Acts 20:28 saysit is the blood of God that has purchased us, If Jesus is not God incarnate, when is it that God the Father shed his blood?
Zechariah 12:10 speaks of the redemption of Israel, and Jehovah speaking says they will see ME whom they have pierced. When was it that God the Father was pierced If Jesus is not Jehovah?
Understanding the Trinity.
- Thread starter Lifelong_sinner
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You talk about the Word. John says the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So Christ is God, you seem to acknowledge Christ is the Word. These verses here also show the distinctness of the Word and God.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Again, Scripture does not say what you claim it says. God. His Son. Not the same being.
Look after yourselves and everyone the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be like shepherds to God’s church. It is the flock that he bought with the blood of his own Son.
Acts 20:28
Contemporary English Version
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (KJV)
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (ESV)
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (NASB95)
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (NIV)
'Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit made you overseers, to feed the assembly of God that He acquired through His own blood, (YLT)
Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. (DBY)
Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (WEB)
As I said to @Aunty Jane the RSV was the direct result of Hort and Wescott who were both non-trinitarians. They placed their bias into the RSV Some of the versions after them have corrected this bias out of them, but still relied on the corrupted Alexandrian and Sinaiticus texts which have gnostic and humanist slant to them. I Highly recommend anyone who is reading this to read the arguments of the KJV Only people.... I Am not a kjv Only person myself but do see it as the most authentic of the translations we have as it comes from the received text (Textus receptus) which to me is the best text out there. There is however a monarchial bias to the KJV (KING JAMES) that does not lend itself well to modern democratic governments but is more in line with the times the New Testament was written under the Caesars of Rome.
The Point of this is to show that Jesus' Blood is the Blood of God, so if the RSV wants to put Son in there i have no problem with that as God the Son shed His blood for us to redeem (Purchase) us.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
And I showed how you were totally wrong in the verse you presented.
Friend, you are relying on obsolete translations and getting confused with who "he" is. That's why I like the modern translation, which makes it more clear.
Unfortunately, the last thing trinitarians want is clarity. Ambiguity is your ally, which is to say deception. The trinity is not in the Bible. Therefore, trinitarians only hope is to impose a trinitarian interpretation onto unitarian text. Consider excerpts of these explicit verses. Jesus' God is the only God. What do you say about Jesus claiming to have a God, who he refers to in a unitarian nature?
there is no other God.
I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isaiah 44:6
God uses the singular pronoun in the 1C. It must be important if he put it first. Singular pronouns do not refer to a 3in1-being. Jesus is never referred to as God or the LORD (capital). Therefore, he is not God incarnate.
For us, there is there is one God, the Father
1 Cor 8:6
(Jesus praying to his father) And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God.
John 17:3
‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’
John 20:17.
I Do not deny the oneness of God, and no trinitarian does We just accept that God is a trinity of three persons actually God can appear as anything he wants to to us, a burning bush for example. But in taking out the deity of Christ you are taking out the power of the blood of Christ to forgive sin and to remove sin from us completely and replacing it with a powerless blood that cannot save us and at best is a temporary atonement for sin much like the blood of bulls and goats. The end result of this is a legalistic religion, one of ever uncertainty and continual doubt as to one's own worthiness, But When we know it is the blood of God that has washed us there is no turning back... This is the blessed assurance that comes with the sealing of the Holy Ghost, who confirms the Blood of God. You do not understand this because you have not experienced this, my hope and prayer is that you will, for there is a peace that surpasses understanding with this revelation.
Stop following men and follow the Word of God. This is not a theological argument but an appeal to life that comes from the Son, If he is not fully God how is it he can offer us eternal life? (John 3:36, 1John 5:12)
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not an answer to my question. It does not raise an eyebrow to read Jesus talking about his God? If Jesus has a God, it means Jesus is not God.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
...........................................................
Acts 20:28 ("God...with his own blood")
Trinitarians, for obvious reasons, prefer this translation of Acts 20:28 - "... to shepherd ["feed" in some translations] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." - NASB. This certainly seems to be excellent evidence for a "Jesus is God" doctrine.
But there are 2 major uncertainties about the proper translation of Acts 20:28. Either one of those uncertainties completely nullifies any trinitarian "evidence" proposed for this scripture!
First, even some trinitarian Bibles translate this verse, "the church of the Lord." - NEB; REB; ASV; Moffatt. Since Jesus was often referred to as "the Lord," this rendering negates any "Jesus is God" understanding for Acts 20:28.
Yes, even the popular trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 838, Vol. 2, Zondervan Publ., 1986, uses this translation for Acts 20:28 also: "to feed the church of the Lord"!
And the respected, scholarly trinitarian work, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 480, United Bible Societies, 1971, explains about this first uncertainty concerning the translation of Acts 20:28. Although, for obvious reasons, preferring the rendering "the church of God" at this verse, this trinitarian work admits that there is "considerable degree of doubt" about this "preferred" rendering. They admit that "The external evidence is singularly balanced between `church of God' and `church of the Lord.'"
Second, even some trinitarian Bibles render this verse, "to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son." - RSV, 1971 ed. also NRSV; NJB; CEB; CJB CEV; GNT; LEB; MOUNCE; NCV; NET; and VOICE.
The New Testament Greek words tou idiou follow "with the blood" in this scripture. This could be translated as "with the blood of his own." A singular noun may be understood to follow "his own." This would be referring to God's "closest relation," his only-begotten Son.
The NIV Study Bible tells us in a footnote for Acts 20:28: "his own blood. Lit[erally] 'the blood of his own one,' a term of endearment (such as 'his own dear one,' referring to his own son)." - Zondervan, 1985.
Famous trinitarian scholar J. H. Moulton says about this:
"something should be said about the use of [ho idios, which includes tou idiou] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:11, 13:1; Ac 4:23, 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations .... In Expos. vi. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 `the blood of one who was his own.'" - A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90.
And for the above reason noted trinitarian NT scholar and translator William Barclay rendered Acts 20:28:
"... the Church of God which he has rescued through the blood of his own One."
Trinitarian New Testament scholars Westcott and Hort present an alternate reason for a similar rendering:
"it is by no means impossible that YIOY [huiou, or `of the Son'] dropped out [was inadvertently left out during copying] after TOYIDIOY [tou idiou, or `of his own'] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion [restoration] leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind." - The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. 2, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix.
And A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 481, tells us:
"Instead of the usual meaning of dia tou haimatos tou idiou [`through the blood of the own'], it is possible that the writer of Acts intended his readers to understand the expression to mean `with the blood of his Own.' (It is not necessary to suppose, with Hort, that huiou may have dropped out after tou idiou, though palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.) This absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that `his Own' (ho idios) was a title which early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to `the Beloved'."
Therefore, we can see that a rendering similar to RSV's "the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own son [or `beloved']" is obviously an honest, proper rendering.
Although the UBS Committee didn't actually commit itself one way or another on this rendering of tou idiou at Acts 20:28, it did mention that "some have thought [it] to be a slight probability that tou idiou is used here as the equivalent of tou idiou huiou [`his own Son']." - p. 481. Obviously this includes those trinitarian scholars who translated the Revised Standard Version (1971 ed.) and Today's English Version.
Note the even more certain conclusion of trinitarian scholar, Murray J. Harris, after an extensive analysis of this passage:
"I have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read [THN EKKLHSIAN TOU THEOU HN PERIEPOIHSATO DIA TOU AIUATOS TOU IDIOU] and that the most appropriate translation of these words is 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own one' or 'the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son' (NJB), with [HO IDIOS] construed as a christological title. According to this view, [HO THEOS] refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.
"If however, one follows many English versions in construing [IDIOS] adjectivally ('through his own blood'), [HO THEOS] could refer to Jesus and the verse could therefore allude to 'the blood of God,' although on this construction of [IDIOS] it is more probable that [THEOS] is God the Father and the unexpressed subject of [PERIEPOIHSATO] is Jesus. So it remains unlikely, although not impossible, that Acts 20:28 [HO THEOS] denotes Jesus." - p. 141, Jesus as Theos, The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Baker Book House, Grand rapids, Michigan, 1992.
Since so many respected trinitarian scholars admit the possibility (and even the probability) of such honest alternate non-trinitarian translations for Acts 20:28, this scripture can't honestly be used as proof for a trinity concept.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
.........................................................
Zechariah 12:10
Jehovah God speaks:
"...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son" - Zech. 12:10, KJV; cf. NKJV, NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, ASV, AB, KJIIV, ETRV, Douay, Beck, Rotherham, Lamsa.
This is interpreted by many trinitarians as meaning that Jehovah is Jesus since Jesus was "pierced" by the Jews.
Unfortunately for this trinitarian interpretation even many trinitarian translations disagree:
"...when they look upon him whom they have pierced" - RSV. Also in agreement with this rendering are NRSV; GNB; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (ASV says in a footnote for "me" in Zech. 12:10: "According to some MSS. [manuscripts], `him'." Also see Rotherham footnote.)
Even the context tells us that the latter rendering is the correct one. Notice that after saying that they will look upon me (or him) God continues with "they shall mourn for HIM"! Notice how the KJV (and those following its tradition) contradicts itself here. The "me" in the first half simply does not agree with the "him" of the second half. Since there has never been any question about the accuracy of the word "him" in the second half, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must also properly be rendered as "him" (or "the one").
The testimony of the first Christian writers to come after the NT writers (the `Ante-Nicene Fathers') confirms the non-trinitarian translation of Zechariah 12:10 ("him"). Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as "him whom they pierced"! This is specially significant because trinitarian scholars and historians claim these particular early Christians (including Origen who doesn't quote Zech. 12:10 at all in his existing writings) are the very ones who actually began the development of the trinity doctrine for Christendom! If any of the earliest Christian writers, then, would use a trinitarian interpretation here, it would certainly be these three. Since they do not do so, it must mean that the source for the `look upon me' translation originated even later than the time of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (early 3rd century A.D.)!
Included in those very early Christian writers' quotes of Zech. 12:10 is Justin Martyr I. Apol., i. 77, who also quotes it as it is found in John.
The OT Greek Septuagint uses "me" (in existing copies, at least - 4th century A.D. and later), but it is significantly different from the Hebrew text: "They shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved [friend], and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn [son]." - Zech. 12:10, Septuagint, Zondervan, 1976 printing. In other words, (1) they will look upon God whom they have mocked [not "pierced"] as their judgment arrives and (2) they will mourn Christ. The two are not the same person here, nor the same God!
According to The Expositor's Greek Testament,: John's translation of Zech. 12:10 is the correct one. "The same rendering is adopted in the Greek [OT] versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus" - vol. 1, p. 860.
"The [Hebrew] text of Zech. 12:10 is corrupt. The [Greek] LXX text reads: ... (`they shall look upon me whom they have treated spitefully') .... The text in [Jn 19:37] does not follow the LXX; but it has also avoided the impossible [`me'] of the Hebrew text." - p. 195, John 2, Ernst Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar says:
"138. The relative Pronoun.... (2) Not depending on a governing substantive, but itself expressing a substantial idea. Clauses introduced in this way may be called independent relative clauses. This use of [asher] is generally rendered in English by `he who,' `he whom,' &c.... In Z[echariah] 12:10 also, instead of the unintelligible [`elai eth asher,' `to me whom'], we should probably read [`el asher,' `to him whom'], and refer this passage to this class [of 'independent relative clauses']." - pp. 444, 445, 446.
And noted trinitarian scholar Dr. F. F. Bruce tells us:
"But in John 19:37 the piercing is interpreted of the piercing of Christ's side with a soldier's lance after His death on the cross, and here Zech. 12:10 is expressly quoted: `And again another scripture says, "They shall look on him whom they have pierced".' It is a reasonable inference that this is the form in which the Evangelist knew the passage, and, indeed, the reading `him' instead of `me' appears in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The R.S.V. thus has New Testament authority for its rendering of Zech.12:10 , `And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.' Why then is the R.S.V. criticized for conforming to the New Testament here? Because, if the reading `me' be retained, the reference would be to the speaker, who is God, and in view of the application of the passage in the New Testament, there are some who see here an anticipation of the Christian doctrine of our Lord's divine nature. The reading `me' is certainly quite early, for it appears in the Septuagint (which otherwise misses the point of the passage); but the New Testament seems to attach no significance to Zech. 12:10 as providing evidence for the deity of Christ.... And, whoever the pierced one is, the fact that he is referred to elsewhere in the verse in the third person (`they shall mourn for him....and weep bitterly over him') suggests that he is Yahweh's representative (probably the anointed king), in whose piercing Yahweh Himself is [figuratively] pierced." - History of the Bible in English, pages 199, 200, Lutterworth Press, 1979, third edition. [Emphasis mine – RDB]
The JPS translation in Tanakh (NJV) also reveals that Zech 12:10 is not translated correctly in some Trinitarian translations such as the KJV.
The NJV (New Jewish Version or Tanakh published by the Jewish Publication Society) is highly praised for its accuracy by noted trinitarian Bible scholars Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht in their popular book So Many Versions? which analyzes and critiques modern Bibles:
"The NJV is a monument to careful scholarship .... It ranks as one of the best translations of the Hebrew Bible [the Old Testament] available." - p. 143, SMV, Zondervan Publ.
A footnote in the Tanakh says that the Hebrew sometimes rendered "when they look upon" is uncertain. Although it also uses the pronoun "me," it renders Zech 12:10,
"they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born." - Jewish Publication Society, 1985.
But most important of all is John 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by John! All translations show John here translating Zech. 12:10 as "They shall look upon him [or `the one'] whom they pierced." So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zechariah 12:10 should read: "They shall look upon him (not `me')." Therefore, Jehovah is speaking in Zech. 12:10 of someone else who will be pierced - not Himself!
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Do you understand that triune gods exist all throughout false worship, but are never mentioned in the Bible. Triads are ancient, but they are not biblical.
You have to read a trinity into scripture with ambiguous verses because there is not one clear and direct statement in the whole Bible that says God is ‘three’......it says he is “one”. (Deuteronomy 6:4 is the Jewish Shema.)
Fitting three gods into one head is creepy....
We find “God the Father”.....but never is Jesus referred to as “God the Son”....nor is there a single reference to “God the Holy Spirit”. That is three gods.
To teach that there are two other “gods” in the Father’s place is a clear breach of the First Commandment. (Exodus 20:3) But if you wish to support it....that is up to you. The deceived do not know that they are deceived until the damage is done. Trinitarians are breaking God’s Law. No one will be able to say we didn’t warn them.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
You know you cannot answer a question with a question. Your refusal to answer questions shows your willful intent to remain caught in the trinitarian lie.
Scripture tells us 1,000's of times that there is one God, who is the LORD. Jesus is never, not once called the LORD (capital). Scripture tells us explicitly over and over and over again about Jesus' God. Why would Scripture say this if Jesus were God?
The trinity is not a triad and neither does it promote three Gods. Until you understand this You will keep on falsely accusing trinitarians of promoting three Gods. C.S. Lewis used the analogy of a two dimensional being trying to comprehend a three dimensional being or we as three-dimensional beings trying to understand four dimensions. Such is the trinity, and such is God almighty, He is beyond the comprehension of our mortal temporal mind. We can barely even grasp the concept of Infinity and eternity as we want to put limits on them, for we want to fit them into our understanding.
To teach that there are two other “gods” in the Father’s place is a clear breach of the First Commandment. (Exodus 20:3) But if you wish to support it....that is up to you. The deceived do not know that they are deceived until the damage is done. Trinitarians are breaking God’s Law. No one will be able to say we didn’t warn them.
Again, a false accusation from a false understanding of what the trinity is, it is not three Gods but One... Let me give you another example maybe this will clarify it for you so that you stop your false accusations. I am David I am Physically here in Michigan. Let's say I was on a TV show, That is me manifesting as "TV Dave", Then I am communicating with you on the internet, This is "Internet Dave".... All three are me and I am one person not three persons, Just the venue that I am presenting myself on are different. Make sense yet? Do you see how simplistic your understanding is if you accuse me of preaching three God's, or a triad?
God the Father is in heaven, No Man has seen the Father ( This Like me who is here in Michigan sitting on the couch)
God was manifest in the flesh, and he was seen in the world Via Jesus. (This is like "TV Dave")
His Spirit then is given as a down payment to us and teaches us and sanctifies us and seals us. (This is like "internet Dave")
All One God In three different persons All of them are subservient to me sitting on the couch here, yet all are equally and fully me. Do You see it yet? The trinity does not infringe upon the Oneness of God, It only shows his ability to transcend all dimensions.
The question was there to show how poor your logic is. In other words it is a faulty "If, then" statement.
"If Jesus has a God, [then] it means Jesus is not God." I Disproved the Logic of this statement with the question i posed.
If i say My father is Human [then] does that mean I am not human?
Can't you see how ridiculous this statement from you is? Isay that not to offend you but to get you to think.
The anti Trinity people are under a strong delusion about who God is.
Scripture clearly says Christ is a form of God, so therefore God of one God.
'The Lord said to my Lord.' Even back then they dared not question Christ anymore, but people today when Christ is not physically present, do attack Christ on who He is. Even all the Jews knew that the Christ was equal with God as Christ called God His Father, and they knew what the term Christ meant.
Matthew 22
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”
They said to Him, “The Son of David.”
43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:
44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool” ’?
45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.
Then a super obvious one teaching us Christ is God come in the flesh, and that all of creation will worship and acknowledge Him as the Lord.
The non Trinitarians will all do it eventually, acknowledge Him, none can escape Christ, God has submitted ALL things under Christ.
Philippians 2 also proves Christ and God as distinct 'forms' of one God
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Ephesians 1, Christ is far above all created things for all ages now and to come, which shows Christ is not a created being.
When it says the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, that shows the distinctness of the Godhead. That there exists both as God, the Lord Jesus Christ and God, but not separate 'gods'.
15 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16 do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him (Christ and God), 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
1 John 5 New King James Version
6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
2 John 1
3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
No. Not only did you not answer my question, you fail to realize that a question proves nothing.
You not answering questions is very revealing about your willfulness to remain caught in the trinitarian lie.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
How amazing that you have to quote C.S. Lewis to get your point across....?
That is because there is not one single verse in all of scripture where Jesus or his God claim equality with the Holy Spirit, or with each other.
Who is C. S. Lewis that we need him to teach us about God? Seriously.....
The ‘incomprehensibility’ argument is old and pathetic as an excuse for believing that the Being who gave us logic and law, defies logic and law. Infinity and eternity may not be in our experience, but at least we can comprehend what it means. It is still logical.
If you have “God the Father”, “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit”....That is three gods. Who can all be in different places at once and can talk to each other.
One is the Father of his Son, and one is the possession of the Father to give to his servants in due measure as he sees fit.
If you have a Father and Son as a declared relationship, but the third “person” is not included because “he” is neither of those, then where is the logic even in how these three are supposedly related? Why call only two of them “Father and Son” if that is not their relationship from a human standpoint? A Father always exists before his son, and Jesus is said to be “begotten” which was long before he came to be born as a human on earth. Where does the Holy Spirit even fit in as a person?
Your analogy is comical.....and childish.
At least the properties of water make sense scientifically.....but even three forms of water do not make God into a threesome, especially when there is not a single statement in the scriptures to the effect that God is not what he says he is....and what Jesus taught him to be......“one” not “three”.
That is what you might want to believe but is it what scripture teaches?
If you cannot produce scripture that proves by direct statement that God is a trinity, then you are reading into scripture what you want it to say......the Jews never accepted that God was three and still don’t. (Deuteronomy 6:4)
Since Jesus was Jewish and never once said he was God, where on earth do you think the idea of a trinity came from? It is as pagan as immortality of the soul and hellfire.....which makes up Christendom’s very own trinity. These were introduced into an apostate church centuries after Jesus’ death. A little research will reveal this.
None of these are from the Bible.....they are a product of the “weeds” that Jesus warned us about, ‘sown by the devil’. We have no excuse to believe what the Bible does not teach.
Similar threads
