The Problem With The Trinity

[bbyrd009]

I already told you what I do with it.

ah, where? seems we began with you denying it even existed, remember, "i only interpret Greek Scripture" or some such, and then you went off into clean hands, without ever translating the Scriptural phrase that is honest injun really in the Bible, even your copy, right. Translate "katharizon panta bromata" however you like, sure, but at least translate it once for us ok?

it quickly becomes obvious that the phrase is not "all hands are clean" at all, right, which would be what is expected from your pov?

 

[gadar perets]

ah, where? seems we began with you denying it even existed, remember, "i only interpret Greek Scripture" or some such, and then you went off into clean hands, without ever translating the Scriptural phrase that is honest injun really in the Bible, even your copy, right. Translate "katharizon panta bromata" however you like, sure, but at least translate it once for us ok?

it quickly becomes obvious that the phrase is not "all hands are clean" at all, right, which would be what is expected from your pov?

I gave you the correct translation here.

The KJV correctly translated katharizon as "purging" as that is what Yeshua meant (to purge the food waste out of the body into the privy). However, translating it as "cleansing" also works, but it makes the meaning harder to discern. The digestive system cleanses food from our body into the privy, but one can misunderstand that word to mean unclean food becomes clean inside our bodies. So I prefer "purging all foods". The food is cleansed/purged upon exiting the body. It is not cleansed prior to eating it. Pigs are not now clean.

Based on your view, at what point does unclean meat become clean for anyone living at the time Yeshua spoke those words?

 

[bbyrd009]

Based on your view, at what point does unclean meat become clean for anyone living at the time Yeshua spoke those words?

oh, when the cursed nation whose civil laws you seem determined to follow was divorced by God and scattered to the four winds bc they could not even figure out that milk and meat are symbolic of spiritual principles, and instead decided to make up their entire belief system based upon trying to understand and interpret God literally? strictly a guess though, ok

 

[bbyrd009]

The food is cleansed/purged upon exiting the body.

yes, the hands are not involved at all, are they,
bc as Christ plainly stated, nothing you put in your mouth can make you "dirty."

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this.
15Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
[16] f ("he who has an ear let him hear")
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.
18“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?

seems like a really good spot to clarify "dirty hands" if that was the point gadar, but wadr the point has moved on from that to
13"And you do many things like that.”
imo

 

[gadar perets]

oh, when the cursed nation whose civil laws you seem determined to follow was divorced by God and scattered to the four winds bc they could not even figure out that milk and meat are symbolic of spiritual principles, and instead decided to make up their entire belief system based upon trying to understand and interpret God literally? strictly a guess though, ok

Israel was divorced long before Yeshua came. Are you saying they could have eaten unclean meat even before Yeshua came? Where do you come up with that?

 

[brakelite]

That only holds true for beings that procreate. A human procreates with another human and begets a human. Father YHWH did NOT procreate with Miriam. His Holy Spirit power, IMHO, caused Miriam's egg to be fertilized by speaking into it the necessary DNA to create a human male child.

Also, "God" is not a "kind" (kind begets like kind). It is a title. The Father is a "Spirit" (John 4:24). If your view is correct, He should have begotten another Spirit, but that was not the case. Also, if your view is correct, and He begot a flesh and blood man, then the Father should also be a flesh and blood man, but that is not the case either. Also, if your view is correct and the Father begot a 100% human and 100% God, then the Father should also be such, but that is not the case either. Yeshua is not some sort of half man, half God mongrel either. Yeshua is strictly 100% man in whom the fullness of the only true God dwelt in via His indwelling Holy Spirit. That same Holy Spirit indwells all believers, but that does not make us God. It makes God living in us. That is exactly the case with Yeshua;

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was IN Messiah, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
​

This verse does not say God WAS Messiah or that God BECAME Messiah. God was living IN Messiah via the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Strong‘s concordance says that the Greek word genos has as its root the word ginomai which is associated with monogenes (Strong‘s concordance says that ginomai means to cause to be, generate or to become etc). Now whilst genos has the meaning of type or kind, it always has its application in the sense of parentage or stock (origins, beginnings etc). This can be seen very clearly in the way that the word genos is used in Scripture. Using the King James Version as an example, this latter word is translated as  Kind or kinds (as in of each kind) in Matthew 13:47, 17:21, Mark 9:29, 1 Corinthians 12:10 and 1 Corinthians 14:10          Kindred in Acts 4:6. Acts 7:13 and Acts 7:19 Countrymen in 2 Corinthians 11:26 Offspring in Acts 17:28, Acts 17:29 and Revelation 22:16 Stock (as in being born of) in Acts 13:26 and Philippians 3:5 Born in Acts 18:2 and Acts 18:24 Nation (as in belonging to) in Mark 7:26 and Galatians 1:14 Country (as in belonging to) in Acts 4:36 Diversities (as of tongues and languages etc) in 1 Corinthians 12:28 Generation (as in belonging to) in 1 Peter 2:9 From these usages and translations, we can see that genos is always used in the sense of origins or species (types or kinds) etc.
Returning our thoughts to the way that the gospel writers used monogenes, we can see that this word has the obvious meaning of the one and only of its kind but also, each time it is used, it has its application in a parent-child relationship.

Notice also
KJV Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
that the word translated here 'from', in both verse 6 and verse 7 is from the Greek word morphe. This is interesting because from various writings outside of the Scriptures, we learn that the Greeks used this word when referring to change in their gods. This was not a change to their inner being (structure) but to their outward appearance. Thus the very same god would be in a different form (morphe). The meaning of Morphe can also be seen in such words as metamorphous etc. Thus the appearance of the Son has changed... Previously spirit, now human. But essentially the same personality, character, and divine nature.

 

[gadar perets]

yes, the hands are not involved at all, are they,
bc as Christ plainly stated, nothing you put in your mouth can make you "dirty."

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this.
15Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
[16] f ("he who has an ear let him hear")
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.
18“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?

seems like a really good spot to clarify "dirty hands" if that was the point gadar, but wadr the point has moved on from that to
13"And you do many things like that.”
imo

Yes, it was a good spot and Yeshua did indeed clarify that, but Mark did not record it. Matthew did.

Mat 15:16 And Yeshua said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defileth not a man.​

 

[gadar perets]

Strong‘s concordance says that the Greek word genos has as its root the word ginomai which is associated with monogenes (Strong‘s concordance says that ginomai means to cause to be, generate or to become etc). Now whilst genos has the meaning of type or kind, it always has its application in the sense of parentage or stock (origins, beginnings etc). This can be seen very clearly in the way that the word genos is used in Scripture. Using the King James Version as an example, this latter word is translated as  Kind or kinds (as in of each kind) in Matthew 13:47, 17:21, Mark 9:29, 1 Corinthians 12:10 and 1 Corinthians 14:10          Kindred in Acts 4:6. Acts 7:13 and Acts 7:19 Countrymen in 2 Corinthians 11:26 Offspring in Acts 17:28, Acts 17:29 and Revelation 22:16 Stock (as in being born of) in Acts 13:26 and Philippians 3:5 Born in Acts 18:2 and Acts 18:24 Nation (as in belonging to) in Mark 7:26 and Galatians 1:14 Country (as in belonging to) in Acts 4:36 Diversities (as of tongues and languages etc) in 1 Corinthians 12:28 Generation (as in belonging to) in 1 Peter 2:9 From these usages and translations, we can see that genos is always used in the sense of origins or species (types or kinds) etc.
Returning our thoughts to the way that the gospel writers used monogenes, we can see that this word has the obvious meaning of the one and only of its kind but also, each time it is used, it has its application in a parent-child relationship.

I have no problem believing monogenes means "one and only of its kind" in reference to Yeshua. He is the only human ever born without the aid of a human father. Since he is "one of a kind", that means his Father is NOT the same kind. Otherwise he would be the second of his kind or the Father and Son would be "two of a kind".

Notice also
KJV Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
that the word translated here 'from', in both verse 6 and verse 7 is from the Greek word morphe. This is interesting because from various writings outside of the Scriptures, we learn that the Greeks used this word when referring to change in their gods. This was not a change to their inner being (structure) but to their outward appearance. Thus the very same god would be in a different form (morphe). The meaning of Morphe can also be seen in such words as metamorphous etc. Thus the appearance of the Son has changed... Previously spirit, now human. But essentially the same personality, character, and divine nature.

Yes, Yeshua morphed, not from a spirit to a human, but from a mighty man who had many of the powers and attributes of God such as working miracles and forgiving sins to a humble servant who would wash men's feet, serve others, not fight back, and die for them. He morphed as he lived.

As a child, Yeshua "waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him" (Luke 2:40). Even at that time Yeshua knew who he was, knew who his Father was (Luke 2:49), and knew what he had to do. By the time of his baptism he was so filled with wisdom, knowledge, Spirit, and power that Paul says he was "in the form (or likeness) of God." It does not say he "was God." Yet, Yeshua did not allow that power and wisdom to corrupt him. Nor did he, for one moment, consider himself YHWH's equal. He knew his Father was greater than himself (John 10:29; 13:16; 14:28). The RSV and many other versions correctly translate Philippians 2:6 as follows; "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."

Yeshua did not strip himself of any pre-existent power or glory or spirit nature. He simply humbled himself and made himself of no reputation even though he was far more knowledgeable and powerful than any of his contemporaries. Instead of glorifying himself and expecting others to serve him, he chose to become a servant. He became like most men, common and unassuming as compared to the politically powerful and famous.

 

[justbyfaith]

Here is Tyndale's translation of John 1:1-4;

John 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginnynge with God.
John 1:3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
John 1:4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
​

Still revere it? The KJV changed "it" to "him" in three places. Which Bible is the truly preserved Word of God?

BTW, Tyndale's Bible is available on eSword. You can also access it online here.

Actually, that changes my pov about the Tyndale Bible. The idea that God might be an "it" to me seems a bit faulty.

 

[justbyfaith]

This makes no sense. YHWH gives us a Son which means the Son is YHWH???? That's almost as bad as 1+1+1=1

Actually the equation is 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.

 

[APAK]

I have no problem believing monogenes means "one and only of its kind" in reference to Yeshua. He is the only human ever born without the aid of a human father. Since he is "one of a kind", that means his Father is NOT the same kind. Otherwise he would be the second of his kind or the Father and Son would be "two of a kind".


Yes, Yeshua morphed, not from a spirit to a human, but from a mighty man who had many of the powers and attributes of God such as working miracles and forgiving sins to a humble servant who would wash men's feet, serve others, not fight back, and die for them. He morphed as he lived.

As a child, Yeshua "waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him" (Luke 2:40). Even at that time Yeshua knew who he was, knew who his Father was (Luke 2:49), and knew what he had to do. By the time of his baptism he was so filled with wisdom, knowledge, Spirit, and power that Paul says he was "in the form (or likeness) of God." It does not say he "was God." Yet, Yeshua did not allow that power and wisdom to corrupt him. Nor did he, for one moment, consider himself YHWH's equal. He knew his Father was greater than himself (John 10:29; 13:16; 14:28). The RSV and many other versions correctly translate Philippians 2:6 as follows; "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."

Yeshua did not strip himself of any pre-existent power or glory or spirit nature. He simply humbled himself and made himself of no reputation even though he was far more knowledgeable and powerful than any of his contemporaries. Instead of glorifying himself and expecting others to serve him, he chose to become a servant. He became like most men, common and unassuming as compared to the politically powerful and famous.

This is a very effective, succinct and persuasive Post! I've written many of these thoughts and words that take up sometimes 3x the space as you did...

Bless you,

APAK

 

[justbyfaith]

And the unscriptural thought that Christ pre-existed

Consider that according to Luke 1 and Luke 2, John the Baptist was born six months ahead of Jesus. Yet the same JTB testified in John 1 that Jesus was before him; not once but twice!

I suspect that you will say that the original Greek doesn't put it that way; you are suggesting that the common people cannot get the unadulterated message of God's word simply by reading our English Bibles: that we must be Hebrew and Greek scholars if we are going to get the true message of God's word. And if that be the case, then the educated scribes and Pharisees enter the kingdom today ahead of the common people. But it was not so in Jesus' day.

For hundreds of years English speaking people were taught that the logos/word was an "it". Why? Because those translators did not put their own bias into the text.

If the Logos is considered by them to be of neutral gender, does that preclude that He isn't a Person who is both male and female in character and nature? The kjv translated it as He simply to clear up the confusion; showing more clearly that the Word was and is a Person.

So what do you do with Matthew 15:20?

Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defileth not a man.
​

Did Matthew make a mistake in adding that to the same account?

If you are correct that Yeshua was declaring all foods clean at that time, then were the Jews free to eat all swine's flesh they wanted to from that moment on? How come Peter didn't know that and for the next 10+ years he continued refusing to eat anything common or unclean? How could Yeshua's apostle not know Yeshua cleansed all unclean meat?

Since Matthew was written to Jews and Mark to Gentiles, Jews and Gentiles shouldn't be arguing over the differences between Mark and Matthew. Let each person be fully convinced in his own mind. We are to receive one another but not unto doubtful disputations over meats and sacrifices.

The digestive system cleanses food from our body into the privy, but one can misunderstand that word to mean unclean food becomes clean inside our bodies. So I prefer "purging all foods". The food is cleansed/purged upon exiting the body. It is not cleansed prior to eating it. Pigs are not now clean.

According to your pov it would seem that poop is clean no matter what it was before it went through the body. So if it was a pig and unclean upon entering the mouth, when it exits through the behind it is clean.

But really I think that the point has been well-made just by looking at the specifics of the words used. Even in 1 Timothy 4:1-6 it is clear that every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused.

 

[justbyfaith]

Here is a study I wrote on John 8:58. There is no doubt whatsoever that Yeshua was NOT claiming to be the great I AM of Exodus 3. That name ONLY applies to his Father YHWH. I highly suggest you do not speed read it to refute it, but seek to understand it and compare my view with the common Christian view to see which is more Scriptural.

In your speil you thought that you addressed John 8:59 but you didn't address John 10:31-33 in light of John 8:58-59.

John 10:31-33 to me is an adequate proof that both times the Jews picked up stones to stone the Lord, they wanted to stone Him for blasphemy because "thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

In your speil you thought that you addressed John 8:59 but you didn't address John 10:31-33 in light of John 8:58-59.

John 10:31-33 to me is an adequate proof that both times the Jews picked up stones to stone the Lord, they wanted to stone Him for blasphemy because "thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Emmanuel is who he is. 'God with us'.
So of cause the Jew would not know jack, only a true Israelite 'Servant of God' would know who he was.
Jesus is the Holy Spirit incarnate who came down for us.

 

[gadar perets]

Actually, that changes my pov about the Tyndale Bible. The idea that God might be an "it" to me seems a bit faulty.

It should have changed your view about the KJV. It seems faulty because you are trying to force the man made trinity doctrine into Scripture. So I ask you again, why didn't God preserve Tyndale's Bible? For hundreds of years, English speaking people back then had the "Word of God" saying "it". Put your self in their shoes who would have felt about Tyndale's Bible the same way you feel about the KJV. Either the KJV or Tyndale's Bible is corrupted which destroys your view that God preserved His Word perfectly in English translations. Translations are fallible, the originals are not.

 

[gadar perets]

Consider that according to Luke 1 and Luke 2, John the Baptist was born six months ahead of Jesus. Yet the same JTB testified in John 1 that Jesus was before him; not once but twice!

John 1:15 certainly suggests a pre-existence as it appears in the KJV; "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." First, the idea of preference is not found in the Greek. The word translated "preferred" is the Greek "ginomai". Of the 678 times it was used in the New Testament, it was translated "preferred" three times, once here and in verses 27 & 30 where the same verse is repeated. The word should have been translated "come to be"; "He that cometh after me has come to be before me." As for the latter part of the verse, the word "before" is from the Greek "protos". Of the 105 times this word was used, it was never translated "before" except in those same three verses. The most common rendering is "first," however, based on the context, it should be translated as the Emphatic Diaglott has it, "for he is my Superior." "Protos" was also translated "chief" nine times in the New Testament.

I suspect that you will say that the original Greek doesn't put it that way; you are suggesting that the common people cannot get the unadulterated message of God's word simply by reading our English Bibles: that we must be Hebrew and Greek scholars if we are going to get the true message of God's word. And if that be the case, then the educated scribes and Pharisees enter the kingdom today ahead of the common people. But it was not so in Jesus' day.

At one time, the Word was not even available to the common man. Now, because of the printing press, we can all know what the Word says for the most part. In time, YHWH has blessed us with computers that can easily verify any translation. We don't need to be scholars.

If the Logos is considered by them to be of neutral gender, does that preclude that He isn't a Person who is both male and female in character and nature? The kjv translated it as He simply to clear up the confusion; showing more clearly that the Word was and is a Person.

The KJV didn't clear up any confusion. It caused confusion. Please provide us documentation other than a trinitarian translation showing the "logos" was a person.

Since Matthew was written to Jews and Mark to Gentiles, Jews and Gentiles shouldn't be arguing over the differences between Mark and Matthew. Let each person be fully convinced in his own mind. We are to receive one another but not unto doubtful disputations over meats and sacrifices.

Are you saying Jewish believers have to keep the law, but Gentile believers don't? Matthew and Mark gave the same message. And your reference to Romans 14 is misapplied since it does not apply to eating unclean meat.

According to your pov it would seem that poop is clean no matter what it was before it went through the body.

Actually, that is more like bbyrd's view. We cannot eat poop, but his view ays we can since it would not defile us.

So if it was a pig and unclean upon entering the mouth, when it exits through the behind it is clean.

Again, that is not my view. It is purged out of the body, but remains unclean. A pig is unclean at all times. If we eat it, we become defiled according to our Creator's word. His Son did NOT change His word.

But really I think that the point has been well-made just by looking at the specifics of the words used. Even in 1 Timothy 4:1-6 it is clear that every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused.

Yes, nothing to be refused as long as it is sanctified by the Word (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14) and prayer.

 

[bbyrd009]

Israel was divorced long before Yeshua came. Are you saying they could have eaten unclean meat even before Yeshua came?

yes, nothing you could put in your mouth could make one unclean before Jesus came either, and fwiw this dietary restriction thing is only the tip of the iceberg ok, there are many other similar practices they engaged in by way of separating themselves that ended up making them completely worthless, if you go whole hog you might conceivably even watch someone die bc you don't want to touch a dead person, stuff like that.

i mean don't get me wrong gadar, don't eat what you consider to be "unclean food" ok,
i chimed in here bc you saw fit to condemn everyone who does not eat like you to hell
on your way to misinterpreting very plain Scripture that you just don't like, "all food is clean"
which i am sorry, but is not and never will be "no hands are dirty."
Also Mark has very obviously made a subject change that i notice you will not recognize,
unlike the Matt account, and i find this telling also

 

[bbyrd009]

We cannot eat poop, but his view ays we can since it would not defile us.

it is when you condemn others who do not eat what you eat to hell that you are defiled gadar,
and now you are making ridiculous assertions about things virtually no one would ever do anyway to uphold your point.

Why can't you eat poop if you want gadar
(and why do i know i'm gonna be sorry i asked)

 

[bbyrd009]

It should have changed your view about the KJV. It seems faulty because you are trying to force the man made trinity doctrine into Scripture. So I ask you again, why didn't God preserve Tyndale's Bible? For hundreds of years, English speaking people back then had the "Word of God" saying "it". Put your self in their shoes who would have felt about Tyndale's Bible the same way you feel about the KJV. Either the KJV or Tyndale's Bible is corrupted which destroys your view that God preserved His Word perfectly in English translations. Translations are fallible, the originals are not.

doesn't help the wise any i guess

 

[gadar perets]

yes, nothing you could put in your mouth could make one unclean before Jesus came either, and fwiw this dietary restriction thing is only the tip of the iceberg ok, there are many other similar practices they engaged in by way of separating themselves that ended up making them completely worthless, if you go whole hog you might conceivably even watch someone die bc you don't want to touch a dead person, stuff like that.

This is one of the most absurd things anyone has ever written.

i mean don't get me wrong gadar, don't eat what you consider to be "unclean food" ok,
i chimed in here bc you saw fit to condemn everyone who does not eat like you to hell

Please cite the post # where I wrote such a thing so we can verify your false accusation. I don't even use the word "hell" in my vocabulary.