One and Triune God.

[BreadOfLife]

God says:
Rev. 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Jesus Christ says:
Rev. 22:13
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Anybody have any comments?

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

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 . . .

Verse 4 ironically debunks the argument you're trying to make. The Holy Spirit is in fact, NOT the subject of the matter as you boldly claim it is. The subject was about Ananias and his wife lying to the Father. You are pulling a sleight of hand tactic by placing the focus on the Holy Spirit instead of where it really belongs.

The point behind Acts 5:3-4 is that because Peter had the Holy Spirit, Ananias and his wife were blaspheming it by trying to con Peter, and therefore they were also trying to con the Father. Every passage that trinitarians think support their cause is easily explainable if they could be bothered to dig into the context instead of lifting them out of context.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Verse 4 ironically debunks the argument you're trying to make. The Holy Spirit is in fact, NOT the subject of the matter as you boldly claim it is. The subject was about Ananias and his wife lying to the Father. You are pulling a sleight of hand tactic by placing the focus on the Holy Spirit instead of where it really belongs.

The point behind Acts 5:3-4 is that because Peter had the Holy Spirit, Ananias and his wife were blaspheming it by trying to con Peter, and therefore they were also trying to con the Father. Every passage that trinitarians think support their cause is easily explainable if they could be bothered to dig into the context instead of lifting them out of context.

I'm actually stunned that you would say this.
The "Subject" - as iin the subject in the structure of a sentence.
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?

The Holy Spirit is WHO is being talked about (sybject) here as being "lied to".
Whther or not Peteer was indwelt with the Holy Spirit is NOT the issue. The Holy Spirit was lied to - and He is leter referred to as "GOD in the same conversation.

 

[tigger 2]

Examining the Trinity: Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father"

 

[tigger 2]

God says:
Rev. 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Jesus Christ says:
Rev. 22:13
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Anybody have any comments?

Is Jesus the 'Alpha and Omega' in Rev. 22?

Now look at Rev. 22:8-16. (The SC trick doesn't work nearly as well here, but some trinitarians insist on using it anyway.) John is identified as the speaker in 22:8. The angel speaks in 9). The angel apparently continues speaking in 10). The angel may be still speaking in 11) --- or it could be John or even someone else (as implied in verse 10 in the NAB, 1970 ed.).

Now is the angel still speaking in 12) or is it God, or is it Jesus, or even John? There is simply no way of telling who the speaker is from any of the early Bible manuscripts. It's entirely a matter of translator's choice. Some translators have decided it is the angel who continues to speak, and they punctuate it accordingly. So the JB, and NJB use quotation marks to show that these are all words spoken by the angel.

However, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ISV, 21st Century King James Version, and TEV show by their use of quotation marks that someone else is now speaking in verse 12. Most Bibles indicate that the person who spoke verse 12 (whether God, angel, Jesus, or John) also spoke verse 13 (“I am Alpha and Omega”).
Now the big question is: Is it clear that the speaker(s) of verses 12 and 13 continues to speak? Some Bibles indicate this. But other highly respected trinitarian translations do not!

The ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE show (by quotation marks and indenting/paragraphs) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words. (The Jerusalem Bible; the NJB; and Moffatt show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.)

Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.

So, if you must insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE , you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)

And, just as the use of "I, John" indicated a new speaker in Revelation 1:9, so does the only other such usage in that same book. Yes, Rev. 22:16 - "I, Jesus" also introduces a new speaker. This means, of course, that the previous statement ("I am the Alpha and Omega") was made by someone else!

Even the KJV translators have shown by their use of the word "his" in verse 14 that they didn't mean that Jesus was the same speaker as the Alpha and Omega. The speaker of verse 13 is Almighty God. The comment in verse 14 of these Bibles (as literally translated from the Received Text) explains the importance of doing "His Commandments" (not "My Commandments")! Therefore the speaker of verse 14 is obviously not God as clearly stated by those Bibles which were translated from the Received Text (TR), e.g., KJV; NKJV; KJ21; KJIIV, MKJV; GNV; World English Bible; Young's Literal Translation; Webster Bible (by Noah Webster); and Revised Webster Bible. Lamsa's translation (Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text) also uses "him."

So we can easily see that there is no reason to say Jesus spoke the words recorded at Rev. 22:13 (or the above-named trinitarian Bibles would surely have so translated it!) and, in fact, the context really identifies the speaker as being the same person who spoke at Rev. 1:8, God Almighty, Jehovah, the Father.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Is Jesus the 'Alpha and Omega' in Rev. 22?

Now look at Rev. 22:8-16. (The SC trick doesn't work nearly as well here, but some trinitarians insist on using it anyway.) John is identified as the speaker in 22:8. The angel speaks in 9). The angel apparently continues speaking in 10). The angel may be still speaking in 11) --- or it could be John or even someone else (as implied in verse 10 in the NAB, 1970 ed.).

Now is the angel still speaking in 12) or is it God, or is it Jesus, or even John? There is simply no way of telling who the speaker is from any of the early Bible manuscripts. It's entirely a matter of translator's choice. Some translators have decided it is the angel who continues to speak, and they punctuate it accordingly. So the JB, and NJB use quotation marks to show that these are all words spoken by the angel.

However, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ISV, 21st Century King James Version, and TEV show by their use of quotation marks that someone else is now speaking in verse 12. Most Bibles indicate that the person who spoke verse 12 (whether God, angel, Jesus, or John) also spoke verse 13 (“I am Alpha and Omega”).
Now the big question is: Is it clear that the speaker(s) of verses 12 and 13 continues to speak? Some Bibles indicate this. But other highly respected trinitarian translations do not!

The ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE show (by quotation marks and indenting/paragraphs) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words. (The Jerusalem Bible; the NJB; and Moffatt show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.)

Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.

So, if you must insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE , you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)

And, just as the use of "I, John" indicated a new speaker in Revelation 1:9, so does the only other such usage in that same book. Yes, Rev. 22:16 - "I, Jesus" also introduces a new speaker. This means, of course, that the previous statement ("I am the Alpha and Omega") was made by someone else!

Even the KJV translators have shown by their use of the word "his" in verse 14 that they didn't mean that Jesus was the same speaker as the Alpha and Omega. The speaker of verse 13 is Almighty God. The comment in verse 14 of these Bibles (as literally translated from the Received Text) explains the importance of doing "His Commandments" (not "My Commandments")! Therefore the speaker of verse 14 is obviously not God as clearly stated by those Bibles which were translated from the Received Text (TR), e.g., KJV; NKJV; KJ21; KJIIV, MKJV; GNV; World English Bible; Young's Literal Translation; Webster Bible (by Noah Webster); and Revised Webster Bible. Lamsa's translation (Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text) also uses "him."

So we can easily see that there is no reason to say Jesus spoke the words recorded at Rev. 22:13 (or the above-named trinitarian Bibles would surely have so translated it!) and, in fact, the context really identifies the speaker as being the same person who spoke at Rev. 1:8, God Almighty, Jehovah, the Father.

Another interesting feat of Scriptural acrobatics, which is ALWAYS needed to arrive at your bizarre conclusions. However – it is a complete FAILURE to understand Scripture. Pay attention . . .

As I pointed out earlier – the text clearly shows that it is GOD who speaking in Rev. 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God,

YOU claim, however, that Jesus is it is NOT the one is speaking in Rev. 22:13 - "I am the Alpha and the Omega”.

ANYBODY who is familiar with the Gospel would recognize immediately that it is indeed Jesus and NOT the Father who is being addressed here in the following text:

Rev. 21:5-7
He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children

In John 4, when Jesus is addressing the Samaritan Woman – He tells her:
John 4:10
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

Then, He tells her:
John 4:13-14
“Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

WHO gives the gift of Living Water?
Verse 19 says that GOD gives this gift.
HOWEVER – in verse 13-14, Jesus says that “’I’ will give the gift of Living Water."

Therefore – Rev. 21:6-7 is talking about JESUS and NOT the Father.

 

[Rich R]

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".

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.

"He will be called..." not "He will be..." A name is a name. I might point out that a name to an Ancient Near Easterner has way more significance than it does to our modern West. Was Joshua also God? His name means, "Yahweh-saved."

Besides that, Isaiah doesn't say Jesus would be called YHWH. It say he would be called, "el." As Corinthians said, there are many gods, Jesus being one of them. He differentiates himself from all other gods in that he is also our Lord, which is exactly what 1 Corinthians 8:6 declares.

If Isaiah 9:6 says Jesus is actually God it creates a clear contradiction with 1 Corinthians 8:6.

"Father" in Strong's:
H1 אָב 'ab (awɓ) n-m.
father.
{in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application}

If we take "father" in a literal sense, it contradicts 1 Corinthians 8:6 (and a whole bunch of other verses). If we take it in a figurative sense, it fits just fine with 1 Corinthians 8:6 (and a whole bunch of other verses).

 

[BreadOfLife]

"He will be called..." not "He will be..." A name is a name. I might point out that a name to an Ancient Near Easterner has way more significance than it does to our modern West. Was Joshua also God? His name means, "Yahweh-saved."

Besides that, Isaiah doesn't say Jesus would be called YHWH. It say he would be called, "el." As Corinthians said, there are many gods, Jesus being one of them. He differentiates himself from all other gods in that he is also our Lord, which is exactly what 1 Corinthians 8:6 declares.

If Isaiah 9:6 says Jesus is actually God it creates a clear contradiction with 1 Corinthians 8:6.

"Father" in Strong's:
H1 אָב 'ab (awɓ) n-m.
father.
{in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application}

If we take "father" in a literal sense, it contradicts 1 Corinthians 8:6 (and a whole bunch of other verses). If we take it in a figurative sense, it fits just fine with 1 Corinthians 8:6 (and a whole bunch of other verses).

First of all - the list that Isaiah gived in Isaiah 9:6 is a series of TITLES - not proper "names".
Nowhere else in Scripture, for example, is Jesus called "Wonderful counselor".

As for the Savior being referred to as "Everlasting Father" - this is a direct allusion to the Triune Godhead, which had not yet been revealed. When Mary meets Elizabeth - she cries out: "My soul rejoices in GOD my savior". WHO is she talking about here?

Also - when read in CONTEXT – your “many gods” argument is wiped out on its face:
1 Co. 8:1-6
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

This is CLEARLY talking about FALSE gods (idols).
The Bible makes it crystal-clear that there is ONE God – and every other “god” is a FALSE god:
Exod. 20:1-6
And God spoke all these words:
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
“You shall have no other gods beforea me.
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

 

[Rich R]

1 Co. 8:1-6
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

This is CLEARLY talking about FALSE gods (idols).
The Bible makes it crystal-clear that there is ONE God – and every other “god” is a FALSE god:
Exod. 20:1-6
And God spoke all these words:
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
“You shall have no other gods beforea me.
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

I don't see anywhere anything about "false" gods. If you don't believe the clear declaration in 1 Corinthians 8:6, take a look at the scope of the whole Bible. It is clear that there are in fact many gods. There are several verses in the OT that name some of these gods. Corinthians does not say gods don't exist. All 1 Corinthians 8:4 says is that idols don't amount to anything in this world. It doesn't say a god is nothing. The devil, called a god, is certainly not nothing. He's a force to be reckoned with for sure. An idol is an idol and a god is a god. In the Ancient Near East is was thought that a god lived in an idol. They did not think the idol was actually the god. I live in a house, but I'm not the house.

Try to see what the people to whom the scriptures were actually given thought about the word "god." They were (and are) very real. The Bible is certainly not written in modern Western terms. There's no end of the problems caused by thinking it was.

The last part of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is relevant. Two little words used in that verse reveal a lot.

1 Cor 8:6,

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.
​

The "of" is the Greek "ek" which means all thinks came our of God, He is the source of all things. The words "by" are the Greek word "dia" which indicates that the things which came from God went "through" an intermediator, in this case, Jesus. Dia indicates agency. Jesus was God's agent. It was through (dia) Jesus that God redeemed us. God could have hardly died to redeem us. That's why He needed an agent. He needed someone who could die so that He could raise him from the dead, thus conquering the curse of sin, i.e. death. Unlike God, humans, including Jesus can die.

To the Jews, an agent was virtually identical to the one who sent them. That helps make many verses clear. Failing to recognize the significance of agency mixes up the one sent (Jesus) with the one who sent him (YHWY).

 

[Cooper]

I don't see anywhere anything about "false" gods. If you don't believe the clear declaration in 1 Corinthians 8:6, take a look at the scope of the whole Bible. It is clear that there are in fact many gods. There are several verses in the OT that name some of these gods. Corinthians does not say gods don't exist. All 1 Corinthians 8:4 says is that idols don't amount to anything in this world. It doesn't say a god is nothing. The devil, called a god, is certainly not nothing. He's a force to be reckoned with for sure. An idol is an idol and a god is a god. In the Ancient Near East is was thought that a god lived in an idol. They did not think the idol was actually the god. I live in a house, but I'm not the house.

Try to see what the people to whom the scriptures were actually given thought about the word "god." They were (and are) very real. The Bible is certainly not written in modern Western terms. There's no end of the problems caused by thinking it was.

The last part of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is relevant. Two little words used in that verse reveal a lot.

1 Cor 8:6,

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.
​

The "of" is the Greek "ek" which means all thinks came our of God, He is the source of all things. The words "by" are the Greek word "dia" which indicates that the things which came from God went "through" an intermediator, in this case, Jesus. Dia indicates agency. Jesus was God's agent. It was through (dia) Jesus that God redeemed us. God could have hardly died to redeem us. That's why He needed an agent. He needed someone who could die so that He could raise him from the dead, thus conquering the curse of sin, i.e. death. Unlike God, humans, including Jesus can die.

To the Jews, an agent was virtually identical to the one who sent them. That helps make many verses clear. Failing to recognize the significance of agency mixes up the one sent (Jesus) with the one who sent him (YHWY).

In reply to the above errors on 1 Corinthians 8:6 where we read,
There is one true God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. (1 Cor 8:6)

We learn: the ONE omnipresent God under whom we live, are created and redeemed in Christ Jesus, the Healer, miracle worker, Saviour and coming King here on earth, made visible in the flesh so that all may believe "is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Heb 13:8)

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16-17)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7 KJV)
.

 

[EloyCraft]

All pagan deities are triune:

Nimrod, Samaramis, Horus (Father, mother, son.) Babylon
Isis, Osiris, Horus - Egypt
Ninus, Ishtar, Tammuz - Babylon
Jupiter, Minerva, Juno - Rome
Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva (creator, sustainer, destroyer) Hindu.
EL, Asherah & Baal - Canaan

The Roman sun god cult that hijacked Christianity had to shape the image of the new god into the image of the old gods.

The Trinity introduced by Christians had never been conceived of before Jesus. The oneness of the three divine persons is unfathomable to creatures because no creature can fathom what it is like to have always been. There are no conceptual examples of the Trinity preceding the Incarnation.
Divine Revelation is not preceded by earthly revelation in foreign cultures. No pagan deity cult hiijacked Christianity. Anyone who says that has no idea of the conceptual subtlety introduced when God incarnated.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't see anywhere anything about "false" gods. If you don't believe the clear declaration in 1 Corinthians 8:6, take a look at the scope of the whole Bible. It is clear that there are in fact many gods. There are several verses in the OT that name some of these gods. Corinthians does not say gods don't exist. All 1 Corinthians 8:4 says is that idols don't amount to anything in this world. It doesn't say a god is nothing. The devil, called a god, is certainly not nothing. He's a force to be reckoned with for sure. An idol is an idol and a god is a god. In the Ancient Near East is was thought that a god lived in an idol. They did not think the idol was actually the god. I live in a house, but I'm not the house.

Try to see what the people to whom the scriptures were actually given thought about the word "god." They were (and are) very real. The Bible is certainly not written in modern Western terms. There's no end of the problems caused by thinking it was.

The last part of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is relevant. Two little words used in that verse reveal a lot.

1 Cor 8:6,

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.
​

The "of" is the Greek "ek" which means all thinks came our of God, He is the source of all things. The words "by" are the Greek word "dia" which indicates that the things which came from God went "through" an intermediator, in this case, Jesus. Dia indicates agency. Jesus was God's agent. It was through (dia) Jesus that God redeemed us. God could have hardly died to redeem us. That's why He needed an agent. He needed someone who could die so that He could raise him from the dead, thus conquering the curse of sin, i.e. death. Unlike God, humans, including Jesus can die.

To the Jews, an agent was virtually identical to the one who sent them. That helps make many verses clear. Failing to recognize the significance of agency mixes up the one sent (Jesus) with the one who sent him (YHWY).

As I shoed you before – the entire CONTEXT of 1 Cor. 8 is about FALSE gods.
1 Cor. 8:4-6
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

"Mamy gods" and "many Lords" are referring to FALSE gods here in context.
This chapter is about foods offered to FALSE gods/idols.

This is the problem when people cherry-pick verses of Scripture instead of studying them in their proper CONTEXT . . .

As for your "agent" nonsense and how the Jews would ever think that ANYBODY was "virtually identical" to God - documentation, please.

 

[Rich R]

As for your "agent" nonsense and how the Jews wouldever think that ANYBODY was "virtually identical" to God - documentation, please.

Did you try to find anything about agency for yourself, or is it nonsense simply because you don't like it? Just because it's never mentioned in Sunday morning church services doesn't mean it's not a thing. Google "hebrew agency in the bible." There's tons of documentation.

You might also consider how Pharaoh made Joseph virtually identical in power and authority. It's a great example of agency in the Ancient Near East. There customs are quite a bit different than our own.

Gen 41:40,

Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.
​

Since the OT is about Jesus (John 5:39), this illustrates the relationship between God and Jesus.

Then there's this, a real thorn in the side of the trinity:

​

1 Cor 15:27-28,

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
​

Hmmm...one part of God subjected to another? I thought they were all supposedly equal.

God bless

​

 

[Cooper]

1 Cor 15:27-28,

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
​

Hmmm...one part of God subjected to another? I thought they were all supposedly equal.

God bless

I am sure you will find important people like my friend the local Lord Mayor and Government Officer, who humbles himself and works part-time in a local food bank while being One person.
.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Did you try to find anything about agency for yourself, or is it nonsense simply because you don't like it? Just because it's never mentioned in Sunday morning church services doesn't mean it's not a thing. Google "hebrew agency in the bible." There's tons of documentation.

You might also consider how Pharaoh made Joseph virtually identical in power and authority. It's a great example of agency in the Ancient Near East. There customs are quite a bit different than our own.

Gen 41:40,

Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.
​

Since the OT is about Jesus (John 5:39), this illustrates the relationship between God and Jesus.

Then there's this, a real thorn in the side of the trinity:

​

1 Cor 15:27-28,

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
​

Hmmm...one part of God subjected to another? I thought they were all supposedly equal.

God bless

Nice try - but YOUR claim was:
"To the Jews, an agent was virtually identical to the one who sent them."

Then, to support this claim - you give the ewxample of an EGYPTIAN Pharoah.
The context here is GOD - not men. My challenge to YOU was to show me documentation that the Jews would have consifered a mere man "virtually identical" to God - and you failed.

As to your last comment above in RED - it's clear that you do NOT understand the Trinity.
If you DID - you would understand that the Father sent the Son (John 20:21) - and the Holy Spirit proceeds from BOTH the Father (John 14:26, 15:26) AND the Son (John 20:21).
Three distinct Persons with Three distinct Roles in ONE God.

 

[Rich R]

I am sure you will find important people like my friend the local Lord Mayor and Government Officer, who humbles himself and works part-time in a local food bank while being One person.

Your friend has 3 different aspects of one person. The trinity claims three people are actually one person. Anybody can be multifaceted but that person is still one person. That is perfectly logical. It is not logical to say one person is actually 3 people.

 

[Rich R]

Nice try - but YOUR claim was:
"To the Jews, an agent was virtually identical to the one who s

Then, to support this claim - you give the ewxample of an EGYPTIAN Pharoah.
The context here is GOD - not men. My challenge to YOU was to show me documentation that the Jews would have consifered a mere man "virtually identical" to God - and you failed.

It's equally clear you did no research whatsoever on agency in the Ancient Near East, despite the fact that I gave you the necessary Google search words

As to your last comment above in RED - it's clear that you do NOT understand the Trinity.

You're absolutely right, I don't understand the trinity. Nobody understands the trinity. Nobody can understand a son being his own father. Isn't that why they have to say, "take if by faith"?

If you DID - you would understand that the Father sent the Son (John 20:21) - and the Holy Spirit proceeds from BOTH the Father (John 14:26, 15:26) AND the Son (John 20:21).

"Bob sent his son to the store..." So that makes Bob and his son one person?

Three distinct Persons with Three distinct Roles in ONE God.

I see three distinct persons in the scriptures. Wouldn't three distinct persons mean there are three persons? What makes them somehow one person? That's what I don't find in the scriptures. Are Larry, Curly, and Moe the same person. They must be since they all appear in one show. What?????

 

[Cooper]

Your friend has 3 different aspects of one person. The trinity claims three people are actually one person. Anybody can be multifaceted but that person is still one person. That is perfectly logical. It is not logical to say one person is actually 3 people.

The Father is the Holy Spirit, that is two persons and Jesus makes three, in the same way we are body, soul, and spirit while being one person in the image of God. You will have to work it out for yourself. The word 'person' is not helpful, but I doubt there is a better one that can be found to describe the attributes of the one God in three spheres or dimensions. It is a one-off situation without parallel.
.

 

[Cooper]

It's equally clear you did no research whatsoever on agency in the Ancient Near East, despite the fact that I gave you the necessary Google search words


You're absolutely right, I don't understand the trinity. Nobody understands the trinity. Nobody can understand a son being his own father. Isn't that why they have to say, "take if by faith"?

"Bob sent his son to the store..." So that makes Bob and his son one person?

I see three distinct persons in the scriptures. Wouldn't three distinct persons mean there are three persons? What makes them somehow one person? That's what I don't find in the scriptures. Are Larry, Curly, and Moe the same person. They must be since they all appear in one show. What?????

I can understand Jesus the son of Yahweh and Mary having the attributes of three persons.
.

 

[Rich R]

I can understand Jesus the son of Yahweh and Mary having the attributes of three persons.
.

Amen to that brother!

Mary must have been some believer. It's amazing God had to wait only 4,000 years for a virgin to actually believe she would bear the Messiah. Lucky for us she said, "be it done unto me according to they Word."

Personally, I probably would have told God, "Oh sure. I've never had sex with a man (pretend I'm a woman ), and You're telling me I'm going to have a baby, the savior of mankind no less. Yeah...sure."

Mary had more trust in God than I probably would have had. And she didn't even have Christ in her like I do (Col 1:27). Quite a woman that Mary.