The Problem With The Trinity

[gadar perets]

Even in Mark 14:61-64, it becomes clear that the reason why Jesus was worthy of crucifixion in their sight was because He was a blasphemer in their opinion: He claimed to be God. Now if He was not God, then He was truly crucified for the sin of blasphemy and therefore He died for His own sins and therefore His death would not have been sufficient to pay for ours: but since He is the God who created us, His infinite Person was able (and enough) to absorb the sin of the world and still have enough life left over to be raised from the dead.

The high priest asked Yeshua if he was “the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed”. Yeshua answered, “I am” (the Messiah, the Son of the blessed - Son of God). He was not saying he was the “I AM”. He was not God. Their claims of blasphemy were false.

BTW, if he was God, he could not die for YHWH (God) is immortal, eternal and everlasting. Yeshua was 100% dead with absolutely no life in him until his Father raised him from the dead.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yeshua is not YHWH and the Son is not the Father.

The Son is the Father (Isaiah 9:6, John 4:23-24 w/ John 14:7-11).

It is believed that John 8:59 further supports the position that Yeshua is the "I AM." Why else would the Jews try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews, a stoneable offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of "ego eimi" a blasphemy? Does the use of "ego eimi" automatically identify the speaker as YHWH, the I AM?

The whole speil that you just presented of which this is an excerpt, I have dealt with before. I simply point out that you forgot to mention John 10:31-33, which shows that the second time at the very least, when the Jews picked up stones to stone the Lord, it was for blasphemy. So if that was the reason the second time, why wouldn't it have been the first time also? Because you have an alternate interpretation for what Jesus meant when He claimed to be the great I AM in John 8:24, John 8:28, and John 8:58?

 

[gadar perets]

Maybe He isn't one or all of the following attributes: sovereign, Omnipotent, loving.

But because we both know that He is actually all of those attributes, I think that we both know that YHWH also did indeed preserve His word in John 8:24 just the way He wanted to. He is in italics: God's way of saying that we should look at it apart from what is written in italics, i.e. Jesus' statement, I said therefore to you that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I AM (He), ye shall die in your sins.

If YHWH wanted us to "look at it apart from what is written in italics", He would not have had the italics added. That is man's doing, NOT YHWH's. The lengths you will go and the things you say to support the infallibilty of the KJV is incredible.

It is your choice of belief that my interpretation is erroneous. The only thing I want to say to you on that is that I hope you realize that you have made your bed and that you are going to have to lie in it. If my interpretation is correct, then you will die in your sins unless you repent of your unbelief towards the faithful and biblical doctrine of the Deity of Jesus Christ. If your interpretation is correct, then idolatry is not the unpardonable sin and can be forgiven through the blood of Jesus Christ. But a man cannot believe simply because he has reason to: it is a matter of what is in the heart: your response to the message of the gospel.

You're telling me it is safer to believe in the Deity of Christ out of fear. I do not allow fear to determine my beliefs as you do. I believe as the Holy Spirit enlightens me in accordance with Scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

The high priest asked Yeshua if he was “the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed”. Yeshua answered, “I am” (the Messiah, the Son of the blessed - Son of God). He was not saying he was the “I AM”. He was not God. Their claims of blasphemy were false.

BTW, if he was God, he could not die for YHWH (God) is immortal, eternal and everlasting. Yeshua was 100% dead with absolutely no life in him until his Father raised him from the dead.

Jesus was able to die because He was also human. His soul and Spirit separated from His body. This was physical death. Not impossible for the Son of God (as I define Him via Isaiah 9:6).

 

[justbyfaith]

If YHWH wanted us to "look at it apart from what is written in italics", He would not have had the italics added. That is man's doing, NOT YHWH's.

italics mean that it is added to help with understanding and was not in the original Greek or Hebrew manuscript. Therefore what is in italics is only a tool to help you understand it better, and if you remove it you will still get the message intended by said scripture.

You're telling me it is safer to believe in the Deity of Christ out of fear.

That is not what I said in whole. I mentioned that the only way you can believe is if God grants it to you that you might believe; and that the motivation of fear cannot be of any help to you in instilling within you the faith that is needed; unless the fear drives you to ask God to instill that faith within you; and you prevail upon Him to answer in the affirmative.

 

[gadar perets]

The whole speil that you just presented of which this is an excerpt, I have dealt with before. I simply point out that you forgot to mention John 10:31-33, which shows that the second time at the very least, when the Jews picked up stones to stone the Lord, it was for blasphemy. So if that was the reason the second time, why wouldn't it have been the first time also?

Because I do not assume things like you do. The Jews stoned the prophets (Matthew 23:37), but not for blasphemy. The Jews would stone adulterers, but not for blasphemy. They stoned Paul, but not for blasphemy. You love to read whatever you want into Scripture. You DO NOT know how to study it properly.

 

[justbyfaith]

Okay. You are obviously set in your beliefs, so I figure it is useless to speak to you anymore on the issue. I think that I have made my position clear, however.

 

[gadar perets]

Okay. You are obviously set in your beliefs, so I figure it is useless to speak to you anymore on the issue. I think that I have made my position clear, however.

Clear as dirt. Your position is that the Father is the Son and my position is that the Father is the Father. I'm pretty sure that sums up the clarity of our positions.

 

[justbyfaith]

Actually, in my view, the Father is not the Son, but the Son is the incarnated Father.

 

[Taken]

Jesus was able to die because He was also human.

Curious....how do you define a "human" ?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

BTW, if he was God, he could not die for YHWH (God) is immortal, eternal and everlasting. Yeshua was 100% dead with absolutely no life in him until his Father raised him from the dead.

Curious at your comment.

What do you mean 100 % dead?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[gadar perets]

Curious at your comment.

What do you mean 100 % dead?

Glory to God,
Taken

That was in response to what jbf wrote;

Now if He was not God, then He was truly crucified for the sin of blasphemy and therefore He died for His own sins and therefore His death would not have been sufficient to pay for ours: but since He is the God who created us, His infinite Person was able (and enough) to absorb the sin of the world and still have enough life left over to be raised from the dead.
​

I just wanted him to know Yeshua had no "life left over".

 

[gadar perets]

Actually, in my view, the Father is not the Son, but the Son is the incarnated Father.

Thanks. That just proves my point even further. Your doctrine is the furthest thing from clear. It is a mangled mess of twisted Scriptures. I love you as a brother (even though you don't consider me a brother), but I will run from your incarnation doctrine as fast as I can.

BTW, you wrote; "The Son is the Father (Isaiah 9:6, John 4:23-24 w/ John 14:7-11)." Is the reverse not true that the Father is the Son?

 

[justbyfaith]

That was in response to what jbf wrote;

Now if He was not God, then He was truly crucified for the sin of blasphemy and therefore He died for His own sins and therefore His death would not have been sufficient to pay for ours: but since He is the God who created us, His infinite Person was able (and enough) to absorb the sin of the world and still have enough life left over to be raised from the dead.
​

I just wanted him to know Yeshua had no "life left over".

I guess I should have clarified what I meant by that, that it was not possible that Jesus should be holden by the pains of death.

 

[justbyfaith]

Thanks. That just proves my point even further. Your doctrine is the furthest thing from clear. It is a mangled mess of twisted Scriptures. I love you as a brother (even though you don't consider me a brother), but I will run from your incarnation doctrine as fast as I can.

BTW, you wrote; "The Son is the Father (Isaiah 9:6, John 4:23-24 w/ John 14:7-11)." Is the reverse not true that the Father is the Son?

The Father is a Spirit (John 4:23-24); but the Son is a Man indwelt by the Spirit (John 14:7-11): the Spirit of Jesus is the Father.

In the sense that the Father is Omnipresent, dwelling in eternity, and outside of time (Isaiah 57:15); no, the Father is not the Son.

But the Son is the Father in that the Person that the Son is, in His Spirit, is the Father; because the Father incarnated and became a Man in order to be able to die for our sins.

It is your choice as to whether you will run from the doctrine of the incarnation as fast as you can. Just know that it is an essential doctrine of the historic Christian faith; and that you cannot call yourself a real Christian apart from believing in it.

 

[justbyfaith]

Curious....how do you define a "human" ?

Glory to God,
Taken

I can't think of any other word but human.

 

[gadar perets]

It is your choice as to whether you will run from the doctrine of the incarnation as fast as you can. Just know that it is an essential doctrine of the historic Christian faith; and that you cannot call yourself a real Christian apart from believing in it.

Which is why I don't call myself a Christian. BTW, the "historic Christian faith" in the incarnation is that "God the Son" became incarnate, not God the Father. Your incarnation view is not as old as the incarnation of God the Son. However, neither view is true. God did not incarnate as the Son. God dwelt in the Son via His Holy Spirit just as He indwells us, but to a much greater degree in the Son.

 

[bbyrd009]

Just know that it is an essential doctrine of the historic Christian faith; and that you cannot call yourself a real Christian apart from believing in it.

feels good to stand there huh

 

[DoveSpirit05]

causing a lot of confusing among the Christian community and also confusing muslims too!

 

[DoveSpirit05]

Tertullian's teachings!!

Trinity!! In his treatise against Praxeas, who taught patripassianism in Rome, he used the words "trinity", "economy"
(used in reference to the three persons), "persons", and "substance," maintaining the distinction of the Son from the
Father as the unoriginate God, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son "These three are one substance, not
one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of
the substance."

The very names "Father" and "Son" indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the
Son is another, and the Spirit is another and yet in defending the unity of God,
he says the Son is not other as a result of receiving a portion of the Father's
substance.

[13] At times, speaking of the Father and the Son, Tertullian refers to
"two gods".[13][d] He says that all things of the Father belong also to the Son,
including his names, such as Almighty God, Most High, Lord of Hosts, or King of
Israel.