One and Triune God.

[BreadOfLife]

It is commonly known that this verse (Matt. 28:19) was corrupted from the original..."baptize them in My name". it seems you didn't get the memo? The Johanine "comma" from 1 John 5 was also a later addition (much later) and is now left out of more modern translations. In this we see the schemes of religious people who want to control the faith of others....reducing the POWER of the Spirit (and presence of God) to something they can control. So you can be forgiven your error.

I used to say the same things about the created elements...but those elements are created...and have to do with US....not God. We who are of the family of God are of three kinds. Jesus said the kingdom of God was like leaven hidden in 3 measures of meal.

In the body of Christ there are saints, the righteous, and the vessels of dishonour (the filthy). The saints are moved by the Spirit (wind) like a gas. The righteous flow with each other like water (liquid)...and the obstinate ones have hearts of stone (solid).

If you have some discernment you can tell which ones are which as clearly as you can tell what state a created element is in.

WRONG.
It is only commonly believed by Modalists, Jehova's Witnesses and other quasi-Christian sects.

As I already showed you in another thread about the Trinity - your claims about the "historical" evidence on Matt. 28:19 are all wet.

Your claim that the i phrase doesn’t exist on the original manuscripts is flawed - because NONE exists.

The plan fact is this:
100% of the manuscript evidence of Matthew's Gospel supports the Trinitarian Baptismal formula of: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
This fairly recently revised history that you are peddling is an invention of anti-Trinitarians, Modalists and others.

It has already been explained that the idiom, "In the name of" simpply means "By the Authority of". Baptizing "in Jesus" is Baptizing by HIS Authority - and by HIS instructions in Matt. 28:19.

And, if you're looking to the writings of the Early Church to bolster your argument - you're out-gunned here as well.
- One of the earliest Christian documents is the Didache (Tachings of the Twelve Apostles) - purported to have been written as early as 50 AD (when the Apostles were STILL alive) uses the Trinitarian Baptismal formula of: ". . . pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. " (The Didache, Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism - AD 50)

- Irenaeus, writing in the 2nd century uses the Triniarian Baptismal formula: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
(Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 17, Section 1).

- Justin Martyr, from the same period uses the Triniatrian formula in his writings as well.

- Origen, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew in the 3rd century also concurs with the Trinitarian formula: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

- Tertullian, writing in the lare 2nd and early 3rd cennturies wrote:
“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, (Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 8)

You get your funny, revisionist ideas from 4th century historian, Eusebius, who wrote:
Eusebius:
“But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, ‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name,” (Church History, Book 3, Chapter 5, Section 2).

HOWEVER - you guys always seem leave out the fact that Eusebius ALSO wrote the more complete formula in his Letter to the Church in Caesarea:
Eusebius:
“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,'” (Eusebius’ Letter to the Church in Caesarea).

 

[Rich R]

I have news for you, Jesus is Father Son and Holy Spirit, the one omnipresent God. His presence on earth is proof of His omnipresence. No commas.

Any comments on 2 Peter 1:4? Specifically, ff we and Jesus both have a divine nature, why is Jesus God but we're not? Is there two different types of divine nature?

I see many times (about 50) in the Bible where Jesus is the son of God. It takes a complete abandonment of simple words and grammar to make a son and his father somehow one person. If God changed the meaning of the words "son" and "father," how do you know He didn't change the meaning of other words that we just haven't seen yet? If we go that route, the Bible can say whatever anybody want to say depending on how they change the meaning of simple, ordinary words. Words have meaning. A son can no more be the same person as his father as you and I are somehow one person.

Being the son of God, Jesus would have a divine nature. We are also sons of God, hence the declaration in Peter that we have a divine nature. It's so simple. It gets complicated when we use words in ways they were never meant to be used.

 

[Happy Trails]

In other wwords - you habe NO intelligent response.
That's what I thought . . .

So, we'll try this a SECOND time:
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 14:26, John 15:26) AND from the Son (John 20:22-23) - therefore, He is NOT the Father.

Explain.
Maybe one of your buddies here can help you . . .

Ummmmm, I already explained the holes in your argument back in post #41.
Here they are again . . .


You failed to answer ANY of the points I made - and you falsely accused me of not explaining the "holes" in your argument.
I ended by giving you THREE verses of Scripture (in BLUE) and asked you to explain why the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are ALL referred to as "God".

So, you can either respond by giving intelligent explanations for the rock-solid Scriptural evidence I presented - or simply admit 6that you don't know what you're talking about.

All of your "rock-solid evidence" comes with the presumption of triunity. It is always interpreted favoring that idea and squeezing that meaning into the verses.

Acts 5:3-4 does NOT say that the Holy Spirit is NOT the Father. It merely says that the Holy Spirit is God. That means God is the Holy Spirit.

Deuteronomy 6:4 says that YHVH is one. He is singular. Yeshua is his image. The only way for humans to see God is for there to be image. That doesn't mean Jesus is a distinct person any more than your physical body is a distinct person independent of your soul.

Jesus is the One who returns to destroy the enemies of YHVH. Correct?
Isaiah 66:15 says that it is YHVH who does that.

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Is that God, the Father?

Psalm 99:9
Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the Lord our God is holy.
YHVH is a Spirit. Is he holy?

You have been told by those who wish to minimize the Jewish identity of the NT that a bunch of Jews wrote letters to a bunch of other Jews in a language they resented. Even if it WERE written in Greek, 1 John 5:7 did not appear until hundreds of years after the fact. Search "Comma Johanneum."

If the NT were written in Greek it would not be replete with Hebrew idioms.

Acts 21:36-22:2 The chief captain was surprised to hear Paul speak Greek. That tells us it likely had never happened before this moment. The crowd was willing to listen because he spoke Hebrew.

Acts 26:14 Jesus spoke to Saul in Hebrew.

Regarding the "states," that was the suggestion of micaelvpardo:

"Now, elements combine to form "molecules", the smallest unit of a substance that isn't "elemental". Elemental substances, like Gold or neon gas, and molecular substances like water, can all exist in three states, as solids, liquids, or gases. Water is probably the easiest substance to use as an example because most human beings are familiar with the three "states" of water. We usually recognize water as liquid, that can be frozen solid, or heated into a gas (as steam or water vapor)."

My statements were in response to his claim.

 

[Rich R]

You are wanting to tell everyone that roots, trunk, and branches are not one tree. commas or no commas, it makes no difference.

No, I didn't want to tell anybody that. Here's what I actually said:

"There is also the argument that Bob is Bob, that he is the husband of his wife and the father of his son, thus proving the trinity. Very well. But if we want to make a comparison between Bob and the trinity, we would actually have to say Bob is Bob, Bob is his wife, and Bob is his son. I'll go with Bob being Bob, but the rest is nonsense."
​

But I'll go with the tree analogy. The roots are part of the tree, the trunk is part of the tree, and the branches are part of the tree. We can't say the roots are the tree, nor can we say the trunk is the tree, nor can we say the branches are the tree. Are you saying that the Father is part of God, that Jesus is part of God, and the the holy spirit is part of God? I believe the trinity doctrine says all three are God. As with the trees, three parts can make a whole, but each separate part is not the whole.

I wouldn't use the tree analogy any more than the person, husband, father analogy to prove the trinity. They both fall short. As a matter of fact, there is no analogy whatsoever to show how three can somehow be one that doesn't fall short. Why? Simply because three is not the same as one.

 

[Cooper]

Any comments on 2 Peter 1:4? Specifically, ff we and Jesus both have a divine nature, why is Jesus God but we're not? Is there two different types of divine nature?

I see many times (about 50) in the Bible where Jesus is the son of God. It takes a complete abandonment of simple words and grammar to make a son and his father somehow one person. If God changed the meaning of the words "son" and "father," how do you know He didn't change the meaning of other words that we just haven't seen yet? If we go that route, the Bible can say whatever anybody want to say depending on how they change the meaning of simple, ordinary words. Words have meaning. A son can no more be the same person as his father as you and I are somehow one person.

Being the son of God, Jesus would have a divine nature. We are also sons of God, hence the declaration in Peter that we have a divine nature. It's so simple. It gets complicated when we use words in ways they were never meant to be used.

2 Peter 1:4 are about the promises of God, and wonderful they are.

"Included among the “all things” which God's power has given to promote a life of holiness are His exceedingly great and precious promises in the word. It is estimated that there are at least 30,000 promises in the Bible. John Bunyan once said, “The pathway of life is strewn so thickly with the promises of God that it is impossible to take one step without treading upon one of them.”

The promises of God are the last of seven precious things mentioned by Peter in his Letters. Our faith is more precious than gold (1Pe_1:7). The blood of Christ is precious (1Pe_1:19). Christ, the Living Stone, is precious in God's sight (1Pe_2:4). He is precious also as the Cornerstone (1Pe_2:6).

To all who believe, He is precious (1Pe_2:7). The imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit is very precious in God's sight (1Pe_3:4). And finally, the promises of God are precious (2Pe_1:4).

Think of some of the promises that relate to the life of holiness. (1) Freedom from sin's dominion (Rom_6:14). (2) Grace that is sufficient (2Co_12:9). (3) Power to obey His commands (Php_4:13). (4) Victory over the devil (Jas_4:7). (5) Escape when tempted (1Co_10:13). (6) Forgiveness when we confess our sins (1Jn_1:9)—and forgetfulness too (Jer_31:34). (7) Response when we call (Psa_50:15).

No wonder Peter says the promises of God are precious and very great! These promises enable the believer to escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. God has promised all that we need to resist temptation. When passionate cravings come, we can claim the promises. They enable us to escape from the world's corruption—its sexual sin, its drunkenness, its filth, its misery, its treachery, and its strife.

The positive side is that by these same promises we may be partakers of the divine nature. This takes place primarily at the time of conversion. Then as we live in the practical enjoyment of what God has promised, we become more and more conformed to His image. For instance, He has promised that the more we think about Him, the more we will become like Him (2Co_3:18). We make this promise a reality by reading the word, studying Christ as He is revealed in it, and following Him. As we do this, the Holy Spirit changes us into His likeness from one degree of glory to another."

That is so wonderful I will skip the rest of your post if you don't mind but I am quite happy to return if you insist. I will just say, nothing exists in either 1 or 2 dimensions, so as a believer I am talking about a three-dimensional God in heaven and on earth.

May God bless.

 

[Cooper]

No, I didn't want to tell anybody that. Here's what I actually said:

"There is also the argument that Bob is Bob, that he is the husband of his wife and the father of his son, thus proving the trinity. Very well. But if we want to make a comparison between Bob and the trinity, we would actually have to say Bob is Bob, Bob is his wife, and Bob is his son. I'll go with Bob being Bob, but the rest is nonsense."
​

But I'll go with the tree analogy. The roots are part of the tree, the trunk is part of the tree, and the branches are part of the tree. We can't say the roots are the tree, nor can we say the trunk is the tree, nor can we say the branches are the tree. Are you saying that the Father is part of God, that Jesus is part of God, and the the holy spirit is part of God? I believe the trinity doctrine says all three are God. As with the trees, three parts can make a whole, but each separate part is not the whole.

I wouldn't use the tree analogy any more than the person, husband, father analogy to prove the trinity. They both fall short. As a matter of fact, there is no analogy whatsoever to show how three can somehow be one that doesn't fall short. Why? Simply because three is not the same as one.

Let me put a well-known scripture into a modern context, using the TV program, “Under Cover Boss,”

In 1 Timothy 3:16 we read, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God (Jesus) was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory.”

Now for the omnipresent God illustrated in modern life. The three persons being the One man known as Henry Ford,

“And without controversy great is the mystery of carmakers; Henry Ford (John Doe) was manifest in the flesh, Justified on TV, seen by millions, talked about by nations, Believed on in the world, and received back into his Detroit office."

All the time, nobody believed John Doe was Henry Ford and likewise many people do not believe Jesus is God.
.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

Nonsense.
First of all - the god YOU names are all INDIVIDUAL gods - not Triune godheads.

Secondly - the Bible teaches that God is a Trinity - THREE Persons, ONE God:

You're just proving Happy Trails' point, because that is exactly how all of the pagan trinities worked. The "Christian" trinity was presented by men who were deeply immersed in Greek and Egyptian philosophy, which were in turn based on the false religions of those areas. Orthodox Christianity didn't change anything in regards to how its own trinity worked. It copy+pasted the other religions' trinity formula, then the Catholics and Protestants found pet passages to twist as "proof".

Not surprisingly, none of the men who presented their theology actually based their arguments or theology on what the Bible says. And how could they, when they knew that the Bible didn't teach the trinity anywhere?

Paul was NEVER rude at all! You just don't read all Scripture except those you want to post in post #28 [which are true] to suite your agenda and to prove the Holy Spirit is NOT the third person in the Godhead.

Well, read and believe!.... 2 Corinthians 13:14:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen

Is the above Scripture true or false?

To God Be The Glory

The passage is true, but it still doesn't prove the trinity is biblical. What it does prove is that you don't understand the message Paul was conveying. The Holy Spirit is the means through which all true Christians are able to be perfectly united with each other, God, and Christ. It is also how Jesus is able to relive His human life in all true Christians(Gal. 2:20, Jhn. 14:23). Paul was reminding the Corinthians to stay united in the grace of Christ and the love of God since they all had the Holy Spirit.

In Luk. 1:35, the angel Gabriel literally calls the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High, so that debunks any trinitarian notion, argument, or discussion about the Holy Spirit being a Person. The Holy Spirit is how Christ and the Father are able to be omnipresent and carry out Their will(Psa. 104:30, 33:9). According to what is written in Matt. 1:20, trinitarians are obligated to believe the Holy Spirit is Jesus' Father since it says Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

All of your "rock-solid evidence" comes with the presumption of triunity. It is always interpreted favoring that idea and squeezing that meaning into the verses.

Acts 5:3-4 does NOT say that the Holy Spirit is NOT the Father. It merely says that the Holy Spirit is God. That means God is the Holy Spirit.

Deuteronomy 6:4 says that YHVH is one. He is singular. Yeshua is his image. The only way for humans to see God is for there to be image. That doesn't mean Jesus is a distinct person any more than your physical body is a distinct person independent of your soul.

Jesus is the One who returns to destroy the enemies of YHVH. Correct?
Isaiah 66:15 says that it is YHVH who does that.

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Is that God, the Father?

Psalm 99:9
Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the Lord our God is holy.
YHVH is a Spirit. Is he holy?

You have been told by those who wish to minimize the Jewish identity of the NT that a bunch of Jews wrote letters to a bunch of other Jews in a language they resented. Even if it WERE written in Greek, 1 John 5:7 did not appear until hundreds of years after the fact. Search "Comma Johanneum."

If the NT were written in Greek it would not be replete with Hebrew idioms.

Acts 21:36-22:2 The chief captain was surprised to hear Paul speak Greek. That tells us it likely had never happened before this moment. The crowd was willing to listen because he spoke Hebrew.

Acts 26:14 Jesus spoke to Saul in Hebrew.

Regarding the "states," that was the suggestion of micaelvpardo:

"Now, elements combine to form "molecules", the smallest unit of a substance that isn't "elemental". Elemental substances, like Gold or neon gas, and molecular substances like water, can all exist in three states, as solids, liquids, or gases. Water is probably the easiest substance to use as an example because most human beings are familiar with the three "states" of water. We usually recognize water as liquid, that can be frozen solid, or heated into a gas (as steam or water vapor)."

My statements were in response to his claim.

For starters - your argument about Acts 5:3-4 fails in light of some of the other verses I gave you regarding the Holy Spirit.
Yes - Acts. 5:-says that the Holy Spirit is GOD - but ut does NOT say He is the Father.
As I pointed out to you earlier - the Holy Spirit PROCEEDS from BOTH the Father and the Son:
John 15:26
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

John 20"22-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

So - YOUR claim that the Holy Sirit is the Father falls flat on its face . . .

Secondly - YOUR claim that the NT was NOT written in Koine Greek is preposterous, given all of the linguistic evidence to the contrary.

The entire Protestant argument against the Papcy and Petrine Primacy in Matt. 16:18 is based on the FACT that the Greek words "Petros" and "Petra" are used.
Whetrher YOU like it or not - Greek WAS the lingua franca of the first century Mediterranean region.

As for the "Hebrew idioms" you refer to - please produce some of them. You also don't seem to understand that because no two languages can be meticulously translated word-for-word - there are MANY instances where transliterations are used.
For example - Paul refers to Peter as "Cephas" in his letters instead of "Petros". Cephas is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic "Kepha", which Jesus spoke to Peter in Matt. 16:18. It means "Rock".

If Paul's letters were straight translations feom Hebrew into Grek - He woulf have used "Petros" or "Lithos" - and not "Cephas".

As to the last part about the "water/ice/steam" scenarion - this also falls into the heresy of Modalism. God does not separate into "modes". Unlkw water, ice and steam - He is ALWAYS the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You're just proving Happy Trails' point, because that is exactly how all of the pagan trinities worked. The "Christian" trinity was presented by men who were deeply immersed in Greek and Egyptian philosophy, which were in turn based on the false religions of those areas. Orthodox Christianity didn't change anything in regards to how its own trinity worked. It copy+pasted the other religions' trinity formula, then the Catholics and Protestants found pet passages to twist as "proof".

Not surprisingly, none of the men who presented their theology actually based their arguments or theology on what the Bible says. And how could they, when they knew that the Bible didn't teach the trinity anywhere?

WRONG.
ALL of the pagan gods referred to were INDIVIDUAL gods - and NOT trinities of ONE.
That chabges everything.

The God of Scripture is a Triune Godhead - ONE God, manifested iin THREE disinct Persons.
No other pagan deities compare to this.

And WHEN is ANY of you going to explain your way out of the following:
The Father is GOD
Psalm 68:5
Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is GOD in his holy habitation.

The Son is GOD
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], “My Lord and my GOD!”

Matt. 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your GOD to the test.’”

The Holy Spirit is GOD
Acts 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to GOD."

 

[Rich R]

Let me put a well-known scripture into a modern context, using the TV program, “Under Cover Boss,”

In 1 Timothy 3:16 we read, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God (Jesus) was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory.”

Now for the omnipresent God illustrated in modern life. The three persons being the One man known as Henry Ford,

“And without controversy great is the mystery of carmakers; Henry Ford (John Doe) was manifest in the flesh, Justified on TV, seen by millions, talked about by nations, Believed on in the world, and received back into his Detroit office."

All the time, nobody believed John Doe was Henry Ford and likewise many people do not believe John Doe was Henry Ford.
.

1 Timothy 3:16 does not say Jesus is God. The original texts have the word "which" instead of "God," So it doesn't say God was manifested. It says the mystery of godliness.

Not sure about your analogy. Every individual that ever lived is multifaceted, but not all individuals are somehow one individual. There really is no good analogy for the trinity doctrine, because the trinity requires the abandonment of normal word usage. I don't know how else to put it. Why do we have to go outside the scriptures to arrive at a doctrine anyway?

God bless

I doubt you will find a serious scholar, trinitarian or not, who will say anything other than there is no good way to explain the trinity. They just say, "take it by faith," a phrase notable absent in the scriptures.

 

[tigger 2]

WRONG.
ALL of the pagan gods referred to were INDIVIDUAL gods - and NOT trinities of ONE.
That chabges everything.

The God of Scripture is a Triune Godhead - ONE God, manifested iin THREE disinct Persons.
No other pagan deities compare to this.

And WHEN is ANY of you going to explain your way out of the following:
The Father is GOD
Psalm 68:5
Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is GOD in his holy habitation.

[1.] The Son is GOD
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], “My Lord and my GOD!”

[2] Matt. 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your GOD to the test.’”

[3] The Holy Spirit is GOD
Acts 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to GOD."

I'll take them one at a time.

First, "My Lord and My God"
It is more likely that the phrase here is praise (doxology) or blessing of God in heaven. Notice that there is no complete statement here - there is no verb and predicate. These are omitted because the meaning was commonly understood by Christians and Jews at this time.

Furthermore it cannot be an address to Jesus (or anyone else) as most trinitarians claim. This is made certain by the John’s use of kurios (“Lord” in the nominative case as used for subjects and predicate nouns). But in every instance in the NT the vocative case kurie is used for addressing “Lord.” For proof of this, see my personal study: Examining the Trinity: KURIE - All NT Uses of "Lord" in Address

As for the climax of John’s Gospel, the very end of this same chapter tells us:

:30) - “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
:31) - “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” - John 20:19-31, RSV.

That’s where any honest statement of Jesus being God should be found - - - but it isn’t.

This is a small part of my own study (not the WT’s). Here’s the rest Examining the Trinity: MYGOD .

Number 2 will be in my next post.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'll take them one at a time.

First, "My Lord and My God"
It is more likely that the phrase here is praise (doxology) or blessing of God in heaven. Notice that there is no complete statement here - there is no verb and predicate. These are omitted because the meaning was commonly understood by Christians and Jews at this time.

Furthermore it cannot be an address to Jesus (or anyone else) as most trinitarians claim. This is made certain by the John’s use of kurios (“Lord” in the nominative case as used for subjects and predicate nouns). But in every instance in the NT the vocative case kurie is used for addressing “Lord.” For proof of this, see my personal study: Examining the Trinity: KURIE - All NT Uses of "Lord" in Address

As for the climax of John’s Gospel, the very end of this same chapter tells us:

:30) - “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
:31) - “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” - John 20:19-31, RSV.

That’s where any honest statement of Jesus being God should be found - - - but it isn’t.

This is a small part of my own study (not the WT’s). Here’s the rest Examining the Trinity: MYGOD .

Number 2 will be in my next post.

This explanation fails because of ONE glaring omission:
Jesus would have rebuked Thomas for using the Lord's name in vain.

Exclaiming, "My Lod and my God!" to anybody BUT God in a prayer of worship or thanksgiving would have been considered blasphemous.

You'll have to do better than that . . .

 

[tigger 2]

Second
Matt. 4:6-7

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Telling the Son of God to endanger himself is not tempting him. But according to Satan's statement it would tempt (at the very least) God (to save his son's life). This is so clear I'm surprised any trinitarian would misunderstand!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Second
Matt. 4:6-7

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Telling the Son of God to endanger himself is not tempting him. But according to Satan's statement it would tempt (at the very least) God (to save his son's life). This is so clear I'm surprised any trnitarian would misunderstand!

WRONG.

The entire context of Matt. 4:1-11 is that JESUS is being tempted.
HE was tempted - and HEresisted. That's the entire point of the story.

CONTEXT, my friend . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's 2 UP - and 2 DOWN . . .

 

[tigger 2]

The Holy Spirit is GOD
Acts 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to GOD."
.........................................
3. The “evidence” here is supposed to be that Peter first says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Then he turns around and says that Ananias lied to God. The supposition being, evidently, that the one lie [or deception] could only be directed to one person. Therefore the Holy Spirit “must” be God!

This type of reasoning is painfully ridiculous at best! Ananias actually lied directly to the Apostles! So this type of “reasoning” applies even more strongly to the Apostles than it does to the Holy Spirit! By using this “evidence” we could say with equal credibility that Peter is saying the Apostles are God when he says “you have not lied to men but to God”!

We can see a similar idea at Mark 9:37 -
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me [so trinitarian-type ‘evidence’ proves this child is Jesus!]; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” - RSV.
So receiving the child is actually receiving the Son and the Father! The child, then, “must” be God Himself (by trinitarian standards of evidence)!

I’m sure the truth of this matter must be apparent to all objective persons. But, for good measure, you might examine such scriptures as Matt. 25:40 and Luke 10:16 and compare them with Acts 5:4. We can also see a similar usage in the rest of Acts 5:3, 4. In 5:3 we see that Satan filled Ananias’ heart to lie. But in 5:4 we find that Ananias himself conceived this thing in his heart. So this trinitarian-type evidence “reveals” another essential “mystery”: Satan is Ananias! Also analyze 1 Thess. 4:2, 6, 8; 1 Cor. 8:12; and James 4:11.

One of Christendom’s favorite trinitarians (and one of the humblest men found in history), St. Francis of Assisi, made an interesting statement that should be compared with Peter’s statement at Acts 5:3, 4. St. Francis said after receiving some clothing from a friend:
“Nothing could be better for me than these. I take them thankfully as your alms. You have given them to God.” - p. 66, Richest of the Poor - The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, Theodore Maynard, 1949.

 

[Rich R]

This explanation fails because of ONE glaring omission:
Jesus would have rebuked Thomas for using the Lord's name in vain.

Exclaiming, "My Lod and my God!" to anybody BUT God in a prayer of worship or thanksgiving would have been considered blasphemous.

You'll have to do better than that . . .

Gen 23:5-6,

5 And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him,

6 Hear us, my lord: thou [art] a mighty prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead.
​

The children of Heth blasphemed when they called Abraham lord?

But I just saw you specified calling someone lord in prayer of worship. I guess that would make a difference, but I wonder where in the scriptures we find that distinction.

1 Cor 8:5-6,

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.​

As it clearly says, there are many gods and many lords, but there is only one God, the Father. The son is not the Father so he is not God.

A god to the Jews meant anyone with power and authority. Any decent concordance or Bible Dictionary will say that. It is patently wrong to say there is only one god. True, there is only one YHWH, but there is more than one god and more than one lord. Even the devil is called, "the god of this world." The devil certainly has power and authority. He offered it to Adam and he bit. He offered it to the second Adam, Jesus, but he did not bite. Good thing for us he didn't!

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Holy Spirit is GOD
Acts 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to GOD."
.........................................
3. The “evidence” here is supposed to be that Peter first says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Then he turns around and says that Ananias lied to God. The supposition being, evidently, that the one lie [or deception] could only be directed to one person. Therefore the Holy Spirit “must” be God!

This type of reasoning is painfully ridiculous at best! Ananias actually lied directly to the Apostles! So this type of “reasoning” applies even more strongly to the Apostles than it does to the Holy Spirit! By using this “evidence” we could say with equal credibility that Peter is saying the Apostles are God when he says “you have not lied to men but to God”!

We can see a similar idea at Mark 9:37 -
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me [so trinitarian-type ‘evidence’ proves this child is Jesus!]; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” - RSV.
So receiving the child is actually receiving the Son and the Father! The child, then, “must” be God Himself (by trinitarian standards of evidence)!

I’m sure the truth of this matter must be apparent to all objective persons. But, for good measure, you might examine such scriptures as Matt. 25:40 and Luke 10:16 and compare them with Acts 5:4. We can also see a similar usage in the rest of Acts 5:3, 4. In 5:3 we see that Satan filled Ananias’ heart to lie. But in 5:4 we find that Ananias himself conceived this thing in his heart. So this trinitarian-type evidence “reveals” another essential “mystery”: Satan is Ananias! Also analyze 1 Thess. 4:2, 6, 8; 1 Cor. 8:12; and James 4:11.

One of Christendom’s favorite trinitarians (and one of the humblest men found in history), St. Francis of Assisi, made an interesting statement that should be compared with Peter’s statement at Acts 5:3, 4. St. Francis said after receiving some clothing from a friend:
“Nothing could be better for me than these. I take them thankfully as your alms. You have given them to God.” - p. 66, Richest of the Poor - The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, Theodore Maynard, 1949.

Nonsense.

First of all - look at ALL of the Scriptural acrobatics you had to perform to arrive at your moronic conclusion. ALL you had to do was to read Acts 5:3-4 in context.

Acts 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to GOD."

Peter is talking about the Holy Spirit. This is ewhat is known as the "Subject".
He then continues with his rebuke of Annanias and Saphira - then RETURNS to the Subject. Only THIS time - he identifies the Subject in another way - as "GOD".

Any 1st year English student could figure this out.
This isn't rocket science - and it doesn't take FIVE PARAGRAPHS of Scriptural acrobatics to explain it . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Gen 23:5-6,

5 And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him,

6 Hear us, my lord: thou [art] a mighty prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead.
​

The children of Heth blasphemed when they called Abraham lord?

But I just saw you specified calling someone lord in prayer of worship. I guess that would make a difference, but I wonder where in the scriptures we find that distinction.

And YOU know as well as I do that "Lord" doesn't necessarily mean "God".

Thomans exclaimed "My Lord and My GOD!"
The verse about Abraham is NOT referring to him as "God".

1 Cor 8:5-6,

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.​

As it clearly says, there are many gods and many lords, but there is only one God, the Father. The son is not the Father so he is not God.

A god to the Jews meant anyone with power and authority. Any decent concordance or Bible Dictionary will say that. It is patently wrong to say there is only one god. True, there is only one YHWH, but there is more than one god and more than one lord. Even the devil is called, "the god of this world." The devil certainly has power and authority. He offered it to Adam and he bit. He offered it to the second Adam, Jesus, but he did not bite. Good thing for us he didn't!

So, if you want to play that game - then Isaiah identifies Jesus as BOTH "Father" and "God":
Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'll take them one at a time.

By MY count - that's THREE Strikes . . .