Defending the Trinity

This thread has gotten out of control.

Nothead,

All you have done is bring confusion. That speaks for itself. I am not as proficient in Greek as Wormwood is, but he is much closer to the plain sense\understanding of the words than you are. There is no hidden message in the Greek. You can only find a richer understanding in the Greek, not a contradiction.

SL

In general, anyone who is trying to take away the divinity of Christ I believe to be on dangerous ground. If Christ was not God in flesh, why did He die? Only God could take on our sin. Only God could be without sin. Only God could make a way to Himself (we do not know the way by our nature). I do not know fully what I do believe about this topic, but I know Christ is the fullness of the Godhead bodily. By the definition of fullness, He has to be some part God. (I do not know how His mother not being divine comes into play) If Christ was not divine....He is dead in vain.

As Arnie tried to point out (or at least how I took it), God has taken on many manifestations to appear to us, I do not understand why or when or how He chooses to do it. But God can do whatever He wants, and I do not think He needs my full understanding to be fully God. Believe it or not, He does not require our full understanding of His nature to come to Him. He also does not need our permission to be God and do what He pleases.

SL

 

There are many ways in which these questions can be answered. These are good questions wormwood and should you investigate the answers for your own faith, O the fruits which are awaiting you there. If you searched and found we would not be having this lengthy discussion and many Christian would not be in the confused state they currently find themselves in today.

The irony in questions 1 – 4 has their answer in number 5. (its often the case)

“A good question is better than a good answer” One opens and leads to more good questions while the good answer can close a discussion.

However, I perceive it is not enough for you to know an acknowledge Jesus was an outstanding man who was upheld in an exemplary life. Somehow I perceive you seek for more philosophy to muse upon.

I cannot provide you with philosophy only the living and abiding Word which gives life.

If Jesus was an “eternal” Spirit with no beginning, these words would make no sense, or would their meaning carry any weight whatsoever to the believer.

Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


This teaching which reveals Yahweh being revealed through a body of humiliation (Phil 3:21) goes to the very heart of what you are asking (questions 1-5) from the Lord.


The context of verse Rev 1:17 as you can verify yourself is correctly supporting the above interpretation.


Now to have life, death and life again is not language used of God Himself.


Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:16)


The leap (or connection) you make from Rev 1:8 to 1 Tim 6:6 is what you call the Trinity.

Early church fathers who were heavily influenced by philosophers such as Plato sought to reconcile the relationship between Christ and his Father. Unfortunately their reasoning’s were not based on the Bible text but philosophical beliefs gleaned from the thinking of their day.

What is required to prove the Trinity?

What you need here is for Jesus who is speaking in the presence tense to say “I am he that has always lived (eternally), I was dead, behold, I am alive forevermore”

But that is never qualified anywhere in the Scripture.

The kicker here is a living being to be dead must have possessed a life of flesh and blood, he had a beginning and an end.

Unlike Yahweh who is beyond the Alpha and Omega, Jesus has a clear beginning and an end. Out of his own mouth Jesus declares his existence has its beginning by Gal 4:4 and his end and resurrection by Yahweh Himself (Luke 14:14 & Phil 3:20,21)

The life Jesus lived was in a vile body one requiring to be raised to a glorious body.

Here is where it gets hard for you wormwood.

You believe:

Jesus had no beginning that he was not actually born with life and he didn’t really die a complete death for he always lives.

The glorious body he has today he possessed prior to his life and death.

The answers to your questions 1-5 are all speaking what Jesus became through suffering and death something God himself cannot do for obvious reasons.

Lets take your first question and I will deal with the others as we progress:

Wormwood states: the sacrifice must be God Himself.

The Bible states: the sacrifice had to contain life blood which is in the blood itself (Lev 17:11 & John 6:53)

The Bible teaches the blood represented a life; therefore, blood shed represented a life given in willing sacrifice.

The Bible also teaches that life must be in the line of Adam – a condemned line of mortal creatures subject to passions and held under the condemnation of death. Heb 2:13,14,15 & Rom 6:9

That life had to be sacrificed unto Yahweh, hence a life of dedication of His will.

If you believe God himself was sacrificed on the basis of His Own dedication to His own Self then you clearly have corrupted the Bible text in a major way.

God cannot seek Himself nor would He present Himself as doing so under the guise of free will.

So under the Law the blood of animals were slain for sacrificial purposes of worship, pointed forward to the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose life was given in total dedication to the will of his Father.

God cannot worship Himself – He is the object of worship.

The Atonement is all about the blood (life) to be given unto God, the flesh must be put to death.

Hence when an offerer sacrificed an animal and its blood was placed on the altar, he proclaimed the need of putting to death the flesh and devoting his life to Yahweh in order to worship acceptably.

The principle of dedication also conflicts with your Trinity theory. Jesus declared the righteousness of Yahweh (not himself) by bloodshed in sacrifice, and it was given to the altar (not made with hands) , represented a life dedicated unto Yahweh.

Christ's life was given in that way, and hence provided the means of redemption.

But his sacrifice was representative, not substitutionary: he died for us (as an example for us), not instead of us. His action in so doing, illustrated what is expected of all those who would come unto God through him (see Gal 5:24 ). Hence their lives, too, must be given to God on the altar: they must dedicate themselves to doing the will of God, else for them there will be "no remission" (Heb 9:22 ).

We cannot leave it all to God and Christ, but must give our lives (or blood) unto Him in acceptable worship. Therefore, it is the blood that "maketh a covering (atonement) for the soul", or life (see Mat 10:39; Mat 26:28 ).

If these principles are understood you will understand Jesus (a created being) though flesh and blood in the line of Abraham and David was morally sinless and therefore the grave could not hold him.

Your question

Answer:
Jesus was not taken from Heaven as an eternal being, but from among men and given the eternal Word (Heb 5:1)

Jesus was not God in any way, shape or form, as he was required to fulfil (Heb 11:6) and was rewarded for his faithfulness. Faith and inheritance cannot be extended to God Himself.

God cannot be referred to as an altar (Heb 13:10) that which facilitates worship and sacrifice belongs to Christ the mediator between God and Man Eph 4:5,6,7

God does not require sanctification He alone sanctifies through His Son by His Word. 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Cor 6:11 (note the word manifest!) 1 Tim 4:5

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ was on the basis of him being a created man – the firstborn of every creature. However you see him as being firstborn you must also see every other creature in like manner. Israel was Gods firstborn Exo 4:22. Every believer “firstborn” is to do with status as many were born before the Lord Jesus Christ just as many nations were literally given birth before Israel.

(Jer 31:9; Gen 48:14,19; Deut 21:17; Psa 89:27; Heb 12:23)

I will approach your another questions in due course.

In this post I have proven the sacrifice was on the basis of a created being doing the will of Him who raised him up. Nowhere will you find the atonement is on the basis of God sacrificing Himself by sending Himself to earth to die for His people. The contrary is proven – an obedience submissive Son gave his life for his Father that the earth may behold the righteousness of God and His great mercy and grace.

Purity

 

Justaname - can you explain the nature of Jesus being both vile and divine simultaneously?

I would like to see some of that human rational.

By the way nothing in your post explained how God can service Himself; sacrifice Himself; Dedicate Himself to Himself; Yield to Himself and become an altar and High Priest to mediate on behalf of Himself.

This is rather easy wormwood.

2 Cor 5:19 - does not say "God was Christ reconciling..." but "God was in Christ...."

Important word "in"...don't you think wormwood?

That lesson of manifestation keeps coming up into your ears but do you hear?

There was no difference between the motives of the One (Yahweh) and the motives of the other (Son); they were together. The old man Abraham and his son Isaac, who "went together" to the altar on Moriah (Gen 22:6; Gen 22:8), are the express pattern of the Heavenly Father and His Son who, together, go to the cross! (Notice how Paul in Rom 8:31-32 quotes Gen 22:12; and how, incidentally, Abraham - a man - actually typifies the Almighty!)

Who would think such things were possible - a man typifying Almighty El?

Purity

 

Defending the Trinity one must cover all scriptures that say plainly "God is one"

Here scribes understood that Jesus was God.

Mar 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
Mar 2:6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
Mar 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
Mar 2:8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
Mar 2:9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
Mar 2:10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
Mar 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

I don't find anywhere the word trinity in God's word nor do I ever find in the Old Testament any Jew ever believed there to be more than one God and of course they understood Hebrew and words that could be used as plural. They knew not to imply that their God was like the gods of the world. Jew believe God is one.

 

[SIZE=28pt]Triune God (Rev. 14:1)[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt](c) "Having His name, and His Father's[/SIZE] name written on their foreheads." This joint naming, although implicit for thousands of years in Scripture, and confirmed by our Lord, [SIZE=14pt]"those that have seen me, have seen the Father," (Jn. 14:9,)[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt] is here a unique occurrence and is a first in Scripture. In Zech. 14:9, we read;[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]"And Jehovah shall be King over all the earth: in that Day shall there be one Jehovah, and His Name One (united)."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]The period being described is [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]"Jehovah's Day," [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt](Zech. 14:1,) (Rev.1:10,) the period of time yet future (probably near,) when Christ will return to earth to re-establish Israel, to judge the nations, and to rule the world from Jerusalem for 1000 years (the Millennial reign!,) see the whole of Zech. 14. In the Old Testament in Genesis 1:26; And God said, "Let Us make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness;" at this statement there is no clue as to the 2nd Person, only that there is a plurality. Throughout the Old Testament reference is made only to Elohim, Jehovah (with various titles) and the Holy Spirit. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Having said that, Isa. 42:1 can now be seen as showing the Triune Godhead, but only retrospectively, and not until Christ had been in the flesh to earth, and was understood. Jer. 51:9 again shows a plurality and also Jer. 10:10.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]The Name of Christ is reviled,[/SIZE] [SIZE=14pt]misused and abused worldwide millions of times daily, mainly in the white, western Caucasoid population, but not exclusively. Ironically, Islamists do not revile and blaspheme His Name, because He is revered as a prophet, but not as God's way of Salvation. It is worth repeating here that Christ is the Greek for Messiah. That Messiah means anointed. That Jesus is the Greek for Joshua (Jehoshua) which means, Jehovah the Saviour. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Therefore Jesus Christ means; Jehovah the Saviour Anointed. [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt] Whenever this most Holy and Worthy title is used wrongly, as is most common in population swearing, much condemnation is being stored up by the individuals for their Judgement, when they are standing before the Great White Throne (Rev. 20:11-12.) However, in Matt.12:32 we have Christ's statement regarding blasphemy, which referred to that Age, "and the coming Age." At that time the coming Age which Christ constantly preached, was the [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]"Kingdom Age."[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt] That Age would have started [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]had the Jewish hierarchy accepted Him as Messiah.[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt] As they rejected Him, it is in abeyance. As shown at Acts 28:28, an unknown (to the Jews) Age began, which we know as the Age of "Grace." What this means to the repentant [/SIZE]b[SIZE=14pt]lasphemer, is that in this present Age, as our Lord died for all sin, they appear to be mercifully forgiven, but in the coming Kingdom Age, not so. This interpretation is based on the assumption that the repentant person sees and accepts that The Holy Spirit is God, that He is The Author of all life, and that in Christ Jesus He has borne the sin of the individual, and the world! This interpretation may or may not be correct, the individual concerned can only hope that it is![/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt]As regards "His Father's Name;" in the Old Testament, God acting in one form or another was asked "whom He was." On the occasion of Judges 13; He replied His name was [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]"wonderful," (V.18,) which is confirmed in Isa. 9:6 as Our Lord![/SIZE][SIZE=14pt] In Isa. 41:4, 43:11, 44:6 and 48:12, He confirms His identity with those of Rev. 1:17, 2:8 and 22:13, and shows that [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]He and the Son are One![/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]In Exodus 3:14, when Moses requested His name, he was told; [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]"I Am that I Am,"[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt] which has the meaning, I will be what I will be (or become,) (Comp. p.76.) In John 8:58-59 Jesus again confirms who He is, in reply to the Pharisees, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]"Before Abraham was, I Am,"[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt] confirming that [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]the Son (Jesus) and Jehovah, [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]are One.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]See: The Triune God; [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Floyd.[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=28pt]Triune God (Rev. 14:1)[/SIZE]

I have wrestled with this verse and the KJV version, which hath not the Son's name written upon their foreheads. I will not argue the KJV is the true version, since I have not much evidence for that which I would rather see, the original name only, YHWH Elohim, obviously which would tie into my theology more cohesively.

The reason why I wrestled with this verse is because in two places further in Revelations, the Mark of the Beast is said to be on the Deceived One's forehead instead of what God said to put in Deut 6:4...

Revelations 19

[SIZE=.75em]20 [/SIZE]And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Rev 20

[SIZE=.75em]4 [/SIZE]And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

...and I have considered the thought that this MARK OF THE BEAST is actually the Trinity which Christ and God would both think blasphemy...

Consider, readers the original THING said to put upon your forehead and hand:

Deut 6

[SIZE=.75em]4 [/SIZE]Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
[SIZE=.75em]7 [/SIZE]And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
[SIZE=.75em]8 [/SIZE]And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
[SIZE=.75em]9 [/SIZE]And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

So then if TWO THINGS, or REFERENTS are now put upon the forehead and hand, and these are YHWH ELOHIM/JESUS, then does this prove Jesus is in fact God also? Why would God allow BOTH if the first command given to Moses was that YOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER ELOHIM TO HIS FACE??

And the fact is, after I wrestled with the matter, that I know He did allow this and it ties into the same thing allowed the original Hebrews who wanted a king...that a MAN would take on His authority on earth and even in the heavens as superior elohim...

NOT superior or even equal to HIM, but yes to his presence, even to the subordinate RIGHT HAND of him. And to us in Spirit come in the name of. And to our object and referent of worship in His stead upon the earth.

Listen up my friends. It isn't the EQUALITY of Jesus to YHWH Elohim that He wanted us to know. It was the Messianic SUPERIORITY of Jesus compared to any man or king or even angel in the history of man.

BOTH are on our forehead, the GOD of us who is only one, as the Shema proclaims and the glorified MAN of us to whom the Word of God came.
This is in fact the constant formulation in the NT: The GOD of us, and His beloved Son the (new) LORD of us.

Sorry to butt in, but the words in the Bible represent the Complete Way and Gospel. To say otherwise is to be vastly bumbling.

Bumbling...bumbling...I know we all like it...like it. It just isn't edifying is all.

And please let me remind you my most beloved moderator of men, that ONE BEING and THREE PERSONS are only saying THREE GODS OF LIKE KIND.

And what would this entail for the average Joe? And Jane? And Joe Jr.? Polytheism, a pantheon. Take your pick. You would in fact be right both times.

This is the only part worth arguing you. The rest is a pasty to someone else.


I have to work on other things. Get back to you I promise.

 

Smoke and mirrors. Define NATURE and I might believe you. Otherwise you are just saying what you friends say. Like kind or species. Of. Verdad?

Yeth it do, foo. God is One because no other ONE stands beside Him as Equal. Said a bajillion times in the Torah. Even Muslims know this. Whyn't thee, my heady brother to be?

You have to make 'one' compound or of a unity of, and/or YHWH Elohim three to begin with, whereas all Jews dead and alive know "YHWH Elohim" refers to one referent and one only. Notice MY word 'one' means ONE, not some dredged up YACHID of one which might be imagined.

I did not SAY I knew the Mark on the Forehead is Trinity, I said I considered it. Actually I decided at one point it was anything else BUT the Shema in Deut 6:4. Now I have revised this view in light of Rev 14.

We know what HAS to be put there by premise. YHWH Elohim/Jesus. So then 666 or 616 or Julius Caesar or some other emperor or Hitler. So then your vaunted Trinity ain't THERE is it. If IT WAS THERE, what do you think God would think of it, whom said to put TWO REFERENTS THERE, sir?

So then my paradigm ain't so far off the wall is it? Don't answer

Listen up my friends. It isn't the EQUALITY of Jesus to YHWH Elohim that He wanted us to know. It was the Messianic SUPERIORITY of Jesus compared to any man or king or even angel in the history of man. -- nothead

So does this correlate even slightly to your accusation that I made Jesus only a little better than you or me, sir?

 

If the flesh was not vile why did Jesus crucify his own nature on the cross, if as you say, its vileness is "only" to do with moral sin?

Explain Romans 7:18 in light of their being no good thing in Jesus Matt 19:17.

Not bad wormwood.

I think the Job puts it more eloquently than you but you are close.

Job 25:6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the Son of man, which is a worm.

The NET translates this better "how much less a mortal man, who is but a maggot--a son of man, who is only a worm!"

Or Psalm 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

Or Job 15:14 What is man that he should be pure, or one born of woman, that he should be righteous? See Gal 4:4

This makes sense now doesn't it wormwood?

1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in Yahweh's presence.

Conclusion: Wormwood doesn't understand the relationship between flesh and sin or the condemnation applied to human nature.

Purity

 

My only point has ever been that the shorter way of saying Jesus is God through morphe, eikown, or carakter of his hypostasis, is the TO BE VERB, Jesus IS God.

Shorter and clearer, yes? So why all the melodrama? We couldn't take the truth THEN but can NOW? Huh?

Of course, and my whole point was your improved God is even further away from the Abrahamic God of the Jews. This whole debate about whether or not ALLAH is a Persian rendition of the same God Abraham worshiped is moot when faced with the Trinitarian God. Your God in other words is TWO GODS away from the One True God.

Pre-existence is mostly extracted from John 17:

[SIZE=.75em]4 [/SIZE]I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

...and from Jn 1:

[SIZE=1.25em]1 [/SIZE]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[SIZE=.75em]2 [/SIZE]The same was in the beginning with God.

...now Jn 17 has an odd fact since the Cross was looming...Jesus is actually asking for the SHEKINAH POWER (glory) to withstand his final test.

And contrary to trin terp, this GLORY was not something he had with God before the Creation, but something rather PROMISED before the Foundation of the World.

See, Wormwood my man, being online gives you perspectives you might never have even THOUGHT of...
So why is Jesus saying he HAD IT with God in the past tense? Erm, since it was PROMISED then? And at the point in time it was THOUGHT by God it was in fact a given promise only to be manifested?

And in context he NEEDS IT NOW since he is facing his greatest test up to this time? And since this test would TEST your God and my annointed man so greatly he would actually exclaim ELI ELI LAMA SABACHTHANI??

Jn 1 haven't I said it a few times now? The WORD was what God thought and then SPOKE. See the first clause IN THE BEGINNING. And especially v.3
said of God and not Jesus:

[SIZE=.75em]3 [/SIZE]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John is not saying the Word made all things; if the Word is the subject, then it references the owner/operator of Word, but in my mind the GOD is the subject from v.2.

This Word is pre-existent in the sense that it was thought before it was said, just as I've always said. This concept is less weird to you as you think on it, the Jewish POV.

Good move, defensively. I know you were at the point of floundering. And waving your arms in abject surrender.

As the parable suggests of the land owner who sends his son, this son has the landowner's authority.

[SIZE=.75em]33 [/SIZE]Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
[SIZE=.75em]34 [/SIZE]And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
[SIZE=.75em]35 [/SIZE]And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
[SIZE=.75em]36 [/SIZE]Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
[SIZE=.75em]37 [/SIZE]But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
[SIZE=.75em]38 [/SIZE]But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
[SIZE=.75em]39 [/SIZE]And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
[SIZE=.75em]40 [/SIZE]When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

Em every time he said "I am [he]" in Jn? Every time the other term comes up THAT ONE meaning Messiah? All the so-called proof texts of his deity which are actually saying he is even higher than angels, in the kingdom of God? Em by him saying he is equal or greater than ELOHIM of Psalm 82 to whom the word of God came, who also were SONS of the MOST HIGH??

[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Replace 'gods' with 'elohim' and 'children' with 'sons' and now you have a more accurate translation, sir. No I didn't make this up, it is the original text in Hebrew.

I state that he is elohim over the angels, which means over any other 'elohim' we know of in heaven. This makes him number two, although it is slightly possible I am wrong and there are 'elohim' not mentioned to us...

Jesus is elohim over the angels, but not YHWH Elohim equal to or over God. Did I mumble, or is this hard to comprehend?

Yes it may seem a little less clear than just saying Two Gods inhabit heaven. But this is because you mammy or pappy taught you that, or your pastor or Sunday School nun with a wooden ruler, sir.

I just hate to call Jesus that which the Bible or he himself never did. Thank you.

Your point is that nodhead is a blubbering nincompoop? Do you know the etymology of NINCOMPOOP?? Ninny become manure?

I think you ad hommed yourself into a corner. ANYTHING I say will from now on be less nasty than thee. Sure that was a good move? Now if you smear me off you forum, like grey poupon, will it look good for you and you partners in organized crime? Eh?

Oh you point was that I reversed the meaning of you fav verses? Oooo. That's a no-no. So then what was the first OP statements of yours? Trinity is true. Or not. So the NOTS get this treatment that they turn you fav verses on they head??

See this is what you GET when you debate nincompoops, sir. We tend to state the opposite of you position sir. Hate to state the obvious, sir.
IF Jesus ain't God THEN God is not a Trinity. And my evidence shuts you down. You own fav verses to be specific, sir.

I would agree with you, except you translation is that God was with God before the World was made. A no-no in Jewish POV, sir. The reason why, um read Deuteronomy and Exodus and Genesis and Numbers and Leviticus and a few others, ALL others of their Tanakh, sir. Two Gods sharing glory before the foundation of the world isn't exactly the way the stories go, um.

Jesus was the beloved annointed one of God, a SON in the same sense of SON in Psalm 82 by his own words:

[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]I have said, Ye are elohim; and all of you are sons of the most High.

My Jesus is the same Jesus of the Bible by Jn 10 and the Psalm 82 and the red letter words of my Lord himself. In the sense HE MEANT IT, sir. Note: "I and my Father are one," is EXPLAINED by Jesus to mean HE IS NOT ONTOLOGICALLY the "SON" of the Father. But rather in the same sense as the ELOHIM in heaven at least before they were deposed.

My terp of Jn 10 is impregnable. Your measly refutes regarding never came close to refuting it. Regard the fact that "I and my Father are one," is the closest Jesus ever comes to saying he is God. And the fact that all other times when they wanted to stone him, it was debatedly over OTHER ISSUES of his authority, not that he was 'making himself God.'

And regard the fact that on another major Trin Board, Carm the same holds true. Not one poster even tries anymore. I make mincemeat out of 'em. No brag, jus' fack.

Right now on the Jn 10 thread 59 reads and not one refute. Oooo. Me wrong the blockers and third stringers just decided to bite. No one of consequence.

 

The History of The Doctrine of the Trinity - The True Scriptural Picture

"For there is ONE GOD and one mediator between God and men,the MAN Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 2:5

The history of religion has always been one of degeneration from the originally revealed pure monotheism to various forms of polytheism. "Christianity," as popularly known, has been no exception.
The Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, is very emphatic about the absolute oneness of God. When asked which is the first commandment of all?"
Jesus answered (Mark 12:29) -

"The first of all the commandments is; Hear, O Israel, THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD."

He was quoting from the words of Moses in Deut. 6:4. This is the consistent story of the Bible. There is not a word about three gods in it from beginning to end.

"Christendom" today has degenerated to a belief in four gods, three good ones and one evil one. Some parts of Christendom have five gods, as the Roman Catholic Church, which has added a "Mother of God" who is in their system of belief the supreme deity beside a host of demi-gods, one for every day of the year (and more), all of which mythical and man-invented deities are worshipped and prayed to.

The doctrine of the Trinity is this - and it is this doctrine which Wormwood, Floyd and Justaname have failed to demonstrate from the Word of God.

"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons; nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.

"But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, so is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

"The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

"And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. Also there are not three incomprehensibles, not three uncreated: but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

"So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods: but one God.

"So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords but one Lord.

"For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

"So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater or less than others; but the whole three persons are co- eternal together; and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

"HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY."

This is the prize and tragic example of the natural mind of man speculating upon divine things rather than being content to humbly accept the simple testimony of Scripture.

In all Scripture, there is nothing to justify this absurd and self-contradictory mizmaze. While truly we can never hope with mortal minds to comprehend God, still the revelations He gives of Himself, and of His Son, and of His Holy Spirit - His power and presence which fills all immensity and works His will - is clear and simple and reasonable and a tremendously satisfying relief from the befuddled speculations as quoted above.

The doctrine of the "Trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible. The following quotations from recognized historians will give the background of the period in which this doctrine was developed, showing the general conditions of Christendom of the time, the philosophic influences at work, the methods of reasoning and argument used and the political forces that finally established the doctrine and enforced it by confiscation, prohibition, punishment and murder.

This will clearly show the frail, human foundation the doctrine of the Trinity rests on, and dissipate the weight it appears to have from centuries of "orthodox" acceptance.

tbc...

 

To Justaname

Isaiah 9

In the short view, this passage was to Hezekiah in my view, and the Messiah of this age in the long view. But as Hezekiah was a mighty warrior, El Gibber, so too and much more would the descendant of David be, the Christ.

The term "mighty God" ignores the fact that both gibber and El were used for mighty kings. Ezekiel 32:21

[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.

Hebrew text:

gibberim.

The main thing I have to consider is the king reference, Hezekiah after Ahaz, specifically. HE was definitely not God almighty.
The context of Isa 9 demands this consideration.

Jer 23:5-6

5 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.

"The Lord our Righteousness:"

ieue tzdq*nu :s

YHWH our righteousness.

But the same construction is in Jer 33:16 calling the city of Jerusalem "YHWH our righteousness."

You are flat busted here. No city is God, and no other besides the One True God is God.

Psalm 110:1

110 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Hebrew (Massoretic) text: YHWH to lord (adni) of me...

I went over this along with Jer 24 previously. I don't like to repeat. What here says Jesus is God? Adon(I)
is used for men, as opposed to ADONAI.

Although the Massoretic Text came about 1100 years later, the oral tradition probably informed it.

Prov 30:4

[SIZE=.75em]4 [/SIZE]Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Two Gods in heaven: pantheon. This is how you interpret the author here. Remember there was no Hypostatic Union or Athanasian Creed then. How would THEY interpret two Gods in heaven, sir?

Heb 1:8

[SIZE=.75em]8 [/SIZE]But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
[SIZE=.75em]9 [/SIZE]Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Here again before the Athanasian Creed and the constructs which came after the 5th century there is most obviously two Gods in heaven. Do you REALLY think this is what the author meant? First he calls Jesus "God" and later says GOD anointed him?

Two Gods in heaven like I said. At least SOME posters online admit they believe this. Two Gods in heaven. Pantheon. Polytheism.

How can it NOT be?

Hint: the throne the God is God's Throne. Not the one HE sits on, but the one the kings are sat upon.
In other words, "the throne you established, God" or "the throne the God (the God-throne he established for kings).

Jn 1 and 20:28 I have already said how I interpret. Not what you think, boys and girls.

 

Good Bible exposition above nothead.

Isaiah 9:6,7: Primary fulfilment to Hezekiah (correct): already born (note present tenses). Cp Isa 22:1-25 -- a Hezekiah prophecy: "government, father, shoulder, David, throne" (Isa 22:21-23)

No Trinity here.

 

Nothead's Historical History of the Mystery of the Trinity

Well who knows how the TRINITY came about, there is no explanation of the third partner in my mind...

Wow HE came out of nowhere and well HE is the ignored and misaligned apparent partner add onto at the very last...

Like HE has always been around just never gave his due, eh? No one appreciated him, no one loved him.

No one called him by prayer, no one even called to him by name. Unlike neuvo-self help book authors in a Christian Bookstore near you.

Em where was I, oh the Council of Nicea. That's where I WANTED to start. Why didn't I?

So like was this because He was invisible? Or just shy?

I mean, why was it he never got his due? MADE the heavens and earth alongside the Father and oh yeah trin doctrine says the Son too.

GAVE his input into all things created, all things sustained and all this hoped for which ain't happened yet.

And not ONE PRAYER to him in all of Bible. Wow, talk about a third implausible God in God. The SILENT one. So silent we missed him altogether until
381 A.D. or so. There the HISTORY part of the history lesson. A date. No not with you, I'm married.