A Form of godliness

[PinSeeker]

So in conclusion we discovered you were unable to speak to the Masters true nature in the flesh

Opinion...

...for some reason your HS... wasn't able to find the right verses.

LOL! Even though He was the One Who breathed them into the men who wrote them, thereby Himself superintending the very writing of the verses? :) As for me, I could have cited more, but what I cited was sufficient. Now, of the Holy Spirit would only unstop the ears of some (Isaiah 35), but of course God has mercy on those whom He will have mercy, and compassion on whom He will have compassion (Romans 9:18).

Romans 8:1-3 & Hebrews 2:14-18 should be a start for you to enquire privately without the pressure of being wrong. It would also be good for you to read over your posts and see where you failed to demonstrate your belief in hypostasis which is clearly a man made teaching.

Well, Romans 8 and Hebrews 2 certainly are what they are, for sure. God's Word never returns to Him void...

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall My Word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:10-11).​

...so there is no "pressure." But the rest of what you say here is all merely your opinion, F2F. But I will agree that meditating daily on the Word of God is a good and necessary thing... for all of us.

Grace and peace to you.

F2F

 

[Rich R]

Neither have I. All I said is that you have been led astray, Rich. And that you would say the same of me; you have said I have "just listened to my pastors," which is pretty much the same thing in different words.


Well, I wouldn't say "bored," but I agree that it's not about you or me, sure.

Sure.

Yes, and again, I haven't "bashed" anybody, by any stretch of the imagination, Rich.

​

God absolutely made no such comparison between Himself and Pharoah, as if Pharoah were some type/shadow of Him. I that's what you're saying, Rich, that is absolutely ridiculous; it's totally beyond the pale. Except for the fact that as Joseph is not Pharoah, Jesus is not the Father. :) A word search using any good concordance of 'compare' will ~ well, should, anyway ~ completely dispel any thought that God compared Himself to Pharoah (whom He hardened) in any way. As Isaiah says:

"All the nations are as nothing before Him, they are accounted by Him as less than nothing and emptiness. To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with Him?"

So, quite obviously ~ based on Scripture itself ~ I completely dismiss your comment and assertion. You are welcome to it, but it goes nowhere with me, my friend.

Well, Jesus is to the Father, on an elemental level, but on that level only, as Joseph is to Pharoah. But no real comparison, much less any analogy, can be made, for at least two reasons:

1. Pharoah never gives up his kingdom to Joseph, but only grants him authority over it, whereas the kingdom of the world, Rich, ultimately becomes ~ as we see in Revelation 11:15 ~ the Kingdom of our Lord (the Father) and of His Christ (Jesus) ~ which clearly shows the Father and His Christ judging finally (in the Person of Christ) and reigning together (as the one true God (with the Spirit of God, of course) in eternity ~ and He shall reign forever and ever.”
2. As Jesus says in John, (He) and the Father are one (John 10), and (He) is in the Father and the Father is in (Him); (He) and the Father are one (John 14). No such thing can be said of Joseph and Pharoah by anyone. Joseph never would have insinuated any like thing regarding him and Pharoah. Even having been raised by Pharoah to being the second in command over Egypt, the reason for that happening (God's purpose) is not for Pharoah's benefit at all or even Egypt's, but for Israel's benefit/good: "God meant it for good, that many should be kept alive" (Genesis 50:19), and as you know ~ yes, there was some time elapsed (400 years) ~ God brought Israel out of slavery in Egypt in the Exodus. If Joseph had not been there to save Israel, there would have been no Exodus for there would have been no Israel... and ultimately, no Jesus, and no salvation for anyone. This was God's purpose. Thanks be to God.

Indeed, Joseph is not Pharoah, and Jesus is not the Father. :) On an elemental level, Rich, I agree, as I said. But... see above. :)

Grace and peace to you.

Well, half an agreement is better than none! I understand what you are saying.

I just think Jesus being God is a given to trinitarians (or those who believe Jesus is God) and then it is "found" in the scriptures. There is nary a scholar, trinitarian included, that will not readily admit that there are no clear cut verses that say Jesus is God. Instead they readily admit that the doctrine is "derived" or "inferred" from the scriptures.

While we can find about 6 verses that clearly declare Jesus to be a man, there are none that so clearly call him God.

Rom 5:15,

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.​

Acts 2:22,

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:​

Acts 17:31,

Because he (God) hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man (Jesus) whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.​

1 Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;​

John 4:29,

Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?​

(Israel was looking for a man to redeem them. Nowhere is there a hint they were looking for a god-man. Since God gave the OT to them, they ought to know!)

John 8:40,

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.​

 

[Earburner]

I think you can understand that the folks who lived 3,000 years ago in a culture radically different (Ancient Near East) than our Modern West might think differently, that their world view might be quite different than our own. The ancient Near East Jew looked at a word and thought one thing, whereas a modern Westerner looks at the same word and thinks something totally different. It's no wonder that language and the meaning of words change with time. Part of really digging deep into the scriptures requires that we look at things from their perspective, not ours. After all, the Bible was not written last year in New York or LA. :)

With that said, here's three verses that call singular entities by the plural elohiym:

Judg 11:24,

Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god (elohiym) giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.
​

Chemosh is not considered to be a trinity, but he is called elohiym, plural.

1 Kgs 11:5,

For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
​

Ashtoreth is not considered to be a trinity, but she is called elohiym, plural.

2 Kgs 1:2,

And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that [was] in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.
​

Baalzebub is not considered to be a trinity, but he is called elohiym, plural.

Elohiym is not God's name. His name is Yahweh, which means:

H3068 יְהוָה Yhvah (yeh-vaw') n/p.

יְהוָֹה Yhovah (yeh-ho-vaw')
יְהוֹ Yhow (yeh-ho') [as a prefix]
1. (meaning) the self-Existent or Eternal, the I AM.
2. (person) Yahweh (Yehvah), Jewish national name of God.​

When we want to specifically designate the creator of the universe, we us "Yahweh." Yahweh is the one true God. Jesus is the son of Yahweh.

Elohiym means:

H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.

אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
​

As you saw in your research, there are many elohiym but only one Yahweh. Whatever one might believe about the trinity, the usage of the plural Elohiym for Yahweh is not a good proof for the trinity.

I am not a Trinitarian.
Adam, as well as us, could never spiritually "come to" anyone, because he was made only to be "a living soul", as all oxygenated air breathing animals. Genesis 2:7, Genesis 6:17 Genesis 7:15, 22.

However, Jesus was made to be "a quickening Spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45), who after Pentecost, is now spiritually able to "come to" each one of us, and within Him, comes also the Father through Him. Together as One, They are the Holy Spirit. John 14: 18, 23, Revelation 3:20, John 10:30.
I am an Amillennial Binitarian.

Edit: In order for God the Father to dwell within us, He has ordained it that He must do so through Jesus. This is why Romans 8:8-9 is so important to understand. We MUST HAVE the Spirit of Christ within us, for if we don't, we cannot be saved by God the Father. The Father must first dwell within Jesus, in order for Him to dwell within us.
Hebrews 10[19] Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest [The Father's presence] by the blood of Jesus,
[20] By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

As a result of the Father dwelling in Jesus First, and then Jesus dwelling within us, bringing the Father within Himself, we can fully understand what
Colossians 3:3 means.[3] For ye are dead, and your life is HID WITH Christ in God.

 

[PinSeeker]

Well, half an agreement is better than none!

I'm... not sure I would call it that... :) But okay.

WI understand what you are saying.

Yes, and I understand what you are saying, Rich. But that really doesn't mean a whole lot, does it?

I just think Jesus being God is a given to trinitarians (or those who believe Jesus is God) and then it is "found" in the scriptures.

Sure, understood. And I think Jesus being God is a given. :) I believe. :) But I cannot take any credit; like Peter, I am blessed, not because flesh and blood has revealed this to me, but the Father.

There is nary a scholar, trinitarian included, that will not readily admit that there are no clear cut verses that say Jesus is God. Instead they readily admit that the doctrine is "derived" or "inferred" from the scriptures.

This is not true at all, Rich. Neither part. Not true at all.

While we can find about 6 verses that clearly declare Jesus to be a man, there are none that so clearly call him God.

Rom 5:15,

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.​

Acts 2:22,

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:​

Acts 17:31,

Because he (God) hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man (Jesus) whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.​

1 Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;​

John 4:29,

Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?​

​

And I've pointed out many a verse and passage ~ not merely six, but all it takes is one ~ that clearly say, despite any contrary assertions from anyone ~ that Jehovah is indeed triune. Moses testifies to this all through the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), as do the prophets (Isaiah, Ezekiel, all of them), and the Apostles. and far above all, Jesus Himself, in various words and deed, most clearly calling Himself "I AM." You just disagree; I understand that fully.

Israel was looking for a man to redeem them. Nowhere is there a hint they were looking for a god-man.

Disagree with this, also. They knew God's Christ was coming, and they knew Who He would be. They just thought He would come in power and conquer all their enemies, and many were sorely disappointed, even those who actually came to believe He was the Christ.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[Rich R]

Sure, understood. And I think Jesus being God is a given.

That's pretty obvious. Most Christians "know" Jesus is God before ever cracking the book, so they'll find it in there come hell or high water. I've been saying just that for some time now. Never mind the many clear verses that make a clear distinction between God and His son. Somehow (never really explained) Jesus is the one and only son who is also his own father. We must say that so as to fit with "given" that Jesus is God, so it must be so!

 

[PinSeeker]

Most Christians "know" Jesus is God before ever cracking the book...

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. God moves in mysterious ways, and by different means from person to person. I mean, the same as in Christians are all born of the Holy Spirit, but through different means... at different times in life, under different circumstances, etc.

...they'll find it in there come hell or high water.

If God has revealed Himself, yes, to some. For others, it may not happen so quickly, but at least eventually does.

I've been saying just that for some time now.

Well, you've been saying stuff, yes, but... :) See above.

Never mind the many clear verses that make a clear distinction between God and His son.

They make a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, yes. But still, the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father.

Somehow (never really explained) Jesus is the one and only son who is also his own father.

That's... not the claim, Rich. You keep misrepresenting what we say, over and over and over again.

We must say that...

Well no, "unitarians" like you must say that for maybe inadvertent purposes (and maybe not so much) so you can keep thinking you're knocking it down.

...so as to fit with "given" that Jesus is God, so it must be so!

It is what it is.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[face2face]

That's pretty obvious. Most Christians "know" Jesus is God before ever cracking the book, so they'll find it in there come hell or high water. I've been saying just that for some time now. Never mind the many clear verses that make a clear distinction between God and His son. Somehow (never really explained) Jesus is the one and only son who is also his own father. We must say that so as to fit with "given" that Jesus is God, so it must be so!

By the time of the apostolic fathers in the late first century and early second century, the doctrine of the Trinity had taken hold in the church and its language. From there it was only a matter of time before all Christendom would adopt its convoluted formula. The word developement always comes to mind because it has had many adaptations along the way.

I think it's good for those naive Christians to understand it's development early on in Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Magnesians 13) and Polycarp (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14). In the mid- to late second century, we find that apologists such as Justin (First Apology 61) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.20) continued to affirm the church’s Trinitarian confession. Although at this time some attempts at expressing the doctrine of the Trinity appear clumsy in hindsight. When you read these these early works you can see they were very poor attempts compared to what hase been formulated in later centuries. What is of interest in the first use of the term “Trinity,” used in the third century such as Tertullian (Against Praxeas 23) and Gregory Thaumaturgus (Declaration of Faith). However, even these definitions would not be used by the later Church and future development was needed. We could speak of the 4th & 5th centuries and how this heresy was further developed but we get the picture.

Many Christians wont speak to the history of the Trinity, some will acknowledge freely its not Bible based but a man made doctrine in an attempt to define the Godhead.

The Apostle Paul knew the original Gospel would be overcome with error and we are thankful for those warnings and the record of the original pure Gospel in the Acts of the Apostles.

Thanks for your contribution.

F2F

 

[Rich R]

By the time of the apostolic fathers in the late first century and early second century, the doctrine of the Trinity had taken hold in the church and its language. From there it was only a matter of time before all Christendom would adopt its convoluted formula. The word developement always comes to mind because it has had many adaptations along the way.

I think it's good for those naive Christians to understand it's development early on in Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Magnesians 13) and Polycarp (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14). In the mid- to late second century, we find that apologists such as Justin (First Apology 61) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.20) continued to affirm the church’s Trinitarian confession. Although at this time some attempts at expressing the doctrine of the Trinity appear clumsy in hindsight. When you read these these early works you can see they were very poor attempts compared to what hase been formulated in later centuries. What is of interest in the first use of the term “Trinity,” used in the third century such as Tertullian (Against Praxeas 23) and Gregory Thaumaturgus (Declaration of Faith). However, even these definitions would not be used by the later Church and future development was needed. We could speak of the 4th & 5th centuries and how this heresy was further developed but we get the picture.

Many Christians wont speak to the history of the Trinity, some will acknowledge freely its not Bible based but a man made doctrine in an attempt to define the Godhead.

The Apostle Paul knew the original Gospel would be overcome with error and we are thankful for those warnings and the record of the original pure Gospel in the Acts of the Apostles.

Thanks for your contribution.

F2F

Very concise summary. Too bad many discount history. The church had a history that went a certain way, believed or not.

But as you pointed out, the scriptures themselves tell the tale.

2Cor 11:4,

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].
​

It started before Paul even died.

2Tim 1:15,

This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
​

The rest is history.

BTW, thanks for your posts also.

 

[Jack]

Then you should know there are many people with the "el" as part of their name.

A name is an abstract representation of a concrete person. While a parent might hope their child would live up to a name with "el" in it, i.e., be a godly child, it in no way defined the nature of that child. Not every guy named "rich" is rolling in the dough.


That proves Jesus is God? God was somehow little among the thousands of Judah? God was born from the tribe of Judah? Seriously, those are questions that ought to be answered.

You're not a Hebrew expert! You have ZERO right to declare our Bibles wrong!

 

[Earburner]

And of course you both know why there are so many divisions among Christians, mostly it's due to the Greek manuscripts that are used for Bible interpretation.
The KJV uses the Textus Receptus Greek Text, and many of the newer Bible versions are interpreted through the Wescott & Hort Greek Text. The NIV and JW-NWT, to name a few, are from the Wescott & Hort.

However, from what I understand, there are basically five different Greek texts that are used for today's Bible interpretations.
Even the NKJV hasn't escaped the propensity to allow for some denominational and doctrinal influence, of which changes a word here and there, causing the reader to lean towards a current doctrinal inclination of belief.

And of course, what I have said here is only my opinion, but it will be in the cross hairs of those who are eager to defend their biblical source of study, that form their beliefs.

And so it continues, more division.
Luke 12[51] Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

 

[face2face]

Very concise summary. Too bad many discount history. The church had a history that went a certain way, believed or not.

But as you pointed out, the scriptures themselves tell the tale.

2Cor 11:4,

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].
​

It started before Paul even died.

2Tim 1:15,

This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
​

The rest is history.

BTW, thanks for your posts also.

Yes, in the initial stages we saw Judaism seeking to pervert the Gospel, which in part succeeded, although once the Gospel made it's way into Asia Minor you find the Greek & Roman influence with all their mythological culture began codifying the Word (with Philosophy) which is why we are here now arguing with those who adopted it all as truth.

Presenting the Gospel in it's original untouched form is our priority before the Master comes and he will put this mess right. It's incredible though, the power the trinity has over the mind that holds it. For them it's deeply personal and the foundation of their faith, which is why they kick and scream when its shown to be false.

I believe this will be one of the doctrines which will see Christianity (antichrist) persecute the Lord when he returns just as the Jews did during his first ministry. Christianity is not ready for a man who claims to be King of the Jews, who is willing to redeem and unite natural Israel. In fact, the JW's ironically would also reject the Master and could easily be seen as the antichrist.

As you know, the current religious landscape is extremely complex and fragile. Few are watching and even fewer are watching the right signs of his coming.

Here is an interesting fact:

"In the Trinitarian controversies that dominated the fourth century, we find the church desperately trying to elucidate the doctrine of the Trinity in a manner completely faithful to the witness of Scripture. Zachary Lycans, Historical Developemnent of the Doctrine of the Trinity: in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).

Those that held the true Gospel in it's purest form had no controversies at all but all having one mind and working with one motive in unity of truth Acts of the Apostles 1:14 & Acts of the Apostles 2:46 which is clear evidence the introduction of the trinity totally destroyed that unity in the original body.

So history stands against this doctrine but also Scripture as its clear for 1600 years this doctrine has done more harm than good to the point we have Catholicism and her many daughters all plagued with this terrible teaching.

The sad part is 1600 years later in a Christian forum the battle still rages and still those professing its truth cannot prove from Scripture its validity.

"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

The one true God has no head He is "the" Head of all things!

God bless all our searching,

F2F

 

[quietthinker]

A Form of godliness
You can get them at Walmart!

 

[Rich R]

You're not a Hebrew expert! You have ZERO right to declare our Bibles wrong!

It takes minimal expertise to see the "el" in Samuel, Abiel, Uzzial, Uriel, and about a hundred other names.

I didn't write the book. If I had written it, it wouldn't have been nearly as good! :) I'm just reading what's there.

 

[Earburner]

It takes minimal expertise to see the "el" in Samuel, Abiel, Uzzial, Uriel, and about a hundred other names.

I didn't write the book. If I had written it, it wouldn't have been nearly as good! :) I'm just reading what's there.

Isn't it true that God the Father and His Son created man in the image of their likeness, being similar to God, but not of God? Genesis 1:26.
However, Jesus Himself is the express [exact] image of God. Hebrews 1:3.
So then, what do you conclude for the name by which Jesus is called, being Emmanuel?

 

[PinSeeker]

By the time of the apostolic fathers in the late first century and early second century, the doctrine of the Trinity had taken hold in the church and its language. From there it was only a matter of time before all Christendom would adopt its convoluted formula. The word developement always comes to mind because it has had many adaptations along the way.

I think it's good for those naive Christians to understand it's development early on in Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Magnesians 13) and Polycarp (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14). In the mid- to late second century, we find that apologists such as Justin (First Apology 61) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.20) continued to affirm the church’s Trinitarian confession. Although at this time some attempts at expressing the doctrine of the Trinity appear clumsy in hindsight. When you read these these early works you can see they were very poor attempts compared to what hase been formulated in later centuries. What is of interest in the first use of the term “Trinity,” used in the third century such as Tertullian (Against Praxeas 23) and Gregory Thaumaturgus (Declaration of Faith). However, even these definitions would not be used by the later Church and future development was needed. We could speak of the 4th & 5th centuries and how this heresy was further developed but we get the picture.

Many Christians wont speak to the history of the Trinity, some will acknowledge freely its not Bible based but a man made doctrine in an attempt to define the Godhead.

The Apostle Paul knew the original Gospel would be overcome with error and we are thankful for those warnings and the record of the original pure Gospel in the Acts of the Apostles.

Thanks for your contribution.

F2F

Very concise summary. Too bad many discount history. The church had a history that went a certain way, believed or not.

But as you pointed out, the scriptures themselves tell the tale.

2Cor 11:4,

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].
​

It started before Paul even died.

2Tim 1:15,

This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
​

The rest is history.

BTW, thanks for your posts also.

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.

 

[Rich R]

Isn't it true that God the Father and His Son created man in the image of their likeness, being similar to God, but not of God? Genesis 1:26.
However, Jesus Himself is the express [exact] image of God. Hebrews 1:3.
So then, what do you conclude for the name by which Jesus is called, being Emmanuel?

It is true that God, specifically Yahweh, created man in His image. Note verse 27 uses the singular, "His image," not "Our image." God is spirit (John 4:24) and that is His image. Man was originally created as body, soul, and spirit. Did you find anything on "the divine council?" I just Googled it and got 64,000,000+ references. Probably not all good, but just check out the ones that come up on the first page. That should help explain who the "us" is in Gen 1:26. Jesus wasn't born for some 4,000 years after Genesis, so the "us" couldn't refer to him.

The words "express image" in Hebrew 1:3 is the Greek word χαρακτήρ charakter. One person having the character of another person does not make them one and the same.

Read the first two verses of Hebrews 1 for context. There we see that God manifested Himself in various ways, "divers manner" to Israel in the OT. He spoke to them, He wrote letters to them, He performed miracles for them. All of these show who God is. Verse 2 says He has communicated to mankind through Jesus. Now you know Jesus always did the Father's will, always spoke only the words God gave him to speak. Jesus never did his own will, but only that of his Father (two different wills ought to be a sign of two different people). See John 5:30, 6:38 and others to see that.

That is why Jesus could say, "if you see me, you see the Father." Jesus was the perfect image of God as per Col 1:15. An image of something is never the thing itself. It is also worth noting that Jesus was the firstborn of creation. If He were God, we need to find out who was it that bore God.

The main thing to keep in mind is the reason John wrote his gospel. According to John 20:31, John wrote to show that Jesus was the son of God and the promised Christ, or Messiah. All other scripture must accord with that simple declaration. Just try for a moment to understand what a son is. He is certainly not his own father.

 

[marks]

That's pretty obvious. Most Christians "know" Jesus is God before ever cracking the book, so they'll find it in there come hell or high water. I've been saying just that for some time now. Never mind the many clear verses that make a clear distinction between God and His son. Somehow (never really explained) Jesus is the one and only son who is also his own father. We must say that so as to fit with "given" that Jesus is God, so it must be so!

I've continued to read along a lot of the posts in this thread. Still, all I see are the same set of arguments that leave various conflicts unaddressed. And that promote some convoluted reasoning to show a particular passage shouldn't be understood in the plainness in which it appears to speak.

As someone who has a charge before God to not say to others what is not true in the Bible, I take great personal care to know that what I tell others is what in fact I read in Scripture.

Now, I don't say this to try to say I'm the perfect man who never gets it wrong. I say it to say this, Come hell or high water is in your mind, not mine. Maybe don't assume others aren't honest students.

Your argument continues to bottom line at,

Just try for a moment to understand what a son is. He is certainly not his own father.

It just cannot be!

For instance, your objection that "Jesus is the one and only son who is also his own father" is addressed in the knowledge that our Triune God is 3 Persons, and so the Son is not the Father, each are who they are. And it just comes to the intellectual objection, Either you are this person, or you are that person, but you cannot be both.

If you are speaking of you or I, that would be true. But you are not. You are speaking of Him Who created us and all things, and we can only accept what is revealed, without selection. All revelation from God is true.

And that's the rub.

Certainly there are many Scriptures that tell us that the Father and the Son are not the same. Include the Holy Spirit also. They are all separate in Scripture, each having their Own identity. And there are also many Scriptures which identify Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God, while Scripture is clear there is in fact only one God.

The intellectual objection "it cannot be" is to me an empty argument, considering we are talking about the created being defining the Creator, Who is truly transcendant, in all that word can mean. We cannot define Him. "It cannot be", this is vanity.

And so you will always have the verses that tell us each are their own person, and you will nonetheless have those other verses that you need to make some other sense of them than their plain sense, which in many cases are so very plain children do in fact understand them.

My first real understanding of Jesus when I was born again was that He was Lord, my rightful Master, and therefore I needed to begin serving Him, instead of just myself. That was when I was saved. But I found all over the Bible that Jesus is YHWH, none other.

Intellectual Objection . . . Spiritually Discerned Revelation . . . which should lead?

People also reject miracles because they don't think such things can be. These kinds of objections may be preventing us from seeing something we would otherwise see.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It is true that God, specifically Yahweh, created man in His image. Note verse 27 uses the singular, "His image," not "Our image."

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!

 

[Wrangler]

Many Christians wont speak to the history of the Trinity, some will acknowledge freely its not Bible based but a man made doctrine in an attempt to define the Godhead.

The Apostle Paul knew the original Gospel would be overcome with error and we are thankful for those warnings and the record of the original pure Gospel in the Acts of the Apostles.

Very well put.

 

[Jack]

It takes minimal expertise to see the "el" in Samuel, Abiel, Uzzial, Uriel, and about a hundred other names.

I didn't write the book. If I had written it, it wouldn't have been nearly as good! :) I'm just reading what's there.

I don't think you are qualified to rewrite our Christian Bible.