The trinity

[jjkirk]

jjkirk...If you are asking about Gen 1:26 when God says "let us" It is the three persons communicating with each other as far as I know.

Chad,
I agee. I was just curious what oneheart says it means from a unitarian point of view, along with the other verses concerning the Messiah and the trinity.

 

[OneHeart4Jesus]

Oneheart,
You were not kidding that it was long. That is a very compelling argument. I however have a couple other verses for you.

John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Why did Jesus not rebuke him for calling him God?

Is 9:6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

This Messianic Prophecy says the Messiah will be called the Mighty God, Eternal Father.

Plus one other:
Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Who was God talking to?

Peace be with you,
John

Hi John,
ok, i see that you want this from the Biblical Unitarian point of view, so here goes,

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (KJV)
1. Jesus never referred to himself as “God” in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus “my God?” The Greek language uses the word theos, (“God” or “god”) with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “GOD” (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.
2. Given the language of the time, and given that Jesus did represent the Father and have divine authority, the expression used by Thomas is certainly understandable. On the other hand, to make Thomas say that Jesus was “God,” and thus 1/3 of a triune God, seems incredible. In Concessions of Trinitarians, Michaelis, a Trinitarian, writes:
I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God. This appears to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples; and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out in the height of his astonishment, in a figurative sense, denoting only “whom I shall ever reverence in the highest degree”…Or a person raised from the dead might be regarded as a divinity; for the word God is not always used in the strict doctrinal sense” [Michaelis is quoted by Dana, ref. below].
Remember that it was common at that time to call the God’s representatives “God,” and the Old Testament contains quite a few examples. When Jacob wrestled with “God,” it is clear that he was actually wrestling with an angel (Hosea 12:4—For more on that, see the note on Genesis 16:7-13).
3. There are many Trinitarian authorities who admit that there was no knowledge of Trinitarian doctrine at the time Thomas spoke. For example, if the disciples believed that Jesus was “God” in the sense that many Christians do, they would not have “all fled” just a few days before when he was arrested. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God…and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:19-21). The Bible is clear that these disciples thought Jesus was a “prophet.” Even though some of the apostles realized that Jesus was the Christ, they knew that according to the Old Testament prophecies, the Christ, the anointed of God, was to be a man. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas, upon seeing the resurrected Christ, was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.
4. The context of the verse shows that its subject is the fact that Jesus was alive. Only three verses earlier, Thomas had ignored the eyewitness testimony of the other apostles when they told him they had seen the Lord. The resurrection of Christ was such a disputed doctrine that Thomas did not believe it (the other apostles had not either), and thus Jesus’ death would have caused Thomas to doubt that Jesus was who he said he was—the Messiah. Thomas believed Jesus was dead. Thus, he was shocked and astonished when he saw—and was confronted by— Jesus Himself. Thomas, upon being confronted by the living Christ, instantly believed in the resurrection, i.e., that God had raised the man Jesus from the dead, and, given the standard use of “God” in the culture as one with God’s authority, it certainly makes sense that Thomas would proclaim, “My Lord and my God.” There is no mention of the Trinity in the context, and there is no reason to believe that the disciples would have even been aware of such a doctrine. Thomas spoke what he would have known: that the man Jesus who he thought was dead was alive and had divine authority.

Isaiah 9:6
“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace….” (NIV)
1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.” It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if this verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated “everlasting” is actually “age,” and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called “father of the [coming] age.”
In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its “father.” For example, because Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Gen. 4:20). Furthermore, because Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. 4:21). Scripture is not using “father” in the sense of literal father or ancestor in these verses, because both these men were descendants of Cain, and all their descendants died in the Flood. “Father” was being used in the cultural understanding of either one who was the first to do something or someone who was important in some way. Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”
2. The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. (For more on the flexible use of “God,” see the notes on Heb. 1:8).
3. A clear example that the word translated “God” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God”) with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler”). If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God’s Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be.
The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV in the Hebrew, el gibbor. That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and mighty men are said, by the figure of speech personification, to speak to others. The phrase in Ezekiel is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. The Hebrew phrase, when used in the singular, can refer to one “mighty leader” just as when used in the plural it can refer to many “mighty leaders.”
4. The context illuminates great truth about the verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God’s appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when “there will be no more gloom for those in distress.” All war and death will cease, and “every warrior’s boot…will be destined for burning” (v. 5). How will this come to pass? The chapter goes on: “for to us a child is born and to us a son is given” (v. 6). There is no hint that this child will be “God,” and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an “incarnation.” For them, the Messiah was going to be a man anointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course Yahweh, their eternal God, could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be: “the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace.” Furthermore, “he will reign on David’s throne (v. 7), which could never be said of God. God could never sit on David’s throne. But God’s Messiah, “the Son of David,” could (Matt. 9:27, et al). Thus, a study of the verse in its context reveals that it does not refer to the Trinity at all, but to the Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.

{{{ continued,,, }}}

 

[OneHeart4Jesus]

Hi John, {{{ continued,,, }}}

ok it refered to Hebrew,1:8, so i will post that,
Hebrews 1:8
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (NIV)
1. The English language makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god.” Thus, in English Bibles, the heavenly Father is called “God,” while lesser divinities, people with God’s authority on earth and important people such as kings, are also called “god” (2 Cor. 4:4; John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22). The Hebrew and Aramaic languages cannot make the distinction between “God” and “god.” Since Hebrew and Aramaic have only capital letters, every use is “GOD.” Furthermore, although the Greek language has both upper case and lower case letters as English does, the early Greek manuscripts did not blend them. It was the style of writing at the time of the New Testament to make manuscripts in all capital letters, so the Greek manuscripts were, like the Hebrew text, all upper case script. Scholars call these manuscripts “uncials,” and that style was popular until the early ninth century or so when a smaller script was developed for books. 1
Since all texts were in upper case script, if we translated Genesis 1:1 and 2 as it appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts, it would read:
IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH NOW THE EARTH WAS FORMLESS AND EMPTY DARKNESS WAS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE DEEP AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS HOVERING OVER THE WATERS.

Actually, Bible students should be aware that in both the early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts there were no spaces between the words, no punctuation marks, no chapters and no verses. The original texts of both the Old and New Testament were capital letters all run together, and it looked like this:

INTHEBEGINNINGGODCREATEDTHEHEAVENSANDTHEEAR​

THNOWTHEEARTHWASFORMLESSANDEMPTYDARKNESSW​

ASOVERTHESURFAEOFTHEDEEPANDTHESPIRITOFGODWA​

SHOVERINGOVERTHEWATERS​

Of course, the entire Bible was hand-printed exactly the same way, with every letter in upper case and no spaces between any words. As you can imagine, that made reading very difficult, and so it was common to read aloud, even when reading to yourself, to make it easier. That is why Philip the Evangelist could hear the Ethiopian eunuch reading the scroll of Isaiah (Acts 8:30). Such a text was hard to read and practically impossible to teach from. Imagine not being able to say, “Turn to Chapter 5, verse 15.” Therefore, divisions in the text began to appear quite early. However, because scribes lived far apart and hand-copied manuscripts, the divisions in the various manuscripts were not uniform. The first standardized divisions between verses came into being around 900 AD., and the modern chapter divisions were made in the 1200s.
It should now be very clear that there was just no way to distinguish between “God” and “god” in the early texts, and so it must always be determined from the context whether or not the word “GOD” is referring to the Father or to some lesser being. Although it was usual that the presence of the definite article in the Greek text alerted the reader that the “GOD” being referred to was the Father, this was not always the case (see the note on John 10:33). For example, in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the word “theos” has the definite article, but the verse is referring to the Devil. Context is always the final judge of whether theos should be translated “God” or “god.”
2. The Semitic languages, and both the Latin and Greek spoken by the early Christians, used the word “God” with a broader meaning than we do today. “God” was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including great people, rulers and people acting with God’s authority. In John 10:33, when the Jews challenged Jesus and said he was claiming to be “a god” (mistranslated in most versions as “God”; see our note on that verse), he answered them by asking them if they had read in the Old Testament that people to whom the Word of God came were called “GODS” (and we use all caps here because the earliest texts did. It is hard to escape the modern notion that “God” refers to the True God and “gods” referred to lesser deities).
Any study of the words for “God” in both Hebrew and Greek will show that they were applied to people as well as to God. This is strange to English-speaking people because we use “God” in reference only to the true God, but both Hebrew and Greek used “God” of God, great men, other gods, angels and divine beings. It is the context that determines whether “God” or a great person is being referred to. This is actually a cause of occasional disagreement between translators, and they sometimes argue about whether “GOD” refers to God, the Father, or to a powerful person or representative of God. One example of this occurs in Exodus 21:6, which instructs a master whose servant wishes to serve him for life to bring the servant “to Elohim.” The KJV, the NIV and many others believe that the owner of the servant is supposed to bring the servant before the local authorities, and so they translate Elohim as “judges” (see also Ex. 22:8 and 9 for more examples). Other translators felt that the master was required to bring the servant to God, so they translated Elohim as “God.”(e.g., NRSV) Thus, the verse will read, “God” or “judges,” depending on the translation.
Hebrews 1:8 is like other verses in that just because the word “theos” (“GOD”) is used does not mean that it refers to the Father. It could easily be referring to “god” in the biblical sense that great men are called “god.” The Septuagint uses the word theos for God, but also for men in places like Psalm 82 where men represent God. The context must be the determining factor in deciding what “GOD” refers to. In this case, in Hebrews that we are studying, the context is clear. Throughout the entire context from Hebrews 1:1, Christ is seen to be lesser than God the Father. Therefore, the use of “theos” here should be translated “god.”
3. The context must determine whether Christ is being referred to as the Supreme Being or just a man with great authority, so it must be read carefully. In this case, however, one need not read far to find that Christ, called “God,” himself has a “God.” The very next verse, Hebrews 1:9, says, “therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions.” Thus, Christ cannot be the supreme God, because the supreme God does not have a God. Furthermore, Christ’s God “set” him above others and “anointed” him. This makes it abundantly clear that the use of theos here in Hebrews is not referring to Christ being the supreme God, but rather a man with great authority under another God. Andrews Norton writes:
Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being, but is used in an inferior sense. This is admitted by some of the most respectable Trinitarian critics. Thus, the Rev. Dr. Mayer remarks: “Here the Son is addressed by the title God: but the context shows that it is an official title which designates him as a king: he has a kingdom, a throne and a scepter; and in verse 9 he is compared with other kings, who are called his fellows; but God can have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings of the earth, and his superiority over them consists in this, that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above them; inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting.” 2
4. The verse is a quotation from Psalm 45:6,7. The Jews read this verse for centuries and, knowing the flexibility of the word “God,” never concluded that the Messiah would somehow be part of a Triune God.
5. We must note that the verse in the Greek text can also be translated as, “Thy throne is God.” However, because the verse is a reference from the Old Testament, and because we believe that God, the Father, is calling His Christ a “god” (i.e., one with divine authority), there is no need to translate the verse other than, “Thy throne, O god, is forever.”

{{ from above see notes on John 10:33 }}
John 10:33
“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (NIV)
1. Any difficulty in understanding this verse is caused by the translators. Had they faithfully rendered the Greek text in verse 33 as they did in verses 34 and 35, then it would read, “…you, a man, claim to be a god.” In the next two verses, John 10:34 and 35, the exact same word (theos, without the article) is translated as “god,” not “God.” The point was made under John 1:1 that usually when “God” is meant, the noun theos has the definite article. When there is no article, the translators know that “god” is the more likely translation, and they are normally very sensitive to this. For example, in Acts 12:22, Herod is called theos without the article, so the translators translated it “god.” The same is true in Acts 28:6, when Paul had been bitten by a viper and the people expected him to die. When he did not die, “they changed their minds and said he was a god.” Since theos has no article, and since it is clear from the context that the reference is not about the true God, theos is translated “a god.” It is a general principle that theos without the article should be “a god,” or “divine.” Since there is no evidence that Jesus was teaching that he was God anywhere in the context, and since the Pharisees would have never believed that this man was somehow Yahweh, it makes no sense that they would be saying that he said he was “God.” On the other hand, Jesus was clearly teaching that he was sent by God and was doing God’s work. Thus, it makes perfect sense that the Pharisees would say he was claiming to be “a god” or “divine.”
2. We take issue with the NIV translation of “mere man” for the Greek word anthropos. The English word “anthropology,” meaning “the study of man,” is derived from anthropos. Spiros Zodhiates writes, “man, a generic name in distinction from gods and the animals.”25In the vast majority of versions, anthropos is translated as “man.” The word anthropos occurs 550 times in the Greek text from which the NIV was translated, yet the NIV translated it as “mere man” only in this one verse. This variance borders on dishonesty and demonstrates a willingness to bias the text beyond acceptable limits. Unfortunately, the NIV is not the only translation that puts a Trinitarian spin on this verse. The Jews would have never called Jesus a “mere” man. They called him what they believed he was—a “man.” They were offended because they believed that he, “being a man, made himself a god (i.e., someone with divine status).
{{{{ cont,,, }}}}

 

[OneHeart4Jesus]

ok {{{{ cont,,, }}}}

ok, next you asked about Genesis,1:26, { just a note, i am copying and pasting this from the Biblical Unitarian site, because they explain it so much better than i can, and their explainations is the same conclusions that i had come to before i found their site, and since i am not very good at putting my thoughts down so that others can understand it, i use what they have available, so the credit for the hard work goes to whoever wrote it for their site, ok }

Genesis 1:26
And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (KJV)
1. Elohim and Adonim, Hebrew words for God, occur in the plural. If this literally meant a plurality of persons, it would be translated “Gods.” But the Jews, being truly monotheistic and thoroughly familiar with the idioms of their own language, have never understood the use of the plural to indicate a plurality of persons within the one God. This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a “plural of majesty” or a “plural of emphasis,” and is used for intensification (see note on Gen. 1:1). Many Hebrew scholars identify this use of “us” as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis, and we believe this also.
2. The plural of majesty is clearly attested to in writing from royalty through the ages. Hyndman writes:
The true explanation of this verse is to be found in the practice which has prevailed in all nations with which we are acquainted, of persons speaking of themselves in the plural number. “Given at our palace,” “It is our pleasure,” are common expressions of kings in their proclamations (p. 54).
Morgridge adds:
It is common in all languages with which we are acquainted, and it appears to have always been so, for an individual, especially if he be a person of great dignity and power, in speaking of himself only, to say we, our, us, instead of I, my, me. Thus, the king of France says, “We, Charles the tenth.” The king of Spain says, “We, Ferdinand the seventh.” The Emperor of Russia says “We, Alexander,” or “We, Nicholas” (p. 93).
The plural of majesty can be seen in Ezra 4:18. In Ezra 4:11, the men of the Trans-Euphrates wrote, “To King Artaxerxes, from your servants.” The book of Ezra continues, “The king sent this reply: Greetings. The letter you sent us has been read and translated….” Thus, although the people wrote to the king himself, the king used the word “us.” It is common in such correspondence that the plural is used when someone speaks of his intentions, and the use of the more literal singular is used when the person acts. Morgridge adds more insight when he says:
It is well known that Mohammed was a determined opposer of the doctrine of the Trinity: yet he often represents God as saying we, our, us, when speaking only of Himself. This shows that, in his opinion, the use of such terms was not indicative of a plurality of persons. If no one infers, from their frequent use in the Koran, that Mohammed was a Trinitarian, surely their occurrence in a few places in the Bible ought not to be made a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity (p. 94).
3. Some scholars believe that the reason for the “us” in Genesis 1:26 is that God could have been speaking with the angels when he created man in the beginning. Although that is possible, because there are many Scriptures that clearly attribute the creation of man to God alone, we believe that the plural of emphasis is the preferred explanation.
4. The name of God is not the only word that is pluralized for emphasis (although when the plural does not seem to be good grammar, the translators usually ignore the Hebrew plural and translate it as a singular, so it can be hard to spot in most English versions). After Cain
murdered Abel, God said to Cain, “the voice of your brother’s bloods cries to me from the ground” (Gen. 4:10). The plural emphasizes the horror of the act. In Genesis 19:11, the men of Sodom who wanted to hurt Lot were smitten with “blindness.” The Hebrew is in the plural, “blindnesses,” and indicates that the blindness was total so Lot would be protected. Leviticus tells people not to eat fruit from a tree for three years, and in the fourth year the fruit is “an offering of praise to the Lord” (Lev. 19:24). The Hebrew word for “praise” is plural, emphasizing that there was to be great praise. Psalm 45:15 tells of people who are brought into the presence of the Messiah. It says, “They are led in with joy and gladness.” The Hebrew actually reads “gladnesses,” emphasizing the great gladness of the occasion. In Ezekiel 25, God is speaking of what has happened to Israel and what He will do about it. Concerning the Philistines, He said, “the Philistines acted in vengeance…I will carry out great vengeance on them” (Ezek 25:15 and 17). In the Hebrew text, the second vengeance, the vengeance of God, is in the plural, indicating the complete vengeance that the Lord will inflict. Although many more examples exist in the Hebrew text, these demonstrate that it is not uncommon to use a plural to emphasize something in Scripture.
{{ they refer to see notes on Genesis 1:1, and it is important so i will post it also, for you,}}


Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)
1. The word “God” is Elohim, which is itself a plural form and, like most other words, has more than one definition. It is used in a plural sense of “gods” or “men with authority,” and in a singular sense for “God,” “god,” or “a man with authority, such as a judge.” The Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs, considered to be one of the best available, has as its first usage for Elohim: “rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power, divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels, gods.” 1
Elohim is translated “gods” in many verses. Genesis 35:2 reads, “Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you,” and Exodus 18:11 says, “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods.” It is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6; 22:8 and 9. It is translated “angels” (KJV) or “heavenly beings” (NIV) in Psalm 8:5. That is its plural use, and there is no evidence that anyone thought of these “gods” as having some kind of plurality of persons within themselves.
2. Elohim is also translated as the singular “god” or “judge,” and there is no hint of any “compound nature” when it is translated that way. An example is Exodus 22:20, which reads, “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed.” Another example is Judges 6:31: “If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.” In Exodus 7:1, God says that He has made Moses a “god” (Elohim) to Pharaoh. Again, in Judges 11:24, the pagan god Chemosh is called Elohim, and in 1 Samuel 5:7, the pagan god Dagon is called Elohim, yet Christians do not conclude that those gods were somehow composite or “uniplural,” or that the people who worshipped them thought they were.
Exactly how to translate Elohim in 1 Samuel 2:25 has been debated by scholars. The question is whether Elohim in the verse refers to a human judge or to God. The KJV says “judge.” The versions are divided between them, some translating Elohim as a man, others as God Himself. The fact that the scholars and translators debate about whether the word Elohim refers to a man or God shows vividly that the word itself does not have any inherent idea of a plurality of persons. If it did, it could not be translated as “god” when referring to a pagan god, or as “judge” when referring to a man. The evidence in Scripture does not warrant the conclusion that the Hebrew word Elohim inherently contains the idea of a compound nature.
3. Some teach that the word Elohim implies a compound unity when it refers to the true God. That would mean that the word Elohim somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. There is just no evidence of this. The first place we should go for confirmation of this is to the Jews themselves. When we study the history and the language of the Jews, we discover that they never understood Elohim to imply a plurality in God in any way. In fact, the Jews were staunchly opposed to people and nations who tried to introduce any hint of more than one God into their culture. Jewish rabbis have debated the Law to the point of tedium, and have recorded volume after volume of notes on the Law, yet in all of their debates there is no mention of a plurality in God. This fact in and of itself ought to close the argument.
No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar, Gesenius. He wrote that the plural nature of Elohim was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Gesenius states, “That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.” 2
The singular pronoun is always used with the word Elohim. A study of the word will show what Gesenius stated, that the singular attribute (such as “He,” not “They,” or “I,” not “We”) always follows Elohim. Furthermore, when the word Elohim is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as “uniplural.” To us, the evidence is clear: God is not “compound” in any sense of the word. He is the “one God” of Israel.
4. Scripture contains no reproof for those who do not believe in a “Triune God.” Those who do not believe in God are called “fools” (Ps. 14:1). Those who reject Christ are condemned (John 3:18). Scripture testifies that it is for “doctrine, reproof, and correction” (2 Tim. 3:16 - KJV), and there are many verses that reprove believers for all kinds of erroneous beliefs and practices. Conspicuous in its absence is any kind of reproof for not believing in the Trinity.
{{{ ok, there it is, and i can give you notes / explainations for many other scriptures which are also used to try to verify the trinity doctrine , if you like, or if you have any further questions i will try my best to answer them, although i am not eloquent in speech, and find it difficult to put my thoughts to paper, i am willing to try,, for the scriptures tell us to always be ready to stand up for what we believe, }}

Aleia Kay
One Heart 4 Jesus the Holy Son of the Most High God Yahweh.

 

[OneHeart4Jesus]

Credit for all the hard work

Talk about putting good hard effort to help others learn Thank you one heart

Thanks Chad, but i can not take full credit for the hard work, like i have mentioned in another post, i am not eloquent in speech, i find i have a hard time putting my thoughts down on paper so that others can understand me, so when i give the lengthy answers like that, it is from work that some one else did and posted online for people like me to use to help better explain what we believe,
and just for clarification, i had come to these same conclusions in my own personal research through the years, long before i found these sites just recently, i only wish that i could explain things as good as they do.
Also if you went to the links that i have in my signature you could see exactly where i get the information that i post, but instead of just giving you all the {post} links and telling you to look it up for yourself like i have seen others do, {not here but on other sites} , i do the searching for you and post it here for easier access, because i know that most people don't have excess time to spend doing the searches, but since i am disabled and can't work i do have plenty of time to do the research , and thereby saving you all that time..
lol i feel that i am just doing what Yahweh & Yahwesha' // my Father and His Son want me to do, for i am but a servant unto them..
HalleluYahh,
Aleia Kay
One Heart 4 them

 

[OneHeart4Jesus]

OneHeart.....

I read some of your lenghty post..... your comments about Jesus being a created being citing the Colossians "First Born" passage... and other passages agruing against the trinity.

Leads me to ask you a question... Those two points are the mantra of Jehovah's Witness theology.... are you JW? If so or if not .... I think the Colossians passage (particularly the english translation) has been misinterpreted and misused by both JW's and Trinitarians.

There are two passage that have to be understood in the Context of what Paul was trying to say.

Firstborn of all creation

He is "before all things"

Paul is speaking to the authority of Christ in this passage and in that context I would not interpret either of these statement to position Christ in time. Let me explain.

The importance of the "firstborn" in the OT was that it positioned the older son to inherit his fathers estate, placing him in a preferential position over the younger sons. So BirthRight was a big thing. Firstborn here is not refering to Christ's origins, but to his position in relation to the creation and His "birthright" as it were. The emphasis is not on whether Christ is the first of God's creation, but on the fact that He owns creation and has authority over it.

The greek work translated "before" in "before all things" can refer either to a time sequence as in something happening before something else in which case Christ would be preexistant to creation; or it can mean a standing or a position, as a leader standing before a audience commanding the attention of the followers. In this context where Paul is making a point about the authority of Christ, I read this as Christ standing in a position of authority before all things, not preexisting all things.

This doesn't mean Christ didn't preexist, but I don't think you can make a case for Christ being a created being from this passage.

In any case this passage has been used to support and deny the Trinity. But in reality it does neither because that's not the issue being addressed.

Hello Pappa,
You asked if i am a Jehovah's Witness, so i think i should explain the best i can what i am, ; When i was a child my daddy's elder sister took me to her united pentecostal church when dad would let her, so it was not weekly or regular in any sense. From the age of about 8 years old is when i started having some understanding that there was a Mighty God, and started trying to learn more about Him. When i went to the sunday school classes i would listen to the teachers, but unlike the other kids what the teacher taught i didn't accept it as fact, but i started reading the Bible to see if what i was told was in fact what the Bible said, so this made me very different from the other kids, i would ask the teacher questions and sometimes she would answer and sometimes not, so i came to understand that she didn't have the answer's to all my questions. i would ask my aunt but she too had difficulty explaining.
As i grew older, the more i studied, and the more i realized that the teachers and preachers did not really teach what the Bible said, but preached so that it sounded good to most of the people, {tickle the ears kind of preaching} fire and brimstone, fear and condemnation, stuff that excited the people, but it didn't really teach us much of anything.
i began to realize through time that i was very different and that difference set me apart and was not kindly looked upon. So i quit asking questions that i knew that they couldn't or wouldn't answer from the scriptures. Then later when i got out on my own i went to a non-denominational church, that pastor did teach things majorly better than any one else had, and i began to understand the need for me to be born again / baptized through water and spirit according to Acts,2:38. So i was obedient to the scriptures and done what was needed to be saved.
And whether the church taught the oneness doctrine of Jesus being God, or if they taught the trinity, i did't accept what they taught because in my studies neither of those doctrines made sense, so i kept silent on the matter for the majority of my life, and through the years i have moved a lot so i wound up going to different churches, united pentecostal the most, also non-denom, and baptist, assembly of god,,,
Then in 1998,Feb, i found myself disabled, i had been going {for several years} to a large pentecostal church, of about 300 members, i had prayed for and with a lot of people there, i had helped some in whatever way i could, but when i became disabled my christian husband left me saying " i dont want to be responsible for you" during the time that we were married i normally paid over half the bills, and done what ever a wife is suppose to do in her home, i loved them {husband and his 4 kids} and my daughter, i fed them , cleaned the house, cooked for them, etc,,, but when he realized that i couldn't work any longer and that he was going to have to start paying for everything, he left, When he left, the people in my church did nothing to help me, one lady who was also a neighbor brought me a plate of food one day, and that was the only kindness shown to me by the church that i had loved.
When he left, then my daughter tells me that she is taking me to court so that she can go live with her father, all of this in the same month, well when court was over, my daughter was gone along with the child support that had become necessary for me to use to pay the bills untill my disability $ started coming in, so that i couldn't even pay the rent for the lot, my trailor house was fairly new, and totally paid for , so i sold it and bought a small trailor so that i could have a place to live, even my family wouldn't loan me the money i needed to survive untill the SSIDisability checks came.
all of this within a 6 month period, all those people who had told me that they loved me, were nowhere to be found when i desperately needed them,
So i quit going to the church that i loved, and after that i didn't go to church for over a year, except i visited a couple of small churches in the area where i moved to..
Anyway one day as i was praying i asked God to please show me where He wanted me to go, for i was lonely and really missed having a church, but i didn't want to just start going to a church that i played any many miny moe , to choose it, i wanted to do His will, so i started praying this every day , then about one week later a man knocked on my door , and he was a Jehovah's Witness, and He asked if i wanted to do a Bible study, he asked if i really wanted to do God's will, and i just started laughing so hard that i scared the poor man, he started to leave but i told him no please don't leave, i ain't laughing at you, i'm laughing because you are the answer to my prayer, he looked puzzled so i told him about my prayer, so he got his sister to start coming and studying with me, and when she realized that i already believed most of what they teach, she was astounded, she said that it is rare to find some one who knew so much but wasn't a JW, So i started going to the Kingdom Hall services, 2 years later i was baptized, on April 22,2001. Even though i still didn't believe quite everything that they taught, because i have learned over the years that sometimes it is better to keep some of my doubts to myself, and sort it out on my own,
Anyway over time the more i learned about them the harder it was to keep silent about things that bothered me, which the main thing was about being baptized in the spirit according to Acts, So i quit going to the meetings about a year and half ago, occasionally some of them will come by to check on me,
So i guess you could call me a born again spirit filled witness for Yahweh !
So now you know what i am and where i come from in my thinking. i have spent the majority of my time during the years since 1998 studying the Bible,

 

[OneHeart4Jesus]

Colossians ??

I too have done extensive study on the prologue of John and have looked at the word logos from the perspective of GreeK Philosophy, Jewish thought and for a long time took the view that there was gnostic influence in the Gospel of John.
In the past few years however, I have concluded that much of the argument for a later dating of John (a later dating would be necessary to support the view of gnostic influence since that influence didn't appear until between 100 and 200 AD)... those arguments are speculative and cannot be supported by fact.
More recent conservative scholars are prone to date the Gospel of John much earlier (latter have of the 1st century) and to conclude that it was in fact written by the Apostle John. The later date would necessitate a different author.
Given the earlier dating and the authorship by the Apostle John, it's incongruous to think that a humble fisherman from Galilee would be knowledgable of either Greek Philosophy or Gnosticism. I came to the conclusion that the understanding of the word logos in John 1 has more Jewish roots than Greek and has a much simpler explanation.
In the beginning does in fact refer to the beginning of time and is probably refering to the Genesis creation account. The power and authority of God's word (logos in Greek) was seen in creation when he "spoke" the universe, the earth and man into existence; and in the communication of His moral law through the "words" in the 10 commandments; and when He delivered his messages to the Jews through the Prophets using their words "thus says the Lord".
God and His Word are inseparable and existed together since the beginning of time. John in his prologue is simply drawing the connection "the word became flesh and dwelt among us" to apply to Jesus.
Bringing Greek Philosophy and Gnosticism into the picture merely clouds the simply fact that Jesus is the embodiment of God's Word whose mission was (as God's word) was to shed light on the world's darkness.

Pappa, i just thought i would share a bit more with you since you mentioned stuff in Colossians, ok, :rose:
Colossians 1:15-20 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the Cross. (NIV)
1. As with all good biblical exegesis, it is important to note the context of the verses and why they would be written and placed where they are. Reading the Book of Colossians reveals that the Colossian Church had lost its focus on Christ. Some of the believers at Colosse had, in practice, forsaken their connection with the Head, Jesus Christ, and some were even being led to worship angels (2:18 and 19). The situation in Colosse called for a strong reminder of Christ’s headship over his Church, and the epistle to the Colossians provided just that.
2. These verses cannot be affirming the Trinity because they open with Christ being “the image [eikon] of the invisible God.” If Christ were “God,” then the verse would simply say so, rather than that he was the “image” of God. The Father is plainly called “God” in dozens of places, and this would have been a good place to say that Jesus was God. Instead, we are told that Christ is the image of God. If one thing is the “image” of another thing, then the “image” and the “original” are not the same thing. The Father is God, and that is why there is no verse that calls the Father the image of God. Calling Jesus the image of God squares beautifully with his statement that, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9 and 10).
There are Trinitarian theologians who assert that the word eikon (from which we get the English word “icon,” meaning “image,” or “representation”) means “manifestation” here in Colossians, and that Christ is the manifestation of God. We believe that conclusion is unwarranted. The word eikon occurs 23 times in theNew Testament, and it is clearly used as “image” in the common sense of the word. It is used of the image of Caesar on a coin, of idols that are manmade images of gods, of Old Testament things that were only an image of the reality we have today and of the “image” of the beast that occurs in Revelation. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says that Christians are changed into the “image” of the Lord as we reflect his glory. All these verses use “image” in the common sense of the word, i.e., a representation separate from the original. 1 Corinthians 11:7 says, “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.” Just as Christ is called the image of God, so men are called the image of God. We are not as exact an image as Christ is because we are marred by sin, but nevertheless the Bible does call us the “image” of God. Thus, the wording about being the image of God is the same for us as it is for Christ. We maintain that the words in the Word must be read and understood in their common or ordinary meaning unless good reason can be given to alter that meaning. In this case, the common meaning of “image” is “likeness” or “resemblance,” and it is used that way every time in the New Testament. Surely if the word “image” took on a new meaning for those times it referred to Christ, the Bible would let us know that. Since it does not, we assert that the use of “image” is the same whether it refers to an image on a coin, an image of a god, or for both Christ and Christians as the image of God.
3. God delegated to Christ His authority to create. Ephesians 2:15 refers to Christ creating “one new man” (his Church) out of Jew and Gentile. In pouring out the gift of holy spirit to each believer (Acts 2:33 and 38), the Lord Jesus has created something new in each of them, that is, the “new man,” their new nature (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 4:24).
4. The Church of the Body of Christ was a brand new entity, created by Christ out of Jew and Gentile. He had to also create the structure and positions that would allow it to function, both in the spiritual world (positions for the angels that would minister to the Church—see Rev. 1:1, “his angel”) and in the physical world (positions and ministries here on earth—see Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:7-11). The Bible describes these physical and spiritual realities by the phrase, “things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” (1:16).
5. Many people think that because Colossians 1:16 says, “For by him all things were created” that Christ must be God, but the entire verse must be read carefully with an understanding of the usage of words and figures of speech. The study of legitimate figures of speech is an involved one, and the best work we know of was done in 1898 by E. W. Bullinger. It is titled Figures of Speech Used in the Bible and is readily available, having been reprinted many times.
First, the student of the Bible (indeed, of language and life) must be aware that when the word “all” (or “every” or “everything”) is used, it is often used in a limited sense. People use it this way in normal speech in countries and languages all over the world. I (John S.) had an experience of this just the other day. It was late at night and I wanted a cookie before bed. When I told my wife that I wanted a cookie, she said, “The kids ate all the cookies.” Now of course our kids did not eat all the cookies in the world. The implied context was the cookies in the house, and our kids had eaten all of them. This is a good example of “all” being used in a limited sense, and the Bible uses it that way too.
For example, when Absalom was holding a council against his father, David, 2 Samuel 17:14 says that “all the men of Israel” agreed on advice. “All” the men of Israel were not there, but the verse means “all” who were there. Another example is Jeremiah 26:8, which says that “all the people” seized Jeremiah to put him to death, but the context makes it very clear that “all the people” were not even present, and people who came to the scene later wanted to release Jeremiah. 1 John 2:20 (KJV) says of Christians, “ye know all things.” Surely there is no Christian who actually believes that he knows everything. The phrase is using a limited sense of “all,” which is determined by the context.
The point is that whenever one reads the word “all,” a determination must be made as to whether it is being used in the wide sense of “all in the universe,” or in the narrow sense of “all in a certain context.” We believe the narrow sense is called for in Colossians 1:16, and we give more evidence for that in point 6 below (For more on the limited sense of “all,” see the note on John 2:24).
6. An important figure of speech in Colossians 1:16 is called “encircling.” Bullinger notes that the Greeks called this figure of speech epanadiplosis, while the Romans labeled it inclusio (p. 245), and he gives several pages of examples from the Bible to document the figure. He writes: “When this figure is used, it marks what is said as being completed in one complete circle…giving completeness of the statement that is made.” With that in mind, note that the phrase “all things were created” occurs at the beginning and end of the verse, encircling the list of created things: “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” The things that are “created” are not rocks, trees, birds and animals, because those things were created by God. These things, “thrones, powers, rulers and authorities,” are the powers and positions that were needed by Christ to run his Church, and were created by him for that purpose. The figure of speech known as “encircling” helps us to identify the proper context of “all things”—that it is the narrower sense of the word “all,” and refers to the things needed to administer the Church.
7. The phrase in verse 17 that “he is before all things” has been used to try to prove that Jesus existed before everything else. However, the word “before” (here pro) can refer to time, place or position (i.e., superiority). This leads us to conclude that the whole point of the section is to show that Christ is “before,” i.e., “superior to” all things, just as the verse says. If someone were to insist that time is involved, we would point out that in the very next verse Christ is the “firstborn” from the dead, and thus “before” his Church in time as well as in position.
Colossians 2:2,,My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ. (NIV)
1. This verse, although not usually considered a Trinitarian verse, is occasionally used to show that the mystery of God is Christ (i.e., that Christ is both God and Man, and thus a “mystery”). The verse was a subject of hot debate early in the Christian era, and there is ample evidence from the Greek manuscripts that scribes changed the text to fit their theology. Bruce Metzger writes, “The close of Colossians 2:2 presents what is, at first, a bewildering variety of readings; the manuscripts present fifteen different conclusions of the phrase.”In almost all 15 of them, the possibility that Christ could be God is eliminated. The KJV represents a good example: “That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ.”
2. There is now a wide concurrence of belief among scholars that the original Greek text read “tou musteriou tou theou Christou,”but the exact translation of that phrase is debated. It can be translated the way the NIV is: “…the mystery of God, namely, Christ.” However, it can just as easily be translated “the mystery of the Christ of God.” We believe the latter is the most probable translation for reasons that will be given in points 3 and 4 below.
3. It is difficult to make “Christ” into a “mystery” in the biblical sense of the word. In Greek, the word “musterion” does not mean “mystery” in the sense of something that cannot be understood or comprehended by the mind of man. It just means a “secret,” something that was hidden but is then made known. This point cannot be overemphasized for the correct interpretation of the verse. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words under “mystery,” has this to say about musterion: “…not the mysterious, but that which…is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God.” This is actually very clear in Colossians 1:26 and 27, which speak of the “mystery” that has now been “made known” to the believers.
Thus, a biblical “mystery” can be understood, in contrast to the Trinitarian “mystery,” which is beyond comprehension. A quick study of the other uses of “musterion” in the Bible will show that once a “secret” is revealed, it can be understood. But the “Trinity” and the “two natures” cannot be understood at all. Trinitarian theology speaks of the “mystery” of Christ in the sense that his incarnation and dual nature are impossible for us to understand. The Greek text, however, is implying no such thing. 1 Timothy 3:16 does refer to the “secret of godliness,” and this text is plainly discernible. Even today, although the Word openly proclaims personal godliness through the Savior, Jesus Christ, this fact remains a secret to the world and, unfortunately, even to some Churchgoers.
4. The difficulty in translating the verse, “the secret of God, namely Christ,” can be plainly seen. Although some of what Christ accomplished for us can be called a secret, and some of the things he went through were certainly hidden from the Jews, the Man Jesus Christ is the great subject of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. We believe that it is much more accurate to translate Colossians 2:2 as, “the secret of the Christ of God.” We believe this because there is a “secret” in the New Testament that is clearly set forth in the Church Epistles. The word “musterion,” i.e., “secret,” is used to refer to the “administration of the God’s grace” in which we are living now. Ephesians 3:2 and 3 reads, “Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the secret [musterion] made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.” Thus, when Colossians refers to “the secret of the Christ of God,” it is referring to the Grace Administration, which was a secret hidden before the foundation of the world, but revealed to Christians today (see Eph. 3:2-9; Col. 1:27 and Gal. 1:11 and 12, and keep in mind that the word translated in many versions as “mystery” should be “secret”).
5. Trinitarians are very open about the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is a “mystery” that is beyond human comprehension. But with the correct biblical definition of “mystery” as “secret,” i.e., “something that anyone can understand once it has been revealed or unveiled,” one can ask, “Where does the idea that the Trinity is mysterious and beyond comprehension come from?” That concept is found nowhere in Scripture. There is not a single verse from Genesis to Revelation that a Trinitarian can produce to show that one God exists in three persons and that this is a mystery beyond human comprehension. Yet they continue to say things like, “You can’t understand it because it is a mystery.” We maintain that the reason the Trinity is a “mystery beyond comprehension” is that it is an invention of man and not actually in the Bible at all.
Colossians 2:9,,,For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (NIV)
1. The word “Deity” or “Godhead” is a translation of the Greek word theotes. In A Greek English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, the classic lexicon of the ancient Greek language, it is translated as “divinity, divine nature.” In making their case, Liddell and Scott cite Greek authors Plutarch and Lucian, and also reference Heliodorus and Oribasius using the phrase dia theoteta = “for religious reasons.” The Greek word occurs only once in the Bible, so to try to build a case for it meaning “God” or “Godhead” (which is an unclear term in itself) is very suspect indeed. Standard rules for interpreting Scripture would dictate that the way Paul used theotes in Colossians would be the same way the Colossians were used to hearing it in their culture. There is no reason to believe that Paul wrote to the Colossians expecting them to “redefine” the vocabulary they were using. Christ was filled with holy spirit “without measure,” and God gave him authority on earth to heal, cast out demons, forgive sins, etc. Thus, it makes perfect sense that Scripture would say that Christ had the fullness of the “divine nature” dwelling in him. In fact, the same thing is said about every Christian (2 Pet. 1:4).
2. The word “fullness” demonstrates that the verse is speaking of something that one could also have just a part of. It makes no sense to talk about the “fullness” of something that is indivisible. God is indivisible. We never read about “the fullness of God the Father” because, by definition, God is always full of His own nature. Therefore, the verse is not talking about Christ being God, but about God in some way providing Christ with “fullness.” What this verse is saying is made clear earlier in Colossians: “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Col. 1:19). That is true. John 3:34 adds clarification: “For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit.”
3. The fact that Christ has “all the fullness” of God does not make him God. Ephesians 3:19 says that Christians should be filled with “all the fullness of God,” and no one believes that would make each Christian God.
4. If Christ were God, it would make no sense to say that the fullness of God dwelt in him, because, being God, he would always have the fullness of God. The fact that Christ could have the fullness of God dwell in him actually shows that he was not God. 2 Peter 1:4 says that by way of God’s great and precious promises we “may participate in the divine nature.” Having a “divine nature” does not make us God, and it did not make Christ God. The note on 2 Peter 1:4 in the NIV Study Bible is almost correct when, referring to the divine nature, it states: “We are indwelt by God through His Holy Spirit” (we would say “holy spirit, referring to God’s gift). Likewise Christ, who was filled with holy spirit without limits, had the fullness of “Deity” dwelling in him.
5. The context is a key to the proper interpretation of the verse. The Colossians had lost their focus on Christ (see Col. 1:15-20). Colossians 2:8 shows that the people were in danger of turning to “hollow and deceptive philosophy” rather than being focused on Christ. What could philosophy and traditions offer that Christ could not? The next verse is a reminder that there is no better place to turn for answers and for truth than to Christ, in whom all the fullness of God dwells. There is nothing in the context here that would warrant believing that Paul is writing about the Trinity. He is simply saying that if you want to find God, look to Christ. Christ himself had said he was “the Way” and “the Truth,” and that “no man comes to the Father except through me.”

 

[jjkirk]

oneheart,
Thank you for sharing. I am always interested in the views of others, and thank you for having the resources and scriptures to back up your view; and for doing it in love and kindness. I have been on other sites where people will rip each other apart for having differing viewpoints, so again I thank you. I have yet to do more research on the subject but for now I am still leaning towards the trinity
Peace be with you,
John.

 

[OneHeart4Jesus]

It makes me sad to hear of your difficulties and that the church you were attending did not support your. It doesn't say much for that church.
Your last rather lengthy post sounds like you do a lot of research .... are these posts quotes from some of your sources? I guess what I am asking is that after reading all of this I got lost as to what the point is you are trying to make.
If you are saying the Colosians text doesn't support the Trinitarian theology.. I will probably agree with you... But if you are using text to support a claim that Christ is a created being... I would disagree with you because it's not addressing that issue either. As I mentioned in the earlier post, it's about Christ's authority not His origins.
But the prologue to the gospel of John does equate God and Jesus. I think I said this in an earlier post. God's word was his method of creating and communicating to humans. He spoke the universe into existence, he established his law via words(Ten Commandments), and communicated through the prophets by words(Thus sayeth the Lord). Now in reality you can't separate a person from his/her words. Words are the communication vehicle whereby you express who you are and what you want. Your words are the expression of you. Throughout the OT God tried to communicate about Himself and His message via words. The Jews didn't listen.
So He put His word in human form to communicate by example and sacrifice. So to say "The word became flesh and dwelt among us" is to say God as creator and communicator became flesh and dwelt among us in Jesus. This is a mystery that we will never be able to fully understand in this life.

Pappa, i ain't a debater, not really trying to make a point, just sharing information, for study, only God can help you to see the truth that He wants you to see, it don't matter what i think, i don't try to make people see things my way, i just like to share stuff that i have found, so that others can study it and see if they see any truth in it for themselves, hoping only that what i do can be of some benefit to some one , some where,
Pappa , i have realized that it ain't just the ones posting that read this, that many many others read it , and just maybe some one out there will get some good out of what i share,
That alone is my ministry, that is what i do for my Saviour. Because i can't physically do much, but i can do research and i can type, so in a small way i hope to help some one,

Aleia Kay,
just a servant of the Most High :note:

 

[OneHeart4Jesus]

oneheart,
Thank you for sharing. I am always interested in the views of others, and thank you for having the resources and scriptures to back up your view; and for doing it in love and kindness. I have been on other sites where people will rip each other apart for having differing viewpoints, so again I thank you. I have yet to do more research on the subject but for now I am still leaning towards the trinity
Peace be with you,
John.

:embarasse shy :messenger messenger

just wanting to help if i can,

Aleia Kay,

 

[jje4jesus]

Hi ppl -

It seems ppl here were interested in the Trinity, so let me share a good good Bible Study regarding it that may help you out. I noticed OneHeart4Jesus and other ppl were giving long commentaries and outlines of how to describe or prove points of view regarding the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but here I have an outline that is more based on Bible verses. I hope it doesnt come out too messy, although it in itself is pretty long. Hope it helps everyone out And let me know what you think too.....


Introduction

It is often alleged that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. While the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, the substance of the doctrine is definitely biblical.

The following outline study presents an overview of the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. Comments on the texts have been kept to a bare minimum; the emphasis is on the many biblical texts themselves (about 700 references are listed, including references from 26 of the 27 books of the New Testament).

An exposition of many of the texts discussed here can be found in the author's book "Why You Should Believe in the Trinity " (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1989. Unfortunately, it is currently out of print, but you may be able to locate a copy through Amazon.com's ''Out-of-print Service.'').

A proper evaluation of the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity will depend on the faithful application of sound principles of biblical interpretation. Here I will mention just two principles which, if followed, would prevent almost all interpretive errors on this subject.

The first is to interpret the implicit in light of the explicit. That is, texts which explicitely state that such-and-such is true are to govern our understanding of passages which do not address the issue directly. For example, many passages of the Bible state explicitly that God is omniscient, that is, that He knows all things, including the thoughts of men and all future events (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9, 17; Job 37:16; Psa. 139:1-4; Isa. 41:22-23; 42:9; 44:7; Jer. 17:10a). These texts must govern our understanding of passages which might seem to imply, but which do not assert, that God did not know something (e.g., Gen. 3:9-13; 4:9; 18:9, 20-21).
The other principle is that we interpret logically but not rationalistically. Using the same illustration, if God knows everything ahead of time, then logically He must have known that Adam and Eve would fall into sin. However, to argue that if God knew Adam and Eve would sin then they would not be responsible for their choosing to sin is not "logical," it is rationalistic. It may be difficult to understand how persons could be responsible for their sinful actions if God knew ahead of time that they would sin, but it is not illogical (not self-contradictory) to say so.

It should be noted that a study of the Trinity should not be undertaken apart from a study of the nature of God.

I - There Is One God

A. One God: Explicit Statements

1. OT: Deut. 4:35; 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20: 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5; 14; 21-22; 46:9
2. NT: John 5:44; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25

B. None like God (in His essence)

1. Explicit statements: Ex. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kgs. 8:23; 1 Chr. 17:20; Psa. 86:8; Isa. 40:18, 25: 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6-7; Micah 7:18
2. Being like God a Satanic lie: Gen. 3:5; Isa. 14:14; John 8:44
3. Fallen man become "like God" only in that he took upon himself to know good and evil, not that he acquired godhood: Gen. 3:22

C. Only one true God: 2 Chr. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20-21

D. All other "gods" are therefore false gods (idols), not gods at all: Deut. 32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Psa. 96:5; Isa. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1 Cor. 8:4; 10:19-20

E. Demons, not gods, are the power behind false worship: Deut. 32:17; Psa. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8

F. How men are meant to be "like God"
1. The image of God indicates that man is to represent God and share His moral character, not that man can be metaphysically like God: Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10
2. The goals of being like Christ has the following aspects only:
a. Sharing His moral character: 1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:29
b. Being raised with glorified, immortal bodies like His: phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:49
3. Becoming partakers of the divine nature refers again to moral nature ("having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust"), not metaphysical nature: 2 Pet. 1:4; see also Heb. 12:10; on the meaning of "partakers," see 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5:1

G. Are mighty or exalted men gods?
1. Scripture never says explicitly that men are gods
2. Powerful, mighty men are explicitly said not to be gods: Ezek. 28:2, 9; Isa. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4
3. Men adn God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num. 23:19; Isa. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2; Hosea 11:9; Matt. 19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2
4. Moses was "as God," not really a god: Ex. 4:16; 7:1
5. Ezek. 32:21 speaks of warriors or soldiers as "mighty gods," but in context they are so regarded by their pagan nations, not by God or Israel; cf. Ezek. 28:2, 9
6. The elohim before whom accused stood in Exodus was God Himself, not judges, as many translations incorrectly render: Ex. 22:8-9, 28; compare Deut. 19:17
7. The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to wicked judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does not mean that men really can be gods.
a. It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges elohim in Psa. 82:1, 6. This is important, even though we agree that Psa. 82 is inspired.
b. Asaph's meaning is not "Although you are gods, you will die like men," but rather "I called you gods, but in fact you will all die like the men that you really are"
c. The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked judges were truly gods than he was saying that they were truly "sons of the Most High" (v. 6b)
d. Thus, Psa. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony. They had quite likely taken their role in judgment (cf. point 5 above) to mean they were elohim, or gods, and Asaph's message is that these so-called gods were mere men who would die under the judgment of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8)
e. Christ's use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82
f. The words, "The Scripture cannot be broken," means "the Scripture cannot go without having some ultimate fulfillment" (cf. John 7:23; Matt. 5:17). Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges were called in irony, He is in reality; He does what they could not do, and is what they could never be (see the Adam-Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45 for a simiar use of OT Scripture)
g. The clause, "those against whom the word of God came" (John 10:35) shows that this "word" was a word of judgment against the so-called gods; which shows that they were false gods, not really gods at all
h. Finally, these wicked men were certainly not "godlike" or "divine" by nature, so that in any case the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as figurative, not literal
8. Even if men were gods (which they are not), this would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He was God as a preexistent spirit before creation: John 1:1

H. Are angels Gods?
1. Scripture never explicitly states that angels are gods
2. Demonic spirits are not gods, 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8; thus, being "mighty spirits" does not make angels gods
3. Satan is therefore also a false god: 2 Cor. 4:4
4. Psalm 8:5 does not teach that angels are gods
a. Psa. 8:5 is paraphrased in Heb. 2:7, not quoted literally (cf. Psa. 68:18 with Eph. 4:8). In Psa. 8:5, elohim certainly means God, not angels, since Psa. 8:3-8 parallels Gen. 1:1, 8 16, 26-28. Note that the Psalmist is speaking of man's exalted place in creation, whereas Hebrews is speaking of the lower place taken by Christ in becoming a man. Thus, Heb. 2:7 may not mean to equate angels with gods at all.
b. Even if Heb. 2:7 does imply that angels are "gods," in the context of Hebrews 1-2 these angels would be those falsely exalted above Christ: Note Heb. 1:6 (which quotes Psa. 97:7, which definitely speaks of "gods" in the sense of false gods); and cf. Col. 2:16 on the problem of the worship of angels
5. Elsewhere in the Psalms angels, if spoken of as gods (or as "sons of the gods"), are considered false gods: Psa. 29:1; 86:8-10; 89:6; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9 (note that these false gods are called "angels" in the Septuagint); 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; cf. Ex. 15:11; 18:11; Deut. 10:17; 1 Chr. 16:25; 2 Chr. 2:5
6. Even if the angels were gods (which the above shows they are not), that would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He is not an angelic being, but the Son who is worshipped by the angels as their Creator, Lord, and God: Heb. 1:1-13

I. Conclusion: If there is only one God, one true God, all other gods being false gods, neither men nor angels being gods, and none even like God by nature - all of which the Bible says repeatedly and explicitly - then we must conclude that there is indeed only one God

II - This One God Is Known In The OT As "Jehovah/Yahweh" ("The Lord")

A. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Psa. 100:3; etc.

B. Texts where the compound name "Jehovah God" (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2:3; 9:26; 24:3; Ex. 3:15-18; 4:4; 2 Sam. 7:22, 25; etc.

C. Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29

D. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only el/elohim

III - God Is A Unique, Incomprehensible Being

A. Only one God, thus unique: See I.A.

B. None are even like God: see I.B

C. God cannot be fully comprehended: 1 Cor. 8:2-3

D. God can only be known insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18

E. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16

F. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench
1. Separate from the world: Isa. 40:22; Acts 17:24
2. Contrasted with the world: Psa. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17
3. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Psa. 33:6; 102:25; Isa. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3

IV - Is God One Person?

A. God is one God (cf. I above), one Yahweh, one Lord (cf. II above), one Spirit (John 4:24)

B. However, the Bible never says that God is "one person"
1. Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God's "person," but the word used here, hupostasis, is translated "substance" in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in Heb. 1:3 "God" refers specifically to the Father
2. Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between God and man, not as one person
3. Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God's "person," but ironically the Hebrew literally means "his faces"

C. The use of singular and plural pronouns for God
1. Over 7000 times God speaks or is spoken of with singular pronouns (I, He, etc.); but this is proper because God is a single individual being; thus these singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three "persons" as long as these persons are not separate beings
2. At least four times God speaks of or to Himself using plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8), and nontrinitarian interpretation cannot account for them
a. Plural reference to God and the angels possible in Isa. 6:8, but not in the Genesis texts; in 1:26 "our image" explained in 1:27, "in God's image"; in 3:22 "like one of us" refers back to 3:5, "like God"
b. The "litarary plural" (possibly, though never clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to texts in which God is speaking, not writing
c. The "plural of deliberation" is apparently unattested in biblical writings, and cannot explain Gen. 3:22 ("like one of us")
d. The "plural of amplitude" or of "fullness" (which probably does explain the use of the plural form elohim in the singular sense of "God") is irrelevant to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot explain Gen. 3:22
e. The "plural of majesty" possibly attested in 1 Kgs. 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but none of these are certain; and again, it cannot explain Gen. 3:22; also nothing in the context of the Gen. texts suggests that God is being presented as King

D. The uniqueness of God (cf. III above) should prepare us for the possibility that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons

V - The Father Of Jesus Christ Is God

A. Explicit statements: John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; etc.

B. The expression, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ": 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3

VI - Jesus Christ is God

A. Explicit statements
1. Isa. 9:6; note 10:21. Translations which render "mighty hero," are inconsistent in their rendering of 10:21. Also note that Ezek. 32:21 is (a) not in the same context, as is Isa. 10:21, and (b) speaking of false gods, cf. I.G.5 above.
2. John 1:1 Even if Jesus is here called "a god" (as some have argued), since there is only one God, Jesus is that God. However, the "a god" rendering is incorrect. Other passages using the Greek word for God (theos) in the same construction are always rendered "God": Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Phil 2:13; Heb. 11:16. Passages in which a shift occurs from ho theos ("the God") to theos ("God") never imply a shift in meaning: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:37-38; John 3:2; 13:3; Rom. 1:21; 1 Thess. 1:9; heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 4:10-11
3. John 1:18. The best manuscripts have "the unique God" (monogenes, frequently rendered "only-begotten," actually means "one of a kind," "unique," though in the NT always in the context of a son or daughter). Even if one translates "only-begotten," the idea is not of a "begotten god" as opposed to an "unbegotten god."
4. John 20:28. Compare Rev. 4:11, where the same construction is used in the plural ("our") instead of the singular ("my"). See also Psa. 35:23. Note that Christ's response indicates that Thomas' acclamation was not wrong. Also note that John 20:17 does show that the Father was Jesus' "God" (due to Jesus becoming a man), but the words "my God" as spoken by Thomas later in the same chapter must mean no less than in v. 17. Thus, what the Father is to Jesus in His humanity, Jesus is to Thomas (and therefore to us as well).
5. Acts 20:28: "the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." The variant readings (e.g. "the church of the Lord") show that the original was understood to mean "His own blood," not "the blood of His own [Son]" (since otherwise no one would have thought to change it). Thus all other renderings are attempts to evade the startling clarity and meaning of this passage.
6. Rom. 9:5. While grammatically this is not the only possible interpretation, the consistent form of doxologies in Scripture, as well as the smoothest reading of the text, supports the identification of Christ as "God" in this verse.
7. Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the strongest proof-texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp's first rule, properly understood, proves that the text should be translated "our great God and Savior" (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev. 1:6; and many other passages). Note also that Paul always uses the word "manifestation" ("appearing") of Christ: 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2. Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8
8. Heb. 1:8. The rendering, "God is your throne," is nonsense - God is not a throne, He is the one who sits on the throne! Also, "God is your throne," if taken to mean God is the source of one's rule, could be said about any angelic ruler - but Hebrews 1 is arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels.
9. 2 Pet. 1:1. The same construction is used here as in Titus 2:13; see the parallel passage in 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18
10. 1 John 5:20. Note that the most obvious antecedent for "this" is Jesus Christ. Also note that the "eternal life" is Christ, as can be seen from 1:2.

B. Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh
1. Rom. 10:9-13: Note the repeated "for," which links these verses closely together. The "Lord" of 10:13 must be the "Lord" of 10:9, 12
2. Phil. 2:9-11. In context, the "name that is above every name" is "Lord" (vs. 11), i.e., Jehovah
3. Heb. 1:10: Here God the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," in a quotation from Psa. 102:25 (cf. 102:24, where the person addressed is called "God"). Since here the Father addresses the Son as "Lord," this cannot be explained away as a text in which a creature addresses Christ as God/Lord in a merely representational sense
4. 1 Pet. 2:34: This verse is nearly an exact quotation of Psa. 34:8a, where "Lord" is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear that "the Lord" in v. 3 is Jesus
5. 1 Pet. 3:14-15: these verses are a clear reference to Isa. 8:12-13, where the one who is to be regarded as holy is Jehovah
6. Texts where Jesus is spoken of as the "one Lord" (cf. Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29): 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; cf. Roma. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:5

C. Jesus has the titles of God
1. Titles belonging only to God
a. The first and the last: Rev. 1:17; 22:13; cf. Isa. 44:6
b. King of kings and Lord of lords: 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16
2. Titles belong in the ultimate sense only to God
a. Savior: Luke 2:11; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; Titus 2:13, cf. v. 10; etc.; cf. Isa. 43.11; 45:21-22; 1 Tim 4:10; on Jesus becoming the source of salvation; Heb. 5:9, cf. Ex. 15:2; Psa. 118:14, 21
b. Shepherd: John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; cf. Psa. 23:1; Isa. 40:11
c. Rock: 1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Isa. 44:8

D. Jesus received the honors due to God alone
1. Honor: John 5:23
2. Love: Matt. 10:37
3. Prayer: John 14:14 (text debated, but in any case it is Jesus who answers the prayer); Acts 7:59-60 (cf. Luke 23:34, 46); Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8-10 (where "the Lord" must be Jesus, cf. v. 9), etc.
4. Worship (proskuneo): Matt. 28:17; Heb. 1:6 (cf. Psa. 97:7); cf. Matt 4:10
5. Religious or sacred service (latreuo): Rev. 22:13
6. Faith: John 3:16; 14:1; etc.

E. Jesus does the works of God
1. Creation: John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14 (cf. 21:6 on "beginning"); on "through" and "in" cf. Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; Acts 17:28; cf. also Isa. 44:24
2. Sustains the universe: Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3
3. Salvation:
a. In General: See C.2.a above
b. Forgives sins: Matt. 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26; note that Jesus forgives sins not committed against Him.
4. All of them: John 5:17-29 (including judgment, cf. Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 5:10)

F. Jesus has all the incommunicable attributes of God
1. All of them: John 1:1; Col. 1:15; 2:9; Heb. 1:3
2. Self-existent: John 5:26
3. Unchangeable: Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8
4. Eternal: John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2
5. Omnipresent: Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23; 4:10' Col. 3:11
6. Omniscient: John 16:30; 21:17; cf. 2:23-24
7. Incomprehensible: Matt. 11:25-27

G. Jesus is "equal with God"
1. John 5:18: Although John is relating what the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming, the context shows they were basically right: In v. 17 claimed to be exempt from the Sabbath along with His Father, and in 5:19-29 Jesus claimed to do all of the world of the Father and to deserve the same honor as the Father
2. Phil. 2:6: Jesus did not attempt to seize recognition by the world as being equal with God, but attained that recognition by humbling himself and being exalted by the Father (vv. 7-11)

H. Jesus is the Son of God
1. "Son" in Scripture can mean simply one possessing the nature of something, whether literal or figurative (e.g. "Son of man," "sons of thunder," "sons of disobedience," cf. Mark 3:7; Eph. 2:1
2. Usually when "son of" is used in relation to a person (son of man, son of Abraham, son of David, etc.) the son possesses the nature of his father
3. Jesus is clearly not the literal Son of God, i.e.. He was not physically procreated by God
4. On the other hand, Jesus is clearly the Son of God in a unique sense (cf. "only-begotten son," John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and in a preeminent sense (i.e. the term is more fitting for Him than for anyone else)
5. Scripture is explicit that the Son possesses God's essence or nature (cf. F. above)
6. Jesus' repeated claim to be the Son of God was consistently understood by the Jewish leaders as a blasphemous claim to equality with God, an understanding Jesus never denied: John 5:17-23; 8:58-59; 10:30-39; 19:7; Matt. 26:63-65
7. Jesus is therefore God's Son, not God's creation, God's servant, God's agent, etc.; Jesus is God's Son who became a servant for our sake and for the Father's glory (John 13:13-15; 17:4; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 1:4-13; 3:1-6; 5:8; etc.)

I. Objections
1. Prov. 8:22: This text is not a literal description of Christ, but a poetic personification of wisdom (cf. all of Prov. 1-9, esp 8:12-21; 9:1-6), poetically saying that God "got" His wisdom before He did anything - i.e., that God has always had wisdom
2. Col. 1:15: Does not mean that Christ is the first creature, since He is here presented as the Son and principal heir of the Father (cf. vv. 12-44); thus "firstborn" here means "heir" (cf. Gen. 43:33; 48;14-20; Ex. 4:22; 1 Chron. 5:1-3; Psa. 89:27; Jer. 31:9); note that v. 16 speaks of the Son as the Creator, nor creature (cf. E.1. above)
3. Rev. 3:14: "Beginning" (arche) in Rev. as a title means source or one who begins, i.e. Creator (cf. Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13); elsewhere Christ is called the arche in the sense of "ruler," Col. 1:18, cf. plural archai "rulers" in Col. 1:16; 2:10, 15, also Luke 12:11; Rom. 8:38; Eph. 3:10; 6:12; Tit. 3:1; cf. Luke 20:20; Jude 6; 1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:21
4. 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28: Jesus is still subordinate to God, but as the Son to the Father; i.e., they are equal in nature, but the Son is subordinate relationally to God
5. John 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; Rev. 1:6; 3:12: Jesus calls the Father "My God" because He is still man as well as God; note the distinction between "My God" and "your God" in John 20:17 (i.e., Jesus never speaks of "our God" including Himself with the disciples)
6. Mark 13:32: Jesus' statement that He did not know the time of His return is to be explained by His voluntary acceptance of the humble form and likeness of a man (Phil. 2:7); in fact Jesus, as God, did know all things (John 16:30), and after His resurrection He does not including Himself as not knowing (Acts 1:6-7)
7. Mark 10:17-18: Jesus does not deny being God, but simply tells the man that he has no business calling anyone "good" in an unqualified sense except God
8. Heb. 5:14: Jesus was tempted, cf. James 1:13; but note that Jesus could not sin, John 5:19
9. John 1:18: No one has seen God, but men have seen Jesus, e.g. 1 John 1:1-2; but note that no man can see the glorified Jesus either, 1 Tim. 6:16, and to see Jesus is to see the Father, John 14:9
10. 1 Tim. 1:17: God cannot die, but Jesus did, e.g. Phil. 2:8; but note that no one could take Jesus' life from Him, He could not remain dead, and He raised Himself: John 10:18; Acts 2:24; John 2:19-22
11. 1 Cor. 8:6: Father called God, Jesus called Lord: but here "God" and "Lord" are synonymous (cf. v. 5; cf. also Rom. 14:3-12 for a good example of "God" and "Lord" as interchangeable); moreover, this text no more denies that Jesus is God than it does that the Father is Lord (Matt. 11:25); cf. Jude 4, where Jesus is the only Lord
12. 1 Tim. 2:5: Jesus here supposedly distinct from God; but Jesus is also distinct from (fallen) men, yet is Himself a man; likewise Jesus is distinct from God (the Father), but is also God
13. Deut. 4:12, 15-25; God not appear in a human form to Israel, lest they fall into idolatry; but this does not rule out His appearing in human form later after they had learned to abhor idolatry
14. In many texts Jesus is distinguised from God: He is the Son of God, was sent by God, etc.; in all these texts "God" is used as a name for the person most commonly called God, i.e., the Father

VII - The Holy Spirit Is God

1. Equated with God: Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18

2. Has the incommunicable attributes of God
1. Eternal: heb. 9:14
2. Omnipresent: Psa. 139:7
3. Omniscient: 1 Cor. 2:10-11

3. Involved in all the works of God
1. Creation: Gen. 1:2; Psa. 104:30
2. Incarnation: Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35
3. Resurrection: Rom. 1:4; 8:11
4. Salvation: Rom. 8:1-27

4. Is a person
1. Has a name: Matt. 28:19; note that even though "name" might be used of a nonperson, here, in conjunction with the Father and the Son, it must be used of a person
2. Is the "Helper"
a. Is another Helper: John 14:16, cf. 1 John 2:1; note also that "Helper" (parakletos) was used in Greek always or almost always of persons
b. Is sent in Jesus' name, to teach: John 14:26
c. Will arrive, and then bear witness: John 15:26-27
d. Is sent by Christ to convict of sin, will speak not on his own but on behalf of Christ, will glorify Christ, thus exhibiting humility: John 16:7-14
3. Is the Holy Spirit, in contrast to unholy spirits: Mark 3:22-230, cf. Matt. 12:32; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 3:24-4:6
4. Speaks, is quoted as speaking: John 16:13; Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 16:6; 20:23; 21:11: 28:25-27; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17; 1 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13,22
5. Can be lied to: Acts 5:3
6. Can make decisions, judgments: Acts 15:28
7. Intercedes for Christians with the Father: Rom. 8:26
8. "Impersonal" language used of the Spirit paralled by language used of other persons
a. The Holy Spirit as fire: Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Ex. 3:2-4; Deut. 4:24; 9:3; Heb. 12:29
b. The Holy Spirit poured out: Acts 2:17, 33; cf. Isa. 53:12; Phil. 2:17; 2 Tim. 4:6
c. Being filled with the Holy Spirit: Eph. 5:18, etc.; cf. Eph. 3:17, 19; 14:10

VIII - The Father, Son, And Holy Spirit Are Distinct Persons

A. Matt. 28:19
1. "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit": use of definite article before each personal noun indicates distinct persons unless explicitly stated otherwise; compare Rev. 1:17; 2:8, 26
2. The views that "Father" and "Son" are distinct persons but not the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is not a person at all, or that all three are different offices or roles of one person, are impossible in view of the grammar (together with the fact that in Scripture a "spirit" is a person unless context shows otherwise).
3. Does singular "name" prove that the three are one person? No; cf. Gen. 5:2; 11:14; 48:6; and esp. 48:16
4. "Name" need not be personal name, may be title: Isa. 9:6; Matt. 1:23. If a single personal name is sought, the name shared by all three persons is "Yahweh" or "Jehovah."

B. Acts 2:38 and Matt. 28:19
1. Neither passage specifies that certain words are to be spoken during baptism; nor does the Bible ever record someone saying, "I baptize you in the name of...."
2. Those said to be baptized in the name of Jesus (whether or not the formula "in the name of Jesus" was used) were people already familiar with the God of the OT:
a. Jews: Acts 2:5, 38; 22:16
b. Samaritans: Acts 8:5, 12, 16
c. God-fearing Gentiles: Acts 10:1-2, 22, 48
d. Disciples of John the Baptist: Acts 19:1-5
e. The first Christians in Corinth were Jews and God-fearing Gentiles: Acts 18:1-8; 1 Cor. 1:13
3. Trinitarian formula for baptism (if that is what Matt. 28:19 is) was given in context of commissioning apostles to take the gospel to "all the nations," including people who did not know of the biblical God

C. God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ are two persons
1. The salutations: Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1, 2; 1 Tim. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Phm. 3; James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:2; 2 John 3
2. Two witnesses: John 5:31-32; 8:16-18; cf. Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15
3. The Father sent the Son: John 3:16-17; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:10; etc.; cf. John 1:6; 17:18; 20:21
4. The Father and the Son love each other: John 3:35; 5:20; 14:31; 15:9; 17-23-26; cf. Matt. 3:17 par.; 17:5 par.; 2 Pet. 1:17
5. The Father speaks to the Son, and the Son speaks to the Father: John 11:41-42; 12:28; 17:1-26; etc.
6. The Father knows the Son, and the Son knows the Father: Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 7:29; 8:55; 10:15
7. Jesus our Advocate with the Father: 1 John 2:1

D. Jesus is not God the Father
1. Isa. 9:6: "Father of eternity" means eternal; compare other names formed with word "father": Abialbon, "father of strength" = strong (2 Sam. 23:31); Abiasaph, "father of gathering" = gatherer (Ex. 6:24); Abigail, a woman's name(!), "father of exultation" = exulting (1 Chron. 2:16)
2. John 10:30
a. Jesus did not say, "I am the Father," nor did He say, "the Son and the Father are one person."
b. The first person plural esmen ("we are") implies two persons
c. The neuter word for "one" (hen) is used, implying essential unity but not personal unity (compare John 17:21-23).
3. John 5:43: Jesus' coming in His Father's name means not that He was the Father because He had the Father's name, but that, while others come in their own name (or their own authority), Jesus does not; He comes in His Father's name (on His Father's authority)
4. John 8:19; 16:3: Ignorance of Jesus is indeed ignorance of the Father, but that does not prove that Jesus is the one He calls "My Father"
5. John 14:6-11
a. Jesus and the Father are one being, not one person
b. Jesus said, "I am in the Father," not "I am the Father"
c. The statement, "the Father is in Me," does not mean Jesus is the Father; compare John 14:20; 17:21-23
6. John 14:18: An older adult brother can care for his younger siblings, thus preventing them from being "orphans," without being their father
7. Colossians 2:9: Does not mean that Jesus is the Father, or that Jesus is an incarnation of the Father; rather, since "Godhead" (theotes) means Deity, the state of being God, the nature of God, Jesus is fully God, but not the only person who is God. "The Godhead" here does not = the Father (note that Jesus is in the Father, John 10:38; 14:10, 11; 17:21), but the nature of the Father.
8. The Father and the Son are both involved in various activities: raising Jesus (Gal. 1:1; John 2:19-22), raising the dead (John 5:21); 6:39-40, 44, 54, 1 Cor. 6:14), answering prayer (John 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23), sending the Holy Spirit (John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7), drawing people to Jesus (John 6:44; 12:32), etc. These common works do prove that the two persons are both God, but not that Jesus is the Father

E. The Son existed before His Incarnation, even before creation
1. Prov. 30:4: This is not predictive prophecy; "prophecy" in 30:1 translates massa, which is rendered elsewhere as "burden."
2. The Son created all things: See VI.E.1
3. Jesus was "with" (pros or para) God the Father before creation: John 1:1; 17:5; pros in John 1:1 does not mean "pertaining to," although is does in Hebrews 2:17; 5:1 (which use pros with ta).
4. Jesus, the Son of God, existed before John the Baptist (who was born before Jesus): john 1:15, cf. 1:14-18, 29-34
5. Jesus, the Son, came down from heaven, sent from the Father, and went back to heaven, back to the Father: John 3:13, 31; 6:33; 38, 41, 46, 51, 56-58, 62; 8:23, 42; 13:3; 16:27-28; cf. Acts 1:10-11; cf. the sending of the Holy Spirit, John 16:5-7; 1 Pet. 1:12
6. Jesus, speaking as the Son (John 8:54-56), asserts His eternal preexistence before Abraham: john 8:58
7. The Son explicitly said to exist "before all things": Col. 1:17, cf. 1:12-20
8. These statements cannot be dismissed as true only in God's foreknowledge
a. We are all in God's min before creation; yet such passages as John 1:1 and John 17:5 clearly mean to say something unusual about Christ.
b. To say that all things were created through Christ means that He must have existed at creation.
c. No one else in Scripture is ever said to have been with God before creation.
9. Texts which speak of the Son being begotten "today" do not mean He became the Son on a certain day, since they refer to His exaltation at the resurrection (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:3-5; 5:5; cf. Psa. 2:7; cf. also Rom. 1:4)

F. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit
1. The Holy Spirit is "another Comforter": John 14:16; compare 1 John 2:1
2. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit: John 15:26; 16:7
3. The Holy Spirit exhibits humility in relation to, and seeks to glorify, Jesus (John 16:13-14)
4. The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinguished as tow persons in Matt. 28:19
5. The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus: Luke 3:22
6. Is Jesus the Holy Spirit?
a. 2 Cor. 3:17: the Spirit is here called "Lord" in the sense of being Yahweh or God, not Jesus (cf. v. 16, citing Ex. 34:34; cf. v. 17 in the New English Bible); note Acts 28:25-27, cf. Isa. 6:8-10
b. 1 Cor. 15:45: Jesus is "a life-giving Spirit," not in the sense that He is the Holy Spirit whom He sent at Pentecost, but in the sense that He is the glorified God-man; and as God He is Spirit by nature. All three persons of the Trinity are Spirit, though there are not three divine Spirits; and only one person is designated "the Holy Spirit."
c. Rom. 8:27, 34: the fact that two persons intercede for us is consistent with the fact that we have two Advocates (John 14:16; Rom. 8:26; 1 John 2:1)
d. John 14:18: Jesus here refers to His appearances to the disciples after the resurrection (compare 14:19), not to the coming of the Spirit
e. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both involved in various activities: raising Jesus (John 2:19-19-22); Rom. 8:9-11), raising the dead (John 5:21; 6:39-40, 44, 54, Rom. 8:9-11), dwelling in the believer (John 14:16; 2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:27), interceding for the believer (Rom. 8:26; Heb. 7:25), sanctifying believers (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 1:2), etc. These works prove that the two persons are both God, but not that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

G. The Father is not the Holy Spirit
1. The Father sent the Holy Spirit: John 14:15; 15:26
2. The Holy Spirit intercedes with the Father for us: Rom. 8:26-27
3. The Father and the Holy Spirit are distinguished as two persons in Matt. 28:19
4. Is the Father the Holy Spirit?
a. Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35: It is argued that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the incarnate Son of God; this argument ignores the fact that the "conception" is not a product of physical union between a man and a woman!
b. The Father and the Holy Spirit are both said to be active in various activities; the resurrection of Jesus (Gal. 1:1; Rom. 8:11), comforting Christians (2 Cor. 1:3-4; John 14:26), sanctifying Christians (Jude 1; 1 Pet. 1:2), etc. The most these facts prove is that the two work together; they do not prove the two are one person.

IX - Conclusion: The Bible teaches the Trinity

A. All the elements of the doctrine are taught in Scripture
1. One God
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (i.e., they are not each other, nor are they impersonal; they relate to one another personally)

B. The New Testament presents a consistent triad of Father, Son, Holy Spirit (God, Christ, Spirit): matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:34; also Luke 1:35; 3:21-22 par.; 4:1-12; John 4:10-25; 7:37-39; 14-16; 20:21-22; Acts 1:4-8; 2:33, 38-39; 5:3-4, 9, 30-32; 7:55-56; 10:36-38, 44-48; 11:15-18; 15:8-11; 20:38; 28:25-31; Rom. 1:1-4; 5:5-10; 8:2-4, 9-11, 14-17; 1 Cor. 6:11; 12:4-6, 11-12, 18; 2 Cor. 1:19-22; 3:6-8, 14-18; Gal. 3:8-14; 4:4-7; Eph. 1:3-17; 2:18, 21-22; 3:14-19; 4:4-6, 29-32; 5:18-20; Phil. 3:3; 1 Thess. 1:3-6; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Tit. 3:4-6; Heb. 2:3-4; 9:14; 10:28-31; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 3:21-24; 4:13-14; Jude 20-21; Rev. 2:18, 27-29

C. Therefore, the Bible does teach the Trinity

X - What Difference Does The Doctrine Of The Trinity Make?

A. Sovereignty: Because the three persons have each other, we can be assured that God created us only to share the love they have and not as a means to His own end: Acts 17:25; John 17:21-26

B. Mystery: The trinune God is totally unlike anything in our world, and therefore greater than anything we can comprehend: Rom. 11:33-36; Isa. 40:18

C. Salvation: God alone planned our salvation, came to save us, and dwells in us to complete our salvation: 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:3-18; etc.

D. Prayer: We pray to the Father through the Son, and also pray to the Son directly, in the Spirit: John 14:13-14; Eph. 2:18; etc.

E. Worship: We worship Father and Son in the Spirit: john 4:23-24; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 1:8; etc.

F. Love: The love among the three persons is the basis and model for our love for one another: John 17:26

G. Unity: The unity of the three persons is the basis and model for the unity of the church: John 17:21-23

H. Humility: As the persons of the Trinity seek the glory of each other, so we should seek the interests of others above our own: Phil. 2:5-11; John 16:13-14

I. Sonship: We are "sons of God" as we are united with the Son of God by the work of the Holy Spirit and the adoption of the Father: john 1:12-23; Rom. 8:14-17

J. Truth: All those who wish to worship and love God must seek to know Him as He is in truth, for God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is truth: John 4:24; 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:13

 

[Maximus Decimus]

****Also a short side-note****

The beginning of this discussion was a question:
"These are my findings can some one please explain to me if and were i have gone wrong in my findings on the trinity." (accent added)

Nugget was looking for truth and assistance. Let's not develope a culture of pushing our own concepts on everyone as fact. Some of it may be fact, some may not.

Truth is Truth, what we choose to believe is up to us.

 

[pappa]

Where is all the hostility coming from. A reasonable discussion with varying points of view is a good thing. Oneheart is unitarian and her point of view leans toward Jehovah's Witness theology. I also am not a trinitarian in the way some think of it. The Bible definitely refers to a "3 ness" Father, Son, Holy Spirit, but the doctrine of the trinity as defined a 3 persons in one godhead is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible... It is a theological doctrine derived from the Bible... that's why it is such a controversial subject.

Even though I have my opinion on the subject, I welcome discussion from other points of view. I hope others would do the same.... and on this subject there has been some good research and discussion by all who have participated.

The other thing is that if someone disagrees with me and critiques my arguments... I look at that as a good thing... actually I welcome it. It helps me shape and understand my point of view better. I don't take it personally. In the same way, if I present other points of view or critique someone elses views, it's not intended personally so I would not expect it to be taken personally.

Let's keep the discussion open and honest and be willing to listen to other points of view without getting offended.... remembering that none of us are perfect and any good we obtain is by the grace of god... let's show love and compassion to eachother by allowing each person to express their point of view without fear of personal attacks.

 

[jje4jesus]

Trinity, trinity, trinity.....

Anyone here looking for an answer to their views on the Trinity? Here it is...

Love is the answer to EVERYTHING.

Evaluate whether the value and TIME we give to discussing doctrinal views is actually as much time as we should give it, compared to possibly the time we give to helping needy people, serving others, doing well at school and work for the glory of God and in essence practicing our "holy walk" with and for Jesus Christ. "Arguing" about doctrines like the Trinity can lead to disagreements, pointless argument, and increased bitterness between denominations and opinions. It is true, however, that doctrinal points ARE important, as I mentioned a long time ago in a section of the outline I provided in this forum regarding the Godhead, as follows:

X - What Difference Does The Doctrine Of The Trinity Make?

A. Sovereignty: Because the three persons have each other, we can be assured that God created us only to share the love they have and not as a means to His own end: Acts 17:25; John 17:21-26
B. Mystery: The trinune God is totally unlike anything in our world, and therefore greater than anything we can comprehend: Rom. 11:33-36; Isa. 40:18
C. Salvation: God alone planned our salvation, came to save us, and dwells in us to complete our salvation: 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:3-18; etc.
D. Prayer: We pray to the Father through the Son, and also pray to the Son directly, in the Spirit: John 14:13-14; Eph. 2:18; etc.
E. Worship: We worship Father and Son in the Spirit: john 4:23-24; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 1:8; etc.
F. Love: The love among the three persons is the basis and model for our love for one another: John 17:26
G. Unity: The unity of the three persons is the basis and model for the unity of the church: John 17:21-23
H. Humility: As the persons of the Trinity seek the glory of each other, so we should seek the interests of others above our own: Phil. 2:5-11; John 16:13-14
I. Sonship: We are "sons of God" as we are united with the Son of God by the work of the Holy Spirit and the adoption of the Father: john 1:12-23; Rom. 8:14-17
J. Truth: All those who wish to worship and love God must seek to know Him as He is in truth, for God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is truth: John 4:24; 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:13

I was talking to a classmate who had Jehovah Witness beliefs at my university about a year ago about the Trinity doctrine. He and I were pretty cool with each other and had similar hobbies/interests before we even knew we were both religious, though of diff faiths. Later, we stopped (or at least he did) talking to each other just because we had different views on the Trinity. Please dont increase hate over things like this... the doctrine of the Trinity, as many other doctrines, in the end should be seen in the realistic perspective.... they are as important as "chasing after the wind" . Keep in mind Ecclesiastes 1:12-18:

12 I, the Teacher,d when king over Israel in Jerusalem,
13applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven; it is an unhappy business that God has given to human beings to be busy with.
14I saw all the deeds that are done under the sun; and see, all is vanity and a chasing after wind.e
15 What is crooked cannot be made straight,
and what is lacking cannot be counted.
16 I said to myself, "I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge."
17And I applied my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a chasing after wind.f
18 For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow.

You will never be able to prove things like the Trinity...if you did, would you cause the sky to fall? Would the starving people of the world all of a sudden become fed? Would pollution dissappear? AIDS? Would there be a great revival in the world of unbelievers coming to Christ?

...No...

So, it is okay and still is encouraged for people to talk about doctrinal beliefs, but please do not spend too much time on it. As responsible Christians, our responsibility is sticking to Jesus Christ. I really hope this helps, and regardless of denomination or belief system you have, understand that I try to care and love and respect everyone. That is my duty as a Christian, but also my duty as a human being. The world keeps existing outside of religion. Let's use it responsibly.

 

[mymakersdaughter]

Pappa...you nailed it right on the head! Good for you! :thumbs_up

 

[It Is Him7]

Can you explain the Trinity?

Q: "What about the doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Trinity?"

our A: "Trinity" is a term that is not found in the Bible but a word used to describe what is apparent about God in the Scriptures. The Bible clearly speaks of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit...and also clearly presents that there is only one God. Thus the term: "Tri" meaning three, and "Unity" meaning one, Tri+Unity = Trinity. It is a way of acknowledging what the Bible reveals to us about God, that God is yet three "Persons" who have the same essence of deity.



Some have tried to give human illustrations for the Trinity, such as H2O being water, ice and steam (all different forms, but all are H2O). Another illustration is an egg having a shell, egg yolk and egg white, but this egg illustration shows that there would be "parts" to God, which isn't the case.

God the Son (Jesus) is fully, completely God. God the Father is fully, completely God. And God the Holy Spirit is fully, completely God. Yet there is only one God. In our world, with our limited human experience, it's tough to understand the Trinity. But from the beginning we see God this way in Scripture. Notice the plural pronouns "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26 -- Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Though not a complete list, here is some other Scripture that shows God is one, in Trinity:

• "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut. 6:4)
  
• "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." (Isa. 45:5)
  
• There is no God but one. (1Cor. 8:4)
  
• And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." (Matt. 3:16-17)
  
• "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28:19)
  
• Jesus said: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
  
• "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)
  
• "He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me." (John 12:45)
  
• If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Rom. 8:9)
  
• "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 1:20)
  
• And the angel answered and said to her [Mary], "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
  
• [Jesus speaking to His disciples] "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you." ... "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him." (John 14:16-17, 23)

taken from http://everystudent.com/forum/trinity.html

 

[VegasChristian]

Please read Revelation 5:11-14.

If Jesus is not God, heaven is full of idolators!!!

 

[led by the spirit]

the holy spirit should have been rendered as "it" and not "him" for it is the presense ,power,finger etc of god the father,since no man can look upon god the father in flesh and live.No trinity but god the father and his spirit and god the son jesus the christ and these two are one.WE the begotton soon to be sons as well in oneness in christ our brother and christ. So be it god bless

 

[sail2awe]

i am fixing to put together a study on this subject. i would wish to remind everyone, that we are not able to comprehend God. We cannot step us to His level, He therefore, being the all wise omnipotent creator, stoops down to our level, and allows us to know what we are capable of understanding.

Because He has revealed more than one office of His personality by no means grants us authority to restrict Him to our conceptions, because, we cannot conceive of Him. Obviously, people have difficulty believing Him with only these few methods He has chosen for revealing Himself.

Briefly, we know this: He is invisible. He manifest in the flesh and tabernacled among men, taking on the form of a servant. Christ said when He leaves, speaking to the disciples, He will send 'another Comforter'. See, Christ was one, but He would send another one. Well, that was the Holy Spirit. We have it all thru the OT as well. It is all the same God, as there is only one God.

Paul said, 'Great is the mystery of Godliness'. We cannot understand all things and we must accept it. It is silly trying to put God into one of our boxes.

1Ti 3:16 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.

 

[sail2awe]

Mar 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

I think we can all agree that in the above verse, it is God who is the creator.


Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

This is speaking of Christ, I think we can all agree on this.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Are we still all in agreement about these verses speaking of Christ?


Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Is this verse still speaking about Christ? We read in this verse then, that it is Christ who created all things, not only in earth, but in heaven. And we are given further revelation, that by Christ, all things invisible and visible were created by Him, and then a list of some hard sayings of creation follow.

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Yet another emphatic statement, ever building force to make this imprint on our minds that it is Christ who is the creator.


Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.


Another verse with a hard to understand saying, even for those of us who understand that God created all things.



Did God create all things?

Did Christ create all things?