Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #5, Book of Acts

[Cooper]

No where in the Bible does it say anything like that. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the son of God. One thing you can bet your life on is the son is not the father, Jesus is not God.

Mary's flesh is simply God's earthly raiment.

They killed the flesh, but not the Spirit within.

You are correct when you say the flesh is not the Father, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
.

 

[Wrangler]

Come on here, and I will tell you. God is one. His name in heaven is Yahweh, and his name on earth is Jesus.

Wrong. Jesus died. God is eternal.

 

[Wrangler]

They killed the flesh, but not the Spirit within.

Pure anti-Biblical assertion. The Bible says Jesus died. No qualifier is added, flesh, spirit, etc. The Bible says Jesus is a man and like every other man, he died.

 

[robert derrick]

Pure anti-Biblical assertion. The Bible says Jesus died. No qualifier is added, flesh, spirit, etc. The Bible says Jesus is a man and like every other man, he died.

The Bible says Jesus is a man and like every other man

Came down out of heaven (John 3:13), born of a virgin, and without sin (Heb 4:15) unto the cross.

Not like every other man.

 

[robert derrick]

Mary's flesh is simply God's earthly raiment.

They killed the flesh, but not the Spirit within.

You are correct when you say the flesh is not the Father, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
.

When Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world and provided for Himself a burnt offering for sin on the cross, His soul was separated from God, who would not look upon sin in no man.

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

He wasn't thirsting for natural water nor vinegar.

Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

He remained in that state of separation, until He willingly gave up the ghost.

He payed the full price of death for sin, as did Adam, first the soul and then the body.

He remained separate from God upon the cross, until he willfully gave up the ghost, and then being quickened by the Spirit once again, He descended by the Spirit to preach to them in prison. (1 Peter 3:18-19)

 

[robert derrick]

There is always one verse of Scripture that throws out any and all falsehoods about Scripture:

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Cor 15:45)

Jesus was not made a force. Neither is the Spirit of Christ a force.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God: the Holy Spirit of truth.

No force.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

The Spirit speaks. No force speaks.

The Spirit of God is a Person, not a force.

End of story.

 

[Wrangler]

Not like every other man.

Genus and Differentia. Jesus is a man not God. Consider the reference to God (not ‘the Father’) but God in his unitarian nature in the following verse.

1 Corinthians 15:27
The Voice

27 All this will happen to fulfill the Scripture that says, “You placed everything on earth beneath His feet.” (Although it says “everything,” it is clear that this does not also pertain to God, who created everything and made it all subject to Him.)

 

[robert derrick]

Genus and Differentia. Jesus is a man not God. Consider the reference to God (not ‘the Father’) but God in his unitarian nature in the following verse.

1 Corinthians 15:27
The Voice

27 All this will happen to fulfill the Scripture that says, “You placed everything on earth beneath His feet.” (Although it says “everything,” it is clear that this does not also pertain to God, who created everything and made it all subject to Him.)

Jesus is a man not God.

Jesus is the risen man Christ Jesus.

The habitual demoting of Jesus Christ is obviously antichrist in spirit.

Also, the Father is never called a King, nor Lord of lords, but Jehovah was and Jesus is.

Jesus was Jehovah come down out of heaven in the flesh one earth, and is now the risen God of Israel.

And His name is still above every name.

Rejecting Jesus as Christ and God our Saviour is rejecting the God of Israel risen from the dead.

Therefore, such unbelievers are not worshipping the God of Israel, but rather idolize a name unto themselves.

 

[Wrangler]

The habitual demoting of Jesus Christ is obviously antichrist in spirit.

Wrong. The 1C prohibits trinitarianism. The habitual violating the 1C is obviously inconsistent with the will of God, who raised the man Jesus from the dead to prove his righteous plan to us as Acts tells us.

 

[face2face]

So in John 20:28 when Thomas says to Jesus "My Lord and my God [ho theos] he definitely mean God not a god.
Good to know

@APAK the trinitarian may believe Thomas having plunged the depths of despondency to the very top of faith was instantly granted a revelation of the complex trinitarian formula for which Mungo holds dear. I personally have no problem with the capital "G" here because once an understanding of God manifestation is achieved, trinitarian teaching falls away and a rich opening of God's Word is illuminated. Mungo puts his trust in the system and its many traditions and convincing him otherwise is futile at best. Better are we to discuss the positives of Bible truth than languish in the catechism. It was a beautiful moment though for Jesus to be appreciated for the High position His Father had given him- Jesus certainly is the strength of God's right hand!

 

[Brakelite]

Mary's flesh is simply God's earthly raiment.

They killed the flesh, but not the Spirit within.

You are correct when you say the flesh is not the Father, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
.

What you are both missing is that if what you are both saying is true, albeit differently, is that what transpired is nothing more than a human sacrifice. If divinity did not die on Calvary, there was no Atonement.

 

[Cooper]

What you are both missing is that if what you are both saying is true, albeit differently, is that what transpired is nothing more than a human sacrifice. If divinity did not die on Calvary, there was no Atonement.

This guy explains it better than I can.

God had to become one of us in order to redeem us from the guilt and penalty of our sin. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth’ ‘(John 1:14).

God as God could not forgive us for our sins unless our sins were fully paid for; otherwise He would have been a condoner and protector of the violation of His own holy law. It was only as a man, that God in Christ could furnish satisfaction sufficient to atone for the sins of mankind; for only a man, a true human being, could properly represent the human race. But at the same time our Redeemer had to be God, for only God could furnish a sacrifice of infinite value, to compensate for the penalty of eternal hell that our sin demands, according to the righteous claims of divine justice. Only God could have devised a way of salvation that made it possible for Him to remain Just and at the same time become the Justifier of the ungodly and instead of sending them to the everlasting perdition they deserved it was the perfect Man who was also infinite God that furnished an effectual sacrifice for all believers of every age.
(Gleason Archer)
.

 

[face2face]

. If divinity did not die on Calvary, there was no Atonement.

Can you unpack this some more. Jesus died and was dead and was raised to life and dies no more. What do you mean by divinity?

 

[Abaxvahl]

What you are both missing is that if what you are both saying is true, albeit differently, is that what transpired is nothing more than a human sacrifice. If divinity did not die on Calvary, there was no Atonement.

Amen. And considering that death is simply the severing of the soul from the body, and not cessation of existence, I fail to understand the controversy about saying "God died." It says more about the influence of godless philosophy than about God to me when Christians of all people take offense at that.

 

[Abaxvahl]

When we say Jack and Jill went up the hill, it is not to be construed they are 1 being. The same when God, the Father, and Jesus went up the hill ...)

What on Earth do you mean by "one being"? Jack and Jill have one nature together and are two persons. Their nature (what they are) is one yet they are two hypostases (persons) by which we can name them "Jack and Jill." So when we say God the Father and His Word "went up the hill"...

 

[APAK]

@APAK the trinitarian may believe Thomas having plunged the depths of despondency to the very top of faith was instantly granted a revelation of the complex trinitarian formula for which Mungo holds dear. I personally have no problem with the capital "G" here because once an understanding of God manifestation is achieved, trinitarian teaching falls away and a rich opening of God's Word is illuminated. Mungo puts his trust in the system and its many traditions and convincing him otherwise is futile at best. Better are we to discuss the positives of Bible truth than languish in the catechism. It was a beautiful moment though for Jesus to be appreciated for the High position His Father had given him- Jesus certainly is the strength of God's right hand!

And I believe your last sentence says it all. How does one appreciate this statement whilst clinging on to a form of Christ and Jesus that is essentially different from the one found in scripture is beyond my comprehension? And the answer may be just that, 'they,' the mungos' of the world cannot appreciate it at all and they have learned at least subconsciously, to minimize its sheer significance and the wonder that the Father did for his Son, and in turn for us all.

Thank you for your post. Much appreciated as I agree with it all.

APAK
PS. there is also another competing explanation for what Thomas meant with his words of excitement when he finally realized that Christ was facing him in a human form. That Thomas was actually now instantly believing and praising God our Father for raising his Son, and our Master and Lord in one breath of energized words. And that would then cause no controversy with the capital 'G' insertion.

The real reason for Thomas' initial disbelief was simply that he could not come to grips and possess faith to believe that God, the Father would (or even could or wanted to) raise Christ; until of course he saw and believed it all in one exhilarating moment.

 

[Wrangler]

What on Earth do you mean by "one being"? Jack and Jill have one nature together and are two persons.

One nature does not make billions of beings one being.

What I mean by being is precisely the same thing as everyone else means by persons, as they are synonyms. Trinitarians must parse such synonyms to support their wholly doctrine.

Jack and Jill are 2 beings. Father’s and son’s are 2 beings.

 

[Abaxvahl]

One nature does not make billions of beings one being.

What I mean by being is precisely the same thing as everyone else means by persons, as they are synonyms. Trinitarians must parse such synonyms to support their wholly doctrine.

Jack and Jill are 2 beings. Father’s and son’s are 2 beings.

If that's what you mean then that doesn't contradict the Trinity though, and I would assert it with you. Jack and Jill are two persons. The Father and Son are two persons. One nature does not make many persons the same person.

We don't assert that at all. Do you think Trinitarians are Sabellians or something? Asserting that they are two beings is even in the Trinitarian Fathers if I recall correctly, also words such as "existences" and so on to be made synonyms with person, I have no problem with that, what we have a problem with is dividing the natures in either case.

So it seems to me that this opening statement does not go against the Trinity. Neither do a lot of things in fact, we believe in the Monarchy of the Father (by which St. John Chrysostom said on account of this we would not even contradict one who said the Father was greater than the Son if this is what they meant, that the Father is the sole principle of divinity), so we can rightly say that the Father is "only God" or is "God" and Christ is "Lord." We in fact affirm based on this that there is One God (the Father). Is generation impossible for Him? It does not contradict itself so it doesn't seem to be impossible, but that is not the line of attack on the Trinity anyway so it's irrelevant.

Human fathers and human sons being two beings/persons (you equated them) also to us proves our point. One generated the other, a father does not generate a giraffe or a dolphin but a son which has the same nature as the father (although the mode of generation differs from the Trinity of course). Yet they are two by being two distinct persons, but they are one in regards to their nature (what they are, a human is not a dolphin, different natures).

 

[Wrangler]

If that's what you mean then that doesn't contradict the Trinity though, and I would assert it with you. Jack and Jill are two ...

Beings. God and Jesus are 2 beings, just like Jack and Jill are 2 Beings.

What I mean is a compete and total repudiation of the trinity. Did you read my signature? The entire Bible is written by monotheist Jews who reject the trinity to this day.

The idea that 3 is 1 is a contradiction.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Beings. God and Jesus are 2 beings, just like Jack and Jill are 2 Beings.

What I mean is a compete and total repudiation of the trinity. Did you read my signature? The entire Bible is written by monotheist Jews who reject the trinity to this day.

The idea that 3 is 1 is a contradiction.

The Israelites of old and the Jews of today are two different groups. I do not care about what they (the Jews of today) think, it's a false bloodless religion. I am of the same religion as Abraham, Israel is one.

You have not defined being, and I never said 3 is 1. I am aware of your signature. If you mean Jack and Jill are two beings as I mean it then that does not contradict the Trinity or repudiate it at all. You equated it to person, so I followed you. We both agree that the Father and the Son are two different persons then. They are not the same but they have the same nature just as Jack and Jill do. I fail to see the problem or the repudiation.