A Form of godliness

[face2face]

No one "discounts history." No one, certainly not trinitarians. There are folks that do, yes, but we call them liberals. :) At any rate... there certainly have been many twists and turns (not necessarily "twisting" and "turning," as we have used those terms previously), so to speak. That's still true. But history has always been what it has been, and certainly God and His Word never changes, He is, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

But about history specifically, who ~ Who ~ is in charge of history? Well God, of course; it is "His Story," after all. :)

Here's at least part of the problem:

"Unitarians" ~ and so many others of all different walks of life ~ either purposefully or inadvertently think God basically sits on His throne in heaven and just lets things go, so to speak, without any direction from Him, like a driverless car careening downhill, or like Forrest Gump's feather floating along aimlessly (if they acknowledge God's existence at all). Such is a ridiculous supposition, whether purposeful or not; the Bible is clear that God is perfectly sovereign over His creation at all times, working all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28, which speaks to both events and individuals).

So how is this so? Well, "Unitarians" and (again) so many others of all different walks of life don't believe in the third Person of the triune Jehovah, the Holy Spirit, the "another Helper" sent by the Father after Him (Jesus) in Jesus's name, Who teaches us all things and bring to our remembrance all that Jesus said to us (John 14:26) and ~ yes and ~ sent by Jesus from the Father, the Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father, Who bears witness about Jesus. So He ~ not "it" ~ is here now, and has come to those whom the Father has called. And with regard to God's infallible, inerrant Word:

• The Holy Spirit "helped" the writers of the Bible write what they wrote, so much so He superintended its writing, so much so that it is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and therefore God's inerrant, infallible Word.
• The Holy Spirit has "helped" men (and women, of course) ever since, and is still "helping" them today, so much so that He has superintended the keeping of God's inerrant and infallible Word and protecting its full integrity.

So regardless of the twists and turns throughout history, it still is what it is ~ both God's inerrant, infallible Word and God's triune nature... and a whole host of other things. The original Gospel, as it was put, will never be "overcome." There will be no lack of trying, of course, but it will all come to naught. Paul's warnings were not that the Gospel would be overcome, but that many would not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears would accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and as a result would turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths (2 Timothy 4:4). And his exhortation to us was to stay the course, to "always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, and fulfill (our) ministry( (2 Timothy 4:5). Some of us have. :) But thanks be to God ~ Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) for that. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands/endures forever (Isaiah 40, 1 Peter 1).

So, yes, I will most wholeheartedly agree with two things said previously:

1. The scriptures themselves tell the tale.
2. It started before Paul even died... and ~ I'm adding this; it's not Scripture, so I can do that if I want... :) ~ long, long before Paul even lived, before the world ever came to be. :) Paul clearly knew that... :) And credited the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for it... :)

Grace and peace to you both.

I was hoping somewhere in there you would deal with the development of the trinity formula - can you see how that looks? Understanding the HS to be God's Power makes most of the content in your response redundant, so for now the onerous is on you to accept that the Apostle Paul knew nothing of the trinity, or its development for that matter.

Of course the same cannot be said of God being One and Paul being a Unitarian. Somewhat of a long history there with no development ;)

F2F

 

[face2face]

Another example, He did also say "Let us", and "in Our image", and this wasn't a divine council, because "Let us make man" is Creator talk, not audience talk. So the argument becomes why we shouldn't read that as Creator talk, even though it is.

What happens when you set aside your intellectual objections to this, and read it as is? You won't see a divine council, you'll see co-Creators, because that's the language that's being used.

Much love!

Marks, how do you deal with the creative language in Genesis 3:22?
I'd also be interested in the context as it's implying the angels like us have experienced a period of probation - testing of faith - know sin by experience which is the context! etc. which is impossible to attribute to Yahweh God. The work of the angels in Gen 1-3 must be difficult for you to navigate.
F2F

 

[marks]

Marks, how do you deal with the creative language in Genesis 3:22?
I'd also be interested in the context as it's implying the angels like us have experienced a period of probation - testing of faith - know sin by experience which is the context! etc. which is impossible to attribute to Yahweh God. The work of the angels in Gen 1-3 must be difficult for you to navigate.
F2F

Post the verses, and point to the words you are thinking about, please. I don't have an issue with any of the passage, but what do you have in mind?

And the same question about the angels.

Much love!

 

[face2face]

Post the verses, and point to the words you are thinking about, please. I don't have an issue with any of the passage, but what do you have in mind?

And the same question about the angels.

Much love!

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil••, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Context is sin.

If Lord God is to be taken as God & Jesus you have them acknowledging Adam and Eve have become as them "knowing" good and evil. This knowing by experience can only be attributed to the angels and not God.

I perceive the creative work, walking in the garden, covering of A&E was all done by the angels as per God's instructions. Hebrews 1:14

F2F

 

[Earburner]

No, I'm not at all aware that God kept his plan of salvation secret until Jesus' baptism. I always thought Jesus was first promised way back in Genesis.

Gen 3:15,

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his

Orthodox Judaism did not, do not, and still don't understand how you and I view Genesis 3:15. Why?
We know that the Messiah came, Pentecost is still operational, and you and I are believers.
T he followers of Judaism are not believers in Christ.
Why doesn't Judaism understand Gen. 3:15 as we do? Such a truth is not revealed to unbelievers.
God's plan of salvation through Jesus is STILL unknown to Judaism.

 

[face2face]

Orthodox Judaism did not, do not, and still don't understand how you and I view Genesis 3:15. Why?
We know that the Messiah came, Pentecost is still operational, and you and I are believers.
T he followers of Judaism are not believers in Christ.
Why doesn't Judaism understand Gen. 3:15 as we do? Such a truth is not revealed to unbelievers.
God's plan of salvation through Jesus is STILL unknown to Judaism.

Did you ever notice the change in dominion in Genesis 3:15...rather insightful structure to that verse.

 

[Earburner]

Did you ever notice the change in dominion in Genesis 3:15...rather insightful structure to that verse.

There is a more important "structure" to be learned in that verse, the symbolic language of the tree of life. Why didn't God come out directly and specifically say what that tree really is? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is also not specifically described. In both situations, each shall provide the results of their choice, being eternal life, or eternal death.

Where in all the world do literal trees have any power over men for giving to them the knowledge of good and evil, or the Gift of eternal life? They don't. Therefore, we can safely conclude that it is symbolic language, describing Adam and Eve at the crossroads of their child like innocense.

Now either God shall reveal the meaning of His use of the words of the two trees, or we are left to our own guessing and speculative conclusions.
However, God does reveal it to His born again saints. Today, we know that the free will of choice was given to Adam and Eve, to either follow God's will for our lives, or our own way of going, living strictly by our own free will.
They chose the latter for themselves, and as a result we have inherited the same.

The same symbolic language is found in the words: "the book of life". There is no such thing as a literal book that gives eternal life.
John 5[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and but they are they which testify of me.

 

[marks]

If Lord God is to be taken as God & Jesus you have them acknowledging Adam and Eve have become as them "knowing" good and evil. This knowing by experience can only be attributed to the angels and not God.

Why do you say "experience only" as if God doesn't know what evil is?

Even so, didn't God say, "Us", they have become like us, knowing good and evil. If this is as you are saying, it still means either that God had done evil, or that He didn't really mean "Us".

That's my general contention with anyone's argument, that it always seems to need for me to read something but not accept what it says.

Much love!

 

[Earburner]

You're being led too much by Greek philosophy. They were the first to personify wisdom. It sure wasn't the Jews, the ones to whom God actually wrote.

So now the words of God in Proverbs 8 are not the words of God, but rather human philosophy.
I suppose according to your thinking, the Psalms are just fictional songs made up by a lonely shepherd out in the wilderness, having nobody to talk to except sheep.

 

[Rich R]

Why did you not include Hebrews 1:3?
Heb.1[3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express [exact] image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Well, I think you might have something if Heb 1:3 said, "Who being God..." But it doesn't. In fact, we are left wondering exactly whose right hand God sat on!

I might ask why you did not include Num 23:19, and Luk 17:30?

 

[Rich R]

So now the words of God in Proverbs 8 are not the words of God, but rather human philosophy.
I suppose according to your thinking, the Psalms are just fictional songs made up by a lonely shepherd out in the wilderness, having nobody to talk to except sheep.

Could you quote exactly what I said that led you to believe I think Proverbs 8 are not the words of God, but rather human philosophy?

No. I don't think Psalms was made up by a shepherd. I'm a firm believer that God is the author of all scripture, including Psalms.

2 Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
​

It's be pretty hard to not get that message! :)

 

[Rich R]

Orthodox Judaism did not, do not, and still don't understand how you and I view Genesis 3:15. Why?
We know that the Messiah came, Pentecost is still operational, and you and I are believers.
T he followers of Judaism are not believers in Christ.
Why doesn't Judaism understand Gen. 3:15 as we do? Such a truth is not revealed to unbelievers.
God's plan of salvation through Jesus is STILL unknown to Judaism.

Good point. I think Romans 11, especially verse 25 says a lot about that.

Rom 11:25,

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
​

Another thing that I find interesting is that the very early church in the Book of Acts was virtually 100% Jews. It wasn't until Peter spoke to the household of Cornelius in Acts 10 that the Gentiles became involved with the church.

It could be that the Gentiles brought their Pagan religions into the mix and the Jews said, "No way...we're out of here!" That's not in the scriptures of course, but, understanding basic human nature, it could be that's why the left.

 

[Rich R]

KJV Psalms 2[4] He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
[5] Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
[6] Yet have I [the LORD] set my king [the Lord] upon my holy hill of Zion [Heavenly Jerusalem].
[7] I [the Lord] will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
[8] [to the Lord, the LORD said] Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
[9] Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
[10] Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
[11] Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
[12] Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Matthew 22[41] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
[42] Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
[43] He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
[44] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
[46] And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Sorry, but I just don't see "God the Son" in those verses. Since "God the Son" is a key element of the trinity (supposedly our very salvation depends on it), wouldn't you think those words would be found somewhere in the Bible?

I think Psalms 2 makes a very clear distinction between God, the Father, and Jesus, His son.

Ps 2:7,

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
​

Why can't we take this as a simple declaration that Jesus is the son of God, that Jesus was begotten of God?

Here's Strong's definition of "begotten:"

H3205 יָלַד yalad (yaw-lad') v.

1. to bear young.
2. (causatively) to beget.
3. (medically) to act as midwife.
4. (specifically) to show lineage.
​

If Jesus were God, then it would have to be some other God that bore him. That is clearly not tenable! But it is no problem for God to bear or beget a son. There is not a hint that God and Jesus are somehow one essence or something. It's a clear declaration that God bore a son. Let it go at that. Don't add anything to it. That is why Jesus is in fact called the "son of God" around 40 times whereas we never once see a "God the Son."

All other scripture must fit with that simple truth, and it just so happens that it does. There is no need to introduce council decisions into the scriptures. They fit just fine when left alone to themselves. The problems begin when we introduce strange doctrines into the equation.

It is a well know historical fact that the framers of the Nicean Council where the trinity was settled were very infatuated with Plato and Greek philosophy. It would be hard to find any Biblical scholars that would argue against that. Several so-called church fathers in Alexandria Egypt, most notably Augustin, made it their life mission to blend the scriptures with Greek philosophy.

“Christian theology has become so fused with Greek philosophy that it has reared individuals who are a mixture of nine parts Greek thought to one part Christian thought.” ~ Douglas T. Holden ~

I can assure you that Douglas is not alone among scholars in understanding the influence of Greek philosophy on the early church. History is history. In this case it very much agrees with the things Paul said about grievous wolves not sparing the flock. Paul was quite clear on the influence outside forces were having on the pure doctrine of the scriptures. His warnings to Timothy left nothing to doubt, the doctrine was becoming corrupt even before Paul died.

 

[Wrangler]

It's a clear declaration that God bore a son. Let it go at that. Don't add anything to it.

Well, the only thing I would add are those explicit verses that say Jesus is a man.

 

[Rich R]

Well, the only thing I would add are those explicit verses that say Jesus is a man.

As opposed to the 0 explicit verses that say Jesus is God. But forget that. It doesn't matter. The orthodox doctrine says Jesus is God. Are you actually suggesting that the Bible takes precedence over orthodoxy? What a novel concept! I think you just might have something there brother. I think you do. :)

 

[Earburner]

Could you quote exactly what I said that led you to believe I think Proverbs 8 are not the words of God, but rather human philosophy?

No. I don't think Psalms was made up by a shepherd. I'm a firm believer that God is the author of all scripture, including Psalms.

2 Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
​

It's be pretty hard to not get that message! :)

Rich said:
"Proverbs 8 is talking about wisdom (verse 1). There is no justification for changing that to Jesus other than a preconceived idea."
"You're being led too much by Greek philosophy. They were the first to personify wisdom. It sure wasn't the Jews, the ones to whom God actually wrote."

Who was it that God WROTE to?
The Jews.

So then, Proverbs 8 is indeed the word of God, and there is not one bit of Grecian philosophical ideology in the words of Proverbs 8. As result, it is God who personified "wisdom", and it is indeed God the Son who was "brought forth (begotten) from Everlasting", being out of God the Father Himself.
Edit: Jesus testified through His prayer in Gethsemane, that He indeed came to this world, directly from GOD Himself, having a pre-existence with Him, further revealing His claim that He was not of this world.

 

[PinSeeker]

So God created the angels (spiritual beings) after Adam and Eve?

Nope. But now you're mixing the natural with the supernatural... or at least think I am, which I am not. We don't know, and cannot because we are not told in Scripture, what God did or when "before the foundation of the world" ~ puts the event outside of time itself. But we do know (from passages such as Job:38 that God created the angels before He created the physical universe. But that's all we are told. And angels were not present during God's act of creation, as I said. At the very least, I think we will agree that angels were not active in God's act of creation.

I didn't realize you wondered whether or not I see a difference between being a son of God and a son of my earthly father. Really? You must have an incredible low estimation of me to even suggest I don't see the difference between the two. Rather stunning.

Pffffft. :) I don't think you "don't see a difference," Rich, but I do think ~ know, actually ~ that you don't understand, or deny, or vastly underestimate ~ all three, really ~ what both titles (yes, titles; more on that in a moment) of Jesus, in and of themselves, mean concerning Jesus. It drips from every post of yours. And you're certainly not alone in this.

I seriously doubt there hasn't been a unitarian that has not explained that before.

It's true. I've put it out there numerous times, and still... crickets.

Just suggesting.

Ah yes, "suggesting." :)

All Christians are sons of God as well as sons of an earthly father. You understand that you are the son of your father as well as a son of God?

Such a vast oversimplification and a terrible glossing over of the true meanings regarding Jesus's being the Son of God and the Son of Man. Are you really that simple? Or... yeah, that's not it; I understand. Wow.

...God is expressly not the son of man (Num 23:19)...

Right, not a son of man, but "one like a son of man" Who came "with the clouds of heaven... (a)nd to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him," Whose "dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom one that shall not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14). Jesus assigns the title of Son of Man, which means far more than just that He's a man's son, to Himself. And likewise, Son of God is a title of Jesus and means far, far more than the simple idea that the Father is Jesus's "dad" in any similar sense to your father being your dad or my father being my dad. His title as Son of Man speaks to His humanity, and His title as Son of God speaks to His deity.

Well I guess I can't say I'm in my earthly father nor is he in me.

Well, good, because if you did, that just might make you a lunatic. :) And that's actually what so many people make Jesus out to be... :)

But there is this: Christ in us (Col 1:27) and us in Christ (Rom 8:1). What does that mean?

We are imputed His righteousness and justified by God. This is Christianity 101, Rich.

John 1 is not all about Jesus. It talks about God, John the Baptist, and Jesus.

If it wasn't you, someone else here has correctly pointed out John's purpose in writing his gospel, that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (which, again, is a title of Jesus and means far, far more than the simple idea that the Father is Jesus's "dad"). So, really, it is about Jesus, along with John 2 through 21. :) But certainly, others are mentioned. :)

But to gain even more understanding, find out what the word "logos" actually means. That's the Greek word for "Word" in 1:1.

LOL! I'm well aware of your "understanding," Rich. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

The word in John 1:3 does not refer to Jesus.

It does.

Scripture repeatedly says Jesus is the Son of God...

And the Son of Man. They are both titles of Christ, one referring to His deity and the other referring to His humanity.

What a rationalization to disregard the divine council. No one is claiming the divine council had to be there at the beginning of Creation, only before the creation of man. See the difference?

But the argument is that the "us" and "our" of John 1:26 refers to this "divine council." I mean, really, I agree in principle, but would assert that this "divine council" consisted of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. :) God is His own counsel (Romans 11:33-36). And Genesis 1:27 refers to the "us" and "our" of Genesis 1:26 as God.

You just took away the greatest accomplishment of our lord, to submit to the will of his God.

Well, by no means would I take that away by any stretch of the imagination, but I would say that His greatest accomplishment was the redemption of those He came to save.

If he did not have a choice, it does not counter the choice of Adam.

Ah, choice. Free will! Ugh. By saying "He could do no other" has nothing to do with choice, Wrangler. You can do no other than say the things you are saying. That doesn't somehow mean you are, woodenly speaking, incapable of saying other things, or that you can't make choices, or that you don't have free will. My goodness.

Perhaps you cannot acknowledge Rich's point that an image of something is never the thing itself.

I acknowledge that in the way both you and Rich understand "image" as it is used by Paul in Colossians 1 is... wrong. At the very least, it must be acknowledged that there is a vast difference between Jesus being the image of God and our being created in God's image. And regarding that, it must be acknowledged that Jesus is not created. But many choose (see what I did there?) to do neither. So be it.

LOL. First born does not mean 'born before the rest.' That's powerful indoctrination for you.

But that's what you (and Rich, and others) suggest. That He was born before ~ created before ~ any of us. Which is just silly.

You just deny logic and the principle of mutual exclusiveness. If all is for X, then none is for not-X. Trinitarians have to deny logic to advance their doctrine.

Pffffft. :) But "unitarians" have to maintain this... try to, anyway... :)

But Scripture explicitly says only the father is God. So, there is that.

When Jesus Christ was referring to “the only true God” He was contrasting God with the world’s false gods\idols, and not with Jesus Himself.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Wrangler]

It does.

That you insist a verse that does not even have Jesus in it be interpretted to mean he is God shows the lack of actual explicit teaching of your doctrine in Scripture.

I say John 1:1-5 refers to the literal word of God, not to another person.

 

[Wrangler]

And the Son of Man. They are both titles of Christ, one referring to His deity and the other referring to His humanity.

Where is this in Scripture?

So much orthodoxy is totally divorced from the actual words and meaning of Scripture.