Defending the Trinity

[nothead]

Thank you for your response, and even caring about me!

I do have to admit at times I'm 'of this world' continually trying to only be 'in this world,', ie, trying not live the 'here and now.' However our Godman Jesus was from above from eternity; and the Jews then and for us today, by way of escape, simply by faith be at His side, eg, Jn.8:23.

Let's both you and I by a leap of faith join our Godman Jesus at His side this day?

Old Jack 'beneath' other's paygrade, ie, at the bottom of the heap.

btw let's get the facts straight then distort them.

If Godman was Godman, "Godman" would be in the Bible.

Like, is this only a modern day concept? Noooo. Caesar was "Godman." Pharoahs were 'godmen.'

But it happens not to be a kosher-exactly paradigm. So it isn' there. Never was there, in the Book or in the Reality the Book describes.

 

[shturt678]

If Godman was Godman, "Godman" would be in the Bible.

Like, is this only a modern day concept? Noooo. Caesar was "Godman." Pharoahs were 'godmen.'

But it happens not to be a kosher-exactly paradigm. So it isn' there. Never was there, in the Book or in the Reality the Book describes.

Thank you for your response, and caring again!

Only one small itsy bitsy rational fact, ie, only at Jesus' conception was actually the man Jesus UNITED to God, Heb.1:3 only for openers. If I recall correctly, this doctrine is called reality where in the Book or in the Reality the Book describes the Godman Jesus, ie, I think you're finally catching on?

Old Jack - this is not a 'catch-22' situation, ie, baby's food.

 

[nothead]

Thank you for your response, and caring again!

Only one small itsy bitsy rational fact, ie, only at Jesus' conception was actually the man Jesus UNITED to God, Heb.1:3 only for openers. If I recall correctly, this doctrine is called reality where in the Book or in the Reality the Book describes the Godman Jesus, ie, I think you're finally catching on?

Old Jack - this is not a 'catch-22' situation, ie, baby's food.

Heb 1
[SIZE=.75em]3 [/SIZE]Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express 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:

So is this the ontology of God or the radiant Shekinah Glory and radiance of God, the reflection thereof?

I say the latter and the verse does too, FIRST EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY.

The first problem with the son and the Father both being God: two Gods.

Remember there weren't no hypostatic union or hodgepodge mishmash of a One God Rationale, with two Persons in view.

Without the latter formulations of awry trin rationales, the two Persons of God are simply two Gods as any nothead can attest.

So then the NT would naturally be rife with explanations...regarding how the One God is Two Persons or Beings. One Being who are two Beings. One elohim with two sources of mind, will and self-awareness. Etc.

But it has none, because the issue was not an issue in Jesus' day.

 

[Wormwood]

Yeah, if you call trying to stone Jesus, "not an issue," because he was blaspheming and making himself equal with God, I guess you would be right.

 

[nothead]

Yeah, if you call trying to stone Jesus, "not an issue," because he was blaspheming and making himself equal with God, I guess you would be right.

Not an issue among his own. The question of his authority comes up, and the extent of his power..."What sort of man is this who calms the wind and the seas?"

3 synoptics, all of them.

But among his own NEVER the revelation that He is the One True God. Thomas: "My lord, and my elohim!" "My lord and my eli!" Translated 'god' later on, and then confused with God almighty.

A formulation which never took hold. NOT ONCE repeated in scripture, an ANALOMY for authors if they knew what you think Thomas knew.

Jesus Lord and God. Jesus our Lord and God. Never said one time again.

 

[Wormwood]

Ohhhh. mmmm. yes. I see. Thanks for qualifying your previous statement spoken in haste.

 

[nothead]

Ohhhh. mmmm. yes. I see. Thanks for qualifying your previous statement spoken in haste.

Oh sorry. I expected you to read nothead's noggin. What a challenge!

Who could fathom the depths of?

 

[shturt678]

Not an issue among his own. The question of his authority comes up, and the extent of his power..."What sort of man is this who calms the wind and the seas?"

3 synoptics, all of them.

But among his own NEVER the revelation that He is the One True God. Thomas: "My lord, and my elohim!" "My lord and my eli!" Translated 'god' later on, and then confused with God almighty.

A formulation which never took hold. NOT ONCE repeated in scripture, an ANALOMY for authors if they knew what you think Thomas knew.

Jesus Lord and God. Jesus our Lord and God. Never said one time again.

Thank you for your caring again!

I've always agaped Jn.20:28, "...my Lord and my God!" Look at the force of "answered and said" from the Koine structure of thoughts although Thomas probably spoke Aramaic. O Kurios mou kai o Theos mou, although they are nominative in form, are vocatives in force, being addressed to Jesus as exclamations, with nothing whatever to supply. We may,indeed, say that the exclamation has the sense, "Thou art my Lord and my God," but not that we must supply "thou art."

Thomas here unequivocally acknowledges Jesus as o Theos.

We may compare Nathanael's confession in Jn.1:49. He said "the Son of God," and Thomas "my God," but both are to be understood in the same sense.

This thread has encouraged me, ie, thank you,

Old Jack

 

[Purity]

If Godman was Godman, "Godman" would be in the Bible.

Like, is this only a modern day concept? Noooo. Caesar was "Godman." Pharoahs were 'godmen.'

But it happens not to be a kosher-exactly paradigm. So it isn' there. Never was there, in the Book or in the Reality the Book describes.

Godman is an Indian colloquial term used in a derogatory fashion for a type of charismatic guru in India.

The first usage of the term God-man as a theological concept appears in the writing of the Christian Apostolic Father Origen in the 3rd century AD:

It only took 300 years for Christianity to be completely Apostate.

Origen's disciples are still here some 1700 years on preaching a false gospel.

(shaking my head in disbelief)

 

[nothead]

Thank you for your caring again!

I've always agaped Jn.20:28, "...my Lord and my God!" Look at the force of "answered and said" from the Koine structure of thoughts although Thomas probably spoke Aramaic. O Kurios mou kai o Theos mou, although they are nominative in form, are vocatives in force, being addressed to Jesus as exclamations, with nothing whatever to supply. We may,indeed, say that the exclamation has the sense, "Thou art my Lord and my God," but not that we must supply "thou art."

Thomas here unequivocally acknowledges Jesus as o Theos.

We may compare Nathanael's confession in Jn.1:49. He said "the Son of God," and Thomas "my God," but both are to be understood in the same sense.

This thread has encouraged me, ie, thank you,

Old Jack

Lettuce just pretend this statement is true...

Whether all knew it among the disciples except Thomas, Jesus is Lord and God the One True God...

...or all came to know this shortly thereafter, that Jesus is BOTH Lord and Guh GUH GOD GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY...

...at least before the gospels and epistles were written...

...EITHER way, the most oft used formulation ever from then to now, used by ALL MEN who loved Jesus and followed him to the ends of the earth...

...IS "JESUS OUR LORD AND GOD."

I repeat, I repeat I repeat once more MOST OFT USED FORMULATION in all of NT all liturgy all song and all dancing in the Spirit, all hopping all leaping for joy and all running the aisles...

....JESUS OUR LORD AND GOD. NEVER repeated, NEVER USED AGAIN in NT, and NEVER ONCE MORE MENTIONED.

Splat goes you paradigm. Splat goes the paradigm which never even gets MENTIONED in the three synoptics, only John. Splat goes all thought that Jesus is the One True God.

Nothead has the rev. GET the rev. Go to pure Bible boys and girls.

 

[shturt678]

Lettuce just pretend this statement is true...

Whether all knew it among the disciples except Thomas, Jesus is Lord and God the One True God...

...or all came to know this shortly thereafter, that Jesus is BOTH Lord and Guh GUH GOD GREAT GOD ALMIGHTY...

...at least before the gospels and epistles were written...

...EITHER way, the most oft used formulation ever from then to now, used by ALL MEN who loved Jesus and followed him to the ends of the earth...

...IS "JESUS OUR LORD AND GOD."

I repeat, I repeat I repeat once more MOST OFT USED FORMULATION in all of NT all liturgy all song and all dancing in the Spirit, all hopping all leaping for joy and all running the aisles...

....JESUS OUR LORD AND GOD. NEVER repeated, NEVER USED AGAIN in NT, and NEVER ONCE MORE MENTIONED.

Splat goes you paradigm. Splat goes the paradigm which never even gets MENTIONED in the three synoptics, only John. Splat goes all thought that Jesus is the One True God.

Nothead has the rev. GET the rev. Go to pure Bible boys and girls.

Thank you for your response and caring again!

How about the assertion that Jesus called Himself "the Son of God." Would this count? Matt.26:63, "thou art the Christ, the Son of God!" Keep in mind that allllll His miracles attested His Sonship and His Messiahship.

Old Jack that cannot help agape that Godman Sonship!

 

[nothead]

Thank you for your response and caring again!

How about the assertion that Jesus called Himself "the Son of God." Would this count? Matt.26:63, "thou art the Christ, the Son of God!" Keep in mind that allllll His miracles attested His Sonship and His Messiahship.

Old Jack that cannot help agape that Godman Sonship!

Jack, the term "Son of God" itself is DEFINED in Jn 10, compared to the

"sons of the most high" in Psalm 82...

...these being the 'elohim' (ye are gods) which God proclaimed before He demoted them to mortal status. Jesus is comparing himself to INTERMEDIATE ELOHIM in heaven same as the 'gods' of precedent.

He is actually saying in Jn 10 that he IS NOT the same ontology as God Almighty and that the term SON of God is extension from the plural term SONS of the Most High Psalm 82.

 

[shturt678]

Jack, the term "Son of God" itself is DEFINED in Jn 10, compared to the

"sons of the most high" in Psalm 82...

...these being the 'elohim' (ye are gods) which God proclaimed before He demoted them to mortal status. Jesus is comparing himself to INTERMEDIATE ELOHIM in heaven same as the 'gods' of precedent.

He is actually saying in Jn 10 that he IS NOT the same ontology as God Almighty and that the term SON of God is extension from the plural term SONS of the Most High Psalm 82.

Thank you for your response and caring again!

Hey, you had the right Bible, however the wrong Book, ie, back up a little to Matt.22:42, "...whose son is he? Then from Ps.82 fast forward to Ps.110. They say to him, David's." How's it feel to roll together scrutinizing Scriptures, ie, team effort?

Matt.22:42, the great question whcih Jesus now asks and answers from Ps.110. This connection has been denied my friend, and yet it's only too too obvious. Why would the covenant God of Israel, Yahweh Eloheka, ask his people to agape him as he did if that agape could never be realized in their hearts because of their sin and their doom under sin?

His very covenant name points to the covenant promise of the Messiah in and through whose grace Israel would, indeed, come to agape the Lord their God with the whole heart, soul, and mind (Jer.31:33, 34). "The great and first commandment" (v.38) and the Messiah, David's Lord, will ever belong together.

Jesus has one and only one object in asking this question: to add to the other revelation of hid deity that Jesus had made this revelation which is appropriated from David's Psalm.

Hang in there, however I do have a clean towel for you to throw in, you'll become a Trinitarian yet.

Old Jack

 

[nothead]

Thank you for your response and caring again!

Hey, you had the right Bible, however the wrong Book, ie, back up a little to Matt.22:42, "...whose son is he? Then from Ps.82 fast forward to Ps.110. They say to him, David's." How's it feel to roll together scrutinizing Scriptures, ie, team effort?

Matt.22:42, the great question whcih Jesus now asks and answers from Ps.110. This connection has been denied my friend, and yet it's only too too obvious. Why would the covenant God of Israel, Yahweh Eloheka, ask his people to agape him as he did if that agape could never be realized in their hearts because of their sin and their doom under sin?

Agapeing him is not the request in Mt 22:42, sir the question was IF Messiah is the Son of David THEN how did David SEE him in the Spirit as "lord?"

It is the old blood/spiritual mutual exclusivity here shown, not the agape of Christ per se.

The answer to Jesus' question: Messiah is both descended from David and spiritually sent forth by God in the Spirit, the SAME
Spirit which testified to him before he was born as David's LORD.

His very covenant name points to the covenant promise of the Messiah in and through whose grace Israel would, indeed, come to agape the Lord their God with the whole heart, soul, and mind (Jer.31:33, 34). "The great and first commandment" (v.38) and the Messiah, David's Lord, will ever belong together.

Shema is truly modified to include the Son. As soon as the Householder of the Vineyard sends him, he is the rep, the Shaliach agent of, the regent proxy of the God of him. To all husbandmen. This does in no way make Jesus God.

Jesus has one and only one object in asking this question: to add to the other revelation of hid deity that Jesus had made this revelation which is appropriated from David's Psalm.

No, he is indicating himself as Messiah, sir. Where do you get deity from?

Hang in there, however I do have a clean towel for you to throw in, you'll become a Trinitarian yet.

Old Jack

I'd rather be an alcoholic, since it is not a DIRECT betrayal of the Living God.

 

[shturt678]

Agapeing him is not the request in Mt 22:42, sir the question was IF Messiah is the Son of David THEN how did David SEE him in the Spirit as "lord?"

It is the old blood/spiritual mutual exclusivity here shown, not the agape of Christ per se.

The answer to Jesus' question: Messiah is both descended from David and spiritually sent forth by God in the Spirit, the SAME
Spirit which testified to him before he was born as David's LORD.




Shema is truly modified to include the Son. As soon as the Householder of the Vineyard sends him, he is the rep, the Shaliach agent of, the regent proxy of the God of him. To all husbandmen. This does in no way make Jesus God.



No, he is indicating himself as Messiah, sir. Where do you get deity from?



I'd rather be an alcoholic, since it is not a DIRECT betrayal of the Living God.

Thank you for your response and caring!

Let's approach this from another angle where I think the light wil come on, eg, Ps.110, David's Psalm.

Ps.110, Messianic Psal "What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is he? The Pharisees say to Him: David's. He saith to them: How then doth David in the spirit call Him Lord, saying: "The Lord hath said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand and I make Thine enemies they foot stool to Thy feet?"

Even my below ambient temperature I.Q. grasps this, ie, If David calls Him Lord, how is He his Son? (Matt.22:41-46). Of Son of God and of divine (God) nature.

One cannot help but agape the Trinity, and Ps.110.

Old Jack

 

[nothead]

Thank you for your response and caring!

Let's approach this from another angle where I think the light wil come on, eg, Ps.110, David's Psalm.

Ps.110, Messianic Psal "What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is he? The Pharisees say to Him: David's. He saith to them: How then doth David in the spirit call Him Lord, saying: "The Lord hath said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand and I make Thine enemies they foot stool to Thy feet?"

Even my below ambient temperature I.Q. grasps this, ie, If David calls Him Lord, how is He his Son? (Matt.22:41-46). Of Son of God and of divine (God) nature.

One cannot help but agape the Trinity, and Ps.110.

Old Jack

No, David SAW him as every messianic prophet under the sun saw him and spoke of him, by ESPIRITU.

Para espiritu, hermano, that means "by spirit, brotha."

And this SPIRIT of YHWH Elohim transcends time and space, saying that which has not yet come to pass as if it is...

...David seeing INTO DA FUTURE, as a prophet might be wont to do...miracle of miracles, wonder of wonders...

...amazing things on TOP of other amazing things, no wonder Jews PINED for a prophet for their age, for their people, for their knowing of the WILL of God in the here and now, even thought it might be not yet...

...fat ones skinny ones short ones tall ones.

 

[nothead]

I would normally start another thread here since I would like to pose a question which came early on in my own investigation of Jesus' divinity...

...except that we already have more than a few on the same general subject; my question is JUST WHEN did they figure out Jesus was God?

1) Three synoptics on the Sea of Galilee: "What sort of MAN is this who calms the wind and the seas?" Obviously they didn't know AT THIS TIME Jesus was God...
2) Martha to Jesus: "Had you been here LORD, my brother hath not died."

Obviously SHE did not know Jesus was God AT THAT TIME...What a statement about God if she did...

3) Thomas: "My lord and my God!" Obviously they did not know the meaning of what he said which jibes with what YOU ALL THINK he said, since this was never repeated in NT, "Jesus our Lord and God," "Christ our Lord and God," He who is our Lord and God.

The son of God who is God the Son and our Lord...or any variation thereof.

Any theories which can close the gap here? I would like to hear a plausible one. See, the assumption by most notheads is, that IT DON"T MATTER when they figured out Jesus is God, As long as they DID, right?

WRONG. It do matter because the debate says EITHER OR. EITHER Jesus is God OR he is not. Amen.

P.S. This is where Wormwood stops debating Nothead on another thread. I seem to remember. Don't gloss this one, folks.

 

[Floyd]

I would normally start another thread here since I would like to pose a question which came early on in my own investigation of Jesus' divinity...

...except that we already have more than a few on the same general subject; my question is JUST WHEN did they figure out Jesus was God?

1) Three synoptics on the Sea of Galilee: "What sort of MAN is this who calms the wind and the seas?" Obviously they didn't know AT THIS TIME Jesus was God...
2) Martha to Jesus: "Had you been here LORD, my brother hath not died."

Obviously SHE did not know Jesus was God AT THAT TIME...What a statement about God if she did...

3) Thomas: "My lord and my God!" Obviously they did not know the meaning of what he said which jibes with what YOU ALL THINK he said, since this was never repeated in NT, "Jesus our Lord and God," "Christ our Lord and God," He who is our Lord and God.

The son of God who is God the Son and our Lord...or any variation thereof.

Any theories which can close the gap here? I would like to hear a plausible one. See, the assumption by most notheads is, that IT DON"T MATTER when they figured out Jesus is God, As long as they DID, right?

WRONG. It do matter because the debate says EITHER OR. EITHER Jesus is God OR he is not. Amen.

P.S. This is where Wormwood stops debating Nothead on another thread. I seem to remember. Don't gloss this one, folks.

[SIZE=26pt]Satan’s people: (Rev. 14;9-12).[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt]It is not an exaggeration to say this is probably the most profound warning in the whole of Scripture, which is delivered by the third angel. ([/SIZE]We must remember that these messengers are being heard by all mankind, verse 6[SIZE=14pt]!) The following warning given is so profoundly strong and uncompromising, that most readers shrink from accepting its clear message. However, we know that all Scripture is from the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16.) The severity of the warning does not at first glance seem to accord with The Almighty God of Love. However; when properly and prayerfully perceived, it becomes clear that even at this extreme stage of evil (adherence to Satan,) that has by then been reached, merciful Jehovah Zabeoth has given a [/SIZE]last warning to the people of earth[SIZE=14pt]. After that warning, there is no way of escape! [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]At this present moment in time it is very easy for people to escape future judgment and damnation, by accepting in Truth in their hearts (innermost being,) that Jesus Christ died for their sin, on The Cross, at Calvary, outside the walls of Jerusalem, approx. 2000 years ago, but that acceptance of Jesus and His sacrifice must be sincere, and not just a verbal comment![/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]That sacrifice, which is acceptable to Jehovah God, IS THE ULTIMATE, BECAUSE CHRIST ON THE CROSS WAS GOD INCARNATE! Once this offered gift of salvation (being made whole) is removed, the way to Salvation and God becomes much harder, as is being shown in Rev.14. Once the warning of V.9-12 are given there are only TWO OPTIONS open to mankind.
1) Be for Jehovah Zebaoth and Christ;
2) Serve Satan, receive his mark and worship him.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]Once the second option is taken men and women will be seen as they truly are for the first time (tares,) with no subterfuge, disguise or other ways of covering their true identity. They are children of Satan, and TOTALLY unredeemable, and will receive the same punishment reserved for Satan and his angels eventually. As one third of Heaven’s angels fall under the guile, lies and deceit of Satan, so will countless human beings. The torment that they will have to endure for “an Age,” (v 11 translates correctly as an "Age time," not for "ever and ever" as per AV. Strongs number 165 has the statement "especially a Jewish Messianic period", which clearly points to the punishment being for the duration of the Millennial. That corresponds with Rev. 20:10 which shows that Satan and his are consigned to the Lake of Fire and Brimstone at the end of Millennial,) has turned many good men and women from studying these verses. They must be understood in the context of Satan's totally perverse rebellion against THE ONE TRUE LOVING GOD, whose purpose in the defeat of Satan is only to prove HIS GREAT LOVE for HIS created beings, (see notes in Revelationsmessage Chp 12:V.12 a) b) c,) and to deal with the "mystery of iniquity!" (2Thess. 2:7.)[/SIZE]

 

[nothead]

mystery of iniquity!" (2Thess. 2:7.)

Floyd, is this an answer to my question? I know you think me a Child of Satan already. Are you repeating yourself? Is this a tendency of the senile?

 

[Floyd]

Floyd, is this an answer to my question? I know you think me a Child of Satan already. Are you repeating yourself? Is this a tendency of the senile?

Good try P; (actually rather infantile of you, in your pathetic attempts to avoid the questions (from your Teaching)!
I am always angry with insincerity!!!
Yours is enormous; you could have been treated with at least respect; but you showed yourself to duplistic and dis-honest; when you are confronted with sincere questions on your own teaching:

Lets try again:
Let us all see you refuse to answer again; or squirm with irrelevant alternative Scriptures or other of your abberant teaching or comments, totally unrelated. I haven't see behaviour this bad before on a serious board!
One expects such behaviour from young children; but from an adult who presents themselves as an "authority"; and a "teacher". I would not want you anywhere near teaching my children, when such falsehood has been shown.
I ask you an open question. Lets see if you will answer?
Do you want to be treated with respect in debate with myself and others; please give me/ us an answer.
Floyd and vicarious.