To @DNB concerning the Deity of Christ...

[APAK]

Thanks APAK, I appreciate the support, and am not sure how I got drawn into this in the first place? But, I hope that you know what you're getting into? JBF is extremely unreasonable, and hard to get past square one with. You'll go in circles ad-infinitum, and I anticipate that you may end up becoming rather frustrated quite early in your discussion.
But, I believe that you're a bit of a veteran at this in more ways than one, so you're probably well prepared for the wiles and schemes of the stubborn, deluded and indoctrinated.
Good luck, here's to true and unadulterated monotheism!

Well I do have many of these contentious scriptures set in my mind and especially handy to produce, in more depth in prose already. I can only offer to share. If it goes side-ways and becomes unfruitful to either person, then I will exist of course. That is what I have always done.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[APAK]

Last night as I was reading this thread, God told me to post that. When I did, I was overwhelmed with the reverential awe of God. We were hoping it would spread. For the third and last time, the Most High God says, "I Am." Shalom.

Ron, do you want to know what scripture actually says (interpreted with meaning) about 'I am' (he) in John 8:58. It may surprise you that YHWH never calls himself 'I AM' in Exodus 3:14 to Moses, derived from Hebrew, as Jesus did in transliterated Greek, to the Pharisees. They are completely different expressions with completely different meanings; besides they were also used in quite different contexts and settings.

Do you want me to explain it a bit more? I would be happy to do this.

APAK

 

[Truman]

Ron, do you want to know what scripture actually says (interpreted with meaning) about 'I am' (he) in John 8:58. It may surprise you that YHWH never calls himself 'I AM' in Exodus 3:14 to Moses, derived from Hebrew, as Jesus did in transliterated Greek, to the Pharisees. They are completely different expressions with completely different meanings; besides they were also used in quite different contexts and settings.

Do you want me to explain it a bit more? I would be happy to do this.

APAK

Thanks. God once birthed a new church through me. The geyser that came from deep within me said, "The birth of a new church," over and over. At the time, if He had said congregation to me, I would've been confused.
However, He did tell me 3 times to say, "God says, 'I Am.'" God lives in eternity. The simplest, clearest way to say this is, I Am.
When He first told me to say it, I hesitated a second. The instant I typed it, He poured on me a reverential awe on me. A holy hush, if you will.
Explain away, I'm listening. Shalom.

 

[APAK]

Thanks. God once birthed a new church through me. The geyser that came from deep within me said, "The birth of a new church," over and over. At the time, if He had said congregation to me, I would've been confused.
However, He did tell me 3 times to say, "God says, 'I Am.'" God lives in eternity. The simplest, clearest way to say this is, I Am.
When He first told me to say it, I hesitated a second. The instant I typed it, He poured on me a reverential awe on me. A holy hush, if you will.
Explain away, I'm listening. Shalom.

Well not to stop your calling although you might want to know (again) that the English expression 'I am' or 'I AM' never existed or exists for YHWH who lives in eternity; and is not found in either the OT or NT for our Father who is one, only one, and no one is or every was or will be beside (equal to) him, indeed.

I will leave you will this short piece to maybe ponder over in the future if you wish...

The Greek translated form for the Hebrew transliterated expression אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‎, to ’ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh in Exodus 3:14 is ‘ego eimi ho ōn’ that means in English, these types of similar meaning expressions: ‘I am who I am,’ ‘I am that I am,’ ‘I am the being’ or ‘I am the existing one’ or ‘I am existing,’ and other words for this effect – never just ‘I am (he)' as was used by/ for other people in the NT including Yahshua.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[DNB]

Hi. I stand by my word that I repeated what the Holy Spirit told me to say. You mean you don't hear God except through your interpretation of His word? Have you never received the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Have you ever asked Him for it?
I see the word of God as being the riverbed for the Spirit of God to flow in. At least that's my experience. If one is happy with a dry riverbed, I guess that's their business.
I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I also believe Deuteronomy 6:4 which says, "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one." The discrepancy, I believe, is caused by a difference in revelation. In nature, God is one. Shalom.

My experiences with receiving anything by divine inspiration is that, first of all, it's highly subjective, therefore, I expect everyone to question the veracity of anyone's claim of receiving communication from the Holy Spirit. Secondly, that God imparts wisdom and explanation when He endows someone with an insight or knowledge, not just a 'yes' or 'no', but a why.
Therefore, for these 2 reasons, I discredit your claim that it was God who said 'I Am' to you. 'I am' is utterly meaningless in regard to this conversation. We all accept YHWH, so how does that somehow substantiate the trinity? The alleged 7 'I Am' statements in the NT? You're being frivolous and reckless thinking that 'I am the bread of life' or 'I am he' is Jesus imparting to his audience that he is the almighty, omnipresent and transcendent and invisible God, who no one has ever seen at any time, and who abides in unapproachable light.
Too ridiculous to entertain RC, only a child, or someone with as much acumen and rationale as a conspiracy theorist, would jump to such an unfathomable and implausible conclusion.

 

[Truman]

Well not to stop your calling although you might want to know (again) that the English expression 'I am' or 'I AM' never existed or exists for YHWH who lives in eternity; and is not found in either the OT or NT for our Father who is one, only one, and no one is or every was or will be beside (equal to) him, indeed.

I will leave you will this short piece to maybe ponder over in the future if you wish...

The Greek translated form for the Hebrew transliterated expression אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‎, to ’ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh in Exodus 3:14 is ‘ego eimi ho ōn’ that means in English, these types of similar meaning expressions: ‘I am who I am,’ ‘I am that I am,’ ‘I am the being’ or ‘I am the existing one’ or ‘I am existing,’ and other words for this effect – never just ‘I am (he)' as was used by/ for other people in the NT including Yahshua.

Bless you,

APAK

The word church and the name Jesus were not in the original manuscripts but are widely used today. In fact, the name Jesus saved me from being abducted one night during the Seventies. The enemy knew it was a transliteration of a translation but God honored it.
Greek: ekklesia = congregation. Church is a substitute word which from my understanding comes from old English or German and means, "a house of a lord," which is what it has become.
Hebrew: Yahshua, is commonly called Jesus in the church. I use both in worship. Shalom.

 

[APAK]

The word church and the name Jesus were not in the original manuscripts but are widely used today. In fact, the name Jesus saved me from being abducted one night during the Seventies. The enemy knew it was a transliteration of a translation but God honored it.
Greek: ekklesia = congregation. Church is a substitute word which from my understanding comes from old English or German and means, "a house of a lord," which is what it has become.
Hebrew: Yahshua, is commonly called Jesus in the church. I use both in worship. Shalom.

Let me know if you have any queries about scripture. I am always honing my skills in the understanding and application of scripture in my life as I continue to know more about my Lord and Saviour and his Father, who is also ours. We are all learning and growing as the Spirit continues to live within us, to show us and teach us, to perfect us to the exact spirit as his Son, Yahshua.

 

[Truman]

My experiences with receiving anything by divine inspiration is that, first of all, it's highly subjective, therefore, I expect everyone to question the veracity of anyone's claim of receiving communication from the Holy Spirit. Secondly, that God imparts wisdom and explanation when He endows someone with an insight or knowledge, not just a 'yes' or 'no', but a why.
Therefore, for these 2 reasons, I discredit your claim that it was God who said 'I Am' to you. 'I am' is utterly meaningless in regard to this conversation. We all accept YHWH, so how does that somehow substantiate the trinity? The alleged 7 'I Am' statements in the NT? You're being frivolous and reckless thinking that 'I am the bread of life' or 'I am he' is Jesus imparting to his audience that he is the almighty, omnipresent and transcendent and invisible God, who no one has ever seen at any time, and who abides in unapproachable light.
Too ridiculous to entertain RC, only a child, or someone with as much acumen and rationale as a conspiracy theorist, would jump to such an unfathomable and implausible conclusion.

I agree to disagree. Do you? Peace.

 

[Truman]

Let me know if you have any queries about scripture. I am always honing my skills in the understanding and application of scripture in my life as I continue to know more about my Lord and Saviour and his Father, who is also ours. We are all learning and growing as the Spirit continues to live within us, to show us and teach us, to perfect us to the exact spirit as his Son, Yahshua.

Thank you, brother. I appreciate the help. Ron.

 

[justbyfaith]

@justbyfaith I see you have me on ignore. I guess there was something I said that must have hit a nerve of disgust, maybe our of insecurity or fear? I guess it has to do with the subject of this thread, as I also am not a Trinitarian card carrier and I also am not a JW member.

So I now invite you to throw some of that scripture you have been throwing over to @DNB in defense of your triad theory. I will discuss each one of them with you if you are truly sincere and have the patience to 'see' my side. I already know your side already, known it for many decades, although I believe you still need to see my side.

So are you on, or not?

APAK

I do not have you on Ignore, I'm not sure what gave you that idea.

If you have any kind of answer for anything that I may have posted to @DNB, feel free to discuss your pov concerning my post any time or place that you would like.

 

[DNB]

I agree to disagree. Do you? Peace.

Fine, ...but reading your last post to APAK, you do scare me. I'm not being abusive, it is disconcerting!

The word church and the name Jesus were not in the original manuscripts but are widely used today. In fact, the name Jesus saved me from being abducted one night during the Seventies. The enemy knew it was a transliteration of a translation but God honored it.

 

[justbyfaith]

I would suggest reading posts #1-#6 in the following thread for my take on the Trinity:

True Trinity.

 

[FollowHim]

And that's it, you found two implicit, at best, passages, and have completely ignored everything that I said earlier.
And these two passages, for starters, are meant to substantiate the most incomprehensible doctrine in all of Christendom?
No one denies the existence of the Father (God), Son (pre-eminent creation), Holy Spirit (gift from God to impower the elect). This, by no means, makes them all God.
You are unfamiliar with the principle of spiritual oneness in the Bible? Man and his wife shall become one, King David and Jonathan became one, Jesus told all his disciples to become one in the same manner the he and the Father are one.

DW, excuse me, but, you have to see how absolutely absurd you just sounded. You didn't even come with 100 miles in refuting a single thing that I said. Therefore, I will hold back from divulging anything further, until I see a bit more seriousness or competence from you. i don't mean to sound arrogant or harsh, but please appreciate why I'm taking this stance right now.

The principle of oneness is obviously a key issue in scripture, because the idea of light and darkness, being in agreement or being in fear and obedience through intimidation are key themes of creation and God.

If one accepts that Jesus was unusual to normal men, he showed an authority and understanding far beyond any other.
The key issue then is who is Jesus? When did He have a beginning?

19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
Colossians 1:19

57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 8:57-58

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
John 1:14

John is telling us that the Word is Jesus, and as such He is eternal and God.
Jesus goes on to say, seeing Him is the same as seeing the Father.

It is possible to take some of the references and suggest Jesus was a man who God exalted up to a special status, but had a beginning as a man, born and created. The problem is though this fits a lot of the images, it does not fit the whole picture John paints, of Jesus being the Word and the Word being part of the Father, but appears as Jesus on earth.

Conceptually the point is does part of the Father expressed in a creation form, is that God or part of creation?
I realised everything that is eternal is God, and you cannot deny its expression as a partial expression of who He is, not the whole.
It is this point of a partial expression which is the issue. It is why Paul talks about Jesus rejecting equality with God to become a man.
Equally there is a sense in which by us gaining eternal life, when have a similarity with God. But we are created and have a beginning, Jesus did not. I realise this issue is impossible for some, like the Pharisees who wanted to stone Jesus for calling God His Father.

In one sense in our terms the issue is awareness. We see through our eyes only, not through multiple eyes of people. This defines our individuality. In the trinity, one is not saying there is one awareness or individual, but rather 3 individuals who are one.

Another thought exploration is what defines an individual and their expression. Gods word is His expressed will and concepts. Jesus as an expression of this cannot become something that disagrees with the Father, because He is Gods expression of who He is. There is no objectivity or different balance, one is the other completely. To accept this one has to agree that we are the sum of our thoughts, intentions, actions, choices. If we were identical to another person, we could be called one. If in the origins sense we were the same at source, then this is not just the same expression but the one essence in two individuals. This theme is carried on by Paul to say we should be one in thought and actions within the body of Christ. Again this was a desire Jesus expressed

22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
John 17:22

What for me is strange is the sense of outrage, that Jesus could be God.
Jesus appearing to the disciples after the resurrection, was all the signs of God rather than a human person waiting for the resurrection at the end of time. What is something unusual, is Jesus's statement that He had to leave for the Holy Spirit to come.

It was probably a question of ministry. If Jesus was there, the Holy Spirits ministry of teaching the disciples about what Jesus said and wants them to say is not needed, because Jesus could do it Himself. And the ministry of the Holy Spirit meant, thousands, millions of people can hear God speaking to their hearts at the same time, not restricted by location or time zone etc.

 

[DNB]

The principle of oneness is obviously a key issue in scripture, because the idea of light and darkness, being in agreement or being in fear and obedience through intimidation are key themes of creation and God.

If one accepts that Jesus was unusual to normal men, he showed an authority and understanding far beyond any other.
The key issue then is who is Jesus? When did He have a beginning?

19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
Colossians 1:19

57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 8:57-58

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
John 1:14

John is telling us that the Word is Jesus, and as such He is eternal and God.
Jesus goes on to say, seeing Him is the same as seeing the Father.

It is possible to take some of the references and suggest Jesus was a man who God exalted up to a special status, but had a beginning as a man, born and created. The problem is though this fits a lot of the images, it does not fit the whole picture John paints, of Jesus being the Word and the Word being part of the Father, but appears as Jesus on earth.

Conceptually the point is does part of the Father expressed in a creation form, is that God or part of creation?
I realised everything that is eternal is God, and you cannot deny its expression as a partial expression of who He is, not the whole.
It is this point of a partial expression which is the issue. It is why Paul talks about Jesus rejecting equality with God to become a man.
Equally there is a sense in which by us gaining eternal life, when have a similarity with God. But we are created and have a beginning, Jesus did not. I realise this issue is impossible for some, like the Pharisees who wanted to stone Jesus for calling God His Father.

In one sense in our terms the issue is awareness. We see through our eyes only, not through multiple eyes of people. This defines our individuality. In the trinity, one is not saying there is one awareness or individual, but rather 3 individuals who are one.

Another thought exploration is what defines an individual and their expression. Gods word is His expressed will and concepts. Jesus as an expression of this cannot become something that disagrees with the Father, because He is Gods expression of who He is. There is no objectivity or different balance, one is the other completely. To accept this one has to agree that we are the sum of our thoughts, intentions, actions, choices. If we were identical to another person, we could be called one. If in the origins sense we were the same at source, then this is not just the same expression but the one essence in two individuals. This theme is carried on by Paul to say we should be one in thought and actions within the body of Christ. Again this was a desire Jesus expressed

22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
John 17:22

What for me is strange is the sense of outrage, that Jesus could be God.
Jesus appearing to the disciples after the resurrection, was all the signs of God rather than a human person waiting for the resurrection at the end of time. What is something unusual, is Jesus's statement that He had to leave for the Holy Spirit to come.

It was probably a question of ministry. If Jesus was there, the Holy Spirits ministry of teaching the disciples about what Jesus said and wants them to say is not needed, because Jesus could do it Himself. And the ministry of the Holy Spirit meant, thousands, millions of people can hear God speaking to their hearts at the same time, not restricted by location or time zone etc.

Hi FW, please just address post #2. All the points that you brought up above are, for one, presumptuous, and two, breaking the rules of hermeneutics, and defying the ontology of divinity.
Sorry, you are not seeing the big picture, and thus, have not offered definitive proof for your god-man, three-in-one, non-sensible theory. You have merely jumped to conclusions failing to comprehensively see other options for your exegesis.

 

[DaChaser]

I use any modern translation, and never have I used the NWT, and never will. I am not a JW, and I vehemently denounce any doctrine that deifies any other being besides God the Father, the one and only transcendent, omniscient and omnipotent being in the entire universe.

No where in the Bible are found the words or expressions: trinity, triune, three-in-one, two-in-one, god-man, god the son, god the holy spirit, incarnation, co-equal, hypostatic union, ....
None of the patriarchs or major figures in the OT, ever prayed to, or exalted, or express, God in a trinitarian manner.
Nowhere is the Holy Spirit given the same amount of attention, exaltation, significance and glory, as the Father and the son.
Not one conversion that took place in the NT, used a trinitarian formula to save the proselyte.
The utter redundancy that is elicited when one claims that there are three all powerful entities within the godhead, is incriminating in itself.
The utter nonsense that ensues when one tries to explain the Atonement in trinitarian terms, undermines its plausibility.
The utter insanity that proceeds from a trinitarian's mouth whenever they try to explain what either a trinity, or a god-man is.

And now you tell me that you found Scripture that substantiates the doctrine of the trinity? Maybe you are being a little frivolous and reckless in your eisegesis?

There are 3 persons called God in both he OT and the NT!

 

[justbyfaith]

The following, in the 1st 6 posts, shows forth a monotheistic view of the Trinity.

True Trinity.

 

[DaChaser]

You're a blasphemer, seriously. There is only one being, person or entity that is the almighty, transcendent and all-powerful, creator of the heavens and the earth and all things seen and unseen, God, and that is the singular , undivided and unconfused Father.
It's called monotheism. You're a polytheist, thus pagan.

No, one God, existing as 3 Persons, as all 3 of them are called God on the Bible!

 

[FollowHim]

Hi FW, please just address post #2. All the points that you brought up above are, for one, presumptuous, and two, breaking the rules of hermeneutics, and defying the ontology of divinity.
Sorry, you are not seeing the big picture, and thus, have not offered definitive proof for your god-man, three-in-one, non-sensible theory. You have merely jumped to conclusions failing to comprehensively see other options for your exegesis.

You equally are doing exactly what you are claiming I am doing.
John is clearly saying the Word is Jesus, and the Word is God.

If you cannot answer this hermeneutical point, you have lost the argument.
I am not defying the ontology of divinity but showing its depth and breadth.

Paul continually calls us as being Holy, pure, blameless, yet we were once sinners. This is cleansing through the blood of Christ, turning that which is impure into that which is cleansed and acceptable to God. Jesus astounded His disciples by calling them washed because of what they had heard, which is surprising. It astounds us that Jesus brought divinity into those who have faith, which is much broader and wide than just the temple and the priests.

Paul went to far as to call us Holy Temples of God.
But in your hermeneutics you dislike and reject such ideas, because only God is Holy, separate and we are mere mortals, like Jesus, created, separate. This is why the gospel is so powerful and where Jesus calls us to become so astounding, though for others so blasphemous.

So please if you believe the bible is Gods word, explain how Jesus can be the word and not God?
It is the failure of hermeneutics when the theory change the words, which declares the emotional bias of the believer not the truth of Gods word.

God bless you

 

[FollowHim]

You're a blasphemer, seriously. There is only one being, person or entity that is the almighty, transcendent and all-powerful, creator of the heavens and the earth and all things seen and unseen, God, and that is the singular , undivided and unconfused Father.
It's called monotheism. You're a polytheist, thus pagan.

By your description the whole christian church is blaspheming. Do you think a christian forum which holds the core biblical beliefs of the faith will put up with those who declare they are enemies of God?

I see your beliefs are heartfelt, but scripture does not support them You have to honestly answer how Jesus is the Word and so Jesus is God, and so the trinity exists, or you are just insulting and desiring to cause offence and division out of frustration that others do not simply accept your forceful presence and we just submit to this superior knowledge not on display.

I have seen many use this approach but the Kingdom always has one answer, God bless you, may His love through the cross bring forgiveness for your sins and bring you into His Kingdom.

 

[FollowHim]

Ron, do you want to know what scripture actually says (interpreted with meaning) about 'I am' (he) in John 8:58. It may surprise you that YHWH never calls himself 'I AM' in Exodus 3:14 to Moses, derived from Hebrew, as Jesus did in transliterated Greek, to the Pharisees. They are completely different expressions with completely different meanings; besides they were also used in quite different contexts and settings.

Do you want me to explain it a bit more? I would be happy to do this.

APAK

I like this logic. It is an example of the words are not saying what they are saying, which clearly is rubbish and idiotic. If a sentence is written down, it means what it means. To deny its meaning is only an excuse because accepting its meaning is impossible for the individual. This is because the words cannot be changed but the meaning behind the words can changed to fit a different theology.

The problem with thoughts is they follow a chain of reasoning. We agree with the conclusions only because we have followed the chain of logic to its end. If we manage to change course a bit, distract and divert around problems, you can get whole groups of people to agree one is right while being 100% wrong, because unless people spot and point out the failures, the majority just nod along.

One psychologist gave people a choice of two positions, and after they chose one gave them the opposite choice as their choice. Most agreed this was their choice and tried to justify it, because clearly as they had chosen it, it must be their choice, except it was not at all. This demonstrates each step in the chain of truth matters, and must not be skipped, but carefully worked through.

Praise the Lord His people hear His voice and follow, so in the Kingdom there are no real issues, but it takes time to see many talk but have amended their "truth" from the "truth" and so become enemies of the truth. As a people of God we have to gently show a better way. God bless you