The Problem With The Trinity

[gadar perets]

Says the Bible! (John 8:24). You can question my interpretation, but you have to at least admit that my interpretation is a valid one: and that therefore it must be considered. And if you consider the stakes...that if I am right and you (or I) deny the Deity of Christ, you will die in your sins (i.e. go to hell)....but if you are right and I affirm the Deity of Christ, there are no eternal consequences for me. Thank you, I will choose the path that has no eternal consequences either way: I will affirm the deity of Christ. If someone else wants to be foolish and risk eternal consequences, in denying Christ's Deity, I guess that if they turn out to be wrong they made their bed and now they must lie in it.

Does Paul's statement n Galatians 5 apply to you if you are wrong about the "Deity of Christ"?;

Gal 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
Gal 5:21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. ​

 

[gadar perets]

The name of the Son shall be called among other things, "the everlasting Father." (Isaiah 9:6).

Now you can change the wording twice in order to come up with an alternate interpretation of what the author originally intended, but I think you would be being dishonest with the scriptures...

How come the translators did not change the order of words every time the same Hebrew construction was used of other men, but when it is used of Yeshua, they change the order? Now that is being dishonest with Scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

Does Paul's statement n Galatians 5 apply to you if you are wrong about the "Deity of Christ"?;

Gal 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
Gal 5:21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. ​

It is not idolatry to simply believe God's word, when, for example, God states that the Son is God in Hebrews 1:8-9, quoted from Psalms 45:6-7.

It is clear to me that the scriptures indicate that Jesus Christ is God. The Father became a Man; and the Person that was begotten was God the Son. It is in fact such an integral part of the gospel that I would say it is practically the epitome of it: that God Himself became a Man; came to planet earth and lived a perfect life and then suffered and died on a Cross in our place, taking the penalty for our sins and applying His perfect righteousness to our account.

You either believe it or you don't.

If you don't, well, it sucks to be you.

 

[justbyfaith]

Haha! Is that the best you can do!!

And, by the way..... you don't know the bible as well as you think you do.

Romans 5 5 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.."

Bless you....

Nope, it doesn't say, "justification by faith" in those words...

My point being that in Hebrews 1:6 it is definitely borne out that God commanded the angels to worship Jesus...it just doesn't say it in the words that you require...

I know my Bible quite well as a matter of fact...and was fully aware of the scripture that you just brought up when I made my statement.

 

[justbyfaith]

How come the translators did not change the order of words every time the same Hebrew construction was used of other men, but when it is used of Yeshua, they change the order? Now that is being dishonest with Scripture.

Of course, the translators were all mixed up so you can't trust any translation of the Bible to really be accurate...

 

[brakelite]

The Father became a Man; and the Person that was begotten was God the Son.

So this theory begs a couple of questions. Who was the Son praying to, for example in John 17 and in the garden? Who spoke to the Son at His baptism, and on the mount? Are they not two separate personalities who relate to one another as Father and Son, or are they merely metaphorical father and son who were acting out roles?
Did the Father really send His only begotten Son...or did He send Himself?????

 

[gadar perets]

It is not idolatry to simply believe God's word, when, for example, God states that the Son is God in Hebrews 1:8-9, quoted from Psalms 45:6-7.

I didn't ask you to restate your current belief. I said, "Does Paul's statement n Galatians 5 apply to you if you are wrong about the "Deity of Christ"?" You said to ByGrace, "And if you consider the stakes...that if I am right and you (or I) deny the Deity of Christ, you will die in your sins (i.e. go to hell)....but if you are right and I affirm the Deity of Christ, there are no eternal consequences for me". So you think your exaltation of Christ as God the Father is without eternal consequences. I am asking you if you think Galatians 5:19-21 states those "eternal consequences". Yes or No? After all, if Christ is not the Father and you worship him as such and you worship him as the only true God, is that not idolatry if you are wrong?

 

[brakelite]

I would like to ask another question to those who don't accept a pre-incarnation Son. Who is the person who appeared to and spoke to Daniel in Daniel 10, if not the very same person in Revelation 1.... Both of course obviously being the Son of God?

 

[justbyfaith]

So this theory begs a couple of questions. Who was the Son praying to, for example in John 17 and in the garden? Who spoke to the Son at His baptism, and on the mount? Are they not two separate personalities who relate to one another as Father and Son, or are they merely metaphorical father and son who were acting out roles?
Did the Father really send His only begotten Son...or did He send Himself?????

Consider that the 1st Person of the Trinity exists outside of time, and is Omnipresent. Now if God the Father decided to descend in order to become the Son (see Ephesians 3:11), He cannot VACATE ETERNITY in order to do so. The 1st Person of the Trinity would remain in eternity, outside of time, while after having lived one eternal moment He would descend to become Jesus Christ our Lord, who is the Son of God. The Son would be on earth in such a case while the Father is still in heaven. For you must realize that in the Bible Codes in Genesis 1, Jewish scholars have discovered the existence of ten dimensions of which time is only the fourth...that means there are six more that ascend up into realms of possibility that we can never understand as finite human beings with limited capacity in our finite human brains.

 

[justbyfaith]

I would like to ask another question to those who don't accept a pre-incarnation Son. Who is the person who appeared to and spoke to Daniel in Daniel 10, if not the very same person in Revelation 1.... Both of course obviously being the Son of God?

Jesus, the Son of God, was born of the virgin Mary...before that He was the Spirit of God, Luke 1:35. So He was preincarnate as the Spirit. There are a number of answers to your question...but I think that my answer would be that the Person in Daniel 10 was the Angel of the LORD.

 

[justbyfaith]

I didn't ask you to restate your current belief. I said, "Does Paul's statement n Galatians 5 apply to you if you are wrong about the "Deity of Christ"?" You said to ByGrace, "And if you consider the stakes...that if I am right and you (or I) deny the Deity of Christ, you will die in your sins (i.e. go to hell)....but if you are right and I affirm the Deity of Christ, there are no eternal consequences for me". So you think your exaltation of Christ as God the Father is without eternal consequences. I am asking you if you think Galatians 5:19-21 states those "eternal consequences". Yes or No? After all, if Christ is not the Father and you worship him as such and you worship him as the only true God, is that not idolatry if you are wrong?

If Jesus is not God and I worship Him as God, then it would be idolatry (putting another God before the LORD) to worship Him as God. However I am quite secure in my belief that Jesus is God. But I concede your point, that if I am wrong and you are right, it would indeed be idolatry for me to worship Jesus as the Lord God (unless God only counts idolatry as being worship unto a graven image; and since I don't worship a graven image of my Lord and Saviour, perhaps it is not idolatry? However I think that the Lord defines idolatry as not only a violation of the second commandment but also the first).

So then, either way, if either one of us is wrong about what we believe, we will perish if we continue to believe it (except for that idolatry is not the unpardonable sin and therefore can be forgiven through Christ's blood: whereas if someone denies Christ's Deity, Jesus Himself said that they will die in their sins).

I do have a related question:

Do you believe that God is Sovereign and Loving and Omnipotent?

If so, how is it that He would orchestrate the receiving of scripture in such a way that the real message is hidden except to those who have an aversion to what they read in the kjv so that they go with itching ears to other versions and to what certain unregenerated scholars have said about the original Greek and Hebrew?

Why would God give us something called "the Holy Bible" declaring it to be the message of salvation, and then let that not be the true message of salvation, but you have to become a deep studier so that you can find out the nuances of how certain things written in God's holy book are not really what He wanted to say but that the secret of what He really said is not for the common people but only for the educated scholars who are fluent in Greek and Hebrew (the educated scribes and Pharisees)?

It seems to me that when Jesus came to earth, it was the common people who received Him gladly and the ones who were more educated rejected Him. Is there now a reversal in whom God wants to reach most? Does God give His unadulterated message only to the educated in this day and age? And therefore the common people are left in the lurch?

 

[bbyrd009]

the Bible is not Holy either fwiw, except in English

So then, either way, if either one of us is wrong about what we believe, we will perish if we continue to believe it.

wadr Jesus worshippers seem to be perishing as we speak, plenty of evidence in this forum i guess. Here's hoping they become Christ followers!

 

[gadar perets]

I would like to ask another question to those who don't accept a pre-incarnation Son. Who is the person who appeared to and spoke to Daniel in Daniel 10, if not the very same person in Revelation 1.... Both of course obviously being the Son of God?

I'm surprised you would ask such a question and conclude the answer is the Son of God. We are not told that person's identity, nor are we told it is the same person found in Revelation 1. I choose to not read my own guesses into the text.

 

[bbyrd009]

contemplate 0 "persons" in God imo

 

[bbyrd009]

Scripture does not say what you interpret it to say. That is your personal, erroneous interpretation of John 8:24 by taking Yeshua's words out of context and adding in your own words.

aw, let them have their pantheon imo gadar

 

[gadar perets]

Do you believe that God is Sovereign and Loving and Omnipotent?

If so, how is it that He would orchestrate the receiving of scripture in such a way that the real message is hidden except to those who have an aversion to what they read in the kjv so that they go with itching ears to other versions and to what certain unregenerated scholars have said about the original Greek and Hebrew?

Yes, to your first question. As for your second question, I ask you the same thing. Is the Father deceiving us by telling us He sent His Son, but He really sent Himself? Did He deceive us by telling us He lives forever, but really not since He died? Did He deceive us by telling us Yeshua mediates between God and man when really there is no mediator because Yeshua is really God? The list of deceptions goes on and on.

As for the KJV, it was translated by 47 members of the trinitarian Church of England. Their bias clearly entered their translations. What would have been the result if the KJV was translated by 47 members of the Mormon Church or the JWs? Aside from that, it has already been shown that the KJV has many errors. That is why we have some many newer translations (not that they are without error as well since translations are not infallible). In the same way the KJV made changes to the Bibles that preceded it and upon which it was based, the newer versions made changes to the KJV when necessary. Go ahead a cling dearly to your KJV. I'll rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me in what corrections need to be made.

 

[gadar perets]

aw, let them have their pantheon imo gadar

That would be the easiest thing to do, but my love for them forces me to endure their personal attacks and mistreatment of Scripture in order to help them see the truth.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, to your first question. As for your second question, I ask you the same thing. Is the Father deceiving us by telling us He sent His Son, but He really sent Himself? Did He deceive us by telling us He lives forever, but really not since He died? Did He deceive us by telling us Yeshua mediates between God and man when really there is no mediator because Yeshua is really God? The list of deceptions goes on and on.

As for the KJV, it was translated by 47 members of the trinitarian Church of England. Their bias clearly entered their translations. What would have been the result if the KJV was translated by 47 members of the Mormon Church or the JWs? Aside from that, it has already been shown that the KJV has many errors. That is why we have some many newer translations (not that they are without error as well since translations are not infallible). In the same way the KJV made changes to the Bibles that preceded it and upon which it was based, the newer versions made changes to the KJV when necessary. Go ahead a cling dearly to your KJV. I'll rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me in what corrections need to be made.

Since your position in doctrine dictates that you are going to die in your sins, how is it that you even think that you have the Holy Spirit?

It is included in the book that the Son's name shall be called "the everlasting Father". And what this means to me is that God has provided within His revelation the understanding that we need concerning this doctrine.

However in your scenario, the Bibles that we read aren't even trustworthy. We are left to decide which scholars to believe as concerning how any particular verse is really supposed to be translated.

It is so much easier (and much more according to a faith in the sovereignty, love, and Omnipotence of the Lord) to understand that the translation that was given to us in the kjv was translated correctly by the scholars who translated it, and that we don't need additional scholars to tell us what the Bible really says. That, to me, appears to be more in line with what Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:3, people heaping to themselves teachers (scholars) to tell them what their itching ears want to hear, in translating the newer, watered-down, New Age translations according to teaching that would indeed tickle the ears of those who forsake the true jot and tittle of the kjv for bibles that take out a multitude of words and that no longer prove essential doctrines when you take them to scriptures that were intended by the Holy Spirit to do so.

 

[justbyfaith]

That would be the easiest thing to do, but my love for them forces me to endure their personal attacks and mistreatment of Scripture in order to help them see the truth.

What you consider to be a personal attack is an attempt to get you to see the truth. See Psalms 141:5.

 

[gadar perets]

Since your position in doctrine dictates that you are going to die in your sins, how is it that you even think that you have the Holy Spirit?

Since you cannot attack my message successfully, you attack the messenger.

It is so much easier (and much more according to a faith in the sovereignty, love, and Omnipotence of the Lord) to understand that the translation that was given to us in the kjv was translated correctly by the scholars who translated it, and that we don't need additional scholars to tell us what the Bible really says.

I suppose the readers of Tyndale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible all said the same thing; "The translation that was given to us was translated correctly by the scholars who translated it, and that we don't need additional scholars to tell us what the Bible really says." The KJV translators came along and CHANGED the English translation that YHWH gave those believers. Now you come along and say God gave us His true Word as though those believers never had His true Words. You KJV only people are sadly deceived.