Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #5, Book of Acts

[Ronald Nolette]

Untrue. Not being equal to God is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of being equal to God.

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

then you have a problem with Gods Word and not me!

John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

That was the Apostle John commenting under the inspiration of the Holy spirit! You fail.

But still waiting for you to explain what John 1:1 means.

 

[APAK]

More desperate posts for desperate men when their wild stories are blown wide open, time and time again. Still waiting and hoping for answers that were already answered several times for you, as you were asleep to them all as they were given to you to understand for your benefit with love and compassion.

 

[Wrangler]

then you have a problem with Gods Word and not me!

John 5:18

LOL Says the guy who can’t stick to the thread topic of the Book of Acts.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

LOL Says the guy who can’t stick to the thread topic of the Book of Acts.

Still waiting for your explanation of John 1:1

BTW You can't prove Jesus is messiah by the book of Joel. so does that not make Him Messiah. You are just playing a pre-pubescent silly game.

 

[APAK]

Still waiting for your explanation of John 1:1

BTW You can't prove Jesus is messiah by the book of Joel. so does that not make Him Messiah. You are just playing a pre-pubescent silly game.

I guess you are tired of asking about John 1:1 all the time. I have answered this for you before, and not necessarily on this thread, at least once.

Look, if are you really serious in asking your question as to wanting an honest reply, I hope you can then reply in kind? I will hope you say yes. I will yet again initiate this discussion by asking you a simple question? And I shall answer you again of course.

Here's a simple question then, why do you think that the Messiah is mentioned in John 1:1 by understanding the verse, the logic and context?

 

[Emily Nghiem]

I was thinking of that verse also. So glad you posted about it.

Dear @Wrangler and @MyLordisGod
Re: 7 Spirits of to 99 Names of God
I find that what each person holds to be the top level, most supreme and absolutely above all else, the Highest or Greatest
is at the position of God the Father at the top. Some people hold collective Truth
to be the ultimate. Or the Source or Creator of all life and all Creation or the Universe.

Whatever is either the individual or human/physical level closest to us in real life on earth is at the bottom.

And the middle level are the laws or relations in between these two, joining the level of man and individual free will with the collective level of God or universal truth, etc.

So the plural names of God can fall under Elohim or the Angels/Heavens
if they don't already align with
God the Father or
Jesus the Son who also has other names
Yeshua as Salvation
Ishua as Joy (how I see Baby Jesus used to represent)
Justice, Lord or Law/Authority over all other lords/laws, the Word of God
Mediator, Prince of Peace, Son of Man

When people criticize me for using the name Jesus instead of Yeshua, the normal explanation is J was not used until later translations of the Bible, and Jesus came from " I - Zeus " or a secularization through Greek to "make man equal to God."

I explain that using the name "Jesus" relates more to the meaning of "Justice" and makes this easier to translate into secular terms
the "equivalent" relationship.

It isn't perfect.
It does lose some universality if we do not all agree we are talking about the same thing.

I think focusing on the central THREE helps align the key names for God/Jesus we can agree on.

Then after we establish how we see
God the Father
Jesus the Son
and the Holy Spirit
We can discuss all other concepts and principles from there.

If we have conflicts in perspectives, it will show up by pinpointing and aligning these three first.

Like getting the print test page to "calibrate"
and align. These three will troubleshoot
where we each are coming from.
We get that aligned first, we can communicate on the same page after.

 

[Emily Nghiem]

Clearly, you don't want to stick with the OP for the Book of Acts destroys trinitarianism in no uncertain terms.

John 1:1 is referred to so desperately precisely because it is vague enough to give hope to the hopeless doctrine of the trinity, which does not even have Jesus in the text. To properly understand John 1:1, you have to look at it in light of John 20:31. where he explicitly states everything he wrote is to prove Jesus is the Messiah. This means John 1:1 cannot be taken to support the false claim that Jesus is God incarnate.

Words are not beings. I know we've delved into this many times. In addition to John 20:31, you have to look at John 1:1 from the perspective of fulfilling Deutoronomy 18:15-18, where God says he'll put his words into a man among the people. Jesus is the man who fulfills this prophecy and he said it. Jesus said they are not his words but he only says what the Father tells him to say.

Of course, none of this means anything to you because your are all about your false doctrine, no matter what Scripture says. You just want to skip over verses that destroy your doctrine and go back to imposing trinitarian doctrine onto unitarian text.

Dear @Wrangler
I am trying to empathize and wrap my brain around how you see Jesus as speaking and fulfilling God's Word but not being the Spirit of God's Word incarnated. I see Jesus as that embodiment, the actual LAW or JUSTICE of God embodied to manifest into man's realm on the earthly dimension.

I think you see Jesus as "perfectly expressing" but not *embodying* God's Word and Authority of Law in full?

This is why I relate to you as more like observing Jesus and God from an objective, external or secular perspective.
What they look like to man in practical terms that relate to real life and physical logic.

While the people who keep blending Jesus with God are focused on a bigger spiritual connection beyond the angle you are focusing on.

You remind me of when I was explaining to secular feminists why the Bible was so weighted toward male references. I explained all the church, people or humanity/society was the Bride or Female. So when we address each other, as church leaders spoke to fellow church members, they were already assuming the role of the CHURCH body which is feminine as the collective Bride or Israel referred to as she/her. The lady I was explaining this to understood and compared it to "you" being implied/understood because "you" are being addressed, the speaker leaves out "you" and this is assumed to be understood. The "female" part of the spirit IS important, but since this is all of us as the people or church collectively, when we address each other it is understood, unspoken. So that is why it is not stated.

I think people assume it is understood that Jesus means incarnated in man, so they don't state that redundantly. They seem to take it for granted it is "understood" and then focus more on the part of Jesus connected with God.

I think from where you are coming from, you still make it clear Jesus is incarnated in MAN and specify that so it doesn't appear to be ignored or skewed out of context.

The people who run Jesus and God together already see ourselves as the church body embodying Jesus, so from where we are coming from, we see Jesus as directly with God and assume the physical embodiment is already established as a given.

If you do not see yourself as integrated with the same church body as those who see God and Jesus as equal, then this separation in your mind where you have trouble seeing us all as looking at the same God and Jesus is causing two different angles or frames of reference.

Where I am coming from I find it easier to relate to you from a more secular viewpoint, more outside looking at this whole thing externally, and I can relate to the Trinity viewpoint by looking at God from the inside, assuming the physical body is already us as the church sharing internally.

I have to shift perspectives to see it from where you are, in comparison to the Trinity perspective. I think I favor your approach more naturally, and I really had to stretch to understand the Jesus as God angle.

I can totally understand why people have trouble seeing it from other respective approaches.

I prefer to distinguish us as the church connected to God the Father through Jesus as the laws fulfilled reconciling us with God.

Running Jesus together with God works for people already recognizing and including each other as one church body. But it leaves out people who see themselves outside the church body, looking in. This makes no sense from a external secular, practical perspective, and can come across as strange lingo that only members of a closed club understand, to screen others out as "not one of us" if you don't get what the secret code means.

 

[Emily Nghiem]

Vey well stated. Some people get entrenched in trying to prove others like yourself and many others on this site wrong. You use facts and scripture in a gentle Christlike manner to explain your thoughts and beliefs.
I happen to agree with your views on the Deity of Christ, and many others here agree with you as well. Blessings to you Emily, I appreciate kind attitude you have in explaining yourself!

Dear @BobVance Thank you again for your kind and encouraging words.

I am glad if my way of explaining is helpful and affirming to you, as I also am gaining so much from all of you and your prayers and posts!

In truth, my more accommodating style works well in some cases, but not so well in cases where more authoritarian discipleship and strict adherence to Scripture is required.

So to be honest, I need help from more structured approaches as @Wrangler and others like him insist on. I think we do better by helping each other not to wax or wane too lenient or too rigid. I hope and pray I can be as helpful to you, with your deeper knowledge of Scripture that helps keep me grounded and focused.

By correcting each other, we stay in line and on track where we agree in Christ, to avoid either straying too much ourselves or cutting others out.

What Wrangler warns and reminds me of:
1. Whatever way God first impressed upon him as the Original Gospel, that is how he tests and receives truth, based on that standard. And anything contrary will be accursed, even if from an Angel.
2. Adding or taking away words also causes that person to be plagued, or cut out.
People may not mean to appear to alter, idolatrize, or make "conditions" out of Bible content, but when we threaten to judge others over this, others in turn do the same to us. We question the faith or faults in how others teach it, and they can do the same back.
I don't think anyone sees or intends what we teach to "supercede or impose" a different doctrine, but that is how we can appear to others. I see this here, while neither side has any intent of teaching falsely and solely seeks to improve and clarify what looks erroneous from their experience.

3. Lastly this brings up the need for mutual forgiveness of faults we find in each other.
When we forgive others, God forgives us.
Where we neglect to forgive, neither will we be forgiven.

If God impressed on our hearts different priorities or angles that affect how we understand the Gospel Originally, this can create biases that conflict with how someone else originally received the Gospel.

I pray we all receive forgiveness of these differences God gave us to learn from, that we receive better clarity of vision and purpose, and help unify and uplift each other as equal children of God, joined as one through Christ Jesus our Lord and Mediator bringing Salvation and Peace to humanity. Thanks and Amen.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus came from " I - Zeus " or a secularization through Greek to "make man equal to God."

I did not know that. Yeshua, it is.

I explain that using the name "Jesus" relates more to the meaning of "Justice" and makes this easier to translate into secular terms
the "equivalent" relationship.

So, you are just inventing an origin for I-Zeus that appeals to your doctrinal sensibilities?

 

[Wrangler]

3. Lastly this brings up the need for mutual forgiveness of faults we find in each other.
When we forgive others, God forgives us.
Where we neglect to forgive, neither will we be forgiven.

Critical to Spiritual health, forgiveness. I’ve said in other threads that there is no Doctrinal Purity test to gain entrance to heaven.

It’s all well and good to discuss and learn from each other about doctrinal matters but we ought to keep in mind that is intellectual.

Why God tells us to kill our metaphorical Isaac is academic. Our response to divine intervention and commands in our life is what matters.

1 Corinthians 13 tells us having all (doctrinal) knowledge matters naught.

 

[Wrangler]

What Wrangler warns and reminds me of:
1. Whatever way God first impressed upon him as the Original Gospel, that is how he tests and receives truth, based on that standard.

Emily, this origin hypothesis is inaccurate.

Sure, you asked me how the idea first came to me that the trinity was wrong. But that first thought was not when I reached a definitive conclusion on the matter. That was nearly 2 decades later when I began to study religion in earnest.

And I must say, studied the topic with my own penetrating mind from an eclectic collection of sources, not just the approved Catechism of the Catholic Church explained by instructors only they approve of.

The most influential text was an encyclopedia entry published in 1956. Hitting me like a ton of bricks was the principle that religious matters can use the same basic tools of the mind used to determine secular truths. I summarize that insight today by repeatedly saying what informs us is:
Logic
Definition
Language Usage

If the trinity were proper doctrine, 2 things would’ve been the case:

1. The trinity would be an explicit teaching in Scripture in no uncertain terms and repeatedly stated or referenced.
2. There would be no Scripture that goes against this inherently contradictory doctrine, like the one I was Spirit led to read last night from Ephesians 1.

I’ve said it many times. It makes no sense that the trinity is so important it is not mentioned once in 66 books. Their desperation wreaks when they incessantly invoke John 1:1, which does not even have Jesus in it. The best they have is imposing trinitarian interpretation onto unitarian text.


3 Praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
5 God was kind and decided that Christ would choose us to be God’s own adopted children.
11 God always does what he plans, and that’s why he appointed Christ to choose us.
CEV

 

[post]

The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me,
and His word was on my tongue.
the God of Israel said,
The Rock of Israel spoke to me
(2 Samuel 23:2-3)​

the Spirit is God
the Word is God
the Rock is God

there is only one God, and His name One

 

[post]

If the trinity were proper doctrine, 2 things would’ve been the case:

1. The trinity would be an explicit teaching in Scripture in no uncertain terms and repeatedly stated or referenced.

aren't you stating this under the assumption that God thinks we're stupid, lazy & utterly incompetent and doesn't expect us to study?
so that He will plainly state all mysteries to us in pre-school language?
that you expect Him to hand you all knowledge in a sippy-cup?
maybe do the little airplane-entering-the-hanger thing while He spoon-feeds you wisdom?
you won't have to move a muscle, huh. and He'll burp you and wash your bib. right.

ask yourself why the Messiah warned His disciples not to tell people Who He is.
ask yourself why Christ Jesus taught in parables.
ask yourself if God expects you to seek Him.

 

[APAK]

@Ronald Nolette referring back to my post #745 to you....

I'm not waiting on your answer to my question as I believe you do not want to participate at all. So, in good faith I will begin to supply you with a portion of my protracted answer to it - John 1:1.

Starting then slowly, piece by piece, with logic and understanding and context of this introductory verse.

The 1st part of John 1:1 is John 1:1a, translated commonly as:

"In the beginning was the word..."

We can generally agree that John was using an analogous phrase right out of Genesis 1 to start his prologue.

Before time and creation then was the logos or the word.

Now the Greek transliterated symbol, logos, is a general term that has a variety of meanings. It is used about 330 times in the NT. The meaning of logos can be: a statement, an actual word, an utterance, a talk, a story, an idea, a purpose, plan embodied within the mind. It can also mean the expression or voice of the Father using his Spirit.

Even though that in Greek, logos is a masculine noun, when translated into English it loses its gender and becomes a neutered noun. The English language does not have gender specific nouns.

It's important to remember that logos never means an actual person or an object.

It's also important to remember that logos does not have to be translated as 'word.' It could have been translated into English as 'expression' or 'voice.'

It's also important to note that since there is a definite article before logos, the word, it is a specific logos or word, and it belongs or is owned by someone, or one person and ONLY one individual.

Someone owns this specific word!
And who does it belong to?

John 1:1b and part c of the verse gives us the answer.

----to be continued... if I desire, or if you do not want me to continue in answering your initial query------

Great Day!

APAK

 

[Wrangler]

if you do not want me to continue in answering your initial query

His question is rhetorical. I've literally answered it dozens of times already. All of the Gospels refer to the Only Begotten Son of God. None of the Gospels refer to God incarnate because that is a 4th century invention.

 

[APAK]

His question is rhetorical. I've literally answered it dozens of times already. All of the Gospels refer to the Only Begotten Son of God. None of the Gospels refer to God incarnate because that is a 4th century invention.

Well, I know, although I wanted to clearly show some more thought into this particular verse for him, regardless of what he does with it. Then I'm done giving my time to it and on him. It is your thread, so if you want me to stop I have no problem whatsoever....it is good as done ...

 

[Addy]

maybe do the little airplane-entering-the-hanger thing while He spoon-feeds you wisdom?
you won't have to move a muscle, huh. and He'll burp you and wash your bib. right.

LOL... that was funny....

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I guess you are tired of asking about John 1:1 all the time. I have answered this for you before, and not necessarily on this thread, at least once.

Look, if are you really serious in asking your question as to wanting an honest reply, I hope you can then reply in kind? I will hope you say yes. I will yet again initiate this discussion by asking you a simple question? And I shall answer you again of course.

Here's a simple question then, why do you think that the Messiah is mentioned in John 1:1 by understanding the verse, the logic and context?

Why? simply. Just keep reading the gospel of John and we see that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and that John the Baptist revealed HIm as the Lamb of God (Messiah) it is not hard.

But I am serious (more for wrangler) to answer why JOhn 1:1 doesn't mean what is written. what evidences are used and why was John inspired byu god to write the word was God?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

@Ronald Nolette referring back to my post #745 to you....

I'm not waiting on your answer to my question as I believe you do not want to participate at all. So, in good faith I will begin to supply you with a portion of my protracted answer to it - John 1:1.

Starting then slowly, piece by piece, with logic and understanding and context of this introductory verse.

The 1st part of John 1:1 is John 1:1a, translated commonly as:

"In the beginning was the word..."

We can generally agree that John was using an analogous phrase right out of Genesis 1 to start his prologue.

Before time and creation then was the logos or the word.

Now the Greek transliterated symbol, logos, is a general term that has a variety of meanings. It is used about 330 times in the NT. The meaning of logos can be: a statement, an actual word, an utterance, a talk, a story, an idea, a purpose, plan embodied within the mind. It can also mean the expression or voice of the Father using his Spirit.

Even though that in Greek, logos is a masculine noun, when translated into English it loses its gender and becomes a neutered noun. The English language does not have gender specific nouns.

It's important to remember that logos never means an actual person or an object.

It's also important to remember that logos does not have to be translated as 'word.' It could have been translated into English as 'expression' or 'voice.'

It's also important to note that since there is a definite article before logos, the word, it is a specific logos or word, and it belongs or is owned by someone, or one person and ONLY one individual.

Someone owns this specific word!
And who does it belong to?

John 1:1b and part c of the verse gives us the answer.

----to be continued... if I desire, or if you do not want me to continue in answering your initial query------

Great Day!

APAK

YOu started well but then fell flat on your face. The Greek logos in Greek culture was the embodiment of the gods. In Hebrew it was expressed as the Metatron so Word in the context being written refers to a specific (thus the definite article). so that collapses your simple grammar lesson. Grammatically you are correct, but historically and culturally you are way way incorrect!

JOhn in writing to counter mostly the gnostic heresies creeping in the church used the Greek concept of teh "Logon" to show that Jesus was the special person spoken of. Just like Paul did on MArs hill with the unknown god! Jesus was a person as Solomon in proverbs wrote

Proverbs 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

In our blind haste we too foten overlook simple little words like "is". Jesus was Gods Son in Solomons time. Not an expression or thought or enunciation. He di dnot say what will be His sons name but what is. God does not make mistakes with His Word.

 

[Emily Nghiem]

In another thread, you took a deep dive with someone who confused what God did with who God did it through. This model is profound. Throughout Scripture we see God doing things through others. That is the divine model.

Just because angels and prophets do things at the command of God, or in his name, that does not make them God. Acts 17:31 makes this point explicit. The Good News of Adoptionism is our hope in a redeemed and resurrected life was proved to be realized in the man who submitted himself fully to God's will. The Good News is not that Jesus is God but God proved his plan for us when he raised this man from the dead. That too is our inheritance, the inheritance of those who put their trust in the Savior who paved the way, showed us the way, is the way.


32 “As for us, we are bringing you the Good News that what God promised to the fathers, 33 he has fulfilled for us the children in raising up Yeshua, as indeed it is written in the second Psalm,

‘You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.’​

Acts 13: 32-33 (CJB)

Dear @Wrangler
There is only ONE Mediator between God and man, and that is why Christ Jesus the SON is named
in the middle of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So that is unique and NOT like other angels or God using other prophets or people to prove anything.
We do not do things THROUGH other prophets or angels.
We speak, agree and do things THROUGH Christ Jesus ALONE as the reconciling bridge between man and God.

The laws spell out this relationship, and the Spirit/Authority of Jesus fulfills them as the Spirit of God's laws.
There is ONE "Message or Messiah" and that role is UNIQUE even though we and others can play the role of "messenger."