus is both God and man, thus silencing those who only accept His humanity". The problem is that it is not the term given to us by the Holy Spirit!! Here, what you are implying is that God's word does not accurately reflect the person of Christ, that the writers of the scripture came up short, that what the Holy Spirit failed to reveal, man can now do.

Ah, if only everyone would adopt that term, we would all be in oneness. Yet Paul says “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 NK
Paul did not include a god-man teaching. So who to follow? Paul, or in the case of the LC, WL? Evangelical, you scare me! Do you really think an unscriptural term should trump Paul? WL created a different religion, a different church, and a different God. If one does not adhere to his teachings, then they are anathema. We have seen this before in church history, it was called the Roman Catholic Church.

The recovery of the church will only happen as Christians return to the scriptures. The LC is not going to reform- it is the church of WL.

I accept it is not found in the Scripture - I can't find a verse which uses the term. But neither is the technical term "hypostatic union". I cannot accept it is a wrong term. A word or term being absent from scripture makes it no less truthful or correct. The term God-man refers to Jesus as both God and man.

Besides Origen, the term God-man is used in the Westminster Larger Catechism, as I stated before.

I also found the term on Christian apologetics websites like gotquestions.org:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-God-man.html

"Jesus is not half-human and half-divine. Rather, He is Theanthropos, the God-man. "


Here it is on definitions.net, perhaps it is an Orthodox term?

Theanthropos
thē-an-thrō′pos, n. the God-man, Christ as having both a divine and human person.—adjs. Theanthrop′ic, -al, being at once divine and human: embodying deity in human forms.—ns. Thean′thropism, Thean′thropy, the ascribing of human qualities to deity, also of divine qualities to man; Thean′thropist, one who believes in theanthropism. [Gr. theos, a god, anthrōpos, man.]

http://www.definitions.net/definition/Theanthropos


Here it is on equip.org:

http://www.equip.org/perspectives/christology/

To be precise, Jesus Christ was and is the theanthropos — the God Man. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.

Given its use is found throughout Christianity, and may just be an English translation of the word Theanthropos, I fail to see the real issue with the term. You would have to blame the Calvinists and the Orthodox for using the "unbiblical" term as well.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not allowed to answer this, on the evangelical side. I will offer the two gospel witnesses :

Mat_27:46* And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mar_15:34* And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?


And John 8:29 is weak because of chronology.

The issue with John 8:29 is that it associates the Father not leaving Christ with Christ's obedience.

John 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

If God did leave Christ then John 8:29 is a lie.

It amounts to saying:

"God did not leave Christ alone because He always did what pleases the Father..."
..The cross was the most pleasing act to the Father therefore the Father left him. "

Both cannot be true at the same time unless we consider the hypostatic union. God left Christ and also remained with him.

The point of this post is not to deny that the Father forsook Christ, but to address a viewpoint that the Father left Christ to such an extent that it left just an empty shell of a man on the cross because he was too dirty for the Father to look upon - i.e. the Father threw Him away like trash, just as the people did (thinking he was a guilty sinner who deserved His punishment).

Instead I believe the bible teaches the Father continued to be with Christ during his time in the grave and God also looked upon Him with caring love throughout the whole ordeal.

The prevailing view that God forsook Christ completely, considers Jesus as a guilty sinner when in fact He was an innocent sacrifice. Worse - it portrays the Heavenly Father as one who would abandon His own dear son in his greatest hour of need. I think that a view that says God cannot look at sin or God abandoned His Son on the cross (in a complete way) would cause a person to doubt and think "God forsook his own dear Son on the cross, maybe he'll forsake me too"?

The "God cannot look on sin" people must view Christ as one who ate and drank with sinners but the Father cannot stand to look upon sin and would smite the guilty sinners in a second. I don't think this is correct as it forgets that Jesus is a perfect reflection of the Father (I will refrain from saying Jesus is the Father, don't want to go there again). It also treats Jesus as a guilty sinner as many people thought He was when in fact He was an innocent sacrifice.

The prevailing view in Christianity of Jesus being forsaken by the Father is equivalent to those who mocked Jesus and thought he deserved to be there as a guilty sinner. It is equivalent to portraying the Father as one of the jeerers saying "look at this dirty sinner, He deserves it, and what's more I'm going to forsake Him".


But the Psalms reveal some things about why Jesus said what He said. Jesus was quoting Psalm 22:2 which is a rhetorical question, and anyone who heard Jesus's words at that time would have known he was quoting the Psalm.

Then we come to verse 24 in the Psalm which explains that God never left Him completely:

Ps 22:24
For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.

Most only see one side of the story - they see the part about "why have you left me God"? and think God actually left Christ, or that Christ was somehow uncertain or bewildered about what was happening. Worse, they think that Christ was too filthy and dirty to be looked upon by God, as if God "cannot look on sin".

But the cross is not a story of "why have you left me God?" . It is "why does it seem like you have left me?" and God replies "I have never left you".

God proved that He did not forsake Christ by raising Him from the dead 3 days later. Also, God was with Jesus in hell:
Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

I believe from the cross to the grave, God the Father was with Christ. I think it is wrong how some believe that Jesus was left all alone by Himself from the cross to the resurrection. I think only God the Spirit left Him - I think Jesus could not have died if the Spirit had not left Him - the power of the Spirit could have sustained Christ on the cross for as long as He wanted.

So I think it is most likely Jesus asked these rhetorical questions for our sake, not for His sake. Jesus never doubted God and what was happening to Him.
Jesus knew before He went to the cross that He would rise again after 3 days. So Jesus knew God would never actually forsake Him. Jesus knew God's plan all
along. Jesus was God in the flesh, who knows and see all things, past, present, future, He would have known that the Father's forsaking was only in one aspect, and not a complete forsaking.

[Evangelical]

Here are 10 Scriptural references to the promise that God will never forsake or abandon you and me.

http://www.thejourney2grace.com/inde...1000&id=324730

Why do we believe these promises didn't apply to Christ?

The term God-man can help explain - God forsook the "man" side of Christ but didn't forsake the "God" side of Christ.

[Boxjobox]

Evangelical, the term god-man, which is not from the scripture, becomes the determinant factor in your thinking. Let's look at the first gospel preached. Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke ““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—”
**Acts‬ *2:22‬ *NKJV‬‬. He does not preach a god-man, but a man, through whom God operated. If you consider all the gospel messages preached through Acts, none speak of a god-man. Here is part of Paul preaching to the Athenians “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 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 *17:30-31‬ *NKJV‬‬. Paul speaks of the man God has ordained. The word of God does not give us this term god-man; you are introducing something foreign, and then trying to fit the scripture around that term. This creates a different gospel, a different Christ, and a different God.

[Boxjobox]

Evangelical, here is another term you use "I think only God the Spirit left Him". Again, "God the Spirit" is not given to us in the scriptures. The word of God gives us the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, but does not give us God the Spirit. This too introduces a different concept of God. It says- the word of God is not complete, clear, understandable and we must add to it to portray the right picture of God. It ends up giving a different God.

[Boxjobox]

And yet another- "unless we consider the hypostatic union.". Obviously, the apostles did not talk in this term. Are we to consider that they were simpletons, so God did not give them the whole, clear teaching? Is the scripture incomplete so that footnotes are The Word?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

... Paul had no problem referring to the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, why does Evangelical feel the need to present some sort of religious psychobabble? They lost the scripture and the speaking of the scripture for a man's teaching.

Boxjobox,

Is the term “Trinity” also religious psychobabble?

You would be consistent if you said “yes”.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The issue with John 8:29 is that it associates the Father not leaving Christ with Christ's obedience.

John 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

If God did leave Christ then John 8:29 is a lie.

John 8:29 is before the cross. Therefore it might be time-stamped.

Originally Posted by Evan

The point of this post is not to deny that the Father forsook Christ, but to address a viewpoint that the Father left Christ to such an extent that it left just an empty shell of a man on the cross because he was too dirty for the Father to look upon - i.e. the Father threw Him away like trash, just as the people did (thinking he was a guilty sinner who deserved His punishment).

I admit that I've never heard of such claims. And the two gospel witness of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," say no such thing. So who is making this claim? I'm pretty sure you didn't invent it out of whole cloth.

Originally Posted by Evan

Instead I believe the bible teaches the Father continued to be with Christ during his time in the grave and God also looked upon Him with caring love throughout the whole ordeal.

God is omnipresent.

Psalm 139:8 - If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

Furthermore, do we know what is meant by "forsake?" Scholars that believe Jesus was an apocalypticist say Jesus wasn't a violent insurrectionist against the Roman Empire because he expected God to intervene. But God didn't, and that's why Jesus thought God forsook him.

But we don't know that, and neither do they. We don't have enough information to know what the historical Jesus really was, said, or did. We are getting our information from anonymous sources, that put their spin on Jesus, for purposes of issues of their time and audience. (Whoops, I just said too much). But that is one explication of what Jesus meant by forsaken.

[Boxjobox]

This site is really a discussion about Née, Lee and the LC, and I will try to keep it as such. Evangelical brought up a discussion about God forsaking Christ. Jesus, dying on the cross cried out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". He did not cry out "my Father, my Father", he did not say something about " God the Father, why are you forsaking God the Son, by taking away God the Spirit". No, he says My God and me. When one starts introducing things that the word of God does not say to ¿clarify? what is actually said it becomes a religious psychobabble that demeans the scripture and alters meaning. It points to really saying that the words God is not true, that the apostles and writers of the scripture were not consise, and that man must set true what the writers left out. When LSM published the recovery version, I don't have a problem with them translating verses into what they feel is clearer language, but when the version is overloaded with footnotes, and great explanations of every major theme, that bothers me, and then when the footnotes start to be accepted as the word and the truth, that sets off a siren, and then when it becomes the work of the apostle of the age, and all must accept it as such and ignore any other interpretation, that becomes a cult.

Evangelical in a microcosm is doing the same thing. Terms not found in the scripture take on the weight of truth, of being scriptural, of being God spoken, revelation of God and Christ, when in fact the terms are really hypothetical.

Drake, ask yourself- has the term trinity led to a better understanding of the scripture or has it been another one of those man made terms that have taken on the weight of being God breathed? Has it not been a divisive term, misused and misunderstood, and an evolved term that men have used to prove all sorts of things? In other words, if you dropped using the word trinity, what would you loose? Would you then misunderstand scripture, would God collapse? It is God who gave us the scripture to understand Him, and His love for us, and how Christ bore our sins that we could be forgiven, and that the forsaking that should have fallen on us, Christ bore.

One would really think, if we were supposed to understand Jesus as a hypostatic god-man, that God wanted us to see him as triune, that His scripture would have spoken such. But, it actually speaks something quite different, I mean what do you do with a verse where Jesus himself says “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? You have to do the old psychobabble two step to try to explain why Jesus didn't really mean "only true God", because it doesn't match the "true" term of trinity, that has come in to replace scripture.

Church history has been full of man's teachings. I thought the recovery was to get us back to the beginning, back to scripture and the real church. WL and LSM ended up being the clean house that seven worse demons came and occupied. I would urge all of us to get back to the scripture. It's one thing to expound on scripture, it's quite another when the expounding becomes dogma that replaces truth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This site is really a discussion about Née, Lee and the LC, and I will try to keep it as such. Evangelical brought up a discussion about God forsaking Christ. Jesus, dying on the cross cried out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". He did not cry out "my Father, my Father", he did not say something about " God the Father, why are you forsaking God the Son, by taking away God the Spirit". No, he says My God and me. When one starts introducing things that the word of God does not say to ¿clarify? what is actually said it becomes a religious psychobabble that demeans the scripture and alters meaning. It points to really saying that the words God is not true, that the apostles and writers of the scripture were not consise, and that man must set true what the writers left out. When LSM published the recovery version, I don't have a problem with them translating verses into what they feel is clearer language, but when the version is overloaded with footnotes, and great explanations of every major theme, that bothers me, and then when the footnotes start to be accepted as the word and the truth, that sets off a siren, and then when it becomes the work of the apostle of the age, and all must accept it as such and ignore any other interpretation, that becomes a cult.

Evangelical in a microcosm is doing the same thing. Terms not found in the scripture take on the weight of truth, of being scriptural, of being God spoken, revelation of God and Christ, when in fact the terms are really hypothetical.

Drake, ask yourself- has the term trinity led to a better understanding of the scripture or has it been another one of those man made terms that have taken on the weight of being God breathed? Has it not been a divisive term, misused and misunderstood, and an evolved term that men have used to prove all sorts of things? In other words, if you dropped using the word trinity, what would you loose? Would you then misunderstand scripture, would God collapse? It is God who gave us the scripture to understand Him, and His love for us, and how Christ bore our sins that we could be forgiven, and that the forsaking that should have fallen on us, Christ bore.

One would really think, if we were supposed to understand Jesus as a hypostatic god-man, that God wanted us to see him as triune, that His scripture would have spoken such. But, it actually speaks something quite different, I mean what do you do with a verse where Jesus himself says “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? You have to do the old psychobabble two step to try to explain why Jesus didn't really mean "only true God", because it doesn't match the "true" term of trinity, that has come in to replace scripture.

Church history has been full of man's teachings. I thought the recovery was to get us back to the beginning, back to scripture and the real church. WL and LSM ended up being the clean house that seven worse demons came and occupied. I would urge all of us to get back to the scripture. It's one thing to expound on scripture, it's quite another when the expounding becomes dogma that replaces truth.

Hear, Hear !!!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This site is really a discussion about Née, Lee and the LC, and I will try to keep it as such. Evangelical brought up a discussion about God forsaking Christ. Jesus, dying on the cross cried out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". He did not cry out "my Father, my Father", he did not say something about " God the Father, why are you forsaking God the Son, by taking away God the Spirit". No, he says My God and me. When one starts introducing things that the word of God does not say to ¿clarify? what is actually said it becomes a religious psychobabble that demeans the scripture and alters meaning. It points to really saying that the words God is not true, that the apostles and writers of the scripture were not consise, and that man must set true what the writers left out. When LSM published the recovery version, I don't have a problem with them translating verses into what they feel is clearer language, but when the version is overloaded with footnotes, and great explanations of every major theme, that bothers me, and then when the footnotes start to be accepted as the word and the truth, that sets off a siren, and then when it becomes the work of the apostle of the age, and all must accept it as such and ignore any other interpretation, that becomes a cult.

Evangelical in a microcosm is doing the same thing. Terms not found in the scripture take on the weight of truth, of being scriptural, of being God spoken, revelation of God and Christ, when in fact the terms are really hypothetical.

Drake, ask yourself- has the term trinity led to a better understanding of the scripture or has it been another one of those man made terms that have taken on the weight of being God breathed? Has it not been a divisive term, misused and misunderstood, and an evolved term that men have used to prove all sorts of things? In other words, if you dropped using the word trinity, what would you loose? Would you then misunderstand scripture, would God collapse? It is God who gave us the scripture to understand Him, and His love for us, and how Christ bore our sins that we could be forgiven, and that the forsaking that should have fallen on us, Christ bore.

One would really think, if we were supposed to understand Jesus as a hypostatic god-man, that God wanted us to see him as triune, that His scripture would have spoken such. But, it actually speaks something quite different, I mean what do you do with a verse where Jesus himself says “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? You have to do the old psychobabble two step to try to explain why Jesus didn't really mean "only true God", because it doesn't match the "true" term of trinity, that has come in to replace scripture.

Church history has been full of man's teachings. I thought the recovery was to get us back to the beginning, back to scripture and the real church. WL and LSM ended up being the clean house that seven worse demons came and occupied. I would urge all of us to get back to the scripture. It's one thing to expound on scripture, it's quite another when the expounding becomes dogma that replaces truth.

I take it you disagree with the God-man and Triune God and Trinity ideas which you say are not in Scripture.

Whether we believe in the Trinity (Triune God) or not does not change anything about the Scripture showing God forsaking Christ, so let's focus on that:

How can Hebrews 13:5 apply only to us and not to Christ? God promises to not forsake any of his children but forsakes His only begotten son?

How come John 8:29 applies to Christ before the cross and not during the cross? - it implies that the cross was not a pleasing and obedient act to God.

The answer I believe is found in Psalm 22 which shows Jesus's question was rhetorical and the Psalm ends on a positive note.

If anyone has read the "footprints in the sand" poem, it is basically a paraphrase of Psalm 22, it appeared that God forsook Christ but in reality He was still with Him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I take it you disagree with the God-man and Triune God and Trinity ideas which you say are not in Scripture.

Whether we believe in the Trinity (Triune God) or not does not change anything about the Scripture showing God forsaking Christ, so let's focus on that:

How can Hebrews 13:5 apply only to us and not to Christ? God promises to not forsake any of his children but forsakes His only begotten son?

How come John 8:29 applies to Christ before the cross and not during the cross? - it implies that the cross was not a pleasing and obedient act to God.

The answer I believe is found in Psalm 22 which shows Jesus's question was rhetorical and the Psalm ends on a positive note.

If anyone has read the "footprints in the sand" poem, it is basically a paraphrase of Psalm 22, it appeared that God forsook Christ but in reality He was still with Him.

God doesn't forsake anyone. He's everywhere present. He sends the rain and the sun on all of us.

If there's any forsaking going on it's on our part.

Like I said, we don't know what Jesus meant by God forsaking him on the cross. We don't even know if he really said it, or if whoever wrote the gospel of Mark decided to weave Psalms 22 into his story, and whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew copied him.

Why are you so concerned with this Evangelical? Are you feeling forsaken? You seem to have a lot of cognitive dissonance built up.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

God doesn't forsake anyone. He's everywhere present. He sends the rain and the sun on all of us.

If there's any forsaking going on it's on our part.

Like I said, we don't know what Jesus meant by God forsaking him on the cross. We don't even know if he really said it, or if whoever wrote the gospel of Mark decided to weave Psalms 22 into his story, and whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew copied him.

Why are you so concerned with this Evangelical? Are you feeling forsaken? You seem to have a lot of cognitive dissonance built up.

It's related to the topic of did God really die on the cross? Evangelicals not only believe that God did not die on the cross (contrary to what Luther and other Reformers believed), they believe that God left Jesus at the cross because God can't stand to look at sin despite looking at it for 6000 years since Adam and Eve.
In other words, the God that the evangelicals preach is aloof and will abandon because that is what He apparently with Jesus on the cross. This contradicts Psalm 22.

[Boxjobox]

Oh good, now we can discuss scripture! Here is my thought on the forsaking: when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, one of the Devil's temptation was “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ””**Matthew‬ *4:6‬ *NKJV‬‬. Can you imagine going through 3 years and never stubbing your toe (wearing sandals!), it is not recorded that he caught the flu, diseases from those he healed, was not pushed over a cliff or stoned, etc, because the angles watched over him. The verse you quoted in Hebrews has a second part “So we may boldly say: “The LORD is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?””Hebrews‬ *13:6‬ *NKJV‬‬ At the time of the cross, the protective hand of God was removed, and Jesus was left in the hands of man, who were allowed to do what they wanted.

I tentatively agree with you that it wasn't a total throwing away. I also agree with you concerning " God cannot look at sin", but rather "not look favorably at sin". There is account in the OT where Satan appears before God. My thinking is that he was turned over to the hands of man, rather than under the divine protection of God. Even that was somewhat limited in that the centurion did not break his legs, but rather pierced him so that the scripture would be fulfilled.

So good to discuss scripture!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's related to the topic of did God really die on the cross?

Oh,oh, now you are going back to religious psychobabble! This kind of question results from the trinitarian, hypostatic, God-man nonsense.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Oh good, now we can discuss scripture! Here is my thought on the forsaking: when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, one of the Devil's temptation was “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ””**Matthew‬ *4:6‬ *NKJV‬‬. Can you imagine going through 3 years and never stubbing your toe (wearing sandals!), it is not recorded that he caught the flu, diseases from those he healed, was not pushed over a cliff or stoned, etc, because the angles watched over him. The verse you quoted in Hebrews has a second part “So we may boldly say: “The LORD is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?””Hebrews‬ *13:6‬ *NKJV‬‬ At the time of the cross, the protective hand of God was removed, and Jesus was left in the hands of man, who were allowed to do what they wanted.

I tentatively agree with you that it wasn't a total throwing away. I also agree with you concerning " God cannot look at sin", but rather "not look favorably at sin". There is account in the OT where Satan appears before God. My thinking is that he was turned over to the hands of man, rather than under the divine protection of God. Even that was somewhat limited in that the centurion did not break his legs, but rather pierced him so that the scripture would be fulfilled.

So good to discuss scripture!

Yes it's possible that the forsaking means as you said. Another explanation is that Jesus was proclaiming the horrors of abandonment. Probably it is all of the above.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Oh,oh, now you are going back to religious psychobabble! This kind of question results from the trinitarian, hypostatic, God-man nonsense.

The question assumes the divinity of Christ.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The question assumes the divinity of Christ.

In the book of Acts, the apostles did not preach that God became a man.
“But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of Go“But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.”
**Romans‬ *5:15‬ *NKJV‬‬ In Greek, one man is one human. The apostles did not teach God dying. Non scriptural terms lead to non scriptural ideas.

[Boxjobox]

I left the LC before this, but I thought I heard that WL taught something about us becoming God towards the end.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

In the book of Acts, the apostles did not preach that God became a man.
“But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of Go“But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.”
**Romans‬ *5:15‬ *NKJV‬‬ In Greek, one man is one human. The apostles did not teach God dying. Non scriptural terms lead to non scriptural ideas.

How do you interpret this?

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How do you interpret this?

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

This verse contains quite a bit to consider, let's consider first the part "preached unto the Gentiles". Peter first preached to Cornelius and he said “The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ— He is Lord of all— that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.””Acts‬ *10:36-43‬ *NKJV‬‬. Here you can see the various aspects of 1 Tim 3:16 through the eyes of the one who was with Jesus. Other than "seen by angels", Peter conveys what this verse says.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How do you interpret this?

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

I got the answer, but can't say it. That's okay. What we're discussing is unspeakable anyway.

[Evangelical]

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30).

God was manifested in the flesh and the name of the manifestation was Jesus.

Jesus is the Father:

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe from the cross to the grave, God the Father was with Christ. I think it is wrong how some believe that Jesus was left all alone by Himself from the cross to the resurrection. I think only God the Spirit left Him - I think Jesus could not have died if the Spirit had not left Him - the power of the Spirit could have sustained Christ on the cross for as long as He wanted.

So I think it is most likely Jesus asked these rhetorical questions for our sake, not for His sake. Jesus never doubted God and what was happening to Him.
Jesus knew before He went to the cross that He would rise again after 3 days. So Jesus knew God would never actually forsake Him. Jesus knew God's plan all
along. Jesus was God in the flesh, who knows and see all things, past, present, future, He would have known that the Father's forsaking was only in one aspect, and not a complete forsaking.

Very enlightening as to the way you are able to dismiss various verses and fit your little round pegs into square holes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30).

God was manifested in the flesh and the name of the manifestation was Jesus.

Jesus is the Father:

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

Well okey-dokey then. What happens if we don't believe all that? Will it be like I was told it would be if I left the local church ; that God would strike me dead? Will I burn in hell forever and ever?

C'mon bro EvanG. If I wanted Lee teachings I'd still be in there.

Look at you. Trying to teach us exLCer's Lee teachings.

Okay. Jesus was/is the Father. Jesus was/is the Holy Spirit. God died on the cross. God put the whole universe on autopilot, stopped answering prayers, stopped being there for His faithful, was no longer omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, for 3 days. Or maybe since He's God, and can do anything, He was dead and all those things at the same time. But then He wouldn't be dead, would he?

Please explain to me how the almighty God actually died? Be careful now. Nietzsche said it and all of Christendom condemns him for it, even LCer's.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well okey-dokey then. What happens if we don't believe all that? Will it be like I was told it would be if I left the local church ; that God would strike me dead? Will I burn in hell forever and ever?

C'mon bro EvanG. If I wanted Lee teachings I'd still be in there.

Look at you. Trying to teach us exLCer's Lee teachings.

Okay. Jesus was/is the Father. Jesus was/is the Holy Spirit. God died on the cross. God put the whole universe on autopilot, stopped answering prayers, stopped being there for His faithful, was no longer omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, for 3 days. Or maybe since He's God, and can do anything, He was dead and all those things at the same time. But then He wouldn't be dead, would he?

Please explain to me how the almighty God actually died? Be careful now. Nietzsche said it and all of Christendom condemns him for it, even LCer's.

Evan follows Nietzsche. Good catch Awareness. Once again proving that if you go off the deep end with WL in your thinking you ultimately become an atheist, or conversely Nietzsche was one of the MOTA's -- Minister of the Atheists.

[Boxjobox]

The gospel is not- God died on the cross, nor is it " believe that Jesus is God and you will be saved" , nor is the church built on Jesus is God, rather, we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, that the Christ died for our sins and that God raised him from the dead. Evangelical, you should realize you are preaching a different gospel- way different from what the apostles preached. Peter's great revelation to Jesus' question was "you are the Christ, the son of the living God" and Jesus said upon this rock, I will build my church. This is the entire problem with LSM which ruined the LC; over time, a strange gospel emerged, a different Jesus was preached, the saints were held to believe a different scripture or they were anathema.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The gospel is not- God died on the cross, nor is it " believe that Jesus is God and you will be saved" , nor is the church built on Jesus is God, rather, we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, that the Christ died for our sins and that God raised him from the dead. Evangelical, you should realize you are preaching a different gospel- way different from what the apostles preached. Peter's great revelation to Jesus' question was "you are the Christ, the son of the living God" and Jesus said upon this rock, I will build my church. This is the entire problem with LSM which ruined the LC; over time, a strange gospel emerged, a different Jesus was preached, the saints were held to believe a different scripture or they were anathema.

You nailed it Boxjobox. It got to the point where if you didn't affirm Lee's interpretation of the gospel, they showed you the door. Which begs the question, why was it necessary to reframe the gospel in Lee's terms? What was wrong with the gospel as it came to us through tradition? And another question, since Lee's understanding was his own, what is the value of repeating verbatim? Why can't I have my own understanding? How is it even possible for me in my deepest self to have anything else?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The gospel is not- God died on the cross, nor is it " believe that Jesus is God and you will be saved" , nor is the church built on Jesus is God, rather, we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, that the Christ died for our sins and that God raised him from the dead. Evangelical, you should realize you are preaching a different gospel- way different from what the apostles preached. Peter's great revelation to Jesus' question was "you are the Christ, the son of the living God" and Jesus said upon this rock, I will build my church. This is the entire problem with LSM which ruined the LC; over time, a strange gospel emerged, a different Jesus was preached, the saints were held to believe a different scripture or they were anathema.

So Martin Luther and Charles Wesley (to name two of many who believe God died on the cross) preached a different gospel and different Jesus then?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well okey-dokey then. What happens if we don't believe all that? Will it be like I was told it would be if I left the local church ; that God would strike me dead? Will I burn in hell forever and ever?

C'mon bro EvanG. If I wanted Lee teachings I'd still be in there.

Look at you. Trying to teach us exLCer's Lee teachings.

Okay. Jesus was/is the Father. Jesus was/is the Holy Spirit. God died on the cross. God put the whole universe on autopilot, stopped answering prayers, stopped being there for His faithful, was no longer omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, for 3 days. Or maybe since He's God, and can do anything, He was dead and all those things at the same time. But then He wouldn't be dead, would he?

Please explain to me how the almighty God actually died? Be careful now. Nietzsche said it and all of Christendom condemns him for it, even LCer's.

If you didn't believe Jesus is the Father, Jesus might say this to you:

John 14:9

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

I already explained how God died in previous posts. It is logically correct to say "God died" if we believe Jesus is "God the Son". God the Son is not inferior to God nor can He be separated from the other person's of the Trinity, or Triune God as I would say.

I aced the worlds toughest Catholic quiz and I'm not even a Catholic. The proportion of people who get it correct is 1 out of 10.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you didn't believe Jesus is the Father, Jesus might say this to you:

John 14:9

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

I already explained how God died in previous posts. It is logically correct to say "God died" if we believe Jesus is "God the Son". God the Son is not inferior to God nor can He be separated from the other person's of the Trinity, or Triune God as I would say.

I aced the worlds toughest Catholic quiz and I'm not even a Catholic. The proportion of people who get it correct is 1 out of 10.

The problem with your logic is that it goes outside the scripture grabs terms and then applies those to scripture- you have a footnoted bible that supersedes the scriptures. The scripture does not give us the term "god the son". Neither is God taught by the apostles to be a trinity. It was the "Catholic" church that developed the whole trinity thing, and forced it on people.

And don't forget Jesus' clear statement “Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”John‬ *17:1-3‬ *NKJV‬‬ Jesus plainly refers to his Heavenly Father as the ONLY true God.
If the gospel was God died on the cross, then the apostles didn't preach a true gospel. Read Galatians- Paul does not talk about a trinity.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So Martin Luther and Charles Wesley (to name two of many who believe God died on the cross) preached a different gospel and different Jesus then?

Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
’Tis myst’ry all: th’ Immortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?

I think Wesley realized there was something illogical in what he thought- God dies?
Paul's praise to God
“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”
**I Timothy‬ *1:17‬ *NKJV‬‬

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The problem with your logic is that it goes outside the scripture grabs terms and then applies those to scripture- you have a footnoted bible that supersedes the scriptures. The scripture does not give us the term "god the son". Neither is God taught by the apostles to be a trinity. It was the "Catholic" church that developed the whole trinity thing, and forced it on people.

And don't forget Jesus' clear statement “Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”John‬ *17:1-3‬ *NKJV‬‬ Jesus plainly refers to his Heavenly Father as the ONLY true God.
If the gospel was God died on the cross, then the apostles didn't preach a true gospel. Read Galatians- Paul does not talk about a trinity.

This is the risk in developing and using these terms, or perhaps their advantage. Maybe this is why WL wanted to develop so many "new" terms.

However, if Paul did not teach the triune God how would you read 2Cor13:14?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is the risk in developing and using these terms, or perhaps their advantage. Maybe this is why WL wanted to develop so many "new" terms.

However, if Paul did not teach the triune God how would you read 2Cor13:14?

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.”II Corinthians‬ *13:14‬ *NKJV‬‬

Why would you consider this verse a teaching on trinity? There is our Lord Jesus, there is the Holy Spirit, and there is God. Paul is consistent: God is God and Christ is Christ.
“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 *NKJV‬‬

Rather than run around talking about some sort of trinity- why not just accept Paul's teaching about God. After all, he is the apostle to the Gentiles. You can see why WL had to be changed into some sort of apostle- he was creating a religion and needed everyone to follow him. Then he died, but his business still lives on. Thanks to people like Evangelical, we can see how his teachings led people down strange paths.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.”II Corinthians‬ *13:14‬ *NKJV‬‬

Why would you consider this verse a teaching on trinity? There is our Lord Jesus, there is the Holy Spirit, and there is God. Paul is consistent: God is God and Christ is Christ.
“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 *NKJV‬‬

Rather than run around talking about some sort of trinity- why not just accept Paul's teaching about God. After all, he is the apostle to the Gentiles. You can see why WL had to be changed into some sort of apostle- he was creating a religion and needed everyone to follow him. Then he died, but his business still lives on. Thanks to people like Evangelical, we can see how his teachings led people down strange paths.

I am not running around, it seems to me that Paul puts the grace of the Lord on par with the Love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Also, he is saying that all three are both eternal and omnipresent, two characteristics of God. Finally you could interpret this to mean that these three are omnipotent, again, another characteristic of God. Therefore I see a reasonable interpretation is that this is the grace of God, love of God and fellowship of God. This would be supported by the Lord's word that if you have known Me you have known the Father. This verse also corresponds nicely with the Lord's baptism where God the Father speaks from Heaven, God the Spirit descends in the form of a dove, and God the Father proclaims that Jesus is His beloved Son.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
’Tis myst’ry all: th’ Immortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?

I think Wesley realized there was something illogical in what he thought- God dies?
Paul's praise to God
“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”
**I Timothy‬ *1:17‬ *NKJV‬‬

The hymn says two things:

1 .God died for us
2. Immortality dies - this is rightly a mystery, yet the hymn does not deny the truth of it.

Also, do you think Luther was wrong in saying God died? Do you think Luther was right about salvation by faith alone yet wrong in his understanding of who died on the cross?

My viewpoints are in good company - Luther, Wesley, and other Reformers.

Most of the time on this forum I don't even quote Lee or Nee and I don't have to because most of it comes from the Reformers or theology and freely available resources online.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.”II Corinthians‬ *13:14‬ *NKJV‬‬

Why would you consider this verse a teaching on trinity? There is our Lord Jesus, there is the Holy Spirit, and there is God. Paul is consistent: God is God and Christ is Christ.
“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 *NKJV‬‬

Rather than run around talking about some sort of trinity- why not just accept Paul's teaching about God. After all, he is the apostle to the Gentiles. You can see why WL had to be changed into some sort of apostle- he was creating a religion and needed everyone to follow him. Then he died, but his business still lives on. Thanks to people like Evangelical, we can see how his teachings led people down strange paths.

There are over 200 places in the bible where the Father and the Son are mentioned together. This is no coincidence, as it clearly reveals the Trinity.

This verse describes the economic subordination of the Son to the Father - all things exist from the Father. We need to go back to Genesis as this is the root for the Trinity - Creation involved 3 persons - the Father spoke, the Son did, and the Spirit was the power. These functions carry all the way through the bible and is consistent.

This is consistent from Genesis to Revelation - there is no verse in the bible which deny the Father being the source, the Son being the means, and the Spirit being the power.
There is no confusion of functions either - the Spirit is never the source, the Son is never the power, and the Father is never the means. This is why the Scripture never refers to the "power of the Father". Power is always associated with the Spirit.

Also, the bible never says that things were created or done "through the Father". It is always "from the Father". It is "through the Son":

John 14:6 No one comes to the Father except through me.


If we go through each verse and map out the language "from" (the Father, God), "through" (Christ, the Son, Jesus), "by" (the Spirit, His power, glory) a clear pattern emerges and that is the function of each person in the Trinity.


A suitable analogy might be a father and a son being in charge of a company. The son is the manager, and the father is the owner. The manager runs the day to day business and is always seen, interacting with clients and staff but is subject to the father who can override his decisions and works behind the scenes, rarely seen. Genetically the father and the son are the same, yet when functioning for the business they are not equals.

This is one example of how the Son and Father can be co-equal in one sense yet not in a functioning sense. Each verse mentioning the Father and the Son can be classified as referring to their person or their function.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are over 200 places in the bible where the Father and the Son are mentioned together. This is no coincidence, as it clearly reveals the Trinity.
This statement has no basis!

This verse describes the economic subordination of the Son to the Father - all things exist from the Father. We need to go back to Genesis as this is the root for the Trinity - Creation involved 3 persons - the Father spoke, the Son did, and the Spirit was the power. These functions carry all the way through the bible and is consistent.

This is consistent from Genesis to Revelation - there is no verse in the bible which deny the Father being the source, the Son being the means, and the Spirit being the power.
There is no confusion of functions either - the Spirit is never the source, the Son is never the power, and the Father is never the means. This is why the Scripture never refers to the "power of the Father". Power is always associated with the Spirit.

Also, the bible never says that things were created or done "through the Father". It is always "from the Father". It is "through the Son":

John 14:6 No one comes to the Father except through me.


If we go through each verse and map out the language "from" (the Father, God), "through" (Christ, the Son, Jesus), "by" (the Spirit, His power, glory) a clear pattern emerges and that is the function of each person in the Trinity.


A suitable analogy might be a father and a son being in charge of a company. The son is the manager, and the father is the owner. The manager runs the day to day business and is always seen, interacting with clients and staff but is subject to the father who can override his decisions and works behind the scenes, rarely seen. Genetically the father and the son are the same, yet when functioning for the business they are not equals.

This is one example of how the Son and Father can be co-equal in one sense yet not in a functioning sense. Each verse mentioning the Father and the Son can be classified as referring to their person or their function.

“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

“God has spoken once, Twice I have heard this: That power belongs to God.”**Psalms‬ *62:11‬ *NKJV‬‬

“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,”
**Ephesians‬ *1:17-20‬ *NKJV‬‬

“All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, Thanksgiving and honor and power and might, Be to our God forever and ever. Amen.””**Revelation‬ *7:11-12‬ *NKJV‬‬

“So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: ‘Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the LORD and against His Christ.’ **Acts‬ *4:24-26‬ *NKJV‬‬

These are but a few verses which show your statement about power and creation is off.

All of Paul's epistles start with a statement along the line of Grace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus. Paul tells us emphatically that there is one God, the Father. Jesus tells us he is ascending to his God and our God, and his Father and our Father.

To use the term "it clearly reveals the trinity" is really to say that something that you feel is so crucial to understanding God and the scriptures was never taught nor discussed. It really says you need some other source other than the scriptures to explain God. It really says God, the scriptures, the apostles, Moses, Jesus, did not give us a clear, accurate view of God; that we need to rely on the schemes of man to know the truth.


“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. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 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, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 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 *17:23-27, 30-31‬ *NKJV‬‬

Evangelical, seems to me you are so full of man's teachings that you miss the plain spoken word of the scriptures

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“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

“God has spoken once, Twice I have heard this: That power belongs to God.”**Psalms‬ *62:11‬ *NKJV‬‬

“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,”
**Ephesians‬ *1:17-20‬ *NKJV‬‬

“All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, Thanksgiving and honor and power and might, Be to our God forever and ever. Amen.””**Revelation‬ *7:11-12‬ *NKJV‬‬

“So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: ‘Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the LORD and against His Christ.’ **Acts‬ *4:24-26‬ *NKJV‬‬

These are but a few verses which show your statement about power and creation is off.

All of Paul's epistles start with a statement along the line of Grace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus. Paul tells us emphatically that there is one God, the Father. Jesus tells us he is ascending to his God and our God, and his Father and our Father.

To use the term "it clearly reveals the trinity" is really to say that something that you feel is so crucial to understanding God and the scriptures was never taught nor discussed. It really says you need some other source other than the scriptures to explain God. It really says God, the scriptures, the apostles, Moses, Jesus, did not give us a clear, accurate view of God; that we need to rely on the schemes of man to know the truth.


“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. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 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, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 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 *17:23-27, 30-31‬ *NKJV‬‬

Evangelical, seems to me you are so full of man's teachings that you miss the plain spoken word of the scriptures

Good scriptures but cant power of God be interpreted as all 3 persons? Jesus referred to the Fathers authority but not the Fathers power i think.

Does the son and the Spirit have power? If so then how can God or the father have power too and not all be a Trinity.

[Boxjobox]

Evangelical, in your study of this, can you tell when the Jewish believers were informed that God is triune? And what was their reaction? And the church in Thessalonica- when were they informed. If you read both of Paul's letters to them, there is not a hint of this.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Good scriptures but cant power of God be interpreted as all 3 persons? Jesus referred to the Fathers authority but not the Fathers power i think.

Does the son and the Spirit have power? If so then how can God or the father have power too and not all be a Trinity.

Goodness guys. Isn't God all and in all?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Evangelical, in your study of this, can you tell when the Jewish believers were informed that God is triune? And what was their reaction? And the church in Thessalonica- when were they informed. If you read both of Paul's letters to them, there is not a hint of this.

My understanding is that it was not yet thought out by the apostles - they had other concerns. But do not think that means it is wrong. Those who affirmed the Trinity were 2nd or 3rd generation disciples of the apostles themselves.

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian:

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

We can trust in the Trinity doctrine as much as we trust in the Canon of scripture. Both are coupled to each other such that denial of one is denial of the other.

Since you deny the Trinity because you say it is not in the bible, I wonder how you can accept that the bible canon is authentic because the bible itself never says that the New Testament is Scripture.

[Boxjobox]

Thanks Evangelical for your answer, it gives me great insight into the thinking of those who devote themselves to Witness Lee doctrine. I was raised as a Catholic and am quite familiar with that line of thinking.

I would like to ask a couple of more questions: Do you (personally) ever talk in terms of the God of our Lord Jesus. And have you ever heard a message about the God of our Lord Jesus.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Thanks Evangelical for your answer, it gives me great insight into the thinking of those who devote themselves to Witness Lee doctrine. I was raised as a Catholic and am quite familiar with that line of thinking.

I would like to ask a couple of more questions: Do you (personally) ever talk in terms of the God of our Lord Jesus. And have you ever heard a message about the God of our Lord Jesus.

There are similarities between the local churches and Catholic. There are also similarities between other denominations.
Yes sometimes, as the Father, if there is a study on Ephesians. We learnt that God is the Father of Christ's divinity, and the God of his humanity.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My understanding is that it was not yet thought out by the apostles - they had other concerns. But do not think that means it is wrong. Those who affirmed the Trinity were 2nd or 3rd generation disciples of the apostles themselves.

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian:

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

We can trust in the Trinity doctrine as much as we trust in the Canon of scripture. Both are coupled to each other such that denial of one is denial of the other.

Since you deny the Trinity because you say it is not in the bible, I wonder how you can accept that the bible canon is authentic because the bible itself never says that the New Testament is Scripture.

So where does one find the trinity doctrine- is it like the 28th book of the NT? Is there like a secret thing that takes place with a believer- 1st they come to see that God sent his son, that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus died for our sins, that God raised him from the dead, and made him Lord, and then suddenly, the believer through some device? learns that God died, that Jesus is a god-man, that God is not one, but 3 persons, and that Jesus is not one man, but 2 persons, and since they find that God is 3 persons, then Jesus must be 3 persons also in addition to being 2 entities, but if his flesh is God, and his flesh died, then God died? Very strange teaching, indeed!

I hate to say it Evangelical, but I see this from what you share:
“Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.”**Revelation‬ *2:4-5‬ *NKJV

“But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.” **Revelation‬ *2:14‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.” **Revelation‬ *2:20-22‬ *NKJV‬‬

My hope is you could come to this:

““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.”**Revelation‬ *3:8-12‬ *NKJV‬‬

Obviously, the resurrected, ascended, glorified Christ loves to talk about his God, and reward the faithful with the glories of his God. I would urge you to start speaking about the God of our Lord Jesus. Paul speaks of Jesus' God, who is also our God, everywhere.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So where does one find the trinity doctrine- is it like the 28th book of the NT? Is there like a secret thing that takes place with a believer- 1st they come to see that God sent his son, that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus died for our sins, that God raised him from the dead, and made him Lord, and then suddenly, the believer through some device? learns that God died, that Jesus is a god-man, that God is not one, but 3 persons, and that Jesus is not one man, but 2 persons, and since they find that God is 3 persons, then Jesus must be 3 persons also in addition to being 2 entities, but if his flesh is God, and his flesh died, then God died? Very strange teaching, indeed!

I hate to say it Evangelical, but I see this from what you share:
“Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.”**Revelation‬ *2:4-5‬ *NKJV

“But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.” **Revelation‬ *2:14‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.” **Revelation‬ *2:20-22‬ *NKJV‬‬

My hope is you could come to this:

““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.”**Revelation‬ *3:8-12‬ *NKJV‬‬

Obviously, the resurrected, ascended, glorified Christ loves to talk about his God, and reward the faithful with the glories of his God. I would urge you to start speaking about the God of our Lord Jesus. Paul speaks of Jesus' God, who is also our God, everywhere.

Because Jesus is God and one with the Father if we speak of Jesus we are already speaking of God.

Jesus declared He was the I AM of the Old Testament in John 8:58.

Also the bible indicates that belief that Jesus is God is necessary for salvation:

John 8:24

“I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for unless you shall believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.”

That God is Triune was already defined hundreds of years ago against all viable alternatives.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Because Jesus is God and one with the Father if we speak of Jesus we are already speaking of God.

Jesus declared He was the I AM of the Old Testament in John 8:58.

Also the bible indicates that belief that Jesus is God is necessary for salvation:

John 8:24

“I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for unless you shall believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.”

That God is Triune was already defined hundreds of years ago against all viable alternatives.

This really doesn't cut it. The blind man, whom Jesus healed also said "I am" is he also the I Am of the Old Testament? “Therefore the neighbors and those who previously had seen that he was blind said, “Is not this he who sat and begged?” Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.” He said, “I am he. ””
**John‬ *9:8-9‬ *NKJV‬‬ The translators added the he for the blind man but not for Jesus' statement. The discussion is really about Jesus being the Christ. He is the Christ. By believing that Jesus is the Christ, and that he died for our sins, and that God raised him from the dead, we receive salvation. How can we be sure of this? Because this is what was preached in Acts, what Romans is all about, Paul's statement of his gospel in 1 Cor 15, Galatians, and Peter's statement of who Jesus is, which Jesus said the Father revealed it to him, and upon that truth he would build his church.
As I have stated before, the NT does not contain a gospel about Jesus being God- which would mean the tens of thousands who believed the apostles' gospels were going to die in their sins.
Jesuit himself said “as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”**John‬ *17:2-3‬ *NKJV‬‬. This was in John's gospel- pretty strange thing for Jesus to say if in fact Jesus is that only true God! John sums up his writing in this way “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”
**John‬ *20:31‬ *NKJV‬‬. John does not say that you may believe that Jesus is God, or God the son.

If you consider the NT writings, all the writers spoke of Jesus as the Christ and the Father as God, and spoke extensively of God and all the work He has done and is doing to bring us into the fullness of His son. To pretend that talking about Jesus is talking about God, doesn't match the scriptures.

To say "That God is Triune was already defined hundreds of years ago against all viable alternatives.", is to relegate God to a logic formula. As I said before, the apostles did not give us such a teaching, nor did Jesus or Moses. You are basing your theology of a hypothesis that doesn't match the clear word by Jesus and Paul that the Father is the One True God.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This really doesn't cut it. The blind man, whom Jesus healed also said "I am" is he also the I Am of the Old Testament? “Therefore the neighbors and those who previously had seen that he was blind said, “Is not this he who sat and begged?” Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.” He said, “I am he. ””
**John‬ *9:8-9‬ *NKJV‬‬ The translators added the he for the blind man but not for Jesus' statement. The discussion is really about Jesus being the Christ. He is the Christ. By believing that Jesus is the Christ, and that he died for our sins, and that God raised him from the dead, we receive salvation. How can we be sure of this? Because this is what was preached in Acts, what Romans is all about, Paul's statement of his gospel in 1 Cor 15, Galatians, and Peter's statement of who Jesus is, which Jesus said the Father revealed it to him, and upon that truth he would build his church.
As I have stated before, the NT does not contain a gospel about Jesus being God- which would mean the tens of thousands who believed the apostles' gospels were going to die in their sins.
Jesuit himself said “as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”**John‬ *17:2-3‬ *NKJV‬‬. This was in John's gospel- pretty strange thing for Jesus to say if in fact Jesus is that only true God! John sums up his writing in this way “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”
**John‬ *20:31‬ *NKJV‬‬. John does not say that you may believe that Jesus is God, or God the son.

If you consider the NT writings, all the writers spoke of Jesus as the Christ and the Father as God, and spoke extensively of God and all the work He has done and is doing to bring us into the fullness of His son. To pretend that talking about Jesus is talking about God, doesn't match the scriptures.

To say "That God is Triune was already defined hundreds of years ago against all viable alternatives.", is to relegate God to a logic formula. As I said before, the apostles did not give us such a teaching, nor did Jesus or Moses. You are basing your theology of a hypothesis that doesn't match the clear word by Jesus and Paul that the Father is the One True God.

The Trinity is not a logic formula, it is said to be a mystery. How come the word of God is clear for you but not all the reformers and every one else?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Trinity is not a logic formula, it is said to be a mystery. How come the word of God is clear for you but not all the reformers and every one else?

Boxjobox seems to be endeavoring to adhere strictly to the principle of sola scriptura.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Trinity is not a logic formula, it is said to be a mystery. How come the word of God is clear for you but not all the reformers and every one else?

The trinity is definitely a mystery! It's a mystery why anyone would not take the clear statement of our apostle Paul “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.”**I Cor‬ *8:4-6‬ *NKJV‬‬, or why many Christians speak so emphatically about solo escritura and then rely on a man made invention to explain God, or why Paul's admonition for oneness is thrust aside:
“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."**Eph‬ *4:1-6‬ *NKJV‬‬.

You are correct- the trinity is not a logic formula, it is an illogical formula!

When people talk about trinity, I never, and I mean never, hear them use John 17:1-3 “Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Is Jesus' clear statement not acceptable to you? Do you love the trinity doctrine more than the clear word of the Christ? Jesus relates this knowing to eternal life! Ever wonder why WL would have "life study" messages, yet Jesus' word on what is eternal life was not his theme, but rather the processed triune God?

If you truly want a recovery, why not go back to the beginning, drop the trinity thing, and speak in the same terms as the apostles. They never used such a concept and the church was formed and functioned. It was when men began to have position that such strange mysteries appeared.
**“Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

“Now to you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put on you no other burden.” **Revelation‬ *2:20, 24‬ *NKJV‬‬

[Boxjobox]

Concerning the reformers- consider our Lord's words: ““And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, ‘These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.” Revelation‬ *3:1-3‬ *NKJV‬‬

Two things to consider here " for I have not found your works perfect"' and Jesus saying "before God". Your view, Evangelical, is if you talk about Jesus you are talking about God, but obviously this is not what we see in scripture; God is God, and Christ Jesus is Christ Jesus. Jesus remedy? Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Trinity is not a logic formula, it is said to be a mystery. How come the word of God is clear for you but not all the reformers and every one else?

The real mystery is that God is all and in all. This Trinity mystery is superfluous. It serves no practical purpose to Christian life. It's just an extra-Biblical obsession. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[ZNPaaneah]

I'm sorry that I have not read each post and followed the discussion carefully, so if this has already been answered sorry. But can someone (preferably Boxjobox) tell me how He views the Biblical revelation of God?

Of particular interest -- where does the Father, Son and Holy Spirit fit into his view?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I'm sorry that I have not read each post and followed the discussion carefully, so if this has already been answered sorry. But can someone (preferably Boxjobox) tell me how He views the Biblical revelation of God?

Of particular interest -- where does the Father, Son and Holy Spirit fit into his view?

I'm not sure the Bible talks about the revelation of God. It does talk about the revelation of Jesus Christ, which (aahemm) God gave to him (Rev. 1:1). I would think if you want to know my understanding of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, just read Ephesians chapters 1 to 4. In these chapters, Paul gives us excellent insight into what the God and Father of our Lord Jesus has given us in His son, Christ Jesus our Lord. As well as the outworking by the Spirit to produce the church.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

The real mystery is that God is all and in all. This Trinity mystery is superfluous. It serves no practical purpose to Christian life. It's just an extra-Biblical obsession. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

So true- to imply that trinity is the key doctrine of the church, and then to know that the scripture does not talk about, and then to come up with a whole system of belief and then to impose that system of belief over the scriptures and filter all Christian thought through that belief, is an affront to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'm not sure the Bible talks about the revelation of God. It does talk about the revelation of Jesus Christ, which (aahemm) God gave to him (Rev. 1:1). I would think if you want to know my understanding of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, just read Ephesians chapters 1 to 4. In these chapters, Paul gives us excellent insight into what the God and Father of our Lord Jesus has given us in His son, Christ Jesus our Lord. As well as the outworking by the Spirit to produce the church.

Chpt 1

God the Father blessed us with every spiritual blessing, He is also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.

All things both in the heaven and earth are summed up in Jesus Christ, also the working of God’s mighty strength is wrought in Jesus Christ and all things have been put in subjection under His feet.

Holy Spirit of promise seals us, the earnest of our inheritance.

Chpt 2

We are being built into a holy temple in the Lord, Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone, built for a habitation of God in Spirit.

Chpt 3

Mystery of Christ, revealed in Spirit, hidden in God who created all things.

Paul prays, bowing his knee to the Father, that we would be strengthened through his Spirit, and be filled unto all the fullness of God.

Chpt 4

There is one Spirit, one Lord, and one God and Father of all

We are built unto the measure and stature of the fullness of Christ, renewed in the spirit of our mind and put on the new man that was created after God in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

So then you don't like the reference to the "trinity" referring to God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'm not sure the Bible talks about the revelation of God. It does talk about the revelation of Jesus Christ, which (aahemm) God gave to him (Rev. 1:1). I would think if you want to know my understanding of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, just read Ephesians chapters 1 to 4. In these chapters, Paul gives us excellent insight into what the God and Father of our Lord Jesus has given us in His son, Christ Jesus our Lord. As well as the outworking by the Spirit to produce the church.

According to the Johanine christology (that expounded in the gospel and Epistles of John) the Son reveals the Father.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to the Johanine christology (that expounded in the gospel and Epistles of John) the Son reveals the Father.

The Pauline epistles also teach that the Son reveals the Father. II Corinthians 4:4 says Christ is the image of God. Likewise Colossians 1:15 says the Son is the image of the invisible God. The New Testament idea is that the Son discloses what God the Father is like.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then you don't like the reference to the "trinity" referring to God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why?

The real question is: why use the term trinity? You did a great job distilling most of the important points in Ephesians 1-4, with no use of the term trinity, because it does not exist in scripture. It is not a scripturally defined term- it is wholly man made and distorts the scriptures when it is used. Basically, molds God into something He is not.

Here is what I think is a key point you missed “For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.”*Eph*2:18‬ *NKJV‬‬

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The real question is: why use the term trinity? You did a great job distilling most of the important points in Ephesians 1-4, with no use of the term trinity, because it does not exist in scripture. It is not a scripturally defined term- it is wholly man made and distorts the scriptures when it is used. Basically, molds God into something He is not.

Here is what I think is a key point you missed “For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.”*Eph*2:18‬ *NKJV‬‬

I think the reason we use the term "trinity" is because God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit are often used together, as in the book of Ephesians.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Pauline epistles also teach that the Son reveals the Father. II Corinthians 4:4 says Christ is the image of God. Likewise Colossians 1:15 says the Son is the image of the invisible God. The New Testament idea is that the Son discloses what God the Father is like.

Thanks, I didn't consider that aspect as revelation, but it in fact is.
God is the light and the lamb is the lamp.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the reason we use the term "trinity" is because God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit are often used together, as in the book of Ephesians.

How do you know when to use the term trinity, and why do you think this wasn't a God breathed term.
?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

How do you know when to use the term trinity, and why do you think this wasn't a God breathed term.
?

While we're waiting for bro ZNP to answer, I must say :

You ask the hard questions for the trinitarians. You remind me of my Jehovah's Witness friend.

The trinity was developed by the RCC. Protestants, fundamentalists, and Evangelicals (inerrantists), appropriated it, along with the "God breathed" books they selected as canon.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

How do you know when to use the term trinity, and why do you think this wasn't a God breathed term.
?

I think the term trinity should be used carefully since it is not a Biblical term.

1. For example if we are talking about "Love of God, Grace of Christ and Fellowship of the Holy Spirit" you might then mention that we often, very often find these three mentioned together like this, hence the term "trinity" has been coined.

In other words you are tying this term directly to the Bible and you are giving an explanation for it -- identifying the fact that the three are often mentioned together.

Unfortunately a conscientious teacher who does this will still have those that hear bandying about the term "trinity" in a careless way ultimately going into the hyperbole that "God died" etc.

2. Likewise the term "Triune" should be used in the same way. So when the Bible says "God is one" you emphasize God is one yet balance these verses with other verses that portray God is three -- for example Jesus Baptism. Conclude that God is a mystery. Hence the term "triune" not an explanation of the mystery but just an acknowledgement that the Bible is very clear that God is one, yet portrays God often with reference to God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Since neither of these terms are Biblical I really don't care if you use them or not. On the other hand since many Christians use these terms I think it is important for all Christians to be familiar with them and understand the basis and meaning.

Also, since most Christians accept these two terms I would not disparage them or refer to them as being heretical as that would be divisive. Instead I would define them in a way that is Biblical and can be accepted by all.

Since you accept the Bible you could easily define the term Trinity as being shorthand for the fact that often in the NT the Father, Son and Spirit are referred together.

Triune could be defined as Christian shorthand for the "Mystery of God".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the term trinity should be used carefully since it is not a Biblical term.

1. For example if we are talking about "Love of God, Grace of Christ and Fellowship of the Holy Spirit" you might then mention that we often, very often find these three mentioned together like this, hence the term "trinity" has been coined.

In other words you are tying this term directly to the Bible and you are giving an explanation for it -- identifying the fact that the three are often mentioned together.

Unfortunately a conscientious teacher who does this will still have those that hear bandying about the term "trinity" in a careless way ultimately going into the hyperbole that "God died" etc.

2. Likewise the term "Triune" should be used in the same way. So when the Bible says "God is one" you emphasize God is one yet balance these verses with other verses that portray God is three -- for example Jesus Baptism. Conclude that God is a mystery. Hence the term "triune" not an explanation of the mystery but just an acknowledgement that the Bible is very clear that God is one, yet portrays God often with reference to God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Since neither of these terms are Biblical I really don't care if you use them or not. On the other hand since many Christians use these terms I think it is important for all Christians to be familiar with them and understand the basis and meaning.

Also, since most Christians accept these two terms I would not disparage them or refer to them as being heretical as that would be divisive. Instead I would define them in a way that is Biblical and can be accepted by all.

Since you accept the Bible you could easily define the term Trinity as being shorthand for the fact that often in the NT the Father, Son and Spirit are referred together.

Triune could be defined as Christian shorthand for the "Mystery of God".

You keep saying often. How often? Please provide all the "oftens" the 3 are mention in scripture.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You keep saying often. How often? Please provide all the "oftens" the 3 are mention in scripture.

I gave numerous examples from the book of Ephesians in an earlier post. All of those examples represented only 4 chapters in one short book of the NT.

I have also referred to several examples from the Gospels.

Others have given references to Revelation.

I see no benefit in going through the whole NT to itemize them since I am not pushing the use of the terms "trinity" or "triune God". I am simply not disparaging the use and am pointing out these terms have a Biblical basis. I have provided sufficient examples to support that claim.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I gave numerous examples from the book of Ephesians in an earlier post. All of those examples represented only 4 chapters in one short book of the NT.

I have also referred to several examples from the Gospels.

Others have given references to Revelation.

I see no benefit in going through the whole NT to itemize them since I am not pushing the use of the terms "trinity" or "triune God". I am simply not disparaging the use and am pointing out these terms have a Biblical basis. I have provided sufficient examples to support that claim.

Well thanks for trying to offer a balanced view of the trinity in scripture. But your evidence of the 3 being mentioned together often in scripture is weak.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well thanks for trying to offer a balanced view of the trinity in scripture. But your evidence of the 3 being mentioned together often in scripture is weak.

That's because your definition of trinity is different from mine.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That's because your definition of trinity is different from mine.

A two legged stool will not stand. So there has to be three. There's a definition for ya.

And often is often, not just a few mentions, if that, of the three being mentioned together in scripture.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

The real mystery is that God is all and in all. This Trinity mystery is superfluous. It serves no practical purpose to Christian life. It's just an extra-Biblical obsession. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I believe the Trinity shows us how to be one and love one another. It also helps us to name and define our God when describing Him to others and helps us to pray to Him.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe the Trinity shows us how to be one and love one another. It also helps us to name and define our God when describing Him to others and helps us to pray to Him.

What it does is give you a false god, requires you to teach and speak a different gospel, puts the church on a shakey foundation, and makes your prayers different than what Jesus taught us.

Jesus taught us to pray to Our Father. If someone thinks they are living Christ, or being transformed into the same image, they should pray to and have a dependence on God our Father just as Jesus- look at Matthew 4,5,6. Look at Paul's prayers in Eph. Jesus told us that our Heavenly Father desires such worship. “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.”” John‬ *4:21-24‬ *NKJV‬‬

One of the great fallacies of the LC is their constant praying to Jesus. This comes from misaimed ministery which relied on the triune god teaching. Having been through that, and come out the other side, I can only emphasize that there is great clarity when one drops that practice and begins praying to our Heavenly Father as Jesus taught. Not saying it's wrong to ever pray to our Lord Jesus, but if you consider the prayers in the NT, they are overwhelming to our Father, God.
I would say one reason people hold to the trinity hypothesis is the overemphasis on walking and talking to Jesus that really is a sentimental fairy tale for the most part. Jesus lived by his (and our) God and Father.

Catholics have the same sentimental praying to Mary "the mother of God". They totally believe it involves love, but it is off from the scripture. Evangelical, since you uphold long standing tradition over the simplicity of the scripture, do you also hold to Holy Mary the mother of God? I mean if Jesus is God, and Mary the mother of Jesus, your same formula should hold!

I would urge you to consider what the scripture clearly says One God the Father and one Lord Jesus the Christ. The gospel is that God so loved the world that he gave us His only begotten son- a triune god was not preached or taught by the apostles!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

What it does is give you a false god, requires you to teach and speak a different gospel, puts the church on a shakey foundation, and makes your prayers different than what Jesus taught us.

Jesus taught us to pray to Our Father. If someone thinks they are living Christ, or being transformed into the same image, they should pray to and have a dependence on God our Father just as Jesus- look at Matthew 4,5,6. Look at Paul's prayers in Eph. Jesus told us that our Heavenly Father desires such worship. “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.”” John‬ *4:21-24‬ *NKJV‬‬

One of the great fallacies of the LC is their constant praying to Jesus. This comes from misaimed ministery which relied on the triune god teaching. Having been through that, and come out the other side, I can only emphasize that there is great clarity when one drops that practice and begins praying to our Heavenly Father as Jesus taught. Not saying it's wrong to ever pray to our Lord Jesus, but if you consider the prayers in the NT, they are overwhelming to our Father, God.
I would say one reason people hold to the trinity hypothesis is the overemphasis on walking and talking to Jesus that really is a sentimental fairy tale for the most part. Jesus lived by his (and our) God and Father.

Catholics have the same sentimental praying to Mary "the mother of God". They totally believe it involves love, but it is off from the scripture. Evangelical, since you uphold long standing tradition over the simplicity of the scripture, do you also hold to Holy Mary the mother of God? I mean if Jesus is God, and Mary the mother of Jesus, your same formula should hold!

I would urge you to consider what the scripture clearly says One God the Father and one Lord Jesus the Christ. The gospel is that God so loved the world that he gave us His only begotten son- a triune god was not preached or taught by the apostles!

I don't know which Bible you are reading but Jesus taught us to ask Him for anything:

John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

A Christian is someone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus:

1 Cor 1:2
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

New Testament Christians were everywhere praying to Jesus

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't know which Bible you are reading but Jesus taught us to ask Him for anything:

John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

A Christian is someone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus:

1 Cor 1:2
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

New Testament Christians were everywhere praying to Jesus

On the surface, the one line verses seem like that would be the case, but look through the entire of 1 Cor and see who Paul prays to. Christ died to open the way for us to come to God, to come before His throne of grace. This is what Jesus did, what Jesus taught, what Paul practiced. Not saying it's wrong to pray to our Lord Jesus, but praying to God, our Father is the norm
“Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.”
**I Peter‬ *5:6-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” **James‬ *1:5‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen.” Jude‬ *1:24-25‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,”
**I Timothy‬ *2:1-5‬ *NKJV‬‬

“I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day,”
**II Timothy‬ *1:3‬ *NKJV‬‬

“So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: ‘Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the LORD and against His Christ.’ **Acts‬ *4:24-26‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the church Acts‬ *12:5‬ *NKJV‬‬

Can you imagine a local church prayer meeting where the saints pray to God our Father.

I offer these as a few examples of the NT view of prayer.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

On the surface, the one line verses seem like that would be the case, but look through the entire of 1 Cor and see who Paul prays to. Christ died to open the way for us to come to God, to come before His throne of grace. This is what Jesus did, what Jesus taught, what Paul practiced. Not saying it's wrong to pray to our Lord Jesus, but praying to God, our Father is the norm
“Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.”
**I Peter‬ *5:6-7‬ *NKJV‬‬

“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” **James‬ *1:5‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen.” Jude‬ *1:24-25‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,”
**I Timothy‬ *2:1-5‬ *NKJV‬‬

“I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day,”
**II Timothy‬ *1:3‬ *NKJV‬‬

“So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: ‘Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the LORD and against His Christ.’ **Acts‬ *4:24-26‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the church Acts‬ *12:5‬ *NKJV‬‬

Can you imagine a local church prayer meeting where the saints pray to God our Father.

I offer these as a few examples of the NT view of prayer.

In the local churches the Father is prayed to regularly. The Father is the one we pray to for our needs as He is the source of everything.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the local churches the Father is prayed to regularly. The Father is the one we pray to for our needs as He is the source of everything.

That would be a major change from when I walked away in 1986. I tend to think what you say is a doctrinal statement that differs from actual practice. I base this on so many posts I have read. For instance this one from the main site from Drake "The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately. No, brother, the vision is not about a man, a fallible man, or even a servant to be commended though not a flawless one. It is a spiritual experience not unlike what you experienced in becoming regenerated. And yet, once it lays hold of you and you lay hold of it then it will govern you and it matters not what others say or do about this vision...... it cannot be denied.

I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves. I have said before that had I gone through the same experiences as some here that I do not know how I would have responded. Yet, in all the difficulties I have faced the Lord always supplied me with the grace to overcome and so I must believe in faith that He would have supplied me to meet those challenges too. And if faith waned, it was the heavenly vision that reinvigorated me, refreshed me, and kept me going for over 40 years. I petition the Lord that if He would impart this vision into the brothers and sisters in this forum that all would be well with them, but if not, then at least He would give them the grace and peace that passes understanding to move on with their lives. By that, I mean to move on emotionally, and mentally, as well as spiritually. I know, most of you will say you have moved on and I would hope it is so, but the content and tone of the many posts here speaks differently. Many here never made it out to another side, whatever that will be for them.

Grace to you,
Drake"
What is missing from this extensive post about "the vision"? Obviously it is God our Father! Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, prayed to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Here, as in the 13 years I met with the LC, God our Father was rarely brought into the picture unless a verse explicitly mentioned Him, if at all, and then really as a place holder. Any talk or prayer that included our Heavenly Father was quickly diverted to Christ.

If you read through 1 Cor, God our Father is given preeminence over all, and spoken of more than Christ. Paul would not write about the need for such a vision without the overriding presence of God our Father in the content. Drake's post is a reflection on the misaimed WL based ministery in the LC that doesn't want to upset the triune view where Christ becomes the main topic.
If you read through the NT with the view that God is the head over Christ, and God is God and Christ is Christ, you will see that there is no need for a triune God doctrine. The scriptures present the truth of God and Christ- not man's doctrine.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

That would be a major change from when I walked away in 1986. I tend to think what you say is a doctrinal statement that differs from actual practice. I base this on so many posts I have read. For instance this one from the main site from Drake "The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately. No, brother, the vision is not about a man, a fallible man, or even a servant to be commended though not a flawless one. It is a spiritual experience not unlike what you experienced in becoming regenerated. And yet, once it lays hold of you and you lay hold of it then it will govern you and it matters not what others say or do about this vision...... it cannot be denied.

I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves. I have said before that had I gone through the same experiences as some here that I do not know how I would have responded. Yet, in all the difficulties I have faced the Lord always supplied me with the grace to overcome and so I must believe in faith that He would have supplied me to meet those challenges too. And if faith waned, it was the heavenly vision that reinvigorated me, refreshed me, and kept me going for over 40 years. I petition the Lord that if He would impart this vision into the brothers and sisters in this forum that all would be well with them, but if not, then at least He would give them the grace and peace that passes understanding to move on with their lives. By that, I mean to move on emotionally, and mentally, as well as spiritually. I know, most of you will say you have moved on and I would hope it is so, but the content and tone of the many posts here speaks differently. Many here never made it out to another side, whatever that will be for them.

Grace to you,
Drake"
What is missing from this extensive post about "the vision"? Obviously it is God our Father! Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, prayed to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Here, as in the 13 years I met with the LC, God our Father was rarely brought into the picture unless a verse explicitly mentioned Him, if at all, and then really as a place holder. Any talk or prayer that included our Heavenly Father was quickly diverted to Christ.

If you read through 1 Cor, God our Father is given preeminence over all, and spoken of more than Christ. Paul would not write about the need for such a vision without the overriding presence of God our Father in the content. Drake's post is a reflection on the misaimed WL based ministery in the LC that doesn't want to upset the triune view where Christ becomes the main topic.
If you read through the NT with the view that God is the head over Christ, and God is God and Christ is Christ, you will see that there is no need for a triune God doctrine. The scriptures present the truth of God and Christ- not man's doctrine.

You are forgetting that Christ and the Father are one and that the Father is in Christ. So it doesn't matter who is prayed to the most.

We might pray to the son more than the father because we can relate to the son better as he is a man like us. Prayers to the son are more personal and relatable. The father is more distant and mysterious.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are forgetting that Christ and the Father are one and that the Father is in Christ. So it doesn't matter who is prayed to the most.

We might pray to the son more than the father because we can relate to the son better as he is a man like us. Prayers to the son are more personal and relatable. The father is more distant and mysterious.

Goodness brother, I love you, even tho you managed to contradict yourself in a mere 4 sentences.

And brother Drake has been bingeing too much on the Lee Kool-Aid. Maybe he just needs to sleep it off. Let's hope. Else he's too bewitched to ever be sober minded.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Goodness brother, I love you, even tho you managed to contradict yourself in a mere 4 sentences.

And brother Drake has been bingeing too much on the Lee Kool-Aid. Maybe he just needs to sleep it off. Let's hope. Else he's too bewitched to ever be sober minded.

If you point out the contradiction maybe I can explain it better.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are forgetting that Christ and the Father are one and that the Father is in Christ. So it doesn't matter who is prayed to the most.

We might pray to the son more than the father because we can relate to the son better as he is a man like us. Prayers to the son are more personal and relatable. The father is more distant and mysterious.

I imagine you think this point trivial-but it is really the crux of salvation. We are children of God and are told to draw near to God and he will draw near to us. As children, we need the relationship with God, our Father. Christ died, and was resurrected, ascended that we may have access to God. Jesus told 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.””
**John‬ *4:21-24‬ *NKJV‬‬. As much as you like to quote certain snippets of John's writing, I would encourage you to get the big picture. A main part of the new covenant is that we would know Him.
The reason God is distant from you is not on His side, but on the pathetic misaimed ministery of WL that has blinded you from practicing the truth and following after a man's fable. I still remember- should have been during the Ephesians training, Lee up there doing the pray-reading thing "Blessed be the God, oh, blessed be the God and Father, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus." It was obviously something that really got to him, having to say that Jesus had a God, and that God is our God and Father, because it didn't match his religion.
The problem with the triune thing, and specially the processed triune god fable is that when you put up Jesus as your God, there is no need for God the Father, the one that Jesus and Paul said is the ONLY TRUE GOD. So the true God gets relegated to the attic as a tired old concept, and Jesus takes the place. But this is not how the Bible directs us. Our Heavenly Father is the center of all. Jesus is there to bring us to Him.

Evangelical, you at least were honest enough to consider that God is downplayed in the LC for the Jesus replacement, but I think it is high time for you to consider that the WL/LSM ministry has led you to think, say, and practice a religious life that does not match the heavenly view given to us by Jesus and the scriptures. It was Jesus who told us to pray to God our Father. This concept is so important it is throughout the NT. Jesus spent his life in communion with the God, his Father- If you really want to live Christ, you should be doing the same. Seems the biggest transformation you need is to get that LC footnote religion out of your system and walk in Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I imagine you think this point trivial-but it is really the crux of salvation. We are children of God and are told to draw near to God and he will draw near to us. As children, we need the relationship with God, our Father. Christ died, and was resurrected, ascended that we may have access to God. Jesus told 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.””
**John‬ *4:21-24‬ *NKJV‬‬. As much as you like to quote certain snippets of John's writing, I would encourage you to get the big picture. A main part of the new covenant is that we would know Him.
The reason God is distant from you is not on His side, but on the pathetic misaimed ministery of WL that has blinded you from practicing the truth and following after a man's fable. I still remember- should have been during the Ephesians training, Lee up there doing the pray-reading thing "Blessed be the God, oh, blessed be the God and Father, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus." It was obviously something that really got to him, having to say that Jesus had a God, and that God is our God and Father, because it didn't match his religion.
The problem with the triune thing, and specially the processed triune god fable is that when you put up Jesus as your God, there is no need for God the Father, the one that Jesus and Paul said is the ONLY TRUE GOD. So the true God gets relegated to the attic as a tired old concept, and Jesus takes the place. But this is not how the Bible directs us. Our Heavenly Father is the center of all. Jesus is there to bring us to Him.

Evangelical, you at least were honest enough to consider that God is downplayed in the LC for the Jesus replacement, but I think it is high time for you to consider that the WL/LSM ministry has led you to think, say, and practice a religious life that does not match the heavenly view given to us by Jesus and the scriptures. It was Jesus who told us to pray to God our Father. This concept is so important it is throughout the NT. Jesus spent his life in communion with the God, his Father- If you really want to live Christ, you should be doing the same. Seems the biggest transformation you need is to get that LC footnote religion out of your system and walk in Christ.

Why does acts 10.36 say Jesus is Lord of all if Jesus is not God?

Jesus is Yahweh.
Isaiah clearly and plainly says that Jesus is the everlasting Father and GOD with us.

Phil 2.6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you point out the contradiction maybe I can explain it better.

Should be obvious ... but since you think the human Jesus was the Father I guess not. So to you there is no contradiction if you pray to Jesus because you can relate to a human ... cuz it's praying to God the Father, that I guess you can't relate to : contradiction.

I suppose you'll have more to say about this.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why does acts 10.36 say Jesus is Lord of all if Jesus is not God?

Jesus is Yahweh.
Isaiah clearly and plainly says that Jesus is the everlasting Father and GOD with us.

Phil 2.6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Your so cute with this stuff bro Evangelical. Since you obviously love footnotes read the footnotes on these verses in the NET Bible.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why does acts 10.36 say Jesus is Lord of all if Jesus is not God?

34 Then Peter began to speak to them: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ—he is Lord of all.

Placed in context, the clause "he is Lord of all" refers to God, the subject, in verse 34.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus is Yahweh.
Isaiah clearly and plainly says that Jesus is the everlasting Father and GOD with us.

Isaiah never mentions Jesus. The Trinity is supposed to consist of three Persons of one Substance. Stating that the Father and Son are one person, Jesus, is to confound the Persons of the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed warns against "confounding the Persons" of the Trinity and states explicitly "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost."

[Boxjobox]

[QUOTE=Evangelical;68077]Why does acts 10.36 say Jesus is Lord of all if Jesus is not God?

I'm not sure about Greek grammar, but the Lord of all may refer to God; however, if you follow the NT (rather than a footnote religion) you find that the gospel is that God made this Jesus lord. God did that! ““Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”” *Acts‬ *2:36‬ *NKJV‬‬

“which He (God) 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

This seems to be a thing of this age and the millennial “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?”Hebrews‬ *1:9, 13‬ *NKJV‬‬ as it says "Till I make your enemies your footstool"

And Paul says concerning this: “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

Evangelical, read the scripture for what it says- God gave us His Son, God was with Christ ( in communion, one with him), Christ went about doing the Father's will, Christ went to the cross for the joy set before him, God forsook Christ on the cross when he was our sin offering, God raised Jesus the third day, God made this man both Lord and Christ, God Put all things under his feet and gave him to be head over the church, Christ ascended to the heavens and sits on the right hand of God, God knows when our Lord will return, Christ will return as Lord over all and all his enemies will be subdued, death will be subdued, Christ will turn all over to God- Glory to God!

The apostles and writers make no attempt to use Isaiah 9:6 to tell us that Jesus is God. The NT does not speak in this way. In the NT, God is God and Christ is that man whom God anointed to fulfill His purpose- Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God- this is the message, the gospel. Your footnote religion creates fables that the scriptures do not present. For that religion, Jesus is God, and God, the only true God, the Father, is left in the dust as a tired OT cliche.

[Boxjobox]

Phil 2.6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:[/QUOTE]

Get the big picture

“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
**Philippians‬ *1:2‬ *NKJV‬‬. Note it's God our Father, not God our Jesus, or the Lord God Jesus. Also note, "Lord" is used in a few ways in the NT from being like the term "mister" all the way to addressing God our Father.

“I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy,
being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;” **Philippians‬ *1:3-4, 6‬ *NKJV‬‬. Yup, God is God and Christ is Christ.

“For God is my witness, how greatly I long for you all with the affection of Jesus Christ.” Philippians‬ *1:8‬ *NKJV‬‬

“being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.” **Philippians‬ *1:11‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
**Philippians‬ *2:9-11‬ *NKJV‬‬
“For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,” Philippians‬ *3:3‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” *Philippians‬ *4:6-7‬ *NKJV‬‬. WHAT? Make your requests and prayers to God?

And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. Now to our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.”
**Philippians‬ *4:6-7, 19-20‬ *NKJV‬‬

Strange in quoting Phil. 2:6, you did not use the recovery version (John Ingalls and Al Knoch did such a good job) which translates " did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped". ( I hate when I have to go dust off the old recovery version, though it would be terrible if the silverfish ate it up!)
Did you notice that the verse says the form of God? Jesus was definitely in that form. If one could do all the maricles Jesus did with God operating through him, one would get a pretty big head! Should the glove think itself to be the hand? (To borrow a WL metaphor).

Consider the quotes from Philippians- is Paul equating Jesus to his God? Only in the footnote religion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Placed in context, the clause "he is Lord of all" refers to God, the subject, in verse 34.



Isaiah never mentions Jesus. The Trinity is supposed to consist of three Persons of one Substance. Stating that the Father and Son are one person, Jesus, is to confound the Persons of the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed warns against "confounding the Persons" of the Trinity and states explicitly "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost."

That Isaiah 9.6 does not refer to the messiah is a minority interpretation. Most christian and jewish scholars agree that it does.

In John 14:9-10, Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Phil 2.6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Get the big picture

“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
**Philippians‬ *1:2‬ *NKJV‬‬. Note it's God our Father, not God our Jesus, or the Lord God Jesus. Also note, "Lord" is used in a few ways in the NT from being like the term "mister" all the way to addressing God our Father.

“I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy,
being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;” **Philippians‬ *1:3-4, 6‬ *NKJV‬‬. Yup, God is God and Christ is Christ.

“For God is my witness, how greatly I long for you all with the affection of Jesus Christ.” Philippians‬ *1:8‬ *NKJV‬‬

“being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.” **Philippians‬ *1:11‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
**Philippians‬ *2:9-11‬ *NKJV‬‬
“For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,” Philippians‬ *3:3‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” *Philippians‬ *4:6-7‬ *NKJV‬‬. WHAT? Make your requests and prayers to God?

And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. Now to our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.”
**Philippians‬ *4:6-7, 19-20‬ *NKJV‬‬

Strange in quoting Phil. 2:6, you did not use the recovery version (John Ingalls and Al Knoch did such a good job) which translates " did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped". ( I hate when I have to go dust off the old recovery version, though it would be terrible if the silverfish ate it up!)
Did you notice that the verse says the form of God? Jesus was definitely in that form. If one could do all the maricles Jesus did with God operating through him, one would get a pretty big head! Should the glove think itself to be the hand? (To borrow a WL metaphor).

Consider the quotes from Philippians- is Paul equating Jesus to his God? Only in the footnote religion.

Are you a theologian or have any credentials in textual and contextual interpretation?
Because serious bible scholars affirm the bible teaches Jesus's divinity.
https://bible.org/node/5398

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Should be obvious ... but since you think the human Jesus was the Father I guess not. So to you there is no contradiction if you pray to Jesus because you can relate to a human ... cuz it's praying to God the Father, that I guess you can't relate to : contradiction.

I suppose you'll have more to say about this.

Consider In John 14:9-10, Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Jesus is the Father in a form we can more easily relate to. We can pray to the relatable form or to the mysterious and distant one. We can also interpret this passage to mean anyone who has prayed to Jesus has prayed to the Father.

In other words it does not matter who we pray to.
Most Christians believe this practically if not theologically. They will not usually pray to Jesus and then repeat the same prayer to the Father because they know that it is the same thing. Any prayer to Jesus or the Father will be answered in the same way. No prayer to Jesus or the Father will be ignored.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Consider In John 14:9-10, Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Jesus is the Father in a form we can more easily relate to. We can pray to the relatable form or to the mysterious and distant one. We can also interpret this passage to mean anyone who has prayed to Jesus has prayed to the Father.

In other words it does not matter who we pray to.
Most Christians believe this practically if not theologically. They will not usually pray to Jesus and then repeat the same prayer to the Father because they know that it is the same thing. Any prayer to Jesus or the Father will be answered in the same way. No prayer to Jesus or the Father will be ignored.

“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 him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.”
**Matthew‬ *22:37-38‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.” Revelation‬ *2:4-5‬ *NKJV‬‬

Evangelical, I would urge you to return to the one we should love first.
The apostle of your religion did not do this, and you of the LC/LSM imitate him.
The apostle Paul presented God our Father to us in all his writings as the one we can approach, and it was Paul's practice to pray to, and encourage the saints to pray to our Heavenly Father. Imitate Paul, turn from your fable religion!

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“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 him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.”
**Matthew‬ *22:37-38‬ *NKJV‬‬

“Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.” Revelation‬ *2:4-5‬ *NKJV‬‬

Evangelical, I would urge you to return to the one we should love first.
The apostle of your religion did not do this, and you of the LC/LSM imitate him.
The apostle Paul presented God our Father to us in all his writings as the one we can approach, and it was Paul's practice to pray to, and encourage the saints to pray to our Heavenly Father. Imitate Paul, turn from your fable religion!

If you really think about it, praying to our Father sets the mind and understanding to who God is, what Christ has done, and who we are. Praying to Jesus bypasses the true worship the Father desires.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

If you really think about it, praying to our Father sets the mind and understanding to who God is, what Christ has done, and who we are. Praying to Jesus bypasses the true worship the Father desires.

The majority of Christian scholarship disagrees with you and your view is less Orthodox that Witness Lee's ever was.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That Isaiah 9.6 does not refer to the messiah is a minority interpretation. Most christian and jewish scholars agree that it does.

To claim that the Son is the Father like you're doing violates the Athanasian creed which is adhered to by catholic and orthodox protestant churches. Most of the Christian and Jewish scholars I've read don't interpret the verse literally like you do. The Jewish ones usually say the verse refers to Hezekiah. Have you found otherwise?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In John 14:9-10, Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

The Person of Father can be seen through the Person and work of the Son as per John 5:19:

Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

To claim that the Son is the Father like you're doing violates the Athanasian creed which is adhered to by catholic and orthodox protestant churches. Most of the Christian and Jewish scholars I've read don't interpret the verse literally like you do. The Jewish ones usually say the verse refers to Hezekiah. Have you found otherwise?

The Person of Father can be seen through the Person and work of the Son as per John 5:19:

Its strange how all the other titles of God like mighty God and I AM apply to Jesus but not Father. Its not very logical.

"and Jesus replied, sorry Thomas, I am only the second person of the Trinity"

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The majority of Christian scholarship disagrees with you and your view is less Orthodox that Witness Lee's ever was.

Evangelical, it is very strange being in dialogue with you, as there was a time back in the 80's when I would agree with you and towed the company line. Then one day, I began looking at the scripture for what it said and shunned the footnotes which, in large part twisted thing to match the foots religion.
Strange how you will turn depending on the topic: here you are giving credence to Christian scholars, yet remained emerged in a religion that says "poor poor Christianity" and forbade their works to stand in church bookrooms, because they were low.

Please consider your contradictions. If Jesus is not God, Paul's preaching and teaching stands because he did not teach this. WLs and by extension, your teaching fails because it is the basis of your whole religion. If God is not triune, God's truth stands because God did not reveal Himself as triune, and his word did not declare such. But WLs and by extension your religion fails because it is another pillar of your beliefs. If you say it is too difficult to pray to the Father, because he is too distant and mysterious, you contradict the very one who died so we could be restored to fellowship with our Heavenly Father. And you admit you do not see nor understand the Father through Jesus. If you must have an up-to-date apostle with an up-to-date message, you move away from Paul and the gospel he brought for a different gospel.

Evangelical, and all those who follow Lee's religion, it is time to repent, turn and come back to the truth.

““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.

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 *3:8, 12-13‬ *NKJV‬‬
http:/

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Evangelical, it is very strange being in dialogue with you, as there was a time back in the 80's when I would agree with you and towed the company line. Then one day, I began looking at the scripture for what it said and shunned the footnotes which, in large part twisted thing to match the foots religion.
Strange how you will turn depending on the topic: here you are giving credence to Christian scholars, yet remained emerged in a religion that says "poor poor Christianity" and forbade their works to stand in church bookrooms, because they were low.

Please consider your contradictions. If Jesus is not God, Paul's preaching and teaching stands because he did not teach this. WLs and by extension, your teaching fails because it is the basis of your whole religion. If God is not triune, God's truth stands because God did not reveal Himself as triune, and his word did not declare such. But WLs and by extension your religion fails because it is another pillar of your beliefs. If you say it is too difficult to pray to the Father, because he is too distant and mysterious, you contradict the very one who died so we could be restored to fellowship with our Heavenly Father. And you admit you do not see nor understand the Father through Jesus. If you must have an up-to-date apostle with an up-to-date message, you move away from Paul and the gospel he brought for a different gospel.

Evangelical, and all those who follow Lee's religion, it is time to repent, turn and come back to the truth.

““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.

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 *3:8, 12-13‬ *NKJV‬‬
http:/

My point about the scholars is to show you that you have more to prove to me than I to you. For you the stakes are higher.

The position you take is contrary to what most Christians believe. UntoHim sent you here because your views are not orthodox. Granted, I don't blindly follow the Creeds or the Trinity doctrine either. There are points about it I disagree with as you can see. But according to the majority of Christian opinion you are asking me to become a bigger heretic than following Lee would ever make me.

Regarding the perceived contradiction, the Recovery is not a reformation or replacement. It is to go that extra level higher than mainstream Christianity without throwing away everything good before it. Mostly the degradation is from the person of Christ rather than any fundamental doctrine about who Christ was.

If we were discussing on a higher plane of revelation then I might not consult Christian scholars who are on a lower plane. But when we are discussing fundamental matters regarding Gods nature and who Christ was, I don't need to consult the high peak truths, for example. These are fundamental matters that were resolved hundreds of years ago and modern scholarship has not changed them.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Its strange how all the other titles of God like mighty God and I AM apply to Jesus but not Father. Its not very logical.

It's strange to the Lee-ite perspective. Jesus prays to the Father throughout John 17:

1After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all people,[a] to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

6 “I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; 8 for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am asking on their behalf; I am not asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours. 10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them in your name that[b] you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost,[c] so that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and I speak these things in the world so that they may have my joy made complete in themselves.[d] 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 15 I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one.[e] 16 They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.

20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us,[f] so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24 Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

25 “Righteous Father, the world does not know you, but I know you; and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made your name known to them, and I will make it known, so that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them."

According to the Lee-ite point of view perspective in which Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Jesus is praying to himself. Now that's illogical.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"and Jesus replied, sorry Thomas, I am only the second person of the Trinity"

Now you mock Trinitarian orthodoxy which shows that you are not a Trinitarian, though you quote Trinitarians when it suits you. John's incarnation theology is explained in the book's prologue. In verse 18 it says "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known." There is no confusion of the divine persons in John. The prologue tells us how verses like "I and the Father are one." and "Have I been so long with you...?" should be interpreted.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My point about the scholars is to show you that you have more to prove to me than I to you. For you the stakes are higher.

The position you take is contrary to what most Christians believe. UntoHim sent you here because your views are not orthodox. Granted, I don't blindly follow the Creeds or the Trinity doctrine either. There are points about it I disagree with as you can see. But according to the majority of Christian opinion you are asking me to become a bigger heretic than following Lee would ever make me.

Regarding the perceived contradiction, the Recovery is not a reformation or replacement. It is to go that extra level higher than mainstream Christianity without throwing away everything good before it. Mostly the degradation is from the person of Christ rather than any fundamental doctrine about who Christ was.

If we were discussing on a higher plane of revelation then I might not consult Christian scholars who are on a lower plane. But when we are discussing fundamental matters regarding Gods nature and who Christ was, I don't need to consult the high peak truths, for example. These are fundamental matters that were resolved hundreds of years ago and modern scholarship has not changed them.

Evangelical: check out the gospel Paul preached in Antioch in Pisidia.
““For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; but He whom God raised up saw no corruption. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” **Acts‬ *13:36-39‬ *NKJV‬‬

You act like I'm making this stuff up, but over and over, I present large chunks of scripture which show Paul's mind concerning God and Christ, and it seems the best you can do is kill the messenger so you don't have to consider the message.
I'm not taking a small snippet of a verse to create a high theology, but just showing that the mind of those who laid the foundation of the church was not about Jesus being God, nor about a triune God. Paul's gospel here was not something shortly after his conversion; it was at least 5 years after that, and probably more. This was Paul who met Jesus on the road to Damascus, who “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)” Galatians‬ *1:15-20‬ *NKJV‬‬
This Paul said “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." Gal1:11-12‬ *.

You don't need to question my orthodoxy or credentials, I'm just " little potato"; ask Paul why he was preaching such a low gospel, or ask WL why he created his own religion!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's strange to the Lee-ite perspective. Jesus prays to the Father throughout John 17:

According to the Lee-ite point of view perspective in which Jesus is both the Father and the Son, Jesus is praying to himself. Now that's illogical.

You must employ logic because you know that the scripture supports my view.
There are no verses which says Jesus is not the Father and Jesus is not the Spirit. In contrast, I can quote verses that say plainly that He is.

Anyway, the Trinity doctrine has similar logical challenges. For example, if we truly believe that Jesus is God, is not God praying to God?

Originally Posted by zeek

Now you mock Trinitarian orthodoxy which shows that you are not a Trinitarian, though you quote Trinitarians when it suits you. John's incarnation theology is explained in the book's prologue. In verse 18 it says "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known." There is no confusion of the divine persons in John. The prologue tells us how verses like "I and the Father are one." and "Have I been so long with you...?" should be interpreted.

Seems to me that it's a case of a doctrine being squeezed into the bible rather than the bible speaking for itself.

If I believe God is in 3 persons then I'm a Trinitarian. I disagree on the details based on the plain wording of Scripture (both that Christ is the Spirit and Jesus is the Father has scriptural support).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Evangelical: check out the gospel Paul preached in Antioch in Pisidia.
““For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; but He whom God raised up saw no corruption. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” **Acts‬ *13:36-39‬ *NKJV‬‬

You act like I'm making this stuff up, but over and over, I present large chunks of scripture which show Paul's mind concerning God and Christ, and it seems the best you can do is kill the messenger so you don't have to consider the message.
I'm not taking a small snippet of a verse to create a high theology, but just showing that the mind of those who laid the foundation of the church was not about Jesus being God, nor about a triune God. Paul's gospel here was not something shortly after his conversion; it was at least 5 years after that, and probably more. This was Paul who met Jesus on the road to Damascus, who “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)” Galatians‬ *1:15-20‬ *NKJV‬‬
This Paul said “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." Gal1:11-12‬ *.

You don't need to question my orthodoxy or credentials, I'm just " little potato"; ask Paul why he was preaching such a low gospel, or ask WL why he created his own religion!

If you have no credentials yourself then can you point me to someone who does have some scholarly credentials in regards to the earliest Greek manuscripts?

Here is mine:

http://www.equip.org/articles/jesus-as-god

For your view, I might suggest you try Bart Ehrman. I'm being gracious to help you as I'm pointing you to one of the best possible opponents of my view that you could find.

Note how the article says that the divinity of Christ is "a traditional and essential Christian doctrine". This is a more serious matter than whether God is a Trinity or not. If you get this wrong your eternal soul might be in danger. I'm on the fence about whether those who deny the divinity of Christ are truly saved.

It is riskier in my view to deny Jesus's divinity and be wrong than to believe it and be wrong. To deny Jesus's divinity is to deny the eternal nature of the Divine Blood (and hence eternal salvation). If only a man died on the cross, then Jesus was no better than a ram or a goat.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by EvanG

It is riskier in my view to deny Jesus's divinity and be wrong than to believe it and be wrong. To deny Jesus's divinity is to deny the eternal nature of the Divine Blood (and hence eternal salvation). If only a man died on the cross, then Jesus was no better than a ram or a goat.

Whether Jesus was a man or not may not matter. What matters is what God makes of it. The OT has God savoring the sacrifice of the critters. It could also be so for the sacrifice of His human son.

But I must point out the in the days of Jesus being God wasn't surprising to anyone. The concept or idea was in common currency back then.

So I posit that many thought Jesus was God early on. Why not? It was nothing new.

Now whether Jesus said he was God is another matter altogether. Historical scholars can't get down to that matter. All the information we have doesn't come directly from the mouth of Jesus.

And the prologue of the gospel of John isn't spoken by Jesus, at all. The Logos is a pagan concept, coined some 500 yrs before Jesus, by Heraclitus of Ephesus, by the way, where scholars believe that gospel was written. Same, same, if you ask me. Could be, that, the author of the gospel that was eventually attributed to John just embellished on the matter, to make Jesus relevant to the pagans ... that were very familiar with the Logos, and what the word meant.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you have no credentials yourself then can you point me to someone who does have some scholarly credentials in regards to the earliest Greek manuscripts?

Here is mine:

http://www.equip.org/articles/jesus-as-god

For your view, I might suggest you try Bart Ehrman. I'm being gracious to help you as I'm pointing you to one of the best possible opponents of my view that you could find.

Note how the article says that the divinity of Christ is "a traditional and essential Christian doctrine". This is a more serious matter than whether God is a Trinity or not. If you get this wrong your eternal soul might be in danger. I'm on the fence about whether those who deny the divinity of Christ are truly saved.

It is riskier in my view to deny Jesus's divinity and be wrong than to believe it and be wrong. To deny Jesus's divinity is to deny the eternal nature of the Divine Blood (and hence eternal salvation). If only a man died on the cross, then Jesus was no better than a ram or a goat.

Evangelical, let me first say I am very touched that your concern would be for my eternal soul, and thank you for that concern. However, I take the scripture and the gospel as God's word, and trust that I will be judged by Paul's gospel. I believe that Jesus is the messiah, the anointed, sent one, that he died for my sins, and that God raised him from the dead, and I was baptized in that name.
This is the essence of what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost and Luke records that about 3000 souls were added to the 120 original.

The next gospel Luke records, about 5000 saved. In neither of these gospels does Luke record anything that would indicate Peter preached about the divinity of Christ. Once I said you should go through the gospels in Acts and note what is said and what is not said concerning Christ Jesus our Lord. Also see how God and Christ are presented.

By saying "whether those who deny the divinity of Christ are truly saved" is saying divinity of Christ is a scriptural truth and I am denying it. Look again through the book of Acts for this teaching.

It's hard to follow your thought sometimes because you jump around in your thinking and methodology, and bring in other concepts from various sources, and make statements as fact such as " If only a man died on the cross, then Jesus was no better than a ram or a goat.". No telling where you are coming from or going with that! Or "to deny the eternal nature of the Divine Blood (and hence eternal salvation)" I hate to say it, but this kind of thought leads to mysticism! Christ's blood came out of him- this man blead out blood when his side was lanced- eternal blood?

You seem to rely heavily on teachings of men much more than scripture. And traditions of men- do you believe in transubstantiation, the veneration of relics, the infallibility of the Pope who sits on Peters chair, Holy Mary the mother of God, plenary indulgences, purgatory etc? All of these are well traditioned Christian beliefs and teachings established by the same folk's system that brought you trinity-( which is altogether tied to Jesus being God). In fact what you say was a settled matter, was "settled" by the torture and murder of those who didn't follow the trinity thing by those who did!

You say "It is riskier in my view to deny Jesus's divinity and be wrong than to believe it and be wrong.". What you are really saying is that this is not a settled fact, that it is not taught in the scripture so all can see and believe. What am I supposed to do? Go around saying something I don't see in the scripture, preach a different gospel than what Paul preached?

I still submit that what you are really saying is that the scripture lacks clarity, is incomplete, that the apostles did not give us the whole truth, that Jesus did not teach his disciples well, but now through man's inventions, we have the full truth, and you better believe it!

I am concerned with your walk in Christ, that you have trusted man more than God, trusted outside teachings more than scriptur. And most of all, that you are led away by these things from coming to God our Father.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Evangelical, let me first say I am very touched that your concern would be for my eternal soul, and thank you for that concern. However, I take the scripture and the gospel as God's word, and trust that I will be judged by Paul's gospel. I believe that Jesus is the messiah, the anointed, sent one, that he died for my sins, and that God raised him from the dead, and I was baptized in that name.
This is the essence of what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost and Luke records that about 3000 souls were added to the 120 original.

I don't think a person can deny the deity of Christ and call themselves a Christian. Have you never stopped to ask yourself why the majority of Christians disagree with you, even the bible versions we use are Trinitarian. What is it about you that causes you to believe as a JW, muslim or Jew would?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The next gospel Luke records, about 5000 saved. In neither of these gospels does Luke record anything that would indicate Peter preached about the divinity of Christ. Once I said you should go through the gospels in Acts and note what is said and what is not said concerning Christ Jesus our Lord. Also see how God and Christ are presented.

I am sure they were taught about the divinity of Christ afterwards. Salvation is not a one time acceptance of Christ. It is a continued knowing and learning about Christ. I don't know how long you say you have believed in Christ, but by now you should have known Him enough that you would know He is deity. You must totally ignore all the scholarly evidence out there that demonstrates that He is deity.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

By saying "whether those who deny the divinity of Christ are truly saved" is saying divinity of Christ is a scriptural truth and I am denying it. Look again through the book of Acts for this teaching.

Bible scholars say it is a scriptural truth and they have spent many years and effort studying it. As did the Reformers. Although the Reformers rejected many things in Catholicism, the Trinity or Christ's divinity was not one of them. You are against Catholicism. Do you agree with the Reformers then?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

It's hard to follow your thought sometimes because you jump around in your thinking and methodology, and bring in other concepts from various sources, and make statements as fact such as " If only a man died on the cross, then Jesus was no better than a ram or a goat.". No telling where you are coming from or going with that! Or "to deny the eternal nature of the Divine Blood (and hence eternal salvation)" I hate to say it, but this kind of thought leads to mysticism! Christ's blood came out of him- this man blead out blood when his side was lanced- eternal blood?

It's a new argument. If divinity did not have to die on the cross, and Jesus was not divine, why couldn't God just use an absolutely perfect ram or bull or goat? The man you believe in died as a mere man and for this reason salvation may not be eternally effective.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

You seem to rely heavily on teachings of men much more than scripture. And traditions of men- do you believe in transubstantiation, the veneration of relics, the infallibility of the Pope who sits on Peters chair, Holy Mary the mother of God, plenary indulgences, purgatory etc? All of these are well traditioned Christian beliefs and teachings established by the same folk's system that brought you trinity-( which is altogether tied to Jesus being God). In fact what you say was a settled matter, was "settled" by the torture and murder of those who didn't follow the trinity thing by those who did!

Let's thrown the Canon of scripture in there too. How do you trust that the Bible you read is the right one? What bible do you read by the way? (they are all Trinitarian).Many of these pagan doctrines developed much later than the Trinity or the Canon. Anyway it has been shown by bible scholars that the deity of Christ was an early church belief that later developed into the Trinity doctrine. That you don't seem to consult the bible scholars is worrying.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

You say "It is riskier in my view to deny Jesus's divinity and be wrong than to believe it and be wrong.". What you are really saying is that this is not a settled fact, that it is not taught in the scripture so all can see and believe. What am I supposed to do? Go around saying something I don't see in the scripture, preach a different gospel than what Paul preached?

So it does not bother you that your view is not accepted by most Christians, but that your view is shared with muslims and Jews? You have never stopped and asked yourself "maybe my private interpretation of scripture is in error"?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I still submit that what you are really saying is that the scripture lacks clarity, is incomplete, that the apostles did not give us the whole truth, that Jesus did not teach his disciples well, but now through man's inventions, we have the full truth, and you better believe it!

Yeah and that includes the canon. Do you trust the bible contains the right books? Why was the canon of scripture only determined as late as AD 367? Jesus or the apostles never told us which books of the bible we should read. They left it to use to figure it out for ourselves, as late as 367 AD. I think this alone disproves your suggestion that the apostles gave us the whole truth.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I am concerned with your walk in Christ, that you have trusted man more than God, trusted outside teachings more than scriptur. And most of all, that you are led away by these things from coming to God our Father.

It seems to me that the only man you are asking me to trust is yourself, as you have not given me any other resources, scholarly or otherwise which I can read to support your claims.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You must employ logic because you know that the scripture supports my view.

I know that a misreading of scripture supports your view. Nice to see you admit that you are not employing logic. Neither are you using knowledge or wisdom. Lets go back to Isaiah 9:6. Ask yourself why, when Jesus is always called the Son in the New Testament would the prophet call him the Father and not the Son some eight centuries before he was born.

There are no verses which says Jesus is not the Father and Jesus is not the Spirit. In contrast, I can quote verses that say plainly that He is.

Your method is called "proof texting", that is, you take isolated, out-of-context quotations from the Bible and use them to support Witness Lee's system of thought rather than the original intent of the author.

Don't forget, I sat at the feet of Witness Lee when he gave his Life Study Trainings. To Lee the whole Bible was a proof text for his systematized error [ see Ephesians 4:14 Darby Translation]

Anyway, the Trinity doctrine has similar logical challenges. For example, if we truly believe that Jesus is God, is not God praying to God?

From a Trinitarian view John 17 is God the Son praying to God the Father a view that doesn't undermine the integrity of the entire chapter as does your interpretation that has Jesus babbling to himself like a delusional schizophrenic.

Seems to me that it's a case of a doctrine being squeezed into the bible rather than the bible speaking for itself. If I believe God is in 3 persons then I'm a Trinitarian. I disagree on the details based on the plain wording of Scripture (both that Christ is the Spirit and Jesus is the Father has scriptural support).

Strong support for the Trinitarian view comes from the Gospel of John. What you call a "plain" reading ignores the prologue in the first chapter which begins " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." You read it "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God." It seems that there is no God for the Word to be with in your mind.

According to this theory which you got from Witness Lee, Jesus is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Critics of Lee's doctrine were right to point out the similarities of Lee's doctrine to that of the Sabellian heresy and the Oneness Pentecostals.

Lee particularly hated the latter comparison because of the low esteem in which Oneness Pentecostals are held by evangelicals generally. Publishers retreated from defense of books like The God-Men an Inquiry Into Witness Lee & the Local Church because of the costly law suits filed by Lee and his supporters.

In order to be a member of the Witness Lee's Church in good standing, you have to accept his strange doctrines. This makes a mockery of the claim that Lee's movement represents the meeting of Christians as one in the city where they live. Lee's so-called" Local Church" movement is just one more Christian Sect.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

I know that a misreading of scripture supports your view. Nice to see you admit that you are not employing logic. Neither are you using knowledge or wisdom. Lets go back to Isaiah 9:6. Ask yourself why, when Jesus is always called the Son in the New Testament would the prophet call him the Father and not the Son some eight centuries before he was born.

Isaiah 9.6 calls him both son and father or did you forget that. It says 'a son is given'.

Thats because unlike you I don't need to use logic because the scripture says what it says. I also don't need to quote an early church father as you do. I can use scripture to show both that God is triune and that Jesus is the Father. You must turn to an early church father to show Jesus is not the Father. No verse says 'Jesus said, I am not the father'.

Originally Posted by zeek

Your method is called "proof texting", that is, you take isolated, out-of-context quotations from the Bible and use them to support Witness Lee's system of thought rather than the original intent of the author.

And Im sure the original intent of the 800 bc author was to agree with the Athanasius creed of circa 500 a.d. lol.

Why is context even necessary in this case? If the bible uses the title Father for Christ then why can't we also?
Because its not in context you might say. Whose context..the bibles? No..the context of a 6th century creed.

What is funny is you using a 6th century Creed to define a 800 bc prophecy. Im sorry but shouldnt it be the other around?

Originally Posted by zeek

From a Trinitarian view John 17 is God the Son praying to God the Father a view that doesn't undermine the integrity of the entire chapter as does your interpretation that has Jesus babbling to himself like a delusional schizophrenic.

It has the same logical challenge as my view.
So we have God praying to God. "So God was babbling to himself". One leg of the SAME stool prays to the other.

Originally Posted by zeek

Strong support for the Trinitarian view comes from the Gospel of John. What you call a "plain" reading ignores the prologue in the first chapter which begins " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." You read it "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God." It seems that there is no God for the Word to be with in your mind.

With can refer to Christ as the Son with the Father. Was can refer to Christ as the Father.

[Boxjobox]

Evangelical, would you be so kind as to define your meaning of deity? You seem to have switched terms from Jesus is God, or god/man to deity. Are angels deity, cheribum, archangels, are the 4 living creatures before God deity? Is Satan a deity?

Also, concerning scripture: do you accept the compilation called the Bible as the complete scripture- let's say the compilation that is in the authorized KJV version, or do you feel there are other writings that should be included, and are there writings in the Bible that should not have been included.

Also, do you accept WL footnotes the same as scripture ( God breathed), and do you feel WL was infallible in his footnotes in the Rec. version.

[awareness]

Yes I find it odd. But I can't do anything about it. For as far back as we can see in history, people have believed humans can be divine.

I don't know why, but I suspect we want to believe such things because we know that we're such failures that our only hope is divinity.

So we can't blame our brother Evangelical for wanting to believe that Jesus was/is God. We also can't blame Witness Lee, or the Catholic church, or any of the others, for wanting to believe Jesus was divine.

They're all just doing what people have been doing since the ages began. I guess it's hard-wired in human nature, to want to believe humans can be divine. It certainly seems so.

I guess nothing can be done about it. Push it down in one place and it pops up in another place. Push Lee down and Evangelical pops up.

We just love to believe humans can be divine. The Bible says so, so it must be true. Even the pagan king Cyrus the Great was called the messiah, the anointed one, in the same book the says the son is the father. I think Isaiah used hyperbole. I don't think the book can be taken literally. But Lee and Evangelical do.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Evangelical, would you be so kind as to define your meaning of deity? You seem to have switched terms from Jesus is God, or god/man to deity. Are angels deity, cheribum, archangels, are the 4 living creatures before God deity? Is Satan a deity?

Also, concerning scripture: do you accept the compilation called the Bible as the complete scripture- let's say the compilation that is in the authorized KJV version, or do you feel there are other writings that should be included, and are there writings in the Bible that should not have been included.

Also, do you accept WL footnotes the same as scripture ( God breathed), and do you feel WL was infallible in his footnotes in the Rec. version.

God or deity or divine mean the same thing.
Footnotes are not scripture. That why they called footnotes. I accept the canon as it is. You know the canon was decided by Trinitarians right?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Isaiah 9.6 calls him both son and father or did you forget that. It says 'a son is given'.

I was referring to Hezekiah's titles in Isaiah 9:6. Hezekiah was an actual son of Ahaz. Son wasn't one of the titles listed in the verse.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thats because unlike you I don't need to use logic because the scripture says what it says.

That statement suggests that you are unaware of how you arrive at the interpretation. If you don't use logic to read that leaves you with illogic. The result is nonsense.

Obviously the Bible "says what it says'. In itself that's a meaningless tautology.

The question is "What does it mean?" You have demonstrated the ability to think critically regarding other's interpretation, but it seems you unaware of your own hermeneutics; that is, principles of interpretation. That shows a lack of self-reflection on your part.

When I studied under WL, he wasn't sharing his hermeneutics. Trainees were supposed to pick up his doctrine rote through pray-reading. Nonetheless, Lee had hermeneutic principles.

If you are aware of your method of interpretation, then perhaps you aren't being forthright about it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I also don't need to quote an early church father as you do. I can use scripture to show both that God is triune and that Jesus is the Father. You must turn to an early church father to show Jesus is not the Father. No verse says 'Jesus said, I am not the father'.

Should we assume that Jesus is everything that he doesn't say he is not? If you think that, you weren't kidding, you really have eschewed logic.

Christian orthodoxy involves referencing an interpretive community--the historic Christian church. You reject that in favor of a different interpretive community--the Witness Lee cult. I get it. The interesting question for me is: why do you do that?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And Im sure the original intent of the 800 bc author was to agree with the Athanasius creed of circa 500 a.d. lol. Why is context even necessary in this case? If the bible uses the title Father for Christ then why can't we also? Because its not in context you might say. Whose context..the bibles? No..the context of a 6th century creed. What is funny is you using a 6th century Creed to define a 800 bc prophecy. Im sorry but shouldnt it be the other around? It has the same logical challenge as my view. So we have God praying to God. "So God was babbling to himself". One leg of the SAME stool prays to the other.

From a Trinitarian perspective it's God the Son praying to God the Father-- two distinct divine Person's. You and Lee and the Oneness Pentecostals have folded the Trinity into one person-- Jesus of Nazareth. As a result, Jesus' prayers to the Father become absurd.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With can refer to Christ as the Son with the Father. Was can refer to Christ as the Father.

Again with the schizophrenia! Thereby, Christ would be the Son with the Father and the Father who the Son is with. That's nonsense. " To paraphrase Paul, God is not the author of nonsense [cf. I Cor 14:33].

[Boxjobox]

So, after a good dialogue with Evangelical on the listed topic, here is my summation of our views: I feel Evangelical's topic was predicated on his notion that Jesus is God and God is triune. I feel that line of thought leads to strange unbiblical conclusions and discussions that rely on man's teachings and man's molding God into man's own concept. My view is that God, our Father, is God, and that Jesus is the Christ. That God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and that Jesus, on the cross cried out My God, my God, why have you forsaken me. God accepted that death of this sinless man Jesus as a redemptive sacrifice for our sins, and that God raised him from the dead, gave him the name above all names, designated this resurrected man to be both Lord and Christ, and fulfilled the scripture saying You are my Son, this day I have begotten you. Today, this same Jesus sits on the right hand of God until all his enemies are under his feet.
Evangelical, on the other hand feels this Jesus was a god/man, who as God could not really be forsaken, so kind of has a split decision based on his dual nature. Evangelical also feels the one part of the triune God-who is labeled Father is too distant and not human enough to pray to, and E prays to Jesus, another part of the triune God because he can relate, but really, Jesus is the Father, so it's all alright, and Christian orthodoxy backs up all he is saying, and my simple understanding is invalid because I don't have credentials, and am more than likely going to suffer eternal perdition because I don't follow or confess orthodoxy. E has a higher revelation, and is on a higher plane, and is really above the fray of this all, and has to answer with low orthodoxy material, whiched really produced all the denomination which E views as low vision people.
E believes the scriptures, but has higher teachings that augment the scriptures that when used will produce what the triune God is really after. Those who do not have these extra-scriptural tools will not be perfected i.e. will not become Gods, but will ( I assume) be ruled by those who did use those tools and in eternity will be the ruling Gods.
I , on the other hand, just have the scripture, believe in the one God our Father, love our Lord Jesus and wait for his coming, try to live a life worthy of my calling, fail sometimes, and rely on the blood of Jesus, pray to God my Father that His Holy Spirit would guide me and strengthen me to walk in the light, Honor His son, speak what I have received, and wait for His Son.
I only can hope that when E rules over me in eternity, he will be as gracious to me as Christ my Lord has been.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So, after a good dialogue with Evangelical on the listed topic, here is my summation of our views: I feel Evangelical's topic was predicated on his notion that Jesus is God and God is triune. I feel that line of thought leads to strange unbiblical conclusions and discussions that rely on man's teachings and man's molding God into man's own concept. My view is that God, our Father, is God, and that Jesus is the Christ. That God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and that Jesus, on the cross cried out My God, my God, why have you forsaken me. God accepted that death of this sinless man Jesus as a redemptive sacrifice for our sins, and that God raised him from the dead, gave him the name above all names, designated this resurrected man to be both Lord and Christ, and fulfilled the scripture saying You are my Son, this day I have begotten you. Today, this same Jesus sits on the right hand of God until all his enemies are under his feet.
Evangelical, on the other hand feels this Jesus was a god/man, who as God could not really be forsaken, so kind of has a split decision based on his dual nature. Evangelical also feels the one part of the triune God-who is labeled Father is too distant and not human enough to pray to, and E prays to Jesus, another part of the triune God because he can relate, but really, Jesus is the Father, so it's all alright, and Christian orthodoxy backs up all he is saying, and my simple understanding is invalid because I don't have credentials, and am more than likely going to suffer eternal perdition because I don't follow or confess orthodoxy. E has a higher revelation, and is on a higher plane, and is really above the fray of this all, and has to answer with low orthodoxy material, whiched really produced all the denomination which E views as low vision people.
E believes the scriptures, but has higher teachings that augment the scriptures that when used will produce what the triune God is really after. Those who do not have these extra-scriptural tools will not be perfected i.e. will not become Gods, but will ( I assume) be ruled by those who did use those tools and in eternity will be the ruling Gods.
I , on the other hand, just have the scripture, believe in the one God our Father, love our Lord Jesus and wait for his coming, try to live a life worthy of my calling, fail sometimes, and rely on the blood of Jesus, pray to God my Father that His Holy Spirit would guide me and strengthen me to walk in the light, Honor His son, speak what I have received, and wait for His Son.
I only can hope that when E rules over me in eternity, he will be as gracious to me as Christ my Lord has been.

Christian orthodoxy doesn't back up Evangelical's position as I have pointed out to him below.

How do you reconcile our position with John 1 which says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh..."

and John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” ?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I only can hope that when E rules over me in eternity, he will be as gracious to me as Christ my Lord has been.

W. Lee, like Luther before him, condemned all the creeds, then developed his own.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christian orthodoxy doesn't back up Evangelical's position as I have pointed out to him below.

How do you reconcile our position with John 1 which says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh..."

and John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” ?

Hmmm - let's see: Does anyone other than E really think that God became flesh- I mean God=flesh. God died. The eternal, immortal, INVISIBLE God is flesh? This should have been preached throughout Acts, Romans should have explained all of this. In Revelation, God on the throne should look like flesh!

Or is John trying to convey to a certain type of gentile that God had a concept, a plan, a logos, which was not something apart from God, not an accident, or an evolution, and that one day that plan became tangent to all with the birth of Christ. All the creation was made with this plan in view and through this plan. God was, and is , and will forever be spirit. Christ fully reflected God, all the fullness of God was in this man, God spoke and acted through this man, God, as was His plan had this sinless man die on the cross as our offering for sin, God raised him from the dead and made this man both Lord and Christ. So John presents that God so loved the world that He gave us His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life, and John writes that Jesus said that eternal life was to know the Father, the only true God and Jesus the messiah whom God sent. And, John sums up his writing by saying that he wrote it so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that believing may have life in his name.

As for Thomas' statement, Thomas was with the others on the day of Pentecost and Luke does not record them talking about Jesus being God, rather that God was with him.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So, after a good dialogue with Evangelical on the listed topic, here is my summation of our views: I feel Evangelical's topic was predicated on his notion that Jesus is God and God is triune. I feel that line of thought leads to strange unbiblical conclusions and discussions that rely on man's teachings and man's molding God into man's own concept. My view is that God, our Father, is God, and that Jesus is the Christ. That God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and that Jesus, on the cross cried out My God, my God, why have you forsaken me. God accepted that death of this sinless man Jesus as a redemptive sacrifice for our sins, and that God raised him from the dead, gave him the name above all names, designated this resurrected man to be both Lord and Christ, and fulfilled the scripture saying You are my Son, this day I have begotten you. Today, this same Jesus sits on the right hand of God until all his enemies are under his feet.
Evangelical, on the other hand feels this Jesus was a god/man, who as God could not really be forsaken, so kind of has a split decision based on his dual nature. Evangelical also feels the one part of the triune God-who is labeled Father is too distant and not human enough to pray to, and E prays to Jesus, another part of the triune God because he can relate, but really, Jesus is the Father, so it's all alright, and Christian orthodoxy backs up all he is saying, and my simple understanding is invalid because I don't have credentials, and am more than likely going to suffer eternal perdition because I don't follow or confess orthodoxy. E has a higher revelation, and is on a higher plane, and is really above the fray of this all, and has to answer with low orthodoxy material, whiched really produced all the denomination which E views as low vision people.
E believes the scriptures, but has higher teachings that augment the scriptures that when used will produce what the triune God is really after. Those who do not have these extra-scriptural tools will not be perfected i.e. will not become Gods, but will ( I assume) be ruled by those who did use those tools and in eternity will be the ruling Gods.
I , on the other hand, just have the scripture, believe in the one God our Father, love our Lord Jesus and wait for his coming, try to live a life worthy of my calling, fail sometimes, and rely on the blood of Jesus, pray to God my Father that His Holy Spirit would guide me and strengthen me to walk in the light, Honor His son, speak what I have received, and wait for His Son.
I only can hope that when E rules over me in eternity, he will be as gracious to me as Christ my Lord has been.

I guess my eternity will be something like Dauntè's inferno. There I will be in the lowere rung as an heretic and a doubter of Lee, and I wii scream out "Lord Evangelical, please a little water for my lips", and God Evangelical will say "in your life, you had the recovery version with the footnotes and the messages and books, but you refused to accept them. Prayread Gods Economy and I may consider your case". Oh, the pains of hell"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I guess my eternity will be something like Dauntè's inferno. There I will be in the lowere rung as an heretic and a doubter of Lee, and I wii scream out "Lord Evangelical, please a little water for my lips", and God Evangelical will say "in your life, you had the recovery version with the footnotes and the messages and books, but you refused to accept them. Prayread Gods Economy and I may consider your case". Oh, the pains of hell"

Well if not believing 9:6 will send you to hell, as Evangelical claims, then by the same logic, I've got something else that if you don't believe it will send you straight to Tartarus.

You see, it's not rejecting Lee and Evangelical et al. that will toast you forever. It's rejecting Isa 9:6, that clearly says the son is the everlasting father.

The other verse, that you have to take just as literal as 9:6 is :

Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

So if you accept 9:6 literally, then you have to accept 12:49 literally ; that the disciples were literally and actually Jesus' mother. It's not just Biblical, it's stated by Jesus. So it has to be as factual as 9:6, so goes Lee and EvanG's logic.

But if you have sense about you, and are of sober mind, and reject taking those verses as literal, then according to Evangelical you will burn forever.

One thing I was told at least a thousand times in the LC, was: "Brother get out of your mind." Why? Because you have to be out of your mind to believe the son was/is the Father. (A son cannot be his own father) Conclusion : Evangelical basically says, If you're not out of your mind you are going to hell.

See what happens when you are out of your mind. See how silly things get ; irrational, out of touch with reality, and believing things that's not even remotely possible.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So, after a good dialogue with Evangelical on the listed topic, here is my summation of our views: I feel Evangelical's topic was predicated on his notion that Jesus is God and God is triune. I feel that line of thought leads to strange unbiblical conclusions and discussions that rely on man's teachings and man's molding God into man's own concept. My view is that God, our Father, is God, and that Jesus is the Christ. That God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and that Jesus, on the cross cried out My God, my God, why have you forsaken me. God accepted that death of this sinless man Jesus as a redemptive sacrifice for our sins, and that God raised him from the dead, gave him the name above all names, designated this resurrected man to be both Lord and Christ, and fulfilled the scripture saying You are my Son, this day I have begotten you. Today, this same Jesus sits on the right hand of God until all his enemies are under his feet.
Evangelical, on the other hand feels this Jesus was a god/man, who as God could not really be forsaken, so kind of has a split decision based on his dual nature. Evangelical also feels the one part of the triune God-who is labeled Father is too distant and not human enough to pray to, and E prays to Jesus, another part of the triune God because he can relate, but really, Jesus is the Father, so it's all alright, and Christian orthodoxy backs up all he is saying, and my simple understanding is invalid because I don't have credentials, and am more than likely going to suffer eternal perdition because I don't follow or confess orthodoxy. E has a higher revelation, and is on a higher plane, and is really above the fray of this all, and has to answer with low orthodoxy material, whiched really produced all the denomination which E views as low vision people.
E believes the scriptures, but has higher teachings that augment the scriptures that when used will produce what the triune God is really after. Those who do not have these extra-scriptural tools will not be perfected i.e. will not become Gods, but will ( I assume) be ruled by those who did use those tools and in eternity will be the ruling Gods.
I , on the other hand, just have the scripture, believe in the one God our Father, love our Lord Jesus and wait for his coming, try to live a life worthy of my calling, fail sometimes, and rely on the blood of Jesus, pray to God my Father that His Holy Spirit would guide me and strengthen me to walk in the light, Honor His son, speak what I have received, and wait for His Son.
I only can hope that when E rules over me in eternity, he will be as gracious to me as Christ my Lord has been.

You seem too proud to admit that majority of Christianity out there and all the bible versions are Trinitarian. It's all about your interpretation of the Bible isn't it, as if no one else's interpretation matters? One man against a few billion Trinitarians, your odds are even worse than Lee's.

As Zeek said i'm just as much a heretic as you. So why don't you stop saying I'm orthodox. We're not so different, you and I. Zeek and others here are far more orthodox than me.

I'm a little suprised you don't agree with me that Jesus is the Father if you truly take the bible literally. How else could Isaiah 9:6 make sense? "He shall be called.. "everlasting Father""

This is how Zeek interprets Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born, - not Jesus, it's Hezekiah's.
to us a son is given, - it's Hezekiah .
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called -
Wonderful Counselor, - Hezekiah was a wonderful counselor
Mighty God, - Hezekiah was called the Mighty God (blasphemy?)
Everlasting Father, - Hezekiah was called Everlasting Father (blasphemy?)
Prince of Peace. - Hezekiah was called Prince of Peace.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Hmmm - let's see: Does anyone other than E really think that God became flesh- I mean God=flesh. God died. The eternal, immortal, INVISIBLE God is flesh? This should have been preached throughout Acts, Romans should have explained all of this. In Revelation, God on the throne should look like flesh!

John chapter 1 says "...the logos was God...and the logos became flesh..." Therefore, God became flesh. As for Revelation, it's a 7 eyed 7 horned lamb on the throne. I think that's symbolic, don't you?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Or is John trying to convey to a certain type of gentile that God had a concept, a plan, a logos, which was not something apart from God, not an accident, or an evolution, and that one day that plan became tangent to all with the birth of Christ. All the creation was made with this plan in view and through this plan. God was, and is , and will forever be spirit. Christ fully reflected God, all the fullness of God was in this man, God spoke and acted through this man, God, as was His plan had this sinless man die on the cross as our offering for sin, God raised him from the dead and made this man both Lord and Christ. So John presents that God so loved the world that He gave us His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life, and John writes that Jesus said that eternal life was to know the Father, the only true God and Jesus the messiah whom God sent. And, John sums up his writing by saying that he wrote it so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that believing may have life in his name.

So if the logos was God's plan, then in John 1:1 when it says the logos was God, the plan was God? And , I suppose that you would say that Jesus of Nazareth was the realization of God's plan. I think your reading works as a metaphor. The logos is a thought in the mind of God. Jesus becomes the realization of that thought in the flesh. "The logos is God" because it is God's thought. Is that the way you see it?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

As for Thomas' statement, Thomas was with the others on the day of Pentecost and Luke does not record them talking about Jesus being God, rather that God was with him.

That's a good observation best explained by noting that Luke/Acts and the Gospel of John are written from different theological viewpoints.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is how Zeek interprets Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born, - not Jesus, it's Hezekiah's.
to us a son is given, - it's Hezekiah .
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called -
Wonderful Counselor, - Hezekiah was a wonderful counselor
Mighty God, - Hezekiah was called the Mighty God (blasphemy?)
Everlasting Father, - Hezekiah was called Everlasting Father (blasphemy?)
Prince of Peace. - Hezekiah was called Prince of Peace.

Right, and apparently Hezekiah is the same son about whom Isaiah says "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

The problem you're having with my interpretation seems to be due to your literalism. If you look at the context, Isaiah writes in a highly metaphoric, symbolic style. To read it literally leads to all kinds of absurdities that the author obviously did not intend. He has already told us in 7:14 that Hezekiah will represent "God with us." Now he expands on what that will mean in 9:6.

Haven't you read where Nee and Lee explain that every positive figure in the Old Testament is a type of Christ? So, Hezeziah upon whom Isaiah pins the hope of the nation of Israel is a type of Christ. He is a kind of messiah figure. In that way, his symbolic titles foreshadow Jesus.

What Nee and Lee didn't tell us, is that reading the Hebrew Bible that way is not intrinsic to the Hebrew scriptures themselves. It's a Christian hermeutic that is modeled by the New Testament writers and continued by subsequent Christian apologists and theologians right up to the present time.

[Boxjobox]

A few clear quotes from the book of Revelation worth considering:
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,”**Revelation‬ *1:1‬ *NKJV‬‬
This is 1st verse and sets the stage: GOD gave this revelation to Jesus Christ.

“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
This doesn't sound very trinitarian to me!

Here is one from Jesus:
“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.”
**Revelation‬ *3:11-12‬ *NKJV‬‬
Jesus, who died, resurrected, ascended, empowered as head of church, talks about his God. Talking to the faithful church-I doubt those in Thyatira would appreciate this, nor probably those in Sardis to whom Jesus says “for I have not found your works perfect before God.”
**
Wow, I'm becoming a footnote bible writer! Maybe I will be an apostle of the third order!

[Boxjobox]

[QUOTE=Evangelical;68324]You seem too proud to admit that majority of Christianity out there and all the bible versions are Trinitarian. It's all about your interpretation of the Bible isn't it, as if no one else's interpretation matters? One man against a few billion Trinitarians, your odds are even worse than Lee's.

As Zeek said i'm just as much a heretic as you. So why don't you stop saying I'm orthodox. We're not so different, you and I. Zeek and others here are far more orthodox than me.

I'm a little suprised you don't agree with me that Jesus is the Father if you truly take the bible literally. How else could Isaiah 9:6 make sense? "He shall be called.. "everlasting Father""

****************************

Evangelical: when you take a verse, or part of a verse, and then try to interpret the whole NT based on that, you create your own religion. The NT does not include this verse- it does use many quotes from the OT, but not this one, which you seem to find the controlling factor in understanding Jesus. If you look at the big picture of the NT, God is God, who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and Jesus is the Christ, the anointed, sent one, through whom God reconciled us to Himself. This goes throughout the whole NT. There is not a secret backdoor scripture set, which reveals mysteries of a triune god, god-man, son-father, which if one finds the secret key, enters a higher plane of understanding, and can see this triune thing in every verse. You are deceived if you think you have some special insight. Accept the fact that God loved us and gave us His only begotten son. Accept that God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
Do you really think that if trinity, god-man, you becoming God, was the theme of God's plan, that the scriptures would not be more than clear on this, and that Jesus and the apostles should not have clearly presented this. As well as there should have been a great backlash by the Jews, which would have caused a great need of a lot of explanation. And the multi-god gentiles, who came to Christ- would Paul really tell them “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.”
**I Corinthians‬ *8:4-6‬ *NKJV‬‬
This section in 1Cor could not be clearer as to what we are to think, and as to what the teaching of the apostle Paul was. Why do you need to find hidden, cryptic, hidden things and then create a different narrative? Do you really think you are in a loftier realm? Do you really think that God hid the truth from the apostles, or that what Constantine presided over 300 years later should now be the believers creed. I think you really fall under the category of this type of situation “Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

“Now to you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put on you no other burden.” **Revelation‬ *2:20, 24‬ *NKJV‬‬

[Evangelical]

[QUOTE=Boxjobox;68341]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem too proud to admit that majority of Christianity out there and all the bible versions are Trinitarian. It's all about your interpretation of the Bible isn't it, as if no one else's interpretation matters? One man against a few billion Trinitarians, your odds are even worse than Lee's.

As Zeek said i'm just as much a heretic as you. So why don't you stop saying I'm orthodox. We're not so different, you and I. Zeek and others here are far more orthodox than me.

I'm a little suprised you don't agree with me that Jesus is the Father if you truly take the bible literally. How else could Isaiah 9:6 make sense? "He shall be called.. "everlasting Father""

****************************

Evangelical: when you take a verse, or part of a verse, and then try to interpret the whole NT based on that, you create your own religion. The NT does not include this verse- it does use many quotes from the OT, but not this one, which you seem to find the controlling factor in understanding Jesus. If you look at the big picture of the NT, God is God, who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and Jesus is the Christ, the anointed, sent one, through whom God reconciled us to Himself. This goes throughout the whole NT. There is not a secret backdoor scripture set, which reveals mysteries of a triune god, god-man, son-father, which if one finds the secret key, enters a higher plane of understanding, and can see this triune thing in every verse. You are deceived if you think you have some special insight. Accept the fact that God loved us and gave us His only begotten son. Accept that God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ.
Do you really think that if trinity, god-man, you becoming God, was the theme of God's plan, that the scriptures would not be more than clear on this, and that Jesus and the apostles should not have clearly presented this. As well as there should have been a great backlash by the Jews, which would have caused a great need of a lot of explanation. And the multi-god gentiles, who came to Christ- would Paul really tell them “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.”
**I Corinthians‬ *8:4-6‬ *NKJV‬‬
This section in 1Cor could not be clearer as to what we are to think, and as to what the teaching of the apostle Paul was. Why do you need to find hidden, cryptic, hidden things and then create a different narrative? Do you really think you are in a loftier realm? Do you really think that God hid the truth from the apostles, or that what Constantine presided over 300 years later should now be the believers creed. I think you really fall under the category of this type of situation “Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

“Now to you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put on you no other burden.” **Revelation‬ *2:20, 24‬ *NKJV‬‬

Boxjobox, (orthodox) Christianity is based upon the view that the apostles did not receive everything from God, in particular:
The Canon of scripture
the nature of God (the Trinity)

These were uncovered later.

Do you think God's revelation ceased when the apostles died? If so where does the bible say that?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, and apparently Hezekiah is the same son about whom Isaiah says "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

The problem you're having with my interpretation seems to be due to your literalism. If you look at the context, Isaiah writes in a highly metaphoric, symbolic style. To read it literally leads to all kinds of absurdities that the author obviously did not intend. He has already told us in 7:14 that Hezekiah will represent "God with us." Now he expands on what that will mean in 9:6.

Haven't you read where Nee and Lee explain that every positive figure in the Old Testament is a type of Christ? So, Hezeziah upon whom Isaiah pins the hope of the nation of Israel is a type of Christ. He is a kind of messiah figure. In that way, his symbolic titles foreshadow Jesus.

What Nee and Lee didn't tell us, is that reading the Hebrew Bible that way is not intrinsic to the Hebrew scriptures themselves. It's a Christian hermeutic that is modeled by the New Testament writers and continued by subsequent Christian apologists and theologians right up to the present time.

So you are saying that a type of Christ (Hezekiah ) is given the title Everlasting Father and Mighty God?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, and apparently Hezekiah is the same son about whom Isaiah says "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

The problem you're having with my interpretation seems to be due to your literalism. If you look at the context, Isaiah writes in a highly metaphoric, symbolic style. To read it literally leads to all kinds of absurdities that the author obviously did not intend. He has already told us in 7:14 that Hezekiah will represent "God with us." Now he expands on what that will mean in 9:6.

Haven't you read where Nee and Lee explain that every positive figure in the Old Testament is a type of Christ? So, Hezeziah upon whom Isaiah pins the hope of the nation of Israel is a type of Christ. He is a kind of messiah figure. In that way, his symbolic titles foreshadow Jesus.

Only looking back, and doing some reverse engineering. But okay.

But you do point out that the problem is literalism. I already pointed that out with Jesus saying the disciples were his mother. That's poignant enough to make the point that literalism does not always work, and can lead to stray fanciful notions, not supported by most of the rest of the scripture, if you will.

Originally Posted by zeek

What Nee and Lee didn't tell us, is that reading the Hebrew Bible that way is not intrinsic to the Hebrew scriptures themselves. It's a Christian hermeutic that is modeled by the New Testament writers and continued by subsequent Christian apologists and theologians right up to the present time.

Well certainly, the Hebrews did not, do not, see that Christian hermeneutic overlay upon their Tanakh in that way at all.

It's like Christians, early on, before the gospels were even thought of, and even before our earliest author of canonical NT books Paul, were looking thru special lenses, like they put on some kind of Jesus glasses or something.

And from all the evidence so far, those/these glasses are still available.

It'd prolly make it a lot easier for me to understand Lee, and Evangelical, if I had a pair.

Oh wait, I use to use them all the time. All I have to do is imagine back to those days, my days in the LC.

There, I get it now. To take 9:6 literally all I need is a pair of Jesus glasses. Then it makes sense.

But since Jesus glasses are not even mentioned in the Bible, anywhere, I don't know if we can trust what we thru them.

Thru those glasses, the disciple look like the mother of Jesus ... and, oh .. ah, Mary also looks like the mother of God. And looky there, I see God dying on a cross. And thru those glasses Jesus looks exactly like The Father. Since thru those glasses there's no other Father he, or rather He, must be the very one and only Father.

Wait, I'm seeing double. Jesus looks like the son AND the Father, all at the same time.

Time to get these glasses checked. Something ain't right about them. I'm glad I lift them back in the LC. I'd rather not see thru lenses. I want to see things as they are. Tho I have to admit, seeing thru Rose-colored Jesus glasses can be very much fun ... for awhile.

And I'm glad to see others enjoying them. Just don't look at the universe thru them. Then you'll only see a flat earth, that's the center of everything.

I also advise not looking at the cartoons in the book of Revelation thru them. Then you'll see whatever tickles your fancy, and all kinds of fanciful crazy imaginations. I guess that's why, before Gutenberg, the book was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo.

1Th 5:20-21 Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.

[QUOTE=Evangelical;68361]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Boxjobox, (orthodox) Christianity is based upon the view that the apostles did not receive everything from God, in particular:
The Canon of scripture
the nature of God (the Trinity)

These were uncovered later.

Do you think God's revelation ceased when the apostles died? If so where does the bible say that?

Evangelical, many of your responses are incoherent in that you use terms in different ways and jump from thought to thought in the same quotes.

*What do you mean by (orthodox) Christianity
*What do you mean by Christianity
*What do you mean by the nature of God
*Who received the revelation of the nature of God after the apostles were gone.
*How did that person(people) receive it, when,where, how
*Are there scriptures (writings that were God breathed) that came about after the apostles, and should they be in the cannon
*What do you mean " these were uncovered later" how were they " uncovered"
*What is the Bible to you
* how does the Bible say things

[Evangelical]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;68390]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Evangelical, many of your responses are incoherent in that you use terms in different ways and jump from thought to thought in the same quotes.

*What do you mean by (orthodox) Christianity
*What do you mean by Christianity
*What do you mean by the nature of God
*Who received the revelation of the nature of God after the apostles were gone.
*How did that person(people) receive it, when,where, how
*Are there scriptures (writings that were God breathed) that came about after the apostles, and should they be in the cannon
*What do you mean " these were uncovered later" how were they " uncovered"
*What is the Bible to you
* how does the Bible say things

*What do you mean by (orthodox) Christianity - Orthodoxy means "conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church"
*What do you mean by Christianity - as above.
*What do you mean by the nature of God - Whether God is trinity or not.
*Who received the revelation of the nature of God after the apostles were gone. - the various church leaders and Councils declared at the time. They prayed and asked for the Spirit's guidance.
*How did that person(people) receive it, when,where, how - how the canon came about is found on wikipedia.
*Are there scriptures (writings that were God breathed) that came about after the apostles, and should they be in the cannon - no.
*What do you mean " these were uncovered later" how were they " uncovered" - by the Councils
*What is the Bible to you - the Word of God
* how does the Bible say things - the Bible does not refer to itself regarding the Canon.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So you are saying that a type of Christ (Hezekiah ) is given the title Everlasting Father and Mighty God?

Not exactly. Scholars like Géza Vermes say the terms of פֶּלֶא יֹועֵץ אֵל גִּבֹּור אֲבִיעַד שַׂר־שָׁלֹֽו should be hyphenated to show that it's a single title and left in it's transliterated state; that is, "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom". The title is one of a series of prophetic names found in Isaiah ch.7-9, including most notably Immanuel "God with us", and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Hebrew: מַהֵר שָׁלָל חָשׁ בַּז‬) - "He has made haste to the plunder!" - in the previous chapter (Isaiah 8:1–3), which is a reference to the impending plunder of Samaria and Damascus by the king of Assyria. You're misreading the text when you interpret it literally.

Reading Hezekiah as a type of Christ came later with Christianity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(theology)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Not exactly. Scholars like Géza Vermes say the terms of פֶּלֶא יֹועֵץ אֵל גִּבֹּור אֲבִיעַד שַׂר־שָׁלֹֽו should be hyphenated to show that it's a single title and left in it's transliterated state; that is, "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom". The title is one of a series of prophetic names found in Isaiah ch.7-9, including most notably Immanuel "God with us", and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Hebrew: מַהֵר שָׁלָל חָשׁ בַּז‬) - "He has made haste to the plunder!" - in the previous chapter (Isaiah 8:1–3), which is a reference to the impending plunder of Samaria and Damascus by the king of Assyria. You're misreading the text when you interpret it literally.

Reading Hezekiah as a type of Christ came later with Christianity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(theology)

Sounds like Greek to me. And your link for some odd reason doesn't work. Let's try again :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(theology)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sounds like Greek to me. And your link for some odd reason doesn't work. Let's try again :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(theology)

I'm sooooo tired of typology. To me it's seeing things that aren't there. For example, Hezekiah is a type of Christ. Bahahahahaha ... boy that's a stretch. That's like saying, the rock was a type of Christ.

Would the God of the whole universe communicated that way? If so why not spell it out, and say so? So we wouldn't have to be guessing, and drawing crazy pictures in our heads.

Witness Lee dealt with this kind of stuff by teaching that God is sneaky :

"For quite a while I was not happy with the Lord concerning what I felt was His lack of frankness in John 7. It seemed to me that He was somewhat sneaky." (Life Study of John, chapter 18)

[Boxjobox]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;68390]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Evangelical, many of your responses are incoherent in that you use terms in different ways and jump from thought to thought in the same quotes.

*What do you mean by (orthodox) Christianity
*What do you mean by Christianity
*What do you mean by the nature of God
*Who received the revelation of the nature of God after the apostles were gone.
*How did that person(people) receive it, when,where, how
*Are there scriptures (writings that were God breathed) that came about after the apostles, and should they be in the cannon
*What do you mean " these were uncovered later" how were they " uncovered"
*What is the Bible to you
* how does the Bible say things

Note, these were actually my questions- this weird flip happened when I went to post, this box came up and asked me if red was a color or number and then, this was posted as an unregistered guest.

[Boxjobox]

[QUOTE=Evangelical;68392]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

*What do you mean by (orthodox) Christianity - Orthodoxy means "conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church"
*What do you mean by Christianity - as above.
*What do you mean by the nature of God - Whether God is trinity or not.
*Who received the revelation of the nature of God after the apostles were gone. - the various church leaders and Councils declared at the time. They prayed and asked for the Spirit's guidance.
*How did that person(people) receive it, when,where, how - how the canon came about is found on wikipedia.
*Are there scriptures (writings that were God breathed) that came about after the apostles, and should they be in the cannon - no.
*What do you mean " these were uncovered later" how were they " uncovered" - by the Councils
*What is the Bible to you - the Word of God
* how does the Bible say things - the Bible does not refer to itself regarding the Canon.

The eventual fruit of those councils was an edict of confess the creed or be damned. The followers of that creed tortured, murdered, banished, imprisioned, broke the will of any who did not confess the creeds. One would not say this " built up the church". Since those creeds, the Christianity that we all see today, with divisions, cults, rivalry, strange teachings, etc. I would submit that the results of such councils is after the working of Satan- by their fruits you shall know them- you don't get grapes from thorn bushes.

The Bible was not uncovered, but compiled from the writings of those "in the beginning". The trinitarians, as you say, were responsible for the compilation of the writings, but obviously, those writings do not contain preaching or teaching that includes trinitarianism, and I do mean ISM.
The apostles preached the faith, taught the faith, kept the faith- that faith was fully proclaimed in the writings we have. There was no need to add to the faith that the apostles spoke and taught. Luke was probably the largest contributor noting and explaining that which was taught
“Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”
**Luke‬ *1:1-4‬ *NKJV‬‬

I greatly appreciate Luke.

The councils-good old Jezebel, corrupted the faith and propelled the false religion that is all around us.
No new revelations of the nature of God after Moses basically, although I'm sure you in your lofty society have thousands!

[awareness]

[QUOTE=Boxjobox;68434]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Note, these were actually my questions- this weird flip happened when I went to post, this box came up and asked me if red was a color or number and then, this was posted as an unregistered guest.

Thanks. I wondered what was going on ... vBulletin must have a bug in its software..

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sounds like Greek to me. And your link for some odd reason doesn't work. Let's try again :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_(theology)

It's Greek to you and Hebrew to the rest of us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm sooooo tired of typology. To me it's seeing things that aren't there. For example, Hezekiah is a type of Christ. Bahahahahaha ... boy that's a stretch. That's like saying, the rock was a type of Christ.

Would the God of the whole universe communicated that way? If so why not spell it out, and say so? So we wouldn't have to be guessing, and drawing crazy pictures in our heads.

Witness Lee dealt with this kind of stuff by teaching that God is sneaky :

"For quite a while I was not happy with the Lord concerning what I felt was His lack of frankness in John 7. It seemed to me that He was somewhat sneaky." (Life Study of John, chapter 18)

Once the world learns you are tired of typology I'm sure they'll stop using it. What to do about instances of typology and allegory in the Bible is another matter.

[Evangelical]

[QUOTE=Boxjobox;68435]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The eventual fruit of those councils was an edict of confess the creed or be damned. The followers of that creed tortured, murdered, banished, imprisioned, broke the will of any who did not confess the creeds. One would not say this " built up the church". Since those creeds, the Christianity that we all see today, with divisions, cults, rivalry, strange teachings, etc. I would submit that the results of such councils is after the working of Satan- by their fruits you shall know them- you don't get grapes from thorn bushes.

The Bible was not uncovered, but compiled from the writings of those "in the beginning". The trinitarians, as you say, were responsible for the compilation of the writings, but obviously, those writings do not contain preaching or teaching that includes trinitarianism, and I do mean ISM.
The apostles preached the faith, taught the faith, kept the faith- that faith was fully proclaimed in the writings we have. There was no need to add to the faith that the apostles spoke and taught. Luke was probably the largest contributor noting and explaining that which was taught
“Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.”
**Luke‬ *1:1-4‬ *NKJV‬‬

I greatly appreciate Luke.

The councils-good old Jezebel, corrupted the faith and propelled the false religion that is all around us.
No new revelations of the nature of God after Moses basically, although I'm sure you in your lofty society have thousands!

Let's not forget the political influence. No doubt the way it was implemented was politically driven but doctrinal and theologically did the group of believers arrive at the correct conclusion? They were under some pressure and did not get it perfectly right because it would be equivalent to Donald Trump today saying "okay guys, you have to figure out this grace versus law doctrine, or I'm shutting you all down"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The way the creed developers reacted toward those that dissented their creed, leads me to concluded that they weren't Christian at all. And if they were/are considered examples of what Christian means, then, I don't want to be one. They shame Jesus. I feel the same about the killer John Calvin.

And lol at your Trump remark.

[zeek]

Let's not make the same mistake that the creedal church made. The way of Jesus is not about having the right set of metaphysical beliefs about Jesus. It's about a way of life that Jesus personifies.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Let's not make the same mistake that the creedal church made. The way of Jesus is not about having the right set of metaphysical beliefs about Jesus. It's about a way of life that Jesus personifies.

Just to be clear, which Jesus? The one in the gospels or the one in the book of Revelation? That's two completely different personifications.

Since you're not a violent man my guess is that you mean the one in the gospels.

Please confirm.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just to be clear, which Jesus? The one in the gospels or the one in the book of Revelation? That's two completely different personifications.

Since you're not a violent man my guess is that you mean the one in the gospels.

Please confirm.

Although not strictly historical documents in the modern sense, the gospels are the primary sources of information about the historical Jesus from the points of view of early Christians.

The Book of Revelation discloses the symbolic vision of a first century Christian prophet. What, if anything, it has to do with the life, character and teachings of Jesus is an open question still debated among scholars and Christians.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Although not strictly historical documents in the modern sense, the gospels are the primary sources of information about the historical Jesus from the points of view of early Christians.

The Book of Revelation discloses the symbolic vision of a first century Christian prophet. What, if anything, it has to do with the life, character and teachings of Jesus is an open question still debated among scholars and Christians.

The book of Revelation is a Christian cartoon book. It's exciting and dynamic, with good guys and bad guys fighting it out, like in comic books. It's early christian entertainment, as they didn't have much else entertainment back then, and they weren't permitted to watch Salome do the dance of the seven veils. That was pagan entertainment.

But nowadays I find entertainment of a different sort. I'm very entertained by watching believers take the book as literal. Now that's funny indeed.

It wasn't always entertaining. Not when I was the LC. Witness Lee took the book literally. He taught that the 7 churches represented the historical development up to his Recovery.

I guess that's why when demanded that he be considered the apostle and oracle of God on the earth I thought the LC had fallen into Laodicea.

All that wasn't funny back then. No, I was funny ... for taking a christian comic book as literal.

The Jesus in that book is a fake Jesus, cuz it's contradictory to the Jesus in the gospels, that are earlier accounts ... except for the gospel we call John, written circa around the same time, or thereabouts ... and it has a funny Jesus too.

Obviously, after Jesus went on vacation, to spend time with his Father (get that, HIS FATHER), Jesus went thru a kind of evolution. He eventually evolved into The Father himself.

Bahahahahaha ....

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The book of Revelation is a Christian cartoon book. It's exciting and dynamic, with good guys and bad guys fighting it out, like in comic books. It's early christian entertainment, as they didn't have much else entertainment back then, and they weren't permitted to watch Salome do the dance of the seven veils. That was pagan entertainment.

But nowadays I find entertainment of a different sort. I'm very entertained by watching believers take the book as literal. Now that's funny indeed.

It wasn't always entertaining. Not when I was the LC. Witness Lee took the book literally. He taught that the 7 churches represented the historical development up to his Recovery.

I guess that's why when demanded that he be considered the apostle and oracle of God on the earth I thought the LC had fallen into Laodicea.

All that wasn't funny back then. No, I was funny ... for taking a christian comic book as literal.

The Jesus in that book is a fake Jesus, cuz it's contradictory to the Jesus in the gospels, that are earlier accounts ... except for the gospel we call John, written circa around the same time, or thereabouts ... and it has a funny Jesus too.

Obviously, after Jesus went on vacation, to spend time with his Father (get that, HIS FATHER), Jesus went thru a kind of evolution. He eventually evolved into The Father himself.

Bahahahahaha ....

Hardy har har har.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hardy har har har.

Where's your sense of humor? ... if you don't laugh at absurdity you just have to cry over of it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

The book of Revelation is a Christian cartoon book. It's exciting and dynamic, with good guys and bad guys fighting it out, like in comic books. It's early christian entertainment, as they didn't have much else entertainment back then, and they weren't permitted to watch Salome do the dance of the seven veils. That was pagan entertainment.

But nowadays I find entertainment of a different sort. I'm very entertained by watching believers take the book as literal. Now that's funny indeed.

It wasn't always entertaining. Not when I was the LC. Witness Lee took the book literally. He taught that the 7 churches represented the historical development up to his Recovery.

I guess that's why when demanded that he be considered the apostle and oracle of God on the earth I thought the LC had fallen into Laodicea.

All that wasn't funny back then. No, I was funny ... for taking a christian comic book as literal.

The Jesus in that book is a fake Jesus, cuz it's contradictory to the Jesus in the gospels, that are earlier accounts ... except for the gospel we call John, written circa around the same time, or thereabouts ... and it has a funny Jesus too.

Obviously, after Jesus went on vacation, to spend time with his Father (get that, HIS FATHER), Jesus went thru a kind of evolution. He eventually evolved into The Father himself.

Bahahahahaha ....

In the local churches we call it God's television.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Where's your sense of humor? ... if you don't laugh at absurdity you just have to cry over of it.

In what you are calling "humor" I sometimes read a bitterness toward people living and dead and their religion that hurt you. You have described it as your cradle religion. As a third party witness it sometimes feels like being a bystander in a toxic family squabble. At such times it doesn't strike me as good humor. More like derision fueled by a festering hatred. Am I wrong? I know that you are capable of abundant generosity and compassion as well. I appeal to your better angels.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

In what you are calling "humor" I sometimes read a bitterness toward people living and dead and their religion that hurt you. You have described it as your cradle religion. As a third party witness it sometimes feels like being a bystander in a toxic family squabble. At such times it doesn't strike me as good humor. More like derision fueled by a festering hatred. Am I wrong? I know that you are capable of abundant generosity and compassion as well. I appeal to your better angels.

Oh okay ... sorry for laughing at the idea that the son is the father. Sorry bro Lee and bro Evangelical. Y'all can be as funny as you like ... and I won't laugh. I'll pray for all y'all.

And pray for bro zeek too, that he learns to laugh ... cuz it's the secret of the cosmos ... and is the best medicine.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh okay ... sorry for laughing at the idea that the son is the father. Sorry bro Lee and bro Evangelical. Y'all can be as funny as you like ... and I won't laugh. I'll pray for all y'all.

And pray for bro zeek too, that he learns to laugh ... cuz it's the secret of the cosmos ... and is the best medicine.

That's either an inconsistency, a lie or a joke since you have many times stated that you don't believe in prayer. Explain how bitter humor is good medicine.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's either an inconsistency, a lie or a joke since you have many times stated that you don't believe in prayer. Explain how bitter humor is good medicine.

In the church I was in before the recovery we would stand around him in a circle and pray in tongues until the demons come out.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the church I was in before the recovery we would stand around him in a circle and pray in tongues until the demons come out.

The possessed praying for the possessed?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

The possessed praying for the possessed?

Works every time

[Boxjobox]

[QUOTE=Evangelical;68361]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Boxjobox, (orthodox) Christianity is based upon the view that the apostles did not receive everything from God, in particular:
The Canon of scripture
the nature of God (the Trinity)

These were uncovered later.

Do you think God's revelation ceased when the apostles died? If so where does the bible say that?

The revelation of God was completed with Moses. God was clear in his speaking of Himself. I'm not saying there was not some fine-tuning along the way, but the God of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, is also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus and the Apostles referred to the same God, the same revelation of God. To say that 300 years after Christ a whole new, different view of God was somehow revealed is to distrust the entirety of scripture.

[Evangelical]

[QUOTE=Boxjobox;68645]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The revelation of God was completed with Moses. God was clear in his speaking of Himself. I'm not saying there was not some fine-tuning along the way, but the God of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, is also the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus and the Apostles referred to the same God, the same revelation of God. To say that 300 years after Christ a whole new, different view of God was somehow revealed is to distrust the entirety of scripture.

You see Jesus as just a prophet then, like Moses? You say he wasn't divine, so he was just another prophet.

[Boxjobox]

[QUOTE=Evangelical;68660]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

You see Jesus as just a prophet then, like Moses? You say he wasn't divine, so he was just another prophet.

Evangelical, Jesus was more than just a prophet- Jesus is the Christ! Try taking off your processed triune god glasses and read through Ephesians. Paul is not trying to present a god- man, but to show what God accomplished in, with and through Christ Jesus. The revelation Paul is talking about is to see what God did to this man Jesus, to see the glorious work God did. Your trinitarianism blinds you from seeing the marvelous work God did to bring Christ Jesus, and us in him to the lofty position which this man occupies today.

[zeek]

Christians have different conceptions of God and Christ. Probably none of our conceptions are ultimately adequate. After all, our knowledge of Jesus is limited and a God who could create a universe is obviously beyond our intellectual capacities. So why not simply accept that we see things differently? Try to forgive each other as Jesus taught and follow his teaching as best we can?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christians have different conceptions of God and Christ. Probably none of our conceptions are ultimately adequate. After all, our knowledge of Jesus is limited and a God who could create a universe is obviously beyond our intellectual capacities. So why not simply accept that we see things differently? Try to forgive each other as Jesus taught and follow his teaching as best we can?

Hear, hear.

[Evangelical]

[QUOTE=Boxjobox;68678]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Evangelical, Jesus was more than just a prophet- Jesus is the Christ! Try taking off your processed triune god glasses and read through Ephesians. Paul is not trying to present a god- man, but to show what God accomplished in, with and through Christ Jesus. The revelation Paul is talking about is to see what God did to this man Jesus, to see the glorious work God did. Your trinitarianism blinds you from seeing the marvelous work God did to bring Christ Jesus, and us in him to the lofty position which this man occupies today.

How is Jesus more than a prophet if he wasnt divine? You present Christ as merely a prophet who did more good things and got more rewards than others.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's either an inconsistency, a lie or a joke since you have many times stated that you don't believe in prayer. Explain how bitter humor is good medicine.

Lighten up bro zeek. I neither laughed a sinister laugh, a laugh of derision, nor scorn. I genuinely laughed at the notion of The Son being The Father. Sorry you don't find that ludicrous, but I sure do. And sorry if it offends you. Are you mad because I called Revelation a cartoon book? Otherwise, you're acting like I pissed in your cornflakes or something. Take a chill pill.

And by the way, I pray every day. I think you know that. Whether it works or not only God knows ... maybe, maybe not ... but I pray anyway.

And as far as being bitter, there's plenty to be bitter about in religion. I'm certainly bitter about being caught in a bait and switch. So sue me.

This whole thing has become comical. But I'll hold my laugh.

[awareness]

[QUOTE=Evangelical;68688]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

How is Jesus more than a prophet if he wasnt divine? You present Christ as merely a prophet who did more good things and got more rewards than others.

He doesn't have to be God the Father to be obeying the Father -- I and The Father are one -- I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me -- "You are My Son, today I have begotten You."

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christians have different conceptions of God and Christ. Probably none of our conceptions are ultimately adequate. After all, our knowledge of Jesus is limited and a God who could create a universe is obviously beyond our intellectual capacities. So why not simply accept that we see things differently? Try to forgive each other as Jesus taught and follow his teaching as best we can?

Christians have different concepts of God and Christ mainly because of trinitarianism. A creed was written-believe it or be damned, and in came all sorts of strange thinking, speaking, writing, sects, etc. Good old Jezebel, seduced the whole church. 1600 years of this sort of foolishness preached, taught, books, tortures, burnings, murders, excommunication of those who were heretics. This also leads into clergy/ laity. Those in the know who lead trinitarianism and the people who dare not question it. WL was a master trinitarian, who doubled down, expanded, exploited the whole myth. WL prayreading " blessed be, blessed be the God, blessed be the God and Father, blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus" didn't compute!
You can't read Ephesians and come away thinking god-man, triune god without seriously bending what was written by Paul, inserting other unrelated verses, footnotes, to explain away the clear thinking of Paul concerning God and Christ.

And, of course, Jesus did not teach us trinitarianism. He stuck to the same God as Moses.

[Boxjobox]

[QUOTE=Evangelical;68688]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

How is Jesus more than a prophet if he wasnt divine? You present Christ as merely a prophet who did more good things and got more rewards than others.

The prophets were in Adam who brought sin into the human race, and all are in Adam.

Read Romans and thank God for this man Jesus the Christ.

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”
**Romans‬ *5:12-19‬ *NKJV‬‬

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Christians have different concepts of God and Christ mainly because of trinitarianism. A creed was written-believe it or be damned, and in came all sorts of strange thinking, speaking, writing, sects, etc. Good old Jezebel, seduced the whole church. 1600 years of this sort of foolishness preached, taught, books, tortures, burnings, murders, excommunication of those who were heretics. This also leads into clergy/ laity. Those in the know who lead trinitarianism and the people who dare not question it. WL was a master trinitarian, who doubled down, expanded, exploited the whole myth. WL prayreading " blessed be, blessed be the God, blessed be the God and Father, blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus" didn't compute!
You can't read Ephesians and come away thinking god-man, triune god without seriously bending what was written by Paul, inserting other unrelated verses, footnotes, to explain away the clear thinking of Paul concerning God and Christ.

And, of course, Jesus did not teach us trinitarianism. He stuck to the same God as Moses.

Did you arrive at these conclusions independently or do you participate in a group who holds the same opinions?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Lighten up bro zeek. I neither laughed a sinister laugh, a laugh of derision, nor scorn. I genuinely laughed at the notion of The Son being The Father. Sorry you don't find that ludicrous, but I sure do. And sorry if it offends you. Are you mad because I called Revelation a cartoon book? Otherwise, you're acting like I pissed in your cornflakes or something. Take a chill pill.

And by the way, I pray every day. I think you know that. Whether it works or not only God knows ... maybe, maybe not ... but I pray anyway.

And as far as being bitter, there's plenty to be bitter about in religion. I'm certainly bitter about being caught in a bait and switch. So sue me.

This whole thing has become comical. But I'll hold my laugh.

Who's mad? Laugh away. I'm not stopping you. You admit you're bitter. I accept that. Sometimes that's what I "hear" in your posts when you poke fun at others beliefs. That's all I was saying.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Who's mad? Laugh away. I'm not stopping you. You admit you're bitter. I accept that. Sometimes that's what I "hear" in your posts when you poke fun at others beliefs. That's all I was saying.

Well at least you've got good hearing. That's a plus.

I'm not bitter about the ridiculous notion that the The Son is The Father. Laughing at that wasn't a expression of my bitterness. I think most would laugh at that, even those without bitterness. All it takes to laugh at that is a sensible rational mind.

Apparently you must be reacting to other of my posts, that you perceive to be expressions of my bitterness.

To be honest, I'm not personally bitter over the bait a switch I grew up with in the SBC, nor the bait and switch of the Lee's LC. That's water under the bridge.

If there was bitterness in my post, that caused your bitter knee-jerk reaction, it would be in the current use of the book of Revelation in current world events.

You certainly had a right to object to that. As it's outside the topic of this thread. But then this thread went of topic almost right after the OP.

Now it's about the trinity. This thread is dead. Maybe Boxjobox should start a thread on that. I could perchance laugh at how ridiculous it is that 3=1, but not at all the killings that resulted from that crazy doctrine, by those considering themselves to be Christians. If you hear bitterness in that, then your hearing is acute. With that in mind, I appeal to the bitter angels in your nature.

Thanks for explaining bro zeek. You're a peach.

[zeek]

"the bitter angels of your nature" good one there, Aware.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Did you arrive at these conclusions independently or do you participate in a group who holds the same opinions?

I actually began considering the whole trinity thing when I was in the local church. I read almost all of WL's 25¢ messages religiously, wanting to be a worthy brother. I wanted to see what he saw- thought WL was the greatest. I would use his terminology in fellowship with others. But, I also read the Bible, and wondered. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, so the whole notion of the trinity- God in three persons, blessed trinity, thing was not new to me. After becoming a Christian, I read the Bible voraciously, so I was not ignorant of the scriptures when I came into the LC. One evening after a meeting, I was talking to a brother who said "we know that God is triune, but do you ever wonder why Paul says 'the head of Christ is God?'". And I thought- I'm not the only one considering this. I didn't want to pursue the thought with him because I was fearful where it might lead- after all, we were in the garlic room, as it were. Slowly, I began considering WL had one message and the scripture had another, but I saw enough in WL's speaking that was of the Bible to continue on. I just kind of considered that WL emphasized the Son over dealing with the Father because of poor, poor Christianity and the need for life. And after all, we were all meeting as the church, with all the churches, and my whole belief system was pretty much rapped around his ministry and all the saints. I did note that when Bill Freeman wrote the History of the Triune God pamphlet that he relied on snips of the usual same scriptures and a whole lot of quotes from late church fathers. Then the Bible answerman thing arose, and questions about WL's theology. WL's deposition seemed very deceitful to me, I also attended a meeting in Church meeting in Ansheim where the LA Times was going to attend. It was a very controlled meeting- very strange, very superficial, and after this period, I really began taking a hard look at scripture vs what WL was speaking. After winning the CRI lawsuit, seems like WL and LSM just took over anything that one could consider local. You were either getting on his train or getting off. I got off, and then began seriously examining what I really saw in the scripture and what I really believed, which did not include a trinity. I really liked the whole idea of " the recovery", and realized the problem is that WL did not go back to the beginning, but only to the fourth century, and from that point he rebuilt the Catholic Church model in his theology. I want to church as the apostles taught; the church was not founded on trinitarianism, the language of the scriptures is not about a god-man, or three/one god, the church grew and functioned quite well with what the apostles taught. Those who brought in this sort of thing, among whom WL is one of the latest, did so at the corruption of the truth.
So, no, my views do not come from some organization. If you read my posts, I pretty much stick to the scripture, I realize I have an Alternative View, but am quite amazed that after so much time has passed, the arguments on the regular discussion site are mainly concerned with the same old circular WL/LSM is a bad man/organization arguments and very little questioning about his trinitarianism religion which was the core of all his doings. I would say the reason for this is those who contribute posts are trinitarian themselves and don't want to rock the boat of something they don't really want to question.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I actually began considering the whole trinity thing when I was in the local church. I read almost all of WL's 25¢ messages religiously, wanting to be a worthy brother. I wanted to see what he saw- thought WL was the greatest. I would use his terminology in fellowship with others. But, I also read the Bible, and wondered. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, so the whole notion of the trinity- God in three persons, blessed trinity, thing was not new to me. After becoming a Christian, I read the Bible voraciously, so I was not ignorant of the scriptures when I came into the LC. One evening after a meeting, I was talking to a brother who said "we know that God is triune, but do you ever wonder why Paul says 'the head of Christ is God?'". And I thought- I'm not the only one considering this. I didn't want to pursue the thought with him because I was fearful where it might lead- after all, we were in the garlic room, as it were. Slowly, I began considering WL had one message and the scripture had another, but I saw enough in WL's speaking that was of the Bible to continue on. I just kind of considered that WL emphasized the Son over dealing with the Father because of poor, poor Christianity and the need for life. And after all, we were all meeting as the church, with all the churches, and my whole belief system was pretty much rapped around his ministry and all the saints. I did note that when Bill Freeman wrote the History of the Triune God pamphlet that he relied on snips of the usual same scriptures and a whole lot of quotes from late church fathers. Then the Bible answerman thing arose, and questions about WL's theology. WL's deposition seemed very deceitful to me, I also attended a meeting in Church meeting in Ansheim where the LA Times was going to attend. It was a very controlled meeting- very strange, very superficial, and after this period, I really began taking a hard look at scripture vs what WL was speaking. After winning the CRI lawsuit, seems like WL and LSM just took over anything that one could consider local. You were either getting on his train or getting off. I got off, and then began seriously examining what I really saw in the scripture and what I really believed, which did not include a trinity. I really liked the whole idea of " the recovery", and realized the problem is that WL did not go back to the beginning, but only to the fourth century, and from that point he rebuilt the Catholic Church model in his theology. I want to church as the apostles taught; the church was not founded on trinitarianism, the language of the scriptures is not about a god-man, or three/one god, the church grew and functioned quite well with what the apostles taught. Those who brought in this sort of thing, among whom WL is one of the latest, did so at the corruption of the truth.
So, no, my views do not come from some organization. If you read my posts, I pretty much stick to the scripture, I realize I have an Alternative View, but am quite amazed that after so much time has passed, the arguments on the regular discussion site are mainly concerned with the same old circular WL/LSM is a bad man/organization arguments and very little questioning about his trinitarianism religion which was the core of all his doings. I would say the reason for this is those who contribute posts are trinitarian themselves and don't want to rock the boat of something they don't really want to question.

Trinitarianism requires the belief in one divine substance and three divine persons. Witness Lee preached that one person,Jesus, was the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, he wasn't a Trinitarian.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trinitarianism requires the belief in one divine substance and three divine persons. Witness Lee preached that one person,Jesus, was the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, he wasn't a Trinitarian.

WL would go back and forth on this. It was obvious neither he nor anyone else had a grip on trinitarianism because it doesn't exist- it's a facade that misrepresents God, and in using it creates all sorts of weird beliefs and practices. The Apostles and writers of the NT did not use it, why would we today want to take it as our basis of belief and understanding of God and the scripture.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

WL would go back and forth on this. It was obvious neither he nor anyone else had a grip on trinitarianism because it doesn't exist- it's a facade that misrepresents God, and in using it creates all sorts of weird beliefs and practices. The Apostles and writers of the NT did not use it, why would we today want to take it as our basis of belief and understanding of God and the scripture.

Not just weird beliefs and practices. Beliefs are one thing. Who cares what people believe? People believe a lot of weird beliefs. They're quite ubiquitous in fact. And it's usually harmless.

Until practices go beyond weird, and become killing those that deny the trinity. That's how serious the trinity doctrine became. Many take it very seriously still today. But thank God, so to speak, for Renaissance humanism. Now trinity deniers are just castigated and eschewed, from the much larger and dominate community of trinitarians.

And Lee's non-trinity God -- according to zeek -- that Jesus was/is The Father, The Son, and The Spirit, all rolled up into one God, is just way too silly to take even the slightest bit seriously.

I guess you're right bro BoxJobox. The trinity doctrine sure spawns a lot of weird beliefs. I guess you are very lucky that you don't live in times when they would have toasted your tootsies for your denial of the trinity..

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not just weird beliefs and practices. Beliefs are one thing. Who cares what people believe? People believe a lot of weird beliefs. They're quite ubiquitous in fact. And it's usually harmless.

Until practices go beyond weird, and become killing those that deny the trinity. That's how serious the trinity doctrine became. Many take it very seriously still today. But thank God, so to speak, for Renaissance humanism. Now trinity deniers are just castigated and eschewed, from the much larger and dominate community of trinitarians.

And Lee's non-trinity God -- according to zeek -- that Jesus was/is The Father, The Son, and The Spirit, all rolled up into one God, is just way too silly to take even the slightest bit seriously.

I guess you're right bro BoxJobox. The trinity doctrine sure spawns a lot of weird beliefs. I guess you are very lucky that you don't live in times when they would have toasted your tootsies for your denial of the trinity..

So Jesus is on the cross and crys out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". He dies and is resurrected and tells Mary “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." I don't know so much, but it seems rather simple and straightforward to me!
**

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So Jesus is on the cross and crys out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". He dies and is resurrected and tells Mary “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." I don't know so much, but it seems rather simple and straightforward to me!
**

Mar 10:17* And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?*
Mar 10:18* And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Mat 24:36* But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.**

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

Mar 10:17* And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?*
Mar 10:18* And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Mat 24:36* But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.**

But Awareness, you just don't understand- that is the 100% man part talking, and the 100% God part being submissive to the 100% Father of the 33 1/3% of thetrinity, who is God at 100%, so this is really the whole processed triune god talking to a subsection of the 100%, by the other 33 1/3% who is God that became flesh, so that the flesh is now 100% genuine triune, yet fully man at 100%.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

WL would go back and forth on this. It was obvious neither he nor anyone else had a grip on trinitarianism because it doesn't exist- it's a facade that misrepresents God, and in using it creates all sorts of weird beliefs and practices. The Apostles and writers of the NT did not use it, why would we today want to take it as our basis of belief and understanding of God and the scripture.

It's difficult to deny that Jesus as the Christ of faith is in some sense divine if you accept him as the water of life, the bread of life, the true vine, and the resurrection and the life.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

But Awareness, you just don't understand- that is the 100% man part talking, and the 100% God part being submissive to the 100% Father of the 33 1/3% of thetrinity, who is God at 100%, so this is really the whole processed triune god talking to a subsection of the 100%, by the other 33 1/3% who is God that became flesh, so that the flesh is now 100% genuine triune, yet fully man at 100%.

You're right, I don't understand. Reading the above put my brain into a pretzel.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's difficult to deny that Jesus as the Christ of faith is in some sense divine if you accept him as the water of life, the bread of life, the true vine, and the resurrection and the life.

“Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”**John‬ *17:1-5‬ *NKJV‬‬

Men write volumes on Jesus being God, make and enforce creeds, yet the prayer/word of our Lord Jesus should reign. What I find is that as soon as Jesus gets put up as God, that the Father, the only true God, gets moved to the back shelf of the biblical warehous. In my reading of the NT, this is not the case of the apostles and writers. Paul starts all of his epistles with something like Grace to you and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul often uses the term The God Of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I think if we adapt the language of the NT it would clear up this whole trinitarianism thought that overrides the real scripture. If WL would have introduced a true recovery, he would have brought us back to the beginning when trinitarianism wasn't the religion of the day. We would have practiced thinking and speaking as it was in the beginning- Am I the only one that is baffled that the NT has nothing about God being triune, yet this is the overriding thought of today's Christianity? Am I the only one that thinks if God wanted us to see Him as triune, that Jesus, the apostles, and writers of the NT would not have shouted this from the rooftops?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

“Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”**John‬ *17:1-5‬ *NKJV‬‬

Men write volumes on Jesus being God, make and enforce creeds, yet the prayer/word of our Lord Jesus should reign. What I find is that as soon as Jesus gets put up as God, that the Father, the only true God, gets moved to the back shelf of the biblical warehous. In my reading of the NT, this is not the case of the apostles and writers. Paul starts all of his epistles with something like Grace to you and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul often uses the term The God Of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I think if we adapt the language of the NT it would clear up this whole trinitarianism thought that overrides the real scripture. If WL would have introduced a true recovery, he would have brought us back to the beginning when trinitarianism wasn't the religion of the day. We would have practiced thinking and speaking as it was in the beginning- Am I the only one that is baffled that the NT has nothing about God being triune, yet this is the overriding thought of today's Christianity? Am I the only one that thinks if God wanted us to see Him as triune, that Jesus, the apostles, and writers of the NT would not have shouted this from the rooftops?

OK, I don't see the issue I raised addressed in your response. So, I'll try to rephrase it in the form of a question. If Jesus is not divine, in what sense is he the water of life, the bread of life, the true vine, and the resurrection and the life?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK, I don't see the issue I raised addressed in your response. So, I'll try to rephrase it in the form of a question. If Jesus is not divine, in what sense is he the water of life, the bread of life, the true vine, and the resurrection and the life?

Zeek, don't want to do a whole bible study typing on my iPad screen. Where you find these phrases, read the whole passages surrounding them and see how Jesus presents God, his God and our God, his Father and our Father and how he explains himself. Jesus mission was to bring us back to God our Father. This is the one Jesus tells us is the only true God. Not my words, this is Jesus talking. And Paul wrote the same thing to the Corinthians- to us there is one God, the Father.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Not my words, this is Jesus talking.

I won't spoil this conversation by pointing out that the words we think are by Jesus, could very well not be the words of Jesus, but are the words thought were possibly said by Jesus, written by anonymous authors, decades after the facts.

That would have to be another thread, that likely wouldn't evoke the same defensive passions, that, discussion of the trinity provokes.

Carry on ....

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Zeek, don't want to do a whole bible study typing on my iPad screen. Where you find these phrases, read the whole passages surrounding them and see how Jesus presents God, his God and our God, his Father and our Father and how he explains himself. Jesus mission was to bring us back to God our Father. This is the one Jesus tells us is the only true God. Not my words, this is Jesus talking. And Paul wrote the same thing to the Corinthians- to us there is one God, the Father.

Right, but you haven't answered my question. And, when I do what you suggest and read the passages in which these titles occur, the question remains. Take John 6 for example:

30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”

35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

If Jesus is merely an ordinary human being, how are we to understand that he is the bread of life that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, but you haven't answered my question. And, when I do what you suggest and read the passages in which these titles occur, the question remains. Take John 6 for example:



If Jesus is merely an ordinary human being, how are we to understand that he is the bread of life that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world?

Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. Ordinary men are not THE Christ. This is not discounting the gospel of John, so please do not read more into this, but Luke writes his gospel and Acts of those things which are taught and believed among the Christians. His gospel and the other two are similar. Then along comes the gospel of John with words, phrases, accounts not presented in the others. John's gospel is written in highly symbolic terms, and all kinds of interpretations come out from it to "prove" all kinds of beliefs, sects, etc. But, I find that if I read it in whole, rather than break up small sections of symbolic speech that the underlying thought is still clearly there that God so loved the world that He gave us His only begotten son that whoever believes in him may have eternal life, and that John says he wrote so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ and have life in his name. And Jesus did define eternal life that we would believe in the only true God, our Father, and in his son Jesus. This is the gospel that is throughout the NT, and especially in Acts. The Apostles did not preach Jesus is God in the book of Acts, and Paul did not say that was his gospel in 1 Cor 15 or in Galatians.

Also note, John 6 has 71 verses. Read through them all and note Jesus presenting our Father.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, but you haven't answered my question. And, when I do what you suggest and read the passages in which these titles occur, the question remains. Take John 6 for example:



If Jesus is merely an ordinary human being, how are we to understand that he is the bread of life that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world?

If we are going to "live Christ" and have the mind of Christ, shouldn't we talk about his God and our God, his Father and our Father? Jesus repeatedly says in John's gospel that he receives all things from his Father, can do nothing apart from his Father. Living Christ is not setting Jesus up as our God

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God. Ordinary men are not THE Christ.

If being the Christ entails being something other than an ordinary human being, then what is that something if not divinity?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

John's gospel is written in highly symbolic terms, and all kinds of interpretations come out from it to "prove" all kinds of beliefs, sects, etc. But, I find that if I read it in whole, rather than break up small sections of symbolic speech that the underlying thought is still clearly there that God so loved the world that He gave us His only begotten son that whoever believes in him may have eternal life, and that John says he wrote so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ and have life in his name. And Jesus did define eternal life that we would believe in the only true God, our Father, and in his son Jesus. This is the gospel that is throughout the NT, and especially in Acts. The Apostles did not preach Jesus is God in the book of Acts, and Paul did not say that was his gospel in 1 Cor 15 or in Galatians.

OK. But if Jesus is not God, and he is not an ordinary man, then what is he?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Also note, John 6 has 71 verses. Read through them all and note Jesus presenting our Father.

Better yet, read the entire book of John. Better than that read the whole New Testament.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

If we are going to "live Christ" and have the mind of Christ, shouldn't we talk about his God and our God, his Father and our Father? Jesus repeatedly says in John's gospel that he receives all things from his Father, can do nothing apart from his Father. Living Christ is not setting Jesus up as our God

Are you saying that we should change the subject and not talk about what Jesus meant by saying he was the bread of life?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Are you saying that we should change the subject and not talk about what Jesus meant by saying he was the bread of life?

No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying this thread is not about a bible study on Jesus saying he is the bread of life. Jesus was a sinless man, all the fullness of God dwelt in him, his work was what God was working, his speaking was what God was speaking to us. On the cross, he cried out "My God, why have you forsaken me?". God raised him from the dead; before he ascended he said to Mary " I'm ascending to my God and Your God, my Father and your Father". Paul tells us this man is on the right hand of the Father and is the mediator between us and God. In this man, in Christ, we have life. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.”
**John‬ *6:57‬ *NKJV‬‬
There, a short bible study of what I feel Jesus was trying to convey.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying this thread is not about a bible study on Jesus saying he is the bread of life. Jesus was a sinless man, all the fullness of God dwelt in him, his work was what God was working, his speaking was what God was speaking to us. On the cross, he cried out "My God, why have you forsaken me?". God raised him from the dead; before he ascended he said to Mary " I'm ascending to my God and Your God, my Father and your Father". Paul tells us this man is on the right hand of the Father and is the mediator between us and God. In this man, in Christ, we have life. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.”
**John‬ *6:57‬ *NKJV‬‬
There, a short bible study of what I feel Jesus was trying to convey.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Jesus was a sinless man, all the fullness of God dwelt in him, his work was what God was working, his speaking was what God was speaking to us. On the cross, he cried out "My God, why have you forsaken me?". God raised him from the dead; before he ascended he said to Mary " I'm ascending to my God and Your God, my Father and your Father". Paul tells us this man is on the right hand of the Father and is the mediator between us and God. In this man, in Christ, we have life. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.”
**John‬ *6:57‬ *NKJV‬‬
There, a short bible study of what I feel Jesus was trying to convey.

Such a strange expression: "...he who feeds on me." How do you feed on a man? That question is what evoked the question about what the "bread of life" means. So we have gone in a circle.

The evidence for the truth of the resurrection is that the spirit of Jesus lives on. To commune with the spirit of Jesus is to feed on the Bread of Life. Isn't the life of the spirit, Jesus as the Bread of Life, a kind of divinity?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Such a strange expression: "...he who feeds on me." How do you feed on a man? That question is what evoked the question about what the "bread of life" means. So we have gone in a circle.

The evidence for the truth of the resurrection is that the spirit of Jesus lives on. To commune with the spirit of Jesus is to feed on the Bread of Life. Isn't the life of the spirit, Jesus as the Bread of Life, a kind of divinity?

I have to quote Jesus again-I believe Jesus meant what he prayed:

“Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”**John‬ *17:1-3‬ *

The end of John 6 Jesus says: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”
**John‬ *6:63‬ *NKJV‬‬

Peter ends up saying : “But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”” John‬ *6:68-69‬ *

I'm not sure what you mean "a kind of divinity". Which does bring up some things that are mysteries to me: what are angels, cheribum, seraphim, 4 living creatures, the seven spirits- lots of heavenly mysteries. I can only say that the apostles who were with Jesus and Paul did not go around preaching Jesus is God, but that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I have to quote Jesus again-I believe Jesus meant what he prayed:

“Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”**John‬ *17:1-3‬ *

The end of John 6 Jesus says: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”
**John‬ *6:63‬ *NKJV‬‬

Peter ends up saying : “But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”” John‬ *6:68-69‬ *

I'm not sure what you mean "a kind of divinity". Which does bring up some things that are mysteries to me: what are angels, cheribum, seraphim, 4 living creatures, the seven spirits- lots of heavenly mysteries. I can only say that the apostles who were with Jesus and Paul did not go around preaching Jesus is God, but that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God.

The question is: what does that mean? Christ or messiah meant different things to different people in the middle east in the first century. Some Jews thought that the messiah would come and vanquish the Romans and restore Israel to a king of the Davidic line. That didn't happen.

Likewise, "son of God". The Greeks and Romans knew of many god-men that populated their religions. They were half god and half humans. Some people believed that Augustus Caesar was the son of God.

So, if one was to apply the terms Christ or son of God to Jesus of Nazareth, one had to be able to differentiate them from competing beliefs. Hence, the necessity of theology.

I gather that you practice sticking strictly to Biblical terms. OK well, the term θειος which means divine is used in the New Testament. II Peter 1:4 says that we have been given exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature [θειος]. Paul spoke of the θειος [divine nature] when he preached the gospel according to Acts 17:29. Do you think feeding on the bread of life and partaking of the divine nature are unrelated?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

The question is: what does that mean? Christ or messiah meant different things to different people in the middle east in the first century. Some Jews thought that the messiah would come and vanquish the Romans and restore Israel to a king of the Davidic line. That didn't happen.

Likewise, "son of God". The Greeks and Romans knew of many god-men that populated their religions. They were half god and half humans. Some people believed that Augustus Caesar was the son of God.

So, if one was to apply the terms Christ or son of God to Jesus of Nazareth, one had to be able to differentiate them from competing beliefs. Hence, the necessity of theology.

I gather that you practice sticking strictly to Biblical terms. OK well, the term θειος which means divine is used in the New Testament. II Peter 1:4 says that we have been given exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature [θειος]. Paul spoke of the θειος [divine nature] when he preached the gospel according to Acts 17:29. Do you think feeding on the bread of life and partaking of the divine nature are unrelated?

Here is the insane part to me: Jesus talks about being the bread of life. If we follow it through to the end of John 6 he says his words are Spirit and life. So the words of Jesus say eternal life is to know the Father, the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom he sent. Jesus constantly talked about the Father, as did Paul. Jesus told us when you pray, pray our Father. Jesus said he is the way, truth, life to come to the Father. Jesus says the true worshippers worship the Father. Yet here you have WLand the LC running around Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, processed triune God, God-man, its the life, life , life, etc, etc. totally avoiding the Father. What kind of phony religion did WL create? The words of Jesus got thrown out, and WLs religion got instituted, yet they want to talk about life? We better get back to Jesus' words and feed on them.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Here is the insane part to me: Jesus talks about being the bread of life. If we follow it through to the end of John 6 he says his words are Spirit and life. So the words of Jesus say eternal life is to know the Father, the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom he sent. Jesus constantly talked about the Father, as did Paul. Jesus told us when you pray, pray our Father. Jesus said he is the way, truth, life to come to the Father. Jesus says the true worshippers worship the Father. Yet here you have WLand the LC running around Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, processed triune God, God-man, its the life, life , life, etc, etc. totally avoiding the Father. What kind of phony religion did WL create? The words of Jesus got thrown out, and WLs religion got instituted, yet they want to talk about life? We better get back to Jesus' words and feed on them.

Was it 2 hours the people of Ephesus chanted "great is Diana"- one would think Paul would have explained the god-man thing to them, but in his letter to them, it is Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.

To the Corinthians, who lived in idolville, he says to us there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus the Christ. Shouldn't he had talked to them about a trinity?

To the Thessalonians- they believed the gospel and turned from idols to God, yet check both of Paul's letters to them, no mention of the divine Jesus, the second of a trinity.

Of course, this kind of thinking gets relegated to the Alternative View.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

We better get back to Jesus' words and feed on them.

Are you suggesting that the way to eat Jesus as the bread of life is to pray-read his words in the New Testament? Is your message a red letter message?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Here is the insane part to me: Jesus talks about being the bread of life. If we follow it through to the end of John 6 he says his words are Spirit and life. So the words of Jesus say eternal life is to know the Father, the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom he sent. Jesus constantly talked about the Father, as did Paul. Jesus told us when you pray, pray our Father. Jesus said he is the way, truth, life to come to the Father. Jesus says the true worshippers worship the Father. Yet here you have WLand the LC running around Oh Lord Jesus, Oh Lord Jesus, processed triune God, God-man, its the life, life , life, etc, etc. totally avoiding the Father. What kind of phony religion did WL create? The words of Jesus got thrown out, and WLs religion got instituted, yet they want to talk about life? We better get back to Jesus' words and feed on them.

I agree with what I understand to be your point of emphasis. Jesus practiced a God-centered faith. When a man knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Jesus replied, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. [Mark 10:18] He didn't consider himself God and directed people to God whom he called "Abba" or "Father".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Was it 2 hours the people of Ephesus chanted "great is Diana"- one would think Paul would have explained the god-man thing to them, but in his letter to them, it is Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.

Earlier in the chapter that tells the Diana story, it says that when Paul learned that some Ephesians has been baptized into "John's baptism Paul told them “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. No mention of God the Father there.

The occasion for the Epistle to the Ephesians is difficult to determine. I read that the words "in Ephesus" are not found in the earliest and best Greek manuscripts of the letter. https://bible.org/article/book-ephesians

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Earlier in the chapter that tells the Diana story, it says that when Paul learned that some Ephesians has been baptized into "John's baptism Paul told them “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. No mention of God the Father there.

The occasion for the Epistle to the Ephesians is difficult to determine. I read that the words "in Ephesus" are not found in the earliest and best Greek manuscripts of the letter. https://bible.org/article/book-ephesians

My main point is that one would think in a society reeking with idolatry, if God was to be explained to those who believed the gospel so that they had the truth, that you would see explanations of a trinity all over the scriptures. But alas, Jesus is preached as the Christ, and God is said to be one, The Father.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The issue with John 8:29 is that it associates the Father not leaving Christ with Christ's obedience.

John 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

If God did leave Christ then John 8:29 is a lie.

A lot of drivel follows this that does not address the text as it is found.

John 8:29 is not at the time of the crucifixion, therefore the fact that Jesus says that the Father HAS NOT left him alone is not negated by any specific event in the future.

Like BJB says, dancing through other scripture sprinkling in phrases like "this indicates" or "this simply means" does make any of it true. But you did buy it. As has Drake. And as I once did.

Then I realized that I had been agreeing with something that wasn't there.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by OBW

A lot of drivel follows this that does not address the text as it is found.

John 8:29 is not at the time of the crucifixion, therefore the fact that Jesus says that the Father HAS NOT left him alone is not negated by any specific event in the future.

Like BJB says, dancing through other scripture sprinkling in phrases like "this indicates" or "this simply means" does make any of it true. But you did buy it. As has Drake. And as I once did.

Then I realized that I had been agreeing with something that wasn't there.

W Lee was a lot like The Emperor Has No Clothes child story. Everyone wanted to be spiritual, to be in the know, and everyone hung on his words, his religion. Then one day, someone said WLee is naked! Yikes, now we all have to deal with reality.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the church I was in before the recovery we would stand around him in a circle and pray in tongues until the demons come out.

i thought you had charismatic rootsrk.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

A lot of drivel follows this that does not address the text as it is found.

John 8:29 is not at the time of the crucifixion, therefore the fact that Jesus says that the Father HAS NOT left him alone is not negated by any specific event in the future.

Like BJB says, dancing through other scripture sprinkling in phrases like "this indicates" or "this simply means" does make any of it true. But you did buy it. As has Drake. And as I once did.

Then I realized that I had been agreeing with something that wasn't there.

Jesus established a principle that his obedience to the Father was linked to the Father's pleasure in Him.

It's a well founded principle that God never leaves nor forsakes those who love Him and love is proved by obedience.

I don't see that the time matters.

The cross was the most pleasing act that Christ could do in obedience to the Father.

Yet most Christians say the Father left Christ on the cross.

The idea that the Father left Christ at the cross sends the wrong message. It says that if things get too tough, God will leave you just like He left His Son. If God left His Son at the cross how much more would he leave us during our time of need?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

My main point is that one would think in a society reeking with idolatry, if God was to be explained to those who believed the gospel so that they had the truth, that you would see explanations of a trinity all over the scriptures. But alas, Jesus is preached as the Christ, and God is said to be one, The Father.

Jesus is preached as the Son of God as well, e.g. Acts 9:20 "Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God."

The book of Acts refers to God as the Father , to Jesus as the Son of God and to the Holy Spirit. If that isn't a trinity, then what would you like to call it?

The theological problems that led to the explicit framing of the doctrine of the Trinity developed over the centuries following the advent of Christ. That problem apparently did not occur to the author of Acts or at least he didn't treat the problem explicitly in that text.

But we have digressed somewhat from the OP. Let's take our discussion to a new thread.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus established a principle that his obedience to the Father was linked to the Father's pleasure in Him.

It's a well founded principle that God never leaves nor forsakes those who love Him and love is proved by obedience.

I don't see that the time matters.

The cross was the most pleasing act that Christ could do in obedience to the Father.

Yet most Christians say the Father left Christ on the cross.

The idea that the Father left Christ at the cross sends the wrong message. It says that if things get too tough, God will leave you just like He left His Son. If God left His Son at the cross how much more would he leave us during our time of need?

Jesus, the lamb of God. The LORD was his shepherd. God was with him from his birth to the cross. The angels had watch over him lest he should dash his foot against a stone. A spotless lamb, who followed its shepherd, who kept him in green pastures, protected him from evil beasts, chosen by the shepherd to be the sacrifice for sin, is pictured well in the OT. I think, the chosen lamb, if it could talk, would ask the shepherd why are you forsaking me? Why are you not protecting me as you did all my life?

I would think this was the trial of his faith; by whose faith we are healed and by whose faith we live.

Luke tells us Jesus' last words were “And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’ ” Having said this, He breathed His last.” **Luke‬ *23:46‬ *NKJV‬‬


“But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.”
**Hebrews‬ *10:12-14‬ *NKJV‬‬

“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

“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

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus is preached as the Son of God as well, e.g. Acts 9:20 "Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God."

The book of Acts refers to God as the Father , to Jesus as the Son of God and to the Holy Spirit. If that isn't a trinity, then what would you like to call it?

The theological problems that led to the explicit framing of the doctrine of the Trinity developed over the centuries following the advent of Christ. That problem apparently did not occur to the author of Acts or at least he didn't treat the problem explicitly in that text.

But we have digressed somewhat from the OP. Let's take our discussion to a new thread.

Trinity in that there are 3 mentioned or that God is 3 in one or however trinitarianist speak it?
Jesus, the son of God told us “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

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles told us “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 *NKJV‬‬

The Jews did not call God a diune God even though they spoke of the Spirit of God.

Why not lay hold of the speaking of Jesus and the apostle, rather than present something contrary? This is a serious question.

[awareness]

Bro Boxjobox please see the new thread "The Trinity: Consistent with the Bible?"