Have "you" made Jesus a Robber?

[Insight]

I'm not going to try and present to you Polytheism since I do not believe in many gods, but One God.

The concept of God being three in one is not something I have come to from reading creeds or church history or early church Fathers, but from reading scripture.

If the Word who WAS GOD in the beginning is not God who became flesh, then John 1:1 is incorrect.

Thank you for providing the quotes and in time I will deal with them all if God Wills.

Before we begin we need to clarify your position on the Godhead. Are you suggesting the Trinity is not Polytheism?

If so, I assume you see a single God who is in three parts?

Three gods but one god

And if so, you prefer to claim monotheism, yes?

By the way, I went through your verses to find the below terminology:

"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.

“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.

I searched each of these in the AV with zero hits.

• Son is God
• Son Almighty
• Holy Ghost Almighty
• three Gods

Not one was found

However, I search the Athanasian Creed and I found them!

 

[Duckybill]

It's so simple. John 1 The Word was God. The Word (Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us.

 

[Nicky_uk]

Insight, I'm not interested in discussing a creed with you. I will discuss scripture until the cows come home, but I'm not going to be boxed into this Trinity creed.

Perhaps as a starting point we can discuss John 1:1 rather than a trinity creed?

It's so simple. John 1 The Word was God. The Word (Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us.

I agree, it is simple if you don't try to fiddle about it with intellect. Proverbs 3:5

 

[Insight]

Insight, I'm not interested in discussing a creed with you. I will discuss scripture until the cows come home, but I'm not going to be boxed into this Trinity creed.

Perhaps as a starting point we can discuss John 1:1 rather than a trinity creed?

I agree, it is simple if you don't try to fiddle about it with intellect. Proverbs 3:5

It is not I who believe in the creed but you.

So far you deny Polytheism, but claim a single god who exists in three parts and now you deny the very creed by which the doctrine of the Trinity exist? Following this you request to speak of the Scriptures.

Put forward your argument: "God calls Jesus God" Hebrews 1:8

Insight

 

[Nicky_uk]

It is not I who believe in the creed but you.

So far you deny Polytheism, but claim a single god who exists in three parts and now you deny the very creed by which the doctrine of the Trinity exist? Following this you request to speak of the Scriptures.

Put forward your argument: "God calls Jesus God" Hebrews 1:8

Insight

You don't give up do you. I'm not interested in this creed you keep banging on about. You have obviously spent much time looking into this creed whereas me, I couldn't even tell you a line of it. I have about as much interest in it as I have watching paint dry.

I've laid out scriptures for you which show Christs deity, yet your not satisfied and want me to lay out more 'arguments' whilst ignoring what is already laid out.

Since it is this creed you want to discuss, perhaps you should have made that clear in the first place, then you could of had the right people respond rather than trying to draw others who have no interest in it at all.

 

[Insight]

Nicky,

Here is the problem we face.

I reject the creed in its entirety, however you hold it beliefs, though you claim you do not know "I couldn't even tell you a line of it."

Something is amiss.

A suggestion.

Almost all apologists I have spoke to over the years admit the doctrine of the Trinity was developed from the time of Plato (400BC) and many writers are open and quite frank about these matters. So much so, even trinitarian writers for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, are very forth coming with the facts about its origins. Maybe look up "Theism" and learn the history of your beliefs.

If you desire to know the Truth concerning the Father and the Son then I am here waiting to discuss Bible truth...but not creeds!

As a word of warning Nicky, you may like to spend some time researching the many creeds and their evolution - your life depends on it!

Insight

 

[Prentis]

Insight,

With all due respect... You tend to assume that everyone holds things from these creeds, or other things, and assume that you know all these things. You are so sure you have found the meaning of the scriptures that you are sure that anyone who holds beliefs different from yours has taken them from another source. The pride is evident.

I am not the first to tell you this. Vengle also has seen this in his talks with you (as I have), and now Nicky also has by her talking to you revealed what is evident.

No, I am not saying 'you must believe what I believe', we must all seek the Lord for ourselves. What is appaling is how you treat others as though you know the every source of their beliefs and as though you understood what they believed better than they... While they are still explaining it!

It is your jumping to conclusions that makes talking with you difficult.

God bless you

 

[Nomad]

Almost all apologists I have spoke to over the years admit the doctrine of the Trinity was developed from the time of Plato (400BC) and many writers are open and quite frank about these matters.

Who are these "apologists" to which you have spoken? How about backing up your assertion with quotes of their published writings?

 

[Nicky_uk]

Nicky,

Here is the problem we face.

I reject the creed in its entirety, however you hold it beliefs, though you claim you do not know "I couldn't even tell you a line of it."

Something is amiss.

A suggestion.

Almost all apologists I have spoke to over the years admit the doctrine of the Trinity was developed from the time of Plato (400BC) and many writers are open and quite frank about these matters. So much so, even trinitarian writers for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, are very forth coming with the facts about its origins. Maybe look up "Theism" and learn the history of your beliefs.

If you desire to know the Truth concerning the Father and the Son then I am here waiting to discuss Bible truth...but not creeds!

As a word of warning Nicky, you may like to spend some time researching the many creeds and their evolution - your life depends on it!

Insight

The only problem we face here is that you want to restrict a discussion to a creed and confine someone else's belief to that creed rather than SEE that everything I have laid before you is from scripture and not a creed!

I reject your warning because as I have already stated, I have no interest in this creed or it's history. I look to the Lord to teach me His word, reveal His truth by opening up the scriptures or speaking to me however He chooses and so far in my walk with Him, it has never been via a man made creed.

Since it is plainly obvious that you cannot go beyond the trinity doctrine or this creed, I will now leave this discussion to those who are happy for their beliefs to be defined and confined to your creed.

My life by the way depends on Christ, not on a creed.
Best wishes

 

[Helen]

quoting Nicky.
Paul said Christ existed in the form of God. You want to try and make form mean something other than nature or appearance, then I certainly cannot stop you, but I stick to what Paul said: Christ existed in the nature, appearance and character of God, and took on the nature, appearance and character of man.

Interesting how no one has a problem with Christ taking on the form of man but tries to make the form of God mean something else.
-----------------------------------
Amen to that Nicky. Well said.

 

[Duckybill]

John 1 The Word (Jesus) was God. The Word (Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us.

 

[Nomad]

Interesting how no one has a problem with Christ taking on the form of man but tries to make the form of God mean something else.

Great observation. This is a point that shouldn't be overlooked. I gave the lexical definition for "morphe" in a previous post that Insight chose to ignore.

"It's a translation of the Greek word "morphe," meaning the "outward display of the inner reality or substance" (see J. White - The Forgotten Trinity; Robertson's Word Pictures; Vincent's Word Studies)."

Like you said, No one has a problem admitting that when Christ came in the form of a servant, he was an actual servant. If we're being consistent, then the same reality applies when our text says that before this Christ was in the form of God. As one of my mentors always says, inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

 

[Insight]

The only problem we face here is that you want to restrict a discussion to a creed and confine someone else's belief to that creed rather than SEE that everything I have laid before you is from scripture and not a creed!

I reject your warning because as I have already stated, I have no interest in this creed or it's history. I look to the Lord to teach me His word, reveal His truth by opening up the scriptures or speaking to me however He chooses and so far in my walk with Him, it has never been via a man made creed.

Since it is plainly obvious that you cannot go beyond the trinity doctrine or this creed, I will now leave this discussion to those who are happy for their beliefs to be defined and confined to your creed.

My life by the way depends on Christ, not on a creed.
Best wishes

Nicky,

While this may be true of yourself, being one of perception, the creed actually defines your beliefs, whether you agree or disagree, it is so.

2 Tim 4:4 applies.

The sad reality is we cannot study the scriptures together as we have discovered, (like Nomad) your terminology is unsupported by Scriptures.

Thus the need to introduce the Creed....I appreciate why you would deny the creed.

Insight

quoting Nicky.
Paul said Christ existed in the form of God. You want to try and make form mean something other than nature or appearance, then I certainly cannot stop you, but I stick to what Paul said: Christ existed in the nature, appearance and character of God, and took on the nature, appearance and character of man.

Interesting how no one has a problem with Christ taking on the form of man but tries to make the form of God mean something else.
-----------------------------------
Amen to that Nicky. Well said.

Would you like to exaplain how those two "forms" dwelt together simultaneously?

Reconcile 1 Tim 6:16 with Jesus dwelling in Sins Flesh 2 Cor 5:21

Book, Chapter and Verse.

 

[Insight]

Great observation. This is a point that shouldn't be overlooked. I gave the lexical definition for "morphe" in a previous post that Insight chose to ignore.

"It's a translation of the Greek word "morphe," meaning the "outward display of the inner reality or substance" (see J. White - The Forgotten Trinity; Robertson's Word Pictures; Vincent's Word Studies)."

Like you said, No one has a problem admitting that when Christ came in the form of a servant, he was an actual servant. If we're being consistent, then the same reality applies when our text says that before this Christ was in the form of God. As one of my mentors always says, inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Well done Nomad!

Who would have thought you would be the first to introduce an expert to our discussion.

Thus far we have a trinitarian who denies the Nicene creed; and now an apologist who supports his teaching by the wisdom of another Apologist and scholar with yet another book!

All 224 pages for only $10.99.

One thing is for sure Nomad, when Jesus Christ returns the Trinity and the many books Will be Forgotten.

Yes nomad, bring on Acts 19:19KJV and let us together stand around the fire and celebrate the pure untouched Word of Life uncorrupted by the creeds of men and their scholarly ways.

Insight

 

[Duckybill]

One thing is for sure Nomad, when Jesus Christ returns the Trinity and the many books Will be Forgotten.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit forgotten? Never!

 

[Insight]

Father, Son and Holy Spirit forgotten? Never!

Yes Ducky I agree!

 

[Duckybill]

Yes Ducky I agree!

You agree that Jesus is God?

John 1 The Word was God.

 

[Insight]

You agree that Jesus is God?

John 1 The Word was God.

The Word has always been Yahweh...and the Word which came from HIm "became" flesh and his name is Jesus. Phil 2:9

Thanks for bringing us back on topic.

Insight

 

[Nomad]

Well done Nomad!

Who would have thought you would be the first to introduce an expert to our discussion.

Thus far we have a trinitarian who denies the Nicene creed; and now an apologist who supports his teaching by the wisdom of another Apologist and scholar with yet another book!

All 224 pages for only $10.99.

One thing is for sure Nomad, when Jesus Christ returns the Trinity and the many books Will be Forgotten.

Yes nomad, bring on Acts 19:19KJV and let us together stand around the fire and celebrate the pure untouched Word of Life uncorrupted by the creeds of men and their scholarly ways.

Insight

Consulting the works of 3 Koine Greek experts on the meaning of an important Greek word is the proper method of exegesis for the examination of any text. That's how it's done Insight. If you want to know the meaning of a word, you look it up. Your constant mockery of everyone participating in this thread simply demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position.

Would you like to exaplain how those two "forms" dwelt together simultaneously?

Reconcile 1 Tim 6:16 with Jesus dwelling in Sins Flesh 2 Cor 5:21

We don't need to know how Insight. What matters is that the Bible very plainly says that they did dwell together. That should be enough for you. The notion that something can't be true if it can't be completely understood is arrogant to say the least.

Now to answer your question. Christ himself was not a sinner. He was "made sin" on the cross by imputation. He did not die for his own sins. He died for the sins of others. This doesn't mean he became a sinner. It means that our sins were imputed to him as our representative in order to suffer for them. Likewise, we are justified before God by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, not our own. Read your own proof-text. Remember the role of the scapegoat in the Mosaic sacrificial system? Hands were placed on a goat representing the transfer of Israel's guilt to that goat. Did that goat commit any of those sins? No, of course not, but that guilt was reckoned to his account. This is guilt by imputation and God accepted this substitutionary atonement just like he accepted all of the substitutes of Old Covenant sacrifices. Those sacrifices prefigured the atoning work of Christ.

Now back to the main point. Does Scripture tell us that God became man. It sure does.

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

Joh 1:14 . . .And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

There it is. God became man and died for sin.

 

[Insight]

We don't need to know how Insight.

Amidst the display of intellectualism appears truth.

There it is. God became man and died for sin.

Phil 2:6,7,8

John 1:1

I search the KJV in esword for "God became man"

Zero hits...so let me try.

There it is. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

I beleive you will find this in Romans 1:3,4

"declared to be the Son of God with power"

Insight

ps. Is it not amazing how conditioned your language has become that you cannot present Bible terminology consistent with the Scriptures? Now you may not appreciate this, but others with clear vision can see your error crystal clear.