|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 18, 2009 11:17:35 GMT -5
A great little book for anybody wanting a quick overview of early Christianity is "Pocket History of Theology by Roger E. Olson. A small-sized 100-page intro.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 18, 2009 12:31:10 GMT -5
I've got one weighty tome Rob Oxenbridge recommended to meWould you mind sharing the title? Freeman is most decidedly NOT a fictional conspiracy writer like Dan Brown who strings together startling factoids designed to appeal to the prurient interest. I have no argument with this, and I didn't mean to infer that. What I was trying to illustrate is how things look from my particular point of view. I understand that my analogy is flawed, and I credit this dialog with helping me refine my view. Actually I believe both of our views could use some refinement. Perhaps after I explain what I feel I've learned from our conversation, you'll agree So if you wish to arrange a continuum it should be of those opposed within the realm of serious scholarship.Of course this is true. I suppose it's just that I see a great tendency of a certain type of person to take that political perspective and run with it all the way a "DaVinci Code" type conspiracy mentality. I believe your protest is valid and hence the refinement in my view.... It seems the more correct scale would simply have "Theology" on one end and "Politics" on the other. I believe the tension comes when either side flatly discounts the other. This is, first of all, incorrect. Obviously. Secondly, it's wholly unnecessary. Unfortunately, it seems most commentators must feel their argument is weakened by acknowledging the validity of the opposing view. Personally, I feel very comfortable with my view of the theological argument and I recognize that there is much to learn about the political environment of the times. There is no need to feel "threatened" by the bias of commentary from either perspective. I think I'm good with that Thanks again for a terrific dialog.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 18, 2009 13:40:31 GMT -5
The books was Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by Moreland & Craig. More in the nature of a survey of ideas, and looking very much like a college textbook. I haven't yet read any of it, but it's beckoning. I think you've characterized the discussion quite well. You're right ... we often criticize what we don't fully understand or don't want to accept and this testiness is fertile ground for conspiracy theories and the like. And one thing that could be said is that I don't understand the richness of the history of Trinitarianism well enough to critique it very well. The person who accepts it and understands it well, like GIC, could no doubt write a much better critique than I could, because he would know better what the weak spots are. (GIC, I seem to recall you were on the No side on a debate on this issue). Anyway, often when we investigate and learn more we discover our old critique was invalid. So we then have acquired the ability to rebuff those who still walk in the same shoes we've since shed. (But are we any further ahead ourselves. For example, I used to have quite a chip on my shoulder about "political correctness" in language until I returned to college and found out what it was really all about. Now, there are many ramifications of political correctness that I dislike, but I still find myself constantly disagreeing with the anti-PC crowd just because I don't buy their logic.
|
|
|
Post by Child of God on Apr 22, 2009 19:30:39 GMT -5
I recognize that there is much to learn about the political environment of the times. Zorro, I am at a loss to understand how the political environment has anything to do with God and his work in in those days or today.... except clouding and usurping his rightful place in our life.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Apr 22, 2009 22:47:04 GMT -5
Zorro,
I am at a loss to understand how the political environment has anything to do with God and his work in in those days or today....
except clouding and usurping his rightful place in our life.
Two points: 1) there is no question at all that Constantine influenced the church in a big way and 2) it clouded and usurped God's work....to a great degree. However, creating an environment for Christians to openly and legally profess Christ was certainly better than being thrown into the arena.
I believe my statement from an earlier post makes my position pretty clear:
The early church had many things to work out, and they did it. I believe they were being led by God to do his work, and the end result was his will. People leaning toward the right side of my scale above, tend to believe the result was the work of politics, corruption, fear, and the like. I guess you can probably tell what side of the scale I lean towards
Now to that end, I believe that I'll be able to more effectively communicate with those leaning to the political side of my scale if I better understand where their argument is coming from.
|
|
ann
Senior Member
Jesus did NOT say follow people .. He said follow ME!
Posts: 267
|
Post by ann on Apr 23, 2009 13:18:59 GMT -5
"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) www.everystudent.com/forum/trinity.htmlann
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 23, 2009 14:29:15 GMT -5
Actually Ann, none of those verses argue for three states of God in one. Remember that the contention is not with whether the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist but whether the Son and Spirit were created by the Father, or not. (Trinitarians say the Son and Spirit were not created by God). In fact some of those verses argue against the Trinity. For example, how could the Father send the Son, if he is already the Son.
The strongest chapter I know, in favour of the Trinity, is Hebrews 1. In Hebrews 1:8, God calls the Son, "God". But Hebrews 2 muddies the water again.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 24, 2009 13:17:12 GMT -5
Zorro,
I am at a loss to understand how the political environment has anything to do with God and his work in in those days or today....
except clouding and usurping his rightful place in our life. Two points: 1) there is no question at all that Constantine influenced the church in a big way and 2) it clouded and usurped God's work....to a great degree. However, creating an environment for Christians to openly and legally profess Christ was certainly better than being thrown into the arena. I believe my statement from an earlier post makes my position pretty clear: The early church had many things to work out, and they did it. I believe they were being led by God to do his work, and the end result was his will. People leaning toward the right side of my scale above, tend to believe the result was the work of politics, corruption, fear, and the like. I guess you can probably tell what side of the scale I lean towards Now to that end, I believe that I'll be able to more effectively communicate with those leaning to the political side of my scale if I better understand where their argument is coming from. I would have to say that I will always have to take the explanation based on politics, human nature and logic over the 'spiritual' one. Where they stand in opposition, that is. For example, you might say that these men, the early church Fathers, were devout, spiritual men, led by God, so that we can trust the decisions they made, such as deciding which books go into the Bible, and also questions of doctrine, and so on. On the face of it, I accept that definition also, but if the actual historical evidence should indicate something to the contrary, I will take the hard evidence any time, and shift my belief accordingly. Take the conventional view of Constantine. When I was a young lad, the view was that he was a good Christian king, and God used him to spread Christianity throughout the Empire. Now, we learn since that he practiced Christianity, but he also practiced paganism. He was interested in appeasing the far-ranging cultures and religions within the borders of his kingdom. I no longer hold the former view. In the 1600s the earth was thought to be the center of the Universe, and the mathematical calculations to keep it at the center, in light of the perceived paths of planets became very complex. If you were a Christian you likely persisted in this belief and followed the party line that Galileo was a heretic. It would have been better to keep one's mind open to the facts. I take a similar view of evolution, which is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. I can't believe that 50% of Americans don't accept it.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Apr 24, 2009 16:23:17 GMT -5
For example, how could the Father send the Son, if he is already the Son. With God, all things are possible.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 24, 2009 18:13:14 GMT -5
For example, how could the Father send the Son, if he is already the Son. With God, all things are possible. Except driving those people with the nasty chariots of iron out of the valley.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 2, 2009 10:42:18 GMT -5
Thanks for your witness Zorro ! My hat's off to your passion. Witness? Interesting choice of words. You here to convert people? Sure. The doctrine of Jesus defines the identity of man: he is neither God nor beast. Rather, man was created with the unique potential to reflect his Maker, voluntarily. How many people do you know who could benefit from considering this ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2009 6:17:35 GMT -5
For example, how could the Father send the Son, if he is already the Son. With God, all things are possible. And thus there is hope for Ilylo?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 3, 2009 9:56:08 GMT -5
With God, all things are possible. And thus there is hope for Ilylo? Yet another comment which tells us more about your character, bert, than mine.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 3, 2009 19:11:17 GMT -5
I'm thankful for the suggestion above that Provs. 8 helps us to see what Jesus was before the world became and what He was before He came to the earth as a babe....seems Provs. 8 just epitomizes him as the very essence of God's wisdom, truth and righteousness as well as mercy....I know that love and mercy was His mantra when He was on the earth in a human body! This ch. just opens it up more to me what it means in the 1st ch. of John as Jesus being the Word of God, being the light the life of men....don't we all "see" men and women on this earth that exhibit the "wisdom" that seems elusive to so many other ment and women? Isn't wisdom the one characteristic that some display that makes them notable, celebrities among their peers? Seems so to me!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 4, 2009 22:28:41 GMT -5
And yet it's interesting that he is called the Word and not the Son at this point, "the Word made Flesh". I don't disagree with the Trinity especially, but when you read all the verses in the Bible concerning the relationship of God, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Word, and all the other words that refer to Godhead, it's much richer and somewhat more incomprehensible and untidy than the Trinity doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Child of God on May 5, 2009 14:51:15 GMT -5
And yet it's interesting that he is called the Word and not the Son at this point, "the Word made Flesh". I don't disagree with the Trinity especially, but when you read all the verses in the Bible concerning the relationship of God, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Word, and all the other words that refer to Godhead, it's much richer and somewhat more incomprehensible and untidy than the Trinity doctrine. I agree whole heartily with your assessment about the Godhead being much richer than the Trinity doctrine can describe. I think this goes for much of the understanding of our spirituality. I don't think we will ever be able to understand the magnificence of God. Just the way he deals with our hearts defies the logic of humanity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 6:53:22 GMT -5
Hi What and all,
It is ages since I have been on here. Over the years I have seen and participated in many threads on the Trinity. The same questions, arguments and points seem to get raised over and over again, with refutation and counter-refutation.
I have just noticed this new thread and just wanted to add some perspective re the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit that sometimes gets overlooked, hence leading to confusion about what trinitarians actually believe and teach.
I notice that What questioned how the Father could send Jesus if the Father was the Son. I agree! If that was what trinitarians actually believed, then I would be the first to admit that it creates a problem.
This idea that the "Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit" is actually the most common (but understandable) misconception I have come across, especially when talking to workers or friends about this, who generally have no clue about what the teaching of the Trinity actually is.
What trinitarians actually believe, put simply, is that God has revealed Himself throughout scripture as 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'. Whether 'big 'D' Divine or 'small 'd' divine, I think we would all agree that is the main reference to who God is. This basic understanding has been fleshed out in the creeds as 'Three persons in One God'. What that means is that, as Ann says, the scriptures present God as 'God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit' (Three persons or centres of consciousness in One God).
What the scriptures do not say is that the Father is the Son, the Son is the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is the Father. This confuses the persons! Scripture stops short of saying that, but it does show the closest of relationships that has always existed between these three 'persons', Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
That is why trinitarians can say that God has always been a 'God of relationships' even before he made the universe and mankind. In fact some have used the analogy of human marriage being a faint echo of the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity.
Remember we are not talking in sexual, human terms here but in terms of divine intimacy, perfect fellowship, unified purpose and shared existence. Others have proposed that, before time began, the Father is the one who Initiated salvation, the Son is the One who agreed and offered Himself as the means of our Salvation, and the Holy Spirit communicates the Father and the Son to us so that we can have fellowship with our triune God.
The Trinity is a deep and rich doctrine that has been held and taught by most of the Christian church throughout its history (being implicit in the inspired, revealed Word of God, the scriptures) , and it is in my view, the one that, properly understood, does the best job of reconciling all the 'word pictures' we have of God when He is described in terms of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Peace
Alistair
|
|
|
Post by izzi on May 6, 2009 7:45:32 GMT -5
History and religions and their scriptures will always be clung to resolutely by their adherents. But in terms of simple logic there are two problems:
If God =Jesus= Holy spirit, the jesus sacrifice idea falls flat at the outset. (God cannot sacrifice to himself) If God is a male only, three-member team, we are no longer talking about a monotheistic doctrine.
It is just as easy to say that Zeus, Demeter and all the other roman gods are all part of a team.
There is something most unbalanced about a father, son and spirit team, when all of nature echoes a father+mother=baby theme. Or, if we don't want to look at sexuality ITO gods, then at least a grandfather>father>son sequence.
The trinity was started by Constantine and his contentious buddies at the First Council of Nicea.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 6, 2009 9:04:12 GMT -5
izzi,
I've just started to read a scholar named Marcus J. Borg. Very interesting and learned man; he has a web blog and wikipedia article if you're curious. Numerous books as well. Have you heard of him?
Regarding God the Father I remember reading his POV that God is not male or female and the use of the word 'Father' represents convention wired into the Greek and Hebrew language. I suppose that's not a particularly unique idea.
Thanks for an interesting and informative post, Alistair.
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on May 7, 2009 16:21:17 GMT -5
WE TOO are GOD?
John 10:34-38 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." NKJV
no trinity, only ONE GOD, and His Only Begotten Son, and we who through Him are saved and become children of God, little gods. Not the fourth or fifth or the billionth part of God, but small 'g' gods as Jesus said.
Because:
If God the Great 'I Am That I Am' is GOD
If Jesus is also GOD the Father
and by small 'gods' to mean to say 'God', that "Ye are all 'G'od", we are very wrong.
I understand that many people would love to be God, (this is what is HIDING behind the 'trinity concept') so did Satan and so do the Mormons, the New Agers and so on, but being 'Children of God', who shall be referred to as 'gods', is NOT being GOD.
Jesus when He was here made that perfectly clear, that there is only ONE GOD and this ONE GOD begotten a Son, (NOT Jesus) who He sent down to earth and was to be born of a woman, and then was named 'Jesus', who was to be resurrected, and 'return' to heaven and take His seat NEXT to, on His 'right side' to be exact, of his FATHER, and NOT sit 'next to' himself.
We too, (Jesus said) will sit next to 'The Son' who is sitting next to 'The Father' who is the Only God in existence.
We learn this from scripture when God said to His Only Begotten; "Let us make man in 'our' own image..."
So through the instruction and the power of His Father, together they created Adam, who was to be an 'image' (not the real thing) of God. But since God said: "Let us make man in 'OUR' image" not "in MY image" only, Adam was not complete yet. He was in GODS image, and The Son was not yet in this physical replica. So God said to His Only Begotten, "it is not good for man to be alone, ..."
Gen 2:18-19 18 And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.NKJV
By this I understand that God too did not like to be alone. This is why He creates all sorts of creatures to surround Him, to praise HIM, to sing new songs to Him, he gives them tasks to fulfill as helpers, but even they did not suffice, just like for Adam the 'helpers' the animals God created did not suffice Adam.
This is when we learn that God 'beget' from HIMSELF a Son (NOT created like His other companions, those angelic beings, all those different creatures in Gods Spiritual realm, (which too are likened to the creatures he made to entertain Adam in the Garden).
In the likeness, very similar to God and His Only Son, Eve was formed:
Gen 2:23 23 And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." NKJV
'Taken out of man' just like Jesus was 'begotten' or taken out of God.
So just like God the Father who beget His Only Son, they put Adam to sleep and took some things out of him, like the rib to start with, and created Eve.
Now the request to "make man in OUR own image" was completed.
JUST AS Eve and Adam are ONE, the Son and God are one; "the two shall become one" but we know by reading and seeing and putting two and two together that they are NOT really ONE in all other sense, they are two individual beings, where "Adam was FIRST and THEN Eve".
Likewise if a man goes with a prostitute, the two becomes one, as Jesus said, but He did not mean one as God is one, but a 'sinner' one. If we go with the world, we too become one with the world, and so on...
This is why it is written; 'ADAM was first, THEN Eve, so ADAM is the greater NOT Eve, Eve was taken out of Adam and NOT visa versa. In the same way Jesus explained this over and over again that; "My Father is greater then I, and if I told you otherwise, I would be a lier like you' (not verbatim)
This is the 'image' we reflect as Adam and Eve; God and His Only Begotten Son' and to say that 'The Son is God the Father', we are in grave error. That is like saying; 'Eve is really Adam, or that she is equal to Adam'. This where 'womens lib' arose causing confusion between the family order. This is the main cause of Divorce, abortion (My body, the hell with the man and what he wants, the baby is IN ME, not in him, so I can kill it whenever I want to!)
By this 'trinity concept' we are adding to scripture, we are also denying the SON, making God at times less then what He actually IS. But we are warned that doing this, our names can and will be removed from the Book of Life'!
The Burning Bush represented GOD. God never said: "Me and the Burning Bush are one" and He never told Moses to "tell them the Burning Bush who is one with God, for God and the Burning Bush are ONE, sent me"!
Jesus said; John 10:30 30 I and My Father are one." NKJV
John 10:25-30 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30 I and My Father are one." NKJV
In the Trinity way, if Jesus is God the Father, nothing would make sense. God cannot be or never has said He was LESS THEN, or Get Orders From, anyone. God is God and NEVER in any way be LESS THAN Himself.
When HE was talking through the BUSH, HE was GOD. NOT; "I the Bush, and the Father are one."
Oh Lord, please open their eyes Lord, it is so obvious, and yet you cannot see it. Some of you can, and for the rest I pray to God that they would read the New Testament again and make Jesus who you say is God the Father, as the Burning Bush.
For I have sent me to do my works of Me, .. Me and I are one,.. All things have been given me by ME (remember the Burning Bush, the Bush never said it was less then God as Jesus said over and over again, and yet don't you think that a Burning Bush is less then Jesus in the flesh as GOD?)
Do you see it?
|
|
|
Post by izzi on May 7, 2009 16:38:45 GMT -5
"When HE was talking through the BUSH, HE was GOD. NOT; "I the Bush, and the Father are one.""
I'm not ready to think of Bush as a divine mouthpiece. I am currently researching an idea that Obama could be an incarnation of Jesus, though.
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on May 7, 2009 17:16:22 GMT -5
Gloryinchrist wrote: Firstly, Arianism generally regards Jesus as a created being, often relying on texts such as John's "begotten of the Father" as evidence. However, Trinitarians have long pointed out that as Jesus must be understood to be eternally begotten, this text is not a refutation of Trinitarian belief. You are correct that Arianism may ascribe Jesus some form of divinity, but usually only in the sense that angels are sometimes referred to as "divine" - that is, they are created, yet of an higher order of existence than man.
I believe confusion arises when we reconcile our belief about the Person and nature of Christ, with the concept that he "became a little lower than the angels", in that he came to earth taking the "form of a servant". Care must be taken when approaching the incarnate Christ that we distinguish between his humanity and his deity. For example, in occupying a body he was, in one sense, made finite; he was possessed of needs unlike God who needs no food or drink.
When we come to understand that in Jesus was an interaction between his full humanity and his full divinity - prayer being a characteristic of humanity, and miracles (for example) being the characteristic of divinity, we see the apparently subordinate position served a definite function. The Bible speaks of Jesus creating the world (John); sustaining "all things" with his powerful word; and being equal with God (Hebrews).
First of all, arianism failed when Arian, just like hundreds of other great scholars, or men of God deviated from the Bible and became a persecutor of other Christians.
I do not consider myself an Arian, but a Christian who seeks after the truth.
You talk about Jesus being 'less then the angels' when in the flesh, and when he goes up back to heaven, he goes above the angels, above all created things, right?
That is NOT GOD.
GOD IS 'I AM THAT I AM' AND NEVER EVER CAN BE ANY LESS THEN THAT. WHEN HE TALKED TO MOSES IN THE BURNING BUSH, IT WAS ONLY A BURNING BUSH, BUT TOLD MOSES THAT
Ex 3:5-6 5 Then He said, "Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground." 6 Moreover He said,"I am the God of your father — the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. NKJV
No matter what form GOD shows HIMSELF to us through, HE remains GOD. The vision you are seeing is NOT GOD in all HIS Glory.
Jesus, if he was GOD the Father could NOT deny himself and say things like; "My Father is greater then I" as much as the Burning Bush say that: "I am just a burning bush, but my Master is greater then I, ..."
This is evident throughout the Bible, and we, Gods image as Adam and Eve reflect Jesus and God the Father.
Eve is LESS THAN Adam in the same way as 'The Son' is less then God and when he came down to earth, he became less then the angels in heaven, for a physical being cannot compare with spiritual.
But the 'physical Burning bush' remained God, for it represented GOD in a way that man can see.
If Jesus was God, (not just one with HIM as Adam and Eve are one) He could never say that he was less then HIMSELF. But we know that even when Jesus ascended back up to heaven, he became 'above all the angels, for they were mere creations and only the Son is begotten' and took his position as The Son, the Only Begotten of God and sat NEXT to his Father as we shall sit next to the Son, but NOT become ONE with the Son or the Father as GOD, but ONE with HIM in union.
There is no greater UNION then The Only Begotten Son, and He proved it to all the angels, to all of the physical creation here on earth and most importantly, to His Father.
Matt 3:17 a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." NKJV
God would or could never say that about Himself, for God IS. Why can't you accept that God has a Son? Why deny the Son? If we deny the Son we deny that He was the Christ. God never said that HE was the Christ, but that HIS Son was the Christ;
1 John 2:22-23 22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. NKJV Rev 5:6-10
6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.
(How can God take the scroll out of the hand of himself? God is there and The Lamb takes the scroll out of GODS hand period.)
8 Worthy Is the Lamb Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:
"You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth." NKJV
Rev 5:13
"Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!" NKJV
God is not 'The Lamb', and can never be the Lamb. God cannot be slain neither if He was in the flesh nor in a Burning Bush or any other way. God remains God in every form way and fashion.
Trinity is DENYING THE SON, AND WHO DENIES THE SON DENIES THE FATHER ALSO, FOR WE CAN ONLY COME TO THE FATHER 'THROUGH' THE SON.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2009 18:27:32 GMT -5
For me, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ONE. Plain and simple. Fire, water, and wind are examples of God which I have found in the Bible. Each are a singular substance with a plural existence to help us understand this Divine Being some of us know as "God."
That Divine Being I know as God has three manifestations each with a different role. Father=Will, Son= Word, and Spirit=Power. For me, each of the latter two are always in submission to the former. ALWAYS.
For me, the Holy Spirit is also the Comforter as Yehu'shuah said and is the means whereby the Father and Son come and make their abode in mankind also as the Lord Yehu'shuah said. To my mind, the Holy Spirit is given in a babe measure to all who believe on the Lord, Yehu'shuah, the Messiah, and confess Him as Kinsman Redeemer before all others. The presence of the Holy Spirit determines those who have everlasting life.
According to the Bible, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Lord without measure. For me, The fruit of the Holy Spirit is ONE FRUIT, not fruit(s) as some refer. That fruit to me is like life, and the first of its manifestation is love. That fruit was in our Lord without measure. The Lord wept over the Holy City because of His love, but they would not.
Does not That happen to those today who have any measure of the Holy Spirit? Some could, do, and have, faulted the Lord for not showing love to those of that city despite their desire to crucify Him. I believe that is a false accusation. They were just blind to what He was trying to teach them..
For me, the Holy Spirit can be mistreated. When that happens He does not increase and produce the fruit which is so pleasing to God? Fruit that will be individually rewarded for all of believing mankind's efforts toward righteousness. Who that believes doubts that? To those who deny the "Oneness of God" I merely ask: Can you tell who is the Father, or the Lord, Yehu'shuah the Messiah, or the Holy Spirit within you?
If not, and I don't believe any of you can (for in decades of asking this question, I've never had even one believer who could descriptively distinguish between them, and relate the difference) then how do you account for the Lord's words that He and His Father would come and make Their abode with believers? Yet all who truly believe can attest to the times when they are very aware of God being with them.
Water is a solid, vapor and fluid. Each manifestation of H20 is different from the other ,yet all are "water:" the same substance. Wind in your locale is a different wind than here at mine, yet it is all wind. Fires (of the sort easily created by man) can each burn separately. Woe when they all combine, for they are indeed all fire; again, one substance..
Now these are very simple concepts which teach how God is, and can be, One. So simple children can understand them. When the Son, upon whom the Father had sent the Holy Spirit without measure, giving Him all power in Heaven and on earth prayed to His Father (The same Divine Substance) it was as Son to Father seeking the Father's will, not the will of his human nature. Now what son is NOT the same substance as his father?
Sincerely,
Dennis
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on May 7, 2009 23:43:39 GMT -5
John 10:34-38 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"
"god" in this verse, and the psalm it's quoted from means "judge". And this remark: I understand that many people would love to be God, (this is what is HIDING behind the 'trinity concept') reveals a severe lack of understanding of the doctrine, as does your claim that the doctrine teaches that Jesus is God the Father. I have absolutely no idea where you've come up these notions, but they couldn't possibly be further off the mark.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 8, 2009 9:11:43 GMT -5
John 10:34-38 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods""god" in this verse, and the psalm it's quoted from means "judge". And this remark: I understand that many people would love to be God, (this is what is HIDING behind the 'trinity concept') reveals a severe lack of understanding of the doctrine, as does your claim that the doctrine teaches that Jesus is God the Father. I have absolutely no idea where you've come up these notions, but they couldn't possibly be further off the mark. I hear what you're saying, Zorro, but whatever you make of the question, the context is critical: Jesus posed it in answer to the accusation that Jesus was portraying himself as God. The "high council" of judges in Psalms seems to have been a concept (whether pagan or very early Hebrew) of the gods ruling the world...we see that picture in Job, for instance, Satan appears to have been on this "panel of judges"...and the language came to be embraced for human king/rulers/judges. Jewish kings, for example, were "sons of God".
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on May 8, 2009 9:40:29 GMT -5
I hear what you're saying, Zorro, but whatever you make of the question, the context is critical: Jesus posed it in answer to the accusation that Jesus was portraying himself as God.Correct....as Judge, capital J Judge.....we're judges, small j judges and we stink at it Jesus touched on this when he explained that we can't see men's hearts (he could) and have to judge by appearance (which he didn't).
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 8, 2009 9:52:04 GMT -5
ok, I'm not clear. Are you saying the Pharisees were claiming Jesus was a judge? Or Judge?
How does their claim that he supposed himself to be God relate to his answer that we are all judges?
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on May 8, 2009 10:39:15 GMT -5
John 10:34-38 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods""god" in this verse, and the psalm it's quoted from means "judge". And this remark: I understand that many people would love to be God, (this is what is HIDING behind the 'trinity concept') reveals a severe lack of understanding of the doctrine, as does your claim that the doctrine teaches that Jesus is God the Father. I have absolutely no idea where you've come up these notions, but they couldn't possibly be further off the mark. Thank you Zorro for pointing out my great lack of understanding, but I seem to stand firm on what I believe that the 'trinity concept' is 'sheep clothing' that is hiding the attempt to deny the Son. Also; 'as does your claim that the doctrine teaches that Jesus is God the Father'So you are saying that by this doctrine it does NOT claim that Jesus is the Father? That it teaches that Jesus is NOT the Father, that somehow God dissolved Himself when He came to earth and was born of a woman? The Burning Bush, is that God or the Trinitary Jesus? You seem to agree with me on some points, I respect you intellect (which I greatly lack) as for your knowledge of scripture Zorro, so please, may I ask if you read my long post? If so, can you please point out which other parts of what I said you do not agree to? Or is it that you feel I am not even in the ballpark about the concept? That my post is not even worth reading on?
|
|