Prove the Trinity wrong challenge.

[justbyfaith]

none of those passages say one must believe Jesus is the Most High to receive salvation.

Actually, John 8:24 does indeed say that in light of the other verses.

Not just a son as per the incarnation, but a Son from before creation.

I think we disagree here. Jesus was born of a virgin and this is how he was begotten. The Holy Ghost became one with the egg in the womb of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35). That would indicate that the Holy Ghost is the Word in that He became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of the Father.

i thought they were stoning Him for making Himself elohim.

Last time I checked, "Elohim" was the Hebrew word for "God".

 

[Enoch111]

Jesus was born of a virgin and this is how he was begotten.

Sorry, but this is NOT how He was begotten. This is how He was INCARNATED (became a Man, took human form, was manifest in the flesh).

The *begetting* of the eternal Son by the eternal Father cannot possibly be compared to human procreation. Thus the Greek word monogenes is translated as *only begotten*, which actually means uniquely begotten. There was no mother involved. Yet there was a perfect and intimate Father-Son relationship within the Godhead.

How do we *explain* this? We do not. It is a part of the Mystery of God. But we can certainly believe it and proclaim it.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hi @Enoch111,

Show me a scripture that says that Jesus was eternally begotten through the creation of some kind of eternal mirror; and I will believe you.

Otherwise, I hold to the truth that Jesus was begotten through the conception that took place when the Holy Ghost (not "the Word" (?)) became one with the egg in the womb of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35).

 

[jaybird]

Actually, John 8:24 does indeed say that in light of the other verses.

However the verse does not say that on its own. Jesus says to believe He is He. So what did He mean by that, the pharisees asked the same question in the passage. Jesus answered, just what I been telling you from the beginning. So who had He claimed to be up to that point, son of man, Son of the Most High, and Peter called Him the Christ.

Last time I checked, "Elohim" was the Hebrew word for "God".

correct it is the word for god, but it is not the word for G-D Most High, Most High or G-D of gods, it simply means god.
did Jesus ask them why they were stoning Him for claiming to be the Most High or "Son of" the Most High. there is a difference.

 

[brakelite]

Hi @Enoch111,

Show me a scripture that says that Jesus was eternally begotten through the creation of some kind of eternal mirror; and I will believe you.

Otherwise, I hold to the truth that Jesus was begotten through the conception that took place when the Holy Ghost (not "the Word" (?)) became one with the egg in the womb of the virgin Mary.

What you are teaching is not what the Bible teaches. You are denying that God sent His only begotten Son into the world. The Son Himself said, no-one has descended from heaven, except Himself. You are saying that God made a son to die. That is a very poor reflection of the self sacrificial love of the Father. Please accept what the Son Himself said... That God gave His only begotten Son. For the Father to give us His Son, the Father must have had a Son to give. It was the Son that God was addressing when He said, let us make man in our image. That is why I'm Colossians and in Hebrews, the Son is clearly revealed as the vessel through Whom the Father created all things. 1Cor.8:6 confirms this. The Father the source of all things, and the only true God, the Son the conduit through Whom all blessings flow.

 

[brakelite]

I think we disagree here. Jesus was born of a virgin and this is how he was begotten. The Holy Ghost became one with the egg in the womb of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35). That would indicate that the Holy Ghost is the Word in that He became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of the Father.

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” Hebrews 1:1-2 (see also Colossians 1:14-19 and John 1:1-3).

 

[justbyfaith]

However the verse does not say that on its own.

Scripture interprets scripture (1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv)).

correct it is the word for god, but it is not the word for G-D Most High, Most High or G-D of gods, it simply means god.

Sorry, it means God, capital "G". If you are going to put a small "g" on it, then the plurality of the affix, "im" applies, and it would refer to gods, or, all the holy host of heaven; as Jesus is the LORD of hosts.

What you are teaching is not what the Bible teaches. You are denying that God sent His only begotten Son into the world. The Son Himself said, no-one has descended from heaven, except Himself. You are saying that God made a son to die. That is a very poor reflection of the self sacrificial love of the Father. Please accept what the Son Himself said... That God gave His only begotten Son. For the Father to give us His Son, the Father must have had a Son to give. It was the Son that God was addressing when He said, let us make man in our image. That is why I'm Colossians and in Hebrews, the Son is clearly revealed as the vessel through Whom the Father created all things. 1Cor.8:6 confirms this. The Father the source of all things, and the only true God, the Son the conduit through Whom all blessings flow.

I believe that Jesus is the everlasting Father. The son that was given, through the venue of the zeal of the LORD of hosts, shall have the name of everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6-7).

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”

Consider Ephesians 4:10, that Jesus ascended to be outside of time. As such, He would be dwelling in eternity with the Father (as being the Father who descended and then ascended) even before the beginning; and thus, the verses you have mentioned do not refute my pov.

 

[justbyfaith]

Jesus says to believe He is He. So what did He mean by that, the pharisees asked the same question in the passage. Jesus answered, just what I been telling you from the beginning. So who had He claimed to be up to that point, son of man, Son of the Most High, and Peter called Him the Christ.

It was prophesied in Isaiah 9:6 that the Christ would be called by the name of everlasting Father.

 

[brakelite]

I believe that Jesus is the everlasting Father. The son that was given, through the venue of the zeal of the LORD of hosts, shall have the name of everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6-7).



Consider Ephesians 4:10, that Jesus ascended to be outside of time. As such, He would be dwelling in eternity with the Father (as being the Father who descended and then ascended) even before the beginning; and thus, the verses you have mentioned do not refute my pov.

The entire paradigm of scripture refutes your point of view. Your POV denies any literal Father Son concept...a concept revealed in creation of man...revealed throughout the OT history of Israel...revealed through Jesus when incarnated...and will be continued throughout all eternity when the Son submits to His Father as He had been before creation.
Your ideas propose merely a play act where the God sets out certain roles and the other members of the 'trinity' become bit players, metaphors and actors pretending to be Father and Son, creating an illusion. In your scenario God gave no-one, for anyone perfectly equal to Him in every respect He could not give having no authority. That goes for the holy Spirit and the Son...unless there was in some sense subordination, no-one gave anyone to anyone.
Yet scripture declares that the Father gave His Son, and the Son gives us His Spirit. Neither in your scenario, nor is the traditional creedal formulas for the trinity where 3 co-equal co-eternal beings make up one God, is such gifting possible, even ethical.

 

[justbyfaith]

Your POV denies any literal Father Son concept

It does not.

Your ideas propose merely a play act where the God sets out certain roles and the other members of the 'trinity' become bit players, metaphors and actors pretending to be Father and Son, creating an illusion.

No; in my view the Father became the Son and the Son is a distinct Person from the Father. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Jesus (see John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11) given back to the Father so that He could give it to the church (see Luke 23:46).

Neither in your scenario, nor is the traditional creedal formulas for the trinity where 3 co-equal co-eternal beings make up one God, is such gifting possible, even ethical.

What you are promoting is Tritheism; not the true Trinity.

 

[brakelite]

No; in my view the Father became the Son and the Son is a distinct Person from the Father.

Can you read again what you have written here? How does "the Father became the Son" and "Gave His only begotten Son" harmonise in any way whatsoever?
And how does "the Father became the Son" not deny a Father Son relationship? Read John17 and tell me your scenario makes sense.

 

[justbyfaith]

Can you read again what you have written here? How does "the Father became the Son" and "Gave His only begotten Son" harmonise in any way whatsoever?
And how does "the Father became the Son" not deny a Father Son relationship? Read John17 and tell me how (fify) your scenario makes sense.

In v.3, is Jesus the only true God; or is it only the Father? Is Jesus a false god? No; because the word "and" in that verse is "kai", which can be translated "even".

In v.5, my position has to do with Ephesians 4:10. There is the pre-incarnate Jesus (the Father) dwelling in eternity (outside of time). The after-incarnate Jesus (the Holy Ghost) has ascended to be outside of time also; so you have the one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4, John 4:23-24, John 7:39) dwelling next to Himself in eternity. Now the Son may or may not be confined to time; although it is written that He ascended to fill all things (and therefore would also be outside of time in His human body) (see 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).

The point being, that before Jesus descended, He was dwelling next to the Father who existed in the form of the (after-incarnate) Holy Ghost. And after He ascends, He will dwell next to the Father identified as the 1st Person of the Trinity (the pre-incarnate Christ).

As for your first question, Jesus said to His former self after descending to dwell in a human body, (Hebrews 10:5), Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body has thou prepared me:

God gave His only begotten Son (see Isaiah 9:6 for the identity of this son, with Deuteronomy 6:4; Ephesians 4:5, Mark 12:29 (kjv), Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6). The Son that was given was a distinct Person from the Father, but was the continuation of the Father, in that God descended to become a Man. God, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, is identified as the Father, and Jesus is identified as the Lord. Again we have the word "kai" in that statement; however if you separate Jesus from being the Father in that verse then He is not God: He is merely the Lord. But we know that the Father is the Lord (Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21) and therefore since Jesus is also the Lord He must be the Father; since there is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6; and Jude 1:4, which also contains the Greek word kai in between "only Lord God" and "our Lord Jesus Christ' and therefore the preposition in Greek means "even". The point being that there is only one Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ). Also in James 3:9, Romans 15:6, and 1 Corinthians 8:6 God is identified as being the Father; not the Son. And that the Son is identified as God in Hebrews 1:8-9 therefore indicates that the Son is the Father incarnated; a distinct individual from the Father and yet the same Person.

So God sent His only begotten Son to die for us. That Jesus is the Son of the Father is identified through the hypostatic union; the fact that He is the Son is identified by the fact that He is Deity in humanity.

The Father couldn't die for us because He was God outside of time, dwelling in eternity and such a being cannot die. But God sent His only begotten Son (He became a Man) because if he could only take on the nature of a human being He would be able to die for the sin(s) of the world.

But I reject this idea that the Father created an eternal mirror and Jesus was begotten through the existence of this mirror. The concept helps us to understand how God can be triune and that is all. Because Jesus was begotten in the hypostatic union; then ascended to exist outside of time and therefore exists in eternity next to the Father. But the origin of the Son is in that the Holy Ghost ("the Word" (?)--John 1:1, John 1:14) became one with the egg in the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35); and therefore the Holy Ghost became a Man.

So then, God gave to us in death the Person who came to dwell in the human body of Jesus (John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11) and it was the body of Jesus (and His soul--Isaiah 53:10) that God gave up for humanity when Jesus died on the Cross. Now the Spirit of Jesus did not die except in that He was separated from His human body.

I would ask you the following question: Did 1/3 of God descend to become a Man, or did God descend to become a Man?

In the concept of an eternally begotten Son, you have the problem either of there being a God beside Jehovah (see Isaiah 45:5, Isaiah 45:18, and Isaiah 45:21-22) or you have the problem of 1/3 of God descending to become a Man.

Now in the scenario that I present to you, the God that is beside Jehovah is Jehovah: the Son is the Father. But in some circles where they say they believe in the Trinity, they do not believe in the true Trinity but rather in Tritheism. To them, the Son is not only distinct from the Father, He is a separate God entirely.

 

[bbyrd009]

whole lotta facts up there i guess
"it's like this and like that and like this
and uh
it's like that and likethisandlikethat
and uh..."

Can you read again what you have written here? How does "the Father became the Son" and "Gave His only begotten Son" harmonise in any way whatsoever?
And how does "the Father became the Son" not deny a Father Son relationship? Read John17 and tell me your scenario makes sense.

but the only way to condemn everyone who does not march in lockstep with a believer/fascist and moot the v in my sig is to make Jesus into God the father i guess; "at the point of a gun" is understood by anyone with sense imo

Pax!

 

[justbyfaith]

but the only way to condemn everyone who does not march in lockstep with a believer/fascist and moot the v in my sig is to make Jesus into God the father i guess; "at the point of a gun" is understood by anyone with sense imo

Pax!

The thing that "moots the v. in my sig" is that Christ died for our sins...His blood was shed to bring forgiveness for all of us who will believe in Him as He truly is.

 

[bbyrd009]

The thing that "moots the v. in my sig" is that Christ died for our sins...His blood was shed to bring forgiveness for all of us who will believe in Him as He truly is.

ooh, wrong answer, sorry
i could go dig up the Quotes if you like, but imo you are not even very close wadr
you got the wolf v down though, kudos for that

Matthew 26:28 Lexicon: for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 7:14 Lexicon: "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[bbyrd009]

"If i believe that Jesus is God, as opposed to believing that He is the Son of God, then i will do _________ instead of _________."

can someone fill in these blanks for me ty, bc i am ignorant here
feel free to insert "absolute truth" for "belief" in there if you need to, i can interpret

 

[justbyfaith]

"If i believe that Jesus is God, as opposed to believing that He is the Son of God, then i will do _________ instead of _________."

I will ___be saved by grace___ instead of ___attempting to be saved by works___.

This is evidenced by the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that salvation is by works and that this is somehow connected to their belief that Jesus is "the Son of God" (with the definition of that given by Arius) rather than the Son of God (with the definition of that given through Isaiah 9:6). And that those of us who believe that Jesus is God know that we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-8, Romans 11:5-6, Titus 3:4-7).

 

[justbyfaith]

whole lotta facts up there i guess
"it's like this and like that and like this
and uh
it's like that and likethisandlikethat
and uh..."

And you think there is something wrong with that? Jesus Himself said, "The kingdom of God is like..." and then filled in the blank on more than one occasion in His ministry.

 

[justbyfaith]

ooh, wrong answer, sorry
i could go dig up the Quotes if you like, but imo you are not even very close wadr
you got the wolf v down though, kudos for that

You apparently are not coming from a biblical perspective.

 

[justbyfaith]

Matthew 26:28 Lexicon: for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

"many" not "all"!